284 replies to this topic

[Matt_13]

I like Tom Cruise. He's fun in action movies. I'll be going.

[Loomis]

Typical moaning fanboys. The involvement of an actor of Jeremy Renner's calibre is the most exciting news for the franchise since the casting of Phlip Seymour Hoffman (who was excellent in the third one). Plus, we have none other than Brad Bird onboard as director, as well as highly intriguing reports that the film will not only not be called MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE IV but will not have MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE or M:I in the title at all.

And still people are only interested in complaining about Cruise and rabbiting on about the films not being faithful to the TV show (as though anyone other than a tiny group of enthusiasts gives a flying one about that ancient show).

[Harry Potter]

I cant wait for this to hit the screen.
Hoffman was great in MI3, now lets take the franchise to a new level

[Turn]

I am a big fan of the MI franchise. Loved the first and third films, actually despised the second. I am thrilled about the big-name talent involved in IV.

However, the description of IV seems to hark back to what we've previously seen, and that's the Cruise/Hunt character's relationship with someone - with Phelps in the first film, with the turncoat Ambrose in the second and with his wife to be in the third. Now we find out the fourth will follow the same path.

All 3 films also featured a betrayal by one of the major IMF characters as an important plot point. Maybe I'm jumping the gun, but based on past history I am not overly enthusiastic about the Cruise-Renner relationship thing as it will likely be the same thing.

Will the film really be a big character exploration? I'd very much doubt it. They've turned the franchise into an action extravaganza. The first film had only 3 major action sequences or so and it worked. The last two were filled with action. My personal favorite sequence in MI3 was the kidnapping in the vatican where the team concept was fully explored and all the classic IMF hallmarks displayed.

Shootouts in enemy facilities are just not that exciting in this framework. Although the team concept did work well in the Shangai sequences even if it focused on over-the-top stunts and more shoot-outs.

And despite Abrahams' talents, much of Alias also dealt with numerous betrayals on the inside of the organization. It feels like Pierce Brosnan era Bond films.

[terminus]

On the other hand, it will be interesting to see an openly gay actor potentially being given the keys to an action hero franchise. I wish Renner much success.

Renner's gay? That's a new one on me.

[Captain Tightpants]

Don't tell me, Renner's character will be...gasp...a traitor!

Even if he is, I'm sure he'll be able to go places with it. His character in the ANGEL episode "Somnambulist" wasn't the most original - a vampire sired by Angel who slipped into the role of serial killer - but he did some good stuff with it. He was helped by Tim Minear's dialogue, but it was a good showing.

[Loomis]

Haven't you made the case in the past that the Bond films are at their best when they are "faithful" to Fleming?

No. I don't believe I've ever made that case. My favourite Bond films include THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, MOONRAKER and CASINO ROYALE (2006) - hardly the picks of someone who seeks Fleming purism in the Eon series.

Would it still be James Bond if 007 were a black woman and "M" turns out to have been a double agent all his/her life and is the villain in the next film?

Possibly.

On the other hand, it will be interesting to see an openly gay actor potentially being given the keys to an action hero franchise. I wish Renner much success.

Even if Renner is openly gay (news to me), you can bet that his character won't be.

At what point does the movie series stop calling itself MISSION:IMPOSSIBLE, and just start calling itself something else, since it so clearly has very little in common with the television show except an appropriated name?

If the rumours are true, "MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE IV" will be called something else.

[SecretAgentFan]

Renner openly gay? Didn´t know that, either. But - so what? He definitely gives off the Daniel Craig-tough guy vibe. I find his casting very interesting - side by side with Tom Cruise? That will really spice things up. And I´m very glad that this will not be the usual pairing of older guy showing younger guy the ropes (as I feared).

[Loomis]

So what do we think the new flick will/should be called? Say what you will about the MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE franchise, but it does seem a very ballsy move indeed to chuck away the brand name and give this latest outing a brand spanking new title (the idea is apparently to follow THE DARK KNIGHT in its makers' decision to leave the word "Batman" out of the title).

It appears that the title of THE FILM FORMERLY KNOWN AS MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE IV will have echoes of the TV show/film series, so, racking my brains, I've come up with two possibilities:

- YOUR MISSION, SHOULD YOU DECIDE TO ACCEPT IT....
Okay, it's a pretty long title, but I think it could work (with or without the dots at the end).

- DISAVOWED
A one-word, punchy affair.

[terminus]

Not so keen on abandoning the MI title - not sure it can be comparable to the dropping of the Batman name from the title of TDK - as the actual title The Dark Knight is probably just as synonymous with the name Batman as Batman itself.

Unless they admit this is no longer a MI movie - and we have the franchise now being the Hunt franchise, a la Bond or Bourne or Indiana Jones. Ethan Hunt: Macguffin, so to speak.

[Loomis]

On a vaguely related note, the upcoming Jack Ryan reboot flick is apparently called just MOSCOW. What on earth are they putting in the water in Hollywood to make studios come up with peculiar titles?

[Harmsway]

- YOUR MISSION, SHOULD YOU DECIDE TO ACCEPT IT....
Okay, it's a pretty long title, but I think it could work (with or without the dots at the end).

- DISAVOWED
A one-word, punchy affair.

The first at least connotes M:I, but it's super-long. DISAVOWED sounds like it could be the title of pretty much any run-of-the-mill action flick out there. You think they'd just call it ETHAN HUNT?

[Loomis]

DISAVOWED sounds like it could be the title of pretty much any run-of-the-mill action flick out there.

Sure, but it's a serviceable title, and I do think it also has MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE connotations (which is why I suggest it), or at least connotations regarding the films - I don't know whether the TV show also made great play of agents being "disavowed".

You think they'd just call it ETHAN HUNT?

Doubtful. It's a pretty awful title, and in any case isn't the idea to nudge the franchise in the direction of a new leading man?

Any other viable titles? IMF could work, I guess, although it's a bit dull, and IMPOSSIBLE MISSIONS FORCE would be far too campy. THIS TAPE WILL SELF-DESTRUCT IN FIVE SECONDS would just be ridiculous.

If the word on the grapevine is accurate, though, "MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE IV" will definitely have a title with established M:I connotations. That said, I don't see too many obvious options.

[marktmurphy]

I would be amazed if they dropped the Mission: Impossible title. It's not like Batman where they have Batman in the film still; the film series is nothing to do with the TV series except for the title. It'd be like in 1977 if they decided to do Spy who Loved Me (but obviously without using the plot of the book because Fleming forbade it) and then changing the title to something else. It's Trigger's Broom.

[Mr. Blofeld]

It's Trigger's Broom.

I had to look that up on Wikipedia, man; not everyone outside of the UK has seen Fools and Horses, you know...

[tdalton]

While I applaud the fact that the studio is trying to be a bit more creative in so far as not just simply clapping a "IV" onto the title and just calling it M:I-IV, I can't say that I totally support the idea either. Quite frankly, I'd like to see them, since this appears to be something of a "reboot" (in so far as it appears to be setting the franchise up to go in another direction for a while), just go ahead and call the film MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE. Maybe give it a subtitle so that it's not confused with De Palma's M:I, but a simple title like that is probably going to be better than what they actually come up with.

I like the idea that they appear to be going for with the new film, and I very much like the fact that they've got an actor like Jeremy Renner teaming up with Cruise for the film. And, most importantly, I'm very happy that they've got Tom Cruise back for another go at this franchise. I just hope that they don't mess it up this time around, and it's a bit concerning that they're looking to tinker with things just to tinker with them, such as the title. If they're trying to hide the fact that this is MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE, then why not launch a new spy series with both Cruise and Renner rather than making another M:I film but trying to hide the fact that it's a M:I film?

[volante]

I like Tom Cruise. He's fun in action movies. I'll be going.

Absolutely

[Loomis]

However, the description of IV seems to hark back to what we've previously seen, and that's the Cruise/Hunt character's relationship with someone - with Phelps in the first film, with the turncoat Ambrose in the second and with his wife to be in the third. Now we find out the fourth will follow the same path.

All 3 films also featured a betrayal by one of the major IMF characters as an important plot point. Maybe I'm jumping the gun, but based on past history I am not overly enthusiastic about the Cruise-Renner relationship thing as it will likely be the same thing.

Well, it depends on how these things are handled. How many Bond films are original in terms of plot? Most of them seem to follow a tried-and-tested story formula pretty slavishly. I don't mind if Renner is an IMF traitor as long as the film is good.

Heck, we can even have a scene of Cruise breaking into a "secure" building again - as long as said scene is an absolute corker of suspense and choreography. I don't care whether things have been done before. What's important is how well they're done.

Who knows? With a decent script, a compelling Renner performance and stylish direction from Brad Bird, this flick could be the CASINO ROYALE of the franchise.

[marktmurphy]

It's Trigger's Broom.

I had to look that up on Wikipedia, man; not everyone outside of the UK has seen Fools and Horses, you know...

And now your life is richer!
I'd never heard of kool aid until reading forums; I have to check on a lot of US references.

[Jim]

- YOUR MISSION, SHOULD YOU DECIDE TO ACCEPT IT....
Okay, it's a pretty long title, but I think it could work (with or without the dots at the end).

- DISAVOWED
A one-word, punchy affair.

The first at least connotes M:I, but it's super-long. DISAVOWED sounds like it could be the title of pretty much any run-of-the-mill action flick out there. You think they'd just call it ETHAN HUNT?

RubberHead.

[Turn]

However, the description of IV seems to hark back to what we've previously seen, and that's the Cruise/Hunt character's relationship with someone - with Phelps in the first film, with the turncoat Ambrose in the second and with his wife to be in the third. Now we find out the fourth will follow the same path.

All 3 films also featured a betrayal by one of the major IMF characters as an important plot point. Maybe I'm jumping the gun, but based on past history I am not overly enthusiastic about the Cruise-Renner relationship thing as it will likely be the same thing.

Well, it depends on how these things are handled. How many Bond films are original in terms of plot? Most of them seem to follow a tried-and-tested story formula pretty slavishly. I don't mind if Renner is an IMF traitor as long as the film is good.

Heck, we can even have a scene of Cruise breaking into a "secure" building again - as long as said scene is an absolute corker of suspense and choreography. I don't care whether things have been done before. What's important is how well they're done.

Who knows? With a decent script, a compelling Renner performance and stylish direction from Brad Bird, this flick could be the CASINO ROYALE of the franchise.

Again, I hope for all of that too. But as to your point regarding the first 3 or 4 Bond films as opposed to MI, I'd argue that those could stand alone and unique amongst themselves whereas all the MIs eventually come down to a traitor affecting the plot.

Another interesting thing you brought up is if they had another break-in to a secure building, this harkens back to what they would do not just in the film series but almost weekly on the TV series. I have a couple seasons of it and after watching several it seemed variations on the same thing all the time.

Let's roll with it and see how it turns out. Either way, I'll be in the audience when it happens.

[DR76]

Don't tell me, Renner's character will be...gasp...a traitor!

Why break the streak now?

Considering that happens a lot in the espionage business, why be surprised about it?

As for Renner, I believe that he is being considered as a future lead for the "MISSION IMPOSSIBLE" franchise.

[Turn]

Don't tell me, Renner's character will be...gasp...a traitor!

Why break the streak now?

Considering that happens a lot in the espionage business, why be surprised about it?

Considering this is the fiction espionage business and in just 3 films into this franchise they've made that an important plot point of all 3, it's boring. Why would I want to pay for a fourth installment of something I've seen 3 times already?

[tdalton]

More casting news: Paula Patton cast in Mission: Impossible

I think that this is another good piece of casting, following on the heels of Jeremy Renner joining the film. Also, according to the article, this is being viewed as a reboot of the franchise rather than a straight-up sequel to M:I-3.

[Loomis]

Also, according to the article, this is being viewed as a reboot of the franchise rather than a straight-up sequel to M:I-3.

Well, it would seem to be both. If Simon Pegg is returning, then that's a connection to MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III right there.

[dodge]

Is Brad Bird really directing? Any reason why they couldn't find anyone, anyone at all, with some real action directing chops?

[Loomis]

Well, like I say, it would seem that it'll qualify as both a sequel and a reboot. A sequel because Cruise, Rhames and Pegg are coming back, and a reboot insofar as the plan is (presumably) for Cruise to pass the torch to Renner, who will headline future outings in the franchise. It will therefore be both a followup to MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III and a movie that spins the series in a new direction.

Or at least I imagine so. For all I know, THE FILM FORMERLY KNOWN AS MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE IV will introduce Cruise as Ethan Hunt as a rookie on his first assignment.

[SecretAgentFan]

Actually, I think re-booting this makes sense. Cruise began in the 90´s. Now he will do his last film and help establish another agent who could go on. And they don´t want to name the film "part four" because that would give the impression of been there, done that already. Finding stand-alone titles for these movies is the best way to go (see our own James for that). I really trust Abrams to reenergize this.

[Mr Teddy Bear]

So apparently the title is going to be Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol.

[Chief of SIS]

So apparently the title is going to be Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol.

Heard this a couple a months ago a laughed really hard then became saddened. Mission Impossible III was actually really good. Unfortunately I have a feeling this film won't be anything like that one. (I only say this so far because of the ridiculous title and no Michelle Monaghan.)

Edited by Chief of SIS, 23 January 2011 - 08:03 AM.