Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning Part 2 (Title pending) | May 23, 2025 | Christopher McQuarrie to direct

[Maggie]

27 minutes ago, Speedorito said:

I’ve never seen someone single-handedly manifest the demise of a franchise.

hahaha don't take me too seriously. I'm just having a bit of fun with this.

[Claire of Themyscira]

Maggie & I are some resident funny trolls.

 

Or, maybe not trolls, but we DO love to mess around.

[dudalb]

Actually the future of the MI franchise is a legit question.  Cruise is simply getting  too old for this kind of big action thriller and the underperforming of the last one raises Red flags as to audience interest.

And for this instalmment to go out of control as far as budget si concerned is just about the last thing on earth the franchise needed. Even if the 400 Million rumor is false, clear itt budget will be well North of 250 Million, and in this day and age it is hard for any movie costing that much to make a profit. The huge budget overruns is bad for the franchise.

Some people in this thread were assuring us this one would cost a lot less then the previous one. Has not worked out that way.

One problem I had with the last film was the vilian, not sure making a computer program the big bad was a good idea. 

Edited May 30 by dudalb

[BigBoxOfficeBucks]

Even if the budget is not close to 400m, let's say it is around 300m, this movie is still bombing. Man, this might be the last straw for Paramount to put a pause on the future installments of this franchise. (at least wait for a few more years/reboot) 

[excel1]

This is the perfect franchise for Christmas as we saw with the series last true oqerperformer ghost protocol, they should have stuck with the December dates. No doubt MI:DR does a helluva more as a December 2023 tentpole than it did one early July. 

[kayumanggi]

 

[Human]

So more of Tom Cruise running to try and finish it?

[dudalb]

And, kiddies, now we know a major reason why Paramount is in such finiancial trouble.........

This is a runaway production at the worst possible time for Paramount.

[interiorgatordecorator]

[WittyUsername]

I’d like to think this’ll either be the biggest bomb or the breakout hit of 2025, with no in-between. 

[dudalb]

7 minutes ago, WittyUsername said:

I’d like to think this’ll either be the biggest bomb or the breakout hit of 2025, with no in-between. 

I think the reception of the last MI film sort of rules out it being a breakout hit.

The 400 Million figure is probably  false, but that his has film has really gone grossly overbudget and may still be out of control means it could have a respectable gross and still lose money.

[Barnack]

56 minutes ago, WittyUsername said:

I’d like to think this’ll either be the biggest bomb or the breakout hit of 2025, with no in-between. 

I think this is one of the movie that has the least chance to be a bomb, while having the least chance to be a breakout hit.

 

Floor and Ceiling are probably not that far away for this, the audience are extremely already set, level of quality almost a guarantee and so on.

 

Imagine the resistance it would take to go through to get the audience that have not seen the previous 2-3 MI in theater ? Being a part 2....

Edited June 11 by Barnack

[emoviefan]

13 minutes ago, Barnack said:

I think this is one of the movie that has the least chance to be a bomb, while having the least chance to be a breakout hit.

 

Floor and Ceiling are probably not that far away for this, the audience are extremely already set, level of quality almost a guarantee and so on.

 

Imagine the resistance it would take to go through to get the audience that have not seen the previous 2-3 MI in theater ? Being a part 2....

Well I think that's why they dropped the Part 2 and they are still shooting and blowing up the budget. They are trying make it more stand alone so as not to alienate people who did not see Part One while still continuing the storyline.  Not easy I bet. 

[dudalb]

19 hours ago, emoviefan said:

Well I think that's why they dropped the Part 2 and they are still shooting and blowing up the budget. They are trying make it more stand alone so as not to alienate people who did not see Part One while still continuing the storyline.  Not easy I bet. 

And pretty foolish. Trying to hide what a film is never works very well, and this is the second part of a two part story, try to disguise it as they will. And now they will have to load this film sown iwth a bunch of exposition to explain what is going on.

 

And blowing pu the budget at this point, given the state Paramount is in, is just plain stupid.

 

Anyway I felt making the big bad a freaking computer program was not a good idea for this franchise. It could work with otther more openly Sci Fi franchises, but not here.

[Noctis]

It was foolish to name it Part 1.

[dudalb]

17 minutes ago, Noctis said:

It was foolish to name it Part 1.

I disagree because it WAS part one. It ended ona sort of low key clifhanger, but a cliffhanger none the less.

If they had not called it part 1, there would have been  lots of bitching from people about  not being told it was just the first part.

Bait and Switch tactics never work with movies.

Though I think the reasons for the film underperforiming had nothing to do with it being part one of a two part story.

I am still shocked that instead of trying to get the film in the can as quickly as possible they apparently have decided to sink even more money into additional scenes. That is crazy.

Edited June 11 by dudalb

[Insomnia]

39 minutes ago, dudalb said:

I disagree because it WAS part one. It ended ona sort of low key clifhanger, but a cliffhanger none the less.

If they had not called it part 1, there would have been  lots of bitching from people about  not being told it was just the first part.

Bait and Switch tactics never work with movies.

Though I think the reasons for the film underperforiming had nothing to do with it being part one of a two part story.

I am still shocked that instead of trying to get the film in the can as quickly as possible they apparently have decided to sink even more money into additional scenes. That is crazy.

Didn't seem to hurt Across the Spider-Verse. Sony actually went out of their way to change the title from AtSV Part 1 to just AtSV and then retitled Part 2 to Beyond. Across still ended in a part 1 type cliffhanger and the movie was a banger with the audience clamouring for the next part.

 

Not saying these projects are the same thing, just suggesting that ending Dead Reckoning on a cliffhanger without calling it a Part 1, worst case scenario, probably wouldn't have hurt. And best case scenario maybe it would have had a better opening (can't do much about the situation after the first week, as that was all on the Barbenheimer phenomenon).

[dudalb]

10 minutes ago, Insomnia said:

Didn't seem to hurt Across the Spider-Verse. Sony actually went out of their way to change the title from AtSV Part 1 to just AtSV and then retitled Part 2 to Beyond. Across still ended in a part 1 type cliffhanger and the movie was a banger with the audience clamouring for the next part.

 

Not saying these projects are the same thing, just suggesting that ending Dead Reckoning on a cliffhanger without calling it a Part 1, worst case scenario, probably wouldn't have hurt. And best case scenario maybe it would have had a better opening (can't do much about the situation after the first week, as that was all on the Barbenheimer phenomenon).

I disagree. SOmething was at work besies Barbieheimer to make the movie underperform the way it did.

I reallywonder if the big bad was right for the MI franchise. Maybe in a more openly futurist sci fi series, but a compouter program as the big bad might not have worked with audiences. They like a villian you can hate, and it is sort of hard to work up hate for a freaking mathmatical formula, (unless you are in a final Math exam)...

[Insomnia]

27 minutes ago, dudalb said:

I disagree. SOmething was at work besies Barbieheimer to make the movie underperform the way it did.

I reallywonder if the big bad was right for the MI franchise. Maybe in a more openly futurist sci fi series, but a compouter program as the big bad might not have worked with audiences. They like a villian you can hate, and it is sort of hard to work up hate for a freaking mathmatical formula, (unless you are in a final Math exam)...

I definitely think that played into it from the get go (aka what in my mind was the shockingly soft opening) but I just mean that I believe without Barbenheimer it still would have had decent legs. The reception was really positive, at least among those who actually did see it. It's just it lost a big chunk of audience off the hop, which is where what you said about the AI thing comes in. I, too, think that was a turn off for people. Hell it was for me, but the film ended up working for me anyways.

[emoviefan]

19 minutes ago, Insomnia said:

I definitely think that played into it from the get go (aka what in my mind was the shockingly soft opening) but I just mean that I believe without Barbenheimer it still would have had decent legs. The reception was really positive, at least among those who actually did see it. It's just it lost a big chunk of audience off the hop, which is where what you said about the AI thing comes in. I, too, think that was a turn off for people. Hell it was for me, but the film ended up working for me anyways.

It did not really have a soft opening though.  It opened right in line with Fallout and above Rouge Nation. It made in it's 5 days 78 million. Fallout made 77 and Rouge Nation 69.  Without Barbenheimer it would have had  typical mission legs I think and probably did 185-220 DOM. It did have good WOM despite what a few people around here think and say.