›

Has Mission Impossible surpassed Bond?

1…1617192122

Comments

  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,124
    When Ethan Hawks will order breakfast and stay interesting then I'll say M:I got at Bond's level. Does Hawks even order or even eat breakfast? All that talk about action scenes is tedious. How was the action in DN? Or in GF for the matter?
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Ludovico wrote: »
    When Ethan Hawks will order breakfast and stay interesting then I'll say M:I got at Bond's level. Does Hawks even order or even eat breakfast? All that talk about action scenes is tedious. How was the action in DN? Or in GF for the matter?

    You're correct. Despite the fact others will mock you for using the name 'Hawks'. Hunt isn't a patch on Bond. He's a sanitised, kale eating, bench pressing, saint.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,124
    RC7 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    When Ethan Hawks will order breakfast and stay interesting then I'll say M:I got at Bond's level. Does Hawks even order or even eat breakfast? All that talk about action scenes is tedious. How was the action in DN? Or in GF for the matter?

    You're correct. Despite the fact others will mock you for using the name 'Hawks'. Hunt isn't a patch on Bond. He's a sanitised, kale eating, bench pressing, saint.

    That's how much I care about M:I. I just saw my mistake.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Ludovico wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    When Ethan Hawks will order breakfast and stay interesting then I'll say M:I got at Bond's level. Does Hawks even order or even eat breakfast? All that talk about action scenes is tedious. How was the action in DN? Or in GF for the matter?

    You're correct. Despite the fact others will mock you for using the name 'Hawks'. Hunt isn't a patch on Bond. He's a sanitised, kale eating, bench pressing, saint.

    That's how much I care about M:I. I just saw my mistake.

    I wouldn't worry.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,124
    And that's how much I admire the other Ethan.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,801
    RC7 wrote: »
    Hunt isn't a patch on Bond. He's a sanitised, kale eating, bench pressing, saint.
    Rog is the Saint. Hunt is the Mother Theresa of the spy world.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,124
    chrisisall wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Hunt isn't a patch on Bond. He's a sanitised, kale eating, bench pressing, saint.
    Rog is the Saint. Hunt is the Mother Theresa of the spy world.

    He's already dead?
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    chrisisall wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Hunt isn't a patch on Bond. He's a sanitised, kale eating, bench pressing, saint.
    Rog is the Saint. Hunt is the Mother Theresa of the spy world.

    And Bond is the spying...supreme allied...God? ;)
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    chrisisall wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Hunt isn't a patch on Bond. He's a sanitised, kale eating, bench pressing, saint.
    Rog is the Saint. Hunt is the Mother Theresa of the spy world.

    Very true, but in a way Hunt wouldn't get.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2016 Posts: 23,883
    Really, you guys don't like Hunt? That's too bad. I've really felt the character has become far more likeable and interesting in recent installments, although he's no Bond indeed.

    Anyway, I'm off to watch MI2 for the first time in 13 or so years. I'll see how that goes and will report back (it hasn't been my favourite but perhaps I'll see it in a new light).
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    I liked him the best in the first movie but after that he became Tom Cruise. :))
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,124
    Bond is a character from DN. He's not always as good a character but give or take he's been pretty good overall. I haven't seen the latest M:I but the ones I saw Ethan was basically Cruise. I don't think M:I is about character thought. From the early t.v. series it has always been about suspense and manipulation. But that's the thing: I could never see pass Cruise. So far anyway.
  • SarkSark Guangdong, PRC
    edited January 2016 Posts: 1,138
    If RN is what we expect from Bond you can count me out. It's a really well executed film and I applaud Cruise's insistence on stunt work, plus his abilities as a producer, but Bond it is not. SP is rich with class and style in a way a MI never will be.

    If EON delivered something like RN but with a Bond panache I would be overjoyed. By that I mean seducing the girls, doing some gambling, and the little things in action scenes like the Union Jack flag in TSWLM or adjusting his tie in an action scene.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Bond is a character from DN. He's not always as good a character but give or take he's been pretty good overall. I haven't seen the latest M:I but the ones I saw Ethan was basically Cruise. I don't think M:I is about character thought. From the early t.v. series it has always been about suspense and manipulation. But that's the thing: I could never see pass Cruise. So far anyway.

    I completely agree. Ask a ten year old to describe Ethan Hunt, then ask the same ten year old to describe Bond. One is a character, the other is an actor.
  • patbpatb
    Posts: 4,617
    Drifting back to legacy again. The fact that a ten year old can describe Bond is not an indicator of the present quality of the movies.
  • daltondalton
    edited January 2016 Posts: 1,631
    Sark wrote: »
    If RN is what we expect from Bond you can count me out. It's a really well executed film and I applaud Cruise's insistence on stunt work, plus his abilities as a producer, but Bond it is not. SP is rich with class and style in a way a MI never will be.

    If EON delivered something like RN but with a Bond panache I would be overjoyed.

    Very much agreed @Sark. Absent EON actually going back to the style of film that DN and FRWL are, if they are going to continue going for the big thrills and set pieces, then there's no reason why they can't do it on the level that M:I is currently doing it. I'm all for Bond significantly scaling back on the size and scope of the action sequences, but since EON isn't going to do that, they could at least stop delivering half-baked sequences and shoot to outdo their rivals who are currently doing it much better. If I were EON, I'd be flat-out embarrassed by that car chase in SP. That was definitely a low-point for the Craig films.
    patb wrote: »
    Drifting back to legacy again. The fact that a ten year old can describe Bond is not an indicator of the present quality of the movies.

    No, it certainly isn't an indicator of that. M:I is still in its first stage as a franchise, if it indeed does go on after Cruise. As for asking a 10-year-old to describe Bond, he has a much better chance to give a more detailed description because the character has been around since 1962 on the big screen and even longer than that on the page. If you asked a 10-year-old back in the late 1960s to describe Bond, they'd probably tell you "he's Sean Connery", which is a similar answer you'd get when asked to describe Hunt now "he's Tom Cruise."
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    patb wrote: »
    Drifting back to legacy again. The fact that a ten year old can describe Bond is not an indicator of the present quality of the movies.

    It's absolutely relevant. If a ten year old can't describe the character of Ethan Hunt after his twenty year screen presence, I find legacy irrelevant.
  • patbpatb
    Posts: 4,617
    It's rather defensive to defend Bond purely because the series has been around longer. Obviously, MI cant change history. Longevity and fame don't relate to present quality. The is little point debating "who has been around longer" or "which character is more well known", there is no debate to be had. But it is interesting to discuss where each series is now.
  • SarkSark Guangdong, PRC
    Posts: 1,138
    @dalton makes the same point I was going to-Ethan Hunt is still on its first actor, much like Bond at the end of the 60s. I think the 'legacy' argument is a copout that ignores the real question. The question wasn't which films have a better legacy, as that isn't debatable. I interpreted it to mean "Since the M:I films started, have they become better quality spy movies than their contemporary James Bond films?" Which is why I asked if there's any 5 film set of consecutive Bond films that match the quality of M:I1-5 (even accounting for M:I2 being a bit silly).
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    patb wrote: »
    It's rather defensive to defend Bond purely because the series has been around longer. Obviously, MI cant change history. Longevity and fame don't relate to present quality. The is little point debating "who has been around longer" or "which character is more well known", there is no debate to be had. But it is interesting to discuss where each series is now.

    As I said, I find legacy irrelevant. What I do find relevant is one's ability to distinguish Hunt from Cruise. Twenty years and five films and a ten year old still couldn't describe Ethan Hunt to me.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,801
    RC7 wrote: »
    Twenty years and five films and a ten year old still couldn't describe Ethan Hunt to me.

    My inner ten year old responds:
    "He's a really good guy that saves people and stuff." :))
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    chrisisall wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Twenty years and five films and a ten year old still couldn't describe Ethan Hunt to me.

    My inner ten year old responds:
    "He's a really good guy that saves people and stuff." :))

    A bit like Jesus.
  • daltondalton
    edited January 2016 Posts: 1,631
    I think a point that gets lost is that, at least I think this is the case, those of us who enjoyed RN more than SP aren't saying that Hunt is a better character than Bond. That's far from the case, and if it were, we'd probably be over on a M:I forum debating various things about Ethan Hunt and the M:I films. As has already been stated, Hunt is barely a character to begin with, as the whole premise (at least for the first three films, as it's starting to change with the last two) is that Hunt is really meant to be a cipher for Cruise. I thought that was always kind of the point of it anyway.

    Those of us who liked RN more than SP, again, aren't saying that Hunt is better than Bond. That debate isn't even remotely close. What I think we are saying is that we'd like to see the craftsmanship of the last couple of M:I films make their way into the Bond films. SP wasn't a particularly well made film. It features a poor script and some absolutely dull moments that are meant to pass for exciting. The reverse is true with RN. It's exciting and thrilling from the jump. All that we're saying is that the quality of the craftsmanship of the Bond films should be able to rise to the level of that of its rivals, in this case, M:I. That's the least we should expect from EON.
  • patbpatb
    Posts: 4,617
    See above - perfectly put
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2016 Posts: 23,883
    dalton wrote: »
    Those of us who liked RN more than SP, again, aren't saying that Hunt is better than Bond. That debate isn't even remotely close. What I think we are saying is that we'd like to see the craftmanship of the last couple of M:I films make their way into the Bond films. SP wasn't a particularly well made film. It features a poor script and some absolutely dull moments that are meant to pass for exciting. The reverse is true with RN. It's exciting and thrilling from the jump. All that we're saying is that the quality of the craftsmanship of the Bond films should be able to rise to the level of that of its rivals, in this case, M:I. That's the least we should expect from EON.
    I agree with you. My problems with SP relate to conceptualization and execution. It could have been so much more than it ended up being.

    MI-RN on the other hand was, at least from my perspective, as good as it could have been given the constituent components. They made a film that was far greater than the sum of its parts. I felt completely the opposite with SP, especially given the talent (on paper) involved.

    As I've said, B25 will fix this, I'm certain of it, unless Mendes comes back when all bets are off, given the power he seems to have.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    dalton wrote: »
    What I think we are saying is that we'd like to see the craftmanship of the last couple of M:I films make their way into the Bond films. SP wasn't a particularly well made film. It features a poor script and some absolutely dull moments that are meant to pass for exciting.

    Both screenplays are left wanting, but in terms of craft, SP shits on RN. Cinematography, Production Design, Costume Design, VFX, SFX are all way above RN.
  • patbpatb
    Posts: 4,617
    You can reverse engineer a film or divide it up and judge it on different ellements but in the end, the final movie has to be judged as a whole. When you consider that, according to the estimates I have read, MI was done for $95 million less than SP, then you have to respect the team that came up with RN and for the overall consistency of the series, something that is lacking re Bond (or is that also up for debate?)
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    patb wrote: »
    You can reverse engineer a film or divide it up and judge it on different ellements but in the end, the final movie has to be judged as a whole. When you consider that, according to the estimates I have read, MI was done for $95 million less than SP, then you have to respect the team that came up with RN and for the overall consistency of the series, something that is lacking re Bond (or is that also up for debate?)

    I don't think it is lacking. The DC era, combined, is better than the last four M:I films imo. I like Bond, what can I say?
  • SarkSark Guangdong, PRC
    Posts: 1,138
    Unlike all us other people, who don't really like Bond. ;)
  • patbpatb
    Posts: 4,617
    We all like Bond, no worries.
    But if you look at both Bond as a character and the tone of the movies from CR through to SP, IMHO I see a lack of consistency (especially compared, for example to the SC era)
Sign In or Register to comment.