Mission: Impossible and MORE! With Robert Meyer Burnett
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 авг 2024
- @THEBURNETTWORK returns to discuss how the 1996 Mission: Impossible film managed to pass the torch successfully given their treatment of the beloved character of Jim Phelps.
Watch a great discussion about fraudulent creators here: • Fraudulent Creators: A...
NOTICE OF FAIR USE.
Videos made by The Script Doctor might contain copyrighted material for commentary, parody and educational purposes. This action falls under 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the United States Copyright Law.
#writing #fantasy #sciencefiction #film #television #streaming 
Развлечения
I firmly agree with RMB that "the good guy becoming bad" has become a trope. In fact, I'll even go so far as to say that it's become cliche. It's part of the reason why I don't get too attached to any character, because there's always that danger that they could end up evil or dead.
You both sould do this type of show every week. Thank You.
What a great discussion. Thank you. I wish you two would do more of these
I would see that Indy movie Script Doctor! Great discussion 👍
This is great. This needs to be a regular thing. Please keep up the good work.
What a great discussion. Thanks for doing this!
Great discussion with RMB.
I hated what they did to Jim Phelps in Mission Impossible (1996). I saw it once in the theater in 1996 and never since. I have no desire to watch it again. (I'd have been fine if Voight played Dan Briggs or, heck, go full cliche and make him Jim Phelps Jr. Voight is only 13 years younger than Peter Graves, but the same age difference worked for Harrison Ford and Sean Connery in The Last Crusade). I had other issues with the film. Even in 1996 its idea of what chat rooms and web searches were was laughable. It was as bad as The Net.
I ended up skipping the MI films in the theater until Ghost Protocol, which I really enjoyed. I later saw MI2 and MI3 and really, I wasn't missing much.
Between Paul Newmans love interest and the nun, two different women just trying to do their jobs, "The Verdict" plays out indirectly as a "Me Too" movie more effectively than a writers room today could ever imagine.
great stream!!! ⚡⚡⚡
Good afternoon, friends ❣️
I enjoyed the show today! Thank you
RNB is amazing. He's on salty nerd podcast live and he's doing this! Is RMB A.I.?
There's a snippet of a scene between Hunt and Claire making out in the trailer before the theatrical release. The cut after Claire takes Ethan's hand always seemed too abrupt in the film.
Great job guys!
I left this comment just as the video started. Since I'm new to your Channel, I'm somewhat familiar with you from WDW Pro, I'm curious about your thoughts on older Classics. I had watched a little bit of Stanley Kubrick's 'Killer's Kiss' [1955] online, and even though I had skipped ahead through it a little bit, I found it to be interesting. I wonder if any young people would at least watch it to pick it apart, meaning that I think it has the typical tropes for the era that helped him as a director get his foot in the door (?). When I was growing up, my dad always watched the Humphrey Bogart movies, and I would sometimes watch them with him. I have fond memories of that. Even though it's my childhood perception speaking, I think Humphrey Bogart is the reason why I like Han Solo, and not Luke Skywalker. Luke was too young for me to look up to. Speaking of set pieces, I suppose if someone wanted it put nudity in their movie, there could always be two people fighting in a room full of mannequins.
34:25 Robert that’s because if we are going to enforce these “morals” by a judicial system then I would say that it’s a moral imperative that they are held not just to the same standards but higher standards. If not then we’re just inviting corruption.
Charlie’s Angels pulled the same stupid trick with Bosley being the villain.
And yet that's always been reality, just look at how the world works, you get decent good moral leaders occasionally and rarely and the rest are selling everyone out
You're referring to the 2019 movie, right?
@@Phanto5692 Yes the latest one
Why does Robert Meyer Burnett look Hayao Miyazaki in this video?😂
🔥😎👍
Where are you getting it that Cruise was a big fan of the original M:I TV show? Sincere question.
Because everything I've gleamed about it recently tells me that he never cared for it.
I recently listened to an episode of the Light the Fuse Podcast (the official M:I podcast) and they had Ron Moore on to talk about his work on M:I 2 (another Stark Trek alumn, as you well know), and he was talking about wanting to put Willy Armitage (Peter Lupus' character in the original; this would be a new version but keeping the name) into the movie as a call back to the original TV show. The idea got nixed, according to Moore, because, and I quote here "Tom didn't care at all about the original series. Didn't give a shit about any of it".
Source here at 19:00: ruclips.net/video/VKcbk0_6Zcs/видео.html
I'm also not sure if you're aware, but McQuarrie's co-writer on Dead Reckoning Part 1 and 2 is Erik Jendresen, who, as you probably know, wrote the unproduced Star Trek: The Beginning in the early aughts. So another interesting Stark Trek connection with this franchise.
And just lastly: I actually think The Way of the Gun is still McQuarrie's best movie. I know it ended up bombing and got him into director's jail for the better part of a decade, but I still think it's the best movie he's directed. Maybe a minority view but it's my honest opinion.
Those are great questions. I can only go by what I've heard during my time interning at Paramount before the split, and what Robert knows from his many years working in the industry, and that was how much Tom Cruise loved the original show and how he when Paramount expressed making a movie he wanted in. With regards to Moore's discussion; well that's just movie stars for you. There is also a bitterness there as well. The intention with the first film was to bring back a lot of the original cast, but they refused when they found out what was going to happen to their characters. Their refusal wasn't the most polite refusal, and thusly Tom (from his perspective) had his heroes not want to work with him. As a result, if any idea to bring in the original cast again is pitched, he'd reject it because from his point of view, they rejected him first. That's Hollywood.
@@ScriptDoctor Sounds like typical PR fluff that all actors say though, quite honestly. "Oh yes, HUGE fan of this and that - grew with it and everything", and then when you ask them an even rudimentary question about it, they have no idea what you're talking about and it's obvious they've never watched/read/listened to the thing. I've never heard Cruise say anything about the TV show publicly.
there’s a lot of people who still love and thirst for writing and making art but they’re working crappy office jobs . everyone in hollywood is a nepo baby.
RMB’s worship of old talent is blinding him. The subject of IM film series changing Phelps’ character is the no different than Strange New Worlds changing Spock to an autistic joke. Why is one ok to you and the other isn’t? They’re both demeaning to the characters. They’re both change the fundamentals of how the characters are written. The difference is RMB doesn’t have emotional attachments to IM as he does to Trek, he doesn’t have the reverence to people making new Trek as he does IM films. The example of 006 going rogue is a mismatching example because 006 is not the lead of the series, the only context his example works is if 007 goes rogue, becomes the villain, and 006 becomes the new protagonist. Rob, you know better than lie to yourself with these bad faith examples and gaslight your audience.
My list of films I have Enjoyed re-watching over 100 times over the last 7 years because of awful remakes, and woke agendas.
1.Goonies
2. Flight of the navigator
3. Terminator 1, and 2.
4. Jaws 1, 2
5. Labyrinth
6. Short Circuit 1, and 2.
7. Never ending Story
8. Krull
9. Batteries Not included
10. Cocoon 1, 2, and 3
11. Twilight Zone the movie
12. Nightmare on Elm Street Franchise
13. Friday the 13th Franchise
14. Alien, and Aliens
15. White Fang
16. Free Willy
17. Young Frankenstein
18. Airplane 1, Airplane 2
19. Lethal Weapon Franchise
20. Beverly Hills Cop 1, 2 ,and 3.
21. Return To OZ
22. Space Balls
23. Dracula Dead, and Loving it
24. Good, Bad and the Ugly
25. Quick and the Dead
26. Evil Dead Franchise
27. Original Halloween Franchise
28. Original Hellraiser Franchise
29. Critters Franchise
30. Killer Clowns from Outer Space.
31. Weird Science
32. My Science Project.
33. House 1, House 2.
34. Creep Show 1 and 2.
35. Tales from the Darkside the movie
36. Poltergeist 1 Poltergeist 2.
37. Mask of Zorro
38. Count of Monte Cristo
39. Revenge of the Nerds Franchise
40. Silence of the Lambs Franchise
41. Instinct
42. OutBreak
43. 12 Monkeys
44. Fight Club
45. American History X
46. The Illusionist
47. CaddyShack 1, and 2
48. Tin Cup.
49 WaterWorld
50. Wolf
I can list more in my collection but I am perfectly fine with re-watching my past, letting Hollywood burn to the ground knowing most people who work in the entertainment industry today only wants to check boxes, and push a political narrative to force people into sharing there Thoughts, and beliefs. The Main Solid Foundation Block that all these films on my list have in common is Good vs Evil. Right vs Wrong. if the correct amount of Skin color, Genders, or Stereotypes is all that concerns you when writing a story then you should stop writing and get a different fucking Job.
You've seen 50 movies each more than 100x in seven years? 7 years = 2555. You've seen 5000+ movies in 2555 days? That's dedication or an insane train commute.