Mission: Impossible - films and tv series

194959799100306

Comments

  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,592
    This is looking good.
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    Posts: 25,413
    Decent poster! Its interesting pre Ghost Protocol Tom was being questioned as whether he could carry the film himself, and there was even talk of Renner taking over at one point. Tom is undeniably still front and center and never should be doubted.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    I think the film series found its way since Ghost Protocol. They were pretty much lost before that and didn't know what to do. The second film was a complete bloody shambles and the third film... the lesser we talk about that one the better.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I agree. GP was the start of the new wave for the MI series. They decided to embrace 'cool' and occupy the space vacated by Bond. That was a masterstroke decision in my view. I hope they can maintain the quality level with the next one.

    That poster is way cool too. Sadly I'm going to miss the trailer this Sunday. I'd like to see the film with as little in the way of spoilers as possible. That's how I approached RN and it really paid off. It's going to be tough to do though!
  • mattjoesmattjoes Pay more attention to your chef
    Posts: 7,057
    I think the film series found its way since Ghost Protocol. They were pretty much lost before that and didn't know what to do. The second film was a complete bloody shambles and the third film... the lesser we talk about that one the better.
    The idea back then was that each film would have a different feel to it, with a different director. Evidently, that plan has changed.
  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    edited February 2018 Posts: 5,185
    mattjoes wrote: »
    I think the film series found its way since Ghost Protocol. They were pretty much lost before that and didn't know what to do. The second film was a complete bloody shambles and the third film... the lesser we talk about that one the better.
    The idea back then was that each film would have a different feel to it, with a different director. Evidently, that plan has changed.

    But people keep forgetting that McQuarrie already said that this movie will be very different in Style and directing. They hinted that this movie will have a personal story and Focus on Hunts Personal issues, and he wants to direct it different too, to keep the diversity of the series.

    My Personal feeling is that this movie will suprise a lot of people here. And divide as many
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    00Agent wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    I think the film series found its way since Ghost Protocol. They were pretty much lost before that and didn't know what to do. The second film was a complete bloody shambles and the third film... the lesser we talk about that one the better.
    The idea back then was that each film would have a different feel to it, with a different director. Evidently, that plan has changed.

    But people keep forgetting that McQuarrie already said that this movie will be very different in Style and directing. They hinted that this movie will have a personal story and Focus on Hunts Personal issues, and he wants to direct it different too, to keep the diversity of the series.

    My Personal feeling is that this movie will suprise a lot of people here. And divide as many
    It's certainly a concern of mine, given I liked the last two entries the most. I'm tempering expectations accordingly.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,830
    I'm really looking forward to see Henry Cavill kick some @$$ in this film.

    As long as they CGI a mustache on him...
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited February 2018 Posts: 41,011
    chrisisall wrote: »
    I'm really looking forward to see Henry Cavill kick some @$$ in this film.

    As long as they CGI a mustache on him...

    I demand the mustache be kept, but a new mustache be added randomly on his face somewhere via CGI, and it's never addressed in the film.
  • Posts: 4,617
    In McQuarrie we trust
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,830
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    I'm really looking forward to see Henry Cavill kick some @$$ in this film.

    As long as they CGI a mustache on him...

    I demand the mustache be kept, but a new mustache be added randomly on his face somewhere via CGI, and it's never addressed in the film.

    And add in some moles, and maybe a scar....
  • Posts: 1,927
    Great poster except one thing....

    the gun seems out of place. A gun is a synonymous with Bond.

    While the MI series has had plenty of gunplay, it's not an essential element and makes it look more like it's trying to be a Bond film whereas the MI series has established its own identity and in many ways surpassed the recent Bond in terms of overall entertainment value.

    A minor complaint as the poster only has me more excited about Fallout.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    Not necessarily, as guns have been featured in several variants of posters for the last two installments, and likely the others.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Pay more attention to your chef
    Posts: 7,057
    00Agent wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    I think the film series found its way since Ghost Protocol. They were pretty much lost before that and didn't know what to do. The second film was a complete bloody shambles and the third film... the lesser we talk about that one the better.
    The idea back then was that each film would have a different feel to it, with a different director. Evidently, that plan has changed.

    But people keep forgetting that McQuarrie already said that this movie will be very different in Style and directing. They hinted that this movie will have a personal story and Focus on Hunts Personal issues, and he wants to direct it different too, to keep the diversity of the series.

    My Personal feeling is that this movie will suprise a lot of people here. And divide as many
    I see. So they aren't quite dropping that approach. Though I must say the last two films felt more similar to each other than any others in the series. I think that may have to do in part with the greater number of returning cast members. Early on it used to be just Ethan and Luther. Now there's also Benji, Brandt, Ilsa, Hunley and Lane.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2018 Posts: 23,883
    I just finished viewing MI:2. It went quite well. I still have this at the bottom, but I actually enjoyed it quite a bit on this viewing. The only elements I find tiresome are Woo's over stylized slo-mo action and Scott's angsty antagonist.

    The first hour or so is really good though. I like the nod to GE with the car chase (Zimmer even incorporates a similar sounding playful score for that bit) and the bathtub scene always reminds me of the GF PTS for some reason. Thandie Newton is great.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,231
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    I'm really looking forward to see Henry Cavill kick some @$$ in this film.

    As long as they CGI a mustache on him...

    I demand the mustache be kept, but a new mustache be added randomly on his face somewhere via CGI, and it's never addressed in the film.

    And add in some moles, and maybe a scar....

    I thought it would be quite humorous to have a scene of Cavill shaving the moustache off in the film, for absolutely no reason at all.
  • Posts: 4,617
    Nothing basically wrong with the plot, cast and locations of MI2. It really is down to the direction IMHO. It's self indulgent and gets in the way of the film. In contrast, De Palma "turned down the dial" on his own style to produce a very accesible, mainstream movie that still had style and tension.

    Perhaps De Palma is the Terence Young of the MI series? He got the tone right and directors who followed have either succeeded or failed in replicating that original feel and tone. De Palma deserves massive credit IMHO.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Agreed. While I love Brad Bird's and Christopher McQuarrie's take on M:I, Brian De Palma's directorial style is superior. Something about the first film has that classic timelessness to it.

    And I also agree about the second film. It's John Woo's directing style that puts the film down as well as Hans Zimmer's score (when wasn't that a problem, anyway?) and some heavy rock music attached to the soundtrack. We're very lucky Woo turned down Bond in the early nineties.

    The only positive thing about the third film was Michael Giacchino's score which is superior to his later effort on Ghost Protocol. The M:I theme has a better arrangement in the third than in the fourth.
  • Posts: 4,617
    @ClarkDevlin Some of the scenes in the original are a throw back to a previous generation of spy movies - really pretty clever to combine these with cutting adge set pieces that have become part of movie legend and often referred to or repeated. Perhaps becaus it's seen as such a commercial effort, it gets over looked within his efforts compared to the more "geeky" titles like Scarface or Blow Out.

    But none of them had the pressure either to respect the legacy of a much loved TV series or build the foundation of a massive new movie franchise. I need to watch it again.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited February 2018 Posts: 15,423
    Definitely, @patb. In fact, if you ask me, the Mission: Impossible film franchise had little to no respect to the TV series until Ghost Protocol came along. Rogue Nation succeeded as being Tom Cruise's Ethan Hunt solo because it was beautifully directed, unlike the third film which I have just finished watching.

    Paraphrasing Martin Landau, "The TV series was about mind games" and that's what made it beautiful, "we got in and we got out without anyone knowing". Whereas in the films, the antagonists are always in the know of an IMF team being present to intercept their chaotic schemes, alongside every single film involving a rogue agent and/or a mole within the agency. That latter element has to be eliminated for a good amount of three or four decades. It's gotten tiresome.

    That's why I propose for the post-Cruise M:I direction to be team-oriented like Ghost Protocol. Call it Ocean's Eleven with spies if you will. That's what the M:I films should be about.
  • Posts: 4,617
    @ClarkDevlin Yes, very fair. What I meant about respect was that it did not produce some trashy, stupid, childish comedy that we have seen when some TV series moved to the big screen. It was relatively adult and had enough depth, style and twists and turns in the plot to be well received both critically and at the box office.

    Re the team effort, yes there is more of a team effort with the newer contributions to the series and one wonders if this is just how things have evolved or it is calculated to make it easier for the audience to accept and MI movie with no cruise.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited February 2018 Posts: 15,423
    Precisely, @patb. Even though the second film's overstylized action seems rather cheap, corny and cheesy for what has to be a sophisticated spy franchise, they never went out of their way to transform it into a comedy. However, I also don't want them to make a soap opera out of it like the third one with constant appearances of melodrama coming in the way. The latest two balanced action, humour and seriousness beautifully I'd rather they maintain that balance.

    The way I see it, Tom Cruise wanted a James Bond series of his own, and Lalo Schifrin's theme tune for Mission: Impossible was cool and iconic enough, so he took it and made an Ethan Hunt film series under the umbrella of the Mission: Impossible brand title. All the films except Ghost Protocol were about Ethan Hunt getting helped by his sidekicks. They should make it more team-focused.

    After Cruise, I'd like Rebecca Ferguson to takeover, put a team of her own including Michael Fassbender, Simon Pegg, Jeremy Renner and dare I say bring back Maggie Q as well as Paula Patton. It could only be my desired suggestion but... I would really like to see Fassbender's character being the son of Rollin Hand (Martin Landau) and Cinnamon Carter (Barbara Bain), characterized as a pseudo-Bond type. It'd be a terrific connection formed with the TV series, thus also making the possibility of exonerating Jim Phelps' name as originally intended by Brad Bird.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,359
    Post Cruise, I'd like to see Mission: Impossible brought back to TV with it's original formula and caper type story telling. They can have Phil Morris reprise his role as Grant Collier from the 88/89 series. He can be the Jim Phillips type leader of the team in charge of new IMF agents, who like in the original series weren't so much CIA operatives but rather they were basically actors or performers with unique talents but also happened to be spies on occasion.
  • Posts: 4,617
    @ClarkDevlin Interesting ideas re connecting back to the original series. Considering how well the franchise has done so far and how much water there is under the bridge, I wonder if it is too late for that? Who would actually "get" and appreciate the connection? I would but I know what a minority I am in.

    Re the future, casting is everything IMHO. They need actors who can bring a sense of class, cool and threat to the series (RF fits this). Fassbender would be perfect. I also think K Urban has been very underused by Hollywood
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited February 2018 Posts: 15,423
    Murdock wrote: »
    Post Cruise, I'd like to see Mission: Impossible brought back to TV with it's original formula and caper type story telling. They can have Phil Morris reprise his role as Grant Collier from the 88/89 series. He can be the Jim Phillips type leader of the team in charge of new IMF agents, who like in the original series weren't so much CIA operatives but rather they were basically actors or performers with unique talents but also happened to be spies on occasion.
    I'd love that concept, too, but I'm afraid a TV series transitioning from a film franchise doesn't work well, these days. I mean, sure, it originally was a TV series, but the average moviegoer doesn't know that. A different story, though. They attempted many times to translate film IPs to TV series, including things like Transporter, Taken, Lethal Weapon, Rush Hour and many more. None of them proved to be powerful.

    Regarding the IMF being an independent intelligence not connected with the CIA, that won't be appreciated by today's audiences as they always require a government oversight upon any spy organization, otherwise in their view, they'd be no different than terrorists. The people of the old days didn't see it that way, which was why IMF wasn't affiliated with any government.
    patb wrote: »
    @ClarkDevlin Interesting ideas re connecting back to the original series. Considering how well the franchise has done so far and how much water there is under the bridge, I wonder if it is too late for that? Who would actually "get" and appreciate the connection? I would but I know what a minority I am in.

    Re the future, casting is everything IMHO. They need actors who can bring a sense of class, cool and threat to the series (RF fits this). Fassbender would be perfect. I also think K Urban has been very underused by Hollywood
    Thanks, @patb. I also would appreciate the connection to the TV series as that would urge the fans to go back to where Bruce Geller's creation came up on the surface and see it for themselves. I know many UNCLE film fans went to see the original series (I know this via FB groups that I'm a member of) and they ended up embracing it. That's possible with this franchise, too.

    Spot on with the Karl Urban mention. I'd love him to be on board, and it would prove a very strong team assembly, in my opinion. Keep Renner's Brandt character behind the scene as a missions handler and an analyst, it'd be good. Personally, I don't care for Alec Baldwin these days, so I'm fine if they ditch him as the Secretary and bring back the charismatic Lawrence Fishburne.
  • Posts: 4,617
    @ClarkDevlin the timing re casting is perfect at the moment, There are some great actors in supporting roles but there is a shortage of the megastars (Cruise, Craig, Damon). So putting together a team of great actors but, where nobody outshines everyone else, makes good sense. Fishburne is a good call.

    I think there is always room for more mature actors to bring a sense of weight to the movie and balance and humour. Vanesse Redgrave was a perfect choice in the original.

    Plus someone like Nicholas Hoult to bring in some youth and energy?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2018 Posts: 23,883
    Interesting perspective on the future direction of this series. Reading the recent comments and internalizing it, I somehow don't think this is going to work as an ensemble 'Oceans' style team effort. On paper it does, but in practice these sort of combo efforts tend to lack 'legs' and die out after a sequel or so. I'm not sure why. As an aside, I've never been an Urban fan personally, except as a villain. He hasn't really rocked the boat at the box office.

    Ultimately, I think they will need a new cheerleader top dog. I'm not sure who that's going to be, but it's necessary. Cavill may be able to do it, but his track record is not good. We really have very few megawatt leads anymore. Cruise, Johnson, Hanks, Wahlberg and Damon are perhaps the only ones who can still fill a theatre (I realize they've all had their failures, but when they are on form they as close to a guarantee as there is in this business).

    Either that, or I agree that they will probably have to take it back to tv as an ensemble, where it will work better.
  • Posts: 4,617
    Ocean's lacked legs IMHO not because of the concept of a team but the execution. They were just relatively poor films.

    One way or another, a decision will have to be made but putting their eggs into one "star" basket is a gamble. If the star does not pull it off (who can compared to Cruise?)
    then it kills the series. If they go for a team effort, it lowers the risk. If one character resonates, they can give them a bigger role (or leader) next time.

    The only reason we are discussing RF as a potential leader is due to how well she has done as a team member.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    That's true. One can play it by ear so to speak and see who resonates. In that case we have to see if RF can deliver again in MI:6.

    Regarding the original MI:1, I watched it a week ago and had a great time with it. That really was a 'film ahead' in terms of taking an artistic slant to the genre. There's something about the atmosphere that De Palma creates which is unique, and that combined with Elfman's score elevates the film. The cast is top notch as well.
  • Posts: 4,617
    If you look at the slim pickings re a replacement of DC, times that by 4 or 5 when trying to replace Cruise. I think they would be setting themsleves up to fail. Obviously, the team will have to have a leader but the focus re stunts, set pieces and plot roles can be more equally spread .
Sign In or Register to comment.