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
UNCLE in the early days ..1st season was pretty good. Some pretty good story lines .Decent characters. I presume you are aware of the connection with Fleming ?
It was about the middle of season 2 it unfortunately started getting shall we say 'campy' To fall in line with Batman.
It just didn't seem like you were making any kind or response to my comment in your post, and so I was just confused. You stated another opinion of yours and I just put that response because I didn't really know how to respond otherwise... Apologies for the confusion.
My response it that it seems that Cruise wants to star in any big possible franchise that seems currently to stand a chance to become popular. With Reacher as an example. It seems to be more quantity than quality with the man.
He should pick his movies better than to annoy loads of movie fans when they hear of his involvement.
I do like his MI movies and they are Cruise territory first imho.
I am not angry about him for that at all. He is ambitious, so I can't hate him for that. He has done some great work, and enough to be able to choose what projects he wants and how much he wants to be involved in. He gets seriously committed to his projects and is often involved far beyond the acting role and produces the films as well, and often does his own stunt work in addition to other things.
The man should find good projects with decent directors and trust their vision like he does with the MI series that have become very impressive with the 3th and 4th installment.
In Cruise's case he often seems to find himself the most important man while another vision on the characters he plays could be refreshing for him and the audience.
And because he´s about the only guy talking about it doesn´t mean no other Hollywood actor has such questionable hobbies.
"With Tom Cruise" Oh, so it'll probably be just Tom Cruise as a cheesey action man again. Never mind.
To be fair I really like the Mission Impossible movies, and he was much more subtle and better than usual in Jack Reacher. But he was still wrong for that simply because he's the complete opposite of the character. Why does he want so many franchises? And then there's his personal life which stops me from respecting him more.
I haven't seen the original TV series but I feel sorry for fans of it if it's ruined by Cruise. As a fan of Lee Child's novels, I know how that feels.
No, what irks is that he is just so positive, it's hard to relate to him. Other actors age and so their persona develops over the years. Cruise is just Cruise, and his character always has to be on some learning curve. I agree his Scientology thing is very offputting, and in MI4 it felt like he was just doing some course where you succeed so you can reach the next level, it was all very perfunctory, though some set pieces had flair. The Dubai skyscraper set piece was head and shoulders ahead of any Bond film of late.
But with Reacher, it was like, well, you say I can't play a 6ft 4in guy? Scientology says I can.
Guess we are getting side tracked on Cruise..
Agreed, if it keeps Ritchie away from Bond, can only be a good thing.
BTW regarding Ritchie and Sherlock Holmes, in the novels Thrush was created by Colonel Moran after Moriarity's death so it would almost be like a continuation of the Ritchies work on Sherlock.
Would not be surprised if Vaugh and Mccallum had cameos, with Cruise on board the tone will be more serious one would think. If they had opted for a lighter tone akin to the series, i would have been happy if Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson were in the title roles.
Better ask Clive Owen and Luke Wilson, and for example Bryan Batt (Mad Men) as ally/suporting chacter. There be take overs with new names from the original actors. A picture of the 2 on a wall already can be enough or let them something to drink on table. If there whant use the same names, not give them cameo but for example let them make the making of documentry. Not make the same mistake as with Starsky and Hutch to give them a cameo with playing the same chacters/car.That runed the movie for me.
Mccallum's would have been a great fit for a blonde Fassbender, Clooney was always the best choice till he dropped out for Napoleon.
Tom Cruise should be investigated by the monopolies commission.
Wrong director, wrong casting...should be two new fresh leads and someone who has a bit of wit about them behind the lens...
where does this the Mi franchise ....up in limbo and down the toilet if this happens.
Oddly though, I found that all 4 Uncle seasons did work quite fine, despite the varied tones. Even S3 was entertaining as hell. Season 4 was just a needed adjustment. I like Season 1 too, but Uncle is such a cool and colourful show, that b&w didn't quite do it justice, which is why I think it flourished into a global phenomenon in Season 2 when it went to colour. At the time there was an Unclemania similar to Bondmania. Vaughn and McCallum were rock stars.
I do have confidence in Cruise, in that he seems to make his projects work. Even the most unlikely. Not only Reacher, but he even pulled off Interview With the Vampire, despite initial fan howling
Maybe he can pull off Uncle too, but still what's wrong with casting a guy whose the right age, like early '30s!? Connery and Vaughn in their prime dashing-young-spy years as Bond and Solo, were both early '30s. I would go younger. Maybe Cruise could simply put his talents to use, helping recruit the new young Solo, and lend his name to the project in other ways.
I did think that Bradley Cooper wasn't a bad choice for Solo, back when his name surfaced. He seems to have the wit and charm, as well as the youthful maturity.
I would sooner see Richie retire and enjoy his millions, the man is a very average film maker, lets hope he never gets near Bond, I've never been a fan from the moment I saw his Tarantino lite debut at the cinema.
His first Sherlock film was OK but I can't help but feel underwhelmed when i saw Sherlock, his slowed down Indy knock off approach just feels empty Hollywood nonsense compared to Moffat & Gattis genius.
Cruise is totally wrong for this, the sooner the general public turn their back on this vile little man the better, he looks like a psychopath and his beliefs are offensive.
They are called opinions; deal with them.
I would rather see a Sherlock Holmes 3 too, but if it never happens I won't be too sad. After all, they are barely, BARELY canon and we have BBC giving us the best Sherlock content since the 80s Granada series ended.
Woah (thats English for 'stop a horse')!
I'm not having that. Scientology is plainly utter bollocks but thats irrelevant.
If he was a Muslim or Christian and you came up with comments like that you would be summarily castigated by everybody but because its Scientology its somehow fine to say things like that.
Scientololgy is no more or less beliveable than any of the more established religions, its just they have 2000 or so years of barinwashing behind them so they appear to have more 'crediblity'.
Whether you believe the earth was seeded by aliens or some guy who did magic tricks rose from the dead doesnt the law say that you entitled to hold said belief without fear of persecution?
Very much correct, @TheWizardOfIce, with your classic panache thrown in for good measure.