Mission: Impossible - films and tv series

1256257259261262302

Comments

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 15,336
    Yes, agreed. I feel like Pegg recently said he’d just wrapped on 8 though, but of course that could easily be a misdirect.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,062
    Gotta love that Renner turned down FALLOUT because they intended on killing him off. And since then he’s been excluded from the team ever since.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,665
    Nothing like shooting down the opportunity for a quick cameo because you don't want to be killed off, only to then be written off and never appear again anyway.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,062
    My theory is that Cruise got wind of people predicting that Renner was gonna have the torch passed to him after GHOST PROTOCOL, and that hurt his ego.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,063
    My theory is that Cruise got wind of people predicting that Renner was gonna have the torch passed to him after GHOST PROTOCOL, and that hurt his ego.

    Whether that’s the case or not, Renner doesn’t hold a candle to Cruise; had the torch been passed to him the flame of the franchise would have probably been extinguished.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,062
    In retrospect, maybe. But it’s not surprising some thought that Renner may take over. At that time of production, Renner was still hot off of his Oscar win and Cruise has been in sort of a career slump for a few years, with MI3 having been the lowest grossing of the series. It was easy to assume that Cruise might have been on the way out with Renner coming in.

    But once Cruise is actually finished, I hope the franchise goes back to its roots with a new tv series, with an emphasis on an ensemble cast doing sneaking missions. No more motorcycle chases or Evel Knievel stunt gimmickry.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 2023 Posts: 15,336
    In retrospect, maybe. But it’s not surprising some thought that Renner may take over. At that time of production, Renner was still hot off of his Oscar win

    Yes he hadn't quite killed the Bourne series at that point!
    But once Cruise is actually finished, I hope the franchise goes back to its roots with a new tv series, with an emphasis on an ensemble cast doing sneaking missions. No more motorcycle chases or Evel Knievel stunt gimmickry.

    Oh no thanks: that would kill the movie prestige the series has built up. If I were Cruise I'd absolutely make sure they don't do that.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,058
    Ironically, I don't think there'd be much interest in a Mission: Impossible series in the style of the original. Cruise has left his imprint on it.
  • Posts: 2,093
    What they do with M:I, post Cruise, will be interesting.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 15,336
    Ironically, I don't think there'd be much interest in a Mission: Impossible series in the style of the original. Cruise has left his imprint on it.

    Yeah I think it would only disappoint people, really. The MI TV show was really a mini heist movie every week: better to keep it as actual movies now it has made it.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,062
    Ironically, I don't think there'd be much interest in a Mission: Impossible series in the style of the original. Cruise has left his imprint on it.

    The franchise existed before Tom Cruise came along, and it will keep existing well after him.

    The reason I think going back to TV is more desirable is because it’ll reset expectations on what the franchise will be post-Cruise. Instead of trying to find the next Tom Cruise (good luck), you could focus more on the ensemble of characters so there’s no obvious replacement of a star. The movies could probably do that as well, but I think a TV series would be a cleaner break.
    mtm wrote: »
    But once Cruise is actually finished, I hope the franchise goes back to its roots with a new tv series, with an emphasis on an ensemble cast doing sneaking missions. No more motorcycle chases or Evel Knievel stunt gimmickry.

    Oh no thanks: that would kill the movie prestige the series has built up. If I were Cruise I'd absolutely make sure they don't do that.

    Given that we live in an era of prestige TV, that shouldn’t be an issue. I highly doubt a new M:I TV series will just be a recreation of the original. They would definitely have to update it to modern standards. Perhaps have a mission that overlaps three episodes or two.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,058
    Ironically, I don't think there'd be much interest in a Mission: Impossible series in the style of the original. Cruise has left his imprint on it.

    The franchise existed before Tom Cruise came along, and it will keep existing well after him.

    It's not that I wouldn't watch it, I just doubt enough people would. Maybe further down the line, it's a possibility. But the Mission: Impossible brand is now ingrained with Cruise's DNA because of the films, and there's just no getting away from that.

    Going back to a series format in the near future just reeks of a "cancelled after one season" reception to me.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,063
    The franchise existed before Tom Cruise, along with Ralph MacQuarrie, but he has been a game changer;
    rebooting will be as difficult as a rebooting a post Craig Bond.

    And his stunt work is not in the least gimmicky, it’s giving 110% and unparalleled authenticity.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 15,336
    Ironically, I don't think there'd be much interest in a Mission: Impossible series in the style of the original. Cruise has left his imprint on it.

    The franchise existed before Tom Cruise came along, and it will keep existing well after him.

    The reason I think going back to TV is more desirable is because it’ll reset expectations on what the franchise will be post-Cruise. Instead of trying to find the next Tom Cruise (good luck), you could focus more on the ensemble of characters so there’s no obvious replacement of a star. The movies could probably do that as well, but I think a TV series would be a cleaner break.
    mtm wrote: »
    But once Cruise is actually finished, I hope the franchise goes back to its roots with a new tv series, with an emphasis on an ensemble cast doing sneaking missions. No more motorcycle chases or Evel Knievel stunt gimmickry.

    Oh no thanks: that would kill the movie prestige the series has built up. If I were Cruise I'd absolutely make sure they don't do that.

    Given that we live in an era of prestige TV, that shouldn’t be an issue. I highly doubt a new M:I TV series will just be a recreation of the original. They would definitely have to update it to modern standards. Perhaps have a mission that overlaps three episodes or two.

    It’s not a very appealing prospect. It’s hard to imagine it being anything but a downgrade.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,062
    talos7 wrote: »
    The franchise existed before Tom Cruise, along with Ralph MacQuarrie, but he has been a game changer;
    rebooting will be as difficult as a rebooting a post Craig Bond.

    And his stunt work is not in the least gimmicky, it’s giving 110% and unparalleled authenticity.

    It feels gimmicky when Cruise does it, IMO. “Watch me, Tom Cruise, the movie star, do the next CRRRAAAZY stunt!” and the proceeds to ruin it by putting it all over the marketing.

    I saw an IMAX presentation of AVATAR 2 and prior to that there was an entire featurette dedicated to behind the scenes footage of the bike stunt. When it came to an end, I thought to myself that the bike stunt would have been a lot more fun to see for the first time in the proper film, rather than a behind the scenes special.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,063
    talos7 wrote: »
    The franchise existed before Tom Cruise, along with Ralph MacQuarrie, but he has been a game changer;
    rebooting will be as difficult as a rebooting a post Craig Bond.

    And his stunt work is not in the least gimmicky, it’s giving 110% and unparalleled authenticity.

    It feels gimmicky when Cruise does it, IMO. “Watch me, Tom Cruise, the movie star, do the next CRRRAAAZY stunt!” and the proceeds to ruin it by putting it all over the marketing.

    .

    I don’t see it that way in the least. I see an incredibly talented actor who is willing to go further than any other actor. The result is that the audience sees the actual star doing physical acting in a real environment. That is not a gimmick, it’s authenticity.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 15,336
    talos7 wrote: »
    The franchise existed before Tom Cruise, along with Ralph MacQuarrie, but he has been a game changer;
    rebooting will be as difficult as a rebooting a post Craig Bond.

    And his stunt work is not in the least gimmicky, it’s giving 110% and unparalleled authenticity.

    It feels gimmicky when Cruise does it, IMO. “Watch me, Tom Cruise, the movie star, do the next CRRRAAAZY stunt!” and the proceeds to ruin it by putting it all over the marketing.

    I saw an IMAX presentation of AVATAR 2 and prior to that there was an entire featurette dedicated to behind the scenes footage of the bike stunt. When it came to an end, I thought to myself that the bike stunt would have been a lot more fun to see for the first time in the proper film, rather than a behind the scenes special.

    It would, but it’s marketing.
  • Posts: 15,906
    Benny wrote: »
    I hope it ends on a cliffhanger with the words...to be continued!
    ;)

    I want it to end with:

    THE END

    OF

    MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: DEAD RECKONING PART I.

    BUT ETHAN HUNT WILL BE BACK IN

    MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: DEAD RECKONING PART II.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,198
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    I hope it ends on a cliffhanger with the words...to be continued!
    ;)

    I want it to end with:

    THE END

    OF

    MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: DEAD RECKONING PART I.

    BUT ETHAN HUNT WILL BE BACK IN

    MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: DEAD RECKONING PART II.

    I 100% approve.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,062
    talos7 wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    The franchise existed before Tom Cruise, along with Ralph MacQuarrie, but he has been a game changer;
    rebooting will be as difficult as a rebooting a post Craig Bond.

    And his stunt work is not in the least gimmicky, it’s giving 110% and unparalleled authenticity.

    It feels gimmicky when Cruise does it, IMO. “Watch me, Tom Cruise, the movie star, do the next CRRRAAAZY stunt!” and the proceeds to ruin it by putting it all over the marketing.

    .

    I don’t see it that way in the least. I see an incredibly talented actor who is willing to go further than any other actor. The result is that the audience sees the actual star doing physical acting in a real environment. That is not a gimmick, it’s authenticity.

    It all depends on how you view it.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,063
    talos7 wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    The franchise existed before Tom Cruise, along with Ralph MacQuarrie, but he has been a game changer;
    rebooting will be as difficult as a rebooting a post Craig Bond.

    And his stunt work is not in the least gimmicky, it’s giving 110% and unparalleled authenticity.

    It feels gimmicky when Cruise does it, IMO. “Watch me, Tom Cruise, the movie star, do the next CRRRAAAZY stunt!” and the proceeds to ruin it by putting it all over the marketing.

    .

    I don’t see it that way in the least. I see an incredibly talented actor who is willing to go further than any other actor. The result is that the audience sees the actual star doing physical acting in a real environment. That is not a gimmick, it’s authenticity.

    It all depends on how you view it.

    Yep…
  • Posts: 3,193
    talos7 wrote: »
    The franchise existed before Tom Cruise, along with Ralph MacQuarrie, but he has been a game changer;
    rebooting will be as difficult as a rebooting a post Craig Bond.

    And his stunt work is not in the least gimmicky, it’s giving 110% and unparalleled authenticity.

    It feels gimmicky when Cruise does it, IMO. “Watch me, Tom Cruise, the movie star, do the next CRRRAAAZY stunt!” and the proceeds to ruin it by putting it all over the marketing.

    I saw an IMAX presentation of AVATAR 2 and prior to that there was an entire featurette dedicated to behind the scenes footage of the bike stunt. When it came to an end, I thought to myself that the bike stunt would have been a lot more fun to see for the first time in the proper film, rather than a behind the scenes special.

    It reminds me of what Timothy Dalton once said when he was being interviewed about his James Bond stunts.

    "If you take a particular [action sequence] in the film and everyone in the audience says 'that wasn't Timothy Dalton, that was his stunt-man' it takes the believability away from the moment. On the other hand if they say 'oh Timothy Dalton did his own stunt' that's bad for the movie too. The audience should quite simply believe that the man, the character that they're watching, James Bond, does them."

    I do feel Tom Cruises' stunts fall into the latter category. It's one of the reasons why the later MI movies don't actually do much for me.
  • Posts: 648
    Does anyone else find it odd that Esai Morales, who’s playing the big baddie in the film, is not even mentioned in the cast list on the poster?

    How are Henry Czerny and Vanessa Kirby mentioned but not Morales? Weird.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited May 2023 Posts: 8,062
    007HallY wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    The franchise existed before Tom Cruise, along with Ralph MacQuarrie, but he has been a game changer;
    rebooting will be as difficult as a rebooting a post Craig Bond.

    And his stunt work is not in the least gimmicky, it’s giving 110% and unparalleled authenticity.

    It feels gimmicky when Cruise does it, IMO. “Watch me, Tom Cruise, the movie star, do the next CRRRAAAZY stunt!” and the proceeds to ruin it by putting it all over the marketing.

    I saw an IMAX presentation of AVATAR 2 and prior to that there was an entire featurette dedicated to behind the scenes footage of the bike stunt. When it came to an end, I thought to myself that the bike stunt would have been a lot more fun to see for the first time in the proper film, rather than a behind the scenes special.

    It reminds me of what Timothy Dalton once said when he was being interviewed about his James Bond stunts.

    "If you take a particular [action sequence] in the film and everyone in the audience says 'that wasn't Timothy Dalton, that was his stunt-man' it takes the believability away from the moment. On the other hand if they say 'oh Timothy Dalton did his own stunt' that's bad for the movie too. The audience should quite simply believe that the man, the character that they're watching, James Bond, does them."

    I do feel Tom Cruises' stunts fall into the latter category. It's one of the reasons why the later MI movies don't actually do much for me.

    The highest compliment you can give a stuntman is if the audience wonder if they saw the star do a stunt, because that means the stuntmen did their job right.

    Of course with Bond that is spotty in the Moore run. I put that more on the filmmakers not doing their job to mask the stuntmen right like in AVTAK where Bond drives half a car.

    Funnily, I think they do a great job with Moore’s double in the MR pre-titles, because he kind of looks like Moore when in motion. Yet at the same time the guy doubling for Jaws is too glaringly NOT Richard Kiel.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 2023 Posts: 15,336
    Brosnan’s stunt doubles annoy me a bit, especially in the TND bike chase. Brosnan’s most identifiable characteristic from a distance, if you ask me, is his hairline. He’s got a very recognisable hairline, and if they just made a stunt wig which matched it I reckon it’d go a long way to making us think it’s him on the bike. But instead this guy gets the worst black piece just stuffed on his head and is clearly not Pierce.
    It’s a far cry from the most recent films where the stunt doubles are wearing prosthetics to look like Craig.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,665
    I'll take goofy wigs over some of the work they did in the Craig era any day of the week. Some moments during the SF bike chase look incredibly, incredibly bizarre, same with the SP PTS helicopter fighting.
  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    edited May 2023 Posts: 4,476
    How posters can look like when released on BD and 4K

    Mission-Impossible-7-bluray.jpg

    Mission-Impossible-7-4k.jpg

    Mission-Impossible-7-dvd.jpg
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,062
    The only time I ever found the head replacement distracting in SF was when they had Patrice move his head to look at Bond in the rooftops. Otherwise, it was seamless for the rest of the film. The prosthetics worked enough in the SP helicopter fight too because it was all in motion and in wide shots.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 15,336
    Yeah, there's a couple of shots of Bond running through the crowds in Mexico which I have only just spotted are the mask-wearing stuntman, several years after it was released.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited May 2023 Posts: 40,665
    There's a shot of Bond looking toward Patrice as they ride over the rooftops on the motorcycles that's always very rough in appearance to me. Could just be a green screen issue, I don't know what it is, but it stands out to me in every viewing. It's one of those moments where I wish they'd let the stuntmen do their thing and not give us a jarring close-up on Craig's face.
Sign In or Register to comment.