It's like comparing Apples to Steak really. But I enjoyed Rogue Nation more. Most of the movie looks like a video game (especially the action) but it was fun.
MI is very entertaining and has better stunts than Bond. But Bond is better shot, better acted and above all - Bond has soul :007)
Just to prove my point, think of three personality traits Bond has.
OK .... now do the same for Etahan Hunt.
Now think of three personal moments from Bond's past, then do the same for Ethan Hunt.
Really enjoyed rogue nation it's a total blast and I've enjoyed the whole franchise, the same with the Bourne films but I don't anticipate them like I do bond films.
A few things let spectre down but I still love it and imitation is the greatest form of flattery
I will not be making comparisons, as I have not seen Rogue Nation yet, but reading your discussion, I wonder why Bond films would have to follow a “formula”, and if they do, how strict does the “formula” have to be? Also, is the “Bond formula” any different from a “spy movie formula” in general?
Personally, I don’t mind what formula, if any, is followed, as long as the final movie is good. Early “Bond formula” included references to the Cold War, but now this has changed. And, to be successful and relevant, the Bond series has to constantly reinvent itself. This is why the producers decided to include the backstory, something that was never too important before. We can only expect any future movies to depart from the “original formula” further and further.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Fleming's novels adhered to a formula, so it makes sense that the Bond films largely follow one as well; genre pieces generally do, as it pays tribute to the notion that if something's not broken, it doesn't need to be fixed.
The Precious Classic FormulaTM is actually quite different from garden-variety spy films....this is more about story elements than over-arching themes such as the Cold War. Bond is given an assignment, he meets with Q, he encounters first Bond girl (likely bad or doomed, or both), meets the villian socially, meets 2nd (main) Bond girl, has violent encounters scattered throughout, is captured, escapes and ultimately triumphs. Quite different from typical spy stuff.
Granted, the formula varies (and has been all but absent in the Craig Era until SP)...but it is easily spotted.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Yes, but how many successful movies can you make based on a rigid formula? Looks like the producers realised they would run out of luck and tried to re-invent Craig's Bond as less formulaic - like it or not.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Yes, but how many successful movies can you make based on a rigid formula? Looks like the producers realised they would run out of luck and tried to re-invent Craig's Bond as less formulaic - like it or not.
And I do! Unlike some ...but like most, according to the box office.
But I feel they also realized that Bond, without the formula indefinitely, would similarly be problematic. So, as ever, we're back into the Circle of Life :007) And so James Bond Will Return, whilst his erstwhile children will not outlive him.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Yes, but how many successful movies can you make based on a rigid formula? Looks like the producers realised they would run out of luck and tried to re-invent Craig's Bond as less formulaic - like it or not.
The problem with Crag's Bond movies not being formulaic is that they don't fit together well. The four movies are all over the place. Even though SF and SP share much of the same crew, they are very different films with some contradictions. SP really brings out the inconsistencies in Craig's films when it connects all of them. They don't feel like they should be connected because the styles are so different. When movies are part of a series, they need to fit together and feel like they are part of the same series. It's fine that they broke the formula of the old films. It's a problem that they didn't come up with a consistent new identity for Craig's films. I'm not saying that all of the films should be the same, but they need to flow better from one to the next.
Spot on – I have previously pointed out the inconsistent portrayal of Bond in Craig’s movies, but some see it as “character development”. ;-) It’s almost like the producers are testing which way to go in the future.
However, whether a particular movie breaks up with the formula or not is a matter of degree (and interpretation). They are all about Bond going on a mission, getting the girl and defeating the baddie, so they can all be considered to follow the formula. Let’s remember that Lazenby’s Bond lost the girl (which was closely based on the novel), Dalton’s Bond went on a “rogue” mission, Brosnan’s Bond was betrayed by a fellow 00 agent, and Connery’s Bond retired (even if it was an unofficial movie), so elements like that in Craig’s movies are not quite original, or a departure from the canon. The opinion here is that CR is not a “Bond movie”, but it’s based on a Fleming book too, even if loosely interpreted.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Personally, I've no problem with the way in which Craig's Bond movies flow from one to the next...must be someone else's job to fret over that It all works just fine for me. Cheers! :007)
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Personally, I've no problem with the way in which Craig's Bond movies flow from one to the next...must be someone else's job to fret over that It all works just fine for me. Cheers! :007)
Spot on – I have previously pointed out the inconsistent portrayal of Bond in Craig’s movies, but some see it as “character development”. ;-) It’s almost like the producers are testing which way to go in the future.
However, whether a particular movie breaks up with the formula or not is a matter of degree (and interpretation). They are all about Bond going on a mission, getting the girl and defeating the baddie, so they can all be considered to follow the formula. Let’s remember that Lazenby’s Bond lost the girl (which was closely based on the novel), Dalton’s Bond went on a “rogue” mission, Brosnan’s Bond was betrayed by a fellow 00 agent, and Connery’s Bond retired (even if it was an unofficial movie), so elements like that in Craig’s movies are not quite original, or a departure from the canon. The opinion here is that CR is not a “Bond movie”, but it’s based on a Fleming book too, even if loosely interpreted.
I'm all for character development. Bond was subtly different in different films, even during Connery and Moore's tenure. The problem with SP is that it attempts to link all of the Craig movies in a sort of clumsy reto fit. In some ways the films have become more of a sequential traditional narrative rather than the loose federation of old. I tend to prefer my Bond movies to be self contained, but it's a matter of preference and choice, I think they have made things hard for themselves now and can't wait to see what they will do. My guess is it will depend upon Daniel, if he really has thrown away the PPK or not...
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Personally, I've no problem with the way in which Craig's Bond movies flow from one to the next...must be someone else's job to fret over that It all works just fine for me. Cheers! :007)
We didn't expect you to say anything else! )
True---like your slagging, I guess I'm predictible
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I don't mind them linking films like that, but only if they had planned it from the start like some TV drama series. Retconning the Craig era is so clumsy and doesn't flow well due to the drastic shift in tone between films.
I'd rather they just stick to the formula with stand alone missions.
I don't mind them linking films like that, but only if they had planned it from the start like some TV drama series. Retconning the Craig era is so clumsy and doesn't flow well due to the drastic shift in tone between films.
I'd rather they just stick to the formula with stand alone missions.
That will be Bond #7, I believe.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
As much as I enjoy the MI films, I'm not emotionally connected to them. They
Are simply good action flicks Where with Bond, because he was a boyhood
Hero of mine, I feel a connection with the films.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
As much as I enjoy the MI films, I'm not emotionally connected to them. They
Are simply good action flicks Where with Bond, because he was a boyhood
Hero of mine, I feel a connection with the films.
I don't think it's just because of our long history with the character. Ethan seems little more than a Cipher. I have seen all of the MI films apart from Rogue Nation and neither know or care about him. I don't know what motivates him, what he fears, or even what he likes. The films are enjoyable enough, but pale by comparison in my view. Does anyone know if there is a similar site for MI where aficionados endlessly debate, scrutinise, argue and Lobby ? I'll have butchers and feedback...
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Although I was impressed with how Ethan Hunt escaped from his interrogation.
I don't know if that was Tom or a Stunt double, but I was amazed -{ whoever
it was, he was very fit.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
As much as I enjoy the MI films, I'm not emotionally connected to them. They
Are simply good action flicks Where with Bond, because he was a boyhood
Hero of mine, I feel a connection with the films.
I don't think it's just because of our long history with the character. Ethan seems little more than a Cipher. I have seen all of the MI films apart from Rogue Nation and neither know or care about him. I don't know what motivates him, what he fears, or even what he likes. The films are enjoyable enough, but pale by comparison in my view. Does anyone know if there is a similar site for MI where aficionados endlessly debate, scrutinise, argue and Lobby ? I'll have butchers and feedback...
You're right that he's not a particularly special character. That's where Bond succeeds. For a few years, most people on the street were talking about how much better Bourne was than Bond. Still, Bourne does not have the countless fan sites that Bond has.
Correct me if in wrong but I guess escapism comes into it 100% and at the end of the day as the old saying goes "men want to be Bond".
Bond is a lady magnet (Bourne certainly isn't and Cruise lusts for his wife in the later films if I remember correctly)
Bond more Stylish (certainly more then Bourne - Hunt more of the moment fashion wise)
Bond more affiliated with luxury in all forms - cars, hotels, drink, food, clothes
Simply he is the man!!!
Now im not saying which films are better etc but Bond will always be bigger!!!
Bond has those things over Hunt and Bourne for certain. Bourne is a more interesting character than Hunt. But Bond's characteristics make him appealing in addition to being special.
I have to say I was really impressed with Rogue Nation, definitely one of the best MI films by a long way.
I'm not sure if it was coincidence but I felt both Rogue Nation and SPECTRE shared a lot of elements as well as locations: Morocco, Blenheim Palace and Austria.
Bond and Ethan are both Rogue but what I didn't like about SPECTRE was the need to have M, Moneypenny and Tanner in the field, a bit like the IMF team.
The two films had great opening sequences.
Anyway, both good films but completely different styles and takes on similar subjects. I like both but my preference is always bond.
I think bond pretty much created this genre of film. And certainly Robert Ludlow was inspired by Fleming. Three great movie franchises and totally different in many ways to me. But bond is the daddy (IMHO) I just get so much more interest out of the bond films, I can't remember what gun ethan hunt has or any of his outfits tbh tho did enjoy the film.
Comments
Just to prove my point, think of three personality traits Bond has.
OK .... now do the same for Etahan Hunt.
Now think of three personal moments from Bond's past, then do the same for Ethan Hunt.
See?
I feel like ROGUE NATION was too fast phase.
A few things let spectre down but I still love it and imitation is the greatest form of flattery
Personally, I don’t mind what formula, if any, is followed, as long as the final movie is good. Early “Bond formula” included references to the Cold War, but now this has changed. And, to be successful and relevant, the Bond series has to constantly reinvent itself. This is why the producers decided to include the backstory, something that was never too important before. We can only expect any future movies to depart from the “original formula” further and further.
The Precious Classic FormulaTM is actually quite different from garden-variety spy films....this is more about story elements than over-arching themes such as the Cold War. Bond is given an assignment, he meets with Q, he encounters first Bond girl (likely bad or doomed, or both), meets the villian socially, meets 2nd (main) Bond girl, has violent encounters scattered throughout, is captured, escapes and ultimately triumphs. Quite different from typical spy stuff.
Granted, the formula varies (and has been all but absent in the Craig Era until SP)...but it is easily spotted.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
And I do! Unlike some
But I feel they also realized that Bond, without the formula indefinitely, would similarly be problematic. So, as ever, we're back into the Circle of Life :007) And so James Bond Will Return, whilst his erstwhile children will not outlive him.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
But you do realise that by breaking with the formula and introducing the childhood story, they may be creating a new formula?
The problem with Crag's Bond movies not being formulaic is that they don't fit together well. The four movies are all over the place. Even though SF and SP share much of the same crew, they are very different films with some contradictions. SP really brings out the inconsistencies in Craig's films when it connects all of them. They don't feel like they should be connected because the styles are so different. When movies are part of a series, they need to fit together and feel like they are part of the same series. It's fine that they broke the formula of the old films. It's a problem that they didn't come up with a consistent new identity for Craig's films. I'm not saying that all of the films should be the same, but they need to flow better from one to the next.
However, whether a particular movie breaks up with the formula or not is a matter of degree (and interpretation). They are all about Bond going on a mission, getting the girl and defeating the baddie, so they can all be considered to follow the formula. Let’s remember that Lazenby’s Bond lost the girl (which was closely based on the novel), Dalton’s Bond went on a “rogue” mission, Brosnan’s Bond was betrayed by a fellow 00 agent, and Connery’s Bond retired (even if it was an unofficial movie), so elements like that in Craig’s movies are not quite original, or a departure from the canon. The opinion here is that CR is not a “Bond movie”, but it’s based on a Fleming book too, even if loosely interpreted.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
We didn't expect you to say anything else!
I'm all for character development. Bond was subtly different in different films, even during Connery and Moore's tenure. The problem with SP is that it attempts to link all of the Craig movies in a sort of clumsy reto fit. In some ways the films have become more of a sequential traditional narrative rather than the loose federation of old. I tend to prefer my Bond movies to be self contained, but it's a matter of preference and choice, I think they have made things hard for themselves now and can't wait to see what they will do. My guess is it will depend upon Daniel, if he really has thrown away the PPK or not...
True---like your slagging, I guess I'm predictible
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I'd rather they just stick to the formula with stand alone missions.
That will be Bond #7, I believe.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Are simply good action flicks
Hero of mine, I feel a connection with the films.
I don't think it's just because of our long history with the character. Ethan seems little more than a Cipher. I have seen all of the MI films apart from Rogue Nation and neither know or care about him. I don't know what motivates him, what he fears, or even what he likes. The films are enjoyable enough, but pale by comparison in my view. Does anyone know if there is a similar site for MI where aficionados endlessly debate, scrutinise, argue and Lobby ? I'll have butchers and feedback...
I don't know if that was Tom or a Stunt double, but I was amazed -{ whoever
it was, he was very fit.
You're right that he's not a particularly special character. That's where Bond succeeds. For a few years, most people on the street were talking about how much better Bourne was than Bond. Still, Bourne does not have the countless fan sites that Bond has.
Bond is a lady magnet (Bourne certainly isn't and Cruise lusts for his wife in the later films if I remember correctly)
Bond more Stylish (certainly more then Bourne - Hunt more of the moment fashion wise)
Bond more affiliated with luxury in all forms - cars, hotels, drink, food, clothes
Simply he is the man!!!
Now im not saying which films are better etc but Bond will always be bigger!!!
Bond has those things over Hunt and Bourne for certain. Bourne is a more interesting character than Hunt. But Bond's characteristics make him appealing in addition to being special.
I'm not sure if it was coincidence but I felt both Rogue Nation and SPECTRE shared a lot of elements as well as locations: Morocco, Blenheim Palace and Austria.
Bond and Ethan are both Rogue but what I didn't like about SPECTRE was the need to have M, Moneypenny and Tanner in the field, a bit like the IMF team.
The two films had great opening sequences.
Anyway, both good films but completely different styles and takes on similar subjects. I like both but my preference is always bond.
Now im getting worried as I cant even remember where the hell I saw it!!!
Sometimes it pays to listen to friend and go jogging early in the morning, you never know what you will see.