The new Mission Impossible “reboot” is set to start filming this December, and I use those quotes because “reboot” is a hard pill to swallow when we find out all they are changing is the title.
Here’s what we know about the next Mission: Impossible movie:
The new movie will be a reboot of the series and won’t be called Mission: Impossible IV.
Tom Cruise is returning to play Ethan Hunt. Instead of leading a team this time out, he’ll be working alongside a new agent played by Jeremy Renner. The idea is that Renner’s character could lead the franchise from here on out, although Cruise still plans to return for a fifth film.
Ving Rhames will be reprising his role as Luther Stickell and that Simon Pegg is in talks to return as well.
Paula Patton (Precious) will play a young operative who works with Ethan Hunt.
I really don’t know that they expect us NOT to think that this is Mission Impossible 4. They are rebooting the series with the same actors playing their same roles? Sorry. That’s a sequel.
Its going to confuse the existing fanbase to hell to have these characters carrying on like nothing ever happened. What I can see happening is that Hunt will be taking on less of a feild agent role within the organization and will be in charge of the new team, but they wont be dismissing what happened before – simply moving forward without mentioning it.
Still not comfortable with the name Aries though either. Sure it has a ring to it and they have often played on mythical characters for themes within the show, but Operation Aries or Mission Impossible: Aries might have more franchise potential than Aries 2.
Actually the first thing I thought of when I read this was the James Bond movies. They all have different names even though they are part of the same series, and in most cases are sequels.
Similarities: There are some references to past movies (Obviously Daniel Craig’s Bond has two back to back that are linked) But for the most part past history is ignored as each story is it’s own inclusive narrative.
Main character repeating though not always the same actor. (Hasnt happened in MI yet, they seem to want to change the focus from the main character rather than recast like Bond.)
Side characters linking the series. Ving and Simon in MI; Q, M, moneypenny, and Felix in Bond.
Differences: Bond started the tradition right from the beginning. MI may seem to want to change mid-series. As mentioned in the OP, this breeds confusion.
Bonds titles are (mostly) named after the novels and short stories Bond originated in, even if the plots weren’t similar. (Quantum of Solace the story shares nothing in common with the movie version except the title, and that James Bond appears in them both.)
If this is the direction they are going in, I am all for it. This could become the second serial movie series. Bond is on film 27 or something like that now, and we are still pawing for them. I can imagine a time in the future where I will be paying to see Jaden Smith in what the industry will call Mission: Impossible 16, and I will be calling Agrippa.
This can be the american counterpart to Bond.
The film should be called Rabbit’s Foot.
No, just kidding.
The title should be Aries : Mission Impossible IV y’know, like Rambo First Blood part II. Then it was Rambo III. Right?
I have to agree. It’s not a reboot. It’s not one supporting actor reprising a character like Dame Judi Dench as M in the Bond films or Leonard Nimoy as “Spock Prime” in the new Star Trek*. This is A MAIN character returning with at least two other supporting characters from the past films returning.
NOW the best thing to do is say “it’s a spinoff of MI” and we’re calling it ‘Aries’. Okay. We can get away with that, I think…no wait…we can’t. Renner’s character just heads up another team. It’s still Mission Impossible.
Isn’t it?
* you’ll notice that Paramout, when rebooting Star Trek did not rename the franchise Capicorn or any other sign of the Zodiac.
Cancer?
Well, the first MI film had the original TV series actor portraying his old character and (sort of) passing the torch to Cruise’s Hunt. The same kind of thing appears to be planned for this. If the first MI film wasn’t a sequel to the series, maybe they can semantically get away with this.
Incorrect. The late Peter Graves did not reprise the role of Jim Phelps; the character was recast and played by Jon Voight.
What’s with the Name Stuff ? are they tryin’ to get out of paying the MI people or our they trying to fool the audience into thinkin its not more of the same ol’ same ol’.
?????
I have a better name.
Operation RINO(Reboot In Name Only)