›

EoN sells up - Amazon MGM to produce 007 going forwards (Heyman and Pascal confirmed as producers)

1…848586878890»

Comments

  • DEKE_RIVERSDEKE_RIVERS
    Posts: 1,956
    The last MI movie had some of the worst exposition I've seen in a movie in a long time.

    The new one seems like it's going to be worse in that sense. X_X
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,630
    Doubling down on McQuarrie has really dampened my enthusiasm over the MI film series. I miss the rotating door of directors coming in to bring in their own take on an MI adventure/heist. Effectively, ROGUE NATION was the last entry that actually excited me. Since then it has felt like Cruise has put more emphasis on a signature stunt and letting the rest of the film wheel spin.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Dakato Johnson
    Posts: 7,135
    I felt the last two films had very convoluted plots. The first film, by contrast, had a complex plot but not convoluted.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,630
    I think that shows McQuarrie’s weaknesses as a director. Other directors would take his scripts and find a way to make expositions cinematically work. McQuarrie sort of relies on the actors to somehow make all this talk of the entity compelling but it just kind of puts me to sleep.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 16 Posts: 18,025
    echo wrote: »
    Ultimately, a series comes down to its star. Give me Craig over Cruise any day.

    I think they're both great.
    SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ wrote: »
    While action is good, I discovered films with moderate action scenes, do have the better scripts. The finale of Rogue Nation is surprisingly low-key for a Cruise MI film. It was low-key, but very inventive and satisfying.

    Yeah I think that's a great ending, and shows you don't always have to crowbar in an action climax when the film doesn't want it (I'm looking at you, Casino Royale ;) )
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,272
    bondywondy wrote: »
    CraigMooreOHMSS wrote: »
    While I'd certainly agree that it is disrespectful to say that "everything is completely real" and there was "no CGI", that quote from Cruise about the flying being real is not wrong in the slightest. Real planes were flown and real planes did almost all of the manouevres seen in Top Gun: Maverick. They just replaced those planes with their military-level counterparts. Because naturally, flying those incredibly expensive machines for the sake of a film (even if that film is Top Gun) was simply not a thing that would ever happen.

    He's neither lying nor telling the full truth, but effectively playing the marketing game. And I don't think anyone can claim that it didn't work out well for the film.

    If Bond 26 takes a similar approach, I'll be really happy.

    He said the promo clip at Comicon 19 was all real. All done for real. It wasn't. He lied. Period.

    If you bother to watch this you'll see how just how fake/cgi'ed TG 2 was...



    At 1:20 into that video you see only one jet was real! Rest on screen are cgi. Hardly "everything is real."

    2,400 cgi digital effects. That's hardly
    "Everything you see is for real so the flying, all the flying you see in this picture, everything is real."

    That's Tom Cruise's quote word for word. I'm not going to mention this anymore because

    1)I don't want to waste anymore time debating the fact he told a whopper of a lie and if people don't want to accept that, go ahead, don't accept it, believe he didn't lie. Fall for it. And if you believe Tom Cruise doesn't lie about Mission Impossible films so called 'real stunts' too, go ahead. Fall for that lie too.

    2) I don't want to derail this thread's topic which is about Amazon and Bond 26.

    If you don't want to derail a thread then perhaps it would be best for you to actually read the comments in it. Start with the subsequent comments to this one you've just posted for a promising start on your new ethos. It would have saved you time typing this and my time having to read it.
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    Doubling down on McQuarrie has really dampened my enthusiasm over the MI film series. I miss the rotating door of directors coming in to bring in their own take on an MI adventure/heist. Effectively, ROGUE NATION was the last entry that actually excited me. Since then it has felt like Cruise has put more emphasis on a signature stunt and letting the rest of the film wheel spin.

    I loved FALLOUT, but I think that was lightning in a bottle in terms of plot through action balance. I wasn't expecting them to recreate that (I think McQuarrie is aware that each film needs to at least feel different to the last) but the recent film made all the wrong choices narratively for me, and I don't think he's got the necessary panache to gloss over those choices stylistically that say....John Woo could have.
  • ColonelSunColonelSun
    Posts: 1,504
    So many of my friends and associates, many in the film business, have lost interest in the MI franchise - too much "Cruise Control" is a comment I have heard more than once.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    edited 9:28am Posts: 2,559
    Also, one of the problems with modern filmmaking, especially movie franchises, is this never-ending obsession with continuity. Also, funny thing is, most continuities are not necessary. Now there's a constant need of wanting to end the last film of a franchise, by billing it as the one that tightens all the screws and in the process, the film becomes bloated.

    Whichever way Amazon are looking at, to go with Bond. I hope it's thought out better and early, so the latter films of Bond 7's era, doesn't come with the current 'End Of The World' feel every last film of a franchise have these days. Up the stakes, for sure. But no need for the last film to feel bloated, because it wants to forcefully link the films together.
Sign In or Register to comment.