It lost Imax screen booking time to "Oppeinhiemer", which got 3 weeks as compared to " MI 7" getting a mere 9 days, & most (as I did), definitely wanted to catch it on Imax, reason I was forced to go the first weekend, movie star minded actor that he is, this drove Cruise crazy to have to lose out of the gate during the crucial first 3 week window for the biggest box office success. And the media pouncing with all of the "why it failed" tropes right after the first weekend results, quickly put the nails in the coffin!
You failed to mention that since the pandemic , the cost of living means that people don’t have money for each movie. People were saving money aside for barbenheimer. But also it lost all its imax screens after 1 week which was a stupid decision for its release
I think the reasons for its underperformance was the“Barbenheimer” effect which was unprecedented combined with Nolan’s film taking away valuable and lucrative IMAX screenings. This combination decimated Mission’s box office to the cost of anything upwards of £200 million.
Same director for the last 3 and also the new one. It's becoming the same. They didn't even have a finished script for Dead Reckoning and just made things up along the shoot. At least the first 4 MI were all fresh (maybe not story-wise, but at least in style). I especially like the characters and the humor in Ghost Protocol. I think MI worked because different directors could bring something different to the franchise. Two times Christopher McQuarrie was enough. But with the third and fourth I'm getting McQuarrie fatigue.
I think putting "part 2" in the title is hanging an albatross around the film's neck. Even if they are stuck with doing a direct sequel, they should make it as "standalone" as possible. Maybe even wrap up the uninteresting "AI" plotline as quickly as possible, even if it's supposed to be the main plot! Kill it like it was Smaug in "Battle of the five armies" and move on. Just like "Spectre", an unengaging McGuffin can kill a movie.
They've changed the title to Mission Impossible: The Final Reckoning, removing the 'part 2' and implying this could be the last Mission Impossible movie.
With Fallout being the best installment of the franchise, I think Dead Reckoning was pretty decent too and had the best stunts whatsoever. However, the AI thing was too shallow, the villain too mediocre and story felt numb at some point. I think with the final part, that's what I hope at least, they're gonna make things right and will give us a satisfying ending.
Thanks for the vid. Mission Impossible used to be watchable, but Tom Cruise's ego has made that less enjoyable and more predictable. Maybe viewers are watching for the the Cruise stunt that does NOT go as planned, and which is caught on film. That will do to his face and body what Father Time seems to have lagged on. I imagine a movie with a spectactuar death scene that was REAL, might make for popular viewing, espeically since it is Cruise.
I thought car chase too long cut down and Hayley atwell she in way too much why she in movies for play theif they'll ready did have theif in Mission impossible 2 l don't need another thief
A problem for the film was the overwhelming success of "Top Gun: Maverick". People had already seen a 'Tom Cruise film', so they really didn't need to see him again. Add in that the franchise has been going on a long time, and might just be running out of steam. Also, the twists are all too familiar at this point. How many times can we still be surprised when someone pulls off a mask only to reveal themselves to be someone else? Or watch Cruise run, ride a motorcycle, and defy death again.
Agreed. Better to quit whilst you're ahead. But unfortunately Hollywood is doubling down in hopes that sequels will bring more fortune. Unfortunately for true movie lovers, money isn't everything. Case in point - Look at what's happened to Fast and Furious.
It was a good movie. One has to take other factors into consideration not mentioned here. Tom Cruise still entertains. Moreover, "audience fatigue" coild likey be due not to seeing many impossible movies but that movies on the whole have adopted the woke culture and made ppl apathetic about the mentioned on the whole. Viewers are moving to other forms of entertainment ljke video games etc.
The franchise should have ended at Fallout; the ending of that film would have been a great ending of the series. But they decided to move forward, for some reason; probably for money. What happened to Ilsa Faust in Dead Reckoning Part One killed the series for me.
@@johnbratmon6385 I couldn’t agree more with your Ilsa Faust comment! I think they had some falling out with Ms Fergusson and she had to leave, otherwise it doesn’t make any sense
Because you have to add marketing expenses wich almost cost around 50% of the basic budget. And then, every ticket sold is divided equally between theatres and the producing company . So, they have to sell tickets in a total amount that doubles the whole cost pool to break even.
@ Are the marketing expenses not included in the budget? But I see what you mean about the tickets sold having to be divided. Thanks for clearing that up👍
@@adhamsalem9355 Probably the same reason you don't put tax on your price tags in the US. Some airport staff member kindly subbed me the tax on a Roy Rogers burger when I was once caught out by that scam.
If I have a hard time to follow a plot or the motivations of lots of characters in a film, I massively lose interest in that film. After the first Mission Impossible I was a bit disappointed that the ending was so utterly over the top compared to the rest of the film which was quite remarkable and entertaining. But having a helicopter tied to a train dash through a tunnel and that dash not ending within seconds with a terrible crash was just ridiculous. The franchise lost me as a spectator in cinemas after the second installment which was even way less believable than the first film. The negative trend from the final scene in the first film dominated the second. I only watched Mission Impossible films on TV ever since and I only find some scenes entertaining. MI films came down to a pure effects spectacle. In the most recent MI films I completely lost track of too many threads in the convoluted plot to really bother anymore. Get back to good storytelling, please. And reduce those action scenes to stuff I can believe. But I think I might belong to a minority here.
1) Tom Cruise (and Ethan Hunt) is 60 years old. It is incoherent & contradictory to believe that he can perform at a moment's notice as an expert gymnast, a track sprinter, a martial arts expert, able to beat up multiple young stronger men, etc. He could pull it off when he was 40, but it has now become ridiculous. 2) Audiences want a break from their everyday awareness of big brother enslaving everyone through surveillance. Why pay for a movie in order to experience additional overt indoctrination and obvious psychological conditioning? 3) Audiences want a break from their everyday negative stress of forced affirmative action and forced diversity hires. Why pay for a movie in order to experience more of it? A movie is for people to immerse themselves into an entertaining fictional story that gives them a break from real life ... not to experience more guilt trips, preaching, lectures, scolding, etc. 4) None of the characters were likeable. Several were downright intolerable. Difficult to experience sympathy for anyone in the cast. The attempts at tongue-in-cheek comedy and slap stick comedy were horrible, as if the show runners were intentionally trying to make it crappy.
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
It lost money due to STUPID release date, 1 week ahead of Barbie/Opp. Woulda easily cleared 800 Million if came 3 Weeks ahead.
A success of The Final Reckoning will really be a Mission Impossible...😅
2:03 - I believe they’ve changed Dead Reckoning - Part 2 to The Final Reckoning.
It lost Imax screen booking time to "Oppeinhiemer", which got 3 weeks as compared to " MI 7" getting a mere 9 days, & most (as I did), definitely wanted to catch it on Imax, reason I was forced to go the first weekend, movie star minded actor that he is, this drove Cruise crazy to have to lose out of the gate during the crucial first 3 week window for the biggest box office success. And the media pouncing with all of the "why it failed" tropes right after the first weekend results, quickly put the nails in the coffin!
Agreed
You failed to mention that since the pandemic , the cost of living means that people don’t have money for each movie. People were saving money aside for barbenheimer. But also it lost all its imax screens after 1 week which was a stupid decision for its release
Very good points
Reason #1: It was awful. Reason #2: Ridiculous stunts for the sake of Cruise showing off with no tension/risk or purpose.
I think the reasons for its underperformance was the“Barbenheimer” effect which was unprecedented combined with Nolan’s film taking away valuable and lucrative IMAX screenings. This combination decimated Mission’s box office to the cost of anything upwards of £200 million.
Same director for the last 3 and also the new one. It's becoming the same. They didn't even have a finished script for Dead Reckoning and just made things up along the shoot. At least the first 4 MI were all fresh (maybe not story-wise, but at least in style). I especially like the characters and the humor in Ghost Protocol. I think MI worked because different directors could bring something different to the franchise. Two times Christopher McQuarrie was enough. But with the third and fourth I'm getting McQuarrie fatigue.
Agreed. Let's hope the finale brings back some glory. However with the budget and targets in place, it's looking very 'impossible'
I think putting "part 2" in the title is hanging an albatross around the film's neck. Even if they are stuck with doing a direct sequel, they should make it as "standalone" as possible. Maybe even wrap up the uninteresting "AI" plotline as quickly as possible, even if it's supposed to be the main plot! Kill it like it was Smaug in "Battle of the five armies" and move on. Just like "Spectre", an unengaging McGuffin can kill a movie.
They've changed the title to Mission Impossible: The Final Reckoning, removing the 'part 2' and implying this could be the last Mission Impossible movie.
I thought the whole train scenario at the end of the movie was pretty underwhelming.
Actually for me that was maybe the only part of the movie that felt more like an MI movie
With Fallout being the best installment of the franchise, I think Dead Reckoning was pretty decent too and had the best stunts whatsoever. However, the AI thing was too shallow, the villain too mediocre and story felt numb at some point. I think with the final part, that's what I hope at least, they're gonna make things right and will give
us a satisfying ending.
Thanks for the vid. Mission Impossible used to be watchable, but Tom Cruise's ego has made that less enjoyable and more predictable. Maybe viewers are watching for the the Cruise stunt that does NOT go as planned, and which is caught on film. That will do to his face and body what Father Time seems to have lagged on. I imagine a movie with a spectactuar death scene that was REAL, might make for popular viewing, espeically since it is Cruise.
lol let’s hope not. That’s a bit harsh.
Thought the last Mission Impossible was brilliant! Even my sister enjoyed it and she can’t stand the freaky little man that is Tom Cruise!
I went to watch this in India and there were only 19people in the hall....but the movie was so good and enjoyable....just the release date😔
I think the franchise will need a reboot. One of few that can pull it off without much of a problem though.
I thought car chase too long cut down and Hayley atwell she in way too much why she in movies for play theif they'll ready did have theif in Mission impossible 2 l don't need another thief
I love the MI movies but IMHO it should have ended at Fallout.
I personally think that it should had ended at Ghost Protocol.
@suzifaughn1188 Hi Suzi that is a good point. I feel that Fallout rounded everything up nicely.
A problem for the film was the overwhelming success of "Top Gun: Maverick". People had already seen a 'Tom Cruise film', so they really didn't need to see him again. Add in that the franchise has been going on a long time, and might just be running out of steam. Also, the twists are all too familiar at this point. How many times can we still be surprised when someone pulls off a mask only to reveal themselves to be someone else? Or watch Cruise run, ride a motorcycle, and defy death again.
Agreed. Better to quit whilst you're ahead. But unfortunately Hollywood is doubling down in hopes that sequels will bring more fortune. Unfortunately for true movie lovers, money isn't everything. Case in point - Look at what's happened to Fast and Furious.
It was a good movie. One has to take other factors into consideration not mentioned here. Tom Cruise still entertains. Moreover, "audience fatigue" coild likey be due not to seeing many impossible movies but that movies on the whole have adopted the woke culture and made ppl apathetic about the mentioned on the whole. Viewers are moving to other forms of entertainment ljke video games etc.
Maybe running out of story can't think new story mission impossible 7 is about key
Could you at least prepare for this video?
It has changed its title.
Also Maverick did almost 1.5 billion.
Thanks. Title amended 😃
The franchise should have ended at Fallout; the ending of that film would have been a great ending of the series. But they decided to move forward, for some reason; probably for money. What happened to Ilsa Faust in Dead Reckoning Part One killed the series for me.
@@johnbratmon6385 I couldn’t agree more with your Ilsa Faust comment! I think they had some falling out with Ms Fergusson and she had to leave, otherwise it doesn’t make any sense
Strangely ....I found Dead Reckoning's box office performance and Kamala's election results correlated....😅
Why does a movie with a budget of 290million USD have to make 900million USD to break even?
Because you have to add marketing expenses wich almost cost around 50% of the basic budget. And then, every ticket sold is divided equally between theatres and the producing company . So, they have to sell tickets in a total amount that doubles the whole cost pool to break even.
@ Are the marketing expenses not included in the budget? But I see what you mean about the tickets sold having to be divided. Thanks for clearing that up👍
@@democlips1 i actually don't know why they don't include it in the cost pool total but that's the case in the american movie industry
What he said :-) Thanks @adhamsalem9355
@@adhamsalem9355 Probably the same reason you don't put tax on your price tags in the US. Some airport staff member kindly subbed me the tax on a Roy Rogers burger when I was once caught out by that scam.
What went wrong is they made too many , should have stopped a few years back
If I have a hard time to follow a plot or the motivations of lots of characters in a film, I massively lose interest in that film.
After the first Mission Impossible I was a bit disappointed that the ending was so utterly over the top compared to the rest of the film which was quite remarkable and entertaining.
But having a helicopter tied to a train dash through a tunnel and that dash not ending within seconds with a terrible crash was just ridiculous.
The franchise lost me as a spectator in cinemas after the second installment which was even way less believable than the first film. The negative trend from the final scene in the first film dominated the second.
I only watched Mission Impossible films on TV ever since and I only find some scenes entertaining. MI films came down to a pure effects spectacle.
In the most recent MI films I completely lost track of too many threads in the convoluted plot to really bother anymore.
Get back to good storytelling, please.
And reduce those action scenes to stuff I can believe.
But I think I might belong to a minority here.
Heart of stone was much better than m-i 7 even heart of stone is the copy of m-i 🎉
The fact is that the film wasn't the masterpiece film critics said. There are at least four better films in the franchise.
That's opinion, not "fact". "Better" is a matter of taste.
@@mellowfellow-h8rOf course, but my opinion is right. 🤣🤣🤣🤣
1) Tom Cruise (and Ethan Hunt) is 60 years old. It is incoherent & contradictory to believe that he can perform at a moment's notice as an expert gymnast, a track sprinter, a martial arts expert, able to beat up multiple young stronger men, etc. He could pull it off when he was 40, but it has now become ridiculous.
2) Audiences want a break from their everyday awareness of big brother enslaving everyone through surveillance. Why pay for a movie in order to experience additional overt indoctrination and obvious psychological conditioning?
3) Audiences want a break from their everyday negative stress of forced affirmative action and forced diversity hires. Why pay for a movie in order to experience more of it? A movie is for people to immerse themselves into an entertaining fictional story that gives them a break from real life ... not to experience more guilt trips, preaching, lectures, scolding, etc.
4) None of the characters were likeable. Several were downright intolerable. Difficult to experience sympathy for anyone in the cast. The attempts at tongue-in-cheek comedy and slap stick comedy were horrible, as if the show runners were intentionally trying to make it crappy.