Damien F

Christopher McQuarrie To Direct Mission Impossible 6

Recommended Posts

Honestly, for a second, I thought McQuarrie was announcing he has signed up for the next Bond movie due to that MI6 hashtag. That itself would have been great, but the prospect of Kraemer handling the Bond theme in the same way he handled the Mission Impossible theme would have been phenomenal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. One of my first thoughts when I first heard the MI5 OST was that he'd do a killer Bond score. Some of the moments in the score are actually quite Bondian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's about time they brought back a female castmember for more than one film; Seems they keep bringing back the male castmembers (Rhames, Simon Pegg, Jeremy Renner) but never the females.

It'd be cool if, for a change, this film focuses most of its running time on the TEAM aspect, with full support of a home base, instead of mostly being about Cruise off his own, cut off from the main IMF, eventually getting help by the end.

Actually, it'd be cool if the story involved splitting a big cast up to do two heists / missions at the same time, with Cruise leading one and Renner leading the other. And bring back more cast members - not just Ferguson, Rhames, Pegg, and Renner, but also bring back Maggie Q, Paula Patton, and whoever else wasn't killed off or revealed to be a traitor :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sweet. I just watched the film again right now on Blu-ray and it's just as enjoyable as during my two cinema trips.

There was a lot of talk about Charlize Theron and how she was an equal to Tom Hardy's Max in Fury Road. But we're forgetting that Ferguson fulfills the same role in Rogue Nation. She's not a damsel in distress, nor is she another generic love interest. And she saves Ethan twice in this film. So that's another strong female lead in an action movie that isn't overshadowed by male counterpart. In fact, she sort of eclipses Cruise.

It was also interesting to know they didn't have a finished script, or even a plot set in stone, while shooting. They had locations, some setpieces. But a lot of the plot was made up on the fly. Some of the lines were improvised by actors on set. Quite surprising, given how coherent this film feels.

Karol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're talking about the logical holes, then sure. But then, this is a Mission: Impossible film and they are all about style over substance. As are Bond films.

But what I'm saying is that it flows beautifully and is very well paced. I've seen it four times now and it's constantly entertaining all the way through.

Karol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I agree. It's very entertaining, and very well paced. I enjoyed the film very much, and consider it the best MI film since the original.

But nothing about the plot holds up under scrutiny, and the story goes in directions that aren't as exciting as they should have been.

But, as I said, I still like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're talking about the logical holes, then sure. But then, this is a Mission: Impossible film and they are all about style over substance. As are Bond films.

But what I'm saying is that it flows beautifully and is very well paced. I've seen it four times now and it's constantly entertaining all the way through.

I wasn't referring to plot holes. I was referring to the pace, and the progression of the plot. It's not all over the place, but it's still not perfect. Two thirds into the film, when you should feel it's all building to the climax, the film actually starts losing steam, and the final action sequence really feels anticlimactic (especially compared to the action scenes that came before). You can feel they weren't sure how to bring the film to its conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're talking about the logical holes, then sure. But then, this is a Mission: Impossible film and they are all about style over substance. As are Bond films.

But what I'm saying is that it flows beautifully and is very well paced. I've seen it four times now and it's constantly entertaining all the way through.

I wasn't referring to plot holes. I was referring to the pace, and the progression of the plot. It's not all over the place, but it's still not perfect. Two thirds into the film, when you should feel it's all building to the climax, the film actually starts losing steam, and the final action sequence really feels anticlimactic (especially compared to the action scenes that came before). You can feel they weren't sure how to bring the film to its conclusion.

Well, I never had this sort of impression.

Karol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of curiosity, what parts aren't "as exciting as they should have been"?

Karol

I'll quote myself:

The biggest flaws are that they don't use some of the premises they set up to their logical next step: For example, the whole premise of these movies is that these guys are a special task force, with very advanced technology, and ultimate training to tackle any sort of circumstances they encounter. So when the IMF gets shut down, or they are otherwise are hunted instead of being normally employed (which seems to happen in almost all of the entries), shouldn't the idea be that now they have to try to survive / beat the bad guys / prove their innocence WITHOUT their normal gadgets and stuff - to have to really struggle to find ways to win? But no, here Hunt just goes to his secret bunker and has his mask-maker (how did they get Attlee's voice anyway?) and whatever other stuff they have. Or another one is that they build up The Syndicate as the "anti-IMF", a group of people with the exact same training and tech / resources as them, only working towards nefarious means instead of good. But this basically resulted in them being up against 1 bad guy and his generic goons who just have guns, like any other film. They never get tricked by masks or have their own stuff used against them or anything (other than the early fake briefing). Stuff like that.

More: http://www.jwfan.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=24637&p=1156272

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. It should have been EXCITING and SCARY that the IMF was going up against an "Anti-IMF". This should have resulted in different kinds of action and spy scenes than we had seen before. But it was just more of the same stuff.

And they've done the "Ethan cut off from the support of the IMF" in all the previous movies, too.

That's why I hope MI6 is just a true TEAM film the whole time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Brónach said:

That's ridiculous.

 

I can see both sides of the argument. Cruise's camp can argue since the last two MI films were hugely successful (and consistently profitable for the studio), he deserves a pay raise. But I can also see Paramount's reasoning on wanting to keep the budget in check, considering the terrible year they've had.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think anyone in Cruise's career stage is massively overpaid for what they do. However, the other way of looking at it is that Paramount will make hundreds of millions of $$ from this film, and Cruise will argue that he is a primary factor in that, hence he should see more of the studio's profit.

 

1 hour ago, Stefancos said:

Mission Impossible 6 is not a Marvel superhero movie, so it's production is one of extreme financial risk.

 

But it's still a huge franchise. I'd say it has a rather marginal risk, particularly if they get all the same key cast to return.

 

Jack Reacher seems a far bigger risk to me, as it may have the biggest of A-list actors, but it's not a known franchise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rogue Nation was less successful than Ghost Protocol, despite being a much better movie IMO.  In fact Rogue Nation was downright disappointing in terms of American box office, saved by a great international take.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's producing the film, and in return gets paid by Paramount in some capacity. Either an upfront fee, a percentage of the profits or get to make a film project of his chosing.

 

It's a businesses after all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Richard Penna said:

 

Jack Reacher seems a far bigger risk to me, as it may have the biggest of A-list actors, but it's not a known franchise.

 

A Jack Reacher film can be made for a lot less money though then a Mission Impossible film

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the British character actors that push Rogue Nation over the top for me.

 

I love everything in the movie to do with Sean Harris, Simon McBurney, and of course Tom Hollander, one of the best and most versatile actors working today. Also, as a huge fan of the British TV show "Rev." I was delighted to see McBurney and Hollander reunited in a Mission: Impossible movie of all things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now