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
Different strokes for different folks, I suppose. I never took to it and find it sticks out like a sore thumb in the series' in all the wrong ways!
:))
The car chase is fantastic. The helicopter chase, and indeed the whole climax, is tenser than any action sequence I’ve seen in years.
Skyfall, I'll give you that one. Silva's plan didn't make much sense at all. But I think Spectre actually has one of the best villain schemes of the series, they just didn't execute it as well as they could have done.
First of all, yeah, the brother angle was pointless and distracting. It made such little impact that it easily could have been taken out anyway so I don't get why it was necessary at all. I'd get rid of that.
Also I think Blofeld's scheme should have had more consequence. As cool as it was seeing Bond effortlessly being Bond in the PTS, I think it should have been a bit more intense, with him stopping the bomb at the last second instead of blowing it up early. I also think that we should have seen shots of the other terrorist attacks instead of just hearing about them and it should have been a lot harder to stop Nine Eyes instead of Q just casually turning it off by hammering away at a keyboard.
I also think Blofeld himself should have done more to talk about his plan when Bond was at his base. He could have talked about how people's paranoia about terrorism and the eagerness of groups like ISIS to claim responsibility made it easy. And he did have that little speech about information being power but he should have talked about what he'd actually do with that information.
So yeah the execution was off. But I think the villain's plan in Spectre is actually the one of the best things about it. Carry out terrorist attacks to trick the government into giving him surveillance power that would make his criminal organisation unstoppable. Very clever and modern while still feeling high stakes. I know it sounds ridiculous because they already had four years to get it right but I think if it'd had a few more drafts then we'd easily be talking about that films story as one of the best.
I like MI 3. Don't remember what it was actually about but I liked how much more intense and gritty it felt, and Hoffman is easily the only good villain MI has ever had. For me it'd go
Ghost Protocol - It's easy to forget now because Marvel has led to every Hollywood blockbuster going for quippy fun lately but this came out back when everyone was copying Bourne/The Dark Knight, so it was actually such a breath of fresh air at the time because of how fun it was.
MI 3 - Tense and exciting little action film with a great bad guy.
Fallout - Bit overrated imo but a lot better than RN.
MI - Always thought it was a bit dull, but has some really good bits.
MI 2 - Crap.
Rogue Nation - At least MI 2 was entertaining. A boring bloated attempt at recreating GP's success.
If the new Bond has a set piece even half as good as the Opera sequence from RN I’ll be happy. Knowing McQ is back for more MI makes me happy enough on its own.
If the new mission impossible or any mission impossible do anything original or at least not try to copy exact the same thing from bond or any other franchise i will be the first one to praise it.
This applies to almost all modern film franchises/series, including (and sometimes especially) Bond, so I guess you're going to be a very unhappy man regardless of what you watch.
What makes you say that?
I am perfectly happy the way things are going with bond , mi is an whole other story. Most bond fans are unhappy and complaining a lot about bond so are they unhappy?
And frankly it's hard to believe that bond copy exactly like other franchise. A lot of people here keep saying that QOS had a lot of influence from Bourne but it was just shaky cam which wasn't exactly a copy but more of a trend that was going around at that time in a lot films.
Whether it's hard to believe or not, Bond has, since the early 70s at least, taken inspiration from many other sources and prominent pop-culture films. It's not necessarily a bad thing, unless you view it as such. Reactive Bond films have often been amongst the best ones. It's one of the reasons the series has stayed alive for so long - smart producing.
Is that a question, or a question AND an answer? Yes, if they are unhappy and complaining then I would say they are unhappy.
P.s. I am also reasonably happy with Bond at the moment (excited for NTTD as well as whoever becomes Bond next), but I wouldn't deny that there are elements of the Craig era that are indebted to both other major franchises (be it through tone or mood, directing style and/or certain technical approaches) and the 50 year history of Bond itself. But it's not where the inspiration comes from that counts, it's what you do with it. Both CR and SF did something smart with it, while the other two have massive flaws that have been well documented here since their release.
M:I similarly has done some pretty awesome things with its inspiration (also some not so good ones, in fairness) across the six films, and I personally find a lot of the Bond comparisons a tad superficial. They are very different beasts, and people are dead right when they say it'll be over when Cruise is done. Hunt is more Buster Keaton than James Bond, imo, and while that's not especially deep or meaningful, it's bloody entertaining and that's what matters ultimately.
Well, I can't argue with that. If it isn't for you, it isn't for you! I, personally, enjoy rewatching them all bar the second one.
Which Bond did they steal the Opera sequence from then? When has Bond had to decide between two targets to shoot with one bullet?
Since McQ came onboard they've been brilliantly, and cleverly, constructed blockbusters with, as I mentioned, set pieces that actually know to raise tension; something Bond has sadly mostly forgotten in recent years. Skyfall was a step in the right direction but it's not where the MI films are now, even if it does add quite a dash more style than they have.
I mean you definitely wouldn't see that kind of balls-to-the-wall adrenaline in either Mendes films. SF's strenght was in the character exploration / dynamics and unimpeachable cinematography rather than the action, I feel? The PTS was the biggest action sequence in the film.
Of course I find Bond superior but I can see why some fans are a little dissappointed in this regard.
I have high hopes for NTTD though, as Fukunaga seems more action savvy than Mendes, and the feeling I'm getting from the filming footage is a return to high energy action rather than the lackluster efforts from SP.
I rather like it for being quite stripped back, but it’s funny to compare it to MI which really is full of big action and tension.
QOS oper sequence and about that shooting scene, TLD had a similar scene where bond had to shoot the Pushkin to save him just like Ethan had to shoot that chancellor to save him. There are lot of scenes in every single film and it's not coincidence.
CR & QOS both has terrific action sequences, Car chase/Plane chase/Foot chase the only issue was editing . In SF they took a more traditional approach and bond had to look weak after the PTS which suits the theme of the film and even though SP lacked great action sequence the chopper roll in the beginning was quite spectacular. People complain about SP action sequences so let me just try and say it again:
SP: bond try to run over the plane to henchmen and the woman he was trying to save in Austria .
Fallout: Ethan try smash both helicopters to get the detonators.
Now tell me again how exactly one makes sense (Fallout) in people's mind and other (SP) don't. I find both of them highly stupid.
I think MI is enjoyable, though I miss the spying aspect of MI1 or the TV series. The emphasis on all out action is fine, but I don’t want Bond slavishly copying that. A mix of action, drama, spying and style please.
I wish we could finally put that debate aside by realizing that while each franchise can copy certain elements of the other franchises, they all cohabit the action genre & are all doing their own thing. I don't want M:I to let go of the team angle and have Tom Cruise as the only protagonist, I don't want F&F to remove all car chases and focus on fist fights, I don't want Bond to not be the center of attention of his films, etc.
+1 I agree
Awh man, these are very, very weak comparisons. The opera sequences in both QOS and RN owe more to Hitchcock than they do to each other. Come on! :)
Pretty easily. The answer relies on context and more specifically, STAKES.
Neither are very smart plans, but in FALLOUT Hunt is left without any choice but to risk the chopper chase (against an equal vehicle) on account of the imminent detonation of the nuclear bomb, which is the villain's endgame. There's no way of catching the helicopter, and there's a distinct mention of how crazy it is during the sequence which helps bring the tension up.
The same scenario is not present in SPECTRE, where the stakes are considerably lower. It's "just" a female in the back of a car who, at that point in the story, may or may not be useful. Using a plane to ram the convey off the road seems like overkill, and puts the person he's trying to save (as well as Bond himself) at needlessly bigger risk. Bond on skiis would have been far more interesting (and made more sense) in that scenario, for example - but instead of all the vehicles surely present at the clinic to pursue SUVs, he goes for a plane?
Conceptually, both scenes are nuts for sure, and both characters end up availing of their fair share of luck to come out on top. However, the stakes present (as well as superior editing, scoring and shot choices) during the FALLOUT chopper sequence makes it work far better, imo.
Aww nice way of saying " one stupid scene is better than the other. Talking about tension which was highly predictable trying to stop the bomb (GP plot repeated)No matter the stakes there are better ways to come up with better sequence then what they have come up with. Remember AVTAK opening where bond use a flare or something like that to stop a chopper, in SP ending bond shoot at chopper, Ethan was pretty close than bond was in both movies .
RN had a lot of common coincidence of copying not just the opera sequence I have posted it multiple times and Frankly I am tired of saying it again to people who wants to keep there eyes close, deny all you want by saying they are weak arguments but these aren't coincidence . Just like Hitchcock films, mi owes a lot to bond films .
If you think stakes aren't important in how good an action scene is or isn't, I really don't know what to tell you.
The rest of your post is straw-clutching to the extreme. I mean that as nicely as possible. Sorry, dude!
Stakes do matter but I wouldn't go as far as calling a stupid scene - best action film in years sure it was better than SP.
Thanks for being so nice but I always feel the same about your denial in those posts . ;)
Lets shake hands and leave it there, so. :))
Sure, in a civil manner (:|