126 replies to this topic

[shady ginzo]

with the news that Tom Cruise has been dropped by paramount being largely proportioned to his recent excentric behaviour and outspoken promotion of his scientology committment, I came to wondering where this left Mission Impossible, I believe as the situation lies Paramount are owners of the franchise and this makes me wonder if we will see a fourth installment, given the lackluster success of the third, and the unliklihood of Cruise being invited to reprise his role as Ethan Hunt

Hunt himself took the hero mantle in the franchise when Phelps was written out in the first movie, so it is my belief that the series would survive another change of lead character, possibly even be bolstered by it. Who would go for a new lead? maybe a Female lead? what do you guys think will happen!?

[Agent Spriggan Ominae]

Maybe if it were CR/Batman Begins style reboot, I could see that.

[dinovelvet]

Yeah I think it could happen with a new actor, audiences are already used to this thanks to Bond. They'd probably dump the numbers after the title though and start calling it "MI : Operation Rio" or something. I have no idea who would be the new Hunt, though Mark Wahlberg seems to be Paramount's go-to guy...?

[shady ginzo]

it's often contested that each M:I installment is indeed a mini-reboot, as they all seem to represent a very different interpretation of life in the Impossible Missions Force, for example, the agency has a different Boss and structure in each film, characters are written out between films without explanation and plots simply never cross over, while none of this constitutes "reboot" it certainly rules out a reasonable continuity, and the cinematic style of each varies in a way which supports this theory. so I'd agree with what you're saying, any 4th film would start with a new set of characters (just as the 3 previous films have, with the exception of Hunt himself) and then it could be given free reign to go where-ever they like ignoring the past films!

I would love to see the Mission Franchise survive, Paramount have said that while MI3 was the best of the series (a point which I agree with fully) it is a success in as much as it has turned profit, but has failed to match the other 2 films in the box office, by quite a disappointing margin. Cruise's behaviour has freaked people out somewhat and sadly I have to agree that is probably what ruined MI3

There really is a lot of potential in what is still a pretty young franchise, 3 proved that. perhaps this is what the series needs?

Yeah I think it could happen with a new actor, audiences are already used to this thanks to Bond. They'd probably dump the numbers after the title though and start calling it "MI : Operation Rio" or something. I have no idea who would be the new Hunt, though Mark Wahlberg seems to be Paramount's go-to guy...?

I agree the title should be more imaginative! and I think the best course of action is to drop hunt all together and introduce a new hero. Ethan Hunt is not James Bond yet, and introducing a new hero at this point would rule out MI from accidentally becoming "the Ethan Hunt franchise"

This is the idea I can see working really well, but I'd probably hold of on bringing out a 4th for a few years

[K1Bond007]

Just dump Ethan Hunt altogether. Who needs him? Is he really that popular? I don't think so. Reboot and add back Jim Phelps and this thing could be just as popular. Doesn't even need to be a film. Get a bunch of good writers and bring back the TV show with a new cast then bridge that to films again.

...and even if he is, he destroys what Mission: Impossible is all about. Teamwork. The first film kind of got away with it, but the 2nd was nothing more than a poorly done, John Woo'd James Bond wannabe to be honest. The third film was a decent attempt at bridging the films back to the old series, but it's still so far away from what the film series should have been.

[shady ginzo]

teamwork is a good point, the movies have been a self-acknowledged showcase for Cruise (this has been mentioned by Paramount and the directors of each installment) Loosing such a big name as cruise will naturally lead the films in a more faithful direction, something which I really liked about the 3rd, which I think stuck the right balance between hero and teamwork which a movie requires.
K1Bond007, you're right about the lack of faithfulness to the teamwork aspect of the series, and if they did make a new series then they'd be well advised to not focus on one particular "hero", that said, I think a movie of this nature needs a hero to some extent, but nowhere near what was needed to satisfy Cruise's ego.
Nowadays I think Mission Impossible belongs on the big screen. it has an established audience and makes more money this way, going back to a television series would be like Bond stopping the movies and focusing on Novels (even though it would certainly be appreciated by the "true" longterm Mission Impossible fans which I assume from what you say you fall into )

Edited by shady ginzo, 25 August 2006 - 01:33 AM.

[Tarl_Cabot]

I think they should pull the plug. The MI franchise sucked.

[Gobi-1]

I think they should pull the plug. The MI franchise sucked.

The reason why they suck is no longer going to star in them. I say ignore the first three films altogether and bring back Jim Phelps. Either have Peter Graves repise his role as Phelps and be the mentor to the new IMF team leader or hire another actor to play the part. Phelps is Mission: Impossible not Ethan Hunt.

Edited by Gobi-1, 25 August 2006 - 03:09 AM.

[K1Bond007]

teamwork is a good point, the movies have been a self-acknowledged showcase for Cruise (this has been mentioned by Paramount and the directors of each installment) Loosing such a big name as cruise will naturally lead the films in a more faithful direction, something which I really liked about the 3rd, which I think stuck the right balance between hero and teamwork which a movie requires.
K1Bond007, you're right about the lack of faithfulness to the teamwork aspect of the series, and if they did make a new series then they'd be well advised to not focus on one particular "hero", that said, I think a movie of this nature needs a hero to some extent, but nowhere near what was needed to satisfy Cruise's ego.

Well what they need is a good Ocean's Eleven mix. You got your Clooney (similar to Phelps) who is the ringleader and the top bill, but most of his support team are just as notable like say Brad Pitt (kind of like M:I's Martin Landau). I'm not advocating big name stars, but rather "real" supporting cast (i.e., not red shirts, but Spock, McCoy, Sulu, etc.), you know?

I think they should pull the plug. The MI franchise sucked.

The films, maybe, but they also made money. The TV show never sucked. The 80s episodes weren't as good though, I'll admit. A reboot without Tom would be fine. It would probably be just as good if not better if someone with some actual talent and love for the original series was actually involved. Abrams would be a good choice. It's unfortunate how the movies became so Ethan/Cruise centric that they were never able to do some truly awesome stuff like the TV show did.

[Skudor]

I though Cruise had some sort of ownership of MI?

[Qwerty]

I think they should pull the plug. The MI franchise sucked.

The reason why they suck is no longer going to star in them. I say ignore the first three films altogether and bring back Jim Phelps. Either have Peter Graves repise his role as Phelps and be the mentor to the new IMF team leader or hire another actor to play the part. Phelps is Mission: Impossible not Ethan Hunt.

Perhaps. It seems like it would be fairly easy to ignore the first three films if they wanted to go ahead with another.

[Gobi-1]

Funny you should mention George Clooney and Ocean's 11 because I was just thinking the same thing. I think Clooney could make a very good Jim Phelps. Plus he could pretty much get any actors/actresses to take on supporting roles.

[00-FAN008]

The way I see it, a fouth Mission: Impossible film seems unlikely. With all three films, they've basically done everything they possibly could have done to enhance the "excitement" or whatever you want to think of it as. M:i-III practically "hit the max"; it was Ethan Hunt's ultimate test. That's maybe as far as they'll go... unless years go by and they cast a new actor for a totally new reboot or somefing or nofing.

[drmedula]

It really depends how desperate Paramount is for a "franchise". (Look how they've run STAR TREK into the ground, in movie AND TV series form).If they want to do more movies, they'd be smart to wait a while and then start from scratch. If they think they need to strike "while the iron's hot", a TV series would be a good idea (something in the style of 24, perhaps); allows themselves to distance themselves from Cruise with a minimum of fuss, too. But I wouldn't be at all suprised if they go for another feature right away, perhaps on a slightly smaller scale, with a cast of lesser knowns.

[Agent 76]

Mission Impossible 4

Directed by - Brian de Palma

James Phelps - George Clooney


Barney Collier - Don Cheadle



Willy Armitage - Robert Sean Leonard


Cinnamon Carter - Maria Bello

[shady ginzo]

It really depends how desperate Paramount is for a "franchise". (Look how they've run STAR TREK into the ground, in movie AND TV series form).If they want to do more movies, they'd be smart to wait a while and then start from scratch. If they think they need to strike "while the iron's hot", a TV series would be a good idea (something in the style of 24, perhaps); allows themselves to distance themselves from Cruise with a minimum of fuss, too. But I wouldn't be at all suprised if they go for another feature right away, perhaps on a slightly smaller scale, with a cast of lesser knowns.

think I agree with you totally on both counts. The Mission Impossible franchise had seemed to me something which would run into at least 2 or 3 more films but given the controversy surrounding Cruise at the time leading up to MI3's release that franchise suddenly started looking like a trilogy, one which I think I'd be pretty happy to leave as it is. MI3 underperformed and in my opinion was a very good movie, beyond the efforts of the previous movies, and leaves the series finishing on a high.
Should another movie be deemed necessary by paramount, I agree that a "team" of unknowns is probably the way to go, I'd still want a "lead character" but I wouldn't want he or she to be able to succeed without the team working as equals. I also would be tempted to change lead character in subsequent movies (akin to XXX, but without the awfulness of those films!)

a series is a great idea too, and as you say, the simplest way of moving on from Cruise's trillogy without jarring the viewer. given the success of 24, we know the suspence thriller has a maket, but I certainly wouldn't run it during the same season! I don't think a new Phelps would be able to take on jack bauer!
... flash of inspiration... Freddie V Jason style movie... Jack Bauer V Jim Phelps!!

Mission Impossible 4

Directed by - Brian de Palma

James Phelps - George Clooney


Barney Collier - Don Cheadle



Willy Armitage - Robert Sean Leonard


Cinnamon Carter - Maria Bello

absolutly love this idea!! bring back the old characters

[Turn]

With Cruise or Cruiseless, I'd be interested in another MI film. It's a good series. All three films have varied and there is room for more. If not now, the franchise will likely be dusted off sometime in the future.

[Blofeld's Cat]

I can't STAND Cruise, so I'm looking forward to more MIs with renewed interest.

[K1Bond007]

I though Cruise had some sort of ownership of MI?

I heard this too. I can't find any info on who owns what though. I'm thinking Cruise just had production rights or something, which is why Cruse/Wagner was behind the 3. I don't know.

It really depends how desperate Paramount is for a "franchise". (Look how they've run STAR TREK into the ground, in movie AND TV series form).

The majority of that was Berman (and Braga). Paramount only now just took the reins back from him. Gave it to JJ Abrams, which may not have been the greatest of ideas (IMO), but certainly the more interesting one.

[krypt]

I dislike Cruise so much I stayed away from MI3.

MI4:

Hunt (in disguise) is killed at start of film.

New team members (an ensemble cast) are introduced.

The plot brings back surviving members of the original television series (not as field agents, but as background consultants).

[Double-Oh Agent]

I'm all for Mission: Impossible continuing but minus Ethan Hunt and the film totally ignoring the earlier movies. What Paramount needs to do is make the new film like the old TV show--i.e. teamwork. That is the key element. There is a lot of stuff/plots they can do. If Bond can go for 20-plus films certainly there can be another 3-5 M:I films easily.

As for the characters, I would use the main ones from the old TV show with medium-level status stars (although the Jim Phelps role could be cast with a bigger star.)

My choices would be:

JIM PHELPS -- Kevin Costner
ROLLIN HAND -- Jason Isaacs
CINNAMON CARTER -- Natasha Henstridge
BARNEY COLLIER -- Isaiah Washington
WILLY ARMITAGE -- Eric Roberts

[James Boldman]

Just dump Ethan Hunt altogether. Who needs him? Is he really that popular? I don't think so. Reboot and add back Jim Phelps and this thing could be just as popular. Doesn't even need to be a film. Get a bunch of good writers and bring back the TV show with a new cast then bridge that to films again.

...and even if he is, he destroys what Mission: Impossible is all about. Teamwork. The first film kind of got away with it, but the 2nd was nothing more than a poorly done, John Woo'd James Bond wannabe to be honest. The third film was a decent attempt at bridging the films back to the old series, but it's still so far away from what the film series should have been.

IMO they shouldn't use either Jim Phelps or Dan Briggs, because no one could replace either of those characters, therefore they should probably just try another new character. Having said that, perhaps they will have to try one of the two original characters, in order to revive the series. Even though MI:3 was clearly the better of the three and closest to the original TV series, as has been said it didn't work at the box office. Either it never will, or they have to try something drastic.

[Daniel Craig the cool 007]

Concernimg the future installment, i guess that Colin, Ryan Reynolds,Chris Evans or Ben affleck/matt damon should star in it...Don Cheadle should be a team member as he fits the role and is a great actor?But something must be answered, why did cruise not file for being fired coz the weirdness of the guy(even if it is true) is not plausible enough to get fired...they should first have resolve matters in talk before coming up to that...Cruise is a guy who works hard to get the job done and is a professinal actor so why did paramount fire him....I dont believe that scientology and cruise jumping around was the real cause....Tom brought a lot of money to the studios so it is even treatment he got from them...any way he doesnt need the money coz he is rich already....Tom cruise is the modern Howard Hughes....Maybe we will get a movie called the stuntman depicting cruise doing stunts like the Dicaprio movie where hughes was fond of planes...Just maybe it will happen!

[Jackanaples]

Concernimg the future installment, i guess that Colin, Ryan Reynolds,Chris Evans or Ben affleck/matt damon should star in it...Don Cheadle should be a team member as he fits the role and is a great actor?But something must be answered, why did cruise not file for being fired coz the weirdness of the guy(even if it is true) is not plausible enough to get fired...they should first have resolve matters in talk before coming up to that...Cruise is a guy who works hard to get the job done and is a professinal actor so why did paramount fire him....I dont believe that scientology and cruise jumping around was the real cause....Tom brought a lot of money to the studios so it is even treatment he got from them...any way he doesnt need the money coz he is rich already....Tom cruise is the modern Howard Hughes....Maybe we will get a movie called the stuntman depicting cruise doing stunts like the Dicaprio movie where hughes was fond of planes...Just maybe it will happen!

Paramount didn't fire him. They simply decided not to re-up his contract when it expired.

The perception of Cruise over the last 18 months has been pretty solidly negative. From him jumping on Oprah's couch, to the apparent zombification of Katie Holmes, and every time he opens his mouth about psychiatry or the scary cult he belongs to... he's managed to convince the entire world that he's a big weirdo.

That cost him at the box office in regards to M:I3. I saw it the first weekend, but it was in spite of Cruise's presence (I find him fairly obnoxious) and that was the general consensus with everyone I spoke with about the movie. They were excited that it was written and directed by J.J. Abrams, really excited that Philip Seymour Hoffman was the villain, totally annoyed with Cruise and wished he wasn't in it.

M:I3 performed well under expectations. The reason for this I beleive can be squarely placed at Tom Cruise's feet. But I figure that alone is not the reason for Sumner Redstone to refuse to continue doing business with him.

Just think: If he's super irritating to the general public now, just imagine how annoying he must have been to people at Paramount in private? I'm guessing annoying enough to show him off the lot as soon as the opportunity presented itself.

[Blonde Bond]

I liked Mission Impossible 1 & 3, but I think they should introduce a new set of characters if they're ever going to make fourth.

Being a guy, who enjoyed Alias, I think they should bring Jennifer Garner for the leading role. No one could say there are too many female operatives, now could they ?

And Brian De Palma should direct another MI- movie. I enjoyed his first Mission Impossible movie the most.

[K1Bond007]

http://www.dailymail...in_page_id=1773

Apparently Paramount wants Brad Pitt for the series.

[crheath]

http://www.dailymail...in_page_id=1773

Apparently Paramount wants Brad Pitt for the series.

Interesting news. I'm glad they're dropping Cruise and trying to reboot the series, but I don't think Brad Pitt is right. I like him as an actor, but he just doesn't fit the MI3 formula for me...

[dinovelvet]

Sounds like a load of rubbish. "An insider" has the scoop...how many times did we hear rubbish rumors from these generic "insiders" during 2005 about the Bond casting?

My "insider" prediction is that the new MI will be a complete reboot, focusing on a rookie agent (who may or may not be named Ethan Hunt) on his first IMF mission, and he will be played by Mark Wahlberg.

[OmarB]

That Brad Pitt news is pretty great, I actually like his acting a lot. So Brad's gonna be doing the movie of my favorite book Atlas Shrugged and MI:4! Awesome.

[Andrew]

Pitt would be quite interesting. He's proved he can pull off the spy stuff with Spy Game and I heard a while ago that he was the original choice for Bourne (which I would've liked to see).