• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Mission: Impossible - Final Reckoning (2025)

Yeah I heard rumblings that Tom Cruise butted heads with John Woo a bit so maybe he want's to not really remember that one

That might explain it. I'd been assuming it was McQuarrie's choice, but it would make sense if it was Cruise's preference, since he's the producer.


Aside from Luther there isn't really much continuity or purpose to it.

And Luther is a minor presence in MI2, which is basically a solo movie for Ethan.


Part 3 is when they started to reference back

Luther-The Shanghai pendulum move is going to be more difficult to crack than Langley was..."

I never noticed that. The first three films all seem completely self-contained to me.


Part 5 I don't remember any callback to previous movies.

The entire movie picks up on the tease at the end of Ghost Protocol about "the Syndicate" being the IMF's next target. Also, Director Hunley references the Langley break-in from the first film and the Kremlin incident from the fourth as parts of his case that the IMF is a renegade organization that should be shut down. And Brandt returns and references his history with the team from the previous film.
 
In the TV series, "the syndicate" was just their term for organized crime in general, when they did episodes focused on stateside mob-busting instead of international espionage (occasionally in earlier seasons and as the near-exclusive focus in the final two seasons). So it struck me as weird when the movies made it the name of an international spy ring.
 
I wish they had called M:i:III something without a number. (And less lame!)

I skip the second movie anyway, but it'd be nice to pretend it never existed when I see my copies on the shelf. ;)
 
That might explain it. I'd been assuming it was McQuarrie's choice, but it would make sense if it was Cruise's preference, since he's the producer.


Apparently Cruise wanted to use less CGI



Cruise was "adamant" that he was going to carry out these stunts himself for the movie. He pointed out that it would look far more realistic in the final movie. He complained that it was "far too easy" to see when a body double was being used.

Cruise likened using these methods to "cheating" the audience.

But in the end they came to a midway. However "part 2" seems to be the black sheep of the franchise which found it's footing starting with JJ Abram's tone in part 3.
 
However "part 2" seems to be the black sheep of the franchise which found it's footing starting with JJ Abram's tone in part 3.

I still feel both of the first two movies were failures in different ways; I think of them as failed pilots for a series that didn't start working until the third try. But evidently Cruise and McQuarrie disagree, given how much the past several movies have embraced elements from the first film.
 
Interesting Deadline article interviewing all five of the M:I film franchise's directors:


Some tidbits:

Brian DePalma got the gig when Sydney Pollack pulled out. Pollack had previously worked with Tom Cruise on the John Grisham thriller The Firm, so I guess that's why he was involved. Pollack had also directed the spy thriller Three Days of the Condor, though his career included diverse films such as Tootsie and Out of Africa. It would've been interesting to see what he would've done with M:I.

DePalma had no familiarity with the original series. Killing off the team to center on Ethan Hunt was DePalma's idea, but he distances himself from the decision to make Jim Phelps a traitor. He also takes credit for convincing Cruise he could do his own stunts.

DePalma turned down MI2 because he didn't want to do a heavy action film and had no interest in sequels. Cruise wanted each film to have a distinct style and brought in John Woo because he'd loved Face/Off. Woo tried to present Ethan as a Cary Grant type.

David Fincher and Joe Carnahan were considered for MI3 before J.J. Abrams was chosen. The original script, which Cruise tossed out, had "attachments" (whatever that means) from Kenneth Branagh, Carrie-Anne Moss, and Scarlett Johansson. Abrams, unlike DePalma, was a big fan of the original series, which was an obvious inspiration for Alias. (Ironic, then, that I feel MI3 is very unlike the original series beyond a token caper sequence or two, and feels much more like Alias: The Movie.)

Brad Bird was responsible for some of the coolest parts of Ghost Protocol, like having the tech break down and making it more of an ensemble story rather than Ethan-centric. Some of the crew didn't respect him as an animation director, but Cruise understood that anyone who could handle directing animation could handle live-action (animation is probably harder) and stood up for him.

Christopher McQuarrie, with whom Cruise had developed a working relationship starting on Valkyrie, did uncredited script work on Ghost Protocol before Cruise decided to make him the regular director, scrapping the "make each film different" approach. I guess I can understand him wanting to stick with a trusted partner, but I regret the loss of the individuality the first four films had (even though the results were hit-or-miss).

All the directors praise Cruise for how dedicated and thorough he is at his work. Woo said that he had his desk piled with research on bioweapons for MI2 so he'd know his stuff, which strikes me as caring far more about credibility than the writers or director did on that film.
 
no spoiler thoughts

  • saw it today in IMAX. - the IMAX upgrade/tax was worth it to me. awesome visual and audio experience.
  • I liked the movie overall, but it's not in my top 3 MI favorites. (II, Fallout and Dead Reckoning)
  • it was filled with lots of exposition dumps.
  • lots of flash- and callbacks and one awesome surprise (I don't remember that from any of the trailers or such at least)
  • if this is THE END, they put some nice bows on multiple things and did a fitting end.
 
Last edited:
Killing off the team to center on Ethan Hunt was DePalma's idea, but he distances himself from the decision to make Jim Phelps a traitor.

This has been dealt with in the new movie. Whether or not you think it was done well is up to you.
 
So I saw this today and while I enjoyed it I agree with most of the reviewers: the action sequences seemed overly long; it felt less like a "team" effort and more like a Cruise effort; the plot was semi-convulated. But am I the only one who felt the way the entity was defeated was familiar?
The idea to "box" the entity and make it believe its mission was accomplished seemed very similar to what Picard and Crew did to Professor Moriarity in "Ship in a Bottle"
 
I listened to podcast interview with writer and director Christopher McQuarrie. He said the negative reactions to the previous movie greatly affected how they approached this. Treated it like its own separate movie... that makes no sense to me at all. This movie is a direct sequel to the previous one. Taking Part 2 of the title does not fool anyone. Minor spoiler... Esai Morales’s character backstory is not developed at all. This was decided because of longer than expected time between 2 movies. I do not see how that decision helped this film at all. Also adds to the feeling that mystery setup in previous movie was wasted screen time. Comes of as stock bad guy.

Number 7 was the first I really disliked since number 2. I did like this movie much more than the previous. But it still suffers from the same problems. The Entity as a premise has as much believable as the movie Moonraker. Hard to see how anyone thought collectively this material was strong enough for 6 hours!!!! (Between both movies). With hindsight I feel slow pacing and lack of urgency has been a problem with all of McQuarrie’s Mission films. I remember specific great scenes more than the plots.
 
Lots and lots of call backs to the previous movies( Well 1 and 3 in particular. Part 2 and 4 can go eat rocks as far as this franchise is concerned)

Likes
The plane sequence is worth the admission.

30 years of pay off


Not alot of LOL moments that stuck out like in the past movies. People did chuckle at Paris twisting Benji's ear.

The underwater scene went on a bit too long

Gabriel being all mustache twirling with his dialogue

"MWHAHA! You can't get me Hunt!"
 
Lots and lots of call backs to the previous movies( Well 1 and 3 in particular. Part 2 and 4 can go eat rocks as far as this franchise is concerned)

No, the events of Ghost Protocol have been repeatedly referenced in later films. The tag to GP introduced the Syndicate, which was followed up on in the next two movies. The Kremlin's destruction in GP was referenced in Rogue Nation and in The Final Reckoning. The status of Ethan's ex-wife Julia as established in GP is followed up on in Fallout.

Really, GP is where the era of continuity between M:I movies really began. It was the first sequel to bring back any characters other than Ethan and Luther or to reference events from previous films, and it introduced elements that were followed up on in turn in subsequent movies -- Brandt, the Syndicate, the Kremlin.

According to this article, the opening sequence of TFR features clips and dialogue taken from all seven previous films, which would be the only time M:I 2 has ever been referenced in a later film.
 
That opening sequence goes by fast. Looking forward to be able to watch it slowed down at home. I think I recognized most of it. Ethan never had hair like he did in 2nd movie anywhere else . So that stands out.
 
Ethan never had hair like he did in 2nd movie anywhere else . So that stands out.

My recollection is that in at least the first four movies, he alternated between short and long hair.


Incidentally,
I'm a little disappointed at the spoiler I read revealing that the Entity is explained as a descendant of the Rabbit's Foot in MI3. The lack of any explanation for the Rabbit's Foot was the whole point of the metatextual joke in that movie, taking the concept of a MacGuffin to its logical extreme by not even bothering to explain what it is. Retconning in an explanation spoils the joke. It's like showing what was inside the briefcase in Pulp Fiction.
 
^
That's what I was meaning. Part 1 is a big influence because of Donloe and and revelation that Briggs is Phelps son and Kittridge returning

Part 2 has no relevance to what is going on now. Nothing about a bio virus or Nyah

Part 3. Yes The rabbits foot was a precursor to the entity

Part 4. Nothing about that movie is necessary to understand

Part 5. Nope. No mention of the Syndicate

Part 6. Well maybe Angela Bassett

Part 7. Yes it's integral.
 
^
That's what I was meaning. Part 1 is a big influence because of Donloe and and revelation that Briggs is Phelps son and Kittridge returning

Part 2 has no relevance to what is going on now. Nothing about a bio virus or Nyah

Part 3. Yes The rabbits foot was a precursor to the entity

Part 4. Nothing about that movie is necessary to understand

Part 5. Nope. No mention of the Syndicate

Part 6. Well maybe Angela Bassett

Part 7. Yes it's integral.

What you said was that the franchise ignored #4, and that's not true, since it was referenced in 5-6, and at least briefly in 8. Unlike #2, it's been sufficiently followed up on in the overall continuity even if this specific film doesn't build on it.
 
What you said was that the franchise ignored #4, and that's not true, since it was referenced in 5-6, and at least briefly in 8. Unlike #2, it's been sufficiently followed up on in the overall continuity even if this specific film doesn't build on it.
It's only 2 and 5 I ignore, as 2 was too hairy for my liking and 5 seemed been there-done that.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top