›

Has Mission Impossible surpassed Bond?

1…1011131516…22

Comments

  • patbpatb
    edited December 2015 Posts: 4,617
    If there is profit, they will keep MI going. We have seen the industry squeeze every last dollar on sequels, often with appalling results. The key issue is will they think its sustainable as a long term franchise (like Bond) or just a couple of horrible cheap cash cows. One of the issues is how few potential leading men there are who could take over, but, unlike Bond, it's not a direct replacement. A different person with a different character and with a chance to pass over the baton. (K Urban anyone?) Can do action and great comic timing.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    edited December 2015 Posts: 5,767
    bondjames wrote: »
    RN isn't a better made film. It's a deft action movie, but it hits all the beats too neatly. SP doesn't, it's a more unique vision and while the story has and will continue to piss people off, it's much more idiosyncratic with far superior cinematography, direction, mis-en-scene, acting and production design. The only area in which I'd concede to RN is score, but even that is far from brilliant. RN is like a Furious movie, no definable identity, but good fun to watch on a flight somewhere.
    SP´s vision is so unique half of the audience doesn´t seem to get anywhere near grasping it, and it´s not the story which pisses people off, but the fact that, unlike older Bond films, they have too much space to think about the story.

    Couldn´t disagree more about cinematography, direction and definable identity.



    RC7 wrote: »
    I can agree to disagree, after all it is subjective. What I find hard to believe is that anyone could consider RN's cinematography to be superior to SP. Colour Palette, fair enough, but cinematography as a craft, no way in my book.
    Hoytema is much too insecure. In the Mexico scenes alone, his work sways like a reed in a storm between breathtaking and annoyingly self-conscious, screaming, "look what I can do with a camera!"
    The same goes for Mendes. D.o.p. and director should never stand in the way of the film.
  • patbpatb
    edited December 2015 Posts: 4,617
    "SP´s vision is so unique half of the audience doesn´t seem to get anywhere near grasping it,"
    Blaming the audience for not grasping the vision is a cop out I am afraid, the movie is made for the audience. This is mainstream box office blockbuster territory, not art house "out of the box" stuff. If the audience don't get it, then it's the movie that has failed, not the audience.
    Its the type of statement that some would make to defend Tracy Emin's bed.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    patb wrote: »
    "SP´s vision is so unique half of the audience doesn´t seem to get anywhere near grasping it,"
    Blaming the audience for not grasping the vision is a cop out I am afraid, the movie is made for the audience. This is mainstream box office blockbuster territory, not art house "out of the box" stuff. If the audience don't get it, then it's the movie that has failed, not the audience.
    Its the type of statement that some would make to defend Tracy Emin's bed.
    I don´t know who Tracy Emin might be, but just for the record, I was trying to be sarcastic, and not blaming the audience at all.

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    boldfinger wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    RN isn't a better made film. It's a deft action movie, but it hits all the beats too neatly. SP doesn't, it's a more unique vision and while the story has and will continue to piss people off, it's much more idiosyncratic with far superior cinematography, direction, mis-en-scene, acting and production design. The only area in which I'd concede to RN is score, but even that is far from brilliant. RN is like a Furious movie, no definable identity, but good fun to watch on a flight somewhere.
    SP´s vision is so unique half of the audience doesn´t seem to get anywhere near grasping it, and it´s not the story which pisses people off, but the fact that, unlike older Bond films, they have too much space to think about the story.

    Couldn´t disagree more about cinematography, direction and definable identity.

    I try not to speak on behalf of the general audience, I find it a little presumptuous, but if you have evidence that half the audience doesn't grasp the film and has too much time to think about the story, feel free to share.

    I personally think most areas of SP are far better than I've seen described here and infinitely superior to MI which is, an albeit expertly made, cookie cutter operation in terms of craft. The script is intermittently wayward in both, so arguing over which takes the points is tantamount to fighting over who's the tallest dwarf. For me RN lacks any romance, or richness in its aesthetics, it doesn't go beyond finely tuned film school gloss in my eyes.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2015 Posts: 23,883
    RC7 wrote: »
    The script is intermittently wayward in both, so arguing over which takes the points is tantamount to fighting over who's the tallest dwarf. For me RN lacks any romance, or richness in its aesthetics, it doesn't go beyond finely tuned film school gloss in my eyes.
    That's true - the script is wayward in both. While I appreciate your view, I found the romance (hint of attraction) in MI-RN to be far more convincing than the actual romance in SP, and the film more pleasing aesthetically.
    I agree with you that MI-RN is nothing more than finely tuned film gloss, as was MI-GP. Superbly realized & executed however, imho. They never attempted to be anything more and delivered on their premise beautifully.

    Where we differ is I didn't see anything more impressive about SP (other than film gloss), nor did I find it as well tuned a product overall. If there was meant to be some depth or hidden meaning in it, I completely missed it.

    With the SF/MI-GP comparison however, I did find more depth in SF. It was a meaningful revenge thriller to GP's more generic actioner, and that's why I preferred it, although GP had the far superior action again. Deakins didn't hurt either.

    The fact that we can have this conversation in 2015 says something, because there was a time not so long ago (certainly in 2006 - the year of CR/MI3) when I would have said Bond wiped the floor with Hunt. There wasn't even anything to discuss then, imho. For me, all your points applied to that year. Bond just killed it.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    RC7 wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    RN isn't a better made film. It's a deft action movie, but it hits all the beats too neatly. SP doesn't, it's a more unique vision and while the story has and will continue to piss people off, it's much more idiosyncratic with far superior cinematography, direction, mis-en-scene, acting and production design. The only area in which I'd concede to RN is score, but even that is far from brilliant. RN is like a Furious movie, no definable identity, but good fun to watch on a flight somewhere.
    SP´s vision is so unique half of the audience doesn´t seem to get anywhere near grasping it, and it´s not the story which pisses people off, but the fact that, unlike older Bond films, they have too much space to think about the story.

    Couldn´t disagree more about cinematography, direction and definable identity.

    I try not to speak on behalf of the general audience, I find it a little presumptuous, but if you have evidence that half the audience doesn't grasp the film and has too much time to think about the story, feel free to share.

    I personally think most areas of SP are far better than I've seen described here and infinitely superior to MI which is, an albeit expertly made, cookie cutter operation in terms of craft. The script is intermittently wayward in both, so arguing over which takes the points is tantamount to fighting over who's the tallest dwarf. For me RN lacks any romance, or richness in its aesthetics, it doesn't go beyond finely tuned film school gloss in my eyes.
    More than any script or technicalities I find it important that RN drew me into film and story, while SP drove me out of it. If you felt differently with SP, I envy you. I really had a hard time digesting the fact that a Bond film does this to me.

  • patbpatb
    Posts: 4,617
    Yes, agree with that point. In the underwater scene, you find yourself on the edge of your seat, really involved. Fear of drowning is something that most people have or can empathise with and it used this well to create genuine drama and tension. Bond was drilled into his head and yet, I personally did not feel the same level of involvement. RN is a very conventional movie, executed to a very high level. In contrast IMHO, there is something very strange about Spectre that (and many others) are still trying to get to grips with.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,217
    For morons? I resemble that remark :P
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Well Tosca, or specifically in this case Puccini's Turandot, is not for everyone.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,217
    No problem ;)
  • LudovicoLudovico
    edited December 2015 Posts: 15,124
    The thing is, I liked the original series. I was not a fan, but it was fun and clever. I never found it in the M:I movies I saw. I liked the first one, but it lost the team spirit that was central to the show. Bond movies at their best, and sometimes even at their worst, have character, atmosphere, class, something I always found M:I lacked. It is a Tom Cruise vehicle, about Tom Cruise doing stunts and looking good for his age. Surpassing Bond? The M:I movies have not even surpassed the TV program they are based on!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Ludovico wrote: »
    The thing is, I liked the original series. I was not a fan, but it was fun and clever. I never found it in the M:I movies I saw. I liked the first one, but it lost the team spirit that was central to the show. Bond movies at their best, and sometimes even at their worst, have character, atmosphere, class, something I always found M:I lacked. It is a Tom Cruise vehicle, about Tom Cruise doing stunts and looking good for his age. Surpassing Bond? The M:I movies have not even surpassed the TV program they are based on!
    As I said earlier, the last two are definitely 'team' vehicles. I recommend you check them out - you may enjoy them more than the first three - I certainly have. It's not for everyone though, apparently.
  • patbpatb
    edited December 2015 Posts: 4,617
    MI has the advantage of offering the audience emotional content without the danger of undermining the central character. For example, the scene on the barge where Benji refuses to go back as he is Hunt's friend. Friendship and bonding are powerful themes that can drive narrative. In recent years, the Bond franchise has struggled in trying to bring emotional depth and , on every occasion, causes debate and discussion. Bond obviously has the much larger legacy but, in a way, that can be a negative as everything the writers do is scrutinised and sometimes criticised as not being in keeping with Bond. My gut reaction is that over the next Bond movies, we will be seeing a much more team/collaborative approach re the way he works.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    edited December 2015 Posts: 5,767
    Ludovico wrote: »
    The thing is, I liked the original series. I was not a fan, but it was fun and clever. I never found it in the M:I movies I saw. I liked the first one, but it lost the team spirit that was central to the show. Bond movies at their best, and sometimes even at their worst, have character, atmosphere, class, something I always found M:I lacked. It is a Tom Cruise vehicle, about Tom Cruise doing stunts and looking good for his age. Surpassing Bond? The M:I movies have not even surpassed the TV program they are based on!
    That is more or less what I thought. Until seemingly out of nowhere M:I4 came and I had to admit to myself that I really like this film. The same goes for M:I5. With SF and SP it is more or less the other way round...

    I have nothing against a 40-year-old franchise trying to re-invent itself and stay fresh. The problem I have with SF and SP is, I don´t really find them fresh. QoS borrows a lot from Bourne2&3, but IMO that doesn´t diminish it´s freshness. And my recent viewing of TFA shows me very clearly that I much prefer something not original but done really good over something original but badly executed.

  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Posts: 4,520
    It is shame we don't get another Mission Impossible movie in 2004 when we the hardest needed entertainment Bond then ever after big shame of anti Brosnan campagne. Mi4 in 2011 whas very welcome when Bond faild again not giving us Bond 23 already in 2010.

    Also very nice Mission Impossible 6 be in 2017 (Confirm for July 2017, but i think it wil be delayd to December 2017) when Bond will fail again.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Bond never failed at anything. 8-|
    Where did this Anti-Bond talk come from?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    @Murdock, I believe @M_Balje is referring to EON's inability to give us a Bond film every two years any more.
  • daltondalton
    Posts: 1,631
    Having finally seen Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation for the first time last night, I think that this time around, Tom Cruise did beat the Bond franchise. I rather like Spectre, but the new M:I film was just better all around, but especially in terms of its action, which was leaps and bounds better than what we saw in the latest Bond.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,124
    How was the action in DN? Bond are spy movies first. Same with M:I in its original form actually: it was based on suspense and manipulation not big loud action.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    edited December 2015 Posts: 4,116
    M_Balje wrote: »
    It is shame we don't get another Mission Impossible movie in 2004 when we the hardest needed entertainment Bond then ever after big shame of anti Brosnan campagne. Mi4 in 2011 whas very welcome when Bond faild again not giving us Bond 23 already in 2010.

    Also very nice Mission Impossible 6 be in 2017 (Confirm for July 2017, but i think it wil be delayd to December 2017) when Bond will fail again.

    Yea I don't agree with that at all. As critical as I have been with SP I still enjoy it and it's still one if my "Bond babies" that I'll root for until the end ..

    EDIT: I'm sorry too early ..I misread post. Thanks @bondjames for pointing out the posters meaning.
  • daltondalton
    Posts: 1,631
    Ludovico wrote: »
    How was the action in DN? Bond are spy movies first. Same with M:I in its original form actually: it was based on suspense and manipulation not big loud action.

    Which is all fine and good, but when Bond insists on having big action set pieces, it's not too much to ask for those set pieces to be good. And when we're forced to have action set pieces as a major focus of the films, it's not too much to ask that they do it better than their rivals, which they failed to do this time around.

    I'd love for Bond to scale way back on the action, but since they're not going to do that, they could at least match what their rivals are doing in terms of quality. Rogue Nation's car chase is exciting and has some semblance of tension to it, while Spectre's car chase is just two cars speeding through an empty city while Bond talks to Moneypenny on the phone.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    dalton wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    How was the action in DN? Bond are spy movies first. Same with M:I in its original form actually: it was based on suspense and manipulation not big loud action.

    Which is all fine and good, but when Bond insists on having big action set pieces, it's not too much to ask for those set pieces to be good. And when we're forced to have action set pieces as a major focus of the films, it's not too much to ask that they do it better than their rivals, which they failed to do this time around.

    I'd love for Bond to scale way back on the action, but since they're not going to do that, they could at least match what their rivals are doing in terms of quality. Rogue Nation's car chase is exciting and has some semblance of tension to it, while Spectre's car chase is just two cars speeding through an empty city while Bond talks to Moneypenny on the phone.

    Agreed.




  • patbpatb
    Posts: 4,617
    The recent discussion re Bond being an action movie or not is the perfect example re a lack of consensus re what a Bond movie should be. The franchise recently has been pulled in multiple directions - more action, grittier action, more emotion/love, reboots, old villains etc etc, every time a new movie comes out, we see the same discussion where the actual core of the topic is "what do we actually want Bond to be?", and the producers dont seem to have a long term plan with the directors/writers bringing in their own input and changing core values from one movie to the next. Re the gen public, their expectations need to be managed concerning exactly what to expect from a Bond movie. I don't think the public like surprises, they want to book their tickets knowing exactly what they are going to get in terms of genre and values. With MI, Hunt and his team deliver what the punters expect every time and I am not convinced you can make the same statement concerning Bond in recent years.
  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    Posts: 5,185
    No way will MI ever surpass 007 for me. I do enjoy Mission Impossible a lot, i have all the movies in my blu ray collection, but Bond is a whole universe to me, books, games, comics... movies. and probably some other stuff i forgot about. and i am into all of it, i'm a 100% Bond geek.
    Bond is - by now - a timeless flawed character, that is distinguishable from any other and known all around the world. He has certain principles and a way of life, and some of it has certainly slipped into my own life just because i am such a big fan, he even informed the job i am working in today (and no, i don't kill people)
    what i am trying to say is that Bond 'means' something to me, and i am sure to a lot of other people all around the world, whereas MI is just a bunch of great fun action adventures that you watch and then forget about, with Ethan Cruise... ehh Hunt, front and center, a character that has not much going for him except a perfect colgate smile and a deathwish (they should have never killed jim phelps, biggest mistake ever that made the tv series virtually worthless).
    so when someone tells me that MI is a better franchise now because it had a better box office or whatever, i could not care less. MI will never ever come close to the behemoth that is 007 anyways. I would stick with Bond even if it turns into a lower budget TV series.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2015 Posts: 23,883
    patb wrote: »
    The recent discussion re Bond being an action movie or not is the perfect example re a lack of consensus re what a Bond movie should be. The franchise recently has been pulled in multiple directions - more action, grittier action, more emotion/love, reboots, old villains etc etc, every time a new movie comes out, we see the same discussion where the actual core of the topic is "what do we actually want Bond to be?", and the producers dont seem to have a long term plan with the directors/writers bringing in their own input and changing core values from one movie to the next. Re the gen public, their expectations need to be managed concerning exactly what to expect from a Bond movie. I don't think the public like surprises, they want to book their tickets knowing exactly what they are going to get in terms of genre and values. With MI, Hunt and his team deliver what the punters expect every time and I am not convinced you can make the same statement concerning Bond in recent years.
    That's true @patb. I think the public (and the fans) can forgive nearly anything that Bond gives them though, since there is so much goodwill towards Bond, similar to Star Wars. The franchise is near unkillable.

    Speaking purely from my perspective, the one thing I cannot forgive though is mediocrity in anything they do, whether it be scripting, action, casting, trope recollection, cinematography etc. If you're going to do action and have your protagonist be blase about everything that occurs on screen then at least do it in a class leading way. Engage me. Thrill me. Don't bore me. Don't make me feel like I've seen it done better before. Don't make it appear to me that you're paying it lip service or just filling in a blank.
  • CowleyCowley
    edited December 2015 Posts: 486
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    How was the action in DN? Bond are spy movies first. Same with M:I in its original form actually: it was based on suspense and manipulation not big loud action.

    Exactly. I get aggravated by this missed point often. I prefer to think of Bond films as adventure stories or thrillers (as in the novels and early films) rather than action movies (Brosnan Era). I don't care for them to be compared and contrasted to Marvel movies, Batman movies, etc. That's slumming. Bond films were originally aimed at adults, and with the Craig Era, we've mostly gotten back to that.

    That's how I see Bond too. Let's face it even the earlier Bond stunts and action sequences which were more novel and exhilarating don't feature in best action sequence/car chase run downs.

    Not sure Bond should be courting the favour of an audience that will only just shun it for Die Hard or MI anyway

    I'd say the best collection of stuntwork was in the John Glen films but even some Bond fans fail to appreciate those brief moments of Remy Julienne brilliance over the more flabby and langrous Vic Armstrong snoozathons.

    The Bond films attraction for me is the resourcefulness of the hero and the presentation of the slightly exaggerated espionage world he resides in. The combination of suspense\thriller\adventure\humour.

    THAT SAID I haven't watched any of the MI films but the trailer for Rogue Nation did pique my curiosity more so than any previous MI film, perhaps because of a Bond resemblance. I'm actually tempted to buy the five film Blu Ray set after Christmas and see the whole lot whilst waiting for the release of SP.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,801
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    How was the action in DN? Bond are spy movies first. Same with M:I in its original form actually: it was based on suspense and manipulation not big loud action.

    Exactly. I get aggravated by this missed point often. I prefer to think of Bond films as adventure stories or thrillers (as in the novels and early films) rather than action movies (Brosnan Era). I don't care for them to be compared and contrasted to Marvel movies, Batman movies, etc. That's slumming. Bond films were originally aimed at adults, and with the Craig Era, we've mostly gotten back to that.
    Precisely. Which is why I say let Hunt have the big action & have Bond do more actual undercover spy work. With some action as a desert, not the main meal.
  • CowleyCowley
    Posts: 486
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Precisely. Which is why I say let Hunt have the big action & have Bond do more actual undercover spy work. With some action as a desert, not the main meal.

    It was nice to have the 'Jellyfish' scene in Skyfall with Bond stalking his prey Patrice. I'd like to see more of the covert assassin which we know Bond to be.
  • patbpatb
    edited December 2015 Posts: 4,617
    Irrespective of ones taste re the MI series, I think it's human nature for any half curious/clever Bond fan to watch RN and wonder how those stunts/set pieces would work in a Bond movie. For example, re the sequence with the A400, does anyone think this would NOT have been a great addition to a Bond movie? Its a remarkable piece of work (simple but effective) IMHO and something that would have gone down in Bond history. It is also the proper use of CGI , masking the safety net and not the stunt itself.
    Perhaps the same could be said for the underwater scene (count downs are a key part of Bond culture after all) and, despite the masks originating from the first MI, they still have the capacity to catch you off guard and provide great plot twists. After decades of Bond, its interesting to me that the MI team are coming up with fresh, innovative but simple ideas that create real thrill and drama. Its all to play for and a shame that 2016 will be so quiet but I do feel that Bond is being squeezed by MI and Bourne and they need to sit down and have a long term plan rather than shifting styles and core values from one movie to another.
Sign In or Register to comment.