Nothing's: Impossible - M:I-4 on the way with Cruise

[Ben]

As announced by The Hollywood Reporter, apparently nothing's impossible as Tom Cruise will repatch up his Paramount relationship and start again as Ethan Hunt in Mission: Impossible 4.

Well, after the two year drudging he took after coming on as the comeback kid of United Artists only to see the films he was responsible for (Lions For Lambs, Valkyrie, etc) die a death and not help MGM's financial woes, we might have only expected just a move!

I personally thought M:I-3 was a good caper movie, and it seems the same team is behind this - JJ Abrams as producer only since he's busy on Star Trek Phase II (c'mon, you know that's what it should be called!) - so it could be good mindless fun.

Tom Cruise set for fourth 'Mission' reteaming with Paramount, director J.J. Abrams

Tom Cruise has committed to reprise his role as Ethan Hunt in the next installment of the "Mission: Impossible" series at Paramount. The action tentpole, which is being co-financed by David Ellison's Skydance Prods., is now slotted for release on Memorial Day weekend 2011.

The reunion between Cruise and the studio once looked unlikely after Cruise's production deal there was cut loose in 2006, the year "Mission: Impossible III" was released. But both parties have recognized the promise in continuing a franchise that has grossed $1.4 billion worldwide.

Cruise has been on board to produce the fourquel with "M:I3" director J.J. Abrams since June. They have handed off an original idea to screenwriters Josh Applebaum and Andre Nemec, who wrote for Abrams' spy series "Alias."

The studio and producers are now out to directors, as Abrams has not signed on to helm the followup.

With the "Mission" greenlight, Paramount has re-upped another franchise to join forthcoming sequels to 2009 hits "G.I. Joe," "Transformers" (July 2011) and "Star Trek" (June 2012), plus new franchise "The Adventures of Tintin" (Christmas 2011).

Paramount has released Cruise vehicles "Top Gun," "Days of Thunder," "The Firm," "War of the Worlds," "Vanilla Sky" and "Tropic Thunder," which featured the star in a rare secondary comedic role.

Since toplining "Valkyrie" two years ago, the CAA-repped Cruise next stars in the Fox action-comedy "Knight and Day," hitting theaters Fourth of July weekend.

[Dacey]

Cruise is already set to make a comeback this summer. "Knight and Day" is almost certain to be a blockbuster this summer.

Anyway, this is great news to me. I loved "M:I-3" and hope that the new movie will be able to capture the same kind of excitement that that film did.

[Ben]

I meant that, after having his Paramount contract ended, Cruise quickly "came back" as the new head of United Artists, a move that hasn't exactly worked out for him. Hence, as is true of any Hollywood being who has suffered a few dud years, he is returning to his most successful franchise, to do what was basically thought he would never do again.

[Dacey]

Ah, okay.

According to this, Brad Bird is possibly being considered as a director:

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=64522

[EricJ]

No, accdg. to the article, It Would Be Really Cool If He Did It--
I scanned this and the original article it was sourcing, to see whether there was any print mention that they'd actually asked him yet. I couldn't find one.

[Ben]

Actually, this is gaining some traction: The Hollywood Reporter would never send out a specific email to its subscribers if there was no truth to it, and they certainly wouldn't run the story:

http://www.heatvisionblog.com/2010/03/i ... usive.html

[EricJ]

On the surface, Bird may seem a peculiar choice...
On the other hand, nabbing Bird would be inspired...
Bird has been itching to make his live-action debut for a while and has long been developing "1906,"...
If Bird does end up directing "MI4," however, he would beat Stanton to the big-screen...

...IT STILL DOESN'T SAY THEY'VE ASKED HIM YET!!!!

(Remember those commercials, about people being given every bit of information except the question they were asking?
How many different factoids can we get about Bird's live-action career, without actually saying that we're still talking about a producer's imaginative pipe-dream at the moment?)

[Ben]

No, what this means is that it's out to him and they're planting a story to see what fan reaction would be, so that neither side has to lose face. With fan reaction looking good, look for an announcement soon...

[Josh]

It seems Paramount has offered the fourth Mission to Bird. Whether he chooses to accept it may depend on his paycheck.

A source close to the deal says that the talks hinge on Bird's mammoth quote: animation projects can take three years of work, and therefore the directors get paid much more, and considering Bird's last two films both won Oscars, his normal paycheck is even bigger yet.

I think Bird will direct Mission: Impossible IV. It could provide the live-action credibility and media attention he needs for Warner Bros. to greenlight 1906.

[EricJ]

Now--as was the problem with a certain paycheck-grabbing HK director--we just have to find out whether Bird's ever seen the original series in his life, or will just believe whatever Abrams and Cruise tell him it is.

[Ben]

I think The Incredibles was proof enough that Bird has seen Mission: Peter Graves style, Eric.

[Vernadyn]

Although I am an unashamed Brad Bird fan, I have some worries over whether the script is going to be good and, if he does get the job, whether he will be able to have any creative input. Of course, there is the chance that the script will be good and there will be nothing to worry about, but if it's not good and Bird is unable to change it, there may be trouble.

[Ben]

I'm just shocked that he's leaving the Pixar fold so quickly, which makes me wonder if he wasn't ever anything but a "guest director"? He was, remember, brought in to shake things up with Pixar, and did so with The Incredibles, but Ratatouille was a rescue job and he since hasn't decided on anything solid within Pixar, other than 1906, which itself was a Warner Bros. co-production.

So, has Bird ever considered himself to be truly integrated into the studio? It's true that Andrew Stanton has moved into live-action also, but that's a Disney/Pixar film from the get-go, and it doesn't sound as if Stanton will then take whatever hot script is then offered to him after that. Bird's always been more of a nomad, coming from TV and then film animation for various studios, before finding a home at Pixar that turns out to have been more of a quality hotel stop.

I totally see why Bird is looking at the Mission script: he wants to get 1906 off the ground and, like Bob Zemeckis with Back To The Future, needs his own Romancing The Stone to get the studio feeling safe about backing him. But I think he'd do just as well to start work on another Pixar animation film (even something as mundane for him as Incredibles 2) and let Stanton's film prove Pixar can do live-action. Then the stage is set for "another Pixar live-actioner", with the guarantee of the studio behind it.

As for Pixar, if Bird *did* proved to only stop over there for a brief run, then why not open their doors to other "guest directors". As we know, Terry Gilliam has professed an interest in making a film there, and I think his originality coupled with Pixar's storytelling and refining abilities would make for a very innovative collaboration, which is just the sort of thing Pixar is always saying they want to attempt.


As for Mission, though, I wouldn't worry Vernadyn: I would be very surprised if Abrams and Cruise were coming back to it without having nailed a decent story pitch first, and with his screenplay Oscar win I would have expected part of Bird's appeal will be that he tailors the script to himself, which as a writer-director is probably in his contract anyway. As a Bird and Mission fan, I'm hoping for good things from this, though it's a shame he can't just get on with 1906.

[EricJ]

I'm just shocked that he's leaving the Pixar fold so quickly, which makes me wonder if he wasn't ever anything but a "guest director"?

Right now, he's a "guest director" at Paramount--
Somebody thought it'd be Really Neato if the Incredibles Guy did the next Mission, threw money his way, and Bird apparently had enough blind optimism to say yes.

(Remember, in Hollywood, Pixar movies are made by magic elves in a hollow tree, and if you can catch one of them, you can make it grant wishes for you...)

I totally see why Bird is looking at the Mission script: he wants to get 1906 off the ground and, like Bob Zemeckis with Back To The Future, needs his own Romancing The Stone to get the studio feeling safe about backing him. But I think he'd do just as well to start work on another Pixar animation film (even something as mundane for him as Incredibles 2) and let Stanton's film prove Pixar can do live-action.

It would be, if A) Pixar had another story at the moment (they'll get one, hang in there), and B) if Paramount was planning to let Bird sit around and make the movie whenever he wanted.
All, and almost literally ALL the press hype at the moment seems to be centered on "Wouldn't it be neat if Bird directed a LA movie?", and don't known how much of that obsession is planted and how much of that is naturally and cluelessly occurring.

As for Pixar, if Bird *did* proved to only stop over there for a brief run, then why not open their doors to other "guest directors". As we know, Terry Gilliam has professed an interest in making a film there, and I think his originality coupled with Pixar's storytelling and refining abilities would make for a very innovative collaboration, which is just the sort of thing Pixar is always saying they want to attempt.

Unfortunately, we already KNOW what it looks when....(wait, was I just about to say "Gilliam had never directed an animated movie in his life"?--Well, at least he confesses he's practically forgotten the Python-cutout days.)
Pixar is about optimism and character, Gilliam is about cheap symbol and art-direction over substance. Lasseter knows who not to let direct a story, and even if Terry did get a few test storyboards, I see "replaced director" in the best scenario, and the Artsy Guy ending up in the American Doghouse.

As for Mission, though, I wouldn't worry Vernadyn: I would be very surprised if Abrams and Cruise were coming back to it without having nailed a decent story pitch first, and with his screenplay Oscar win I would have expected part of Bird's appeal will be that he tailors the script to himself, which as a writer-director is probably in his contract anyway. As a Bird and Mission fan, I'm hoping for good things from this, though it's a shame he can't just get on with 1906.

The first movie nailed the "clockwork" tone of the original series; the second was an unholy mess concocted by Cruise's ego and fed to a name-newbie who admittedly had never seen the series in his life, and tried to turn it into his own movie of jumping motorcycles and startled doves.*
Abrams tried to make the third movie an apology-sequel upfront, by giving us a clockwork first half, unfortunately by the second, we're back to Coolest Cruise in the World Beats Up the Baddie. I don't expect any fourth to have completely gotten the poison out of their system, unless they replace the star/producer, as Paramount was threatening to do at one point, and now seems to have chickened out.
---
* - FTR, I've seen two HK comedies now that both intentionally parodied the shot of Cruise throwing his exploding glasses at the screen, whereas over here, you'd be lucky to find one in ten who remembered it. Apparently, over there, John Woo was the local boy who made good.

[Ben]

My word! For the first time in a long time, I practically agree with everything you said (especially love the Pixar elves point)!

A couple of things though:

- On the "press press hype at the moment seems to be centered on Wouldn't it be neat if Bird directed a LA movie?, and don't known how much of that obsession is planted and how much of that is naturally and cluelessly occurring" - it's more than it being "neat" to wonder...Bird has been offered the film and is in negotiations.

- Gilliam needs a firm story hand and he wouldn't be able to "shoot" a frame without a solid story nailed down by the brain trust. Besides, who got a building moving under its own steam first? Gilliam, in The Crimson Permanent Assurance, long before Up. He totally gets animation timing (whatever he says about forgetting the Python days, just look at the comedic aspects in his current movies) and remember that he was offered Roger Rabbit back in the day (but turned it down for looking too difficult). They're a good fit, and would be the thing to shake Pixar up, one way or another.

- Mission: movies...I don't think ANY of them have really captured the Graves series, unfortunately, and they've all been Cruise'd up from the start. Jim Phelps as a bad guy!? Excuuuuse me? Just a way to get him out the way so that "Ethan Hunt" can become the franchise's new lead. The opening few minutes of the first film was headed in the right direction, but they threw it away by killing off half the team. Second film as you say, was a mess...long and very, very boring (and to add to your list, "fights on beaches" just like Face/Off at the end, John Woo!) but I thought Mission: 3 got things back on track by having the different operatives come in, and a clearer direction.

At the end of the day, it's Cruise's own Bond/Bourne/Bauer franchise, and none of the films have really been Mission in anything but name and *that* theme tune. If Bird's deal is being held up, I wonder if it's not because he DOES actually get the original and wants to inject more of that back into the movie series? Whatever the terms, I think Mission:4 is in good hands.