38 replies to this topic

[Blue Eyes]

Loomis, do you have any comments on my immortality theory. I'd be interested to hear them if so.

[Triton]

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?

- 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.  

The script really should have left it as a scheme to boost circulation of the newspapers and to boost ratings of the cable news network and Carver would have made money from the increased advertising. Further, the script should have contained more Carver Media Group Network scoops. For example, why didn't they have live video from the Carver Media Group Network of the massing of the Chinese and British fleets shown in the Ministry of Defense situation room? I thought that Carver planned to broadcast the war live on his cable news network. Where were the news helicopters? Where were the CMGN Live News Updates later in the film?

Originally posted by Loomis
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).

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.  

The fatal flaw in the Tomorrow Never Dies script is that the story is started and resolved within forty eight hours. I agree with you that the tensions between Britain and China should have been brewing for months with Carver exacerbating the situation with editorials and news reports over a longer period of time. There should have been incidents in addition to the sinking of HMS Devonshire and the machine gunning of her crew.

Originally posted by Loomis
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.)

I don't know about what the public opinion in the United Kingdom would be to such an incident, but in the United States many opinion leaders would, unfortunately, be calling for immediate military action against any country that was responsible for such an incident.

Funny that you mention the Germans. I imagine that most American audiences immediately assume that a villainous German is a neo-Nazi. Its also interesting that Richard Stamper, aka Rendera Sikrahm, went from Nepalese-born terrorist to a German-born employee of Carver's.

Also the first draft of the screenplay had action taking place Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia with the Petronas Towers serving as a building owned by Carver (Harmsway). This was a full two years before Entrapment travelled to this location.

[Triton]

PS -- Although I am criticizing the plot of Tomorrow Never Dies, I did enjoy seeing this film at the theatre and I periodically watch it on DVD.

[Blue Eyes]

I actually find it one of the more watchable Brosnan films on DVD.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Blue Eyes

Loomis, do you have any comments on my immortality theory. I'd be interested to hear them if so.  

I think you're right. Carver is certainly an egomaniac who wants to go down in history, and it's that that motivates him rather than money. But I'm not sure that I have much to add to what you've already written on this subject.

Originally posted by Triton

The script really should have left it as a scheme to boost circulation of the newspapers and to boost ratings of the cable news network and Carver would have made money from the increased advertising. Further, the script should have contained more Carver Media Group Network scoops. For example, why didn't they have live video from the Carver Media Group Network of the massing of the Chinese and British fleets shown in the Ministry of Defense situation room? I thought that Carver planned to broadcast the war live on his cable news network. Where were the news helicopters? Where were the CMGN Live News Updates later in the film?  

Agreed. There's no sense whatsoever that war is about to break out.

Originally posted by Triton

The fatal flaw in the Tomorrow Never Dies script is that the story is started and resolved within forty eight hours. I agree with you that the tensions between Britain and China should have been brewing for months with Carver exacerbating the situation with editorials and news reports over a longer period of time. There should have been incidents in addition to the sinking of HMS Devonshire and the machine gunning of her crew. ... I don't know about what the public opinion in the United Kingdom would be to such an incident, but in the United States many opinion leaders would, unfortunately, be calling for immediate military action against any country that was responsible for such an incident.

There is no way that Britain would prepare to go to war in a couple of days, unless there was demonstrably a grave and immediate threat to national survival. The Prime Minister would have to get Parliament on his side (requiring weeks if not months of debate), and "sell" the case for war to the British people. The United Nations would be consulted, and Britain would (probably) make various diplomatic efforts to give its potential opponent the opportunity to avoid war, to back down and not lose too much face. Ultimatums would be issued. All these things take a lot of time. Sure, there would be screams for blood among certain sections of the British public, media and government following an incident like the sinking of the Devonshire, but at the same time there would be anti-war rallies and peace protests.

Triton and Blue Eyes, I also greatly enjoy TND - it's one of those Bond films that's always a very easy and entertaining watch on DVD, and I seem able to sit through it at any time (I have to be in the "mood" for some of the other Bonds). Great visuals, a reasonably witty script, and terrific action scenes. Possibly the least pretentious of the Brosnan Bonds, with a fantastic heroine in Wai Lin. Excellent entertainment, and by no means a disgrace to the series, despite its flaws.

[Dunph]

Originally posted by Loomis:
I also greatly enjoy TND - it's one of those Bond films that's always a very easy and entertaining watch on DVD, and I seem able to sit through it at any time (I have to be in the "mood" for some of the other Bonds). Great visuals, a reasonably witty script, and terrific action scenes. Possibly the least pretentious of the Brosnan Bonds, with a fantastic heroine in Wai Lin. Excellent entertainment, and by no means a disgrace to the series, despite its flaws.

Summed up very well, this is exactly how i feel, and I feel the same about Die Another Day, in that it's easily picked up and watched. I also believe it's the most stylish of the BrosBonds, with old Pierce looking his best in the pre-credits in the rebel get-up and the cinematography accentuating the locations.

[Jaelle]

I've never been as hard on TND as so many other fans are. In fact, I much prefer it to TWINE and DAD; one irritates me out of boredom (TWINE) and the other irritates me out of outrage (DAD).

I agree entirely with the criticisms made of it on this thread: the absurdity of Carver's plans and Britain's hysterical response to China, threatening world war, etc. I also think it has the second dummest, most meaningless title of the Brosnan Bonds (DAD being the first). Yes, I get the reference to "Tomorrow" but "never dies" doesn't say much of anything. I also wish Carver would just shut the hell up! But I like the *idea* of Carver as a villain. I also love how it is the British gov't who seem far too ready to escalate things and not the Chinese. Yes, I know that was done so as not to upset the Chinese gov't, but it's still a great choice dramatically; that sort of irresponsibibility on the part of the British harkened back to Anthony Eden in 1956 in his war against Nasser. Anyway, with Bond films, you can't look too deeply into the logic of the plot.

The only moment in TND that I really can't stand is the idiotic underground car chase, with Bond sitting in back maneuvering the car. I just find it a stupid sequence, something for the children.

I like Wai Linn very much, I just don't care for the tacked-on romantic clinch between her and Bond. It's totally unconvincing and forced. And I guess I'm in the minority but I do like Teri Hatcher, tho I would've preferred another actress in the role.

From Loomis:


The Chinese would never do this, tho Britain's alert response was certainly reasonable. Attacking their own people (Tianenmen Square) is quite different from attacking British citizens at such a delicate moment. The Chinese gov't is a vicious dictatorship toward its own populace but it's not a stupid one vis-a-vis its diplomatic relations.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Jaelle

I also love how it is the British gov't who seem far too ready to escalate things and not the Chinese.  Yes, I know that was done so as not to upset the Chinese gov't, but it's still a great choice dramatically; that sort of irresponsibibility on the part of the British harkened back to Anthony Eden in 1956 in his war against Nasser.  

True, but in reality China does more sabre-rattling than most other nations.

Originally posted by Jaelle

The Chinese would never do this, tho Britain's alert response was certainly reasonable.  Attacking their own people (Tianenmen Square) is quite different from attacking British citizens at such a delicate moment.  The Chinese gov't is a vicious dictatorship toward its own populace but it's not a stupid one vis-a-vis its diplomatic relations.  

The chances of China attacking the Brits at the time of the Handover were very, very remote indeed, but they were still judged to exist, and precautions were taken accordingly.

[YOLT]

TND is not just Brosnans best film, but one of the bests in all the series. It is just Bond on a mission nothing personal. I accept that the second half could have been better but the first half is just suberp. Brosnan is BOND in Hamburg more than ever. I hope Bond 21 will be like TND no personal things please. For me GE+TWİNE+DAD=TND maybe Thanks Eon for doing such a good film after the boring Goldeneye.