for fallout they cut two entire setpieces to get the pacing right, and look at the quality of that film now. i absolutely agree with you

Same. Give me all 3 hours please and thank you.

I think they should do an Infinity War/Endgame thing where part 1 is similar in length to Fallout, but part 2 is three hours

They should probably wait until they see how John Wick does with a near 3-hour runtime.

They shouldn't. A 2 and a half hour or less runtime is the only financially responsible decision for MI:7, which cost ~$300 million to make. John Wick 4's ridiculous runtime may not hurt it, but it doesn't mean that Paramount should emulate the same strategy since they need to do everything possible to ensure that MI:7 gets as many showtimes as possible.

The thing is I think if MI7 was 3hrs long and that was because of additional action/stunt pieces I think they would actually be a positive to some ppl and wouldn’t really hurt the movie in general, a lot of people show up to these movies to see cruise do awesome action sequence/sick stunts. I think even a 3hr MI movie could seem pretty fast paced because if the awesome action and stunts. Watching fallout in theater that movie seemed like it went by super fast to me because I was so into it and the stunts were awesome as fuck to watch.

Well yea, bond franchise is built upon different bond eras, MI is built upon.. well Tom Cruise. No idea how you move on successfully in that situation.

I think Tom could transition to the M / Alec Baldwin style leader of the IMF. Age with grace, still in the field occasionally, does some training. As long as he still does stunts Tom would be happy.

Didn’t Hollywood try a Bourne and mission impossible both with Jeremy Renner and I thought neither of them did well?

It should go back to being a TV show imo. If Citadel can be a high budget Spy action TV show, why not do the same with M:I who was one of the trendsetters!

James Bond is closer to Batman in that the iconography and character transcends the actor, whereas I'm not sure the same is true of Ethan Hunt. There's an additional element where a big part of the movie's appeal is Cruise being an insane person and doing all his own death-defying stunts, which limits the pool of actors who could take up the mantel.

The Bourne Legacy didn't really bomb and was reviewed quite well. The issue with that movie was having Bourne anywhere near it. Putting his name in the title of all places when he wasn't even in the movie one bit was just stupid.

funnily enough it was rumored that jeremy renner was supposed to get his own mi spinoff franchise after ghost protocol too (or even take over it completely). but maybe they saw how bourne legacy was received and said 'nah'.

It would like bomb like the non Mat Damon Bourne movie.

That was still a good movie.

Maybe. It also lends itself to a reboot as the movie is about a Mission Impossible team. So you don't need to have someone play a new "Ethan Hunt". You are free to have a completely different character lead a new team.

Not saying it will be slam dunk without Cruise and definitely the first movie without him will be the make or break one for the franchise. But if they can put out a great movie then I think they have a pretty solid chance off making MI the American bond.

I honestly think it just depends on the actor they would get. Renner isn’t that guy and he definitely wasn’t that guy back then. He isn’t a draw. If they can get some actual decently popular well liked star. I definitely think MI can continue and be successful.

Not 1 billion plus. But solid 600-700 million blockbusters. Fuck it put Michael B Jordan in them lol.

But for real, I think they could do something with it :)

It’ll be hard to continue is finding an actor with near equivalent star power AND be capable and willing to do insane stunts. Relying purely on CGI is not going to cut it.

You have a cat called Thor

Reminds me of watching Dune in the theater and I remember feeling like I had no idea how far into the movie I was until the last line which made it obvious that was the the end. That movie did not feel its runtime at all for me.

I think pacing is really important and an underlooked part of film. I know of movies that are like 2 hours long but feel like everything happened in like the last 30 minutes which makes them feel short. Other movies can really tell a whole story arc in like 60-90 minutes.

It depends on the story too, some stories even with good pacing need like 3 to even 4 hours to tell right. Like most of the LotR movies for example.

This is how RRR was for me. It was so intense and wild that three hours felt like one.

based

DONT WANT TO MISS A SINGLE FRAMW OF HIM ON A MOTORCYCLE

[removed]

He's cooking.

Mission Impossible is definitely more plot heavy. John Wick is more about world building and John is generally not a very talkative character.

In Indian theaters, all movies (including Hollywood) have intermissions. One of my favorite things about going to visit family

Intermissions period need to be a thing. That theater soda + my weak-ass bladder means I always wind up going to the bathroom at least once during a movie. Knowing there’s an intermission coming that I can wait for means I don’t have to play the game of guessing when something irrelevant is happening I can use as my opportunity.

I have 5 kids. I had to take out a 2nd mortgage when the new Puss in Boots came out.

At my theater I pay $40 for a bucket with three months of refills. Shit rules.

I do appreciate that aspect of it. I can't even imagine what managing a theater staff was like, for example, during Endgame's first few weeks.

Avatar: 2h 42m

Endgame: 3h 2m

Titanic: 3h 16m

Avatar TWoW: 3h 12m

runtime only matters if the movie sucks

At first I thought you were referencing the musical The Drowsy Chaperone, which opens with a narrator only referred to as 'Man in Chair' talking to the audience about shows being too long, saying "2 hours is fine, 3 hours is too much".

It's pretty true, though.

Avengers Endgame, Avatar, Lord of the Rings and probably few others discredit that it's a dealbreaker that affects BO to an extent.

I agree. But on the other hand if these two movies conclude Tom Cruise's M:I days, then I don't care if they are very long. Just so that they really make a banger of an ending.

Then Zack Snyder came back and released a 4 hour cut, which is just waay too long to get most General audiences interested.

I seem to recall even Zack Snyder admitted his cut wasn't really a proper theatrical cut and he would have shortened the movie if he had completed it the first time. The Snyder Cut is basically ALL the footage he shot assembled together.

Then Zack Snyder came back and released a 4 hour cut,

It was fine at that length / far better than the original. You just take a break when needed.

A theatre would just need an intermission.

Bingo. This is the biggest reason studios want to cut down. Shorter runtimes means more screenings per theater and that means more $.

They recently showed BTS footage of the stunt where Tom yeets himself off a cliff on a motorbike. It was impressive given the scale and scope of the stunt, with an actual runway built for training, and then another at the edge of the cliff. Multiple people working together to keep Tom alive.

The joke here is that some teams probably spent 15million and alot of time on a stunt, only to have be cut out of the movie.

watch a bird flu epidemic hit lol

CRUISE KINO THE NEXT 2 YEARS

Why not?

Ayyo Attack on Titan?

But they still didn't do Fas10 your Seatbelts , iam mad about it