Has Mission Impossible surpassed Bond?

191012141522

Comments

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,720
    RC7 wrote: »
    Spectre is so superior to RN it's not even worth discussing.
    RN is slick fun; SP is the continuation of a legend.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,099
    RC7 wrote: »
    Spectre is so superior to RN it's not even worth discussing.
    The Bond series has the strength of the more iconic central character. but having again watched RN last night, I found it the superior film. The action scenes alone are leagues beyond anything in SPECTRE. that's not to say that I didn't enjoy SPECTRE but other than the stronger main character, RN was the better film.

    See there was more to discuss. :P

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,720
    talos7 wrote: »
    The action scenes alone are leagues beyond anything in SPECTRE. that's not to say that I didn't enjoy SPECTRE but other than the stronger main character, RN was the better film.
    I see what your saying.
    :)>-
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2015 Posts: 23,883
    talos7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Spectre is so superior to RN it's not even worth discussing.
    The Bond series has the strength of the more iconic central character. but having again watched RN last night, I found it the superior film. The action scenes alone are leagues beyond anything in SPECTRE. that's not to say that I didn't enjoy SPECTRE but other than the stronger main character, RN was the better film.

    See there was more to discuss. :P
    I agree. There is no contest between Bond and Hunt. Bond, the character, is forever - and far more iconic and essential. A legend.

    However, as a pure 'formulaic' action oriented film with compelling characters & excellent pacing / visuals, MI-RN impressed the hell out of me this year.

    It did 'formula' Bond in a superb, fresh fashion imho.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    talos7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Spectre is so superior to RN it's not even worth discussing.
    The Bond series has the strength of the more iconic central character. but having again watched RN last night, I found it the superior film. The action scenes alone are leagues beyond anything in SPECTRE. that's not to say that I didn't enjoy SPECTRE but other than the stronger main character, RN was the better film.

    See there was more to discuss. :P

    Not even close for me. SP has class, it's a Michelin star to RN's Big Mac Meal.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,099
    Ok
  • Posts: 1,098
    MI has certainly NOT surpassed Bond. The Bond films are far more flexible, than either the MI or Bourne franchises.
    The Bond films, have, and can survive quite a varied different direction in their plots.
    The identity of the MI and Bourne franchises is much narrower, i.e. the films can't stray too far away from the original concept.
  • Posts: 4,602
    Shame to admit that I have only just seen Rogue Nation. Obviously its a bigger discussion re the two series but, on a head to head basis , Rogue Nation is a better movie that Spectre IMHO
  • I haven't seen Rogue Nation yet, but I really enjoyed Ghost Protocol and I think overall it was more enjoyable than Skyfall for some reason. But that's the thing with MI, the films benefit from massive production as well, but they somehow seem more effortlessly made, which is perhaps a good thing.

    After Casino Royale, I thought that Bond was heading into the right direction and they were up there with Bourne and MI, but after that the writing got worse and worse. For some reason, this seems to always happen. A new Bond comes in, the first movie is good and then it all goes downhill.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2015 Posts: 23,883
    For some reason, this seems to always happen. A new Bond comes in, the first movie is good and then it all goes downhill.
    I agree that this certainly appears to be the case with the current and last Bond actor. It hasn't always been true though in my view, just since Cubby passed - perhaps he was more hands on and had a better grip on what he wanted from Bond.

    Whatever we think of him, Cruise has been the focused driving force behind all the MI films creatively, and that probably helps.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RN isn't a patch on SP. It's a decent couple of hours fun, but SP is pure class by comparison. While very watchable, RN feels generic to me.
  • edited December 2015 Posts: 163
    @bondjames Yes, I was referring to the Craig/Brosnan eras as well.

    @RC7 at the end of the day it's all subjective, but to me Skyfall seemed the most boring film in Craig's tenure. I'm not saying it's a bad movie, I really enjoyed it the two times I went to see it at the cinema when it came out, but then I didn't feel the drive to watch it much more like I did with CR for example. With CR every viewing brought new elements to my attention that I haven't noticed before, while Skyfall seemed to have less layers to it, despite the add of new characters.
  • edited December 2015 Posts: 5,767
    bondboy007 wrote: »
    I still think the original MI is by far the best entry in the series. The last 3 have certainly been entertaining, but they're strictly very sleek action films with Tom Cruise at the center of it all. They definitely do it well, but it's really just one big set piece following another.
    What more can I ask for :-)?


    bondjames wrote: »
    For some reason, this seems to always happen. A new Bond comes in, the first movie is good and then it all goes downhill.
    I agree that this certainly appears to be the case with the current and last Bond actor. It hasn't always been true though in my view, just since Cubby passed - perhaps he was more hands on and had a better grip on what he wanted from Bond.

    Whatever we think of him, Cruise has been the focused driving force behind all the MI films creatively, and that probably helps.
    Cubby for sure had a clearer vision. It´s obvious that B&M have a knack for experimenting, hence all those different directors. Some of the experiments I enjoy a lot, e.g. QoS, others, e.g. the recent two entries, I don´t. I remember Babs saying she wanted more character in the Bond films. I´m not sure how far she succeeded with that, because in the recent three films there was less and less character development of James Bond visible throughout each respective film. And the jumps between QoS and SF, and between SF and SP remain unexplained. On top of that, the films as films became weaker with each recent entry.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    I enjoyed SF far more than GP but I enjoyed RN more than SP. Well let me rephrase that. I may have enjoyed SP more but I knew and felt that RN was a better made film.

    I'm really hoping SP passes RN in BO in North America. It's so close right now but yet so far away.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2015 Posts: 23,883
    boldfinger wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    For some reason, this seems to always happen. A new Bond comes in, the first movie is good and then it all goes downhill.
    I agree that this certainly appears to be the case with the current and last Bond actor. It hasn't always been true though in my view, just since Cubby passed - perhaps he was more hands on and had a better grip on what he wanted from Bond.

    Whatever we think of him, Cruise has been the focused driving force behind all the MI films creatively, and that probably helps.
    Cubby for sure had a clearer vision. It´s obvious that B&M have a knack for experimenting, hence all those different directors. Some of the experiments I enjoy a lot, e.g. QoS, others, e.g. the recent two entries, I don´t. I remember Babs saying she wanted more character in the Bond films. I´m not sure how far she succeeded with that, because in the recent three films there was less and less character development of James Bond visible throughout each respective film. And the jumps between QoS and SF, and between SF and SP remain unexplained. On top of that, the films as films became weaker with each recent entry.
    I agree that Bond's character development sort of stopped at QoS - at least for me. I personally think they did a good job fleshing out all the supporting characters in SF though - in fact I've always said that is one of that film's greatest achievements. I was not impressed on this front with SP at all - the characters were not as well developed to me, which I was expecting given it is a Mendes film. The tonal jumps between the last 3 films have been a little jarring no doubt, but it's possible Craig wanted it this way - each film as a distinct standalone creative entry - which they've certainly achieved. Some of the films appeal more to one group of fans, and vice versa, with CR appearing to be the universal favourite.
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    I enjoyed SF far more than GP but I enjoyed RN more than SP. Well let me rephrase that. I may have enjoyed SP more but I knew and felt that RN was a better made film.
    Same here, but for me RN was better made and far more enjoyable as well.
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    I'm really hoping SP passes RN in BO in North America. It's so close right now but yet so far away.
    I'm indifferent. If it does, great - but if not, so be it. Whatever happens, they'll end up pretty close on US box office.
  • SP only needs to earn $1.1 Million at the American box-office to surpass M:I-RN, knocking Cruise and Co. out of the Top 10 U.S. Films of 2015.

    It has a little over one week to do so... Quite achievable.

    There are some other high profile releases before the end of this month (which will count towards 2015 well into next year), but there's no way JOY, THE HATEFUL EIGHT or THE REVENANT is going to earn $196 Million.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    @bondjames Yes, I was referring to the Craig/Brosnan eras as well.

    @RC7 at the end of the day it's all subjective, but to me Skyfall seemed the most boring film in Craig's tenure. I'm not saying it's a bad movie, I really enjoyed it the two times I went to see it at the cinema when it came out, but then I didn't feel the drive to watch it much more like I did with CR for example. With CR every viewing brought new elements to my attention that I haven't noticed before, while Skyfall seemed to have less layers to it, despite the add of new characters.

    I'm talking about SP.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    bondjames wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    For some reason, this seems to always happen. A new Bond comes in, the first movie is good and then it all goes downhill.
    I agree that this certainly appears to be the case with the current and last Bond actor. It hasn't always been true though in my view, just since Cubby passed - perhaps he was more hands on and had a better grip on what he wanted from Bond.

    Whatever we think of him, Cruise has been the focused driving force behind all the MI films creatively, and that probably helps.
    Cubby for sure had a clearer vision. It´s obvious that B&M have a knack for experimenting, hence all those different directors. Some of the experiments I enjoy a lot, e.g. QoS, others, e.g. the recent two entries, I don´t. I remember Babs saying she wanted more character in the Bond films. I´m not sure how far she succeeded with that, because in the recent three films there was less and less character development of James Bond visible throughout each respective film. And the jumps between QoS and SF, and between SF and SP remain unexplained. On top of that, the films as films became weaker with each recent entry.
    I agree that Bond's character development sort of stopped at QoS - at least for me. I personally think they did a good job fleshing out all the supporting characters in SF though - in fact I've always said that is one of that film's greatest achievements. I was not impressed on this front with SP at all - the characters were not as well developed to me, which I was expecting given it is a Mendes film. The tonal jumps between the last 3 films have been a little jarring no doubt, but it's possible Craig wanted it this way - each film as a distinct standalone creative entry - which they've certainly achieved. Some of the films appeal more to one group of fans, and vice versa, with CR appearing to be the universal favourite.
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    I enjoyed SF far more than GP but I enjoyed RN more than SP. Well let me rephrase that. I may have enjoyed SP more but I knew and felt that RN was a better made film.
    Same here, but for me RN was better made and far more enjoyable as well.
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    I'm really hoping SP passes RN in BO in North America. It's so close right now but yet so far away.
    I'm indifferent. If it does, great - but if not, so be it. Whatever happens, they'll end up pretty close on US box office.

    RN isn't a better made film. It's a deft action movie, but it hits all the beats too neatly. SP doesn't, it's a more unique vision and while the story has and will continue to piss people off, it's much more idiosyncratic with far superior cinematography, direction, mis-en-scene, acting and production design. The only area in which I'd concede to RN is score, but even that is far from brilliant. RN is like a Furious movie, no definable identity, but good fun to watch on a flight somewhere.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2015 Posts: 23,883
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    For some reason, this seems to always happen. A new Bond comes in, the first movie is good and then it all goes downhill.
    I agree that this certainly appears to be the case with the current and last Bond actor. It hasn't always been true though in my view, just since Cubby passed - perhaps he was more hands on and had a better grip on what he wanted from Bond.

    Whatever we think of him, Cruise has been the focused driving force behind all the MI films creatively, and that probably helps.
    Cubby for sure had a clearer vision. It´s obvious that B&M have a knack for experimenting, hence all those different directors. Some of the experiments I enjoy a lot, e.g. QoS, others, e.g. the recent two entries, I don´t. I remember Babs saying she wanted more character in the Bond films. I´m not sure how far she succeeded with that, because in the recent three films there was less and less character development of James Bond visible throughout each respective film. And the jumps between QoS and SF, and between SF and SP remain unexplained. On top of that, the films as films became weaker with each recent entry.
    I agree that Bond's character development sort of stopped at QoS - at least for me. I personally think they did a good job fleshing out all the supporting characters in SF though - in fact I've always said that is one of that film's greatest achievements. I was not impressed on this front with SP at all - the characters were not as well developed to me, which I was expecting given it is a Mendes film. The tonal jumps between the last 3 films have been a little jarring no doubt, but it's possible Craig wanted it this way - each film as a distinct standalone creative entry - which they've certainly achieved. Some of the films appeal more to one group of fans, and vice versa, with CR appearing to be the universal favourite.
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    I enjoyed SF far more than GP but I enjoyed RN more than SP. Well let me rephrase that. I may have enjoyed SP more but I knew and felt that RN was a better made film.
    Same here, but for me RN was better made and far more enjoyable as well.
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    I'm really hoping SP passes RN in BO in North America. It's so close right now but yet so far away.
    I'm indifferent. If it does, great - but if not, so be it. Whatever happens, they'll end up pretty close on US box office.

    RN isn't a better made film. It's a deft action movie, but it hits all the beats too neatly. SP doesn't, it's a more unique vision and while the story has and will continue to piss people off, it's much more idiosyncratic with far superior cinematography, direction, mis-en-scene, acting and production design. The only area in which I'd concede to RN is score, but even that is far from brilliant. RN is like a Furious movie, no definable identity, but good fun to watch on a flight somewhere.
    I think RN is a better made film, hands down, in cinematography, character development, acting and production design. Let's agree to disagree on this because we won't see eye to eye.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,099
    @bondjames Ditto
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    For some reason, this seems to always happen. A new Bond comes in, the first movie is good and then it all goes downhill.
    I agree that this certainly appears to be the case with the current and last Bond actor. It hasn't always been true though in my view, just since Cubby passed - perhaps he was more hands on and had a better grip on what he wanted from Bond.

    Whatever we think of him, Cruise has been the focused driving force behind all the MI films creatively, and that probably helps.
    Cubby for sure had a clearer vision. It´s obvious that B&M have a knack for experimenting, hence all those different directors. Some of the experiments I enjoy a lot, e.g. QoS, others, e.g. the recent two entries, I don´t. I remember Babs saying she wanted more character in the Bond films. I´m not sure how far she succeeded with that, because in the recent three films there was less and less character development of James Bond visible throughout each respective film. And the jumps between QoS and SF, and between SF and SP remain unexplained. On top of that, the films as films became weaker with each recent entry.
    I agree that Bond's character development sort of stopped at QoS - at least for me. I personally think they did a good job fleshing out all the supporting characters in SF though - in fact I've always said that is one of that film's greatest achievements. I was not impressed on this front with SP at all - the characters were not as well developed to me, which I was expecting given it is a Mendes film. The tonal jumps between the last 3 films have been a little jarring no doubt, but it's possible Craig wanted it this way - each film as a distinct standalone creative entry - which they've certainly achieved. Some of the films appeal more to one group of fans, and vice versa, with CR appearing to be the universal favourite.
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    I enjoyed SF far more than GP but I enjoyed RN more than SP. Well let me rephrase that. I may have enjoyed SP more but I knew and felt that RN was a better made film.
    Same here, but for me RN was better made and far more enjoyable as well.
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    I'm really hoping SP passes RN in BO in North America. It's so close right now but yet so far away.
    I'm indifferent. If it does, great - but if not, so be it. Whatever happens, they'll end up pretty close on US box office.

    RN isn't a better made film. It's a deft action movie, but it hits all the beats too neatly. SP doesn't, it's a more unique vision and while the story has and will continue to piss people off, it's much more idiosyncratic with far superior cinematography, direction, mis-en-scene, acting and production design. The only area in which I'd concede to RN is score, but even that is far from brilliant. RN is like a Furious movie, no definable identity, but good fun to watch on a flight somewhere.
    I think RN is a better made film, hands down, in cinematography, character development, acting and production design. Let's agree to disagree on this because we won't see eye to eye.

    I can agree to disagree, after all it is subjective. What I find hard to believe is that anyone could consider RN's cinematography to be superior to SP. Colour Palette, fair enough, but cinematography as a craft, no way in my book.

  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    edited December 2015 Posts: 8,099
    RC7 wrote: »
    no way in my book.

    This is why there are libraries; there are lots of books in the world ;)

  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    edited December 2015 Posts: 8,099
    double
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    talos7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    no way in my book.

    This is why there are libraries; there are lots of books in the world ;)

    It's just not, though. Simple as.
  • Posts: 14,906
    One of the
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    For some reason, this seems to always happen. A new Bond comes in, the first movie is good and then it all goes downhill.
    I agree that this certainly appears to be the case with the current and last Bond actor. It hasn't always been true though in my view, just since Cubby passed - perhaps he was more hands on and had a better grip on what he wanted from Bond.

    Whatever we think of him, Cruise has been the focused driving force behind all the MI films creatively, and that probably helps.
    Cubby for sure had a clearer vision. It´s obvious that B&M have a knack for experimenting, hence all those different directors. Some of the experiments I enjoy a lot, e.g. QoS, others, e.g. the recent two entries, I don´t. I remember Babs saying she wanted more character in the Bond films. I´m not sure how far she succeeded with that, because in the recent three films there was less and less character development of James Bond visible throughout each respective film. And the jumps between QoS and SF, and between SF and SP remain unexplained. On top of that, the films as films became weaker with each recent entry.
    I agree that Bond's character development sort of stopped at QoS - at least for me. I personally think they did a good job fleshing out all the supporting characters in SF though - in fact I've always said that is one of that film's greatest achievements. I was not impressed on this front with SP at all - the characters were not as well developed to me, which I was expecting given it is a Mendes film. The tonal jumps between the last 3 films have been a little jarring no doubt, but it's possible Craig wanted it this way - each film as a distinct standalone creative entry - which they've certainly achieved. Some of the films appeal more to one group of fans, and vice versa, with CR appearing to be the universal favourite.
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    I enjoyed SF far more than GP but I enjoyed RN more than SP. Well let me rephrase that. I may have enjoyed SP more but I knew and felt that RN was a better made film.
    Same here, but for me RN was better made and far more enjoyable as well.
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    I'm really hoping SP passes RN in BO in North America. It's so close right now but yet so far away.
    I'm indifferent. If it does, great - but if not, so be it. Whatever happens, they'll end up pretty close on US box office.

    RN isn't a better made film. It's a deft action movie, but it hits all the beats too neatly. SP doesn't, it's a more unique vision and while the story has and will continue to piss people off, it's much more idiosyncratic with far superior cinematography, direction, mis-en-scene, acting and production design. The only area in which I'd concede to RN is score, but even that is far from brilliant. RN is like a Furious movie, no definable identity, but good fun to watch on a flight somewhere.
    I think RN is a better made film, hands down, in cinematography, character development, acting and production design. Let's agree to disagree on this because we won't see eye to eye.

    Because there's characters in MI? I'm threading carefully here because the last one I saw was the third one but it always struck me as clever gimmick when it was a t.v. show and a Tom Cruise vehicle when it's a movie franchise. A narcissistic franchise about its main star.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2015 Posts: 23,883
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    For some reason, this seems to always happen. A new Bond comes in, the first movie is good and then it all goes downhill.
    I agree that this certainly appears to be the case with the current and last Bond actor. It hasn't always been true though in my view, just since Cubby passed - perhaps he was more hands on and had a better grip on what he wanted from Bond.

    Whatever we think of him, Cruise has been the focused driving force behind all the MI films creatively, and that probably helps.
    Cubby for sure had a clearer vision. It´s obvious that B&M have a knack for experimenting, hence all those different directors. Some of the experiments I enjoy a lot, e.g. QoS, others, e.g. the recent two entries, I don´t. I remember Babs saying she wanted more character in the Bond films. I´m not sure how far she succeeded with that, because in the recent three films there was less and less character development of James Bond visible throughout each respective film. And the jumps between QoS and SF, and between SF and SP remain unexplained. On top of that, the films as films became weaker with each recent entry.
    I agree that Bond's character development sort of stopped at QoS - at least for me. I personally think they did a good job fleshing out all the supporting characters in SF though - in fact I've always said that is one of that film's greatest achievements. I was not impressed on this front with SP at all - the characters were not as well developed to me, which I was expecting given it is a Mendes film. The tonal jumps between the last 3 films have been a little jarring no doubt, but it's possible Craig wanted it this way - each film as a distinct standalone creative entry - which they've certainly achieved. Some of the films appeal more to one group of fans, and vice versa, with CR appearing to be the universal favourite.
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    I enjoyed SF far more than GP but I enjoyed RN more than SP. Well let me rephrase that. I may have enjoyed SP more but I knew and felt that RN was a better made film.
    Same here, but for me RN was better made and far more enjoyable as well.
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    I'm really hoping SP passes RN in BO in North America. It's so close right now but yet so far away.
    I'm indifferent. If it does, great - but if not, so be it. Whatever happens, they'll end up pretty close on US box office.

    RN isn't a better made film. It's a deft action movie, but it hits all the beats too neatly. SP doesn't, it's a more unique vision and while the story has and will continue to piss people off, it's much more idiosyncratic with far superior cinematography, direction, mis-en-scene, acting and production design. The only area in which I'd concede to RN is score, but even that is far from brilliant. RN is like a Furious movie, no definable identity, but good fun to watch on a flight somewhere.
    I think RN is a better made film, hands down, in cinematography, character development, acting and production design. Let's agree to disagree on this because we won't see eye to eye.

    I can agree to disagree, after all it is subjective. What I find hard to believe is that anyone could consider RN's cinematography to be superior to SP. Colour Palette, fair enough, but cinematography as a craft, no way in my book.
    I haven't seen RN since the theatre, although I recently purchased the blu ray. The car chase, bike chase, plane take off, theatre section, jump into that underwater storage thing, and that actual scene underwater all really took my breath away in the theatre. Colour as well as framing (which included wide angle as well as up close shots that kept me interested & engaged in the proceedings throughout). A mix of Campbell's CR & Forster's QoS for me.

    With SP, what really sticks out as being superb in my mind are the non action scenes, such as the first part of the pretitles (up to the CGI helicopter bit which I didn't like) & what we saw in the trailer - namely Bond going to see White in the boat, and the Spectre meet.

    The action scenes (copter fight, car chase, Thames chase), while beautifully framed in certain parts, did not engage me. As a postcard exercise, yes, but not in terms of immersing me in the proceedings. The Austrian chase similarly didn't do anything for me and just appeared overcast, gloomy and dull. If they had filmed it on a brighter day, with more snow glistening under the sun's rays (as they've done in the past with Bond alpine scenes), that would have changed things for me, even with the lackluster action direction.

    I do count the colour palette & evidence of CGI as a significant part of cinematography though.

    As you said, it's all opinion at the end of the day. I found a more even match visually between SF & MI-GP, but the brilliant night scenes in SF gave that film the win for me.
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Because there's characters in MI? I'm threading carefully here because the last one I saw was the third one but it always struck me as clever gimmick when it was a t.v. show and a Tom Cruise vehicle when it's a movie franchise. A narcissistic franchise about its main star.
    Well, in that case you'd have a point of view on it that I may be unable to shake. That is more true of the earlier ones - since the 4th one they have become more evenly balanced 'team' vehicles.

    GP was a pure action fest (and absolutely superb in that respect) with less character development in comparison to SF, but between SP & RN, it's a no contest win for MI for me.
  • edited December 2015 Posts: 4,602
    Does RN prove that there is room for a female double 0 agent? I thought Rebecca F was superb and I hope she will return in the next MI movie. At every point she felt the equal of E Hunt whilst not overshadowing him and the mutual respect with some kind of unspoken sexual attraction is exactly the right balance IMHO
    If Bond goes down this route now, they are open to the critique of copying MI?
    Plus, for me, the tension, pacing and plot twists beat Spectre hands down.
    The underwater scene, the car/bike chase and the reveal of Hunt with the PM were great. (Did anyone notice that Hunt was too busy driving the car to even think about making a phone call?). Overall, with the use of London etc, MI seems to be moving towards Bond and Bond seems to be moving towards MI.
    Cruise provides tremendous energy to the project and I wonder how long he can keep it up. It will take great skill to keep the franchise going without him. A younger star with perhaps one crossover movie with the established team providing continuity. I can imagine Ethan sacrificing himself to save the rest of the team, there is real potential for drama/tension/shock with Hunt's exit/demise. If they could avoid spoilers/leaks, it could be something pretty amazing (plus it provides great potential for vengeance) and with the on-going use of masks, there is always room for the odd guest appearance. If I was having to write script for either, I would rather work on MI. Bond has got himself into a bit of a corner at the moment where as MI is still evolving and has great potential. Obviously Bond is the bigger franchise but, creatively, I think the momentum is with MI
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2015 Posts: 23,883
    patb wrote: »
    I thought Rebecca F was superb and I hope she will return in the next MI movie. At every point she felt the equal of E Hunt and the mutual respect with some kind of unspoken sexual attraction is exactly the right balance IMHO
    She is confirmed to return in MI-6, which is great news. Yes, I agree, they got the balance absolutely perfect in this film, including the simmering sexual tension that was never acted upon (which was a good thing in the case of the married Hunt). The last time it was done this well was in Moore's day imho.
    patb wrote: »
    If Bond goes down this route now, they are open to the critique of copying MI?
    No, I think Bond is safe if they take this approach, since they started it all those years ago in TSWLM.

    Bond can never really be accused of copying too many people (except Hitchcock), because they are the originator in many cases. They can certainly be accused of poor execution though - at least imho.
    patb wrote: »
    Cruise provides tremendous energy to the project and I wonder how long he can keep it up. It will take great skill to keep the franchise going without him.
    I agree, but I really don't think it can survive Cruise. I don't see anyone with the ability to take this forward after him. He is a one of a kind in this role.

    Of course, that likely was said about Connery, but still.
  • Posts: 486
    patb wrote: »
    Does RN prove that there is room for a female double 0 agent?

    As a cameo maybe but we've had plenty enough female agent counterparts in the series already.

    I prefer the traditional Fleming Bond girls, the more tortuous characters often caught in the clutches of the villain before Bond enters the situation.

    Severine was one great such evocation of the literary Domino and Solitaire.
  • Posts: 7,000
    For the season that's in it!
    MI; RN is a penny bubblegum
    JB ; SP is a Willy Wonka everlasting gobstopper!
Sign In or Register to comment.