I know that this is the commonly held belief but, how can this be? Barbie and Oppenheimer were two tentpole movies that opened on the same date. In any other conversation they would have derailed each other but by some quirk of fate, they appear to have served each other, co-existed, and only to have derailed MI-7.
By way of further demonstration, unlike the two films opening opposite each other, MI-7 got one free week to play with.
Otherwise, I do feel sorry for Cruise. The poor chap just seem unable to catch a break with the filming of these movies. First Covid and now strikes⌠Everyone must be bloody exhausted.
While it is true that some films just capture the zeitgeist or have audiences hungry for it, box office power also depends on availability of screens.
Cruise saw the problems coming, especially with the lack of IMAX screens after the first week (OPPENHEIMER would usurp those) and the subsequent diminishing box office returns (IMAX tickets are more expensive but are added to the box office reports).
But even Cruise could not cause the move of the release dates, so it happened as it happened.
Granted, a seventh film in a series might not have had the appeal as two original films which also hit the audiences with genres stupidly underserved.
Oppenheimer taking pretty much every IMAX screen seemed to be the big thing. I guess thatâs why Mission Impossible highlights the huge stunts - that IMAX money is vital!
Perhaps that is the catch. With MI audiences knew exactly what they were buying: a series of wildly improbable stunts performed by the lead actor himself, fitted into a race-against-the-clock storyline. Certainly entertaining, but not so different from the other six entries. If you donât absolutely have to see it right now you can probably wait for the double feature coming with Part II.
Neither Oppenheimer nor the Barbie film suffer from that same degree of basic lack of surprising content. Though I did not watch either film in theatres this summer I would probably have gone with the Barbenheimer offer, had I been in the mood. I suppose a number of people feel the same about entertainment these days. Itâs fine when itâs light - but itâs even better when itâs not entirely predictable*.
*Of course one might say anybody with access to the internet - or a school education - will be largely aware how the Oppenheimer story turns out. And surely most folks interested in the art of visual storytelling will probably be able to guess how the Barbie feature develops. But in their respective genres these films are still feeling fresh(-ish) and different, at least to the larger audience.
The concurrent release of Barbie and Oppenheimer transcended the realm of the mundane into a cultural phenomenon. As a consequence of this, Mission Impossible found itself at the periphery of the limelight. The limited availability of IMAX screens was undoubtedly the end for it
Variety is now also reporting that the new MI movie is expected to get a new title. And if you notice similar outlets are now referring to it as Mission Impossible 8. Feels like theyâre trying to distance the movie from Part 1 and be its own thing. Curious to see if any digital versions drop the Part 1âŚ
ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST was shown with an intermission here in 1982 or â83. I even remember one or two LOTR films getting a breather in the middle. A useful tradition we should re-establish where it was forgotten or otherwise deemed unnecessary.
With that running time I would applaud an intermission - and to deny it is a terrible hubris on part of the filmmakers.
I generally question the exploding running times of features in the last years. So often movies these days just go on and on and on, instead of telling their stories in the most precise way. If you want a mini series, do that. Although, many series are not doing that either, meandering, self-generating the same story beats again and again because they are not allowed to end.
In case anyone was interested, they released an extended version of the soundtrack. Itâs available on iTunes and I think you may even be able to listen to it on Spotify.
As for the delay, disappointing but not surprising. The title change will be a curious thing if itâs true. I suppose you could compare it slightly to rebranding of Edge of Tomorrow to Live. Die. Repeat. The big difference here will be the giant âEnd Part 1â at the end of the film proper. In any event, they have my money regardless of the title. I really enjoy Part 1. As others have said, if thereâs a complaint to be leveled itâs that it hits a lot of familiar beats, but donât forget the circumstance in which this thing was made were insane. Itâs amazing itâs as good as it is given the challenges the production has faced.
Well, itâs Paramountâs/Appleâs right to insist theatres show their production as intended. They will probably not be surprised when people in return skip the theatre experience entirely.
My brother saw it with an intermission, and while he welcomed the fact that there was an intermission per se, he hated how badly it was handled: they split it exactly in half, in the middle of a scene, at one of the worst possible moments.
They only work when theyâre intentional.
Of course, the movie theatres want to sell you overpriced litre-buckets of soft drinks (cause thatâs the only way for them to make money), and that results in peoples need to go to the bathroom within less than two hours. Theatres need the intermission to keep people from staying at home and waiting for the streaming or DVD option.
On the other hand, 10 or 15 extra minutes add up to the already overlong runtime of the movie, which results in less showings, which equals in smaller box-office numbers.
The studios certainly love the fact that Marty speaks up for âartistic reasonsâ, because they donât need to say that, at the end of the day, this discussion is about what itâs always about: money.
Personally, Iâve always had a certain fondness for those intended intermission (sometimes theyâre included in special DVD or Bluray editions), because they used to have intermission music
Thing is, when we look at gargantuan productions like KILLERS, there should be at least two natural spots for intermissions (like in any three-act structure). It shouldnât be so hard for theatres to identify them and time intermissions accordingly. If studios and directors are clever they provide a guidance for theatres wanting to use that tool and let them decide themselves.
I remember welcoming ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WESTâs cigarette break (though I wasnât a heavy smoker back then). I suppose by now my joints and back would also welcome a little time to stretch and get circulation flowing again if I watched KILLERS at the theatre.
A few years back, I caught a favorite at Tarantinoâs theater âIce Station Zebraâ and it, of course, had the three minute âIntermissionâ - As does my Laserdisc copy.
