Mission: Impossible 1-5 4K UHDs (1996-2015)

[Fat Phil]

Originally Posted by fighthefutureofhd

That was actually in 2005 if I'm not mistaken. Right around the same time as War of The Worlds. He also went off on Brooke Shields and some dude at a red carpet event for the movie. It was an odd time for him. He got in some trouble a year later during the promotion of MI:3 that also involved South Park if I remember correctly. It ended up killing the production deal he had with his production company and Paramount. That (MI:3) was the last Paramount movie Tom Cruise did for a long while. At the time it was thought that MI:3 would be the last one after what happened.

At that time the media went into overdrive with these "Is Tom Cruise still a bankable star?" type articles. This was coming off the back of Minority Report, The Last Samurai and Collateral!! I distinctly remember my buddy reading that, turning to me and saying "What the f*** are they talking about?"

It's a Tom Cruise headline that seems to get recycled every few years, and the answer is always "Yes, yes he is."

[fighthefutureofhd]

Oh, of course, he is. But after MI:3 there was a period there where he wasn't quite so bankable. Tropic Thunder started to turn that around a little, but I don't think it was until Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol that he became bankable again.

[KcMsterpce]

Originally Posted by Agent Kay

Saying even vanilla sky, like it did not deserve big money SMH

Not what I'm saying at all.
What I'm saying is, it's a SURPRISE that it made $100 million. I remember thinking at the time, "Woah, this might break his streak" - which at the time, was an unprecedented feat.
I previously stated that I do not consider box office draw to be a direct correlation of a movie's qualitative value lol

[alexanderg823]

Originally Posted by Fat Phil

At that time the media went into overdrive with these "Is Tom Cruise still a bankable star?" type articles. This was coming off the back of Minority Report, The Last Samurai and Collateral!! I distinctly remember my buddy reading that, turning to me and saying "What the f*** are they talking about?"

It's a Tom Cruise headline that seems to get recycled every few years, and the answer is always "Yes, yes he is."

that's because people are caught between captivation and fascination with tom cruise.

audiences can't deny that his movies are absolutely fantastic and his brand certainly has a distinct seal of quality to them, regardless of how you feel about him personally. they're just captivated by his great performances and action thrillers.

on the other hand, they're also fascinated by his straight up insanity and his personal life. Dude has some bizarre appearances, as he appeared in that scientology video laughing like a psychotic maniac and I've referred to him as an OT8 or OT9 or whatever on here facetiously before. Or how about him just being almost a absurd caricature of dead serious intensity and discipline in personal interviews. Take your pick.

It's like everyone is standing by waiting for an epic meltdown of self satisfying reality-detached intensity who happens to be arguably one of the most famous movie stars ever while enjoying some fantastic movies while they wait. It's a win-win of entertainment.

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by Fat Phil

At that time the media went into overdrive with these "Is Tom Cruise still a bankable star?" type articles. This was coming off the back of Minority Report, The Last Samurai and Collateral!! I distinctly remember my buddy reading that, turning to me and saying "What the f*** are they talking about?"

It's a Tom Cruise headline that seems to get recycled every few years, and the answer is always "Yes, yes he is."

But he’s not anymore. The movies are good more often than not, but outside of MI he’s struggled at the North American box office. International receipts have helped but even those aren’t exactly amazing.

[fighthefutureofhd]

He may not be as bankable as he once was, but he's still pretty bankable. Most of the old school movie stars are no longer "bankable" in a way. Tom Cruise has been the most consistent of the bunch and still does pretty good business here in the states. Every movie nowadays, just about, needs the foreign box office to help the movie stay afloat. It's how it is. Very few big budget movies barely cover the budget and what not in the states. Much less, actually turn a profit. It's one thing that's wrong with the movie industry.

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by fighthefutureofhd

He may not be as bankable as he once was, but he's still pretty bankable. Most of the old school movie stars are no longer "bankable" in a way. Tom Cruise has been the most consistent of the bunch and still does pretty good business here in the states. Every movie nowadays, just about, needs the foreign box office to help the movie stay afloat. It's how it is. Very few big budget movies barely cover the budget and what not in the states. Much less, actually turn a profit. It's one thing that's wrong with the movie industry.

Yep, he isn't making Will Smith Netflix moves yet.

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by fighthefutureofhd

He may not be as bankable as he once was, but he's still pretty bankable. Most of the old school movie stars are no longer "bankable" in a way. Tom Cruise has been the most consistent of the bunch and still does pretty good business here in the states. Every movie nowadays, just about, needs the foreign box office to help the movie stay afloat. It's how it is. Very few big budget movies barely cover the budget and what not in the states. Much less, actually turn a profit. It's one thing that's wrong with the movie industry.

Oh I agree he's in better shape than a lot of his peers, but to say he's still one of the most bankable stars in the world sadly isn't true. There's really only one true movie star left, and when I say "movie star," I mean you could put them on a poster for literally anything and you're guaranteed a profit: DiCaprio. Not Cruise, not Pitt, not Damon, not Clooney, not Will Smith, not even Denzel or Tom Hanks. And not J-Law, though she was trending in that direction for a bit.

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

Oh I agree he's in better shape than a lot of his peers, but to say he's still one of the most bankable stars in the world sadly isn't true. There's really only one true movie star left, and when I say "movie star," I mean you could put them on a poster for literally anything and you're guaranteed a profit: DiCaprio. Not Cruise, not Pitt, not Damon, not Clooney, not Will Smith, not even Denzel or Tom Hanks. And not J-Law, though she was trending in that direction for a bit.

Um, Cruise can still do just that.
Why more than Leo, I'm not sure where you are getting that from.

[imsounoriginal]

Where am I getting that from? Watching movies and seeing how well they do.

[levcore]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

Where am I getting that from? Watching movies and seeing how well they do.

I agree with you about Dicaprio but I still consider Cruise's career to be way more impressive due to the duration and consistent quality of his body of work over so many decades. Cruise is definitely the longest standing bankable star.

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

Where am I getting that from? Watching movies and seeing how well they do.

Did him being in J Edgar and Gatsby help?
How about revolutionary road?
Body of lies?
People see his movies if they seem interesting not for him.
Cruise opened the Mummy to 31 million if that's not star power I have no idea what is.

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by Agent Kay

Did him being in J Edgar and Gatsby help?
How about revolutionary road?
Body of lies?
People see his movies if they seem interesting not for him.
Cruise opened the Mummy to 31 million if that's not star in have no idea what is.

Gatsby made money, people expected it to bomb coming out on the heels of Iron Man 3 but if anything it's a testament to Leo's star power tha he got a mediocre movie into the black. The others are too old to be relevant and other than Body of Lies, weren't commercial projects anyway. And yeah, Cruise opened the Mummy well, too bad the overall box office was so great it tanked an entire shared universe before it got off the ground. A few actors I mentioned can get you a decent opening weekend. Denzel opened Magnificent 7 at #1 but I don't think it turned a profit (need to check). And that was with Pratt for help, but Pratt is one of the Chrises -- if they're not wearing a cape or a Starfleet uniform (EDIT or training raptors lol), no one shows up.

Originally Posted by levcore

I agree with you about Dicaprio but I still consider Cruise's career to be way more impressive due to the duration and consistent quality of his body of work over so many decades. Cruise is definitely the longest standing bankable star.

Yeah I'm not trying to rag on Cruise, I'm a huge fan and I'd love for some of his more recent movies to have done better business (I didn't even think the Mummy was that bad). He's been around forever, he's aging in reverse, he's got a couple more decades left in him at this rate. He's just not the box office power he once was because, well, we're in a post-movie star world. That's just the way it is.

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

Yeah I'm not trying to rag on Cruise, I'm a huge fan and I'd love for some of his more recent movies to have done better business (I didn't even think the Mummy was that bad). He's been around forever, he's aging in reverse, he's got a couple more decades left in him at this rate. He's just not the box office power he once was because, well, we're in a post-movie star world. That's just the way it is.

I'm saying your pick of what opens a film was not a good one.
I think he is the only one left and agree he is on the slide.
And the mummy is decent but boring.

[imsounoriginal]

Fair enough.

[KcMsterpce]

The Mummy did not do well in America. But it made great money overseas.

Cruise is still a viable U.S. box office draw, but he's way more valuable in the international market. Especially China, and Japan. And Japan.
The Mummy was intended for overseas audiences anyway. It pandered to them.

[guitarguy316]

Do you need to watch all the MI movies in order or are they self contained stories?

[The Fallen Deity]

Originally Posted by Talal86

[KcMsterpce]

Originally Posted by guitarguy316

Do you need to watch all the MI movies in order or are they self contained stories?

ehh.... MI3 is vaguely referenced in MI4 (rather nicely), but it's not required to see MI3 if you only head to MI4.
MI4 and MI5 are probably the most closely related.

I would recommend watching 1,3,4, and 5 in order though. Many of the same characters come and go, and stuff.

Any of them can still be watched as a standalone, and you'd have little to no issues following along.

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by guitarguy316

Do you need to watch all the MI movies in order or are they self contained stories?

First three are self-contained, Ghost Protocol is self-contained but has a hook at the end that leads into Rogue Nation. And apparently Fallout is a direct sequel to Rogue Nation.