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
Lorne Balfe is just ruining these for me.
I dunno why Cruise dumped Joe Kraemer, but it’s a damn shame.
I think I remember hearing that MacQuarrie and him had some sort of falling out. He said he ditched Kraemer for Fallout because he wanted to keep that house style of each film feeling different, but I think it's perhaps a touch arrogant to feel that you can alter your style of direction but a composer wouldn't be capable of making a similar change.
I wish I knew what went on with Kraemer: he made a properly excellent movie score with that one and it seems bizarre that no-one else has asked him to do another. Maybe it all got too high pressure: he's doing scores to Doctor Who audioplay CDs now among other things.
He's been a notable absence on the Light The Fuse podcast too, who have interviewed almost everyone who's worked on the films.
I was especially not a fan of turning Rebecca Ferguson into a love interest. She was much better as a fellow agent that Ethan Hunt had platonic admiration for.
But you’re right, MI3 is the absolute worst.
But yeah, I love Kraemer's score. Using Turandot as the basis for Ethan and Ilsa's theme was extremely clever.
I like Balfe's score too, though.
I like GP but it suffers from a slightly protracted and weak last act: Rogue Nation just tips it for me as it only gets stronger towards the end of the film and has the killer opera scene. It's just creamier filmmaking, where Protocol starts to get a bit bumpy. For example the India party mission: you could remove that from the film and it makes no difference because the team entirely fail their mission! :)
Here’s a twitter thread by Kraemer, possibly alluding to McQ.
If McQ really wanted each film to feel different from each other as a reason for Kraemer’s dismissal, hiring Balfe a second and third time isn’t exactly supporting that.
This actually wasn’t supposed to happen. They figured he’d spent so much time learning how to fly jets for Top Gun he’d be able to fly a biplane no problem.
Yeah I think he's abandoned that thinking now: at the time I think he thought Fallout would be his last.
Tom at Wimbledon for the men's final, Tom sure gets around.
I guess TC let go of the plane and parachuted -- no, no...squirrel-suited down to Wimbledon.
Absolutely. I find 3, 4, and 5 to be pretty untouchable. And Tom in priest's garb is just too hilarious.
It's been hilariously christened 'Marriage: Impossible' around these parts.
I quite like it. Much better than its predecessor but I think they found their footing with the successive entries.
It's why part of me was glad he never did a Bond film. Tamahori gave us a really shallow imitation of what a Woo-Bond could look like in terms of style.
Absolutely + 1 ! I am a big fan of MI:3 . It humanized Hunt and made him into a more three dimensional character.
With that said, they wisely moved away from that relationship and didn’t become mired in too much emotional and personal baggage.
I think he would have delivered a more entertaining version of TND easily. Would have given it much needed style.
I'm not really bothered about the action in it: I think MI2 delivers better. And for me a big part of the pleasure of an MI is that they are heist films - I love heist films. And MI3 just fails to be one: there's Rome, but they don't anything particularly clever or thrilling there.
For me the main difference between Hunt and Bond is (but not always) that Bond is the blunt instrument who'll grab whatever comes to hand to get the baddie and make it up on the spot, whereas Hunt springs a trap or has a clever plan to get the baddie. Even the first MI actually followed this inspiration from the TV series much more than critics at the time noticed: even the last set piece on the train is a plan, a trap set by Ethan to catch the baddie.
In MI3 I feel like he's on the back foot too much; he never turns the tables. He even kills the baddie by plain luck. It's fine, but it doesn't do what an MI film should I think. MI2 is mostly not a MI film either, but it's silly fun with a good score, and Ethan even does pull a clever switcheroo at the end when he puts the henchman in a Cruise mask- there's a bit of plan there, even if it's not much more than a nod towards the concept.
The only American productions of John Woo films I’ve seen are FACE/OFF and of course MI2. I know he has JCVD knock a snake puppet out cold.
Just a friendly reminder, I am watching what you all say. I love Van Damme / Hard Target, it's my favorite action thriller, and I am prepared to die on that hill.