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?

The seas haven't been smooth for used-to-be-totally-loved shortie Tom Cruise. Lions for Lambs didn't help his career commercially, and Valkyrie continues to have problems, so of course, thoughts would turn to his popular fluff fare. There have been some rumors about Mission: Impossible 4, and according to Slashfilm, an insider has told Life & Style Magazine: "Tom will make M:I 4 once Paramount greenlights the script. There will most definitely be another Mission: Impossible!"

This could be pure rumor just as much as fact, but I imagine it's true. There's only so long Cruise can stay relevant in the tabloids unless he gets back on track professionally, or jumps on some more couches. But I wonder if it could, or will, be a hit. Excitement has moved to other franchises, and while number three still brought in some cash, it's gross was under the money pulled in by the first two.

So, the question becomes: What could Paramount do to make this film relevant, other than re-starting the franchise with a new actor? Should this be a story about passing the torch? Is there a way to make people visit the film in bigger hordes? Should Tom Cruise give up, or is there a different franchise that might help his career?

The end of the box office "slump of '05" and an overall increase in domestic gross over last year should make some U.S. theatre owners happy. However, the studios are more likely to be smiling because of the international grosses. 2006 was a record year for exported movies from Hollywood, and this will probably result in more franchises, sequels and other mainstream fare.

These tentpoles keep Hollywood alive these days, and the studios depend on and cater to worldwide audiences rather than Americans. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that for the sake of the profit, we'll be seeing more movies like Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest and The Da Vinci Code, both of which performed incredibly at home and overseas despite critical pans. Quoted in Variety, Buena Vista International's Anthony Marcoly confirmed this by saying the current strategy is to produce big movies with wide appeal that will over-perform in the international markets.

Okay, so what else is new, right? Well, there are a few noteworthy things to point out, such as the rising market share for smaller distributors. Focus Features and Lionsgate had spectacular years thanks to Brokeback Mountain and Saw II and III, respectively. The former proves the international box office isn't completely epics and other big-budget entertainments. On a sad note, though, Garfield: A Tale of Two Kitties also did very well.

What do you get when you mix Mission Impossible with Silent Hill? According to the people at Mindfire Entertainment, you get the Eidos videogame Fear Effect. And, apparently, box office gold. Following this unchallengeable logic, Mindfire has decided to option out the film rights on said video game, and they are currently in talks with director Stanley Tong to bring this monstrosity to life. The film plans to follow the storyline of the Playstation game, but instead of being set in an alternate reality, it will take place ten years into our own future. Mindfire CEO Mark Altman says he hopes to get the film together in time for a late 2007/early 2008 release, based on a screenplay by television scribe Steven Kriozere.

Okay, there are some real challengers out there these days hoping to break through the "videogames don't make good movies" barrier. Several big names with good stories, including the likes of Halo and Metal Gear, are being brought to the silver screen in hopes of finally turning the vast videogame market into a viable big screen option. I do not, however, think this film is the one to do it. Who knows, maybe I'm wrong. Fans, feel free to convince me this is a good idea -- I'm 100% willing to have my mind changed.