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
Comments
I mean, for all the flaws of the first three, I feel they have something more substantial to them. The first has this interesting tension to it as a spy thriller (with some really dark scenes actually which I always remember), the second is so mad and bombastic as an action movie you can't help but go with it, and the third has some interesting stuff going on with Ethan as a character. All have notably more interesting villains than 4, 5 and 6 for me as well (poor Sean Harris is a great character actor but the villain he plays is so boring in those last two). I dunno, they're just a bit... meh I guess by comparison.
To be honest, the later MI films make me appreciate the modern EON Bond films a lot more, even if they're certainly flawed too. To whatever extent I like them, they leave more of an impact on me and I get more out of them as films.
Do you think you come at both series more for story? Because I admit that the technicality of the MI films is what draws me in. I love the car chases, the stunts, the creativity of the filmmaking in that regard, but can admit they lack emotion compared to the latest Bond efforts. Those latest Bond efforts bring out negative emotions in me, however, haha.
Oh, I don't mind spectacle and even nonsense (MI:2 is pretty much that and leans into it at times, although it's got some great story beats. Heck, I'm a fan of Bond films which are like that too).
I dunno. For me a film is a full package I guess - story, spectacle etc. You can't just stitch together technically good action scenes and have the film work as a whole. I think the worst thing a film can do is not get an emotional reaction from me at various points - arms folded, legs crossed, me thinking 'how long have we got left' etc. Not necessarily boredom but apathy. That's been the later MI films for me at too many points I think.
I'm sure of it, and I might come down to watch them, eventually. But I was referring to a generic principle of the MI franchise as a brand, not its intrinsic quality. The original tv series was a clever if gimmicky drama, but nostalgia alone wouldn't have been able to sustain it on the big screen. In the 90s, a lot of these kinds of adaptations tried and failed. I really think it owes a lot to Tom Cruise. But as a brand, it's rather weak: it doesn't have a large and committed fanbase, it doesn't stand on itself, it doesn't have a distinctive aesthetic, etc.
Amazon did not just pay Barbara and Michael $1 billion to wait four years for a film. The whole point of buying them out was so that Amazon didn't have to wait!
A bit like in an interview when they ask you to give them one flaw and you say you're a workaholic, or you push yourself too hard. I haven't seen enough of MI to judge, but i always thought Ethan came off as bland and infallible. But then again, it's a Cruise vehicle.
Interestingly enough, I remember discussing this with an acquaintance at uni after the first movie came out. I had enjoyed it, he hadn't, and his main criticism was that they had moved from a team based franchise to a one hero franchise. "The team is dead, and from now in it's all about the Tom Cruise character."
Let them keep panicking.
Yep, thats my problem with those films, I really don't find anything appealing about the Ethan Hunt character, and I prefer Cruise when he's in an untypical role ( 'Collateral' for instance!)
Are we all in the wrong thread?? 🫣
But Amazon don't even have a team yet. It took EON 3 years from start to finish, and they had a full slate of series regulars to depend on. Its very disheartening, but I don't see a Bond film going into production anytime soon.
And funnily enough the team has become a much more prominent feature of them since 4 or so. Even that first film does see him building a new team of his own: I thought it's always been a little unfair to say the team dynamic is gone in the films. Indeed, all of that tedious 'Scooby Gang' criticism of the later Craig films comes from people perceiving them to be too like the team setup of the M:I films.
For me the bit that sets them apart from Bond films is that when they're at their best, they take the concept from the TV show of being a heist movie, but with spies instead of criminals. A spy heist is a really cool and unique idea, and I like it when they lean on that more.
Hunt makes plans, Bond chucks himself into a situation and just believes in his own ability to get himself out of it. Obviously they both cross over that line a little here and there, but the difference in approach is notable. Hunt's nature to make plans all derives from the heist concept of the TV show, I kind of reject that it has nothing to do with the show at all.
He is, but the Bonds are far more about Bond than the M:I films are about Hunt. The M:I films concentrate more on the plots and heists and action than they do Hunt, whereas the Bond films are often about celebrating the swagger and audaciousness of this male fantasy figure. The Lalo Schifrin theme isn't really Ethan's theme in the way that the Bond theme belongs to 007 himself.
“Disheartening”? You make it sound like a family tragedy.
Why do you find the 'Scooby Gang' criticism tedious?
Because you’ll see the phrase ‘Scooby gang’ over and over like it’s a new funny joke, plus I don’t see what the problem is in actually using these characters, much like Q in LTK. It’s not as if the vast majority of the film doesn’t feature Bond on his own doing Bond stuff. Certain bad faith posters will try to stir up arguments by going ad hominem and trying to posit that as some kind of personality flaw in me, but that’s their usual MO which they’ve done many, many times before and they are always best ignored.
Regardless the connection is often made to MI, so clearly there is a perception of MI featuring a team dynamic.
Fair enough. Although personally, I wouldn't want to see those characters receive that level of screen time in every film. I think it should remain an occasional novelty rather than something that happens regularly.
Do read my post again, mtm, you’ll find that it was in defense of you being entitled to that opinion, as a big fan of the past era. Didn’t mean to be ad hominem, as you said. Lighten up, as I said privately, I have no interest in attacking you in any way or form.
That being said, I have no idea of who coined the Scooby Gang phrase, but it’s spot on, and I still think it’ was in detriment of Craig’s tenure. Bond is a man against time and villany, not a team with tactical ear pieces, IMO.
Yeah I agree there, they can't go out like that every time, and indeed didn't in NTTD. But for a film which was about MI6 itself under threat I think it was okay for the MI6 crew to take an active role. I think if Bernard Lee had had the opportunity to take out a 'B" baddie it would be very well-remembered. I do like seeing them though.
I watched GE again recently and it actually felt a bit weird in a way that M disappears so soon into the film; it's kind of nice for the film to end in a validation for Bond that he's done a good job and that we see the person who gave him the task bookend the film by being satisfied that he's accomplished it. Even though that usually happened in the Roger films by Bond making M watch him have sex(!) I think it still worked quite nicely :D
And let's not forget that the role of M being increased started with the Brosnan era, not the Craig one. Heck, even in DN, Bond is introduced fairly late in the film, and you have time to see that MI6 is a vast organisation with many players involved.
Agreed. I’d love if they did something similar in Bond 26 where we see the inciting incident and a small lead in showing us how MI6 reacts before Bond is briefed/sent on the job.
Yeah I think it's good to embrace the elements you have- he's not an adventurer out on his own, he is a government agent and there is a team behind him. I enjoy seeing them be a part of the stories. Right from the beginning they were used for light relief and to add drama- the M scene in Goldfinger has M reprimanding Bond for taking it too personally and threatening to take him off the case: it's a bit of conflict which keeps the film powering along, even if it goes nowhere. So keep doing that: if you're given the tools then use them.
They probably will want him to appear again, and maybe quite soon. Whether they'll do it better, that's another matter entirely.
That's the thing. If they can do it better.