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
I watched TLD recently and was so impressed with that final air fight between Necros and Bond (apart from the netting problem which I discussed on another thread) - it's obvious where they got the inspiration for that MI-RN scene. Glen sure knew how to film aerial sequences with stuntmen really well. There was a similar scary part in that scene too, when the stuntman is hanging onto the netting which is flapping up and down and about (post-Necros fall) and you think he's going to bang his head on the ramp.
True ..and just about every cargo plane sequence after TLD from DAD to RN reminds of the TLD original.
Ditto for the MR freefall and the OP climax.
Cruise is nuts.
The day Ethan Hunt can keep me interested ordering a breakfast of figs and yogurt I'd say yes maybe he reached Bond. But this is unlikely to happen: Hunt has no time for breakfast. He's busy doing all these cool stunts. I like my hero to be cool when he drinks coffee.
I don't think that anyone is arguing the opposite, for Bond to become a wall-to-wall action franchise like it almost did during the 1990s. But, if EON isn't going to scale back these massive action set pieces (which I wish they would, as it would better serve the franchise for them to do so), then why not have those action set pieces (not the entire film, just the set pieces) rival the quality of other franchises who are doing similar set pieces better?
Just because I don't go to see a Bond film for the action doesn't mean that, when the action is served up, that I'm willing to accept a lesser standard because that's not what the focus of the film is. As much as I like Spectre, that car chase was an embarrassment. Now, I don't know what the were and were not allowed to do with regards to their agreement with Roman officials and/or their agreement and/or supply with Aston Martin would allow them to do in that sequence, but it did not come off well. Just because I don't go to see Bond simply for car chases and other action sequences doesn't mean that, when they feel the need to shoehorn one of them into the film, that I'm going to be willing to sit in the audience and think to myself "Well, this isn't really what Bond is supposed to be about, therefore I'm willing to overlook the fact that it's not as good as [insert name of film here]".
If they're going to insist on doing this over-the-top action (i.e. plane/car chases, etc.) in the Bond films, then it should be good. Again, I'd much, much prefer that they scaled it back, took the franchise back to something closer to the early days of Dr. No and From Russia With Love, but short of that, I don't think that it's asking too much, nor do I think it's blasphemous, to ask EON to up their game, especially when other franchises around them, that are selling a similar product, are doing it much better.
We're not really debating the history of Bond vs. Hunt here (although the thread title may suggest as much). That's a clear win for Bond and not even worth discussing.
It's more about the execution of the premise in the last two film installments of both franchises, which is a much closer discussion.
Or CR even.
What we're really focused on is the last two cinematic installments, what they've attempted to achieve, and how well they've gone about doing it. I think you really have to see them first and then we can have a more detailed discussion.
Very much agreed.
This one time around, Spectre vs Rogue Nation, I think the decision goes to Cruise. Just this one time around. Skyfall wiped the floor with Ghost Protocol and the Bond films released alongside or in close proximity to M:I-1-3 were generally superior.
RN and SP are very similar films, but RN's script is more focused and does a better job of showing the audience what is going on rather than telling the audience, as SP does constantly. The action set pieces in RN are also, as I already stated, significantly better than those found in SP. It's obvious from watching SP that there were too many cooks in the kitchen, and the film suffered for it, even though it does stand as an enjoyable entry in the franchise.
I would say to those that point to the legacy of Bond, if the franchise relies on that rather than the quality of the latest (and future) release, there maybe trouble ahead. Bond fans like the heritage and detail but, IMHO, it means far less to Jo Public who judge it more on the entertainment value whilst in the cinema. New generations have been brought up with MI (and Cruise) as part of their culture as Bond. Bond and Hunt were both around when my sons were born and they like them equally. (the whole Connery era has no meaning to them at all). Do the books and decades of history mean much to teenagers? I dont think so. I see that the next MI is already signed up with consistancy re script, director and main cast. The Bond team cant keep playing with the formula , it will become tiresome to jo public , IMHO
Re boldfingers point about the varying MI quality, these are down largely to directors styles (2 was relatively poor I agree) but Hunt is always Hunt. Look at the variation in Craig's Bond within the different movies. There are styles of dialogue that he says in one movie that you would not recognise being said in another. In one he is a newby/green beginner, 2 movies later, he is an old codger being taken off to the scrap yard. As fans, these different styles are good to discuss and contrast but we never had that within the SC or RM era and, as a "brand" it leads to confusion and inconsistancy from jo public's perspective. THE key variable in the Bond cocktail is Bond himself. Recently, it seems as if we don't know which Bond will turn up. When you went to see a SC Bond, he was Bond, pure and simple. It was simply never a variable within the equation (although DAF did get a little silly)
A lot of really good points here, @patb
With regards to the legacy issue, I think that's a problem that has plagued the franchise since the new regime took over, but really got kicked into overdrive with Die Another Day. It's just a nonstop parade of references at this point. That's OK for an anniversary film (but less so when the distance between films grows larger, as there's less films between the anniversary films), but they're making those a huge part of every film. With all of the problems with the script for Spectre, they relied far too heavily on references and call-backs, hoping to appease the audience with those since there was an excruciatingly weak story on display.
Eventually, though, they're going to run out of things to call-back to. If EON doesn't start creating their own unique moments from film to film, then we'll be seeing filmmakers on the 50th and 75th anniversaries making call-backs to moments in the current films that were themselves call-backs to the early days of the franchise. The reboot was supposed to be an opportunity to really reset everything (kind of the point of a reboot) and build something new, but all of that got chucked by the wayside a measly two films in.
Despite what EON would like to think, their current films firmly fit in the action genre. The set pieces are usually gigantic, bigger than what you'd see in a lot of your prototypical action films. There's nothing wrong with that, but if that's the direction that they want to go, then embrace it and do it well. The action in Spectre is decidedly poor, with the plane and car chases lacking any impact whatsoever. While the Mission: Impossible films have basically become a straight-up action franchise, and therefore the emphasis is often on the action, there's no reason that Bond can't aim for the heights that Tom Cruise and company achieve in their own action set pieces while not seeking to resemble Cruise's franchise in the other aspects. Bond should continue to be a more well-defined character than Ethan Hunt, drawing upon as much of Fleming's characterization of him as possible, but if EON is going to continue to emulate the other big-budget action franchises of the time (Batman, Bourne, and so on), then the least that they could do is do a good job of emulating those things.
I still preferred Spectre, but some of the action scenes did feel decidedly undernourished, regrettably. MI came off as the stronger action film, if anything.
But there's no official saying in which is better; it all boils down to your own opinion. I love both, and feel no need to compare one or the other or say which I do or don't like more. I'll buy SP on blu-ray, I already own RN on blu-ray, and I'll watch and enjoy both, time and time again.
Why narrow yourself to two installments though? How about taking Craig's Bonds as a whole and Cruise's MI movies as a whole? In any case, they are both from a certain source and you can (and IMO should) compare it to the source material as well. Which is where the M:I movies fail.
Of course, but my point is - regardless of what you feel is the stronger film, this is just another chapter in the series. Perhaps in the upcoming sequels, Bond will be stronger than MI in your opinion or vice versa. Just one film's superiority over another does nothing to establish the superiority of the franchise, which is why "surpassed" is an incorrect term, IMO.
I agree, I never made that point, though. It all comes down to personal preference.
You and I both. Posting on this site on my iPhone is a total gamble: sometimes it works flawlessly, other times it refuses to entirely.
I found the last two MI films to be extremely enjoyable action films, with great teamwork & rapport between the IMF members (more so than in previous installments). They were first and foremost MI films, but MI-RN, in addition to the above, was also a great thriller as well, with quite a few Bondian elements in it.
I suggest you give the last two a watch, and then let's discuss.
Also, you remind me, considering franchise vs franchise, that Bond´s future was in the stars after LTK, and the IMO most valuable heritage was there already. Since GE, Eon managed to make more and more money, at the cost of a clear direction.
I don´t understand. How do Bond films, which took hardly more than titles and names from novels, fail or don´t fail?
The thing is, the M:I franchise is on the rise right now. For how long, nobody knows.
The Bond franchise, heritage being heritage, meanders right now. For how long, nobody knows. Bond has pulled itself out of deep sh*t more than once, and the experiments of Eon V2.0 payed off more often than not. If I were to view the Bond franchise via the internet after TMWTGG, I would write it off immediately. After LTK, it was more written off than not. If for some reason Cruise should age in the coming year and lose his breath in the next M:I film, the public will remember not more than two or three successful M:I films. But right now, M:I films are tighter and make more sense as entertainment than Bond films.
That´s why I wrote some pages back that Bond subpassed M:I :ar! .
CR, while adapting a lot from the source novel, was very free from the franchise´ history, and it provided a huge financial basis to keep going. In fact, CR and QoS managed the marvellous feat of establishing a completely new Bond character. They had something very strong to build on further. Noone knows why they didn´t do that.
PS Am I looking too deeply but is there a little dig at Bond within RN when Renner and Rhames start bickering about why they are doing a car chase in a Land Rover (its a cream long wheel base version that we see Bond using in SF), its a tiny piece of dialogue but a great example of how the characters/team dynamic have developed.
up their game ! :)
-While I enjoyed both, I am now of the opinion that RN is the best MI film, and superior to GP.
-After my first watch in the theatre I thought GP was still better and I know why now. It's because the earlier film has a few more standout sequences, like the Dubai skyscraper & India indoor parking garage, as well as Budapest. It also seems to have a little more scale & scope, with the nuclear plot. However, on a back to back viewing (and I hadn't seen it in years, so it was still fresh) it came across a little dull and listless overall compared to the new film. I'd compare it to watching MR & then watching OP, with the latter film being the more exciting one, despite the larger scale of the former.
-RN is just so much more engaging and thrilling, with no dead spots.
The key winners.
-McQuarrie is a brilliant director for this franchise and I'm glad they have him back for 6. He really knows how to direct the action and also get the most out of all his actors. I think he did a better job than Brad Bird on GP, although both were very good.
-humour is pitch perfect throughout. Superb
-the Turandot Opera sequence is an incredible piece of direction. Obviously inspired by the Tosca sequence in QoS, I think it far surpasses it. Almost operatic/ balletic itself in the way it is filmed.
-Cruise has improved tremendously in the role since the earlier films. He appeared smug and a little conceited in the first two in particular and overly emotional/animated in the third. Since GP however, he has demonstrated a little maturity and restraint, while still giving off the trademark bravado. Moreover, there is a weariness to his characterization now that is welcome.
-Ferguson is marvelous. I just couldn't take my eyes off her. Not only is she beautiful, but she is completely believable as a British spy equivalent of Hunt.
-Alec Baldwin was a master stroke casting decision. He gives the film a necessary gravitas that was missing from GP.
-The nasal voiced Sean Harris is great as Lane. Superb. Much better on the small screen and suitably cold hearted without overplaying it. I actually want him to return in MI-6.
-teamwork. As has been mentioned, they've got this down perfectly now, and every one of the gang contributes without overshadowing or being annoying.
-characterizations - very good in both but better in RN.I was fully invested in all of the characters from the start.
-score. Joe Kraemer is a genius. He pulled in aspects of the TV show score along with Lalo's signature tune itself. Get this man for Bond please - he knows what he's doing
I realized when watching it that Cruise will likely sign off with MI6, which means he would have been playing Hunt almost throughout the entire tenures of two long serving Bond actors, namely Brosnan & Craig. That is a notable achievement.
MI-RN is a marvelous creation and will be a challenge to top.
Yes, those are good points @patb, particularly about 'brand' and 'style consistency'. Sorry I didn't read your post earlier
Yes, that is true and I think they could indeed do this going forward post-Cruise, i.e. make it more of a full-on team oriented vehicle.
On my rewatch yesterday, it's clear that Cruise is still the driving force and has more charisma than all the other actors put together, but they could still do it, even with Cruise only in a supporting role - he could come in from time to time to support the action without being the key man, but they will need someone more charismatic than Renner to anchor it imho.
I suspect it was because of the tepid reaction to QoS. The first two were made during the Bourne resurgence which ended in 2007 and took EON in a more fundamental and realistic direction.
As has been mentioned elsewhere including on this board, I think Nolan's massive success with TDK, released in the same year as QoS, caused EON to reposition their reboot. Mendes was a fan too, and that led to SF. SP in turn has certainly borrowed elements from TDKR (author of pain / brother in shadows rather than League of Shadows etc.) but without the same detail in characterizations that there was in SF, nor the consistency in tone and characterization which was there in TDK/TDKR either, to its considerable detriment imho.
Ultimately, the overall direction of the franchise going forward depends on the scope and vision of the producers, and I sure hope they sit down and figure it out soon.
I really, really enjoyed both RN and SP and I will most probably wear out my bluray disc of both films due to rewatching them on a constant basis.
I agree with all you say, and I hope that Eon were just dumbfounded and scared by the billion SF made, and got shook awake by how SP turned out.
I wonder how much or on which level the public reaction to QoS scared Eon so much that they dropped so many elements they could have easily continued with. All the public cried about was the editing of QoS. I can understand that they left out Quantum for the time being, because Joe Public hears the word and thinks of QoS, not good, I get that. But still, they could have continued with the character they so well crafted in CR and QoS, given him a proper Bond mission, publicized on every occasion that the new film was longer and not speed-cut, and everything would have been fine IMO. Especially since TDK, which seems to have been the main motivation for SF, shows off such grand Bond action pieces. QoS was anyhow constructed as a one-off, Bond´s character development had taken a clear shape by the end of QoS, everyone was just waiting for Bond to get down to business again.
They missed the opportunity of a proper re-boot. Regardless of SP being a good or bad film, we´re back on Brosnan territory. Which is basically no harm, because the biggest flaw I see in that era is Brosnan´s trying too hard, whereas Craig owns the films with seemingly incredible ease. But what was the re-boot for then?
I don´t want to sound overly negative, but I found it a bit inadequate to start the film with the gun barrell, and then not have the white spot moving down and to the side. The white spot could have then opened on the "The Dead are alive" text.