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

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: Development, Movie News



Men In Black III had the same issue about the script. Remember Alec Baldwin ditched the movie because of that?

capitandelespacio on Feb 20, 2015


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.

ColinH on Feb 20, 2015


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...

ari smulders on Feb 20, 2015


And they're proud of that piece of shit World Bore Zzzzzz?

TheOct8pus on Feb 20, 2015


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.

David Diaz on Feb 20, 2015


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!"

ListenToVinyl on Feb 20, 2015


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

desispeed on Feb 20, 2015


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.

George on Feb 21, 2015


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.

J__ohn on Feb 20, 2015


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

ColinH on Feb 20, 2015


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.

OfficialJab on Feb 20, 2015


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.

OfficialJab on Feb 20, 2015


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.

ColinH on Feb 20, 2015


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.

Gohikeone on Feb 20, 2015


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'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.

Gohikeone on Feb 20, 2015


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.

ColinH on Feb 21, 2015


Really liked the two previous films in the franchise. Let's hope they don't fuck up here.

Nielsen700 on Feb 20, 2015


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.

DAVIDPD on Feb 21, 2015


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.

Payne by name on Feb 21, 2015


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!

bumboclot on Feb 21, 2015


Subcontract Activision or EA... they'll bang out some nonsense and ensure your franchise is a success. ;P

avconsumer2 on Feb 22, 2015

New comments are no longer allowed on this post.



Subscribe to our feed -or- daily newsletter:
Follow Alex's main account on twitter:
For the latest posts only - follow this one:

Add our updates to your Feedly - click here

Get the latest posts sent in Telegram Telegram