380 replies to this topic

[darkpath]

Loomis:

No, the original series did not center on Phelps like the movies focus on Ethan. It was VERY MUCH a team show. If anything, Martin Landau's character, during the time he was on, had as much or more air time than Graves. Graves was the leader, but did not dominate the show, and sometimes played a very minor role in several episodes.

If you've never seen the original show - try to. It is so totally different a premis from the movies that it's like two totally different ideas. The movies give you virtually no idea what the TV show was like. It is one of the most different TV to film adaptations I have ever seen.

The TV show was VERY VERY LOW ACTION - very team oriented - sophisticated, more about trickery and deception and stealth - very impersonal, cold, calculating and very BRAINY at times - you had to really think to follow what was going on. About the only real connection fans of the old TV show are able to see with the movies are the name and the music.

Regards

One other thing, if you watch the old series (presuming the source is a broadcast, not a tape or disk) make sure you catch the first 5 minutes. Following the mission without that initial briefing can be nearly impossible (no pun intended) in some of the episodes.

[Dr. Noah]

CR alters the timeline by going back to the beginning and restarting--the other 20 Bonds aren't part of this universe. Like Batman Begins or the coming young Kirk/Spock Star Trek. With Bond I said if he became a PERMANENT peace activist and then the series revolved around thatthen that is a reboot.

WHAT TIMELINE?!?

[avl]

CR alters the timeline by going back to the beginning and restarting--the other 20 Bonds aren't part of this universe. Like Batman Begins or the coming young Kirk/Spock Star Trek. With Bond I said if he became a PERMANENT peace activist and then the series revolved around thatthen that is a reboot.

WHAT TIMELINE?!?

No need to shout
The timeline where Bond is already a 00 in the '60s.

[Dr. Noah]

No need to shout
The timeline where Bond is already a 00 in the '60s.

Good point. Is Wilford Brimley available to play Bond?

[Punisher]

I think only CBn'ers are going to not be confused about this reboot theory.

Although I'll find it very funny when the general audience just laughs at Daniel Craig. (Might not really happen but there's always that 1% chance)

Edited by Punisher, 13 May 2006 - 09:15 PM.

[Dr. Noah]

I think only CBn'ers are going to not be confused about this reboot theory.

Although I'll find it very funny when the general audience just laughs at Daniel Craig. (Might not really happen but there's always that 1% chance)

Did that post make sense to anybody?

[krypt]

Tom Cruise's Mission Impossible franchise is a "radical reboot" of the original series.

And MI3 is bloody awful IMO.

[mario007]

... and the box office shows it. It slipped 49% in its second weekend. Thank God, CR didn't take this route.

[Tinfinger]

Well, MI3 might make more money than Bond, so hold the laughing until later

[cletus van damme]

I agree with LOOMIS...MI 3 was over hyped and over rated...the action sequences are dull and lifeless..on paper CRUISE stealing a Mercedes and chasing through Down town traffic to save his wife sounds good ...but it was filmed bby an appalling lack of imgaination by a second unit director with no idea how to stage stunts......with the camera low to the ground (instead of speed) quickyl edited (in the place of real stunts) and slightly ridiculous for anyone remotelky interested in stunts (ie the target audience of spy movies) at one point he hand brake turns a car while holding the phone to his ear and other hand on the wheel...complete bollocks...

the shanghai chase sequence is even more dull......the cars are going slower and editing faster...say what you want about the Bourne Series but they know how to stage stunts and build tension...which is what this genre is all about....

Another thing to whine about is the Building set piece..

when Cruise jumps from the Shanghai building with a rope tied around his waste he is falling for a good few seconds ..so his speed is well above 70 MPH and then it yanks him immediately to a halt...how does he then have enough swing to reach the other building?...and shouldn't he have been cut in half ??.......at least Bourne is grounded in a sense of reality we can recognize....

sorry about the whining post

Cletus

[Frostyak]

My friend made a good observation regarding MI3. Because you never find out what the 'Rabbit's Foot' is, the story remains more focused on the characters and not the technological threat that must be stopped. Face it, if DAD replaced some dialogue and that awful "Sun Power" contraption, it would have been a stronger movie. If Bond didn't know what he had to stop, just who he had to stop, the movie would have been much more about the characters. Instead we were distracted with this rediculous machine that no one could believe. I don't believe MI3 is perfect, but it is the best action movie I have seen in a long time.

It seems that with CR, and hopefully it continues, Bond will now face realistic villains. I want villains who we fear because they themselves are truly evil, not because they hold some fearful space-age technology.

- Chris

[Tinfinger]

I disagree, I do not want Bond facing off with someone Mike Wallace just interviewed on 60 Minutes

[avl]

No need to shout
The timeline where Bond is already a 00 in the '60s.

Good point. Is Wilford Brimley available to play Bond?

Suspension of disbelief Bond doesnt age.

[avl]

My friend made a good observation regarding MI3. Because you never find out what the 'Rabbit's Foot' is, the story remains more focused on the characters and not the technological threat that must be stopped. Face it, if DAD replaced some dialogue and that awful "Sun Power" contraption, it would have been a stronger movie. If Bond didn't know what he had to stop, just who he had to stop, the movie would have been much more about the characters. Instead we were distracted with this rediculous machine that no one could believe. I don't believe MI3 is perfect, but it is the best action movie I have seen in a long time.

It seems that with CR, and hopefully it continues, Bond will now face realistic villains. I want villains who we fear because they themselves are truly evil, not because they hold some fearful space-age technology.

- Chris

Agreed - the Rabbits foot is your ultimate McGuffin - and acknowledged as such by never being revealed. A bit too post modern to work everytime, but for MI3 it worked well I think.

[Kristian]

They didn't reinvent Hunt or what the series did before--they just subtly and simply created more emotion and character. You care more now. I ALWAYS THOUGHT THIS IS WHAT TO DO WITH BOND--don't restart the whole series and go fully in a new risky direction BUT instead just smartly add depth and write the character better without changing him in basic personality or looks for that matter. STRONG CHANGE COULD HAVE BEEN DONE WITHOUT THE OVERLY RISKY MOVES OF CR. NO NEED FOR A REBOOT TO MAKE EFFECTIVE SMART CHANGE.

Have you forgotten that they already tried this "humanizing" and "emotional shading" with THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH? Look at how everyone complained about that one, and look what it spawned: DIE ANOTHER DAY

The CASINO ROYALE teaser looked like a Bourne movie wannabe. Same look, same hand to hand fight scenes. No one I know is interested in Bond. My friends are more inclined towards MI and Jason Bournse. And there are a lot of the mainstream public who feel this way. So the producers decided to Bournefy the franchise.

It's more than just a reboot or return to the roots of the books. They're trying to mimic the Bourne movies..... Whatever works. Hell, they already used Denise Richards to try to lure the young hip crowd way back when. That was really effective (at least for the Opening Weekend.).

[Santa]

Saw MI3 last night. Some dangerously gaping holes in the plot but still a reasonably entertaining couple of hours of mindless nonsense. I'm afraid I can't associate with the TV series in any way, the only link is the name from what I see.

[icecold]

Ehhh I didn't feel like reading this whole topic b/c I'm tired and it wasn't really interesting me but I saw a few people on the first page say that the CR teaser wasn't out with MI3. well, it must be a random theater thing b/c the 2nd trailer (after Superman Returns which I absolutely cannot wait for) was Casino Royale.

[ACE]

Let's never confuse the merits of the Ethan Hunt franchise (rebooted out of recognition from the TV series) with the merits of the Bond franchise.

OK, could see what they tried to do but it reminds me why I like Bond.
No class, no wit, no style - just contrived pathos and OTT action shot for TV in too tight close ups. Loved the Vatican sequence and the MacGuffin's Foot story was clever and good and actually quite on the nose considering current events.
The Chinese location was nice. Fun but not Bond. And I prefer Bond.

[Loomis]

Saw M:I-3 again, and it's a much better movie the second time around, when one has considerably lower expectations. Hoffman is really terrific, and so, to give the apparent public enemy number one his dues, is Cruise (except during the soppy stuff, of which there's rather too much). Fine action scenes, and, as I've said before, when M:I-3 works it works well.

But I still don't understand why the script isn't at least three times better (in which case one would still be justified in calling it a half-baked effort). There are also serious pacing issues, and some unnecessary scenes. (For instance, was it really necessary for

Spoiler

Hunt and his fiancee to actually get married? Or to have all that cringeworthy "Trust me" dialogue?

The story - such as it is - would still have worked with those scenes left on the cutting room floor.) At the same time, much more of Hoffman (and the stunning Maggie Q) would have been extremely welcome.

[spynovelfan]

I got to see Mission Impossible early and it was great. I loved it! And this is from someone who is no big Cruise fan, who was slightly disappointed with the first 2 MI's and who thinks Ethan Hunt isn't near Bond as a character.

MI3 really works because they humanize Hunt smartly with a true love and friends. They kept the big action set pieces and high octane style but the whole thing gets emotional resonance and an extra push from emotional investment. They make a character I never really cared for much more compelling and no longer callow.

They didn't reinvent Hunt or what the series did before--they just subtly and simply created more emotion and character. You care more now. I ALWAYS THOUGHT THIS IS WHAT TO DO WITH BOND--don't restart the whole series and go fully in a new risky direction BUT instead just smartly add depth and write the character better without changing him in basic personality or looks for that matter. STRONG CHANGE COULD HAVE BEEN DONE WITHOUT THE OVERLY RISKY MOVES OF CR. NO NEED FOR A REBOOT TO MAKE EFFECTIVE SMART CHANGE.

As the AICN guy who read the CR script said--"mammoth changes aren't necessary to bring a franchise a healthy shot of adreneline or freshness. MI3 shifts more to characters and doesn't start from scratch. It gives emotional resonance to the action, not mere spectacle. These differences are often simple and subtle YET PROFOUND--and falls in nicely with what Bond could have done." Seeing MI3 I see he was so right on here.

Hey CR can turn out fine but these big changes in rebooting the franchise and the character(along with an unconventional looking Bond) really were an unnecessary risk. We'll see if it pays off. It is fitting that this movie is set to a large degree in a casino since these changes are quite a large roll of the dice.

I'll tell you one thing--if CR is as good as MI3 then i'll be estatic. And this was done with high octane action and suspenseful set pieces. Here's a tip--the "secret" kidnapping inside the vatican itself is a knockout!! Can CR do it with it's roll of the dice--i'm not sure at all.

I finally saw this film on DVD last night. This post will be packed with spoilers for all three MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE films, so don't read if that bothers you.

I was disappointed with it, and I am a huge Tom Cruise fan, love Philip Seymour Hoffman and have a thing for Keri Russell. I thought it had some good stuff, namely:

The use of someone who Hunt cares about to drive the plot
The explosion in the head idea
The extraordinary revelation as to who is beyond the plot and why, and the decision not to reveal the Maguffin
Expansion of the team
Great location work
Excellent performance from Seymour Hoffman, who is chilling

But I thought there were some really dire things about this. Despite its dependence on up-to-the-minute technology, the content of it felt really dated to me: it felt like a mid-90s action thriller. It felt like a Brosnan Bond film, and I was hoping for more. It had very little depth, and I simply didn't see how it humanised Hunt at all. It said it did, but it didn't *really*: in one scene, we see him struggling with the dilemma of keeping secrets from her, but the ending just cops out on all of it. She's been kidnapped and nearly killed, been through hell and survived, and she jovially asks him as they skip across a bridge who he really works for. She would be furious and accusing him of betrayal. A scene later, she's skipping and jumping in her jeans! She does not feel like a real character. Neither does Hunt: he looks buff, much the same as in the first film, in fact, but he is essentially a machine carrying out incredibly complicated stunts and manoeuvres. I find it tough to find anything human in someone who can get himself out of being cuffed to a chair with a biro in five seconds!

I thought two scenes stripped it of all the humanity it had: the mask scenes. I thought the kidnapping in the Vatican sillier than an invisible car. This isn't real life, is it? It's not anywhere close. It's fantasy: they clone a guy in about two minutes! Come on. And then the trick with the fake wife being shot. Sorry, but the bad guy also makes masks? Just for trickery's sake? Ah, no, not the bad guy. The bad guy is in league with... Hunt's boss. Again. I think IMF need a better screening policy... Oh, , actually, that guy is working for the President. The political nature of this revelation is astonishing - how has nobody commented more on this? A mainstream thriller that suggests the US' intelligence services would collaborate with arms dealers to sell some sort of armageddon device to a Middle Eastern country, so they could send in UN inspectors and get Security Council approval to invade said country? I know why nobody's talking about it: because the presentation is so far from reality as to make it just one more silly twist. It's not the CIA, but Ethan Hunt's Impossible Mission Force. Had this been in a Bourne film, it might have made an impact. As it is, it makes whatever happens in MI4 ludicrous. The IMF is revealed to be manned by psychotic fascists, at the command of a corrupt White House. And at the end Hunt is invited to do something for these people? They have just revealed that his organisation is evil incarnate - where to go from there? Oh, I know: forget it happened, like they did between MI:1 and 2. And perhaps make Hunt's boss the villain again.

I sincerely hope CR humanises a little more than this film did. I thought it had very little suspense.

[Loomis]

Good points, spy. I too saw M:I-III on DVD yesterday, and while I do enjoy the film I felt immediately that its peculiar (actually, hold that, not so peculiar, actually - it's very BrosnanBondEra-esque) brand of "seriousness" and utter lunacy doesn't work nearly as well on TV (even a reasonably decent widescreen one) as it does on the big screen. Not that it's LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, but this film is best seen at the cinema.

'Course, you could puristically (if that's a word) make that claim for most flicks, but it's only on the big screen that the spectacle of M:I-III comes alive; on the small one, all the thrills and spills are shrunken down to the point where it's like listening to Led Zeppelin through Walkman headphones someone else is wearing, while the film's flaws seem magnified.

One reason, I think, why critics banged on about "characterisation" in M:I-III (well, along with the fact that, compared to M:I-2, the characterisation does indeed appear richly detailed) is that the performances are very good, giving the impression of characters that are "deep" and "real". Not only is Hoffman terrific, but Cruise, Crudup, Fishburne, Monaghan, Rhames, etc. are all so much better than the material that there's the sense of watching master chefs taking over a McDonalds outlet and somehow making those burgers and fries about as good as could possibly be expected under the circumstances. Even Maggie Q and Rhys Meyers - who really have next to nothing to do other than make unconvincing attempts to talk Hunt out of whatever derring-do he's planning just to make the Cruiser seem all the more fearless - give performances that are much better than the film deserves.

Of course, a great cast packed with "names" doesn't always redeem a poor script and make things shine through pure acting talent. I think it makes things worse for TWINE, although that's probably because everyone hams it up in that flick, which only throws the shoddiness of the screenplay into sharper relief. In M:I-III, however, the actors play well against each other, and no one's over the top.

One thing that struck me yesterday about M:I-III is just how arbitrarily-chosen the locations seem to be. Why is Hoffman holding an IMF agent captive in Berlin? We're not told. Might as well be Paris, Istanbul or Hanoi. Did the filmmakers just throw darts at a map of the world? Sure, this kind of thing is fairly common, and, yes, you might as well ask whether there was a particularly pressing reason for, say, THE BOURNE SUPREMACY to open in India rather than Thailand or Australia, but M:I-III's script makes not even the most cursory effort to nudge its locations towards having something vaguely to do with its characters and what they might be up to. Why does a major section of the film take place in Shanghai? Well, simply because the filmmakers must have decided it was an underused location and a cool place to shoot. Hang on, though, Shanghai is where the baddies are holed up. Yes, but why Shanghai? Oh, just because. Admittedly, there's a line of dialogue that suggests the terrorists are in league with the People's Liberation Army and perhaps the Chinese government (which would be a fairly startling revelation, but the remark isn't followed up at all), but with virtually no changes to the script other than place names the whole sequence could have been transferred to Tokyo, or Seoul, or Almaty, or Chicago, or....

I remain of the view that M:I-III is worth watching, and indeed the best of its series, but it doesn't approach Bond or Bourne.

[spynovelfan]

Yes, not only were they completely arbitrary locations with no explanations given, but the amount of firepower happening in Berlin would have made international headlines for weeks.

I agree that the performances were solid. I thought a lot of it was too much even for the Cruisemeister - they missed out the whole crucial scene where he actually *gets* the Rabbit's Foot, because that was too tricky to write or something, and instead showed some dire exchange between his two buds in the getaway car. Come on, guys! I could imagine Brosnan in huge chunks of it, looking grim and determined, strapped to the chair, resuscitating the agent, the whole 'Trust me' business... Remember that scene where Farris asks him if he's out of ammo and he says no, he's got enough. Then he stands, turns and shoots the guy with one amazing shot and quips: 'Now I'm out of ammo'. Pure Brosnan Bond.

You can't humanise a character when there's no character there, though.

[Moore Baby Moore]

I saw MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III. One word: overrated.

JJ Abrams was involved. That alone puts it on my list of movies and TV shows that I will never watch even under pain of death. I despise that man with every fiber of my being.

Besides, the franchise ran off the rails with the second film. What an overblown mess that was.

[00Twelve]

Um, Ethan Hunt didn't have 20+ films with 6 actors and 30+ novels to establish his character. He didn't even have the TV show. He's a totally cinematic character with a whopping 3 films under his belt. He's a *liitle* easier to mold as a character than James Bond. Hence, if you wanna change anything about James Bond without looking horribly awkward, you have to go back to the beginning. Trust me, it'll be great.

[blueman]

Why can't Craig's Bond have all those adventures already filmed waiting for him in his future? Instant continuity!

[Loomis]

they missed out the whole crucial scene where he actually *gets* the Rabbit's Foot

I thought that worked, though, in a RESERVOIR-DOGS-not-showing-the-heist kinda way.

The only part of the film I dislike is the helicopter chase. Fake-looking, CGI-fuelled, over the top and not remotely exciting in any way, shape or form. Compare and contrast with the terrific Shanghai skyscrapers stuff.

The biggest missed opportunity is when Hunt tells his fiancee he works for an organisation called the IMF, and she fails to reply "The International Monetary Fund?".

Well, I'd have laughed.

[marktmurphy]

they missed out the whole crucial scene where he actually *gets* the Rabbit's Foot

I thought that worked, though, in a RESERVOIR-DOGS-not-showing-the-heist kinda way.

Yeah I thought that worked, mainly because Hunt had been in exacly the same situation in the previous two films- it needed something a little extra to make it not look like a complete retread. Didn't work very well, sadly.

You can't tell me the TV series lasted however many years and they did the 'break into posh party, steal macguffin from maximum security building through acrobatic display and watch out for your traitor of a boss' plot every week: because the film series has done that plot every single time!

[spynovelfan]

That whole scene with the ooh it's a posh party and one of the agents is wearing a cocktail dress and has a camera in her purse and is speaking through a headpiece to the other chaps watching it all... 'He's on the move!' Isn't that every thriller of the 80s and 90s? That's not just reminiscent of Brosnan's Bond films: it's reminiscent of Brosnan's Alistair MacNeill TV movies!

What a long way we've come from DAD. Our expectations really have been raised. Well, mine have! I won't accept CR unless it's at least 12 times better than M:I3.

[Harmsway]

they missed out the whole crucial scene where he actually *gets* the Rabbit's Foot

I thought that worked, though, in a RESERVOIR-DOGS-not-showing-the-heist kinda way.

What they did show, both before and after the heist, struck me as a terrible rip-off of the break-in sequence from M:I-2. They even have some of the same color tones.

Think about the similarities - bizarre, dangerous way of breaking into a skyscraper from the top that has everybody worried whether Ethan will make it. Afterwards, Ethan breaks out of the skyscraper with a parachute.

[marktmurphy]

they missed out the whole crucial scene where he actually *gets* the Rabbit's Foot

I thought that worked, though, in a RESERVOIR-DOGS-not-showing-the-heist kinda way.

What they did show, both before and after the heist, struck me as a terrible rip-off of the break-in sequence from M:I-2. They even have some of the same color tones.

Think about the similarities - bizarre, dangerous way of breaking into a skyscraper from the top that has everybody worried whether Ethan will make it. Afterwards, Ethan breaks out of the skyscraper with a parachute.

Hardly needs pointing out it's so blatant, surely?
I think it's the writing which lets this one down- there's not one ounce of imagination in the plotting or set-pieces at all; they just re-do everything they've already done.