Comments on: 3 Good Reasons Why They Shouldn’t Make Mission: Impossible 4

By: Dale in Memphis,TN

Dale in Memphis,TN — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 03:03:30 +0000

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.

By: Charlie Accetta

Charlie Accetta — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 07:42:28 +0000

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.

By: Sean

Sean — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 06:36:41 +0000

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.

By: Cole_Abaius

Cole_Abaius — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 05:57:21 +0000

I cannot argue against any of these points.

Except for one and two.

And only half-heartedly against one.

By: ERoBB

ERoBB — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 03:51:17 +0000

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.

By: RobertFure

RobertFure — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 03:37:33 +0000

I liked MI:2 in theaters, but rewatching it now its terrible. The only one i liked was III and I love it.

By: deltavoyage

deltavoyage — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 00:33:42 +0000

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.

By: ERoBB

ERoBB — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 23:58:53 +0000

M:1 sucked?? It was the only good part of the floundering franchise.

By: adamcharles

adamcharles — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 23:17:09 +0000

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…).

By: RobertFure

RobertFure — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 22:36:00 +0000

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.

By: tmccar20

tmccar20 — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 21:54:11 +0000

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.

By: RobHunter

RobHunter — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 21:43:16 +0000

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.

By: Aleric

Aleric — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 20:16:28 +0000

Three reasons not to make the next MI Film?
1. Tom Cruise
2. Tom Cruise
3. Tom Cruise

The first one was mildly enjoyable, the second was james bond lite, the third was boring and seemed to mirror TC's life if he was an agent.

By: Christian Toto

Christian Toto — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 19:32:53 +0000

I can remember zilch, zero … nada from any of the MI films. Nothing. I recall the third installment was better than I expected (faint praise) but that's about it. I doubt the public has any enthusiasm for a fourth film. It's desperation time for Cruise. His character didn't impact pop culture one bit.

By: Ostilad

Ostilad — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 15:15:35 +0000

Bring it on!!!!
I am OK with there being a fourth installment. I remember there being a chat about how the world obsesses with the initials JB when naming their agents. James Bond, Jason Bourne and Jack Bauer. I feel that Ethan Hunt has never really been a super agent. He's always with a group. James Bond is more of Jason Bourne now with his kick ass style. Jack Bauer is basically Jack Ryan without breaks. I think Ethan Hunt has more to give. Plus he does look like he likes his job. I think JJ Abrams ruined MI:III for me. JJ has never wowed me. So I think a drastic change in the direction and fresh story ideas will make me enjoy this one. Ethan Hunt is more of a near-fun agent of the four. So I want to see him back.

By: Don B.

Don B. — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 14:54:09 +0000

The fact that you have no interest in this movie does not mean that no one else does either. I have enjoyed all three of the films so far and I am looking forward to see this one as well.