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
That’s why I only call it a theory. And Cruise’s ego isn’t exactly a secret. I’m not bringing up to knock the guy, just that I would understand why he would have Renner’s character written off and never brought back three films in a row (assuming Renner doesn’t make a surprise appearance in MI8).
Except that you have a series of films which has notably moved from him being the lone star to a repeating ensemble team format. As I say, his ego wasn't going to be in trouble from sharing a screen with Renner if he's happy to share and give big moments to the rest of them. And he had him there for two whole films! Does it take three movies/seven years for this fragile ego to kick in?
I don’t agree with this. These movies never had Cruise as the lone star, but they never were ensembles either. Hunt always had a team he worked with in these films, but he was always front and center when it came to these teams. That’s fine, because that’s the dynamic Cruise has set from the very first film. Collect a team of misfits who all have speciality that will come to aid him (or betray him if they’re double agents). The only time he’s ever really solo is when his whole team gets killed in the first, but shortly after he sets up a new team.
I just find it peculiar that Renner is around for two films but the moment he turns down a death cameo for FALLOUT they never ask for him again. If they manage to have Renner pop up in a future film, I’ll happy toss my theory in the bin.
I don't quite follow this theory: Renner not doing the death cameo set off Cruise's ego? Why would his ego be damaged by another character not dying? A character who wasn't going to be in the film anyway.
I think if you read between the lines of that McQ interview, it seems more like he didn't enjoy McQ's freestyle way of making these films and hasn't been up for more of it, as well as having schedule conflicts for Fallout. Don't forget they've been shooting these two films since 2019, and they haven't finished yet.
Even if Cruise’s success is , partially, ego driven, it may be part of his charisma; bravado is equally admired and met with disdain. Renner is a bit middle ground.
Speaking of Renner, I do think it's a shame he fell off the stage after Rogue Nation, because I think he slotted into the Ethan/Luther/Benji/sometimes Ilsa team really well.
I tip my hat to the director and Tom Cruise for their introduction. A reminder that movies are made for and best on the big screen.
Any number of actresses could play M. Do they model their M after JD, or do they take her in a new direction? I prefer to see a new dynamic. The scolding/reprimanding M who obviously likes Bond but rarely shows it is wearing thin.
Yeah. That would be a nice touch.
I do think Dead Reckoning 1 had too many characters, espicially when compared with Fallout that felt very streamlined.
I don't know where I stand on the too-many-characters thing. I think there were probably too many returning characters (not sure we needed White Widow as well), but there's something a bit sad about Ethan's core M:I team just being him, Benji and Luther. They're all a bit old and slightly tired-looking; I think it needs four to be a team. In a way I feel like they should have just made Ilsa part of the team proper from the beginning of this film; it would have been nice to see her taking part in some of the proper heist stuff.
Listen, we had to endure a handful of years between SP and NTTD, and a handful of years between Fallout and DR. This simply heightens expectations and desires and we construct our own film inside our busy hungry heads, which leads us to have unsurpassable expectations or a distorted augmented view from the get go.
Point being, some films nowadays need to brew, to marinate over some time so we can get a better view with a clear head and not that empty of a stomach.
That isn't to say they're not fun at the time, and I'm not mining anyone's delight. But I don't believe they'll stand and endure the test of time.
I love NTTD's first bit, and I loathed the rest of it. I liked DR for the most part, despite it's narrative faults, contrived solutions, and bad decisions regarding the characters, but it was well executed. Heck, I can say the same about NTTD, it was brilliantly executed. They both were. But their solutions and decisions simply didn't do anything for me besides bothering me and leaving a sour taste in the mouth.
So, what does the film industry need nowadays? Better technicians? Better stunt people? Better cinematographers? Better composers? NO! All of these are good. They need better writers, damn it! WRITERS! Not AI generated scripts. And writers can't be treated as servants to the studio culture. Writers must be appreciated as the most important artists. The base of it all. The foundations!
And this is my main criticism of films nowadays. They are poorly written. And if they are brilliantly written, the beast in the industry will make sure the writing gets moulded to their design, to their agenda. Writers must regain the respect they deserve. And then, who knows? Maybe a well written Bond film, plus all of the technical achievements they have accomplished, will blow our minds again, in the best way.
I'll be waiting for it. Same goes for Mr. Cruise. If he puts his bravado and interests along side better writing from the get go, who knows what will come of it?
I was expecting that too, especially after Kitteridge mentions he knew her when she was younger.
My suspicion is that it was planned but got lost in re-writes.
I will certainly sign up to and listen to the Empire spoiler special with McQ when it's released- apparently they've done the first session and it was six hours long. The last two were properly fascinating.
I feel like all I'm doing is nitpicking this film, but I did really enjoy it. I was driving home with my girlfriend after watching it, I said to her, it was still an exciting film, it just didn't live up to Fallout or the expectations I had for it, which is my own fault rather than the films if that makes sense
I think you and I are largely on the same page wrt to NTTD and DR. Love bits of both, but the writing is just too distracting at parts. One would think and hope that any writer doing a two-parter from the get-go would know to set themselves up in Part 1 for the perfect Part 2. We've cut out some characters, given Ethan a new mission already, now we can hopefully literally cut to the chase in Part 2 and get something that feels tight and clever.
The first movie does exactly this with Tom Cruise playing both Ethan Hunt masked and the senator that he’s impersonating.
The second film even acknowledges that with Ambrose being a selected agent because he resembles Ethan Hunt enough in terms of bone structure and such to pull it off.
I think it’s with the third film where they start going even crazier with the masks by having Tom Cruise impersonating Philip Seymour Hoffman, who looks nothing like Tom Cruise. It’s funny that they never play a joke on something like that where they remark how the person suddenly looks shorter than the person impersonated.