10 Things Mission: Impossible: III Can Teach Us About JJ Abrams Star Trek June 9, 2008
by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Abrams, Orci/Kurtzman, ST09 Creative, Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback
We still have to wait until the Summer of 2009 to see the new Star Trek movie and Trekdom continues to sort through the few tidbits and comments from the film makers to try and figure out what we have in store. But there is actually a big statement from JJ Abrams and his team that is already out there — the summer 2006 film Mission: Impossible: III.
Mission: Impossible: III was the first feature film to be directed by JJ Abrams. Although the film was produced by star Tom Cruise, it was very much a JJ Abrams movie. Cruise gave Abrams a lot of creative control and Abrams brought many of his collaborators into the project who are also now working on Star Trek, most notably Alias writer/producers Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci. Other M:I:III /ST09 crossovers include production designer Scott Chambliss, composer Michael Giacchino, editor Mary Jo Markey, cinematographer Daniel Mindel, casting director April Webster, visual effects supervisor Roger Guyett (along with his ILM team), and many more. From department heads to crafts services, Star Trek is almost like a class reunion for the M:I:III crew.
Of the three films in the series, Abrams’ M:I:III received the best reviews (based on Rotten Tomatoes averages) and is generally considered to be the one that honors the original 60s series the best. Mission: Impossible: III had a budget similar to the new Star Trek and ended up making around $400 million world-wide at the box office (plus around another $200 mil in ‘home sales’). While the domestic sales came short of Paramount’s hopes, most of that was attributed to bad press for Cruise in 2006. This was most evidenced in the months after the film’s release when Paramount opted to not renew Cruise’s production deal while signing Abrams to a multi-year production deal (with Star Trek being the first major film).
And when one looks at M:I:III in context of the other work of the team (like Alias and Lost), along with what has been said about Trek to date, some things appear to become clearer about the team’s approach. Below are 10 things that M:I:III may be able to teach us about JJ Abrams’ Star Trek, along with clips and behind-the-scenes featurettes.
1. Frenetic, complex…and non-linear
Mission Impossible: III starts off the film right in the action with an intense exchange with the hero, Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) and the villain Owen Davian (Phillip Seymour Hoffman). The story soon resets to a quiet party scene sometime in the recent past. These kinds of flashforwards are typical of Abrams, Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof when one looks at their work on Alias and Lost. The film then alternates between sometimes quiet simple character moments to fast-paced action shot with a lot of hand-held and camera putting the audience right into the action.
From looking at Abrams directing work with M:I:III and his work on TV, most notably the pilot for Lost, you can see that he has a very modern sensibility. So it is likely we can expect a much faster-paced type of Trek film to go along with what is likely to be a very complex story. Plus indications are that the Star Trek film will also be non-linear and will jump around in time, both backwards and forwards.
2 Character counts
Probably the biggest difference between the previous M:I films and M:I:III is balance between action and character, with much more exploration of the character of Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) in M:I:III. JJ, Bob and Alex give Hunt a life, complete with a house, a fiancé, and a romance that is at the heart of the film. They also transform Ving Rhames’ rather two-dimensional Luthor (seen in M:I and M:I-2) into Ethan’s conscience, with a number of thoughtful scenes between the two that explore both characters…in a way they made Luther into Hunt’s Yoda.
Again expect the new Star Trek to take this same approach with a heavy emphasis on the characters of Kirk and Spock. The origin story format of Star Trek will explore what it is it that makes these two iconic figures the heroes we know from The Original Series. Expect to see both Kirk and Spock go through their own arcs in the film and ‘grow into’ the characters we know and are familiar with.
FEATURETTE: M:I:III…this time it’s personal
3 Lower tech high-tech
A staple of M:I films (and spy films in general) is the high-tech gadgetry. For M:I:III Abrams decided to tone that element down in an effort to make the film feel more ‘real.’ Just compare the ‘mission briefing’ segments from M:I-2 to M:I:III. In the second film, Ethan gets his briefing on the top of a desert mesa with super cool sunglasses that beam the mission into his eyes and then are flung off in a slow-mo explosion. In M:I:III Hunt gets his briefing from a disposable Kodak camera that he picks up at a 7-11 and is destructed with a simple puff of smoke. That isn’t to say that Abrams doesn’t do tech, but he likes to take a different angle. For example he uses the masks with are famous in the M:I series on both TV and film, but for the first time shows you how one is being made. Possibly the biggest example of this lower tech approach would be the films maguffin, the ‘rabbit’s foot.’ Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman never even explain exactly what it is, and in the end it really didn’t matter since the focus of the story was on the characters.
Now don’t worry, JJ Abrams’ Star Trek will not be low tech. However, Abrams and his team have done everything they can to make it seem real. And although all the ‘technobabble’ terminology of Star Trek is there (warp, phasers, transporters, etc), do not expect for there to be technology solutions to the dilemmas. Also we are likely to see new twists on how these high-tech devices are used and shown. In addition, expect the look of the new Star Trek to be realer than any other Trek film or TV show yet. It is very important for the team that people feel the future of Trek is a real extension of our present and not some Star Wars-like fantasy future.
4 A complicated villain
There is very little to like about Philip Seymour Hoffman’s Owen Davian. He is a ruthless arms dealer who seems to have only a single agenda: himself. But he is still far more than a mustache twirling villain with many facets and is possibly the most interesting character in M:I:III and certainly a worthy adversary for Ethan Hunt. In addition to Davian there are other villain twists in the plot, with characters living in the grey areas between protagonist and antagonist. These types of ‘is he a good guy or not’ type of villains are common in the Abramsverse, such as Ben in Lost or Sloan in Alias.
The Abrams team have expressed their interest in having Star Trek’s Nero be a ‘memorable villain’ in the same pantheon of Khan. So expect Nero and his cohorts to be just as realized and even possibly sympathetic to an extent. And with the Trek team’s past projects in mind, it is always a good idea to keep your eye out for twists and turns with the bad guys.
CLIP: Even strapped to a chair, Davian still in command of the scene
5 Strong women
With shows like Xena, Lost and Alias, the various member of the Star Trek team (Orci, Kurtzman, Lindelof and Abrams) have shown they like to write strong women into their projects. M:I:III is no exception with strong roles for the spies Zhen (Maggie Q) and Lindsey Farris (Keri Russell), both of whom show smarts and the ability to kick butt. And even though Hunt’s romance with Julia (Michelle Monaghan) is at the heart of the movie, she still shows that she is no damsel in distress.
For the new Star Trek, there are a quite a few women in the cast. The most notable will be Uhura played by Zoe Saldana who is said to have a substantial role and will be doing much more than just answering the space phone. The cast also has Winona Ryder (Amanda Grayson), Jennifer Morrison (Winona Kirk ), Rachel Nichols (Orion at Starfleet Academy), Marlena Forte (Enterprise Transporter Chief), Lucia Rikjer (Romulan Communications Officer), Sonita Henry (Starfleet Doctor) and others…all of whom are said to have key roles in the film. In fact it was JJ Abrams’ wife Katie McGrath who was one of those who talked JJ into directing film and one of things she was most impressed with in the script was the female characters.
CLIP: Julia knows something is a bit off with her man
6 Respect for the franchise
Although the M:I series of films are all star vehicles for Tom Cruise, M:I:III came the closest to bringing back the ensemble feel of the original Mission: Impossible TV series from the 60s. Some segments, especially the elaborate Vatican break-in, feel like the complex schemes of Mr. Phelps, Paris, Barney and the old crew. There were also several continuity moments and homages to the previous two M:I films as well.
From everything we hear coming from Abrams and his team, there is clearly going to be a lot of respect for the continuity and history of Trek. It is said that there will be a lot in the film for the fans, including many ‘continuity nuggets’ — especially from the Original Series and Next Generation.
7 A few laughs along the way
Even though M:I:III is an action-packed spy movie, it still injects humor to break up the intensity. The most obvious ‘comic relief’ would be comedic actor Simon Pegg who plays the frazzled IMF tech-head Benji. Ving Rhames is also put to good use for a quip here and there.
Humor has always been a key element for Star Trek on both film and TV, especially with The Original Series. The new Star Trek movie should be no exception and with Abrams again casting Simon Pegg, this time as Scotty (who has always been good for a good laugh). So we should expect some chuckles in May 2009.
CLIP: Pegg lightens the mood in M:I:III
8 Locations, locations, locations
Any decent spy movies is going to have lots of international locations and M:I:III doesn’t disappoint with shots from Shanghai, Berlin, Rome and many other locations in the US and around the world. But in addition to those we also see the use of a lot of real world locations instead of just using studio sets, such as in the warehouse fight during the rescue of Farris. The film actually doesn’t use a lot of stages at Paramount, but when they did they created new locations not seen in the franchise before, such as IMF headquarters.
It has already been reported that JJ Abrams’ Star Trek used more locations than any other Trek film. Although they didn’t travel the globe, they did utilize a number of spots in Southern California to stand in for both interior and exteriors. Abrams is very concerned about things seeming real and so he prefers to use real locations even though he had the budget to create almost any set he wanted either at Paramount or via ILM. We can also expect to get a first or much closer look at famous Star Trek locations.
FEATURETTE: Abrams explains why he likes location shots
9 Effects blending real and virtual
M:I:III is a big budget summer movie with lots of effects, including lots of CGI effects, but they are often subtle and blended with the practical. In what is the most elaborate sequence, the attack on the bridge, Abrams and visual effects supervisor Roger Guyett seamlessly mix 2nd unit shots from the real Chesapeake Bay Bridge, with shots of a recreated bridge with practical effects of cars exploding along with additional CGI effects from ILM.
In the new Star Trek Abrams has brought back both ILM as well as Roger Guyett, who is both the effects supervisor as well as the 2nd unit director. Although all the space shots will be CGI, there is still an effort to make these as realistic as possible (including bringing on board a NASA space imagery consultant, Dr. Caroline Porco). But there will also be a number of practical scenes that will combine the real with CGI. Abrams has made it clear that he does not like the Star Wars prequel-like style of actors worked on green-screen stages interacting with tennis balls. Abrams always uses something ‘real’ whenever possible.
10 A modern soundtrack that respects the past
For M:I:III Abrams brought in his long-time musical collaborator, the Oscar-nominee Michael Giacchino. The film’s fast-paced soundtrack is on one hand the most unique for the franchise, and yet at the same time, best integrates stings and homages from the famous Lalo Schifrin M:I score. Giacchino created his own sound for M:I:III, filled with his trademark percussions along with a 112-piece orchestra, while still honoring the original TV show.
Giacchino is again on board with Abrams for Star Trek and has said all the right things about his respect for Trek’s past. However when one looks at his body of work, including this summer’s Speed Racer soundtrack, it is clear that Giacchino’s work will stand on its own, while still bringing back the nostalgic moments of past Trek scores.
FEATURETTE: Abrams and Giacchino on scoring M:I:III
M:I:III on Amazon
available in SD: (Standard, Widscreen, and 2 disk collectors set)
and in HD (HD-DVD and Blu-ray)
More of our Abrams Team series:
What can Alias Teach Us About Star Trek XI
up next, we will take a look at Lost
Loading ...
Comments»
Of course, both TV shows starred (at one point) Leonard Nimoy - therefore we can conclude that Abrams will only make features based on Nimoy properties.
In Search Of — THE MOVIE!!
^ hehe
Anthony, thanks for a very well done article. We needed this to keep the nay-sayers on here in check. I have a lot of high hopes for the coming motion picture.
nah says me , oh wait the movie will be great !
Season 4 and 5 as the Great Paris.
I have to say, Anthony, that you guys really do a good job of keeping this site interesting without new info trickling. I’d rather read stories like this than more articles about actors praising one another or talking incessantly about how great the film will be.
I hope that doesn’t sound snide, I’m just getting antsy, and its good to read something interesting that doesn’t rely on new info that we can’t have yet.
Good work :)
MI3 was pretty good, and I would expect the Trek movie to conform closely to this film in style. I liked the action, in MI3, particularly the bridge scene. I’m not sure the teamwork angle matched the TV show , but Cruise is a big star and had to get the most screen time. Time will tell if this kind of style will work for Star Trek TOS, which is a special animal. The TOS movies , except maybe the first and last, were pretty much all about Kirk. They even turned Picard into Kirk (with Data as Spock) for the TNG movies. I’m not sure how much the public cares about what makes the characters tick; most of that can be inferred by the series and six movies. Some details are better left imagined. So Trek 11 could go either way, but they’ll probably make money.
This is a very insightful article, and very much meshes with my feelings about how the new Trek feature will turn out.
Listening to M:I:III and Lost told be that Michael Giacchino is exactly the right man for the job.
This, combined with the teaser, tells me so much.
Of course, it also tells me nothing, as the proof will be in the pudding :-)
Thank you for this one.
Cool article! Mi3 is definitely an underrated movie, and reading this makes me want to see it again.
The only real mark against it, as many have stated before, is that it often feels like just a big screen version of Alias, with the same music, dialogue, and frenetic pace.
But still, there’s no denying that the style WORKS. I definitely wouldn’t have a problem if more action movies were made to that standard.
2. Character Counts
Very interesting analysis overall! Just wanted to react to #2. I really hope that they won’t just concentrate on just the Kirk-Spock dynamic, because what made the original series work for the most part was the Kirk-Spock-McCoy dynamic. It is the relationship of those three characters that was the heart and soul of TOS.
Sounds good. I especially like “6: Respect for the franchise.” I also like “8: Locations, locations, locations” and the idea of “…expect to get a first or much closer look at famous Star Trek locations.” Like Starfleet Academy, perhaps? I have not seen MI:III but I intend to. Based on the above information, I am definatly looking forward to “Star Trek” in May 2009!
Anthony, thanks for this very well thought-out article. I’m not sure if it will make people more apprehensive or less about the Star Trek movie, but I thought it was a great analysis.
Mission Impossible III SUCKED! It was the WORST of the 3 films and it had NO STORY LINE! It did not respect the original 60’s series which I use to watch and enjoy. The first film was by the far the best of the three. Sorry as far as I am concerned JJ is way too overrated, no director deserves such praise unless he has at least a few Academy Award films under his belt.
6 Respect for the franchise
I’ll court controversy since I loved the series deliberately ommitted in the article. Nevermind TOS (that’s obviously this film’s meat & potatoes) and shoehorning TNG/DS9/VOY references will make no sense. It’ll be “continuity nuggets” to do with Enterprise that I want to see the most. Archer & co never got as far as the Earth/Romulan War onscreen. Cancelled just a year shy of that epic storyline. With the war-like chessmasters being main protagonists here, drop a few hints about how they lost or at least establish that Earth NX ships lead the vanguard.
12, it makes me less apprehensive about the Star Trek movie. I hope that it will be a blockbuster because Star Trek desperatly needs one. I have been “cautiously optimistic” about this film and remain so. With that said this article made me less apprehensive about the new film and I’m hoping that the film will be a great film.
I also thought that it is an excellent article. Good job TrekMovie.
As a side note, Wil Weaton said he was “cautiously optimistic” when he was asked how he felt about the new Trek film in an interview held a while ago. I felt that there is no better way to put it than that.
ONE MORE THING ABOUT MICHAEL GIACCHINO…
…he records his compositions LIVE in the studio, with little or no overdubs added later! You can really feel and hear the difference in his soundtracks. They really seem to come alive, and his version of STAR TREK, I’m sure, will completely bury the “sonic wallpaper” mandated by Rick Berman!
14, yes it would be nice for ENT to be referrenced in the “Respect for the franchise” bit. If you read Shatner’s latest Trek fiction “Star Trek: Academy: Collision Course” you will notice that the entire book is filled with ENT references. From “Archer Hall” at Starfleet Academy to the emblem of Starfleet still holding the phrase “Ad Astra Per Aspera” and many more. Such little touches would be nice to see in the Academy scenes in the new film but I don’t expect it. After all, ENT is the most underrated Trek show.
13. I totally agree. Until Scorcese won for “The Departed” I had no idea whether or not “Taxi Driver” and “Raging Bull” were good movies. Fortunately I had the Academy Awards to tell me what to think.
This article was a very good “think piece”. As a fan of the original Mission:Impossible series, I have to agree with Anthony that MI:III was the best of the three M:I films, and the closest to the original series. I think that bodes very well for Trek.
Nice job. I thought it was very well thought out and it gave some good comparisons.
I am also “cautiously optimistic” about the new movie. I am not a fan of the MI series but I am a big LOST fan. If JJ and company can tell a story and develop the characters as well as they have done in LOST, then the new movie will be worthy of the name Star Trek.
great idea for an article….and well executed, Anthony!
The bridge attack scene im MIIII is one of the most impressive action scenes I’ve ever seen.
Hopefully we’ll see something as impressive in Star Trek.
Anthony- This was one of the best articles I have ever read on Trekmovie. Thank you for the time, research and effort you obviously put into it. Learning more concerning Abrams directional style, especially focusing on MI:III as a template, makes me all the more excited for Abrams, Orci and Hurtzman’s vision of ST.
Compassionate Romulans are key. Mark Lenard and the Joanne Linville were compassionate, emotional characters. Bring the Romulans back properly, JJ.
Anthony, thanks for the analysis. You’re trying hard to keep us here, that’s for sure!
16: SPB: I have no problems with Jerry Goldsmith’s latter-day Trek scores. I even got misty yesterday when I watched the latest “Rambo” film, and there is heavy and respectful use of the original Goldsmith motifs.
I’m excited, however to hear what Giacchino (SP?) will come up with. I get a spine-tingle from the music every time I watch The Incredibles with the kiddies, so I’m sure it will be wonderful despite his fear of writing it.
I do agree that this is an excellent analysis. Will we be getting any more of the reviews of the old Trek movies, which included insight into possible lessons for the upcoming movie? I looked at the tags for this one to see if it would fall under the same category. I loved those as well.
AJ#25- You are correct, sir.
MIII was good - was the best of the series. It had 3 or 4 moments that really hit the tone of the original series. Tom Cruise was a big turnoff at the time - and still is to be honest.
However, the ending REALLY sucked and almost spoiled the movie for me. Girlfriend back in with all the IMF crew, everyone happy, just expecting Tom to jump and and click his heals into a freeze frame.
And don’t forget, this IS the same dude partially responsible for “Gone Fishin’ ” ….
As for Giachinno(?) … no problems there at all, best of the best at the moment.
I thought MI:III was rubbish - I remember just laughing in the cinema at the end- especially the final scene (if i remember correctly, kinda vague now) when the film went slow mo and the actors walked towards the camera, and everyone in the film started clapping or somthing. I half expected the camera crew and technicians to come into shot and start clapping too, it was so bad it was funny. I can’t remember it clearly as it was so long ago, but I remember sitting there thinking, my god that was a shit film. I hope to god ST is not!
Michael Giacchino did a fantastic job with the retro-cool score for “The Incredibles”. I can’t wait to hear his Trek riffs.
Anthony I completely disagree with low tech. Please see Alias for any decent example of high tech. I think it would be safer to say that Abrams is more interested in mythology and developing than a movie which was filled with tech. Mission Impossible 3 did not lack in technology, it just utilized it in a different way.
AJ, your points are usually palatable for me but you may be the first person in history to admit being teary-eyed over any Rambo flick–unless you count them being made at all :)
“In addition expect the look of the new Star Trek to be realer than any other Trek film or TV show yet.”
It will be interesting, if that turns out to be true. However, of the few smuggled and partial images available so far, none strongly support the “realistic” slant. Splashing a little dirt on what looks to be an MDF shuttlecraft doesn’t make it look particularly real, and while the Enterprise shown in the teaser trailer is certainly *detailed* I was less sold on its reality as an object than I was regarding, say, the Millenium Falcon in the original “Star Wars” film - and that was a long time ago.
The plots of recent Trek ventures have been buried in technobabble. Good stories–even Sci-fi ones– are about people. Abrams understands that, I think.
#18–LOL. Perfect.
The second movie was the worst of the three. It’s supposed to be “Mission: Impossible”, not “xXx” (you know, with Vin Diesel). I almost walked out of the theater. And I’ve never watched it since. Bad, bad movie.
32: Captain Dunsel:
The movie was a gorefest, for sure.
But I am a fan of the original First Blood, and I really enjoyed Jerry Goldsmith’s music for the original 3 films. I actually got misty over the early end-credits as the character returns home, and Goldsmith’s music flowed through the speakers.
Long-time first-time. Agreed on all of the above praise, Anthony. Thanks so much for your contributions, and keeping our appetites satisfied (though a hi-res of the new Enterprise wouldn’t hurt!). I never miss a day on the site.
Another great article. We’re in good hands - both on the web and next year at the local cinema.
Nice story AP, agree with the #6 comment. The truck from nowhere on a clogged street killing the bad guy seriously dented an otherwise enjoyable movie experience. Watch your continuity JJ.
thank you all for your thoughts
Re: Tim and tech
Tim I think you misunderstood. What I was saying is that Abrams does not like to be overly reliant on technology and gadgetry and in fact used less of it in MI than he did on Alias. Here is a quote from Abrams from an interview with CFQ from 2006
The 10 points I picked in the above article were more than just observations, but were based on research from interviews, the DVD special features and my own conversations with the Abrams team. There are also elements within the 10 items that are based on spoilers (both published and unpublished) but this article is spoiler free so I did not get into specifics.
I didn’t run this by Bob Orci or anyone yet, and would be interested in their take, but I didn’t pick these things at random.
Anthony… well written, thanks… although I don’t think “realer” is actually a word.
Dennis Bailey… I don’t think anyone here has seen enough “finished product” visuals to get worked up over. Time will tell.
…. and Tom Cruise ads on the site?WUWT?
some of the ads, specifically any served by google, are contextual.
so if I did a story about mortgages for example, you would see ads for home loans….it is just how the internet works
8 Locations, locations, locations
Does anyone know if there was filming done in Iceland? I know it was reported that they were scouting locations there before shooting.
43. Anthony Pascale - June 9, 2008
“some of the ads, specifically any served by google, are contextual.
….it is just how the internet works”
So I suspected. Big Brother did it. ;-)
Great article Anthony!
And food for thought since you said your article is based on published and unpublished spoilers.
…the adventure continues…
That was a great article, Anthony.
I have to totally disagree with the people who thought MI:III was the worst of the three movies. If you watched Mission:Impossible when it was on TV, JJ’s movie was the closest to capturing the “essence” of the original series. Including the typical upbeat clapping for the hero ending. Woo’s Mission was not good. Crouching Cruise Hidden Wire stunts. Matrix: Impossible. Bleah. I thought the writing in MI:III was fairly tight, true to character, and moved the story without too much wasted movement. The bridge sequence was great and had me wondering how they were able to blow up cars on a bridge. I bought it. And Giacchino is a gifted film score writer. His work here was respectful of the original and exciting in it’s own right. What he did on The Incredibles is enough to earn him any pass he wants with me. THAT was a brilliant film score.
Again, well done AP.
*Lots* of typos in the above article. Proofreader?
Great article! I’ve always been enthusiastic about this film: indeed, I’m perfectly happy for them to play fast and loose with continuity in this ‘revitalisation’ of Trek. M:I:III was a peculiar beast. I love it to bits, but it certainly was very ‘Alias.’ Laurence Fishburne, for example, reminded me of Jack Bristow, Simon Pegg of Marshall and so on.
Tom Cruise’s press outside the film damaged it, I reckon. The M:I series has been a peculiarly messy one, effectively rebooting itself with each movie. M:I:1 had a convoluted mess of a script and Brian De Palma’s stylised direction called far too much attention to itself . . . in a bad way. It’s a very uncomfortable film to watch. John Woo’s film (M:I:2 was taken away from him by the studio and hacked down by editing supremo Stuart Baird, as Woo’s more daring, longer film was deemed unacceptable by Paramount bosses.) I’d love to see a longer cut.
JJ Abrams’ film hit the mark very nicely, with Michael Giaccino even using bits of music from the original series. My big complaint up to the arrival of M:I:III was that the movies paid the barest lip-service to the original show. M:I:III sorted that somewhat.
Now that the Cruiser’s gone from Paramount, I’d love to see Mission: Impossible given a proper revamp. Bring back Jim Phelps, Rollin and the original gang and update the concept to the present day, as they infiltrate terrorist agencies and the the governments that fund them. If anyone can finish the revitalisation of M:I, it’s Abrams and his gang! The whole evil Jim Phelps bit was barmy!
But I concur that M:I:III is definitely a realistic loose guide to what will come in the new Star Trek film. Can’t wait! :)
Good to know he doesn’t like to screw up a film by using ALL CG now…if only someone could convince him to use a studio model ship and not a CG ship.
Glad he doesn’t get a hard on putting all his actors in front of green screen interacting with nothing, *COUGH LUCAS>* No wonder the acting in those SW prequels was so shocking.
Now I alomst wanna watch…any of those M.I. movies.
Almost.
10 things Abrams did in Mission Impossible 3 I hope he doesn’t do in STAR TREK Xl:
1. I hope Abrams pulled the camera back and used the wide screen! Wide screen lens were developed to capture more image and to film them. Glaring facial shots are so television oriented. Sergio Leone used them a lot in all his spaghetti westerns, but the novelty has worn off and besides, Abrams is not him–at least not yet.
2. I know Abrams loves STAR WARS and plays video games like crazy, but please, no adolescent, dumbed down humor or over-the-top cartoon-like scenes or sequences. I think he did a good job NOT doing that in MI3, except for the one sequence referred to in my number 9. Keep it up.
3. I hope Abrams pulled the camera back and used the wide screen! Wide screen lens were developed to capture more image and to film them. Glaring facial shots are so television oriented.
4. I hope Abrams developed his bad guy more in STAR TREK Xl. Philip Seymour Hoffman, who played the baddie in MI3, is a good actor, but the character he was given was way too tame, lame and underdeveloped. Except for that one intro sequence, he wasn’t menacing at all and rather a poor antagonist.
5. Please, I pray Abrams doesn’t “domesticate” the characters in TREK Xl as you did in MI3. Spies are… seedy people, paid liars, traitors and murders. Abrams sugar coated them in MI3. They all seemed so sweet. I hope he is true to his characters in STAR TREK. Hope he makes the characters real.
6. Please, please, I truly hope he pulled back the camera and use the wide screen! Wide screen lens were developed to capture more image to be filmed. Glaring facial shots are so television oriented.
7. Despite Rotten Tomatoes, I thought MI3 looked and felt more like a TV episode than any MI film and was the weakest film–at least to me. MI was more complex. MI 2 was more cinematic. Abrams visual style was acceptable, but he has a ways to go to match De Palma or Woo, who clearly know how to film a movie. Hope STAR TREK Xl looks like a movie, and not another TV episode.
8. Once again, please, I truly hope you pulled back the camera and use the wide screen! Wide screen lens were developed to capture more image to be filmed. Glaring facial shots are so television oriented.
9. Please have a more believable ending for STAR TREK Xl. The scene in MI3 with Ethan’s wife, who has never fired a gun, taking out all those paid, professional bad guys was just silly.
10. I hope the TREK film has better CGI. Some of the scenes in MI3 looked so phony. And, sure hope Abrams pulled the camera out of the actors faces.
1.
Dont forget Nimoy was a voice in the original Transformers movie, too, so for Kurtzman and I he has given us a trifecta!
. 52. The Quickening - June 9, 2008
Please, please, I truly hope Quickening repeats the plea to JJ to pull back the camera and use the wide screen! Wide screen lens were developed to capture more image to be filmed. Glaring facial shots are so television oriented.
We get it.
Close ups. Nothing but big old frakkin’ Sergio Leone style close ups. I don’t want to see nothing but skin pores and parts of registry numbers. Not like that shot of the bridge under attack in MI:III where you can see everything. Spoiled the whole damn flick for me.
sorry each MI film got worse. yes. 3 was reeal bad.
iafter reeading this article i might have to give it another try.
yes maybe that break in scene was about as close to any kind of working together there was. and even then it was all about Hunt.
that brdge scene was derible. you actualy expect me to beleive that the explosion behind him will throw him sideways against the car. and that was what i saw in the comm b4 the film its what i saw in the theatre and now replay and reeplay a dzn times above and i notice its the same. and i noticed something else. the briefcase is also shoved by the explosion. but because of their bad job on that scene you will notice that the case and hunt should radiat outward froim the explosion yet they seem to be headed for a collision if not for that car.
1) some onse said and i agree. that its a bit much. hand helds and close ups trhat put you in ther action, fast pace. its fine fothe current gen who aree used to quick movement oand flashing from one thing to the neext . but older viewers will not be able to keep up, just findin sensory overload. theyll look at it and say i can tell something good is oin there but i cant get. maybbe if i did i would call it a better film. then they have to go watch it 5 mopre times b4 they finaly say ‘oh now i get’. look if i cant see it the first time then it wasnt very good.
2) charactor. that might have been what they wanted for Hunt in this film but thats not what MI was about.
3)tech. in my pre tos i prefer for only tos technobable. and lets keep out anything new.
4) vilian. i like ruthless. but i didnt see it in MI:III.
6) respect. please. thats not repect its. ‘did you c that little bit did ya. thats from the olshow it proves we saw it. we have reespect’ Each of these 3 MI film was a bad IM F agent blah blah blah. iirc the show was cold war infiltrate the bad guys. ie in todays world thats terrorist cells.
9) i covered that alreeady
“And although all the ‘technobabble’ terminology of Star Trek is there (warp, phasers, transporters, etc), do not expect for there to be technology solutions to the dilemmas.”
Speaking of which, it worries me when time-travel is a possible element of the plot. A technology solution to “undo” events is far too convenient.
Thanks for the article, Anthony.
As for Saldana having a substantial role and doing much more than just answering the space phone - on TOS, Uhura also served as technician, manned the helm station, connected the bypass circuit, etc. But most important of all, Uhura became a symbol for “Black Power”, being proud of her African heritage. The “black woman on the bridge” very soon became a very influential role, known across the country, and Martin L. King personally encouraged her and asked her to stay on the series, telling her that she had become a model role for black women.
Saldana probably is to have some more action and airtime - whether it will be a “substantial” role or not…
Still Abrams is great director and i know he will revive Star Trek and i still think Tom Cruise is messed up
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=UFBZ_uAbxS0
This video teach us how mutch Cruise is messed up :)
I still don’t understand how JJ’s Trek will be “realer” than Treks before. The dirty, ramshackle shuttle we saw pics of is not “realer” than other Trek shuttles. It’s just dirty and ramshackle. Some “realer” ideas would be:
1. Earth is still a conglomeration of nation-states with issues
2. Characters can have active girl/boyfriends and/or sex-lives
3. Seatbelts
4. Money, and corporations continue to exist (no socialist paradise)
5. Aliens do not speak English via the UT
6. Doctors don’t heal major wounds with flashlights or headgear
7. Much larger role for the ship’s computer
8. No sound in space (Bo-ring)
It’s a done deal already, and I hope it’ll be great.
Iowagirl:
JJ has a great cast in place, including Saldana. He has to avoid using them as Bridge ornaments, and actually make them effective parts of the ensemble. A Comms officer is a critical post, but it involves sitting down, taking, receiving, and routing communications. I give lots of credit to Nichelle Nichols for imbuing that part with the grace, sexuality and authority that she did. ZS has big shoes to fill.
JJ also has to avoid what someone up above mentioned as “domesticating” the characters, and making them all wishy-washily kind to one another, or uncommonly at ease with each other in a casual group setting (”Hey, Jimbo! Wassup, Baby?”). The Transformers had that vibe with each other in the last film, which was fine. It won’t work with Trek.
I hope the empathis on more realism does not take away from the fun. I would like the tech to be similar to the way it was. I feel that too much empathsis on realism takes away from the fantasy and fun element of what TV and films are supposed to do. Its one of the things which makes shows more intense and less artistic.
I like it to be based in reality though but I think there is too much empathsis on it now these days. I hope the technobabble stays and that its not all rewritten for the non fans
Update the sets just too make it modern but still keep it looking like the original bridge.
Keeping the Tech as it was but expanding upon it. This be the best way and it fits in with canon.
Who thinks shows are putting too much empathsis on realism thes days and takes the fun out of it? I have sci fi friends who are more critical of technical aspects rather than the storylines at times.
I hope that JJ Abrams does not turn our beloved Star Trek into an MTV music video with fast cuts and super zooms.
I hope he avoids having the crew/cadets listening to pop music for the soundtrack album, and product placement. No branded communicators, or cadets drinking Pepsi, etc. Looks like GM already got a Corvette into the young Kirk scenes.
I`m not a fan of MI3. Part I & II were much better.
RE: 63. captain_neill
“Who thinks shows are putting too much empathsis on realism thes days and takes the fun out of it?”
I do.
@AJ:
“1. Earth is still a conglomeration of nation-states with issues
2. Characters can have active girl/boyfriends and/or sex-lives
3. Seatbelts
4. Money, and corporations continue to exist (no socialist paradise)
6. Doctors don’t heal major wounds with flashlights or headgear
8. No sound in space (Bo-ring)”
So Star Trek: BSG then? :)
68 BaronByng:
I don’t watch it, but perhaps.
While I do agree that MI:3 was the best of the 3..by far…just like the 2 before it, it bore little resemblence to the TV series. For an action movie it was fun but it lacked the very heart of the series which was always the elaborate set up and fall of the bad guy. The joy was always watching the face of the bad guy at the end when he realizes he’s been conned by the IMF team’s elaborate charade. MI:3 was fun, but it was just a kidnap/rescue film. I hope Trek doesn’t stray from the source material as much as MI:3 did. And with Nimoy’s endorsement of the script, I don’t think it will.
And as far as realism goes, I hope they don’t get too hung up on the “realistic progression” like Enterprise did. Hanging soundboards on the walls next to free standing plasma screens isn’t the most innovative design in the world. And something is wrong when the design evokes thoughts of a modern day sub or shuttle. Real is ok, but this IS the future. 300 years in the future…not to mention it is a fictional timeline. There was no Eugenics Wars in the 1990s. There was no WW3. The timeline of TOS isn’t and shouldn’t be hampered by whats happening in OUR timeline. Think of the horse and buggy of 1900 vs. the space shuttle of 2000…then think of it all evolving on Mars in a Bradbury story. TOS takes place in a fictional timelne that does NOT parallel ours. So, in this universe, where people are beaming atoms back and forth, the writers and producers shouldn’t be afraid to incorporate some elements of the fantastic, think out of the box, and deliver some of the wonderous “what if” speculation that TOS did so well.
Just how “real” can it be when it’s a given that there are warp drive, transporters and phasers as well as aliens?
If it’s true location shooting, that’s welcome news. He could make the Enterprise interiors more military, or less eye-poppingly colorful, but that’s a matter of taste.
JJ could introduce some good old-fashioned xenophobia, which Trek has handled well many times.
He could also turn Earth into Back To The Future Hill Valley, where everyone drinks future Pepsi, and goes to future Burger King in their future Hummers. All the viewscreens on the E will be branded SONY, the communicators Sony Ericsson, etc. THAT would suck.
Do you think Trek is in good hands with JJ Abrams or not?
I have decided to take a wait and see approach now.
Hope he does not have fast cutting like in music videos, I really hate that in today’s cinema. My worst nightmare is seeing a Michael bay style edidted Star Trek movie.
If he has any product placement in this film I will SCREAM
#53 Well, when you and Alex start working on the script for a film adaptation of Nimoy’s art books… let us know! Or not!
I wonder how much latitude was given to certain of the actors with lines of the script… considering the strike was underway. Knowing Simon Pegg’s talent, perhaps we’ll see some Pegg humor was able to work its way into Scott’s dialogue? Or perhaps it was scripted with him in mind.
The extract above from M:i:III with Pegg… I’m still laughing again from seeing it everytime I play it. “bunny appendage” with a straight face. Aye!
54.
LOL!!!!
Hi AJ.
Without going into ‘product placement, why wouldn’t drinks have brand names? Why wouldn’t cars and shuttlecraft have manufacturers and different model names? Even in the commie nightmare of TNG, there must have been people who designed the uniforms. I can’t believe people work for no pay in the future: that’s just garbage and certainly something I never got any impression of in TOS.
And just because ‘humans’ (stretching the expression) in TNG don’t have money, other races still do! How is the Federation supposed to cope in a galactic economy where other races still have money?
Quite simply, I’ve never bought into a lot of the lack of branding in Star Trek as a philosophical issue, seeing it as merely a symptom of its position as a TV show trying to avoid being too specific. But there’s no reason to think that, two hundred years from now, people won’t drink Pepsi, use Durex, buy Andrex, watch Sony/Matsushita, buy HarperCollins or Penguin books, read Playboy, drink PG Tips, watch TV shows and movies and drink Jack Daniels and Coke!
So yeah, I hope we do see a bit of branding in there, even if it’s currently non-existent future brands. In the future, I believe people will still design things and manufacture things. Just because military vessels don’t necessarily have large amounts of branded product on board doesn’t mean that everywhere else doesn’t!
Anthony,
Great article, thanks for keeping this site as grounded as possible with all the hype that is coming out these days.
In comparing MI:III with Star Trek you do a good job of looking for clues for the new Trek movie but there are a few things to remember.
1) Alias- which was solely created by JJ (unlike L O S T) and MI:III are actually pretty similar shows. One could say that JJ ‘Aliasized’ Mission:Impossible (Which originally was solely about the mission, not the team, unitll Tom Cruise got involved) One could also say that MI:III was just a fair ‘Alias’ episode, a little too long and a little too much like Alias - the Simon Peg character, his girlfriend, fighting with his boss, even the M:I HQ looked liked SD-6. Still it was the best of the three MI films.
2) Star Trek is not about action, double crosses, frenetic pacing and story time line jumping. Now you can use all of these to tell a good story, any story but they are not prime elements of what makes Star Trek. However, they ARE prime elements of Alias and Mission: Impossible and that is why JJ and his team were so perfect for MI:III. Lets hope they do not MI and Aliasize Star Trek but rather use those elements for a good story. It is easy for them to bring those elements over to L O S T and it helps make that show as great as it is.
But again, Star Trek is a different kind of story and too much action, double cross ect. will make it feel like it was refit to fill a spy movie mold.
IMHO the Original Star Trek was a complex idea told in a simple story. STNG and all the others were a simple idea told in a complex story - the exact opposite. Lets hope the Idea is king with JJ’s movie.
# 71
“He could also turn Earth into Back To The Future Hill Valley, where everyone drinks future Pepsi, and goes to future Burger King in their future Hummers.”
And get a ticket for swearing!
Hi Dave R (77)
Alias didn’t have a frenetic pace, rather, it was slick. It was frenetic when it needed to be frenetic. TOS was a smartly made show in the 1960s. Berman’s era got locked in a 1980s timewarp in terms of look and editing. I hope the new film changes that: the editing and styling, even the acting, of later Berman Treks was stodgy and dated. I want this new film to be slick and feel like a modern film, not retro!
Thanks for a very well thought-out, entertaining article, Anthony.
Man, what I would give to see a great big quickly inter-cut close up of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy taking big old swigs of their readily visible and highly branded Coke cans.
13. “Sorry as far as I am concerned JJ is way too overrated, no director deserves such praise unless he has at least a few Academy Award films under his belt.”
Well, now that Martin Scorcese has one, I can finally give him the praise he deserves. I guess we still have to wait to give praise to Stanley Kubrick. Alfred Hitchcock, Francois Truffaut, David Lynch, Akira Kurosawa, Federico Fellini, etc, etc who are “Oscar-less.”
I hope that Abrams can keep that great mixture of character, action and story that he has in his previous endeavors.
I loved M:I:II because it was very true to the original style and attitude of M:I. It was also fun. Great movie.
But character development? I could watch M:I:III through from beginning to end and I wouldn’t be able to write a character study of Ethan Hunt. It was one of the most character-empty movies I’ve seen in a while. A house, a fiancé, and a romance do not make a character come to life. Sorry! Hunt was just a cookie-cutter action hero. This movie actually made me worried about Star Trek’s characters….
It would be awesome if this hero was everything B&B wanted Shinzon to be.
Major pwnage on shinzon.
“Real is ok, but this IS the future. 300 years in the future…not to mention it is a fictional timeline. There was no Eugenics Wars in the 1990s. There was no WW3. The timeline of TOS isn’t and shouldn’t be hampered by whats happening in OUR timeline. Think of the horse and buggy of 1900 vs. the space shuttle of 2000″
Well, if Greg Cox’s books are to be believed then the Eugenics Wars were more covert. WWIII has yet to happen in the Star Trek timeline, it’s about 40 years off, and certainly not something I could see as impossible.
Also the horse-and-buggy analogy is a false one. The people who were using such transportation over a hundred years ago aren’t quite the same people who are using the space shuttle. They have completely different functions. A closer one might be something like the horse-and-buggy and the Aptera (if it proves to be commercially viable), or the Prius or something.
And with regard to the realness of the shuttle versus the Millenium Falcon, I agree that dirtying it up shouldn’t really be the method. Are we to expect that morning inspection includes checking the shine on your boots but not the shuttle’s consoles?
The Millenium Falcon is also not a piece of military technology. It’s someone’s souped up, if rusty, pickup truck.
I think maybe the way to make something seem more real is in the procedure. How is a piece of equipment used? Do you assemble a phaser rifle in as complicated a manner as you would a present day sniper rifle? In Star Trek VI it seemed to be the case with the Klingon sniper disrupter.
I think that’s why there was so much technobabble. It clearly got out of hand, but I think when used correctly it helped create a more real world.
Ya’ know, a lot is being made out of a picture of a shuttle that had some wear and tear showing on it. From what I gathered, it was at a refueling depot, so my guess was that it had travelled some distance to get there. Perhaps it was in a battle or had to make an emergency landing. But it might be stretching it a bit much to presume that JJ “dirtied” it up to make it look more gritty and real. Perhaps when it left it’s home base, be it a ship or starbase, it was clean as a whistle. Clean enough to satisfy the most hardcore canonista.
We are taking a picture out of context and trying to assign a definition to what we see.
While I generally consider Star Trek to be the true definition of science fiction, there have always been elements of “fantasy” which require a complete suspension of disbelief (the transporter, for example). Where it differs most from such pure fantasy as Star Wars, for example, is that for the most part, the history of the Star Trek universe is our own. Star Trek is presented as a vision of OUR FUTURE.
As for the historical discrepancies (i.e., The Eugenics Wars), who cares? I don’t need an explanation for that, nor would I be opposed to a “canon correction” in a future Trek film or TV series, which places that event a bit farther into the future. Clearly, that bit of 1967 writing was not intended to be held up to scrutiny in 2008, and whether the subject is ever canonically revisited or not makes no difference to me.
# 83
Coudn’t agree more. If MI:III it to serve as an example of character development, this movie is in big trouble.
And seriously, is there anyone out there that believes MI:III is “complex” ?
Considering what I’ve seen from Abram’s Lost, MI:III was a big, fat disappointment. And that includes Giacchino’s score.
I think we are in big trouble if this analogy holds up. MI3 was lousy. Trek is a whole different animal and I hope to God that JJ respects that.
*sigh* ST remastered is at an end and almost a whole year before we get to see this movie and I don’t think I can handle many more articles like this….time to check out until next year.
Hate to add to your alexa plunge here Anthony, but I’ll see you on the flip side….
#86
didnt they equip in thast shot have label that said ‘Earth’?
the question i raised on that pic was wether it was on earth or just a piece of earth equip on an alien world w/ a lable of origin.
#81
in Ferris Beuller it was all pepsi cans. but reading the script it was all cokes.
i dont mind the ref/placement. but keep it out of trek. no future co. nothing.
The best thing about MI:III was using bits and pieces of the inner music. The stuff that kept the story going while they were doing daring deeds is what was so cool about the old show. In fact that’s the best thing about the three movies in my opinion. The worst thing (and I know Abrams had no hand in this) was turning Mr Phelps into the villain in the first one. I still am not sure what any of that movie had to do with “Mission Impossible”.
81
Watch “Heaven Can Wait” sometime. The most heavily promoted Coke references I’ve ever seen. Warren Beatty’s character drinking a Coke in the locker room right after a hot, hard work out. Give me a break. I think it was right after Coke bought Columbia.
91. My favorite is Twister when they decide to use soda cans to modify their sensors and all the cans are pristine empties all of the same beverage, Pepsi.
#90
I’m sorry but I can’t make out what you are saying. It is indicated that the shuttle is at a refueling depot. One can deduce that since Starfleet is a spacefaring organization, a refueling depot would be located away from a home base. The question that the majority of people were raising was that the wear and tear on the shuttle was only added for realism. My counter to that statement was as I wrote it. I would also like to add that after Khan got done blasting away at the Enterprise in TWOK, the big E had some wear and tear that added a bit of “realism”.
MI3 was definitely the best of the MI trilogy.
It also gave the characters much more depth than the first two films ever lended them. However, I think the character development in LOST is a better example of what Abrams and co. can do in that regard.
I am all for added realism, and I do not forsee any changes in color or texture bothering me in the least. Star Trek’s qualities are much less dependent upon visuals than some people seem to indicate. I’m sure that if Matt Jeffries, Gene Roddenberry, or anyone else involved in the production of TOS, had the tools at their disposal in the 1960’s to make things a bit more “realistic”, then they would have done so.
#88—Disappointment? Compared to what? I don’t remember the televison series being any more “complex”, and certainly don’t recall the characters being more “developed”. MI3 was the best of a mediocre trilogy, a fair adaptation of an old mediocre tv show, and certainly not bad for JJ’s 1st (?) time in the director’s chair. I was actually mildly entertained.
Of course, I expect more from Star Trek, but then again, these guys have a great deal more to work with in Trek and the iconic characters brought to us with TOS and the original films. I expect to be made very happy. If I’m not, I’ve only lost $10 and a couple of hours of my time, and I can always watch my TOS-era dvds…
I think this article shows we have nothing to worry about. It also seems to show that JJ has a respect for some old school methods, which should fit in well with a TOS era film.
I found MI:III pretty unwatchable, but in fairness (A) I had not bothered with the prior MI Tom Cruise movies (B) I think Tom Cruise is incapable of believable on-screen emotion regardless of the director’s skills (I feel that movies like Rain Man worked because his character was _supposed_ to be a block of wood) (C) I watched it entirely to get a sense of Abrams’ direction, since it’s the only feature he’s directed so far and (D) I didn’t bother finishing it. So it’s absolutely the case that I’m not the target audience for the film, and that the conditions under which I viewed it were fundamentally unfair.
It did have a nice sense of scale. I think that’s the highest praise I can manage for it apart from “it had Philip Seymour Hoffman in it.”
In the spirit of the benefit of the doubt (and in acknowledgement that I couldn’t really judge the movie fairly), I don’t count MI:III against Abrams, so I’m still neutral on the subject, and remain very hopeful that his Trek will rock the house down.
I hope I hope I hope.
Great Analysis, Anthony
91 - “Heaven Can Wait” was a Paramount picture, from 1978. Coca-Cola didn’t buy Columbia Pictures until 1982. Coke owned Columbia for just seven years, selling it to Sony in 1989.
Paramount is reportedly making nice with Tom Cruise again; they want him for “MI IV.”
No amount of press, or bootlicking of JJ Abrams, is going to quell the intense skepticism I have for “Star Trek XI.”
I just can’t move past the fact that they made Mr. Phelps a baddie in the 1st movie. What would Star Trek be like if they’d done the same to Kirk, made him the baddie and killed him off.
No…..I loved the original Mission Impossible. I will not watch Cruise in a movie where the only reason he’s in it was at the expense of a founding character.
OK, perspective time here.
The Mission: Impossible films can’t be thought of as great movies, true. Nobody is doing that. What is being said is that they do offer some insight into JJ Abrams style of direction. It should be noted and taken into account that this was his first feature film and he was burdened somewhat with the constraints / limitations of the project he was handed. Was it Citizen Kane? Obviously not. But to be fair, TWOK wasn’t either. I’ve seen some complaints about the fact that the Mission Impossible movies weren’t enough like the original series. Again, The Voyage Home was unlike TOS. They hold dear places in our hearts as fans, but they are movies that have flaws and diverge from the original source material.
The purpose of the above article was to gain some insight into what one can expect from JJ’s style of direction. Understand that he is not making a M:I film. And that he has been given more latitude to be creative than he was with that franchise. I liked what I saw. If you didn’t, you probably don’t like what is in store for you with the new Trek. You may have already made up your mind without reading this article. To each his own. But remember, even Steven Spielberg makes a movie that isn’t everyone’s cup of tea. Ahem–War of the Worlds–cough.
And Giacchino, IMO, is beyond the criticism. If you don’t like his film scores, all your taste is in your mouth.
#100–Very well put.
Great article. I’m very optimistic about this film after reading this. I think great filmmaking is about the people who do it, rather than the subjectmatter. A person with a great vision and a great ability to tell a story is going to do that regardless of the subjectmatter.
Even if the film doesn’t go down that well with everyone, it’s still probably going to be one of the best Star Trek films ever, which would be a great achievement, and a worthy addition to the franchise, and we’ll have a great time watching it even if it’s not perfect. I mean, we all know it’s not going to be as bad as Star Trek V, don’t we?
#102—” I mean, we all know it’s not going to be as bad as Star Trek V, don’t we?”
I would hope that’s a foregone conclusion…STV: The Great Trek Turd was most certainly a “bad business decision”.
Hi THX-1138 The Fandom Menace (100)
I know what you mean about the likes of STIV being very different from the source material, but we had characters in STIV played by the original actors in their fourth cinematic outing and the film ‘felt’ right, if you get my meaning. These were characters well enough established, via TV and film, that you could believably do different things with them.
In the Mission: Impossible film series, we were presented at the very start of M:I:1 with a classic Mission: Impossible scenario: Jim Phelps (albeit recast) as the head of a completely new team and and his team enacting a sneaky undercover mission. Even with a different actor, at least the film gave us someone to connect to. A franchise that could build on the original show and make it cinematic seemed to have been born.
Then, quarter of an hour in, they kill everyone, turn the rest of the movie into a Tom Cruise action vehicle and make Jim Phelps the bad guy!!!!!!! I mean, why even call it Mission: Impossible? It was truly a barking mad thing to do with the first film in a series! it wasn’t daring or ‘killing Janet Leigh in Psycho’ shocking. It was ‘jump the shark’ ridiculous! The M:I film series has been struggling, creatively, to find its feet ever since!
It was the equivalent of opening ST:TMP with the deaths of all the characters except for Decker, destroying the Enterprise, having Decker partner up with Khan Singh, Kor and Koloth then later reveal that Kirk is the bad guy! To this day, I wonder what on earth they were thinking of!
JJ Abrams and his team actually managed to pull the M:I series more or less back into shape with this film, by giving it a heavy injection of Alias.
When you look at the mess that was made of M:I at the very start with potty decision-making, you realise that M:I:3 really works as the first film in a series: by the end, the moles have been flushed out of the organisation (three movies in a row that have hinged on an IMF mole - what’s wrong with that organisation?!) Ethan has the option to head off into marital bliss or come back for new adventures and IMF is primed to send its agents into the field for bigger jobs.
As I’ve said before, I’d like to see a reboot of M:I now: get Abrams, Kurtsman and Orci to bring back Jim Phelps (or Dan Briggs), have him select a team and follow them through the trials and tribulations of of their mission.
That these guys pulled M:I back into something vaguely resembling the show on which its based gives me a lot of hope with Star Trek. Star Trek had been diluted by too many spin-offs with increasingly diminishing returns. But it hadn’t been irrevocably destroyed, just worn out. Star Trek needs freshening up, Mission: Impossible needed rebuilding from the ground up!
Oh dear…if MI:III is what we have to gone then Star Trek is dead. MI:III was terrible….directing by shakey camera…couldn’t tell where the actions was set….Tom Cruise’s ego running rampant…poor CGI….awful….
Great article, Anthony.
MI:III was sexy. Shame that Tom Cruise had to be the star. Ah, well. Still a good flick.
#105 “directing by shakey camera…couldn’t tell where the actions was set”
Shaky cam=bad. I hope JJ doesn’t go handheld until a scene or mood calls for it. TOS used hand held cameras all the time, and did so effectively, because they were used primarily for action scenes. That juttery, uneasyness works perfect when Kirk is mixing it up with Tracy in a fight to the death. But when two characters are just talkin, I hope JJ’s camera isn’t “peeking” through any plants on the table or moving up-down-over-up down…I just want to watch the actors act, not get seasick!
#104-I think they can bring Jim Phelps back. That guy in MI:1 may have had the same name but there was no way he was the classic James Phelps from the original series and the later ’80s series. I remember reading the original plan was for the team at the beginning to be made up of original cast members and so Phelps would have killed off his old teammates! Thankfully, none of the original cast wanted anything to do with the film. For that alone, MI:3 is the best of the three IMO and not the first film.
As long the script mentions ‘20th Century Earth History’ over and over again, it will stay true to the spirit of the show. Kirk and Spock took great interest in Earth History, especially when it took place before 1968. They must have fallen asleep during classes on the 21st and 22nd century.
GaryP (109) It’s also possible that an era scarred by devastating nuclear wars is something people are conditioned not to talk about!
#109—I understand what you’re saying regarding TOS, but it is no longer 1968, and there are alot more historically relevant events which have taken place in realtime since, as well as canon “fictional” history which has since been established. I don’t think that historical references beyond pre-1968 Earth would characterize the film as outside of the true spirit of Star Trek. This film needs to be relevant to today’s audiences in order to secure a future for Trek on the big screen, which in turn should generate enough interest beyond us old fans to justify any future television series. I realize your post is probably sarcastic in its intent, but it resonates with the old guard fan a little too much, IMO.
The whole question of honoring TOS too much is a tricky one. It should, IMO, pay some homage to the original series (and perhaps even to the spinoffs), but the future of Trek fandom is not with me, but my kids and their peers. Whatever gets the message about the vision of a better future for mankind across to a new and broader audience is fine with me. If that means a revision within an “alternate timeline”, utilizing the iconic original characters and the Big E as a vehicle for relevant social commentary, so be it. As long as it’s good worthy entertainment, then I am ready to embrace it. Bring it on, JJ.
this film definitely has potential, although one thing im very disappointed in is who jj got to score the film..although giacchino has composed some amazing scores, honestly i’d hoped this new film would bypass the concept of a score entirely save for the familiar trek theme and selected transitionary scoring in favor of actual songs…that would help ground the film in reality, making it more believable as well as providing an identifiable musical anchor to attract mtv-type audiences whilst not compromising star treks core values, messages or canonical integrity…as for the concept of a new series…i’m thinking paramount should get alfred gough and james millar, who are the geniuses behind one tree hill, but proving they could do scifi as well, are also the ones behind superman prequel series smallville…trust me, these guys are the ones we should want to make a new star trek series…:)
JJ Abrams kills the franchise.
Martok kills fan interest in film and in thread due to pessimistic comment