What is so wrong with the invisible Aston Martin?
-
RobertHouse — 11 years ago(November 11, 2014 11:23 AM)
The problem with the "invisible" car is that it didn't look invisible in the snow. When it came "on scene" there were obvious distortions. LOL
My thoughts exactly. Like when Q walks behind the car the first time you see it. That never happened again in the movie. -
thelastfaceyouwillsee — 12 years ago(October 14, 2013 10:19 AM)
I saw a documentary that said the technology to make this happen is in the works but for D.A.D. I think it went one step too. Maybe if they had it working for very short periods of time and only whilst stationary people might have bought the idea. But as with most of the problems with this film it was too much over the edge. Still, as an effect it is way better than the tidal wave surfing scene.
"Remember, you have to make it home to get paid" (The Dogs of War) -
indiegameredge — 11 years ago(July 03, 2014 06:25 PM)
This is just my opinion but the invisible car (and the ring that can shatter a glass floor) represents exactly why the Bond franchise needed a reboot. To me the series became less about the character and his own abilities and more about a guy who uses outlandish gadgets. He almost became Inspector Gadget without the implants.
Inn my opinion a 00 agent needs to be lethal on his/her own which is why I appreciated the toned down gadgetry of the Craig series. -
oz_mant — 10 years ago(November 10, 2015 11:16 AM)
Because it's so Harry potter/lord of the rings. And it's completely impossible to make a car invisible like in this movie. With Qs explanation on how it works the road would have been reflected on the roof of the car.
-
avortac — 10 years ago(February 07, 2016 03:09 AM)
I wrote a long post, containing five different points and reasons why that particular form of invisibility wouldn't work the way it's shown in the movie.
However, I lost the post, and can't be arsed to write it again. But just think about photography and filming, and realize the 256 brightness / luminance value limitation that we still suffer from.. you'll get there.
Invisibility is possible, but not in this kind of stupid, primitive, barbaric way. -
Karl Aksel — 10 years ago(March 15, 2016 06:57 AM)
I wrote a long post, containing five different points and reasons why that particular form of invisibility wouldn't work the way it's shown in the movie.
It's a
James Bond
movie. As far as I'm concerned, the exploding bunker in the beginning of the film (exploding from having a hovercraft crash into it - some bunker) is much less credible than the invisible car in this film. Or how about when we compare with other Bond films? Nerve gas which is poisonous
only
to humans, having no effect whatsoever on any other life (Moonraker)? A capsule large enough for a man to fit in, propelled through a gas pipeline and managing somehow to follow 90 degree corners in the pipe system (Living Daylights)? Machineguns in motorcycles with no possible ammunition feed (For Your Eyes Only), gold paint supposedly causing death through some sort of bogus asphyxiation (Goldfinger), etc. etc. etc. Die Another Day is by no means the first Bond film to defy the laws of physics. The invisible car has just as much credible science behind it as Bond gadgets in general. -
terryperring104 — 10 years ago(January 03, 2016 10:17 AM)
I HONESTLY had the idea of having camera transmitting the relative background to a corresponding screen, when i got my first camera phone!
But-I didnt do anything with it-of course
So yes-anyway-its a sound idea and of course the movie makes it a little bit better than it actually is.