› ›

Mission: Impossible - films and tv series

1…8889919394…306

Comments

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    MajorDSmythe wrote: »
    Mission: Impossible
    Mission: Impossible II
    Mission: Impossible II
    Mission: Impossible: Ghost Protocol
    Mission: Impossible: Rogue Nation
    Mission: Impossible: Fallout

    It's ok, doesn't quite have the same punch as Ghost Protocol or Rogue Nation. As has already been brought up, Fall-Out or Fall Out would have been better.

    They remade MI 2?
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,205
    or Free Fall
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    edited January 2018 Posts: 8,205
    The meaning(s) behind the title.

    https://screenrant.com/mission-impossible-6-title-fallout/

    The title has multiple meanings in the film, from the literal to the figurative. There is the threat of nuclear terrorism hanging over the movie, which is the literal threat. There’s [also] the notion that what’s happened in the movie is the end result of choices that Ethan Hunt has made in his life. It’s Ethan’s past come back to haunt him. It’s the fallout of all his good intentions.”
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,968
    Posted that a page back - the risk of nuclear war should have tensions heightened dramatically. Can't wait for this first trailer.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @TooManySomethings, don't think anyone is "losing" respect for actors not doing their own stunts, it's just that Cruise is getting a heap of praise chucked at him for the stunts he does have the steel balls to do. I just prefer practicality to CGI, so whatever this helicopter stunt is that seems to feature Cruise attached to the side with no pilot, it'll likely blow SP's PTS out of the water for me.

    Also, seems the film may dabble in threats of nuclear war, which is fitting for today:

    “The title has multiple meanings in the film, from the literal to the figurative. There is the threat of nuclear terrorism hanging over the movie, which is the literal threat. There’s the notion that what’s happened in the movie is the end result of choices that Ethan Hunt has made in his life. It’s Ethan’s past come back to haunt him. It’s the fallout of all his good intentions.”

    I'm now guessing Monaghan's return is his "good intentions" of the past (i.e. hiding her in Seattle/avoiding her to keep her alive) that will come back to haunt him.

    A nuclear threat and real stunts? Isn't that what Bond used to do?

    Although I'm a bit concerned over anything featuring Cavill I have enough faith that Cruise knows what hes doing that this should be a decent enough romp.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,968
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @TooManySomethings, don't think anyone is "losing" respect for actors not doing their own stunts, it's just that Cruise is getting a heap of praise chucked at him for the stunts he does have the steel balls to do. I just prefer practicality to CGI, so whatever this helicopter stunt is that seems to feature Cruise attached to the side with no pilot, it'll likely blow SP's PTS out of the water for me.

    Also, seems the film may dabble in threats of nuclear war, which is fitting for today:

    “The title has multiple meanings in the film, from the literal to the figurative. There is the threat of nuclear terrorism hanging over the movie, which is the literal threat. There’s the notion that what’s happened in the movie is the end result of choices that Ethan Hunt has made in his life. It’s Ethan’s past come back to haunt him. It’s the fallout of all his good intentions.”

    I'm now guessing Monaghan's return is his "good intentions" of the past (i.e. hiding her in Seattle/avoiding her to keep her alive) that will come back to haunt him.

    A nuclear threat and real stunts? Isn't that what Bond used to do?

    Although I'm a bit concerned over anything featuring Cavill I have enough faith that Cruise knows what hes doing that this should be a decent enough romp.

    It sure is!

    I'm still eager to see how prominent Cavill's role is in this. I'm wondering if they're attempting to set him up as the next "Ethan Hunt" of sorts, or if he's just another new team member since Renner isn't returning.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2018 Posts: 23,883
    patb wrote: »
    As a PTS, I may be in a minority but it got my interest
    I realize the plane hanging stunt was all shown in trailers but I too enjoyed the whole sequence very much in the film. Even though we'd practically already seen the stunt, the actual PTS started with that kick 'a' rendition of the MI theme and was full of tension. The direction, acting and scenario itself elevated it, so even though we'd seen the stunt it still resonated. With me at least.
  • TooManySomethingsTooManySomethings
    Posts: 103
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @TooManySomethings, don't think anyone is "losing" respect for actors not doing their own stunts, it's just that Cruise is getting a heap of praise chucked at him for the stunts he does have the steel balls to do. I just prefer practicality to CGI, so whatever this helicopter stunt is that seems to feature Cruise attached to the side with no pilot, it'll likely blow SP's PTS out of the water for me.

    Also, seems the film may dabble in threats of nuclear war, which is fitting for today:

    “The title has multiple meanings in the film, from the literal to the figurative. There is the threat of nuclear terrorism hanging over the movie, which is the literal threat. There’s the notion that what’s happened in the movie is the end result of choices that Ethan Hunt has made in his life. It’s Ethan’s past come back to haunt him. It’s the fallout of all his good intentions.”

    I'm now guessing Monaghan's return is his "good intentions" of the past (i.e. hiding her in Seattle/avoiding her to keep her alive) that will come back to haunt him.

    A nuclear threat and real stunts? Isn't that what Bond used to do?

    Although I'm a bit concerned over anything featuring Cavill I have enough faith that Cruise knows what hes doing that this should be a decent enough romp.

    Since when do Bond films not do real stunts?
  • SharkBaitSharkBait
    edited January 2018 Posts: 2,107
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Jason Statham, perhaps? :))

    Yes! I'm just watching one of his movies. I think he is his generations biggest action star and he does most of his stunts. If not all of them. But he's a brit :(
  • antovolkantovolk
    Posts: 3,164
    Trailer drops on February 4 https://www.trailer-track.com/2018/01/25/official-first-trailer-for-mission-impossible-fallout-dropping-super-bowl-sunday-february-4/
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,968
    Figured as much, happy to have it confirmed. It was going to be attached to that, or Black Panther.

    Hopefully it pops online the second it finishes airing during the Super Bowl.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    MajorDSmythe wrote: »
    Mission: Impossible
    Mission: Impossible II
    Mission: Impossible III
    Mission: Impossible: Ghost Protocol
    Mission: Impossible: Rogue Nation
    Mission: Impossible: Fallout

    It's ok, doesn't quite have the same punch as Ghost Protocol or Rogue Nation. As has already been brought up, Fall-Out or Fall Out would have been better.
    What?? Fallout is much better and has much more punch than Rogue Nation, which at the time was already overused and on top of it didn´t even make sense.

  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    TooManySomethings wrote: »
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @TooManySomethings, don't think anyone is "losing" respect for actors not doing their own stunts, it's just that Cruise is getting a heap of praise chucked at him for the stunts he does have the steel balls to do. I just prefer practicality to CGI, so whatever this helicopter stunt is that seems to feature Cruise attached to the side with no pilot, it'll likely blow SP's PTS out of the water for me.

    Also, seems the film may dabble in threats of nuclear war, which is fitting for today:

    “The title has multiple meanings in the film, from the literal to the figurative. There is the threat of nuclear terrorism hanging over the movie, which is the literal threat. There’s the notion that what’s happened in the movie is the end result of choices that Ethan Hunt has made in his life. It’s Ethan’s past come back to haunt him. It’s the fallout of all his good intentions.”

    I'm now guessing Monaghan's return is his "good intentions" of the past (i.e. hiding her in Seattle/avoiding her to keep her alive) that will come back to haunt him.

    A nuclear threat and real stunts? Isn't that what Bond used to do?

    Although I'm a bit concerned over anything featuring Cavill I have enough faith that Cruise knows what hes doing that this should be a decent enough romp.

    Since when do Bond films not do real stunts?

    DAD parasurfing shambles.

    QOS CGIed fall through the window.

    QOS parachuting shambles.

    SF apart from the decent PTS no stunts.

    SP overly CGIed PTS, underwhelming car chase, overly CGIed plane sequence, underwhelming finale.

    Over the last decade or so MI has outdone Bond for spectacular set pieces comfortably.

    CR the last Bond film I would say I was satisfied with the action (honourable mention to QOS PTS and the Slate and rope fights but after that mediocre).

  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    Wasn't nuclear war the threat in the fourth one? I do like the title though and I am excited for the story in this one, seems like something different. Hoping he doesn't go rogue/get disavowed for the millionth time (not sure why this is constantly bought up as an issue for Bond but not for MI?).
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,968
    thelivingroyale wrote: »
    Wasn't nuclear war the threat in the fourth one? I do like the title though and I am excited for the story in this one, seems like something different. Hoping he doesn't go rogue/get disavowed for the millionth time (not sure why this is constantly bought up as an issue for Bond but not for MI?).

    I've had that problem for a long time now, considering it occurs to him and his team in every single installment aside from the second movie. Very tired schtick, just let it be him and the team working on a sanctioned mission.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,785
    TooManySomethings wrote: »
    Since when do Bond films not do real stunts?
    I had the same thought there @TooManySomethings. And separate from that:

    Skyfall, Spectre: title has multiple meanings in the film, from the literal to the figurative.

    Skyfall: There’s [also] the notion that what’s happened in the movie is the end result of choices ...made in ...life. ...

    Spectre: past comes back to haunt him.

    Spectre: hero hangs off the side of a helicopter in flight.

    End defense of Craig Bond films. But defense of Craig Bond films will return...
  • antovolkantovolk
    Posts: 3,164
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Figured as much, happy to have it confirmed. It was going to be attached to that, or Black Panther.

    Hopefully it pops online the second it finishes airing during the Super Bowl.

    latest?cb=20151127174034
    ;)
  • TooManySomethingsTooManySomethings
    Posts: 103
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    TooManySomethings wrote: »
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @TooManySomethings, don't think anyone is "losing" respect for actors not doing their own stunts, it's just that Cruise is getting a heap of praise chucked at him for the stunts he does have the steel balls to do. I just prefer practicality to CGI, so whatever this helicopter stunt is that seems to feature Cruise attached to the side with no pilot, it'll likely blow SP's PTS out of the water for me.

    Also, seems the film may dabble in threats of nuclear war, which is fitting for today:

    “The title has multiple meanings in the film, from the literal to the figurative. There is the threat of nuclear terrorism hanging over the movie, which is the literal threat. There’s the notion that what’s happened in the movie is the end result of choices that Ethan Hunt has made in his life. It’s Ethan’s past come back to haunt him. It’s the fallout of all his good intentions.”

    I'm now guessing Monaghan's return is his "good intentions" of the past (i.e. hiding her in Seattle/avoiding her to keep her alive) that will come back to haunt him.

    A nuclear threat and real stunts? Isn't that what Bond used to do?

    Although I'm a bit concerned over anything featuring Cavill I have enough faith that Cruise knows what hes doing that this should be a decent enough romp.

    Since when do Bond films not do real stunts?

    DAD parasurfing shambles.

    QOS CGIed fall through the window.

    QOS parachuting shambles.

    SF apart from the decent PTS no stunts.

    SP overly CGIed PTS, underwhelming car chase, overly CGIed plane sequence, underwhelming finale.

    Over the last decade or so MI has outdone Bond for spectacular set pieces comfortably.

    CR the last Bond film I would say I was satisfied with the action (honourable mention to QOS PTS and the Slate and rope fights but after that mediocre).

    But the Craig films are still mostly practical right?
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    TooManySomethings wrote: »
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    TooManySomethings wrote: »
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @TooManySomethings, don't think anyone is "losing" respect for actors not doing their own stunts, it's just that Cruise is getting a heap of praise chucked at him for the stunts he does have the steel balls to do. I just prefer practicality to CGI, so whatever this helicopter stunt is that seems to feature Cruise attached to the side with no pilot, it'll likely blow SP's PTS out of the water for me.

    Also, seems the film may dabble in threats of nuclear war, which is fitting for today:

    “The title has multiple meanings in the film, from the literal to the figurative. There is the threat of nuclear terrorism hanging over the movie, which is the literal threat. There’s the notion that what’s happened in the movie is the end result of choices that Ethan Hunt has made in his life. It’s Ethan’s past come back to haunt him. It’s the fallout of all his good intentions.”

    I'm now guessing Monaghan's return is his "good intentions" of the past (i.e. hiding her in Seattle/avoiding her to keep her alive) that will come back to haunt him.

    A nuclear threat and real stunts? Isn't that what Bond used to do?

    Although I'm a bit concerned over anything featuring Cavill I have enough faith that Cruise knows what hes doing that this should be a decent enough romp.

    Since when do Bond films not do real stunts?

    DAD parasurfing shambles.

    QOS CGIed fall through the window.

    QOS parachuting shambles.

    SF apart from the decent PTS no stunts.

    SP overly CGIed PTS, underwhelming car chase, overly CGIed plane sequence, underwhelming finale.

    Over the last decade or so MI has outdone Bond for spectacular set pieces comfortably.

    CR the last Bond film I would say I was satisfied with the action (honourable mention to QOS PTS and the Slate and rope fights but after that mediocre).

    But the Craig films are still mostly practical right?
    They are, in spite of what some will have you believe.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2018 Posts: 23,883
    The point people are trying to make (which I happen to agree with) is that the CGI is quite noticeable and therefore distracting. There is nothing more annoying than being pulled out of a film by poor use of CGI. If it's seamless it's one thing. In all the Bond films since CR it hasn't been seamless. That's the issue. It doesn't matter how much is done practically. It's the 1% that really jerks one out of the experience that matters.

    This is especially something to keep in mind with Bond films, which had a reputation for being best in class in these matters in the past.

    As an example, nobody remembers the superb PTS surfing in DAD. They remember the disgrace that came after.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    bondjames wrote: »
    As an example, nobody remembers the superb PTS surfing in DAD. They remember the disgrace that came after.
    Oooh, very good point indeed.

  • noSolaceleftnoSolaceleft
    Posts: 1,162
    RichardTheBruce wrote: »
    TooManySomethings wrote: »
    Since when do Bond films not do real stunts?
    I had the same thought there @TooManySomethings. And separate from that:

    Skyfall, Spectre: title has multiple meanings in the film, from the literal to the figurative.

    Skyfall: There’s [also] the notion that what’s happened in the movie is the end result of choices ...made in ...life. ...

    Spectre: past comes back to haunt him.

    Spectre: hero hangs off the side of a helicopter in flight.

    End defense of Craig Bond films. But defense of Craig Bond films will return...

    ???
  • Risico007Risico007
    Posts: 9,846
    Well I like the title and while I could argue my prophecy skills are good sadly I won’t be buying a lotto ticket any time soon the title was telegraphed from the first rumors of Mission Impossible 6 dealing with the affects of Rogue nation or the Fallout if you will of course if I get Bond 25’s title right (which I still say will be based on the location of the finale which limits the amount of Fleming title that could be used but not by a lot) then I will try my luck at the lotto
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited January 2018 Posts: 9,117
    bondjames wrote: »
    The point people are trying to make (which I happen to agree with) is that the CGI is quite noticeable and therefore distracting. There is nothing more annoying than being pulled out of a film by poor use of CGI. If it's seamless it's one thing. In all the Bond films since CR it hasn't been seamless. That's the issue. It doesn't matter how much is done practically. It's the 1% that really jerks one out of the experience that matters.

    This is especially something to keep in mind with Bond films, which had a reputation for being best in class in these matters in the past.

    As an example, nobody remembers the superb PTS surfing in DAD. They remember the disgrace that came after.

    Precisely.

    It doesn't help when the Bond action over the last two or three films has been pretty average whilst Cruise and MI are constantly in the media with their next massive stunt.

    In terms of pure action and stunts it's difficult to argue that MI is not the brand leader these days.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    Big stunts I agree (last big eyecatching one was probably the CR crane jump) but I think Bond is fine when it comes to general action, fight scenes and stuff. The Hinx fight beats any fight scene from MI imo.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited January 2018 Posts: 40,968
    DUeMbj8X0AAcaZz.jpg

    This is the one that messed his ankle up (twice), isn't it? Damn, I can't wait.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    I hope, for his sake, he yelled "Geronimo!" while jumping...
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2018 Posts: 23,883
    thelivingroyale wrote: »
    Big stunts I agree (last big eyecatching one was probably the CR crane jump) but I think Bond is fine when it comes to general action, fight scenes and stuff. The Hinx fight beats any fight scene from MI imo.
    I actually much preferred the opera fight in MI-RN (which captured the spirit of old school Bond, including a certain level of ferocity combined with a bit of humour and stuntwork) over the Hinx fight. It wasn't as predictable either, in terms of setting and moves. The Hinx fight was more vicious certainly, but Bond used to be more than that.
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    DUeMbj8X0AAcaZz.jpg

    This is the one that messed his ankle up (twice), isn't it? Damn, I can't wait.
    That is a massive distance he is jumping there! Amazing.
  • noSolaceleftnoSolaceleft
    Posts: 1,162
    If I didn't knew it better, I would be absolutely certain that this man is doomed.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,583
    Cue the John Barry slide whistle
Sign In or Register to comment.