Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Aug 6, 2018 14:46:40 GMT -5
variety.com/2018/film/news/supergirl-movie-warner-bros-1202896193/I guess they haven’t learned anything from the Flash situation. They haven’t even fixed SuperMAN yet. I’d be trying to get a MOS sequel off the ground before I even considered a solo Supergirl movie. The timing of them going ahead with this is certainly interesting with the new Blu-ray being released. Wonder if they’re somehow connected?
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Aug 7, 2018 0:07:54 GMT -5
variety.com/2018/film/news/supergirl-movie-warner-bros-1202896193/I guess they haven’t learned anything from the Flash situation. They haven’t even fixed SuperMAN yet. I’d be trying to get a MOS sequel off the ground before I even considered a solo Supergirl movie. The timing of them going ahead with this is certainly interesting with the new Blu-ray being released. Wonder if they’re somehow connected? The theory you had of DC throwing shite against the wall and seeing what sticks might be on the nose..... I think it's great that they're doing a new Supergirl movie- but, yeah, to do that before fixing Superman is bizarre... but maybe they looked at the tv situation and thought since it worked on tv to intro Supergirl but not Supes per se, that they could do the same thing. *sigh* |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Aug 7, 2018 12:06:45 GMT -5
I don’t have an issue with them putting scripts into development but they should keep the stuff in the house and as quiet as possible. Don’t let it leak and certainly don’t announce it. But I’d be putting all my effort into either fixing what they have or scrapping it and moving on to something else. The Batman movie seems to be in limbo. Are they going to make it or not?
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Aug 23, 2018 10:55:18 GMT -5
I don’t have an issue with them putting scripts into development but they should keep the stuff in the house and as quiet as possible. Don’t let it leak and certainly don’t announce it. But I’d be putting all my effort into either fixing what they have or scrapping it and moving on to something else. The Batman movie seems to be in limbo. Are they going to make it or not? If I were WB... Pay Bale and Michael Caine whatever they want to be in a reboot and/or just ignore "Dark Knight Rises" and continue it. It'd make tons of money, I guarantee it. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Aug 31, 2018 11:34:46 GMT -5
If Nolan were to ever revisit dark knight trilogy I’d rather be wait twenty years and do something with shades of
Dark knight and Batman beyond but if he did do a new movie now it’d make a ton of money. More than any dceu film.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Sept 12, 2018 14:41:41 GMT -5
If Nolan were to ever revisit dark knight trilogy I’d rather be wait twenty years and do something with shades of Dark knight and Batman beyond but if he did do a new movie now it’d make a ton of money. More than any dceu film. I think with "Dark Knight Rises" he showed some misjudgment in terms of how much realism and how much artistic license to apply with Batman imo- I feel he got it down perfectly with "Batman Begins" and "Dark Knight", but to me TDKR was such a misfire that I don't know if he would be the right person to trust bringing back Bale and Batman back to the big screen. Creatively, I think it would be fine to have a kind-of sequel to TDKR where Robin gets killed and an older Bale/Batman returns with the tones you mentioned from TDK and BB, but I don't think Goyer/Nolan would be the right team to do it now. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Sept 12, 2018 18:01:30 GMT -5
They tried to cram too much into one film since it was the final film. It was Spider-Man 3 but better quality but more smashed in there.
They also wanted it to mirror the first film and go back to the beginning. I also think Nolan spent up most of what his best ideas on the first two films. It happens a lot with trilogies.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Sept 12, 2018 23:23:04 GMT -5
They tried to cram too much into one film since it was the final film. It was Spider-Man 3 but better quality but more smashed in there. They also wanted it to mirror the first film and go back to the beginning. I also think Nolan spent up most of what his best ideas on the first two films. It happens a lot with trilogies. I just watched the editors' cut of Spiderman 3 again- and I have to say that there are far more scenes that I still enjoy in Spiderman 3 versus TDKR- I think that with Raimi's Spiderman, what helps is Raimi's consistent quirkiness that fits the Spiderman character.... even when the movie is flawed. With Nolan's movies- the good/bad is that his films are meant to be taken so seriously, that when things go right- it's powerful as heck. When things go astray, I feel like it's just painful. Even on first viewing of TDKR, I found myself thinking, "Wrong choice- wrong choice- wrong choice....etc. etc. etc." I know a number of people were fine with TDKR or felt it good but not great- but I really think that this was one case where the ultra-secrecy kind of hurt script corrections. On the flip side, I WORSHIP TDK and really thought much of BB was great. I feel like TDKR was more misguided and rushed than anything else. I would have loved to have read what Nolan would have done if Ledger had lived and the Joker was used as originally intended in TDKR. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Sept 13, 2018 7:40:46 GMT -5
They tried to cram too much into one film since it was the final film. It was Spider-Man 3 but better quality but more smashed in there. They also wanted it to mirror the first film and go back to the beginning. I also think Nolan spent up most of what his best ideas on the first two films. It happens a lot with trilogies. I just watched the editors' cut of Spiderman 3 again- and I have to say that there are far more scenes that I still enjoy in Spiderman 3 versus TDKR- I think that with Raimi's Spiderman, what helps is Raimi's consistent quirkiness that fits the Spiderman character.... even when the movie is flawed. With Nolan's movies- the good/bad is that his films are meant to be taken so seriously, that when things go right- it's powerful as heck. When things go astray, I feel like it's just painful. Even on first viewing of TDKR, I found myself thinking, "Wrong choice- wrong choice- wrong choice....etc. etc. etc." I know a number of people were fine with TDKR or felt it good but not great- but I really think that this was one case where the ultra-secrecy kind of hurt script corrections. On the flip side, I WORSHIP TDK and really thought much of BB was great. I feel like TDKR was more misguided and rushed than anything else. I would have loved to have read what Nolan would have done if Ledger had lived and the Joker was used as originally intended in TDKR. Between the film itself and the novelization we have a pretty good idea of how joker was going to be used. It was never going to be a major role. TDKRises flaws go far deeper than that. Spider-Man 3 has some good in it but the bad stuff far outweighs it. The poor use of Gwen Stacy is something that’s never really brought up but it’s right there with the cramming in or venom. She’s in there just because they felt like they had to. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Sept 14, 2018 10:27:41 GMT -5
I just watched the editors' cut of Spiderman 3 again- and I have to say that there are far more scenes that I still enjoy in Spiderman 3 versus TDKR- I think that with Raimi's Spiderman, what helps is Raimi's consistent quirkiness that fits the Spiderman character.... even when the movie is flawed. With Nolan's movies- the good/bad is that his films are meant to be taken so seriously, that when things go right- it's powerful as heck. When things go astray, I feel like it's just painful. Even on first viewing of TDKR, I found myself thinking, "Wrong choice- wrong choice- wrong choice....etc. etc. etc." I know a number of people were fine with TDKR or felt it good but not great- but I really think that this was one case where the ultra-secrecy kind of hurt script corrections. On the flip side, I WORSHIP TDK and really thought much of BB was great. I feel like TDKR was more misguided and rushed than anything else. I would have loved to have read what Nolan would have done if Ledger had lived and the Joker was used as originally intended in TDKR. Between the film itself and the novelization we have a pretty good idea of how joker was going to be used. It was never going to be a major role. TDKRises flaws go far deeper than that. Spider-Man 3 has some good in it but the bad stuff far outweighs it. The poor use of Gwen Stacy is something that’s never really brought up but it’s right there with the cramming in or venom. She’s in there just because they felt like they had to. I think it was the commentary that mentioned that originally Mary Jane was supposed to leave as the love interest in the imiddle of Spiderman 3, and that Gwen Stacey was supposed to the be one hanging from the Venom ropes at the end- Hard to see how that would have worked out smoothly unless there was a REALLY major rewrite ( The gal who played Betty Brant said that Raimi told her that finally she would have had a major part in Spiderman 4- possibly as main love interest? Who knows). Having an actress turn out to be pregnant halfway through shooting apparently wasn't a great idea during production. ( Ihink this also happened on the Bond film with Tomorrow Never Dies and Teri Hatcher). |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Sept 14, 2018 10:59:04 GMT -5
The whole thing was screwed from the start. Yeah Teri Hatcher was pregnant. Now that can be worked around better like when Halle Berry was pregnant during filming of X-men DOFP or when Scarlett Johansson was pregnant during filming of Avengers Age of Ultron. Watching the movies you’d never know because they both got to do more than just stand around talking.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Sept 14, 2018 23:26:39 GMT -5
The whole thing was screwed from the start. Yeah Teri Hatcher was pregnant. Now that can be worked around better like when Halle Berry was pregnant during filming of X-men DOFP or when Scarlett Johansson was pregnant during filming of Avengers Age of Ultron. Watching the movies you’d never know because they both got to do more than just stand around talking. I do like that Raimi did have the passion to TRY to do a Spiderman 4 to make up for Spiderman 3, but - according to a special effects guy at a local con- Avatar's 3d success led to Sony demanding Spiderman 4 be in 3d, but a good conversion he was told couldn't happen with the time frame Raimi wanted. If that's the case, I would have rather Raimi do a crappy 3d conversion rather than tossing out a Raimi Spiderman 4. Oh well... |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Sept 15, 2018 9:16:32 GMT -5
It’s interesting to wonder what if. Would it have been his Fury Road/DOFP or would it have been his Superman IV/Crystal Skull. Sometimes a third sequel can turn it all around but sometimes it buries the franchise for good.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Sept 15, 2018 12:40:17 GMT -5
It’s interesting to wonder what if. Would it have been his Fury Road/DOFP or would it have been his Superman IV/Crystal Skull. Sometimes a third sequel can turn it all around but sometimes it buries the franchise for good. Well- nowadays, we're privileged to have SOME inkling (though of course there's also the Internet rumor mill) of what happens behind the scenes. To me, Superman IV and Crystal Skull are interesting comparisons. Both took a little too long to get made, and some of the actors just didn't come off as well for what they had to play (particularly Lois and Marion). I'd argue that budget and overcasting just put the nail in Superman IV's coffin- but Crystal Skull had the finances and can't blame being cut down to nothing- if anything, I feel that Spielberg's decision to make Indy's child Shia Lebouf rather than (as Lucas mentioned) being a daughter was a big mistake. It felt like Superman III's problem: SIII was a Richard Pryor movie rather than a Superman movie. A side thought that I do find interesting is how Spiderman 3 would have turned out and Superman 3 would have turned out if studios didn't force Venom and Richard Pryor down the filmmakers' throats: Now, with Lester- The movie still would not have been great imo. His aesthetics (and Reeve's script approval) still look like they were set on an odd mix of mindless comedy and meaningless drama (the Lana/Clark romance had no real depth nor Superman's split persona)- but at least it would have been more focused on Reeve. With Spiderman 3- if Raimi wasn't forced to have the story incorporate Venom- it was ALREADY overstuffed with wrapping up the Green Goblin and Sandman (and it would have been Vulture as well)- but arguably we wouldn't have had the storyline of the 'alien/jekyll/Hyde' bits that were forced into the movie. Part of what ruined Spiderman 3's story to me is that Parker's journey and character choices through half of the film don't have real significance because it had to be attributed to the Venom influence. One wonders if Donner had not been fired and stayed on..... would WB have stayed out of the way, or would WB have also forced Donner to integrate elements that the wouldn't have wanted? |
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,823 
|
Post by atp on Sept 15, 2018 13:23:41 GMT -5
The Pryor Only People ruined Superman 3
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Sept 15, 2018 15:10:08 GMT -5
It’s interesting to wonder what if. Would it have been his Fury Road/DOFP or would it have been his Superman IV/Crystal Skull. Sometimes a third sequel can turn it all around but sometimes it buries the franchise for good. Well- nowadays, we're privileged to have SOME inkling (though of course there's also the Internet rumor mill) of what happens behind the scenes. To me, Superman IV and Crystal Skull are interesting comparisons. Both took a little too long to get made, and some of the actors just didn't come off as well for what they had to play (particularly Lois and Marion). I'd argue that budget and overcasting just put the nail in Superman IV's coffin- but Crystal Skull had the finances and can't blame being cut down to nothing- if anything, I feel that Spielberg's decision to make Indy's child Shia Lebouf rather than (as Lucas mentioned) being a daughter was a big mistake. It felt like Superman III's problem: SIII was a Richard Pryor movie rather than a Superman movie. A side thought that I do find interesting is how Spiderman 3 would have turned out and Superman 3 would have turned out if studios didn't force Venom and Richard Pryor down the filmmakers' throats: Now, with Lester- The movie still would not have been great imo. His aesthetics (and Reeve's script approval) still look like they were set on an odd mix of mindless comedy and meaningless drama (the Lana/Clark romance had no real depth nor Superman's split persona)- but at least it would have been more focused on Reeve. With Spiderman 3- if Raimi wasn't forced to have the story incorporate Venom- it was ALREADY overstuffed with wrapping up the Green Goblin and Sandman (and it would have been Vulture as well)- but arguably we wouldn't have had the storyline of the 'alien/jekyll/Hyde' bits that were forced into the movie. Part of what ruined Spiderman 3's story to me is that Parker's journey and character choices through half of the film don't have real significance because it had to be attributed to the Venom influence. One wonders if Donner had not been fired and stayed on..... would WB have stayed out of the way, or would WB have also forced Donner to integrate elements that the wouldn't have wanted? Superman IV is apt because like Spider-Man 3 there was a four year gap between it and the awful comedy drenched third film. And with Sonys deicision making as poor as cannons on the creative end I have my doubts that it would have turned out better. Electro was basically Gus Gorman and Nuclear Man rolled into one awful character. Crystal Skull has a lot of creative problems like Spider-Man 4 did but also faced the time issue. I think if Indy 4 had been made sooner before Spielberg and Lucas got so out of touch it would have been better. Some sequels take too long while some are rushed. The four year wait for Star Trek into darkness helped kill that franchise but the 20 and 30 year waits for fury Road and Rambo 4 meant the filmmakers had time to really think about getting it right. Batman & Robin was rushed. X-men Apocalypse was rushed. The six year wait helped Goldeneye (but unfortunately caused Dalton to leave) and the four year wait helped Casino Royale. But I feel the large gaps during Craig’s tenure as Bond have hurt his films overall. Skyfall was a hit but Spectre is heavily flawed and despite being Bond for 12 years Craig’s output has been relatively sparse. That’s be fine if they were alll quality films but they aren’t. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Sept 17, 2018 23:08:19 GMT -5
Well- nowadays, we're privileged to have SOME inkling (though of course there's also the Internet rumor mill) of what happens behind the scenes. To me, Superman IV and Crystal Skull are interesting comparisons. Both took a little too long to get made, and some of the actors just didn't come off as well for what they had to play (particularly Lois and Marion). I'd argue that budget and overcasting just put the nail in Superman IV's coffin- but Crystal Skull had the finances and can't blame being cut down to nothing- if anything, I feel that Spielberg's decision to make Indy's child Shia Lebouf rather than (as Lucas mentioned) being a daughter was a big mistake. It felt like Superman III's problem: SIII was a Richard Pryor movie rather than a Superman movie. A side thought that I do find interesting is how Spiderman 3 would have turned out and Superman 3 would have turned out if studios didn't force Venom and Richard Pryor down the filmmakers' throats: Now, with Lester- The movie still would not have been great imo. His aesthetics (and Reeve's script approval) still look like they were set on an odd mix of mindless comedy and meaningless drama (the Lana/Clark romance had no real depth nor Superman's split persona)- but at least it would have been more focused on Reeve. With Spiderman 3- if Raimi wasn't forced to have the story incorporate Venom- it was ALREADY overstuffed with wrapping up the Green Goblin and Sandman (and it would have been Vulture as well)- but arguably we wouldn't have had the storyline of the 'alien/jekyll/Hyde' bits that were forced into the movie. Part of what ruined Spiderman 3's story to me is that Parker's journey and character choices through half of the film don't have real significance because it had to be attributed to the Venom influence. One wonders if Donner had not been fired and stayed on..... would WB have stayed out of the way, or would WB have also forced Donner to integrate elements that the wouldn't have wanted? Superman IV is apt because like Spider-Man 3 there was a four year gap between it and the awful comedy drenched third film. And with Sonys deicision making as poor as cannons on the creative end I have my doubts that it would have turned out better. Electro was basically Gus Gorman and Nuclear Man rolled into one awful character. Crystal Skull has a lot of creative problems like Spider-Man 4 did but also faced the time issue. I think if Indy 4 had been made sooner before Spielberg and Lucas got so out of touch it would have been better. Some sequels take too long while some are rushed. The four year wait for Star Trek into darkness helped kill that franchise but the 20 and 30 year waits for fury Road and Rambo 4 meant the filmmakers had time to really think about getting it right. Batman & Robin was rushed. X-men Apocalypse was rushed. The six year wait helped Goldeneye (but unfortunately caused Dalton to leave) and the four year wait helped Casino Royale. But I feel the large gaps during Craig’s tenure as Bond have hurt his films overall. Skyfall was a hit but Spectre is heavily flawed and despite being Bond for 12 years Craig’s output has been relatively sparse. That’s be fine if they were alll quality films but they aren’t. I enjoyed some of Craig's James Bond films- but you're right: the films aren't consistently that good and don't come out that regularly. I thought Sam Mendes' was going to be the savior of the series, but unfortunately the Craig Bonds are more like the Star Trek films- except the odd number ones seem to be better.... |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Sept 18, 2018 9:30:09 GMT -5
Right if they were all as good as Casino Royale I wouldn’t care if there was four or five years between every film but waiting years for something like quantum of solace just pisses me off.
I think Mendes shows that sometimes, for films like Bond, it’s good to do one and move on. Maybe come back and do a second film five or ten years later. It allows you to reacharge your creative batteries and in that time the world and the genre changes enough to give you some new ideas and new takes on the material. That’s what so many classic bond directors did. Most didn’t make back to back films. I think Mendes said everything he wanted to say with Bond in Skyfall.
Meanwhile Christopher McQuarrie has turned in back to back solid films in the Mission Impossible franchise. I think he always had plans for a two film story and that’s why Fallout is so good. It let him finish what he set up in Rogue Nation.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Sept 18, 2018 11:41:37 GMT -5
Right if they were all as good as Casino Royale I wouldn’t care if there was four or five years between every film but waiting years for something like quantum of solace just pisses me off. I think Mendes shows that sometimes, for films like Bond, it’s good to do one and move on. Maybe come back and do a second film five or ten years later. It allows you to reacharge your creative batteries and in that time the world and the genre changes enough to give you some new ideas and new takes on the material. That’s what so many classic bond directors did. Most didn’t make back to back films. I think Mendes said everything he wanted to say with Bond in Skyfall. Meanwhile Christopher McQuarrie has turned in back to back solid films in the Mission Impossible franchise. I think he always had plans for a two film story and that’s why Fallout is so good. It let him finish what he set up in Rogue Nation. I enjoyed both of McQuarrie's Mission Impossible films, but still felt that all the action-espionage directors could look at how Speilberg handled the exposition scenes in "Raiders"- I do wonder if anyone cares if Mission Impossible needs the 'ha- we set you up!' scene at this point, as I feel more people just tune in for the rest that apes Bond. (I know I'm fine without the 'gotcha' scene put in all of them). As a side note: Just viewed the excellent "DePalma" documentary on Prime. It detailed how DePalma originally had things setup with one screenwriter, but then Cruise brought in Robert Towne who threw everything off with his version and both scripts were in battle during the making of it- hence, the sloppiness of the first Mission Impossible. Second aside: I know it's probably the least popular, but I actually enjoy the second one a lot, even if it's more just a 'John Woo action picture' than a "Mission Impossible" film. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Sept 18, 2018 23:32:03 GMT -5
Second one has a so bad it’s good appeal because it’s pure cheese but there’s a reason it killed any chance of a movie career Dougray Scott had. Hollywood really screwed over John Woo. His US films were entertaining but they never really knew how to use him. I’d say Hard Target came closest.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Sept 19, 2018 0:20:05 GMT -5
Second one has a so bad it’s good appeal because it’s pure cheese but there’s a reason it killed any chance of a movie career Dougray Scott had. Hollywood really screwed over John Woo. His US films were entertaining but they never really knew how to use him. I’d say Hard Target came closest. Actually I just saw an extended R-rated cut of Hard Target- oddly, the theatrical is tighter and better. The love story in Mission Impossible 2 is incredibly cheesy - but much of John Woo stuff (even his great stuff) is so way over the top with melodrama and action that it's something one either goes with or not - The team-up of Star Trek writers, John Woo, and Tom Cruise to me was a fun unique treat in MI: 2, and Woo's Mission Impossible to me was the most stylish. In an ideal world to me, I'd have Christopher McQuarrie write and Woo direct the Mission Impossible series.... |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Sept 21, 2018 20:31:21 GMT -5
I felt while Woo brought great style but it strayed too far away from the franchises style. The first one really stuck to it while they slowly started to get it back on track with the third one. I felt his style worked with something like Face Off which was even more far out than the M:I films. It was an absurd concept so being so stylised worked for it. Oddly enough Nic Cage went on to work with Mission Impossible director Brian DePalma in Snake Eyes which was pretty over the top in its own right.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Sept 23, 2018 1:05:00 GMT -5
I felt while Woo brought great style but it strayed too far away from the franchises style. The first one really stuck to it while they slowly started to get it back on track with the third one. I felt his style worked with something like Face Off which was even more far out than the M:I films. It was an absurd concept so being so stylised worked for it. Oddly enough Nic Cage went on to work with Mission Impossible director Brian DePalma in Snake Eyes which was pretty over the top in its own right. Originally it was supposed to end in a tidal wave of sorts (not kidding)- even MORE over the top! I think my own lack of real love (I don't hate it, just 'meh' on it) for the original Mission Impossible franchise makes me feel like just making the MI movies a Tom Cruise version of Bond as 'good enough' for my tastes- but that's why I feel like they should make it more stylish and work it as a type of superhero film with colorful villains/etc. than trying to be 'realistic' when the reality of the world right now isn't all that appealing imo... |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Sept 23, 2018 11:02:11 GMT -5
I always felt the team aspect of the original series and the second series helped M:I stand out from Bond, Man From Uncle, The Avengers, The Harry Palmer films and other spy/espionage properties of the day and it made if stand our even more on the 90s. DePalmas film was still very different from something like Goldeneye even thought they were using that post Cold War period as a foundation for their stories.
The last few films have combined the Cruise high action and practical effects with the espionage and team dynamic which helps separate it from the Fast and Furious Films, Bourne, and Bond. Bourne’s style has gotten kind of stale, the F&F films are doing their own thing being cartoonishly over the top, and Bond has been a trend follower for decades. The Mission Impossible franchise has even stolen its thunder by outdoing it with the massive set pieces and practical stunts. It’s something Bond franchise was unique in doing but now it’s like most other big budget action movies when it comes to that aspect.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Sept 23, 2018 19:39:37 GMT -5
I always felt the team aspect of the original series and the second series helped M:I stand out from Bond, Man From Uncle, The Avengers, The Harry Palmer films and other spy/espionage properties of the day and it made if stand our even more on the 90s. DePalmas film was still very different from something like Goldeneye even thought they were using that post Cold War period as a foundation for their stories. The last few films have combined the Cruise high action and practical effects with the espionage and team dynamic which helps separate it from the Fast and Furious Films, Bourne, and Bond. Bourne’s style has gotten kind of stale, the F&F films are doing their own thing being cartoonishly over the top, and Bond has been a trend follower for decades. The Mission Impossible franchise has even stolen its thunder by outdoing it with the massive set pieces and practical stunts. It’s something Bond franchise was unique in doing but now it’s like most other big budget action movies when it comes to that aspect. If it was up to me, I'd advise Cruise to fill his MI films with even more colorful villains and supporting characters to keep interest. The last two were very good films because of the supporting characters and story woven around it- but I think they could go even further. |
|
