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
Yes, but that includes Pixar movies. 13 year olds are not making Bond a success.
And If nostalgia and IP isn't a factor, then why are they always remaking the same films instead of new ideas. Would a new superhero be as successful as Batman? Think it through.
13 years olds aren't watching Bond. Then you think
they're they watching MI ?
When did I say that?
With Skyfall being the most successful British movie ever made,
I'm guessing at least one 13 year old went to see it.
Many have claimed Bond is Dead over the years, you are simply another.
MI has been successful and many other espionage films will come and go.
TMFU and Kingsman both fun and made plenty of money, I'm guessing
you'd claim no 13 year old watched them either or is it just Bond they're
boycotting
Calm down. I didn't say no 13 year olds went to see Bond, ofcourse they did. You said the average age of movie goers is 13 to 23 "therefore nostalgia doesn't play a big role". That age range, if true, takes into account kids films like Minions which are billion dollar franchises, and horror films like IT which are massively popular with the teenagers. It's not representative of Bond. Nevertheless, ubiquity is its own marketing. Bond has a catalogue going back over 5 decades, so its obvious Bond has a greater grasp of the culture than something like MI which is relatively young franchise by comparison. Again, there's a reason Batman gets new movies, and they don't decide to move on from him with a new idea, because people recognise him and his heritage in popular culture. That is an benefit for the studios, which is why the same franchises keep getting reboots instead of fresh ones taking their place. It's not that hard to comprehend why this happens.
wallow in your misery, of how good every other film is compared to
the Crap the Bond team are putting out.
Then in ten years or so, we can all look back and see what movie
franchise is still going.
Why get so emotional about it? It seems like you're saying if the franchise is still going, that means it is in perfect health. They are not the same. Using boxoffice figures to try and prove quality is always a rocky business. If that's the case, The Force Awakens is one of the best movies ever made. Doesn't make sound reasoning to me, that's all.
MI may or may not be around in 10 years, but regardless we'll all still have the Cruise films to enjoy, just like we all have Connery, Moore, Lazzer, Brossa, Dalton and Craig films to enjoy. Probably in 8K or whatever they have as a technology in the future.
For the moment I'm very happy he's still making them and am enjoying them immensely. Quite excited for MI-Fallout, truth be told.
Sadly It's Show Business, if it ain't making money it ain't getting made.
Also why when others point out how much money MI films have made
in defence of their point, that's OK. yet when it's used to defend Bond
it's suddenly a bad point as it's not a sign of quality ?
With Craig as 007 the films have become even more successful and have
achieved much critical acclaim.
Still that matters little to those who want to slag off the films, or Craig. to
praise whatever flavour of the month is out. Red Sparrow I'm sure will be the
next, to be held up as what the Bond team need to do. :))
It's important to point out that you were the first one in this particular conversation to use BO as argumentative leverage.
Nobody would doubt that Bond is making more money. We were talking about quality. And when BO is referenced in the context of MI it's usually an admiration of the fact that it's continually rising hand-in-hand with its critical reception, not as an attack on Bond.
For the record, I don't think MI will succeed after Cruise's eventual retirement. I don't think it can reinvent itself the way Bond can. But for now, the team behind it certainly are more focused than the house of Eon. I'd take Rogue Nation over every Bond in the last 15 years, save for CR which no MI can touch.
Now you're just being silly. Most of us in this thread, save for one or two misguided individuals, are Craig fans.
Apples and oranges in terms of storytelling and approach.
With that said, If I had to watch the 3 most recent films of either franchise it would also be no contest, MI.
Bond has the heritage, MI has the momentum. That's what makes it such an interesting debate. If the trend continues, who knows where we will be in 10 years time.
I think the difference is that the MI producers have a medium/long term strategy (plus the energy to keep the momentum up) and there is no sign of this re Bond.
Consider the situation if MI manages to produce 2 or 3 more great contributions to the series whiles the EON situation continues. McQuarrie is 49 so plenty ofn gas left in the tank. If they can keep him for another two, I think they will be in an very strong situation. Plus, purely via media and the fact that he came back, I get the impression that he genuinely enjoys the work and has a "connection" with the franchise. I think EON desperately need a director/writer who understands Bond as well as McQuarrie understands MI.
It's interesting that, within the art of cinema, so much can rest on having one good man/woman on your team or failing to find that one good man. Imagine if EON had found their version of McQuarrie to work with DC , three movies ago?!!
@patb, don't you think however that even though MI is the series that has more risk of disappearing in the next 10 years on account of its reliance and overdependency on Cruise?
The Bond issue can be resolved quite readily because as a brand it has proven that it is far more than one actor, writer, director or even one production company for that matter. Switch any of that up and many of us will be quite satisfied (or even relieved perhaps). As an example, rumours of Hodge have awakened my enthusiasm for the next entry, although a few more changes would make me even more excited.
MI has yet to prove that, although I personally believe they can survive Cruise if they want to.
They certainly do. I may not know too many 13 years old, but my neighbors son is in that age and he is very, very fond off. Also, by virtue of a very sportive girlfriend I happen to know quite a few youngsters between 16 and 25. For them bond these days isn't very exciting ( although many of them cherish very fond childhood memories from when watching them with their fathers. Memories of excitement and amazing places ) but they very much enjoy the mission impossible- and the Bourne movies as well.
So? That will still leave Skyfall and Spectre as terrible movies.
You are not fond of applying too much logic, are you? There's no comparing box office and quality! Still a movie can be exciting and still be quality made while featuring suave and good looking heroes. You know just the way the Bond movies used to be.
I would be bonkers to not consider that a risk but, as we can see it, so can the studio and I have confidence that they are planning a transition (I think the presence of RF and HC is evidence of that). As with DC, TC's injuries are a clear reminder that nobody can go on forever.
There is no way that the studios will just shrug their shoulders and stop. The brand is far too valuable for that. I think the cinema audience is pretty understanding and forgiving. I also think it will be key that they get TC onboard re his exit (both on screen and with the PR). If he can go out with style and goodwill, thats the key. Growing old with style and realising that "your time is up" takes a different type of courage compared to jumping off of walls or clinging onto transport planes. It's a side of Cruise that we are yet to see.
People mention Bond transitions and the Bourne spinn off but with MI, we shoud remember that the transition can happen onscreen and that can be turned into drama. Something that can never happen in Bond. Hunt's departure can be turned into a postive if handled well IMHO
Even if he's less of a 'field' player, his screen charisma and brand recognition alone can ensure future success. Cruise as the 'M' equivalent could work.
1. Mentor role (not sure on this as it will remind people of "the good old days") and will he come back in action mode to save the day?
2. cameos (has potential, use of the face masks could offer great plot options/twists: have their cake and eat it)
3. Hero's death - my personal choice (cliche but viewers like cliches if handled well, not a dry eye in the house, potential for an iconic scene)
4. Hero's sacrifice but question mark over death (falls over a waterfall etc - leave the door open for options 2 or 3 in later movies
5. Retires to the country on a pension - (no, no, no)
1. Mentor role (not sure on this as it will remind people of "the good old days") and will he come back in action mode to save the day?
2. cameos (has potential, use of the face masks could offer great plot options/twists: have their cake and eat it), Cruise stars but Hunt does not. (I like this option, would be a great reveal) Cruise could be in the PTS and trailers and everyone would assume Hunt was still in the team. Imagine the gasp!
3. Hero's death - my personal 1st choice (cliche but viewers like cliches if handled well, not a dry eye in the house, potential for an iconic scene)
4. Hero's sacrifice but question mark over death (falls over a waterfall etc - leave the door open for options 2 or 3 in later movies
5. Retires to the country on a pension - (no, no, no)
I'm not a fan of 3. (I generally dislike overt emotion in films and a Star Trek 2 scenario isn't something I'm keen on).
My preference though is still for 1. Seeing him guide Benji with an earpiece in Vienna was just so classic "MI", and I immediately thought this could be the future when I first saw that sequence in the theatre. A combination of 1. and 2. actually would be what I'd like to see.
"Cruise, get out of the office, come back to the team and show them how it's done", Im not sure if any character/actor can thrive and develope whilst Cruise is still playing a key role.
Imagine if Kirk became the mentor and advised the Enterpise team remotely? What new Captain could thrive under that situation? All the time, the audience would be harking back to the good old days.
Overt emotion? It's personal choice obviously but Khan and SF (and plenty of other movies) prove that punters lap this up. (including me)
On thing I would add is that the team would need a clear, new leader. Some sort of "commune" won't do. The back has to stop with someone in the team. Thats another advantage of options 3 and 4, Hunt clearly passes the batton over to another team member, giving them his approval (and therefore ours) to fill his shoes.
Regarding Kirk, I really liked seeing him as 'admiral' at the start of the original Star Trek movie. Just his presence elevated the scene because he is such an icon when it comes to Star Trek. Eventually he had to transition out, as he did in the 'original set of films'. By that time he was far less iconic because newer actors had established themselves sufficiently that we didn't miss him so much. My point being, they can transition out gradually.
I don't disagree, as the waterworks at the end of SF proved. Not my cup of tea though.
The ending of OHMSS being the obvious example. Many Bond fans seem to embrace the overt emotion of Bond here but, yes, it is all personal choice. It's up the the writer (perhaps McQuarrie?) to choose the option that resonates best with the audience.
Sorry, one other point. Does Cruise not deserve a great death scene? He needs a chance to really show his acting chops. It's not as if (unlike Shatner) we dont have confidence in that area.
Also, what better motivation do you want re a great follow up re the remaining team chasing down Hunt's killer? (again , we will never see a villain so vile that he killed Bond.) Another example of exploiting/leveraging Hunt's death )
It is a tough one. Does not the mortallity of a hero make them a bigger hero?
That's why I didn't like it when they brought in Hunt's wife for MI:3. It sort of dated him. The ending of MI:GP when she returns is the worst part for me (cringey). She's apparently coming back again for MI:Fallout, so not sure how I will deal with that.