Has Mission Impossible surpassed Bond?

13468922

Comments

  • edited November 2015 Posts: 154
    What is true though, is that Bond's women have almost always been too young for him (in my opinion). I was truly excited to first hear about Monica Belucci's character, then servery disappointed to learn that her's was little more than a cameo role, while Bond ends-up paired with yet another woman too young for him. This is something I truly want to see corrected in future movies.
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    Posts: 1,984
    gklein wrote: »
    What is true though, is that Bond's women have almost always been too young for him (in my opinion). I was truly excited to first hear about Monica Belucci's character, then servery disappointed to learn that her's was little more than cameo role, while Bond ends-up paired with yet another woman too young for him. This is something I truly want to see corrected in future movies.

    Not sure I agree with "always", but the pinnacle of what you mentioned was obviously AVTAK, where Roger Moore bedded Tanya Roberts, whose mother was younger than him.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789

    While Craig's Bond was going super-serious (brilliantly) I was really happy to have a franchise that concentrated on gadgets and fun.

    Yeah, MI had the fun when Bond stopped focusing on that.... but with SP I'm like "MI-WHO?"
  • Yeah, the whole "But MY Bond girl is DIFFERENT" bit has been used by pretty much everyone at this point. I think even Ursula has claimed that at one point, which is quite ironic. But there have been FAR more examples of strong, GOOD female characters than bad ones in the series. People always bring up Goodnight, but she's an anomaly.

    I pretty much agree with everything that has been said so far, this whole thing got kicked off by TheWizardOfIces original comment that Bond girls only exist to get shagged and to die in the movies and don't need to be any better, which I believe to be quite wrong as they already ARE much much better than those low standards.

    The age thing is still an issue as mentioned above, AVTAK by far being the biggest offender. Hoping that changes as the movies go on as well.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Yeah, MI had the fun when Bond stopped focusing on that.... but with SP I'm like "MI-WHO?"

    Let's revisit once you've watched MI-RN. You may have a change of heart. You like TND, so you will like that one.
  • Posts: 154
    Not sure I agree with "always", but the pinnacle of what you mentioned was obviously AVTAK, where Roger Moore bedded Tanya Roberts, whose mother was younger than him.

    I said almost always. GF was at least one exception & there are prolly a few others but, yes, AVATK was nauseatingly lecherous (to me).

  • Posts: 486
    bondjames wrote: »
    The irony, imho, is that some of the earlier Bond films had much more 'equal' Bond girls than some of the later ones.

    Pussy for example, despite being 'turned', was a strong character.
    So was Fiona
    So was Anya
    So was Goodhead
    So was Melina
    So was Octopussy

    I found the above far more 'modern' than Kara or whiney Bouvier (I think Dalton's tenure had the weakest women roles actually).

    Moore got more than his fair share of liberated women towards the end of his run, perhaps to atone for Goodnight.

    Of Brosnan's I like Natalya who was pretty cool.
    Craig's had a good run too, in CR, QoS & now in SP.


    It's difficult to tell if Anya was a strong character because the role was encumbered by surely one of the worst actresses we've ever had as a lead Bond girl.

    Holly Goodhead\Lois Chiles on the other hand is woefully underrated. Even if the standard issue CIA handbag and perfume set Bond identified seems a tad sexist.
  • Posts: 11,189
    I like some of the lines Chiles has with Moore but I really don't think she's one of the strongest actresses either. I don't buy her tough "soccer mom" shtick at the end of MR.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Cowley wrote: »
    It's difficult to tell if Anya was a strong character because the role was encumbered by surely one of the worst actresses we've ever had as a lead Bond girl.

    Holly Goodhead\Lois Chiles on the other hand is woefully underrated. Even if the standard issue CIA handbag and perfume set Bond identified seems a tad sexist.

    I admit to having a soft spot for Anya, especially in her black dress, so I forgive a lot with her.

    I agree on Goodhead/Chiles. Very modern woman and played very well by Chiles.....not a hint of a damsel in distress. Even the clothing was quite business like with no revealing dress or anything like that.
  • I can say one more thing (because I already said most of what I had to say on page 4).

    If we took "Rogue Nation" and copied it in its entiry. Attached a gunbarrel in front, used a Bond-like main titles sequence, and replaced Tom Cruise by Daniel Craig, then I would be completely disappointed. "Rogue Nation" works as an "M:I"-film...nothing more.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    "Rogue Nation" works as an "M:I"-film...nothing more.
    Agreed. Rogue Nation is first and foremost an MI film, and a damn good one at that. So is Ghost Protocol. They're not trying to be anything else, and that's why I like them so much.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 486
    bondjames wrote: »
    Cowley wrote: »
    It's difficult to tell if Anya was a strong character because the role was encumbered by surely one of the worst actresses we've ever had as a lead Bond girl.

    Holly Goodhead\Lois Chiles on the other hand is woefully underrated. Even if the standard issue CIA handbag and perfume set Bond identified seems a tad sexist.

    I admit to having a soft spot for Anya, especially in her black dress, so I forgive a lot with her.

    I agree on Goodhead/Chiles. Very modern woman and played very well by Chiles.....not a hint of a damsel in distress. Even the clothing was quite business like with no revealing dress or anything like that.

    Barbara Bach is such a lovely lady too but she does little with the role. That said her glowering look at Naomi is probably my favourite moment from her.

    If we must have another agent Bond girl in the future, then the series could do no worse than emulate Holly. Love her deflating Bond with the comments "If you're trying to be ingratiating Mr Bond, don't bother" and "The face is familiar, as is the manner". She's crucial to the plot in getting Bond up to the station and resourceful when up there.

    It's a nice touch that we're given a Bond girl who's one step ahead of Bond in his mission too.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Cowley wrote: »
    It's a nice touch that we're given a Bond girl who's one step ahead of Bond in his mission too.
    Agreed. She is one of the best things about MR. Rog mostly plays it for laughs, but Lois grounds it in a way.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,204
    I can say one more thing (because I already said most of what I had to say on page 4).

    If we took "Rogue Nation" and copied it in its entiry. Attached a gunbarrel in front, used a Bond-like main titles sequence, and replaced Tom Cruise by Daniel Craig, then I would be completely disappointed. "Rogue Nation" works as an "M:I"-film...nothing more.

    I don't know, I would pay to see that; with a little tweaking that would be a damn good Bond film. In fact when I saw RN the second time, at times, I did just that; I pictured Bond in place of Hunt. How hard would it be to get Daniel on the wing of a real plane?
  • talos7 wrote: »
    I can say one more thing (because I already said most of what I had to say on page 4).

    If we took "Rogue Nation" and copied it in its entiry. Attached a gunbarrel in front, used a Bond-like main titles sequence, and replaced Tom Cruise by Daniel Craig, then I would be completely disappointed. "Rogue Nation" works as an "M:I"-film...nothing more.

    I don't know, I would pay to see that; with a little tweaking that would be a damn good Bond film. In fact when I saw RN the second time, at times, I did just that; I pictured Bond in place of Hunt. How hard would it be to get Daniel on the wing of a real plane?

    Sorry, but that action sequence was so tremendously overblown. First of all, everyone who's properly wired can do that....on just a flying plane.

    But do you see Tom Cruise skiing off a cliff?
    Do you see him being wired on a helicopter that actually makes loopings in high air?
    Do you see Cruise actually finishing the proper PTS with a good high-air parachute jump?
    Is that Cruise on that motorbike?

    Sorry, I found it rather tedious marketing. Because in essence Tom Cruise is very much like Daniel Craig when it comes to stunts.....and the other way around.

    By the way, it's quite easy to picture Bond in a non-Bond-spy film nowadays. But I do think the Bond franchise is getting into trouble if we can't enjoy Bond...being Bond anymore in his own film. Part of it has to do with the fact that there were so bloody many spy films this year. But I think it's unfair.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Bond is Bond and MI is MI. They are separate franchises and do their own thing. There is some crossover because they are in the spy realm.

    For me, it all comes down to the actual experience in the theatre and shortly thereafter. How do I feel as I leave the theatre? How do I feel during the film? How do I feel during the 2nd watch?

    I don't care if Cruise or Craig are hanging off a plane (I loved the CR parkour but I'm sure Craig wasn't jumping off that crane for real). I'm more interested in how the action sequences are devised and executed. How original do they feel? How tense do they feel?

    They were both good, but MI-RN aced being an MI film. It exceeded my expectations for MI.

    I feel Bond could have done 'Bond' a bit better than it did this year. Admittedly, my Bond expectations are very high.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,204
    We'll have to agree to disagree on this. The stunt work Cruise does is unmatched among actors.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    talos7 wrote: »
    We'll have to agree to disagree on this. The stunt work Cruise does is unmatched among actors.
    That's definitely true. I don't think I can argue with this. It's well known anyway. He's the Jackie Chan of western actors.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    As someone said it's Apples and Oranges. Both are good for and enjoyable for you. :)
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 11,119
    Murdock wrote: »
    As someone said it's Apples and Oranges. Both are good for and enjoyable for you. :)

    yeah exactly. Well....I'm going to bed :-). Stupid Bond films and M:I-films

    Perhaps it's time to kill of Daniel Craig and make Tom Cruise agent 007. Past 7 years....Bond has been criticised to death. Even SF was mostly roasted here. QOS too. SP too.

    No matter how one twist and turns their words here...it eventually windles down to the...bad parts of the film. It never.......ends up with the good stuff a film has to offer. And makes me rather.....well....I go to bed hehehe
  • Posts: 12,526
    MI is great fun but it will never surpass Bond!
  • Posts: 7,653
    For me the last two MI did not so much surpass the last three Bond movies as they did feel more balanced and gave me the fun I used to enjoy at the Bond movies. DC has turned the whole franchise into a family themed fest, while MI has its darkness too but never fail to entertain the audience.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    edited November 2015 Posts: 4,116
    MI and Bond battle back and forth with Bond ahead past couple times. This time though it goes to MI:RN with a way better script and direction.

    And again to you all that are blaming America. .. remember we liked SF and did our part. And SF outperformed MI: GP.

    EON is going to have to produce a better written film to get the BO back.

    How's that for being blunt for a change and putting the blame on the filmmakers not North America.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 11,119
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    MI and Bond battle back and forth with Bond ahead past couple times. This time though it goes to MI:RN with a way better script and direction.

    I am very sorry, but I find the remarks of "SPECTRE"'s script being exaggerated. I mean, just ask those forummembers in here who 'attacked' "Skyfall"s screenplay for being way to 'accidental'. It was criticised for including too many events for which no clear explanation for all of Silva's actions. Not that it irritated me a lot. But Silva had no backing of a syndicate, had no 'right hand' who was executing his plans (Denbigh), and it wasn't clear how he managed to attack the MI6-building, and several other parts of London. Not to mention how he managed to get half of the London police working for him (it all looked very much like The Joker's work, and funny enough no one really criticised "The Dark Knight" for that).

    "SPECTRE" however explained much better how the villain's scheme was executed. And other terrorist attacks (Cape Town, Tunesia, Hamburg) were wisely put out of the main plot. Mr White was already heavily investigating Oberhauser/Blofeld. And by seeing actually how the crime syndicate S.P.E.C.T.R.E. works back in Rome, there's much more explained.

    Yes, perhaps the whole background story of how Bond and Oberhauser/Blofeld were related was a bit over-the-top. But IMO way less 'irritating' as not explaining how Blofeld manages to hollow out an entire volcano in Japan without a Japanese secret service noticing it. At least it was all explained how Bond and Blofeld/Oberhauser were related. 'Q' showed it on his laptop. And if only much earlier the crime syndicate in "Quantum Of Solace" was named S.P.E.C.T.R.E. then no one would have moaned.

    In "Rogue Nation" it isn't really explained or visible how the Syndicate operates. Ethan Hunt has collected a lot of news articles and pictures of previous attacks that were co-organized by that Syndicate. The Syndicate is kust "there", and in "SPECTRE" the organisation is there as well, but audiences are introduced to it in a better way I think. In "Rogue Nation" Lane is much more like Silva in "Skyfall": A man who gets his scheme executed, but we don't know really how the Syndicate is organized.


    I think the main reason people 'dislike' the script for "SPECTRE" is the 2nd storyline set in London, where Denbigh is handling things for S.P.E.C.T.R.E. And I also think the personal backstory, though not as contrived as I expected it to be, was something people disliked. Though it was always neatly explained (By the way, we didn't mind "Batman Begins" for that reason...). Ooowh, and not to forget, there's this general idea that the Sonyleaks and this so called "3rd act" caused this. Sorry....that's a bit over the top for me.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    In "Rogue Nation" Lane is much more like Silva in "Skyfall": A man who gets his scheme executed, but we don't know really how the Syndicate is organized.
    That's true......and perhaps they will explain it all in MI-6.

    Mi-RN was like SF in that respect as you note. In MI-RN, the syndicate is incidental to the action spectacle. Is Lane the top dog? Who knows? I don't think so actually, and it's possible we will learn more in future films. All we know here is there is a fella with a grudge (anti-IMF).

    I thought both films had endings that could have been better (I didn't really like either London finale).
    it all looked very much like The Joker's work, and funny enough no one really criticised "The Dark Knight" for that
    Yes, it did. However, TDK is pure fantasy (it's Batman after all). So they have more creative license with the viewer I think.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 11,119
    bondjames wrote: »
    In "Rogue Nation" Lane is much more like Silva in "Skyfall": A man who gets his scheme executed, but we don't know really how the Syndicate is organized.
    That's true......and perhaps they will explain it all in MI-6.

    Well, Silva's actions were now more or less properly explained in "SPECTRE". I always wanted that to be explained a bit better in "Skyfall"...that at least someone mentions an organisation backing Silva's scheme. Now we discover that's the case. But no one likes it :-). *sigh*
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    In "Rogue Nation" Lane is much more like Silva in "Skyfall": A man who gets his scheme executed, but we don't know really how the Syndicate is organized.
    That's true......and perhaps they will explain it all in MI-6.

    Well, Silva's actions were now more or less properly explained in "SPECTRE". But no one likes it :-).
    Yes, you're correct. The explanation covers off the plot holes (Silva's apparent clairvoyance) in SF, but the retconning is contrived to some. I personally wish they would had concentrated more on Greene/LeChiffre/White/Vesper and left Silva out of it. It's done now though.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 11,119
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    In "Rogue Nation" Lane is much more like Silva in "Skyfall": A man who gets his scheme executed, but we don't know really how the Syndicate is organized.
    That's true......and perhaps they will explain it all in MI-6.

    Well, Silva's actions were now more or less properly explained in "SPECTRE". But no one likes it :-).
    Yes, you're correct. The explanation covers off the plot holes (Silva's apparent clairvoyance) in SF, but the retconning is contrived to some. I personally wish they would had concentrated more on Greene/LeChiffre/White/Vesper and left Silva out of it. It's done now though.

    Then people should not complain about this with "Skyfall" and carry over the complaints slightly differently to "SPECTRE" I think. "They" listen to you, and in the next film we complain again. Sorry, I find that a bit disheartening
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    In "Rogue Nation" Lane is much more like Silva in "Skyfall": A man who gets his scheme executed, but we don't know really how the Syndicate is organized.
    That's true......and perhaps they will explain it all in MI-6.

    Well, Silva's actions were now more or less properly explained in "SPECTRE". But no one likes it :-).
    Yes, you're correct. The explanation covers off the plot holes (Silva's apparent clairvoyance) in SF, but the retconning is contrived to some. I personally wish they would had concentrated more on Greene/LeChiffre/White/Vesper and left Silva out of it. It's done now though.

    Then people should not complain about this with "Skyfall" and carry over the complaints slightly differently to "SPECTRE" I think. "They" listen to you, and in the next film we complain again. Sorry, I find that a bit disheartening
    No doubt.

    The reason why I didn't particularly like the Silva retcon is as follows:
    -For the most part, those who liked SF did not care about the plot holes. The revenge aspect had resonance. Bardem/Dench sold it to the audience. That's why the film was huge. The plot was secondary. It was an emotional journey about betrayal.

    I don't think, by retconning, that they have necessarily brought people who disliked the film initially into the fold. Such people still seem to dislike it for whatever reason.

    The retcon has, however, potentially cast an uncomfortable shadow for some (including me) on what was a simple revenge tale. So I may look at SF differently now (and not so positively) when I watch it again......because I realize Silva is just another SPECTRE operative. I'm not sure because I've not seen it since I watched SP, but I'd actually prefer to just ignore the retcon and focus on the revenge aspect, which I found fascinating.
  • I do think however that in the long-term people prefer watching the Craig-quadrilogy over the four last "Mission: Impossible" films. The latter ones are loosely tied, whereas I prefer to see a full-blood storyline throughout four films. Makes rewatching so much more of an event.

    And, it's rather unique in the Bond franchise history. It also re-confirms my idea that with "Casino Royale" a complete new timeline/universe was created.
Sign In or Register to comment.