Mission: Impossible - films and tv series

1114115117119120303

Comments

  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    So, those wiki guys were right, then. It was Lorne Balfe.
  • Posts: 5,767
    I loved Lorne Balfe's work on 13 Hours.

    I like that too, and I think he'll do at least passably for MI, but I'm a bit sad they didn't get David Arnold, that would just have been too hilarious.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I don't know anything about this Balfe. I hope he's up to snuff. He has a high bar to clear because Kraemer did a fantastic job on RN.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    bondjames wrote: »
    I don't know anything about this Balfe. I hope he's up to snuff. He has a high bar to clear because Kraemer did a fantastic job on RN.
    +1
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,205
    bondjames wrote: »
    I don't know anything about this Balfe. I hope he's up to snuff. He has a high bar to clear because Kraemer did a fantastic job on RN.
    +1

    +1

    I'm sure Balfe will do a good job of it (I have liked a lot of his stuff) but I don't think he'll top Kraemer. They're completely different in terms of style and Kraemer really nailed it.
  • Posts: 1,916
    SharkBait wrote: »


    I love this film, still sits at number one for me.

    Me too. Number one is still number one.

    Better than some Bond movies...*cough*Skyfail...*cough* rip off!

    Actually better than any of the Brosnan films.

    I can't confirm it, but back in '95 I think MI and GE were going to come out in the same season, like MI was going to be a Christmas release. Not sure why MI got pushed back to summer '96 but it all worked out.

    Anybody else remember this or am I totally off here?

    Think of that battle - the return of Bond after a 6-year hiatus against Cruise back when he was the number one star in the world.
  • Posts: 4,044
    Anyone know why they haven’t gone for Kraemer this time
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,205
    vzok wrote: »
    Anyone know why they haven’t gone for Kraemer this time

    No reason was ever really made public. Kraemer said he originally wasn't contacted and then later was told he wouldn't be offered the gig. Which is quite bizarre really.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Maybe some higher-up wasn't satisfied with the score. We've seen all the stranger things, including on this forums.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,959
    McQuarrie said regardless of him returning to direct his second installment in a row, he wanted the film to have its own unique feel separate from RN (and how the series itself seems to be, shifting tone from one movie to the next), so going with a new composer could be another part of that.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,205
    Maybe some higher-up wasn't satisfied with the score. We've seen all the stranger things, including on this forums.

    Maybe. It would be very odd. It was a damn fine score.
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    McQuarrie said regardless of him returning to direct his second installment in a row, he wanted the film to have its own unique feel separate from RN (and how the series itself seems to be, shifting tone from one movie to the next), so going with a new composer could be another part of that.

    If that is the reason (and it very well may be), then that is weak. Giacchino scored III and Ghost Protocol, and they had very different tones to each other. Though, maybe the difference is that they had different directors. Either way, I'm looking forward to hearing what Balfe does.

    As long as it's not like Zimmer's score for II, I'm good.

    Balfe seems to be getting a lot of flak on Twitter over his appointment, which is a bit unfair.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,959
    @CraigMooreOHMSS, it was just a guess on my part, could be a different reason entirely as to why he went with someone new.

    I think the late Johann Johannsson would've made a fantastic score. Such an atmospheric composer.
  • Posts: 12,526
    If your out there Obrady? I finally got round to watching Rogue Nation last night!!! Lol!
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,959
    Keeping eyes peeled for a new trailer; a couple of CinemaCon events going on today, including some exclusive unveiling of footage from Fallout. These trailers are never guaranteed to make their way online - sometimes they don't, and sometimes, like with Venom they do, so perhaps another trailer will be released in the next 12 hours.

    They're due for one; first one was released about three months back.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I'd imagine they may tag it onto IW. I've yet to see the first one (keep closing my eyes when confronted with it in the theatre).
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited April 2018 Posts: 40,959
    Tom Cruise discussed THAT stunt at CinemaCon today, and holy hell, I cannot wait to see how they pull that off:

    https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/tom-cruise-teases-terrifying-mission-impossible-stunt-at-cinemacon-1105993

    Also:

    4ycgPss.jpg
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,205
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Tom Cruise discussed THAT stunt at CinemaCon today, and holy hell, I cannot wait to see how they pull that off:

    https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/tom-cruise-teases-terrifying-mission-impossible-stunt-at-cinemacon-1105993

    Also:

    4ycgPss.jpg

    I do hope the Camera Operators got a bonus for that week's work.
  • edited April 2018 Posts: 12,837
    I mean, if it gets to the point where they have to design a special helmet so you can see his face during the stunt, does it not become more about vanity/bragging than anything else? TND had a HALO jump and they lost nothing from doing it with a stuntman wearing a normal helmet.

    I guess it's no different from say Jackie Chan doing all his own stunts but it just seems weird that he's only become so obsessed with it now. And when Jackie does it it's about showmanship, with Cruise it just comes across as him wanting to prove to everyone how hard he is more than anything else imo.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,959
    I mean, if I was directing an A-list star doing stunts like that, I'd take every avenue to brag and showcase what we're managing to pull off. It's quite special. Cruise does it because he knows the fans love it. Give me that over CGI spectacles any day, I get much more appreciation out of it.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,205
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I mean, if I was directing an A-list star doing stunts like that, I'd take every avenue to brag and showcase what we're managing to pull off. It's quite special. Cruise does it because he knows the fans love it. Give me that over CGI spectacles any day, I get much more appreciation out of it.

    +1
  • edited April 2018 Posts: 1,661
    With modern CGI you can do almost anything and it can fool people. It would be easy to greenscreen Cruise hanging on wires in a studio and composite elements of the background and make you believe it's a genuine halo jump. If it's not one continuous scene with zero cuts then you can never prove it's all genuine. Just as easy to fool people in believing he held his breath for minutes in the last MI film.

    I also agree about Cruise bragging a lot in his recent action films. All credit to him hanging onto the plane in the last MI but he actually looked kinda scared doing it which kinda killed the impact. Had he looked calm hanging onto it it would have been a cooler scene! Sean Connery was hanging onto the top of a moving train, ducking under bridges, in The First Great Train Robbery but I don't recall him bragging about it. Fantastic scene.


  • edited April 2018 Posts: 5,767
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I mean, if I was directing an A-list star doing stunts like that, I'd take every avenue to brag and showcase what we're managing to pull off. It's quite special. Cruise does it because he knows the fans love it. Give me that over CGI spectacles any day, I get much more appreciation out of it.
    Yes, for sure, but I want to chime in with @thelivingroyale, TND´s HALO jump was a stunning beauty, and I wrote already weeks ago that I´m really curious how they´re going to top that. Merely seeing that the actor does the stunt isn´t a guaranty for a spectacular scene. In fact, IMO the scene in MI2 where Tom races a motorbike through an explosion would have looked much better with more total shots catching the whole scenario than concentrating so much on shots showing off Cruise.

    Nevertheless, those guys really know how to promote a film!



    I mean, there´s not just showing off the actor doing his own stunts, and then CGI fests. Both those variations tend to have the problem of losing the main point: to make a well-told, entertaining film. If the filmmakers know their craftsmanship and use it well, nobody will think about a stunt being for real or not, or certain elements being CGI or not.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,020
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I mean, if I was directing an A-list star doing stunts like that, I'd take every avenue to brag and showcase what we're managing to pull off. It's quite special. Cruise does it because he knows the fans love it. Give me that over CGI spectacles any day, I get much more appreciation out of it.
    Yeah. It's an spectacle, an actor doing a stunt like that. Unlike having a bunch of people working on computers to create it digitally, which is as non-spectacular as it gets.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    I like real-life stunts and "unbelievable achievements", but I was never one of those people who always condemned CGI. I see nothing wrong with CGI in the slightest and they'd be safer to achieve things than do it for real.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    I mean, if it gets to the point where they have to design a special helmet so you can see his face during the stunt, does it not become more about vanity/bragging than anything else? TND had a HALO jump and they lost nothing from doing it with a stuntman wearing a normal helmet.

    I guess it's no different from say Jackie Chan doing all his own stunts but it just seems weird that he's only become so obsessed with it now. And when Jackie does it it's about showmanship, with Cruise it just comes across as him wanting to prove to everyone how hard he is more than anything else imo.

    Cruise is an actor; dedicated to his craft to do things for real as much as possible. Chan was/is a martial arts fighter/exhibitionist/stunt man. It's a bigger deal when Cruise does his shtick because his approach is very different from the more cultivated approach that Chan is synonymous with.

    Everyone made a big deal about Craig running up the crane in CR, jumping on roof tops in QoS and fighting on top of a train in SF, which is kind of the same thing with Cruise except Cruise has bigger balls and goes hard with doing his stunts for the sake of authenticity. Dude gets mad props and has my respect. Meanwhile Craig injures his knee in the set of SP during a choreographed fist fight and it's like the end of the world.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,020
    I like real-life stunts and "unbelievable achievements", but I was never one of those people who always condemned CGI. I see nothing wrong with CGI in the slightest and they'd be safer to achieve things than do it for real.
    No, CGI is a great tool. But there is something more exciting about the real thing; it creates a mystique around a film. Though one can't and shouldn't expect every film to deliver on that front.
  • Posts: 5,767
    doubleoego wrote: »
    I mean, if it gets to the point where they have to design a special helmet so you can see his face during the stunt, does it not become more about vanity/bragging than anything else? TND had a HALO jump and they lost nothing from doing it with a stuntman wearing a normal helmet.

    I guess it's no different from say Jackie Chan doing all his own stunts but it just seems weird that he's only become so obsessed with it now. And when Jackie does it it's about showmanship, with Cruise it just comes across as him wanting to prove to everyone how hard he is more than anything else imo.

    Cruise is an actor; dedicated to his craft to do things for real as much as possible. Chan was/is a martial arts fighter/exhibitionist/stunt man. It's a bigger deal when Cruise does his shtick because his approach is very different from the more cultivated approach that Chan is synonymous with.

    Everyone made a big deal about Craig running up the crane in CR, jumping on roof tops in QoS and fighting on top of a train in SF, which is kind of the same thing with Cruise except Cruise has bigger balls and goes hard with doing his stunts for the sake of authenticity. Dude gets mad props and has my respect. Meanwhile Craig injures his knee in the set of SP during a choreographed fist fight and it's like the end of the world.
    Bad marketing. Cruise breaks his ankle and uses the original footage to promote the film, while Craig often comes across as the anti-Bond offscreen.




    mattjoes wrote: »
    I like real-life stunts and "unbelievable achievements", but I was never one of those people who always condemned CGI. I see nothing wrong with CGI in the slightest and they'd be safer to achieve things than do it for real.
    No, CGI is a great tool. But there is something more exciting about the real thing; it creates a mystique around a film. Though one can't and shouldn't expect every film to deliver on that front.
    I disagree. The mystique is foremost created by people doing their things really well. Then it doesn´t matter what tools they use.
    A big problem is a majority of films are produced that don´t have the money or talent to actually do what they want or pretend to do. But they are integrated into huge marketing campaigns that seduce common moviegoers into thinking that they better watch this film in 3D, or that they are indeed seeing landscapes they couldn´t see without CGI.

  • Posts: 12,837
    @doubleoego Craig is a 50 year old man and like you said, he's an actor. His job is to pretend. He doesn't have to kill himself to show he's got "bigger balls" than Tom Cruise, stuntmen exist for a reason and Craig's injury apparently leading to changes is proof of the risk there. Yeah it's authentic but to be honest, none of the impact of the TSWLM ski jump is lost on me because I know it isn't really Roger Moore.

    I do think it's great having an actor who likes to do as much as possible and get stuck in but when going that far out of the way for it (making a special helmet unlike the ones they'd actually use just so you can see his face) it does just seem like they're doing it for marketing/bragging rights imo, rather than authenticity. I guess it works though to be fair, gets people talking so more power to them.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2018 Posts: 23,883
    I've said this before but if I may just repeat again: From my perspective I don't really care if it's CGI or if it's real. What I don't want is to be able to tell the difference. On the CR crane shoot I believed Craig was up there fighting for his life. It looked real. The director (Campbell) did a super job of filming it too, with the camera rotating around the action in the air. That was as exciting to me as Cruise hanging from the Burj. In one film the actor was indeed up there. In the other it was someone else. However, the effect to me was somewhat the same due to the excellent execution in both cases.

    It was in QoS where I first noticed the cheap CGI trash that has now become all too apparent in Bond films since. It began with that fall from the tower through the glass onto the rafters in the post-credits Mitchell chase. Pathetic to me because it looked digitized. That is the sort of stuff I can't stand. As we know, there's been far more of that since.

    I recently purchased a 65 inch 4K Sony tv and put in Total Recall (the 2012 remake), remastered to 4K. There is a CGI city at night in that film and it looks absolutely breathtaking during a footchase between Colin Farrel and Kate Beckinsale. I thought it was real.

    Similarly during TDKR, Nolan has bits of Gotham (NYC) aflame and films it from up high. It looks eerily real and reminiscent of 9/11, even though it's CGI.

    So again, I don't care if it's done for real or not. Just don't take me for an idiot and do it well if you want me to believe it.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    But... But... @bondjames... This is real...

    giphy.gif

    ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.