Mission: Impossible Dead Reckoning - Part One (2023) (1 Viewer)

[Osato]

 

[Osato]

More from Deadline:

‘Mission: Impossible’ Release Dates Pushed (Again), This Time To 2023 And 2024

Paramount and Skydance have decided to postpone the release dates for Mission: Impossible 7 & 8 in response to delays due to the pandemic.

deadline.com

I have updated the release date in the first post accordingly.

Paramount hasn't said this, but I'm guessing that this has more to do with #8 than #7. We know that #7 has already wrapped filming, but they've still got #8 to go. If they are running into delays on #8, it makes sense to push #7 back too. It seems clear to me that this is going to be a larger story taking place across the two films, and I think they want to make sure there isn't more than a year's gap between the two. Of course, this is only speculation on my part. But that's what this feels like to me.

If there is a positive here, it is that this gives Mission: Impossible 7 more distance from Top Gun: Maverick so Cruise won't be opening two big action films in the span of a few months.

Plus the theaters will have less to show in the fall.

Maybe a few more chains can go under now.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Plus the theaters will have less to show in the fall. Maybe a few more chains can go under now.

I respectfully disagree. I think this is an overreaction. There is a long time between now and September. Something else will take advantage of the Mission: Impossible date change and fill the void left by this film. If they are experiencing delays on the production side due to the pandemic, then I think it is entirely reasonable to push the release of the films as well. I know it sucks for us as fans, but I think the wait will be worth it in the end.

When Fallout came out, I remember a lot of people complaining that they had to remember stuff from Rogue Nation, even though it had been released only three years prior and with the same writer/director. If Mission: Impossible 7 and 8 are telling a continuous, connected story such as Infinity War and Endgame did, it will be better for the films to ensure a smaller gap between release dates. Maybe they could put out #7 later this year, but if there are pandemic delays on #8, that would create a longer period of time between films, which seems to be what they want to avoid. If that is the case, I don't blame them for this decision.

 

[Osato]

I respectfully disagree. I think this is an overreaction. There is a long time between now and September. Something else will take advantage of the Mission: Impossible date change and fill the void left by this film. If they are experiencing delays on the production side due to the pandemic, then I think it is entirely reasonable to push the release of the films as well. I know it sucks for us as fans, but I think the wait will be worth it in the end.

When Fallout came out, I remember a lot of people complaining that they had to remember stuff from Rogue Nation, even though it had been released only three years prior and with the same writer/director. If Mission: Impossible 7 and 8 are telling a continuous, connected story such as Infinity War and Endgame did, it will be better for the films to ensure a smaller gap between release dates. Maybe they could put out #7 later this year, but if there are pandemic delays on #8, that would create a longer period of time between films, which seems to be what they want to avoid. If that is the case, I don't blame them for this decision.

You might be right.

How is 7 delayed if they are filming 8 right now. Odd.

This is my favorite spy series in recent years. They get so many things right that the other guy isn’t getting right with his films.

I just watched ghost protocol and rogue nation again recently. Great films.

I’m hoping to get to Fallout again soon too.

 

[Jake Lipson]

This is my favorite spy series in recent years.

I like them too and I understand the frustration with the delays. But the first film was released in 1996 and there have been long gaps between installments before. I really don't think that the delay is going to hurt the film. It's not as though this is the second movie and it is coming out a decade-plus after the first one. The series is firmly established and especially the most recent ones have been very successful and well-liked, so I think people will come back.

Again, I want to be clear that I'm speculating here. But let's say for the sake of discussion that I'm right. If there is a cliffhanger ending on #7. I would rather wait now in order to have a short wait in between #7 and #8. If they did put out #7 now, and then it takes a few years to make #8 and resolve the cliffhanger, that involves more frustration. Won't seeing them closer together provide a better experience overall?

We also don't know how much post-production is left to be done on the next film.

As Variety pointed out in their article, the globe-trotting nature of this series makes it especially prone to pandemic issues. It's not like they can quarantine and shoot the whole thing on a closed soundstage in a single location.

The seventh film, which is co-produced by Skydance, was originally slated to open on July 23, 2021 and has been postponed multiple times as the public health situation has changed. The movie’s globe-trotting production has also been delayed due to COVID-19. “Mission: Impossible” films tend to be complex to shoot as they have many stunts and effects, with the filmmaking team trying to do as little green screen work as possible. They also often jet from one foreign port of call to another (the latest films shot in Italy, the U.K. and Poland, to name just a few locations), a bit of international hopscotch that was complicated by a pandemic that knows no borders.

‘Mission: Impossible 7’ and ‘8’ Postponed Until 2023 and 2024 Due to Pandemic

'Mission: Impossible 7 & 8' will delay their release until 2023 and 2024 respectively.

variety.com

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Of all the major studios, Paramount without question has been the most cautious with their release slate during the pandemic. They sold off a lot of their 2020 and 2021 slates to streaming outlets like Amazon Prime at prices that suggested they were just looking to break even and get these investments off their books. To date, they haven’t really engaged in the practice of using their theatrical slate to boost their streaming service, nor have they really been engaging in hybrid releases to get as much as possible out of a diminished landscape. Of their active franchises, Mission: Impossible is really the last man standing. They’ve mismanaged Star Trek to the point that even they don’t know how to bring a Trek film to the big screen anymore, and Transformers has all but run its course. They cannot afford for M:I to fail. They are not in a position to accept a “pandemic great” opening; they need pre-pandemic normalcy.

It’s all speculation at this point but this doesn’t seem like a big change in strategy for them. It looks to me like they’re acting quickly to protect their investments and have decided that waiting a year is better than taking a chance on another pandemic variant rearing its ugly head during the summer/fall as Delta did, or Omicron in the winter. And since no one today can say with any certainty what the rest of this year will look like, to me it looks as if they’re continuing the “wait and see” strategy. Having two M:I movies in back to back year was clearly preferable to them than having an M:I7 release potentially be crippled by the pandemic. Selling off the rest of their slate at break even prices reducing the risk in their holdings probably gives them the breathing room to carry the M:I budget on the ledger indefinitely.

As the least prolific major studio right now, the one thing they probably can’t absorb is an underperforming M:I release. Sony gambled big with Spider-Man and won but they’re not comparable franchises. They might be looking more towards No Time To Die and seeing how that movie did fine when MGM needed it to be much better than just fine.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Having two M:I movies in back to back year was clearly preferable to them than having an M:I7 release potentially be crippled by the pandemic.

I completely ageree with your assessment of Paramount's decision-making here as far as the financials go. You are absolutely correct that this is the biggest marquee franchise that Paramount has at its disposal and they are relying on it to be huge.

However, additionally, it is also worth noting that every release date Mission: Impossible 7 has ever occupied has been in the year directly preceding Mission: Impossible 8. Most of the major actors have been announced for both films and the writer-director is the same. It seems to me that they are doing an Infinity War/Endgame style two-part story arc and deliberately intend to have the films spaced no more than a year or so apart.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Plus the theaters will have less to show in the fall.

Universal has already claimed the release date for a romantic comedy called Bros:

https://deadline.com/2022/01/billy-...mpossible-7-re-assignment-to-2023-1234917738/

How is 7 delayed if they are filming 8 right now. Odd.

I don't believe that they have started filming 8 yet. I think I read a while back that they were going to take a break in between so that Tom Cruise can promote Top Gun this summer.

But the reasons @Josh Steinberg and I have stated in our above posts still apply to #7.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Variety has an article about the reasons, and the costs, of the delay.

No surprise here -- shooting a big complicated movie like this during Covid has made the budget balloon out of control.

Also, I called it: the delay for #7 has to do in part with plans for #8.

Part of the reasoning, according to one individual with knowledge of the film, is that Cruise wants to have finished making the eighth film before the seventh film is released. That’s because the seventh movie ends with a cliff-hanger, and the star wants to make certain that the transition between installments is seamless.

The plan is for the seventh and eighth films to serve as a sendoff for Cruise’s Ethan Hunt character — a “culmination” of the entire series, as one insider described it — which has also upped the pressure on the star and McQuarrie to deliver a slam-bang farewell to the super spy. The two films were originally scheduled to shoot concurrently, but that plan was abandoned. The eighth film is about to go into production in South Africa.

Lots more at the link. The whole article is worth a read.

‘Mission: Impossible 7’: How COVID-19 Blew Up the Budget of Tom Cruise’s Spy Sequel

Tom Cruise had grand plans for "Mission: Impossible 7." Complicated stunts and COVID-19 proved costly.

variety.com

 

[Alex...]

 

[Alex...]

Title revealed at Cinemacon

MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE — DEAD RECKONING PART ONE

https://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/1219799-mission-impossible-7-8-titles-announced-by-tom-cruise

 

[Jake Lipson]

Well, that's a mouthful.

To be honest, I'm not sure I like that name because it doesn't make sense. "Dead" doesn't seem to work as a descriptor for "reckoning." As opposed to what, an Undead Reckoning?

Also, this implies that #8 is Dead Reckoning Part Two. I've got to say I prefer giving each film its own title, as they are doing with the recently-announced Across the Spider-Verse and Beyond the Spider-Verse.

I've updated the thread title and first post to reflect the news.

 

[TravisR]

Dead Reckoning is a cool title but I never like the Part 1 and Part 2 thing. I'd rather they go with a different subtitle for #8.

 

[Jake Lipson]

I never like the Part 1 and Part 2 thing.

I think you generally have to go with Part 1 and Part 2 if you are directly adapting an existing work that is a single entity. So for example, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows had to be Part 1 and Part 2 because the book is one thing. It would not have been appropriate for them to come up with a different title for the eighth film in that series that J.K. Rowling never used for one of her books.

However, Mission: Impossible does not fit that description. They aren't really adapting anything. Yes, the general premise of the IMF and franchise title is from the old television series. However, these are new screenplays telling a new story which isn't being adapted directly from, say, old episodes of the show. So they can name it whatever they want.

Also, it's just a long mouthful of a title in its entirety and "Part 1" only makes it longer. "Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning Part 1" doesn't exactly roll off the tongue like, say, "Kill Bill Part 1" did.

 

[Malcolm R]

So for example, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows had to be Part 1 and Part 2 because the book is one thing. It would not have been appropriate for them to come up with a different title

They did it with The Hobbit, a single book divided into three films with unique titles.

 

[Lord Dalek]

They did it with The Hobbit, a single book divided into three films with unique titles.

Although in that case, 65% of what's in The Hobbit films isn't even in the book

 

[Mikael Soderholm]

Well, that's a mouthful.

To be honest, I'm not sure I like that name because it doesn't make sense. "Dead" doesn't seem to work as a descriptor for "reckoning." As opposed to what, an Undead Reckoning?

Also, this implies that #8 is Dead Reckoning Part Two. I've got to say I prefer giving each film its own title, as they are doing with the recently-announced Across the Spider-Verse and Beyond the Spider-Verse.

I've updated the thread title and first post to reflect the news.

You haven't heard the expression 'dead reckoning' before?
'In navigation, dead reckoning is the process of calculating current position of some moving object by using a previously determined position, or fix, and then incorporating estimates of speed, heading direction, and course over elapsed time. '

Dead reckoning - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So no, dead as calculated opposed to actual observation, live, although the etymology is uncertain.

I liked the series more and more as it evolved, so looking forward to this.

 

[Alex...]

Trailer will drop with Top Gun: Maverick

 

[Jake Lipson]

This movie isn't coming out until July 2023. I'm not really sure what Paramount has to gain from releasing a trailer to the public so far in advance.

They did it with The Hobbit, a single book divided into three films with unique titles.

Good point.

The difference between Tolkien and Rowling is that Rowling is alive and well and has a great deal of creative control in her contract, so she would have almost certainly vetoed any attempt by Warner Bros. to use a different title than she wanted.

You haven't heard the expression 'dead reckoning' before?

I do not recall it offhand, no. Thanks. You learn something new every day.

 

[TravisR]

I think you generally have to go with Part 1 and Part 2 if you are directly adapting an existing work that is a single entity. So for example, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows had to be Part 1 and Part 2 because the book is one thing. It would not have been appropriate for them to come up with a different title for the eighth film in that series that J.K. Rowling never used for one of her books.

Agreed. They can't really change the name of HP since it was an adaptation. Same goes for whatever the last two Twilight movies were called. Outside of that, I think I prefer a new name for every movie.

This movie isn't coming out until July 2023. I'm not really sure what Paramount has to gain from releasing a trailer to the public so far in advance.

Just a guess but I think it'll be a quickie teaser and you'll see Tom Cruise do part of some suicidal stunt rather than a full 2 and a half minute trailer.