Discuss: Do You Want Cruise in 'Mission Impossible 4'?
Filed under: Action, Casting, RumorMonger, Celebrities and Controversy, Fandom, Remakes and Sequels
.jpg)
Earlier today, Elisabeth shared with you a Slate story that questioned whether United Artists photoshopped a picture of Claus von Stauffenberg so that it would look more like Tom Cruise when they were promoting the casting of the actor in Bryan Singer's Valkyrie. That post is over here. Read it. Love it. Investigate! In the same Slate story, however, they talk a bit about Mission Impossible 4. There's been rumblings recently of a new Mission Impossible -- how Cruise and Paramount's Sumner Redstone wined and dined one another -- leading many to believe they may patch things up and move forward on a sequel. Wonderful. Fabulous. Let's hold hands.
Not so fast. Slate says Paramount offered Cruise the chance to produce the sequel (they have to since it's in his contract), but not star in it. Not star? Cruise? No way. And that's exactly what happened: Cruise turned down their offer. Now, says Slate, Paramount may hold off on making a new Mission Impossible until their contract with Cruise's production company expires. This will then free them up to go out, cast some hot young stud as the new Ethan Hunt (or some other random Hunt-type dude), and continue along with a fairly popular action franchise.
But should they?
Should they really go at this without Tom Cruise in the lead role? Mission Impossible III grossed roughly $400 million worldwide, and you're telling me they'd get that amount or more without Tom Cruise? Is he too old to play action star, or does this have more to do with Paramount not wanting to deal with Cruise in any capacity?
Truth be told, I'm not sure I'd want someone other than Cruise to play Ethan Hunt. For all we know, this sequel would introduce a new character instead of finding someone else to play Hunt, and that's fine, but I'd almost rather watch Cruise pass the torch then. I'll be the first to admit that I've cracked more than a few Cruise jokes in my day, but I really do enjoy him as an actor. He's fun to watch, he's definitely passionate about the roles he takes on and I usually have a good time with him at the movies. Thus, I'm not itching for the man to leave this franchise. At least, not at this point.
How about you? Would you want to see a Mission Impossible 4 with Tom Cruise in the lead role? Are you okay with them re-casting a younger hot shot? If so, should they do away with the Ethan Hunt character? Chime in below ...
Jeremy Renner Wants To Be An Avenger
Directors We Love: Jim Jarmusch
Indie Roundup: 'Sweetgrass,' 'Clarkworld,' 'Broken Embraces'
Shelf Life: Fight Club_thumbnail.jpg)
Watch: Famous 'Matrix' Scene Re-Created with LEGOs
_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 2 of 2)
6-18-2008 @ 2:56PM
ML said...
What I don't care for in the MI series are:
- the departure from the team concept of the series
- the MI I twist (if you've seen it, you know)
MI III unfortunately exhibited a couple of Abrams' worst writing habits
- start in the middle, then back up; gee, didn't we do this in Alias, oh, only 2 million times?
- have our cake and eat it too (again, I won't spoil it for you)
both annoying ... so, please get another writer for IV if there is one.
I think that Paramount doesn't want Cruise to star because his up-front deal soaked up all the profits from the last film and they don't want a repeat. This is part of what all the rancor is about. Is Cruise too old? I don't know. I would be willing to see him in another MI, but I'll admit that the idea of a new face is appealing.
Reply
6-18-2008 @ 3:01PM
Pepe said...
I really do NOT want to see Tom Cruise in anything. At one time I was a really big Woody Allen fan. I owned all of his movies. Now if I watch anything I can't help but keep thinking of his actions. Tom will always be that couch jumping psycho, YouTube video guy. It's too late to change now.
Reply
6-18-2008 @ 3:19PM
Andrew said...
Despite all of his issues in the media, Cruise is a decent actor - I thought that MI:3 was the strongest installment of the three movies, ahead of #1 and waaay ahead of #2. I'd watch another MI:4 if Cruise was in it. I think the real strength in MI3 was the director, J.J. Abrams, for a cool story.
Personally though? I think Christopher Bale can top Cruise any day.Despite all of his issues in the media, Cruise is a decent actor
Reply
6-18-2008 @ 4:36PM
Riley Freeman said...
i am not a tom cruise fan but i dont hate him either nevertheless they shouldnt bother continuing without him. he can still go. he was crazy when 3 came out people still flocked to see it no reason why they wouldnt this time
Reply
6-18-2008 @ 5:19PM
Jim said...
Actually, fans didn't 'flock' to see the third installment of the Mission Impossible movies. Here are the domestic box office totals according to Box Office Mojo:
III - $134 million
II - $215 million
I - $180 million
Most of Cruise's notable PR incidents occured prior to the release of the third movie. It can certainly be argued that it had an immediate impact on his box office appeal. Of course, War of the Worlds came out later and did great, but that could be attributed more to Steven Spielberg's appeal than Cruise's. Plus, the very well known source material gave it high name recognition.
It will be interesting to see how Valkyrie does. I'm predicting it won't do well, but I've been wrong before (I thought The Happening would be a disaster, but it did decent box office. I still don't think it will continue to make very much in the long run, however).
6-18-2008 @ 5:39PM
amorde said...
No matter what they say. MI series are fun popcorn flicks and I've enjoyed all of them. I do hope the storyline would be more engaging for the next one. It would be fun to watch Tom pick up the torch again but I wish they get someone like Memento director Christopher Nolan to direct and write the script.
Reply
6-18-2008 @ 5:34PM
Kax02 said...
While some actors seem to be trying to hold their own, (Stalone, Ford, Eastwood, etc) it seems like in faster paced action movie like MI that it would be good to see a rebirth to the series.
There are pleanty of movies in the market these days that make use of the single hero / super hero of sorts that can do anything and defy all odds no matter what the scenario. I don't think MI needs to be yet another one of those when they tried to work with the team concept to begin with and it had potential, movies like that and even to some extent Ronin and Oceans do really well for me at least because there's a whole collective at work, there's not one juggernaut leading the pack and there's potential for everyone to attach to a character instead of just loving or hating the iconic hero of it all.
A team / squad based MI again would be really cool to see, it would offer a lot of variety and a great chance to revive the franchise for years to come instead of just squeezing out one last movie and then being stuck trying to figure out how to bring it back 7 years from now.
Reply
6-19-2008 @ 7:48AM
coxbearguythc said...
For me, MI1 and MI3 were the best, because of the directors involved, not because of the lead actor. I admire John Woo as a director also, but it was evident in MI2 that the film was not completely his vision. Now, let's go back to another franchise...James Bond. There have been six lead actors portraying 007. So, I see nothing wrong with a new lead actor portraying Ethan Hunt. Bring it on, Paramount.
Reply
8-27-2008 @ 7:00AM
edy said...
if isn't Tom....it will not be MI4 it will be something alse
Reply