The Bond films of the 1980's Vs. The Bond films of the 1990's

chrisisall

Manxman wrote:

the sleep-inducing catalogue of clichés known as Tomorrow Never Dies.

That's very clever, but not quite correct. But then anyone who doesn't like TND usually relies on one of THE STANDARD two words to base their argument upon: cliche' or generic. In actual debate, TND has been found guilty in only two areas: Re-use of the common world war threat, and somewhat heavy action near the end. Those two 'infractions' are not enough to label it negatively by other than this incredibly useful & technically accurate phrase: "I just didn't like it." )

Thunderpussy

Just to go against the grain, I actually quite like TND. )

chrisisall

Thunderpussy wrote:

Just to go against the grain, I actually quite like TND. )

We'd better be careful- some may want to throw us in water to see if we weigh the same as ducks...

Manxman

chrisisall wrote:

Manxman wrote:

the sleep-inducing catalogue of clichés known as Tomorrow Never Dies.

That's very clever, but not quite correct. But then anyone who doesn't like TND usually relies on one of THE STANDARD two words to base their argument upon: cliche' or generic. In actual debate, TND has been found guilty in only two areas: Re-use of the common world war threat, and somewhat heavy action near the end. Those two 'infractions' are not enough to label it negatively by other than this incredibly useful & technically accurate phrase: "I just didn't like it." )

I also find the villain very clichéd, being a stereotypical icy psychopath. I prefer my Bond villains to have more interesting motivations and characterisations, and especially like the OHMSS Blofeld, Kananga, Scaramanga (though I don't like TMWTGG much), Kristatos, Kamal Khan, Koskov, Sanchez and Silva. It's a pity, as Jonathan Pryce is an excellent actor, but he only occasionally seems to come alive, particularly during the scene where he mocks Wai Lin's martial arts prowess. A sarcastic, animated Bond villain would have brought a refreshing twist to the film, which unfortunately turned out as a series of stereotypical action pieces in search of a compelling hook.

chrisisall

Manxman wrote:

I also find the villain very clichéd, being a stereotypical icy psychopath. I prefer my Bond villains to have more interesting motivations and characterisations, and especially like the OHMSS Blofeld, Kananga, Scaramanga , Kristatos, Kamal Khan, Koskov, Sanchez and Silva.

Nope, no psychopaths there.
BTW, how's your foot?
Mine always hurts when I shoot myself in it as you've done here... )

AlphaOmegaSin

Blofeld is the most Stereotyped Villain ever )

Manxman

Psychopaths maybe, but by no means stereotypical or icy. The OHMSS Blofeld is a pompous thug looking to elevate himself into high society, whilst Kananga is a banana republic politician leading a double life, enabling him to create a genuinely imaginative get-rich-quick scheme (whether solely for himself or to benefit his country, we are never told). Finally, Silva is a man betrayed by those he thought interested in his welfare, which has driven him to extraordinary levels of revenge (rather like the villain in the fantastic Scandinavian TV series The Bridge). On that basis, I can assure you that both of my feet are intact and unharmed.

chrisisall

Manxman wrote:

On that basis, I can assure you that both of my feet are intact and unharmed.

Excellent comeback! -{

Pryce's Carver was deliciously twisted IMO. Possibly starting a war for ratings? We'd never seen such a positively self-destructive villain like him before (Silva would be the only other in his class). He was clearly a self-made man, and at some point I conjure he was a fairly decent one. But he was surely descending into madness. He seemed to spiral down a bit as the movie progressed. Most Bond villains are pretty messed up, but we usually don't SEE them deteriorating on screen.
I find Carver to be far from a simple, stereotyped bad guy.

Manxman

I think Carver could have been the interesting, multifaceted character you describe, and Jonathan Pryce could have played him brilliantly, but he just wasn't given the chance. For instance, instead of psychopathic motives of greed and power, he could have been portrayed as a man who had been reporting bad news for years and had despaired at the state of global politics and decided to do something dramatic to shake up the established world order. As it is, the attempts to make him multifaceted (his apparent interest in "chakra torture", for instance) seem rather out-of-character and he simply comes across as a stock icy madman.

chrisisall

Manxman wrote:

instead of psychopathic motives of greed and power

That wasn't his motivation at all!
"Soon I'll have reached out to and influenced more people than anybody in the history of this planet, save God himself. And the best he ever managed was the Sermon on the Mount."
THAT'S what it was all about. God complex. Being able to outdo anyone who's ever lived. Not sheer greed or lust for power. The need to be worshipped.