Tom Cruise Wants JJ Abrams To Produce Mission Impossible 4 June 10, 2009
by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Abrams, Celebrity, Paramount, Star Trek sequel (2012) , trackback
JJ Abrams first feature film as a director was Mission: Impossible: III back in 2006. After the film’s release there was a falling out between Tom Cruise and Paramount pictures, however more recently things have thawed and in the last year Cruise has been talking up a fourth entry in the franchise. Now it appears that JJ Abrams has been asked to produce MI:4.
Despite mostly positive reviews, MI:3 only earned $134M domestically, primarily blamed on bad press for Cruise during 2006. However, the film earned a ton of money overseas, bringing its global gross to close to $400M. In the summer that followed the release Paramount signed JJ Abrams to a five year production deal (which they recently extended), but they let Tom Cruise’s production deal with the studio lapse (and he went over to run United Artists).
Things seemed to be over for the Cruise/MI franchise, but last year Sumner Redstone seemed to have changed his mind on Cruise and voiced support for him to return to do a fourth MI picture. In March of this year Cruise said that he was working on the story for MI:4, and now it appears he wants JJ Abrams to get involved as well.
The current TV Guide print issue has the following news item:
The Next "Mission" The man behind Lost, Fringe, and the latest "Star Trek" smash is reteaming with Tom Cruise to resurrect superspy Ethan Hunt for a fourth installment of the popular franchise. "I am incredibly honored that Tom has invited me back as producer on "Mission Impossible 4," says JJ Abrams, who direct 2006’s "MI:3," but hasn’t yet committed to directing the fourth. "Tom and I have come up with a really cool idea we are pursuing." Send Ethan to the Lost island to find out what the hell’s going on. That mission is really impossible!
It isn’t entirely clear how far along or how real the MI:4 project is, but IMDB lists the project for 2012. From the looks of thing, the Star Trek seqel project (aka “Star Trek Something Something”) is further along as it already has a script deal in place, but MI:4 could be JJ’s project after that. Another question is what involvement if any would there be for Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman. The former Alias writers co-wrote the MI:3 script with Abrams and would be a natural first choice for a sequel, but with Star Trek, Transformers and their many other projects, who knows if they can fit it in.
Related:
Loading ...
Comments»
hey sounds good trek first though
second? I liked MI:III so I hope Mi:IV would be good. Also hope the Star Trek sequel will be good. The first was so good.
Sorry Tom. He belongs to Star Trek now. :-P
Didn’t Ethan get married in the third one? Good way to end the series.
Cruise’s last Nazi flick was ignored. He needs another blockbuster, to be sure.
Whoa? Is this TrekMovie.com, or TomMovie.com?
Cruise you’ve made it BIG already!
My BEST advice for you is to quietly go away for a few years and raise your family. While your at it, try and work behind the scenes with Nolan to get Katie back as Rachel.
Perhaps the Joker never really blew her character up, or he replaced her with a double, Did’nt think of that, huh?
I really missed her in Dark Knight, but I think I understand why you did not want her to do that movie.
Believe it or not, Tom Cruise was for me the best part of MI3. It was sort of stale and safe in the direction department – which isn’t bad, but not thrilling either. The story was far more interesting than the previous ones, but not quite interesting enough to keep you caring what, exactly they’re all angry about and what it matters to ME.
But Tom Cruise was solid and always is. Granted, I’ve not seen Valkyrie, but I am have always enjoyed Cruise’s work prior. Vanilla Sky, for example, that flick changed my life. (Nobody will ever say that about Trek XI). Either way, cheers to Tom Cruise and I hope he knocks MI4 out of the ballpark.
Valkrie was very good.
Kudos!
I don’t think it would make a lot of sense to have Katie back as Rachel (I assume you mean Rachel Dawes) considering what happened about 3/4 of the way through the Dark Knight.
Although you know what they say about comics, the only people who stay dead are Uncle Ben and Jason Todd. And even Jason is back now…
#4: I agree. I think Mission: Impossible should remain a trilogy, just as Indiana Jones should have. Getting married or riding off into the sunset are the best ways to end on a good note (and a good movie).
Although I liked MI: III, Bob and Alex really needed to do their medical research before writing. Just a few examples: An electric shock to the heart will NOT reach the brain — if it did you’d kill the patient for sure! It does not take as long as 30 seconds for a defibrillator to charge. I know, dramatic licence, but it still was awkward. Last but not least, CPR will not revive someone. You need a defibrillator to do that! CPR merely keeps someone’s heart /going/ until better medical assistance arrives.
Seems they jumped the gun on that a bit in Star Trek, too. Blood will not boil in the vacuum of space because it is sealed off in your circulatory system. Dr. McCoy, especially in an age of widespread space travel and Earth colonies on nearby systems, should have known that!
Tom Cruise = Old News.
Yes let’s not promote the cultists like Cruise any further. Please JJ, stay away from poison like that.
Yawn.
Abrams should agree to do this if in return Butch does a role in new Trek, ie a villain role. Having Butch on a Trek film will double the stargazer take in countries where Butch is popular in any film he does. In exchange, Nimoy does MI:IV or at least a cameo (as Butch’s father, ala Sean Connery as Ford’s dad?). Could be amusing.
ill read these posts later.
but it does look like a full scedule.
But please no. those MI movies got worse each time. Time for MI to get a change.
Star Trek: Khan Too
j/k
(Even I groaned at that one…)
10 – CPR does not keep a person’s heart going. It is a means for partially oxygenating blood and pumping it through the victim’s circulatory system (via chest compressions) when his or her own circulatory and respiratory systems have stopped functioning properly on their own. The heart has stopped; the compressions aid in circulating the blood that is being oxygenated by the CPR giver’s rescue breathing.
16. “Star Trek: Khan Too”
Star Trek: Khan Not!
I’ve always thought MI3 was VASTLY underrated. Yeah, it does feel a bit like a feature-length Alias episode, but so what? It’s still a damn solid action movie, with a lot of kickass sequences in it.
Hell, the opening scene between Cruise and Hoffman is more intense and nerve-wracking than most entire movies nowadays.
I’d love to see Abrams make another one.
I’m all for it…as long as it does not affect (delay) Star Trek sequel.
Cruise has the star power to get good movies made, too bad he insists on being IN them……the man cannot act! I’ve attended high school plays that had better acting performances in them compared to anything he’s done! Hopeless!
I attempted to watch MI3 in preparation for Star Trek. It did not go well.
I kept my hopes neutral, though, and blamed the bad experience entirely on Tom Cruise attempting to imitate human emotion. His performance was painful, wooden, garish … not unlike a gaudily painted chunk of circus wagon shoved through someone’s leg. In fact, EERILY like that.
After seeing Star Trek, I’m inclined revisit the film and spread the blame around more evenly. My apologies, Mr. Cruise (but still: be aware of your range; it does not include humanity).
i think that’s great…. except i really hope it doesn’t affect whether or not he will direct Trek XII. If he directs MI4 then i will be really disappointed if he doesn’t direct the next Trek.
Message to J.J. Abrams:
Please, by all means, produce MI4, but if you had to choose, choose star trek. MI:III was good, but your work on Trek was soooo much better. Make the wise choice… or do both. That’s fine too.
I never cared for the MI movies. Saw all of them and just said “blah” afterwords.
7. Trek XI changed my life! ; )
(Actually it was Heathers that changed my life or, more accurately the act of renting it in 1989 that changed my life).
R2 is apparently in the debris field. Can we get a photo, please?
heres what you do.
git rid ofbob and alex. hire new writer
keep JJ to direct
get rid of Tom
go back to the show and tell cold war stories. STOP. Cold war over so tell terrorist storys.
hire Nimoy to play his old tv show charactor Paris (?) as the head of IMF
drop the action and go heavy on the drama. do better job telling team stories rather then a lead charactor.
26
i heard R2 was in on of the engineering tanks
it was a kitchen sink as debris in ep III
:)
MI 3 was easily the best MI film and it was simply *a good film*.
I would love to see the same crew back for a MI 4.
Please stop treating JJ Abrams as this Messiah that can do no wrong.
There was a lot of good Trek before JJ came on to the scene and everyseems to think the new one is the best ever and tht the last 43 years were irrelevant.
He made a great fun movie with Star Trek but it was by no means the best ever Trek.
Is it a must for a Trek fan to embrace Abrams film as the best ever Trek? I am not dissing it but I think it is far from Trek’s best
Khan, First Contact and Undiscovrred Country are still better.
Nick Meyer is better than Abrams.
My worse fear is if Michael Bay ever directed a Trek movie, then I would throw up.
if JJ does not direct Star Trek XII, that is not a bad thing.
And if he did he better slow down on the pacing, its a shame that future Trek will be dumbed down for that mainstream MTV generation. I loved the film please remember that but part of the Trek I love feels gone.
The one thing I really loved about the movie was how it captured the spirit of TOS. But I read anarticle and what JJ ‘borrowed’ from Star Wars is quite interesting. Well he did say he was a biggger star wars fan.
I am planning to do a horror film when I go back to uni next year and I am thinking of putting 25 million lns flares in it and see what the reaction is. LOL
If tom offers JJ an amazing amount of money to do mission impossible, then JJ should do it. Otherwise no. I also dont care much about the mission impossible movies. I am a fan of the original show though
32
reboot
drop tom
get graves and nimoy as heads of IMF
hire survivng cast as cameos
keep ving rhames (im gonna miss being direputable)
12.
Cruise is a “cultist”? Some people believe that Trekkies are cultists! haha.
#27 – Amen brother.
#30 – ditto.
Abrams, yes please! Cruise, no thanks! Ethan Hunt must be the most uninteresting, unremarkable action hero who ever lived!!!!
Now JJ and his team have overseen the rebirth of Star Trek, let’s see them overhaul Mission: Impossible. Let’s see a story where Jim Phelps takes over from Dan Briggs as head of an IMF team and feature Barney, Cinnamon, Paris, Willy, Rollin and so on.
30/31. captain_neill: ‘Please stop treating JJ Abrams as this Messiah that can do no wrong.’
I can see no evidence of that happening on this thread.
‘My worse fear is if Michael Bay ever directed a Trek movie, then I would throw up.’
Sick bags are in the corner, mate! There’s no reason to suppose that, given the right script, he couldn’t turn out a brilliant Trek film And, since he and JJ have worked together before, here’s hoping . . .
‘if JJ does not direct Star Trek XII, that is not a bad thing. And if he did he better slow down on the pacing’
Why? The pacing is part of the reason people loved the film: a non-stop rollercoaster ride space adventure. If you want jaw-jaw, there are 25 seasons of Trek spin-offs to watch. Trek in the cinema needs to be more than a TV show on a big screen: look at Nemesis and Insurrection for proof of that!
‘its a shame that future Trek will be dumbed down for that mainstream MTV generation.’
How old are you? I’m nearly 35 and I’m MTV Generation! You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about, so you’re using cliches! Generation Z or the Internet Generation (born mid 1990s-to-mid-2000s) sound more like the target demographic you’re attacking: MTV Generation people saw at least some (possibly all) of the original six movies in the cinema or via the fledgling home video market on their first release.
‘I loved the film please remember that but part of the Trek I love feels gone.’
Well, sorry, most of the rest of us don’t feel that way: while the film may have lacked an element of philosophical depth from TOS, there really wan’t much time for it in an establishing movie. There’s no reason to suppose that, now the furniture’s been rearranged, it won’t be back in the sequel.
I thought MI3 was the weakest of the Mission: Impossible films and that it came off feeling like an extended Alias episode. Don’t see this as a good idea. Hope he turns it down. I’d like to see someone man the project with a different kind of style and approach.
I haven’t seen the new TREK film yet, but I have yet to be impressed with anything done by Abrams. Not being critical. He just doesn’t speak to me. Can’t say why.
Imeant ADD generation and its cineam in genral
remember I loved the film, I did not hate it but I dont believe its the best ever
I liked MI3 and I loved Star Trek. And, after seeing Tom’s great performance in Valkyrie, I’m definitely looking forward to seeing him return to this franchise!
No Michael Bay.
Never seen a movie of his that didn’t:
A. get turned off in the first 10 minutes
B. get laughed at
C. make me wish i could have my 2+ hours back
I did not enjoy transformers very much. The writing was just OK but the directing was just atrocious. The new one looks boring (from the trailer, will hold off on the final word until I watch it, probably on DVD) in terms of direction as well.
JJ is a much better director. I do agree, however, he is not the BEST director ever, nor is this the best Trek film ever. I doubt the writers of the movie would even say that, and it’s their film. That said, it does work quite well, and sets us up for some exciting developments in the form of new, different stories with some of our favorite characters (which I expect will slowly turn into the people we’ve known for 40+ years–that will be nice to watch).
Also, again, save Khan (if he must be done) for movie 3. Looking forward to something different.
Star Trek: And Now for Something Completely Different
The Enterprise on the fringes (no pun intended) of known space facing someone or something (that has nothing to do with revenge). Nice character building as well would be great.
-P
Oh, and I never saw MI3, or MI2 for that matter. The first one was just OK.
I know nothing about the subsequent movies.
Maybe I should check them out??
-P
41
I agree with you, it opens up interesting stories but no remakes of classics
42: “I never saw … MI2 for that matter.”
Don’t bother. The first and the third movies were the only ones worth watching. I really felt like I wasted my money seeing the second one, and I haven’t watched it since.
43. Right on
44. Thanks, I’ll steer clear of it. I seem to remember it being chock full of nonsense from the previews (flying motorcycle first-fights?), but it’s been a long time.
-P
#30—”Please stop treating JJ Abrams as this Messiah that can do no wrong.”
Exaggerate much?
“…(everyone) seems to think the new one is the best ever and (that) the last 43 years were irrelevant.”
Alot of people find ST09 to be their favorite feature film in the franchise, but it isn’t even close to everyone. And who thinks the last 43 years of Trek were irrelevant? Are you just making that up?
“Khan, First Contact and (Undiscovered) Country are still better.
Nick Meyer is better than Abrams.”
I can understand a preference for TWOK, but FC and TUC? No way—at least not on my list.
And Nick Meyer was great directing made for tv movies, mini-series, and B-level feature films. But better than Abrams? Not in my opinion. They are two completely different kinds of directors. One made the leap from television to directing perhaps the greatest B-movie of all time, while the other has so far made a bigger leap from television to directing two blockbusters in his first two outings. Meyer’s time has already come and gone, while Abrams has become an A-list director who’s just getting started.
My own subjective list:
1.ST09
2.TWOK
3.TMP
4.TVH
(huge gap)
5.TUC
6.TSF
7.FC
(another huge gap)
8.INS
9.GEN
(yet another gap)
10.NEM
11.TFF (aka The Great Trek Turd Of ‘89)
The third MI movie was easily the best, so I might be willing to visit MI again if Abrams is involved. Cruise tried his hardest to kill that movie, but it still made a lot of money. I think part of that was the pacing courtesy of JJ, as well as a truly nasty bad guy courtesy of Phillip Seymour Hoffman (now THAT is an actor).
Nimoy in MI 4 as Hunts dad…cue Last Crusade style hilarity!
Tom Cruise is batshit insane and needs to be stopped before he really hurts someone.
Anthony, I re-read “10 Things Mission: Impossible: III Can Teach Us About JJ Abrams Star Trek” that you wrote exactly a year ago. Pretty prescient in retrospect. Good work.
#46. Closettrekker
My list:
1. (tie) TWOK & ST09
3. TVH
4. (tie) TUC & FC
6. TMP
7. (tie) SFS & GEN
9. NEM
10. INS
11. TFF
#51—-Seems our taste in Star Trek movies are not all that different.
Must be a Houston thing!
I thought Valkyrie *WAS* MI4. (Or maybe it was MI0?)
MI:4 would be cool if Ethan had to break into area 51 and deal with the North Koreans. The Area 51 task surely is impossible, I mean nobody has ever broke in. Heck a movie about 1947 Roswell and Area 51 may work, somebody give me $150million, I’m suprised Transformers hasn’t touched on that one yet. Transformers 3, please bring in the Dinobots and Unicron, you can have them either time travel or just follow the cartoons for a change.
Part 1 dealth with the NOC list, Part 2 dealth with a bio weapon with cool country music/double wielding ala John Woo, Part 3 dealth with a arms dealer and another bio weapon, Part 4 go for cloaking technology/alien secrets via Area 51. Try to incorporate that hanging from the ceiling/cpu tension scene, but don’t just pay homage to it, redo it better. If you can’t use Javiar Bardom for the Star Trek Sequel use him in MI:4, I want to see this guy as a villian again but in a big summer block buster.
54
Didnt all 3 have a bad IMF agent and ethan got pinned for it at some point.
As long as we’re doing lists:
S. John’s favorite Star Trek movies ====
#1. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.
#2. Star Trek IV: The One With the Whales and Spock in a Bathrobe
#3. Star Trek: The Motionless Picture. I think it was really courageous filming it in black and white.
#4. Star Trek III: The One With Scotty’s Cool Line About Plumbing. And a lot of other stuff that I barely remember until I watch it again out of habit every four years.
#5. Star Trek: The one with “Magic Carpet Ride” and that guy from the pig movie.
#6: Star Trek: The one that spends more creative effort on wasting Malcolm McDowell than it does on wasting Captain Kirk.
#7: Star Trek VI: “We really want everyone to know we read the papers, enjoyed that submarine movie, and once saw a Cliff’s Notes thing about Shakespeare.”
#8: Star Trek IX: I haven’t seen it (even on video) because it looked like total crap, but I’m willing to bet real money that it’s still better than Star Trek V.
#9: Star Trek X: I haven’t seen it (even on video) because it looked even crappier than IX, but I’m willing to bet real money that it’s still better than Star Trek V.
#10. Star Trek V: The one where Spock turns out to have some kind of half-Scientologist half-brother who takes them all back to basic-basic and looks sort of like a non-union fill-in for Sean Connery, but even in this shitpile, the masterful DeForest Kelley manages to deliver a knockout scene. Anyone for a marshmelon? Me either.
S. John’s Favorite Movies Legally Branded “Star Trek” In Accordance With All Applicable Trademark and Copyright Legislation By The Legal Corporate Owners of Said Marks and Rights ====
#1. Star Trek (2009)
So I guess I’m one of those people captain_neill is talking about, because check that out. NUMBER. ONE. NUMBER ONE BAYBEE! BEST IN CATEGORY! JJ, you messiah you!
55.
That is correct, nice catch.
Christopher Nolan should direct MI:4
Maybe get Chris Pine and Zack Quinto in MI:4, Chris Pine can be Ethan’s protoge and Quinto can be a agent with a split personality drunk who redeems himself by saving Chris Pine and Ethan makes the ultimate sacrifice, throw in Javiar Bardom, Lawrence Fishbourne and a North Korean/Area 51 plot and it will be kick ass. BTW I can see JJ doing Superman reboot with Michael Giachonni doing the music.
21
I would rather watch a movie with Tom Cruise than a movie with a nobody that can act. Tom has got charm and he’s a perfectionist, that is why he is a A list celebrity and not a talented actor working at Star Bucks.
#46: “[...] while the other has so far made a bigger leap from television to directing two blockbusters in his first two outings”
MI3 was in wide release (sat and super-sat) for only 5 weeks, and earned less than $135M domestic … that’s a respectable performance, sure, and I know “blockbuster” has no objective, according-to-Hoyle definition, but it seems a little generous to apply it to MI3, especially considering it didn’t even make it to the top 10 for its year (dwarfed utterly by genuine blockbusters like Pirates of the Carribbean: Dead Man’s Chest and The Da Vinci Code) … I mean, geez, even Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby did better (_and_ had better legs) in the same year … Perspective, man. Perspective :)
57 – i have a better pitch….have Pine and Qunito as semingly shadowy gov agent types who always seem to know whats going on… who team up with Hunt to foil the rise of a new dictator in the middle east (Javier Barhem)…
The trouble with the three M:I films is that they effectively told the same story through the eyes of a different director.
De Palma’s film has some nice moments, but the script was weak and the shot composition and editing were very uncomfortable to watch. The reveal of the ‘bad guy’ is eyerollingly stupid and annoying for M:I fans. It’s a shame, because the opening of the film was very good. After the titles, though, it ceases to have anything much to do with Mission: Impossible.
Woo’s film would have been better had his full cut been released, but Paramount insisted on a specific length for the film and parachuted Stuart Baird in to hack down the movie to the right length. Again though, the plot was very much a remake of the first film, only with a traitorous IMF agent we don’t care about.
Abrams’s film is the closest to the original shows in some ways, but is, as has been said before, really an Alias movie in disguise (pun sort of intended!) Actually I really, really would like to see an Alias movie. Loved that show: they’d just have to find a way to bring Jack back!! Unfortunately, yet again we have a traitor in IMF in MI:III.
For a new M:I film I’d like to see a reboot where the IMF boss is never seen and is only heard on a tape recorder/iPod (hell, maybe get Tom Cruise to do the voice!) Get Brad Pitt to play Jim Phelps, Zachary Quinto to play Paris, Juliet Landau to play Cinnamon and Mekhi Phifer to play Barney.
Most of all, make a film based on the Mission: Impossible TV show, not a spy/action film that simply uses the name!
#59—”MI3 was in wide release (sat and super-sat) for only 5 weeks, and earned less than $135M domestic … that’s a respectable performance, sure, and I know “blockbuster” has no objective, according-to-Hoyle definition, but it seems a little generous to apply it to MI3, especially considering it didn’t even make it to the top 10 for its year”
There are different paths for films to take in order to become a blockbuster.
Star Trek is doing it on the strength of its domestic performance, and has a global total (as of Wed) of $$339,660,226.
And while MI3 didn’t do as well domestically, its global gross was over $400 million.
I’m sorry, but that’s a ‘blockbuster’—no matter what part of the World in which the bulk of the money is made.
I don’t think that’s overly-generous at all.
“…genuine blockbusters like Pirates of the Carribbean: Dead Man’s Chest and The Da Vinci Code”
Just because there are *bigger* blockbusters doesn’t make those in question any less genuine. In my mind—there are blockbusters, and there are mega-blockbusters….and then of course, there’s ‘The Dark Knight’.
#62: “I don’t think that’s overly-generous at all.”
I see.
I can’t believe the first ‘mission’ came out in 1996!! And Cruise wants to do another one!?!!?!!??
If MI:4 happens and comes out in 2012, they’ll span 16 years!
Maybe Nimoy will participate if JJ is on board.
I wish Paramount would keep their “tentpoles” in line and keep producing these films with a little more commitment, like say, Harry Potter, or TRANSFORMERS than always floundering around.
How ’bout more Jack Ryan? M:I, Star Trek, A TNG film, and what about the John Clark novels they’ve owned forever?!?!?! And a better Indiana Jones than Crystal Skull.
I guess they are doing better than Warner jacking with Superman forever, finally getting a film out, and then coming off the tracks instead of sticking with Bryan Singer.
#58
Just because Tom Cruise is at the top of the Hollywood “heap” doesn’t mean he is talented, it simply shows that he knows how to market himself. Arnold Schwarzenegger was good at the same thing…..lousy actor, good at promoting himself. If the Hollywood community had the good sense to pick a superb actor and market the hell out of THEM, well then you might have something!
But, no, that makes too much sense!
65.
You have to get lucky, and have your break out movie, be it top gun, terminator or star trek 2009 or be forever relegated to car commercials or soaps. Hollywood like any business looks at the numbers, if you can help a studio make money, they will want you in their movie. The trick is to get a break and get noticed, then it will just snowball.
Talent comes in different forms, actors who are commited to the art and craft and have the patience will get their chance, and sometimes not.
It’s like winning in the World Series of Poker, competing against 6000 people, sometimes the donkey wins and sometimes a pro wins, it’s a game of luck and skill, just like life.
#66
Nice response. Gawd, I love a lucid argument!
#46 And Nick Meyer was great directing made for tv movies, mini-series, and B-level feature films. But better than Abrams? [he] has so far made a bigger leap from television to directing two blockbusters in his first two outings. … Abrams has become an A-list director who’s just getting started.
First let me say #30 was over the top in his statements. But, I think this is a specious argument. Getting choice jobs on films that also earn a great deal of money often have little to do with talent. You may enjoy a particular director’s style for whatever reason, but his success is a mere role of the dice, enhanced by putting himself into the position to obtain the opportunity in the first place. Speilberg had plenty of box office failures (what if the bulk of them had happened early?). Plus pitting Meyer against Abrams is truly apples & oranges, as you have said yourself, it is a totally different kind of film making today. However, what I wouldn’t give for a moment of Meyer’s simple framing and locked-down camera stability during the course of this film, but it simply is not the style anymore. Abrams’ may be a talented director, but as far as Meyer is concerned, hindsight is 20/20. I did not have a single problem with TWOK in 1982 and I think it holds up pretty well now. If TWOK had made as much as TMP, would Meyer still be labeled as unsuccessful (TMP being a fluke IMO)? His failure to transition to the A list more than likely had to do with the relationships he formed in Hollywood and his ability to place himself in a position to be considered for anything greater. Certainly in direct contrast to Weiss’ direction of TMP, Meyer exhibits a more modern style that translated far better for audiences at the time. Was TMP a better directed film than TWOK despite Weiss’ “A” list status? I’d be hard pressed to say yes.
#62 There are different paths for films to take in order to become a blockbuster.
Agreed. Wikipedia has a pretty good article about what constitutes a “blockbuster” these days. I would say in the case of any film that does not gross $500M worldwide, then the definition of a tentpole action-packed type film behind which the studio supports with a $150M budget and a lion’s share of its marketing for the Summer. Clearly Paramount expects Transformers to sell itself, putting its marketing eggs in the Trek basket this year. Trek will more than double its budget at the box office, making it a hit movie, if not a blockbuster-earner, but a “blockbuster” none-the-less. By that definition, MI:III falls into the same category, having grossed only $398M worldwide, the worst of the three, and Paramount’s only big offering for that Summer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockbuster_(entertainment)