It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I think they did some reshoots for the ending of 'Rogue Nation' after the SP leaks. But that doesn't explain how the rest of the film is so similar to SP, since filming was well underway by the time the script of SP leaked.
Not to mention I felt that they pushed the release date up from December to July, not only because of Star Wars, but to have the "Hey we did it here first" mentality.
"Your mission should you choose to accept it..."
...what if an agent doesn't accept the mission??
I can only assume another agent would be offered the mission, then.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/news/mission-impossible-15-things-you-probably-didnt-know-about-the-tom-cruise-blockbuster/ar-BBtqs6N?ocid=spartandhp#page=1
Now the film almost seems contemporary & ground breaking, since a lot of its stunts and plot points have been used numerous times since in other franchises. It's a much more impressive film than the 2nd one imho.
Reading that piece makes me want to watch it again.
Once he finishes making 'The Mummy', Tom Cruise said he will film 'Luna Park' first before doing 'M:I:6'. So probably we are looking at a summer 2018 release (Cruise already has 3 potential 2017 releases, with Mena and The Mummy already confirmed, and maybe 'Luna Park' if there is no delays).
...dang it
He feels very torn. As an actor, he wants more money. As a producer, he tries to bring his own salary down. The conflict is immense. I hear he is about to sack himself.
Gotta fund the church, somehow.
In order to sustain the "Mission: Impossible"-franchise one has to think how to continue without the leading man. Are we going to re-cast Ethan Hunt? Or will we introduce a new lead, played by a different actor? Bond already went through this shit in the late 1960's, now it's time for Jason Bourne and Ethan Hunt to arrive at this decisive moment in their franchises.
Bourne is neither here nor there. While Bond is Bond and the MI films are the best at clever gadgetry and action at present, Bourne is just kind of there. It does its thing, which basically amounts to Jason being chased by the government every film, and that's about it. It's the least innovative, least malleable, least interesting of any of the modern spy franchises, and while it was paradigm changing in some ways at the start, now it's rather old hat and has a far more finite place in cinema than ever before. There's no need to have more Bourne films, and as the filmmakers continue to try and come up with more ways to justify new movies, the more they shoot themselves in the foot. The books are just as bad, making Bourne come out of the shadows every year or so for yet another contrived plot that tests him in some way, ad nauseam. Let the poor bastard retire, I say.
Bond and MI have never and will never have this kind of existential problem on celluloid, as they are very similar in that they both play by a defined template and there are a legion of ways they could each proceed at any given moment to still keep the movies fresh and interesting for years and years. Bourne will always just be cat and mouse games, nothing more. Will the fight sequences be good? Sure. Will there be at least one bonkers chase? Most definitely. But that stuff gets old fast, especially when a massive amount in the genre are doing it these days, and better.
Let me be frank, I want the "M:I"-franchise to go on forever. The recipe is there to make that franchise as enduring as James Bond. So I'm a bit disappointed that people say "I don't care if the franchise is done after Tom Cruise leaves". It's an indifferent remark. And "Mission: Impossible" deserves better. And that stars with a detailed answer to my question.
I have to disagree though that the four Craig films are on the whole not as good as the last "Mission: Impossible" films. The last 4 James Bond films gave us more emotional depth, better written characters, and on the whole a more groundbreaking shake-up as opposed to "Mission: Impossible". "Mission: Impossible" has yet to be shaken up fiercefully.....when for instance Tom Cruise leaves the franchise.
I don't want the series to go on and on though, when those involved aren't game for it or working with consistent success. And a lot of interest in MI lives and dies with Tom as well, as he is the face of the brand. Without him in the picture, another series of films centered on another character isn't destined for success, endangering any future prospects for the franchise following his departure. Just look at how the Matt Damon-less Bourne Legacy ended up (another Jeremy Renner project, funnily enough).
And when did I say that the four Craig films don't match up to the MI films? Again, where you got that, I have no idea. No doubt from a filmmaking standpoint I enjoy the Bond films more, and its characters mean more to me. That being said, it'd be foolish not to admit how much Bond could learn from MI, with its clever use of action in a way that doesn't blow up the budget, as well as how the MI films choreograph their action and various set pieces in fresh and exciting ways each go around. There's always moments sprinkled throughout those movies where I'm elated at how the filmmakers display the gadgets of the team and how clever their solutions to their problems are on the fly. We never get to see Bond do that, or see it displayed how bright and resourceful he is beyond him shooting or hitting things, and that's a shame.