Mission: Impossible Franchise (1996-?)

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
cdnchris
Site Admin
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:45 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

Mission: Impossible Franchise (1996-?)

#1 Post by cdnchris » Wed Apr 26, 2006 12:15 pm

So, anyone pick up the new Mission: Impossible DVD? I did but was incredibly pissed at the features. The fact De Palma was really nowhere to be found kind of irked me a bit (the featurettes had him maybe for a few seconds in total) as did the fact there wasn't much about the show. I know when they usually release DVDs for these types of films when a sequel is coming out it's more as a promo about the sequel, but half the features on the DVD were about Tom Cruise (even the features not completely devoted to Tom still made a big fuss about him) and what a great friggin' guy he is, and what a great "actor" he is. So is Paramount afraid that since Tom has gone nuts (or at least started showing he's nuts, he probably went nuts a long time ago) that people might be scared to see the new one (or at least be turned off), so they have to do stuff like this and promote the hell out of Tom and show he's really not that nutty?

User avatar
Andre Jurieu
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:38 pm
Location: Back in Milan (Ind.)

#2 Post by Andre Jurieu » Wed Apr 26, 2006 12:37 pm

Well, yeah. They have to protect their investment. Also, don't forget that Cruise/Wagner helped produce the film, and it does serve as Cruise's personal franchise/cash-cow, so this is Team Cruise attempting to protect his self-image as well.

I enjoy how all the trailers for MI:3 keep featuring footage of Cruise getting slammed into the car by the explosion or Cruise getting smacked by a semi. It's a "money-shot" that really just feeds our collective fantasy to see Cruise get beaten to a pulp for becoming such an idiot lately. It's smart marketing on the part of JJ Abrams.

User avatar
Fletch F. Fletch
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:54 pm
Location: Provo, Utah

#3 Post by Fletch F. Fletch » Wed Apr 26, 2006 12:47 pm

cdnchris wrote:So, anyone pick up the new Mission: Impossible DVD? I did but was incredibly pissed at the features. The fact De Palma was really nowhere to be found kind of irked me a bit (the featurettes had him maybe for a few seconds in total) as did the fact there wasn't much about the show. I know when they usually release DVDs for these types of films when a sequel is coming out it's more as a promo about the sequel, but half the features on the DVD were about Tom Cruise (even the features not completely devoted to Tom still made a big fuss about him) and what a great friggin' guy he is, and what a great "actor" he is. So is Paramount afraid that since Tom has gone nuts (or at least started showing he's nuts, he probably went nuts a long time ago) that people might be scared to see the new one (or at least be turned off), so they have to do stuff like this and promote the hell out of Tom and show he's really not that nutty?
I know. Compare those extras with the ones on the new Casualties of War DVD and it's like night and day. You've got a pretty decent interview with Michael J. Fox and then a Making Of featurette pretty much dominated by De Palma.

User avatar
Andre Jurieu
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:38 pm
Location: Back in Milan (Ind.)

#4 Post by Andre Jurieu » Wed Apr 26, 2006 12:57 pm

Fletch F. Fletch wrote:I know. Compare those extras with the ones on the new Casualties of War DVD and it's like night and day. You've got a pretty decent interview with Michael J. Fox and then a Making Of featurette pretty much dominated by De Palma.
Yeah, but requesting more De Palma involvement with the MI Special Edition is probably asking a bit much, considering that he didn't appreciate Cruise/Wagner re-editing his original cut of the film.

User avatar
cdnchris
Site Admin
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:45 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

#5 Post by cdnchris » Wed Apr 26, 2006 1:07 pm

Andre Jurieu wrote:Well, yeah. They have to protect their investment. Also, don't forget that Cruise/Wagner helped produce the film, and it does serve as Cruise's personal franchise/cash-cow, so this is Team Cruise attempting to protect his self-image as well.

I enjoy how all the trailers for MI:3 keep featuring footage of Cruise getting slammed into the car by the explosion or Cruise getting smacked by a semi. It's a "money-shot" that really just feeds our collective fantasy to see Cruise get beaten to a pulp for becoming such an idiot lately. It's smart marketing on the part of JJ Abrams.
Actually I never even noticed that, even though I did enjoy seeing Cruise getting slammed around. Pretty smart. Plus doesn't the plot involve Hoffman's character putting an explosive in Cruise's head? Sounds appealing.
Fletch F. Fletch wrote: I know. Compare those extras with the ones on the new Casualties of War DVD and it's like night and day. You've got a pretty decent interview with Michael J. Fox and then a Making Of featurette pretty much dominated by De Palma.
I should have known better with the MI DVD since the new one was coming out. I didn't really pay attention to the features on the back when I got it. And I'm happy to have finally bought the first film after 10 years because I really did like it (plus only $8 with a free ticket, it's win-win) and was happy to see I enjoyed it even more now but damn, what a shitty compilation. I was just hoping for something along the lines of Carlito's Way in the way of features, thinking De Palma might share more, and instead I get a Cruise yank-fest. Very disappointing.

User avatar
cdnchris
Site Admin
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:45 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

#6 Post by cdnchris » Wed Apr 26, 2006 1:08 pm

Andre Jurieu wrote:
Fletch F. Fletch wrote:I know. Compare those extras with the ones on the new Casualties of War DVD and it's like night and day. You've got a pretty decent interview with Michael J. Fox and then a Making Of featurette pretty much dominated by De Palma.
Yeah, but requesting more De Palma involvement with the MI Special Edition is probably asking a bit much, considering that he didn't appreciate Cruise/Wagner re-editing his original cut of the film.
Actually I didn't know that. Any info somewhere on this original cut?

User avatar
Fletch F. Fletch
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:54 pm
Location: Provo, Utah

#7 Post by Fletch F. Fletch » Wed Apr 26, 2006 4:35 pm

cdnchris wrote:
Andre Jurieu wrote:
Fletch F. Fletch wrote:I know. Compare those extras with the ones on the new Casualties of War DVD and it's like night and day. You've got a pretty decent interview with Michael J. Fox and then a Making Of featurette pretty much dominated by De Palma.
Yeah, but requesting more De Palma involvement with the MI Special Edition is probably asking a bit much, considering that he didn't appreciate Cruise/Wagner re-editing his original cut of the film.
Actually I didn't know that. Any info somewhere on this original cut?
yeah, I'd be curious to know how radically it was changed as well. Something along the lines of Woo's Hard Target perhaps?

User avatar
ben d banana
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:53 pm
Location: Oh Where, Oh Where?

#8 Post by ben d banana » Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:58 am

Andre Jurieu wrote:Well, yeah. They have to protect their investment. Also, don't forget that Cruise/Wagner helped produce the film, and it does serve as Cruise's personal franchise/cash-cow, so this is Team Cruise attempting to protect his self-image as well.

I enjoy how all the trailers for MI:3 keep featuring footage of Cruise getting slammed into the car by the explosion or Cruise getting smacked by a semi. It's a "money-shot" that really just feeds our collective fantasy to see Cruise get beaten to a pulp for becoming such an idiot lately. It's smart marketing on the part of JJ Abrams.
Or perhaps Team Cruise showing he can take anything that's thrown at him?

Do you believe Posiedon is set to be playing the local(ish) megaplex's Imax screen instead of MI:3? Can I get a "Bullshit!"?

User avatar
Andre Jurieu
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:38 pm
Location: Back in Milan (Ind.)

#9 Post by Andre Jurieu » Thu Apr 27, 2006 12:32 pm

Fletch F. Fletch wrote:
cdnchris wrote:
Andre Jurieu wrote: Yeah, but requesting more De Palma involvement with the MI Special Edition is probably asking a bit much, considering that he didn't appreciate Cruise/Wagner re-editing his original cut of the film.
Actually I didn't know that. Any info somewhere on this original cut?
yeah, I'd be curious to know how radically it was changed as well. Something along the lines of Woo's Hard Target perhaps?
I'm not sure there were major articles written about the changes and my attempt to google the info yesterday was pretty much unsuccessful. All I remember was a Premiere(?) magazine interview with De Palma right around the time that the film was coming out (or maybe it was around the time Snake Eyes was coming out), where they pretty much asked him straight up if he was ticked off that Cruise/Wagner decided to re-edit the film after he submitted his original cut to them. De Palma kind of shrugged it off, though I'm not sure if he was just playing Hollywood politics at the time. He did seem rather indifferent about the outcome of the situation. It almost seemed as if he uninterested in, or at the very least wasn't really consumed by, the results of the film since it wasn't a personal project. I also remember a few interviews with Cruise when the MI hype was just finishing where interviewers asked why he decided to re-edit the film. There was also speculation that Cruise wanted to start directing films, which is why he took a shot at editing MI.

I also remember there were rumors of this occurring floating around on the internet (I believe at, what was at the time called, Corona.bc.ca and also at Aint-It-Cool) after test-screenings of De Palma's cut didn't go very well. Apparently audiences were having problems following the plot, and the consensus was that it was due to De Palma non-linear narrative. Since Cruise had a significant investment in the film (I believe it was his first time as producer and it was his attempt to start his own franchise) he decided to re-edit the film to make it the plot more easy to follow by making it more linear. In interviews, De Palma and Cruise kept insisting that the final cut was very similar to De Palma's original intentions, though I thought De Palma was less convincing in his campaign to make it appear that he was "OK" with the cut. After more test-screening, scores went up slightly, but some people who had viewed both cuts reported that there were dramatic differences in the final product in terms of how scenes were arranged. Understandably, some said it worked better, some said it wasn't as good, but most agreed it was a safer investment as a summer blockbuster.
ben wrote:Do you believe Posiedon is set to be playing the local(ish) megaplex's Imax screen instead of MI:3? Can I get a "Bullshit!"?
I'm not that surprised by the decision. I think it's just because Poseidon looks like more of an big-disaster-event movie. It's scenes of destruction are probably far bigger in terms of scope, so they probably play better than M:I:3 on the Imax screen. Of course, I'm hoping M:I:3 is something like the opening moments of the pilot episode of Lost, with unnerving sound playing throughout and total confusion over what exactly is about to happen next. Some part of me also wants Keri Russell to turn out to be a bad-girl. There would be something perversely funny about seeing Felicity beat the crap out of Tom Cruise.

User avatar
cdnchris
Site Admin
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:45 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

#10 Post by cdnchris » Thu Apr 27, 2006 12:51 pm

Actually yesterday after you posted that De Palma intended a different edit, I started wondering if maybe his original cut would have had a more non-linear narrative, since the film's plot would have been perfect for something like that. It probably would have been better, though I can understand the decision. I thought the plot was easy to follow but I remember my friends coming out all confused--too much for a summer blockbuster? So I'm not surprised to see what you recalled.

But I think De Palma ultimately comes through still. There's a lot of good stuff in it, a lot of things that ring De Palma (killing off your entire cast at the beginning--Emilio!!--some great long shots, disorienting angles, and at least two great sequences--even his worst films have at least two, though usually inspired by another film), and I really only appreciated it more after seeing Woo's sequel (all I got out of that one was "hey! This is exactly like Notorious!") I still like it, Cruise be damned!
SpoilerShow
Plus who else would have the balls to make Phelps the bad guy!?

User avatar
Fletch F. Fletch
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:54 pm
Location: Provo, Utah

#11 Post by Fletch F. Fletch » Thu Apr 27, 2006 1:53 pm

cdnchris wrote:But I think De Palma ultimately comes through still. There's a lot of good stuff in it, a lot of things that ring De Palma (killing off your entire cast at the beginning--Emilio!!--some great long shots, disorienting angles, and at least two great sequences--even his worst films have at least two, though usually inspired by another film), and I really only appreciated it more after seeing Woo's sequel (all I got out of that one was "hey! This is exactly like Notorious!") I still like it, Cruise be damned!
As do I. I love the use of the widescreen aspect ratio and De Palma certainly knows how to build tension in a scene. Plus, he even stuck Canadian actor Henry Czerny in there for good measure!

User avatar
Matt
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 12:58 pm

#12 Post by Matt » Thu Apr 27, 2006 1:54 pm

cdnchris wrote:Plus doesn't the plot involve Hoffman's character putting an explosive in Cruise's head? Sounds appealing.
Interestingly, JJ Abrams' recently revivified Alias just used this as a plot element in this week's episode. It was treated with a lot more humor than I suspect Cruise will allow to appear in MI:3.

Also, sorry to burst your bubble Andre, but
SpoilerShow
apparently Felicity dies in the first major scene of the film.

User avatar
cdnchris
Site Admin
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:45 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

#13 Post by cdnchris » Thu Apr 27, 2006 3:05 pm

matt wrote:
cdnchris wrote:Plus doesn't the plot involve Hoffman's character putting an explosive in Cruise's head? Sounds appealing.
Interestingly, JJ Abrams' recently revivified Alias just used this as a plot element in this week's episode. It was treated with a lot more humor than I suspect Cruise will allow to appear in MI:3.
Yeah, sorry about getting off topic, but suddenly the movie became more interesting than Tom.

Despite not really liking the second one, I really do want to see the third. But I think what scares me is that "Tom the Actor" sounds like he really wants to make a "character" in this film and get deep in his "psyche". So the fun and humour from that plotline, like you said, will probably be drained, going for his chance to play "tortured" (did you see the anger on his face in the teaser when Hoffman threatens him? I think that's Tom doing intense, and we'll probably get a lot of that, unfortunately, because, you know, he's acting.) I like Abrams and would like to see what he can do directing his first movie, but I know this is still Tom's baby.
Fletch F. Fletch wrote: As do I. I love the use of the widescreen aspect ratio and De Palma certainly knows how to build tension in a scene. Plus, he even stuck Canadian actor Henry Czerny in there for good measure!
De Palma directing the film, even if it wasn't his final edit, still gave it a nice kick, moving it above other summer blockbusters and made it more interesting to watch I felt. Plus, you're right, the casting was good. I was actually pretty pumped to see that they got Czerny to play the "voice" that gave the missions. I've always been let down they didn't get him back for the sequels, I thought that was perfect (I like more inspired casting like that, Anthony Hopkins seems sort of a lazy choice.) Then getting Vanessa Redgrave to play an arms dealer was another great idea. The only thing that could have completed the casting and made it just amazing in my opinion (especially when you lump in Kristen Scott Thomas, Ving Rhames, Jean Reno, and, of course, Emilio Estevez) would have been if they could have got Peter Graves to reprise Phelps, though I doubt he would have considering, well, you know (but it would have been really surreal and twice as shocking I think.)

User avatar
Fletch F. Fletch
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:54 pm
Location: Provo, Utah

#14 Post by Fletch F. Fletch » Thu Apr 27, 2006 4:19 pm

cdnchris wrote:Plus, you're right, the casting was good. I was actually pretty pumped to see that they got Czerny to play the "voice" that gave the missions. I've always been let down they didn't get him back for the sequels, I thought that was perfect (I like more inspired casting like that, Anthony Hopkins seems sort of a lazy choice.)
Oh, I know! Plus, I love that scene they have together in the restaurant and as Cruise feels the net closing in he takes out the acquarium and makes his escape.
Then getting Vanessa Redgrave to play an arms dealer was another great idea. The only thing that could have completed the casting and made it just amazing in my opinion (especially when you lump in Kristen Scott Thomas, Ving Rhames, Jean Reno, and, of course, Emilio Estevez) would have been if they could have got Peter Graves to reprise Phelps, though I doubt he would have considering, well, you know (but it would have been really surreal and twice as shocking I think.)
I read somewhere that Graves was pissed at what they did to the Phelps character in the movie and wanted nothing to do with it. Oh well... at least he can always enjoy gladiator films. :wink:

User avatar
Matt
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 12:58 pm

#15 Post by Matt » Thu Apr 27, 2006 5:57 pm

cdnchris wrote:Plus, you're right, the casting was good... The only thing that could have completed the casting and made it just amazing in my opinion (especially when you lump in Kristen Scott Thomas, Ving Rhames, Jean Reno, and, of course, Emilio Estevez) would have been if they could have got Peter Graves to reprise Phelps....
Emmanuelle Béart! You forgot Emmanuelle Béart!

User avatar
Andre Jurieu
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:38 pm
Location: Back in Milan (Ind.)

#16 Post by Andre Jurieu » Thu Apr 27, 2006 6:04 pm

matt wrote:Also, sorry to burst your bubble Andre, but
SpoilerShow
apparently Felicity dies in the first major scene of the film.
Dang. Must he destroy the career of every hot girl off the WB? First Joey, now Felicity. Who the hell is next on Cruise's WB starlet hit-list? Jessica Biel?
cdnchris wrote:But I think what scares me is that "Tom the Actor" sounds like he really wants to make a "character" in this film and get deep in his "psyche". So the fun and humour from that plotline, like you said, will probably be drained, going for his chance to play "tortured" (did you see the anger on his face in the teaser when Hoffman threatens him? I think that's Tom doing intense, and we'll probably get a lot of that, unfortunately, because, you know, he's acting.)
... but we will also get to enjoy more running.
cdnchris wrote:Then getting Vanessa Redgrave to play an arms dealer was another great idea.
Is it totally wrong that I'm insanely attracted to her in this? Now that I have the DVD, she doesn't look as good as I remember, but I still love it when she starts to laugh.
Fletch wrote:Oh, I know! Plus, I love that scene they have together in the restaurant and as Cruise feels the net closing in he takes out the acquarium and makes his escape.
I love the diagonal/obtuse angles that De Palma uses for his close-ups in M:I - very Marnie.
matt wrote:Emmanuelle Béart! You forgot Emmanuelle Béart!
Thank-You Matt!

User avatar
cdnchris
Site Admin
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:45 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

#17 Post by cdnchris » Thu Apr 27, 2006 6:15 pm

Fletch F. Fletch wrote:I read somewhere that Graves was pissed at what they did to the Phelps character in the movie and wanted nothing to do with it. Oh well... at least he can always enjoy gladiator films. :wink:
That makes sense. My mother wasn't happy about the twist as well :)

(And I still haven't figured out why that line keeps popping in my head whenever I watch Spartacus)

User avatar
cdnchris
Site Admin
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:45 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

#18 Post by cdnchris » Thu Apr 27, 2006 6:30 pm

matt wrote:
cdnchris wrote:Plus, you're right, the casting was good... The only thing that could have completed the casting and made it just amazing in my opinion (especially when you lump in Kristen Scott Thomas, Ving Rhames, Jean Reno, and, of course, Emilio Estevez) would have been if they could have got Peter Graves to reprise Phelps....
Emmanuelle Béart! You forgot Emmanuelle Béart!


#-o (thanks for the pics!)
Andre Jurieu wrote: Is it totally wrong that I'm insanely attracted to her in this? Now that I have the DVD, she doesn't look as good as I remember, but I still love it when she starts to laugh.
Man, don't worry, she's actually pretty damn sexy in this movie. I loved her in it, too. THe laugh kills me as well.
Andre Jurieu wrote: I love the diagonal/obtuse angles that De Palma uses for his close-ups in M:I - very Marnie.
The Czerny/Cruise scene really throws you off because of that.

User avatar
ben d banana
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:53 pm
Location: Oh Where, Oh Where?

#19 Post by ben d banana » Thu Apr 27, 2006 10:13 pm

Andre Jurieu wrote:
matt wrote:Also, sorry to burst your bubble Andre, but
SpoilerShow
apparently Felicity dies in the first major scene of the film.
Dang. Must he destroy the career of every hot girl off the WB? First Joey, now Felicity. Who the hell is next on Cruise's WB starlet hit-list? Jessica Biel?
Don't even joke. And don't think I didn't notice that you didn't drop Sophia Bush into that possible scenario.

Matt's spoiler better not become common knowledge as I'm going with my friend who loves Abrams and is OBSESSED with Felicity, even though she'd probably just get really annoyed with all that whispering and indecision and kick her ass in reality.

User avatar
hearthesilence
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

#20 Post by hearthesilence » Fri Apr 28, 2006 12:03 pm

I may see the third for Hoffman. I can't believe I saw the second one, I didn't even like the first one and the second was worse.

Lame and predictable, you could see the surprises five minutes before they happen (BTW, the second one ripped off a bunch of things from "Darkman," like just about everything with disguises.)

User avatar
The Invunche
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:43 am
Location: Denmark

#21 Post by The Invunche » Fri Apr 28, 2006 12:30 pm

Couldn't you argue Darkman ripped off the original show then?

User avatar
hearthesilence
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

#22 Post by hearthesilence » Fri Apr 28, 2006 5:42 pm

Never saw the original show, not really interested.

To clarify, when I say "everything with disguises," I don't just mean the concept, I mean specific scenes.

For example, Cruise fools the villains by placing a Cruise mask on someone else who can't talk, then the bad guys shoot the fake Cruise, then notice something off, and discover he's wearing a Cruise mask.

In Darkman, Neeson pushes a guy who can't talk who's also wearing a mask towards a villain, and the villain shoots him, thinking he's Neeson. He notices something off, and discover the person is wearing a mask.

My memory's a little hazy, but there should be more examples. I recall watching MI:2 and thinking "that's a scene from Darkman, that's a scene from Darkman, that's a scene from Darkman..." I'm not even a big Darkman fan.

User avatar
The Invunche
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:43 am
Location: Denmark

#23 Post by The Invunche » Fri Apr 28, 2006 6:09 pm

I'm pretty sure they did similar stuff on the original show or at least on the remake show where they used masks in nearly every episode.

User avatar
cdnchris
Site Admin
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:45 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

#24 Post by cdnchris » Fri Apr 28, 2006 6:20 pm

I remember that scene vaguely (the guy with the Cruise mask getting shot) and I can see where you would compare it to Darkman. It's pretty much a direct lift.

I didn't like the second one all that much, though, and haven't had the urge to watch it again. All I remember is it had a similar plotline to Notorious (even had the horse race scene!) and had a rather lame imitation of a James Bond scheme (villain wants to release virus to increase his stock in a pharmaceutical company that had the cure, or something like that.) And I also think this was the first Woo film where the slo-mo stuff really started to get to me. I just found it to be a lame knock-off of a Bond movie with a bland hero.

Whatever I thought the first one was, I found the second one to be the exact opposite.

User avatar
hearthesilence
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

#25 Post by hearthesilence » Sat Apr 29, 2006 4:18 pm

Don't forget the white doves. Boy, that NEVER gets old.... :roll:

Post Reply