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
They did the whole thing 60+ times
To make his co-star ease up, Tom said to her: "look, if we survive this we will have a great story to tell to our friends and family"
I like his attitude.
I loved the Burj Khalifa stunt @Creasy47. Not to mention the underwater sequence from "Rogue Nation". Tom Cruise is, in that sense, unique to the action-/spy blockbuster genre. Even all 6 Bond actors didn't do as much as what Tom Cruise did.
The thing however is the fact that Tom is getting a bit old. That's all. And sadly because of that he needs to take into account the health of his body. I'd love to see a future Mission: Impossible-film where Ethan Hunt is being killed, so that Tom Cruise can leave the role. That would be quite a dramatic film. Perhaps that will be the case with his 7th film? Because in the end the Original Mission: Impossible premise is all about teamwork.
So, when Ethan Hunt dies, who should take over from Tom Cruise? Any ideas? Any actor who can do as many stunts as Tom Cruise?
@Gustav_Graves, many people have flown the Phelps idea where Ethan becomes a mentor to a group of new agents who take his place (killing him off will never happen and isn't a great idea anyway). The issue with that, however, is that no Cruise means no MI. I don't think the box office would exactly be lighting up if an MI film came out where Ethan is reduced to little more than an "M" type character that gives out missions. Tom/Ethan is MI, and people go to the films for him and to see his reactions with Luther and all the others, not anyone else. The series would die in another's hands.
It's like wanting a Bond film where Bond is Chief of Staff to M and the rest of the film is from another agent's perspective. How boring would that be.
I don't think that's going to happen. The Mission: Impossible-franchise is too succesful, and a huge milking cow for Paramount Pictures. The question if and when Tom Cruise leaves will most likely be comparable to when Sean Connery left the role after "You Only Live Twice". It'll be interesting to see who will become the new lead after Tom Cruise. That actor will have the daunting task to let people forget Tom Cruise....at least a bit.
That's a pie in the sky dream there, Gustav. Not only in your attempt to compare Bond (the reigning phenomenon of his decade) to MI and Hunt, which are successful but not paradigm changing. Yes, MI is a cash cow in some respects, but a big part of the reason why that is, and the face of the brand, is Tom. Without him do you really think that the returns are going to be even close to what they once were in films without him?
To use another spy that people think can compare to Bond (but we've seen can't on any level), when the Bourne team did the switch with Damon and Jeremy Renner, we saw what happens who you take a property an audience knows and swaps the leading character/actor that got the films success in the first place. I think much the same thing would happen if Tom was "replaced" by another person.
Come come now :-). "Mission: Impossible" has become the American equivalent of James Bond. We forummembers make the comparisons all day. No doubt about that. And I acknowledge Tom is indeed the face of the franchise. But let's stop about that comparison. Let's forget about Tommy for a while.
The question is simple: How do we continue the "Mission: Impossible"-franchise when Tom Cruise calls it a day? Could Jeremy Renner become the leading secret IMF-agent of team "Impossible"? Or Henry Cavill? Chris Pratt? Or what about Ryan Reynolds?? Or perhaps we let the new leading IMF-agent become....a woman? Charlize Theron? Jennifer Lawrence?
Without Tom Cruise they lose a lot of their appeal. When Cruise is done I would imagine they may go into hiatus for a while, and then establish another actor in the role.
If they were to ever recast, I don't see it being Renner. I'm pretty sure that's exactly what they were going for in GP, until it was a raging success, showing Cruise was back in the game.
They can certainly be 'team' efforts going forward and still be quite successful. MI films don't really light the box office on fire anyway. They are decent performers. Consistent but not earth shattering. I can see a scenario where they become a more grounded 'Avengers' style team effort. A sort of Ocean's type actioner. Given the lack of decent roles these days for actors, I can see several 'current' names wanting to get involved.
Cruise is difficult to replace (one of a kind) and so it's best to reimagine it as a team effort.
@Gustav_Graves, I'd say you're overestimating the impact of these films. Fun, sure, but the American version of the Bond films? That's a mighty statement.
The simple question has been answered from my side, where the series has little or no hope of outliving Tom's involvement. He is that series, and people go for him because he has a unique appeal that you don't find 99% of the time (does it for real, is a nutcase and wants to slavishly pleasure audiences in spite of the risks to his life). I know I wouldn't be enticed to see them without Ethan/Tom in the lead, as he is MI.
We can make Bond comparisons all day, but that doesn't work as MI isn't Bond and not even Bond Lite; apples and oranges. Sean Connery was only Bond for five years (then one extra), despite being the face of that brand at the start. Remember how well George "I'm not Sean Connery" Lazenby was received when he was thrown the live grenade that was taking the place of the only man people wanted to see as the character? Recasting Ethan would be out of the question entirely, as Tom has been known for this role for over 20 years, four times Sean's duration as Bond in the initial run. I don't see the idea of a recast Hunt going over well, as Tom is that character to people.
In the same token, going on without Ethan wouldn't light my fire either, as I don't really give a damn about the adventures of other agents. MI is Hunt, like the Bond films are focused on you-know-who for a reason. And Bond only got away with its recasting by having the third actor play the same character in a wackily different way, and I don't think modern audiences would accept a recasting of any kind, especially if the new actor played a different version of Hunt on top of not being Tom Cruise.
The fact is that this series, like Bourne after it, are very limited in what you can do. For MI it's the brand problem, as Tom and the series are inseparable, and for Bourne it's a narrative issue (how many times can one man fight his own government/agency?). They lack the flexibility and built-in respect Bond has to flip the script and recast, as that series has earned its right to move on past an actor. The issue here is that, instead of character trumping actor, actor trumps character and Hunt without Cruise or MI without its lead just isn't sustainable.
I agree.....and over the course of several films slowly decrease Mmr Cruise's screen time? I mean, there comes a point where Tom really wants to quit.
I'm not entirely sure. To me the "Mission: Impossible"-franchise is so much richer in style and tones than the "Jason Bourne"-franchise. It merges a richer palet of genres, a little bit sophisticated spy comedy, fun, action, thriller, a bit of romance, a laughter here and there, some violence. Well, I don't see that palet with "Jason Bourne". I do see it with Ethan Hunt's British competitor though: James Bond.
I agree that MI is wider, as it has more wiggle room with its films. Bourne is like a mayfly in comparison, around for a day and dead, because Jason can only go rogue or get chased so many times before you ask what the point is. Apparently 4 times is the limit, judging from the response to the last film. They should've ended it at 3, but the studio was somehow under the assumption that they had a cash cow on their hands that go extend itself more without the seams tearing.
The argument can be made that MI is playing from the old Bond playbook, but it's a playbook I'm not that fond of because it creates fun but ultimately lacking films from a character perspective. In some ways I'm glad MI has this market and Bond has a more rich and deep part in it, as I like films where the characters feel contradictory and human and genuine. MI's goal isn't to do that and that's fine, but their creative choices are also why certain Bond films rank low with me; they have a dimensionality problem and low impact beyond the spectacle. MI films are accessible, but you won't find me wondering about their themes or the character's journeys or write blog articles delving into them, as it's like diving into a puddle; you can only go so far because those movies are differently made.
On the Bond side it's why I'm on the Connery/Craig/Dalton divide with the more meaty and interesting films (films that work both as genre pieces and as movies of substance) while I have more of a passing interest in the likes of Moore and Brosnan because in comparison they come off as very dimensionless parody that often get in their own way and become experiences that don't stick with me as well. The Moore films at least had a certain atmosphere to them thanks to Barry and Adam's involvement through the 70s, so in that respect they actually deserve more credit as pieces of cinema; it's the Brosnan films I'd say I have the biggest issue with on this front as they resulted in more of a parodical and dimensionless product in the end.
I want to see Ethan sacrifice himself for the safety of the rest the team (in true Spock style) and taking out the bad guy at the same time.
It's tricky though because Mission Impossible as a brand really doesn't have a built in fanbase. People do just go to see them to see Tom Cruise (not even Ethan Hunt the character, as there's nothing distinguishable at all about him; the appeal is that it's basically James Bond but with Tom Cruise). But y'know, gradually phase him out or give it a few years and reboot without him. It's tricky but not impossible. The franchise isn't called Ethan Hunt and technically it did start before him. So I think it could still be successful if they did it well and got a popular enough actor to replace him.
I really think they will only be able to replace him with a pseudo 'team'. One guy can't do it.
Much depends on how TC is willing to help ease the transition or will he just walk away?
Well, okay, not that bad. More like getting a mosquito bite.
Okaaaaaay... I guess I could survive it. ;)
http://m.imdb.com/title/tt4912910/mediaviewer/rm176891392
I highly doubt it will be. But there won't be too many left if they don't end up casting a new lead, as Cruise won't be able to do these movies forever.