Dun, dun, da, dun... Tom Cruise + Mission Impossible is a mixture we're familiar with. He's been our Ethan Hunt since 1996. When word hit in February that Cruise was reprising his role, it seemed like a run-of-the-mill sequel. But then the tide turned. Brad Bird chose it as his jump out of Pixar animation, and just the other day Jeremy Renner, recent Oscar nominee, was tapped to co-star. Would this still just be a straight-forward Mission: Impossible 4?

Keeping the old formula would likely be a risky proposition. The first did well, and the second did almost exactly as well. A bigger budget brought in a bigger take, only a rough $1 million off the original. But the third, while making money, cost more and made a whole lot less. Top that with a disappointing return on Cruise's recent Knight and Day, and Paramount has got to be careful with how they make and market this.

But should they be so careful that the Mission: Impossible sequel isn't actually Mission: Impossible?
categories Cinematical