NEW M:I – GHOST PROTOCOL TRAILER

Uh...if you don't want to get spoiled on anything, don't watch this trailer. I regret checking it out.

Thanks for the heads up!  To both Renn and Art.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CHUD Main Site Feed 

Not much more in the way of style or plot in this one.

Damn straight. Take away Brad Bird and none of us in the nerd community would give this the time of day...and mind you, I dug M:I 3 when it opened (before the revisionist history applied post-Star Trek that everyone loved it).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Art Decade 

Uh...if you don't want to get spoiled on anything, don't watch this trailer. I regret checking it out.

Appreciation for this warning. I nearly went straight to the article to watch the trailer, but with you as first poster, I managed to spot your warning before making an irrevocable error

Looks kind of like a pastiche of the first three movies to me.

So I watched it anyway.  Heheheh...

And I agree with Renn that I'm not seeing anything that's blowing me away.  But I don't mind that.  In fact, I'll take it as a good sign that the trailer doesn't really have the show-stopping money-shots to easily sell itself.  I'm hoping that it means that the film itself will feature what Bird excels at: expertly constructed action sequences that support the story.  

I liked it. Have a question about the first Mission Impossible film though.

It's been a while since I've seen it, but isn't it the same bible from the Drake Hotel in Chicago that Voight says he stayed in?

"They stamped it, didn't they?  Those damned Gideons..."

Also:

http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/motion-captured/posts/we-take-a-sneak-peek-at-mission-impossible-ghost-protocol-in-imax

Sounding good!

Ethan knew Voight/Phelps had stayed at the Drake hotel in Chicago.  He also knew the mole's code name was Job, and would quote scripture when communicating with Max/Vanessa Redgrave, so when he found the bible from Chicago in the Prague safehouse, he put two and two together.

I was unhealthily obsessed with the first film back in the day...

Didn't Tom Cruise get married at the end of the last one? I know these films have a loose continuity but are they just completely ignoring it?

On the plus side, this looks much better than the trailer for 3.

He and Michelle Monaghan's character tied the knot right before Cruise and his team went to Rome for the Vatican sequence.  They're on their way to their honeymoon at the end of the movie.

And it seems like they're ignoring any continuity aside from Pegg's character this time.  IMDB shows Ving Rhames' name on the cast list for MI4, but who knows how accurate that is.  Monaghan's name isn't in that list.

Quote:

Originally Posted by felix 

I liked it. Have a question about the first Mission Impossible film though.

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

 

 

 

Not that the thought isn't appreciated, but the movie is like fifteen years old, so its spoiler tags probably expired a long time ago.  

Just being careful. I am sure there are a few people who haven't seen it yet.

I still won't be shocked in the slightest if Renner's character turns out to be yet another villainous rogue IMF agent.

I think they are setting up Renner to take over the franchise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by felix 

I think they are setting up Renner to take over the franchise.

Those rumors popped up around the time that Renner was cast, but were never backed up.  I think everyone just assumed that is what was happening and ran with it.  In fact, the few interviews done with cast & crew point to it still being a 100% Tom Cruise film..................and that the man has no intention of walking away from his own franchise. 

Besides, I would find it incredibly odd for Renner to have THREE franchises where he plays a "super spy/agent":  MI, the Bourne spin-off franchise, and Marvel's Hawkeye.

Friend or foe, I won't be surprised if Renner's character is dead by the end of the film.

I'm gonna chance it and say that at the end, Cruise pulls off his face to reveal Renner and Renner pulls of his face to reveal Cruise.

TWIST!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.D. Bob Plissken 

I still won't be shocked in the slightest if Renner's character turns out to be yet another villainous rogue IMF agent.

I wouldn't be surprised either, BUT.... it does seem like the marketing for this movie would already be tipping its hand in that direction.  If Bird had as much say over the script as I hope he did, I'm hoping he turns this series' convention on its head.  I'd think that Bird is as aware as anyone how terrible the IMF has been in looking into itself.

I'm assuming that Renner IS a rogue IMF agent, but not really a villain.  I hope?  I guess?  Operating on a secret directive that Cruise and his team don't know about?

OR he's just another villainous rogue IMF agent.  Sigh.

SPOILERS for the series, no I'm not going to bother hiding the text.

MI3 is my favourite of the series so far, but that's not actually saying that much. The original was a stylish ripoff of a bunch of other movies with ludicrous, typically DePalma nonsense and a complete failure to understand what makes M:I unique (hint: it's about the team, not TOM CRUISE TOM CRUISE TOM CRUISE). (And yes, killing off the team in the early going was actually clever in a way, but it doesn't change the fact that I wanted to see that movie, with the whole team, not TOM CRUISE TOM CRUISE TOM CRUISE). The second ramps up the ludicrousness in a way that's enjoyable in the way that, say, some of the Fast and Furious movies are, but by then they had no idea what the series was supposed to be and were just throwing action beats at the wall. The third one actually got the series back on track, with a team-based narrative and some ideas that actually retroactively improved the story, i.e. showing how the masks were made (though forcing Hoffman's character to recite a speech at gunpoint was silly--why not just use a recording of the guy's voice?) They laid the groundwork nicely for a continuing team series with Ving Rhames, Maggie Q, Simon Pegg, that random other dude who I don't remember, and Michelle Monaghan...which now looks like it's been thrown under the bus for TOM CRUISE TOM CRUISE TOM CRUISE.

I am quite interested to see what Bird does, and I'm expecting something solidly entertaining on the level of the third entry, but this series keeps frittering away its potential, and I suspect it's simply because it's viewed mostly as a life support system for Cruise's career.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Prankster 
(though forcing Hoffman's character to recite a speech at gunpoint was silly--why not just use a recording of the guy's voice?)

Made sense to me.  It came across pretty clearly that the speech he had to recite was meant to cover the necessary variations of a target's speech patterns.  Unless your issue was with something else?

I actually dig the way this series kinda takes on different styles and drops characters.  But that might just be me making excuses for MI2 (because I'm a sucker for Woo), which I can't help but enjoy (it's really terrible).  I don't mind them dropping Monaghan.  I like her, but if she stays she would either be a part of the team (which was already stretching credibility in the climax of the third movie) or she would just be at home giving her nothing to do.

Sexist?  Totally.  But I don't really want to see another movie that deals with the conflict between Ethan's job and marriage.  Of course, it would be hilarious if the 4th movie just starts with Cruise telling Rhames, "Wow, you were totally right about this job fucking up relationships."  

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Prankster 
(though forcing Hoffman's character to recite a speech at gunpoint was silly--why not just use a recording of the guy's voice?)

Because there was no recording to be had. The guy was a ghost & the filmmakers went to great lengths to lay all of that out earlier in the movie.

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.D. Bob Plissken 

I still won't be shocked in the slightest if Renner's character turns out to be yet another villainous rogue IMF agent.

Glad I'm not the only one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcnooj82 

Made sense to me.  It came across pretty clearly that the speech he had to recite was meant to cover the necessary variations of a target's speech patterns.  Unless your issue was with something else?

I get it, it just seemed convoluted. I guess I'm making too much of it, but I'm not clear on why the script couldn't have given them access to a recording of he guy's voice. Not a huge deal, I guess, I just don't like plans that require the victim to co-operate to that degree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Prankster 

 

I get it, it just seemed convoluted. I guess I'm making too much of it, but I'm not clear on why the script couldn't have given them access to a recording of he guy's voice. Not a huge deal, I guess, I just don't like plans that require the victim to co-operate to that degree.

Gotcha.  

It does seem like after the cavalier use of masks in the 2nd movie, they wanted to go all out in saying, "THIS MASK BUSINESS IS REALLY HARD!!!!"

I hope this is not true, but i am worried like Green Lantern I am going to get suckered by the Ghost Protocol marketing.