Has Mission Impossible surpassed Bond?

1246722

Comments

  • OnlyManWhoCanOnlyManWhoCan Greater London
    Posts: 202
    gklein wrote: »
    Yes -- but I qualify that by saying I've not yet seen SP.

    For me, longevity has nothing to do w/it. I'm almost 50 yrs old & have been a huge Bond fan my entire life. I still am but..

    for me, Ghost Protocol was the movie that took Bond's throne. I not only enjoyed it much more than SF, I found it to have better, more inventive action set-pieces and gadgets than even the best Bonds from the past.

    Rogue Nation was similarly great (if not quite as inventive as Ghost Protocol) but I've not seen SP yet. Maybe Bond will regain his throne for me in SP.

    I dunno if I would like to go as far to say that MI took Bond's throne but I certainly agree with you that Ghost Protocol is the highlight of the MI series so far and we are lucky to have both franchises!

    While Craig's Bond was going super-serious (brilliantly) I was really happy to have a franchise that concentrated on gadgets and fun.

    While I didn't think Rogue Nation was as fresh I am happy for the series to continue in this episodic fashion, with or without Tom Cruise.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,109
    gklein wrote: »
    I can't believe how many people are posting to this topic completely ignoring the link talos7 posted when he opened the topic -- as the means to describe the actual topic question at hand.

    If folks would go back & read the article linked from the topic-opening post, it clearly asks which franchise is currently better. Yet, folks keep posting things like "Bond is better cuz he's been around longer. He's shown more class over the years." Who shows more class now??

    The linked article even acknowledges & give credit to Bond for his longevity, while asking us not to judge heritage, in which Bond is obviously in class of his own, but to focus on the current releases.

    So, can we please get on topic?? Do you believe MI has recently topped Bond (in action, stunts, class, story, character, etc.)??

    Sorry but you can't talk about the state of Bond film without bringing up the series' past. CR as great as it was/is was still chastised for not being a "proper" Bond film and omitting key hallmarks of what came before. Even the wirld's beloved SF was accused of still nit being a so called proper Bobd film and everyone held hands and rejoiced as tge film closed honting at a return to past traditional elements.

    SP has its flaws but again, the film is also being attacked but this time for being a traditional Bond movie. It's bullshit. Other spy movies and action movies can pilfer from Bond and people embrace it, Bond utilises and implements from itself and people cry foul. Again, it's bullshit.
  • gklein wrote: »
    I can't believe how many people are posting to this topic completely ignoring the link talos7 posted when he opened the topic -- as the means to describe the actual topic question at hand.

    If folks would go back & read the article linked from the topic-opening post, it clearly asks which franchise is currently better. Yet, folks keep posting things like "Bond is better cuz he's been around longer. He's shown more class over the years." Who shows more class now??

    The linked article even acknowledges & give credit to Bond for his longevity, while asking us not to judge heritage, in which Bond is obviously in class of his own, but to focus on the current releases.

    So, can we please get on topic?? Do you believe MI has recently topped Bond (in action, stunts, class, story, character, etc.)??


    But darling.I read the entire article. Really I did. I slightly prefer "SPECTRE" over "Rogue Nation". Like previous Bond films they have more re-watching value for me.

    The writer also implies that the story of "Rogue Nation" is better than "SPECTRE". Well, I don't know about that. At one moment Ethan Hunt also explains that many recent attacks and terrorist bombings were all linked and pointing at "The Syndicate". How does that part make it better from Bond's syndicate S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Moreover, I found S.P.E.C.T.R.E. way more threathening than The Syndicate, which was nothing more than a word in the film.

    I loved Waltz performance as Oberhauser. But then the writer of that screenrant article isn't comparing him with the heavily Silva-inspired character of Soloman Lane. I found 'Lane Pretty Lame' :-P....as compared to Oberhauser.

    And to answer the final question of that article: It's a ridiculous question. And in my opinion impossible to answer. Perhaps you can make the comparison with two films, but the writer is blatantly comparing two entire franchises, of which one still has to see how it survives in the next 30 years without Tom Cruise in the lead.

    At this moment the Bond franchise at least is the better franchise....financially.
  • Posts: 154
    I agree that Bond is unfairly judged.

    SP is ironically being knocked for being too classic Bond, while Rogue Nation is being praised for doing classic Bond so well! I agree that it makes no sense & think that we should just ignore the critics, but, I still wish could just answer the question at hand for ourselves (critics not with standing)...

    which "Bonds" have recently been better -- those Bond movies coming from EON, or those "Bond" movies coming from the MI team.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    1. Spectre
    2. CR
    3. MI GP
    4. QOS
    5. MI RN
    6. MI III
    7. SF
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 158
    We saw what happened when Renner (who is very good as Cruise's sidekick in the MI movies) played the leading character in Bourne 4. Quickly got Damon back for the next one. Same will apply to Cruise and MI. As I said I enjoy Bourne & MI but it doesn't start to compare to DADDY. :)
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 389
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Sorry but you can't talk about the state of Bond film without bringing up the series' past. CR as great as it was/is was still chastised for not being a "proper" Bond film and omitting key hallmarks of what came before. Even the wirld's beloved SF was accused of still nit being a so called proper Bobd film and everyone held hands and rejoiced as tge film closed honting at a return to past traditional elements.

    SP has its flaws but again, the film is also being attacked but this time for being a traditional Bond movie. It's bullshit. Other spy movies and action movies can pilfer from Bond and people embrace it, Bond utilises and implements from itself and people cry foul. Again, it's bullshit.

    MI has now establised itself as a bankable franchise & of recent times, as I've said many times on here, the last 2 MI's were better paced & written than the corresponding Bond movies, however your only as good as your last movie, It's hard to keep repeating success. So who knows Bond 25 may please the majority & MI6 will suck.

    Putting any movie on the screen is a monumental task, so it's always a gamble, but I think some have better odds than others.
    Those who can do, those who can't critique. :D
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,534
    IMO it took 'Mission Impossible' 4 movies to reach their current top form with Ghost Protocol.

    In comparison, I think Bond reached the rarified atmosphere of being a cultural icon within the first 15 seconds of Sean Connery's screentime in his debut film when he says 'Bond.. James Bond' while lighting his cigarette like a legend.

    Can anyone in the general audience say what's the first thing Tom Cruise does in the first M:I film? Compared to the amount of teenagers in 2015 who can narrate exactly the introduction scene of Bond in DN, 53 years after the fact? The numbers are astronomical.
  • I take your point but that's what Liverpool fans say. And it doesn't stop us being turned over by Palace at home does it?

    Yes Liverpool is a bigger club than City, Chelsea, PSG but at the current time history counts for shit all. They're all playing on Europe's biggest stage while we're in Kazan on a Thursday night.

    History gives you a bigger and loyal fan base than Johnny come lately clubs but that's all. To compete on an even footing you simply have to deliver on the pitch.

    The question we have to ask is if SP wasn't a Bond film how high would we rate it?

    If people are saying MI:RN is on a par or better than SP then it probably is because it has to overcome the fact it doesn't have a leading character just Tom Cruise playing himself. SP already has Bond in its corner so it allows the film to get away with more than we would let MI get away with just because we are naturally inclined to cut Bond more slack than one the pretenders to his throne.

    Can't argue with this analogy, as a fellow pool fan, I feel it. :((
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 2,015
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Sorry but you can't talk about the state of Bond film without bringing up the series' past. CR as great as it was/is was still chastised for not being a "proper" Bond film and omitting key hallmarks of what came before.
    Chastised by whom ?! I mean, even here, by whom ?!
    I think CR being free of the cinematographic past and at the same time being the more Fleminguesque of the last 25 years may be on the reason is still judged so good.
    When dust setlles about SP, I think CR will remain #1 for most, as it did for SF who was finally ranked below once the box office stopped clouding judgments.

    If MI forces Eon to step up the game as far as action and women role are concerned, fine.

  • gklein wrote: »
    I agree that Bond is unfairly judged.

    SP is ironically being knocked for being too classic Bond, while Rogue Nation is being praised for doing classic Bond so well! I agree that it makes no sense & think that we should just ignore the critics, but, I still wish could just answer the question at hand for ourselves (critics not with standing)...

    which "Bonds" have recently been better -- those Bond movies coming from EON, or those "Bond" movies coming from the MI team.

    Well, I guess we have to compare the last four films from each franchise no? This would be my TOP 8 (plus rating):

    01. 9.5: "James Bond 23: SkyFall"
    02. 9.2: "James Bond 21: Casino Royale"
    03. 8.0: "James Bond 24: SPECTRE"
    04. 7.8: "Mission Impossible 5: Rogue Nation"
    05. 7.0: "Mission Impossible 4: Ghost Protocol"
    06. 6.8: "James Bond 22: Quantum Of Solace"
    07. 6.5: "Mission Impossible 3"
    08. 4.0: "Mission Impossible 2"

    The thing is.....the last four Bond films have so much more infinite depth and rewatching value to me as compared with the M:I-films. For me they can also be watched as rather sophistated, intelligent spy thrillers, whereas "Mission Impossible" to me stays a bit 'action by numbers'. Though "Rogue Nation" for me was the darkest and most intelligent film of the franchise.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,109
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Sorry but you can't talk about the state of Bond film without bringing up the series' past. CR as great as it was/is was still chastised for not being a "proper" Bond film and omitting key hallmarks of what came before.
    Chastised by whom ?! I mean, even here, by whom ?!
    I think CR being free of the cinematographic past and at the same time being the more Fleminguesque of the last 25 years may be on the reason is still judged so good.
    When dust setlles about SP, I think CR will remain #1 for most, as it did for SF who was finally ranked below once the box office stopped clouding judgments.

    If MI forces Eon to step up the game as far as action and women role are concerned, fine.

    CR was chastised by many fans and critics for its departure. That's not to say it wasnt appreciated for being a genuinely good film, as I clearly stated in my original post but it still got a kicking for not feeling like a Bond movie. Even up till now, Craig himself harps on about people complaing that his Bond films prior to SP were lacking certain hallmarks like the "fun and humor", gadgets, Q and MP.
  • DragonpolDragonpol Writer @ http://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 15,796
    No, and it never will either!
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    If MI forces Eon to step up the game as far as action and women role are concerned, fine.

    When did this become a thing?

    I'm sick to f**king death of reading this shite when every new Bond film is released.

    You want a film about wimmins issues go and watch Suffragette.

    Fine MI lets the women kick ass. Hurrah for them but I go to a Bond film to see Bond being the guvnor and not given equal billing with some bird.

    Bond girls serve 3 general purposes:

    1. To get shagged.
    2. To look good in a bikini.
    3. To die.

    Don't get me wrong I like a nice fleshed out character well played by a competent actress. I absolutely adore Vesper but despite having a much better written role than 90% of Bond girls she's still just a damsel in distress who gets herself kidnapped 'and probably held to ransom like the heroine in some bloody strip cartoon. The silly bitch!' But that's how it should be. Bond is the hero and he has to save the heroine.

    I wish someone would actually make the Jinx spinoff so these morons could really get what they wish for and then they might shut up when they see how appalling it is.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    A Jinx spin-off??!!??

    I demand a Goodnight spin-off!

    No wait....a Bibi spin-off!
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 2,015
    Guess some really need formulaic Bond, after all :)
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    A Jinx spin-off??!!??

    I demand a Goodnight spin-off!

    No wait....a Bibi spin-off!

    There's no doubt some 'academic' (ie Professor of Gender Studies at the university of Wanksville) who would argue that would be a good thing:

    'That's what let's FYEO down for me. Could really have done with expanding Bibi's role and giving her more to do. Don't you think it would've been better if she'd been more Bond's equal? It certainly would've had more dramatic heft had she killed Kristatos at the end.

    But as one of the few Bond women (the term 'Bond girl is heresy to these people) to survive it would be interesting to see where they could take Bibi next:

    I would like to see her undercover at the Winter Olympics investigating the soviet skater who M thinks is doping,

    'Bibi you're the best skater in the service. If she loses she'll have nowhere to hide and we'll give her sanctuary in return for all she knows.'

    Etc
  • Guess some really need formulaic Bond, after all :)

    Dammit, what did YOU think of the film :-). Stop talking in such Blofeld-esque obscurity. WHAT did you like and what didn't you like about "SPECTRE". Or are you merely here for the sake of 'correcting enthusiastic Bond fans'?

  • edited November 2015 Posts: 2,015
    Dammit, what did YOU think of the film :-). Stop talking in such Blofeld-esque obscurity. WHAT did you like and what didn't you like about "SPECTRE". Or are you merely here for the sake of 'correcting enthusiastic Bond fans'?

    Discussing opinions with you is like discussing what is the best red meat with a vegetarian.
  • Dammit, what did YOU think of the film :-). Stop talking in such Blofeld-esque obscurity. WHAT did you like and what didn't you like about "SPECTRE". Or are you merely here for the sake of 'correcting enthusiastic Bond fans'?

    Discussing opinions with you is like discussing what is the best red meat with a vegetarian.

    Well, the same could be said about all other forummembers in here vs. you...the parachute.....
    I mean really, everyone is welcome contributing in here. You too. But at times it feels like I'm reading a French politician in disguise :-).

    And good contributors in the end turn red meat and vegetarians into friends...or people who agree to disagree :-).
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    This blatant disrespect for vegans angers me.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited November 2015 Posts: 9,117
    This blatant disrespect for vegans angers me.

    When are we going to get more (ahem) meaty roles for vegetarians. Isn't it about time we had a vegetarian Bond? This is the 21st century for Christ's sake.
  • This blatant disrespect for vegans angers me.

    When are we going to get more (ahem) meaty roles for vegetarians. Isn't it about time we had a vegetarian Bond? This is the 21st century for Christ's sake.

    :)) .

    Perhaps Hinx returns in Bond 25 and there we discuss his eating habits: Eyeballs! :-D
  • Posts: 13,868
    If MI forces Eon to step up the game as far as action and women role are concerned, fine.

    When did this become a thing?

    I'm sick to f**king death of reading this shite when every new Bond film is released.

    You want a film about wimmins issues go and watch Suffragette.

    Fine MI lets the women kick ass. Hurrah for them but I go to a Bond film to see Bond being the guvnor and not given equal billing with some bird.

    Bond girls serve 3 general purposes:

    1. To get shagged.
    2. To look good in a bikini.
    3. To die.


    Don't get me wrong I like a nice fleshed out character well played by a competent actress. I absolutely adore Vesper but despite having a much better written role than 90% of Bond girls she's still just a damsel in distress who gets herself kidnapped 'and probably held to ransom like the heroine in some bloody strip cartoon. The silly bitch!' But that's how it should be. Bond is the hero and he has to save the heroine.

    I wish someone would actually make the Jinx spinoff so these morons could really get what they wish for and then they might shut up when they see how appalling it is.

    I disagree. The Bond girls, from Fleming's novels and in at least the best Bond movies (but even some average/poor ones) are very complex characters. There is no such thing as just a damsel in distress: damsels in distress can be and often are worthy characters in their own right. Bond girls are to the Bond universe what Juliet, Ophelia, Lady Macbeth, Viola and so on are to Shakespeare's plays.

    And, to get back on topic, I'd take most Bond girls over any of the female characters of MI I saw. Even Bibi, Lupe Lamore and maybe even Mary Goodnight (she was a ditz, but at least she had personality) over the window dressing ones of MI.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    How dare you call darling Mary Goodnight a ditz?!


    MARY GOODNIGHT FOREVER
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    How dare you call darling Mary Goodnight a ditz?!


    MARY GOODNIGHT FOREVER

    Is that the title of your Mary Goonight spinoff?
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 154
    You know, reading this stuff about the women characters, I just realized a bit of inherent silliness & double-standard in it. While I like to see women action movie characters kicking ass for its pure entertainment value...

    A movie critic, imho, cannot claim to want more fleshed-out, realistic and less stereotyped women, while also asking for an ass-kicking heroine.

    It might sound sexist, but facts are facts... most women could not even kick the ass of a relatively weak and poor fighting skilled man. I don't care how many women agents, soldiers, cops, etc. we have today. Take away a typical female cop's badge/authority and male backup (for example) and she'd be pretty much helpless, & even scared, before whatever average guy she actually had the balls to physically confront. Therefore...

    A character like Rogue Nation's Ilsa Faust (who admittedly is a very fleshed out & fun/cool character for an action movie) who can kick-ass on several large men at once, is every bit the movie fantasy construct as the hot bikini-clad bimbo in distress needing to be rescued.

    If you want a realistic/serious female heroine, it would be much more truly realistic to create a character who uses seduction and manipulation to achieve her ends in the service of good. I'll be burned at the stake for saying this, but we all know that a lot of women are very good at such deceitful practices. (They know many of us guys will fall into the trap even when we suspect a trap -- unable to withstand the power of the feminine allure.)

    God/Nature (whatever) designed men to be the protector and women to the be nurturer. While I don't subscribe to a hard line of gender roles there, it's mostly society and the media that are pushing against reality and the natural order -- asking for ass-kicking women.
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    edited November 2015 Posts: 4,012
    gklein wrote: »
    You know, reading this stuff about the women characters, I just realized a bit of inherent silliness & double-standard in it. While I like to see women action movie characters kicking ass for its pure entertainment value...

    A movie critic, imho, cannot claim to want more fleshed-out, realistic and less stereotyped women, while also asking for an ass-kicking heroine.

    It might sound sexist, but facts are facts... most women could not even kick the ass of a relatively weak and poor fighting skilled man. I don't care how many women agents, soldiers, cops, etc. we have today. Take away a typical female cop's badge/authority and male backup (for example) and she'd be pretty much helpless, & even scared, before whatever average guy she actually had the balls to physically confront. Therefore...

    A character like Rogue Nation's Ilsa Faust (who admittedly is a very fleshed out & fun/cool character for an action movie) who can kick-ass on several large men at once, is every bit the movie fantasy construct as the hot bikini-clad bimbo in distress needing to be rescued.

    If you want a realistic/serious female heroine, it would be much more truly realistic to create a character who uses seduction and manipulation to achieve her ends in the service of good. I'll be burned at the stake for saying this, but we all know that a lot of women are very good at such deceitful practices. (They know many of us guys will fall into the trap even when we suspect a trap -- unable to withstand the power of the feminine allure.)

    God/Nature (whatever) designed men to be the protector and women to the be nurturer. While I don't subscribe to a hard line of gender roles there, it's mostly society and the media that are pushing against reality and the natural order -- asking for ass-kicking women.

    586.gif
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 13,868
    gklein wrote: »
    You know, reading this stuff about the women characters, I just realized a bit of inherent silliness & double-standard in it. While I like to see women action movie characters kicking ass for its pure entertainment value...

    A movie critic, imho, cannot claim to want more fleshed-out, realistic and less stereotyped women, while also asking for an ass-kicking heroine.

    It might sound sexist, but facts are facts... most women could not even kick the ass of a relatively weak and poor fighting skilled man. I don't care how many women agents, soldiers, cops, etc. we have today. Take away a typical female cop's badge/authority and male backup (for example) and she'd be pretty much helpless, & even scared, before whatever average guy she actually had the balls to physically confront. Therefore...

    A character like Rogue Nation's Ilsa Faust (who admittedly is a very fleshed out & fun/cool character for an action movie) who can kick-ass on several large men at once, is every bit the movie fantasy construct as the hot bikini-clad bimbo in distress needing to be rescued.

    If you want a realistic/serious female heroine, it would be much more truly realistic to create a character who uses seduction and manipulation to achieve her ends in the service of good. I'll be burned at the stake for saying this, but we all know that a lot of women are very good at such deceitful practices. (They know many of us guys will fall into the trap even when we suspect a trap -- unable to withstand the power of the feminine allure.)

    God/Nature (whatever) designed men to be the protector and women to the be nurturer. While I don't subscribe to a hard line of gender roles there, it's mostly society and the media that are pushing against reality and the natural order -- asking for ass-kicking women.

    I agree that a superchick is also a stereotypical woman and a fantasy as a damsel in distress, although I disagree that women are generally poorer at fighting than men. And first hand experience training in Krav Maga told me that most women can be just as capable as men are, some even more so... My instructor even told us never to assume you have the advantage if a woman attacks you, because an angry woman can be very dangerous.

    That said, in movies, ass kicking chicks are more often than none pure male heterosexual fantasies: they are Rambo with boobs and an hourglass figure, lipstick and a manicure. They are Terminatrix. In action movies, women soldiers are generally no tomboys, they are perfectly beautiful, etc. I like my characters to be characters, whether they are male or female, to be flawed. Which is EXACTLY what we get in Bond movies. Only the villain is almost perfect, to the point of arrogance and overconfidence, which causes his ultimate defeat.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    gklein wrote: »
    You know, reading this stuff about the women characters, I just realized a bit of inherent silliness & double-standard in it. While I like to see women action movie characters kicking ass for its pure entertainment value...

    A movie critic, imho, cannot claim to want more fleshed-out, realistic and less stereotyped women, while also asking for an ass-kicking heroine.

    It might sound sexist, but facts are facts... most women could not even kick the ass of a relatively weak and poor fighting skilled man. I don't care how many women agents, soldiers, cops, etc. we have today. Take away a typical female cop's badge/authority and male backup (for example) and she'd be pretty much helpless, & even scared, before whatever average guy she actually had the balls to physically confront. Therefore...

    A character like Rogue Nation's Ilsa Faust (who admittedly is a very fleshed out & fun/cool character for an action movie) who can kick-ass on several large men at once, is every bit the movie fantasy construct as the hot bikini-clad bimbo in distress needing to be rescued.

    If you want a realistic/serious female heroine, it would be much more truly realistic to create a character who uses seduction and manipulation to achieve her ends in the service of good. I'll be burned at the stake for saying this, but we all know that a lot of women are very good at such deceitful practices. (They know many of us guys will fall into the trap even when we suspect a trap -- unable to withstand the power of the feminine allure.)

    God/Nature (whatever) designed men to be the protector and women to the be nurturer. While I don't subscribe to a hard line of gender roles there, it's mostly society and the media that are pushing against reality and the natural order -- asking for ass-kicking women.

    Very astute observation. Are women's rights only advanced if they carry a gun?

    The amount of bullshit I read about the sexism in SF bemoaning the 'waste of good scotch' line and how it was a disgrace Severine was a disposable sex object but all of them failed to note that the whole film revolved around a woman in a position of power.
Sign In or Register to comment.