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
...and you say hit it's stride, but I'd say it hit it's only hit its stride with Fallout, one film, and It's not like we've had loads of MI films anyway... we've had four MI films since 2006, and four Craig James Bond films? What does that tell you?
...and the only reason the James Bond franchise wasn't able to get the fifth one out sooner was because it had had a director who quit or was fired, and had significant rewrites after a new director was chosen.
...and yes, I do believe it is more complex, because like I already mentioned it's obvious that MI films centre more around its action sequences with characters following, whereas the Bond films have been more known to focus on its characters, with action coming after, in my opinion, and while I do think Fallout went there more than other MI films, it still wasn't on the same level, and I definitely wouldn't say Fallout came further ahead than certain entries from the Craig-era either. Again, I personally believe the MI are there for action spectacle and are completely sold and marketed that way. The James Bond franchise on the other hand knows how to handle both, with script and story taking precedence, which in my eyes can also mean more time taken.
Also I think you've accidentally misquoted me below @mtm...
I know what you mean: certainly style is something Bond aims for more- it's more about looking and sounding top quality. MI is purely about the thrills and excitement of a rattling good spy yarn, and there's nothing wrong with either approach.
Can't agree with you there: it's a brilliantly made and paced action movie, and contains actual tension, which is something Bond hasn't pulled off for a while.
I don't understand the intention of using language like this. It seems born from contempt and a desire to insult.
You really haven't; please stop saying this. What you said was:
...they do all get made by people doing the same jobs, but not the same people, and not the same production companies.
Plus the last two MI films have had the same director, and also there was a bigger gap between Ghost Protocol (2011), and Rogue Nation (2015) than between Skyfall (2012) and Spectre (2015)... meaning that a change of director can usually affect how long a film takes to be made and released... and even more so when a director quits/is fired and a new one has to be hired... There was even a five year gap between MI III (2006) and Ghost Protocol (2011)?
There aren't any reasons as to why they follow 'different rules' as you put it in there. You just said they have different people working on them.
I wouldn't: it got going again with Ghost Protocol.
That's enough of a reason to slow it down again though. And it was like that before. It's such a slooow process getting these movies made. MI will have made two more films by the time the next Bond is out.
That's not really true, though, is it? I mean, watch most Bond films and the action scenes are pretty stuffed in their arbitrarily, with the plots being pretty similar each time. Hey, I love them, but I'm not under the illusion that they're complex plot-wise. Mi actually has a load of characters to ram in, with Elsa's story in particular in the last couple being expressly character-driven.
But they don't take more time on the script. They haven't been polishing this for the last three years: it will have been as last minute as usual.
And I honestly don't know what complexity you're seeing in these scripts. They're fine, they do good work, but you know as good as everyone else here how utterly illogical Silva's plan in Skyfall was, how Blofeld couldn't possibly have responsible for him wanting revenge etc.
Man, I'm glad you at least liked it. I was bo-o-red by it before it was even halfway through. It had nothing to do with the stunts, which were spectacular, but with the story and characters, which pulled a SP and didn't utilize the returning cast as well as it probably should have. Like Mr. Lucas said back when he still had talent, "A special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing."
..and yes it is true. It is well-known that the Craig-era had more focus on character development and script, which in my opinion the MI franchise hasn't begun to achieve to any degree until Fallout...
...and yes Silva's plan and Blofeld's reasonings were convoluted, but again, the scripts work on another level. The script for Skyfall, in my eyes, is somewhat ingenious for its ability to tie together the overarching theme, the 50th anniversary celebration, while honouring the new era of James Bond in Daniel Craig, and we all know how good the script for Casino Royale is...
Again, my main argument is that you can't ask the James Bond franchise to be more like the MI franchise because it's a wasted argument, because there are so many factors for each film whether part of franchise or not.
...and of course the MI franchise is going to have more films out by the time Bond 26 is released. MI 7 & 8 are being filmed back-to-back and released a year apart with the same director and main actors, while Bond 26 will probably have a new director, maybe new writers, and a new James Bond actor???
Any M:I film that came after number three (my favourite), is a blur to me. It's a live action cartoon, as well done as any Loony Tunes-- although I would say LT has more intelligence.
There's no tension (other than Number Three, IMO), because of the zany stunts and unbelievable setups.
When it comes to actual story? I don't remember one of them, from Four onwards.
But what is the discussion? Should EoN be pumping out Bond films as fast as Paramount's are pumping out the Hunt series? It's easier said than done when you're a big studio.
EoN is essentially a few independent producers/family business, handcuffed to MGM-- a company that has created many of the set-back in recent years.
Paramount is a big, slick, Hollywood machine. And if they want to plan the next three M:I films over set dates, good on them. They have the money and soldiers to start paying today to make this happen.
EoN is a very different beast, and to compare these two entities is like apples and oranges.
Mudslinging between the two franchises is not getting this thread anywhere.
The trailer can't come soon enough.
Absolutely. As someone who enjoys both series for (mostly) different reasons, a lot of the comments here have been quite amusing to read.
The shining grace of M:I3 is the villain - Philip Seymour Hoffman is the most ruthless and memorable baddie the franchise has ever had, by a longshot. The rest of the film is a bit too dour for my tastes, but it certainly succeeds at being grittier and more disturbing than any Bond or Bourne film.
You keep saying that but without offering them. You said 'different rules': I'm not seeing any.
It had more than before, but MI has been doing that since it lost the numbers in the title. Bond fell in love with Vesper? Gosh, if only Hunt had lost his wife in some way in Ghost Protocol... ;)
What overarching theme?
Look, I think they're both great films, but you're not explaining how they're such 'complex' scripts. Are you saying they took a lot longer to write them than the MI films took to develop?
You can ask it to be look at how they're making those films so quickly, certainly.
That's what I said, yes.
The guy above you remembered it :)
I love 'em both: I don't think it's very impressive to sneer at people talking about them though, even if you disagree with someone who claims ridiculous things like one being 'stupider than Looney Tunes'. Both the sneering and the OTT comment are equally designed to try and antagonise, and that's unnecessary.
They're clearly both excellent series with one handing in a better entry than the other on the last occasion and being on a slicker production line. Hopefully the other can up its game in response.
Yes!!! Different rules: different caliber of writing, different caliber of talent, different production companies, and different ways of working. As @peter put it, Paramount is a big, slick, Hollywood machine, whereas EON is a very different beast. Stop asking me to explain because I've done it so many times, despite you thinking that I haven't.
And I think we can agree that the Vesper storyline was more sophisticated, better handled, and was a true example of character development. Yes, Quantum of Solace was a weak entry but to me that film is more similar to films in the Mission Impossible franchise than any other of the James Bond films, and failed.
The franchise may have attempted examples of character development and more complex storytelling, but that doesn't mean it was well executed, especially when the main focus of your scripts is what action set piece you want to get to next....
...and did you watch Skyfall? The overarching theme is written all over that film, old and new. Literally every aspect of the film addresses that theme, and to me, does it perfectly. I've explained plenty of times why they're more complex scripts, but for some reason you're choosing to ignore them because it somehow services your argument?
...and how many times do I have to basically tell you that it's quality not quantity in as many words as possible. You're comparing a franchise that has had its own set of problems, with similar gaps between movies, and to me, a franchise (James Bond) that is on a different level creatively and professionally...
If people want their Bond films quicker at the sacrifice of a good film, so be it, but I know I don't.
Hope you're not quoting me, @mtm.
Excellent post!! I really enjoy both too. I think Christopher McQuarrie is canny and intelligent enough to bring something entirely fresh to Bond, were it ever to happen. The action scenes in the last 2 M:I films were spectacular. They also had compelling stories, nuance, levity and character. SPECTRE was a damp squib of a film in comparison. Well, it was when not in comparison. Lol. Anyway, I guess it's all moot. If I had my ultimate pick for Bond 26, it would be Denis Villeneuve.
I have no issue with any actual legitimate criticisms of the quality of either series.
However, it's difficult not to sneer at comments that amount to "M:I will be gone soon so it doesn't matter", as well as blatant dislike of Tom Cruise, because that isn't criticism worth taking seriously, and I'll stand by that opinion with confidence. It is here now, and is going from strength to strength both as a box office draw and in the eyes of critics. Nothing lasts forever, but that doesn't erase what already exists.
It's fine for people to not like Tom Cruise, of course (it's fine to dislike anyone), but he irrefutably pushes himself to extremes for the purpose of entertaining the audience. That can't be discounted from the conversation even if someone happens to despise him.
But, I agree with the sentiment. I think Bond will both manage to up its game in the action department here while still keeping what makes Bond unique, as well as being a fitting end to Craig's era.
That's to get the thread back on track; doesn't actually happen.
Surely Bond Twitter will start promoting the GMA event tomorrow? Or Tuesday? So exciting to know we are just three days away from our first new Bond teaser since March 2015.
Bond: “This never happened to the other fellas” *dies*
*NTTD ends with Nomi in gun barrel, throwing a bloody tampon at unseen shooter. Blood trickling down is her menstruation*
I certainly hope so. Has it been confirmed that we are definitely getting the trailer along with the cast's appearance? Or are we just "pretty sure"?