380 replies to this topic

[J.B.]

I started reading this thread the other day, but since then it's mushroomed into something else. No doubt someone has since made this point (and if so, sorry!), but MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE has actually rebooted *twice* already. The first film was, as has been pointed out, a complete reboot of the TV series, and was really the creation of a new spy thriller franchise for Cruise using a well-recognised 'brand name' in the genre. Overly convoluted and flawed as it is, I still think that was a very good film, and it could almost have been called THE BOURNE IDENTITY: it overturned the Bond-style thriller by imagining a secret agent on the run from his own government. The second film then rebooted the series once again - Hunt was now back in the fold, with an M figure in Hopkins, and it was a straightforward Bond-style film.

I haven't seen the third one yet (I plan to), but surely the fact that this three-film series has already had to reboot twice shows just how much Bond needed to. Things are moving quicker; people are getting bored faster. Bond rivals are needing to reinvent themselves with each film to hold on. Bond has to occasionally, too. I think it was due, and that just Craig and a more human Bond wouldn't have been enough now. DAD made lots of money, but I think Eon saw the writing on the wall just in time. The series needed a shot in the arm.

That was a comparison I made about MI3 earlier in this thread. To me, it does seem like a Bond wannabe film. The parallels are so clear. The opening sequence before the opening credits, the booming theme music played throughout the film, The main character chasing after a lead woman and getting her, The villian being someone "out there" and crazy...There are even more parallels but I think Cruise wanted to be Bond and didnt fit the bill so he bought the MI franchise to become that kind of secret agent.

Cruise is probably tied to the TV series as well and may be the controlling factor as to whether it goes to DVD. It was also mentioned in this thread about getting another person to play Ethan Hunt. I dont think it would happen as long as Cruise is producer. It is an ego trip for him to play the role. When he is 65 and it is obvious he cant do it anymore he may get someone and then be the M character to the new Ethan Hunt in the film but who knows really? But, he strikes me as that kind of person.

[Robert Watts]

I could almost garuntee you you won't see the TV Series on DVD until one of the films is a major flop (or a very poor earner)

[SecretAgentFan]

That was a comparison I made about MI3 earlier in this thread. To me, it does seem like a Bond wannabe film. The parallels are so clear. The opening sequence before the opening credits, the booming theme music played throughout the film, The main character chasing after a lead woman and getting her, The villian being someone "out there" and crazy...There are even more parallels but I think Cruise wanted to be Bond and didnt fit the bill so he bought the MI franchise to become that kind of secret agent.

Cruise is probably tied to the TV series as well and may be the controlling factor as to whether it goes to DVD. It was also mentioned in this thread about getting another person to play Ethan Hunt. I dont think it would happen as long as Cruise is producer. It is an ego trip for him to play the role. When he is 65 and it is obvious he cant do it anymore he may get someone and then be the M character to the new Ethan Hunt in the film but who knows really? But, he strikes me as that kind of person.

IMO, every spy thriller has some relation to Bond. Yet MI3 is not Bond at all - it is more MI meets Alias and 24. Ethan Hunt is nothing like Bond and is not supposed to be that way. The pre-title-sequence actually is no pre-title-sequence in a Bondian way but a flash forward that is part of the story - something that no Bond film has done yet but JJ Abrams does very often on "Alias".

Having said that, I enjoyed MI3 very much. I do not subscribe to the interpretation that Ethan Hunt is an ego trip for Cruise - only if you describe "ego trip" as a franchise role for movie stars, and everybody wants these (why else would the Clooney/Pitt/Damon-crowd return to "Ocean

[spynovelfan]

As for MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE having rebooted twice already (and I don't disagree), surely Bond has rebooted a zillion times, making what they're doing with the Craig era essentially nothing new? I mean, they went gritty, serious and back to basics with OHMSS, went comedy with DAF and the early Moores---- well, with all the Moores, really (apart from the reboot that was FYEO, I suppose). They went sci-fi with MOONRAKER, serious with Dalton.... changes that were no less radical than those in the M:I franchise, and often much more dramatic.

I was talking about more than tone, though. The *concept* of the first M:I film was a radical departure from the TV series it took its name from. They killed off the IMF team in the opening sequence, making way for a film that follows one of the agents (not even in the series) on the run as he is framed for killing his team members. Just as the Bourne films are about an amnesiac agent on the run - it's a conceptual twist on Bond. If the next Bourne film had Bourne recovering his memory and being a standard agent, I'd see that as a reboot for that series - and that's what they did with M:I 2.

I don't think becoming grittier or sillier is a reboot. I would say the only real conceptual reboot we've seen of Bond is LTK - but it was temporary. They booted back to normality with the next film.

[avl]

Fleming called Bond a cardboard booby; Amis a blank invoice slip.

Quite. I've always seen Bond as a sort of unconscious tour guide of the sort of aspirational, exotic and romantic fantasy world that will never, ever date, and that's the key to the series' success (funnily enough, I view Tintin in exactly the same terms).

As for MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE having rebooted twice already (and I don't disagree), surely Bond has rebooted a zillion times, making what they're doing with the Craig era essentially nothing new? I mean, they went gritty, serious and back to basics with OHMSS, went comedy with DAF and the early Moores---- well, with all the Moores, really (apart from the reboot that was FYEO, I suppose). They went sci-fi with MOONRAKER, serious with Dalton.... changes that were no less radical than those in the M:I franchise, and often much more dramatic.

There is something unique about Bond as a franchise...I mean 20 films with the same character, Bourne and MI are no-where near that. I seriously doubt they ever will be.

Bond is a one-off - a long term popular icon. Bond films are almost reassuring for the public - they associate them with Bank Holiday TV (in the uK at least), they have become as traditional as Christmas.

And people sort of know what they want from a Bond film (to a degree that I doubt people have expectations for Bourne or MI). Thats why mixing with the "formula" is a real risk. These "accent note" films - OHMSS, LTK - tend to be loved by fans because they show Bond in a new light, but have gone down less well with the public - because they didn't fit with the publics expectations of what a Bond film should be.

So CR is a genuine risk. For myself, its great but I serously wonder now whether it, or Craig, will be accepted by the public. I think the CR/Craig package (ahem) is too counter-intuitive to really work with the mass market. I hope I'm wrong - because the law of diminishing returns was definitley setting in with a vengeance through the Brosnan era.

My main reservation is with what Loomis describes as the "romantic fantasy" element of the Bond mystique. I totally agree with that - the public see Bond as an oddly aspirational figure - odd because the qualities he stands for - sophistication, good living, - can seem pretty old fashioned and out of step with the times. But that is who Bond is. I worry that the reboot will lose that aspect - "Bond before" may be something we havent seen yet, but is he interesting enough to justify the risk? Hopefully Craig will pull that off - just hope there arent too many scenes of Bond learning what as Aston Martin looks like or how to tie a bow tie.

[Seannery]

I started reading this thread the other day, but since then it's mushroomed into something else. No doubt someone has since made this point (and if so, sorry!), but MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE has actually rebooted *twice* already. The first film was, as has been pointed out, a complete reboot of the TV series, and was really the creation of a new spy thriller franchise for Cruise using a well-recognised 'brand name' in the genre. Overly convoluted and flawed as it is, I still think that was a very good film, and it could almost have been called THE BOURNE IDENTITY: it overturned the Bond-style thriller by imagining a secret agent on the run from his own government. The second film then rebooted the series once again - Hunt was now back in the fold, with an M figure in Hopkins, and it was a straightforward Bond-style film.

I haven't seen the third one yet (I plan to), but surely the fact that this three-film series has already had to reboot twice shows just how much Bond needed to. Things are moving quicker; people are getting bored faster. Bond rivals are needing to reinvent themselves with each film to hold on. Bond has to occasionally, too. I think it was due, and that just Craig and a more human Bond wouldn't have been enough now. DAD made lots of money, but I think Eon saw the writing on the wall just in time. The series needed a shot in the arm.

That was a comparison I made about MI3 earlier in this thread. To me, it does seem like a Bond wannabe film. The parallels are so clear. The opening sequence before the opening credits, the booming theme music played throughout the film, The main character chasing after a lead woman and getting her, The villian being someone "out there" and crazy...There are even more parallels but I think Cruise wanted to be Bond and didnt fit the bill so he bought the MI franchise to become that kind of secret agent.

Cruise is probably tied to the TV series as well and may be the controlling factor as to whether it goes to DVD. It was also mentioned in this thread about getting another person to play Ethan Hunt. I dont think it would happen as long as Cruise is producer. It is an ego trip for him to play the role. When he is 65 and it is obvious he cant do it anymore he may get someone and then be the M character to the new Ethan Hunt in the film but who knows really? But, he strikes me as that kind of person.

Yeah Spy this was brought up before that MI was rebooted already. Yes it's different than the TV show(which I liked) but that's irrelevent here because i'm strictly talking about as a movie franchise. But I disagree that the movie series has been rebooted--it stars the same character/actor with the same basic personality within the same timeline. I submit that the stylistic differences of the 3 movies don't come close to a reboot.

Whether its because they're laying the ground to give CR a kicking, the Sunday Times review of MI3 was to the effect that both Ethan Hunt and Jason Bourne are fairly boring characters, they have little going for them when they are not chasing/being chased, jumping or killing: James Bond with his lines, ability to pull women, style, places, cars, etc is interesting, the ST maintains, BECAUSE he has a life beyond just being a spy and action hero. We want that whole Bond life, not the Hunt/Bourne life.

Probably explains why Bond is at #21 and Bourne and Hunt unlikely to reach double figures.

I think it's the other way round. Ethan Hunt drives fast cars, wears stylish clothes (English tailor in the second one, I think), travels to exotic locations and sleeps with beautiful women, too. And The Saint did all of that before Bond. I think the secret to long-running success is often to have fairly generic characters at the centre, and the audience can then build stuff around them. You can have several actors play them. You can apply them to anything. Fleming called Bond a cardboard booby; Amis a blank invoice slip. Who is Bond, really? We know next to nothing about him (and most of it's from his obituary in the penultimate novel). We don't even know who his tailor is in Fleming, let alone what his early career was like or what his political or religious views are, and so on. What we have in Fleming, though, is dozens of idiosyncratic details; in the films these are largely reduced to formula, and Bond is a fairly predictable and one-dimensional engine for the plot. But Bond's *characterisation* was never deep, in the books or the films, was it? It's the myriad expressions of his superficial nature and the occasional hints at what lies beneath that tantalise us. OHMSS worked as a counterpoint to that - if every film had been like that, the series would probably have ended long ago.

Some thoughts I just had, anyway.

SNF--some great points in this post. Not giving us much of Bond leaves a mystery, pulls us in. It also makes it more possible to imagine oneself into Bond--doing the heroic deeds.

[Loomis]

As for MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE having rebooted twice already (and I don't disagree), surely Bond has rebooted a zillion times, making what they're doing with the Craig era essentially nothing new? I mean, they went gritty, serious and back to basics with OHMSS, went comedy with DAF and the early Moores---- well, with all the Moores, really (apart from the reboot that was FYEO, I suppose). They went sci-fi with MOONRAKER, serious with Dalton.... changes that were no less radical than those in the M:I franchise, and often much more dramatic.

I was talking about more than tone, though. The *concept* of the first M:I film was a radical departure from the TV series it took its name from. They killed off the IMF team in the opening sequence, making way for a film that follows one of the agents (not even in the series) on the run as he is framed for killing his team members. Just as the Bourne films are about an amnesiac agent on the run - it's a conceptual twist on Bond. If the next Bourne film had Bourne recovering his memory and being a standard agent, I'd see that as a reboot for that series - and that's what they did with M:I 2.

I don't think becoming grittier or sillier is a reboot. I would say the only real conceptual reboot we've seen of Bond is LTK - but it was temporary. They booted back to normality with the next film.

Perhaps OHMSS could also be considered a conceptual reboot - a Bond who can "fail". But, yes, LTK, which I like very much indeed (although I also like, say, MOONRAKER very much indeed), is the one and only Bond film I have to keep actively reminding myself is a Bond film while watching it. Which is not a bad thing, but an interesting novelty.

Still, I think a tonal reboot can be just as much of a reboot as a conceptual one.

[Seannery]

As for MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE having rebooted twice already (and I don't disagree), surely Bond has rebooted a zillion times, making what they're doing with the Craig era essentially nothing new? I mean, they went gritty, serious and back to basics with OHMSS, went comedy with DAF and the early Moores---- well, with all the Moores, really (apart from the reboot that was FYEO, I suppose). They went sci-fi with MOONRAKER, serious with Dalton.... changes that were no less radical than those in the M:I franchise, and often much more dramatic.

I was talking about more than tone, though. The *concept* of the first M:I film was a radical departure from the TV series it took its name from. They killed off the IMF team in the opening sequence, making way for a film that follows one of the agents (not even in the series) on the run as he is framed for killing his team members. Just as the Bourne films are about an amnesiac agent on the run - it's a conceptual twist on Bond. If the next Bourne film had Bourne recovering his memory and being a standard agent, I'd see that as a reboot for that series - and that's what they did with M:I 2.

I don't think becoming grittier or sillier is a reboot. I would say the only real conceptual reboot we've seen of Bond is LTK - but it was temporary. They booted back to normality with the next film.

Perhaps OHMSS could also be considered a conceptual reboot - a Bond who can "fail". But, yes, LTK, which I like very much indeed (although I also like, say, MOONRAKER very much indeed), is the one and only Bond film I have to keep actively reminding myself is a Bond film while watching it. Which is not a bad thing, but an interesting novelty.

Still, I think a tonal reboot can be just as much of a reboot as a conceptual one.

I don't see LTK or OHMSS as a reboot--just variations on a theme.

[Loomis]

I disagree that the (MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE) series has been rebooted--it stars the same character/actor with the same basic personality within the same timeline. I submit that the stylistic differences of the 3 movies don't come close to a reboot.

But stylistic differences can be enormous and important, sullying the - crikey, this is fanboyish - integrity of a series. Example: when LETHAL WEAPON 4 came out, I remember reading fans of the franchise complaining that it hadn't ditched the humour and gone back to the grittiness of the original, and that it was consequently a massive missed opportunity.

[Seannery]

I disagree that the (MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE) series has been rebooted--it stars the same character/actor with the same basic personality within the same timeline. I submit that the stylistic differences of the 3 movies don't come close to a reboot.

But stylistic differences can be enormous and important, sullying the - crikey, this is fanboyish - integrity of a series. Example: when LETHAL WEAPON 4 came out, I remember reading fans of the franchise complaining that it hadn't ditched the humour and gone back to the grittiness of the original, and that it was consequently a massive missed opportunity.

Well they can be significient I concede but wouldn't constitute a reboot nonetheless. With LW4 sure the comic tone was different but I still liked it and certainly it was still the same series and characters.

[Loomis]

With LW4 sure the comic tone was different but I still liked it

Same here. I'm actually a very big fan of the film, but, still, I submit that the LETHAL WEAPON series did reboot after the first one. It could have been a series of gritty thrillers, but instead they chose to make a series of action comedies. Similarly, Bond could have continued in the relatively low-key style of DR. NO and FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE (whether the series would have lasted as long is another matter), but didn't. If Bourne stops being "dark", "serious" and "realistic" and develops a taste for quips and an ability to do truly outrageous stunts, I'll consider it a reboot of the franchise, regardless of whether it's still technically the same character and timeline.

I'd say any major change in tone or concept in a series constitutes a reboot.

[Seannery]

With LW4 sure the comic tone was different but I still liked it

Same here. I'm actually a very big fan of the film, but, still, I submit that the LETHAL WEAPON series did reboot after the first one. It could have been a series of gritty thrillers, but instead they chose to make a series of action comedies. Similarly, Bond could have continued in the relatively low-key style of DR. NO and FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE (whether the series would have lasted as long is another matter), but didn't. If Bourne stops being "dark", "serious" and "realistic" and develops a taste for quips and an ability to do truly outrageous stunts, I'll consider it a reboot of the franchise, regardless of whether it's still technically the same character and timeline.

I'd say any major change in tone or concept in a series constitutes a reboot.

Eh...I really disagree--it has to be extreme like turning changing the timeline, changing basic personalities or changing the premise big time. Lethal Weapon going more comic was just a different version of the same--still obviously the same basic series. Now if they changed Bourne into a musical(but not just more comic) then that would be a reboot.

[spynovelfan]

With LW4 sure the comic tone was different but I still liked it and certainly it was still the same series and characters.

By that reasoning, though, CASINO ROYALE will not be a reboot.

Is a reboot just chronological? If at the end of OHMSS Tracy had not been killed, and the next film had featured Bond as a retired married agent who now worked as a detective occasionally, it would surely be classed as a reboot. And yet the character would be the same. You could still have M and Q and Moneypenny, even. But the *concept* would have been radically different, and would have constituted a new series - a reboot. They did this with the Matt Helm TV series. I think a massive change of tone can also count: the Matt Helm films were also a reboot of the novels, in that they were comic parodies of the spy genre rather than hardboiled thrillers. LTK reconceptualised Bond as a renegade agent - but it was just for one film. If he had not rejoined MI6 at the end of it, I think the series would have been rebooted.

M:I has rebooted its concept twice already. From its source as a TV series about a team it rebooted to a 'renegade agent on the run' film. And from that it rebooted to a traditional superspy flick. Imagine if in the next Bourne film Bourne remembered who he was and returned to being a CIA assassin, reporting like a good boy to his superiors. That would be a reboot - and that's what M:I2 was to the first M:I film. Just because Hunt has the same name and basic characteristics doesn't mean the concept isn't different. If James Bond had joined Octopussy's outfit it would also have been a reboot, even if he had kept his name and his penchant for vodka martinis.

I think Tom Cruise has deliberately kept his series as devoid of marking traits as possible. He's going to make a series of spy thrillers with different tones and concepts and premises. The only links between them need be:

The branding M:I
The theme tune
That it is an exciting and well-executed spy thriller

They could even get rid of Cruise and continue it. In M:I4 Hunt could be promoted to an 'M' like status and some young star could take over. In M:I6 Hunt could be killed and the series could still continue. This isn't really the case with Bond: after 20 films, it has to have quite a lot of the following or it will be seen as a reboot:

The branding Bond and 007
The theme tune
Gunbarrel
Pre-credits sequence
Titles sequence with beautiful women and a certain type of song
A British secret agent called James Bond (who introduces himself as 'Bond, James Bond'), codenamed 007, who drinks vodka martinis, drives an Aston Martin (or similarly flashy car), is well-dressed (preferably in a tuxedo at some point) and uses a Walther PPK or similar weapon
Amazing stunts
Clever gadgets
M
Moneypenny
One-liners after people are killed
A beautiful woman or three, seduced by Bond
A megalomaniacal villain intent on some world-threatening scheme

CASINO ROYALE will have most of these. It's less a reboot than M:I or M:I2 were, in my view.

[Seannery]

With LW4 sure the comic tone was different but I still liked it and certainly it was still the same series and characters.

By that reasoning, though, CASINO ROYALE will not be a reboot.

Is a reboot just chronological? If at the end of OHMSS Tracy had not been killed, and the next film had featured Bond as a retired married agent who now worked as a detective occasionally, it would surely be classed as a reboot. And yet the character would be the same. You could still have M and Q and Moneypenny, even. But the *concept* would have been radically different, and would have constituted a new series - a reboot. They did this with the Matt Helm TV series. I think a massive change of tone can also count: the Matt Helm films were also a reboot of the novels, in that they were comic parodies of the spy genre rather than hardboiled thrillers. LTK reconceptualised Bond as a renegade agent - but it was just for one film. If he had not rejoined MI6 at the end of it, I think the series would have been rebooted.

M:I has rebooted its concept twice already. From its source as a TV series about a team it rebooted to a 'renegade agent on the run' film. And from that it rebooted to a traditional superspy flick. Imagine if in the next Bourne film Bourne remembered who he was and returned to being a CIA assassin, reporting like a good boy to his superiors. That would be a reboot - and that's what M:I2 was to the first M:I film. Just because Hunt has the same name and basic characteristics are the same doesn't mean the concept isn't different. If James Bond had joined Octopussy's outfit it would also have been a reboot, even if he had kept his name and his penchant for vodka martinis.

I think Tom Cruise has deliberately kept his series as devoid of marking traits as possible. He's going to make a series of spy thrillers with different tones and concepts and premises. The only links between them need be:

The branding M:I
The theme tune
That it is an exciting and well-executed spy thriller

They could even get rid of Cruise and continue it. In M:I4 Hunt could be promoted to an 'M' like status and some young star could take over. In M:I6 Hunt could be killed and the series could still continue. This isn't really the case with Bond: after 20 films, it has to have quite a lot of the following or it will be seen as a reboot:

The branding Bond and 007
The theme tune
Gunbarrel
Pre-credits sequence
Titles sequence with beautiful women and a certain type of song
A main character who says 'Bond, James Bond', drinks a vodka martini, is well-dressed (preferably in a tuxedo at some point) and uses a Walther PPK or similar weapon
Amazing stunts
Clever gadgets
M
Moneypenny
One-liners after people are killed
A Bond girl or three, seduced by Bond
A megalomaniacal villain intent on some world-threatening scheme

CASINO ROYALE will have most of these. It's less a reboot than M:I or M:I2 were, in my view.

Hmmmmm...well I can't agree at all there. CR is stepping outside the previous 20 films and making Bond in a total different timeline--that's a reboot. LW and MI are in the same timeline and do not disregard or ignore the earlier films(tone and style changes don't make a reboot)--it's definitely LW 1,2,3,4 and MI 1,2,3. For Bond it's a clear open break...it's Bond 1 thru 20 and CR being a new Bond 1--a beginning Bond in his first official mission after earning his "00" status.

[avl]

What exactly is the definition of a reboot? In the context of a series of films?

I don't think MI:1 -3 were reboots. Sure the starting point of the Hunt character changes a little (but not much: 1: Agent 2: Agent 3: Agent retired from active duty and engaged to be married) - but still the essential elements are there - he works for IMF, theme tune, er, thats it. The tone and plot of the films vary, but the concept doesnt change. Ethan Hunt is an agent - in the first he's set up and has to go on the run, in the second hes back in the fold. Thats not a reboot - thats narrative devolopment.

As you point out, the "core elements" of a Bond film are much more extensive - a long shopping list of elements has accreted to the franchise. If CR has most of those - can it be a re-boot? Yes in the limited sense that it deliberately goes back to the origin of the character - Bond Year Zero.

[Daddy Bond]

avl:

It sure is a reboot from the TV series though. The films have almost NOTHING in common with the TV show other than the theme song and name. They are radically different - as different as Star Wars and Star Trek. Both are sci-fi, but totally different concepts.

Regards

[Loomis]

LW and MI are in the same timeline and do not disregard or ignore the earlier films(tone and style changes don't make a reboot)--it's definitely LW 1,2,3,4 and MI 1,2,3.

Well, unless I'm hugely mistaken, all three M:Is ignore each other (barring a couple of small references in M:I-3 to the events of De Palma's film, including one rather cute sight gag) but there's an interesting bit of series continuity running through the LW saga, which I've just realised is a four-film story that's basically all about a man getting over (with the help of his best friend and others) the loss of his wife. But the franchise still found time for a stylistic reboot.

[David Schofield]

LW and MI are in the same timeline and do not disregard or ignore the earlier films(tone and style changes don't make a reboot)--it's definitely LW 1,2,3,4 and MI 1,2,3.

Well, unless I'm hugely mistaken, all three M:Is ignore each other (barring a couple of small references in M:I-3 to the events of De Palma's film, including one rather cute sight gag) but there's an interesting bit of series continuity running through the LW saga, which I've just realised is a four-film story that's basically all about a man getting over (with the help of his best friend and others) the loss of his wife. But the franchise still found time for a stylistic reboot.

Hey, Loom, fancy including and interpreting the Rocky series (and include what we know about the forthcoming Rocky Balboa/6) is this context?!

[spynovelfan]

The tone and plot of the films vary, but the concept doesnt change. Ethan Hunt is an agent - in the first he's set up and has to go on the run, in the second hes back in the fold. Thats not a reboot - thats narrative devolopment.

I see what you're saying, of course, but I'm proposing something else. The *concept* of the first film is 'Agent on the run'. Just as it is with Bourne, but Bourne is also amnesiac. It's a different type of thriller. What if Bond went on the run? Ah, he did, in LTK. But what if he had done so in the first film, and had continued to? If The Prisoner escapes or The Fugitive is captured, aren't those series rebooted? If Bourne regains his memory and comes back into the fold, isn't that a reboot? Tom Cruise has created a series so devoid of distinguishing features that he can make a series of different types of spy thriller; you could see them as very loosely linked standalones or, if you like, repeated reboots. 'Ethan Hunt is an agent' is a much looser concept than 'James Bond is a British agent who drinks vodka martinis, was once married, has a licence to kill, reports to a boss called M, who has a secretary called Moneypenny, uses clever gadgets, has a dry sense of humour, usually battles larger-than-life villains with plots to take over the world, drives an Aston Martin, wears Savile Row...' And I think 'Ethan Hunt used to be an agent until he handed over to the new guy David Robinson' could also be used in M:I. M:I is so amorphous conceptually that I think you can either see it as impossible to reboot - what is there that's so important that has been changed? - or continually rebooting. Quite apart from the fact that it's only three films in, I think that makes it an unfair comparison with Bond.

Bond's timeline is changing with this film - but little else. Would an M:I film following Hunt's first mission set now really be seen as a reboot? I doubt it. Cruise changed everything from the TV series in his first film to make a Bourne-style film (he could have just as easily called it THE BOURNE IDENTITY or THE MAN FROM U.N.C.L.E. or THE PRISONER, had he had the rights to those brand names). And then he decided he wanted to make a rather straighter Bond-style film, so he scrapped the agent on the run and did it. In the next one, he could decide he wants to do a heist film and have Hunt go vigilante and steal a painting in a clever way. It would be as much of a reboot as the other moves - and noticed about as much, too.

[Seannery]

LW and MI are in the same timeline and do not disregard or ignore the earlier films(tone and style changes don't make a reboot)--it's definitely LW 1,2,3,4 and MI 1,2,3.

Well, unless I'm hugely mistaken, all three M:Is ignore each other (barring a couple of small references in M:I-3 to the events of De Palma's film, including one rather cute sight gag) but there's an interesting bit of series continuity running through the LW saga, which I've just realised is a four-film story that's basically all about a man getting over (with the help of his best friend and others) the loss of his wife. But the franchise still found time for a stylistic reboot.

Well MI3 is like a lot of the Bonds--clearly the same mostly everything but don't really refer to the earlier adventures. Some Bonds do but a bunch really don't. Like Dirty Harry and other series just a number of mainly independent adventures from the same character and universe. And yes other series connect a little more like LW. Stylistic reboot? Nah.

What exactly is the definition of a reboot? In the context of a series of films?

I don't think MI:1 -3 were reboots. Sure the starting point of the Hunt character changes a little (but not much: 1: Agent 2: Agent 3: Agent retired from active duty and engaged to be married) - but still the essential elements are there - he works for IMF, theme tune, er, thats it. The tone and plot of the films vary, but the concept doesnt change. Ethan Hunt is an agent - in the first he's set up and has to go on the run, in the second hes back in the fold. Thats not a reboot - thats narrative devolopment.

As you point out, the "core elements" of a Bond film are much more extensive - a long shopping list of elements has accreted to the franchise. If CR has most of those - can it be a re-boot? Yes in the limited sense that it deliberately goes back to the origin of the character - Bond Year Zero.

Well said, Avl.

[spynovelfan]

As you point out, the "core elements" of a Bond film are much more extensive - a long shopping list of elements has accreted to the franchise. If CR has most of those - can it be a re-boot? Yes in the limited sense that it deliberately goes back to the origin of the character - Bond Year Zero.

But that means that SILVERFIN is a reboot of Fleming - and I never heard anyone say it was. Surely 'reboot' implies that it will actually *change* the character, or its origins. Will CR do this? I haven't read the script, but as far as I'm aware it won't - it will tell us how he became all the stuff we already know. So it will actually consolidate the existing series, won't it?

The only reason it's called a reboot is because they're doing that and setting it in the present day. That's even more llimited than what you've outlined.

[avl]

The tone and plot of the films vary, but the concept doesnt change. Ethan Hunt is an agent - in the first he's set up and has to go on the run, in the second hes back in the fold. Thats not a reboot - thats narrative devolopment.

I see what you're saying, of course, but I'm proposing something else. The *concept* of the first film is 'Agent on the run'. Just as it is with Bourne, but Bourne is also amnesiac. It's a different type of thriller. What if Bond went on the run? Ah, he did, in LTK. But what if he had done so in the first film, and had continued to? If The Prisoner escapes or The Fugitive is captured, aren't those series rebooted? If Bourne regains his memory and comes back into the fold, isn't that a reboot? Tom Cruise has created a series so devoid of distinguishing features that he can make a series of different types of spy thriller; you could see them as very loosely linked standalones or, if you like, repeated reboots.

I agree with what you say - but draw an opposite conclusion. The fact that the MI film franchise has such a limited set of core elements, or as you put it "devoid of distinguishing features" means that it is mission:impossible ( ) to reboot it - there is nothing to reboot except Hunt, IMF and the theme tune, and they are intact each time.

[spynovelfan]

I agree with what you say - but draw an opposite conclusion. The fact that the MI film franchise has such a limited set of core elements, or as you put it "devoid of distinguishing features" means that it is mission:impossible ( ) to reboot it - there is nothing to reboot except Hunt, IMF and the theme tune, and they are intact each time.

Well, I said that was a possible way of looking at it, too. I agree. And I think even Hunt could be written out and the series continue to be successful (especially if Tom Cruise continues talking crap in interviews). That's why I think saying 'Look, they didn't need to reboot to make it work' doesn't work. There's nothing *to* reboot. If you look at what the first two films have in common with each other, it's a lot less than DR NO and DAD did - or DR NO and CR will, I imagine.

[avl]

As you point out, the "core elements" of a Bond film are much more extensive - a long shopping list of elements has accreted to the franchise. If CR has most of those - can it be a re-boot? Yes in the limited sense that it deliberately goes back to the origin of the character - Bond Year Zero.

But that means that SILVERFIN is a reboot of Fleming - and I never heard anyone say it was. Surely 'reboot' implies that it will actually *change* the character, or its origins. Will CR do this? I haven't read the script, but as far as I'm aware it won't - it will tell us how he became all the stuff we already know. So it will actually consolidate the existing series, won't it?

The only reason it's called a reboot is because they're doing that and setting it in the present day. That's even more llimited than what you've outlined.

Most probably, I've not read the script either But that comes back to what does this word "reboot" mean in the context of a film franchise. I can only make sense of it in the sense that it is a resetting of the clock - we go back to Day 1, Second 1. The future is in front of us, unknown. Does the Bond of CR face down Goldfinger, marry Tracy etc? We don't know. Probably not - certainly not as those events are portrayed in the exisitng films beacuse of CR's contemporary setting. The reboot is not the concept - its the timeline. Its different to Silverfin - thats a prequel, it happens before CR, its filling in the gaps in the Fleming timeline. CR the film seems to start a new timeline - hence reboot.

[Loomis]

LW and MI are in the same timeline and do not disregard or ignore the earlier films(tone and style changes don't make a reboot)--it's definitely LW 1,2,3,4 and MI 1,2,3.

Well, unless I'm hugely mistaken, all three M:Is ignore each other (barring a couple of small references in M:I-3 to the events of De Palma's film, including one rather cute sight gag) but there's an interesting bit of series continuity running through the LW saga, which I've just realised is a four-film story that's basically all about a man getting over (with the help of his best friend and others) the loss of his wife. But the franchise still found time for a stylistic reboot.

Hey, Loom, fancy including and interpreting the Rocky series (and include what we know about the forthcoming Rocky Balboa/6) is this context?!

Bit of a minefield.

The biggest continuity "problem" in the Rocky series is the timeline. Rocky is 30 in 1975 (1976's ROCKY), yet apparently still only 34 in 1982 (ROCKY III), although there appears to be fan speculation that the Rocky films are not necessarily set in their release years (some suggest that 1985's ROCKY IV actually takes place in 1981, with 1990's ROCKY V occurring in 1982 [!]*, which doesn't exactly explain how Rocky, Jr. can be eight or so in IV yet 15 or thereabouts in V, which picks up immediately where IV leaves off). Sly will turn 60 this year, but I gather that the Rocky of ROCKY BALBOA (which I believe is set to be released between December this year and next February) will be said to be in his early 50s.

*Check this out: http://www.themoviet...com/page14#1981

The little I know about ROCKY BALBOA leads me to believe that Stallone is attempting to recapture the relatively "gritty" atmosphere of the first two films, although whether he'll be "ignoring" the others I don't know - I don't know whether it'll be like SUPERMAN RETURNS (which I gather Bryan Singer views as a sequel to SUPERMAN II, with III and IV: THE QUEST FOR PEACE "never happening") or HALLOWEEN H20 (the director of which saw it as a sequel only to Carpenter's HALLOWEEN, with Jamie Lee Curtis interpreting it as a followup to HALLOWEEN II ('coz she was, like, in HALLOWEEN II ), and producer Moustapha Akkad viewing it, presumably, as HALLOWEEN 7).

I suspect, though, that ROCKY BALBOA will explicitly refer only to the events of ROCKY and ROCKY II (if the deaths of Mickey and Apollo are mentioned, it will not necessarily constitute the acknowledgement of III and IV, since *ahem* in the universe of ROCKY BALBOA it is possible that those deaths happened differently). I doubt that characters such as Clubber Lang, Ivan Drago and Tommy Gunn will be namechecked (there were rumours of cameos by Mr. T and Dolph Lundgren, but it does not look as though they came to pass).

To date, the Rocky sequels have all referred to, at least, their immediate predecessor, if only by beginning with footage of the final fight from the last film (apart from which, ROCKY IV contains a montage of clips from the first three).

So, apart from The Great Timeline Mystery (which, sadly, cannot be dealt with by a codename theory), the Rocky saga hangs together pretty well, but is nonetheless a series that provides almost as much fanwanking material as Bond!

[avl]

avl:

It sure is a reboot from the TV series though. The films have almost NOTHING in common with the TV show other than the theme song and name. They are radically different - as different as Star Wars and Star Trek. Both are sci-fi, but totally different concepts.

Regards

Yep, so I understand (not having seen the original series I'm afraid ) And so totally blatant - killing off the team in the first reel and making the original hero the bad guy! I mean, no wonder the MI fans were upset, but its so radical, and such an on-screen, dismantling of the TV series in favour of Hunt as Hero that you have to admire its chutzpah

[JKD68]

Here's the definition of reboot I found:

Reboot- To turn (a computer or operating system) off and then on again; restart.


Are we using the right term here?

[Tarl_Cabot]

LW and MI are in the same timeline and do not disregard or ignore the earlier films(tone and style changes don't make a reboot)--it's definitely LW 1,2,3,4 and MI 1,2,3.

Well, unless I'm hugely mistaken, all three M:Is ignore each other (barring a couple of small references in M:I-3 to the events of De Palma's film, including one rather cute sight gag) but there's an interesting bit of series continuity running through the LW saga, which I've just realised is a four-film story that's basically all about a man getting over (with the help of his best friend and others) the loss of his wife. But the franchise still found time for a stylistic reboot.

Hey, Loom, fancy including and interpreting the Rocky series (and include what we know about the forthcoming Rocky Balboa/6) is this context?!

Bit of a minefield.

The biggest continuity "problem" in the Rocky series is the timeline. Rocky is 30 in 1975 (1976's ROCKY), yet apparently still only 34 in 1982 (ROCKY III), although there appears to be fan speculation that the Rocky films are not necessarily set in their release years (some suggest that 1985's ROCKY IV actually takes place in 1981, with 1990's ROCKY V occurring in 1982 [!]*, which doesn't exactly explain how Rocky, Jr. can be eight or so in IV yet 15 or thereabouts in V, which picks up immediately where IV leaves off). Sly will turn 60 this year, but I gather that the Rocky of ROCKY BALBOA (which I believe is set to be released between December this year and next February) will be said to be in his early 50s.

*Check this out: http://www.themoviet...com/page14#1981

The little I know about ROCKY BALBOA leads me to believe that Stallone is attempting to recapture the relatively "gritty" atmosphere of the first two films, although whether he'll be "ignoring" the others I don't know - I don't know whether it'll be like SUPERMAN RETURNS (which I gather Bryan Singer views as a sequel to SUPERMAN II, with III and IV: THE QUEST FOR PEACE "never happening") or HALLOWEEN H20 (the director of which saw it as a sequel only to Carpenter's HALLOWEEN, with Jamie Lee Curtis interpreting it as a followup to HALLOWEEN II ('coz she was, like, in HALLOWEEN II ), and producer Moustapha Akkad viewing it, presumably, as HALLOWEEN 7).

I suspect, though, that ROCKY BALBOA will explicitly refer only to the events of ROCKY and ROCKY II (if the deaths of Mickey and Apollo are mentioned, it will not necessarily constitute the acknowledgement of III and IV, since *ahem* in the universe of ROCKY BALBOA it is possible that those deaths happened differently). I doubt that characters such as Clubber Lang, Ivan Drago and Tommy Gunn will be namechecked (there were rumours of cameos by Mr. T and Dolph Lundgren, but it does not look as though they came to pass).

To date, the Rocky sequels have all referred to, at least, their immediate predecessor, if only by beginning with footage of the final fight from the last film (apart from which, ROCKY IV contains a montage of footage from the first three).

So, apart from The Great Timeline Mystery (which, sadly, cannot be dealt with by a codename theory), the Rocky saga hangs together pretty well, but is nonetheless a series that provides almost as much fanwanking material as Bond!

That kid aged about 5 years in three months-and so did Rocky.So, if Rocky is about 34 in IV if we assume that Rocky 4 takes place about a a few hrs after after III than he should be about 50 in R6...ugh. Sorry but he doesn't look 50(but fantastic for 60).

[avl]

Here's the definition of reboot I found:

Reboot- To turn (a computer or operating system) off and then on again; restart.


Are we using the right term here?

In the sense of restarting a timeline - yes. Its still the same computer (same Bond) - but its restarted - its back to Year One.

[Seannery]

Here's the definition of reboot I found:

Reboot- To turn (a computer or operating system) off and then on again; restart.


Are we using the right term here?

Yep--CR is a restart. The MI series has no restart--it only restarts from the TV show but once the movie series starts there has been no restart.