Has Mission Impossible surpassed Bond?

2456722

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    The gap is much smaller for me now than it was in 1995/1996. Much smaller, and on an action front, I'd actually rather watch MI-GP & MI-RN over the last two Bond films.

    Bond sneaks the win in 2015 because of its history, and the gravitas/scope of SP, which MI (and Cruise) still lack, but Ferguson aced anyone in SP imho, including Waltz. I truly want to see her again in MI6.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited November 2015 Posts: 17,283
    dble D'OH post
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,283
    chrisisall wrote: »
    If Tom pumped out an MI movie every two or three years since the first all the fans would be singing the Out-Of-Gas-Blues.... his movies thrive on their relative scarcity (& endless time to prep) IMO.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    chrisisall wrote: »
    If Tom pumped out an MI movie every two or three years since the first all the fans would be singing the Out-Of-Gas-Blues.... his movies thrive on their relative scarcity IMO.

    No doubt. I don't even like Cruise, and thought MI3 sucked balls.

    However, the last two have just been excellent action thrillers, and I'm hooked, despite Cruise rather than because of him. He has surpassed the obvious limitations of his franchise and its limited pedigree. Bond, recently (last 3 films) has not.....imho.
  • Posts: 4,525
    Re your point on history, Bond has to be careful not to overplay the historical references. As the audience grows older and one generation replaces another, Bond's history will become less important. The DB5 means little to my 12 year old son for example. For him, MI and Bond compete on a much more even playing field.
  • Posts: 1,310
    Certainly overall I prefer Bond of course, but I felt that Rogue Nation was better than Spectre.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,283
    I still have to see RN... Dec. for me.
  • eddychaputeddychaput Montreal, Canada
    edited November 2015 Posts: 364
    RC7 wrote: »
    eddychaput wrote: »
    Imitation is the best form of flattery. MI is imitating Bond, which means Bond earns a ton of props, but I'd be lying if I said I don't think MI is imitating well. It is, quite a bit in fact.

    We're all Bond fans and this is a Bond discussion forum, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that the majority is resoundingly favouring Bond. That said, I listen to a lot of film podcasts and a recurring theme the past few weeks has been 'Rogue Nation beat SP to the punch and did it better'. Obviously I prefer Bond, but I think it's interesting to note that outside of the true blue fanbase like us, the debate is a lot more heated.

    The debate is heated because everyone likes an underdog. I'd take an overblown Bond over a slick MI. I like MI, but it ain't Bond.

    Ed Sheeran might be writing more consistently reliable chart hits than Bowie, but I know who's better.

    To say that the debate is heated 'because everyone likes an underdog' is too much of a blanket statement to me. I'm not saying that nobody behaves like that, we all know someone that sticks to the little guy because, well, because because, but a lot of the reasons outsiders are appreciating MI more have validity: quality of the action, slickness of direction, strength of supporting characters.

    Again, it's all subjective ultimately, and I'm unsurprisingly in the Bond camp, but I don't feel comfortable labelling people who prefer MI over Bond as simply folk that like underdogs, period.

    I'm also a little unclear as to what makes MI an underdog. Franchise with a very long history with its own fanbase, Tom Cruise in the lead role, a major Hollywood studio backing each instalment with millions upon millions of dollars. That doesn't make for 'underdog, status in my book.
  • Posts: 4,525
    The fact that a genuine discussion is even taking place speaks volumes. MI has real momentum IMHO
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    patb wrote: »
    The fact that a genuine discussion is even taking place speaks volumes. MI has real momentum IMHO
    I agree. However, I don't see how it can actually transition after Cruise leaves (likely after MI6). Renner is not the man to take it forward imho (he almost destroyed Bourne). They'll have to find a solution or it will fizzle out.

    Interestingly, I think the MI resurgence will always be tied to the DC era. As DC Bonds went more moody/deep/conceptual, MI jumped in to the void that was left and grabbed the pure action spectacle mantle. They'll (Cruise & DC) both also probably leave after the next one.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    patb wrote: »
    The fact that a genuine discussion is even taking place speaks volumes. MI has real momentum IMHO

    As did Bourne. It's all good fun, but Bond is Bond. The rest are pretenders who come and go.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 154
    Here's a great article that speaks to the question at hand. It clearly hands victory to MI -- going so far as to say that Bond can fix his problems by taking cues from the very franchise that copied him....

    http://www.vox.com/2015/11/10/9705558/spectre-bond-mission-impossible

    The linked article even contains links to other relevant Bond articles and videos (including a cool video that shows every country Bond has visited).

    BTW, I think it's very wrong to suggest MI can't survive in the future w/out Cruise. I consider that far easier to accomplish than Bond having survived w/out Connery. And, in the case of MI, future installments don't even need to feature the Hunt character. They can feature an entirely new agent. Thus, it doesn't require even the semblance of consistency in the main character that Bond requires.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    gklein wrote: »
    Here's a great article that speaks to the question at hand. It clearly hands victory to MI -- going so far as to say that Bond can fix his problems by taking cues from the very franchise that copied him....

    http://www.vox.com/2015/11/10/9705558/spectre-bond-mission-impossible

    The linked article even contains links to other relevant Bond articles and videos (including a cool video that shows every country Bond has visited).

    BTW, I think it's very wrong to suggest MI can't survive in the future w/out Cruise. I consider that far easier to accomplish than Bond having survived w/out Connery. And, in the case of MI, future installments don't even need to feature the Hunt character. They can feature an entirely new agent. Thus, it doesn't require even the semblance of consistency in the main character that Bond requires.

    The whole thing is simply Cruise ripping off Bond. It has no defining characteristics. Ask a kid to tell you who Bond is and they'll talk for hours, ask the same kid to tell you who Ethan Hunt is and they'll have nothing to say other than, 'you mean Tom Cruise'.
  • I really don't think so, and I like MI. Matter of preference, I just prefer bond films over mi films because I find the conventions and all more entertaining in bond
  • Posts: 4,525
    Good point, I would assume that MI6 will have a co-star ready to take over (a massive role/opportunity) and, like Bond , they have a supporting team to provide continuity but, unlike Bond, a new leader can come in without any baggage. They will be a new character with their own back story (female team leader, Black? who knows), they will do everything they can to extend the franchise beyond TC,
    and, finally, unlike Bond, Ethan can die (or the possibility is there) , in a way, that is a strength, we know that Ethan can die and the MI team would continue but no such option with Bond. If you were a script writer with new ideas, MI provides more flexibility. Sorry if this sounds a downer on Bond, not meant to be but these are interesting times.
  • AntiLocqueBrakesAntiLocqueBrakes The edge
    Posts: 538
    NO
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    patb wrote: »
    Good point, I would assume that MI6 will have a co-star ready to take over (a massive role/opportunity) and, like Bond , they have a supporting team to provide continuity but, unlike Bond, a new leader can come in without any baggage. They will be a new character with their own back story (female team leader, Black? who knows), they will do everything they can to extend the franchise beyond TC,
    and, finally, unlike Bond, Ethan can die (or the possibility is there) , in a way, that is a strength, we know that Ethan can die and the MI team would continue but no such option with Bond. If you were a script writer with new ideas, MI provides more flexibility. Sorry if this sounds a downer on Bond, not meant to be but these are interesting times.

    Flexibility shmexibility.
  • Love the MI: movies. Got them all and will get RN as well,but Bond is on another level altogether. 6 different actors and still going strong with SP right up there with a bang. Interesting to see how MI: does once TC moves on. Or if there will be anymore.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 709
    gklein wrote: »
    BTW, I think it's very wrong to suggest MI can't survive in the future w/out Cruise. I consider that far easier to accomplish than Bond having survived w/out Connery.

    What were the most talked about features of the last two MI movies? Cruise hanging off the tallest building in the world, and Cruise hanging onto an airplane as it takes off, all done for real. Those two sequences alone added a must-see factor to both films.

    Cruise is what brings that unique quality to it. Connery was always an actor for hire with no say in the scripts, but Cruise is the star, producer, and 'backseat director' of the series. You remove him and his commitment to pushing the envelope, and you've got generic spy series no. #242, starring...who?
    RC7 wrote: »
    gklein wrote: »
    Here's a great article that speaks to the question at hand. It clearly hands victory to MI -- going so far as to say that Bond can fix his problems by taking cues from the very franchise that copied him....

    http://www.vox.com/2015/11/10/9705558/spectre-bond-mission-impossible

    Bad. Sounds like a would-be expert (and its a woman, not insignificantly) who never saw a Bond film prior to 2006. Everything she's suggesting are things the Bond series already did for 50 years. (Needs humor? WOW what an AMAZING, FRESH idea for the James Bond series!)

    "Avoid giving the hero a neat, happy ending"

    Gee you mean like those wacky, fun time endings that Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace, and Skyfall had?

    "Don’t make every woman character a love interest...Contrast this with Rogue Nation, in which Hunt finds himself up against a gorgeous female agent with questionable allegiances — and they somehow manage to restrain themselves from sleeping together for the entire movie."

    HELLO...QUANTUM OF SOLACE HAD EXACTLY THIS.

    GAAAAH I need to get out of here, this is sending me into rage mode.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    gklein wrote: »

    I'm ashamed, as a lifelong Bond fan, to agree with most of what's in that (spoiler) piece. The exception: Thomas Newman supposedly overusing the Bond theme. He did not. It was just used right in SP, as was the MI theme in MI-RN.

    Having said all that, Bond will be back forever, with a new actor eventually. The concept & legend is far bigger than the actor (although relying on that legend isn't enough as has been noted).

    MI will likely only return once more for a Cruise swansong. I hope he can deliver one great parting shot, because he has resuscitated the franchise with his dedication and effort, and deserves to go out with a bang.

    Then Bond can get back to basics (post-DC & post-Mendes) and reclaim the action banner once and for all.
  • Posts: 4,525
    Cruise directing? Cruise taking an M type role? Cruise kidnapped? Cruise mentoring a new member? So many options. They will squeeze every last cent from MI, no way they will stop
  • Posts: 154
    I find it interesting that almost everything anyone's written (outside this Bond fan forum) is saying that Rogue Nation severely out-Bonds Spectre. It's interesting because, from what I've seen/heard about Spectre, I'm actually excited about seeing Spectre -- even though I'm the only one I know who, to my huge disappointment for 007, felt that Ghost Protocol thoroughly out-Bonded Skyfall.
  • TubesTubes The Hebrew Hammer
    Posts: 158
    One could argue that M:I-RN is better than SPECTRE, but not the franchise as a whole.

    Funny, they both had their post-Cold War thrillers (M:I and GE), their off-the-rails action bonanzas (M:I-2 and DAD) and their lower key returns to form (M:I-3 and CR) around the same time. Cruise had the edge in the 90's/early 00's in box office, with Bond gaining and keeping it with the Craig era.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 154
    dinovelvet wrote: »

    What were the most talked about features of the last two MI movies? Cruise hanging off the tallest building in the world, and Cruise hanging onto an airplane as it takes off, all done for real. Those two sequences alone added a must-see factor to both films.

    True, but at the same time, I can't tell you how many times I've read something along the lines of "I/you may not like Tom Cruise personally, but there's no denying the huge entertainment value of MI."

    I actually have no issue w/Cruise on a personal level, but find him completely lacking in the charisma (though he is a great actor) that most Bond actors bring to the role of 007. Replace Cruise with a charismatic leading man as a new agent on the MI team, fill the new movies w/similarly great stunts performed by an amazing stunt double under the direction of a great action director, and the series continues (it matters not that the actor himself might not be doing the stunts).

    I don't think Cruise is as utterly identified w/MI as Connery was with Bond. Bond wasn't made as a series, in the beginning, by deft plots and amazing action. It was made by Connery's amazingly charismatic performance. We wouldn't still be watching Bond movies 50 yrs later if anyone other than Connery had originally been cast as Bond -- yet, partly because of him, 007 was able to continue w/out him.

    MI, as series, has been made, originally, not by Cruise (any good actor would have worked in the clever original movie), but by deft plots and, currently, by the most inventive action set pieces in movies today. Any physically fit, relatively handsome, good actor can fill the lead role in a MI movie. Fill the role w/an actor who is also charismatic (and one that most people actually personally like) and the series could even be elevated.

    Just my opinion.
  • I thought the article in the OP was an interesting comparison. I will say I was pretty peeved at the similarities between the plots of the two films, however, I found both unoriginal. If it were comparing SP to Ghost Protocol I'd say Ghost Protocol was the superior film, but I was a bit disappointed in Rogue Nation.

    I think it's interesting that people find MI3 to be the worst of the MI films, when I find MI2 to be obnoxious and unintentionally hilarious wth every viewing. The excessive use of slow mo and John Wu's need to have random doves in his films...bleh.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    dinovelvet wrote: »
    What were the most talked about features of the last two MI movies? Cruise hanging off the tallest building in the world, and Cruise hanging onto an airplane as it takes off, all done for real. Those two sequences alone added a must-see factor to both films.

    This is where MI is currently streets ahead for me. I have to say that the action in SF distinctly underwhelming in terms of seriously good and inventive stunt work done for real (a decent PTS and thats really all). SP is a bit better but its now the MI films that deliver these marquee stunts that used to be Bond's fiefdom.

    Dont get me wrong I think Gary Powell knows his stuff and I'm glad to see the back of Vic Armstrong but the writers just arent coming up with good enough action sequences in the last 3 Bond films.

    The CR parkour sequence is still head and shoulders ahead of any action sequence in the Craig era after all these years.

    QOS - The PTS pretty good but ruined by the editing, the rope fight original and exciting, the rest meh.
    SF - PTS very good, the rest just various fist fights and gunfights. The tube sequence while suspenseful doesnt feature much in the way of actual stunts. Sliding down an escalator really isnt good enough for a big Bond action set piece I'm afraid.
    SP - Decent PTS but a suspicion while youre watching it that its 90% CGI, the car chase is ok but more a bit of fun than crammed with thrilling action, the much vaunted plane sequence wasnt that great (just what is going through Bond's head? Why would you deliberately smash the wings off your plane?), the fight with Hinx is the standout action scene but this isnt eye popping stuntwork that makes you catch your breath.

    But the high speed motorbike chase in MI: RN actually left me breathless. You could see it was all done for real and the driving skills on show were phenomenal.

    Remember the days of the GE trailer when they just showed Bond bungying of the dam? Now its MI that has the jaw dropping spectacle in the trailer.

    'You were expecting someone else?' Yes Tom Cruise it seems.

    However despite me having a downer on the way Bond has fallen behind on the action front its not even a competition in other depts.

    As someone else mentioned Bond is a character we all know and love. Ask someone to describe something about Ethan Hunt without using the words 'Tom' or 'Cruise' and you will be met with blank stares.

    I hate the whole MI team thing (although it works for MI) and much prefer Bond as an agent on his own saving the world (although it seems we are heading more and more in that direction with 'team MI6' tagging along way too often for my liking these days).

    The Craig era has also, to a degree, elevated Bond closer to being thriller/dramas that also have action than actual action films. Theres a lot more meat on the bones in terms of character and dramatic heft (although this probably refers mostly to CR and SF). The MI films are very slick but are still blatantly just popcorn entertainment and whilst this is also true of Bond, Craig era Bond films seem to take things all just a bit more seriously.
    MI feels more like the natural successor to the Brosnan era with the cheese dialled down but the overall tone is closer to Brosnan than Craig. Whereas the Craig films feel more rooted in Fleming so come with a lot more weight.

    OK SP is flawed (quite drastically in places) but bottom line its still Bond. Yes objectively there is a case to be made that MI:RN is better than SP but as a Bond fan I didnt get the same level of excitement at seeing Tom Cruise hanging off a plane as I did when those little white dots flash across the screen and a certain piece of music starts up. Nobody does it better.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,283
    OK SP is flawed (quite drastically in places) but bottom line its still Bond. Yes objectively there is a case to be made that MI:RN is better than SP but as a Bond fan I didnt get the same level of excitement at seeing Tom Cruise hanging off a plane as I did when those little white dots flash across the screen and a certain piece of music starts up. Nobody does it better.

    Big Yep!!!!
  • Apples and oranges.


    It's definitely been an interesting year, one filled to the BRIM with different spy movies (Kingsman, UNCLE, Rogue Nation, Spy and Spectre of course), all of which I've personally greatly enjoyed for very different reasons. But nothing can beat the excitement of going to see a new Bond movie, even if it's not one of the better ones.

    Our nostalgia and affection probably plays a huge part in all of this, would we all be as accepting of certain Bond movies if the main character was a random spy never seen before? Probably not, but it doesn't change the fact that theres something special about seeing a new Bond movie, a feeling nothing else can replicate, not even MI.

    All that said, MI:RN was excellent and it's a real wonder to have seen the series grow into what it is today. It's a rare case of a movie series actually getting BETTER as time goes on, it took a while to find the right tone and balance (MI1 was good, but a bit bland and MI2 was just awful), but Ghost Protocol and Rogue Nation have been fantastic in their own way. In their own, very separate, yet inspired by Bond way.

    MI has definitely been inspired by the older Bond movies, but It's really grown into its own thing at this point, which makes it hard to compare. Are MI:GP and RN better than recent Bond movies? In some ways, yes, but in other ways no. I like CR and SF for vastly different reasons than I like MI:GP and RN. What sets MI apart is the "teamwork" aspect of it, it's always been the biggest selling point for me and they've really been nailing it recently.

    I welcome MI with open arms, it's great to have a competing spy series that's this entertaining, but at the end of the day, I'd still take Bond over it. It's the added legacy behind the series, the feeling of nostalgia, the interesting ways in which the series plays with it's tropes and formula that ultimately makes it more rewarding and interesting for me. After all, nobody does it better.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    I didnt get the same level of excitement at seeing Tom Cruise hanging off a plane as I did when those little white dots flash across the screen and a certain piece of music starts up. Nobody does it better.

Sign In or Register to comment.