Has Mission Impossible surpassed Bond?

145791022

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    I do think however that in the long-term people prefer watching the Craig-quadrilogy over the four last "Mission: Impossible" films
    I personally agree with that. All 4 DC films ace all 4 last MI films (or even the last 3).

    However, if we're talking about the last 2 MI, then I think SF takes MI-GP (because I liked the dark aspects of the SF plot more) but I prefer MI-RN & MI-GP to SP personally.
  • It's almost 20 movies behind, so no. I love both though.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    edited November 2015 Posts: 4,116
    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.

    Has nothing to do with London. If that was true I would have had the same gripes about MI:RN which ended in London and was probably in London more than SP.

    I didn't read the Sony leaks and I liked the ending so not that either. My complaint is that nothing is fully developed in SP... not the character development nor the the action which always ended too abruptly save maybe the PTS.

    Oh and I liked the "second" storyline with C. Not sure how that is second since C is carrying out Blofeld's plan.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    My complaint is that nothing is fully developed in SP... not the character development nor the the action which always ended too abruptly save maybe the PTS.
    That's it right there. Agreed fully. That's why I like L'American so much....because it takes a breather and we sort of get to know the characters a bit more. Having said that, there is none of the snappy dialogue that characterized interactions in CR (which was done quickly but was so revealing due to the brilliance & intelligence of the writing - we discerned a lot about Bond and Vesper just after their first meet on the train).

    There is also a slap dash feeling to the finale (last 3rd) that sort of suggests they'd run out of ideas and were trying to find any way to just wrap it up. Strange. I don't know if that is how they ended up writing the script to wrap it up or what.....but something just doesn't gel for me either. If I go to see it in the theatre one last time (possibly) I'm actually dreading this last part.....having to sit through it.....I've never felt that way about a Bond film before except for TWINE.

    I say they need to get Haggis back.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    bondjames wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    My complaint is that nothing is fully developed in SP... not the character development nor the the action which always ended too abruptly save maybe the PTS.
    That's it right there. Agreed fully. That's why I like L'American so much....because it takes a breather and we sort of get to know the characters a bit more. Having said that, there is none of the snappy dialogue that characterized interactions in CR (which was done quickly but was so revealing due to the brilliance & intelligence of the writing - we discerned a lot about Bond and Vesper just after their first meet on the train).

    There is also a slap dash feeling to the finale (last 3rd) that sort of suggests they'd run out of ideas and were trying to find any way to just wrap it up. Strange. I don't know if that is how they ended up writing the script to wrap it up or what.....but something just doesn't gel for me either. If I go to see it in the theatre one last time (possibly) I'm actually dreading this last part.....having to sit through it.....I've never felt that way about a Bond film before except for TWINE.

    Thank you. And @GG I really don't mean any disrespect.

    I truly feel if SP had not had what I feel are weaknesses in script and storytelling that more American critics and more of the American audience would have bought into SP.

    Now as negative and as angry as I am at SP I still like and enjoyed the film.

    Got major cognitive dissonance going on with now lol.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Now as negative and as angry as I am at SP I still like and enjoyed the film.
    Me too.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    bondjames wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Now as negative and as angry as I am at SP I still like and enjoyed the film.
    Me too.

    SP is like my son. He makes me so mad sometimes but I love him ...and he's just too cute for me to stay angry.

    P&W are more like my ex wife.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 154
    Rogue Nation, despite its fantastic action (actually, because of its spectacular action), had some pretty ridiculous plot points too. The story itself was great and didn't have huge holes like nearly all Bond movies, but it definitely had ridiculous plot points.

    As just one example, look at the whole set-up for the underwater scene in Rogue Nation. The story created a highly contrived plot point (and that's an understatement), to set-up and justify the existence of that entire action scene. Still, it was an awesome scene and, unlike the weak "action" scenes in Skyfall, at least Rogue Nation bothered to set it up at all (even if in a highly contrived manner).

    The tube explosion / falling train scene in Skyfall, by contrast, was not justified in the plot in the slightest. It was just stuck in there in a way that made zero story sense!

    Still, it's all so darn inconsistent. Rotten Tomatoes critics rate Spectre in the low 60s because it ripped off its own franchise and because of its plot contrivances. Rogue Nation, on the other hand, is rated in the 90s (!) despite its own plot contrivances (every bit the match to those in SP, no doubt) and despite ripping off someone else's franchise (Bond)!

    Meanwhile, most critics completely ignored the absolute craters in the plot of Skyfall -- that were far worse than anything in Rogue Nation or Sprectre. None of it makes any sense!
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,698
    bondjames wrote: »
    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.
    I like every Cruise MI movie, but am seldom emotionally invested in them. Hunt is so pure... Bond is who I am deep, deep down.
    b-(
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    chrisisall wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    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.
    I like every Cruise MI movie, but am seldom emotionally invested in them. Hunt is so pure... Bond is who I am deep, deep down.
    b-(
    I hear you. There is nothing to invest in emotionally in MI-RN. Nothing at all. It's just a great time at the movies. Think GE/TND.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,698
    bondjames wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    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.
    I like every Cruise MI movie, but am seldom emotionally invested in them. Hunt is so pure... Bond is who I am deep, deep down.
    b-(
    I hear you. There is nothing to invest in emotionally in MI-RN. Nothing at all. It's just a great time at the movies. Think GE/TND.
    But TND had a peek at Bond's suppressed sorrow ("I wondered who they'd send.."), and at his ferocious rage ("You forgot the first rule of mass media...").
    Sorry friend, if I'm reading too much into this particular Bond, well that's my prerogative I'm afraid...
    :D
  • Posts: 183
    Saw MI RN a few weeks ago at the cinema and GP on DVD the other night for the first time and they were good, entertaining films. I saw nothing however to suggest these films have surpassed Bond. And for all the flack Bond seems to get for copying other movies - that scene when Hunt pulls up in the flash car with the beautiful woman in Mumbai wearing his DJ -that was right out of a Bond movie!
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 486
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    I truly feel if SP had not had what I feel are weaknesses in script and storytelling that more American critics and more of the American audience would have bought into SP.

    Now as negative and as angry as I am at SP I still like and enjoyed the film.

    Got major cognitive dissonance going on with now lol.

    The Sony leaks of memos and scripts makes it rather too easier to latch onto that criticism though. SP isn't perfect - what Bond is? - but I don't think anyone criticising the film for the script deserves any praise for being criticially insightful.

    I didn't look at any of the scripts and can only judge what I saw on the screen and I didn't see an atrociously poorly made Bond film by any means. I would say the film looses a little momentum for the finale in London but again I'll make that comment based on what I saw and not citing a page from the script or the whole Sony leaks back story.
  • SzonanaSzonana Mexico
    Posts: 1,130
    Ok in General i prefer Bond by a long shot however Rouge Nation made me nervous of Bond being able to Top this new film.

    I knew Sam Mendes had something big in mind for Spectre and it surapssed my expectations but i have to admit Mi5 became a theart to me for Bond.

    I went twice to see Rouge nation, i never felt that way before for a Mission Impossible flick, I vaguely remember liking MI3 and i was bored to death with Ghost Protocol so this one really took me by surprise big time.

    I went to MI5 prepared to bash it afterwards, but for my surprise i enjoyed it inmensivley and doubted for a few moments on how Bond could Top the air plane scene but then i remebred we are talking about where everything is big, glamourous and they inevented style in the espionage world.

    In resume i prefer Bond in general but i loved Rouge Nation as well.
  • You know....in reality I find these questions a bit dangerous. What if "Mission: Impossible" really surpasses James Bond. What if Bond doesn't work anymore. What if the 30th James Bond film will become as much as a flop as "UNCLE"?

    Questions like these could be....selffulling prophecies.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,336
    It won't. Bond will be around forever. ;)
  • SarkSark Guangdong, PRC
    Posts: 1,138
    You know....in reality I find these questions a bit dangerous. What if "Mission: Impossible" really surpasses James Bond. What if Bond doesn't work anymore. What if the 30th James Bond film will become as much as a flop as "UNCLE"?

    Questions like these could be....selffulling prophecies.

    Why would they be self-fulfilling?
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited November 2015 Posts: 15,696
    In 24 attempts, the James Bond movies never finished lower than 12th at the World Wide box office. 007 is basically fullproof to being a flop.
  • DrShatterhandDrShatterhand Garden of Death, near Belfast
    Posts: 805
    You know....in reality I find these questions a bit dangerous. What if "Mission: Impossible" really surpasses James Bond. What if Bond doesn't work anymore. What if the 30th James Bond film will become as much as a flop as "UNCLE"?

    Questions like these could be....selffulling prophecies.

    Questions are used to simply get to the truth...nothing ever dangerous in that
    ;)
  • SzonanaSzonana Mexico
    Posts: 1,130
    You know....in reality I find these questions a bit dangerous. What if "Mission: Impossible" really surpasses James Bond. What if Bond doesn't work anymore. What if the 30th James Bond film will become as much as a flop as "UNCLE"?

    Questions like these could be....selffulling prophecies.


    This won't happen, The producers always learn from the past and listen to what audiences want.
    They know to keep Bond fresh of they had a mistep they fix it next film and is alive with no problem.

    I think Bond will be here forever and many generations to come will have their own Bond acttor
    In 20 years people will be disscusing 8 official Bond actors instead of 6 and will be asking who will be the 9th Bond.

  • Posts: 5,767
    I wouldn´t say MI has surpassed Bond, but Bond has subpassed MI.
  • Posts: 582
    I highly enjoyed both films. I have to say that I think Spectre is better, maybe I'm biased being a Bond fan, but I did genuinely enjoy it more. However, thinking about it I have scrutinised Spectre a lot more. I think I was more willing to Take MI-RN on its own terms, again probably because I am a Bond fan.
  • sunsanvilsunsanvil Somewhere in Canada....somewhere.
    Posts: 260
    talos7 wrote:
    Has Mission Impossible surpassed Bond?

    Nope.

  • Bond has some real competition from the other movie spies now. Take Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol. It made $700 at the box office (not including DVD sales, etc) and was made for half of what they spent on Spectre. That's a huge profit. They estimate Spectre will end up making $700-$800 million (less than Skyfall). Rotten Tomatoes has Rigue Nation at 92%. Spectre is 63%. So do the math. Spectre, when compared to Rogue Nation, loses out both financially and critically. Earlier in 2015 we had the start of another spy franchise in the shape of Kingsman. A wonderful blend of old Avengers (the tv show) and early Bond movies - add to that loads of blood and epic fight scenes. It was produced for a fraction of Spectre and yet grossed $450!!! No wonder Fox demanded a sequel and have talked about a franchise. The other spy movie that came out this year was Guy Ritchie's Man From Uncle. It was a flop, and a sequel is unlikely, but next year...BOURNE is back. Paul Greengrass directing, Matt Damon staring. This is going to be very, very interesting. The Daniel Craig era owes a lot to Bourne, so it will be interesting to see which direction the new movie will go; and I bet EON / Sony will be paying very close attention too. What I guess I'm saying is that the Bond producers better be careful. After the disappointing Spectre, the need to up their game. They can't take Bond's success or the fans for granted. Another lazy outing (yes, Spectre was lazy: weak and flabby script, dull action sequences) and Bond could become passé- just like it did 10 years ago when Die Another Day stank up the screen. We need another Casino Royale. Something big and muscular and, most important of all, distinctive. Maybe it's time for a reboot. Get new writers, a new director and a new Bond. Another misstep could see Bond getting left behind at the box office.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited November 2015 Posts: 15,696
    IMO all these major spy franchises (Bourne, Bond, Mission Impossible, Kingsman, etc) got a big kick in their behinds by a little action movie called 'John Wick'. That film blew every other action movies of the last 5+ years out of the water. When I saw the trailer I thought it looked pretty interesting, but the actual film was just friggen awesome. Rogue Nation and Spectre were great, but they did not give me that rush of pure adrenaline that I had while watching John Wick.
  • IMO all these major spy franchises (Bourne, Bond, Mission Impossible, Kingsman, etc) got a big kick in their behinds by a little action movie called 'John Wick'. That film blew every other action movies of the last 5+ years out of the water. When I saw the trailer I thought it looked pretty interesting, but the actual film was just friggen awesome. Rogue Nation and Spectre were great, but they did not give me that rush of pure adrenaline that I had while watching John Wick.

    Not seen this. Does look good. Think I'll rent it from Amazon tonight. Thanks for the recommendation
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    John Wick was a very slick film and I can't wait for the sequel but I'm not sure if I'd say it's better than the others. It's a very different film but what it offers it offers in a way that is very well done.

    That said, I think Bond needs the competition in a really big way because for some reason the series seems to become apathetic when there's no one around to offer it competition. With SP being heavily criticised I can assure you the next Bond film is going to really challenge or surpass expectations set by CR and SF. Mission Impossible comes out in 2017 and Bond's biggest competition Bourne comes out next year and EoN would be foolish to ignore SP's criticisms and not learn from their mistakes as well as to not observe how the real competition operate and perform.

    I think EoN havn't been taking MI all that seriously and I think after the collective success of GP and RN they better start doing so. Also, I've been saying this for years and even more so since Damon and Greengrass signed on to return but Bourne is the only spy series that serves to offer any real competition to Bond and is the one series that forces Bond to step up and this new Bourne movie will do the same again.

    Guys like Greengrass and even Campbell aren't of the calibre of Mendes but they know their craft when it comes to these movies and they pack a devastating punch without complicating themselves with pretensions and overreaching themes. SF was good but overrated and misguided in some respects and although SP was entertaining, again there were somethings that felt forced and just weren't as organic as they should have been and the script even felt fractured while watching the movie but it's saving grace was the fact that it was an entertaining movie and Craig elevated his character to phenomenal levels of Connery awesomeness.

    However, EON need to move forward and get away from the silly personal angles and to direct themselves away from herding Bond into a corner. There needs to be conviction in the story and stakes, which is where SF shone very well moreso than SP did but irrespective of what the stakes are, it has to be organic enough for audiences to be invested and to not give us half baked ideas or concepts that require further exploration.

    I think after 50 odd years Bond can survive with or without competition but to be relieved well and for us as fans to walk away overjoyed and wanting more, Bond clearly needs the competition to be kept on its toes and with the next MI and Bourne movies coming out over the next 2 years EoN need to use this time to get their affairs in order and pay close attention to their competition and to what's going on in the world in order to move forward and really deliver something special to tear through the competition. Time to start spending the money properly and take real risks on talent behind the camera. New director and new writers especially!
  • Posts: 5,767
    doubleoego wrote: »
    John Wick was a very slick film and I can't wait for the sequel but I'm not sure if I'd say it's better than the others. It's a very different film but what it offers it offers in a way that is very well done.

    That said, I think Bond needs the competition in a really big way because for some reason the series seems to become apathetic when there's no one around to offer it competition. With SP being heavily criticised I can assure you the next Bond film is going to really challenge or surpass expectations set by CR and SF. Mission Impossible comes out in 2017 and Bond's biggest competition Bourne comes out next year and EoN would be foolish to ignore SP's criticisms and not learn from their mistakes as well as to not observe how the real competition operate and perform.

    I think EoN havn't been taking MI all that seriously and I think after the collective success of GP and RN they better start doing so. Also, I've been saying this for years and even more so since Damon and Greengrass signed on to return but Bourne is the only spy series that serves to offer any real competition to Bond and is the one series that forces Bond to step up and this new Bourne movie will do the same again.

    Guys like Greengrass and even Campbell aren't of the calibre of Mendes but they know their craft when it comes to these movies and they pack a devastating punch without complicating themselves with pretensions and overreaching themes. SF was good but overrated and misguided in some respects and although SP was entertaining, again there were somethings that felt forced and just weren't as organic as they should have been and the script even felt fractured while watching the movie but it's saving grace was the fact that it was an entertaining movie and Craig elevated his character to phenomenal levels of Connery awesomeness.

    However, EON need to move forward and get away from the silly personal angles and to direct themselves away from herding Bond into a corner. There needs to be conviction in the story and stakes, which is where SF shone very well moreso than SP did but irrespective of what the stakes are, it has to be organic enough for audiences to be invested and to not give us half baked ideas or concepts that require further exploration.

    I think after 50 odd years Bond can survive with or without competition but to be relieved well and for us as fans to walk away overjoyed and wanting more, Bond clearly needs the competition to be kept on its toes and with the next MI and Bourne movies coming out over the next 2 years EoN need to use this time to get their affairs in order and pay close attention to their competition and to what's going on in the world in order to move forward and really deliver something special to tear through the competition. Time to start spending the money properly and take real risks on talent behind the camera. New director and new writers especially!
    Good thoughts @doubleoego, but I´m not entirely sure Bond works better with stiff competition. Bond films turned out best when the producers took care to make a damn good film, not when they took care to surpass competition. Especially QoS and SP made headlines with their budgets, and in both cases, the public acceptance of the film was very mixed. Which makes me wonder if perhaps such megalomaniac budgets aren´t a huge load on the producers´ backs that hampers their creative abilities. I´m tempted to claim that the collapsing bridge in TLD, which was done with models, looks more impressive than the explosion of Blofeld´s lair, which made it into the Guiness books of records for being the biggest explosion done for a movie. And the info that SP´s Rome scenes cost as much as the whole UNCLE film speaks for itself.

  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    boldfinger wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    John Wick was a very slick film and I can't wait for the sequel but I'm not sure if I'd say it's better than the others. It's a very different film but what it offers it offers in a way that is very well done.

    That said, I think Bond needs the competition in a really big way because for some reason the series seems to become apathetic when there's no one around to offer it competition. With SP being heavily criticised I can assure you the next Bond film is going to really challenge or surpass expectations set by CR and SF. Mission Impossible comes out in 2017 and Bond's biggest competition Bourne comes out next year and EoN would be foolish to ignore SP's criticisms and not learn from their mistakes as well as to not observe how the real competition operate and perform.

    I think EoN havn't been taking MI all that seriously and I think after the collective success of GP and RN they better start doing so. Also, I've been saying this for years and even more so since Damon and Greengrass signed on to return but Bourne is the only spy series that serves to offer any real competition to Bond and is the one series that forces Bond to step up and this new Bourne movie will do the same again.

    Guys like Greengrass and even Campbell aren't of the calibre of Mendes but they know their craft when it comes to these movies and they pack a devastating punch without complicating themselves with pretensions and overreaching themes. SF was good but overrated and misguided in some respects and although SP was entertaining, again there were somethings that felt forced and just weren't as organic as they should have been and the script even felt fractured while watching the movie but it's saving grace was the fact that it was an entertaining movie and Craig elevated his character to phenomenal levels of Connery awesomeness.

    However, EON need to move forward and get away from the silly personal angles and to direct themselves away from herding Bond into a corner. There needs to be conviction in the story and stakes, which is where SF shone very well moreso than SP did but irrespective of what the stakes are, it has to be organic enough for audiences to be invested and to not give us half baked ideas or concepts that require further exploration.

    I think after 50 odd years Bond can survive with or without competition but to be relieved well and for us as fans to walk away overjoyed and wanting more, Bond clearly needs the competition to be kept on its toes and with the next MI and Bourne movies coming out over the next 2 years EoN need to use this time to get their affairs in order and pay close attention to their competition and to what's going on in the world in order to move forward and really deliver something special to tear through the competition. Time to start spending the money properly and take real risks on talent behind the camera. New director and new writers especially!
    Good thoughts @doubleoego, but I´m not entirely sure Bond works better with stiff competition. Bond films turned out best when the producers took care to make a damn good film, not when they took care to surpass competition. Especially QoS and SP made headlines with their budgets, and in both cases, the public acceptance of the film was very mixed. Which makes me wonder if perhaps such megalomaniac budgets aren´t a huge load on the producers´ backs that hampers their creative abilities. I´m tempted to claim that the collapsing bridge in TLD, which was done with models, looks more impressive than the explosion of Blofeld´s lair, which made it into the Guiness books of records for being the biggest explosion done for a movie. And the info that SP´s Rome scenes cost as much as the whole UNCLE film speaks for itself.

    Regarding the budget I expressed some thoughts a shirt time ago in the BO office thread. The budget and the allocation of money for production needs to be re-adressed.

    When the producers are focused on making good movies things usually turn out great but I think it usually stems as a response from competition to not necessarily outdo what other movies are doing but to compete with a well though out effort and to be inspired to take things more seriously and handle the production process with care. I feel that SP tried to mainly outdo SF as priority number one instead of focusing on making an excellent movie first and foremost. The goodwill of SF and trying to replicate some of the components took centre stage instead of trying to convey a great story that really involves audiences.

    Sam Smith singing the theme was predictable and not even a casting coup. I personally liked WoTw but it's nowhere near as great as YKMN and SF and I think it missed the mark to get the masses ready in a good way for the movie. It tried to replicate what happened 3 years ago but that didn't happen not even close.

    When Bond doesnt try to rely too much on its own history and is compelled to just be a great movie it excels and I think a healthy dose of competition from the likes of Bourne facilitates this.
  • Posts: 5,767
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Sam Smith singing the theme was predictable and not even a casting coup. I personally liked WoTw but it's nowhere near as great as YKMN and SF and I think it missed the mark to get the masses ready in a good way for the movie. It tried to replicate what happened 3 years ago but that didn't happen not even close.
    I found the song a great song, but I truly cannot connect with the performance. That in combination with a naked Daniel Craig and those ugly tentacles gave me the creeps throughout the title sequence.

Sign In or Register to comment.