126 replies to this topic

[AgentPB]

Wow i didn't know people liked the MI films so much. But I never reaqlly liked them. I mean they bring nothing new to the tabe thier just action movies. I woudn't care if they didn't make another. I prefer the Bourne series over the MI series. I do like the theme music i'll give it that. But is the world realy clamoring for a fourth MI film when two seemed like too many?

[007NC]

What if it showed Hunt's son? Instead of making a new person just keep it family but a reboot?

[Double-O Eleven]

I never cared for any of the M:I films, only thought the third was the best one by the simple fact that it wasn't the worst--not high praise. Paramount wanted to try to get their own Bond franchise using M:I, but they haven't garned much of a following after they debut, and does anybody really care much about agent Hunt? I say leave the damned thing alone. If it does come back, it should be as a new TV show (the third, by this point).

[OmarB]

The MI franchise was doomed from day one, too bad it this many years for people to realize. The first movie as great as it was was not only far and away from what people expected of MI but it turned the team's leader into a villain thus polarizing the old fans (my dad hated it). Also it's story was something that though I loved could see how poeple found it confusing and that turned people off.

The second film tried to dumb it down because many didnt "get" the first one. Big mistake considering MI was always an intelligent show you can't really connect the dots between what was MI and what it had become. Plus John Woo should never have directed.

The third one, I didnt see. Why? One word, Cruise.

With Brad Pitt comming in I'm all about jumping back in and paying attention to the franchise again.

[Loomis]

I'll be surprised if Pitt does this. He doesn't need it. And I don't see any point in continuing the series without Cruise. It was his franchise - like him or dislike him, you gotta give him that. He didn't just play Ethan Hunt - he produced the films, hired the directors and wielded a phenomenal amount of creative clout.

No, he didn't create MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE, but he did create the MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE films, so, on the big screen, at least, MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE belongs to Tom Cruise. To do more without him would be like doing STAR WARS TV shows, games, etc. without any involvement by George Lucas.

Don't stab the Cruiser in the back! MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE films without Ethan Hunt would just be like super-expensive versions of the xXx movies, and we wouldn't want that, would we?

[dee-bee-five]

I'll be surprised if Pitt does this. He doesn't need it. And I don't see any point in continuing the series without Cruise. It was his franchise - like him or dislike him, you gotta give him that. He didn't just play Ethan Hunt - he produced the films, hired the directors and wielded a phenomenal amount of creative clout.

No, he didn't create MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE, but he did create the MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE films, so, on the big screen, at least, MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE belongs to Tom Cruise. To do more without him would be like doing STAR WARS TV shows, games, etc. without any involvement by George Lucas.

Don't stab the Cruiser in the back! MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE films without Ethan Hunt would just be like super-expensive versions of the xXx movies, and we wouldn't want that, would we?

Oh, I don't know; for those of us who abominate Cruise, it wouldn't be too bad...

[Diabolik]

I think they should discover that Ethan Hunt is a traitor and kill him off in M:I 4.

Have Peter Graves show up (explaining that the "other Jim Phelps" was an imposter) and have the "real" Jim Phelps put a bullet in Ethan Hunts head.

Speaking of which, season one of the Mission: Impossible TV series is supposed to come out on DVD in November.

[Mercator]

Bard Pitt would make a verry good Ethan Hunt. A lighter, funnier character like Roger played Bond. I hope they keep the same supporting cast. I think they should go back to Australia because it was a cool location in MI:2

[Loomis]

Bard Pitt would make a verry good Ethan Hunt. A lighter, funnier character like Roger played Bond. I hope they keep the same supporting cast.

If they do make another, I hope Laurence Fishburne and Ving Rhames will return - both are absolutely terrific in MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III. No reason why Jonathan Rhys Meyers, Maggie Q and Simon Pegg couldn't come back, either. I'd much prefer Pitt or whoever to play Ethan Hunt than some new character - at least that would be a nice acknowledgement of Cruise.

Still, Cruise wasn't only the Connery of the M:I franchise - he was also its Cubby Broccoli. If he's not going to do it any more, I think it's time to knock the whole thing on the head.

I find this Pitt rumour extremely hard to believe, though. But perhaps Paramount is testing the waters re: possible legal action by Cruise. Maybe what this is all about is finding out who really owns the rights to make more M:I films. Frankly, that would seem a lot more believable than the idea of Pitt wanting to become a Cruise replacement. Could Cruise be about to go from being Connery/Broccoli to being Kevin McClory?

[ACE]

Still, Cruise wasn't only the Connery of the M:I franchise - he was also its Cubby Broccoli.

Well, not really. Cruise/Wagner was assigned producing duties on the films they are involved in by the studio. It is a contractual and financial position. But I doubt very much it relates to the underlying rights whatsoever. Not even Cruise owns a piece of the movies he stars in (he gets gross points).

Broccoli owned (and then part-owned) filmBond in a way Cruise does not. And Cruise was always fireable while one cannot remove Danjaq from ownership.

As for creative producing, sure, while he is involved, Cruise does his bit. But he does not shepherd the franchise he is no longer involved in. Paramount is the MI daddy as they are for Star Trek (where Gene Roddenberry became a tokenistic and negative presence).

[Loomis]

Thanks for clearing that up, ACE. I was always under the impression that Cruise at least partly owned the rights to the M:I film franchise, and that Paramount would not be able to make more films without his involvement or at least his blessing. I've no sources to cite, mind you, and I guess I just assumed him to have a great deal of power that he never actually had.

On a vaguely related note, I gather that ROCKY BALBOA was delayed for several years due to a producer of the earlier Rocky films contesting Stallone's right to make another without him. Obviously, the dispute was resolved, but it did hold things up. Indeed, I think MGM may have also claimed exclusive rights to Rocky, and for a while told Stallone that, even though it had no intention of ever making another film in the franchise (even on a paltry $10 million-or-so budget)*, he would not be permitted to take it to another studio.

As for M:I, I assumed that the situation was similar to the MGM/Eon scenario: Eon could not take Bond to another studio, while no Bond film could be made without Eon. No studio but Paramount could finance or distribute an M:I film, meaning that Cruise was unable to "shop it around"; at the same time, Paramount was not allowed to go ahead without Cruise as producer/owner of the "property". Both "parties" were, in effect, stuffed if they tried to move independently of the other.

But, like I say, this was simply what I assumed.

*I believe it took a lot of arm-twisting, over quite a number of years, for Stallone to convince people to back a sixth Rocky. The (surprise?) success of a Rocky game a few years ago may have helped. In a possible case of *ahem* art mirroring life, ROCKY BALBOA has public interest in the former champ reawakened after a game is released in which he can be pitted against the current heavyweight titleholder, which leads promoters to arrange a real life bout between them.

[ACE]

Well, the mere fact the Paramount have a 4th film in prep means either Cruise is developing it without his involvement or that he does not the underlying rights.
As the show was developed for TV, it is 99.9% certain the rights are corporately owned. I too have nothing to cite but what has happened points to certain factors being correctly assumed.

Rocky too maybe owned by Stallone. However, back in the 1976, he only sold the screenplay provided he retained some control (i.e. take the lead role). However, usually when a studio funds a project, they insist on owning all the rights to all aspects in perpetuity. Usual practice.

Bond is different. Remember, Bond historically was produced by an independant production company with a studio distribution deal (an emerging state pioneered by the "studio without walls" that was UA in the 1960s). Cubby and Harry owned their pictures and UA retained certain rights. If Harry had sold his share of Danjaq to Cubby, Bond would not have been corporately tied to UA and presumably when the distribution deal with UA expired, the Bond product could have been shopped to other studios.

The best example is Lucasfilm owning Star Wars. When the new trilogy was being prepared, it did not automatically have to go to Twentieth Century Fox. In theory, Warner Bros. could have stepped up to the plate.

Another example is when the Salkinds produced the first Superman films. Even though the rights were actually owned by Warner Bros, they had licensed the rights to the Salkinds in the belief comic book pictures were not viable. Warners then had to do a deal to buy the picture, the rights to which they ultimately owned!

[Daniel Craig the cool 007]

A re-emergence of the character of Jim Phelps portrayed by the one and only George Clooney would not be that bad....But apart from that i dont see who could take the role of Ethan Hunt apart from the maverick coz the dude played ethan like a pro...the third installment was really disapointing....Im exagarating but it was a bit like a Speed 3 or Cellular with Jason Statham...In fact, if it had not been called mission impossible 4, then it could have been a different movie starring cruise which nobody would have noticed..the trailer looked appealing but fell short...it even got an award as the best trailer of the year or something like that....Poor Cruise!

[Trident]

I don't know if this is still an option, but didn't Paramount opt on "One Shot" and intended a Reacher-franchise? If so, they aren't necessarily stuck with M:I if the rights to it should still be questionable.

I'd certainly be interested if M:I should see another go, but I wouldn't step out of my way if it just was another 100-something-million-dollar-action-buster without any real substance to it. That kind of flicks have somehow lost their attraction for me. As it is, I've been 14 days in Budapest this summer and the hotel's pay TV was showing M:I 3. But the entire two weeks I couldn't bring myself to watch the whole movie. It's not an outspokenly bad film, but to me its plot just lacked a certain thrill and atmosphere that kept me interested enough to see the story unfold. I'd much rather have watched a season of "Alias" than M:I 3.

If a restart/reboot of M:I is seriously intended, I'd prefer Paramount to go back to the original idea: an agent who is asked (not ordered) to go independendly on a mission that is so sensitive that he and his team members have to be denied by the government, should they be discovered/captured/killed (I always loved that line in the old TV series!). An agent who choses his team members for each mission anew from a pool of several agents who between missions live ordinary civil lifes or aren't even secret agents but qualify because of their profession (stage magician, jockey, singer, circus act etc.) for a special job within a mission. And I'd like to see the team leader to recruit them personally, thus giving a thiny view into the lifes of the other team members. The leader IMHO doesn't have to be Briggs, Phelps, Rollin' Hand or Hunt. As it is, there have been several team leaders and M:I could easily have another one, and why not a woman?

Somehow I'd prefer M:I to go back to TV. I don't think TV makes the franchise in any way "cheaper" or less attractive. When I look at the shows that are produced nowadays, 24, CSI, LOST, ALIAS and so on, I think its fair to say that today TV often produces a higher quality and more original concepts than big screen. M:I can only profit by such high standarts as are common in some of todays TV-shows. And you can get lots of terrific actors for such shows without spending 60 million dollars just on the leading cast.

Edited by Trident, 19 September 2006 - 06:42 PM.

[shady ginzo]

as I think I said earlier, after the relative acclaim of MI3 (hindered only by the disappointment of the second) I doubt Paramount would give up the franchise just yet. and with MI3 leaving hunt to start a new life with his wife, they couldn't have planned it better to introduce a new lead character. in honesty, that is easier and more believable than somehow bringing Hunt back to IMF, without doing a done-to-death "kill off the wife" plot.

The news that Brad Pitt is being touted is a mixed bag for me. getting a new actor involved is exactly what I wanted, But Pitt will take some selling in my case. oddly enough I had given thought to what it would be like to have his missus, Angelina Jolie, take over the role of IMF team leader.

[Cody]

Joe Carnahan, who for a while was set to direct M:i:III, is doing an on-going Q&A at CHUD in the build up to the release of his new movie, Smokin' Aces.

M:I has come up a couple times. Why he dropped out -

Now. MI3. We're not only talking a horse of different color, we're talking about an armored plated Trojan Horse, seven stories high. Going from a flick like NARC and its pittance of a budget, to the stratospheric amount we were about to spend on that flick, is akin to a newborn, starting at Quarterback in the Super Bowl. It's difficult enough to make a film, but when you develop opposing agendas, it becomes truly 'impossible'

I never felt overwhelmed though. What I did feel was underappreciated which was unfortunate because what we were going to do would've been extraordinary. I was consciously going to try and take the piss out of the 'Bourne' series and we were so close...then, for reasons too vast and varied to get into here, I had to bail.

and a little more detail about what his version of an M:I film would've been -

QUESTION - A fan from France here. I don't know whether Mr. Carnahan is at liberty to talk about it or not but I was wondering if he could tell us more about what he intended to do exactly on MISSION : IMPOSSIBLE - 3. Whether it would have been shot in a gritty style (as with NARC) or maybe with a little more polished cinematography (as with TICKER) ? Would it have been closer to the original TV series ? How would he compare it to recent spy/government agent flicks or shows such as the BOURNE franchise, 24, even CASINO ROYALE and, of course, De Palma's and Woo's and especially Abrams' MISSION : IMPOSSIBLE movies? Since they too have tried to explore the genre with a more down to earth, even dark, approach. Plus, I never really got who was going to write it. I heard there was an extraordinary script by Frank Darabont that got written. Was that for David Fincher? For Mr. Carnahan? Before J.J. Abrams? Ok so it's not exactly ONE question but I'm really curious about what could have been and hope you guys can give us some answers. Thanks in advance and keep up the good work! -Robert Hospyan.

ANSWER - We were going to absolutely take it gritty. I had told Tom and the studio that I wanted the 'Punk Rock' version of the series and I wanted to kick the out of the 'Bourne' series which I feel is so good and so smart. It seemed a perfect standard to try and vault if we could.

We were going to Africa with it. We were dealing with Private Military.

We had Kenneth Brannagh and Carrie-Anne Moss and Scarlett Johansen and easily the most kick story of the bunch. The real great script was the work of Dan Gilroy, who, oddly, is the younger brother of 'Bourne' scribe Tony Gilroy. He wrote a helluva draft that would have elevated that whole series to another level. It was very much a throwback to the TV show. Five people, working in tandem as opposed to one guy and a bunch of assistants.

Hope that helps a bit.

Sounds potentially awesome to me. I'm happy with Abrams' M:I, but I really wish Carnahan's version had either been made first, or that there was some hope that issues could be resolved and it could be part 4.

[moorebond82]

The series can survive after cruise he wasn't that important to begin with. In my opinion he's nuts and hasn't done anything good since Interview With A Vampire.

[icecold]

I'd be all for a 4th film if they got away from the terrible style of the sequels. If any movie needs to be a hi-tech spy thriller (via plot and acting, not special effects and shootouts) with Bourne-like subdued but frenetic action it's Mission: Impossible. I dont care if it's a reboot or not just make it a good film that at the very least matches the first one in quality. I thought the third was miles ahead of the 2nd but it was still an ADD, "Let's see how many explosions and unbelievable stunts we can throw in" extravaganza. Which is cool sometimes, but not when the movie is called Mission Impossible. It's just not what I expect from that kind of movie, nor is it what I want. It also needs the team dynamic from the series, as others have mentioned. I'd even be ok with Cruise returning if the film was better written and had a different style to the others. Cruise was never my problem with any of the movies, he's a good actor if you ask me.

Edited by icecold, 18 December 2006 - 04:24 PM.

[Safari Suit]

Maybe Cruise is a good actor (I don't think so myself), but as an action star he's a complete dud. He makes Roger Moore at his campiest look as tough as Charles Bronson and as credible as Bruce Lee.

[moorebond82]

Well Tom Cruise is only about 5'3 i believe.

[icecold]

5'7, IIRC.

[Safari Suit]

Many (most?) action stars are short. It's not his height (which doesn't help admittedly); it's him.

[Cody]

The "without Cruise" part of the thread title isn't accurate, but M:I 4 is now in development with JJ Abrams producing.

Tom Cruise eyes new "Mission: Impossible"

J.J. Abrams and Tom Cruise are back in business, agreeing to co-produce a fourth "Mission: Impossible" movie with a potential 2011 release date.

With Alias/M:I3 writers Kurtzman and Orci well set up these days, Abrams is bringing another team of Alias writers in for this one: M:I4 recruits scribes

Paramount Pictures and producers Tom Cruise and J.J. Abrams have officially lit the fuse on "Mission: Impossible IV," setting Josh Applebaum and Andre Nemec to write the screenplay.

While those scribes aren’t big feature names yet, they join a roster of writers who transitioned from Abrams TV series creations to pen the features he directs and produces through his Bad Robot banner.

Applebaum and Nemec spent four seasons with Abrams as co-exec producers of "Alias," and they will script "M:I 4" based on a story Abrams wrote with them.

While the only other commitments so far are for Cruise and Abrams to produce the film together, sources said that Cruise’s character, Ethan Hunt, will certainly be involved in an onscreen capacity. Pic is aimed for a 2011 release.

Applebaum and Nemec are the creators of the new ABC series "Happy Town" and previously created "October Road" and the U.S. version of "Life on Mars" for ABC.

"I’ve been looking forward to working with Josh and Andre again for years," Abrams said. "Their sense of balance between character and action is wonderful, which I know is hugely important to Tom as well. We’re off to an exciting start, so, as usual, fingers crossed."

[Loomis]

Great news. I know I'm in a minority here, but I love the MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE flicks and can't wait for the next one.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Great news. I know I'm in a minority here, but I love the MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE flicks and can't wait for the next one.

Ugh.

[dinovelvet]

Great news. I know I'm in a minority here, but I love the MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE flicks and can't wait for the next one.

Count me in as well I guess. It's nothing I'm going to be counting down the days for, but MI4 is at least summer midweek afternoon matinee worthy!

[Mr Teddy Bear]

III was worthy of a trip to the cinema, so IV should be alright too.

[Blofeld's Cat]

Great news. I know I'm in a minority here, but I love the MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE flicks and can't wait for the next one.

I enjoy them too, especially the last one.

But then again, The Man with the Golden Gun is one of my favourite Bond movies too, so what would I know.

[Double-Oh Agent]

I'd be more excited if Tom Cruise wasn't returning. We need more Mission: Impossible team stories, not Ethan Hunt showpieces.

[Dekard77]

Love to see a new MI flick, but don't want the same old 'inside man' plot the last three films dealt with. Also I hated the love story angle, just have a good plot and get on with the mission.