›

Has Mission Impossible surpassed Bond?

1…6791112…22

Comments

  • SarkSark Guangdong, PRC
    Posts: 1,138
    Perhaps Gustav doesn't realize that opinions, by their definition, are not objective. Nothing he has said is objectively true.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    RN may have bested SP but Bond will regroup and return for another round.

    I still prefer Bond and many others do too.

    Indy, Batman, Bourne (yuk) and MI remain Bond's biggest threats here in the States.

    At least in terms of being in the similar genre.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    To say that the creative minds behind these four Bond films were "hung up in this Bond homage world" is actually completely pissing on the entire 53-year old Bond legacy.
    Using elements from those 53-year-old legacy more for the purpose of them being there than for the purpose of good storytelling is pissing on that legacy.
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    And sorry guys, WTF do we expect from Bond now!?
    That´s pretty f***ing simple. I pay a lot of my hard-earned cash to see a bloody good film, so I expect a bloody good film.
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    Having said that, NOTHING is good anymore for a Bond film. NOTHING actually works anymore.
    SP would work marvellously if it weren´t directed in such a tedious manner that makes you drop out of the film at some points. As was sufficiently noticed, there are lot´s of elements that could justify SP as a damn good Bond film. But one major element of the good Bond films was good storytelling that doesn´t give you the space to ponder about all those logic-defying elements.
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    And if some of those creative minds behind the Bond franchise actually listeng to 'all those lone narcist voices in the desert of social media', and all their disagreements, then THAT'S when you get a bad Bond film.
    I couldn´t agree more with you. And I have the tragic feeling that for SP they did that too much.
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    For me personally I greatly cherish the Craig-Quadrilogy. And a worthy unique quadrilogy it is man! James Bond is a true character now, with an incredible amount of (personal) history under his belt. THAT'S what EON Productions was thinking! It is NOT Jason Bourne, the guy who stayed everytime the same blunt, negative-looking rogue agent. It is NOT Ethan Hunt, who loves the action, but who can not shed one believable. credible tear. It is agent 007, James Bond, the guy who lost quite a lot of people close to him. Whose story captivated me entirely over a course of four films. Now can the man, finally have a bit more...fun again in his '4th' film "SPECTRE"? It's James Bond for God sake.
    First of all, how do you know it´s a quadrilogy? I dare say it would have been well worth it (also with Bond´s character development in mind) to show some of Bond´s adventures in between QoS and SF. It makes no sense whatsoever that M just risked her job to defend Bond in front of the CIA in QoS, and then next thing so grossly misjudge him at the beginning of SF. "It was the possibility of losing you or the certainty of losing that harddisc." How much less trusting Bond´s capability could M be? Why this complete turnaround? There are clearly some important pieces missing. So don´t tell me anything about worthy quadrilogy.
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    A Bond fan embraces that variation, doesn't slam each film, slightly different than its predecessors, with negative criticism that one could have already seen practised entirely during one of those predecessing films.
    You youself are not shy when it comes to criticising things you don´t like, so does that mean you´re not a Bond fan?
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    I said it many times before, the fact that the Bond franchise is 53 years old, always makes it prone to much more comparisons and criticism.
    Yes, that comes with making such a long franchise. No two ways about it. Those who are in charge are very well aware of that. That doesn´t mean having a long-lasting franchise is a free ticket to produce unexciting things.
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    But against EACH negative amount of criticism, which can certainly be used for future improvement, there should be some positive criticism as well.....some stuff that we should maintain.
    There are a lot of fantastic elements in SP, most of all Craig´s Bond! But the fact that some of the main reasons for me why I became a Bond film fan in the first place are booted out in SP so drastically came to me as a real shock. It was a shock exactly because I am a huge fan of certain things I came to associate with all the Bond films (at least prior to SF). I´m talking basically about colours (the bloody colour filtering. Even before the entrance to Blofeld´s lair, when the sun shines brightly upon the obviously very rich lawn in front of the Rolls Royce, the grass isn´t remotely shining, and that is just one tiny example), lighting, music (not saying Arnold was perfect, but this? Really?), and storytelling (it should be so that I don´t get the idea of pondering about unlogic things, else I mustn´t use unlogic things in the film).
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    Sorry @BondJames, it's off course your opinion. But I do think at times your negativity becomes annoying. Because it isn't that objective either anymore...
    With all due respect @Gustav, you are not exactly the definition of objectivity either.

    I apoligized already OK? So please stop. I'm talking PURE INSANE BULLSHIT :-). Always had. So let's leave it at there. At least now you know how I objectively feel.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    People shouldn't get mad at other movies if they're doing a better job than Bond. The people involved care enough about their respective properties to tell exciting, engaging stories without trying to bullshit the audience. First order of business, ditch Mendes and get in NEW bloody writers; who know the genre of thriller and action very well. Until fundamental issues are dealt with the problems aren't going to go away. Just because one slaps Bond or 007 on a movie it doesn't mean favourable results all around. Mendes really annoyed me with this whole Blofeld business. The film is called SPECTRE, you cast Wales as tge main antagonist and we're being fed some rubbish about Waltz not being Blofeld?? The pretense was a waste of time and only served to make Mendes look like an idiot.

    I liked SP, thought it was more entertaining than SF but the film should and could have been so much more. I want Mendes gone and at this point as much as I've championed Craig to stay and return to do a 5th if he wants to go then let him. Bond has always been bigger than the actor and even though I thought Craig was phenomenal in SP if he doesn't come back, whatever. EoN have bigger issues to sort out and that's the writing team and a director who isn't caught up with pretensions and bullshit. It's time for Bond to REALLY get back in the game and tge competition around him may just be the catalyst Bond needs to do so.
  • SkyfailSkyfail
    Posts: 498
    doubleoego wrote: »
    People shouldn't get mad at other movies if they're doing a better job than Bond. The people involved care enough about their respective properties to tell exciting, engaging stories without trying to bullshit the audience. First order of business, ditch Mendes and get in NEW bloody writers; who know the genre of thriller and action very well. Until fundamental issues are dealt with the problems aren't going to go away. Just because one slaps Bond or 007 on a movie it doesn't mean favourable results all around. Mendes really annoyed me with this whole Blofeld business. The film is called SPECTRE, you cast Wales as tge main antagonist and we're being fed some rubbish about Waltz not being Blofeld?? The pretense was a waste of time and only served to make Mendes look like an idiot.

    I liked SP, thought it was more entertaining than SF but the film should and could have been so much more. I want Mendes gone and at this point as much as I've championed Craig to stay and return to do a 5th if he wants to go then let him. Bond has always been bigger than the actor and even though I thought Craig was phenomenal in SP if he doesn't come back, whatever. EoN have bigger issues to sort out and that's the writing team and a director who isn't caught up with pretensions and bullshit. It's time for Bond to REALLY get back in the game and tge competition around him may just be the catalyst Bond needs to do so.

    This^
    agreed whole heartedly ....

    about P&W, I wouldn't mind them staying. if you look at the plot it wasn't pretentious or there weren't plot holes with CR and QoS and they didn't try to bullshit the audience like how they did with SP and SF .
    look at the common factor , logan.
    and if I recall the first draft of SP before P&W were on board was a bigger mess and P&W had cleaned it up a bit.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,399
    Yes, the problem with SF and SP seems to be a 'biting off more than you can chew' effect. Instead of delivering a lean, straight forward mission, these two films are loaded with subtext and side plots that many find unnecessary, which only serves to muddy the picture, so to speak.
  • GeneralGogolGeneralGogol
    Posts: 928
    For all its flaws, Spectre strikes me as a far more memorable film than Rogue Nation. While the latter succeeded as smooth and slick spy-fi entertainment, I rarely feel any empathy for Ethan Hunt. He's a cardboard cutout of an action hero, no matter how convincing Cruise is. Yes, great pace and action, but I can't remember the villain's face or name. That's still a weakness of the M:I series. Meanwhile, I'll keep on dissecting Spectre for years during every viewing... its details, its good and bad filmmaking decisions, etc.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    GeneralGogol wrote: »
    For all its flaws, Spectre strikes me as a far more memorable film than Rogue Nation. While the latter succeeded as smooth and slick spy-fi entertainment, I rarely feel any empathy for Ethan Hunt. He's a cardboard cutout of an action hero, no matter how convincing Cruise is. Yes, great pace and action, but I can't remember the villain's face or name. That's still a weakness of the M:I series.
    I think that is a conscious decision on the part of the MI people though. I don't think they set out to make anything more than purely thrilling, fun, big spectacle entertainment.
  • AstonLotusAstonLotus
    Posts: 1,394
    I think the last three Mission Impossible movies have been FAR better than the last three Bond movies.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    I think the last three Mission Impossible movies have been FAR better than the last three Bond movies.

    I respect that but I disagree except maybe in terms of action.

    Overall in my opinion only RN has bested SP. I still enjoyed QS and SF more than the last three MIs.

    Only other time was the first MI vs GE. MI despite blatantly ripping off GE beat it in creativity (Hunt doing neater stuff) and in look. MI was shot better.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    edited November 2015 Posts: 5,767
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    To say that the creative minds behind these four Bond films were "hung up in this Bond homage world" is actually completely pissing on the entire 53-year old Bond legacy.
    Using elements from those 53-year-old legacy more for the purpose of them being there than for the purpose of good storytelling is pissing on that legacy.
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    And sorry guys, WTF do we expect from Bond now!?
    That´s pretty f***ing simple. I pay a lot of my hard-earned cash to see a bloody good film, so I expect a bloody good film.
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    Having said that, NOTHING is good anymore for a Bond film. NOTHING actually works anymore.
    SP would work marvellously if it weren´t directed in such a tedious manner that makes you drop out of the film at some points. As was sufficiently noticed, there are lot´s of elements that could justify SP as a damn good Bond film. But one major element of the good Bond films was good storytelling that doesn´t give you the space to ponder about all those logic-defying elements.
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    And if some of those creative minds behind the Bond franchise actually listeng to 'all those lone narcist voices in the desert of social media', and all their disagreements, then THAT'S when you get a bad Bond film.
    I couldn´t agree more with you. And I have the tragic feeling that for SP they did that too much.
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    For me personally I greatly cherish the Craig-Quadrilogy. And a worthy unique quadrilogy it is man! James Bond is a true character now, with an incredible amount of (personal) history under his belt. THAT'S what EON Productions was thinking! It is NOT Jason Bourne, the guy who stayed everytime the same blunt, negative-looking rogue agent. It is NOT Ethan Hunt, who loves the action, but who can not shed one believable. credible tear. It is agent 007, James Bond, the guy who lost quite a lot of people close to him. Whose story captivated me entirely over a course of four films. Now can the man, finally have a bit more...fun again in his '4th' film "SPECTRE"? It's James Bond for God sake.
    First of all, how do you know it´s a quadrilogy? I dare say it would have been well worth it (also with Bond´s character development in mind) to show some of Bond´s adventures in between QoS and SF. It makes no sense whatsoever that M just risked her job to defend Bond in front of the CIA in QoS, and then next thing so grossly misjudge him at the beginning of SF. "It was the possibility of losing you or the certainty of losing that harddisc." How much less trusting Bond´s capability could M be? Why this complete turnaround? There are clearly some important pieces missing. So don´t tell me anything about worthy quadrilogy.
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    A Bond fan embraces that variation, doesn't slam each film, slightly different than its predecessors, with negative criticism that one could have already seen practised entirely during one of those predecessing films.
    You youself are not shy when it comes to criticising things you don´t like, so does that mean you´re not a Bond fan?
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    I said it many times before, the fact that the Bond franchise is 53 years old, always makes it prone to much more comparisons and criticism.
    Yes, that comes with making such a long franchise. No two ways about it. Those who are in charge are very well aware of that. That doesn´t mean having a long-lasting franchise is a free ticket to produce unexciting things.
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    But against EACH negative amount of criticism, which can certainly be used for future improvement, there should be some positive criticism as well.....some stuff that we should maintain.
    There are a lot of fantastic elements in SP, most of all Craig´s Bond! But the fact that some of the main reasons for me why I became a Bond film fan in the first place are booted out in SP so drastically came to me as a real shock. It was a shock exactly because I am a huge fan of certain things I came to associate with all the Bond films (at least prior to SF). I´m talking basically about colours (the bloody colour filtering. Even before the entrance to Blofeld´s lair, when the sun shines brightly upon the obviously very rich lawn in front of the Rolls Royce, the grass isn´t remotely shining, and that is just one tiny example), lighting, music (not saying Arnold was perfect, but this? Really?), and storytelling (it should be so that I don´t get the idea of pondering about unlogic things, else I mustn´t use unlogic things in the film).
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    Sorry @BondJames, it's off course your opinion. But I do think at times your negativity becomes annoying. Because it isn't that objective either anymore...
    With all due respect @Gustav, you are not exactly the definition of objectivity either.

    I apoligized already OK? So please stop. I'm talking PURE INSANE BULLSHIT :-). Always had. So let's leave it at there. At least now you know how I objectively feel.
    Objectively noted.

  • JohnHammond73JohnHammond73 Lancashire, UK
    Posts: 4,151
    How can it have surpassed Bond? When they get to 24 movies then maybe the MI movies can be classed in the same way but I don't think that'll ever happen as Bond will just keep on going.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    I think the very question of this topic title is disrespectful. It implies more or less that both franchises are of the same age, and have a similar nr of films under their belts.

    Which is not the case. No matter how much "Rogue Nation" is a worthy spy/action thriller, it takes at least 10 more equally good films to make the opening question valid.

    "Bond" has 24 official (26 unofficial) movies now, of which 10 can be classified in the range of "Good" to "Masterpiece".

    "Mission: Impossible" has 5 official movies, of which perhaps only 2 can be addressed as "Good" to "Very Good". And "Rogue Nation" isn't a masterpiece. Plus, age will tell if it gets the same 'evergreen status' like many Bond films of the 1960's, and "Casino Royale" and "Skyfall".
  • SarkSark Guangdong, PRC
    Posts: 1,138
    It implies more or less that both franchises are of the same age, and have a similar nr of films under their belts.

    No it doesn't.

    And the fact that youre giving SF "evergreen" status demonstrates your lack of objectivity.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    Sark wrote: »
    It implies more or less that both franchises are of the same age, and have a similar nr of films under their belts.

    No it doesn't.

    And the fact that youre giving SF "evergreen" status demonstrates your lack of objectivity.

    Thank you for your, let me count, 19 words. Minus "Skyfall" and "Casino Royale" the core of my post still holds. Obviously you will say it doesn't. But I don't care. Bottomline: "M:I" has NOT surpassed "Bond". End of story. Finished. Over. Next topic.
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    edited November 2015 Posts: 4,012
    GeneralGogol wrote: »
    For all its flaws, Spectre strikes me as a far more memorable film than Rogue Nation. While the latter succeeded as smooth and slick spy-fi entertainment, I rarely feel any empathy for Ethan Hunt. He's a cardboard cutout of an action hero, no matter how convincing Cruise is. Yes, great pace and action, but I can't remember the villain's face or name. That's still a weakness of the M:I series. Meanwhile, I'll keep on dissecting Spectre for years during every viewing... its details, its good and bad filmmaking decisions, etc.

    My thoughts exacly! Of all the M:I films I only remember the story and villains of the first one, that says a lot (great film, by the way). All others I remember enjoying (some more than others) but even though I watched some of them several times I can't for the life of me remember anything about the story or the villain. I remember one of them had Phillip Seymour Hoffmann but I don't remember what he wanted, the last one is a blank apart from the stunts.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Good heavens. Why the hell is it always with comparisons around here? What's better, Skyfall or Spectre? What franchise stacks up best, Bourne or Bond? Bond or Mission Impossible? You can only choose one, and you will lay in the bed you've made, end of story! Blah, blah, blah, rinse and repeat.

    Why, pray tell, can't we be happy that the spy genre is where it's at, and that there's still a market for these kinds of films? In that same token, why then can't we embrace the successes of other properties that may or may not be "outdoing" Bond financially or critically? As it's been said, if other franchises like Bourne and MI show EON a particularly interesting way of approaching the genre, or show them a way that they could set themselves apart in another fashion, why is that bad? They all force each other to step their game up and do new things, handle new approaches and deliver stories in different ways. If MI and Bourne reinvigorate audience interest in spy films that leads to more and more people flocking to Bond films because it originally skyrocketed that same genre, again, why are we having a fit?

    It's not a question of whether or not Bond or MI is better. The real question we should be asking ourselves is why we're inquiring at all. Both Bond and MI are in a great place right now, overall. They've each had great successes in recent memory both financially and critically, with hyper-dedicated teams behind each franchise that love the characters and lore. Why make it some behind the scenes styled Hollywood war for the coveted spy genre throne? It's making drama where there is none, as is asking people to pick one while telling the other to screw off. Many people, like myself, love both and am happy to see both being successful in what they each bring to the table. End of story.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,731
    It's a non debate for one reason alone: M:I has Cruise, a plastic non-entity of an actor if ever there was one. Bond has Daniel Craig.
    Game over.
  • TigerTanakaTigerTanaka Welcome to Japan, Mr. Bond
    edited November 2015 Posts: 50
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    I think the very question of this topic title is disrespectful. It implies more or less that both franchises are of the same age, and have a similar nr of films under their belts.

    Which is not the case. No matter how much "Rogue Nation" is a worthy spy/action thriller, it takes at least 10 more equally good films to make the opening question valid.

    "Bond" has 24 official (26 unofficial) movies now, of which 10 can be classified in the range of "Good" to "Masterpiece".

    "Mission: Impossible" has 5 official movies, of which perhaps only 2 can be addressed as "Good" to "Very Good". And "Rogue Nation" isn't a masterpiece. Plus, age will tell if it gets the same 'evergreen status' like many Bond films of the 1960's, and "Casino Royale" and "Skyfall".

    Gustav, that's exactly what I wanted to say. You just said it better :) Just came from my second viewing of Spectre, and I still love it. Bond for me all the way :)
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    edited November 2015 Posts: 11,119
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »
    Good heavens. Why the hell is it always with comparisons around here?

    THANK YOU for bringing this up. In all honesty, such topics rather sicken me. Regardless of freedom of speech and the fact that it could be an interesting discussion, it usually channels negativity.

    Hence why I lately use the term "comparison sickness". Which is a term that needs to be used more often sadly.... And although I have great respect for our forummember @Talos7, it would have been nicer if there is some elaborate explanation to why he came up with this topic. Instead, he only posts a link to an article and 'that's it'.

    I usually create topics carefully, and I do not wish to 'dump' topics like they do on IMDB. And please check IMDB. By jolly, it sickens me how 'freedom of speech' got out of hand there. No moderators, bucketloads of trolls and a scaring amount of pure hate.
  • IGUANNAIGUANNA
    Posts: 1,296
    After reading the whole and watching the trailer on youtube I have to say yes. Bond has Daniel Craig it's true. But what else do we have? Judi is gone unless we can film twenty more videotape missions with her before she jets off to India for Exotic 3.

    When is the new Mission Impossible coming out anyhow ?
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    IGUANNA wrote: »
    After reading the whole and watching the trailer on youtube I have to say yes. Bond has Daniel Craig it's true. But what else do we have? Judi is gone unless we can film twenty more videotape missions with her before she jets off to India for Exotic 3.

    When is the new Mission Impossible coming out anyhow ?

    So you say that Bond has surpassed Mission: Impossible?? Ridiculous.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,731
    How can a vacuous Hollywood franchise that has a rate of 2 genuine turds in 5 films possibly sit above a series of movies that boasts the likes of FRWL, GF, OHMSS, TSWLM, TLD, CR, SF and SP..???
  • tigers99tigers99
    Posts: 582
    According to IMDB M:I 6 is due out in 2017, which would make it the shortest gap between M:I films, I think Tom Cruise will be 55 then.
  • SkyfailSkyfail
    Posts: 498
    AceHole wrote: »
    How can a vacuous Hollywood franchise that has a rate of 2 genuine turds in 5 films possibly sit above a series of movies that boasts the likes of FRWL, GF, OHMSS, TSWLM, TLD, CR, SF and SP..???

    SF,
    yup .
  • tigers99tigers99
    Posts: 582
    If anything the M:I series owes a lot to Bond. The films, certainly 2, 4 and 5, feel more towards aping the Bond films than the original TV series.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,731
    Skyfail wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    How can a vacuous Hollywood franchise that has a rate of 2 genuine turds in 5 films possibly sit above a series of movies that boasts the likes of FRWL, GF, OHMSS, TSWLM, TLD, CR, SF and SP..???

    SF,
    yup .

    I'm no big fan of SF, but it surely rates as classier cinema than 'M:I II'...
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    AceHole wrote: »
    Skyfail wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    How can a vacuous Hollywood franchise that has a rate of 2 genuine turds in 5 films possibly sit above a series of movies that boasts the likes of FRWL, GF, OHMSS, TSWLM, TLD, CR, SF and SP..???

    SF,
    yup .

    I'm no big fan of SF, but it surely rates as classier cinema than 'M:I II'...

    His name is Fail....Sky Fail.
  • SkyfailSkyfail
    Posts: 498
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    Skyfail wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    How can a vacuous Hollywood franchise that has a rate of 2 genuine turds in 5 films possibly sit above a series of movies that boasts the likes of FRWL, GF, OHMSS, TSWLM, TLD, CR, SF and SP..???

    SF,
    yup .

    I'm no big fan of SF, but it surely rates as classier cinema than 'M:I II'...

    His name is Fail....Sky Fail.

    its better than " Fan...blind fan"
    is it not ?
  • tigers99tigers99
    Posts: 582
    M:I-RN made $682.33 million worldwide, Spectre stands to make more than that.
Sign In or Register to comment.