|
Wrong bad spy organization name there.
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 22:34 |
|
|
Happy Noodle Boy posted:Wrong bad spy organization name there. Yeah, I think that MI: Rogue Nation is intentionally trying to pre-empt elements of Spectre like bad guy spy organization and sexy MI-6 agent in order to make their action setpiece orienty spy franchise seem stronger compared to 007's. Why do you think Ethan doesn't sleep with Ilsa?, because unlike 007, Mission Impossible isn't about objectifying women any more. This movie is a calculated product.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
DrVenkman posted:I think McQuarrie said the original talk when he was re-writing 'Ghost Protocol' was to kill Ethan's wife off, but they didn't think something as drastic as that was needed. Instead I think the series makes it clear that he can't be a family man. Though if they ever get to the final film of the bunch, I'm sure they'll have a cameo and get together. I hope they just transition Tom Cruse into the Secretary or maybe Brandt's role once he gets too old for this poo poo. Just slowly transition to a new action lead, or switch to a different team role as the constant. Either that or make sure Ving Rhames still shows up in every movie, at least one movie in the far future being elderly Luther drinking coffee at a cafe while IMF mayhem ensues and he just shakes his head and goes back to his breakfast.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 01:32
|
|
|
Gyges posted:I hope they just transition Tom Cruse into the Secretary or maybe Brandt's role once he gets too old for this poo poo. Just slowly transition to a new action lead, or switch to a different team role as the constant. Either that or make sure Ving Rhames still shows up in every movie, at least one movie in the far future being elderly Luther drinking coffee at a cafe while IMF mayhem ensues and he just shakes his head and goes back to his breakfast. That's why Alec Baldwin's such genius casting. That's Jack Ryan as (D)DCI. It's like casting Redford as SHIELD director, except played straight. VAGENDA OF MANOCIDE fucked around with this message at 04:39 on Aug 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 04:37
|
|
|
Gyges posted:I hope they just transition Tom Cruse into the Secretary or maybe Brandt's role once he gets too old for this poo poo. Just slowly transition to a new action lead, or switch to a different team role as the constant. Either that or make sure Ving Rhames still shows up in every movie, at least one movie in the far future being elderly Luther drinking coffee at a cafe while IMF mayhem ensues and he just shakes his head and goes back to his breakfast. Maybe they are trying to set up Renner for that role. Rogue Nation is the movie where Renner finally embraces Tom Cruise's methods of insane stunts as the most practical way to accomplish espionage.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 05:09
|
|
|
I wouldn't mind if Ilsa joins IMF and takes over the role.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 06:10
|
|
|
Ilsa was probably the best part of the movie, I would like to see her in a role that's a little less "whose side is she on?"
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 10:44
|
|
|
It's going to be one hell of a wasted opportunity if Rebecca Ferguson isn't brought back for MI:6. That final knife fight was all kinds of badass.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 09:31
|
|
|
Mars4523 posted:It's going to be one hell of a wasted opportunity if Rebecca Ferguson isn't brought back for MI:6. That final knife fight was all kinds of badass. Considering she's an MI6 agent, it would be a waste for MI:6 to not be about MI6.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 11:47
|
|
|
Gyges posted:I hope they just transition Tom Cruse into the Secretary or maybe Brandt's role once he gets too old for this poo poo. Just slowly transition to a new action lead, or switch to a different team role as the constant. Either that or make sure Ving Rhames still shows up in every movie, at least one movie in the far future being elderly Luther drinking coffee at a cafe while IMF mayhem ensues and he just shakes his head and goes back to his breakfast. From what I've heard the original plan for 4 was supposed to be Cruise quitting at the end turning the franchise over to Renner but then Cruise changed his mind. All in all while I've enjoyed the series it has been kind of goofy how the movies, except for 2, have Ethan Hunt cut off from IMF for some reason or another.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
Rouge nation was fun and this is fun franchise. I'll be happy if they keep making these movies just like Fast and Furious. However, I couldn't stop giggling every time Alec or someone else went on a rant about the evils of IMF 
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Rouge nation was fun and this is fun franchise. I'll be happy if they keep making these movies just like Fast and Furious. Yeah the whole premise of trying to make IMF out to be some destructive organization was maybe a misguided thing to do, because it kind of undermines the whole premise of these films. We know it's ridiculous, pointing it out in the plot doesn't serve any purpose. By the end all I could hear was Homer shouting "but they get results you stupid chief!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:From what I've heard the original plan for 4 was supposed to be Cruise quitting at the end turning the franchise over to Renner but then Cruise changed his mind. You have to cut off Ethan Hunt from the IMF in order for there to be any tension. Otherwise it's like watching the A-Team: Now 100% backed by the US Military and with unlimited supplies. It's like giving MacGuyver a gun and insisting he must use it in the intended fashion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
Gyges posted:You have to cut off Ethan Hunt from the IMF in order for there to be any tension. Otherwise it's like watching the A-Team: Now 100% backed by the US Military and with unlimited supplies. It's like giving MacGuyver a gun and insisting he must use it in the intended fashion. Well, they really need to change the premise so it isn't that he has support all the time, except for the movies. Especially how the last two involved the complete destruction of the IMF, twice.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
My apologies if its already been pointed out, but did anyone else notice that Ethan's sketch of Solomon Lane was nearly identical to the famous sketch of the Zodiac killer?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
It's not quite as near-perfect as Ghost Protocol, but Rogue Nation was terrific. Even better, this is easily one of the best-shot films of the year.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
I enjoyed Rogue Nation, but it kind of felt a little slight somehow. I also feel like I enjoyed it in spite of Cruise rather than because of him, though it was interesting that he's finally letting these films show him as a bit past it and not as much of a superhuman. Though that is undercut a little by the extended monologue that Alec Baldwin gives about how But my biggest problem was that the message of it seemed extremely muddled. The film seemed to draw a clear comparison between the IMF and the Syndicate, in fact at one point Simon Pegg explicitly says they're an "anti-IMF". But the problem is that they don't ever show the "anti" part of that. We literally never find out what the Syndicate's goals are. All we know is that they were involved somehow with a bunch of bad poo poo happening around the globe - just like the IMF are - and they killed the German chancellor. But for all we know the chancellor was planning something terrible and they saved a lot of lives doing that, just like the IMF would have. Also, they're hunting down the IMF for unknown reasons, but then the IMF, through Hunt are chasing the Syndicate for unknown reasons. The Syndicate were founded by MI6 but have gone rogue because they operate without oversight, but the IMF also operate without oversight and in this film also go rogue. None of this is slightly subtle. It's a crashingly obvious part of the plot. I guess a "we're not so different you and I" speech from the villain would be a cliché, but it just feels weird that there isn't one, and that this clear similarity is never really addressed by anyone. Instead, even though Alec Baldwin starts off warning of the dangers of paramilitary organisations that operate without oversight, and then has his point immediately proved for him when the Syndicate turns out to be a paramilitary organisation that operates without oversight, he finishes the film telling Congress how amazing and essential a paramilitary organisation that operates without oversight is, apparently because Tom Cruise is just so dreamy or something.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 07:22
|
|
|
Ethan "The Living Manifestation Of Destiny" Hunt
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 11:22
|
|
|
The Time Dissolver posted:Ethan "The Living Manifestation Of Destiny" Hunt That speech is brilliant in a meta way. The whole thing is about Cruise and about how he has a supernatural ability to win the day because he's the protagonist.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 11:25
|
|
|
Comrade Fakename posted:I enjoyed Rogue Nation, but it kind of felt a little slight somehow. I also feel like I enjoyed it in spite of Cruise rather than because of him, though it was interesting that he's finally letting these films show him as a bit past it and not as much of a superhuman. Though that is undercut a little by the extended monologue that Alec Baldwin gives about how From what I gathered the syndicate exists to create the sort of situations that the imf and mi6 exist to fix. It's that breaking windows to support the glass industry applied to terrorism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
Also, if the Syndicate is an "Anti-IMF", functions similarly to the IMF, and is called a "Rogue Nation", does this mean the IMF is a "Nation"? Because the title of the movie makes no god damned sense.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
Snak posted:Also, if the Syndicate is an "Anti-IMF", functions similarly to the IMF, and is called a "Rogue Nation", does this mean the IMF is a "Nation"? Because the title of the movie makes no god damned sense. It's an anti-IMF because it's oriented towards promoting global financial disorder. It's a rogue nation because a nation (the UK) went rogue to create it, rather than working with the 188 member countries of the IMF.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 01:03
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:It's an anti-IMF because it's oriented towards promoting global financial disorder. It's a rogue nation because a nation (the UK) went rogue to create it, rather than working with the 188 member countries of the IMF. That kind of makes sense. I wish they had explained that in the movie.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 01:32
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:It's an anti-IMF because it's oriented towards promoting global financial disorder. It's a rogue nation because a nation (the UK) went rogue to create it, rather than working with the 188 member countries of the IMF. How can the IMF be an international organization if it answers to Congress and is made subordinate to the CIA?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 02:39
|
|
|
It's not subordinate to the CIA. It not being made subordinate to the CIA is, from the perspective of "what changes over the course of the story," the real plot arc of the movie. It's an interesting contrast: in MI4, it's Jeremy Renner with the arc. It's the story of him finding his place in Hunt's team, and it's achieved through the displays of competence that are the primary currency in the Mission Impossible universe. It's positive, even if it's tinged with that weird Brad Bird elitism. Here it's Alec Baldwin who evolves, and it's on the back of Hunt's team fabricating a situation in which Baldwin's character gets to look good while hiding that he was on the wrong side of things. I don't know if I'd call it funny, but it's the most joking of the franchise, which is a nice evolution given how many of them there are now.
Sir Kodiak fucked around with this message at 03:00 on Aug 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
Comrade Fakename posted:I enjoyed Rogue Nation, but it kind of felt a little slight somehow. I also feel like I enjoyed it in spite of Cruise rather than because of him, though it was interesting that he's finally letting these films show him as a bit past it and not as much of a superhuman. Though that is undercut a little by the extended monologue that Alec Baldwin gives about how Ethan's the one who gives the "we're not so different you and I speech", which was a very interesting moment. He's the only one to acknowledge the parallel between him and Lane, and what he seems to say is that he's just a better version of Lane, both morally and effectively. Let's go back to what the Syndicate wants. Their immediate goal in the movie is to turn Ethan into an asset. Ethan knows this, and he knows that the way to stymie that goal is to submit his evidence to the CIA and simply walk away. Why doesn't he? He doesn't actually care about foiling the Syndicate's larger goals (which are nebulous, as all great bad guy espionage organizations' goals are), because he's willing to give Lane half a million pounds. What he does want is to prove that he's better. That's the point of the ridiculous parallel takedown. Ethan's pissed that Lane was able to trick him into a trap and capture him, and so he wants to do the same to Lane, except preventing him from escaping. Surpassing Lane and the Syndicate becomes the aspiration of the movie. By the end, Ethan Hunt has achieved everything Lane wanted, that is, complete autonomy and unlimited resources. The IMF is back in the good graces of the US government and its secretary is completely subservient to Ethan. The question isn't "Why isn't the IMF like the Syndicate?", it's "How is the IMF better than the Syndicate?" and the answer is that Ethan is more skilled and that he works for the United States. That would seem to lead to a perverse read, that the IMF are the real bad guys, but if we want to look to the actual intent of the film, it seems to say that effective espionage relies on a tension between the spies themselves and the ones who give the orders. In his "we're not so different" speech, Ethan acknowledges that Lane's right to hate his former employers and that giving himself orders , but Ethan turns it around. IIRC, the gist of his speech is that without a government to attach himself to, Lane is directionless. Without that direction, he can't help but lose to Hunt. In the weird politics of the movie, spy organizations must work for governments, but they can only do their job effectively when they are completely free from accountability or oversight. Overall, the script is very mechanical ("economical" would be the charitable word). There is nothing in the script that is not strictly necessary for the plot to continue or to set up an action setpiece. No characterization, no drama, nothing. Like, during the timeskip, Ethan just does pushups and draws sketches of his nemeses for months. Ilsa's "who's she working for?" plot could have provided some kind of dramatic hook, but literally every time she did something suspicious, the movie immediately shows that she's actually working with the good guys. It's a movie where the villains introduce themselves saying that they're the bad guys. It's very well shot, with some great action moments, but the script just isn't there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 05:36
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure the moral of this movie was that Tom Cruise's character's ability to react to any situation in an amazingly effective AND MORAL way mean's that he deserves free reign to do whatever he wants. Like his response to "Why should you get operate without oversight or legal restriction?" is "Because If I can't, who's going to save the world?" with a straight face.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 05:43
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:It's not subordinate to the CIA. It not being made subordinate to the CIA is, from the perspective of "what changes over the course of the story," the real plot arc of the movie. It's an interesting contrast: in MI4, it's Jeremy Renner with the arc. It's the story of him finding his place in Hunt's team, and it's achieved through the displays of competence that are the primary currency in the Mission Impossible universe. It's positive, even if it's tinged with that weird Brad Bird elitism. Here it's Alec Baldwin who evolves, and it's on the back of Hunt's team fabricating a situation in which Baldwin's character gets to look good while hiding that he was on the wrong side of things. I don't know if I'd call it funny, but it's the most joking of the franchise, which is a nice evolution given how many of them there are now. It is literally subsumed by the CIA, until Ethan can show Alec Baldwin that IMF is way cooler than CIA, so he leaves the CIA and takes over the freshly autonomous IMF. The IMF is not an international agency. Hell, the President of the United States pulled the plug on them last movie and this movie they have to answer to some sort of national security council, which is the framing device for the movie. Snak posted:I'm pretty sure the moral of this movie was that Tom Cruise's character's ability to react to any situation in an amazingly effective AND MORAL way mean's that he deserves free reign to do whatever he wants. Like his response to "Why should you get operate without oversight or legal restriction?" is "Because If I can't, who's going to save the world?" with a straight face. You just have to realize that Ethan Hunt is the Philosopher King of (counter)intelligence. Gyges fucked around with this message at 05:49 on Aug 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 05:44
|
|
|
I think that Sir Kodiak is getting confused between the IMF in this film, which is the Impossible Mission Force (and not an international organisation), and the IMF in real life which is the International Monetary Fund (and has 188 member countries). Unless that was a rather poorly delivered joke.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 06:32
|
|
|
The conflation happens within the movie itself. It's the opposite of the joke used in the Marvel movies, where SHIELD is the DHS, a US agency, that presumes the global task of securing the world. Instead, an international organization, the IMF, is treated as being beneath the oversight of the US government. It's part of what I was referring to in regards to this iteration of the franchise being the most joking.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 07:14
|
|
|
Just saw this. It was good, not great. 3 4 1 5 2
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 07:28
|
|
|
It was funny how Ilsa had to take her shoes off in any scene with Tom Cruise so he'd look normal sized.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 11:32
|
|
|
Disgusting Coward posted:It was funny how Ilsa had to take her shoes off in any scene with Tom Cruise so he'd look normal sized. It was funny how they needed to "foreshadow" Ilsa diving into the upside-down water tower to save Ethan by having that scene earlier where we see that she can hold he breath for 2 minutes. Like they actually had to show a watch telling us how long she was holding her breath. subtle.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
Snak posted:It was funny how they needed to "foreshadow" Ilsa diving into the upside-down water tower to save Ethan by having that scene earlier where we see that she can hold he breath for 2 minutes. Like they actually had to show a watch telling us how long she was holding her breath. subtle. Snak posted:That kind of makes sense. I wish they had explained that in the movie.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
Oh come on. In the movie they clearly say that The Syndicate is a Rogue Nation. Which does not make sense. They just really liked that phrase and wanted to use it as the title of the film. Even in the context it was explained to me in this thread, that Rogue Nation refers to the UK, because they created The Sydicate, the Syndicate is still the work of one man going against the orders of his head of state. Still not a nation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
Snak posted:Oh come on. In the movie they clearly say that The Syndicate is a Rogue Nation. Which does not make sense. They just really liked that phrase and wanted to use it as the title of the film. Even in the context it was explained to me in this thread, that Rogue Nation refers to the UK, because they created The Sydicate, the Syndicate is still the work of one man going against the orders of his head of state. Still not a nation. They make mention of The Syndicate being composed of people from various countries who had defected, bringing these 'nationless' people together to create a new nation. It's clumsy for sure, but it made sense to me in the context of that speech.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 04:16
|
|
|
Vulpes posted:They make mention of The Syndicate being composed of people from various countries who had defected, bringing these 'nationless' people together to create a new nation. It's clumsy for sure, but it made sense to me in the context of that speech. I mean yeah, I get it, but I just can't help feeling like they just really liked the phrase "Rogue Nation" and wanted to justify using it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 04:21
|
|
|
Maybe that team that freed Philip Seymour Hoffman on MI:3 was a sort of Syndicate operation hired for the job. They had some pretty fancy gear and at least one of them spoke German.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 11:52
|
|
|
Snak posted:I mean yeah, I get it, but I just can't help feeling like they just really liked the phrase "Rogue Nation" and wanted to justify using it. You're being needlessly pedantic. Rogue Nation carries a thematic meaning most people picked up on, and Mission Impossible: Coalition of Various Nationalities Working With The Resources Of A Covert Division Rivaling That Of A Full Fledged Country would be a lovely title.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 22:34 |
|
|
Of course it does. I'm not confused by it, it's just loving wrong. The Syndicate is not a nation in any way, shape, or form. In fact, there's already a name for what it is: A Syndicate. But they wanted the movie to be called Rogue Nation. I mean, your options are pretty limited when you're trying to come up with titles for your set-piece driven spy thriller and you naming scheme so far has be "1" "2" "3" "Ghost Protocol" and cool sounding code phrase is the trend you are wanting to continue. You can't do anything that sounds like you're cribbing from 007, which also rules out just using "Syndicate". The entire movie feels like it was designed by committee, including the title. They did a good job. They made a decent product, I guess, but it just feels like an empty product to me, not a work of art. 3 had a better story and Ghost Protocol had better momentum. This one just didn't work for me, I guess I'm not the target demographic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 17:56
|
|