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
If we're talking about average movie quality, it's closer, but I'll still take Bond over MI any day.
Bond is an event...a cultural institution. No film series comes close to being anywhere near as iconic...and as big as it is that goes for SW too.
However, the last two MI films have married 'action with class' as well as any Bond film since CR (Lea Seydoux and Rebecca Ferguson on their own ensured that).
One has history.....pedigree......and that's a large part of it's appeal. The other has none of that whatsoever, but is just a bit of good old fashioned fun at the movies.
I love them both, and I'm happy they're both around. As I said above, once DC/Mendes are gone, and Bond decides to get back to basics, then MI will be toast.
Agreed. 5 films starting in 1996...pathetic.
For franchises like "Kingsman" and "Mission: Impossible" it's obviously easier to say "This is how a Bond film should turn out (more comedy)" for "Kingsman" or "This is how a Bond film should turn out (better action)" for "Rogue Nation". The Bond franchise doesn't have that advantage. It always needs to battle its own past. Or it will be made ridiculous if it uses elements from other movies ("The Dark Knight"). And when Bond is applying the criticism from earlier spy movies this year, then people are still dissatisfied.
It is frustrating really. Moreover, you can't ask every Bond film to be a re-imagination from its predecessors. It would hurt the Bond franchise, and it would make the series inconsistent. So WHY can't an American reviewer see that it was about time for Bond to 'settle down in familiair territories again'??? And by all means, it wasn't even a 'reset button', like "GE" following "LTK". Over the course of four movies, that familiair terrirtory -more humour for instance- was slowly, nuanced, but with great attention to detail re-introduced to us.
Actually, I prefer to see Ethan Hunt become a much better character like Bond has been over his past four films. No one is mentioning it, but for me Tom Cruise lacks in the 'emotional gravita department' when it comes to his acting. So let HIM fall in love again in a more credible way....to give Ethan Hunt more complexity as a character. But sadly, no one is mentioning that?! Sadly, Rebecca Ferguson simply...drives away in her BMW. That's it?
Moreover, the very writer of these HitFix articles and Screenrant 'rants' tend to completely forget this: https://hmssweblog.wordpress.com/2015/08/02/the-hunt-for-bond-mi-connections-to-007/ . Apparently there's no problem with that?!?
To end on a positive note for Bond....Let's see where "Kingsman", "Batman", "Jason Bourne", "UNCLE" and "Mission: Impossible stand in 50 years from now. And please, dear reviewers, don't act so spoiled. Three years ago you hailed "Skyfall", and now suddenly 'Bond is extinct'? You were just waiting for a moment to ridicule the Bond franchise...and those SonyLeaks handed it to you...
Bond, even in it's weaker entries, has always managed some restraint and has a bucket-load more charisma.
With classy I'm not only referring to history, although history is very important. I'm also referring to Bond's attire, to his manners, to his accent, to his taste for the finer things in life.
Ethan Hunt, while featuring in a few entertaining movies for sure, does not come close to that. He remains, well, rather ordinary. He's more Everyman than anything else.
This is what I mean - Bond retains a charisma & charm that M:I have no hope of matching.
And good to see I'm no longer the only Belgian resident here :)
Of course and I agree, Hunt is an everyman. That is part of his appeal.
What I mean though is that the last two MI films have appeared classy (in creative use of locations, casting of women - including Seydoux, use of cars, the way the action is conceived & delivered, and yes - even the humour - which is much more subtle these days).
It has done all of the above without appearing 'stale' or 'uninventive'. At least in the last two films, and from my point of view. They have both been quite fresh, to me. I'm only referring to MI-GP & MI-RN (ps: I liked the original MI too......it's aged well and was ahead of its time, since pretension and messing with formula seem to be all the rage these days and it did it ages back)
Christoph Waltz as "Franz Oberhauser" vs. Sean Harris as "Solomon Lane"?
Christoph wins.....by a big margin. Harris portrays IMO a weaker version of Silva. Although, Lane is definately a better villain as that forgettable Hendriks in " Ghost Protocol".
Daniel Craig as "James Bond 007" vs. Tom Cruise as "IMF-agent Ethan Hunt"?
Daniel wins. Over the course of four films we have been spoiled with perhaps the best character in an action franchise in years. He's much more 'rounded' as a character, has infinite, way more character traits. And you believe him and his emotions. Don't get me wrong, I like Tom Cruise as an 'action actor', and he did do his best especially in "M:I - III". But overall his character stays rather 'flat'. I would have loved to see some kind of love relationship between him and Ilsa Faust.
Rebecca Ferguson as "Ilsa Faust" vs. Lea Séydoux as "Madeleine Swann"?
Now this one is more tricky. I think Rebecca played the best 'Hunt-girl' ever. What a joy it was to see her act, and to discover her complexities and how she was a pawn between the MI6-chief Atlee (more or less a bad version of 'M') and Solomon Lane. BUT, to translate this to the Bond franchise, you arrive at Vesper Lynd! And in all honesty, we can not do a Vesper Part 2 no? Lovely though that Ilsa is as complex as Vesper. But then...please mention that in your review. Lea played much more a young, though feisty woman with some 'Honey Rider' traits ("James, I'm scared" was cute and warm). So a good example of comparing apples with pears.
Daniel Craig becomes James Bond when on screen.
However, I personally came out of both the last two MI films far happier and more content than I did out of SP. They delivered completely with what they were trying to achieve (which was just to give us a good time at the movies). I came out of SP having enjoyed parts of it, but being disappointed with lots of it (including the entire last section). That's not a feeling I ever want to experience when leaving a Bond film again, which is why I am now firmly in the camp that Mendes must go.
It's definitely worth it. As I said before, I'm not a fan of his generally, but he has toned it down a lot in the past two MI's. There's more of a tired weariness to him in the last one, and it actually works. See it for Ferguson only if you want. Best 'Bond girl' in years.
Bingo!
Glad to see I'm not the only one over here ;)
But does MI have a history as broad and sumptuous as Bond?
A history that has shaped and absorbed action/adventure cinema?
A history that has created and destroyed careers, dragged a willing and unwilling but always fascinated media along in its wake.
A history of adventures so diverse and different that films as dissimilar as Moonraker and Licence To Kill are only ten years apart.
Has it given us 6 actors who will create vast bodies of work themselves but their obituary will certainly refer to them as 'James Bond actor..' before mention of any other achievement.
James Bond is the Beatles of cinema franchises. Mission Impossible is Take That.
Ah well, perhaps you're becoming a huge "Mission: Impossible"-fan then ;-). Which is nice for you. Though despite the fact I like the films, they lack depth for me that the recent four Bond films handed to me on a silver plate.
On that front, MI has delivered with the last two. Cruise has delivered. The improvements have been substantial. I congratulate him.
MI is no Bond, but I enjoyed MI-RN far more than I enjoyed SP (after the half way mark). I'm not ashamed to admit that.
I enjoyed SF far more than I enjoyed MI-GP, although both were incredible. They weren't playing in the same space, and both did what they set out to do brilliantly. Given what they set out to do in 2015, MI was better than SP for me.
You two are not the only ones, from what I know. @DarthDimi?
I had a lot of fun with the last M:I and recommend watching it however it "borrows" heavily from the last few Bond films. There is truly no comparison, the M:I films are a vehicle for Tom Cruise and little else, as much as I might enjoy watching some of them. They have little to do with the TV series I used to watch as a child. The films are OK they are mostly discardable entertainment (I've been trying to remember who the villain was in Rogue Nation and can't for the life of me remember). They are miles and eons away (pun intended) from Bond and its legacy. Give me SP any day over Rogue Nation.
I know I know. But I was just curious....if you could become a huge "Mission: Impossible"-fan. There's no shame in mentioning that. There are several "UNCLE"-fans in here who love being here, like @Defloria or @AlexanderWaverly :-).
The answer, is no. As I've said on this thread, I don't really like Cruise. I don't go out of my way to see his films. I judge each film on its merits. MI3 was garbage imho. So was MI2. I liked the first one, and I like the last two.
For MI, it's all about the product. I'm far less forgiving, but there was nothing to forgive with the last two. They were brilliant. Period. Even detractors here are admitting that.
With Bond, I've been excusing mistakes for years, because I'm a Bond fan. I'm doing that for SP now in fact, outside our community, and it pains me that I have to do that. I shouldn't have to, and wouldn't have to, if they had done a better job of it. Tough love.
Many of the points above have mentioned the heritage side and the class side of things.
Re the heritage, kids these days (they are future fans) very much live in the present and the customs and heritage of Bond and culture as a whole mean less to them. I know this is a generalisation but I thinks its a fair observation. The 1960s and the earlier periods where Bond's character was formed mean little to the Facebook/tweeting generation. (and how many even know they are from books?)
Secondly, re the class thing, its a point well made that Bond is a class act. But, as with Die Hard, there is room for the "common man" who would rather get a coke and a burger than a Martini. The commercial pressures for Bond entering this world are shown via the Heineken deal for SF. Drinking a bottle of weak lager in bed is not a classy thing but Bond was pulled towards it.
I think there is clearly room for both. But Bond can't rest on its laurels. Using class and history rather than focussing on the end product and ensuring that it matches MI as pure entertainment is a dangerous game. How many of the responses within this thread have gone for a more obvious answer "Bonds are better movies" rather rely on heritage and cultural icon status?
One final point re action set pieces. Working as a team allows for more flexibility, emotion and tension. With Hunt stuck outside the plane, shouting and pleading to a team member to open the door adds to the scene ("Open the door!! open the door") and allows script writers flexibility. We all know Bond works alone so how would he have handled that? blown the door with his watch? Again, in the PTS of SF, we saw scriptwriters being pulled towards this genre with the use of real time coms between Bond, Q and M. Its debatable whether this is a good thing or bad as it weakens Bond's role as an individual.
It sums it up perfectly. Beside MI is now a Tom Cruise vehicle not the original series. Which was great and... original in its own right.
I take your point but that's what Liverpool fans say. And it doesn't stop us being turned over by Palace at home does it?
Yes Liverpool is a bigger club than City, Chelsea, PSG but at the current time history counts for shit all. They're all playing on Europe's biggest stage while we're in Kazan on a Thursday night.
History gives you a bigger and loyal fan base than Johnny come lately clubs but that's all. To compete on an even footing you simply have to deliver on the pitch.
The question we have to ask is if SP wasn't a Bond film how high would we rate it?
If people are saying MI:RN is on a par or better than SP then it probably is because it has to overcome the fact it doesn't have a leading character just Tom Cruise playing himself. SP already has Bond in its corner so it allows the film to get away with more than we would let MI get away with just because we are naturally inclined to cut Bond more slack than one the pretenders to his throne.
If folks would go back & read the article linked from the topic-opening post, it clearly asks which franchise is currently better. Yet, folks keep posting things like "Bond is better cuz he's been around longer. He's shown more class over the years." Who shows more class now??
The linked article even acknowledges & give credit to Bond for his longevity, while asking us not to judge heritage, in which Bond is obviously in class of his own, but to focus on the current releases.
So, can we please get on topic?? Do you believe MI has recently topped Bond (in action, stunts, class, story, character, etc.)??