380 replies to this topic

[spynovelfan]

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.

Exactly. Well put. The spy thriller genre has lots of sub-genres, and lots of different kinds of film. The TV series of M:I was one kind of thing. The first film of it was something completely different. While it's perhaps not as massive as the first film's wiping out of every character from the TV series but one (who turns out to be the villain), the opening of the second film, in which Hunt is hanging from a cliff somewhere and is given his latest mission through a pair of sunglasses, is almost as radical a - whatever word we want to call doing this if not reboot. It went from a team using their intelligence and clever technology thing to a Cold War agent on the run from his own side thing to a slick superspy Bond style thing. What would we have made of THE BOURNE SUPREMACY if the opening of it had made it clear that the events of the first film didn't matter/had been forgotten and Matt Damon was on his beach in Goa and the guy chasing him was actually a Treadstone guy come out to give him his next cool assignment? If not a reboot, perhaps a 'restart' would be the word.

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.

You must have watched a different film to me, then. For me, M:I was a dark, complex spy thriller that harked back to Cold War classics like SIX DAYS OF THE CONDOR. It was set in Eastern Europe, and featured a brilliant secret agent on the run from his own side, framed as a traitor. Like many Cold War classics, the head of the service turns out to be the traitor. It relied on its script, and twists in the plot, more than explosions or gadgets. It had lots of tradecraft, and a main character who was determined to prove his innocence and get to the bottom of some deep corruption within his organisation.

The second film could easily have been called something completely different, as could Hunt have been. None of the events of the first film are referenced, and he is now back working for the guys who tried to kill him without so much as a blink. Apart from the longer hair and slick clothes, he now has a fast car and a taste for beautiful women. He visits exotic locations. There are massive explosions and gunfights, with cues from Hong Kong films (unsurprisingly, as its director was a key proponent of that genre). The villain has a poison that will destroy the world. It's basically a standard Bond film with a bigger budget and John Woo directing. The tone, content and premise of the film are completely different to the first one. All that remains is an American agent called Ethan Hunt (who seems to have a different character and has forgotten what he went through in the first film), Ving Rhames, the title and the theme tune. That's it. CASINO ROYALE will have a hell of a lot more in common with DAD than that.

[Seannery]

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.

Exactly. Well put. The spy thriller genre has lots of sub-genres, and lots of different kinds of film. The TV series of M:I was one kind of thing. The first film of it was something completely different. While it's perhaps not as massive as the first film's wiping out of every character from the TV series but one (who turns out to be the villain), the opening of the second film, in which Hunt is hanging from a cliff somewhere and is given his latest mission through a pair of sunglasses, is almost as radical a - whatever word we want to call doing this if not reboot. It went from a team using their intelligence and clever technology thing to a Cold War agent on the run from his own side thing to a slick superspy Bond style thing. What would we have made of THE BOURNE SUPREMACY if the opening of it had made it clear that the events of the first film didn't matter/had been forgotten and Matt Damon was on his beach in Goa and the guy chasing him was actually a Treadstone guy come out to give him his next cool assignment? If not a reboot, perhaps a 'restart' would be the word.

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.

You must have watched a different film to me, then. For me, M:I was a dark, complex spy thriller that harked back to Cold War classics like SIX DAYS OF THE CONDOR. It was set in Eastern Europe, and featured a brilliant secret agent on the run from his own side, framed as a traitor. Like many Cold War classics, the head of the service turns out to be the traitor. It relied on its script, and twists in the plot, more than explosions or gadgets. It had lots of tradecraft, and a main character who was determined to prove his innocence and get to the bottom of some deep corruption within his organisation.

The second film could easily have been called something completely different, as could Hunt have been. None of the events of the first film are referenced, and he is now back working for the guys who tried to kill him without so much as a blink. Apart from the longer hair and slick clothes, he now has a fast car and a taste for beautiful women. He visits exotic locations. There are massive explosions and gunfights, with cues from Hong Kong films (unsurprisingly, as its director was a key proponent of that genre). The villain has a poison that will destroy the world. It's basically a standard Bond film with a bigger budget and John Woo directing. The tone, content and premise of the film are completely different to the first one. All that remains is an American agent called Ethan Hunt (who seems to have a different character and has forgotten what he went through in the first film), Ving Rhames, the title and the theme tune. That's it. CASINO ROYALE will have a hell of a lot more in common with DAD than that.

Stylistic changes don't create a restart--the MI's are just sequels that give new wrinkles. CR is going back to the beginning and starting over--the very definion of a restart. Hunt is the same(his character doesn't change much at all) as was Dirty Harry was the same--they don't need to directly refer to earlier adventures. No one has referred to the MI films as reboots because they are not while a lot have mentioned that about CR because it is.

[Loomis]

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

Oops, have belatedly realised that you were probably referring to

Spoiler

Adrian's absence from ROCKY BALBOA

.

Well, apparently Stallone has said in the past that the Rocky series is basically Adrian's story, not Rocky's, although I'm not sure I'd agree with that (might as well call it Paulie's story - a franchise about a loser who watches his best friend rise and fall but always accomplish the goals he's set for himself).

Myself, I think the Rocky series is really about America's position in world affairs.

[JimmyBond]

Well

Spoiler

Talia Shire is in Rocky Balboa, just not in an "alive" state

[Dr. Noah]

Stylistic changes don't create a restart--the MI's are just sequels that give new wrinkles. CR is going back to the beginning and starting over--the very definion of a restart. Hunt is the same(his character doesn't change much at all) as was Dirty Harry was the same--they don't need to directly refer to earlier adventures. No one has referred to the MI films as reboots because they are not while a lot have mentioned that about CR because it is.

Killing off all the characters and turning the hero into a villain against a newly created character for the new movie is a "stylistic" change???

You're arguing TV/movie semantics which have nothing to do with reality. Every MI film has been a reboot. The next one will DEFINITELY be a reboot.

Every new Bond actor has brought about a re-boot. I was reading the "Legacy" book and the Bond producers ALWAYS re-thought the series with each new Bond. This is just the first time there's been an Internet around for fanboys to discuss it.

[TerminalLon3some]

MI3 was great. Abrams is the best director out there right now.

EDIT - Even though that was his first feature film. But with LOST (the greatest show EVER) and ALIAS, this guy is on a roll.


Take 'er easy
-matt

Edited by TerminalLon3some, 09 May 2006 - 08:22 PM.

[Robert Watts]

Lost- mindless drivel that makes things up as it goes.

ALIAS- semi fresh for the first two seasons, was getting repetitive by the third and had jumped the shark by the fourth.

MI:3- mindless bland action slobber out of the ever saliva filled mouth of JJ Abrams.

[spynovelfan]

Stylistic changes don't create a restart--the MI's are just sequels that give new wrinkles. CR is going back to the beginning and starting over--the very definion of a restart. Hunt is the same(his character doesn't change much at all) as was Dirty Harry was the same--they don't need to directly refer to earlier adventures. No one has referred to the MI films as reboots because they are not while a lot have mentioned that about CR because it is.

People are referring to CR as a reboot because there have been other reboots recently and it's a trendy word. It's a new series, alright, but it's not really what I would call a reboot or a restart or whatever, because it's not actually going to significantly change the character, concept, or even it seems style (any more than has been done before). For me, a reboot would have been if they had set the new series in the 1950s, or made Bond a cat burglar, or made him a female agent. This is an origin story, set in the present day - will Bond 22 be significantly different from Bonds 1 through 20? If not, how would the series have been rebooted, any more than with LTK, in which Bond quit MI6? If it all goes back to normal after one film is it a reboot - or a one-film abberation?

Ethan Hunt's character hasn't changed because he doesn't have a character. But if the first film had ended with Cruise realising that there were other baddies within IMF, and the next two films had continued that theme - a la the Bourne series - of him being a renegade agent on the run from his own side. And *then* you had a film like M:I2, everyone would have called it a reboot. Imagine them doing it with Bourne. It's only because they're rebooting practically every film that nobody's calling it that.

You started the thread with the interesting idea that M:I3 crafted an exciting spy thriller without the need to reboot - a lesson for CR, perhaps. But the concept of the M:I film series is so thin that it's hard to see how MI:3 *could* have been a reboot in your eyes. Hunt retires from IMF? He's still the same character. A much darker, serious, psychological vibe to it, with a script by David Mamet and no explosions or gadgets? Merely stylistic changes. A flashback to Hunt's first mission, but all the technology seems up to date - well, we suspend disbelief with time, the same way we do with other series. None of these would count as reboots simply because there's not enough of a history to reboot it, and because it's already veered wildly between styles and basic concepts. As I've already said, I think it's a blank template that Cruise will use to make almost any type of thriller he fancies at that time.

Seannery, you've pointed out to Loomis on dozens of occasions that Bourne is not Bond, and there are limited lessons to be learned there. I agree. I think there are lessons to be learned from Bourne and M:I, but there are obvious limits. The only difference between your point and Loomis' is that you personally preferred M:I3 to the Bourne films. But the makers of both these series have learned a hell of a lot from Bond - and Eon has taken some cues from them and others over the years. They *are* taking some cues from Bourne with CASINO ROYALE, I think. And that's a good thing in my book. It's still Bond, though, and they still have their own sense and sensibility. I don't think they can learn so much from these films that they can or should replicate them down to the last detail. If they keep too much of their own formula, everyone gets bored and says they can't be bothered with Bond anymore - it's behind the times. Tweak the formula too much, though, and people start screaming that it's not a Bond film. Tom Cruise is a long way from having the same kind of problem.

[David Schofield]

I wonder when Rog, with his fresh face, fairer complexion, slimmer and softer build, taste in brown and beige tailoring, his corny, patronising lines in a perfect English accent took over from rugged, rough, chip on his shoulder Sean, with his unique accent but immaculate clothes, and his two-fisted attitude, anyone noticed the reboot then?

But it wasn't because he had the same M. No Q, mind.

Oh, and Quarrel suddenly had a son, who looked almost as old as Quarrell himself had. And Bond had moved house (not a killer clue, I know). And Felix had changed, again.

And there were no references in LALD to any of the films from DN to DAF, except the aged son of Quarrel...

[spynovelfan]

I wonder when Rog, with his fresh face, fairer complexion, slimmer and softer build, taste in brown and beige tailoring, his corny, patronising lines in a perfect English accent took over from rugged, rough, chip on his shoulder Sean, with his unique accent but immaculate clothes, and his two-fisted attitude, anyone noticed the reboot then?

But it wasn't because he had the same M. No Q, mind.

Oh, and Quarrel suddenly had a son, who looked almost as old as Quarrell himself had. And Bond had moved house (not a killer clue, I know). And Felix had changed, again.

And there were no references in LALD to any of the films from DN to DAF, except the aged son of Quarrel...

I think the difference is that then Eon didn't *want* people to think it was a whole new series, and now they do. But LALD was a much bigger 'reboot', 'restart' or whatever term you want to use, by Seannery's own definition. James Bond's character *did* change when Roger Moore took over. From being a suave, tough, ruthless and menacing Scot who had no qualms about killing in cold blood, he became a dapper, witty, happy-go-lucky English gentleman who was generally about as threatening as a soft toy. Eyebrow-raising and employment within the law aside, James Bond effectively became the Saint.

[Santa]

I think the difference is that then Eon didn't *want* people to think it was a whole new series, and now they do.

I don't want to speak for people I don't even know, but I honestly don't believe that when they mentioned reboot, they meant for people to believe that meant throw out the previous 20 films and start a whole new series. I took the 'reboot' to mean a far milder tidy up than certain others are suggesting.

[Robert Watts]

That is the way I took it.

[David Schofield]

[
I think the difference is that then Eon didn't *want* people to think it was a whole new series, and now they do.

I'm sure you can use evidence from EON's publicity at the time that LALD was just a contintuation of an established series... but, IMO, you can also look at the crucial differences both SPY and I have listed to consider EON very deliberately, and quite heavy-handedly, went for a major shift in interpretation of the character: it is very difficult to say Rog's Bond and Sean's were one and the same man. Also, at the time, OHMSS had been totally erased and Harry I think made reference to the fact that Rog was closer to the Bond of the books (and erroneusly Fleming's choice) - it is quite possible to view LALD as a similar decision to CR: we are trying a new tack, we have a man closer in spirit, in our opinion, to the Fleming original, and so we are starting out anew.

Conversley, do EON now, with CR, want us to think its a new series anyway, no just Bond's first mission, albeit set in the present day. I feel no more offended at that suggestion than being asked to believe, say, the old, corny of AVTAK is the ruthless but questioning and sympathetic, virile man of TLD.

[Skudor]

I think the difference is that then Eon didn't *want* people to think it was a whole new series, and now they do.

I don't want to speak for people I don't even know, but I honestly don't believe that when they mentioned reboot, they meant for people to believe that meant throw out the previous 20 films and start a whole new series. I took the 'reboot' to mean a far milder tidy up than certain others are suggesting.

I'll second that. I don't think of it as a new series. It's the first novel, filmed as a sort of first mission, set in modern day. They've changed the style a bit from the last few films, how much remains to be seen, but I expect that a couple of films down the line there will be no reason to think of them any other way than any of the other movies. If that makes any sense.

[Santa]

I think the difference is that then Eon didn't *want* people to think it was a whole new series, and now they do.

I don't want to speak for people I don't even know, but I honestly don't believe that when they mentioned reboot, they meant for people to believe that meant throw out the previous 20 films and start a whole new series. I took the 'reboot' to mean a far milder tidy up than certain others are suggesting.

I'll second that. I don't think of it as a new series. It's the first novel, filmed as a sort of first mission, set in modern day. They've changed the style a bit from the last few films, how much remains to be seen, but I expect that a couple of films down the line there will be no reason to think of them any other way than any of the other movies. If that makes any sense.

Perfect sense.

[marktmurphy]

Ethan Hunt's character hasn't changed because he doesn't have a character. But if the first film had ended with Cruise realising that there were other baddies within IMF, and the next two films had continued that theme - a la the Bourne series - of him being a renegade agent on the run from his own side.

[MILD SPOILERINESS]
Although; to play devil's advocate, they sort have unwittingly done that (although not through stylistic choice but lack of imagination) as the main bad guys of both sequels are also, just like in the first, IMF agents gone bad.

Incidentally, talking of changes to the characters etc.; there is a fairly large one in M:I3 (or at least left very vague) as whereas in the first film IMF appears to be a subset of the CIA (Kitteridge, Ethan's IMF boss is seen operating out of Langley), in the third film it is an entirely separate organisation based in Washington.

[spynovelfan]

[MILD SPOILERINESS]
Although; to play devil's advocate, they sort have unwittingly done that (although not through stylistic choice but lack of imagination) as the main bad guys of both sequels are also, just like in the first, IMF agents gone bad.

True (incidentally, just the other day I realised that the film ANGEL HEART is based on the phrase 'devil's advocate' ). But the second film seems to me to have implicitly done what CR is doing - it's Hunt's first mission set in the present day. The first film takes the formula of almost every Cruise film: a successful but vain and conceited young man realises that the world does not revolve around him and has to dig deep to find a gentler, more aware self. This is the basic premise or concept of RAIN MAN, JERRY MAGUIRE and lots of other films he's been in. It's also the concept of M:I, only the successful cocky man is a secret agent. The concept is 'James Bond-style superspy is accused by his organisation of being a traitor and goes on the run'. He can't just coast - he has to throw out all the cheesy grins and the 'We're IMF so we're the best' crap to get to the real truth - and can he handle it? So that's his 'journey' in the film. In M:I2, we are introduced to the cocky agent he was at the start of M:I - and he stays that way. It's a prequel set in the present day. Not really, of course, but the concept has changed. It's now just 'James Bond-style superspy saves the world'. The concept of twisting on Bond has gone. The Bourne films' concept is 'James Bond-style government assassin loses his memory, is accused by his organisation of being a traitor and goes on the run.' If they had a film where he regained his memory and became simply a James Bond-style assassin saving the world... it would be a 'conceptual reboot'.

CASINO ROYALE is not a conceptual reboot - its purpose is, in fact, to solidify the existing concept, by showing why he is like he is in the other 20 films. Chronologically, it makes no sense, but that's as far as it goes. Chronologically none of the films make sense, but this one doesn't make sense in a different way.

[avl]

I wonder when Rog, with his fresh face, fairer complexion, slimmer and softer build, taste in brown and beige tailoring, his corny, patronising lines in a perfect English accent took over from rugged, rough, chip on his shoulder Sean, with his unique accent but immaculate clothes, and his two-fisted attitude, anyone noticed the reboot then?

But it wasn't because he had the same M. No Q, mind.

Oh, and Quarrel suddenly had a son, who looked almost as old as Quarrell himself had. And Bond had moved house (not a killer clue, I know). And Felix had changed, again.

And there were no references in LALD to any of the films from DN to DAF, except the aged son of Quarrel...

I think the difference is that then Eon didn't *want* people to think it was a whole new series, and now they do. But LALD was a much bigger 'reboot', 'restart' or whatever term you want to use, by Seannery's own definition. James Bond's character *did* change when Roger Moore took over. From being a suave, tough, ruthless and menacing Scot who had no qualms about killing in cold blood, he became a dapper, witty, happy-go-lucky English gentleman who was generally about as threatening as a soft toy. Eyebrow-raising and employment within the law aside, James Bond effectively became the Saint.

Sure , but that was more just a reflection of the change in style of the lead actor. Moore did not impersonate Connery, he did his own thing - as did Laz and Dalton and Brosnan. The style of the film itself wasn't a million miles away from DAF, which was definitely a stylistic "reboot" from YOLT and the earlier Connerys. Which just goes to confirm that the series has constantly "reconceptualised" itself, adjusting its style to reflect current sensibilities of the production team, the actor, and the audience. Not much different to CR - the only real difference in fact, and I think it is quite a big difference and goes someway to justify this reboot label, is that it is a deliberate and highlighted restarting of the Bond clock. But I agree that in a few films time we probably won't be saying - CR was the start of a whole new series of Bond - its just another example in a long history of flexibility within the formula.

[David Schofield]

Sure , but that was more just a reflection of the change in style of the lead actor. Moore did not impersonate Connery, he did his own thing - as did Laz and Dalton and Brosnan. The style of the film itself wasn't a million miles away from DAF, which was definitely a stylistic "reboot" from YOLT and the earlier Connerys. Which just goes to confirm that the series has constantly "reconceptualised" itself, adjusting its style to reflect current sensibilities of the production team, the actor, and the audience. Not much different to CR - the only real difference in fact, and I think it is quite a big difference and goes someway to justify this reboot label, is that it is a deliberate and highlighted restarting of the Bond clock. But I agree that in a few films time we probably won't be saying - CR was the start of a whole new series of Bond - its just another example in a long history of flexibility within the formula.

I think there was a more definate, deliberate switch in syle and tone between Sean and Rog (and Rog and Tim) than any other Bond transition. It was done quite deliberately to distance LALD from DAF, regardless of the softer tone of DAF from OHMSS, and the earlier films. Also, I think Laz did impersonate Connery, was actively encouraged to do so, and thta EON tried very, very hard to attach OHMSS to what went before. This was not the case with LALD.

[avl]

I think there was a more definate, deliberate switch in syle and tone between Sean and Rog (and Rog and Tim) than any other Bond transition. It was done quite deliberately to distance LALD from DAF, regardless of the softer tone of DAF from OHMSS, and the earlier films. Also, I think Laz did impersonate Connery, was actively encouraged to do so, and thta EON tried very, very hard to attach OHMSS to what went before. This was not the case with LALD.

But LALD followed the DAF "70s" template - more relaxed, jokey style - with a new Bond that did that kind of thing very well. I could see the Bond of DAF making coffee in his kitchen

I agree that Rog - Dalton felt like a big transition - again thats mainly down to the huge difference in the way the lead actors look and their style. They certainly tried to play up Dalton's more intense style in TLD even tohugh as I understand it was written for Rog.

Was Laz encouraged to impersonate Connery? He didnt do too good a job - but thats a thankless task and they were wise to realise it for the next handover. Agree that OHMSS was positioned to be a continuation (title sequence, Bond's souveneers etc) but there again - "this never happened to the other fella" kind of signposts the change, their attitude seems to be a little schizophrenic on whether to play that issue up or down.

[avl]

It's also the concept of M:I, only the successful cocky man is a secret agent. The concept is 'James Bond-style superspy is accused by his organisation of being a traitor and goes on the run'. He can't just coast - he has to throw out all the cheesy grins and the 'We're IMF so we're the best' crap to get to the real truth - and can he handle it? So that's his 'journey' in the film. In M:I2, we are introduced to the cocky agent he was at the start of M:I - and he stays that way. It's a prequel set in the present day. Not really, of course, but the concept has changed. It's now just 'James Bond-style superspy saves the world'. The concept of twisting on Bond has gone. The Bourne films' concept is 'James Bond-style government assassin loses his memory, is accused by his organisation of being a traitor and goes on the run.' If they had a film where he regained his memory and became simply a James Bond-style assassin saving the world... it would be a 'conceptual reboot'.

Obviously MI2 cant be a prequel to MI1 because of Luther (I think). But in terms of conceptual reboots...I think MI1 was a deliberate reboot from the TV series, junking the team in favour of lone agent Hunt/Cruise, with the team as back up...thats why they had to make him a rogue agent, they had to set him up and make his distrust his organisation to get him out of the team dynamic...by the end he is back in the fold and thats where MI2 picks up...rather than Bond I think Hunt (who is basically a cypher in MI1) is here reconceptualised as an adrenaline-junky who gets a kick out of free climbing...hes like a jock XXX, who has to get serious when he puts the woman he has recruited and bedded (and seems to have feelings for) into dire jeopardy...in MI3 he's kind of a reformed adrenaline junky, he's on the wagon if you like (though of course he did meet his future wife heli-skiing)...but the experience of being responsible for nearly killing Maya seems to have engendered a sense of protective loyalty...hence he goes back in to active duty to rescue his trainee agent...so you could argue there is a sort of internal consistency and character development going on underneath the wild tonal and stylistic shifts of the films

[spynovelfan]

Obviously MI2 cant be a prequel to MI1 because of Luther (I think). But in terms of conceptual reboots...I think MI1 was a deliberate reboot from the TV series, junking the team in favour of lone agent Hunt/Cruise, with the team as back up...thats why they had to make him a rogue agent, they had to set him up and make his distrust his organisation to get him out of the team dynamic...by the end he is back in the fold and thats where MI2 picks up...rather than Bond I think Hunt (who is basically a cypher in MI1) is here reconceptualised as an adrenaline-junky who gets a kick out of free climbing...hes like a jock XXX, who has to get serious when he puts the woman he has recruited and bedded (and seems to have feelings for) into dire jeopardy...in MI3 he's kind of a reformed adrenaline junky, he's on the wagon if you like (though of course he did meet his future wife heli-skiing)...but the experience of being responsible for nearly killing Maya seems to have engendered a sense of protective loyalty...hence he goes back in to active duty to rescue his trainee agent...so you could argue there is a sort of internal consistency and character development going on underneath the wild tonal and stylistic shifts of the films

Interesting. Sounds like M:I3 (or however they're writing it) is another reboot.

M:I brings him out of the team dynamic, but they didn't need to do it that way, and they didn't bring it back. There's no team in M:I2: he has a new boss, he has Luther (who was never part of the original team) and he picks up Thandie Newton's character. It's Bond, Bond girl, M, Q. He has no equals, and the focus is all on him. That's not what the TV show was. M:I was 'what if MI6 turned on Bond?' M:I2 was like every Bond movie. M:I3 sounds like it's 'What if Bond retired and had to come back to save Tracy' or something. These are wild conceptual shifts in a spy *series*. Look at Bond, or Bourne, or Austin Powers, or TV series like The Prisoner, The Avengers, The Man From U.N.C.L.E, Alias, Spooks, 24. Conceptually, each remains consistent throughout. Bond films have never changed to being about a group of agents . Bourne doesn't come into the fold.

[avl]

Obviously MI2 cant be a prequel to MI1 because of Luther (I think). But in terms of conceptual reboots...I think MI1 was a deliberate reboot from the TV series, junking the team in favour of lone agent Hunt/Cruise, with the team as back up...thats why they had to make him a rogue agent, they had to set him up and make his distrust his organisation to get him out of the team dynamic...by the end he is back in the fold and thats where MI2 picks up...rather than Bond I think Hunt (who is basically a cypher in MI1) is here reconceptualised as an adrenaline-junky who gets a kick out of free climbing...hes like a jock XXX, who has to get serious when he puts the woman he has recruited and bedded (and seems to have feelings for) into dire jeopardy...in MI3 he's kind of a reformed adrenaline junky, he's on the wagon if you like (though of course he did meet his future wife heli-skiing)...but the experience of being responsible for nearly killing Maya seems to have engendered a sense of protective loyalty...hence he goes back in to active duty to rescue his trainee agent...so you could argue there is a sort of internal consistency and character development going on underneath the wild tonal and stylistic shifts of the films

Interesting. Sounds like M:I3 (or however they're writing it) is another reboot.

M:I brings him out of the team dynamic, but they didn't need to do it that way, and they didn't bring it back. There's no team in M:I2: he has a new boss, he has Luther (who was never part of the original team) and he picks up Thandie Newton's character. It's Bond, Bond girl, M, Q. He has no equals, and the focus is all on him. That's not what the TV show was. M:I was 'what if MI6 turned on Bond?' M:I2 was like every Bond movie. M:I3 sounds like it's 'What if Bond retired and had to come back to save Tracy' or something. These are wild conceptual shifts in a spy *series*. Look at Bond, or Bourne, or Austin Powers, or TV series like The Prisoner, The Avengers, The Man From U.N.C.L.E, Alias, Spooks, 24. Conceptually, each remains consistent throughout. Bond films have never changed to being about a group of agents . Bourne doesn't come into the fold.

He does have a team in MI2 - Luther, Maya and that aussie helecopter guy. Its just a very small team , and definitely back-up support function for Hunt. I actually like the way each one varies so wildly. Its a consequence I think of how Cruise apparently gets his directors on board - he basically asks them to pitch "their" version of a MI story. Ironically for someone who is claerly controlling, Cruise does seem to allow his director collaborators some auteurist control over each film, far more than any Bond. MI1 is a de Palma Hitchcock pastiche, MI2 is a Woo-out, 3 is a big screen version of Alias.

[Loomis]

Seannery, you've pointed out to Loomis on dozens of occasions that Bourne is not Bond, and there are limited lessons to be learned there. I agree. I think there are lessons to be learned from Bourne and M:I, but there are obvious limits. The only difference between your point and Loomis' is that you personally preferred M:I3 to the Bourne films. But the makers of both these series have learned a hell of a lot from Bond - and Eon has taken some cues from them and others over the years. They *are* taking some cues from Bourne with CASINO ROYALE, I think. And that's a good thing in my book.

I think Bourne has had a big influence on M:I-3, to judge by the latter's use of shakycam (used to a degree that makes its employment in THE BOURNE SUPREMACY look occasional and minor*) and the newfound brutality of the fight scenes. If Bourne (along with "24", which seems another visual influence on the third Ethan Hunt flick) did not exist, I seriously doubt that M:I-3 would be exactly the film that it is.

*Little trivia note: watching SUPREMACY once, I thought I'd identified just one shot in the entire film with absolutely no camera movement at all (in every single other shot, it's moving, if only just a little bit), but I've forgotten what it is - may well have been a shot of Bourne looking at a photo of Marie.

[spynovelfan]

I think Bourne has had a big influence on M:I-3, to judge by the latter's use of shakycam (used to a degree that makes its employment in THE BOURNE SUPREMACY look occasional and minor*) and the newfound brutality of the fight scenes. If Bourne (along with "24", which seems another visual influence on the third Ethan Hunt flick) did not exist, I seriously doubt that M:I-3 would be exactly the film that it is.

I'll take your word for it. But I think M:I was also a big influence on THE BOURNE IDENTITY. The original Ludlum novel might also have been an influence on M:I. And YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE was clearly a major influence on Ludlum. So... They all feed off each other. CASINO ROYALE will be influenced by films influenced by the Bond series.

[Loomis]

They all feed off each other.

Yes. I don't dispute that (plenty of Bond fans seem to bristle at suggestions that such-and-such has had an influence on 007). And I think it's good that they do, especially if they raise the quality bar at each other (although I don't think M:I-3 is nearly as good as it could have been*, thanks chiefly to its total and utter lack of a story; by comparison, DAD is a cleverly-plotted, gripping thriller with amazing twists and turns).

Without absorbing influences, Bond would have died out long ago.

*Still recommended as a reasonably enjoyable night at the flicks, though, with some very stylish moments glittering among the dross.

[avl]

They all feed off each other.

Yes. I don't dispute that (plenty of Bond fans seem to bristle at suggestions that such-and-such has had an influence on 007). And I think it's good that they do, especially if they raise the quality bar at each other (although I don't think M:I-3 is nearly as good as it could have been*, thanks chiefly to its total and utter lack of a story; by comparison, DAD is a cleverly-plotted, gripping thriller with amazing twists and turns).

Without absorbing influences, Bond would have died out long ago.

*Still recommended as a reasonably enjoyable night at the flicks, though, with some very stylish moments glittering among the dross.

Whereas I think MI3 beats DAD hands down - in terms of tension, character investment, style - across the board really. Just because the plot doesnt twist itself into a knot (and DAD's sub-Face Off body morphing is a number of twists too far) doesn't make it dross. Quite the contrary.

[spynovelfan]

Without absorbing influences, Bond would have died out long ago.

Indeed. A lot of people seem too quick to equate being inspired by something with ripping it off. Shakespeare took the basic plot of OTHELLO from Cinthio's Hecatommithi. Almost all of his plots were from other sources, in fact. But he changed the characters and situations and ideas until he had transformed them into something else - something cleverer, more entertaining, more profound. Ian Fleming took themes and ideas and a lot more from other thriller-writers. He did it better than they had, though.

All of the Bond films - and especially the ones after Fleming's death - are attempts to use the source material of the books or stories or simply character and create something else from them: entertaining films. They have often been inspired by other works of fiction: the jungle hunt in OCTOPUSSY, for instance, is inspired by Richard Connell's 1924 short story The Most Dangerous Game, which you can read here:

http://plato.acadiau...texts/tmdg.html

This is not just normal - it's good practice. The Bourne films aren't weakened by using Bond as an inspiration - and vice versa. If we're going to go down the route that 'Bond shouldn't be influenced by anyone else', I suggest reading some Sax Rohmer.

[Seannery]

Stylistic changes don't create a restart--the MI's are just sequels that give new wrinkles. CR is going back to the beginning and starting over--the very definion of a restart. Hunt is the same(his character doesn't change much at all) as was Dirty Harry was the same--they don't need to directly refer to earlier adventures. No one has referred to the MI films as reboots because they are not while a lot have mentioned that about CR because it is.

Killing off all the characters and turning the hero into a villain against a newly created character for the new movie is a "stylistic" change???

You're arguing TV/movie semantics which have nothing to do with reality. Every MI film has been a reboot. The next one will DEFINITELY be a reboot.

Every new Bond actor has brought about a re-boot. I was reading the "Legacy" book and the Bond producers ALWAYS re-thought the series with each new Bond. This is just the first time there's been an Internet around for fanboys to discuss it.

Well i've discussed the reboot or restart point already in the above quoted point and elsewhere--it's crystal clear to me...if you want to disagree then fine. It's not semantics because I was talking about movie series not the jump from TV to film. This is the first Bond to restart and go back to the start--that is what a reboot is...not new actors or different styles or different twists. MI's haven't restarted and gone back to the beginning...Mi3 clearly happens after MI2 which clearly happened after MI1 while CR clearly doesn't happen after the other Bonds. The points I have made are clear and obvious IMO but if others want to disagree fine--otherwise we all will just continue going around in circles.

[Harmsway]

And I think it's good that they do, especially if they raise the quality bar at each other (although I don't think M:I-3 is nearly as good as it could have been*, thanks chiefly to its total and utter lack of a story; by comparison, DAD is a cleverly-plotted, gripping thriller with amazing twists and turns).

Man... that's just sad, but it's true. DIE ANOTHER DAY *does* have a much stronger plot and storyline than M:I-3. I'm still surprised Abrams couldn't come up with something better than that flimsy excuse for a story.