Mission: Impossible - films and tv series

1146147149151152302

Comments

  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited August 2018 Posts: 8,089
    I believe that Mission Impossible franchise has slowly built up a level of good will with the public to the point that now they are reaping the rewards. It's only in the past few years that I see it being treated like a beloved franchise which is embraced by the filmgoing public.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited August 2018 Posts: 8,089
    Fallout drops just 42.8% in its second weekend with a 35 million dollar haul. Seriously impressive.

    https://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/

    For the record SP dropped 52% in its second weekend with 33.6 million dollars.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    MI films tend to have good box office holdover stateside. They don't blast out of the gates as strongly as other franchises (including Bond), but the good word of mouth (particularly from the last 3) tends to enable them to have good legs.

    It's unsurprising, but eventually it will probably stop at about $200m. These sort of films have an upper limit stateside, no matter how good they are. The real fun will be the foreign gross.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,089
    bondjames wrote: »
    MI films tend to have good box office holdover stateside. They don't blast out of the gates as strongly as other franchises (including Bond), but the good word of mouth (particularly from the last 3) tends to enable them to have good legs.

    It's unsurprising, but eventually it will probably stop at about $200m. These sort of films have an upper limit stateside, no matter how good they are. The real fun will be the foreign gross.

    But Rogue Nation dropped 48 percent in its second weekend, and 17 million dollars difference in the first 10 days of release. Fallout is on track for a new franchise high stateside, not adjusting for inflation.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,690
    Mission Impossible 2, not adjusted for inflation, earned $215 million at the US box office.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,034
    It helps that they seem to be quite good at keeping costs to a minimum, and only spending money on things that are really worth it. Fallout is the only one to come close to the $200million production budget mark. Lots of bang for your buck.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited August 2018 Posts: 8,089
    Yes, and a 43% drop for an action blockbuster is superb.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    edited August 2018 Posts: 13,894
    Elegeant is FRWL, OHMSS & TLD. There is nothing elegant about SF and SP.

    I am not expecting the next Bond to go to the lengths that Cruise does (what Dalton did in LTK is good enough for me), but the action in the MI films leaves Bond looking poor. Look at Mendes' big explosion. All the money spunked away on his record breaking explosion, and yet, it doesn't look as impressive as the explosions during the Tanker chase in LTK. If Bond is to stand a chase, EON need to pull away from the luvvie directors, and get someone who knows the genre, series, or both, intimately.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,416
    Mission Impossible 2, not adjusted for inflation, earned $215 million at the US box office.

    I feel it was so high because from what I remember, the summer 2000 season was not a huge season for major blockbusters. So to have it be the highest is not surprising.

    Correct me if I'm wrong though. I was 11 years old that summer.

    The only thing that MI2 has going for me is the break in at the pharmaceutical company. Woo and Limp Bizkit just made the rest unbearable.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    I'll add Hans Zimmer's score into the measure, too.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,034
    I'll add Hans Zimmer's score into the measure, too.

    As a pro or a con? I kind of flip-flop on it, myself. Some days I love it, some days it annoys me.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2018 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    MI films tend to have good box office holdover stateside. They don't blast out of the gates as strongly as other franchises (including Bond), but the good word of mouth (particularly from the last 3) tends to enable them to have good legs.

    It's unsurprising, but eventually it will probably stop at about $200m. These sort of films have an upper limit stateside, no matter how good they are. The real fun will be the foreign gross.

    But Rogue Nation dropped 48 percent in its second weekend, and 17 million dollars difference in the first 10 days of release. Fallout is on track for a new franchise high stateside, not adjusting for inflation.
    The marketing for RN sucked. I've always felt that film should have done better stateside, but they were perhaps caught a bit flat footed due to the release date change.
    Mission Impossible 2, not adjusted for inflation, earned $215 million at the US box office.

    I feel it was so high because from what I remember, the summer 2000 season was not a huge season for major blockbusters. So to have it be the highest is not surprising.

    Correct me if I'm wrong though. I was 11 years old that summer.

    The only thing that MI2 has going for me is the break in at the pharmaceutical company. Woo and Limp Bizkit just made the rest unbearable.
    You could be right. My memory is fuzzy about that year. Cruise was flying high career wise at that time (it predated the Scientology controversy and the infamous humiliating couch jump) and big over stylized stuff was in (I think that was around the time Michael Bay was on fire and Woo had already hit it big in the West with Face Off). MI2 just played into that sort of style. I Iiked it more then than I do now, but it never hit the spot like the more recent ones do.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    I'll add Hans Zimmer's score into the measure, too.

    As a pro or a con? I kind of flip-flop on it, myself. Some days I love it, some days it annoys me.
    A con for me. I happen to be an anti-Zimmer person myself.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Craig is haunted by the "wristslashing" comments, Cruise by his couch jumping.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited August 2018 Posts: 8,505
    Yeah, @Thunderfinger , but one was funny. One wasn’t.
  • Posts: 5,767
    Watched Fallout today. Perhaps I was in the wrong theater, but I wasn´t overwhelmed.
    Not a bad film by any means. But.
    The music sucked most of the time.
    Cruise can do all the stunts in the world, but there wasn´t one single shot in Fallout that came even remotely close to the action in Ronin or Michael Mann stuff. For me it became absolutely clear today that great-looking action cinema has to do a lot more with capturing magic than with the actor doing his own stunts. Give me iconic shots!
    Overall, I wasn´t fond of the cinematography. Too many dark shots, which seems to connect again to misguided striving for realism.
    I didn´t enjoy the scarcity of humor, although it was very good when it was there.
    Wasn´t the right day perhaps, but I don´t feel like re-watching it anytime soon.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Elegeant is FRWL, OHMSS & TLD. There is nothing elegant about SF and SP.

    I am not expecting the next Bond to go to the lengths that Cruise does (what Dalton did in LTK is good enough for me), but the action in the MI films leaves Bond looking poor. Look at Mendes' big explosion. All the money spunked away on his record breaking explosion, and yet, it doesn't look as impressive as the explosions during the Tanker chase in LTK. If Bond is to stand a chase, EON need to pull away from the luvvie directors, and get someone who knows the genre, series, or both, intimately.

    I disagree. Visually they’re beautiful. Narratively, that’s subjective.

  • Posts: 4,619
    Elegeant is FRWL, OHMSS & TLD. There is nothing elegant about SF and SP.

    I am not expecting the next Bond to go to the lengths that Cruise does (what Dalton did in LTK is good enough for me), but the action in the MI films leaves Bond looking poor. Look at Mendes' big explosion. All the money spunked away on his record breaking explosion, and yet, it doesn't look as impressive as the explosions during the Tanker chase in LTK. If Bond is to stand a chase, EON need to pull away from the luvvie directors, and get someone who knows the genre, series, or both, intimately.

    TLD is elegant but Skyfall isn't?
    https://youtube.com/watch?v=pJOm2mRHDE0
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,331
    TLD is elegant but Skyfall isn't?
    https://youtube.com/watch?v=pJOm2mRHDE0

    You really love that video don't you?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2018 Posts: 23,883
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Watched Fallout today. Perhaps I was in the wrong theater, but I wasn´t overwhelmed.
    Not a bad film by any means. But.
    The music sucked most of the time.
    Cruise can do all the stunts in the world, but there wasn´t one single shot in Fallout that came even remotely close to the action in Ronin or Michael Mann stuff. For me it became absolutely clear today that great-looking action cinema has to do a lot more with capturing magic than with the actor doing his own stunts. Give me iconic shots!
    Overall, I wasn´t fond of the cinematography. Too many dark shots, which seems to connect again to misguided striving for realism.
    I didn´t enjoy the scarcity of humor, although it was very good when it was there.
    Wasn´t the right day perhaps, but I don´t feel like re-watching it anytime soon.
    @boldfinger, let me guess, you're not a fan of TDK, Nolan or Zimmer, am I right?

    I think Cruise channeled all of that in Fallout (but in an MI context), so I can appreciate how it may not work for some.

    Definitely a bit different from the prior two entries which were much lighter and not as emotional. I think McQuarrie nicely straddled the line between action, emotional depth and humour without tipping too far into the heaviness that was MI:3, but it certainly lacks the lightness of GP/RN.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Murdock wrote: »
    TLD is elegant but Skyfall isn't?
    https://youtube.com/watch?v=pJOm2mRHDE0
    You really love that video don't you?
    Starstruck. ;)
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Murdock wrote: »
    TLD is elegant but Skyfall isn't?
    https://youtube.com/watch?v=pJOm2mRHDE0
    You really love that video don't you?
    Starstruck. ;)
    Apropo this time at least, given the thread, and it is a hoot to watch. That is one maniacal laugh.
  • edited August 2018 Posts: 12,837
    My wife decided she wanted to see it so we went last night and I enjoyed it. Rogue Nation was much too similar to Ghost Protocol for me but this one felt a lot more like its own film.

    I thought less humour was a plus. That sort of tone made GP feel refreshing at the time but now stuff like Marvel and Fast and Furious is dominating, and Bond has shifted back to films with more gags, I think it's a bit played out. I thought the darker tone was cool. Something that bugged me though is that they kept hinting at really bleak, dark events but then pulling the rug out. I could forgive it at the start with the fake news reports because that had a story reason but when we got that really well done haunting scene of Ethan reenacting that Modern Warfare 2 level with the French police only for it to be a dream, I was annoyed. The sunset at the end bugged me less because I knew that would be misdirection, it wasn't like he was going to lose after all that.

    The action was really good as expected. I thought the story was all over the place. There's three seperate unconnected (until now) enemies: the Syndicate, Lark, and that nuclear scientist guy, and they all have the same vague unexplained motivation of taking down the "old world order"? Are they anarchists? Do they want to replace it with something? I don't know. I didn't think any of the villains were great either but that's something these films have always suffered with.

    I thought it was a bit too long and for some reason I don't find myself as loving some of the cast like most seem to; Ferguson made so little an impression on me in the last film that I didn't recognise her when she first showed up. Cavill was a non entity I thought, completely forgettable, although to be fair I don't think he had the best character to work with. Seems like they didn't know what to do with him. I thought he'd at least be a great physical presence but then they ruined that by having him struggle so much in the bathroom fight.

    I liked how they fleshed out Ethan a bit more though and gave him some new motivations (just can't let bad things happen) that make sense with what we've seen of him in the other films. And the music was brilliant.

    I agree with @Shardlake that it was overhyped but to be fair I think it's a big improvement on the last one. Doesn't always succeed but at least it tries to do something different, and the action is as great as ever. I'd give it a 7 or 8 out of 10.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    edited August 2018 Posts: 13,894
    Elegeant is FRWL, OHMSS & TLD. There is nothing elegant about SF and SP.

    I am not expecting the next Bond to go to the lengths that Cruise does (what Dalton did in LTK is good enough for me), but the action in the MI films leaves Bond looking poor. Look at Mendes' big explosion. All the money spunked away on his record breaking explosion, and yet, it doesn't look as impressive as the explosions during the Tanker chase in LTK. If Bond is to stand a chase, EON need to pull away from the luvvie directors, and get someone who knows the genre, series, or both, intimately.

    TLD is elegant but Skyfall isn't?
    https://youtube.com/watch?v=pJOm2mRHDE0

    I could put a pretty bow on my post, if that will please you. If not, you'll just have to accept my post as it is.
  • Posts: 4,025
    The bad guys were all a bit useless, but it kind of didn’t matter as it was a race against time to stop something bad happening. The race was the thing.

    Glad I wasn’t the only one who didn’t recognise Ferguson. Thought it was just me getting old.

    The music is divisive isn’t it?
  • Posts: 676
    I thought it was funny when the team was like "oh shit!" when...
    they realized they'd have to disarm the bombs while they count down. Yeah, like in every action movie! You never see the hero disarming a bomb without a ticking clock, that's just not how it's done.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,474
    Given that we've all pretty much seen it by this point and it's in its second week of release, shall we forego spoiler tags from here on out?
  • I am wondering where they'll go from here because they've admitted they come up with the action scenes and go from there, and at a certain point you have to wonder how they'll really top themselves. They could always go the other way and scale it down but I think all MI really has going for it now is the stunts. That's their niche, the thing that stops it from just being a sub Bond series.

    I think this would be a pretty good finale but if it isn't the end I definitely can't see them going past 7. I think they'll probably do one more and then Cruise will call it quits. Maybe they'll try and carry on with a new lead, and if not I'm sure we'll get some sort of reboot eventually. But I think the current version doesn't have that much longetivity.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,474
    I am wondering where they'll go from here because they've admitted they come up with the action scenes and go from there, and at a certain point you have to wonder how they'll really top themselves. They could always go the other way and scale it down but I think all MI really has going for it now is the stunts. That's their niche, the thing that stops it from just being a sub Bond series.

    I think this would be a pretty good finale but if it isn't the end I definitely can't see them going past 7. I think they'll probably do one more and then Cruise will call it quits. Maybe they'll try and carry on with a new lead, and if not I'm sure we'll get some sort of reboot eventually. But I think the current version doesn't have that much longetivity.

    Cruise was interviewed a month or two back, noting he's still got two or three installments left in him. They'll definitely have to tone the stunts down when he gets into his 60's if they manage that many.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2018 Posts: 23,883
    The stunts are amazing but as I've noted before, that's not the primary reason I'm into this series these days. I really dig this team and think they gel very well. I would definitely buy into a scaled down darker type thriller with Cruise calling the shots from behind the scenes, perhaps with one really big set piece.

    Even if the box office falters I don't mind (MI really aren't that big when it comes to box office anyway - they make decent money but trail FF, Bond and the rest). They've proven to be quite inventive and intelligent with how they've managed the brand IP & Cruise seems to have a vested interest in maintaining what he's created. I'm sure he'll come up with some idea that works, even if it's different from what they have going now.
Sign In or Register to comment.