Just yesterday the rather welcome news surfaced that Jeremy Renner had joined the cast of Mission: Impossible IV to star opposite Tom Cruise in a yet-to-be-named role (Renner apparently beat out three younger actors, including his fellow Hurt Locker star, Anthony Mackie).
The idea is that if it ever gets to the point where Cruise (and his character Ethan Hunt) stops being the focus of the Mission: Impossible franchise then it can easily be handed over to Renner’s character.
Renner has joined the franchise alongside returning stars Cruise, Ving Rhames, and Simon Pegg, with Noomi Rapace (The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo) also potentially starring. Add to all that the return of J.J. Abrams as producer and it appeared that everything was on course for a straight continuation of the Mission: Impossible series.
Well, in an update to the story it’s being reported by Variety from “insiders” that Paramount is aiming to not just to make another Mission: Impossible, but to have the next film be a reboot of sorts, one that doesn’t continue on from where the third movie left things off.
I’m not exactly sure how it can be a reboot if Cruise and other familiar faces from the franchise are returning, but changing the name is certainly a good start. Insiders state that Paramount may drop the “Mission: Impossible” title, much the same away that The Dark Knight didn’t have “Batman” in its title.
If the name-changing rumor is true then it’s certainly a bold move, but one I can’t see hurting M:I 4‘s box office potential. The Dark Knight went with a Batman-less name and we didn’t exactly see that fail at the box office having passed the $1 billion mark! (Though it did take some (slow) people a bit long to release that it was actually a Batman flick).
Plot details for the fourth Mission: Impossible are being kept under wraps for the time being, however, those familiar with the project say that, “the story brings a fresh perspective to the action-spy franchise.” This only makes the possibility of a franchise reboot that much stronger – I’m curious to see what direction they take the series in while (hopefully) still keeping the excitement and thrills high.
I’m personally a fan of the Mission: Impossible franchise: the first one is solid (and holds up surprisingly well after 14 years); the second is a lot of fun (it’s a guilty pleasure); and the third movie is arguably the best of the series. It’s no surprise they want to make another installment and the idea of bringing a fresh approach to it will likely be a good thing, in my opinion.
Mission: Impossible IV will shoot in Vancouver, Prague, Dubai and parts of the U.S. under the direction of Brad Bird (The Incredibles). It already has a scheduled release date of December 16th, 2011.
Source: Variety
No Loki in 'Avengers 2' 
Movie News Wrap Up: Arnold in 'Expendables 3', 'Choose Your Own Adventure' Movie & More 
Gary Oldman to Direct Cumberbatch & Fiennes in 'Flying Horse'? 
Actors Who've Played Superman 
I really truly enjoyed the first film. After that not so much. The second one was awful. I might check out the fourth though with news that JR is in the cast now. However it still has Tom so undecided.
Here we go again. A ‘reboot’. Please will somebody define that in the context of this movie?
I dont nderstand why they are rebooting it. The story they had from teh third was great. I assusme that they are not signing on the actress who plays his wife in this one either which is really a shame because she had on stage chemistry with Cruise. I hope that these rumors are false. I want to find what teh Rabbit’s foot was and continue on from MI3, the series’ best film imo
Rebooting can be a good thing…In this case, NO! Love the thought process that brought Jeremy Renner’s talent to this already awesome cast. J.J. Abrams!!! Need I say more! I disagree with Daniel F. MI II was an exception to the original MI plot. We had to be shown that Tom’s charcter could whoop butt and get his butt whooped…thanks goes out to John Woo for all of the great fight scenes in MI II! MI4 should continue with the storyline from MI3…then again J.J. Abrams really likes multi-directional storylines and plots. We might not see anything about the Rabbit’s foot until MI5(…to be comtinued)
I actually stopped watching MI:2 halfway through because it was awful. Never bothered with 3 and certainly won’t bother with 4 if Cruise is still attached to it.
i heard it could be called The Great Spy Revolution.hinting that could have been the subtitle but now they are deciding to just call it that.
The Great Spy Revlution sounds like a good title anyway
Achievement Very Very Difficult?
Dropping the name is beyond ridiculous, I’m sorry, I cant see how anyone can see that as a good idea. The Dark Knight may not have had Batman in the title, but it is another name for the character and has been used many times. And Batman featured heavily on the posters and marketing, that isnt a process that can work for something like this.
Having a MISSION:IMPOSSIBLE film and not having that in the title is possibly the most ridiculous idea I have heard for a very long time, how can the studios think this is a good idea, the series exists as the brand name and Tom Cruise.
They might as well just call it “Generic Spy Film No.1138″. If this happens I won’t go and see it, because it won’t be Mission Impossible any more.
This has annoyed me!
The title should be: Mission Impossible: Revolution or IMF: Revolution or whatever subtitle they want to use.
Impossible Mission?
Mission: Improvement, perhaps?
Thing that they have to do that’s really really hard?
10 BUCKS SAYS TOM BUYS IT AT THE END OF THE FILM TO SAVE THE DAY, HENCE RENNER TAKING OVER THE TEAM.
I agree with you 100%. First one was solid, second guilty pleasure and third was the best.
The only thing “guilty” about the second one was the studio stealing our money for that piece of garbage!!!
Or Tom Jumps on an exploding Couch Killing him and Renner takes over
YAY!!!!
They could Use IMF In the title and have a subtitle.
And they will undoubtedly use theme music.
It makes sense.
Remember,last time we saw Ethan Hunt he was going on his honeymoon.
If they do a reboot ,they dont even have to touch that storyline.
They will undoubtedly use the classic theme music I meant.
Darn typos.
Mission Possible
Mission Piece Of Cake
Mission I Can Do That
Mission Look Ma No Hands
Mission with one are behind my back
mission blow it out your ass
mission pathetic
““the story brings a fresh perspective to the action-spy franchise.” This only makes the possibility of a franchise reboot that much stronger”
I’d consider M:I:III to be a fresh perspective to the action-spy franchise. So it may just be a sequel. (Like it should be. BOO reboots!!!)
Not “BOO reboots”.
Reboots in themselves are not inheritly bad. For each generation classical heroes/franchises might need to be reset and started from a fresh perspective (witness the 1966, the 1989 and the 2005 version of Batman). This is a thing that’s taken as a given in the comic book world (aka The Seven Year Rule (movies has longer staying power than comics, so it’s a bit longer for them)).
So, if Cruise serve as a transitional character, there’s nothing wrong with starting a fresh with a new crew. After all, it’s been 14 years since the first of the current gen films.
But, a current trend among studios seems to be bringing out the “reboot” stamp way more often than the SYR warrants, as an excuse to reset badly managed franchises and pretend former mistakes never happened (Superman, I’m talking about you!). And that’s bad.
But, if the franchise drop the MI-stamp alltogether, why bother? Do the studios really think we are unable to appriciate new IPs if they are well done? (like in games, lookit Max Payne III:”Bruce Willis with a beard not being Max Payne in a totally diffent part of the world”).
Also; Noomi Rapace. She’s able to play a well though female, but I’m pretty sure she will end up as a just another type-cast actor stuck in a single role. Odds are her character will be the former abuse victim seeking to prove herself in the eyes of the world while getting revenge on the men responsible (most likely her direct superiour, a father figure or someone in her family (double payout if it’s more than one of these)).
She’s not confirmed yet, but I’m betting that will be her role if she’s cast in this.
Ok yes. If a franchise has gone down the tubes then yes, by all means try to revive it. But that’s what I think M:I:III did. It was that fresh new step that Mission needed after M:I:2.
Wait! Didn’t Ethan Hunt retire from all this spy junk at the end of the third?
You can’t really compare TDK with Mission Impossible. A lot of people (more people than not) a) knew that “The Dark Knight” meant Batman and b) most didn’t actually realise that TDK didn’t have Batman in the title (as in they thought TDK was a subtitle). There’s also the fact that all the same actors where there and the promotional stills had Bale in is Batman suit, instantly recognisable.
Cruise in a film where he shoots people a lot that isn’t called Mission Impossible… it’ll be hard to link that to the franchise since Cruise tends to do that a lot.
Joshi
That was my point also.
DrSamBeckett
Yea, sorry, I honesty didn’t read the other comments before posting, although I have to say, while I find it stupid, I don’t find it nearly as irritating as you seem to.
I love the roman numeral four.
i’d go see it if he Toms annoying Hunt character is killed off by a bunch of evil(snicker)scientologists just for fun. how ironic would that be
I’m surprised this rock video movie has a fanbase.
Actually ,, no I’m not.
welll im not one of them
Looking forward to see this film…..aren’t they filmed M:i:1 in Prague and they wanna film it in Prague again, change another location
When was the Bond film that had ‘james bond’ in the title?
Anyone?
While hunt is obviously no 007, it is kind of obvious what they are trying to do here… No?
Again, they tend to compensate with marketing, lots of the overly recognisable James Bond theme, lots of hints to 007… and they tend to call him Bond a lot in the trailers. Plus, 22 films in, people know Bond.
3 films in, people may just think this is another generic Tom Cruise actioner unless they get the marketing right.
Oh mate, I *totally* agree; it will be all about how the pitch it. But, in general, I think that is the route that Paramount are trying to take it…
I’m a bit upset when i hear that ethan hunt protoge will be the main protagonist on the further franchise of mission impossible because to mission impossible is always about ethan on his personal life in the agent that also include his problem of his mission.I never watch hurt locker yet but i have a full confident with jeremy renner but still i feel sad that ethan wii be gone almost like the video game metal gear solid which solid snake character will no longer be in mgs franchise.
What made the original Mission: Impossible television show interesting was that it was a team, that worked together as a team, and that we regularly SAW working throughout as a team. It was not a showcase for Martin Landau.
The problem with the Mission: Impossible films – enjoy them or not – was that they were essentially a showcase for Tom Cruise. I don’t necessarily see a serious problem with that, but in my eye, it diverges from the original thematic of “Mission: Impossible”.
In the movies, who were Tom Cruise’s team? I don’t know. I don’t remember any of them. Were they even there?
But I remember the other members of Martin Landau’s team. Even if I don’t necessarily remember the actors’ names, they were all there, they were all essential, they WERE the M:I team.
I agree with DrSamBekett. In this case, if you change the name, you change the movie. It’s the whole core of the franchise. Cracking Impossible missions. What if, say, NBC’s series “Heroes” switched names to “I’m not kick ass, but I’m special” or “Super humans with tendancies for drama and self pity”. Would it still be the same?
Reboot? Go ahead for all I care. Can’t stand looking at crazy man Tom anymore.