doubleohfive
Fleet Admiral
I would tend to agree with you, with the exception for how the films portray their female leads.
Brad Bird all but confirmed as "Mission: Impossible IV" director
- Thread starter JacksonArcher
- Start date
If you're saying there's a pattern of marginalization or objectification of the female leads, I don't see how you could possibly think M:I III fits into that. After all,
in the climax of the film, Ethan is taken completely out of the action -- is, in fact, clinically dead -- and it's his wife who not only saves his life but single-handedly delivers the final defeat to the villain. So in the climactic minutes of the film, she becomes the hero who saves the day and he becomes the helpless love interest in need of rescue. It's a complete reversal of the traditional hero/damsel relationship and a brilliant subversion of the very same gender-role formula that you're talking about. That's one of the things I love the most about that film. And the fact that Cruise was willing to step aside and let someone else be the hero at the end gives me a lot of respect for him as a professional (leaving aside the matter of his personal life).
doubleohfive
Fleet Admiral
A "pattern of marginalization" need not include all four films. Three out of the four is enough to criticize/justify the point.
That said, you're absolutely right about M:I-III.
That said, you're absolutely right about M:I-III.
I wholeheartedly agree with you. The villain was, for the most part, rather insipid and so were his motives. And the entire sequence in India felt pedestrian.
-Jamman
I would really like them to keep the supporting cast from the fourth movie. Keeping more than just Tom Cruise and Ving Rhames would help these movies feel more properly connected to each other.
^Since Jeremy Renner was originally intended to be the new lead, he may well have been signed to do more than one movie.
Of course, a sense of connection between installments wasn't really a feature of the original show. The continuity, typically of '60s TV, was essentially nonexistent. The team members could show their faces on national or global TV at the climax of one episode and yet still be able to function as secret agents the next week. The team composition changed frequently; originally the intent was that a different team of specialists would be chosen every week, and although eventually the main cast members ended up being used much more regularly, cast changes between seasons happened frequently and without a word of explanation (until the final season, which also saw slight traces of continuity introduced for the first time).
Of course, a sense of connection between installments wasn't really a feature of the original show. The continuity, typically of '60s TV, was essentially nonexistent. The team members could show their faces on national or global TV at the climax of one episode and yet still be able to function as secret agents the next week. The team composition changed frequently; originally the intent was that a different team of specialists would be chosen every week, and although eventually the main cast members ended up being used much more regularly, cast changes between seasons happened frequently and without a word of explanation (until the final season, which also saw slight traces of continuity introduced for the first time).
^ Renner looks set to be a busy boy, doesn't he? He's taken over the Bourne series, there's Hawkeye in the Avengers and I think that the studio envisage Hansel and Gretel being a franchise too.
My suspicion, based on absolutely nothing tangible, is that Tom (who is also supposed to be starring in a new take on Van Helsing) will be back for V but Jeremy won't.
My suspicion, based on absolutely nothing tangible, is that Tom (who is also supposed to be starring in a new take on Van Helsing) will be back for V but Jeremy won't.
All the more reason that the people who wrote his M:I contract might've included a clause committing him to sequels, especially if they signed him in the first place with the intention of making him the new lead. Actors who sign up for franchise films these days are rarely signed for just one at a time. The contracts specifically commit them to multiple films, especially if they're busy, in-demand actors whose availability needs to be guaranteed in advance.
Ahh, here we go:
http://blog.moviefone.com/2011/12/14/jeremy-renner-mission-impossible-avengers-steve-mcqueen-bourne/
So if they want to bring him back for M:I 5, he's already contractually bound to appear. Although if they don't want him back for whatever reason, they'd just let him out of the contract. But as you say, he's a popular fellow right now, so they probably would want him back.
^ Indeed. But IIRC, when he was first cast, the idea was that this would be more of a two-hander, as the studio were a bit wary of Tom's box office appeal (remember when Summer Redstone and Paramount broke up with Cruise and Redstone reckoned that Tom's couch-jumping behaviour had made M:I3 the least successful movie, even though it was the best?).
However, from what I can see, Tom has made a bit of a box-office renaissance, so my best guess (and that's all it is) is that they'll be happy to trust him with the MI reins all by himself again. But I know I'd be happy for the Ghost Protocol team to return.
However, from what I can see, Tom has made a bit of a box-office renaissance, so my best guess (and that's all it is) is that they'll be happy to trust him with the MI reins all by himself again. But I know I'd be happy for the Ghost Protocol team to return.
^Yes, but the point is that Renner's availability wouldn't be the determining factor in whether he returns; if they did want him back, they'd have him.
^Gotcha. As I originally said, my suspicion was based on absolutely nothing!