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
Actually, those numbers pretty much equal my feelings concerning those two films. RN was splendid entertainment, but somehow it didn´t quite reach GP. ;-)
My thoughts exactly, 100%: RN was great, but not as great as GP.
I thought RN was clearly the better, more realistic and intelligent film of the two. The reason it slightly underperformed as compared to GP, was mainly marketing, rescheduling the film to a still crowded timeframe (late summer), and slightly lackluster and delayed publicity (late trailer).
Best Buy is getting a US steelbook, showcasing the motorcycle scene from the movie. I'll be picking that version up, can't wait to give this another watch.
I agree. I think scheduling in the summer was the major factor. Marketing was poor too.
Additionally, GP seemed to be more 'in your face' with the Dubai stunt etc. It seemed more action oriented & 'louder'. RN is more cerebral (relatively speaking) and actually, Bond-like, rather than FF like (a little less action, a little more spy).
Finally, I think there is an underlying 'spy fatigue' or even 'action fatigue' that we are not able to measure, but it's there. There was nothing like GP that year. There have been many spy flicks and spy spoofs this year, as well as many outlandish action flics.
It will make a perfect sense to have 2 types of "trilogies" to end this amazing franchise. Or maybe you'd rather see more awesome M:I action ?
Personally, I think GP and RN are "Mission: Impossible"s "Goldfinger" and "Thunderball". They made certain that the USA have their own 'James Bond' now: The Impossible Mission Force. And I think the "M:I"-franchise is one of those rare action franchises that will stay with us until we die from natural cause at a good age :-). Like James Bond...
That's true (about the GF/TB thing) but I really don't think it can really survive past Cruise.....at least not with the same level of success.
In fact, I don't know of one other spy series that can outlive its actor in the role. Even Jack Ryan is suffering. Bond is unique that way. I'm sure Hollywood is quite envious about that.
Another job for Chris Pratt? ;)
That's a good point. Pratt is the quintessential everyman (or at least seems so). He's going to be one busy guy over the next few yrs.
That was the main convention about James Bond in the late 60's :-). It's an important choice Tom Cruise sooner or later has to make as well. So much of the success of this franchise is centered around his character, Ethan Hunt. What will he do? Go the 'Jason Bourne'-way, and cast a complete new actor in a complete new role ("The Bourne Legacy"), or does he prefer a new actor to play the same role ("On Her Majesty's Secret Service"). With both options we saw both franchises survive. I expect that of "Mission: Impossible" too.
A devoted marketing campaign could make the audience aware of the idea that the tv series upon which Tom Cruise based his films thrived without any Ethan Hunt. This approach could suffer from a possible re-boot-weariness of the audience ;-).
If Bond fails then has to prove itself again.
But then Bond always steps up when the underdog.
Might be good for Bond in long run.
If you look at how well even the widely-hated DAD and QoS did financially, it seems impossible for SP to "fail".
LTK was in top 12 world wide films of 1989 against a motherload of huge blockbusters, and it had a non-existent budget and minimal promotional campaign compared to those behemoths. 95% of movie studios in 2015 would kill to be able to make a top 15 box office hit of the year with almost 0 effort to promote it.
People still underestimate the success of "Skyfall". It basically laid out such a perfect groundwork for "SPECTRE". Something we haven't experienced since 1964/1965.
You know, I recall there was anticipation in the 1990's for the follow-ups to Pierce Brosnan's "GoldenEye". But those movies seemed to be just 'there' you know. Nothing that special about it. Actually, in the 1990's "Mission: Impossible", "Die Hard", "Lethal Weapon", "Batman".........all did better than Pierce Brosnan's Bond.
We now live in the 2010's....and in all honesty I do NOT see any stiff competition for James Bond in the field of non-SciFi, non-3D, real-life-action field anymore. The only franchise I can think of was the incredible success of "The Dark Knight Trilogy". But James Bond completely filled inn that 'void'.
Well Warner, if you don't decide to continue this Christopher Nolan's version of Batman in a real franchise....than MGM's/Sony's James Bond will take it :-).
LTK being a flop is a myth anyway. It just happens to be the least successful of all Bond movies.
DAD wasn't widely-hated in 2002, quite the opposite.
But 10 years after DAD has aged not very well but in another 10 years DAD might be viewed upon differently again.
With QOS it's different because it's something technical that ruins the movie and that is matter not depending of the age of the movie.
Wait..really ? This is the first time I hear about this..I've never really thought much about the "older" (even tho LTK is one one of the older IMHO) movies and their marketing..
And down below the art for the upcoming Best-Buy exclusive XL-steelbook of all 5 "Mission: Impossible" films. Remember, this steelbook is bigger, thicker, than normal steelbooks (Like the steelbooks from every season of "Star Trek: The Next Generation"):
amazing!
btw am I the only one glad this movie is doing really well ? It will almost make as much as Ghost Protocol...I expected it will make less than it..
And to think they originally had this movie planned as a December release...with Star Wars the numbers for RN would have been really bad..
I am glad this franchise is really doing strong but I hope the next one will be a really good movie that will make even more money cause the way I see it these movies are running a formula that some people might get bored of and they might not make as much money with the next one....but let's see!
While I still prefer SP, I actually thought MI:RN did a better job of using the locations and putting the money on the screen. Some stunning set-pieces, such as the opera house, the action acenes were much better edited/shot than SP too.
Can't see any reason for Cruise to pack it in any time soon, not only is he in great nick but the IMF team dynamic give him the perfect foil to continue.
Compare that to the Morocco chase scenes in MI:RN, where every vroom and roar of the engine was perfectly judged and super detailed. Genuinely had me on the edge of my seat.
Anyway, they obviously were going for a more 'playful' and 'retro' Bond effect with that scene and that's how it ended up.
In fact, it could have done with a more playful score in way (a'la FYEO 2CV chase) because the score was sort of mismatched to the proceedings imho.
What do you think SP did better....way better....than RN :-)?
Everything is where it belongs >:)
-seduction of Lucia - again 'total Bond'
-funeral scene - same reason
-time to slow down at L'Americain - it wasn't laid on thick, but one learnt a bit about the characters
-Daniel Craig did a fantastic job as Bond, but so did Cruise as Hunt. About equal here. They brought new layers to their portrayals (humour/lightness with Craig and weariness/age with Cruise)
-score was a wash. I liked Newman's work (unlike some) but also liked Kraemer
-cinematography was excellent (but not the colour palette)
That's really about it.
MI was better in the following
-action was just breathtaking and so inventively done
-QoS homage was a work of art. I preferred the inventiveness of the 'rafters' fight to Hinx (which was derivative of better Bond efforts imho)
-Ilsa Faust is my babe of the year (maybe the decade....running Vesper very close)
-pacing was much tighter and tauter
-subplot about spy agency was done better
-it was just a more 'fun' night at the movies all round, like GE
-colours were more vibrant and differentiable, even at night. Everything had a 'Bond' look in MI
No, but seriously Mr Joker :-P. I mean, it fascinates me to see that so many like RN more than SP. Because I loved RN too, but SP for me felt slightly more satisfying. It had a way more convincing villain. It had a torture sequence that easily wins from that rather lackluster Bonedoctor-henchman. Hinx was terrific.