October 29, 2009 | by Rob Keyes 

J.J. Abrams Not Directing Mission: Impossible 4

J.J. Abrams and Tom Cruise together again for Mission Impossible 4

J.J. Abrams, now one of the big guns in Hollywood, was integral in making Mission: Impossible III not only a success, but a good movie – something we needed after M:I:II.

Over the last year we’ve heard rumblings that Tom Cruise was planning the inevitable fourth installment. Shortly thereafter, it was reported that Cruise had asked Abrams to join him once again to make Mission: Impossible IV. With those two on board, the ball quickly started to roll and Abrams hired the writers in the summer to pen the screenplay.

The one thing we were still unsure of however, was whether or not Abrams would direct again.

The last update we heard from Abrams was from last month when spoke about Star Trek 2 and M:I IV – he said only this:

“It’s being written right now by Andre Nemec and Josh Applebaum… We’re hoping to get it soon, like by the end of the year.”

There was still no confirmation on whether or not Abrams would take the captain’s chair for the second time in the Mission: Impossible franchise. Fast forward to now where J.J. interviewed with MTV News and revealed that he’s probably not going to be directing.

“I’m producing with Tom… My guess is, given other things, that I will not be directing the movie.”

I liked Abrams’ take on M:I and while I’m a tad disappointed he won’t be directing, he will still be involved in the creative process. He’ll likely be busy with his other upcoming projects, not the least of which is Star Trek 2 which he may or may not direct so I’m interested to see who he and Tom Cruise pick to direct Mission: Impossible IV.

Bookmark and Share
Related Posts with Thumbnails

« 1 2View All »

Tags:

  • Matt C
    I love the Mission: Impossible movies and thought that M:I 3 was very good. My favorite part of 3 was Philip Seymour Hoffman! So, I am hoping they have another bad guy worthy of surpassing Davian!

    As for J.J. Abrams not Directing. It's disappointing, but not that much. Maybe Spielberg could take over? Him and Tom Cruise have worked together before on War of the Worlds and Minority Report. Both of which I personally enjoyed a lot. Just watched Minority Report again and I could definitely see Spielberg taking over Mission: Impossible for the 4th.

    I'm not so sure I like the idea of a younger character taking over the Franchise though. I couldn't really picture anyone but Tom Cruise's Ethan Hunt as the main character.
  • Im sorry, but MI:3 was a total disaster of a movie that felt so far removed from the first 2 films that i was in a state of shock when i left the cinema.

    I had no real problems with Abrams directing, the guy is a serious talent as Star Trek has proved, but i thought MI:3 was really bad.

    MI:2 on the other hand, which is strangely reviled by many, I think is one of the best action flicks its time. I thought Dougray Scott stole the show as the villain, and Tom Cruise did a decent job too, the story was believable and so was the love interest in the form of the delectable Thandie Newton.

    But the first film will never be surpassed in my eyes, I remember seeing it on opening weekend and being very confused, the plot was baffling to me until i was older. Mission Impossible had great action, an amazingly intricate plot, and one of Tom Cruise's best acting roles. Remember the shock of finding out Phelps was the villain??? Nothing in either sequel has lived up to that, proves the law of diminishing returns is true.
  • kosta
    Mission Impossible was a poorly directed, atrociously written film & the two sequels have been treading water in trying to recapture the sombre ambience of Brian De Palma's original. As DrSam says, it's the law of diminishing returns - & it's about lining pockets, not making good films
  • kosta
    ...sorry, that was meant to read "Mission Impossible THREE was a poorly directed, atrociously written film..."
  • I found MI3 deliberately complicated plot, and the non reveal of the main plot device, to be incredibly distracting for me as an audience member and therefore alienated me from any enjoyment from the film.

    I will say the action sequences were well handled, but another great letdown came from not caring about any of the newly introduced and instantly forgettable characters, it seemed there was no real threat. I thought PSH would have been an excellent villain, but he was reduced to a snarling pathetic charactature of a poor James Bond villain very quickly.

    it was a massively missed oppurtunity, while MI3 may have reinvigourated the franchise financially, it killed it for me. But that is, as always, a personal opinion.
  • 790
    What killed this franchise for me was Tom Cruise. He's not an action star.

    He's a joke.
  • John "Kahless" Taylor
    Well, I'm in the minority (again) because I really liked MI2. I liked all 3 movies but I felt MI3 was the worst of them all. I guess I just don't have much style.
  • Josh Rose
    Seriously people. MI3 was fantastic. If you didn't think it was as good as the first one, then so be it, the first one's great, too. But come on. Claiming MI2 is better than MI3? Really??

    MI2 was a completely mindless action film that, yeah, had a couple good stunts, but also had some really ridiculous take-you-right-out-of-the-movie kind of stunts and laughably bad acting.

    And the fact that the MacGuffin was never revealed is no reason to hate the movie. Like Joshi says, WHAT the thing is wasn't important. The movie was about the characters, that's what made it so good. The fact that Abrams isn't directing is really disappointing, because he had a huge hand in making the film so successful.
  • Jessie
    Can we all just be agreed that J.J. Abrams teaming again with "Alias" writers will be at least good enough to tune into?

    Remember how good "Alias" was? J.J. is going into a genre he knows well, which is why Tom Cruise asked him to be involved in "Mission Impossible: 3." A good spy movie is more about the characters than the explosions.

    "Alias" episodes may have ended on cliffhanger action scenes, but they were quickly resloved within the first ten minutes, or sooner, of the next episode. It is character development that drives a story.

    That is what makes "Mission Impossible: 3" a better movie than "Mission Impossible: 2." The character development.
  • Ken J
    MI1 I don't really remember but I remember thinking it was just ok.

    MI2 was freakin atrocious. All of the typical retarded John Woo BS was there;

    Protagonist has long straight hair: check
    Protagonist wears sunglasses a lot or all the time: check
    Protagonist wears long trench coats: check
    Guns never run out of ammo: check
    Dual wielding guns: check
    WAY overuse of slow motion: check
    White doves flying (in slow motion): check
    Motorcycles: check
    Ridiculously fake fight scenes: check

    Please, I stay away from anything that moron John Woo does for a reason. MI3 was much better than the first two in my opinion. Hope they get a good director on board...

    I bet if you edited all of the retarded slow motion in MI2 to play at normal speed the movie will be like 40 minutes long, LMAO!! :-D
  • Ken J
    Oops, forgot to subscribe.
  • JessSayin
    I find it fascinating that so many people have so many different opinions on the 3 films. I didn't see the third one since so many like John 'kahless' Taylor and the critics disliked it.

    I'm with 790 though, Tom Cruiser just doesn't do it for me. He's NOT an action star. (Even though Minority Report rocked)
  • @ JessSayin,

    The third one is good and you should see it.

    @ DrSamBeckett,

    I think you mean the second movie was far removed from the first - entirely different style of movie and action. The third one fit nicely with the first, even with explaining the masking process.
  • rich
    lmao and totally off subject..

    tom cruise is standing right next to him right.. thats not an illusion ??

    he be a tiny man
  • rich
    also it seems like ethan hunt is the next rocky balboa lol
  • ROGER EBERT
    every1 of de palma,john woo, jj abrahams all have their own signature style
    those who curse john woo must know that he is the numero uno in action movies...all "matrix" & wanted belong to the genre of " bullet ballet" which he introduced to the world.
    HIS HOLLYWOOD PRODUCTIONSS HAVE NOT BEEN TOPNOTCH {EXCEPTION-FACE-OFF}

    DUE TO STUDIO CONSTRAINTS........

    WATCH "KILLER" "HARDBOILED""BULLET IN HEAD" " A BETTER TOMORROW"...TO KNOW WHY HE IS THE BEST EVER ACTION DIRECTORS AND WHY HOLLYWOOD CAN'T MATCH UP TO HIS STANDARDS!!
  • Ken J
    @Joshi

    I am knocking John Woo. He might have "invented" a new style, but then he does the same old stuff over and over and over and over. I understand the whole concept of a "signature style" but his relies heavily on gimmicks. And while those gimmicks were cool back when they were new, once they're no longer new, they are simply gimmicks. A good director is one who is dynamic and who is a good story teller. He seems to only have one trick up his sleeve to where when you see him attached, you can almost guess how the movie will go.

    Frankly, I can't stand his whole "ultra cool" protagonist thing, it's annoying.
  • Ken J
    Yah, MI2 was pretty atrotious. MI3 was definitely the most believable, character-wise.

    My favorite action directors are still James Cameron and Martin Campbell. In my opinion those two have mastered crazy intense action without sacrificing great story and characters... But that's my opinion.
blog comments powered by Disqus