Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
August 5, 2015
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Jason Barney: I don't think it ranks up there with the mega successful franchises like Harry Potter, Transformers, or Hunger Games, but there is no denying the success. It is not like they have been cranking them out like crazy, either. The Mission: Impossible movies stand alone pretty well and we will see how far Paramount can take this.
Ryan Kyle: To repeat a line from my analysis on the opening weekend: "How many franchises can you name that five films deep still draw grosses in line with peak opening of the sequel without the assistance of a reboot, lead recasting, or a decade-long dormancy?" Mission: Impossible gets forgotten about given that the grosses are not close to record-breaking, but in terms of consistency and return on the dollar, it's about as safe as it gets when greenlighting a $150 million production.
Ben Gruchow: I see the Fast and Furious series as a pretty decent analogue for both. In terms of box office, the numbers are a bit lower if we're taking just the first five installments, but you've got a successful opener, a slight dip in gross with the third installment, and a reinvention/reinvigoration of the franchise that starts with the fourth and flowers with the fifth, to escalating box-office gross. With the idea that a M:I 6 is already in the early planning stages, this is the only other major franchise that's contained within the 1990s and 2000s that I can think of where an indefinitely-running franchise has gained steam with its fifth (and presumably sixth) installment.
The quality analogue is a little tricky to describe; I don't believe that the F&F entries are on the same level as the M:I series when it comes to snappiness or wit, but there's a lot of common ingredients here. Both franchises are sincere and consistent in that you know to expect a certain baseline of quality and energy, and that baseline is fairly high. Neither franchise shows visible signs of strain in producing additional entries, partially because both of them reinvented their aesthetic several films in and now chase a totally different tone. Both franchises are made with a respect for the audience they know they have. These two franchises are really sort of in a class of their own, and it's tough to rank them among franchises that have a defined story and a defined start and end (i.e. Harry Potter, The Hunger Games, Lord of the Rings, etc.) In terms of consistency of each entry, I'd rank M:I about on par with F&F and the Harry Potter series, which means it ranks near the top. In terms of box office, it's solidly mid-pack: below HP, Hunger Games, Batman, and Lord of the Rings, on par with F&F (and sort of on par with X-Men), above Underworld, Resident Evil, Austin Powers, and others.
Edwin Davies: Commercially, I think it's somewhere in the middle of the pack. The relative failure of the third film, which was a victim of how crappy the second film was and the negative press surrounding Cruise's very public meltdown, is the only blip for a series that has consistently done well domestically and internationally, without ever breaking out in a huge way as the Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings and Fast & Furious films did.
Artistically, it's in the top tier for me. With the exception of the John Woo-directed second film, which was a huge misstep that hurt the franchise in the long-run, all the films have been at worst very good, with the third and fourth films being great blockbusters. Even the lesser films are distinctive works which bear the hallmark of their directors (unlike, say, the recent Marvel movies) and the sense that each film is being driven by a specific vision has helped them to be more interesting and varied than you'd expect, given how repetitive the premise could become.
Felix Quinonez: Box office wise, I see the M:I franchise as being great but not quite the A list. But as far as quality, I think it's one of my favorite franchises. And I just saw Rogue Nation and loved it. The only one I didn't like was the second one. But other than that, I've loved them all and think that people don't give Cruise enough credit for taking chances with this franchise. Even though it's a big money series, it feels like each director is allowed to actually be true to their vision and the movies never feel like rehashes.
David Mumpower: Commercially, they're in that tier below the mega-openers like comic book adaptations and the other franchises listed here. I think the best comparison is probably the Bourne franchise, which is stronger overall but may have slipped after the reboot was only so-so. We'll have to re-evaluate that proposition when Damon returns.
In terms of quality, that's where the franchise shines. Ignoring the second film, which I liked more than most people, the Mission: Impossible films are impeccable. While the original film has grown a bit dated, that scene of Cruise infiltrating from above is truly iconic. Then, the performance of Phillip Seymour Hoffman in Mission Impossible III glows in the dark as one of the finest portrayals of terrorist villainy in modern cinema.
Ghost Protocol is equally good in a very different way thanks to its visually dazzling set pieces and overflowing volume of good ideas. I mean, a woman who only accepts diamonds at payment is the idea Ian Fleming is kicking himself for never inventing. And I'm pleased to say that Rogue Nation lives up to the billing of the prior two films. I think it's fair to say that this franchise claims two of the five or six best overall action titles of the 2000s, with Rogue Nation a more than worthy addition to the line.
For my money, Mission: Impossible is light years ahead of franchises like Fast & Furious in terms of quality. Since The Hunger Games disappointed last outing and is poised to completely fade with its sequel, assuming it's true to the book, the only apt comparisons I see are the Harry Potter franchise and the Matt Damon Bourne trio. Nothing else is even in the conversation to me.
Kim Hollis: I was also going to compare it to the Bourne franchise. Like the Bourne films, you're looking at a mostly great series of movies (omit M:I2 and Bourne Legacy from the mix). You have a headline performer (Cruise/Damon) who doesn't necessarily mean massive box office, but you can rely on them for at least solid results. And then you have films that bear a signature style from particular directors - Doug Liman, Paul Greengrass and Tony Gilroy for Bourne and Brian DePalma, John Woo (doves and all), JJ Abrams, Brad Bird and Christopher McQuarrie for Mission: Impossible. I do think Mission: Impossible is a significant financial success as a franchise, particularly given that today's audiences can likely barely even imagine the TV show it's based on. I wouldn't place it in the upper echelons, but it is certainly dependable.