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
Given the constant ups and downs they've endured with MGM for decades, I think it is perfectly fine--and frankly, good business--for BB and MGW to use their leverage now to lobby for a seasoned film exec on the Amazon side.
Paging Paul Mescal...
I know they’re not supposed to be deep-pan stories, and same with Bond.
But, I click with Bond and I don’t with Tom Hunt Ethan Cruise and his adventures. It’s just not happening for me. My experiences in cinema I’ve had with the latter films is that I get restless after an hour and I haven’t rewatched one of them.
But I have rewatched the first three (the second one being an abysmal failure)… So, I dunno 🤷♂️…. I’m happy when anyone gets anything out of any movie, but I just don’t like the M:I films from four onwards. The chance of me seeing the new ones are slim. I may eventually get to them one day down the road, but I’ve completely resigned to the fact that I just don’t get them and I’m not a fan…
I'm with you on M:I.
The films are just empty and interchangeable--after the first one, which at least has character and mood. Reno and Voight are good in that one (Cruise...ehh. He does anger, betrayal, and smugness believably here, but he fails to sell the romance angle that is needed in that one). I don't love DePalma generally but he was a good choice to direct that film.
I think the first three work and fail because the the three different directors brought their own style and flair (and John Woo’s style , to me, didn’t work for No. 2. But at least I can differentiate the three originals.
The latter films all look the same and feel the same to me (even though it’s two different directors at work; once again I think it comes down to how they design a “story” around set pieces (and I’m not saying that doesn’t take talent— it does! But it’s not the best way of developing a story with arcs and plot points and mid points and inciting incidents)….
But yes, @echo … I feel they’re empty and soulless too.
I'd never say that! But I just love a story that clicks into place satisfyingly: I probably do love plot more than story sometimes, and something like Rogue Nation has a plot which functions like a machine, with the villain's ultimate defeat echoing the very first defeat Ethan suffers before the opening titles have finished rolling. I love all that stuff.
Three is actually my least favourite; there's some nice character stuff there and Hoffman is obviously great, but it feels a bit thin on the ground otherwise, and stuff like the macguffin handwave actively annoys me. We all know the nature of the macguffin doesn't really matter, but don't lift me out of the film by trying to lean out of the screen and make me agree with you Mr Abrams: we don't know each other well enough for you to break the spell like that. Especially when the tone of the rest of the film is so serious! It's a big mismatch.
That's fair enough: they give a bit of a different experience to Bond, even though the stunts are similar. The Bond films really are about celebrating the man himself: they are odes to how cool and impressive this guy is- John Barry knew what he was doing when he wrote the theme with a swing beat. Whereas, although everyone says MI are Cruise vanity projects, they don't celebrate Hunt or even Cruise quite as much: they are purely plot munchers with great visuals.
I honestly would recommend rewatching 4 onwards and watching how the plots resolve though. They're not twisty or clever plots, but the way they slot together and provide motivation for everything happening does honestly impress me: for blockbusters they're so handsomely made. Definitely worth listening to any interview (the Empire ones are very recommended) with McQuarrie too: he really knows his way around a story and talks in such a fascinating way about them. I was watching Rogue Nation the other day and there's a lovely dialogue scene with Renner and Cruise towards the end where they're having a disagreement, and it turns out what they're disagreeing about isn't what the audience thinks they're disagreeing about: and it's not even flashy, it doesn't draw attention to itself, you don't really spot it even in retrospect. It's just very elegantly done.
Oh I hear you on everything you’re saying. And I know this team, @mtm are the best in the biz with their “movie-magic”… And it’s frustrated me for some time that I gear myself up for these films, and an hour in, I’m checking out!!
And that’s why I resigned and admit to myself that for whatever reason, M:I just isn’t my cup of tea. Although that scene with Rennet has piqued my interest…
The heist aspect is probably why the films have a slight disconnect with the audience when it comes to Ethan- quite often it's important that you don't know what he's up to/thinking in order for the big reveals to come; he has to be slightly unknowable. As opposed to Bond who, despite ostensibly being a spy, is a pretty open book. We know exactly what he's thinking, what he's after and what he's feeling at all times.
And I loved his film debut, THE USUAL SUSPECTS.
Something is missing for me.
Everything you’re writing is appealing to me, so why are the films falling flat— I know what kind of magic they’re putting in to it. I know the effort. It’s immense. I’m not a Cruise fan, but I’m good friends with Mic Rodgers, a legendary stunt guy, and I have heard what Cruise brings to the table, but… I watch them, and, boom, I deflate and I’ve checked out.
That’s why I’ve resigned myself to not bother with them anymore. I have no intentions of watching the two upcoming sequels (and a tiny bit of me (tiny), knows I’ll be missing out on some great set pieces and fun). They just leave me empty, like I didn’t get anything out of them once the film runs the credits….
Strange since I can tell you why I don’t like film X…. But my dislike for the M:I films isn’t something logical (all the pieces are seemingly in place), it’s just a feeling. That empty feeling. It’s odd now that I’m talking about it, 😂!!
And P.S
https://www.radiotimes.com/movies/james-bond-casting-director-rumours-bond-at-70-exclusive-newsupdate/
I put this under who should be James Bond thread with my .5 of a cent.
Just in general mate.
I mean it feels as though, there's no eagerness to move onto Bond 26 and the new era (a lot of understandable reasons behind the scenes of course)
I wonder how this will affect the budget, box office expectations and direction of Bond 26.
There does feel like a lack of inspiration at the moment
That's a really interesting article, I don't know why but hearing McWilliams saying she has a laugh at some of casting rumours is calming 😅
Amazon are eyeing up MGM intellectual property for future film and TV series. Bond gets a mention:
There are currently no plans for other James Bond series beyond the unscripted competition series announced shortly after Amazon’s acquisition of MGM closed as the franchise producers are focused on figuring out the next film installment.
Good instinct @mtm …
Oh yes? You're more connected than me: is that what's happening?
I can't help but notice some of the huge budgets have started to fall. The current season of Picard (which is the best) appears to be by far the cheapest, with no location shooting at all and everything done on a few sets, which are just ones from previous seasons redressed. Willow on Disney+ looked perhaps only slightly more expensive than recent series of Doctor Who too.
It seems many of these companies are just poorly managed, too much money was poured into programming and content with too little in return, and now, slowly, theatrical is starting to rise from the ashes …
Of course the heads of the streamers will claim all is good, nothing to see hear, but like your comment above, we are all feeling a shift via the massive layoffs happening, and a tightening of the purse strings (that wasn’t happening for the past two and three years)….
Although I suppose that may not be great: as enjoyable as it is, it is leveraging existing IP and nostalgia, which is becoming a big problem with these streaming things. I keep looking at the occasional big hit series the BBC has here (Happy Valley, The Gold, Line of Duty, The Capture, Vigil etc.), which are the ones most of the public are talking about (especially looking at Twitter) and outweigh the ratings of the Netflix hits, and wonder if they really do need to spend all that cash...
One of my writing colleagues said the following: cable tv (in North America), breeds mediocrity but streaming really is more aligned with a meritocracy: if people don’t like the content you keep regurgitating, they will vote with their wallets and cancel subscriptions.
It’s been established by now that throwing money at bad content doesn’t improve the material.
(I'm not down on Mandalorian though: I think it's big glossy brainless fun)
Indeed: and incredibly cheap- with no location filming and on just a few sets. Khan had a surprisingly low budget.
And it was written after the pandemic had already started.
https://deadline.com/2023/04/succession-star-brian-cox-prime-video-james-bond-show-007-road-to-a-million-1235334673/
I am curious to see Amazons 1st Bond project? Would love to apply to be a contestant! But my wife and employer would have other ideas and thoughts on that! :))
How picky is Brian Cox usually with his projects?