Screenrant: Mission: Impossible is Now Better Than James Bond

The article that has Bond fans in a tizzy. Has Mission Impossible overtaken Bond as the best spy series?

https://screenrant.com/mission-impossible-better-james-bond/?utm_source=SR-FB-P&utm_medium=Social-Distribution

The article cites the conventions of Bond as trappings for the producers that prevents them from starting with a blank canvas for each film, but fails to take into account that the very reason why Bond has lasted as long as it has is because its brand is a hit. Not to mention the stunt work in the Bond films really began as early as 1969 with the exceptional ski chases (or as early as GF and TB should one include the ejector seat or jet pack stunts), which foreshadowed the successful marriage between espionage thrillers/international intrigue and stuntwork. So without Bond, MI wouldn't be where it is today. And as much as I've enjoyed the MI series, it really doesn't need to be Ethan Hunt. It could be any action series. 

And this is from someone who is very much in the camp of looking forward to MI: Fallout more than Bond, despite my passion overall being for the latter. 

The author also sensationalises the racism and homophobia present in Fleming's novels, though I guess that was the point. Clever writer, as I'm sure she's very well aware of the ripples it would send through fandom. Carver would be proud. 

Quote :

As long as both Mission: Impossible and Bond keep making money, their respective studios will keep making more additions to the franchises. That can make it difficult to keep up the tension and stakes: how do you creative life-changing stories for these characters, then swing back to the status quo in the next movie?
That’s a problem both franchises have faced. Skyfall changed the game, but Spectre went back to square one.

How many variations of Bond's personal struggles (as seen in Skyfall) would audiences like to see?

Good article. It's true that Bond can be somewhat more hidebound by audience expectations (really the only holdovers from the TV show in the MI movies are the theme music and the self-destructing mission briefings; Ethan Hunt was never a character on the TV incarnation, and when they included one who had been (Jon Voight's Jim Phelps in the first movie) they made him a traitor).

I will say that I've never had trouble following the plot of a Bond, but the MI ones can become needlessly convoluted (Rogue Nation) or are too noticeably just there to serve as something to string the action sequences together (Ghost Protocol).

All that said, I will hopefully be seeing Fallout tomorrow and am looking forward to it. 97% on Rotten Tomatoes is an impressive amount of critical love.

With all this M:I vs Bond nonsense, this may be the most refreshing piece to come out of all of it. Skip to 2:20 when Cruise is asked who would win in a fight: Bond or Hunt.





Love that he doesn't engage in that BS. Let both franchises exist, it doesn't have to be only one or the other.

Refreshing indeed.

You're right, it doesn't need to be one or the other, however when Bond inspired something else that is now doing it better, you have to wonder about the direction of the Bond films, and how they can avoid slipping into oblivion. 

Bond doesn't necessarily need to be about stunts to be good (i.e. DN, FRWL, and some of my favourite moments from GE, TND and SF aren't the action sequences) because it has so much within its brand to still maintain interest, which is something that the article touches on, but sees it as a trapping. Take the stunts out of MI and I'm not sure it would be as successful.

Meh, knew the piece would hit Bond with the usual outdatedracistmisogynist stick. Millennials are nothing if not a predictably boring pack of moralisers.

Look, I've seen three or four Mission Impossible movies and they're not bad at all. They're quite entertaining and well done for what they are. However I'd make the following points:

- Your average punter on the street could not name you Tom Cruise's character in the franchise

- After two decades it's fairly clear that when Tom Cruise is done with it all the character and the series will end as well; there's no possibility of continuity as there was with Bond

-  How many memorable characters has M:I produced?

- Speaking of characters, can anyone tell me anything about Ethan Hunt's personality or traits? The article writer chides Bond for his well-known vices and habits, but at least he has something

- Bond has produced countless iconic moments which audiences have remembered for decades; M:I had that cable dangling scene in the first movie which was parodied ad nauseam in 90's comedy skits but that's about it.

So for me, on the metrics I've touched on, M:I is yet to surpass Austin Powers in the spy genre, let alone James Bond. This is not to say that there haven't been countless individual spy films that are better than individual Bond films. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is a better film than plenty of Bond outings. On a holistic level, however, Bond remains iconic. The same tired old arguments were trotted out when Bourne was in its prime. So often they're rooted in cultural hostility to Bond's "Old World" values; the likes of Bourne and Hunt are little more than stuntmen. They're blandly inoffensive (insomuch as cis-gendered white males can be) which is why sneering Leftists in black-rimmed glasses thicker than their skulls so desperately try and palm them off as replacements for Bond.

^ Good post and agreed on most, if not all, counts.

In terms of modern audience recognition, box office and industry success: Yes.

But M:I is shepherded by Cruise and has been his baby since 1996. Bond has to deal with legal issues, studios and EON-and decades of pre-exisitng histories.

The trouble is that EON are being outclassed by a franchise of good to very good films that only has one entry that was truly great and was I think purposely released in the gap of GE and TND: the original 1996 film.