Mission Impossible Fallout Would Have Made A Great Bond 25

Bodie

Was watching MI Fallout and thought with a bit of tinkering it would have made a great Bond 25. If you replaced:

Ethan Hunt with James Bond
Benji with Q
Luther with Felix
Julia with Madeleine
Solomon Lane with Blofeld
The Apostles with SPECTRE
Ilsa with new Bond girl


It would have been a perfect follow up to SPECTRE.

Shatterfang

Fallout was getting really great reviews and I was excited to see it for the main reasons you give, of giving me a rough idea of what Bond 25 might be like. The title showed Solomon Lane escaping (by driving an armored car underwater and fishing him out with scuba gear - just like how Sanchez escapes in License to Kill), just like Blofeld needs to do at some point. However I found it very overrated and much prefer the last 3 MI movies.

Reasons:

1. It would bug me if Bond negotiated with terrorists like Ethan does in the movie. You don't pay terrorists for plutonium. They will just make more with the money you funded them. Even if it is just a sting, you don't have to bring real money.
2. And Bond shouldn't break out Blofeld.
3. Blofeld/Lane shouldn't get his ass kicked by Q/Benji
4. The Madeleine character (who Ethan breaks up with in Mi3 movie). At the end of the Mi4, Ethan is watching her and says 'I'm just making sure she's ok'. Well the only thing putting her in danger is keeping tabs on her. Because if you just ignored her, the villain would not even know about her.

Miles Messervy

Generally agree about Bond negotiating with terrorists. Ethan’s character is much more of a morally ambiguous “ends justify the means” type. For instance, I think Bond is far less likely to sacrifice innocent lives to benefit the mission. He would find another way. That makes Bond a little less “modern” and “edgy”, I suppose, but it’s a core component of his character IMO.

emtiem

Miles Messervy wrote:

Generally agree about Bond negotiating with terrorists. Ethan’s character is much more of a morally ambiguous “ends justify the means” type. For instance, I think Bond is far less likely to sacrifice innocent lives to benefit the mission.

I'm curious if you've actually seen this film? Because something which is discussed at length in it is that Ethan Hunt won't put a single life at risk even to save millions.

AugustWalker

„Some flaw deep in your core being simply won’t allow you to choose between one life and millions. Now you see that as a sign of weakness. To me, that’s your greatest strength.“

Also check M:I-2 where Sean Ambrose says that Hunt would rather be doing some death defying stunts than kill somebody for his mission.

And let’s not forget, I was the main villain in Fallout, not Lane. :007)

Actually, Fallout is full of examples:
Hunt‘s compunction about killing police officers whilst freeing Lane
Only tranquilizing the fake Lark

Miles Messervy

Fair points. I stand corrected. And I did watch the film, but clearly I didn’t pay much attention to it. )

Shatterfang

Every time he chose his friends over the world, the world was fine anyway. It will give some depth if Ethan's character flaw got a lot of people killed in the next one. I hear it's going to be a two-parter which means a cliffhanger. The friends he wouldn't sacrifice would turn on him.

canoe2

Miles Messervy wrote:

Generally agree about Bond negotiating with terrorists. Ethan’s character is much more of a morally ambiguous “ends justify the means” type. For instance, I think Bond is far less likely to sacrifice innocent lives to benefit the mission. He would find another way. That makes Bond a little less “modern” and “edgy”, I suppose, but it’s a core component of his character IMO.

Bond stood by and watched Silva shoot Severin in the head.

All through Casino Royale and QoS, M is constantly commenting on Bond's lack of concern over the innocent people he gets close to dying.

Miles Messervy

canoe2 wrote:

Bond stood by and watched Silva shoot Severin in the head.

All through Casino Royale and QoS, M is constantly commenting on Bond's lack of concern over the innocent people he gets close to dying.

I guess it depends on how you define “innocent lives.” Severine was sympathetic, but she works for Silva and even based on the little bit we know about her, she has blood on her hands. And M’s comments to Bond in CR and QoS tell us that she misunderstands Bond. We know that Craig’s Bond actually does care about the people who die trying to help him (Craig’s acting when he finds Fields’ body is subtle but poignant), and that he doesn't enjoy killing people (Connery’s is really the only Bond, including Fleming’s, who seemed to consistently derive enjoyment from killing his targets). And again, these are all players in the game, not innocent bystanders. Maybe there are examples of Bond sacrificing innocents at some point in the long history of the character, but those are outliers.

Gala Brand

This is interesting. I can't remember a thing about MI Fallout, even though I saw it less than a year ago. On the other hand, I can remember the entire plot of Spectre, which I saw three and a half years ago.

Miles Messervy

Gala Brand wrote:

This is interesting. I can't remember a thing about MI Fallout, even though I saw it less than a year ago. On the other hand, I can remember the entire plot of Spectre, which I saw three and a half years ago.

All I remember about Fallout is Tom Cruise flying that Helicopter, a solid bathroom fight, and the sublime Vanessa Kirby.

canoe2

Miles Messervy wrote:

canoe2 wrote:

Bond stood by and watched Silva shoot Severin in the head.

All through Casino Royale and QoS, M is constantly commenting on Bond's lack of concern over the innocent people he gets close to dying.

I guess it depends on how you define “innocent lives.” Severine was sympathetic, but she works for Silva and even based on the little bit we know about her, she has blood on her hands. And M’s comments to Bond in CR and QoS tell us that she misunderstands Bond. We know that Craig’s Bond actually does care about the people who die trying to help him (Craig’s acting when he finds Fields’ body is subtle but poignant), and that he doesn't enjoy killing people (Connery’s is really the only Bond, including Fleming’s, who seemed to consistently derive enjoyment from killing his targets). And again, these are all players in the game, not innocent bystanders. Maybe there are examples of Bond sacrificing innocents at some point in the long history of the character, but those are outliers.

There's also examples of Bond choosing not to kill (shooting the gun out of Kara's hands is an example that springs to mind). And talk about the impact all the killing has on his mental state ("It's what keeps you alone." "There won't be any soul left to salvage.")


But, based on his general past behavior, he is more likely to put others at risk for the sake of the mission (or just his own personal gratification ), seemingly giving little thought to what the outcome might be for them as a result of their involvement. So Bond's a far more morally ambiguous character than Hunt, imho. For me, that's exactly what makes him more interesting.

Hunt let the terrorists escape with the mcguffin to save Luther's life. Bond left a fellow agent to bleed out to chase Patrice.

emtiem

Gala Brand wrote:

This is interesting. I can't remember a thing about MI Fallout, even though I saw it less than a year ago. On the other hand, I can remember the entire plot of Spectre, which I saw three and a half years ago.

I don't hate Spectre, but Fallout is a superior film in almost every respect. It's a real shame and I'd love to see the next Bond film get somewhere towards the standard of the current MI films, but I think you need McQuarrie to do it- no one else seems to quite get how to construct these films so well.

emtiem

Miles Messervy wrote:

canoe2 wrote:

Bond stood by and watched Silva shoot Severin in the head.

All through Casino Royale and QoS, M is constantly commenting on Bond's lack of concern over the innocent people he gets close to dying.

I guess it depends on how you define “innocent lives.” Severine was sympathetic, but she works for Silva and even based on the little bit we know about her, she has blood on her hands. And M’s comments to Bond in CR and QoS tell us that she misunderstands Bond. We know that Craig’s Bond actually does care about the people who die trying to help him (Craig’s acting when he finds Fields’ body is subtle but poignant), and that he doesn't enjoy killing people (Connery’s is really the only Bond, including Fleming’s, who seemed to consistently derive enjoyment from killing his targets). And again, these are all players in the game, not innocent bystanders. Maybe there are examples of Bond sacrificing innocents at some point in the long history of the character, but those are outliers.

The idea that Bond is less of a cold-blooded killer than Hunt confuses me quite a bit, I must say. He doesn't let innocents die as a rule, it's true - mostly because it puts a bad taste in the mouth; for some reason -and very unusually- Quantum Of Solace puts a lot of innocent people in the way of the action that Bond takes part in and it's a really weird choice as it does make Bond somehow complicit in hurting these people: the truck driver who has a head-on collision in the car chase; the woman shot in the foot chase through the horse race, the Special Branch guy that Bond practically kills etc. But to compare Bond as morally favourable to Hunt seems rather bizarre to me.

canoe2

It would be fun (if it hasn't already been done somewhere) to have a psychologist "analyze" different film "heroes" and come up with a diagnosis for personality disorders. I could see them watching Connery shoot Dent for example, and be like "well, a healthy well adjusted individual doesn't do that! Clearly the man is sociopathic!"

Miles Messervy

canoe2 wrote:

It would be fun (if it hasn't already been done somewhere) to have a psychologist "analyze" different film "heroes" and come up with a diagnosis for personality disorders. I could see them watching Connery shoot Dent for example, and be like "well, a healthy well adjusted individual doesn't do that! Clearly the man is sociopathic!"

) What does it say that Connery’s portrayal is considered the definitive version of the character by so many? His is definitely the coldest, Fleming’s Bond included.

zaphod99

Miles Messervy wrote:

canoe2 wrote:

It would be fun (if it hasn't already been done somewhere) to have a psychologist "analyze" different film "heroes" and come up with a diagnosis for personality disorders. I could see them watching Connery shoot Dent for example, and be like "well, a healthy well adjusted individual doesn't do that! Clearly the man is sociopathic!"

) What does it say that Connery’s portrayal is considered the definitive version of the character by so many? His is definitely the coldest, Fleming’s Bond included.

Very interesting questions. Connery Bond is in some ways the coldest, the killing of Dent stands out. He is also the most compassionate, he feels when people die, particularly if he has in some way been complicit or responsible. This element was picked up well by Dalton (death of Saunders)
Re definitive portrayal I feel that Connery captured the tension between cold sociopath but had a clear moral compas otherwise we would not care about him. I enjoy the MI films but could not give a Monkey's about Ethan Hunt or what happens to him. Bond is full of dualities; Gentlemen Thug, compassionate cold, duty rebellion etc.
For me Dalton comes closest but was standing on giants shoulders.

Gala Brand

emtiem wrote:

Gala Brand wrote:

This is interesting. I can't remember a thing about MI Fallout, even though I saw it less than a year ago. On the other hand, I can remember the entire plot of Spectre, which I saw three and a half years ago.

I don't hate Spectre, but Fallout is a superior film in almost every respect. It's a real shame and I'd love to see the next Bond film get somewhere towards the standard of the current MI films, but I think you need McQuarrie to do it- no one else seems to quite get how to construct these films so well.

I'm not a big fan of Spectre; it's just that MI films are instantly forgettable.

Miles Messervy

Gala Brand wrote:

emtiem wrote:

Gala Brand wrote:

This is interesting. I can't remember a thing about MI Fallout, even though I saw it less than a year ago. On the other hand, I can remember the entire plot of Spectre, which I saw three and a half years ago.

I don't hate Spectre, but Fallout is a superior film in almost every respect. It's a real shame and I'd love to see the next Bond film get somewhere towards the standard of the current MI films, but I think you need McQuarrie to do it- no one else seems to quite get how to construct these films so well.

I'm not a big fan of Spectre; it's just that MI films are instantly forgettable.

Fallout was indeed a superior film to Spectre. I remember more about Spectre, but that’s primarily because there were so many things about Spectre that I didn’t like. It made more of an impression on me, but not in a good way.

Sometimes I also think I’m guilty of expecting too much from a Bond film, whereas I go into MI not really invested - just hoping for a couple hours of solid entertainment. They always deliver.

emtiem

Gala Brand wrote:

emtiem wrote:

Gala Brand wrote:

This is interesting. I can't remember a thing about MI Fallout, even though I saw it less than a year ago. On the other hand, I can remember the entire plot of Spectre, which I saw three and a half years ago.

I don't hate Spectre, but Fallout is a superior film in almost every respect. It's a real shame and I'd love to see the next Bond film get somewhere towards the standard of the current MI films, but I think you need McQuarrie to do it- no one else seems to quite get how to construct these films so well.

I'm not a big fan of Spectre; it's just that MI films are instantly forgettable.

No, they’re not. It’s just that you’re a Bond fan so you remember the Bond film more.

Bodie

emtiem wrote:

Gala Brand wrote:

This is interesting. I can't remember a thing about MI Fallout, even though I saw it less than a year ago. On the other hand, I can remember the entire plot of Spectre, which I saw three and a half years ago.

I don't hate Spectre, but Fallout is a superior film in almost every respect. It's a real shame and I'd love to see the next Bond film get somewhere towards the standard of the current MI films, but I think you need McQuarrie to do it- no one else seems to quite get how to construct these films so well.

As a die hard James Bond fan I hate to admit it but Fallout was a better movie than SPECTRE. Fallout's motor bike chase through Paris was an adrenaline fuelled rush, whereas SPECTRE's car chase through Rome was a leisurely Sunday afternoon drive sponsored by the Rome tourist board culminating in Bond trashing a million pound prototype car because he seemed unwilling to face one man.

Fallout's finale was a nail-biting edge of your seat climax with two nuclear bombs to be defused and a cliff top fight with the villain. SPECTRE'S finale was Bond going down the Thames shooting at a helicopter.

Christoph Waltz who had to be on everyone's wish list for a Bond villain was underwritten and wasted and you never got the impression of any past history between the two, and there was zero chemistry between Bond and Madeleine Swann.

emtiem

Bodie wrote:

emtiem wrote:

Gala Brand wrote:

This is interesting. I can't remember a thing about MI Fallout, even though I saw it less than a year ago. On the other hand, I can remember the entire plot of Spectre, which I saw three and a half years ago.

I don't hate Spectre, but Fallout is a superior film in almost every respect. It's a real shame and I'd love to see the next Bond film get somewhere towards the standard of the current MI films, but I think you need McQuarrie to do it- no one else seems to quite get how to construct these films so well.

As a die hard James Bond fan I hate to admit it but Fallout was a better movie than SPECTRE. Fallout's motor bike chase through Paris was an adrenaline fuelled rush, whereas SPECTRE's car chase through Rome was a leisurely Sunday afternoon drive sponsored by the Rome tourist board culminating in Bond trashing a million pound prototype car because he seemed unwilling to face one man.

Fallout's finale was a nail-biting edge of your seat climax with two nuclear bombs to be defused and a cliff top fight with the villain. SPECTRE'S finale was Bond going down the Thames shooting at a helicopter.

Christoph Waltz who had to be on everyone's wish list for a Bond villain was underwritten and wasted and you never got the impression of any past history between the two, and there was zero chemistry between Bond and Madeleine Swann.

Yeah, Bond should learn an awful lot from the MI films at the moment. Not least: a car chase is exciting because there's tension and amazing driving (Cruise in that fantastic BMW chase in Fallout), not because the cars are expensive and can slide around a lot (Spectre); and women like Rebecca Ferguson who actually have their own part to play in the plot and are beautiful and feminine are how you do strong female characters without just being male characters in a skirt.

Miles Messervy

emtiem wrote:

Bodie wrote:

emtiem wrote:

I don't hate Spectre, but Fallout is a superior film in almost every respect. It's a real shame and I'd love to see the next Bond film get somewhere towards the standard of the current MI films, but I think you need McQuarrie to do it- no one else seems to quite get how to construct these films so well.

As a die hard James Bond fan I hate to admit it but Fallout was a better movie than SPECTRE. Fallout's motor bike chase through Paris was an adrenaline fuelled rush, whereas SPECTRE's car chase through Rome was a leisurely Sunday afternoon drive sponsored by the Rome tourist board culminating in Bond trashing a million pound prototype car because he seemed unwilling to face one man.

Fallout's finale was a nail-biting edge of your seat climax with two nuclear bombs to be defused and a cliff top fight with the villain. SPECTRE'S finale was Bond going down the Thames shooting at a helicopter.

Christoph Waltz who had to be on everyone's wish list for a Bond villain was underwritten and wasted and you never got the impression of any past history between the two, and there was zero chemistry between Bond and Madeleine Swann.

Yeah, Bond should learn an awful lot from the MI films at the moment. Not least: a car chase is exciting because there's tension and amazing driving (Cruise in that fantastic BMW chase in Fallout), not because the cars are expensive and can slide around a lot (Spectre); and women like Rebecca Ferguson who actually have their own part to play in the plot and are beautiful and feminine are how you do strong female characters without just being male characters in a skirt.

+1

Arbogast777

I've long had a question about Fallout and I thought I'd ask it here - in the trailer there is a shot of Cruise flying the helicopter directly into a truck that was cut out. Does anyone know how that sequence was supposed to have played out because I can't imagine that fitting into the scene as we have it now...

emtiem

Arbogast777 wrote:

I've long had a question about Fallout and I thought I'd ask it here - in the trailer there is a shot of Cruise flying the helicopter directly into a truck that was cut out. Does anyone know how that sequence was supposed to have played out because I can't imagine that fitting into the scene as we have it now...

It was when Ethan's helicopter drops down into clouds and Walker's helicopter doesn't follow: originally we followed Ethan down where he met the truck- in the finished film we stay with Walker.

Shatterfang

Bodie wrote:

As a die hard James Bond fan I hate to admit it but Fallout was a better movie than SPECTRE.  Fallout's motor bike chase through Paris was an adrenaline fuelled rush, whereas SPECTRE's car chase through Rome was a leisurely Sunday afternoon drive sponsored by the Rome tourist board culminating in Bond trashing a million pound prototype car because he seemed unwilling to face one man.

As much I hate Spectre, and rank it as the worst bond film ever, I have to disagree. All the action of Fallout is broken up between some of the most drawn out dialogue exposition I've ever seen and they spend the entire time in the sewer (The other ones had a lot more globe hopping). Soon as they got to the 15-minute countdown on the bomb and I saw there was 45 minutes left I lost it. That chase scene is better, though.

Arbogast777

emtiem wrote:

It was when Ethan's helicopter drops down into clouds and Walker's helicopter doesn't follow: originally we followed Ethan down where he met the truck- in the finished film we stay with Walker.

I see - thanks!

emtiem

It is quite interesting to look at the differences between the Bonds and the MIs; and I think it's mainly that Hunt is kind of a cypher character- the MIs are mainly about the plots and the big stunts. Whereas the difference with the Bond films is that they're a sort of hero worship of the main character himself: doing cool things, living the high life, tossing out gags, being a wish fulfilment figure by doing things the audience knows are wrong but takes pleasure in anyway! The Bond films are rather about James Bond more than the MI films are about Ethan Hunt.

Number24

James Bond is a fully formed character while Ethan Hunt is an empty vessel to form excellent stunts around.

Matt S

Number24 wrote:

James Bond is a fully formed character while Ethan Hunt is an empty vessel to form excellent stunts around.

People called James Bond something along the lines of an empty vessel for a very long time. Though he was an empty vessel with a lot of personality, which you can't say about Hunt. However, a good character alone doesn't make a film, while there are good films with empty characters..

Westward_Drift

Number24 wrote:

James Bond is a fully formed character while Ethan Hunt is an empty vessel to form excellent stunts around.

One YouTube reviewer described Ethan Hunt as "A man-shaped concentration of smug intensity and designer casual wear."

https://youtu.be/FFiBVyNu7cY?t=94