Mission: Impossible - films and tv series

1314315316317319

Comments

  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,863
    thedove wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    $103 million after a week in theaters with a $400 million budget is a catastrophe. Hollywood needs to get their budgets, runtimes, and egoes under control already.

    Why? I mean of all the things mentioned which one matters to the movie going public?

    I don't care if the studio loses money, I care about being entertained. This movie entertained me, there was no deeper meaning, it was escapist fun.

    If the studio wants to put out a movie with a huge budget that is their issue not mine. If they want the films to be 3 hours that is their call not mine. If they can't or won't control the egos who make the film, again it doesn't really involve me. Except if the ego in question wishes to preach a message at me then I might have to not see the film.

    It is like those who complain at the wages of professional athletes. If a baseball team wants to be $500 million to a ball player, I don't get my knickers in a knot.


    When they raise the price of tickets, it will be our business. ;)

    A healthy industry is good for everyone. And if the movies we like make money, it's good for us too. We are going to have more.

    I am all for a healthy industry. I could care about the budgets of said movie. I judge a movie on it's entertainment value, not on the size of a budget. I don't value DN less than GF because of the budget size.

    Hollywood seems to be slow to some messages that the general public has been sending.
    • Sam Wilson as Captain America was not something people wanted and we got a movie anyway. The movie lost money due to lower ticket sales.
    • The public wasn't too keen on the Star Wars movies and with each film the box office shrank. Disney kept making them.
    • Snow White live action was made even though no one really asked for it. It tanked and lost millions. I see we still are getting a Moana live action and a How to Train Your Dragon live action film. No one was asking for them.
    • Dial of Destiny was another flop with people staying away. While we won't likely see another Indy movie anytime soon one wonders with a better script would we be talking about a box office smash?

    I could go on, currently it would appear that Hollywood wants what it wants and there is a disconnect with the audience. Some stars like the insufferable Rachel Z. almost appears to hate the ticket buying public telling a large portion of her audience to F off. I don't remember stars of yesteryear antagonizing audiences.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,694
    mtm wrote: »
    Oh yeah, one of the oddities of that first hour is when Luther has like 2 minutes to stop the bomb from going nuclear, but he and Ethan take their sweet sweet time to make friendly platitudes to each other hahaha

    Well I think (in amongst all of the other 'this must be connected to that, but not before this wire is pulled from here' technical exposition in this film) he's pretty done what he needs to do by the time they're talking, but when he disconnects the final detonator it will go off, and he obviously needs to do that before the timer ticks down. So it kind of works.

    IMO it killed any sense of urgency and danger with them talking so calmly.
  • WhyBondWhyBond USA
    Posts: 81
    thedove wrote: »
    thedove wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    $103 million after a week in theaters with a $400 million budget is a catastrophe. Hollywood needs to get their budgets, runtimes, and egoes under control already.

    Why? I mean of all the things mentioned which one matters to the movie going public?

    I don't care if the studio loses money, I care about being entertained. This movie entertained me, there was no deeper meaning, it was escapist fun.

    If the studio wants to put out a movie with a huge budget that is their issue not mine. If they want the films to be 3 hours that is their call not mine. If they can't or won't control the egos who make the film, again it doesn't really involve me. Except if the ego in question wishes to preach a message at me then I might have to not see the film.

    It is like those who complain at the wages of professional athletes. If a baseball team wants to be $500 million to a ball player, I don't get my knickers in a knot.


    When they raise the price of tickets, it will be our business. ;)

    A healthy industry is good for everyone. And if the movies we like make money, it's good for us too. We are going to have more.

    I am all for a healthy industry. I could care about the budgets of said movie. I judge a movie on it's entertainment value, not on the size of a budget. I don't value DN less than GF because of the budget size.

    Hollywood seems to be slow to some messages that the general public has been sending.
    • Sam Wilson as Captain America was not something people wanted and we got a movie anyway. The movie lost money due to lower ticket sales.
    • The public wasn't too keen on the Star Wars movies and with each film the box office shrank. Disney kept making them.
    • Snow White live action was made even though no one really asked for it. It tanked and lost millions. I see we still are getting a Moana live action and a How to Train Your Dragon live action film. No one was asking for them.
    • Dial of Destiny was another flop with people staying away. While we won't likely see another Indy movie anytime soon one wonders with a better script would we be talking about a box office smash?

    I could go on, currently it would appear that Hollywood wants what it wants and there is a disconnect with the audience. Some stars like the insufferable Rachel Z. almost appears to hate the ticket buying public telling a large portion of her audience to F off. I don't remember stars of yesteryear antagonizing audiences.

    Disney made it all back with the success of Lilo and Stitch.
    Why some movies flop and others do well is a mystery.
  • edited June 2 Posts: 2,062
    thedove wrote: »
    thedove wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    $103 million after a week in theaters with a $400 million budget is a catastrophe. Hollywood needs to get their budgets, runtimes, and egoes under control already.

    Why? I mean of all the things mentioned which one matters to the movie going public?

    I don't care if the studio loses money, I care about being entertained. This movie entertained me, there was no deeper meaning, it was escapist fun.

    If the studio wants to put out a movie with a huge budget that is their issue not mine. If they want the films to be 3 hours that is their call not mine. If they can't or won't control the egos who make the film, again it doesn't really involve me. Except if the ego in question wishes to preach a message at me then I might have to not see the film.

    It is like those who complain at the wages of professional athletes. If a baseball team wants to be $500 million to a ball player, I don't get my knickers in a knot.


    When they raise the price of tickets, it will be our business. ;)

    A healthy industry is good for everyone. And if the movies we like make money, it's good for us too. We are going to have more.

    I am all for a healthy industry. I could care about the budgets of said movie. I judge a movie on it's entertainment value, not on the size of a budget. I don't value DN less than GF because of the budget size.

    Hollywood seems to be slow to some messages that the general public has been sending.
    • Sam Wilson as Captain America was not something people wanted and we got a movie anyway. The movie lost money due to lower ticket sales.
    • The public wasn't too keen on the Star Wars movies and with each film the box office shrank. Disney kept making them.
    • Snow White live action was made even though no one really asked for it. It tanked and lost millions. I see we still are getting a Moana live action and a How to Train Your Dragon live action film. No one was asking for them.
    • Dial of Destiny was another flop with people staying away. While we won't likely see another Indy movie anytime soon one wonders with a better script would we be talking about a box office smash?

    I could go on, currently it would appear that Hollywood wants what it wants and there is a disconnect with the audience. Some stars like the insufferable Rachel Z. almost appears to hate the ticket buying public telling a large portion of her audience to F off. I don't remember stars of yesteryear antagonizing audiences.

    -Marvel has already slowed down.

    -They haven't made a Star Wars movie in a long time.

    -And I don't think we'll see an Indiana Jones movie anytime soon either.


    Hollywood is slow because it takes time to make movies, but they eventually get the message.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,670
    WhyBond wrote: »
    thedove wrote: »
    thedove wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    $103 million after a week in theaters with a $400 million budget is a catastrophe. Hollywood needs to get their budgets, runtimes, and egoes under control already.

    Why? I mean of all the things mentioned which one matters to the movie going public?

    I don't care if the studio loses money, I care about being entertained. This movie entertained me, there was no deeper meaning, it was escapist fun.

    If the studio wants to put out a movie with a huge budget that is their issue not mine. If they want the films to be 3 hours that is their call not mine. If they can't or won't control the egos who make the film, again it doesn't really involve me. Except if the ego in question wishes to preach a message at me then I might have to not see the film.

    It is like those who complain at the wages of professional athletes. If a baseball team wants to be $500 million to a ball player, I don't get my knickers in a knot.


    When they raise the price of tickets, it will be our business. ;)

    A healthy industry is good for everyone. And if the movies we like make money, it's good for us too. We are going to have more.

    I am all for a healthy industry. I could care about the budgets of said movie. I judge a movie on it's entertainment value, not on the size of a budget. I don't value DN less than GF because of the budget size.

    Hollywood seems to be slow to some messages that the general public has been sending.
    • Sam Wilson as Captain America was not something people wanted and we got a movie anyway. The movie lost money due to lower ticket sales.
    • The public wasn't too keen on the Star Wars movies and with each film the box office shrank. Disney kept making them.
    • Snow White live action was made even though no one really asked for it. It tanked and lost millions. I see we still are getting a Moana live action and a How to Train Your Dragon live action film. No one was asking for them.
    • Dial of Destiny was another flop with people staying away. While we won't likely see another Indy movie anytime soon one wonders with a better script would we be talking about a box office smash?

    I could go on, currently it would appear that Hollywood wants what it wants and there is a disconnect with the audience. Some stars like the insufferable Rachel Z. almost appears to hate the ticket buying public telling a large portion of her audience to F off. I don't remember stars of yesteryear antagonizing audiences.

    Disney made it all back with the success of Lilo and Stitch.
    Why some movies flop and others do well is a mystery.

    It's maybe a mistake to release a big family film at any time other than summer/Holiday season. Snow White might not have been the best idea, but releasing it in the middle of March was ever worse. I haven't done a deep dive into the research, but families just don't have time for movies during the school year anymore. Another recent example: Wonka, which looked like a dud but killed it at the box office. (Holiday release)
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,694
    The biggest live action Disney remakes tend to be the ones based on films that were relatively more recent. BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, ALADDIN, and THE LION KING were all billion dollar hits. This is partly due to the generational overlap, millennial parents who bring their kids to these movies grew up with the animated films. LILO & STITCH seems to have benefited from that overlap.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 18,186
    A mate of mine was telling me they did a sort of merch-first campaign with Stitch too; they’ve been selling more and more toys of him so the kids fall in love with him, and then made the movie.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,790
    One thing I was disappointed about was
    we never learnt anything more about Ethan's past with Gabriel and Maria. Maybe they wanted to steer clear of "The Choice" angle in this film.

    If you're on the fence about seeing this film, go and do it. The set pieces alone are worth seeing in IMAX, this is what the format was made for. There was one part of the film were I thought I was going to pass out from holding my breath for so long 😅
  • edited June 3 Posts: 4,751
    It could be my age or something else but. for me, the stunts have no lasting impact. I completely understand those who love the stunts but, for me, it's more about story and character McQ and Cruise literally building the story around the stunts puts "the cart before the horse" and I'm not convinced this is how you go about making a classic adventure/spy movie.

    also
    Did anyone else notice, in Luther's death scene, Luther and Hunt don't appear in the same shot together, they cut from close up of one to close up to another, strange choice (unless the actors were not actually there together?)
  • Posts: 2,281
    patb wrote: »
    It could be my age or something else but. for me, the stunts have no lasting impact. I completely understand those who love the stunts but, for me, it's more about story and character McQ and Cruise literally building the story around the stunts puts "the cart before the horse" and I'm not convinced this is how you go about making a classic adventure/spy movie.

    also
    Did anyone else notice, in Luther's death scene, Luther and Hunt don't appear in the same shot together, they cut from close up of one to close up to another, strange choice (unless the actors were not actually there together?)

    I noticed that with the very last scene as well.
  • edited June 3 Posts: 4,751
    @Mallory
    That's a really good point, it adds the the lack of warmth and team spirit within the movie, something that seperated it from other spy franchises and, unless I have missed something, there is no reason for that style of ending..compare it to this


  • Posts: 2,281
    patb wrote: »
    @Mallory
    That's a really good point, it adds the the lack of warmth and team spirit within the movie, a previous strength and, unless I have missed something, there is no reason for that style of ending..compare it to this

    Cruise and Atwell are the only two in the same shot. Benji is back up to full health and Paris has a new haircut. Degas just hangs around. So I wonder, in universe, how long it was between the end scene in Africa and this little epilogue.
  • Posts: 4,751
    Indeed, and what are we meant to deduce? they all arranged to be in Trafalgar Square at the same time (no mean effort) to then just smile at each other and walk away, it's very weird writing, what does it achieve?
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,863
    patb wrote: »
    It could be my age or something else but. for me, the stunts have no lasting impact. I completely understand those who love the stunts but, for me, it's more about story and character McQ and Cruise literally building the story around the stunts puts "the cart before the horse" and I'm not convinced this is how you go about making a classic adventure/spy movie.

    also
    Did anyone else notice, in Luther's death scene, Luther and Hunt don't appear in the same shot together, they cut from close up of one to close up to another, strange choice (unless the actors were not actually there together?)

    I wonder if Ving Rhames was dealing with some health issues and they had to compensate for this. Even Luthor being infirmed wasn't something that carried over from DR Part 1. He just appears to be in the care of a nurse. The Hunt/Luthor scene seemed clumsy in execution and one wonders if they added it on the fly or changed the script in someway.
    Also felt for his nurse who was killed for no real reason other to make Gabriel more evil.
  • edited June 3 Posts: 4,751
    I'm trying to think of another example of where you see a much loved, key supporting character who has become seriously ill and the script makes zero attempt to explain how or why...also, what role does his poor health play within the story as he was effectively killed by the villain? I need to stop thinking about this as it's all very strange PS do we see the nurse and Luther in the same shot?
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 18,186
    I was very puzzled by Luther's illness too, it didn't seem to even be referred to, apart from 'you're working too hard' or whatever it was.
    I don't really understand the complaints about lack of two shots, it didn't affect me much. Although I do think it's a bit odd to tailor a movie for IMAX and have so much in the way of close-ups; I don't think you need them in IMAX.
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    edited June 3 Posts: 1,931
    patb wrote: »
    Indeed, and what are we meant to deduce? they all arranged to be in Trafalgar Square at the same time (no mean effort) to then just smile at each other and walk away, it's very weird writing, what does it achieve?

    Probably a dropped script element, you could say Ethan is just relishing in a London that didn't get nuked like in the entity's vision.

    The Luther stuff admittedly feels off slightly but it doesn't ruin the movie for me or take me out of the scene. It does seem like a pick up shot and script doctoring though. You could easily assume Luther is heavily irradiated at this point with all the bombs he has disarmed.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,694
    Given how production was chaotic, who knows?

    The only thing that felt off was the opening 23 minutes. First we meet Hunt in an undisclosed location watching a VHS tape. Then we cut to London where they immediately get captured, then interrogated, then escape. Something about the rhythm of all that felt very off. I wonder if that had to do with the fact that the movie was put on hold during strikes, and when they finally got to resume production McQ had already come up with new ideas and decided to take a different direction, and what we got in the opening was a leftover, and a newly filmed scene with Hunt watching the VHS to set it up. It’s all very patchy, and I never quite got that vibe from the rest of the film.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,116
    I had a few lingering issues in the first hour but the film got better and better as it progressed, with one of the best (if not the) finales in the series. I love it but need to see it again.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited June 3 Posts: 18,186
    Given how production was chaotic, who knows?

    The only thing that felt off was the opening 23 minutes. First we meet Hunt in an undisclosed location watching a VHS tape. Then we cut to London where they immediately get captured, then interrogated, then escape. Something about the rhythm of all that felt very off. I wonder if that had to do with the fact that the movie was put on hold during strikes, and when they finally got to resume production McQ had already come up with new ideas and decided to take a different direction, and what we got in the opening was a leftover, and a newly filmed scene with Hunt watching the VHS to set it up. It’s all very patchy, and I never quite got that vibe from the rest of the film.

    I was listening to an interview with him today; he said they took onboard the reaction to the last one and tried to make this one shorter so he shot it to be non-linear, but when they put it together they thought it didn't work. Then they made it linear and it didn't work either, so I think they kept working on it.
    I don't see that as bad incidentally: they try to make these movies work as well as they can and keep working on them, and they test them with audiences to see how they work, then adjust afterwards. Apparently Angela Basset recorded that opening monologue about two months ago. I thought the opening third or so had problems but it still kept me entertained and there were fights and incident, it wasn't just talking, as I had heard it described before I saw it. I like the film, I had a good time with it.

    I think the usual Empire podcast mega interview with McQ is coming pretty soon, I'm sure he'll talk more on the way they put it together.

    For all the talk of it being some set pieces strung together, I actually think the plot is pretty good. There's a race against time and one person is on his way to a sunken sub whilst the team are trying to find out where it is- I think that's good. And the whole idea about where the Entity is trying to go is a really good idea for a climax to this particular story too.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,694
    To me the plot and story never mattered with most of these movies especially the recent entries, they’re all just an excuse to get to the set pieces with characters that bounce off each other. That’s why the first hour is nearly excruciating to me with MI8 because it’s all just exposition. When these movies were ranging 110-130 minutes it’s much better paced.

    But like I said, by the time they get to Alaska it’s a much better movie. Even better than the last IMO. Where I found the bike jump in 7 underwhelming (didn’t help that marketing spoiled the hell out of it) the bi-plane stuff was much more fun to watch as they can at least show off more aspects of how Cruise can hold on.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited June 3 Posts: 6,754
    patb wrote: »
    more thoughts
    considering the very interesting theme in Fallout regarding Ethan never letting a team member down, it would have been far more interesting to then have him in that exact situation where is is genuinely forced to make that decision, they sacrifice Luther as a character with zero involvement from Ethan re decision making.....imagine if Benji went down to the sub with Ethan and (perhaps by falling torpedoes) Benji got stuck/jammed on the way out. Ethan tries to lever him out as their oxygen runs out...leave Benji for the sake of the mission? too melodramatic? I think, for all of the "worlds end" stuff, for the audience, the stakes are more meaningful when dealing with the fate of a loved team member (SF built on that key theme)
    PS the listening station had a working VHF radio and the location of the sub was know (literlly on his wrist) and yet, they take a WW2 era DC3 to knock on his door?
    I think Cruise is far too egoistic to have his character do anything morally questionable...or to fail, for that matter. If ever there were a Mary Sue, it's Ethan Hunt.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,694
    Cruise’s ego must have produced that extra parachute.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited June 3 Posts: 4,670
    I have only seen four of the MI films and saw FR this past weekend. I wanted to give it a few days before putting my thoughts to words.

    Overall, I like it. I wouldn't say I loved it. Many have already repeated one thing I thought: the opening 15-20 minutes are a slog and, to me, seemed to insult the intelligence of the audience. But once we (finally) got through the credits, it picked up.

    What I especially liked:
    • The submarine sequence
    • Pom Klementieff (always thought she should have been a Bond girl)
    • The return of a certain character (though the film tried too hard to make his story a morality tale)

    Did anyone else notice that at the end of the film, Ethan is wearing what seems to be a combination of Bond outfits?
    • the brown leather jacket (as in SF)
    • the white henley (as in NTTD)
    • the brown Converse Jack Purcells (as in CR) ... at least they look similar

  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 14,476
    Cruise’s ego must have produced that extra parachute.
    It's the backup chute Dalton used in the opening to TLD.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,863
    Given how production was chaotic, who knows?

    The only thing that felt off was the opening 23 minutes. First we meet Hunt in an undisclosed location watching a VHS tape. Then we cut to London where they immediately get captured, then interrogated, then escape. Something about the rhythm of all that felt very off. I wonder if that had to do with the fact that the movie was put on hold during strikes, and when they finally got to resume production McQ had already come up with new ideas and decided to take a different direction, and what we got in the opening was a leftover, and a newly filmed scene with Hunt watching the VHS to set it up. It’s all very patchy, and I never quite got that vibe from the rest of the film.

    Yes, one wonders if like NTTD sets had been constructed and had to be used? Luckily for Bond they re-purposed them for the new script. Maybe the deadline was too tight for them to do anything about it here? My son leaned over to me during the opening and said "Why is Luthor in a hospital bed?" I shrugged shoulders. Went back and watched DR Part 1 and could find a reference or a mention, just that Luthor had to go off the grid to combat the Entity.

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 18,186
    echo wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    more thoughts
    considering the very interesting theme in Fallout regarding Ethan never letting a team member down, it would have been far more interesting to then have him in that exact situation where is is genuinely forced to make that decision, they sacrifice Luther as a character with zero involvement from Ethan re decision making.....imagine if Benji went down to the sub with Ethan and (perhaps by falling torpedoes) Benji got stuck/jammed on the way out. Ethan tries to lever him out as their oxygen runs out...leave Benji for the sake of the mission? too melodramatic? I think, for all of the "worlds end" stuff, for the audience, the stakes are more meaningful when dealing with the fate of a loved team member (SF built on that key theme)
    PS the listening station had a working VHF radio and the location of the sub was know (literlly on his wrist) and yet, they take a WW2 era DC3 to knock on his door?
    I think Cruise is far too egoistic to have his character do anything morally questionable...or to fail, for that matter. If ever there were a Mary Sue, it's Ethan Hunt.

    Cruise has played plenty of dodgy characters of dubious morality over the years. But audiences don’t want Ethan Hunt to fail. Look at all the whining about Bond dying.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,694
    If Ethan Hunt accomplished the mission by giving his life, I wouldn’t consider that a “fail”.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited June 4 Posts: 8,297
    Regardless of whether people consider it failure or not; I think it's pretty clear that they didn't want to go down the route that other franchises/series have recently regarding the fate of the main character, to varying degrees of success. I don't think that's something that can simply be put down to ego.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,694
    Hunt will only die if Cruise decides to do a stunt that results in his death.
Sign In or Register to comment.