Tomorrow Never Dies: what went wrong?

1111213141517»

Comments

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,210
    mtm wrote: »
    I think EON wanted repeat use of that cue for Craig’s films similar to how the 1962 Bond theme recording was used throughout the 60s films. Thankfully by NTTD Zimmer opted to bring his own version rather than Arnold’s arrangement.

    On the other hand, I wish Zimmer did a full rendition of the theme for NTTD. Big missed opportunity there. Maybe he’ll make up for it if EON hires him again.

    Although to be fair to Zimmer, there aren't really any scenes in NTTD in which a full version of the Bond theme would work- Bond is never swaggering triumphant in a way that would suit the theme. The Cuba bit is the only spot really, and even then it's Paloma who actually does the Bondy thing by crashing the car.

    Interesting. I hadn't thought of that yet. But indeed, a full version of the Bond Theme seems impossible to insert in the movie.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited December 2021 Posts: 16,470
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I think EON wanted repeat use of that cue for Craig’s films similar to how the 1962 Bond theme recording was used throughout the 60s films. Thankfully by NTTD Zimmer opted to bring his own version rather than Arnold’s arrangement.

    On the other hand, I wish Zimmer did a full rendition of the theme for NTTD. Big missed opportunity there. Maybe he’ll make up for it if EON hires him again.

    Although to be fair to Zimmer, there aren't really any scenes in NTTD in which a full version of the Bond theme would work- Bond is never swaggering triumphant in a way that would suit the theme. The Cuba bit is the only spot really, and even then it's Paloma who actually does the Bondy thing by crashing the car.

    Interesting. I hadn't thought of that yet. But indeed, a full version of the Bond Theme seems impossible to insert in the movie.

    Yeah, although we didn't actually get it, it's not hard to imagine SPECTRE featuring the Bond theme in the helicopter, Rome car chase, aeroplane ski scenes etc. but NTTD doesn't really have any moments like that.

    It's kind of the film's biggest failing for me, to be honest: there's a bit of a lack of Bondiness to it. He doesn't get to do anything cool after the opening titles, and Bond should always do cool things.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,190
    mtm wrote: »
    I think EON wanted repeat use of that cue for Craig’s films similar to how the 1962 Bond theme recording was used throughout the 60s films. Thankfully by NTTD Zimmer opted to bring his own version rather than Arnold’s arrangement.

    On the other hand, I wish Zimmer did a full rendition of the theme for NTTD. Big missed opportunity there. Maybe he’ll make up for it if EON hires him again.

    Although to be fair to Zimmer, there aren't really any scenes in NTTD in which a full version of the Bond theme would work- Bond is never swaggering triumphant in a way that would suit the theme. The Cuba bit is the only spot really, and even then it's Paloma who actually does the Bondy thing by crashing the car.

    It wouldn’t have had to be for an actual scene, it could have played right after WHATTITW in full during the middle of the credits.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,222
    chrisisall wrote: »
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    General question from the thread title: Tomorrow Never Dies: what went wrong?

    My general answer: Really not much...and probably less than in about ten or twelve other Bond films. One always finds some stupid or illogical scenes or plot holes in Bond movies, and TND is certainly not an exception. But overall it's just as much middle-of-the-road popcorn fare as many other of the franchise's films. I like it, and I don't worry about its shortcomings. It's definitely better than its two successors, which always form the bottom two on my ranking lists. One of the two better Brosnan films.

    Oh yes, and David Arnold's score is one of the best that are not John Barry's, or George Martin's.

    Here's a question (that I don't want to start a whole thread for): someone says they're gonna put on a Bond move & gives you the choice: TMWTGG or TWINE- which do you choose?

    Belated response but I'm going to go against the curve and vote TWINE. A lot of the criticisms people level at TWINE echo my sentiments towards TMWTGG - I find it an absolute chore to get through despite a couple of standout moments (mostly involving Lee) and that lush Barry score. It has possibly the most annoying collection of supporting characters in a Bond film ever, to boot.

    TWINE doesn't follow through on most of its promises and does have pretty flat action after the PTS, but it doesn't irritate me like TMWTGG does and I find it immeasurably more interesting conceptually as well.
  • chrisisall wrote: »
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    General question from the thread title: Tomorrow Never Dies: what went wrong?

    My general answer: Really not much...and probably less than in about ten or twelve other Bond films. One always finds some stupid or illogical scenes or plot holes in Bond movies, and TND is certainly not an exception. But overall it's just as much middle-of-the-road popcorn fare as many other of the franchise's films. I like it, and I don't worry about its shortcomings. It's definitely better than its two successors, which always form the bottom two on my ranking lists. One of the two better Brosnan films.

    Oh yes, and David Arnold's score is one of the best that are not John Barry's, or George Martin's.

    Here's a question (that I don't want to start a whole thread for): someone says they're gonna put on a Bond move & gives you the choice: TMWTGG or TWINE- which do you choose?

    Belated response but I'm going to go against the curve and vote TWINE. A lot of the criticisms people level at TWINE echo my sentiments towards TMWTGG - I find it an absolute chore to get through despite a couple of standout moments (mostly involving Lee) and that lush Barry score. It has possibly the most annoying collection of supporting characters in a Bond film ever, to boot.

    TWINE doesn't follow through on most of its promises and does have pretty flat action after the PTS, but it doesn't irritate me like TMWTGG does and I find it immeasurably more interesting conceptually as well.

    +1, plus a more assured performance from Brosnan as Bond. Moore in TMWTGG is still him finding his footing, too rough around the edges.
  • chrisisall wrote: »
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    General question from the thread title: Tomorrow Never Dies: what went wrong?

    My general answer: Really not much...and probably less than in about ten or twelve other Bond films. One always finds some stupid or illogical scenes or plot holes in Bond movies, and TND is certainly not an exception. But overall it's just as much middle-of-the-road popcorn fare as many other of the franchise's films. I like it, and I don't worry about its shortcomings. It's definitely better than its two successors, which always form the bottom two on my ranking lists. One of the two better Brosnan films.

    Oh yes, and David Arnold's score is one of the best that are not John Barry's, or George Martin's.

    Here's a question (that I don't want to start a whole thread for): someone says they're gonna put on a Bond move & gives you the choice: TMWTGG or TWINE- which do you choose?
    Easy choice for me. Golden Gun is my least favorite Bond.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,470
    It's funny because I watched TMWTGG and TWINE back to back recently, and going from Golden Gun -even though it's a bit of a flat 007 flick- to TWINE is a stark experience: suddenly all the style and wit leaks away and you're left with something that feels like a flat pastiche. That opening scene in that horrible, dull, cramped little banker's office in grey, miserable urban Spain is a shockingly poor beginning for a Bond film (Golden Gun opens on an incredible-looking beach in Thailand!! And then moves inside to beautiful proper Bond style sets) and it just feels like the dialogue has had its intelligence reduced, plus you go from Roger's effortless suave performance to Pierce squinting and overstressing every line. Even the boat chase is a very episodic affair with none of the escalating sweep of the opening of TND. Neither are great Bond films but there's something really disappointing about TWINE to me.
  • HildebrandRarityHildebrandRarity Centre international d'assistance aux personnes déplacées, Paris, France
    Posts: 485
    If you want to analyze TND, the starting point shouldn't be what went wrong, but what went short of great. It's a perfectly serviceable Bond film that looks like it was designed by a committee. People have strong feelings on various aspects of GE, including the score, Xenia Onatopp, the villain. The film is far from being flawless (it loses steam after Xenia's death), but the best moments (and the way Campbell directs it) totally justify watching it, because there were stakes (if the film hadn't been a hit, the whole franchise was at risk), and everybody tries hard.

    Tomorrow Never Dies, in comparison, is the franchise on autopilot, and it's hard to feel much about it. Some of the questionable choices from GE (mainly the score) have been addressed, but we also get back to a safe formula, without much meat on its bones. As a concession to modernity, it borrows from Hong Kong action films, but it never gives the feeling that anything is at risk.

    However, I hate the extent of product placement in this one. The first scene with Q is just an excuse to display a bunch of Avis logos, the use of BMW cars still feels quite impersonal, and, if I remember well, there's a short scene showing Bond shocked after he hears about Paris' death. He looks like a character out of a PS2 cinematic, without any expression on his face, and the emphasis is instead on the label on the vodka bottle.
    Also, the finale feels rushed and underlit, in addition to being a rehash from TSWLM and MR.
  • Posts: 1,921
    However, I hate the extent of product placement in this one. The first scene with Q is just an excuse to display a bunch of Avis logos, the use of BMW cars still feels quite impersonal, and, if I remember well, there's a short scene showing Bond shocked after he hears about Paris' death. He looks like a character out of a PS2 cinematic, without any expression on his face, and the emphasis is instead on the label on the vodka bottle.
    Also, the finale feels rushed and underlit, in addition to being a rehash from TSWLM and MR.

    But the series has always been notorious for its obvious product placements. TND doesn't seem to stand out as any more offensive. MR is far worse with 7-Up and British Airways and such, and GE includes one of the most blatant offenders with the introduction of the BMW to the extent of introducing its gadgets and all we get to see of it is Bond driving down a road. I can see that scene going into a TV advertisement for the vehicle. Is there any more of a blatant excuse of a product plug than that? At least in TND he uses the car to escape and employs its gadgets.
  • Posts: 1,394
    BT3366 wrote: »
    However, I hate the extent of product placement in this one. The first scene with Q is just an excuse to display a bunch of Avis logos, the use of BMW cars still feels quite impersonal, and, if I remember well, there's a short scene showing Bond shocked after he hears about Paris' death. He looks like a character out of a PS2 cinematic, without any expression on his face, and the emphasis is instead on the label on the vodka bottle.
    Also, the finale feels rushed and underlit, in addition to being a rehash from TSWLM and MR.

    But the series has always been notorious for its obvious product placements. TND doesn't seem to stand out as any more offensive. MR is far worse with 7-Up and British Airways and such, and GE includes one of the most blatant offenders with the introduction of the BMW to the extent of introducing its gadgets and all we get to see of it is Bond driving down a road. I can see that scene going into a TV advertisement for the vehicle. Is there any more of a blatant excuse of a product plug than that? At least in TND he uses the car to escape and employs its gadgets.

    Yeah,the likes of CR are even more blatant with its product placement.

  • edited December 2021 Posts: 12,837
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    BT3366 wrote: »
    However, I hate the extent of product placement in this one. The first scene with Q is just an excuse to display a bunch of Avis logos, the use of BMW cars still feels quite impersonal, and, if I remember well, there's a short scene showing Bond shocked after he hears about Paris' death. He looks like a character out of a PS2 cinematic, without any expression on his face, and the emphasis is instead on the label on the vodka bottle.
    Also, the finale feels rushed and underlit, in addition to being a rehash from TSWLM and MR.

    But the series has always been notorious for its obvious product placements. TND doesn't seem to stand out as any more offensive. MR is far worse with 7-Up and British Airways and such, and GE includes one of the most blatant offenders with the introduction of the BMW to the extent of introducing its gadgets and all we get to see of it is Bond driving down a road. I can see that scene going into a TV advertisement for the vehicle. Is there any more of a blatant excuse of a product plug than that? At least in TND he uses the car to escape and employs its gadgets.

    Yeah,the likes of CR are even more blatant with its product placement.

    Die Another Day was the worst offender iirc, set some sort of record for most brands in a film, and the bad press (“buy another day”) caused them to actually dial it back a bit in CR. But there were two bits of product placement in CR that felt painfully obvious. The Ford advert when he gets to Miami, and the “omega” line that tries its best to ruin the brilliant train scene.

    But to be fair I don’t think we can single any Bond film out for product placement. It has got very excessive in the Brosnan and Craig eras, but that’s probably just a necessity so Bond can keep up with all the mega budget blockbuster competition. Bit annoying, but I can live with it.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    edited December 2021 Posts: 9,050
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    ...
    Die Another Day was the worst offender iirc, set some sort of record for most brands in a film, and the bad press (“buy another day”) caused them to actually dial it back a bit in CR. But there were two bits of product placement in CR that felt painfully obvious. The Ford advert when he gets to Miami, and the “omega” line that tries its best to ruin the brilliant train scene.

    But to be fair I don’t think we can single any Bond film out for product placement. It has got very excessive in the Brosnan and Craig eras, but that’s probably just a necessity so Bond can keep up with all the mega budget blockbuster competition. Bit annoying, but I can live with it.

    I still think that, while Omega probably paid for the scene nevertheless, it is not really an endorsement of Omega watches. Vesper asks Bond if his watch is a Rolex, with a definitely critical tone. Bond answers "Omega", but Vesper's answer ("Beautiful!" or whatever it was), without even continuing to look at the watch or Bond himself, shows her total disdain of that sort of things. If anything, the scene is an all-too-necessary assault on the supposed need to possess such gadgets, which beyond being expensive and precious have no purpose whatsoever.

    That being said, I'll grant Omega that they produce the more tasteful watches, while Rolexes are generally just pretentious, braggadocious, tasteless and ugly. Watches for pimps who drive Lamborghinis.

    PS: I don't know what went wrong with this post, since it's all in "blue", but I didn't find out a solution.

  • AstonLotus wrote: »
    BT3366 wrote: »
    However, I hate the extent of product placement in this one. The first scene with Q is just an excuse to display a bunch of Avis logos, the use of BMW cars still feels quite impersonal, and, if I remember well, there's a short scene showing Bond shocked after he hears about Paris' death. He looks like a character out of a PS2 cinematic, without any expression on his face, and the emphasis is instead on the label on the vodka bottle.
    Also, the finale feels rushed and underlit, in addition to being a rehash from TSWLM and MR.

    But the series has always been notorious for its obvious product placements. TND doesn't seem to stand out as any more offensive. MR is far worse with 7-Up and British Airways and such, and GE includes one of the most blatant offenders with the introduction of the BMW to the extent of introducing its gadgets and all we get to see of it is Bond driving down a road. I can see that scene going into a TV advertisement for the vehicle. Is there any more of a blatant excuse of a product plug than that? At least in TND he uses the car to escape and employs its gadgets.

    Yeah,the likes of CR are even more blatant with its product placement.

    Die Another Day was the worst offender iirc, set some sort of record for most brands in a film, and the bad press (“buy another day”) caused them to actually dial it back a bit in CR. But there were two bits of product placement in CR that felt painfully obvious. The Ford advert when he gets to Miami, and the “omega” line that tries its best to ruin the brilliant train scene.

    But to be fair I don’t think we can single any Bond film out for product placement. It has got very excessive in the Brosnan and Craig eras, but that’s probably just a necessity so Bond can keep up with all the mega budget blockbuster competition. Bit annoying, but I can live with it.

    I’ll never forget the scene in Die Another Day where he’s shaving after entering the hotel, and all of those “Phillips” shaving products and their packaging are sitting neatly off to the side. Definitely the most blatant attempt at product placement in any Bond film.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited December 2021 Posts: 16,470
    BT3366 wrote: »
    However, I hate the extent of product placement in this one. The first scene with Q is just an excuse to display a bunch of Avis logos, the use of BMW cars still feels quite impersonal, and, if I remember well, there's a short scene showing Bond shocked after he hears about Paris' death. He looks like a character out of a PS2 cinematic, without any expression on his face, and the emphasis is instead on the label on the vodka bottle.
    Also, the finale feels rushed and underlit, in addition to being a rehash from TSWLM and MR.

    But the series has always been notorious for its obvious product placements. TND doesn't seem to stand out as any more offensive. MR is far worse with 7-Up and British Airways and such, and GE includes one of the most blatant offenders with the introduction of the BMW to the extent of introducing its gadgets and all we get to see of it is Bond driving down a road. I can see that scene going into a TV advertisement for the vehicle. Is there any more of a blatant excuse of a product plug than that? At least in TND he uses the car to escape and employs its gadgets.

    I think, although it clearly is a big ol' bit of product placement, it is vaguely interesting that BMW actually wanted a different car to be showcased in it -the M Coupe- but Spottiswode rejected it (saying it looked like a 'station wagon') and so the 7 series was used instead, which actually made for a better action scene (because it had rear doors and seats) and actually suited Bond's cover for once.
    So it certainly is product placement, but the filmmakers stood their ground and made sure they got what was best for the film rather than just blindly inserting whatever the company wants.

    280px-BMW_Z3_M_Coup%C3%A9_%283544451912%29_%28cropped%29.jpg
  • edited December 2021 Posts: 1,394
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    BT3366 wrote: »
    However, I hate the extent of product placement in this one. The first scene with Q is just an excuse to display a bunch of Avis logos, the use of BMW cars still feels quite impersonal, and, if I remember well, there's a short scene showing Bond shocked after he hears about Paris' death. He looks like a character out of a PS2 cinematic, without any expression on his face, and the emphasis is instead on the label on the vodka bottle.
    Also, the finale feels rushed and underlit, in addition to being a rehash from TSWLM and MR.

    But the series has always been notorious for its obvious product placements. TND doesn't seem to stand out as any more offensive. MR is far worse with 7-Up and British Airways and such, and GE includes one of the most blatant offenders with the introduction of the BMW to the extent of introducing its gadgets and all we get to see of it is Bond driving down a road. I can see that scene going into a TV advertisement for the vehicle. Is there any more of a blatant excuse of a product plug than that? At least in TND he uses the car to escape and employs its gadgets.

    Yeah,the likes of CR are even more blatant with its product placement.

    Die Another Day was the worst offender iirc, set some sort of record for most brands in a film, and the bad press (“buy another day”) caused them to actually dial it back a bit in CR. But there were two bits of product placement in CR that felt painfully obvious. The Ford advert when he gets to Miami, and the “omega” line that tries its best to ruin the brilliant train scene.

    But to be fair I don’t think we can single any Bond film out for product placement. It has got very excessive in the Brosnan and Craig eras, but that’s probably just a necessity so Bond can keep up with all the mega budget blockbuster competition. Bit annoying, but I can live with it.

    I’ll never forget the scene in Die Another Day where he’s shaving after entering the hotel, and all of those “Phillips” shaving products and their packaging are sitting neatly off to the side. Definitely the most blatant attempt at product placement in any Bond film.

    Everyone using Vaio laptops in CR was more blatant in my opinion.

    I didn’t particularly notice the Ford placement as while Bond wouldn’t drive that car normally,I assumed he rented it as he didn’t have his own vehicle to hand at that time.

  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    edited December 2021 Posts: 8,226
    Delete
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,210
    Rewatching TND the other night, it hit me again how much of a plain action flick this is. Even more so than DAD, it may fit the description of a story that is a mere excuse to get from one action scene to the next. Some of that action is pretty good, by the way. I like the PTS, Bond's escape from the Hamburg facility and, of course, the BMW car chase.

    Everything changes when we arrive at Carver's Beijing tower, however. Carver provides us with a minute-long exposition on the torture to which Bond shall be subjected while Herr Stamper is upping the stakes by suggesting he might break the late Dr. Kaufman's record. The least I want to see now is an actual torture scene, or at least the start of it, with Bond having to find a clever way to get out of it. Instead, Bond and Wai Lin merely nod, the music says ready-set-go!, and a few kicks later, we're out. Meanwhile, Bond does the annoyingly bland action film thing of casually firing automatic weapons with one hand, preparing us for his 3D-shooter-game pose during the climax, when both his hands inconveniently manipulate a weapon like a character from a cheap Steven Seagal knock-off.

    This big escape is followed by another action sequence with a motor cycle, and then another during which Wai Lin kicks a couple of thugs out, and then the climax during which Bond and Wai Lin shoot up a stealth boat. A few minutes of dialogue notwithstanding, the non-action part of the film is over pretty much after Hamburg, which Bond, ironically, left with two subsequent action sequences!

    I don't dislike action. In fact, the Bonds have always provided good action scenes (except TWINE in my opinion) and I enjoy them a lot. I merely prefer them to serve a grander story and rise above the average B-level actioner from the '80s. TND lets me down on both accounts. Flying planes, driving cars and motorcycles, doing Kung-Fu, playing Rambo on a boat, ... what doesn't Bond do here? The plot runs thinner and thinner with every passing action beat, until only the least imaginative path remains to conclude this story. This is sad in retrospect, because the prophetic quality of the film's plot is impressive. Slowly crawling towards its 30th anniversary, TND could prove more relevant today than it ever was before, if the threat of Carver's plan wasn't overshadowed by an even darker threat: dullness by loudness. Arnold's score, Brosnan's stamina, Michelle Yeoh, ... the film has many really strong elements. But after the greatness that is GE (in my humble opinion), this one feels like diluted wine.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,445
    Nice post @DarthDimi you have hit it right on the head. The upshot of this movie was Pierce advocating for a return to a Bond movie where Bond uses his head and wits to get out of scrapes. This led to the producers looking for a director that would be a fit for a more character driven film than on an action vein.

    I love TND and the thrills it gives. Where the movie loses me is the climax. It is a shoot 'em up unlike we have seen in a Bond movie before. TND is a potato chip, highly addictive but not very filling.

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,210
    thedove wrote: »
    Nice post @DarthDimi you have hit it right on the head. The upshot of this movie was Pierce advocating for a return to a Bond movie where Bond uses his head and wits to get out of scrapes. This led to the producers looking for a director that would be a fit for a more character driven film than on an action vein.

    I love TND and the thrills it gives. Where the movie loses me is the climax. It is a shoot 'em up unlike we have seen in a Bond movie before. TND is a potato chip, highly addictive but not very filling.

    Thanks, @thedove. The thrills are definitely here. But I find them cheaper and cheaper as the film moves on. I'm also less than mildly invested in what is going on since the plot is kept hilariously far away from our attention. Trying to get us involved is ludicrous with all the running, kicking, (bad) shooting, flying, driving, jumping and more driving going on.
Sign In or Register to comment.