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
Bond sneaks the win in 2015 because of its history, and the gravitas/scope of SP, which MI (and Cruise) still lack, but Ferguson aced anyone in SP imho, including Waltz. I truly want to see her again in MI6.
No doubt. I don't even like Cruise, and thought MI3 sucked balls.
However, the last two have just been excellent action thrillers, and I'm hooked, despite Cruise rather than because of him. He has surpassed the obvious limitations of his franchise and its limited pedigree. Bond, recently (last 3 films) has not.....imho.
To say that the debate is heated 'because everyone likes an underdog' is too much of a blanket statement to me. I'm not saying that nobody behaves like that, we all know someone that sticks to the little guy because, well, because because, but a lot of the reasons outsiders are appreciating MI more have validity: quality of the action, slickness of direction, strength of supporting characters.
Again, it's all subjective ultimately, and I'm unsurprisingly in the Bond camp, but I don't feel comfortable labelling people who prefer MI over Bond as simply folk that like underdogs, period.
I'm also a little unclear as to what makes MI an underdog. Franchise with a very long history with its own fanbase, Tom Cruise in the lead role, a major Hollywood studio backing each instalment with millions upon millions of dollars. That doesn't make for 'underdog, status in my book.
Interestingly, I think the MI resurgence will always be tied to the DC era. As DC Bonds went more moody/deep/conceptual, MI jumped in to the void that was left and grabbed the pure action spectacle mantle. They'll (Cruise & DC) both also probably leave after the next one.
As did Bourne. It's all good fun, but Bond is Bond. The rest are pretenders who come and go.
http://www.vox.com/2015/11/10/9705558/spectre-bond-mission-impossible
The linked article even contains links to other relevant Bond articles and videos (including a cool video that shows every country Bond has visited).
BTW, I think it's very wrong to suggest MI can't survive in the future w/out Cruise. I consider that far easier to accomplish than Bond having survived w/out Connery. And, in the case of MI, future installments don't even need to feature the Hunt character. They can feature an entirely new agent. Thus, it doesn't require even the semblance of consistency in the main character that Bond requires.
The whole thing is simply Cruise ripping off Bond. It has no defining characteristics. Ask a kid to tell you who Bond is and they'll talk for hours, ask the same kid to tell you who Ethan Hunt is and they'll have nothing to say other than, 'you mean Tom Cruise'.
and, finally, unlike Bond, Ethan can die (or the possibility is there) , in a way, that is a strength, we know that Ethan can die and the MI team would continue but no such option with Bond. If you were a script writer with new ideas, MI provides more flexibility. Sorry if this sounds a downer on Bond, not meant to be but these are interesting times.
Flexibility shmexibility.
What were the most talked about features of the last two MI movies? Cruise hanging off the tallest building in the world, and Cruise hanging onto an airplane as it takes off, all done for real. Those two sequences alone added a must-see factor to both films.
Cruise is what brings that unique quality to it. Connery was always an actor for hire with no say in the scripts, but Cruise is the star, producer, and 'backseat director' of the series. You remove him and his commitment to pushing the envelope, and you've got generic spy series no. #242, starring...who?
https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/3sbstm/watching_spectre_reminded_me_of_what_a_better/
I'm ashamed, as a lifelong Bond fan, to agree with most of what's in that (spoiler) piece. The exception: Thomas Newman supposedly overusing the Bond theme. He did not. It was just used right in SP, as was the MI theme in MI-RN.
Having said all that, Bond will be back forever, with a new actor eventually. The concept & legend is far bigger than the actor (although relying on that legend isn't enough as has been noted).
MI will likely only return once more for a Cruise swansong. I hope he can deliver one great parting shot, because he has resuscitated the franchise with his dedication and effort, and deserves to go out with a bang.
Then Bond can get back to basics (post-DC & post-Mendes) and reclaim the action banner once and for all.
Funny, they both had their post-Cold War thrillers (M:I and GE), their off-the-rails action bonanzas (M:I-2 and DAD) and their lower key returns to form (M:I-3 and CR) around the same time. Cruise had the edge in the 90's/early 00's in box office, with Bond gaining and keeping it with the Craig era.
True, but at the same time, I can't tell you how many times I've read something along the lines of "I/you may not like Tom Cruise personally, but there's no denying the huge entertainment value of MI."
I actually have no issue w/Cruise on a personal level, but find him completely lacking in the charisma (though he is a great actor) that most Bond actors bring to the role of 007. Replace Cruise with a charismatic leading man as a new agent on the MI team, fill the new movies w/similarly great stunts performed by an amazing stunt double under the direction of a great action director, and the series continues (it matters not that the actor himself might not be doing the stunts).
I don't think Cruise is as utterly identified w/MI as Connery was with Bond. Bond wasn't made as a series, in the beginning, by deft plots and amazing action. It was made by Connery's amazingly charismatic performance. We wouldn't still be watching Bond movies 50 yrs later if anyone other than Connery had originally been cast as Bond -- yet, partly because of him, 007 was able to continue w/out him.
MI, as series, has been made, originally, not by Cruise (any good actor would have worked in the clever original movie), but by deft plots and, currently, by the most inventive action set pieces in movies today. Any physically fit, relatively handsome, good actor can fill the lead role in a MI movie. Fill the role w/an actor who is also charismatic (and one that most people actually personally like) and the series could even be elevated.
Just my opinion.
I think it's interesting that people find MI3 to be the worst of the MI films, when I find MI2 to be obnoxious and unintentionally hilarious wth every viewing. The excessive use of slow mo and John Wu's need to have random doves in his films...bleh.
This is where MI is currently streets ahead for me. I have to say that the action in SF distinctly underwhelming in terms of seriously good and inventive stunt work done for real (a decent PTS and thats really all). SP is a bit better but its now the MI films that deliver these marquee stunts that used to be Bond's fiefdom.
Dont get me wrong I think Gary Powell knows his stuff and I'm glad to see the back of Vic Armstrong but the writers just arent coming up with good enough action sequences in the last 3 Bond films.
The CR parkour sequence is still head and shoulders ahead of any action sequence in the Craig era after all these years.
QOS - The PTS pretty good but ruined by the editing, the rope fight original and exciting, the rest meh.
SF - PTS very good, the rest just various fist fights and gunfights. The tube sequence while suspenseful doesnt feature much in the way of actual stunts. Sliding down an escalator really isnt good enough for a big Bond action set piece I'm afraid.
SP - Decent PTS but a suspicion while youre watching it that its 90% CGI, the car chase is ok but more a bit of fun than crammed with thrilling action, the much vaunted plane sequence wasnt that great (just what is going through Bond's head? Why would you deliberately smash the wings off your plane?), the fight with Hinx is the standout action scene but this isnt eye popping stuntwork that makes you catch your breath.
But the high speed motorbike chase in MI: RN actually left me breathless. You could see it was all done for real and the driving skills on show were phenomenal.
Remember the days of the GE trailer when they just showed Bond bungying of the dam? Now its MI that has the jaw dropping spectacle in the trailer.
'You were expecting someone else?' Yes Tom Cruise it seems.
However despite me having a downer on the way Bond has fallen behind on the action front its not even a competition in other depts.
As someone else mentioned Bond is a character we all know and love. Ask someone to describe something about Ethan Hunt without using the words 'Tom' or 'Cruise' and you will be met with blank stares.
I hate the whole MI team thing (although it works for MI) and much prefer Bond as an agent on his own saving the world (although it seems we are heading more and more in that direction with 'team MI6' tagging along way too often for my liking these days).
The Craig era has also, to a degree, elevated Bond closer to being thriller/dramas that also have action than actual action films. Theres a lot more meat on the bones in terms of character and dramatic heft (although this probably refers mostly to CR and SF). The MI films are very slick but are still blatantly just popcorn entertainment and whilst this is also true of Bond, Craig era Bond films seem to take things all just a bit more seriously.
MI feels more like the natural successor to the Brosnan era with the cheese dialled down but the overall tone is closer to Brosnan than Craig. Whereas the Craig films feel more rooted in Fleming so come with a lot more weight.
OK SP is flawed (quite drastically in places) but bottom line its still Bond. Yes objectively there is a case to be made that MI:RN is better than SP but as a Bond fan I didnt get the same level of excitement at seeing Tom Cruise hanging off a plane as I did when those little white dots flash across the screen and a certain piece of music starts up. Nobody does it better.
Big Yep!!!!
It's definitely been an interesting year, one filled to the BRIM with different spy movies (Kingsman, UNCLE, Rogue Nation, Spy and Spectre of course), all of which I've personally greatly enjoyed for very different reasons. But nothing can beat the excitement of going to see a new Bond movie, even if it's not one of the better ones.
Our nostalgia and affection probably plays a huge part in all of this, would we all be as accepting of certain Bond movies if the main character was a random spy never seen before? Probably not, but it doesn't change the fact that theres something special about seeing a new Bond movie, a feeling nothing else can replicate, not even MI.
All that said, MI:RN was excellent and it's a real wonder to have seen the series grow into what it is today. It's a rare case of a movie series actually getting BETTER as time goes on, it took a while to find the right tone and balance (MI1 was good, but a bit bland and MI2 was just awful), but Ghost Protocol and Rogue Nation have been fantastic in their own way. In their own, very separate, yet inspired by Bond way.
MI has definitely been inspired by the older Bond movies, but It's really grown into its own thing at this point, which makes it hard to compare. Are MI:GP and RN better than recent Bond movies? In some ways, yes, but in other ways no. I like CR and SF for vastly different reasons than I like MI:GP and RN. What sets MI apart is the "teamwork" aspect of it, it's always been the biggest selling point for me and they've really been nailing it recently.
I welcome MI with open arms, it's great to have a competing spy series that's this entertaining, but at the end of the day, I'd still take Bond over it. It's the added legacy behind the series, the feeling of nostalgia, the interesting ways in which the series plays with it's tropes and formula that ultimately makes it more rewarding and interesting for me. After all, nobody does it better.