Mission: Impossible 7 & 8 (2023/2024)

I love what Tom Cruise has done with the Mission Impossible movies, and they will be fondly remembered. I recently revisited the Bourne films, and I love them too. But they really should have stopped with Ultimatum in my opinion. Some franchises are great while they last, but in the end James Bond will outlast them all and continue on. I’m not sure if continuing the franchise after Dead Reckoning Part 2 is a good idea.


I remember the exact moment while watching Rise of Skywalker where it just hit me that I had reached a point where I feel I’ve had my fill of all things Star Wars for one life and my interest just wasn’t there anymore. I hate to say it but I had that same feeling while watching this trailer.

Looking forward to seeing it but… I’ll have had enough after these films…

1 Like

It cannot be repeated ad nauseam, for sure.

And making this next one a two-parter is, aside from the obvious box office stretching studio strategy, probably a sign that Cruise & McQ know this and want to go out with a bang.


The Bond series had some advantages (which may not have appeared so at the time):

  1. The series was on to a new Bond in its sixth film–just seven years after the introduction of the first Bond–which I believe established the idea that a Bond would have his run, but the role was only lent to an actor, and never became “his.” Additionally, there were three Bonds in a span of four years–1969-1973.

  2. CASINO ROYALE (1967) was a Bond film that existed at the same time as the EON films.

  3. When Bond made his appearance, most moviegoers were familiar/comfortable with lead roles being recast in an ongoing series: the Lone Ranger; Tarzan; the Falcon.


All great points, @MrKiddWint.

When people talk about Mission: Impossible they talk about what insane stunt will Tom Cruise do next.

With Bond there’s always the questions of who’s the villain? Who’s going to be the Bond Girl? Who’s the next henchman, will they have a fun gimmick? Where are they shooting? Who’s directing? Will Bond have a new car? Who’s doing the song? And on top of all that we have the biggest question of all: "Who will be the next James Bond?

Nobody is asking who will be the next Ethan Hunt because Ethan Hunt is just Tom Cruise. There’s not much there as a character, his relationship with his ex wife has helped a lot and it will be interesting to see where they take his relationship with Ilsa Faust (a great Bond Girl name to be honest.) With Dead Reckoning being a two-parter I think we’re going to see Ethan fail some aspect of the mission and leave it on a cliffhanger. Which would be a great direction to go.

Once the movies are done I think Paramount might pull a Star Trek and take M:I back to television. After the J.J. Abrams Star Trek movies fizzled with Star Trek: Beyond they couldn’t pull a 4th film together and streaming television is where Star Trek took off again. I think M:I could follow a similar path. Lower stakes, no one would be expected insane stunts but they can certainly do elaborate heists and con jobs. If a M:I TV series was successful they can always try to spin-off into more movies.


Exactly. And after they’ve seen the movie, all this is being discussed, even among “normal” (i.e. not us nerds) moviegoers. With M:I, all that’s being discussed is that stunt Cruise pulled (and on which the entire promotion is based on) and maybe a second one too and sometimes Cruise’s performance. The last other thing of greater interest in the M:i movies was whether it was a good decision to have Jim Phelps turn bad, and it’s been a while since that happened…

1 Like

It’s the smart thing to do. Give the fans two more films (eight in total) and walk away before age becomes a factor for the leading man.

Stories like Bourne especially are more self contained and become repetitious the longer they go on. It’s much harder to justify standalone films when the focus is on character development and revelations from the past. Mission Impossible is less tied down in that regard, but if you’re going to call it a day bringing things back to the first movie allows the story to come full circle.

Whether we like it or not, the series as it is (an action showcase for Tom) has to end sometime and now seems appropriate. Sure, things can go on, but as has been shown time and time again, at the cost of quality and overall perception.

Writing down a list of insane stunts they’ve yet to do and spreading them out across a finale is a good way to end things for both the audience and creative team.


The problem with Jason Bourne was that the producers never where interested in Ludlums books after they used parts of the first. After that it became repetitious because they used the same script for another four films…


Whoah… Two hours and 36 minutes without credits!


Looks like the folks in Rome were more cooperative than they were during SPECTRE’s production:

Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One | Rome Car Chase Behind-The-Scenes - Tom Cruise - YouTube



Is Tom Cruise in this?

And it’s still on July 12.

Meanwhile, Nolan smiles…

1 Like

Didn’t the officials in Rome pull a bunch of permits EON had for Spectre just before shooting? I seemed to recall that the car chase was suppose to be more elaborate but when it came time to actually shoot it Rome city officials pulled back approvals and heavily restricted what EON could do.

1 Like

They only thing they objected to was shooting a stunt around the Quattro Fontane because of its fragile state while undergoing restoration.

Considering they let them shoot all over the city (including numerous World Heritage Sites) and into the Vatican and along the banks of the Tiber, I think officials were plenty cooperative.


I knew it was something. Its almost been a decade since Spectre filmed so I had forgotten the specific details.

1 Like

The MI premiere in Rome this afternoon and, of course, the interviewer asked the question every action/adventure director has to answer (with video):


So, they won’t wrap things up after the next one?