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
It’s ironic that he keeps on ‘spying’ as he gets shafted by his superiors and Country in every film!!
Agreed. And every time it’s portrayed as a ‘new idea’, or ‘breaking the formula.’
Similarly to ‘the villain is ex-MI6” or associated with MI6 somehow.
When is it portrayed as that?
I think that's an issue (and probably more prevalent in MI than JB) because it's a way of keeping it non-political and without portraying another country (or religion) as an enemy but still on the side of vaguely believable without going to super-rich supervillains on private islands.
In the press releases and press conferences @mtm.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cultofmac.com/329967/james-bond-goes-rogue-to-catch-his-spectre/amp/
Agreed.Those who say that the MI films are great just because of Cruise are unaware how crucial MCQ was to the success of the last two films.The guy is a great storyteller and when hes paired with Cruises ability to do crazy action scenes and youve got gold.
Same here. Both excellent.
Not in that link, no.
You're saying every time they say him going rogue is a new idea and breaking the formula? They don't do that, no; it doesn't happen.
No, it's excellent. I probably prefer Bond but the MI films have been superb this decade. I don't see it as a competition and I get to enjoy both.
I disagree strongly; Bond is a longer running, more iconic franchise, no doubt; but MI is an incredibly well done series wit top level talent across the board. While Tom Cruise adds immensely to it by doing his own stunts , he is also an A-List , top tier actor who’s more subtle acting contributions help separate it from other spy franchises.
I prefer Bond, and it's because of DC. And though many do not like it, EON's strategic move to make Bond a little more human and relatable, with an acknowledged backstory, has been huge. Sure, EON was taking a page out of the Marvel playbook, but it's a step in the right direction. I think it's important that we care a little bit about Bond--that despite being a blunt instrument, there's a some psychology to investigate. The word association in SF captured this brilliantly. I'm not sure fans have an emotional investment in Ethan Hunt. Or Jason Bourne. Or any of the F&F characters.
But they do the Avengers, as there wasn't a dry eye in the house at the end of Infinity War.
Mission Impossible rules, but I like it for different reasons than Bond. And of course I prefer Bond. I think a lot of it has to do with the depth of the character of Bond. I don’t feel like people are invested in Ethan Hunt in the same way they are with Bond, but they’re really entertaining movies. Rogue Nation did a better job at being a cohesive film with an arch villain than Spectre did.
I've said this before and will again: I cared about Bond long before the trend to psychologically investigate. It hasn't given me any deeper appreciation for the character or the series. Was it not okay to watch the character doing what he did best and enjoy it immensely? Doing a word association didn't do a thing for me to make me like the character or enhance that film. I have the works of Fleming if I want to tap into that side of Bond.
Same with Ethan Hunt. Take me on a great ride for a couple of hours and make me want to watch this adventure over and over again.
Seconded. I just watched Thunderball over the weekend; Sean Connery just oozes so much style and confidence that you can’t help but fix your eyes on him every time he appears on the screen. There’s a sophistication, a ruggedness to how he played the character that was never boring.
Though I do appreciate what Daniel Craig has brought to the role, I do believe the delving into James Bond’s psyche was a little much, bordering into inconsequential territory. It’s JAMES BOND: he drinks, he’s a bit of a loner, he gambles, has good taste (in women and the finer things) and, most important of all, saves the world.
At the end of the day, the less we know about him, the more compelling of a character he becomes.
Thirded. I'm done with Bond's inner psyche, personal angst, family backstories that have very little do with what Fleming wrote.
Let's get back to a Bond that feels emotions yes, but doesn't go overboard anymore in that direction. A straightforward mission with no personal angles, against a villain who is just a villain because he is. Give me someone like Goldfinger over any of the villains (from GE right the way through to SP) any day of the week.
And no more double crosses or secret agents or villains in disguise either. It's become tired and boring as hell.
Let's not get carried away, here. ;)
Surely Eon had headed down this path before Marvel movies started?
Don't be silly. He's a very well-established movie star (since before quite a few people on this board were born! :) ) for a good reason.
Not getting carried away. I have yet to see a single performance by him which has impressed me. It might be a matter of taste, obviously... But to claim "he is a movie star, therefore he has to be a great actor" is pure nonsense!
You said he wasn't convincing, which you're entitled to think but you're in a very small minority there :) People who aren't good at their job at all don't tend to become amongst the most famous people in the world with 40 year careers at the top.
Also I'm not sure who you're quoting there- this thread seems to be full of a lot of made-up quotes at the moment!
I think he can be excellent and has given some very strong performances, but not for a while for some reason- he's been sticking to action movies for the last few years. Maybe he'll go back to character stuff at some point.
Cruise may be excellent at running away from explosions, but he’s just as adept at wringing wild and riveting performances in such daring fare as Eyes Wide Shut, Magnolia and Vanilla Sky. Add that to his iconic on-screen moments, from his Ray Bans-and-briefs shimmying in Risky Business, his leading Maverick in Topgun, to his courtroom showdown in A Few Good Men, and his career becomes an essential component of modern cinema. He’s an Icon.
No, but him being a great actor is what makes him a great actor. He just has a star quality to him that elevates a lot of his projects further. He certainly has predominantly focused on the action oriented stuff later in his career, but just look at some of the stuff that dots his filmography: Born On The Fourth Of July, The Color Of Money, A Few Good Men, Magnolia, Collateral, Eyes Wide Shut etc. Just look at the names of some of the directors of those projects, for perspective. You don't work with the best of the best, consistently, without having the talent to attract them to you. It certainly is a matter of taste, but describing him as a "stuntman" is more than a bit unfair.
I think Craig, to me, has similar qualities as a performer - it's just unfortunate that his non-Bond films generally have not clicked with audiences. At least not yet.
But anyway, to bring it back to topic...
Skyfall is a prime example of why Bond is unique in pop culture. Is it a perfect film? No. Is it the best Bond film? No, I don't think so. Top ten though, for sure. However, something about it tapped into the connection that people have with the character and they went out in droves to see it. It gave the brand some serious momentum that unfortunately, as we know, was not capitalised on properly, for reasons both creative (the dud that is SP) and legal.
Hopefully NTTD can round it off as best as it can.