MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: A Case of Mistaken Franchise Identity
ParamountOccasionally, it can take a while for a movie franchise to settle into the formula that makes it popular and loved. Aside from the acclaimed Iron Man, the first phase of the Marvel Cinematic Universe was made up of a handful of warmly received, but fairly standard, blockbusters. It wasn’t until the unification of the characters in The Avengers that the promise of what this series could be showcased as and it blew up into popular culture. The Mission Impossible franchise is another such series that learned to find its tone throughout its six installments rather than starting off with the formula that led to it being successful.
The original intent of the series was, in fact, to avoid having a generic blueprint altogether. Tom Cruise, who serves as an executive producer of the movies in addition to playing the lead role of Ethan Hunt, had originally wanted the franchise to develop as an anthology series. This would involve each movie in the series having a different director at the helm – a director who would bring their own unique style, slant and stamp to the film and the Mission Impossible franchise very much started off with this being the case.
However, there came a turning point in the series due to the critical reception of Mission Impossible 3, and it is one that led to the reconsideration of just how the franchise would develop and evolve. It was from this point that the anthological approach was scrapped in favour of an overarching narrative – a choice that has reshaped the series completely. The change-up in tone and format led to a rather messy looking series, with the movies effectively being split up in two neat, but vastly different, trilogies: the Original Trilogy (obviously consisting of Mission: Impossible, M:I 2 and M:I 3) and the Syndicate Trilogy, which contains the narratively and tonally linked Ghost Protocol, Rogue Nation and Fallout.
The differences between the trilogies indicate how exactly Mission Impossible had to adapt and progress in order to achieve greater success, both critically and financially. Even the dropping of numerical titles in favour of auxiliary titles (i.e. Ghost Protocol) insinuates an intention to distance the Syndicate Trilogy from the Original Trilogy. But the largest and most important difference between the two comes in the aforementioned tone of the movies.
The Original Trilogy does not do much to link together all three movies. In fact, due to Cruise’s wanting of the series to be anthological in nature, each film carries its own distinct tone, with the only real connective tissue being the protagonist Ethan Hunt and the IMF (Impossible Missions Force). Brian de Palma’s Mission: Impossible is defined as a spy thriller and also effectively dubbed as America’s answer to James Bond. There are plenty of spy and espionage movie tropes dotted throughout with all acting as Bond facsimiles: a pivotal villain reveal revolves around Hunt cracking a code hidden in a Bible verse, whilst he ultimately saves the day with a stick of explosive chewing gum. Intriguingly, the espionage element is mostly dropped for the rest of the Original Trilogy and the subtlety of Hunt’s job is all but lost. This is none more so evident than in Mission: Impossible 2. John Woo crafts a kung-fu movie with his attempt and drops the complexity of the first film’s plot – the twists and turns of the first movie only serve to emphasise its links to the world of the spy thriller, so it’s abandonment here in favour of a simple storyline makes it feel like a different world entirely.
The world of the Syndicate Trilogy, however, feels mapped out and consistent. This is, no doubt, to the credit of its overarching narrative: a story about Hunt and his team taking on the Syndicate stretched across three linked movies. It also helped that the team behind the movies has also remained consistent. JJ Abrams, having directed Mission: Impossible 3, served as an executive producer across the Syndicate Trilogy, whilst Christopher McQuarrie became the first director of multiple Mission Impossible movies, helping to ditch the anthological directorial approach. McQuarrie brought something to the franchise that it never had before – a coherent vision. Having the ability to work across the entire Syndicate Trilogy – he also did an uncredited rewrite of Ghost Protocol – allowed for the trilogy to define itself comfortably as an action series and to be tonally uniform, rather than a mashup of various styles and genres. Part of the through-line itself was spawned from the plot of Abrams’ Mission: Impossible 3, as this was the movie which introduced the character of Julia (Michelle Monaghan). Julia is a love interest for Hunt and this romantic arc is carried across the Syndicate Trilogy, until its resolution in Fallout.
The Syndicate Trilogy also thrives on its treatment and use of characters. Character development is a driving force, especially in Rogue Nation and Fallout, fleshing the movies out beyond simple spectacle as opposed to the Original Trilogy, which sees a constant rotation of cardboard cut-out and underdeveloped IMF team members. Benji Dunn, played by Simon Pegg, was originally intended as the franchise’s first comic relief character. However, Dunn’s part has been expanded throughout the Syndicate Trilogy to becoming a core member of Hunt’s IMF team. At the end of Fallout, he is involved in a brutal fight with the Syndicate Trilogy’s main villain, Solomon Lane (Sean Harris), over a detonator for a nuclear bomb. This shift from the stereotypical ‘funny man’ to an action hero is fairly rare in movies like this, but only further emphasises the fact that the Syndicate Trilogy wants to treat their characters as fully fleshed-out people, rather than as archetypes or stereotypes.
A series regular Ving Rhames, who plays Luther Stickell, is also developed throughout the Syndicate Trilogy – he is given leading roles in Rogue Nation and Fallout and serves as the link between Hunt’s job and family life, as shown through his relationship with Hunt’s ex-wife, Julia. Interestingly, despite having appeared in all six films, Luther merely served the purpose of a hired hand throughout the majority of the Original Trilogy. It is only with Mission Impossible 3 – the movie which directly inspired the tone the Syndicate Trilogy would take – that Luther finally gets some development. A rooftop sequence in Shanghai, just before Hunt performs a death-defying leap, sees Hunt and Luther share their first genuine conversation. It hints at them having been friends for the past several years, despite no explicit onscreen evidence, but serves as a vital first step in building up their, as of yet underdeveloped, relationship which leads Luther to have the grounded, almost paternal, role across the Syndicate Trilogy.
It is with Mission: Impossible 3 that the franchise found the beginnings of its formula; the important role that recurring characters, such as Luther, play is just one element the Syndicate Trilogy incorporates in full. Ending the Original Trilogy, Mission: Impossible 3 is, again, different to its predecessors in tone, serving wholly as an action film. Despite Mission: Impossible 2 being heavily reliant on action, the third instalment is more mature. The action is sleek and intensely grounded, as opposed to Woo’s over-the-top style. It is Abrams’ style of blockbuster filmmaking that the franchise takes going forward – the action informs the story rather than being a set piece for the sake of having one. The Mission Impossible movies have become a unique franchise, housing two very different trilogies within its lore. Yet, without the experimentation of the Original Trilogy, the series would never have perfected the popular formula it needed and ended up reaching the heights it has achieved with the Syndicate Trilogy and, perhaps, its future installments as well.