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

[Insomnia]

12 minutes ago, emoviefan said:

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. 

That's why I said in my mind. I acknowledge I'm basing this on my own expectations. I thought that movie was going to explode off not only the Top Gun Maverick hype but the idea that a Tom Cruise action movie was an elite theatrical experience (which itself was generated by Maverick). Rightly or wrongly, that www my thinking.

 

In fairness the Mission Impossible movies since Ghost Protocol have also gradually gotten a little bigger with each installment so I guess I figured that pattern would continue.

[emoviefan]

2 minutes ago, Insomnia said:

That's why I said in my mind. I acknowledge I'm basing this on my own expectations. I thought that movie was going to explode off not only the Top Gun Maverick hype but the idea that a Tom Cruise action movie was an elite theatrical experience (which itself was generated by Maverick). Rightly or wrongly, that www my thinking.

 

In fairness the Mission Impossible movies since Ghost Protocol have also gradually gotten a little bigger with each installment so I guess I figured that pattern would continue.

Yeah there was a hope that it would really break out past the Mission norm but being the 7th movie in a franchise it was a lot to ask for newbies to come on board because the star's last movie was such a massive hit. It  did not help any with the release date and a underwhelming marketing campaign where they went a whole year between trailer one and trailer two

[dudalb]

And now we hear news that Paramount had to restart production on GLadiator 2 to reshoot a major battle sequence.

Paramount seems to be having a string of "Production problem films" at the very worse time it could happen for them.

[Belakor]

Cruise is good, he already has a deal with WB. Paramount is not in that much trouble, at the worst is going to be bought cheap.

[cinema pal]

4 hours ago, dudalb said:

And now we hear news that Paramount had to restart production on GLadiator 2 to reshoot a major battle sequence.

we hear news, but is it really to reshoot something or to shoot additional scenes?

[lab276]

I'm still looking forward to this. 

[Noctis]

The only times Part 1 had no deterrent effect on a series was Potter and Twilight. They were both based on books and had a loyal, secure fanbase that already knew the ending. DH1 did not see a dip in quality with the split (DH1 is actually one of the more popular films in the series) and Twilight's utterly rabid female fanbase remained very consistent. Avengers, VERY smartly, saw the warning signs where the split in The Hunger Games killed momentum for its finale due to it being a noticeable dip in quality compared to its predecessors, especially Catching Fire. And the less spoken about Divergent the better.

 

Dune Part 1 is based off a book. 

 

Since the Avengers is not following a book or a comic in a strict fashion, having Part 1 would have diluted much momentum for the fanbase and pushed a lot of casual fans to wait for it on streaming. Plus, the title Avengers Endgame is so much more potent than Avengers: Part 2.

 

Now, the issue with Mission Impossible, is that more than all of the other franchises, is that it is dominated by casual fans. Including Part 1 in the title in an already long existing franchise made zero sense in the current climate we live in. In the age of streaming services and digital downloads, there is nothing more off putting to a fanbase that is largely casual than seeing a Part 1 in the title. 

 

If it were simply called Dead Reckoning, hype would have been significantly higher and would have done well over what it did last year.

 

[lab276]

They also didn't advertise Dune, as Dune Part 1.

[Noctis]

DP.

 

Edited June 12 by Noctis

[AMCTheater2000]

 

[Belakor]

Who cares what the numbers are, give Cruise some credit. Top Gun 2 did almost 2 billion out of nowhere when many said was a pointless sequel.

[Human]

44 minutes ago, Belakor said:

Who cares what the numbers are, give Cruise some credit. Top Gun 2 did almost 2 billion out of nowhere when many said was a pointless sequel.

Apparently Top Gun has a much higher ceiling than Mission Impossible.

[Ryan Reynolds]

any other director be fired by now, over budget by 100m after the last flop. might as well split movie in 2 and make this a trilogy 

[emoviefan]

2 minutes ago, Human said:

Apparently Top Gun has a much higher ceiling than Mission Impossible.

Yeah Top Gun Maverick brought in demos that Mission is not. Mission is mostly a old white man franchise at this point.I say that as a " older white man" That old white demo can get the movies to 170-220 DOM and 570-800 WW so still pretty good as long as the budget's are under 200 not what has happened with these last two movies.

[dudalb]

On 6/11/2024 at 10:58 PM, cinema pal said:

we hear news, but is it really to reshoot something or to shoot additional scenes?

In the end it, from a business POV does not matter.....it is still shooting expensive scenes for a movie already way over budget.

 

[WittyUsername]

14 minutes ago, Ryan Reynolds said:

any other director be fired by now, over budget by 100m after the last flop. might as well split movie in 2 and make this a trilogy 

I’m pretty sure Cruise is the reason they’re going over budget. 

[dudalb]

1 hour ago, AMCTheater2000 said:

 

Those figures say it all.

Cruise  is not a guarantee of box office sucess.

Granted, no star is nowdays, but the idea Cruise is some mirical at the box office who can guarantee a film success  is silly.

And that is why I am not optimistic about this film. I cannot see it doing enough additonal business then the first one to make itself profitible given how much it is costing the studio.

[emoviefan]

5 minutes ago, WittyUsername said:

I’m pretty sure Cruise is the reason they’re going over budget. 

yeah I love MCQ and what he done with these movies but he answers to TC. This whole MCQ should be fired thing has gotten old.

[dudalb]

3 minutes ago, emoviefan said:

yeah I love MCQ and what he done with these movies but he answers to TC. This whole MCQ should be fired thing has gotten old.

And that is just wrong. He should answer to the studio..the people who are paying the bills for the film.

And I repeat, tolerating this kind of overspending is something studios cannot afford anymore..least of alla studio on  shaky finiancial ground as Paramount is.

 

[PrinceRico]

This is going to be massive flop with the budget. Doubt it even reaches 180 domestic. Time to retire this franchise.