DAF mad moment

crawfordboon

I always thought that one of the most laughable moments of the series comes near the end of DAF, when the "water ball walker" is dropped from the helicopter, and Bond uses it to get to the oil rig, where he is unzipped, and coems otu with the words "The ACME pollution inspection gentlemen!"

Not only is it not funny to go making Loony Tunes type references, it lacks logic, as he apparently knows, as he damn well ought to, that he'll get captured right away, and, if Blofeld had any sense, shot. Of course, the Bond logic just allows him to avoid a simple bullet in the back of the head, but no way should Bond be allowing for this in his planning!

In previous films we saw Bond going in with armies in support, and covertly too. Why not get an army of frogmen to secretly infiltrate the base - it would make perfect sense, but hey, it was done 6 years earlier, so no go! Daft.

I got the feeling that the only reason it was used was simply to showcase the technology of the giant walking water ball thing, an technique used again in TSWLM, with a jetski, to only slightly less ludicrous effect.

A sad moment.

Sir Hillary Bray

I don't have a huge problem with this. DAF by and large plays it for laughs the whole way through, so the scene is at least consistent with the tone of the film. In that light, DAF is itself one big mad moment (albeit one I thoroughly enjoy).

If you want a blatant example of showcasing technology rather than logic, look no further than the TB jetpack. Nothing like taking precious time to strap and giving Bouvard's henchman a clean shot at you, when you could instead simply run away.

But again, these moments only really get scrutinized after we're out of the theater and no longer suspending disbelief.

crawfordboon

To be honest SHB, I never go into the cinema and say "ok, disbeleif suspended," liek so many people seem to. I just watch Bodn films as if they are everyday type movies, it doesn't make me appreciate them any the less.

As for the TB jetpack, a nice idea but poorly executed both visually and in terms of the script.

PUCCINI

DAF is the craziest bond film of all!!!

PoorMansJB

As another poster noted, like the rocket pack (or the Wet Bike or a dozen other gags), I think the sphere is just one of those examples of a product that Adam or someone else spotted and thinking it was "Bondian," stuck it in the film. As for why he gets away with it, I think it's also intended to be so "disarming" that Blofeld, et al are so perplexed/intrigued that they're more interested--in that case--in asking questions first and shooting later.

And regarding the business of Bond attacking alone, keep in mind he didn't ... not originally, anyway. There was a team of SCUBA divers sent along--they appear in the poster and were filmed--which never made the final film; you can see some footage (and probably a good example of why they got cut) on the new DVD.

delliott101

PUCCINI wrote:

DAF is the craziest bond film of all!!!

AMEN TO THAT!!!!

Gassy Man

Well, the Moore films often get unfairly criticized for taking Bond to camp levels when it was obvious that "Diamonds Are Forever" dipped its whole foot into those waters. Still, I don't find that scene wrong at all; for much of the film, Blofeld is staying on top of things, and for Bond to attempt some commando-style raid on the oil rig would be as silly as Bond in "Casino Royale" registering under "Beach" because he thinks Le Chiffre isn't already on to him. To me, it suggests Bond acknowledges Blofeld already knows he's coming, or at least someone like Bond will, something Blofeld more or less acknowledges in the film with his "like so many impotent . . . " line.

Loeffelholz

In many ways, DAF was the first Moore picture...despite the fact that Sir Roger didn't appear in it...

IMRO, following the Lazenby debacle and the relatively disappointing lack of acceptance of OHMSS' tragic ending, Eon was anxious to put some distance between the final frame---that shattered DB5 windscreen---and the next Bond outing, which they obviously decided was going to put the 'F' back in FUN...

So, in a way, perhaps OHMSS---and its jarring departure in tone and formula---was the 'inciting incident' for the self-conscious, 'wink wink' nature of the '70's and early '80's Bonds.

After all, once you've seen Blofeld in drag, how much of a leap is it to do a slide-whistle sound effect during the most visually riveting car stunt in film history? And from there, surely the double-taking pigeons, Tarzan yells and bad Beach Boys covers aren't much of a stretch at all...

Back to DAF: once we'd gotten to Act 3, and Bond pops out of the silver ball, the die had been cast...and audiences applauded. Personally, I enjoy DAF more than the vast majority of people who post here...but I lament the trail it blazed for the next decade and a half...

Bill Tanner

Arrival by ball isn't really a stand-out moment for me; he has to arrive on the rig somehow, being dropped from a plane is quicker than a boat, and a parachute might prove tricky to land. Someone made the comment on Blofeld and guards being more intrigued than anything, and that's how I've always taken it. Not sure they would just open fire on anyone who approaches - wouldn't that arouse more suspicion in what was supposed to be a legit Rig?

The scene is fun and highlights new technology - exactly 'what it says on the tin' for a Bond film, surely? A lot of the questions you've raised lately seem like nitpicking - Bond films (& novels for that matter) are such an easy target as to make this a bit of a futile exercise.

Bill Tanner

Loeffelholz wrote:

In many ways, DAF was the first Moore picture...despite the fact that Sir Roger didn't appear in it...

After all, once you've seen Blofeld in drag, how much of a leap is it to do a slide-whistle sound effect during the most visually riveting car stunt in film history? And from there, surely the double-taking pigeons, Tarzan yells and bad Beach Boys covers aren't much of a stretch at all...

...I enjoy DAF more than the vast majority of people who post here...but I lament the trail it blazed for the next decade and a half...

I'd go further back and blame Goldfinger, Thunderball & YOLT for all this: old lady with machine gun? Aston Martin with ejector seat? Little Nellie? Hollowed-out volcano? I think Ken Adam made the comment that once you'd put the gadget-laden Aston on screen, Bond films were never going to be taken seriously again. Yes, the tone of DAF is lighter, but I think it was more of a gradual evolution from Connery's other outings and stands out more because of the more serious tone of OHMSS.

Loeffelholz

A fair point, Bill. Perhaps the difference is that those smaller steps---the Aston, etc., were indeed incremental, and it does seem like a more pronounced lurch toward comedy following the tragic OHMSS.

However, if you excise Majesty from the series, I think DAF still comes off as a notable leap in the direction of parody, even if compared to YOLT...

I guess my point is that Eon seemed to 'pump up' the humour exponentially with DAF, as if acknowledging they'd made an error in reversing the trend of the films by going more 'Fleming faithful' with Majesty---in addition to an unknown replacement as Bond---after the broader, non-Fleming YOLT.

It's tough to picture Donald Pleasance in drag...

Dan Same

Gassy Man wrote:

Well, the Moore films often get unfairly criticized for taking Bond to camp levels

Indeed, since I don't think the Moore films (or any other Bond films) took Bond to camp levels.

Loeffelholz

"camp 6. [slang] banality, mediocrity, artifice, ostentation, etc. so extreme as to amuse or have a perversely sophisticated appeal"

"parody 1. literary or musical compostion imitating the characteristic style of some other work or of a writer or composer, but treating a serious subject in a nonsensical manner, as in ridicule 2. a poor or weak imitation"

- Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, ( ) ) Second College Edition

Each will, of course, come to his/her own conclusions

blueman

Loeffelholz wrote:

In many ways, DAF was the first Moore picture...despite the fact that Sir Roger didn't appear in it...

IMRO, following the Lazenby debacle and the relatively disappointing lack of acceptance of OHMSS' tragic ending, Eon was anxious to put some distance between the final frame---that shattered DB5 windscreen---and the next Bond outing, which they obviously decided was going to put the 'F' back in FUN...

So, in a way, perhaps OHMSS---and its jarring departure in tone and formula---was the 'inciting incident' for the self-conscious, 'wink wink' nature of the '70's and early '80's Bonds.

After all, once you've seen Blofeld in drag, how much of a leap is it to do a slide-whistle sound effect during the most visually riveting car stunt in film history? And from there, surely the double-taking pigeons, Tarzan yells and bad Beach Boys covers aren't much of a stretch at all...

Back to DAF: once we'd gotten to Act 3, and Bond pops out of the silver ball, the die had been cast...and audiences applauded. Personally, I enjoy DAF more than the vast majority of people who post here...but I lament the trail it blazed for the next decade and a half...

Yep, yep, and yep. DAF is the first Bond film to not take itself seriously, and while enjoyable (as all those darn 70s Bond films are...) it plays like a real-life cartoon (again, as do all the 70s Bond films, certainly in comparison to the 60s Bond films IMO). There was no reason to do so, EON could've made a different choice after OHMSS than resorting to self-parody and still made money from Bond. Comedy was the safer choice, I guess.

Oh what a crossroads that was, 1969. Amazing to think that it took 37 years to come back to something with CR that is far, far closer to what originally passed as a Bond film than anything since that time.

Dan Same

Bill Tanner wrote:

Loeffelholz wrote:

In many ways, DAF was the first Moore picture...despite the fact that Sir Roger didn't appear in it...

After all, once you've seen Blofeld in drag, how much of a leap is it to do a slide-whistle sound effect during the most visually riveting car stunt in film history? And from there, surely the double-taking pigeons, Tarzan yells and bad Beach Boys covers aren't much of a stretch at all...

...I enjoy DAF more than the vast majority of people who post here...but I lament the trail it blazed for the next decade and a half...

I'd go further back and blame Goldfinger, Thunderball & YOLT for all this: old lady with machine gun? Aston Martin with ejector seat? Little Nellie? Hollowed-out volcano? I think Ken Adam made the comment that once you'd put the gadget-laden Aston on screen, Bond films were never going to be taken seriously again. Yes, the tone of DAF is lighter, but I think it was more of a gradual evolution from Connery's other outings and stands out more because of the more serious tone of OHMSS.

I have to say that I really don't agree with this. There is no doubt in my mind that during the 70's and 80's, there were some silly moments, however my feelig about this is three-fold:

1)I think that although the were silly moments, it does not mean that the entire films were silly themselves. That is to say, I don't agree with those who describe the Moore films as comedies. TMWTGG was quite silly (sadly in my view), but its concept was quite serious, while most of Moore's other films were IMO able to balance out the silly elements with more serious elements. As I'm writing this though, I can't help but think about the second half of MR.

To be honest, it would be negligent of me to deny that, as a whole, the Moore films were sillier than some of the other Bond films. I don't think they were at all camp, and I think that several Moore films (in particular TSWLM) were among the greatest Bond films of all time, but I do think that they featured moments that were quite silly.

Who knows why? I think that Moore was a terrific Bond who was able to handle both humour and seriousness (as shown IMO by his four best films; LALD, TSWLM, FYEO and OP), so perhaps the existence of a double-taking pigeon and the scene with Dolly is due more to the era (the 70's) in which the films were made. It's interesting because several of these films (LALD and TSWLM) arguably didn't really feature any silly elements, yet TMWTGG and MR were IMO almost destroyed by their sillyness. Basically, what I'm saying is, blame TMWTGG and MR on the era and not the actor.

2)I think it comes down to how inexcusable the sillyness is. I think that an element is only inexcusably silly if it doesn't fit the film. That is why, I don't blame GF, TB and YOLT for anything. IMO, the Aston Martin with an ejector seat, the old lady with the machine gun, the jet pack and the hollowed out volcano fit the films perfectly and were not overly silly in the sligtest. A little silly perhaps, but then much of James Bond is a little silly.

A man who cries blood and needs to win a poker game in order to survive is also silly. The question is wether it takes away from the film or lessens it. I don't think that the concept of Le Chiffre takes away from CR, and IMO the elements mentioned above actually enhance GF, TB and YOLT. (Just as the idea of a woman with poison-tipped shoes IMO enhances FRWL and the idea of a woman who suffocates her lovers also IMO enhances GE; really much of Bond is silly. )) I do not think that Dolly enhances MR at all.

3)At the end of the day, regardless of how silly some of the Moore films may be, I still think that he was the third greatest Bond of all time and four of his films (LALD, TSWLM, FYEO, OP) were among the greatest Bond films ever made.

Moore Not Less

For sure, the silliness is not confined to the Roger Moore era. And it could be argued that some of the silliness outside the Moore era is worse than your double take pigeon's and Tarzan yells, which are basically just awful attempts at humour.

An example, Bond's disguise as a Japanese in YOLT. I expect the Japanese didn't know whether to laugh or cry. The idea was preposterous in the first place. Presenting it with a nudge and a wink would have been OTT silly enough. But presenting it as serious is worse than that. It's a bigger insult to the viewers intelligence than any double take pigeon or Tarzan yell.

Ice Station 0

I love the old lady with the machine gun in Goldfinger. A complete juxtaposition from her curtsying and raising the gate. She works for Goldfinger, and gaurds the border, why wouldn't she have a gun?

Steed

Diamonds Are Forever is utterly, utterly daft- more consistently so than any Roger Moore film, imho. The whole film has a variety of hammy performances, campy jokes/one-liners every other minute, daft situations throughout, an awfully anti-climactic end battle (not until TSWLM would this deficiency be solved though, imo), the comedic demise of Wint and Kidd, a stupid chase with the cops through Las Vegas (rehashed in AVTAK), a tragically dumb Bond girl (hard to believe she followed Diana Rigg's Tracy) and that bizarre circus sequence....

...but despite all this, I am still very entertained by this in a way I am not by Moonraker, Die Another Day and The Man With The Golden Gun. Despite his obvious increase in age, I find Sean's performance here to be much more animated than it was in YOLT and if one views it as a spoof, there's a lot of fun to be had.;)

Loeffelholz

Moore Not Less wrote:

For sure, the silliness is not confined to the Roger Moore era. And it could be argued that some of the silliness outside the Moore era is worse than your double take pigeon's and Tarzan yells, which are basically just awful attempts at humour.

An example, Bond's disguise as a Japanese in YOLT. I expect the Japanese didn't know whether to laugh or cry. The idea was preposterous in the first place. Presenting it with a nudge and a wink would have been OTT silly enough. But presenting it as serious is worse than that. It's a bigger insult to the viewers intelligence than any double take pigeon or Tarzan yell.

Well... :v at least that's one flaw that we can lay directly upon Fleming's doorstep, since he did it first...but give me a faux-Japanese Connery over a Tarzan-yelling---or 'California Girls'-accompanied snow-surfing---Moore any day

And you're right about there being silliness outside the Moore era...but I don't think we'd want to take out an abacus and start comparing actors, incident for incicent, on this dubious element

Blofeld in drag...wheelie-poppin' big rigs...underwater tie-straightening...CGI para-surfing...there's plenty to wince at for everyone, but...

Moore Not Less

Loeffelholz wrote:

Moore Not Less wrote:

For sure, the silliness is not confined to the Roger Moore era. And it could be argued that some of the silliness outside the Moore era is worse than your double take pigeon's and Tarzan yells, which are basically just awful attempts at humour.

An example, Bond's disguise as a Japanese in YOLT. I expect the Japanese didn't know whether to laugh or cry. The idea was preposterous in the first place. Presenting it with a nudge and a wink would have been OTT silly enough. But presenting it as serious is worse than that. It's a bigger insult to the viewers intelligence than any double take pigeon or Tarzan yell.

Well... :v at least that's one flaw that we can lay directly upon Fleming's doorstep, since he did it first...but give me a faux-Japanese Connery over a Tarzan-yelling---or 'California Girls'-accompanied snow-surfing---Moore any day

I stand by what I said. I used Bond's Japanese disguise as an example of the silliness outside of Roger Moore's era which could be argued is worse than your double take pigeon's and Tarzan yells. I trust you noticed that I did not mention Sean Connery by name. That's because I would feel the same regardless of the actor. In the same way that you feel about Bond in a clown suit. I was not criticising Connery or turning it into a Connery v Moore debate in any way. Nor was I hammering my points home with the use of smileys.

Here's one smiley for you.

ohmss1969

quote : demise of Wint and Kidd

I didn't exactly find Kidds death amusing , it was pretty gruesome *shudder* lol

Loeffelholz

Moore Not Less wrote:

Loeffelholz wrote:

Moore Not Less wrote:

For sure, the silliness is not confined to the Roger Moore era. And it could be argued that some of the silliness outside the Moore era is worse than your double take pigeon's and Tarzan yells, which are basically just awful attempts at humour.

An example, Bond's disguise as a Japanese in YOLT. I expect the Japanese didn't know whether to laugh or cry. The idea was preposterous in the first place. Presenting it with a nudge and a wink would have been OTT silly enough. But presenting it as serious is worse than that. It's a bigger insult to the viewers intelligence than any double take pigeon or Tarzan yell.

Well... :v at least that's one flaw that we can lay directly upon Fleming's doorstep, since he did it first...but give me a faux-Japanese Connery over a Tarzan-yelling---or 'California Girls'-accompanied snow-surfing---Moore any day

I stand by what I said. I used Bond's Japanese disguise as an example of the silliness outside of Roger Moore's era which could be argued is worse than your double take pigeon's and Tarzan yells. I trust you noticed that I did not mention Sean Connery by name. That's because I would feel the same regardless of the actor. In the same way that you feel about Bond in a clown suit. I was not criticising Connery or turning it into a Connery v Moore debate in any way. Nor was I hammering my points home with the use of smileys.

Here's one smiley for you.

Just saw this post...just as well I'm late to the draw this time, I've a feeling, as the undercurrents are unmistakable.

Thanks for the smiley, and the sentiment behind it. The night landscape is illuminated, as if by a flare.

I stand by what I said as well. Give me a faux-Japanese James Bond, any day, in lieu of a Tarzan-yelling or clown dressed James Bond.* And they are not my double-take pigeons and Tarzan yells...you can keep them all to yourself.

* Actor preference and smilies not included.

Moore Not Less

Post Deleted

Loeffelholz

...

taity

To me I sigh whenever I see DAF. I found the rough idea really quite nice. It has some economic jargon, two creepy killers who in their first scenes are on par with Red Grant. Then, somewhere along the way it just goes down. Tiffany Case seems to be getting dumber exponetially. Charles Grey is a great actor and villian, but for some reason you see him in drag. Out of no where a laser space weapon pops up.

Im not sure who to blame, as I do quite like some of the dialogue ("one of us smells of a tarts hankerchef" well if we destroy Kansas the world may not hear of it for years to come")

It reminds me a bit of DAD where it seems almost bipolar in nature; maybe that was meant as a homage.