I was referring to your contention that if the films were all about Cruise they would be more consistent. Despite their variations they are about Cruise at the end of the day, that's the point I was trying to make.
That's confusing two different roles for Cruise, though. Obviously they are all about the
actor Tom Cruise as the star of the films, but that does not prove that they are all about the
producer Tom Cruise as the person making the decisions. The one does not follow from the other, because
most spy and action films center heavily on their lead actors, even though those actors are usually not the producers.
So to me it doesn't matter if they are different stylistically or adhere to any particular director's vision. Cruise still is the center of the film. And I have to wonder if Cruise being the star that he is, and with as much money as he has generated from these films, isn't an important voice in how they are made.
Obviously he is, but not to the extent you seem to be asserting. As I've said, while there are certain similarities across the series, they're outweighed by the considerable differences that reflect the styles and sensibilities of their respective directors. The first M:I is unambiguously a Brian DePalma film, a paranoid thriller where nothing is as it seems. M:I-2 is blatantly a John Woo film, a cartoony, over-the-top Hong Kong action orgy with random doves flying through the scene. M:i:III is recognizably a J.J. Abrams film, a variation on
Alias.
Ghost Protocol has the comic flair, visual brilliance, and meticulously worked-out action gags of Brad Bird's previous animated features. To anyone who's familiar with these directors' other works, their signatures clearly dominate their respective films. (RN is my first Christopher McQuarrie film, so I have no basis for comparison there.) Of course Cruise has an influence -- that's what being the producer means -- but it's clearly secondary to the directors' own individual styles.
But my point about the varying styles was that those movies were perhaps made with the flavor of the month in mind, and not necessarily to build a unique look and feel that belonged to the MI film series or brand.
I'm not saying it's either of those things. Those both assume that it was intentional. The reason there were so many years between those films is because there were a lot of false starts in between -- directors brought in and scripts developed that just fell apart so that the project had to be started over. David Fincher and Joe Carnahan were both slated to do the third film, but neither of their approaches worked out. And yes, it was Cruise who picked Abrams, but he clearly let Abrams do his own thing.
That's what I'm saying -- that while Cruise, as producer, is clearly a decision-maker over the whole series, he strikes me as the kind of decision-maker who trusts his colleagues to bring their own contributions. Just because the Ethan Hunt character tends to be a lone wolf who leaves his team behind, that doesn't mean the actor is too.
Overall I don't know how the movie series itself has held up if each film has different visions, though I don't think the last three films have been all that different.
Yes, that's my whole premise. DePalma and Woo were both let go after one film, but Abrams has continued his association with the series for three films now, as director on one and producer on the other two. And that has given the past three films a continuity and consistency that the first two lacked. Even though Cruise was producer on all five. Just one more reason I think that Abrams's influence over the series carries more weight than Cruise's. Cruise is the one whose clout gets them made, of course, but now he's found a collaborator he can trust in Abrams, and it's Abrams who enabled the series to find its voice at last and finally feel like an ongoing series rather than a string of unconnected movies with a shared title and lead character name.
Perhaps I should say from MI2 on. While MI2 has John Woo's distinctive flair the focus more on stunts and style continued in the later films. MI 1 was a different beast. MI 1 is like the odd man out.
In that sense, perhaps, but in other senses I'd say M:I-2 is the odd one out, because it's the dumbest and shallowest by a significant margin (although the first film was incredibly dumb in some ways), and also the least like
Mission: Impossible. It barely has a team beyond Ethan; it has the least emphasis on caper elements (at least until
Rogue Nation); it has a rock score rather than a Lalo Schifrin-influenced orchestral one; and I believe it's the only installment in the entire 49-year history of the franchise that makes no use at all of Schifrin's "The Plot" motif in its score. Also, M:I-2 is the only film in the series in which Ethan Hunt is never branded a traitor or on the run from his own government. Which is one of the few points in its favor.
I think most of the films have contributed something to the ongoing series, for better or worse. The first film set the pattern of doing stories about traitors within the IMF and Ethan being on the run. The second film ramped up the stunts and action to the next level, although it was the iconic Langley break-in scene in the first film that really started that trend. The third film brought in Abrams and his TV-series sensibilities which have helped give the successive films more continuity and stability, and also deepened Ethan's emotional life. And the fourth film was the first to have a real ensemble flavor and a largely humorous tone, both of which carried forward into RN. Plus, of course, there are the characters -- M:I gave us Ethan and Luther, M:i:III gave us Benji, and GP gave us Brandt. (And if there's any justice, RN's Ilsa Faust will be the first female lead to return in a major role for a second film, though I'm not optimistic given the track record.) I think it says something that M:I-2 was the only installment that didn't contribute an enduring character to the series.
