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
The scene would go from them explaining the security of the building and how to properly break in, before cutting to Ethan parachuting out of the side of the building after Nyah infected herself.
Hell, aside from that last bit, that's pretty much the exact same thing that happens with the MacGuffin sequence in M:I3. I hate when they shy away from a real good action scene like that.
I agree with this, other than the opinion that it isn't handled well.
I've never had a bit of a problem with the sequence and the more I think about it, the showing of what went on inside the building is completely unnecessary. I actually like when a filmmaker has the courage, and confidence in the audience, to allow some things to be left to the imagination,
The best action moment of the film is the escape of Davian, far and away, and that's where it peaks.
"Ethan, you've never faced something like this before!"
"We're never going to do this!"
"I know we're IMF, but this is too much for us!"
And the like.
They could've just got on with it and shut up about the plan, and then the criticisms wouldn't be so heavy. But as it stands it's the equivalent of if the scene in MI where Ethan got inside the CIA just showed him coming up into the vent again and we saw nothing that came before it, or in MI4 if we just skipped to Ethan launching through the window on his rope. It's just boring.
Hmm. I see your point, however I do think this can be a good, efficient way to save the viewer time and the production money, If used effectively. Plus the element of the unknown is spun into a bit of humour. It's effective I think, for what it is.
As shown with SF & SP perhaps less is more, the stunts and chases in the last three MI movies were all superior to anything 007 has had to offer in recent installments. With a chase around Rome that was so expensive but at no moment ver showed why it did cost so much?
With TC & MI we do get movies that really try and push the enveloppe with the action spy thriller in recent years as The Bourne crew dis in their own way.
And the Bond franchise became a muddled mess of personal stuff instead of decently scripted spy & adventure movie. It is why they have been around so long but perhaps with Mendes & Craig we finally see that they run out of ideas or visionary directors who can install some power into the franchise.
To be honest you must be alone in that aspect. ;)
All three a decent workman directors and have delivered some excellent work outside of the 007 franchise.
While Mendes might have looked like a winner both his movies with Craig are a movement in the wrong direction and have the same problem DAD has, a director who follows his own vision instead of a decent script.
After CR & QoB I feel robbed by Mendes with his vision for 007, it is mostly a mess.
Sarcasm never did translate well over text, @0Brady.
I agree with you, @SaintMark on a lot of what you are saying, though. There is definitely a feeling from where I am standing that things got creatively stale very quickly.
Yes, I noticed that too. And to think I could've left this world with people thinking I liked those three directors. There's worse ways, though. Still, strike it from the record.
The MI series doesn't have spectacular writing imo. Ethan Hunt is barely even a character he's that generic, imo, and the premise itself is basically James Bond but with less style, less sex and more Tom Cruise.
But what I've always found enjoyable is how different the films are. You always got something new. GP was the best one, I thought. It was a brilliant action film and felt like such a breath of fresh air at the time (when we were still very much in gritty reboot land and Bond had abandoned the gadgets and the OTT stuff). I loved it.
But instead of doing what the series has always done (kept what works, ditched what doesn't, but always putting a fresh new spin on things) they decided to try and top it with Rogue Nation. To me, RN is to GP what MR is to TSWLM. A big bloated follow up that misunderstands that part of the appeal of the last one was how much of a breath of fresh air it felt.
People like Simon Pegg's character? Lets abandon the team dynamic (one of the few things saving the series from coming off as a cheap Bond knockoff) and sideline the character we built up as the leads best friend in the first three to make it a buddy film with him. But it's okay, he can have some forced banter with Jeremy Renner instead because people liked the humour in the last one. People liked the skyscraper stunt? Lets strap him to a plane, send him underwater, etc, and mercilessly hype these sequences up beforehand only for them to turn out to come across as just as bland and disappointing as the rest of the film (the plane stunt lasted what, all of 10 seconds? Basically the whole thing was in the trailers).
Don't get me wrong, RN was fine. Well made and some good action scenes. But I can't believe that people were hyping it up as an amazing revolutionary action film. It was really nothing special imo.
The hints at actually giving Ethan some character give me some hope for the sixth one but with it being the same director (who's already hyping an EVEN BIGGER stunt?!?!) I'm not holding my breath. I know this is coming across as very snarky and cynical, it's just that all the hype made RN a very disappointing experience for me when I did eventually watch it (don't regret missing it at the cinema at all), so I can't really muster up much enthusiasm for the next one. Shame as up until then I was very much a fan. Even enjoyed the second one.
I think that's the issue with every film of this modern era outside exceptions like The Dark Knight: there's not many well written or truly memorable baddies for the heroes to face, or at least ones that feel fresh. This is a hurdle franchises like Bond must always face in each film to massive degrees, as the villain in a Bond film is a trope on its own.
I look forward to MI6, and await to see just what McQuarrie means when he says he wants to take a deeper look into Hunt. He's speaking of taking it back to the past of the franchise with some faces returning, and at the very least I'm fascinated to know what the overall plot will be, and what Ethan's driving motivation is.
http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/827017-henry-cavill-joins-the-mission-impossible-6-cast
Didn't stop Sydoux from being in a Bond film.
Seydoux was in it for 5 minutes and had like, one line. Many people don't even know she's in Ghost Protocol. Also, she's not Cavill who will have a larger role and who people will obviously remember. EoN definitely wont cast him now that he would have been in UNCLE and now MI.
Never say never @doubleoego He made the final two for CR. EON have often looked at former potential Bond's when it comes to casting the next one.
Cavill is now well known, and more bankable. Could be just what they want when it come time for #7.
I'm very happy with the MI films. 4 and 5 have been brilliant additions to the franchise. Sadly MI is out Bonding Bond in nearly every department lately. I look forward to seeing what they can do with this 6th film.
Ethan: Iam
Someday it will be your death
--
Ethan thinks he is superman, some day that wil be lead to his death.
Ethan: That you wearing glases don't make you smart is it
--
Scene idea for introducing: Cavill chacter enter a phonebooth to take call and then smoke pop up and then wake up later. Alternate: His chacter died.