380 replies to this topic

[tdalton]

I saw that FoxNews story last night as well, and I'm glad that it was posted here. I wonder how much of the drop off that MI3 is having is due to Tom Cruise's media antics and how much of it is due to much of the negative reaction that it is getting. Yes, I know that it's getting generally good reviews, but even some of the good review acknowledge that it didn't exactly live up to the epic thriller that nearly everyone thought that it was going to be. Or, I wonder how much of the drop off can be attributed to a general lack of interest in the franchise after the awful MI2. Either way, I hope that Casino Royale doesn't share a similar fate.

Maybe it's time for a radical MI re-boot!

Perhaps it is time for an MI reboot. Even without seeing the film, and just looking at the trailers, it looked as though this might have been about as far as Tom Cruise can carry the MI franchise. I would love to see them recast the role (and get someone who is a bit more media "friendly") and bring it back to the general concept of MI rather than a one man show like they have been with Cruise.

Much I'm not the world's biggest Cruise fan, and much as I'd agree that the franchise could use more of the "team" approach (allegedly a strength of M:I-3, but they forgot to make the characters played by Maggie Q, Jonathan Rhys Meyers and Keri Russell even vaguely interesting; there's much more personality and chemistry in the team lineup in De Palma's MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE, shortlived though that team is), I don't see the M:I series working without Cruise. It would just seem like a more expensive version of xXx.

OTOH, perhaps the ending of M:I-3

Spoiler

is intended to mark the closure of the franchise, or at least the Ethan Hunt chapter

.

In any case, if M:I-3 is the flop some are suggesting, a fourth film may be unviable, at least for another 10-15 years.

I would suggest, for a "reboot" of MI, to go back to what the show was about. Make it more focused on teamwork, and go with lesser known actors than Tom Cruise.

But, if they were to continue down the current path of MI films, then I don't think that replacing Tom Cruise would be as difficult as some might think. Tom Cruise is extremely unpopular at the moment with just about everyone, so recasting the role of Ethan Hunt would not be difficult at all, and may even be welcome. As long as they kept it similar to what they were doing before (although tone the action down a bit and focus more on teamwork), then it would work. Normally, I don't think that this would work, but under the circumstances with virtually everyone being either angry or annoyed with Tom Cruise, it just might work if they decided to do it now.

Even if the film itself was bad (I don't know, haven't seen it yet), the studio could still pin the blame squarely on Tom Cruise's shoulders and then move to recast the role, and I think that the public would buy that and go to see MI4 with someone new in the role.

[Harmsway]

I'm really looking forward to Pirates of the Carribean 2--Depp was inspired in the first. It should do very well but i'm not sure about a mega hit.

The first POTC has essentially become a modern classic. It's just a film that most people absolutely adore, and that all ages can enjoy. It's a film that everyone in the family could attend and love and happened to be crafted fairly well.

The second one has a huge built-in fanbase waiting for it to come back, and it's also the kind of film that people who were more ambivalent to the first will still go see because it's good fun.

The first POTC took in $650 million worldwide with a $300 domestic gross. I'm thinking POTC II should out-do that. People will show up for pirates and Johnny Depp. SUPERMAN RETURNS has got nothing on it - it's still under the radar and reaction to the trailers has been mixed. SUPERMAN will be a hit, but it doesn't have the draw of POTC II. If POTC II doesn't clean up at the box office this summer, I'll be shocked.

[Seannery]

I do think POTC2 will do very well--i'm not sure about topping or equalling the original. Mainly because it will be hard to make it just as good plus the freshness factor works against it a little. Maybe they can pull it off.

[Jackanaples]

With the way that the box office has been the past year or so, $55-60m is out of the question, IMO. Casino Royale, even with all of the controversy and all of the talk about it, will be extremely lucky to break the $40m barrier, but most likely will have to settle somewhere around $25-35m because the box office has been so bad. And then, there's also questions about whether the public will flock to see Daniel Craig as Bond, but I'm not even taking that into account with this estimation. The figures could end up lower, but a realistic estimate would be $25-35m on opening weekend, IMO.

You might have a point with box office being so low the past year. Perhaps I am being too optimistic. But I imagine that if you asked people why they weren't going to the movies so much you'd find that they thought most of the movies that have been out in the past year have looked like crap (or had such bad word of mouth that they opted to wait for dvd).

No one in Hollywood is going to come out and say, "Well, frankly, our movies have been complete and utter pants this whole year, and it's been scaring audiences away." It's easier to blame it on piracy, dvds, cable tv, etc.

Good movies still do well. Harry Potter did well, and so did Narnia, King Kong, and Walk The Line, etc. Hell, even a documentary about penguins and a western about gay cowboys did extremely well last year.

When the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie came out, there were a lot of people speculating that it might not do well. Why? Because the last pirate movie --Cutthroat Island tanked at the box office, and maybe that meant audiences didn't want to see pirates movies. Right. The reason people didn't see Cutthroat Island is because the moviegoing had had it up to here with pirate movies, not because the movie so obviously sucked.

Even so, I think Casino Royale is going to do exceedingly well. It's the kind of Bond movie (and the kind of James Bond) that hasn't been seen since the 1960's. That makes a bit of a novelty. Also, I expect the word of mouth on CR and Craig to be amazing the closer we get to November.

[tdalton]

You might have a point with box office being so low the past year. Perhaps I am being too optimistic. But I imagine that if you asked people why they weren't going to the movies so much you'd find that they thought most of the movies that have been out in the past year have looked like crap (or had such bad word of mouth that they opted to wait for dvd).

No one in Hollywood is going to come out and say, "Well, frankly, our movies have been complete and utter pants this whole year, and it's been scaring audiences away." It's easier to blame it on piracy, dvds, cable tv, etc.

Good movies still do well. Harry Potter did well, and so did Narnia, King Kong, and Walk The Line, etc. Hell, even a documentary about penguins and a western about gay cowboys did extremely well last year.

When the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie came out, there were a lot of people speculating that it might not do well. Why? Because the last pirate movie --Cutthroat Island tanked at the box office, and maybe that meant audiences didn't want to see pirates movies. Right. The reason people didn't see Cutthroat Island is because the moviegoing had had it up to here with pirate movies, not because the movie so obviously sucked.

Even so, I think Casino Royale is going to do exceedingly well. It's the kind of Bond movie (and the kind of James Bond) that hasn't been seen since the 1960's. That makes a bit of a novelty. Also, I expect the word of mouth on CR and Craig to be amazing the closer we get to November.

I agree with you on these points, and I really do hope that Casino Royale does as well as you think that it will. I really do. I think that it does have more potential to excite the average moviegoer in ways that Die Another Day and The World Is Not Enough were unable to. And, in the old movie market (2003 and before), I would project that it would easily reach $55m and maybe even press the $70m mark on opening weekend. And, who knows, it still might if it turns out to be as good as we all think that it has the potential to be, but the current climate in the movie business makes it difficult to make projections.

But, I think that if the public is ready for a return to the 1960s style Bond that was so popular then (which I think that they are, judging from how well Bourne has done the past few years), then I think that the film will do very well on opening weekend. Then, I think that the second weekend will be more of a referendum on what the general public thinks of Craig as Bond.

[Robert Watts]

CR has a lot going for it,

Controversy sells, Craig's casting has caused slight controversy which has made news programs world wide (we got it here on a breakfast show discussion panel)

The teaser trailer is very well contstructed, which means people will like it for what they see.

It has a cushy release date, there isn't much competition (albeit in Australia it will be in competition with the new Potter flick, but it really is a different audience anyway)

Four years have passed since DAD, which means the core 'kiddy' audience that made DAD a hit have matured to the point where they can take a deeper plot/story.

As for MI:3's box office failure (albeit it has only been one weekend, but it has had low takings compared to the last two- it's reviews are pretty shakey. If this is the last MI:3? Well it is just another canonball hurling towards the Bond ship missing. If I could sum up MI:3 in one word it would be BLAND, especially the trailers- which have completely failed to intrigue me the slightest.

Wilson's statement seems to hold through that the reason that Bond has lasted so long is because it changes when it is on top- MI:3 is more or less more of the same stuff we had in MI:2 and over the last 6 years in action films, which is why it is starting to slump. Still we got one good film out of that franchise, shame it couldn't live up to it.

(PS- I agree with Harmsway that POTC 2 will be a big taker this year, I also think it is one of the overlooked one. Superman hasn't done anything for me so far, MI:3 didn't do anything period [on the whole at least])

[the doctor]

personally i didnt think MI3 was as great as the reviews as it has been getting, i thought it as a bit too detached from the other films, but it was definattly worth seeing and is alot better than MI2 but didnt entertain me as much as MI.still seemed as unrealistic as the other films too

[Frostyak]

This was the first movie I have seen in a long time where I actually cared about the characters. In fact, the last time I cared this much was when I was a kid. I am 24 now and they got me. I was scared of the villain, worried for the girl, and was hoping that no matter what the odds, the hero would win. It beat every expectation that I had.

My wife went with me only as a favor. Going into it she hated Tom Cruise (as a person) and had no interest in watching him for two hours. Less than an hour into the movie she is telling me, "You suck, you were right, this is best movie I have seen in a long time."

- Chris

[Roger Moore's Bad Facelift]

When the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie came out, there were a lot of people speculating that it might not do well. Why? Because the last pirate movie --Cutthroat Island tanked at the box office, and maybe that meant audiences didn't want to see pirates movies.

Not only that, but the films source material was highly suspect.
Remember, POTC was Disney's first foray into translating some of their amusement park rides into films.
While POTC turned out to be a suprise smash, Eddie Murphy's The Haunted Mansion did not fare as well.

I also agree that POTC 2 will do bofo business.

Edited by Roger Moore's Bad Facelift, 08 May 2006 - 07:28 AM.

[mario007]

Saw MI:III last night ... what a dissapointment. The first 2/3 was decent and the last 1/3 was a total crap.

I am glad Casino is steering away from a similar predicament (DAD 2). This once again proves that Michael and Barbara know what they are doing. No matter what anybody says the franchice would be in worse hands with anybody else.

I don't think Tom's personal life had anything to do with the poor BO. It had to do with the movie it self. PSH was the only saving grace for this movie and he as very underused!!!

[JimmyBond]

Remember, POTC was Disney's first foray into translating some of their amusement park rides into films.

It was there second. Their first was The Country Bears, which came and went rather quickly. Which is probably why you dont remember it.

[Roger Moore's Bad Facelift]

It was there second. Their first was The Country Bears, which came and went rather quickly. Which is probably why you dont remember it.

Even featured Maz Zorin himself, Christopher Walkin, if I'm not mistaken.
I guess I had put it out of mind.
Thanks for the clarification.

[J.B.]

You might have a point with box office being so low the past year. Perhaps I am being too optimistic. But I imagine that if you asked people why they weren't going to the movies so much you'd find that they thought most of the movies that have been out in the past year have looked like crap (or had such bad word of mouth that they opted to wait for dvd).

No one in Hollywood is going to come out and say, "Well, frankly, our movies have been complete and utter pants this whole year, and it's been scaring audiences away." It's easier to blame it on piracy, dvds, cable tv, etc.

Good movies still do well. Harry Potter did well, and so did Narnia, King Kong, and Walk The Line, etc. Hell, even a documentary about penguins and a western about gay cowboys did extremely well last year.

When the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie came out, there were a lot of people speculating that it might not do well. Why? Because the last pirate movie --Cutthroat Island tanked at the box office, and maybe that meant audiences didn't want to see pirates movies. Right. The reason people didn't see Cutthroat Island is because the moviegoing had had it up to here with pirate movies, not because the movie so obviously sucked.

Even so, I think Casino Royale is going to do exceedingly well. It's the kind of Bond movie (and the kind of James Bond) that hasn't been seen since the 1960's. That makes a bit of a novelty. Also, I expect the word of mouth on CR and Craig to be amazing the closer we get to November.

I agree with you on these points, and I really do hope that Casino Royale does as well as you think that it will. I really do. I think that it does have more potential to excite the average moviegoer in ways that Die Another Day and The World Is Not Enough were unable to. And, in the old movie market (2003 and before), I would project that it would easily reach $55m and maybe even press the $70m mark on opening weekend. And, who knows, it still might if it turns out to be as good as we all think that it has the potential to be, but the current climate in the movie business makes it difficult to make projections.

But, I think that if the public is ready for a return to the 1960s style Bond that was so popular then (which I think that they are, judging from how well Bourne has done the past few years), then I think that the film will do very well on opening weekend. Then, I think that the second weekend will be more of a referendum on what the general public thinks of Craig as Bond.

I agree with what you are saying tdalton, but on the comparison with Bourne I just dont think it was hugely successful like the Bond films in the same time period. I mean the Bond films blew it out of the water money wise. I think it's final take was something like $230 million (nothing compared to TWINE and DAD). To me, if CR is anywhere close to the Bourne theme...UGH! Bond needs to continue its distinctiveness as the series it is.

One thing I was encouraged about with the CR trailer (saw it last night for the first time) was that it looks as though the formula will still be there to some extent. you could see it in how they put it together. And, if the formula is still in tact, then the referendum on the success of the film will turn to how well Craig portrayed Bond and not on any change of formula.

Remember what happened to Coca-Cola. They changed the formula after decades of a formula that worked and the people revolted and they changed back. Be careful when you tinker with success...

[spynovelfan]

I started reading this thread the other day, but since then it's mushroomed into something else. No doubt someone has since made this point (and if so, sorry!), but MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE has actually rebooted *twice* already. The first film was, as has been pointed out, a complete reboot of the TV series, and was really the creation of a new spy thriller franchise for Cruise using a well-recognised 'brand name' in the genre. Overly convoluted and flawed as it is, I still think that was a very good film, and it could almost have been called THE BOURNE IDENTITY: it overturned the Bond-style thriller by imagining a secret agent on the run from his own government. The second film then rebooted the series once again - Hunt was now back in the fold, with an M figure in Hopkins, and it was a straightforward Bond-style film.

I haven't seen the third one yet (I plan to), but surely the fact that this three-film series has already had to reboot twice shows just how much Bond needed to. Things are moving quicker; people are getting bored faster. Bond rivals are needing to reinvent themselves with each film to hold on. Bond has to occasionally, too. I think it was due, and that just Craig and a more human Bond wouldn't have been enough now. DAD made lots of money, but I think Eon saw the writing on the wall just in time. The series needed a shot in the arm.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Saw MI3. It was ok. Nothing fabulous. I have no doubt Bond will kick it's @#$%^&*!.

[tdalton]

I'm probably going to see MI3 tonight, although I'll be going with significantly lowered expectations. Up until even the middle of last week, I was very excited about this film, and that excitement has completely disappeared to the point where I'm just going to be satisfied if it's only slightly better than MI2, which was one of the worst films I've ever seen.

[David Schofield]

Whether its because they're laying the ground to give CR a kicking, the Sunday Times review of MI3 was to the effect that both Ethan Hunt and Jason Bourne are fairly boring characters, they have little going for them when they are not chasing/being chased, jumping or killing: James Bond with his lines, ability to pull women, style, places, cars, etc is interesting, the ST maintains, BECAUSE he has a life beyond just being a spy and action hero. We want that whole Bond life, not the Hunt/Bourne life.

Probably explains why Bond is at #21 and Bourne and Hunt unlikely to reach double figures.

[spynovelfan]

Whether its because they're laying the ground to give CR a kicking, the Sunday Times review of MI3 was to the effect that both Ethan Hunt and Jason Bourne are fairly boring characters, they have little going for them when they are not chasing/being chased, jumping or killing: James Bond with his lines, ability to pull women, style, places, cars, etc is interesting, the ST maintains, BECAUSE he has a life beyond just being a spy and action hero. We want that whole Bond life, not the Hunt/Bourne life.

Probably explains why Bond is at #21 and Bourne and Hunt unlikely to reach double figures.

I think it's the other way round. Ethan Hunt drives fast cars, wears stylish clothes (English tailor in the second one, I think), travels to exotic locations and sleeps with beautiful women, too. And The Saint did all of that before Bond. I think the secret to long-running success is often to have fairly generic characters at the centre, and the audience can then build stuff around them. You can have several actors play them. You can apply them to anything. Fleming called Bond a cardboard booby; Amis a blank invoice slip. Who is Bond, really? We know next to nothing about him (and most of it's from his obituary in the penultimate novel). We don't even know who his tailor is in Fleming, let alone what his early career was like or what his political or religious views are, and so on. What we have in Fleming, though, is dozens of idiosyncratic details; in the films these are largely reduced to formula, and Bond is a fairly predictable and one-dimensional engine for the plot. But Bond's *characterisation* was never deep, in the books or the films, was it? It's the myriad expressions of his superficial nature and the occasional hints at what lies beneath that tantalise us. OHMSS worked as a counterpoint to that - if every film had been like that, the series would probably have ended long ago.

Some thoughts I just had, anyway.

[marktmurphy]

Whether its because they're laying the ground to give CR a kicking, the Sunday Times review of MI3 was to the effect that both Ethan Hunt and Jason Bourne are fairly boring characters, they have little going for them when they are not chasing/being chased, jumping or killing: James Bond with his lines, ability to pull women, style, places, cars, etc is interesting, the ST maintains, BECAUSE he has a life beyond just being a spy and action hero. We want that whole Bond life, not the Hunt/Bourne life.

Probably explains why Bond is at #21 and Bourne and Hunt unlikely to reach double figures.

I think it's the other way round. Ethan Hunt drives fast cars, wears stylish clothes (English tailor in the second one, I think), travels to exotic locations and sleeps with beautiful women, too. And The Saint did all of that before Bond. I think the secret to long-running success is often to have fairly generic characters at the centre, and the audience can then build stuff around them.

You're right- which is why M:I3 fails; it pulls back the curtain and reveals what's behind Ethan's cool and blank exterior.. and it's nothing at all. He's a very dull man who we see throwing a boring 40-something party and going to the quick-ee mart.
There is one interesting moment where he nearly falls off a skyscraper and says 'Okaaaay'- interesting because it's the closest he comes to winking at the audience and actually having fun; and it works. The audience laughs and I found myself not hating him as much. Something Bond does all the time; and probably key to his success- and Cruise could pull it off.

[Jackanaples]

I haven't seen the third one yet (I plan to), but surely the fact that this three-film series has already had to reboot twice shows just how much Bond needed to. Things are moving quicker; people are getting bored faster. Bond rivals are needing to reinvent themselves with each film to hold on. Bond has to occasionally, too. I think it was due, and that just Craig and a more human Bond wouldn't have been enough now. DAD made lots of money, but I think Eon saw the writing on the wall just in time. The series needed a shot in the arm.

I completely agree. Rebooting the series was the smartest idea. It's going to free them up so much, and make the movies so much more interesting.

[spynovelfan]

There is one interesting moment where he nearly falls off a skyscraper and says 'Okaaaay'- interesting because it's the closest he comes to winking at the audience and actually having fun; and it works. The audience laughs and I found myself not hating him as much. Something Bond does all the time; and probably key to his success- and Cruise could pull it off.

And he probably will. Cruise may be irritating as anything, but he's clever. I think he chose well picking M:I for his vehicle - it's a name everyone knows and associates with spy thrillers, with a brilliant theme song, but he could mould it as he wanted - how many people could have named characters from the TV show? It has an inbuilt generic nature to it, and I think he could do several more, or pass the series on to another actor and produce. Develop the humour - why not? Look at Bond. I don't think there'll be 20, but if they adapt to the times well I can see a few more working.

Incidentally, I meant to say before: M:I and Bourne were both twists on - or reboots of - Bond. M:I was a Bond film in which the traditional 'Bond' character is framed as a traitor and is hunted by his organisation. Both Bournes are 'Bond' as an amnesiac (which is even in Fleming), framed, and hunted by his organisation. Would a Tom Cruise Bond-style thriller have worked in 1996 without that fresh angle? Matt Damon *just* as a kick- superspy? I don't think so. They also felt the effect of over a dozen Bond movies, and had to bring something new to the table. It makes sense Bond needs to sometimes, as well.

[Loomis]

Fleming called Bond a cardboard booby; Amis a blank invoice slip.

Quite. I've always seen Bond as a sort of unconscious tour guide of the sort of aspirational, exotic and romantic fantasy world that will never, ever date, and that's the key to the series' success (funnily enough, I view Tintin in exactly the same terms).

As for MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE having rebooted twice already (and I don't disagree), surely Bond has rebooted a zillion times, making what they're doing with the Craig era essentially nothing new? I mean, they went gritty, serious and back to basics with OHMSS, went comedy with DAF and the early Moores---- well, with all the Moores, really (apart from the reboot that was FYEO, I suppose). They went sci-fi with MOONRAKER, serious with Dalton.... changes that were no less radical than those in the M:I franchise, and often much more dramatic.

[Skudor]

Whether its because they're laying the ground to give CR a kicking, the Sunday Times review of MI3 was to the effect that both Ethan Hunt and Jason Bourne are fairly boring characters, they have little going for them when they are not chasing/being chased, jumping or killing: James Bond with his lines, ability to pull women, style, places, cars, etc is interesting, the ST maintains, BECAUSE he has a life beyond just being a spy and action hero. We want that whole Bond life, not the Hunt/Bourne life.

Probably explains why Bond is at #21 and Bourne and Hunt unlikely to reach double figures.

I think it's the other way round. Ethan Hunt drives fast cars, wears stylish clothes (English tailor in the second one, I think), travels to exotic locations and sleeps with beautiful women, too. And The Saint did all of that before Bond. I think the secret to long-running success is often to have fairly generic characters at the centre, and the audience can then build stuff around them. You can have several actors play them. You can apply them to anything. Fleming called Bond a cardboard booby; Amis a blank invoice slip. Who is Bond, really? We know next to nothing about him (and most of it's from his obituary in the penultimate novel). We don't even know who his tailor is in Fleming, let alone what his early career was like or what his political or religious views are, and so on. What we have in Fleming, though, is dozens of idiosyncratic details; in the films these are largely reduced to formula, and Bond is a fairly predictable and one-dimensional engine for the plot. But Bond's *characterisation* was never deep, in the books or the films, was it? It's the myriad expressions of his superficial nature and the occasional hints at what lies beneath that tantalise us. OHMSS worked as a counterpoint to that - if every film had been like that, the series would probably have ended long ago.
Some thoughts I just had, anyway.

Agree totally with that last remark. You can do that sort of story with Bond very occasionally - but it has to be the absolute exception. A Bond film must never be about Bond. More than anything, this is the key to there being over 20 Bond films.

Incidentally, I saw MI:3 at the weekend and was less than blown away. The first half was simply boring. The best bits (in my view the only reasons to make the movie) were in the Vatican and Shanghai. There is an awful moment where Hunt utters a truly horrible one-liner while lying on top of a wall. Moore could have gotten away with it, Cruise doesn't. The shaky camera work that they employed in two separate sequences was just very unpleasant and added nothing to the action.

Of course the plot of MI:3 is something that can never be replicated in a Bond film (in fact - MI3 in a way starts of where OHMSS ended - which is also what LTK did, albeit by proxy by making the victim Leiter's wife). I'll give them kudos for making a JB clone movie and picking a plot that could never be used in a JB movie.

[Daddy Bond]

Frankly, I don't like the Mission:Impossible movies because they have *virtually nothing whatsoever to do with THE original and defining "Mission: Impossible" TV show.

They're OK as action flics - but they are not Mission: Impossible. About the only thing in common with the TV show is the name, and IMO, the TV show is 100x better than the movies.

As an illustration of what they've done to Mission: if they made a James Bond/007 TV show and made James Bond:
1. 5'8"
2. Ugly
3. Drives an old beat up car
4. Dresses like a slob
5. Has a rough American accent
6. No women - and he's married
7. No action

This description makes a great Columbo, but a terrible James Bond.

The Mission: Impossible movies depart so radically from the TV show that it isn't even funny.
1. First, Jim Phelps selling out for money or whatever? Yeah, right! Not in a million years!
2. Mission: Impossible is supposed to be about a team - not an action hero.
3. Mission: Impossible is about in intelligence, not stunts.
4. Mission: Impossible characters are unknown, MOSTLY impersonal - only RARELY did you get into their emotions or personal life - that's what made them what they were - an efficient team.
5. Mission: Impossible was about more about deception and manipulation than explosions and fights.

True, the movies have "elements" from the series, but so radically depart from the original TV show, that if you have never seen the TV series and have only seen the movies, you have *NO IDEA* what Mission: Impossible is really all about. NONE at all, anymore than watching Columbo would tell you about James Bond. I like Columbo, and Bond, but they're not the same. I probably would have liked the Mission movies if they had called them ANYTHING but Mission: Impossible.

[Roebuck]

the Sunday Times review of MI3 was to the effect that both Ethan Hunt and Jason Bourne are fairly boring characters, they have little going for them when they are not chasing/being chased, jumping or killing

Personally I feel there's an argument for making Hunt even more boring. Look at the original TV show and there wasn't exactly a proliferation of character. We had little idea of what any of the IM Force did on their off hours. If a cast member changed no explanation was ever given for where they'd disappeared to. (The producer once remonstrated with Peter Graves for adding in an unscripted wink to one of his team mates. The IM Force were never intended to be personalities.) Only the part of the guest villain was ever really developed; Phelps & Co were kept as ciphers who would walk into the baddie's life, cause the maximum amount of disruption and then disappear like a puff of smoke. IMO the films reveal too much of the organisation's back story and that mystery has been lost. Now they're just another black-ops unit for the CIA.

[Mister Asterix]

Frankly, I don't like the Mission:Impossible movies because they have *virtually nothing whatsoever to do with THE original and defining "Mission: Impossible" TV show.

[mra]Quite. My biggest problem with the films is they stopping anyone else from making a proper version of Mission:Impossible, either television or movie. It also seems that they are purposefully holding back from letting anyone show the original series because

[JimmyBond]

I would kill to get the original series on DVD (and heck, even the new one from 88). You'd think Paramount would jump at the chance to relase it on DVD to promote the films.

[Genrewriter]

I'd love to see it too. One of the local stations in my area plays the original series in the afternoon.

[dunmall]

I would kill to get the original series on DVD (and heck, even the new one from 88). You'd think Paramount would jump at the chance to relase it on DVD to promote the films.

Agreed I have never seen the original series (but would love too) but every now and again the 1980's version gets screened on free to air tv here in Oz at some ungodly hour... and i quite enjoyed it.(that might also have something to do with the series having been shot in Queensland...lol)
.

[Jackanaples]

I would kill to get the original series on DVD (and heck, even the new one from 88). You'd think Paramount would jump at the chance to relase it on DVD to promote the films.

Me too. I believe there are plans to release the first two seasons on dvd at round the time M:I3 gets its dvd release. So, fall probably.