It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Okay, I want to analyse this since it's a common word used to describe TND by many.
ge·ner·ic
adjective
of, applicable to, or referring to all the members of a genus, class, group, or kind; general.
So in terms of TND, that would mean basically nothing special happens, and/or what does happen has been done before.
I don't agree. On the face of the movie I suppose I can understand it as a toss-off criticism, but Bond coming face to face with an old love had never happened before. Bond had never been paired with such a kick-a*s female agent, though some TSWLM similarities are there. Carver's stealth boat was fairly new, not the ship-swallower from TSWLM, nor quite Atlantis. Okay, there's the world war aspect from YOLT & TSWLM, but that has to pop up once every decade or two, doesn't it? The hand-to-hand was all new & original thanks to Mr. Armstrong. The machine guns... yes, there was a lot of that laced about & concentrated in the finale. I agree that a bit of it was unnecessary. But many Bond movies indulge too far... TB had a lot of underwater stuff they could have lost, OHMSS had a lot of repetitive flirty seduction that I could have done without, TSWLM had a few explosions too many perhaps...
I think the main unsaid criticism of TND is that it was almost edgy... then it wasn't. It was almost ridiculously OTT, but not really. In not being more severely rooted to reality, nor let free to soar the heights of real comic-book nonsense, it seems 'generic' in that way.
I'd call that balanced, myself. ;)
Didn't Bond have previous affairs with Pola Ivanova and Mary Goodnight?
But forgive me for being a bit nit-picky.
Though TND sits in 21st place in my ranking, I can't see why people berate the characters of Paris and Elliot Carver: IMO, they are some of the best bits of the film!
Aren't they-?
:-?
I've watched both films fairly recently and, while I prefer Brosnan's performance to Connery's, I nonetheless think YOLT is easily the classier, better film of the two.
Depends XD But seriously, anything new that it had to offer I either forgot or just didn't consider to help the series that much for innovation purposes. Either way you look at it though, I think a few people would agree with me that it's the most generic Bond film.
Well, I would say that Bond only had an "actual relationship" with two women: Tracy and Vesper.
Agreed. Which, non-coincidentally, are my favorite two Bond girls.
Its not perfect but its a pretty good Bond film I think. It maybe does seem to be too much of relentless action film at times, but still it works quite well. Carver I find to be a tad dramatic, as if he is trying a bit hard to be a quirky Bond villain, but I do like that he is a mastermind madman type, and not terribly physical. You can leave that to the henchmen and he's got a good one in Stamper.
Personally I think Hatcher is gorgeous. She doesn't bother me at all. I would have prefered the story be rejigged so that she was lead Bond-girl needing rescuing, in the Domino mode, and reduce the role of Wai Lin action Bond-girl. Not kill her, just have her be a help along the way. Although having Wai Lin being killed in action, would not exactly have been unprecedented for a Bond film.
Up until Skyfall, Tomorrow Never Dies was the first techno-thriller type Bond. Anyone agree with that? Brosnan's second effort made use of media and technology in its plot like no Bond film had done before.
Yes, that's absolutely right!
Agreed. GE was a step towards that, but TND had a lot more of it.
Yes. I'll definitely give you that for an innovation of TND. I'm sorry it's just not one of my favorites, but I respect anyone's opinion that does like it. Every Bond film has at least 1 good merit for me.
Because nothing says James Bond OO7 better, than when he's wielding two machine guns.
It's moments like this that I prefer to keep to a minimum. It goes so far from the Fleming Bond. The character becomes yet another faceless hero, guns ablazing, using a humorous quip when he's done with the bloodshed.
This is what I like about it. The theme at the heart of it is original for a Bond. For that reason alone I would be loathe to describe the movie as generic. Then again no Bond is generic in my eyes. They all have, in varying amounts, a frisson here and there that elevates them above a standard spy thriller or action flick. TND has plenty of great moments. As a few people have pointed out, the PTS is a particular highlight. IMHO it hasn't been bettered in the intervening years. TWINE was far too long, punctuated infrequently with moments of greatness. DAD was lacking in pace and jeopardy, with Brozzer lacking the swagger of TND. CR was very good, but is almost incomparable in terms of the content one would expect from a PTS. QoS could have been great, and at times was, but was lacking in coherence and content. SF was again very good, but I think TND was paced, edited and scored better as a package. The cross-cutting between MI6 and Bond hasn't been bettered.
He had to use his resources man; a watch wouldn't do. I also think that the amount of violence was what audiences in the 1990s preferred.
I prefer the shots of him setting up the grenade/jar bomb. THAT'S using resources.
Neither is a man ploughing a JCB into a train and then scaling it to reach the roof of said train. I don't think believability has anything to do with it, more a case of taste and how you want your Bond portrayed.
You're right. I suppose its a case of "how many times have we seen other action heroes do that"?
That is my issue with TND: it is so darn generic, by-the-number, unimaginative. I am not the biggest fan of LTK because although it does try in many ways to channel the spirit of Fleming, it uses far too many 80s action movies clichés. TND has the same problem, tenfold. It is a 90s action movies cliché-fest, with some of Bond movies's tropes to remind ourselves that it is a Bond movie. Some of the action is good, but Brosnan by moments plays Bond like a Terminator wearing a tuxedo. No time for character development, let's have one of the Bond girls a former flame, so he can bed her quickly, then let's not mention her again (or barely). Then there's one action piece, then another, then another... And let's have Bond play a video game, err I mean remote control his car, so he can have his BMW beat up the badguys in a parking lot. How exciting.
And SF Is a reworking of the premise from TWINE.
And AVTAK is GF.
You want originality? That was over in the 60's. :))