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
+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.
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.
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.
Maybe. It would be very odd. It was a damn fine score.
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.
I think the late Johann Johannsson would've made a fantastic score. Such an atmospheric composer.
They're due for one; first one was released about three months back.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/tom-cruise-teases-terrifying-mission-impossible-stunt-at-cinemacon-1105993
Also:
I do hope the Camera Operators got a bonus for that week's work.
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.
+1
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
;)