How different is Mission: Impossible IV?
I posted the casting news of the casting of the baddie in the new Mission:Impossible film on the Filmstalker Facebook Page just the other day, but there was something that caught my eye in the story that seemed to go against the comments from Hollywood about the new film.
We've been hearing that it's going to be a completely new film away from the franchise, there's been talk of the previous stories being more or less ignored and a new story being created with just two agents, not a team, and the character history of Ethan Hunt might even be forgotten. This casting news says something against that though.
The previous story told us a number of things:
- The title would not be Mission: Impossible IV or M:I:IV and may not even carry the Mission: Impossible tag
- No team of agents we've seen, just the two. Tom Cruise and Jeremy Renner
- The story will have an entirely new perspective on the franchise
- The story will not carry on from where the previous film left off
With all the stories it sounded as though the entire franchise was being left behind and was getting what Hollywood are so fond of just now, a restart or a reboot.
Now though, with this The Hollywood Reporter story about the casting of Michael Nyqvist, from The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo series of films, as the lead villain so comes a few other interesting titbits of casting that really do shed some doubt on this restart nonsense.
The casting story also revealed:
...with new faces Jeremy Renner, Paula Patton and Vladimir Mashkov joining Tom Cruise, Ving Rhames and Simon Pegg
So Tom Cruise is back, that's not a huge surprise, but if they are not having a team and distancing themselves from the previous franchise, why are we seeing Ving Rhames and Simon Pegg return? Actually Pegg isn't such a surprise as he will be some lighter, comic relief back at the headquarters and won't be seen on the missions, but what of Rhames? Is he being relegated to a desk job or are they actually pulling in a support team?
It sounds like the shades of the franchise are returning, but that perhaps the fourth film won't follow on from the third and we might just see another Mission: Impossible going back to a story from before the story of Mission: Impossible III (Filmstalker review).
Frankly I hope that's what they're doing because anything else feels wrong and extremely dismissive of how well the franchise has done . Oh sure, number x didn't perform as well as number y, but did it make a good, healthy profit? Is there still a desire for the films? Will there be a backlash from the existing fans if the entire franchise is changed?