› ›

Mission: Impossible - films and tv series

1…316317318319320322»

Comments

  • ringfire211ringfire211
    Posts: 675
    Finally saw Final Reckoning and I have to agree that it’s a step down from previous entries. Dead Reckoning was much better! The first half is too much exposition and the whole doomsday thing feels more Terminator than M:I, with the whole world burning up. Also the endless contrivances and “what more could possibly go wrong?” scenarios really had me rolling my eyes. I’m surprised with all the mayhem in the sunk submarine and all the things working against Ethan they didn’t also throw in some underwater snakes or sharks lol to create more obstacles for him. They really went overboard with all that stuff in this film. That said, I’m not gonna say I didn’t enjoy my theater experience. The tension inside the submarine and especially the eye-popping biplane scene alone is worth the price of admission. Overall still a better viewing experience than No Time to Die was. The biplane stunt is probably my second favorite set piece of the entire franchise, second only to the helicopter vs helicopter finale in Fallout.

    If I were to rank these:

    1. Fallout
    2. Dead Reckoning
    3. Rogue Nation
    4. Ghost Protocol
    5. Final Reckoning
    6. M:I
    7. M:I-2
    8. M:I-III
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,773
    007HallY wrote: »
    I think it’s relevant to MI as a franchise rather than specifically a wider movie going thing. Its ceiling could only go so high, and the excitement just wasn’t there for this one (it was always going to struggle being part 2 to a film that underperformed). The fanbase for these films are too soft and not all will go to see them in the cinema. I’m actually surprised this one didn’t do better honestly.

    The audience for MI also now skews pretty old. When adjusting for inflation, MI2 is highest grosser, with over a billion! And that actually makes a lot of sense, as I was 13 back then and many kids my age were hyped for that film. I have a hard time imagining kids being as excited for MI8.

    This is why I think returning as a TV show and going back to basics makes the most sense at this point. The audience is becoming niche. Unless they can get Zendaya to become a stuntwoman.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,838
    ringfire211 wrote: »
    Finally saw Final Reckoning and I have to agree that it’s a step down from previous entries. Dead Reckoning was much better! The first half is too much exposition and the whole doomsday thing feels more Terminator than M:I, with the whole world burning up. Also the endless contrivances and “what more could possibly go wrong?” scenarios really had me rolling my eyes. I’m surprised with all the mayhem in the sunk submarine and all the things working against Ethan they didn’t also throw in some underwater snakes or sharks lol to create more obstacles for him. They really went overboard with all that stuff in this film. That said, I’m not gonna say I didn’t enjoy my theater experience. The tension inside the submarine and especially the eye-popping biplane scene alone is worth the price of admission. Overall still a better viewing experience than No Time to Die was. The biplane stunt is probably my second favorite set piece of the entire franchise, second only to the helicopter vs helicopter finale in Fallout.

    If I were to rank these:

    1. Fallout
    2. Dead Reckoning
    3. Rogue Nation
    4. Ghost Protocol
    5. Final Reckoning
    6. M:I
    7. M:I-2
    8. M:I-III

    Saw it yesterday, as I wanted to see it on the big screen after missing out on dead reckoning in cinemas.
    It is an amazing film, with all those stunts, and made so well. But I do appreciate a bit of a (logical) story as well, and putting so many stunts in does detract of them a bit.
    Having said that, the biplane chase is perhaps the best stunt ever done. It is increadable and, as you said, that one only was worth the ticket. Ten times.
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I think it’s relevant to MI as a franchise rather than specifically a wider movie going thing. Its ceiling could only go so high, and the excitement just wasn’t there for this one (it was always going to struggle being part 2 to a film that underperformed). The fanbase for these films are too soft and not all will go to see them in the cinema. I’m actually surprised this one didn’t do better honestly.

    The audience for MI also now skews pretty old. When adjusting for inflation, MI2 is highest grosser, with over a billion! And that actually makes a lot of sense, as I was 13 back then and many kids my age were hyped for that film. I have a hard time imagining kids being as excited for MI8.

    This is why I think returning as a TV show and going back to basics makes the most sense at this point. The audience is becoming niche. Unless they can get Zendaya to become a stuntwoman.

    I think the main problem is that us, the now perhaps not-so-young, still go to the names that we know from before, but with all the cgi stuff and miniseries on streaming, people just can't be bothered to go to the cinema. I hardly know what's playing and have been let down by un-originality in CGI so many times, it's really not worth keeping track. And that is what's killing cinema.

    Look at what Disney did to Snow White. Or the discussions about Superman. It's the use of old icons for... what? Regurgitation in a way half the people won't go and watch it anyway?

    They forgot what their industry was about: originality, and entertainment. At least Cruise is giving us entertainment.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    edited July 10 Posts: 5,583
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I think it’s relevant to MI as a franchise rather than specifically a wider movie going thing. Its ceiling could only go so high, and the excitement just wasn’t there for this one (it was always going to struggle being part 2 to a film that underperformed). The fanbase for these films are too soft and not all will go to see them in the cinema. I’m actually surprised this one didn’t do better honestly.

    The audience for MI also now skews pretty old. When adjusting for inflation, MI2 is highest grosser, with over a billion! And that actually makes a lot of sense, as I was 13 back then and many kids my age were hyped for that film. I have a hard time imagining kids being as excited for MI8.

    This is why I think returning as a TV show and going back to basics makes the most sense at this point. The audience is becoming niche. Unless they can get Zendaya to become a stuntwoman.

    Oh yes. For all the complaints about Bond having an audience that skewed older in the later Craig films, it has nothing on this film series. In my experience (for what it's worth) the people I know who watch it are 40+ and seem slightly disgruntled with the newer Bond films. It's not a good audience. That crowd won't necessarily see these films in the cinema, and aren't that invested in the franchise anyway. The audience for this franchise is much too 'soft'. Said it two years ago and I maintained that thought. Its ceiling only goes so high. Honestly, this latest film did worse than even my expectations financially! Thought it'd do at least 600 million.

    It's done well, don't get me wrong. It's not a flop. I've enjoyed some of these films too. But no, the excitement isn't there for this franchise. It isn't a long term thing. Essentially it's not James Bond!
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,773
    I also think Cruise just isn’t as big of a draw as many thought. MAVERICK came at the perfect climate, and it helps it was a much better film than the two films that came after.
  • DEKE_RIVERSDEKE_RIVERS
    Posts: 2,215
    Cruise is over 60, it's a miracle he's still starring in these movies. Sean Connery at least teamed up with younger actors.

    His career needs a change. He can't always pretend he's 40.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    edited July 11 Posts: 5,583
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    I also think Cruise just isn’t as big of a draw as many thought. MAVERICK came at the perfect climate, and it helps it was a much better film than the two films that came after.

    Any actor can have their flops or hits. I agree, different films that came along at different times. It’s a bit like the predictions that Fall Guy was going to be a smash hit because Gosling had come off of Barbie. It just doesn’t work like that.
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    Cruise is over 60, it's a miracle he's still starring in these movies. Sean Connery at least teamed up with younger actors.

    His career needs a change. He can't always pretend he's 40.

    Yes, I’d like to see Cruise do something a bit different going forward too.
  • MalloryMallory
    Posts: 2,303
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    Cruise is over 60, it's a miracle he's still starring in these movies. Sean Connery at least teamed up with younger actors.

    His career needs a change. He can't always pretend he's 40.

    Cruise looks his age in TFR. He managed to get away with it in DRP1 and TG Maverick, but not anymore.

    I would like to see him go back to more traditional dramatic "acting" roles, not that he isnt acting in MI or TGM, but they are very much stunt/action focused.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,773
    It would be cool to see Cruise play more of the veteran/mentor role like Connery banked on starting with THE UNTOUCHABLES. He was essentially in that part already in MAVERICK, only he was still the star.

    Hell, have him in a sequel to THE COLOR OF MONEY. Vincent in a similar role to Paul Newman, finding a diamond in the rough upcoming film star.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 18,509
    I don’t think that really works for him to be honest, although he’s older he’s still a leading man, not an elder statesman type.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    edited July 11 Posts: 5,583
    I think he's surprisingly good at playing villains or even anti hero types. I actually think he's a lot more interesting in films like Collateral, Interview With A Vampire, Magnolia, and yes, even Tropic Thunder. I think it's because he has that slightly creepiness about him anyway. Maybe this is an unpopular opinion but I've never actually found him believable as an Ethan Hunt or Jack Reacher type. When he was younger he could lean into arrogance and get away with some of those characters I guess, but it's not quite the case now.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,390
    I want to see Cruise do more comedic roles. I just recently rewatched Tropic Thunder and forgot just how hilarious he was as Les Grossman.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 18,509
    According to McQ, apparently they're still talking about a Grossman movie.
  • bondywondybondywondy Uk
    edited 10:51am Posts: 561
    Cruise is over 60, it's a miracle he's still starring in these movies. Sean Connery at least teamed up with younger actors.

    His career needs a change. He can't always pretend he's 40.

    Cruise turned 63 this month.

    There's no incentive for Gen Z or Gen A (or whatever they call it, Gen TikTok 🤭) to relate to a 60 plus year old star. Same is true of F1 with a 61 year old Brad Pitt. It's too early to tell if F1 will break even/make profit. It opened to decent box office.

    Cruise may have another hit with the rumoured Top Gun 3 but it's a bit like scraping the rehash barrel. I know James Bond is up to 25 so some people may argue "that's rehash x 25!" but hey, Bond is Bond. 😉





  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,838
    bondywondy wrote: »
    Cruise is over 60, it's a miracle he's still starring in these movies. Sean Connery at least teamed up with younger actors.

    His career needs a change. He can't always pretend he's 40.

    Cruise turned 63 this month.

    There's no incentive for Gen Z or Gen A (or whatever they call it, Gen TikTok 🤭) to relate to a 60 plus year old star. Same is true of F1 with a 61 year old Brad Pitt. It's too early to tell if F1 will break even/make profit. It opened to decent box office.

    Cruise may have another hit with the rumoured Top Gun 3 but it's a bit like scraping the rehash barrel. I know James Bond is up to 25 so some people may argue "that's rehash x 25!" but hey, Bond is Bond. 😉





    And Bond has been reinvented countless times. With new actors. Cruise IS Ethan Hunt for the general (current) public. They could go with a younger actor, but try and find one willing to do what Cruise has done. And insurance companies to cover it, of course.

    Or wait ten years and MI can be started again. But Cruise is done, he said so himself
  • UnivexUnivex
    Posts: 6,925
    F1, about an almost 60 year old, will make more money than most. And people are loving it.
Sign In or Register to comment.