Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning (2025)

[NARMAK]

Calling something Part 1, leaving your ending on a cliff hanger and then dropping the Part 2 of the sequel is asking for confusion amongst the general audience.

Personally i hope it does better but the whole AI angle imo helped ruin the movie. There wasn't anything compelling about this AI threat in a realistic manner.

[Member-866753]

Originally Posted by NARMAK

Calling something Part 1, leaving your ending on a cliff hanger and then dropping the Part 2 of the sequel is asking for confusion amongst the general audience.

Personally i hope it does better but the whole AI angle imo helped ruin the movie. There wasn't anything compelling about this AI threat in a realistic manner.

I felt like it mostly concluded though. It could work as companion sequels like Rogue Nation to Fallout.

These films have been slowly getting more serialized rather than episodic. Crossover characters, plots etc. It wouldn’t be that jarring. The Part 1 title was always a mistake. I hope studios stop. Across the Spider-Verse smartly dropped the part 1 title.

[slip220]

Originally Posted by NARMAK

Calling something Part 1, leaving your ending on a cliff hanger and then dropping the Part 2 of the sequel is asking for confusion amongst the general audience.

Personally i hope it does better but the whole AI angle imo helped ruin the movie. There wasn't anything compelling about this AI threat in a realistic manner.

That's how planned sequels tend work. There's no mistery here

[HomerThompson]

Has there been a movie with Part 1 in the title and then the follow up has a different thing altogether without a Part 2?

I know it happens for sequels following Part 2s and Part 3s etc. But this may be the first for a Part 1 lol

[Member-866753]

Originally Posted by slip220

That's how planned sequels tend work. There's no mistery here

What Dune did was worse. They marketed it without the Part One title. Then you sit in the theater and it says PART ONE.

I’ll never forget my brother in a packed theater saying “****. I’ve been bamboozled!” And the crowd laughing. Normally that behavior would annoy me but it was funny.

[jeff BD]

Originally Posted by AspiringMinimalist

What Dune did was worse. They marketed it without the Part One title. Then you sit in the theater and it says PART ONE.

I’ll never forget my brother in a packed theater saying “****. I’ve been bamboozled!” And the crowd laughing. Normally that behavior would annoy me but it was funny.

IT did the same thing ended with "Chapter 1". But everyone already knew theres was gonna be a second part just like Dune.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by wonderer99

Calling it Part 1 had little to do with its box office. It was just a weird year for movies I gotta say.

I mean, I was saying at the start of the year people were way overestimating how this would do. Top Gun had people way too over-egged on this, I honestly don’t think Paramount did a great job marketing this one and its legs were drastically severed by Barbie and Oppenheimer.

But I also do think a blend of being both the seventh entry in a near 30 year long running franchise, along with Part One piling on more future baggage, along with a baggy runtime as well. I think it all led to audience indigestion for the franchise. Even with the rapturous reception from critics and audiences, I did get the sense it was overkill for a lot of people. To be fair, I think sequelites and franchise-fatigue in general is beginning to set in now, particularly as Gen Z moves into the target demo for studios and they have near nothing new for them to lure them away from streaming.

[MuffinMcFluffin]

Originally Posted by jeff BD

IT did the same thing ended with "Chapter 1". But everyone already knew theres was gonna be a second part just like Dune.

That was a different feeling, though. IT: Chapter 1 had complete resolution. Them saying "Chapter 1" felt more to me like the thing at the end of an MCU movie when they say something like "Captain America will return in The Avengers," so it was more of a welcomed addition rather than feeling like you were jipped with half an experience.

[jeff BD]

Originally Posted by MuffinMcFluffin

That was a different feeling, though. IT: Chapter 1 had complete resolution. Them saying "Chapter 1" felt more to me like the thing at the end of an MCU movie when they say something like "Captain America will return in The Avengers," so it was more of a welcomed addition rather than feeling like you were jipped with half an experience.

What about Dune

[MuffinMcFluffin]

Originally Posted by jeff BD

What about Dune

I was informed beforehand that it was Part One, not sure if that was the intent but oh well.

It was a great first half of a movie, but it definitely felt incomplete. I'm excited for Part Two, but on that one I didn't feel there was closure and went: "Where's the rest of it?"

[Hedrox]

Originally Posted by NARMAK

Calling something Part 1, leaving your ending on a cliff hanger and then dropping the Part 2 of the sequel is asking for confusion amongst the general audience.

What is the cliffhanger exactly? A cliffhanger ending involves either leaving the characters in a dangerous and dramatic situation with no easy way out, or confronted with a big revelation. Dead Reckoning part 1 has neither of those, instead they just get into a car and drive off.

[jeff BD]

Originally Posted by Hedrox

What is the cliffhanger exactly? A cliffhanger ending involves either leaving the characters in a dangerous and dramatic situation with no easy way out, or confronted with a big revelation. Dead Reckoning part 1 has neither of those, instead they just get into a car and drive off.

I have to agree. There was resolution and the hero won the battle. And ends with talks about his next mission.

Fast X and Spiderverse, now those are cliffhangers.

[Mephariel]

Originally Posted by Foggy

I mean, I was saying at the start of the year people were way overestimating how this would do. Top Gun had people way too over-egged on this, I honestly don’t think Paramount did a great job marketing this one and its legs were drastically severed by Barbie and Oppenheimer.

But I also do think a blend of being both the seventh entry in a near 30 year long running franchise, along with Part One piling on more future baggage, along with a baggy runtime as well. I think it all led to audience indigestion for the franchise. Even with the rapturous reception from critics and audiences, I did get the sense it was overkill for a lot of people. To be fair, I think sequelites and franchise-fatigue in general is beginning to set in now, particularly as Gen Z moves into the target demo for studios and they have near nothing new for them to lure them away from streaming.

I also think that larger-than-life grounded heroes are getting saturated. Dominic Toretto, John Wick, Tyler Rake, Indiana Jones, James Bond, etc. Yes Tom Cruise does a lot of his own stunts, but is Mission Impossible different enough from all the other films? And does Cruise attract the younger audience?

[Rayjg]

If they really wanted to **** with us they could call it Dead Reckoning Part Three.

[Bond84]

Why not just do a Part 2, 3, and 4, and end the series at 10 films.

[wonderer99]

Part one was excellent however I did seem to notice an uptick in CG or at least CG enhancement which is a shame as this series is an antidote to usual CG laden fare. It had a bit more of a Hollywood sheen to it. Other than that another fantastic entry and it's box office was disappointing.

[Pieter V]

Originally Posted by Pieter V

Part 1 is 2.39:1 in IMAX. However Part 2 will feature at least two major sequences in 1.90:1 switching ratio.

Here is another confirm:

Inside Look: Eddie Hamilton's Editing Techniques for Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning Part One - YouTube

@6:21

[50strat54]

Originally Posted by Rayjg

If they really wanted to **** with us they could call it Dead Reckoning Part Three.

The way The Traveling Wilburys titled their second (and not very good) album Vol. 3?

[erixon20]

Originally Posted by 50strat54

The way The Traveling Wilburys titled their second (and not very good) album Vol. 3?

Vol 3 is good-just not as good as Vol. 1.

[Richard Graham]

Mission Impossible: Ethan Continues to grew 6"-7" by Merely Putting on a Mask.

Truely impossible indeed.