ALL SCI-FI

[Bud Brewster]

All the Mission: Impossible movies are loaded with examples of advanced technology that doesn't exist -- much like the Bond movies.

For example, the 3D printing used to create flexible face masks that perfectly imitate human skin was science fiction when the movies came out, and even though we're closer to making that a reality today, it's still science fiction.

And don't forget those marvelous little devices the agents slap on their necks to cause their voices to sound exactly like the person they look like. Definitely science fiction.

In this first movie in the franchise, we get a buttload of semi-real technology in that "Black Room" at Langley (which, ironically, was all white), and the IM team wears cool glasses with built-in cameras that send images to computer monitors and wrist-worn view screens.

And let's not forget the fact that modern science hasn't perfected exploding chewing gum yet -- although I've heard rumors that the R&D labs at the Spearmint Corporation are close to a breakthrough.

Spooky thought . . .
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)

[orzel-w]

Something I thought the Tom Cruise MI violated from the original series was the team aspect. All the Impossible Mission Force in the original series carried equal responsibility for the success of the mission (more or less, depending mainly on their acting talent). At least in the first one or two TCMI all the other team members were barely noticeable. They were there chiefly to support Tom Cruise, Super Agent. It seems to have gotten better in the later installments.
_________________
...or not...

WayneO
-----------

[Krel]

The movie lost me when it made Jim Phelps the villain.

Plus, I'm not really a fan of the grinning gnome.

David.

[Pow]

I totally agree with orzel-w & krel's observations.

As a huge fan of both the '66 TV series & the 80s reboot,M:I was about a team of highly skilled agents working in concert together.
It was never a solo affair.

I knew the minute I read that Cruise was to star in the first M:I movie that that ensemble concept would go out the window.And it did.

Why Tom couldn't go off & make a spy movie with no M:I connections is beyond me?

Jim Phelps as a villain was completely disrespectful to the original show.However, that's what some producers and writers do. They think they are being oh so clever by really twisting around aspects of an original series.

Only they leave a bad taste in the fans mouths.

[Krel]

Another thing to consider is that on the tv show the I.M.F. operated under the radar, using subtlety, guile and advanced technology. The mission was basically an elaborate con game working the mark. If the mark knows he is/has been played, then the con is useless.

In the movies, the I.M.F. is not being subtle at all.

David.

[Bud Brewster]

I certainly understand the influence of fan loyalty and prior expectations and how these affect a person's reactions to a TV series they've loved for years.

I agree completely that the movie made sweeping changes in the established nature of the series.

The fact that I liked the movie clearly indicates that I'm not actually a true fan of the series, and therefore I didn't object to the changes they made.

I agree that one of the show's major strengths was the fun of watching a skilled team working to execute a brilliant plan. To be absolutely fair, portions of M.I. did give us exactly that. The Langley scenes are classic Mission Impossible, complete with the guy crawling around in the air vent (like Barney) and the computer whiz being distracted by the sexy women (like Cinnamon).

But other than that, the movie definitely tried to reinvent the premise, with negative results for the true fans of the show.
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)

[Pow]

I have seen all of the M:I movies in spite of my disdain for the retooling of the M:I premise.

The gadgets are incredible, as are some of the capers & how they pull 'em off.

Yes, Bud, Ethan Hunt did recruit/rely upon a team in the films. Clearly though they were support & Tom was James Bond.

That's simply not true to Bruce Geller's creation.

The loud, spectacular stunt-filled action sequences are also a concession to today's audiences. Frankly if you were to give them a subtle, clever, intelligent spy movie with minor action here & there they would be bored & baffled.

Sad.

[orzel-w]

[Bud Brewster]

Good points, one and all. Ironically the public and the critics complained that the plot was confusing -- which makes me wonder if it was a bit too intelligent for them.

But it certainly wasn't subtle, no siree.

The part that might have confused some folks (and the part I liked very much) was the conversation between Hunt and Phelps after Ethan finds out that Phelps isn't dead.

Ethan is vocalizing his thoughts as he re-examines the events that took place when his team was killed, saying everything as if he believes Phelp's bogus version -- but what we actually see are the real events Hunt is imagining -- such as Phelps shooting himself, along with the other true versions of the events that occurred.

I thought it was an effective way to show how intelligent Hunt was -- he was reanalyzing the situation and figuring out the truth, but he wasn't tipping his hand to the man he now knows isn't his friend and ally.

Question: Did you see "Knight and Day", the enjoyable spy thriller with Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz? I love that one! So light-hearted, and yet action packed and smartly done.
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)

[orzel-w]

[Bud Brewster]