38 replies to this topic

[White Knight]

I have found that Tomorrow Never Dies is one of my absolute favorite Bond movies. I love the plot and don't understand why people don't agree. It may be a remake of You Only Live Twice, but i love it. The Villain Elliot Carver is a classic, and so is his henchmen stamper. The Action is tastefully done. Even though the movie lacks some other elements, and has too much action, it is a great piece of Bond cinema.

[Plan Omega]

Alex (18 Mar, 2002 12:37 a.m.):

Dmitri Mishkin (16 Mar, 2002 07:27 a.m.):
Care to elaborate on that, Alex? It's one thing to voice your opinion, it's quite another if there is no evidence to support it.

No problem at all.

How about discussing certain scenes, or characters, or elements, you find particularly unmemorable?

Of course. When I watched it, I wondered to myself if this was James Bond or Rambo. Why did they try to cram so many action scenes into this movie? Hardly 10 minutes goes by without someone getting blown up or shot or whatever. James Bond is supposed to be about subtlety and class, wit and grace, not grabbing machine guns and shooting everything and everybody.

Not to mention the whole plot is ridiculous. Someone's going to start World War Three over a newspaper? Wow. He'll make some more money. He's already obviously fantastically rich already, so it becomes a Goldfinger-type plot where we wonder why he does what he does, because no motive is given. If he was going bankrupt or something, that would've been a little better, but as it stands, there's no strong reason for him to want to nuke Beijing!

In the same vein, the whole concept of starting World War 3 has been done to death (pay no attention to the bald man with the Persian cat), and not only that, it isn't even done well. Tensions between China and Britain weren't especially high when his movie came out, so starting a war between them wouldn't be very believable. On top of that, both countries obviously know that they are being set up (since they've sent Bond and Wai Lin out to investigate), so once Bond and Wai Lin report back (which could've been done before they jumped onto Carver's "stealth boat"), wouldn't everybody know that the jig is up?

Given that Eliot Carver is a pretty empty and shallow character, Jonathan Pryce overacts way too much, almost to Shatnerian proportions. It's cool to watch him make speeches with this glazed look on his face, and to watch him mutter "delicious" whenever something goes his way, but other than that, the character of Eliot Carver is pretty stale.

Wai Lin is also a flawed character, it seems that the writers couldn't decide whether she was supposed to be a though, independent woman or a hopeless, frail Bond girl (much like Tiffany Case). Towards the end, she seems to depend on Bond for her survival from one minute to the next.

To top it off, there's Jack Wade. Not even he knows what he's doing in this film.

While this isn't the worst Bond movie, it is pretty awful, and I really did find the first draft of the script to be a much more believable and well-written story. There are many Bone movies that are remakes - this is a remake of The Spy Who Loved Me (which is itself a remake).

Have to agree with some of those points, too much mindless action, in fact too much action, you've got to have an explanation, I thought the pre-credits sequence was a major disappointment, there's too many of these video wall scenes, I think all three movies have featured them, and the plot - way too silly.

[MDSmith]

My major problem with TND is that there was just too many plots It seems like they wanted to fit a lot of cool ideas into one movie. It was full of action too. I wouldn't have mind seeing more espionage like when he was in the printing office. But all and all it was an okay movie, maybe #5 on my list.

[JAWS]

I remember having an excellent experiance watching TND in the theater. I watched it with my best friend and we laughed almost the whole way through, not because it was bad, but we just found a lot in it that was funny. A lot of people were laughing with us, and it was just really fun. It WAS a little lacking, in that the villains were a tad boring and seemingly too easy to defeat, but I got a real kick out it!

[Alex]

Don't we have enough topics on this movie already? If not, then I'll state my opinion again.

This movie is pure dog vomit.

[General Koskov]

In my opinion: should have stuck with Fierstein's first draught. Except the names and Wai Lin was a good idea.
Oh noo! Too political, boo hoo Mr Wilson! ^_^
Bond already threw an ATAC away from the Russkies, so why not let a crazed Englishman try to melt Hong Kong?
Of course then TWINE would have had a different ending, but that's fine with me.

[Dmitri Mishkin]

Alex (15 Mar, 2002 06:59 a.m.):
This movie is pure dog vomit.

Care to elaborate on that, Alex? It's one thing to voice your opinion, it's quite another if there is no evidence to support it.

How about discussing certain scenes, or characters, or elements, you find particularly unmemorable?

I'm hardpressed to believe that anyone would hate the entire movie as a whole, scene-by-scene, character-by-character, down to a T.

I'll be clear that Tomorrow Never Dies was the first Bond movie I ever had the pleasure of watching, and as such, I'm going to be biased. No question. But my opinion will be forthcoming; I'd like to hear what you think first.

[Alex]

Dmitri Mishkin (16 Mar, 2002 07:27 a.m.):
Care to elaborate on that, Alex? It's one thing to voice your opinion, it's quite another if there is no evidence to support it.

No problem at all.

How about discussing certain scenes, or characters, or elements, you find particularly unmemorable?

Of course. When I watched it, I wondered to myself if this was James Bond or Rambo. Why did they try to cram so many action scenes into this movie? Hardly 10 minutes goes by without someone getting blown up or shot or whatever. James Bond is supposed to be about subtlety and class, wit and grace, not grabbing machine guns and shooting everything and everybody.

Not to mention the whole plot is ridiculous. Someone's going to start World War Three over a newspaper? Wow. He'll make some more money. He's already obviously fantastically rich already, so it becomes a Goldfinger-type plot where we wonder why he does what he does, because no motive is given. If he was going bankrupt or something, that would've been a little better, but as it stands, there's no strong reason for him to want to nuke Beijing!

In the same vein, the whole concept of starting World War 3 has been done to death (pay no attention to the bald man with the Persian cat), and not only that, it isn't even done well. Tensions between China and Britain weren't especially high when his movie came out, so starting a war between them wouldn't be very believable. On top of that, both countries obviously know that they are being set up (since they've sent Bond and Wai Lin out to investigate), so once Bond and Wai Lin report back (which could've been done before they jumped onto Carver's "stealth boat"), wouldn't everybody know that the jig is up?

Given that Eliot Carver is a pretty empty and shallow character, Jonathan Pryce overacts way too much, almost to Shatnerian proportions. It's cool to watch him make speeches with this glazed look on his face, and to watch him mutter "delicious" whenever something goes his way, but other than that, the character of Eliot Carver is pretty stale.

Wai Lin is also a flawed character, it seems that the writers couldn't decide whether she was supposed to be a though, independent woman or a hopeless, frail Bond girl (much like Tiffany Case). Towards the end, she seems to depend on Bond for her survival from one minute to the next.

To top it off, there's Jack Wade. Not even he knows what he's doing in this film.

While this isn't the worst Bond movie, it is pretty awful, and I really did find the first draft of the script to be a much more believable and well-written story. There are many Bone movies that are remakes - this is a remake of The Spy Who Loved Me (which is itself a remake).

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Alex

Not to mention the whole plot is ridiculous. Someone's going to start World War Three over a newspaper? Wow. He'll make some more money. He's already obviously fantastically rich already, so it becomes a Goldfinger-type plot where we wonder why he does what he does, because no motive is given. If he was going bankrupt or something, that would've been a little better, but as it stands, there's no strong reason for him to want to nuke Beijing!

In the same vein, the whole concept of starting World War 3 has been done to death (pay no attention to the bald man with the Persian cat), and not only that, it isn't even done well. Tensions between China and Britain weren't especially high when his movie came out, so starting a war between them wouldn't be very believable. On top of that, both countries obviously know that they are being set up (since they've sent Bond and Wai Lin out to investigate), so once Bond and Wai Lin report back (which could've been done before they jumped onto Carver's "stealth boat"), wouldn't everybody know that the jig is up?

Exactly. Not only is Carver's scheme absurd even by Bond movie standards, but the film also asks us to buy the staggeringly stupid idea that Britain is a superpower (the superpower?), and one with such a short fuse that she's willing to wait only 48 hours or so before singlehandedly waging all-out war on China in response to a relatively minor skirmish the ins and outs of which have yet to be clarified. Anglo-Chinese diplomacy apparently does not exist.

Originally posted by Alex

Towards the end, she (Wai Lin) seems to depend on Bond for her survival from one minute to the next.

Not sure I agree with that. Yes, she gets captured on the stealth boat, and is later wrapped in chains and chucked into the sea, but I don't think those moments turn her into a wimp. To me, she seems by far the gutsiest, most formidable fighter of the Bond girls.

Originally posted by Alex

To top it off, there's Jack Wade. Not even he knows what he's doing in this film.

Agreed. The character is one of the film's main embarrassments.

[DLibrasnow]

Didn't care about the characters, didn't care about the plot (war between UK and China, who cares), thought the dialogue stunkl, the action was lackluster, Q appeared in a red suit (Santa?) etc etc

The movie Tomorrow Never Dies is the second worst Brosnan Bond movie and the third worst Bond movie ever (only marginally better than The World is not Enough and "Casino Royale" (1967).

[Righty007]

Originally posted by DLibrasnow
Didn't care about the characters, didn't care about the plot (war between UK and China, who cares), thought the dialogue stunkl, the action was lackluster, Q appeared in a red suit (Santa?) etc etc

The movie Tomorrow Never Dies is the second worst Brosnan Bond movie and the third worst Bond movie ever (only marginally better than The World is not Enough and "Casino Royale" (1967).

Q was in a red suit because he was disguised as a Avis Car Rental employee.

[DLibrasnow]

I know, but he still looked ridiculous....

[Dunph]

I'd venture to say that the Avis Q scene is one of the best in the series, and Brosnan's smug nod to the Quartermaster's disguise is humorous. The very premise that Q is in ridiculous disguise in his bright red suit is intentional.

The only criticism I'd have for the film is that Stamper is so underdeveloped as a character that it's criminal, as is Gupta, and some other semi-principals (Paris Carver for instance).
The plot is also staggeringly unbelievable, and (SHOCK HORROR) undeveloped, but the sheer fun of the movie (up until Bond arrives at the US air base with the buffoon in an Hawaiian shirt) is enough for me to think of it as a solid pick-up-and-play Bond film.

By no means is it terrible, but then again, each to their own.

[DLibrasnow]

The best scene I think in the movie is the confrontation between the assassin and Bond in the hotel room.

"My dear Mr. Bond I could shoot you from Stuttgart and still have the desired effect" -- or something like that - it's been a couple of years since I've seen it.

[Dunph]

I'd agree with you, the whole of the Hamburg sequences are brilliantly shot, it's a shame that parts are better than the whole.

[BONDFINESSE 007]

i really liked bond in this film, he had a lot of life here, but something went wrong cause the bond in the world is not enough and the bond of this film are not the same

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by Dunphboy007
I'd agree with you, the whole of the Hamburg sequences are brilliantly shot, it's a shame that parts are better than the whole.

Well on that we are agreed

[Qwerty]

For me, it's one of my favorite Bond films. Elliot Carver is brillant, pretty sharp looking (the wardrobe for this Bond film, I feel, was some of the best), a slightly insanity to his character adds to the effect and the those lines! "Let the mayhem begin." - Bruce Feristein may not be everyone's cup of tea for the plot, but some of his dialogue is prefection! I also think the main title sequence is exploding with excitement, particularly when it opens right up from Bond's jet, great stuff! David Arnold's soundtrack is okay, although a minor bit lacking. All in all, a pretty sound Bond film!

[Turn]

TND is my favorite Brosnan Bond and one of my favorite Bond films. For one thing, it's pretty tight at right about two hours.

The action is among the best in the series. I'm amazed when people complain TND is nothing but wall-to-wall action. It's true the final half-hour or so is like a Rambo movie, but there's some pretty good stuff with Bond having to use his wits along with the gadgets to fight off Carver's goons. Besides, the film Bond is an action hero as well as a spy.

Also consider it's running time is much shorter than most of the other Bond films, which makes it seem like there is more action. Compared with something bloated like TWINE, which is long and has boring action scenes, save for some of the pre-credits stuff, TND moves and is exciting.

But the stuff in the first hour or so is nice also, with Bond actually doing some spying, and the already mentioned Dr. Kauffman scene. Not to mention an Arnold score worthy of the better ones in the series.

[Qwerty]

Turn, I couldn't agree more!!! I love that movie! The action is really good. One of personal favorites parts of that movie is....

Elliot Carver- "You see Mr Bond, I have a back up plan."

James Bond- "Uh-huh, so do I."

Cue the action and let the chaos begin, it's wonderful!

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by Qwerty
Bruce Feristein may not be everyone's cup of tea for the plot, but some of his dialogue is prefection!

Hence, he did a rewrite on The World is not Enough

[Triton]

Originally posted by Loomis
Exactly. Not only is Carver's scheme absurd even by Bond movie standards..."

I don't think that Elliot Carver's scheme is any more absurd than the notion that the Spanish-American War was largely the work of William Randolph Hearst to increase the circulation of his newspaper The New York Journal . Hearst was responsible for portraying the USS Maine disaster that occured in Havana harbor as the work of Spanish sabotuers and then ran editorials that the United States must respond militarily to preserve American honor.

The idea of Elliot Carver is an acknowledgement of the fact that multinational corporations who have operations and offices in multiple countries are bigger than governments. Could companies influence world affairs to further their interests? History books are full of examples, so I really don't have a problem with the Elliot Carver project to start a war for ratings.

Originally posted by Loomis
...but the film also asks us to buy the staggeringly stupid idea that Britain is a superpower (the superpower?), and one with such a short fuse that she's willing to wait only 48 hours or so before singlehandedly waging all-out war on China in response to a relatively minor skirmish the ins and outs of which have yet to be clarified. Anglo-Chinese diplomacy apparently does not exist.  

If we take this reasoning to its logical conclusion, does it really make any sense anymore to base films on the exploits of an agent of Britain's Secret Intelligence Service in the present day? Without her colonies, it becomes increasing difficult to come up with scenarios for the James Bond novels and films in which British interests are at stake or a credible case is made for James Bond to even be involved. Perhaps new James Bond movies should be set in the early 1950s before the United Kingdom granted independence to her colonies in the Carribean, Africa, and Asia. There certainly would be a more compelling case for Bond to engage in interational travel.

The gimmick for getting James Bond involved in the events of Die Another Day was the fact that Van Bierk was using diamonds from Sierra Leone to buy arms from Col. Moon which presumably would be used against British peacekeepers. Without this story thread, there isn't any reason for Bond to travel to North Korea. I wonder what story thread Purvis & Wade will concoct for Bond XXI that justifies international travel.

I agree with you that the forty-eight hour deadline is ridiculous . I don't know anything about the deployment of the British fleet, but it seems unlikely that the Royal Navy could assemble a credible fighting force to engage one of the world's largest militaries within this period. Its quite likely that China would wipe out the British forces assembled in this period.

But I guess there wouldn't be that much tension in this film if it portrayed the six months or longer that would be required to mobilize and deploy British forces for such a campaign. The Falklands campaign certainly wasn't started within forty-eight hours of the Argentine invasion.

The story may have been more credible if the United States assisted Britain in a military campaign against China for the sinking of the HMS Devonshire and the fleet assembled at the end of Tomorrow Never Dies consisted of ships from the Royal Navy and carrier battle groups of the United States Pacific fleet.

On the subject of other things wrong with Tomorrow Never Dies, I dislike the title. What does it mean? Tomorrow Never Lies, the supposed motto of Carver's newspaper Tomorrow makes much more sense as a title. The legend is that a typo on a press release announcing the motion picture had the L in the title replaced with a D. Eon should have just swallowed its pride and issued a correction.Sorry Eon, Tomorrow Never Dies doesn't sound cooler.

I would also think that the screen writing talents of Bruce Feirstein, Robert Collector, Nicolas Meyer, Daniel Petrie Jr., and David Campbell Wilson could have created a much more compelling and interesting script.

Then we have the casting of Terri Hatcher, who was wanted by MGM/UA because of her popularity on Lois & Clark, as Paris Carver. It would have been better if we had gotten Debbie McWilliams first choice for this role -- Monica Bellucci.

Next we come to the casting of Elliot Carver. Its a pity that Sir Anthony Hopkins chose Don Diego Vega in The Mask of Zorro over world-wide media baron Elliot Carver.

Henry Gupta has an Indian name but he's caucasian in the movie because he is portrayed by magician Ricky Jay. Jay was originally cast because he is adept at tossing playing cards. At one time in the script, Gupta was supposed to be able to kill using playing cards but according to Michael G. Wilson it looked too silly on film. The character in the film is unfortunately like every other forgettable computer geek, except that he is fat and middle aged. Its the worst bit of casting since Dr. Chandra in 2010 was played by Bob Balaban.

Part of the film takes place in Hamburg, but what does it matter since the CMGN building is really an IBM office near Heathrow, a printing press located England, and a multi-story parking garage at some shopping center in England. The film does seem like part of it is set in Germany, with the exception of the car's accent.

The government of Vietnam allowed filming, but the government of Ho Chi Minh city refused, so the producers scrambled to move the production to Bangkok and the Ao Phangnga National Park near Phuket, locations last scene in The Man with the Golden Gun. It would have been better if we had seen the real Ho Chi Minh City and the real Ha Long Bay in Vietnam.

Then we come to the character of General Chang. He is one of the most important characters in setting Eliot Carver's plan into motion, but he is only on the screen for five seconds walking down a corridor.

[jwheels]

I think it one of the best. It was cool to have a flat out all action Bond movie. I think we need that every now and then, just pure fun.

[Qwerty]

I strongly agree jwheels57, Tomorrow Never Dies is just pure fun. It really isn't anything else it sets out to be, action-filled, adventerous and all-out fun, and for that reason, it suceeds.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Triton

I don't think that Elliot Carver's scheme is any more absurd than the notion that the Spanish-American War was largely the work of William Randolph Hearst to increase the circulation of his newspaper The New York Journal . Hearst was responsible for portraying the USS Maine disaster that occured in Havana harbor as the work of Spanish sabotuers and then ran editorials that the United States must respond militarily to preserve American honor.

The idea of Elliot Carver is an acknowledgement of the fact that multinational corporations who have operations and offices in multiple countries are bigger than governments. Could companies influence world affairs to further their interests? History books are full of examples, so I really don't have a problem with the Elliot Carver project to start a war for ratings.

I think Carver's scheme is absurd for a number of reasons:

- Why is he after exclusive broadcast rights in China for 200 years? How does he figure he'll live long enough to reap the rewards?

- Given the utter poverty of the overwhelming majority of people in China, why would cable TV rights there be particularly lucrative? I mean, since so many Chinese don't even have electricity, is it likely that they'd sign up for cable? Mind you, perhaps he's not in it for the money: Carver seems more obsessed with the idea of "reaching and influencing" more people than anyone else on the planet, so a few million more viewers in China is probably enough of a turn-on for him.

- But if China were to be nuked by Britain (surely a possible outcome of the war Carver intends to start), where would that leave Carver's scheme of monopolizing the Chinese media?

- Carver's scheme hinges on the assumption that the Devonshire incident will be enough to provoke Britain and China into almost immediate all-out war.

Originally posted by Triton

If we take this reasoning to its logical conclusion, does it really make any sense anymore to base films on the exploits of an agent of Britain's Secret Intelligence Service in the present day? Without her colonies, it becomes increasing difficult to come up with scenarios for the James Bond novels and films in which British interests are at stake or a credible case is made for James Bond to even be involved. Perhaps new James Bond movies should be set in the early 1950s before the United Kingdom granted independence to her colonies in the Carribean, Africa, and Asia. There certainly would be a more compelling case for Bond to engage in interational travel.

I think most of us have long been able to suspend disbelief in this matter. I mean, there's no obvious British interest at stake because of Zorin's schemes in A VIEW TO A KILL, and really no compelling reason for MI6 to get involved. Ironically, though, the makers of TND pulled back from the original plans to involve the Hong Kong Handover in Carver's plans. Now, British interests were very much at stake during the period leading up to the handover, and I was once informed by someone in a position to know such things that Britain quietly sent submarines and ships to the region at the time of the handover and basically put its military on high alert "just in case" things turned nasty (on the offchance that the People's Liberation Army decided to shoot its way into China's new possession and massacre the departing Brits - wouldn't entirely put it past 'em only eight years after Tiananmen Square).

Originally posted by Triton

I agree with you that the forty-eight hour deadline is ridiculous . I don't know anything about the deployment of the British fleet, but it seems unlikely that the Royal Navy could assemble a credible fighting force to engage one of the world's largest militaries within this period. Its quite likely that China would wipe out the British forces assembled in this period.

Exactly. Look at how long it took Britain and America to prepare for the invasion of Iraq, which had a useless army. China, OTOH, has the largest standing army on earth and would be a formidable foe for any nation. And the idea of Britain taking on China singlehandedly, unless absolutely forced to (see the above Hong Kong Handover example) is preposterous.

Originally posted by Triton

But I guess there wouldn't be that much tension in this film if it portrayed the six months or longer that would be required to mobilize and deploy British forces for such a campaign. The Falklands campaign certainly wasn't started within forty-eight hours of the Argentine invasion.

But it would have been so easy to have had hostile relations brewing between Britain and China for months at the start of the film. The Devonshire incident should have been the "final straw" in a series of aggressive acts, apparently committed by both nations (but, obviously, with Carver orchestrating the mayhem behind the scenes), that have been happening for a while. China captures and executes a Briton framed as a spy (thanks to info provided by Carver's people). A Chinese embassy somewhere is destroyed, and China claims it was the deliberate work of the Brits. In the tension-fuelled months leading up to the Handover, some British soldiers in Hong Kong are somehow misdirected and end up in a gun battle with the People's Liberation Army, in which scores of civilians are killed for good measure. China launches a propaganda war against "the old imperialists the British" (which happened anyway in the runup to the Handover) and threatens to claim Hong Kong before the handover. There's a terrorist bomb in London and it's found to be the work of a fiercely patriotic Communist group of overseas Chinese. The British government expels the Chinese ambassador. Then the Devonshire incident happens....

And all of that could have been conveyed to the audience in a nifty montage a minute or so in length on a Carver Media Group TV news broadcast, establishing both the state of growing hostility between Britain and China, and the existence of Carver's media empire. Could have been playing on a TV right after the sinking of the Devonshire, as Carver enters his studio to ask about what havoc his "golden retrievers" will create in the world that day.

Originally posted by Triton

Next we come to the casting of Elliot Carver. Its a pity that Sir Anthony Hopkins chose Don Diego Vega in The Mask of Zorro over world-wide media baron Elliot Carver.

I think Sam Neill might have made a good Carver, too.

Originally posted by Triton

Part of the film takes place in Hamburg, but what does it matter since the CMGN building is really an IBM office near Heathrow, a printing press located England, and a multi-story parking garage at some shopping center in England. The film does seem like part of it is set in Germany, with the exception of the car's accent.

Hamburg's a dreadful location. Why couldn't Carver's HQ have been in Rome or Lisbon, or some warmer, more colourful and sexier place? Well, I have a little theory: to curry favour with China (TND was the first Bond film to be released in the PRC), the filmmakers wanted to include German villains as well as Brits, since the Germans also had a colonial past in China. (Note also that it's the Brits, not the Chinese, who are portrayed as screaming for blood and desperate to go to war. Care was obviously taken not to offend the Chinese government.)

Originally posted by Triton

It would have been better if we had seen the real Ho Chi Minh City and the real Ha Long Bay in Vietnam.

Definitely. And Bangkok is a terribly unconvincing substitute for Saigon. It just looks like, well, Bangkok. And since when were there Chinese ideograms everywhere you looked in Saigon?

[007luvchild2]

Tomorrow Never Dies. Well lets see, I think its pre-title sequence was the best of the Brosnan era. Dolph Lungdren (from Rocky IV) should have been cast as Stamper. Stamper wasn't intimidating enough for me. It was laughable in the scene where he shows his awe of torture. It just look like Bond was being beaten up by a male supermodel. Innuendos were kinda of cheesy. Overall though, it's solid . Probably, I would have liked it more if Sela Ward was Paris Carver.

[Blue Eyes]

Originally posted by Loomis
I think Carver's scheme is absurd for a number of reasons:

- Why is he after exclusive broadcast rights in China for 200 years? How does he figure he'll live long enough to reap the rewards?

I think you're seriously overlooking a person's quest for immortality in that question Loomis. Why did Julius Caesar always write about himself in the first person? Or why did Augustus Caesar place himself in the calendar?

Ego? Yes. Immortality? Of course. Putting yourself in the calendar means people remember you for years to come. Having exclusive broadcasting rights in China for 200 years means the Chinese will talk of you (and any heirs) for that period - and probably beyond. His quests aren't all about money, but about him. Why else does he whack his own face on the side of a building? Unless he's already a household name, it's not going to sell Channel Subscriptions.

Carver was after immortality.

- Given the utter poverty of the overwhelming majority of people in China, why would cable TV rights there be particularly lucrative? I mean, since so many Chinese don't even have electricity, is it likely that they'd sign up for cable? Mind you, perhaps he's not in it for the money: Carver seems more obsessed with the idea of "reaching and influencing" more people than anyone else on the planet, so a few million more viewers in China is probably enough of a turn-on for him.

Well he can sway governments with a single broadcast (or something to that affect). Perhaps having those exclusive rights also gives him his own sway with the government of the day. Having yourself a superpower in your backpocket isn't too bad a deal!

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Blue Eyes

Well he can sway governments with a single broadcast (or something to that affect). Perhaps having those exclusive rights also gives him his own sway with the government of the day. Having yourself a superpower in your backpocket isn't too bad a deal!  

True. And don't forget that it's implied that Carver has already managed to forge a very close and cosy relationship with the British Prime Minister (M says something like: "The PM would have my head if he knew we were investigating him"). With his own puppet Chinese leader, General Chang, installed in Beijing, Carver would be laughing.

Unless Britain and China had managed to nuke each other into smithereens, of course.

[Blue Eyes]

That danger was there. But wasn't it his intention to broker a peace between the two? Chang surely would have gone for peace (no point in being dictator/president if there's nothing to rule over bar rubble), and being in with the PM would certainly give Carver that power in Britain.

I don't believe his plot is as rediculous as one might assume. Some of the plot elements (the quick jump to war) could be, but it's only could. After all, people jump at war all the time every day. And even more so when the ego of some Admiral is involved in the equation.

[Qwerty]

Originally posted by Loomis


True. And don't forget that it's implied that Carver has already managed to forge a very close and cosy relationship with the British Prime Minister (M says something like: "The PM would have my head if he knew we were investigating him"). With his own puppet Chinese leader, General Chang, installed in Beijing, Carver would be laughing.

He certainly was a classy villain. Anyone who had that much power and control, why even bother with WWIII, oh yes, I forgot, he's insane.

"You really are quite insane." -James Bond, TND