Share submit to reddit

Earlier in the day we reported that the rumors were true — Tom Cruise and J.J. Abrams were teaming up to bring Ethan Hunt back to the big screen for a fourth installment. At the time, I rolled my eyes, but then after speaking with several friends who all seemed enthusiastic about it, I decided I have to make my voice heard.

They shouldn’t make Mission: Impossible 4, and here are three (semi-plausible) reasons why not:

1. It’s No Way to Celebrate a 15th Anniversary

That’s right, sports fans. With the schedule that this production is on, the film is looking at a probably 2011 release which would make it hit theaters on the 15th anniversary of the first film. Fifteen. Full. Years. Later. There’s a saying about a dead horse that comes to mind.

I realize that the last film in the series was only released 4 years ago (it’ll be 5 by 2011), but if we’ve learned anything from failed franchises and a study of threequels (that still applies with a fourth installment) there’s very little energy coming to the table after a character has been dormant that long. Ethan Hunt has been out of the cultural conversation for a long time, and resurrecting that character will be tough, and most likely meaningless, work.

Isn’t there another 1960s-era television show he can adapt? Like “The Andy Griffith Show?”

2. The Dumb Money Argument

I know this has nothing to do with the quality of the movie, but it does speak to the decision to produce. I’m sure they Cruise and Abrams have full faith in the flick, but Mission Impossible III didn’t even make its production budget back with domestic box office. However, the domestic box office was only 1/3rd of its take. It ended up with $397.8 million worldwide. Big numbers that made a decent bit of coin.

But the laws of diminishing returns was definitely in effect.

The first installment garnered $457.6 million, the second (the John Woo-directed one that Neil mocked in his news write-up) made $546.3 million. Clearly, it’s not the safest bet as far as return on investment.

3. Going Backwards

J.J. Abrams has already announced that he won’t directing it (which, interestingly enough, means that each installment will have a different director), but even as a producer with a rising star, it just seems like he’s headed backward with this decision. This completely subjective, gut feeling is what gives me the most pause. Abrams has a lot on his plate from helpings of “Lost” to steering Star Trek 2 on the right course. He’s just exploded last year with his second film as a director. One that will become its own franchise. Why head back in time?

That point leads to the much more real concern: is there really any more story to tell? Ethan Hunt was an interesting character for a bit, but he got tiresome with the emotional baggage of III (not to mention the story arch completion of it). Is this the direction we’re headed in? Where every story and franchise and character has to be squeezed bone dry before we hang it up (and then reboot it 4 years later)?

In Conclusion

We’re really talking about a film that came out when I was 12-years old, and a series that I have zero nostalgia for. I might be myopic here, but I don’t see the value in seeing more Hunt on screen. They’ve had a great ride, told an interesting story, but ultimately the series is fairly forgettable. They’re TBS movies. Something to watch on Saturday when there’s nothing else on, and you might as well. I don’t want to downplay the cool-factor of the first, or the incredible stunts, but what we’re really dealing with here is a tired franchise that’s going to be unearthed like Lazarus by an actor who hasn’t had success in a leading role since…well, since Mission Impossible III.


RELATED ARTICLES
ARTICLE TAGS
  Previous Article
Next Article  
Comment Policy: No hate speech allowed. If you must argue, please debate intelligently. Comments containing selected keywords or outbound links will be put into moderation to help prevent spam. Film School Rejects reserves the right to delete comments and ban anyone who doesn't follow the rules. We also reserve the right to modify any curse words in your comments and make you look like an idiot. Thank You!
  • Dale in Memphis,TN
    All three are bad arguements. Try plugging in Star Trek 5/2010, a very old and tired sequelled to death franchise, in place of the Mission Impossible title. One could make the exact same arguements against producing another sequel, yet it did very well. It all depends on who writes, produces, directs, and acts in these movies.
  • Given the lack of imagination at the major studios, the public's ongoing reeducation as to what qualifies as cinematic art and the natural fear of failure inherent in living the celebrity life, we cannot be shocked or even critical on reading the news of a brewing MI-4. Tom Cruise naturally wishes to stay in his comfort zone and the box office dollars mentioned are still attractive to the bean-counters. There is nothing wrong with making movies that entertain; that is the main goal. The problem for me rests strictly with the current concentrated use of financial and artistic resources to produce this fluff. Hollywood is becoming Disneyland as we speak, a home base for cartoon characters and an afterthought as a source for truly serious works.
  • Sean
    I know that everyone didn't like Live Free or Die Hard but I did and I believe that it is possible to add more to MI through a fourth one like Die Hard. JJ Abrams would be the one whether it be as a producer, director or writer to add something new.
  • ERoBB
    I hate the Mission Impossible franchise. The first one I liked. But after that they've been completely random. I'm fine with individual episodic stories. But Tom Cruise isn't even playing the same character from movie to movie. There are no traits Ethan Hunt carries, other than the fact that Cruise is playing him.
  • Here are 3 reasons why to make MI:4.
    1. Tom Cruise is awesome.
    2. Mission Impossible III was awesome.
    3. I love action movies because they're awesome.
  • Cole_Abaius
    I cannot argue against any of these points.

    Except for one and two.

    And only half-heartedly against one.
  • deltavoyage
    I have to disagree. The Mission: Impossible movies are all solid action movies that work well. I'm not super excited for a fourth one, but I definitely think it'll be worth seeing.
  • adamcharles
    We need a fourth, with a fourth director. Only because we need another quadrilogy to compare to ALIEN regarding which had the best directors: Ridley Scott, James Cameron, David Fincher and Jean-Pierre Jeunet VS. Brian De Palma, John Woo, J.J. Abrams and what will be Sam Mendes (you know it...).
  • tmccar20
    MI: has always been dumb down bond. If any writer writes "impossible missions agency" and doesn't start laughing or doesn't think how incredible out dated that sounds, something is wrong with them. Ethan Hunt never seems like outstanding character. He always seemed bland, and boring never iconic. I think what also doesn't help the audience never sees a different side to him to ground him in reality. Cool, he is a secret agent, and ...uh he a secret agent and anything else? no he just a secret agent, that's the movie. On a side note, why do they keep putting that face mask think in effing movie, I know it is more for the actors than anything else, but why it is so unbelievably it like watching bond fight on a moon base during the 80's it seems so impossible it becomes improbable. And amount of money to make something like that then to use it so recklessly. Impossible mission agency needs goes in front congress to explain the amount wasted money the American people just spent on killing one guy and still can't find Bin laden that should be their next movie.
  • The word 'Good' should probably be removed from your title. 1) A sequel to a five-year old movie is better than a reboot. 2) All three made $400 million or more worldwide which is impressive. And part 2 made more than 1, so there's no pattern of diminishing returns here. 3) It's an episodic series by nature so there's always new stories to tell, new adventures, new threats, etc.

    Also, Cruise is still likable in his action roles and he's smart enough to put together a solid action film. The MI movies have actually gotten better with each installment. MI:1 sucked. MI:2 was great brainless fun. And MI:3 had solid action, suspense, and story. I say bring on MI:4 and I'll be there to watch it.
blog comments powered by Disqus
Follow FILM SCHOOL REJECTS...


MOVIE NEWS | MOVIE TRAILERS | MOVIE REVIEWS | TV REVIEWS | FEATURES | INTERVIEWS | CONTESTS | ARCHIVES | ABOUT
Film School Rejects is the movie blog you've been waiting for. The ultimate commentary track on what's happening in Hollywood, FSR combines the freshest voices on the web and a swagger all its own to provide the best reviews, interviews and industry news coverage to millions of unique visitors from around the world every month.
FSR Team
Got a Tip? Send it here:
editors@filmschoolrejects.com
Publisher:
Neil Miller | Email
Managing Editor:
Cole Abaius | Email
Associate Editors:
Robert Fure | Email
Rob Hunter | Email
Contributors:
Adam Charles | Email
Amber Humphrey | Email
Brian Gibson | Email
Brian Salisbury | Email
Dustin Hucks | Email
Genevieve Blaber | Email
Contributors:
J.L. Sosa | Email
Jack Giroux | Email
Jeremy Kirk | Email
Jim Rohner | Email
Jorge Del Pinal | Email
Josh Radde | Email
Kevin Carr | Email
Contributors:
Landon Palmer | Email
Lauren Flanagan | Email
Paul Sileo | Email
Robert Levin | Email
Robin Ruinski | Email
Advertising:
sales@craveonline.com
All Rights Reserved © 2006-2010 Reject Media, LLC | Site Credits | Privacy Policy
Design & Development by Face3