LATEST NEWS

'Mission: Impossible 5' Production Halted Until They Fix the Ending

by
February 20, 2015
Source: THR

Mission: Impossible 5

Here's a classic example of why Hollywood is a broken machine just trying to pump out products. Mission: Impossible 5 was originally slated for release on Christmas Day this year, but just last month Paramount Pictures revealed they had bumped up the film a full five months. But here's the rub: the film was still in production in London, and now THR reports shooting was recently halted for a week because the film still doesn't have a satisfactory ending. That's right, a major motion picture studio sent a blockbuster film into production knowing that they didn't have a good ending. Is this surprising? No. Is it stupid? Absolutely.

During the "week or so" off production, director Christopher McQuarrie sat down with an unnamed writer friend, who isn't being paid or credited for work on the sequel, to craft an ending for the Tom Cruise movie. Paramount is trying to make this sound like it's not a problem by saying, "Chris, Tom [Cruise] and a third person wanted to take a minute to get from what they thought was a good place to a more perfect place." Their positivity isn't necessarily misplaced though as the trade notes one executive responded to questions about being behind schedule by referencing another debacle at their studio that turned out fine, ""Are you kidding? We made World War Z." Here's hoping their confidence isn't misplaced and this comes together, but the movie hits theaters on July 31st, so we'll see.

Find more posts in Development, Movie News

Discover more on ZergNet:

  • capitandelespacio
    Men In Black III had the same issue about the script. Remember Alec Baldwin ditched the movie because of that?
  • ColinH
    Movies have dealt with this since the beginning of the industry. It's a lot more likely that they had an ending and are realizing it needs something better, which is pretty common. To jump to the conclusion that " a major motion picture studio sent a blockbuster film into production knowing that they didn't have a good ending" is a bit of a stretch.
  • ari smulders
    People are attracted by mission impossible, so it's for a studio a cash cow. Production wise it doesn't make a different, they want just another ending. No big deal, if they already have 3 quarters of a movie ready. And by the way:world war z was a great Action picture...
  • TheOct8pus
    And they're proud of that piece of shit World Bore Zzzzzz?
  • David Diaz
    I'm not worried. If they want to write a better ending after shooting most of the film, great. Hopefully it makes for a better film.
  • ListenToVinyl
    What that quote should have said was "Are you kidding me? We made that shitty movie World War Z and look at how much money that brought in!"
  • desispeed
    thing that's interesting with Z is that it was shot and in the can and then they went and re shot scenes and edited it all together and made a profit. The common movie viewer who had no clue about the production issues doesn't care one way or another and just wants an enjoyable product which is what WWZ gave em
    • George
      It seems not uncommon, unfortunately. It usually seems to be a matter of luck whether it works out, rather than skill. Lord of the Rings. Was a complete screw-up. According to Viggo Mortensen, the second two films were a complete mess after initial production. If The Fellowship of the Ring hadn't been a success, they wouldn't have been able to afford the regular reshoots over the subsequent years to belt them into shape. The Conversation was basically created in the editing room. They didn't shoot all the material, they didn't complete the story. Things had to become dream sequences, etc, because they weren't finished. And - SPOILER - the whole intrigue about the tape being stolen was created later by a couple of extra shots of it being there then not, to help tie the story together. It's quite amazing really. World War Z was still a total disappointment.
  • Bo
    Well, folks can yammer on and on about this and think nothing of it, but it's bad press; it's negative press on a big movie and that is never, never a good thing. They now have to deal with that and spend time, energy and money to over come it. Not good, not good. Can they? Who knows? Who cares? Certainly not I, but I'm so not a Tom Cruise or Mission Impossible appreciator so there's that. You that are this is not good. Some movies recover from negative press while still in production; others do not. Let's just say this...it doesn't help them in any way and most of this is PR stuff and there could me huge problems they are covering up with this PR release about 'fixing' the ending. Time will tell Cruise/MI fans.
    • OfficialJab
      I'm just glad the studio cares enough about the quality of the story to allow it. Good new for the quality of the movie I think, even if it impacts the success a bit. Once the trailer is out I don't think many people who even hear about this will care any more.
      • Bo
        Yes, I think you may be correct on all counts. However, we must remember that this is a 'public relations' press release designed to make people think and feel as you seem to be doing. That's cool; it's just good business. Having been in the business for many years and having a friend who, today, is VP of marketing at a major studio it's best not to take these PR releases as being factual. There could be other major factors involved here that they, probably rightfully, don't want the public to know about. My VP friend has already told me many in the business are already wondering what is really going on here with Cruise's movie.
        • OfficialJab
          Maybe it's something that's suspect - but maybe they were just going to kill off Ethan Hunt. And also maybe they're changing it for story reasons but not for the better. Maybe it had a bittersweet or slightly sad ending and Paramount wouldn't allow it in the competitive 2015 market. I think Cruise has enough swagger though to let me think this is a positive change of some kind.
          • Bo
            Okay. Look, we are never going to know the real reason or the truth. Who cares? Cruise has been in control of these films since the get-go and they've all been very successful financially around the world. I'm sure this one will be too. The fan base for these films are pretty easy to please if you give them all the bells and whistles these films give. Cruise and Paramount seem to know how to do what's required. We'll see and time will tell. Again, I could care less as I won't even watch this thing when it comes to cable. It's just not my thing.
    • ColinH
      What examples do you have of negative press in relation to the scripting and filming of a movie directly effecting the performance? I'm struggling to think of any off hand. The only recent trouble production is World War Z, and the box office numbers for that were through the roof despite the publicity.
      • Bo
        Well, off-hand the first one that comes to mind is John Carter. All the negative press, stories, and rumors that came out during while that movie was still shooting killed any chance of it succeeding and it failed miserably at the box office. Some might say because it was a bad movie, but was it any worse than many others of that same ilk? I don't know as these type of movies don't interest me in the least and I think they are all bad...lol...
        • Gohikeone
          Similar to what's happening to Terminator:Genisys? I can't believe the vitriol for a movie that's only shown two previews. I realize it's further along than John Carter was when the hate started, but if you don't like what you see in the previews, or don't want to watch it, keep your money. The box office will then speak for itself. But the way the press and fans (us included) kill movies before they even get a chance is...sad? bad for movie making in general or the risk takers? I don't know, just when I see people BASHING movies that haven't even come out (are months away from coming out), it really turns me off as a reader.
          • Bo
            Well...okay. I agree with you...I think...I'm not sure just what your point is. Your opinions are valid, but the fact is fans and audiences do in fact kill movies by not going to see them when there is bad press on them. I'm not that way as I don't pay attention to what the media says and give them no credibility. I decide for myself. That is just not the case regarding the general audiences. They are fickle and marketing people realize this and try to get out in front of movies that began to generate negative or problematic press. Whatever this so-called 'problem' for the current MI movie is, has presented a huge problem for the marketing people on the movie. Also, being turned off as you state you are by people BASHING movies they haven't seen is understandable, but it's just the way it is so there's nothing to be done except perhaps be amused by it rather than upset by it. I don't know, just a thought. Plus, people do have the right to bash or not go to movies for whatever reasons they feel....don't they?
          • Gohikeone
            Yeah, I guess you made my point for me. Bad press and fan backlash buildup can make potentially successful movies flop. I think John Carter would have been fine at the box office if it hadn't been for the press on it before it ever released. Not the best movie ever for sure, but I wager it would have done much, much better without the buildup before anyone had even seen it. Yes people bashing things they've never even seen or know very little about is "the way it is" but, as I've said before, this site used to have very little of that going on in its early days (one of the reasons I left the orange site to come here...the writers and readership were/seemed more mature and enjoyed discussing hollywood and movies, not trying to outflame or win a shouting match). Unfortunately, one or two of the writing staff here has become guilty of prejudging films way before they're released and attempting to influence us with those views that can't possibly be based on much more than their feelings about a press report or a teaser trailer. People absolutely have the right to bash whatever they want for whatever reason they want...it's a free country and I'm happy it's that way. However, when a chorus begins bashing something they know nothing or little about, it makes me want to read elsewhere...that's all I'm saying.
          • Bo
            Sorry, Gohikeone...for some reason I just now saw and read your reply. Well said and I agree with you. I left Collider for that exact same reason. In fact, the main guy banned me because I disagreed with him emphatically regarding The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, which he hated and didn't understand...imho...lol... There is a lot of immaturity on some of these sites by both the contributors as well as the readers that leads to rudeness and silly name calling. There is always places to read elsewhere. I do like the main writer on this site, Alex. He's mature, intelligent and loves films. I find that quite pleasant. Take care.
        • ColinH
          I think there are far more examples of movies that succeeded despite troubled productions and bad pre-release publicity. No movie was more of a mess during production than Iron Man, including everyone admitting to this day that they never had a shooting script on a day to day basis. World War Z and countless others. John Carter was more impacted by bad marketing. The fact is the majority of paying movie goers make no decision based on anything other than a trailer.
          • Bo
            Yes, you're probably right. Well said. I think word of mouth also plays a huge part.
  • J__ohn
    It didnt stop them from Mission Impossible II. If anyone remembers, not only is it a terrible film, but they had to hire writers to help edit the mess of a film together because they couldn't figure out what they filmed.
    • ColinH
      I'm not sure what you're referring to. Robert Towne was brought on to do a rewrite on the script but his version was the final draft. Stuart Baird did an uncredited re-edit which he's been doing for 30 years, but that was due to Woo's cut running an hour too long and needed to be toned down for a PG rating from an original R rating. The movie's still a bit of a mess but I'm still not sure what you're referring to
  • Nielsen700
    Really liked the two previous films in the franchise. Let's hope they don't fuck up here.
  • DAVIDPD
    NEEEEEEEE!!! I guess that is okay. I mean Cruise is on his stem cell game, and the other cast will probably look the same without any stem cell game. So I can wait.
  • Payne by name
    Weren't they still hammering out the third act of Edge of Tomorrow whilst filming acts 1 and 2. To be fair, it's hardly surprising that there might be hiccups when they bring the whole film forward by 5 months.
  • bumboclot
    So stupid. With the millions they spend on these productions, it seems to me the cheapest and easiest part of the whole process, would be writing a decent screenplay. Oddly enough this usually ends up being the weakest link. I mean you can find bus boys and waitresses in every LA restaurant with great screenplays in their back pockets, and yet Hollywood throws together $100+ million projects that haven't even been written at all!
  • avconsumer2
    Subcontract Activision or EA... they'll bang out some nonsense and ensure your franchise is a success. ;P

FEATURED POSTS

POPULAR COMMENTS

OUR FAVORITES

Alex's Top 10 - 2016
1. La La Land
2. Paterson
3. Arrival
4. Captain Fantastic
5. 20th Cent. Women
6. Pete's Dragon
7. Jackie
8. Kubo & Two Strings
9. Everybody Wants
10. Wilderpeople
Click Here for Thoughts

Jeremy's Top 10 - 2016
1. Moonlight
2. The Handmaiden
3. High-Rise
4. Elle
5. Arrival
6. Kubo & Two Strings
7. 13th
8. Jackie
9. Toni Erdmann
10. The Witch
Click Here for Thoughts

FOLLOW US HERE

Subscribe to our feed or daily newsletter:
Follow Alex's main profile on twitter:
For the news posts only, follow this acct:
Add our feed to your Feedly: follow us in feedly

FACEBOOK + LINKS