Paramount delays the next Mission: Impossible, which is no longer called Dead Reckoning: Part Two
The next Mission: Impossible movie will now come out in 2025, but there is some good news
Aux News Mission: Impossible
The greed of the AMPTP studios and their refusal to make a deal with striking workers—specifically SAG-AFTRA members—has claimed another high-profile movie victim. Almost exactly two months after Warner Bros. Discovery decided to bump Dune: Part 2 into 2024, Paramount and Skydance have bumped Mission: Impossible—Dead Reckoning Part Two all the way from June of next year to May 23, 2025. On top of that, Variety says the movie will be retitled, meaning it won’t be called Dead Reckoning Part Two, which means there will have been a Dead Reckoning Part One and that’s it.
Variety says the plot will still directly follow the events of Part One, wherein a malevolent AI (as if there’s another kind) called The Entity tried to do bad AI stuff and Ethan Hunt had to collect two halves of a special key before the bad guys could, but it’ll just have a different name now. Paramount could (and probably should) retcon the title of Part One at some point, but luckily this wouldn’t be the first time that a Tom Cruise movie was retitled after it came out.
Or the studio could just go nuts with the formatting and call the next one Mission: Impossible—Some New Title (Dead Reckoning Part Two), which would be cool. Also, if Paramount is taking suggestions, we wouldn’t be opposed to more Lupin The Third references or some kind of miraculous return for Ilsa Faust.
Also, there is some quiet good news in here for any M:I fans who were disheartened by Paramount’s decision to send Dead Reckoning Part One off to die just one week before the Barbenheimer weekend, as the studio has secured a three-week exclusive Imax run for whatever Part Two ends up being called in 2025. That means it will be easier to see, even if two of the biggest movies of 2025 (Barbie Vs. Hot Wheels and Oppenheimer 2: Rise Of Teller) end up coming out a few days later.
Mission: Impossible isn’t the only movie getting delayed today because of strike-related delays, with Variety saying that Quiet Place prequel/spin-off Day One is moving from June of next year to March 8, 2024, and an untitled SpongeBob SquarePants movie is going from May of 2025 to December of 2025.
98 Comments
Hold on – there are Lupin the Third references in the first movie? You might have said the only thing that could make me interested in seeing it.
I discovered one of those free anime streaming channels sometimes shows the ‘70s Lupin the 3rd series, both the earlier, slightly-more-serious one and the later, goofy-as-heck one. They’re virtually my platonic ideal of escapist fun.
FWIW, Tubi also has a ton of Lupin III content right now. I just finished watching three of the TV movies a little while ago.
Don’t fall for it; there are better ways to spend your time.
“References” might be generous, since I think it’s just this:
(Not pausing for effect, image just got kinjaed)
Ah, that’s just someone in props saying, “I wonder if I can get away with this.”
Not really references per se, but one of the characters is a master thief and there’s a slapstick-y car stunt involving a yellow Fiat 500. Best part of the movie imo.
I was pretty disappointed by the first part. I don’t think the writers justified splitting the story into two parts nor did they do a good job establishing the new villain.
I really liked the Entity as a concept, and it was fun seeing a thousand bureaucrats backing up the government’s knowledge with typewriters. But then the Entity doesn’t actually do much in the movie. It’s mostly just Tom Cruise doing stunts while looking for a key. Whatever they were saving for the next movie probably should have just been folded into part one.
Agreed, what did the Entity even want? If it wanted to make sure no one could use the key against it, couldn’t it have just destroyed the key? It could have easily done that 100 different ways. But it was a fun movie and I really enjoyed the (somewhat fresh take on a) car chase in Italy.
It did try to destroy the key. It sank a sub in the Arctic. The movie was about finding the location of the sub.
My point was that it could have continued to try to destroy the key. The good guys were interested in finding out where the sub was, but all the Entity did was send a man to get the key. Based on what the movie had already established the Entity could do, it could have nuked the key, or taken down a passenger plane with the key on it, or commandeered a military drone and gone after it. The Entity had basically limitless resources at its disposal and all it did was send a (usually) unarmed guy.
It was likely a deliberate choice. For its faults, compared to most other two-part movies, Dead Reckoning managed to find a relatively satisfying place to end. I suspect that was achieved by largely backgrounding the Entity in part 1 with the intent of bringing it properly to the fore in part 2.
I kind of wish the ending would have shown that everything the MI team did was all part of the Entity’s plan. Maybe letting them chase the key was just a diversion while the Entity worked on something else. This would have shown how powerful the Entity actually is and made for a more intimidating villain in Part 2.
Stop it! People will actually have to use critical thinking skills and try to remember the movie. I’m not dismissing how unimportant a movie is with that comment, but rather how people have an opinion and memory of a movie, but are totally wrong about both, lol.
They should release DLC for movies the way they do for games — where there is more content but not enough to support a full sequel.
i liked watching it in the moment, but it just felt like another MI movie. by the 7th go around you need to do a little more than just making it 20 minutes longer than the last one.it being the third movie this summer with a cliffhanger didn’t help.
Genuine question, which other 2 movies had cliffhangers? I can’t think of one I saw.
Fast X and Across the Spider-Verse?Edit: Oops, I see you already worked it out.
Nevermind, found them with google, Across the Spiderverse and Fast X.
not as profound a cliffhanger as the other two (and was clearly marked on the can as a part one) but it’s still one of those things where it’s like ‘well i can’t be entirely sure how i feel about this until the conclusion.’
I guess the Matrix sequels are old enough that “overextended two-part action movie about malevolent AI” is a bankable idea.
My biggest issue is the villain guy was supposed to be someone from Ethan’s past, and it’s shot in a way that we should know who he is, like he was from the first movie or something. But he isn’t. So it’s just… some guy. I also HATE that McQuarrie has spent 10 years and three movies erasing Julia as Ethan’s Great Love and replacing her with Ilsa, only for her to be killed in Dead Reckoning.
The decision to kill off Ilsa was so stunningly bad that I have to believe that either a) her death is a fakeout that will be revealed in Part 2 as a part of a bigger plan Ethan has or b) the actress wanted out or couldn’t commit to both parts. If they truly just killed her to make Esai Morales more convincing as a bad dude…it just speaks to how much they failed in writing his character as a threat worth caring about.
i don’t think they can pretend she’s dead in part two considering they do that trick in the first half of part one.i wonder if it’s as simple as having a 3 movie deal, she’s only in the last 3 right?
I hope this is true. In the beginning of Dead Reckoning when he saves her he says “you’re dead. Stay dead.” Maybe her “death” at the hands of Morales is a way to finally convince MI6 she is dead and more importantly allow her to hide from the AI so she can hunt for the location of the sub or something. I will accept that if that’s the case. Sucks we have to wait two years!
Well, Rebecca Ferguson IS getting older and, after all, she was only 21 years younger than Tom Cruise… Xenu demanded it!
She’s younger than Hayley Atwell though. There can’t be too many hit franchises that kill off the female lead only to replace her with an older female lead.
True, but maybe Tom was just interested in a new (if not newer) model.
The “gotta trade her in for a fresh love interest for this 60-year-old man” angle seemed so blatant that it was embarrassing to watch. The only thing that doesn’t quite fit the narrative is that Hayley Atwell is actually a year older than Rebecca Ferguson.
Neither Ferguson nor Atwell are love interests. They’re women, but there’s no romance in any of these recent movies.
If you don’t think the film was trying to create sexual tension between them, you and I watched different movies.
subtle but present
True. And it sucks that people immediately assume that. However Hayley Atwell laced in some flirty eyes and did the thing where you look at someones lips instead of their eyes toward the beginning of the film. Which leads me to believe there will be a kiss in part II or whatever. But yes more woman in action that aren’t love interests please.
Sure. But she’s also a con artist so I think her actions can’t necessarily be taken at face value.
Until I read your post, I actually didn’t know that the villain guy wasn’t from the original MI. I haven’t watched the original in a long time.
Ilsa and Ethan aren’t in love. They care deeply for each other, but there’s never been anything romantic between them in the movies. I heard an interview with Ferguson who said as much, also.
Is that true? Even Rachel says to Ilsa at the end of Fallout: he’s all yours. In Dead Reckoning they ride a boat around Venice cuddling and they kiss!
Maybe I missed something, but I thought he just kissed her on her head. I think there’s an affection there, but I don’t think it’s romance. It was an audio interview, but Ferguson seemed pretty clear that the characters had never had sex or anything like that.I don’t recall the line you’re referring to in Fallout. At the end of the movie, I thought Ilsa whispered something to Julia, but what she said wasn’t heard and I don’t think it’s been explained either. Maybe I just need to watch the movies again! haha
i hear you, but the thing is, if it hadn’t been openly called “part one”, it would’ve felt little different from, say, the ending of Rogue Nation, in which the antagonist was captured but didn’t die, only to return in the sequel. that’s essentially what’s happening here, too. it’s only that the ‘pt 1′ kind of highlights how inherently incomplete all of these stories are—it’s just that it’s now telling you in advance that you’re going to have to buy another ticket in the future.
I don’t know. At the end of Rogue Nation, Lane is captured and Ethan is reinstated. It worked as a movie on its own and if we never saw Lane again, it would have been fine. He wasn’t the primary antagonist of Fallout and they could have reworked that movie to not have him and likely it would have been just as entertaining.In this movie, a lot is left unresolved at the end. The key is with Ethan but what it unlocks is still lurking in the depths, the villain isn’t captured, and Ethan is still on the run. It is far more deliberately a first part of a story than Rogue Nation was.
Will there be a society in 2025?
Sure. Maybe not in the US, but other areas of the world aren’t as far along into dystopian religious fascism.
We all long for the bright, sunny days of utopian secular communism.
Yes, there will be a Society in 2025 – with even more Shunting.
Well now that we have a reason
That’s why they’re pushing the movie into 2025, so we can come together in anticipation.Also, don’t be so dramatic.
2 Dead 2 Reckoning
Dead Reckoning 2: Singularity Boogaloo
Read Deckoning: Second Verse Same as the First
Very glad they’re doing this. Dead Reckoning is an awesome title, but it’s hampered the audience and the name itself by calling it Part One. Hopefully the next film will do better, I loved this year’s entry.
Yeah, I’m glad they split it into two parts, but they should have pulled an Infinity War / Endgame (whose titles were wisely changed from Infinity War – Parts 1 and 2, despite clearly being two parts of one story). Also, calling it The Divergent Series: Ascendant instead of Allegiant – Part 2 was a good idea, even if it didn’t exactly work out for Lionsgate in the end.
Maybe it’s just the curmudgeon in me but going to a 2 1/2 hour movie knowing I’d have to wait another year-plus for the ending just wasn’t terribly appealing. At least with Harry Potter, for instance, you knew it was the series conclusion.
I found out the last Spiderverse movie was part 1 about three hours before going. I’m really glad I knew that. The people in the theater who were surprised were PISSED. So having a “part 1″ in the title helps.
I think I’d had some inkling that Spiderverse was a two part movie, but I still didn’t expect it to end how it did and was kind of annoyed. In contrast, it did make me love that the TMNT movie had a satisfying ending, while still leaving enough to tease a sequel.
I wonder if that reaction directly led to lower box office for Dead Reckoning. “Another movie without an ending? Fuck that.”Which is a pity, because I thought Dead Reckoning made a concerted effort to have the first chapter reach a reasonably satisfying conclusion, as opposed to Spider-Verse, which just stops mid-story.
I don’t know… I liked it when they were just M:I:2 or M:I: III. That was fun! Now I can’t even keep track of how many there are or what order they happened. I liked that they finally just gave in to serializing the movie titles. It makes no sense not to keep the next one as Part 2, since this was the first M:I movie that ended on a cliffhanger, isn’t it?(but not the first one to START on a cliffhanger, heyo!)
Dead Reckoning Part One was bad overall.
If they can quietly officially change Raiders of the Lost Ark to Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark ( which is what it shows up as on all the streaming channels now ), I don’t think they’ll have a problem dropping the “part one” bit.
Meh Fact: That name change goes way back to the VHS box set release from the late 90s.The title card on the movie itself still remains as the original “Raiders…” though
Does the revised title imply that Indy was not in fact one of the raiders? Sure, the Nazis raided it too, but only after Indy basically led them to it.
Raiders are what the Nazis were. They wanted to open it, i.e. raid it of its’ valuables. Indy just wanted to obtain and preserve it, and the film makes a point of him not wanting to open it. Now, if the title was “Raiders of the Tomb of the Lost Ark”, you may have a point, but it isn’t.
I always thought if Raiders premiered with the series titling format, “Indiana Jones and the Well of Souls” would have been a great title.
they should call it mission impossible 4 and refuse to elaborate.
They should call it Mission:Impossible: Fallout, Part 3.
The first installment vastly underperformed according to expectations, didn’t it? Even with all of the free marketing hype and actual marketing dollars thrown at these things, I think a lot of us are just exhausted with Mr. Cruise / breathless-paint-by-numbers-McGuffin stories. That well is starting to run dry.
i think adjusted for inflation it’s by far the lowest performing one.
It’s the eighth-highest grossing film of the year but okay.
Dude it made 597M worldwide on like a 300M just production budget. It was a huge flop that was obviously meant to be one of those $Billion movies.
By comparison I expect it was a disappointment, but likely still netted a nice profit (while keeping the franchise moving along).
i know hollywood math is a nebulous mist at best, but i imagine they were hoping to make as much as the last one, at least. especially considering they spent an additional 120 million dollars on this instalment and top gun 2 did 2 billion.i’m sure it technically netted a profit, but i dunno if i’d go as far as a nice one. i, for one, thought it was gonna do 700 million easy.
Oh I’m sure they did as well since the previous installment did nearly $800MM. Fully agree on Hollywood math as well. The production budgets are generally public knowledge but I think they hide the (often massive) marketing expense so they can claim a movie was profitable even if they advertised the hell out of it and it didn’t meet expectations.
i also got a free IMF pin at my screening, so who knows how much that cost!
It probably didn’t. Theatres take a big chunk of the box office. Half of the worldwide total is a very rough rule of thumb.That said, the budget was massively inflated by circumstances outside of its control. Without COVID, it likely costs under $200m, and comes out 2 years earlier, before audiences are jaded by Fast X and Spider-Verse’s lack of endings. I think Paramount just have to take the hit on this one and hope the second part can make up for it (but then that’s been hit hard by shutdowns, so I imagine the budget is already ballooning again).
It opened a week before Barbie and Oppenheimer, that definitely hurt.
As long as they stop the great action to explain the exceedingly simple plot six or seven more times, I don’t care what they call it.
The advantage of this is evident when you see it with your elderly parents, as I did. Normally they have to ask things like “why is he doing that?” and “who is that?” but this movie made it impossible not to follow what was going on.
Hey, did you know that The Entity (a placeholder name that never got fixed if I ever heard one) is really powerful and everybody wants to control it? But that only Ethan Hunt (who loves his coworkers like family) realizes that nobody can control it or should have that much power?Because if you didn’t know, I’ll be happy to tell you again in 15 minutes.
I feel like once you release Part 1, you’re kind of locked into the Part 2 title. The movie has come and gone with the Part 1 title, the posters and Bluray covers are printed, we’re locked in. It will be very odd to not have the Part 2 acknowledged. Not that I love it, it should have always had its own title. Dead Reckoning was a good title, but you automatically turn some people away with the “Part One.” Marvel realized this and backed out of the Infinity War Part 1&2 titles. Dune hid from in in the marketing, and even though I knew it was only covering the first half of the book, the first time I saw it referred to as “Dune: Part 1″ was in the theater opening day.I get that they want to distance it from an underperforming predecessor, and I do hope the next film will do better. I really enjoyed Part 1.
“I feel like once you release Part 1, you’re kind of locked into the Part 2 title.”
Well, it appears you’re mistaken.
That’s the trap Mel Brooks fell into (and no, as much as I love the man and many of his works, the recent History of The World: Part II is not worth watching).
Leonard Part 6 would like a word. (And that word is “roofies”)
Mark my words, this will be the worst title fiasco since Leonard Part 6.5: Electric Bixalive
Mission Impossible: Assignment Miami Beach
Mission Impossible to Moscow
Disavowed: Spurn Notice
Still Missionin’ After All These Years
I don’t expect it to top Fallout for me but still really excited, loved Dead Reckoning even if I’m pretty burnt out on “to be continued”s
I agree. It wasn’t as good as Fallout, but Fallout was increeeedible so that’s no slight. I’m disappointed I have to wait another year to see the end.
Since it was referenced I am hopping into the comments to remind anyone who will listen that Edge of Tomorrow (Live Die Repeat) is a masterpiece.
‘”Since it was referenced I am hopping into the comments to remind anyone who will listen that Edge of Tomorrow (Live Die Repeat) is a masterpiece.”’Even though I figured that was the one they were referring to? The marketing for that movie on fire stick still has it as Edge Of Tomorrow. And even if you were to do a quick Google search for it as “Live Die Repeat” your top hit will still be you guessed it ‘Edge Of Tomorrow’… Oh so Edge Of Tomorrow was the retitle?Regardless the original source was All you need is kill.
At this point it’s basically a reference to this oddly designed blu ray cover:Newer releases have made the actual title bigger and the tagline smaller.
Dead Reckoning Part One sounds like the new shitty Pirates of the Caribbean money grab film.
Mission Impossible Mission: Palindrome.
So… which will release first? Beyond the Spider-Verse or Mission Impossible: Dead Reckoning 2 with a different name.
Mission: Impossible isn’t the only movie getting delayed today because of strike-related delays, with Variety saying that Quiet Place prequel/spin-off Day One is moving from June of next year to March 8, 2024
June 2024, delayed to March 2024?
I think the first part was one of (if not the first) to underperform box office wise. They may be trying to cut the connection to it with the next one.
Also, Dead Reckoning Part I will be retroactively retitled Indiana Jones and the Dead Reckoning of the Impossible Mission: A New Hope.