MovieChat Forums > No Time to Die (2021) Discussion > Mission Impossible better than Bond?

Mission Impossible better than Bond?

posted 5 years ago by osaji922 (59)
11 replies | jump to latest

I just read a post with people going back and forth saying that Mission Impossible is better and has become what Bond used to be. Maybe it's just me but what I always liked about Bond wasn't the action, but rather the character. What sells me on Bond films is the character. I like the character and all of his little quirks. "Bond, James Bond", "shaken, not stirred", the fact that he drives an aston martin DB5. It's all the minute intricacies that makes the character so appealing to me.

I heard somebody say something pertaining to pro wrestling nowadays and I think it actually applies here. The person said, if you can't imitate the person, then the character isn't good. I think Bond stands as one of the most imitated characters in film. Can you imitate Jason Bourne? Can you imitate the main character of Mission Impossible? How about the characters of Fast & Furious? I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that's a resounding no because all of those movies are sold on the action, not the characters. It's the stunts that they want you to love.

I gotta be honest, I don't think I'll be watching any of those films any time soon because quite frankly action bores me. It really does. I can fall asleep during an action sequence in a movie especially if the character is not as engaging as James Bond. But maybe this is just me and you all watch for the action which doesn't stand out as anything different from all the other action films.

reply

[–] TreeShaman (806) 5 years ago

The recent MI films are some of the worst movies I have ever seen and I will never watch another one again. They are also just an excuse to push Tom Cruise's cult of personality. In the Bond films, the character is bigger than any man who ever played the role, even Sean Connery, but MI will not be able to survive without Tom Cruise which is actually quite bizarre given that MI is supposed to be all about a team completing a mission as opposed to a single man.

Action scenes are a huge part of what made Bond films successful and innovative. Unfortunately there has been a significant decline in the action scenes since around the time Brosnan took over (and also when John Glen stopped directing Bond films). Now there is all this hype about Daniel Craig being a great action star who does many of his own stunts, but I just don't see the quality. CR had some good stunts, but there hasn't been very much since then, and I don't care for Craig's fake martial arts combat scenes. If the series is ever going to get back on track, improving the quality of stunts is going to be necessary.

Bond films have nothing to learn from other series like MI and Bourne, but unfortunately I don't think the evil empire of Broccoli, Wilson, et al realize that.

reply

[–] osaji922 (59) 5 years ago

I don't know man. I think there are other things they need to get back to like actually getting good looking Bond girls should be their number 1 priority. The sexiest one they had in the Craig films was Berenice Marlohe and they went and killed her. How nice. I guess she was too hot so they had to get rid of her. What is with this chick Léa Seydoux? Goodness, is this the best they can find? Yikes! And now she's back for this film too. Geez. Where the hell are the hot chicks?

reply

[–] TreeShaman (806) 5 years ago

Well there are many things they need to get back too, I just didn't make a point of mentioning the declining quality of the "Bond women" (which is a term they started using way back in '69 by the way, contrary to what Barbara Broccoli and Phoebe Waller-Bridge might have led us to believe). Seydoux is absolutely terrible, I certainly don't find her attractive in any way, and that is especially true since five years have passed since Spectre and she's had a child and doesn't seem interested in getting back into shape following that. She looked sickly in the trailer in my honest opinion. I have never watched these films for the women, but since that's part of what gives the series its identity, they really need to step up the quality. I haven't liked any of the women in Craig's Bond films, probably because all the good-looking ones don't want to film love scenes with him, so it's slim pickings.

reply

[–] osaji922 (59) 5 years ago

I forgot to mention that Ana de Armas is in this film but like Berenice, she's sitting backseat to a woman who she outclasses in the beauty department.

reply

[–] TreeShaman (806) 5 years ago

It doesn't seem that way if you look at the trailer. Nobody has been brave enough to comment on the other thread I made, but I guarantee that de Armas will end up being more hated than Lynch once we actually see the film. de Armas is the SJW female 'Bond', not Lynch. The speculation has been all wrong.

She's also appears to be a communist in real life, so that gives you some indication as to how far this series has fallen and how radically left-wing it has become.

reply

[–] osaji922 (59) 5 years ago

Really? I assumed since she's so hot, she would be the villain that would get killed off very quickly.

reply

[–] Daft_Munks (4647) 5 years ago

Slightly off topic from the actual thread discussion, but does MI really have to depend on Tom Cruise?

Could there ever be a post-Cruise MI which went back to its roots as a TV show and a team of people solving missions?

reply

[–] TreeShaman (806) 5 years ago

I would have thought so, but it seems pretty clear to me that the producers are 110% invested in Cruise and the series will end once he retires. Same thing with Indiana Jones. They could have made 20 of those films just like Bond, but for whatever reason the producers decided that only Harrison Ford can play the lead role, so they've now lost billions of dollars of potential profits because of their refusal to cast someone else. I hate the Hollywood star system, and that's why I hope the next Bond is a Lazenby type who nobody has ever heard of.

reply

[–] osaji922 (59) 5 years ago

Indiana Jones is character rich movie franchise in the same vein as Bond. They dropped the ball with that franchise because I believe they could have followed the same template as Bond in just swapping out the actors but for some odd reason they persist in using Harrison Ford. There was talk Chris Pratt would take the role years ago but they've dissipated since.

reply

[–] osaji922 (59) 5 years ago

Actually that's on topic of the discussion and the answer is no. The MI franchise is dependent on the action and the death defying stunts. That's what sells the movies. Nothing more, nothing less. The character Cruise plays is insignificant.

reply

[–] elcamino (15540) 5 years ago

That is like saying what is better,solid or liquid type dookie.

reply