Mission: Impossible - films and tv series

1246247249251252302

Comments

  • edited December 2022 Posts: 118
    I do think Bond is better served going the other way in terms of action, but it's understandable that they feel the need to compete even if they can't.

    Hasn't Bond done stunts just as impressive? I hate when it's turned into a competition.

    No, I don't think there's anything as impressive stuntwise in Bond as the climbing of the tallest building in the world. However, that doesn't make Ghost Protocol a better film than Skyfall.

    What about the spy who loved me ski jump or the moonraker open or the crocodile stunt they are more dangerous than climbing a building? Or the stuff in the living daylights?

    They're very impressive undoubtedly (the plane stuff in TLD is among my favourite stunts of all time) but I wouldn't say they're as good as "climbing a building". If we're going to use that sort of rhetoric then all they did in TSWLM was just "ski off a cliff".

    My point is that Bond is more than just about stunts and they should capitalise on that rather than try outdo Cruise, who gives the audience for M:I exactly what they want from those films.

    Isn't bond advertised and has advertised for its impressive stunts before cruise was doing all these stunts? So climbing a mountain in for your eyes only isn't impressive? A mountain is higher then a building. @CraigMooreOHMSS
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited December 2022 Posts: 8,058
    I do think Bond is better served going the other way in terms of action, but it's understandable that they feel the need to compete even if they can't.

    Hasn't Bond done stunts just as impressive? I hate when it's turned into a competition.

    No, I don't think there's anything as impressive stuntwise in Bond as the climbing of the tallest building in the world. However, that doesn't make Ghost Protocol a better film than Skyfall.

    What about the spy who loved me ski jump or the moonraker open or the crocodile stunt they are more dangerous than climbing a building? Or the stuff in the living daylights?

    They're very impressive undoubtedly (the plane stuff in TLD is among my favourite stunts of all time) but I wouldn't say they're as good as "climbing a building". If we're going to use that sort of rhetoric then all they did in TSWLM was just "ski off a cliff".

    My point is that Bond is more than just about stunts and they should capitalise on that rather than try outdo Cruise, who gives the audience for M:I exactly what they want from those films.

    Isn't bond advertised and has advertised for its impressive stunts before cruise was doing all these stunts? So climbing a mountain in for your eyes only isn't impressive? @CraigMooreOHMSS

    Why are you putting words in my mouth (words that have no reflection of what I've written) instead of just saying what you feel yourself?

    I don't go and see Bond films solely for stunts. As has been pointed out - the early films didn't have them, and they're regarded as classics.
    A mountain is higher then a building. @CraigMooreOHMSS

    That would depend on the respective mountain and building.
  • Posts: 118
    mtm wrote: »
    I think one of the tenets of Bond, especially in the 80s and 90s, very much was big, inventive stunts. I wouldn’t mind returning to that a bit more.
    mtm wrote: »
    A big problem with a lot of these stunts in this day and age is how much attention is drawn to them in the build-up, also. You're kind of numb to them by the time the film actually comes out.

    The bike scene in NTTD and the plane in Rogue Nation are prime examples. Both of those films end up having more memorable moments by default because you're kind of surprised by other things when you end up seeing them, helped by the fact that both take place near the beginning of the film.

    Fallout had the same issue, to be fair. A massive deal was made about the HALO jump yet it's my least favourite action sequence in the film. I found all of the others more thrilling.

    I don’t know if I’d totally agree; I think that jump sequence was a properly exciting set piece. The main let down was the CG sky in it, but I guess there was no way around it for the story.
    mtm wrote: »
    Hasn't Bond performed just as impressive stunts and some if not better why they keep calling it the greatest stunt in cinema history? https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/tom-cruise-performs-the-most-dangerous-stunt-hes-ever-attempted-in-behind-the-scenes-clip-from-mi-7

    I agree it’s not ‘the greatest stunt in movie history’ - I think the plane one was more impressive to be honest, and the Burj Kalifa probably remains untoppable in truth, but it’s still a great stunt and will probably look amazing thanks to the new ways they have of shooting it.
    The Goldeneye stunt is great, but instantly undermined by the terrible shot of Brosnan on a green screen.

    Didn't bond do something just as impressive as Burj Kalifa and the plane? @mtm

    It’s not really a matter of supporting one team over the other; we can all watch any movies we like, so the only winner is us.

    Your saying the stunts competition is subjective? @mtm

    I’m saying that seeing it as a competition at all is a little pointless. They’re both terrific and I own all of each series on disc and enjoy them both. I don’t need to pick which is best.

    Ah got it ok @mtm I own both as well I want to enjoy both but it keeps being made into a competition.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,670
    I mean, they are both some of the highest grossing and most recognizable action series around today, so it's tough not to compare them. Regardless, I love them both (but my heart will always choose Bond over anything, any day of the week).
  • edited December 2022 Posts: 118
    I do think Bond is better served going the other way in terms of action, but it's understandable that they feel the need to compete even if they can't.

    Hasn't Bond done stunts just as impressive? I hate when it's turned into a competition.

    No, I don't think there's anything as impressive stuntwise in Bond as the climbing of the tallest building in the world. However, that doesn't make Ghost Protocol a better film than Skyfall.

    What about the spy who loved me ski jump or the moonraker open or the crocodile stunt they are more dangerous than climbing a building? Or the stuff in the living daylights?

    They're very impressive undoubtedly (the plane stuff in TLD is among my favourite stunts of all time) but I wouldn't say they're as good as "climbing a building". If we're going to use that sort of rhetoric then all they did in TSWLM was just "ski off a cliff".

    My point is that Bond is more than just about stunts and they should capitalise on that rather than try outdo Cruise, who gives the audience for M:I exactly what they want from those films.

    Isn't bond advertised and has advertised for its impressive stunts before cruise was doing all these stunts? So climbing a mountain in for your eyes only isn't impressive? @CraigMooreOHMSS

    Why are you putting words in my mouth (words that have no reflection of what I've written) instead of just saying what you feel yourself?

    I don't go and see Bond films solely for stunts. As has been pointed out - the early films didn't have them, and they're regarded as classics.
    A mountain is higher then a building. @CraigMooreOHMSS

    That would depend on the respective mountain and building.

    I guess what you mean? About how i feel? Im confused its not you sorry if i seem kind of combative or kind of thorny i want to enjoy both but my brain wants to make it a competition. Oh ok They did have stunts just not as impressive ohmss has some good stunt work. Well this mountain in the video is higher then Burj Kalifa again I'm sorry for being combative. @CraigMooreOHMSS of course Roger Moore isn't doing the stunts but still the stunts of moonraker with the cable car are pretty good.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited December 2022 Posts: 8,058
    I do think Bond is better served going the other way in terms of action, but it's understandable that they feel the need to compete even if they can't.

    Hasn't Bond done stunts just as impressive? I hate when it's turned into a competition.

    No, I don't think there's anything as impressive stuntwise in Bond as the climbing of the tallest building in the world. However, that doesn't make Ghost Protocol a better film than Skyfall.

    What about the spy who loved me ski jump or the moonraker open or the crocodile stunt they are more dangerous than climbing a building? Or the stuff in the living daylights?

    They're very impressive undoubtedly (the plane stuff in TLD is among my favourite stunts of all time) but I wouldn't say they're as good as "climbing a building". If we're going to use that sort of rhetoric then all they did in TSWLM was just "ski off a cliff".

    My point is that Bond is more than just about stunts and they should capitalise on that rather than try outdo Cruise, who gives the audience for M:I exactly what they want from those films.

    Isn't bond advertised and has advertised for its impressive stunts before cruise was doing all these stunts? So climbing a mountain in for your eyes only isn't impressive? @CraigMooreOHMSS

    Why are you putting words in my mouth (words that have no reflection of what I've written) instead of just saying what you feel yourself?

    I don't go and see Bond films solely for stunts. As has been pointed out - the early films didn't have them, and they're regarded as classics.
    A mountain is higher then a building. @CraigMooreOHMSS

    That would depend on the respective mountain and building.

    I guess what you mean? About how i feel? Im confused its not you sorry if i seem kind of combative or kind of thorny i want to enjoy both but my brain wants to make it a competition. Oh ok They did have stunts just not as impressive ohmss has some good stunt work. Well this mountain in the video is higher then Burj Kalifa again I'm sorry for being combative. @CraigMooreOHMSS of course Roger Moore isn't doing the stunts but still the stunts of moonraker with the cable car are pretty good.

    That's a very good sequence too, @HitchBondUSA :)
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I mean, they are both some of the highest grossing and most recognizable action series around today, so it's tough not to compare them. Regardless, I love them both (but my heart will always choose Bond over anything, any day of the week).

    Yep. That's my thinking as well. I'll be sad when there isn't someone like Cruise around to do the things he can do. Many use it as a stick to beat him with, but that has always struck me as petty.

    I've always been there day one for both but there's numerous other reasons why I am a Bond fan and why I will likely be a Bond fan forever as opposed to only being a Mission Impossible fan while Tom Cruise is doing them. But for now, I'm just savouring both of them while I can! :)
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,670
    FYEO, for me, is probably one of the most consistently strong installments in the series, definitely Top 3, when it comes to how exciting and entertaining the action is through and through. With every rewatch I've had in the past few years, it's gotten better and better, and to wrap it up with that thrilling ascent? It's breathtaking.

    Sorry to run this thread off the rails a bit there but I love that one so much.
  • edited December 2022 Posts: 118
    I do think Bond is better served going the other way in terms of action, but it's understandable that they feel the need to compete even if they can't.

    Hasn't Bond done stunts just as impressive? I hate when it's turned into a competition.

    No, I don't think there's anything as impressive stuntwise in Bond as the climbing of the tallest building in the world. However, that doesn't make Ghost Protocol a better film than Skyfall.

    What about the spy who loved me ski jump or the moonraker open or the crocodile stunt they are more dangerous than climbing a building? Or the stuff in the living daylights?

    They're very impressive undoubtedly (the plane stuff in TLD is among my favourite stunts of all time) but I wouldn't say they're as good as "climbing a building". If we're going to use that sort of rhetoric then all they did in TSWLM was just "ski off a cliff".

    My point is that Bond is more than just about stunts and they should capitalise on that rather than try outdo Cruise, who gives the audience for M:I exactly what they want from those films.

    Isn't bond advertised and has advertised for its impressive stunts before cruise was doing all these stunts? So climbing a mountain in for your eyes only isn't impressive? @CraigMooreOHMSS

    Why are you putting words in my mouth (words that have no reflection of what I've written) instead of just saying what you feel yourself?

    I don't go and see Bond films solely for stunts. As has been pointed out - the early films didn't have them, and they're regarded as classics.
    A mountain is higher then a building. @CraigMooreOHMSS

    That would depend on the respective mountain and building.

    I guess what you mean? About how i feel? Im confused its not you sorry if i seem kind of combative or kind of thorny i want to enjoy both but my brain wants to make it a competition. Oh ok They did have stunts just not as impressive ohmss has some good stunt work. Well this mountain in the video is higher then Burj Kalifa again I'm sorry for being combative. @CraigMooreOHMSS of course Roger Moore isn't doing the stunts but still the stunts of moonraker with the cable car are pretty good.

    That's a very good sequence too, @HitchBondUSA :)

    I don't want to make it a competition:) but like I said my brain does and Its giving me a headache me I thought I could enjoy it all it doesn't help that the media or PR team wants a stunt war. I guess it's no different then people trying to make out who is better a good example the Beatles vs the rolling stones or Michael Jackson vs Elvis. @CraigMooreOHMSS I like all that music.
  • edited December 2022 Posts: 118
    I do think Bond is better served going the other way in terms of action, but it's understandable that they feel the need to compete even if they can't.

    Hasn't Bond done stunts just as impressive? I hate when it's turned into a competition.

    No, I don't think there's anything as impressive stuntwise in Bond as the climbing of the tallest building in the world. However, that doesn't make Ghost Protocol a better film than Skyfall.

    What about the spy who loved me ski jump or the moonraker open or the crocodile stunt they are more dangerous than climbing a building? Or the stuff in the living daylights?

    They're very impressive undoubtedly (the plane stuff in TLD is among my favourite stunts of all time) but I wouldn't say they're as good as "climbing a building". If we're going to use that sort of rhetoric then all they did in TSWLM was just "ski off a cliff".

    My point is that Bond is more than just about stunts and they should capitalise on that rather than try outdo Cruise, who gives the audience for M:I exactly what they want from those films.

    Isn't bond advertised and has advertised for its impressive stunts before cruise was doing all these stunts? So climbing a mountain in for your eyes only isn't impressive? @CraigMooreOHMSS

    Why are you putting words in my mouth (words that have no reflection of what I've written) instead of just saying what you feel yourself?

    I don't go and see Bond films solely for stunts. As has been pointed out - the early films didn't have them, and they're regarded as classics.
    A mountain is higher then a building. @CraigMooreOHMSS

    That would depend on the respective mountain and building.

    I guess what you mean? About how i feel? Im confused its not you sorry if i seem kind of combative or kind of thorny i want to enjoy both but my brain wants to make it a competition. Oh ok They did have stunts just not as impressive ohmss has some good stunt work. Well this mountain in the video is higher then Burj Kalifa again I'm sorry for being combative. @CraigMooreOHMSS of course Roger Moore isn't doing the stunts but still the stunts of moonraker with the cable car are pretty good.

    That's a very good sequence too, @HitchBondUSA :)
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I mean, they are both some of the highest grossing and most recognizable action series around today, so it's tough not to compare them. Regardless, I love them both (but my heart will always choose Bond over anything, any day of the week).

    Yep. That's my thinking as well. I'll be sad when there isn't someone like Cruise around to do the things he can do. Many use it as a stick to beat him with, but that has always struck me as petty.

    I've always been there day one for both but there's numerous other reasons why I am a Bond fan and why I will likely be a Bond fan forever as opposed to only being a Mission Impossible fan while Tom Cruise is doing them. But for now, I'm just savouring both of them while I can! :)

    Oh ok yeah same with me all you said there :) @CraigMooreOHMSS @Creasy47
  • Posts: 1,578
    Huge Bond fan here, from the beginning, not retrospectively, but as they came out. The Bond films used extensive stuntperson work and bluescreen. Even when - as in FYEO and the cliff-climbing - they had a real person doing some real climbing, they injected portions filmed with R Moore, which obviously were just that. Always enjoyable as a story to watch with beloved characters and actors, but thrilling ? Not really. The more recent films have been better in that regard. I am a big fan of Bond, and would like to see the Bond films deliver it all - great story, plot, dialogue, characters- villains, heroes, colleagues of both - "toys" (tech, vehicles, weapons, both devised and improvised), actors, drama, humor, action, locations and, yes, "setpieces" of spectacular, tense prolonged action sequences. No choosing. No "if you're going to have this, then you can't have that."
  • edited December 2022 Posts: 118
    Since62 wrote: »
    Huge Bond fan here, from the beginning, not retrospectively, but as they came out. The Bond films used extensive stuntperson work and bluescreen. Even when - as in FYEO and the cliff-climbing - they had a real person doing some real climbing, they injected portions filmed with R Moore, which obviously were just that. Always enjoyable as a story to watch with beloved characters and actors, but thrilling ? Not really. The more recent films have been better in that regard. I am a big fan of Bond, and would like to see the Bond films deliver it all - great story, plot, dialogue, characters- villains, heroes, colleagues of both - "toys" (tech, vehicles, weapons, both devised and improvised), actors, drama, humor, action, locations and, yes, "setpieces" of spectacular, tense prolonged action sequences. No choosing. No "if you're going to have this, then you can't have that."

    They are thrilling to me the stunts done from like the late 60s to the end of the 80s were incredible and they did it back in the dinosaur days with no computers or technology that what's most impressive they don't have the technology like today all skill the bonus features on the blurays go through it all moonraker the stunt man all most fell to his death doing the cable car fight. they wouldn't have the actors do the stunts because it would cost too much and risk death sad to say that they value a movie stars life over a stuntman but that's the business Tom Cruise is just crazy if he didn't do a stunt he would have a stuntman do it that's thier job. @Since62
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 15,348
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    FYEO, for me, is probably one of the most consistently strong installments in the series, definitely Top 3, when it comes to how exciting and entertaining the action is through and through. With every rewatch I've had in the past few years, it's gotten better and better, and to wrap it up with that thrilling ascent? It's breathtaking.

    Sorry to run this thread off the rails a bit there but I love that one so much.

    Yeah, I think FYEO has a few of the best action/stunt scenes in the whole series (although I don’t really include the rock climbing in that: it doesn’t really do anything for me). A lot of them are slightly arbitrary to the plot- I think, say, the ski chase is better than the one in OHMSS, but in OHMSS it’s way more tense because he must get away- but they’re still excellent.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,922
    Well Bond hasn't done an impressive sequence since the foot chase in CR. The action in Bond has been forgettable for some time. While MI has had at least 1 major signature stunt/sequence (which the film as been built/marketed around) in each film since Ghost Protocol (though the earlier films had their own memorable moments, Cruise began raising the bar with MI 4.

    I’d argue it’s not exactly a prerequisite for Bond. That emphasis on the one “signature stunt” didn’t really kick off until Roger Moore’s films, and has been infrequent since. Movies like DN and FRWL didn’t need Bond to skydive to thrill audiences. Whatever issues I may have with movies like TWINE or QOS, the lack of a world breaking signature stunt is among my lowest concerns.

    I don't think that's really a fair comparison. I know what you mean, and in part, I do agree with you. But you're comparing the 60's Bond films to Mission Impossible. One stunt on the newer MI films, probably cost more than the entire budget of any of the early Bond films.

    But at the end of the day, i'm a Bond fan, and not really an MI fan. I have all 6 MI films on DVD, as well as the 88 tv series also on DVD, but that's it. My Bond memorabilia dwarfs what I have of MI, many many times over.
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    Posts: 23,795
    Jeremy Renner In “Critical But Stable” Condition In Reno After Weather-Related Accident While Plowing Snow
    https://www.google.com/amp/s/deadline.com/2023/01/jeremy-renner-in-critical-but-stable-condition-after-weather-related-accident-while-plowing-snow-1235209718/amp/
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,670
    Critical condition in a snowplow accident is no joke. That's horrible news. I hope he pulls through.
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    Posts: 23,795
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Critical condition in a snowplow accident is no joke. That's horrible news. I hope he pulls through.

    Does not sound good, hope he pulls through.
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    Posts: 23,795
  • The man's a control freakObviously that's affected his personal life judging the number if marriages he's gone through.
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Critical condition in a snowplow accident is no joke. That's horrible news. I hope he pulls through.

    Does not sound good, hope he pulls through.

    To quote OHMSS, he had lots of guts.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 2023 Posts: 15,348
    McQuarrie says they haven't shot the big MI8 stunt yet, I thought it would be the planes but obviously there's something more (when will they finish shooting these two films?! It's about three years now and counting, isn't it?)

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited January 2023 Posts: 40,670
    It might be a larger extension of the biplane scene - they've begun filming the sequence as a whole but not the craziest part (which is stunning, if so).
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 2023 Posts: 15,348
    Yeah maybe. I think I saw something saying they'd left South Africa, which is where they seemed to be shooting the plane stuff so I think that's over, but maybe there's an addition to the scene to come.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,871
    Has any information been released about Pom Klementieff's character?
  • edited February 2023 Posts: 118
    Is the imf a US organization like the Cia or a multinational organization and the people that give out missions aren't the head of imf I'm confused?
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,915
    It’s a US organisation as far as I’m aware.
    Though some of the IMF agents are clearly not American nationals, so it appears they’re not selective when it comes to their agents.
  • Posts: 118
    Benny wrote: »
    It’s a US organisation as far as I’m aware.
    Though some of the IMF agents are clearly not American nationals, so it appears they’re not selective when it comes to their agents.

    So they can come from anywhere to be recruited for the imf? And do they go through multiple directors of the imf?
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,915
    Well so far the director of the IMF seems to change from movie too movie. Unlike M in the Bond series, the role is very interchangeable.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,566
    I wonder if they'll be a TV spot for the Superbowl at the weekend?
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,063
    Benny wrote: »
    Well so far the director of the IMF seems to change from movie too movie. Unlike M in the Bond series, the role is very interchangeable.

    Yeah it’s weird. The closest we got was Alec Baldwin, but then they immediately kill him off in a cheap manner. Jeremy Renner was supposed to get killed off in the beginning of FALLOUT, but good on Renner because he turned it down.
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    Posts: 1,488
    Is the imf a US organization like the Cia or a multinational organization and the people that give out missions aren't the head of imf I'm confused?

    I think the IMF is a kinda off-the-books CIA operation in the first one and then vaguely DOD (U.S. Department of Defense) I believe. Sometimes there's a director of the IMF, like with Laurence Fishburne's character in the third movie, and sometimes I believe they refer to the director of the CIA, but I don't think one has ever been cast or shown up on screen.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 15,348
    There’s a Secretary too (who will disavow etc.); I think Tom Wilkinson played the Secretary and of course was dead before the end of his first scene :)
Sign In or Register to comment.