Last week we reported that JJ Abrams had been asked by Tom Cruise to produce a fourth film in the Mission: Impossible series. Tonight the Hollywood Reporter has more details on the project including noting that it could be slated for 2011, the same year Paramount is also hoping to put out their sequel to Star Trek. Details below.
Two for JJ in 2011?
THR is reporting that Abrams and Cruise have agreed to co-produce, but JJ is not on board to direct. The nature of the film is not yet determined. THR lays out a number of potential options, including a ‘reboot’ of the franchise with a Star Trek-like new ensemble of unknown actors, with Cruise’s Ethan Hunt as a potential mentor character, or possibly not in the film at all.
What is of most interest to Trek fans is that the THR article states that the target for M:I:4 is for 2011. JJ Abrams is already slated to produce a certain Star Trek sequel, which has the target date of the Summer of 2011. All of the previous M:I films were also summer movies. JJ Abrams is a multi-tasker, but one has to wonder if he could deliver two tentpoles within months of each other. As Paramount is the studio behind both projects, they may have a decision to make as to which one to make the priority.
As noted in our last article, the Star Trek: Something Somthing sequel already has a script commissioned, so it seems to be farther along, but in Hollywood things can always change.
ooo mentor character, cough cough chris pine
Id like to see JJ do both
hust reboot MI and drop Cruise
JJ better stay with TREK. It’s a sure-fire success. Might as well keep up the great reputation.
As much as people seem to hate Tom Cruise, I honestly cant see anyone else playing Ethan Hunt in MI but him.
ohno i was afraid of some kinda jj conflict with mi and star trek-hope nothin interferes with trek and that jj will want to direct again-i am scared he may be more comfortable with mi also knowing that is easier to do also-sigh
I thought JJ said that he wanted to take a break from producing movies based on 1960s TV shows starring Nimoy (both M:I and Star Trek). Now, it looks like he is doubling up on that. Sucks to be him (sarcastic tone).
Get Nimoy in new MI film as Paris! :)
Trek does seem like more of a sure thing.
I would welcome another M:I if J.J. was involved. M:i:III is easily my favorite of that franchise. (And I like the first two as well; yes, even M:I-2….)
well lets try this
No Cruise
No Hunt
Oh and no more of that lead female romantic interest $#!%
Ill take Bond having a romantic interest but not in MI
id say drop the bad IMF agent gag (and drop the lead/Hunt getting blamed at some point)
as to any one else playing Hunt. the charactor has not grown on me. I havent seen the films enough to form an opnion. adn obviously the first impression wasnt that strong :( I still just prefer the original. the classic view people have. recording. form team. get in. missdirect. badguy falls. get out.
Would LOVE to see a Paris cameo in MI4.
Abrams has to learn to stop slumming it!
Once you’ve worked with REAL actors how can you go back?
Yeah make Paris the new head of MIF doing the tape intro etc!
Reboot the M:I series and this time, base it on a television show called Mission: Impossible! ;)
I suspect that Abrams might be producer of Star Trek (1)2 and co-producer of M:I, with the directing duties going to other people. Nothing wrong with that: I remember, as a kid, eating up Steven Spielberg-produced movies as happily as Spielberg-directed ones!
The dissection of Abrams “Trek” explains the problems and challenges with the 2009 movie. If development is radically changed, the next film could be great, but based on the last performance (see http://structureddream.blogspot.com/ ), we will see and hear great effects with incoherent plot, shamefully lazy scripting, and beautiful cinematography with a top notch musical score.
I’d like to see a reboot based on the original concept behind M:I. Think about it. A guy gets a secret tape recording offering him a mission “should you choose to accept it.” That means it’s a volunteer mission, totally off the books. He doesn’t have a big government agency to support him; he has to recruit actors, magicians, engineers, circus strongmen, whoever he needs to help him pull off the con. There’s no headquarters; they meet in his living room to plan the caper. And if they get caught or killed, the government disavows any knowledge of their actions. They’re completely on their own, pulling a dangerous con game with no backup. That’s an intriguing premise, but the show lost track of it in later seasons and the movies all totally overlooked it.
So JJ directs MI:3, it gets him a job directing Star Trek, which does well enough that they want him on MI:4 . . . . . .
MI:3 topped out at $134 million . . . I think I’d direct the Star Trek sequel.
You know, I could never get over the arrogance of making Mr Phelps a baddie in the 1st movie, I loved the Mission Impossible TV series both 60’s and 80’s. Making Phelps a baddie was the same for me as turning Captain Kirk into Darth Vader.
The closest I’ve been to watching a MI sequel is watching the Austin Powers opening directed by Speilberg.
I don’t mind Cruise but he should never have been allowed to get away with this just to put himself in the series.
So I say Stuff MI:4 JJ – get onto ST:2 Today!!!!!
17 wrote”You know, I could never get over the arrogance of making Mr Phelps a baddie in the 1st movie, I loved the Mission Impossible TV series both 60’s and 80’s. Making Phelps a baddie was the same for me as turning Captain Kirk into Darth Vader.”
Very well said.
I do like Tom Cruise though and don’t understand why so many turned against him. So the guy would do cartwheels for his girl and the guys who wouldn’t for theirs want to paint the guy as a jerk.
@KevinA:
Did you see what JJ did to Kirk and Spock? Much worse than what the TV producers in the 60’s did. Now, instead of a tough but smart skipper and a conflicted half-human we have a destructive sociopath and a religious fanatic preaching self-delusion (he calls “faith”) as preferable to logical understanding of natural reality.
I can’t believe more people are not nauseated by Abrams’ offensive and slick product. Parts of it strike me as pathological, where as Rodenberry’s oversights just seemed naive.
Nimoy back as Paris…that would be awesome! or Martin Landau…is he still alive??…JJ could reboot Space:1999..that would be sweet!
another 60’s… er 70’s show… not starring Leonard Nimoy…
Tom Cruise…whats the disdain for Cruise…I long for Top Gun 2 !!!
Come on Maverick!!!!
JJ didn’t do a good job of MI3. I wish Tom Cruise would pick a totally different director – the MI franchise is never going to make sense. Brian De Palma spy movie followed by John Woo full-on genre action movie followed by JJ’s hackneyed superhero movie (Can I be a secret agent/spiderman and lead a normal life?). Give us another take and give us another way to do a Hollywood blockbuster.
I would think Star Trek has to be the priority at the point, considering that it’s been a smashing success and M:I-III was widely considered to be a disappointment (entertaining film, though).
And I don’t see any need to reboot the M:I franchise. I think there are still plenty of stories left to tell with Tom Cruise’s Ethan Hunt as the focus.
Why not go back to the original premise and NOT have Jim Phelps be a bad guy. That was the worst decision in ages. It was a cheap way to get a plot twist that undermined everything about the source material.
My guess is that Paramount won’t release MI4 and a Star Trek sequel into direct competition with one another for Summer dollars. One of those projects is likely to be delayed—-hopefully MI4.
17. KevinA Melbourne Australia : ‘You know, I could never get over the arrogance of making Mr Phelps a baddie in the 1st movie, I loved the Mission Impossible TV series both 60’s and 80’s. Making Phelps a baddie was the same for me as turning Captain Kirk into Darth Vader.’
I agree for the most part. However, making Phelps the bad guy wasn’t so much arrogance as ignorant stupidity – people grabbing the rights to a franchise seemingly without really having watched any episodes. Better surely to make Jon Voight’s character Jim Phelps’ successor and make Jim Phelps the Kitteridge character, with Peter Graves playing him.
Much as Bill Shatner is disappointed about not appearing in Star Trek VI, at least he personally agreed to appear as Kirk in a crappy death scene in Star Trek: (De-)Generations and Chris Pine later delivered a very good performance well on its way to becoming the Kirk we know and love from the old days.
Peter Graves, on the other hand, had to watch the character he’d played on and off for almost 25 years reduced to a ham-fisted villain in what was little more than an overblown cameo by an actor who, at the time, was pretty much forgotten. At least Peter Graves refused the offer to play Phelps. It would be wonderful to get a cameo featuring him for the new film.
24. Closettrekker
Well, releasing the films a couple of months apart – one at the start of May, one in mid-to-late-June ought to be ok! Plus, if they were to do a scaled-back film, truer to the TV show, they could probably massively reduce M:I’s budget.
Star Trek totally gets priority over MI:4. The current popularity of Star Trek and given the fact while MI:3 was better than the other two films, it still did not perform nearly well enough in the U.S. to give it priority for Paramount and Abrams over Star Trek. If Abrams decides to direct the Trek sequel, I’d say MI:4 gets pushed back to either Fall 2011 or Summer 2012. Either which way, Trek is one of Paramount’s hottest commodities at this moment and they definitely are not going to spoil it for another Mission Impossible flick.
Have Bill Shatner in M:i:4 playing yet another…. Jim Phelps. He can be taking advantage of the name (a la James Bond) and be a troublemaking private spy–one part buffoon, one part Thomas Crown (as in the TC Affair). Think a geriatric version of Remington Steele’s storyline. Remember, Remington was the fictional creation of… anyway.
Simple solution, take the original Casino Royale movie take on the name Phelps, so that Jim Phelps was not one person in particular in the IMF. When the original Jim ‘retired”, the next leader of IMF was also called Jim Phelps… and thus explaineth the Jon Voight character (and the Shatner one I suggest.)
Then have the original and true Jim Phelps, Peter Graves show up in the end. That’d do it.
Oh… and keep Star Trek: Something Something opening on the same weekend in May. M:i:4 could open July 4, 2011, thus playing on the “4”, if they decide to accept it.
Trek’ll have legs for Paramount, and then by July 4, M:i:4 can pick up.
TM: “JJ Abrams is a multi-tasker, but one has to wonder if he could deliver two tentpoles within months of each other”
Why does it suddenly seem like JJ is being questioned? And the health of Star Trek is being questioned in the face of the rumored Paramount merger with another studio?
TM: “The current Viacom and Paramount leaders have been very pro-Star Trek and especially pro-JJ Abrams. A big corporate merger could always result in new priorities and strategies”
Randall: “Bottom line is, a merger would be a mess. And Star Trek would probably suffer.
Shouldn’t this be a place to be more positive about everything involved with Trek, JJ, CBS & Paramount?
I’m perplexed over this entire matter.
Why is a Mission Impossible film even being done after the artist and box office letdown of MI3?
Why is it being considered after a falling out between Paramount brass and Cruises’ production company?
Why is Abrams involved after complaining about getting away from TV-to-Film franchise projects?
Why are some here giving the advantage to TREK over MI4? TREK09 film didn’t do all THAT great. You’d think the film did 500…700…900 million worldwide or something. A worldwide gross of 350-400 million is NOT the big leagues. TREK clearly hasn’t solved the problem of international ticket sales, or multi-demographic audiences, especially females.
Paramount must really be desperate to be going down this road.
#26—While you’re right about the US performance of ST09 vs. MI3, the latter performed better globally than the former can reasonably be predicted to finish.
MI3 finished with a global gross of over $400million.
In fairness, I wouldn’t be surprised if a Star Trek sequel (with Abrams as director, of course) did better in its global totals than either ST09 or MI3.
But while we know that (at least for now) JJ Abrams is not going to direct MI4, we don’t know if he is going to direct the next ST feature either. If Abrams is merely producing the Star Trek sequel, will it be as highly anticipated in the general public? Maybe. If it is, that really says alot about the general appeal of this cast in these roles.
I may be wrong, but didn’t MI III have a stronger international presence than Trek? Might that not effect the decision?
I would hope Trek would take presedence or JJ could manage both, giving priority toTrek, but is the decision his, Cruise’s or the studio’s?
ps.
I took my 12 year old nephew and his friends to see the film on Sunday. They knew nothing about Trek and they loved it.
pps
I’m in the Uk.
Why not have both Nimoy and Shatner for cameos, Shat could be a buddy of Agent Paris and use to work for Moscow. And have it about a plot to mess up America’s Moon Base outpost.
Since Paramount and Cruise have a “divorce” with each other, a divorce that has existed since M:I:III came out in 2006, Paramount should consider making “Star Trek XII” their high-priority film for 2011. Since the first one is a monster hit domestically, 2011 should be for Star Trek, not Mission: Impossible. But if Abrams can pull both off, then I wouldn’t mind it. The new Star Trek film has given me a lot of faith in J.J. Abrams and his co-workers of Damon Lindelof, Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman for their efforts in turning the eleventh film a great Star Trek movie (way better than Nemesis, thank you!). The new film also gave me what he can do behind the camera to make a great movie of any franchise. So, “Star Trek: Something Something,” should be Paramount’s priority, since they knew that they had a hit before the film came out and wanted a sequel out in two years. As I have said in the past, 2011 will celebrate the 45th anniversary of the Star Trek saga, and I can think of nothing more than to celebrate it with the twelfth film. Both the fourth, sixth and eighth films came on the franchise’s twentieth, twenty-fifth and thirtieth anniversaries. Nemesis came out to celebrate the fifteenth anniversary of TNG, not the franchise. Man up Paramount, and give Star Trek another hit. Mission: Impossible has got three successful sequels, a fourth would probably just derail that entire franchise. 2011 FOR STAR TREK!
31. Closettrekker wrote: MI3 finished with a global gross of over $400million.
Where did you get that figure? BOM has it at $397,850,012, and roughly the reverse of the numbers Trek is likely to get here. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt you were adjusting for inflation.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=mi3.htm
Nevertheless, I believe Trek will clear at least another $30 million in the US before it closes and another $20M foreign. That’s roughly $7M a week for a month, and it doesn’t even need to make that to beat MI:III since it’s likely to be in theaters for over 2 more months if Batman Begins is any litmus test.
Anyway time will tell.
saw trek for the 6th time today at a matinee and it was the first time the theatre wasnt at least 60% full-only 9 people….
I don’t know why people are going on about Paramount ‘prioritising’ anything! Studios can make more than one film at a time! There’s no reason Abrams can’t produce ST2011 and M:I:IV at the same time.
Mission: Impossible and Star Trek are the two great series to come out of Desilu in the 1960s and both deserve our support, especially if Abrams and Cruise take a lesson from ST09 and reboot back to basics with the next M:I film!
#35—“Where did you get that figure? BOM has it at $397,850,012, and roughly the reverse of the numbers Trek is likely to get here. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt you were adjusting for inflation. ”
Actually, I was misquoting Anthony from another recent MI article. I should have said “close to $400 million”, rather than “over $400 million”.
But yes, if adjusting for inflation (although that was admittedly not my intent)—that probably puts MI3 above the $400 million mark globally.
As for the likelihood of Trek surpassing those ‘global’ numbers, I don’t think it’s a certainty, but perhaps it is a more reasonable expectation than I was giving it credit for. As you say—-time will tell.
I liked MI 3 much better than MI1 and MI 2.
If they make MI 4, I hope Simon Pegg reprises his role from Mi 3.
why bother with with leonard nimoy lets give martin landau his due he was the spock of mi form start to third season