Didn’t think they’d go Edge of Tomorrow/Live Die Repeat on it. Weird. Gonna wake up to Cruise doing a daring heist, stealing my physical copy to hide the evidence.
Why in the frick didn't they do this in the first place? The only time I can recall it working with a movie is Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows but that was going to be successful regardless and it's based on an existing work.
Should've gone the Avengers route with Infinity War and Endgame separating the one story. People hate the idea of paying for something and feeling like they're not getting everything.
Its very dumb yeah, the MI movies do have continuity anyways and this movie is hardly any different than the last 4 ending with a big explosion and saving the day.
The only difference is that the MacGuffin has another purpose and the big bad guy is still alive, hardly a gripping narrative that makes me giddy for the next one. Id actually prefer a completely new mission to be honest.
I never understood how they expect this to work
when Warner Bros tried renaming Edge of Tomorrow to Live. Die. Repeat. they only changed the artwork on the storefronts and the listing name, the movie itself still says "EDGE OF TOMORROW" in the credits and everywhere else
it's not like they're going to edit the master and change the graphics of the title in the credits and put out new disks and replace it on digital storefronts
so what's the goddamn point?
the original plan was for Part 1 and 2 to release a year apart, the way back to the future, pirates of the Caribbean and the matrix did it
COVID delays fricked the schedule and then the SAG strikes fricked the schedule for filming Part 2
the exact thing happened with Spider-Verse which is why they hastily removed the Part 1/2 thing from the titles before release
so now we're not getting Dead Reckoning 2 for until 2025 when the original plan was for it to be out this summer
Shouldn't have done the "Part 1" thing in the first place, I think people got tired of that schtick a long time ago. Even Marvel didn't bother doing that.
yeah there's a justifiable audience expectation that if it says Part 1/2 whatever you're only getting half a movie, which was 100% correct for Dead Reckoning
>the way back to the future, pirates of the Caribbean and the matrix did it
Pirates and Matrix used distinctly different titles for each entry and Back to the Future used a different number for each sequel. None of them implied they were one story that had been split.
They all had a lot of publicity about being shot at once as a two parter with a cliffhanger in the middle (the initial Matrix sequel trailers listed release dates for both sequels), weren’t released that far apart, and both Matrix Reloaded and Back to the Future 2 ended with teaser trailers for the 3rd films.
the average rube going to the cinema doesn't know about film's publicity releases and they certainly don't know that the film is going to end with a cliffhanger before seeing the movie. The title does not indicate in any way they won't be getting a self contained story.
Were you around when any of those sequels were released? They were all very much known things, even with a pre internet example like Back to the Future.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>Were you around when any of those sequels were released?
Yes, I was 18 when Reloaded was released and 21 when Dead Man's Chest was released. Back to the Future 2 I was too young.
Even if I personally knew those things were part of a trilogy there's the implication each story will be wrapped up in some manner. Part 1 and 2 implies a single story has been split and screams cash grab. You are vastly overestimating what the average person knows about a movie when they decide to see a movie then turn up at the cinema.
4 months ago
Anonymous
That makes us roughly the same age, so this really does sound like more of a you thing
4 months ago
Anonymous
Based on how Dead Reckoning performed compared to those films I think it's pretty universal.
4 months ago
Anonymous
You think the reason it underperformed was the Part One thing rather than the global pandemic that delayed the release, doubled the budget, and from which the entire industry is still yet to properly recover?
4 months ago
Anonymous
>the global pandemic that delayed the release, doubled the budget, and from which the entire industry is still yet to properly recover?
All those things are inconsequential to its box office and explaining how its poor box office performance and that it grossed less than the three films which preceded it.
The pandemic is over so can't be used as an excuse for it underperforming, the films that were released a week later both went gangbusters.
How much of an impact the title had on the film are up for debate but I think it's reasonable to conclude it had an impact.
4 months ago
Anonymous
You think it costing significantly more than intended and releasing at a time when only a handful of releases have done well is inconsequential? Multiple huge film production companies have had dire financial results and cinema attendance has not returned to pre pandemic levels despite occasional successes like Top Gun 2 and Barbie. Pay attention
4 months ago
Anonymous
>You think it costing significantly more than intended and releasing at a time when only a handful of releases have done well is inconsequential?
Yes. How a film performs at the box office boils down to how many people went and saw it, not how much was spent on it. While on profitability it certainly has an impact but we were never discussing that, we were discussing box office performance, specifically whether a title can impact that. Dead Reckoning grossed less than the last 3 Mission Impossibles and the pandemic and the timing of its release cannot be used as a contributing factor for people opting to not see it as not only restrictions were gone, one week later the highest two of grossing films of the year were released. People chose to not see it and the title can certainly be a factor as to why, whereas how much money was spent making it is inconsequential to audiences.
4 months ago
Anonymous
Box office performance and how much the film cost to make and release are very closely tied. In fact, it’s a huge part of how they gauge if the film was financially successful, anon.
4 months ago
Anonymous
But we are only assessing how many people saw it ie box office performance, not whether it was profitable. How can you be so obtuse?
4 months ago
Anonymous
Honestly it’s hilarious that you’re trying to shift the goalposts this late in the conversation. A film isn’t a financial success if it doesn’t sufficiently cover and take back more than it cost, which is down to how many people pay to see it. These things are tethered together and can’t be separated. This is why small budget films seen by far fewer people can be hits. Mate…
4 months ago
Anonymous
>Honestly it’s hilarious that you’re trying to shift the goalposts this late in the conversation
I'm not the one shifting goalposts, you are. We have been discussing whether or not a title can impact audience's wanting to go see it. We have purely been assessing box office success. The financial side of a film is not relative to that. Go back and look at our conversation. We have only been discussing audiences until you threw in the pandemic and how was spent on the film as if that was some justification for less people opting to see it than 4,5 and 6 in the franchise or the two blockbusters released a week later.
4 months ago
Anonymous
To put it simply, if the same number of people saw it as saw one of the earlier entries but it cost way more (which in this instance happened as a direct result of the pandemic), it’s considered less successful. It came out at a shaky time, again due to the pandemic, when many things have been underperforming. That you can’t see the correlation and are pinning it all on it saying Part One with no proof whatsoever (despite several other films having done fine with similar cliffhanger situations) is a shortcoming of your own.
4 months ago
Anonymous
This is my last post with you because you are too fricking stupid to waste time on. I'm going to space it out so you can read slowly.
We have not been discussing less successful in terms of probability. We have been purely discussing box office performance.
How much was spent on the film will impact its profitability but it is of no consequence when considering why audiences will go and see a movie.
We are discussing what might impact their decision to see a movie or not, hence the title discussion and whether it contributed to people not seeing it.
Paramount certainly thinks it's a factor, hence why they're removing 'Part1' from the preceding film and giving the new film and original title.
It was not released during the pandemic. It was released long after any restrictions were lifted.
Cruise's previous film was released much earlier comparative to the pandemic and was a raging success.
The two films released a week later than Dead Reckoning were raging successes. The pandemic did not impact them, how could it? It was over.
Dead Reckoning made $567 million less than Ghost Protocol ($691 million), Rogue Nation ($682 million) and Fallout ($791 million).
Them spending so much money on the film compounded their losses that may have been offset had more people turned up but it is not a factor in why people did not go to see it.
Do you think its title and 'Part 1' had some impact on its performance? Again, Paramount did: that's why they're changing the title.
Infinity War was supposed to be a Part 1/Part 2 affair and they split the titles during production specifically because they knew audiences would think it's only half a movie otherwise, cash grab finale two-parters like Harry Potter 7 and the last Hunger Games and Twilight have created this expectation
same reason Across the Spider-Verse Part 1 & 2 became Across the Spider-Verse and Beyond the Spider-Verse
Cruise wanting the Dead Reckoning Part 1/2 thing was 100% him throwing his weight around as a producer, which 9 times out of 10 pays off handsomely for him but this blew up in his face
Because those were popular franchises with sequels releasing back to back, only boomers care for MI and millenials and zoomers might think it’s too much of a hassle to catch up on the previous films as they didn’t watch them as they released. Top Gun Maverick did well because there’s only one movie to watch before it.
Mission Impossible was also a popular franchise where the last three movies all did well. It just got screwed over by Barbenheimer and having a too big budget. Nobody cared that it was called Part 1 and it's a strange thing to blame.
These are all franchises made for women and manchildren who wanna see boys fight over self insert women. Mission Impossible is a fun action flick you watch with your family and friends, not for anything story related.
honestly cant blame him
he isnt really pissed that they didnt wear a mask because of covid but because its BS insurance reasons they have to follow and people were just purposefully not following it, costing him a ton of money and risking the production stopping, causing people to abruptly lose money because they couldnt work
Genuinely, I'd have to walk out if he started pulling this shit. He's a manlet who plays pretend for a living, he means frick all and is in no position to throw that sort of attitude at others.
He’s the star of the franchise and produces the films. He’s the most important person on that set, and people weren’t abiding by the rules during a crisis that was killing other projects and businesses outright. Rare example of a set freakout where there’s justifiable anger.
Didn’t say or imply any of those things. But on a project that’s costing millions, someone has to be calling the shots, and if you’re working there, because otherwise why would you even be there, he’s your boss. The film industry both in terms of production and distribution got fricked by the pandemic, and this was back at the height of the chaos.
No one gives a shit about sick geriatrics or jarhead grunts. Those are all unimportant.
There is a lot of money on the line for a movie set and you can't frick it up.
Don't give a frick who they are. If they support human experimentation they deserve to be killed.
He joined a cult specifically to stop having to suck israelite wiener and then here he is back at it.
The covid rules were asinine but he's a producer with a massive stake in the film that was keeping the film running at great cost. As moronic as those rules are if everyone working on the production doesn't adhere to them they potentially get shutdown and it costs them even more money. I get why he was pissed.
You wouldn't do shit. Sounds like a good way to get blacklisted from working in Hollywood again. Cruise mgiht bbe a manlet but he has a lot of pull. Some random crew isn't going to stand up to him lest they torch their own career. That's a big price to pay for playing the tough guy for 5 minutes.
this kind of guy lasts a day as an extra and wonders why he is never called back.
producer telling people to do their job so the production isn’t shut down, while he was one of the only big films continuing during the grand farce.
your ego is so tiny that someone telling you what to do makes you have a hissy fit
>be filming in bongland, home of the nannystate during height of covid hysteria >bong regulators happy to shut you down at a moments notice >some fat roustabout doesn't wear a mask because he ain't a tosser or something
the man who pays the bills call the shots, don't like it, should have stayed home unemployed
The covid rules were asinine but he's a producer with a massive stake in the film that was keeping the film running at great cost. As moronic as those rules are if everyone working on the production doesn't adhere to them they potentially get shutdown and it costs them even more money. I get why he was pissed.
>The covid rules were asinine but he's a producer with a massive stake in the film that was keeping the film running at great cost
the covid bullshit is the reason the movie had a budget close to double what they set out to spend and it's half of why filming Part 2 has been so massively delayed that it ruined the release strategy for the movies
bro is screaming because he foresaw this literal exact situation happening if they had to shut production down again
Shouldn't have done the "Part 1" thing in the first place, I think people got tired of that schtick a long time ago. Even Marvel didn't bother doing that.
Funny, I've seen this movie during a flight just two days ago and was genuinely surprised by how good it was. I genuinely don't get why it flopped.
It got released at the wrong time, I guess.
Destroying a real train for the final scene was completely pointless though.
Usually you can somehow feel when a scene has been made all through stunts and practical effects, but somehow this one really didn't seem like you would get the exact same result with CGI or models.
She’s one of the most quintessentially English rose types working in films today. I by far prefer Rebecca Ferguson and she was underused in both Fallout and Dead Reckoning, but this is still way off.
Aside from the title, it had a weak bad guy. Also some of the action sequences just went too long, the car chase and the train sequence. The bike off the cliff scene wasn't as spectacular and was pretty much shown months before release, plus that scene ended in a moronic way where Cruise just busts into the exact right train carriage at the exact right spot to save the heroine at the exact right time.
It's not a bad movie t all but a disappointment from the last few MI's he did.
I thought Sean Harris was a bit weak as Solomon Lane at first, but his character grew on me a lot. MI2 had the ultra kino Scottish dude. Barely remember MI3.
This new guy seems like he should stick to TV movies or dramas, not only a bad villain but a very vague threat also.
Honestly I couldn’t stand Dougray Scott, he’s the same in everything. Only good thing was he was too busy doing MI2 to play Wolverine. Philip Seymour Hoffman’s character in 3 is a bit bland but he played it well
Ah, fair. I’ve seen him give the same grumpy Scottish man performance in a few tv things over here. Then Gerard Butler came along and stole his thunder but with more success.
He is supposed to be one of the most powerful men in the world due to his access to not-Skynet but he is having random street fights with women (and almost losing)? Pretty gay.
>The train scene was cool though
it dragged on forever and it was so obvious that no one important would get hurt it was such a waste of time and stupid and the same thing happened over and over again
I watched it on a long ass flight recently. I fast forwarded through a lot of the fight scenes because it just dragged the movie out. At the time, I wanted to see part two, but now I can't even remember what part one was about. I just saw it this past Saturday/Sunday. All of Hollywood needs to do better.
more or less the same for me. watched it a couple of weeks ago and it just kept going and going with all the scenes repeating 3 times.
a dedicated fan could edit it down into one good film and one short film with separate plot lines.
needs an hour trimming off it, the 10 minute converation in that office in the beginning already had me bored.
i like all the other mission impossibles, tom does a good job. just something off with this one, fragmented and drawn out.
too many similar looking people in it too, 3-4 women who keep swapping roles.
that cop guy having tom in his sights and letting him go 3-4 times.
dunno, and the main plot line isnt captivating enough.
felt like the film was made by AI, at least the script.
it’s a pity, but if they are going for a fresh start, it’s probably for the best
I don't believe it for a second. I bet Cruise's ego was starting to feel threatened she was stealing too much attention and so the conclusion was to get rid of her character.
I think they did it in preparation of Ethan's own death in the next and last movie. he cannot leave anyone behind that would want to avenge him because that would not be conclusive (Luther & Benji don't count because they mostly follow the orders).
>Ethan's own death in the next and last movie
Not happening, Cruise's ego is pushing him to compete with Harrison Ford's latest Indiana Jones movie to become the oldest action hero in cinema history.
Stallone would have been about 63 when he did the first Expendables. Schwarzenegger is a year younger (putting him at 70 or 71 in that last Terminator). Cruise is currently 61. Entirely possible he can do it.
If I'm not mistaken this whole renaming thing happened because Cruise decided the next movie won't be the last MI movie, so... probably not dying any time soon
His company just arranged a deal to make movies for Warner. I imagine the rights to MI will be tied up with Paramount. I think it's fair to assume he moves on to new things, at least for a few years.
>here's my action movie franchise which is purely a vessel for cool action and ALWAYS HAVING A SIGNATURE STUNT DONE >what kind of cool stunt will we do for the new movie? Last time we hung onto the exterior of a cargo plane during take off >uhhhhh just ride a motorcycle off a ramp
why was the budget so bloated on this one anyways? Its like 100 mil higher than Fallout without offering anything noticably different.
covid bs caused a lot of delays iirc
Expensive covid shutdowns and release delays didn’t help and it started as a huge shoot for a two parter.
Didn’t think they’d go Edge of Tomorrow/Live Die Repeat on it. Weird. Gonna wake up to Cruise doing a daring heist, stealing my physical copy to hide the evidence.
Why in the frick didn't they do this in the first place? The only time I can recall it working with a movie is Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows but that was going to be successful regardless and it's based on an existing work.
Should've gone the Avengers route with Infinity War and Endgame separating the one story. People hate the idea of paying for something and feeling like they're not getting everything.
Its very dumb yeah, the MI movies do have continuity anyways and this movie is hardly any different than the last 4 ending with a big explosion and saving the day.
The only difference is that the MacGuffin has another purpose and the big bad guy is still alive, hardly a gripping narrative that makes me giddy for the next one. Id actually prefer a completely new mission to be honest.
I never understood how they expect this to work
when Warner Bros tried renaming Edge of Tomorrow to Live. Die. Repeat. they only changed the artwork on the storefronts and the listing name, the movie itself still says "EDGE OF TOMORROW" in the credits and everywhere else
it's not like they're going to edit the master and change the graphics of the title in the credits and put out new disks and replace it on digital storefronts
so what's the goddamn point?
the original plan was for Part 1 and 2 to release a year apart, the way back to the future, pirates of the Caribbean and the matrix did it
COVID delays fricked the schedule and then the SAG strikes fricked the schedule for filming Part 2
the exact thing happened with Spider-Verse which is why they hastily removed the Part 1/2 thing from the titles before release
so now we're not getting Dead Reckoning 2 for until 2025 when the original plan was for it to be out this summer
yeah there's a justifiable audience expectation that if it says Part 1/2 whatever you're only getting half a movie, which was 100% correct for Dead Reckoning
>the way back to the future, pirates of the Caribbean and the matrix did it
Pirates and Matrix used distinctly different titles for each entry and Back to the Future used a different number for each sequel. None of them implied they were one story that had been split.
They all had a lot of publicity about being shot at once as a two parter with a cliffhanger in the middle (the initial Matrix sequel trailers listed release dates for both sequels), weren’t released that far apart, and both Matrix Reloaded and Back to the Future 2 ended with teaser trailers for the 3rd films.
the average rube going to the cinema doesn't know about film's publicity releases and they certainly don't know that the film is going to end with a cliffhanger before seeing the movie. The title does not indicate in any way they won't be getting a self contained story.
Were you around when any of those sequels were released? They were all very much known things, even with a pre internet example like Back to the Future.
>Were you around when any of those sequels were released?
Yes, I was 18 when Reloaded was released and 21 when Dead Man's Chest was released. Back to the Future 2 I was too young.
Even if I personally knew those things were part of a trilogy there's the implication each story will be wrapped up in some manner. Part 1 and 2 implies a single story has been split and screams cash grab. You are vastly overestimating what the average person knows about a movie when they decide to see a movie then turn up at the cinema.
That makes us roughly the same age, so this really does sound like more of a you thing
Based on how Dead Reckoning performed compared to those films I think it's pretty universal.
You think the reason it underperformed was the Part One thing rather than the global pandemic that delayed the release, doubled the budget, and from which the entire industry is still yet to properly recover?
>the global pandemic that delayed the release, doubled the budget, and from which the entire industry is still yet to properly recover?
All those things are inconsequential to its box office and explaining how its poor box office performance and that it grossed less than the three films which preceded it.
The pandemic is over so can't be used as an excuse for it underperforming, the films that were released a week later both went gangbusters.
How much of an impact the title had on the film are up for debate but I think it's reasonable to conclude it had an impact.
You think it costing significantly more than intended and releasing at a time when only a handful of releases have done well is inconsequential? Multiple huge film production companies have had dire financial results and cinema attendance has not returned to pre pandemic levels despite occasional successes like Top Gun 2 and Barbie. Pay attention
>You think it costing significantly more than intended and releasing at a time when only a handful of releases have done well is inconsequential?
Yes. How a film performs at the box office boils down to how many people went and saw it, not how much was spent on it. While on profitability it certainly has an impact but we were never discussing that, we were discussing box office performance, specifically whether a title can impact that. Dead Reckoning grossed less than the last 3 Mission Impossibles and the pandemic and the timing of its release cannot be used as a contributing factor for people opting to not see it as not only restrictions were gone, one week later the highest two of grossing films of the year were released. People chose to not see it and the title can certainly be a factor as to why, whereas how much money was spent making it is inconsequential to audiences.
Box office performance and how much the film cost to make and release are very closely tied. In fact, it’s a huge part of how they gauge if the film was financially successful, anon.
But we are only assessing how many people saw it ie box office performance, not whether it was profitable. How can you be so obtuse?
Honestly it’s hilarious that you’re trying to shift the goalposts this late in the conversation. A film isn’t a financial success if it doesn’t sufficiently cover and take back more than it cost, which is down to how many people pay to see it. These things are tethered together and can’t be separated. This is why small budget films seen by far fewer people can be hits. Mate…
>Honestly it’s hilarious that you’re trying to shift the goalposts this late in the conversation
I'm not the one shifting goalposts, you are. We have been discussing whether or not a title can impact audience's wanting to go see it. We have purely been assessing box office success. The financial side of a film is not relative to that. Go back and look at our conversation. We have only been discussing audiences until you threw in the pandemic and how was spent on the film as if that was some justification for less people opting to see it than 4,5 and 6 in the franchise or the two blockbusters released a week later.
To put it simply, if the same number of people saw it as saw one of the earlier entries but it cost way more (which in this instance happened as a direct result of the pandemic), it’s considered less successful. It came out at a shaky time, again due to the pandemic, when many things have been underperforming. That you can’t see the correlation and are pinning it all on it saying Part One with no proof whatsoever (despite several other films having done fine with similar cliffhanger situations) is a shortcoming of your own.
This is my last post with you because you are too fricking stupid to waste time on. I'm going to space it out so you can read slowly.
We have not been discussing less successful in terms of probability. We have been purely discussing box office performance.
How much was spent on the film will impact its profitability but it is of no consequence when considering why audiences will go and see a movie.
We are discussing what might impact their decision to see a movie or not, hence the title discussion and whether it contributed to people not seeing it.
Paramount certainly thinks it's a factor, hence why they're removing 'Part1' from the preceding film and giving the new film and original title.
It was not released during the pandemic. It was released long after any restrictions were lifted.
Cruise's previous film was released much earlier comparative to the pandemic and was a raging success.
The two films released a week later than Dead Reckoning were raging successes. The pandemic did not impact them, how could it? It was over.
Dead Reckoning made $567 million less than Ghost Protocol ($691 million), Rogue Nation ($682 million) and Fallout ($791 million).
Them spending so much money on the film compounded their losses that may have been offset had more people turned up but it is not a factor in why people did not go to see it.
Do you think its title and 'Part 1' had some impact on its performance? Again, Paramount did: that's why they're changing the title.
Infinity War was supposed to be a Part 1/Part 2 affair and they split the titles during production specifically because they knew audiences would think it's only half a movie otherwise, cash grab finale two-parters like Harry Potter 7 and the last Hunger Games and Twilight have created this expectation
same reason Across the Spider-Verse Part 1 & 2 became Across the Spider-Verse and Beyond the Spider-Verse
Cruise wanting the Dead Reckoning Part 1/2 thing was 100% him throwing his weight around as a producer, which 9 times out of 10 pays off handsomely for him but this blew up in his face
Cruise got arrogant and though he could compete againts Barbenheimer
The first time I remember a movie franchise doing this it was Twilight.
First rule of media: never go Part 1 / Part 2
Should have called it MI: Endgame.
MI: Endgame: Pre-Endgame
>Deathly Hallows Part 1
>Twilight Breaking Dawn Part 1
>Hunger Games Mockingjay Part 1
All these did well. Why would it suddenly be a problem now?
>Hunger Games Mockingjay Part 1
It didn't do well though, its Part 2 installment grossed less than Part 1 in comparison.
Part 1 made 755 million on a 125-140 million budget. If that's not "did well", I don't know what is.
Barbenheimer made Dead Reckoning flop in the States.
Because those were popular franchises with sequels releasing back to back, only boomers care for MI and millenials and zoomers might think it’s too much of a hassle to catch up on the previous films as they didn’t watch them as they released. Top Gun Maverick did well because there’s only one movie to watch before it.
Mission Impossible was also a popular franchise where the last three movies all did well. It just got screwed over by Barbenheimer and having a too big budget. Nobody cared that it was called Part 1 and it's a strange thing to blame.
Glad someone here’s talking sense
These did not do well.
How do you define doing well then? They all made hundreds of millions in profit.
These are all franchises made for women and manchildren who wanna see boys fight over self insert women. Mission Impossible is a fun action flick you watch with your family and friends, not for anything story related.
I dont think the failure of the movie has anything to do with the pretense of strong narrative.
It just released during covid, and was pretty boring.
You can end on a cliffhanger if the action is fun.
The action was not fun.
The big setpiece stunt, was just Tom driving his motorcycle off a big ramp, like I haven't seen that done 50,000 times on youtube.
Didn’t mockingjay part 1 and breaking dawn part 1 do well too?
This was all for nothing
so i assume he was angry someone didnt wear the mask?
Gee what gave you that impression?
well you are kinda forced to guess since all he does is scream about not wanting to see "that" again.
And stick your twitter reaction gif up your candy ass.
>you are kinda forced to guess
honestly cant blame him
he isnt really pissed that they didnt wear a mask because of covid but because its BS insurance reasons they have to follow and people were just purposefully not following it, costing him a ton of money and risking the production stopping, causing people to abruptly lose money because they couldnt work
Genuinely, I'd have to walk out if he started pulling this shit. He's a manlet who plays pretend for a living, he means frick all and is in no position to throw that sort of attitude at others.
You sound really tough talking about what-ifs on the internet
Good.
He’s the star of the franchise and produces the films. He’s the most important person on that set, and people weren’t abiding by the rules during a crisis that was killing other projects and businesses outright. Rare example of a set freakout where there’s justifiable anger.
>He’s the most important person on that set
A set. Not a hospital. Not a laboratory. Not a battlefield.
Didn’t say or imply any of those things. But on a project that’s costing millions, someone has to be calling the shots, and if you’re working there, because otherwise why would you even be there, he’s your boss. The film industry both in terms of production and distribution got fricked by the pandemic, and this was back at the height of the chaos.
No one gives a shit about sick geriatrics or jarhead grunts. Those are all unimportant.
There is a lot of money on the line for a movie set and you can't frick it up.
Don't give a frick who they are. If they support human experimentation they deserve to be killed.
He joined a cult specifically to stop having to suck israelite wiener and then here he is back at it.
That has absolutely nothing to do with what’s being discussed
Covid is exactly what is being discussed.
And the israeli penis stuff was about Covid how?
The covid rules were asinine but he's a producer with a massive stake in the film that was keeping the film running at great cost. As moronic as those rules are if everyone working on the production doesn't adhere to them they potentially get shutdown and it costs them even more money. I get why he was pissed.
>He's a manlet who plays pretend for a living
I’m always amazed by shit like this. So if he was 6 feet tall he’d have been justified in his meltdown? What are you even trying to say?
Giantgays can't stand Chadlets. Sad.
You wouldn't do shit. Sounds like a good way to get blacklisted from working in Hollywood again. Cruise mgiht bbe a manlet but he has a lot of pull. Some random crew isn't going to stand up to him lest they torch their own career. That's a big price to pay for playing the tough guy for 5 minutes.
this kind of guy lasts a day as an extra and wonders why he is never called back.
producer telling people to do their job so the production isn’t shut down, while he was one of the only big films continuing during the grand farce.
your ego is so tiny that someone telling you what to do makes you have a hissy fit
>be filming in bongland, home of the nannystate during height of covid hysteria
>bong regulators happy to shut you down at a moments notice
>some fat roustabout doesn't wear a mask because he ain't a tosser or something
the man who pays the bills call the shots, don't like it, should have stayed home unemployed
>The covid rules were asinine but he's a producer with a massive stake in the film that was keeping the film running at great cost
the covid bullshit is the reason the movie had a budget close to double what they set out to spend and it's half of why filming Part 2 has been so massively delayed that it ruined the release strategy for the movies
bro is screaming because he foresaw this literal exact situation happening if they had to shut production down again
It's such a common thing for pissed off people to repeat the same point over and over until they finally taper off
Thanks for your input, Einstein what ever would we do without your clever insight.
It bumped your thread, should be more thankful tbh senpai
guerilla marketing 101
Shouldn't have done the "Part 1" thing in the first place, I think people got tired of that schtick a long time ago. Even Marvel didn't bother doing that.
This is why I didn't pirate it. Not that I'm a fan but there was literally no enjoyable entertainment media at all in 2023.
>t. moron
That's because they'll rename the new one to a different title, nothing more
Cant be worse than Oblivion. Worst Cruise movie, possibly the worst sci fi movie Ive ever seen.
have a nice day
Funny, I've seen this movie during a flight just two days ago and was genuinely surprised by how good it was. I genuinely don't get why it flopped.
It got released at the wrong time, I guess.
Destroying a real train for the final scene was completely pointless though.
Usually you can somehow feel when a scene has been made all through stunts and practical effects, but somehow this one really didn't seem like you would get the exact same result with CGI or models.
It was better than the previous one althoughbeit
Isn't this a wee bit late? I guess they want to give the next one a different title that does not say Part 2, which will limit the audience.
It was boring. The new heroine or whatever is ugly and annoying. And I thought the car chase scene would never end, what the frick were they thinking?
>I thought the car chase scene would never end
Me with 95% of car chases.
>ugly
She’s not even my type but Jesus Christ, anon
She has a man face. She's too "American" in her attitude. Rebecca Ferguson was way better.
She’s one of the most quintessentially English rose types working in films today. I by far prefer Rebecca Ferguson and she was underused in both Fallout and Dead Reckoning, but this is still way off.
>english rose
Should have cast Gemma Arterton instead then, not some mutt.
Gemma Arterton by her own admission stopped chasing big Hollywood films years ago, and having one American parent hardly makes Atwell a mutt
>She has a man face
Oh so you're not only gay but jealous too
Come on she isn't really attractive. The boobs maybe.
But she is. You may not find her attractive and that's fine, but she is.
thats not a good pic to show her off
There are millions on Google, look at those.
Whereabouts are you from that the men look like this? Or does she just have a better jaw than you?
nah
>The new heroine or whatever is ugly
gay!
>The new heroine or whatever is ugly and annoying
Ugly? Strongly disagree. Annoying? Possibly
Hayley wasted all her time on this when she could have been pregnant
Aside from the title, it had a weak bad guy. Also some of the action sequences just went too long, the car chase and the train sequence. The bike off the cliff scene wasn't as spectacular and was pretty much shown months before release, plus that scene ended in a moronic way where Cruise just busts into the exact right train carriage at the exact right spot to save the heroine at the exact right time.
It's not a bad movie t all but a disappointment from the last few MI's he did.
Almost the entire franchise has weak bad guys to be honest. Enjoyable though most of the films are, it’s never been one of the stronger aspects.
I thought Sean Harris was a bit weak as Solomon Lane at first, but his character grew on me a lot. MI2 had the ultra kino Scottish dude. Barely remember MI3.
This new guy seems like he should stick to TV movies or dramas, not only a bad villain but a very vague threat also.
Honestly I couldn’t stand Dougray Scott, he’s the same in everything. Only good thing was he was too busy doing MI2 to play Wolverine. Philip Seymour Hoffman’s character in 3 is a bit bland but he played it well
MI2 is the only movie or show I've ever seen Dougray in, so he was new to me.
Ah, fair. I’ve seen him give the same grumpy Scottish man performance in a few tv things over here. Then Gerard Butler came along and stole his thunder but with more success.
Worst bad guy of the series with the most boring motivations
>we've got Antonio Banderas at home
IT WAS ME, ETHAN
hes not even the main villian its skynet, which is kino.
Skynet had badass killer robots as its face, this MI skynet has a guy who looks like he manages a few AirBnbs in Mexico City
>can't get enough of my cruise misslekino
He is supposed to be one of the most powerful men in the world due to his access to not-Skynet but he is having random street fights with women (and almost losing)? Pretty gay.
Bargain bin Bond.
bond has been shit for nearly 30 years at this point.
but actually interesting
Current Bond movies took itself way too seriously, I stopped caring about it.
It sucked.
>No impossible mission
>Just a bunch of wannabe James Bond garbage
Mission Impossible: DON'T YOU EVER FU*$%ING DO IT AGAIN!
it's great tho
I didn't like the way this one was filmed, I'm not sure what it is, it just "feels" artificial in a bad way
The train scene was cool though
>The train scene was cool though
it dragged on forever and it was so obvious that no one important would get hurt it was such a waste of time and stupid and the same thing happened over and over again
honestly i started skipping forward
>The train scene was cool though
it felt like they added the train scene just so they would have a climax after they chopped the film into two parts
Dead Reckoning was the first Mission Impossible movie to be shot digitally, all the previous ones were shot on film.
I watched it on a long ass flight recently. I fast forwarded through a lot of the fight scenes because it just dragged the movie out. At the time, I wanted to see part two, but now I can't even remember what part one was about. I just saw it this past Saturday/Sunday. All of Hollywood needs to do better.
more or less the same for me. watched it a couple of weeks ago and it just kept going and going with all the scenes repeating 3 times.
a dedicated fan could edit it down into one good film and one short film with separate plot lines.
needs an hour trimming off it, the 10 minute converation in that office in the beginning already had me bored.
i like all the other mission impossibles, tom does a good job. just something off with this one, fragmented and drawn out.
too many similar looking people in it too, 3-4 women who keep swapping roles.
that cop guy having tom in his sights and letting him go 3-4 times.
dunno, and the main plot line isnt captivating enough.
felt like the film was made by AI, at least the script.
it’s a pity, but if they are going for a fresh start, it’s probably for the best
at least its not Rebel Moon - Part One: A Child of Fire
The urge to gobble her feet is really strong, lads...
Shouldn't have killed Ilsa in such a handwaved manner.
It's a ruse and she's alive in the sequel
big if true
but its mission impossible, not fast&furious
>but its mission impossible, not fast&furious
Dude they literally brought a dead person back from the dead in the first fricking movie.
No difference anymore
I don't believe it for a second. I bet Cruise's ego was starting to feel threatened she was stealing too much attention and so the conclusion was to get rid of her character.
Better be fricking true.
I think they did it in preparation of Ethan's own death in the next and last movie. he cannot leave anyone behind that would want to avenge him because that would not be conclusive (Luther & Benji don't count because they mostly follow the orders).
How will Cruise go out?
Some kind of sacrifice.
Strapped to a rocket hurtling towards a nuclear missile
>Ethan's own death in the next and last movie
Not happening, Cruise's ego is pushing him to compete with Harrison Ford's latest Indiana Jones movie to become the oldest action hero in cinema history.
>oldest action hero in cinema history
Not even close.
Dolph still looks really good tbh. I'd pick him for mid 40s there. I guess being married to a 27 year old at 66 will do wonders.
i wanna watch all of them gangbang ronda
Stallone would have been about 63 when he did the first Expendables. Schwarzenegger is a year younger (putting him at 70 or 71 in that last Terminator). Cruise is currently 61. Entirely possible he can do it.
If I'm not mistaken this whole renaming thing happened because Cruise decided the next movie won't be the last MI movie, so... probably not dying any time soon
>Cruise decided the next movie won't be the last MI movie, so
oh come on now
His company just arranged a deal to make movies for Warner. I imagine the rights to MI will be tied up with Paramount. I think it's fair to assume he moves on to new things, at least for a few years.
>here's my action movie franchise which is purely a vessel for cool action and ALWAYS HAVING A SIGNATURE STUNT DONE
>what kind of cool stunt will we do for the new movie? Last time we hung onto the exterior of a cargo plane during take off
>uhhhhh just ride a motorcycle off a ramp