Mission Impossible - Ghost Protocol ::: December 16, 2011

I'm kind of disappointed. The first trailer showed a lot of promise, but this one is a bit of a let-down. For one, there's a massive spoiler in it. But more worryingly is the premise of missiles being fired on cities. It's nothing particualrly imaginitive.

At least this one doesn't have M&M lisping over it.

Say what you want about the second film, but it least had a unique cinematic look to it. The third movie was basically ALIAS on the big screen, with same ugly metallic blue digital grading. This looks the same. .

Sharky wrote:

At least this one doesn't have M&M lisping over it.

Say what you want about the second film, but it least had a unique cinematic look to it. The third movie was basically ALIAS on the big screen, with same ugly metallic blue digital grading. This looks the same. .

Honestly, I haven't been overly impressed by any of them and only saw the first two in theaters. Once Cruise went off the deep end and started jumping couches, I bolted from him. I saw MI3 on dvd.

I was probably more into the story of the second film than any of the other films, as it seemed to have at least correct one problem of the first one, which was a confusing plot. But never have I seen a director use his camera to make love to an actor or actress as much as Woo did to Cruise and Newton, and after a while it was just too much and too silly.

I've felt that these were bastardized versions of the television series, and if you don't like Cruise you're sunk, because these films are all about him and not about any of the other characters.

MI:GP looks like a total retread of the first film; the sense of deja vu is uncanny. Very little here to recommend me seeing it. The last MI film under-performed and I was surprised to see that Cruise came back to this series, with Paramount, to try again. He doesn't seem to understand that HE IS THE PROBLEM.

This movie will open to a soft $42 million over it's 5-day debut (Wednesday - Sunday) and can only possibly appeal to younger audiences who aren't as familiar with the first three films, aren't familiar with Cruise himself, and somehow haven't learned how to illegally download films. Everybody else will stay as far away from this P.O.S. as humanly possible.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

I was probably more into the story of the second film than any of the other films, as it seemed to have at least correct one problem of the first one, which was a confusing plot.

I never found the story of the first M:I film all that confusing.

Harmsway wrote:

I'm still kinda "meh" on it. It's all very run-of-the-mill for the franchise, never particularly stylish or striking. I wish what we saw of it had a more distinct identity, suggesting more intrigue than action thrills.

I disagree. This trailer (which gives away far too much information, as trailers for some unfathomable reason seem legally bound to do) does make me think there may be more than just wall-to-wall action going on (if not, though, the Dubai stunts alone ought to be worth the price of admission). We'll have to see, though.

Oh, and how many times to I have to say it? So what if the M:I films are different to the M:I TV series? If they were supposed to be exactly the same, they'd be exactly the same. These movies aren't made for hardcore fans of the old show (any more than the Bond films are tailored towards Fleming buffs) - they're made for the modern general public. If you're upset about the differences between the Cruise movies and the 1960s TV show, just stick to the latter - problem solved.

Loomis wrote:

Harmsway wrote:

I'm still kinda "meh" on it. It's all very run-of-the-mill for the franchise, never particularly stylish or striking. I wish what we saw of it had a more distinct identity, suggesting more intrigue than action thrills.

I disagree. This trailer (which gives away far too much information, as trailers for some unfathomable reason seem legally bound to do) does make me think there may be more than just wall-to-wall action going on (if not, though, the Dubai stunts alone ought to be worth the price of admission). We'll have to see, though.

Oh, and how many times to I have to say it? So what if the M:I films are different to the M:I TV series? If they were supposed to be exactly the same, they'd be exactly the same. These movies aren't made for hardcore fans of the old show (any more than the Bond films are tailored towards Fleming buffs) - they're made for the modern general public. If you're upset about the differences between the Cruise movies and the 1960s TV show, just stick to the latter - problem solved.

No, it doesn't really solve the problem. Why? Because:

#1 Cruise and his film partners are trading in on the MIssion:Impossible name, but not doing any of the due diligence necessary. It's like they want all of the benefits of being associated with a name brand, but none of the responsibilities.

#2 The main problem with the movies hasn't been something that is astronomically impossible of being fixed. It's quite simple, but Cruise hasn't wanted to do it. Instead of the movies being about Ethan Hunt, they COULD have chosen to be about the team of operatives, just like the television series was. But that doesn't fit into Tom Cruise's narrative, being an ego-maniacal control freak and all...So we're stuck with MI movies every couple of years that are anchored by a character we barely know, or care, anything about....a film series that showed no respect to the people who created the television series by making Jim Phelps a traitor to his country and his organization...and a film series that every new film brings in yet a different head of the organization. There's just nothing for the viewer to rally around or get familiar with because it all completely changes by the next film. Yes, the movies can mostly be viewed as stand-alone films, but that is also quite limiting.

It will be with a huge smirk of self-satisfaction and glee that I will watch Paramount and Cruise foist this turkey upon theaters. Cruise still thinks he's relevant, but what he doesn't know is that there's only two people that would have made me go see MIGP (Josh Holloway and Paula Patton) and one of them is barely even shown in the trailers. Cruise needs to be taken down a peg or two, and people like me will be reminding him this December of why he's no longer a star.

I'll see it. I looks like one the better action films of the year. Good to see Vladimir Mashkov in a Hollywood pic.

I can still watch them, but everyhting that GS said is true and you can't expect fans of the original to just ignore the desecration of an iconic original series

Tom Crude wanted the title and the killer theme tune and he could have got away with kiling off the team and going it alone, but turning Jim Phelps into a traitor is going out of your way to crap on the original

I call that a flagrant foul

apart from that the first one is also spoiled by the ridiculous helicopter in the tunnel scene at the end
the second one is ruined by John Woo, the king of ridiculous action while he was in Hollywood
the third one is watchable but rather generic, but at least has Phillip Seymour Hoffman

if the fourth one is anything like "Knight and Day" it will be ruined by cheesy CGI

Loomis wrote:

Oh, and how many times to I have to say it? So what if the M:I films are different to the M:I TV series? If they were supposed to be exactly the same, they'd be exactly the same. These movies aren't made for hardcore fans of the old show (any more than the Bond films are tailored towards Fleming buffs) - they're made for the modern general public. If you're upset about the differences between the Cruise movies and the 1960s TV show, just stick to the latter - problem solved.

Another problem with your analogy between Bond and Mission Impossible is that Ian Fleming wrote a series of books about James Bond and EON came along and made a series of films about a character called James Bond. Conversely, what Thomas Mapother III and Paula Wagner did was take the name of the Mission Impossible television show, the theme, and one character, and abandon everything else that made the series great, up to and including dropping a huge, steaming turd all over the Jim Phelps character. It's like Mapother couldn't be bothered to at least be faithful to the original series. I wasn't expecting the film series to be exactly like the television series, but the television series (both of them) was about the group dynamic, and was never about one individual agent. That's why they're called the IMF "team" or Mission Impossible "force", not The Ethan Hunt Team or The Ethan Hunt Force.

And, quite frankly, Ethan Hunt is one of the least memorable secret agent characters ever put up on screen. Do we know anything about this guy 15 years later? Could you replace Ethan Hunt/Thomas Mapother with a different character/actor and even miss him? It's almost like Tom Cruise is just playing a variation of himself.

But putting all that aside, I simply think that this latest trailer shows it is essentially a remake of the first film. I'm hoping that Ethan Hunt will be the insider who betrayed his team this time, as Phelps did in the first one, as Dougray Scott turned against IMF in the second film, and as Billy Crudup did in the third one, so that we can get rid of Tom Cruise for good from this series and maybe get a creative team in place that puts more value on the concept of the team approach rather than letting one star dominate a series that was never meant to be a one-person show.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Conversely, what Thomas Mapother III and Paula Wagner did was take the name of the Mission Impossible television show, the theme, and one character, and abandon everything else that made the series great, up to and including dropping a huge, steaming turd all over the Jim Phelps character.

Here's the thing, though: I don't mind. I might well be singing a different tune if I were a fan of the original TV series, but since I've never even seen a single episode of it I don't care. All I can say is that all three M:I films to date have given me much entertainment and therefore I welcome a fourth.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

I'm hoping that Ethan Hunt will be the insider who betrayed his team this time, as Phelps did in the first one, as Dougray Scott turned against IMF in the second film, and as Billy Crudup did in the third one, so that we can get rid of Tom Cruise for good from this series

Perhaps you'll get your wish. I thought that GHOST PROTOCOL was intended as Mapother's final M:I outing, with Jeremy Renner possibly taking over as the main lead with M:I-5, erm, MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE 5.

Ya know Grav, that's a not a bad idea. Cruise was very convincing in COLLATERAL as a villain. It'd be nice to see that narcissistic, short arse t*** get his comeuppance, again. On screen of course.

Sharky wrote:

Ya know Grav, that's a not a bad idea. Cruise was very convincing in COLLATERAL as a villain. It'd be nice to see that narcissistic, short arse t*** get his comeuppance, again. On screen of course.

The problem is that I'm not really buying the notion that Renner was brought into this movie in order to take over the series. That's an awfully big responsibility for an actor who has almost no name recognition...yet.

Renner's taking over the Bourne franchise and is in The Avengers. Name recognition is imminent.

As for Ghost Protocol bombing, I don't see it. Attaching the Dark Knight Rises prologue has already netted it a sizeable audience. Although it will face some tough competition from Sherlock Holmes, Dragon Tattoo, and possibly Tintin.

FourDot wrote:

Renner's taking over the Bourne franchise and is in The Avengers. Name recognition is imminent.

As for Ghost Protocol bombing, I don't see it. Attaching the Dark Knight Rises prologue has already netted it a sizeable audience. Although it will face some tough competition from Sherlock Holmes, Dragon Tattoo, and possibly Tintin.

The fact that it needs DARK KNIGHT RISES as a lead-in says a lot. I'm not sure how many Batman fans are willing to buy a ticket to a Cruise film just to get a six minute glimpse of TDKR, but it's always a possibility.

Cruise is more popular overseas than he is in the United States. KNIGHT AND DAY was a complete bomb in the U.S., but it did well enough in foreign markets to make final box office look respectable. But he hasn't had a real hit since....well, since 2006's MISSION IMPOSSIBLE 3, and even that one was well below what the previous MI films took in.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

But he hasn't had a real hit since....well, since 2006's MISSION IMPOSSIBLE 3, and even that one was well below what the previous MI films took in.

Well, in the interim he played a supporting role in a preachy Redford film that was never going to put bums on seats, he made an unbilled (at least on promotional materials) cameo in Tropic Thunder, and then there's Valkyrie and Knight & Day, so it's not really a string of flops (especially considering those two, at least as far as I'm aware, went into profit worldwide).

Knight & Day was the only one that really could have been a big financial problems, but suffered from the twin factors of being exceptionally poorly marketed, and being pretty crap. I'm not sure the blame can be entirely laid at Cruise's feet.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

I'm not sure how many Batman fans are willing to buy a ticket to a Cruise film just to get a six minute glimpse of TDKR, but it's always a possibility.

Batman fanboys would jump off a cliff if His Holiness Chris Nolan told them it meant getting a free preview.

The more the merrier, I say.

Sharky wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

I'm not sure how many Batman fans are willing to buy a ticket to a Cruise film just to get a six minute glimpse of TDKR, but it's always a possibility.

Batman fanboys would jump off a cliff if His Holiness Chris Nolan told them it meant getting a free preview.

Well there's a big IMAX cinema a couple miles away from me and I'll be there. Tom might make people groan out aloud in real but I've still found some of his movies to be quite watchable...and the scene on that tower in Dubai does interest me.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

The fact that it needs DARK KNIGHT RISES as a lead-in says a lot. I'm not sure how many Batman fans are willing to buy a ticket to a Cruise film just to get a six minute glimpse of TDKR, but it's always a possibility.

I imagine a M:I flick would do just fine without a Batman prologue attached to it.

Jack Wade wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

The fact that it needs DARK KNIGHT RISES as a lead-in says a lot. I'm not sure how many Batman fans are willing to buy a ticket to a Cruise film just to get a six minute glimpse of TDKR, but it's always a possibility.

I imagine a M:I flick would do just fine without a Batman prologue attached to it.

Yeah, it's a popular enough franchise. Having the TDKR prologue attached to it probably says that M:I is popular, not the other way around. They're not putting it with ALVIN AND THE CHIPMUNKS: CHIPWRECKED.

Not sure if I'll see it. Depends on if it's ends up online. BB and TDK aren't my cuppa in terms of filmmaking style, but I find them compelling enough to eagerly anticipate TDKR.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

They're not putting it with ALVIN AND THE CHIPMUNKS: CHIPWRECKED

Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel made a lot more money than Mission: Impossible III. And on a much smaller budget.

Disturbing.

I'm waiting for ALVIN AND THE CHIP MONKS.

:pale:

My God, will the madness ever stop?

Erik Estrada in ALVIN AND THE CHiPS.

TORILLA CHIPMUNKS: ALVIN GOES TO MEXICO

Cursed sequels.

Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the cinema.

POKER CHIPMUNKS?