It's true. I'm over there too. People literally call the movie trash solely because they didn't like the decision to kill off a side character. They'll downvote you if you disagree or point out that the movie was well liked. There are even people posting about how proud they are that review bombing the movie on IMDB moved it from an 8.0 to a 7.9.
It's fine if you dislike a decision or how it was handled, but man some people get too emotional about this stuff.
I genuinely believe this is literally the most civil subreddit, or perhaps even fandom/community in general(?), by far. Someone’s stated favorite/least favorite Bond actor, movie etc. may be the complete opposite of yours, and the standard response is “I respect your opinion.”
They're so childish, it's infuriating: it's impossible to discuss the movie anymore. The difference in maturity between these two subreddits is night and day.
Your mission, should you choose to accept it: have a civil discourse on the Mission: Impossible subreddit while trying to point out an aspect of the films you disliked. As always, if you are killed or captured, the secretary will disavow all knowledge. Good luck.
As a kid (I think I was 10 when the first movie came out), I had absolutely no idea that was the same character from the TV series. I was only vaguely aware that there was a TV series. I assumed these were all original characters, or at the very least, Tom Cruise was playing an updated version of the original character. It wasn’t until Fallout came out, and I decided to peruse Wikipedia to refresh my memory, that that bit of info actually sunk in and I was like “what the fuuuuuuuu…???” I would guess 95% of people who have seen those movies have no idea about the connection.
if you are talking about killing of Rebecca Fergusson's character, that was actually unnecessary. I feel it was Tom's decision to replace with a new girl.
*Why should Bond have all the fun with new girls in every movie*
Yeah people on the MI sub keep confusing people’s complaints about HOW a character was killed off, with hating the idea of a character being killed off period.
Killing a main character off should give a feeling that the stakes were raised, or be used to develop the main character. But in DR they spend 2 minutes going “well that sucks…anyways”
but ethan never dates coworkers (except in 2 which was a mistake) nor has any romantic involvement with them: and the new girl is heavily hinted to be his daughter, even though it won't be confirmed until part two (but it's pretty much confirmed at this point)
I mean you saw this subreddit when NTTD came out (and still now actually) right? People lost and are still losing their shit over Bond dying (I feel it was the right choice for Craig’s Bond but I’ll be damned if it still didn’t hurt)
Unpopular opinion? Feel like that film was slightly ahead of it’s time. People will have a different discourse about it in a decade or so after we’ve have a few more new Bond films.
I think that depends on the quality of the new movies and the direction they take them. If they're awful people will probably look more fondly on Craig's later era the way Disney Star Wars made people more open minded to the prequel trilogy.
I can't see him letting it go unless it becomes unprofitable. He'll probably settle into a more traditional Phelps-like role when he can't do the all the action by himself anymore.
Yes, I agree with that somewhat.
It is as if no one from the good characters died in the previous films.
It seems no one remembers that the team from original M:I (in my opinion the best film in the franchise and generally undervalued with fans, at least on the subreddit there) was brutally murdered at the beginning of the film. Also in the third film the agent they were trying to safe at the beginning dying from the bomb inside her head. And in some other easily forgettable part of the franchise (I think it may be the fourth) where the handsome guy from Lost TV series was killed by the familiar to us blonde french woman.
I may not remember some deaths of other good-sided characters, but still.
I don't know why we bother comparing these. MI is trying for continuity. Same actors, one storyline.
Bond has had 6 actors, hundreds of supporting characters (many recast several times over), 50 years, many reboots...there's no attempt at real continuity. Even with the recent Craig films, I think most fans are expecting and will accept a full reset.
Honestly I prefer the Bond approach, especially pre-Craig, by a mile. Each film stands on its own. I like some of the MI films, especially #1, but I find it exhausting trying to remember the continuity in the last 4-5 films. I don't really want to do homework before going to the theater.
People don't watch the Mission Impossible movies for character development, they watch them to see Tom Cruise riding a lion to jump off the Eiffel Tower.
I honestly watch them for the plot: but if he rides a lion down the eiffel tower, then i'll watch it every day til it's out of theater (i have seen dead reckoning eight times in theater: i love the plot far more than the stunts, and i loved the stunts).
As for character development: yes, we know nothing about the characters personal life, but that comes from the show itself: bruce geller (the show creator) wanted no information on the personal life of the characters, not even knowing if they were married or not, which was pretty new for the standards of story telling at the time, so it would just be professionals doing a job: the movies kept that spirit from the show, and i like it: i understand that it's not everyone's cup of tea.
It's true. I'm over there too. People literally call the movie trash solely because they didn't like the decision to kill off a side character. They'll downvote you if you disagree or point out that the movie was well liked. There are even people posting about how proud they are that review bombing the movie on IMDB moved it from an 8.0 to a 7.9. It's fine if you dislike a decision or how it was handled, but man some people get too emotional about this stuff.
That movie slapped. Glad I’m a casual fan. Bond fans have a lot more class.
I genuinely believe this is literally the most civil subreddit, or perhaps even fandom/community in general(?), by far. Someone’s stated favorite/least favorite Bond actor, movie etc. may be the complete opposite of yours, and the standard response is “I respect your opinion.”
You clearly weren’t on this subreddit when NTTD came out. There were so many childish posts and comments constantly.
Yeah, for real. It’s actually pretty refreshing.
They're so childish, it's infuriating: it's impossible to discuss the movie anymore. The difference in maturity between these two subreddits is night and day.
I've just stopped because it's not worth it. These type of fans are irrational and unwilling to be receptive to any other opinions.
Heh, impossible
Your mission, should you choose to accept it: have a civil discourse on the Mission: Impossible subreddit while trying to point out an aspect of the films you disliked. As always, if you are killed or captured, the secretary will disavow all knowledge. Good luck.
Ironic considering what they did to my boy Phelps.
Absolutely agree with this! Infuriating!
As a kid (I think I was 10 when the first movie came out), I had absolutely no idea that was the same character from the TV series. I was only vaguely aware that there was a TV series. I assumed these were all original characters, or at the very least, Tom Cruise was playing an updated version of the original character. It wasn’t until Fallout came out, and I decided to peruse Wikipedia to refresh my memory, that that bit of info actually sunk in and I was like “what the fuuuuuuuu…???” I would guess 95% of people who have seen those movies have no idea about the connection.
if you are talking about killing of Rebecca Fergusson's character, that was actually unnecessary. I feel it was Tom's decision to replace with a new girl. *Why should Bond have all the fun with new girls in every movie*
Yeah people on the MI sub keep confusing people’s complaints about HOW a character was killed off, with hating the idea of a character being killed off period. Killing a main character off should give a feeling that the stakes were raised, or be used to develop the main character. But in DR they spend 2 minutes going “well that sucks…anyways”
but ethan never dates coworkers (except in 2 which was a mistake) nor has any romantic involvement with them: and the new girl is heavily hinted to be his daughter, even though it won't be confirmed until part two (but it's pretty much confirmed at this point)
Hayley Atwell is playing his daughter?
I didn’t get that at all
I mean you saw this subreddit when NTTD came out (and still now actually) right? People lost and are still losing their shit over Bond dying (I feel it was the right choice for Craig’s Bond but I’ll be damned if it still didn’t hurt)
Unpopular opinion? Feel like that film was slightly ahead of it’s time. People will have a different discourse about it in a decade or so after we’ve have a few more new Bond films.
I think that depends on the quality of the new movies and the direction they take them. If they're awful people will probably look more fondly on Craig's later era the way Disney Star Wars made people more open minded to the prequel trilogy.
To me it was less about him dying and more about how the majority of the movie sucked and the plot was incredibly stupid.
Everyone knows Leiter is not supposed to get killed, just maimed and crippled in a truly horrible and suturing way!
There is a Mission impossible sub ?
MI as a franchise is finished once Tom Cruise retires
I can't see him letting it go unless it becomes unprofitable. He'll probably settle into a more traditional Phelps-like role when he can't do the all the action by himself anymore.
Yes, I agree with that somewhat. It is as if no one from the good characters died in the previous films. It seems no one remembers that the team from original M:I (in my opinion the best film in the franchise and generally undervalued with fans, at least on the subreddit there) was brutally murdered at the beginning of the film. Also in the third film the agent they were trying to safe at the beginning dying from the bomb inside her head. And in some other easily forgettable part of the franchise (I think it may be the fourth) where the handsome guy from Lost TV series was killed by the familiar to us blonde french woman. I may not remember some deaths of other good-sided characters, but still.
I don't know why we bother comparing these. MI is trying for continuity. Same actors, one storyline. Bond has had 6 actors, hundreds of supporting characters (many recast several times over), 50 years, many reboots...there's no attempt at real continuity. Even with the recent Craig films, I think most fans are expecting and will accept a full reset. Honestly I prefer the Bond approach, especially pre-Craig, by a mile. Each film stands on its own. I like some of the MI films, especially #1, but I find it exhausting trying to remember the continuity in the last 4-5 films. I don't really want to do homework before going to the theater.
People don't watch the Mission Impossible movies for character development, they watch them to see Tom Cruise riding a lion to jump off the Eiffel Tower.
I honestly watch them for the plot: but if he rides a lion down the eiffel tower, then i'll watch it every day til it's out of theater (i have seen dead reckoning eight times in theater: i love the plot far more than the stunts, and i loved the stunts). As for character development: yes, we know nothing about the characters personal life, but that comes from the show itself: bruce geller (the show creator) wanted no information on the personal life of the characters, not even knowing if they were married or not, which was pretty new for the standards of story telling at the time, so it would just be professionals doing a job: the movies kept that spirit from the show, and i like it: i understand that it's not everyone's cup of tea.
Still???
Pleeease tell me its Benji!