MissionImpossible3 Tagged Articles at Cinematical

J.J Abrams seems like the busiest man in Hollywood. Thursday morning during a promotional appearance for the release of his franchise relaunch for Star Trek, he updated reporters on what's next for him. "Jeff Pinkner and Joel Wyman are running Fringe very well. We're still very involved in that, but they're running that," he said of the popular sci-fi series. "We have a new series that we just sold to NBC that we're going to be producing. It's a pilot. And, there's a movie that I'm writing that I would love to direct, early next year, so we'll see if that comes to fruition."

In addition to his television work, Abrams highlighted a few of the projects he's working on in the next several months both as a producer and director.

Last weekend brought the tragic news that the Aston Martin featured in the upcoming 007 movie Quantun of Solace was wrecked beyond repair. It turns out that's not the only danger on the set of the film, currently shooting in Italy: On Wednesday, a James Bond stuntman crashed while performing a chase scene in the area, and is currently in critical condition. suffering minor injuries It's probably better that this stuff is happening now, considering how many people were ready to pounce on the last film in order to prevent Daniel Craig from taking the reins from Pierce Brosnan. Now that the franchise appears to have a newfound groove, Quantum has a lot of positive buzz. So why does it seem like the set is suddenly cursed?

Accidents of varying degrees are commonplace on large scale film shoots, but the sense of peril can impact the final result in different ways. In the Twilight Zone movie, the helicopter accident during the John Landis-directed sequence killed three actors, causing Hollywood to avoid similar stunts for many years to come. The stuntman who suffered burns on 60% of his body on the Mission: Impossible III set, however, couldn't affect that movie, even when he decided to sue Tom Cruise. In the case of Quantum of Solace, subversively, the accidents might be a positive indicator of the sheer intensity that director Marc Forster hopes to bring to the film.

2006 was the first full year of Cinematical, and it was a very busy year for its bloggers. A lot of big news, shocking news and ongoing news kept us busy as we followed the important stories and passed the significant bits onto you. There was good news, bad news, unexpected news and unbelievable news. There were deaths, births, rebirths and remakes. There was so much going on that it takes an amazing film geek to recall everything (have you tested your memory yet?).

But what was the most important story for film in 2006? The end of the box office slump? The Weinsteins' devilish pact with Blockbuster? Peter Jackson's possibilities of directing The Hobbit? Uwe Boll boxing his critics? Sorry, but none of those affected the consciousness of cinema as much as these other stories from the past 12 months:

• Disney Buys Pixar - When 2006 began, the future of Disney's relationship with Pixar was still uncertain. There had been hint of a new deal between the two companies in the last few days of 2005, but nothing was concrete. Three weeks went by, in which time the new year came in and Pixar's stock prices went up, and then finally the first installment of news came through on January 19: Disney would buy Pixar. Three days later, we were reminded that the deal was not yet done, that it was still awaiting approval from Steve Jobs and the rest of the animation studio's board. On January 23, however, it was in the bag: Disney bought Pixar for $7.4 billion. And John Lasseter was named head of Disney animation.
  
  The story didn't end there. Throughout 2006, the effects of the acquisition continued to be felt. First, Toy Story 3 was killed. But then it was greenlit again. Disney closed its new computer animation studio, Circle 7. Then many months went by before Disney fired a whole lot of people working in its animation departments. Finally, just a few weeks ago, the company announced they'd be trying out the ol' hand-drawn stuff again. By year's end, it felt as though Pixar was the one who owned Disney.
  

I have an issue with year-end best-of lists. Or, I should say I have an issue with making them, myself. Every year I think about giving in to the tradition, but then I stop myself when I realize that I haven't seen enough movies. There are the last-minute releases of late December to wait for. There are films I missed earlier in the year that haven't yet arrived on DVD. And ever since I took a hiatus from reviewing films, it has gotten worse, because I see fewer movies than I normally do. Typically I don't discover my favorite pic of a given year until the following year or later.

So, rather than write up a list that may change tomorrow or the next day or 10 years from now, I've decided to reflect on the bad movies I saw. I've definitely seen more bad movies than good movies, anyway. But rather than make a list of the worst of '06 -- I probably haven't seen the real worst any more than I've seen the best -- I fondly recalled the movies that were crap, but were enjoyable, nonetheless.

Some of the movies on my list are wholly guilty pleasures, while others have one or two specific aspects that I found more guiltily pleasurable than the movie itself.

• 10.) Cobra Starship's 'Snakes on a Plane (Bring It)' video from Snakes on a Plane - Sure, Snakes on a Plane is a guilty pleasure -- it was made to be. But it is just too obvious to mention it as a whole, and anyway it really wasn't as enjoyable as it should have been or was meant to be. The music video during the movie's credits, though, is another story. In my opinion it overshadows the actual movie by a long shot. It may be as self-consciously intent on producing irony and camp, but it succeeds where SOAP doesn't. Maybe because it is catchy, maybe because the band looks like a parody of contemporary hipster bands, or maybe because it is shorter -- I am far more likely to return to the video for a good laugh than to the movie (not that I'll turn off the movie on a lazy Sunday with nothing better to do; it is still a guilty pleasure, itself).

For those of you who were losing sleep over this one, Chinese state officials have finally given the greenlight to let Mission Impossible 3 screen in the country. The other day, we reported that, apparently, folks were upset over scenes shot in Shanghai which featured rags and underwear drying outdoors, instead of in some fancy, hi-tech laundromat surrounded by glorious skyscrapers.

I'm guessing the Chinese censors never toured Brooklyn and Queens ... New York, that is. Because, if they did, these anti-underwear protesters would find several backyards that featured an assortment of clothes hanging from a plastic line. We're not ashamed -- why are you?  While the film has been approved to screen, there's still no word on when and if it will show with scenes cut out.  Not for nothing, but this is an action flick -- not some "Come Experience Shaghai!" video brochure. Seeing as, with any multi-million blockbuster like this, illegal bootleggers will have a field day peddling crappy DVDs of the film, one would think the Chinese government would want to release it as soon as possible. Do they even know that they're adding more fuel to the fire? Do they care?

Over at Film Threat, Shane Burridge has a rather entertaining piece up on the perplexing way that American movie titles are renamed in Chinese. Burridge breaks it down thusly: when renaming American films with Chinese names, translators tend to use one of these methods:

• The "come up with a name that reflects the DVD cover" method, by which Finding Nemo became The Big Fish Is Going to Eat the Little Fish;
• The "sounds kinda like this" method, by which Titanic morphed into Tai Tan Ne Ke;
• The "enhanced translation" path, which leads to, say, Mr. Bean becoming Stupid Mr. Bean;
• The "did the translator actually watch this film?" method, in which Deliverance somehow became Four Brave Men Passing Through Rapids and Dangerous Shoals;
• And, of course, the ever-reliable literal translation, such as The Little Mermaid becoming The Romance of Human and Mermaid.

Not only is Burridge's piece a funny read (the bit about the Ass-Kicking Ketchup almost made me snort peppermint tea out my nose -- in a very lady-like way, of course), it's inspired us here at Cinematical to give you yet another reason to win a snazzy, spiffy Cinematical t-shirt. Here's all you gotta do: Come up with the best Chinese translation of any of the following summer movie titles, using any one of the methods listed above to create your translation:

• Mission: Impossible: 3
• X-Men: The Last Stand
• Poseidon
• My Super Ex-Girlfriend
• Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Mens' Chest

Leave your best entries in the comments. If your brain juices are really flowing and you feel super-creative and inspired, you can enter more than one, but we'll only pick one winner. You have until 11:59PM EDT on Thursday, May 11 to submit your entry. Winner will be announced by Monday. Ready ... set ... GO!

This past weekend, some of us in New York City were lucky enough to watch every major news station cover Tom Cruise criss-crossing the city via helicopter, speed-boat, taxi cab, subway and sports car in order to promote his film, Mission: Impossible 3. Every channel I could click to provided me with a different shot of Tom; Tom on top of a car, Tom driving a boat, Tom on top of a fire truck hugging a FDNY official, Tom in Harlem pretending to be black and, my personal favorite, Tom attempting to convince us he's a normal human being.

And when I wasn't watching television, they were talking about it on the radio. One station was commenting on the fact that someone on the set of MI: 3 had clocked Tom running 17mph. Yes, during an interview, Mr. Cruise actually bragged he can run 17mph. At that moment, all I could think about was the poor schmuck given a speed gun and told to please follow Tom Cruise as he runs down the street. Um, sorry, but when the hell did Tom Cruise become an automobile?

Why, when the town is literally plastered in MI:3 advertisements (Yes, there is a banner hanging across the entire length of Madison Square Garden), do they insist on bombarding us with MORE promotional nonsense? Honestly, I don't want to see the movie anymore. I'm sour. That's right, I'm so sick of seeing Tom Cruise and hearing about the super-human moron that I just can't shell out the money to sit and watch his ass for another two and a half hours.

So, I ask you: Is movie marketing getting out of control? And, are you getting to a point where the extreme promotion of a film will actually prevent you from seeing it?

It's all about money today: the Chinese government gouges Paramount by postponing Mission: Impossible III's release; the William Morris Agency makes a questionable deal with Starbucks; and Harvey Weinstein, desperate for a sure thing, throws a sack of cash at Ice Cube.

Format
MOV

Get the Podcast
[Download] Get the podcast
[RSS] Subscribe to our RSS feed

OK, here's the short version. Paramount and the L.A. Times decided it might be nifty to jam a little music box into 4,500 of the newspaper's sales machines, one that would treat you to a tiny, tinny rendition of the Mission: Impossible theme if you, movie fan or not, happened to purchase a newspaper. And nobody stopped to consider that if one of those little music boxes were jarred loose (Really, don't folks let those newspaper machines just SLAM shut?), then one unfortunate paper-buyer might open said machine and discover something that looks ... a lot ... like a ... bomb.

Granted, a bomb that plays the Mission: Impossible theme probably isn't all that hazardous, but let's cut right to the meat of the matter:

Movie marketing is freakin' ridiculous already. I mean ... are you MORE likely to go see Mission: Impossible 3 (on May 5th!) if your local paper machine is chirping its theme song? Does the fact that Lalo Schifrin's eponymous theme song has been permanently seared into your brain-stem make you want to see Tom Cruise's latest actionfest? ("Hey honey, I previously had no interest whatsoever in seeing Mission: Impossible 3, directed by Lost's J.J. Abrams, but after buying that fantastic copy of The L.A. Times ... I now, strangely, feel more likely to purchase several tickets ... and on opening weekend, too! Oh, let's go over to Best Buy right now and ask if they have Impossible Missions 1 and 2 on DVD!")

Yeah, so the L.A. bomb squad was called, they blew up the paper machine (an ironic thing for a bomb squad to do, but there you have it) and discovered that the nefarious-looking doo-hickey was merely an expensive toy from Paramount ... and the studio got a nice big dose of extra publicity because of it. Apparently it was all part of Paramount's plan to "turn the 'everyday news rack experience' into an 'extraordinary mission'. " -- to which I'd humbly respond "just gimme my freakin' newspaper and quit trying to brainwash me."

Mission: Impossible 3, which I'm looking forward to AND sick to death of at the same time, opens on May 5th.

Karina and Martha,

I am very shocked at how big Tribeca feels this year, and I mean that from the point of view of someone who barely registered its existence in the first four years. Mission Impossible III and Poseidon seem like ridiculous attractions for a film festival. I thought that Sundance was bad enough with its share of high-stature "indies," but at least it never brings blockbusters into the mix. As for the quality of the non-Hollywood films, I typically have low expectations of any festival's selections. Even last year at Sundance -- sorry, I can't not compare all American fests with "the big one" -- I saw 36 films and thought 30 of them were surprisingly poor, or at least unremarkable. Still, I have yet to see even one thing at Tribeca that I am as crazy about as the few favorites I've seen at other festivals.