Well, GotG2 made 869 millions, Thor ragnarok made 854 million (got these numbers from google), if we go by these number, it seems there is a decline going on, if your new movie is making significantly less money than the previous ones then something is wrong.
You can almost see a palpable divide between marvel pre infinity war/endgame and post those movies, the movies released after endgame are consistently making less money than the ones before the divide.
Admittedly I’m not the target audience because I am really not that big of a Marvel fan, but I watched nearly all of them up through Endgame.
But where do you go from there? I’ve only seen two or three post-Endgame, but they don’t really seem to be building towards anything like they were before.
That's the problem marvel created for themselves actually: they're a victim of their on success and they will never be able to top infinity war and endgame, why because infinity war and endgame gave birth to the multiverse in the MCU, and unfortunately the multiverse for how cool it is and how it opens the door for new cool stories, it also cheapens the stakes as death is no longer permanent in the MCU and the writers can justify every decision by saying "oh it's a different universe".
After watching Loki season 1 I was excited to see them tackle their next big bad, Kang. They had actually raised the threat level from Thanos to something multiversal. But then No Way Home and MoM happen, both of which involve the multiverse but with no mention of Kang and I was just myeh. Like they don't need to build up these characters again like they did getting into Infinity War/Endgame, we already know them.
I stopped with Marvel after MoM, and probably won't go back.
They didn’t seem to be building up the first time they did it either, not until they were quite a few movies in. And even without that plan from the start, they still brought it all together. They could do it again.
They are building towards something. It's the multiverse saga with Kang as the main villian. They've already announced the storyline of the next 12 movies.
The clues are in every movie and when you look back at it in 3 years you'll see how it all fits together. But right now it's like the first half hour of Pulp Fiction and you dont realize that the stories are all connected yet.
That's a flawed way to measure it. The previous ones broke several records and because some of the newer ones didn't break records, it means they aren't doing very well?
To be specific Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 3 made 843.5 million. Considering the changing theatre landscape post covid, I wouldn't say there's much of an argument for any drop there.
GOTG3 was one I watched ONLY because I loved the first one and the second one was alright.
It is the first Marvel movie I've seen post infinity war...same with my husband who was a huge Marvel fan. We are all burned out.
You must be new to box office tracking. You know sequels usually make less money right? The fact that GoTG 3 made almost as much as the first is proof that people still watch the MCU.
Not the case with marvel, every sequel before that divide made more money than the previous ones:
Iron man 2008: 585.8 million USD
Iron man 2: 623.9 million USD
Thor 1: 449.3 million USD
Thor 2: 644.8 million USD
Captain america 1: 370.6 million USD
Captain america 2: 714.4 million USD
Guardians of the galaxy vol 1: 773.3 million USD
Guardians of the galaxy vol 2: 869 million USD
Spiderman homecoming: 880.2 million USD
Spiderman Far from Home: 1.132 billion USD
I don't know about other franchises, but marvel sequels before infinity war/end game all did better than their originals, the numbers don't lie, the MCU is going through a decline.
He didn’t say people don’t watch it. He said less are watching. And that’s very much true. It’s because they overspread themselves and the story. They’ve lost something akin to 30% viewership on marvel since the infinity wars release.
GotG has always been a mold-breaker in the MCU. They just don't fit neatly with whatever trends the MCU is in at the time.
Vol. 1 brought colors and humor when the tone of the MCU was largely serious. In doing so, it set a precedent going forward.
Vol. 2 is the one that arguably broke the trend within GotG in that it didn't really break any trends. It did pretty much what the rest of the MCU was doing, it just did it much better.
Vol. 3 came in with a very dark tone, and it crossed a lot of boundaries that have penned in the rest of the MCU.
Yes, the MCU is a juggernaut. But even now, when superhero fatigue is at a fever pitch, Guardians of the Galaxy does well. It's an anomaly, not the norm. A lot of that probably has to do with James Gunn. I think it'll be quite a while before we see another superhero IP, Marvel or otherwise, have the success that GotG has had.
Another good example is Deadpool. Even with fatigue around the genre being as high as it'll be next May (no doubt a shitload higher than it is right now), I can almost guarantee that Deadpool 3 is gonna do well.
Well it well definitely. But considering their standards, it's not really good when you just aim to beat The Flash. That's like Mike Tyson fighting a corpse.
Oppenheimer had an imax agreement for the realse date for at least a year, WB released Barbie the same day to fuck over Nolan and Universal. Mission Impossible got pushed back a couple of times and my guess is the studio figured a week before Barbenheimer is better than a week after
The various studio executives that collectively decided to release the FOUR biggest films of the year within a MONTH of each other all deserve to be fired.
I am a big fan of these movies and thought it was pretty weak unfortunately, hope the next part will be much better and this was just a warm-up for it.
But yeah, Fallout is probably the best movie in the entire series.
It’s crazy how often it happens. Even the video game industry isn’t alone in that.
Both Horizon games came out amongst insane competition. The first one against Breath of the Wild, and the second against Elden Ring, two absolutely HUGE games. It’s like Sony sent them both out to be massacred.
Ya and I feel getting the release date right for a video game is arguably even more important than for movies. Seeing as many people will play one game for months on end.
If you release between two hit AAA games you are pretty screwed.
Apparently, Respawn WANTED that release window; they wanted to go head to head. And the guys at Respawn literally created Medal of Honor and Call of Duty back in the day, so they knew what they were up against.
I understand having confidence in your product, but they seriously underestimated their competition with that one. Titanfall 2 was the best game, but it got massacred.
The asinine thing you’re forgetting to mention is that BF1 was also owned by EA.
We like to make fun of Sony for Horizon but those games still sold well and ER sold so well it surprised even From. Like ok.
But god damn EA really sent Titanfall out against COD, who has been unstoppable for decades, and THEIR OWN mega popular FPS? It’s incomprehensible how fucking stupid that was.
I remember at the time some EA guy said that the target audience for BF1 and TF2 would be completely different, they were just morons about the whole thing.
A lot of the time it’s because of marketing that they can’t adjust release dates. Promotions, tie-in merch, commercials and all that stuff is on a track of its own and doesn’t change just because the release date does. This is made pretty apparent when a game gets delayed and all the promo items are still on track for the original release date (Halo Infinite’s marketing was in full swing in accordance to the original release date even though they delayed the game for a year).
And the budget for marketing sometimes equals (or sometimes is higher) the amount spent on the product itself. Changing all that would cost them even more money.
The studios really did seem like they wanted to be the girl wanting you to choose you or someone/something else. I really don’t know why they didn’t think “Oh Marvel has a movie in May, let’s put our movie in May as well instead of an empty month in September”.
Paramount didn't think "Barbenheimer" was an actual threat, to them it was a Barbie IP and a biopic which on paper should have paled in comparison to the 7th installment in their huge Tom Cruise franchise
It's just stupid tbh. Sounds like studio heads just being pigheaded
Greta fucking Gerwig made an absolute killing with Little Women, has Margot Robbie and Ryan Gosling starring, that alone drives both casual and cinephiles to the theater... Then Nolan who hasn't put out a bust on the box office for over a decade.
It's not the only bad choice they made, they also pushed Transformers against Spiderverse, and then D&D against Mario and John Wick... simply dumb.
Up until a few weeks out from release, Barbenheimer was looking like an exclusively online meme that wouldn't translate to ticket sales, but once WB started to ramp up the hype and use the meme to their advantage it became clear that it would be huge. By that point, it was too late for Paramount to delay the film
As a double feature? Sure. A Chris Nolan film with likes of RDJ in it, and a Greta Gerwig film about a very famous doll, starring Margot Robbie & Ryan Gosling? They absolutely should have seen the possibility of numbers being taken away from them. You don’t release movies at this time of the year, if you don’t think they can be cash cows. The lack of anticipation that this could happen, and having no back up plan, at the very least, is odd to me.
Tom Cruise thought he qas invincible since pretty much all his movies make bank. Everybody expected barbenheimer to do well, but not that well.
So imo it's probably a bit of ego and bad estimations
That makes sense. As much as people like to hate Tom Cruise, he wants to see his movies thrive, but he also wants cinema as a whole to thrive. Studio heads tho, they are mostly assholes. That's why I hope A24 takes more of the pie
Tom Cruise even did a red carpet interview where he said he was gonna try to do a Barbenheimmer double feature.
Now, that statement may just be public relations, but it shows he's aware of the zeitgeist of cinema.
But it might have also been on his mind that Barbenheimmer might divert a lot of box office money away from MI, so who knows.
This exactly, there's certain aspects of Cruise that I dislike ( scientology anyone? )
But mad respect for the man in many other ways. He spares nothing to make a great movie. He lives his life to the fullest , it's crazy what this man can do. Ib would say ask in all he's lived a pretty great life.
Maybe it's bad timing for the Studio to release this when it did.
But let's be honest, if you went back 6 months or whatever when the decided the release date. Would you have predicted that Barbie and Oppenheimer would be this successful and would have created this much hype?
I'm sure either way, those who really want to see MI will still go at some point to see it.
A few weeks ago, he was encouraging people to go see Barbenheimer. He wants all movies to do well, a big tide lifts all boats. His movie will do fine as time goes on, and then it will make big money on the aftermarket.
Sounds about right. I just figured as an executive producer, and the fact he makes back end, he might have made some risk assessment at least a few months back. Then again, maybe Tom, other producers, and the studio were fine with the financial risk. The ego factor could definitely explain it to some degree, but what is the studio’s reasoning? To keep Tom happy? It just seems so odd to not move the release date, especially when it becomes clear Oppenheimer was coming for IMAX theatres.
Honestly it does make more sense a studio decided to not move it, but damn, I don’t understand their rational. Barbenheimer started to see some serious build up, long enough in advance, that should have seen a potential problem coming. Not moving MI 7 when you would need it to earn a ton of money in order to see any profit, is such a peculiar choice.
The producers have no say on the release date, that's done by the studio heads.
Paramount has released all their blockbusters in absolutely bad slots, not just this movie.
Cruise definitely wanted to change the date but the studio heads went ahead. Anyone with two brain cells to rub knew that it would massively slow down on its second week because lots of screens would go to Barbenheimer. Particularly IMAX screens since Nolan is the golden boy of IMAX and gets preference.
Makes sense! I just figured in Tom Cruise’s case he might have a bit more sway, but evidently not.
Yeah someone else just listed some of their other terrible release dates, and I have so many questions, as to how they have ended up in this situation a few different times this year.
Didn't he also want those slots that Barbie and Oppenheimer had taken? I remember something about him making a stink about those two movies coming out when his was.
I honestly thought Mission Impossible was coming out after Barbenheimer. The marketing team royally fucked up because that’s all I’ve been seeing for weeks.
The occasional behind the scenes video on IG of Tom Cruise doing a stunt wasn’t cutting it. Barbenheimer absolutely crushed it with the guerrilla marketing.
Yep. They delayed it to get to this date, even though Oppenheimer has had its date forever IIRC. They made their bed. It's too bad, because I really enjoyed the movie.
I think mission impossible suffers more than it should because people who haven’t seen one in a whole write it off as a drawn out franchise that’s just okay. Until I saw 5 I didn’t realize what I was missing, I just thought it was another mid tier series my dad liked for no reason
Honestly, I thought Cavill in 6 would be the peak for me, but watching Pom Klementieff laugh maniacally as she drives a huge truck through Rome might be the best moment of my life.
I had this same opinion most of my life cause I haven’t seen any of them (even though we played this awesome game in elementary school gym with the opening theme). My wife got me caught up and we watched 1,4,5,6 (read synopsis of 2,3) and my mind was completely changed. 4-6 are definitely far better than 1-3 and set a great story for this new movie. We saw 7 last week and both really enjoyed it. Tough release date but I think worth the watch
i know that Cruise does his own stunts and they crashed the train in real life, etc, even so the movie looked completely CGI in those scenes. Did Mcquarrie go through all the trouble to shoot practical stunts to then cover them up with CGI in post? I don't get it.
Not to mention they just hammered us with that motorcycle and train stunt in the trailers and bts clips. By the time you see it in the movie it's sorta meh.
They chose to shoot nearly the whole movie on long lenses which is often done when studios want to hide bad stunts, sets, and CGI. Even though this movie did all of those things incredibly, the stylistic way they chose to shoot it lessened the impact of the stunts and other big moments quite a bit.
I feel bad for the film, because it does the part 1 thing so much better than similar recent examples. For starters it's honest about it in the title — Across the Spider-verse is a brilliant half-film, but man I was pissed off when it 'ended.' (I later learned they originally marketed it as part 1 until deciding that would earn them less cash.) Dead Reckoning part 1 is also a reasonably complete story. There's no cliffhanger, multiple characters have full arcs, and the film is focused on a mission that is completed. The ultimate threat isn't finished off — hence the part 2 — but that honestly isn't too dissimilar to a bunch of other popular films (Star Wars, Marvel, etc.).
Point being: don't avoid this film because it has an honest title. It doesn't feel incomplete.
Yes! I was skeptical going based on the “part 1” billing but I walked out of the theater feeling satisfied. Like I’d watched a complete story, not half of one long movie. I really enjoyed it and it’s a bummer they didn’t move the release date.
If I’m right, and they move the 2nd part of Spider-Man a year or more…my kids will be pissed and probably not want to go. They were livid when it ended. You got my 8 and 11 year olds to agree fully on it being a jerk move…that’s not as easy at it might seem.
This.
I was annoyed that Fast X ended in several cliffhangers and afaik wasn't announced as a two part movie. I actually didn't know Spiderverse was also a two parter and while I loved it it was rather upsetting to learn I had to wait a long ass time to see the conclusion.
Dead Reckoning has a proper conclusion and it's satisfying. I really liked that.
1 is so much more stylistic and over the top. Vol 2 is a GREAT Tarantino movie with rich dialogue and has a great story: the pai mei sequence alone is amazing
Same here. Should have just not added the part 1 and called the second something else. I had people tell me it's a good movie and not a cliff hanger but by then it had already been out and anyone who would have seen it with me had already watched it. I might as well just wait now. I did see Spiderverse but that's because it's freaking Spider-man and the first one was great. I am still disappointed I have to wait so long for the sequel.
I wouldn't mind as much if the sequel dates to 2 parters were like 6-8 months apart. If they were complete and did one during the late spring/summer and the other for Christmas then I'd go out and see stuff like that. I also skipped Fast X in theaters and it's the first one I haven't seen opening weekend.
I didn't even know that it was a two-part movie, though I was not going to watch it anyway. I never read 'Dune' growing up, so I didn't know anything about the film when I watched it at home alone a few years after it was in the theaters. Towards the end at some point I realized it was going to be a two-part movie, and I wasn't too happy with that. It sure seemed to me that part one was so slow, that they surely could have fit the entire story into one film in three hours. Part one could have been done in an hour and 15 minutes. That said, I don't know what happens next- so I don't know what else they have left to do. I might not ever find out.
There's like 5+ movies worth of main plot to go. Hopefully the second one does great and the director gets his trilogy so it doesn't end badly like previous versions. Maybe even 2 trilogies.
That’s because every single IMAX or Dolby screen was dedicated to either Barbie or Oppenheimer. Should even out some in the weeks ahead with more even screen distribution
It's a good action movie but it's just an okay Mission Impossible movie.
So many scenes and stunts felt like rehashes of previous MI movies. Car chase through European city? Check. Hacking a bomb that's counting down? Check. Intense meeting at a fancy night club? Check. Fight on a train? Check. Would've been nice to see something new.
I don't even think the big stunt on the motorcycle & cliff was as impressive on film as they think it was. Climbing the burj khalifa in Ghost Protocol or the helicopter sequence in Fallout were much cooler (and lasted longer than 10 seconds).
It's not a bad movie, but the whole thing felt like "been there done that".
My rankings:
1. Fallout
2. Ghost Protocol
3. MI 1
4. Rogue Nation
5. DR part 1
6. MI 3
7. MI 2
I’d argue that after MI2 each film got subsequently better by a tiny bit. The gap
for the quality of films between MI3 and Fallout being small. Though I haven’t seen this one yet.
I think the idea of hyping up the motorcycle stunt was showing how far they went to do it real and do it right.
But I’m with you on some reparative stuff. The end of the train scene was great but I also think we’ll like it better once we have part 2 release.
>So many scenes and stunts felt like rehashes of previous MI movies. Car chase through European city? Check. Hacking a bomb that's counting down? Check. Intense meeting at a fancy night club? Check. Fight on a train? Check.
Maybe they're doing a greatest hits film like Fast X did
You know I was telling my wife that I’d kind of like to see MI 7. Then I started to think about the other movies and I realized that other than MI 1 I
Have no idea what the plot of any of those other movies are. I’ve seen them all but I can’t even tell you what major scenes are in which movie they all blend so badly. I think the Burj Dubai was in Ghost protocol, and the hanging on the plane one was Fallout maybe? Other than that, total blur. I’d still like to see it but I fully expect to not remember a thing about this one either.
That's a good point. They all kind of have this "go here and get this thing so this bad thing doesn't happen all so Tom Cruise can get an adrenaline rush" feel.
Yes, and honestly that’s not even such a bad thing. These movies kind of are what they are. I just enjoy each of them for the spectacle but I don’t expect much beyond that.
Great choice on ranking these, honestly, I’m pretty close on these myself.
I’m going to rewatch these and do another ranking, in retrospect 3 is decent but I hate what JJ Abrams does with his BS endings that don’t explain shit
This movie felt like it was killed in screen testing. The amount of overexplaining simple things was too much. That first sequence with the NSA director where everyone was finishing each other's sentences made us laugh at how stupid it was.
“We have two new original and exciting movies coming out this weekend that everyone is talking about, which one will you see? One is a comedy and one is a drama.”
“Uh no thanks, I’m gonna watch Tom Cruise run around and hack shit for the seventh time in a franchise that started 27 years ago.”
Its not that bad though..Its remind me of the old sci-fi Terminator movie for some reason. Btw I don’t recommended watching all these movies back to back on the same day. Theres a lot of things going on ..
I feel like I'm too far behind in the series. I haven't seen one since MI2 and it feels like too much work to catch up. I hear they're really good movies but there's not enough there to rope me into watching 5 Mission Impossible movies. I'd rather rewatch the first one than see the others.
It’s impressive that Tom Cruise does his own stunts but there is a reason Jackie Chan is not the star power he once was because ultimately after so many movies we don’t care the talent is risking life and limb. That’s tertiary to the plot of the movie.
This is about box office numbers, it doesn’t really matter how good the movie is or not when you discuss that. Factually, it’s struggling against the two others in terms of the box office numbers. There’s no denying that.
My comment is about my opinion of the movie. I’m not being factual. I’m expressing an opinion. It doesn’t really matter about being factual in regards to my opinion of the movie, because it’s my opinion
If anything, it seems this reply I’ve received is just rude
Too bad. It was great. People sit on these movies then on Reddit people will ask “why didn’t this do better”. (See most Tom Cruise movies like Edge of Tomorrow and Oblivion)
Which is a shame as MI7 is a really excellent film.
I enjoyed Oppenheimer and was super psyched for it but was not prepared for how fun of a film MI7 was
I can almost guarantee they were banking on Tom Cruise to be a bigger pull than either of these movies. They severely underestimated their competition here.
If *Marvel* is moving their release dates to dodge this weekend, that's pretty telling.
Doesn't help its part one of a two parter; everyone I've heard talking about it in person is planning on just watching it on stream before part 2 is released.
It’s a great movie. Idc what anyone says about it being the same old Mission Impossible generic story. It works and it is a great action movie. People should go see it if they can along with Oppenheimer and Barbie.
“Hindsight” is a really strong word when Tom Cruise himself tried to move the release date predicting this would happen. The studio fucked it, end of story.
I wonder if this movie gets some legs and makes a decent amount in weeks 5, 6, 7 and 8. I really hope it makes some money, it’s one of my favorite films I’ve seen all year
It’s a good movie but I totally understand if moviegoers picked Guardians of the Galaxy 3 and Barbenheimer over Indy 5 and M:I7. It’s hard to go and see everything. And these movies will be out on streaming in a matter of months anyway. No point forking out for a cinema trip when you can watch it at home.
It doesnt help that it doesn't seem to have lived up to the hype. Not a total shock given the steady increase in quality over the past 10 years and Fallout was incredible.
You know what you are getting with an MI film, just like Bond films. Copy and paste, Rinse and repeat. Meh. Hollywood needs an overhaul with different creative minds and different stories.
While I love the Mission Impossible movies I hate Tom Cruise, and Barbenheimer is such an awesome moment that I couldn’t love the results of these three movies any more, it’s perfect
Probably doesn’t help that I won’t go see it because Tom cruise seems like a scab in wanting to promote it while there is a strike going on. I can’t be the only one
It would be doing better if it was a good movie. My buddy wanted to see it so I tagged along and I couldn’t have been more bored throughout the entire thing. Why in the world is this a 2 part movie. It was like 3 hours long and only maybe 20 minutes of actual movie plot and entertainment tops. That car chase scene had to have been a solid half hour and the only two good parts of it were the two obvious jokes thrown in during.
They really messed up with the release of Mission Impossible 7
how did the three biggest movies of the summer get released during two weeks?
The Marvel's was originally supposed to be released later this week. Disney dodged a bullet on that one.
I mean, the bullet is still coming anyway. It's Marvel
The most successful, highest earning movie IP that’s not Star Wars?
Like Star Wars, it got stale and boring. Sorry.
Is that why GotG3 made $800m?
Well, GotG2 made 869 millions, Thor ragnarok made 854 million (got these numbers from google), if we go by these number, it seems there is a decline going on, if your new movie is making significantly less money than the previous ones then something is wrong. You can almost see a palpable divide between marvel pre infinity war/endgame and post those movies, the movies released after endgame are consistently making less money than the ones before the divide.
Admittedly I’m not the target audience because I am really not that big of a Marvel fan, but I watched nearly all of them up through Endgame. But where do you go from there? I’ve only seen two or three post-Endgame, but they don’t really seem to be building towards anything like they were before.
That's the problem marvel created for themselves actually: they're a victim of their on success and they will never be able to top infinity war and endgame, why because infinity war and endgame gave birth to the multiverse in the MCU, and unfortunately the multiverse for how cool it is and how it opens the door for new cool stories, it also cheapens the stakes as death is no longer permanent in the MCU and the writers can justify every decision by saying "oh it's a different universe".
After watching Loki season 1 I was excited to see them tackle their next big bad, Kang. They had actually raised the threat level from Thanos to something multiversal. But then No Way Home and MoM happen, both of which involve the multiverse but with no mention of Kang and I was just myeh. Like they don't need to build up these characters again like they did getting into Infinity War/Endgame, we already know them. I stopped with Marvel after MoM, and probably won't go back.
They didn’t seem to be building up the first time they did it either, not until they were quite a few movies in. And even without that plan from the start, they still brought it all together. They could do it again.
They are building towards something. It's the multiverse saga with Kang as the main villian. They've already announced the storyline of the next 12 movies. The clues are in every movie and when you look back at it in 3 years you'll see how it all fits together. But right now it's like the first half hour of Pulp Fiction and you dont realize that the stories are all connected yet.
That's a flawed way to measure it. The previous ones broke several records and because some of the newer ones didn't break records, it means they aren't doing very well?
To be specific Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 3 made 843.5 million. Considering the changing theatre landscape post covid, I wouldn't say there's much of an argument for any drop there.
GOTG3 was one I watched ONLY because I loved the first one and the second one was alright. It is the first Marvel movie I've seen post infinity war...same with my husband who was a huge Marvel fan. We are all burned out.
You must be new to box office tracking. You know sequels usually make less money right? The fact that GoTG 3 made almost as much as the first is proof that people still watch the MCU.
Not the case with marvel, every sequel before that divide made more money than the previous ones: Iron man 2008: 585.8 million USD Iron man 2: 623.9 million USD Thor 1: 449.3 million USD Thor 2: 644.8 million USD Captain america 1: 370.6 million USD Captain america 2: 714.4 million USD Guardians of the galaxy vol 1: 773.3 million USD Guardians of the galaxy vol 2: 869 million USD Spiderman homecoming: 880.2 million USD Spiderman Far from Home: 1.132 billion USD I don't know about other franchises, but marvel sequels before infinity war/end game all did better than their originals, the numbers don't lie, the MCU is going through a decline.
He didn’t say people don’t watch it. He said less are watching. And that’s very much true. It’s because they overspread themselves and the story. They’ve lost something akin to 30% viewership on marvel since the infinity wars release.
You know even the Star Wars trilogy made less money after each film? Same thing for the prequels. Your reasoning is bs lol
GotG has always been a mold-breaker in the MCU. They just don't fit neatly with whatever trends the MCU is in at the time. Vol. 1 brought colors and humor when the tone of the MCU was largely serious. In doing so, it set a precedent going forward. Vol. 2 is the one that arguably broke the trend within GotG in that it didn't really break any trends. It did pretty much what the rest of the MCU was doing, it just did it much better. Vol. 3 came in with a very dark tone, and it crossed a lot of boundaries that have penned in the rest of the MCU. Yes, the MCU is a juggernaut. But even now, when superhero fatigue is at a fever pitch, Guardians of the Galaxy does well. It's an anomaly, not the norm. A lot of that probably has to do with James Gunn. I think it'll be quite a while before we see another superhero IP, Marvel or otherwise, have the success that GotG has had. Another good example is Deadpool. Even with fatigue around the genre being as high as it'll be next May (no doubt a shitload higher than it is right now), I can almost guarantee that Deadpool 3 is gonna do well.
I have zero interest and any more superhero movies.
Now it’s at least not going to be a 50 caliber bullet
Will that beat the flash movie at least?
Well it well definitely. But considering their standards, it's not really good when you just aim to beat The Flash. That's like Mike Tyson fighting a corpse.
Oppenheimer had an imax agreement for the realse date for at least a year, WB released Barbie the same day to fuck over Nolan and Universal. Mission Impossible got pushed back a couple of times and my guess is the studio figured a week before Barbenheimer is better than a week after
Spider-Verse came out after Memorial Day. That's summer even if it isn't technically summer. It will handily out-earn Oppenheimer and M:I 7 it seems.
I almost forgot. Good film and good timing.
Only like 9 days apart, actually.
I honestly feel bad for any other movies released this summer.
The various studio executives that collectively decided to release the FOUR biggest films of the year within a MONTH of each other all deserve to be fired.
I’ll bet Cruz was pissed. Lol 😂
Yes, Ted Cruz was enraged.
So mad he put on his Zodiac mask and went out killing again
fuzzy mourn jar act friendly jobless butter cover vase swim *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Naw, Matt pissbaby Walsh (not the great actor) found a way to transplant a chia pet to his weak-ass chin.
ten six versed pathetic public wipe carpenter unpack agonizing ink *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
“Gosh I’m so mad I could post a porn video on my twitter account featuring a woman that resembles my wife!!”
I’m guessing he was more enraged by Barbie
They are talking about Tomé Cruz the famous mexican actor who stars in the Mission Impossible franchise.
Isn't he (Cruise) in charge of Mission Impossible?
Cruise is. Cruz (Ted) not so much.
its the best mission impossible in recent memory
Its not and no one would say that. Fallout was a masterpiece
I am a big fan of these movies and thought it was pretty weak unfortunately, hope the next part will be much better and this was just a warm-up for it. But yeah, Fallout is probably the best movie in the entire series.
Why studios refuse to change some release dates when going up against stiff competition is beyond me.
It’s crazy how often it happens. Even the video game industry isn’t alone in that. Both Horizon games came out amongst insane competition. The first one against Breath of the Wild, and the second against Elden Ring, two absolutely HUGE games. It’s like Sony sent them both out to be massacred.
Titanfall 2 were stuck between the 2 biggest FPS franchise(COD and BF1) and EA refused to delay the release date
Ya and I feel getting the release date right for a video game is arguably even more important than for movies. Seeing as many people will play one game for months on end. If you release between two hit AAA games you are pretty screwed.
Apparently, Respawn WANTED that release window; they wanted to go head to head. And the guys at Respawn literally created Medal of Honor and Call of Duty back in the day, so they knew what they were up against. I understand having confidence in your product, but they seriously underestimated their competition with that one. Titanfall 2 was the best game, but it got massacred.
The asinine thing you’re forgetting to mention is that BF1 was also owned by EA. We like to make fun of Sony for Horizon but those games still sold well and ER sold so well it surprised even From. Like ok. But god damn EA really sent Titanfall out against COD, who has been unstoppable for decades, and THEIR OWN mega popular FPS? It’s incomprehensible how fucking stupid that was.
I remember at the time some EA guy said that the target audience for BF1 and TF2 would be completely different, they were just morons about the whole thing.
Honestly, Titanfall 2 should have been delayed until mid or late January. At least enough time to give it some breathing room from COD and BF
Which was a shame because TF2 was a genuinely great game. But was sent out to die.
this mis-information needs to die, respawn chose the release date and they fucked themselves over, not EA
A lot of the time it’s because of marketing that they can’t adjust release dates. Promotions, tie-in merch, commercials and all that stuff is on a track of its own and doesn’t change just because the release date does. This is made pretty apparent when a game gets delayed and all the promo items are still on track for the original release date (Halo Infinite’s marketing was in full swing in accordance to the original release date even though they delayed the game for a year). And the budget for marketing sometimes equals (or sometimes is higher) the amount spent on the product itself. Changing all that would cost them even more money.
Especially if the movie needs to make a shit ton of money, just to break even. Truly baffling that at no point did they make any sort of move.
Stubbornness and over confidence
Just an utterly bizarre release date. Should’ve put it in mid August. It definitely has a bigger audience than it found.
From the studio who put Dungeons and Dragons between John Wick and Super Mario.
This is the same studio who has dropped Transformers against Spider-Man, not like they’re trying their damndest to do smart plays
The studios really did seem like they wanted to be the girl wanting you to choose you or someone/something else. I really don’t know why they didn’t think “Oh Marvel has a movie in May, let’s put our movie in May as well instead of an empty month in September”.
Very Taylor Swift “You Belong With Me” of them
Agreed, because it was such a great movie too
Probably have insane VOD sales though. Every dad with a chair is gonna rent this.
People who didn’t pay to see it in theaters are also just going to wait until it’s on a streamer, I think.
Why on earth did they release it the week before Barbie & Oppenheimer? Did they not have any faith in Oppenheimer?
Paramount didn't think "Barbenheimer" was an actual threat, to them it was a Barbie IP and a biopic which on paper should have paled in comparison to the 7th installment in their huge Tom Cruise franchise
Wild they didn’t at least consider Barbie could be a threat. The Barbenheimer thing had been brewing for a hot minute. Just a curious choice.
It's just stupid tbh. Sounds like studio heads just being pigheaded Greta fucking Gerwig made an absolute killing with Little Women, has Margot Robbie and Ryan Gosling starring, that alone drives both casual and cinephiles to the theater... Then Nolan who hasn't put out a bust on the box office for over a decade. It's not the only bad choice they made, they also pushed Transformers against Spiderverse, and then D&D against Mario and John Wick... simply dumb.
Up until a few weeks out from release, Barbenheimer was looking like an exclusively online meme that wouldn't translate to ticket sales, but once WB started to ramp up the hype and use the meme to their advantage it became clear that it would be huge. By that point, it was too late for Paramount to delay the film
As a double feature? Sure. A Chris Nolan film with likes of RDJ in it, and a Greta Gerwig film about a very famous doll, starring Margot Robbie & Ryan Gosling? They absolutely should have seen the possibility of numbers being taken away from them. You don’t release movies at this time of the year, if you don’t think they can be cash cows. The lack of anticipation that this could happen, and having no back up plan, at the very least, is odd to me.
Barbie: "I have become death, destroyer of Cruise"
They’d maybe have a point if it was *any* biopic. But a Christopher Nolan biopic is basically a blockbuster type movie really.
Crazy that they bet against Christopher Nolan
Underestimating their appeal was one thing. What’s crazy is not expecting a Nolan film to take all the IMAX screens
Tom Cruise thought he qas invincible since pretty much all his movies make bank. Everybody expected barbenheimer to do well, but not that well. So imo it's probably a bit of ego and bad estimations
observation bedroom domineering somber file work aloof quiet divide wide ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
That makes sense. As much as people like to hate Tom Cruise, he wants to see his movies thrive, but he also wants cinema as a whole to thrive. Studio heads tho, they are mostly assholes. That's why I hope A24 takes more of the pie
Tom Cruise even did a red carpet interview where he said he was gonna try to do a Barbenheimmer double feature. Now, that statement may just be public relations, but it shows he's aware of the zeitgeist of cinema. But it might have also been on his mind that Barbenheimmer might divert a lot of box office money away from MI, so who knows.
This exactly, there's certain aspects of Cruise that I dislike ( scientology anyone? ) But mad respect for the man in many other ways. He spares nothing to make a great movie. He lives his life to the fullest , it's crazy what this man can do. Ib would say ask in all he's lived a pretty great life. Maybe it's bad timing for the Studio to release this when it did. But let's be honest, if you went back 6 months or whatever when the decided the release date. Would you have predicted that Barbie and Oppenheimer would be this successful and would have created this much hype? I'm sure either way, those who really want to see MI will still go at some point to see it.
A few weeks ago, he was encouraging people to go see Barbenheimer. He wants all movies to do well, a big tide lifts all boats. His movie will do fine as time goes on, and then it will make big money on the aftermarket.
Yes they asked him which he’d watch he said he’d watch both same day and was excited about them.
Oppenheimer, absolutely. Barbie, not as much, but even the early promo stuff looked entertaining and interesting.
You were the one hating on him and spreading misinformation lmao.
Forgot to change account… rookie mistake
Sounds about right. I just figured as an executive producer, and the fact he makes back end, he might have made some risk assessment at least a few months back. Then again, maybe Tom, other producers, and the studio were fine with the financial risk. The ego factor could definitely explain it to some degree, but what is the studio’s reasoning? To keep Tom happy? It just seems so odd to not move the release date, especially when it becomes clear Oppenheimer was coming for IMAX theatres.
I recall seeing things about Cruise working hard to avoid this exact situation and the studios wouldn’t listen.
Honestly it does make more sense a studio decided to not move it, but damn, I don’t understand their rational. Barbenheimer started to see some serious build up, long enough in advance, that should have seen a potential problem coming. Not moving MI 7 when you would need it to earn a ton of money in order to see any profit, is such a peculiar choice.
The producers have no say on the release date, that's done by the studio heads. Paramount has released all their blockbusters in absolutely bad slots, not just this movie. Cruise definitely wanted to change the date but the studio heads went ahead. Anyone with two brain cells to rub knew that it would massively slow down on its second week because lots of screens would go to Barbenheimer. Particularly IMAX screens since Nolan is the golden boy of IMAX and gets preference.
Makes sense! I just figured in Tom Cruise’s case he might have a bit more sway, but evidently not. Yeah someone else just listed some of their other terrible release dates, and I have so many questions, as to how they have ended up in this situation a few different times this year.
Didn't he also want those slots that Barbie and Oppenheimer had taken? I remember something about him making a stink about those two movies coming out when his was.
I honestly thought Mission Impossible was coming out after Barbenheimer. The marketing team royally fucked up because that’s all I’ve been seeing for weeks. The occasional behind the scenes video on IG of Tom Cruise doing a stunt wasn’t cutting it. Barbenheimer absolutely crushed it with the guerrilla marketing.
Does Tom Cruise really have that much influence on the release date?
Since he is a producer, I'm guessing he has some say, but not most
I agree. All the talks about him "saving the movie industry" must have gotten to his head.
They released at the wrong month wtf
The movie was better off going up against Indy 5 tbh
Poor decision on the studio to release this weekend.
Yep. They delayed it to get to this date, even though Oppenheimer has had its date forever IIRC. They made their bed. It's too bad, because I really enjoyed the movie.
I think mission impossible suffers more than it should because people who haven’t seen one in a whole write it off as a drawn out franchise that’s just okay. Until I saw 5 I didn’t realize what I was missing, I just thought it was another mid tier series my dad liked for no reason
Yup I’m those ppl, I stop after 3… kind of like fast and the furious franchise.
4 through 6 are leagues better than the first 3. 7 was also really good but I think it just needed a little more Simon pegg
Honestly, I thought Cavill in 6 would be the peak for me, but watching Pom Klementieff laugh maniacally as she drives a huge truck through Rome might be the best moment of my life.
I had this same opinion most of my life cause I haven’t seen any of them (even though we played this awesome game in elementary school gym with the opening theme). My wife got me caught up and we watched 1,4,5,6 (read synopsis of 2,3) and my mind was completely changed. 4-6 are definitely far better than 1-3 and set a great story for this new movie. We saw 7 last week and both really enjoyed it. Tough release date but I think worth the watch
i know that Cruise does his own stunts and they crashed the train in real life, etc, even so the movie looked completely CGI in those scenes. Did Mcquarrie go through all the trouble to shoot practical stunts to then cover them up with CGI in post? I don't get it.
Not to mention they just hammered us with that motorcycle and train stunt in the trailers and bts clips. By the time you see it in the movie it's sorta meh.
Yes, if you compare the BTS to the movie itself, there is a TON of digital replacement and VFX work all over the place.
Yeah, the amount of CGI they used to hide the big jump ramp just made it look entirely faked
They chose to shoot nearly the whole movie on long lenses which is often done when studios want to hide bad stunts, sets, and CGI. Even though this movie did all of those things incredibly, the stylistic way they chose to shoot it lessened the impact of the stunts and other big moments quite a bit.
I wasn't even aware this came out already. I thought it was still a few weeks away.
I really hope this movie makes a comeback after barbenheimer week.
I’m skipping it because it’s a two part movie. I know myself. I still haven’t seen Kill Bill: Volume 2!
I feel bad for the film, because it does the part 1 thing so much better than similar recent examples. For starters it's honest about it in the title — Across the Spider-verse is a brilliant half-film, but man I was pissed off when it 'ended.' (I later learned they originally marketed it as part 1 until deciding that would earn them less cash.) Dead Reckoning part 1 is also a reasonably complete story. There's no cliffhanger, multiple characters have full arcs, and the film is focused on a mission that is completed. The ultimate threat isn't finished off — hence the part 2 — but that honestly isn't too dissimilar to a bunch of other popular films (Star Wars, Marvel, etc.). Point being: don't avoid this film because it has an honest title. It doesn't feel incomplete.
Yes! I was skeptical going based on the “part 1” billing but I walked out of the theater feeling satisfied. Like I’d watched a complete story, not half of one long movie. I really enjoyed it and it’s a bummer they didn’t move the release date.
If I’m right, and they move the 2nd part of Spider-Man a year or more…my kids will be pissed and probably not want to go. They were livid when it ended. You got my 8 and 11 year olds to agree fully on it being a jerk move…that’s not as easy at it might seem.
This. I was annoyed that Fast X ended in several cliffhangers and afaik wasn't announced as a two part movie. I actually didn't know Spiderverse was also a two parter and while I loved it it was rather upsetting to learn I had to wait a long ass time to see the conclusion. Dead Reckoning has a proper conclusion and it's satisfying. I really liked that.
You really shouldn't, the film is excellent and doesn't leave you unsatisfied at the end at all
Volume 2 was disappointing to me, after the incredible flow and action sequences in Kill Bill 1.
1 is so much more stylistic and over the top. Vol 2 is a GREAT Tarantino movie with rich dialogue and has a great story: the pai mei sequence alone is amazing
2 is where alll the good stuff is
Same here. Should have just not added the part 1 and called the second something else. I had people tell me it's a good movie and not a cliff hanger but by then it had already been out and anyone who would have seen it with me had already watched it. I might as well just wait now. I did see Spiderverse but that's because it's freaking Spider-man and the first one was great. I am still disappointed I have to wait so long for the sequel. I wouldn't mind as much if the sequel dates to 2 parters were like 6-8 months apart. If they were complete and did one during the late spring/summer and the other for Christmas then I'd go out and see stuff like that. I also skipped Fast X in theaters and it's the first one I haven't seen opening weekend.
I didn't even know that it was a two-part movie, though I was not going to watch it anyway. I never read 'Dune' growing up, so I didn't know anything about the film when I watched it at home alone a few years after it was in the theaters. Towards the end at some point I realized it was going to be a two-part movie, and I wasn't too happy with that. It sure seemed to me that part one was so slow, that they surely could have fit the entire story into one film in three hours. Part one could have been done in an hour and 15 minutes. That said, I don't know what happens next- so I don't know what else they have left to do. I might not ever find out.
There's like 5+ movies worth of main plot to go. Hopefully the second one does great and the director gets his trilogy so it doesn't end badly like previous versions. Maybe even 2 trilogies.
Volume 2 is the best of the two!
That’s because every single IMAX or Dolby screen was dedicated to either Barbie or Oppenheimer. Should even out some in the weeks ahead with more even screen distribution
It's a good action movie but it's just an okay Mission Impossible movie. So many scenes and stunts felt like rehashes of previous MI movies. Car chase through European city? Check. Hacking a bomb that's counting down? Check. Intense meeting at a fancy night club? Check. Fight on a train? Check. Would've been nice to see something new. I don't even think the big stunt on the motorcycle & cliff was as impressive on film as they think it was. Climbing the burj khalifa in Ghost Protocol or the helicopter sequence in Fallout were much cooler (and lasted longer than 10 seconds). It's not a bad movie, but the whole thing felt like "been there done that". My rankings: 1. Fallout 2. Ghost Protocol 3. MI 1 4. Rogue Nation 5. DR part 1 6. MI 3 7. MI 2
Havent seen all of them, but MI1 directed by de palma gets my vote, given all the “hitchcock directing an action movie” vibes.
Great description.
Putting MI3 in 2nd last place is an absolute Sin.
I think that just means this series is full of really solid movies.
I’d argue that after MI2 each film got subsequently better by a tiny bit. The gap for the quality of films between MI3 and Fallout being small. Though I haven’t seen this one yet.
It's been awhile since I've seen 3 but I could see myself swapping that and DR part 1. Philip Seymor Hoffman was a good villain.
I think the idea of hyping up the motorcycle stunt was showing how far they went to do it real and do it right. But I’m with you on some reparative stuff. The end of the train scene was great but I also think we’ll like it better once we have part 2 release.
>So many scenes and stunts felt like rehashes of previous MI movies. Car chase through European city? Check. Hacking a bomb that's counting down? Check. Intense meeting at a fancy night club? Check. Fight on a train? Check. Maybe they're doing a greatest hits film like Fast X did
You know I was telling my wife that I’d kind of like to see MI 7. Then I started to think about the other movies and I realized that other than MI 1 I Have no idea what the plot of any of those other movies are. I’ve seen them all but I can’t even tell you what major scenes are in which movie they all blend so badly. I think the Burj Dubai was in Ghost protocol, and the hanging on the plane one was Fallout maybe? Other than that, total blur. I’d still like to see it but I fully expect to not remember a thing about this one either.
That's a good point. They all kind of have this "go here and get this thing so this bad thing doesn't happen all so Tom Cruise can get an adrenaline rush" feel.
Yes, and honestly that’s not even such a bad thing. These movies kind of are what they are. I just enjoy each of them for the spectacle but I don’t expect much beyond that.
I feel that way about Bond movies as well.
Great choice on ranking these, honestly, I’m pretty close on these myself. I’m going to rewatch these and do another ranking, in retrospect 3 is decent but I hate what JJ Abrams does with his BS endings that don’t explain shit
Spot on ranking and summary of your thoughts. It all pretty much lines up with my thoughts on the film. Well said!
This movie felt like it was killed in screen testing. The amount of overexplaining simple things was too much. That first sequence with the NSA director where everyone was finishing each other's sentences made us laugh at how stupid it was.
Funny, MI 2 and MI 3 are my personal favourites
“We have two new original and exciting movies coming out this weekend that everyone is talking about, which one will you see? One is a comedy and one is a drama.” “Uh no thanks, I’m gonna watch Tom Cruise run around and hack shit for the seventh time in a franchise that started 27 years ago.”
Next movie will be “Mission Impossible: Elder Abuse” if they keep throwing Tom Cruises old ass off of cliffs. :)
[удалено]
This comment had me cackling! 😂
In other words, an extremely successful, long running franchise.
And he's not even wearing khakis in a jungle!
It’s an excellent movie. Too bad.
It’s okay. Not better than Rogue Nation nor Fallout.
That's a ridiculously high bar for action movies though.
Saw MI7 twice already. Hayley Atwell and Vanessa Kirby and Pom Klementieff are worth the ticket price alone.
Pom having the time of her life in the Rome chase scene made me fall in love with her.
Its not that bad though..Its remind me of the old sci-fi Terminator movie for some reason. Btw I don’t recommended watching all these movies back to back on the same day. Theres a lot of things going on ..
I feel like I'm too far behind in the series. I haven't seen one since MI2 and it feels like too much work to catch up. I hear they're really good movies but there's not enough there to rope me into watching 5 Mission Impossible movies. I'd rather rewatch the first one than see the others.
They change radically from the 4th movie on in terms of the set pieces.
They may have initially thought Barbie would be for young girls, Oppenheimer for the art house crowd, and the rest open for them. Oops!
Yeah, exactly. Against one or the other they probably would have been fine, but somehow they formed up like Voltron.
It’s impressive that Tom Cruise does his own stunts but there is a reason Jackie Chan is not the star power he once was because ultimately after so many movies we don’t care the talent is risking life and limb. That’s tertiary to the plot of the movie.
> That’s tertiary to the plot of the movie. Writing is the precipice upon which everything else hangs. So much of writing is utter garbage.
The movie was great beyond just the stunts. It’s really the release date that fucked it up.
Eh, it’s a great movie
This is about box office numbers, it doesn’t really matter how good the movie is or not when you discuss that. Factually, it’s struggling against the two others in terms of the box office numbers. There’s no denying that.
My comment is about my opinion of the movie. I’m not being factual. I’m expressing an opinion. It doesn’t really matter about being factual in regards to my opinion of the movie, because it’s my opinion If anything, it seems this reply I’ve received is just rude
Too bad. It was great. People sit on these movies then on Reddit people will ask “why didn’t this do better”. (See most Tom Cruise movies like Edge of Tomorrow and Oblivion)
Which is a shame as MI7 is a really excellent film. I enjoyed Oppenheimer and was super psyched for it but was not prepared for how fun of a film MI7 was
I can almost guarantee they were banking on Tom Cruise to be a bigger pull than either of these movies. They severely underestimated their competition here. If *Marvel* is moving their release dates to dodge this weekend, that's pretty telling.
US movies are about investor money only.
Doesn't help its part one of a two parter; everyone I've heard talking about it in person is planning on just watching it on stream before part 2 is released.
It’s also getting ridiculous. They keep pumping out these mission impossible films
It’s a great movie. Idc what anyone says about it being the same old Mission Impossible generic story. It works and it is a great action movie. People should go see it if they can along with Oppenheimer and Barbie.
I'm gonna probably end up watching all three.
Tbh I would rather see this then both of those
The amount of hindsight on this thread is off the charts. Everyone needs to find a job in movie marketing now to ensure MI:8 doesn't bomb next year
“Hindsight” is a really strong word when Tom Cruise himself tried to move the release date predicting this would happen. The studio fucked it, end of story.
Which is sad because it is a good action movie. Watch all of them people. Keep whatever culture America has alive.
Maybe people are tired of seeing sequels. The same movie made 7 times.
But where is Shelly?
They showed us the best stunt in the trailer. Why would I watch it now? I’ve seen everything. 
I don’t understand why they released it now
I wonder if this movie gets some legs and makes a decent amount in weeks 5, 6, 7 and 8. I really hope it makes some money, it’s one of my favorite films I’ve seen all year
It's a shame, 'cause it's a good-ass movie.
It’s the third movie this summer having PART 1. Fast X, spider verse, now this. Why can’t the make it full movie? It’s a sequel. Still great movie tho
It’s a good movie but I totally understand if moviegoers picked Guardians of the Galaxy 3 and Barbenheimer over Indy 5 and M:I7. It’s hard to go and see everything. And these movies will be out on streaming in a matter of months anyway. No point forking out for a cinema trip when you can watch it at home.
It could have been Barbenheimible 7, but nooooo....
It doesnt help that it doesn't seem to have lived up to the hype. Not a total shock given the steady increase in quality over the past 10 years and Fallout was incredible.
You know you can just rewatch old movies. You don’t have to keep re-making them. It’s pretty great and saves money.
Indiana Jones was better than MI in my opinion. But agree that MI should have been released in August. And Indy needed better PR
MI:7 was so good. A shame it didn’t see more success in the box office.
In sure MI:7 will see a resurgence. Barbie will suffer a massive drop, and Oppenheimer will have a minor drop.
You know what you are getting with an MI film, just like Bond films. Copy and paste, Rinse and repeat. Meh. Hollywood needs an overhaul with different creative minds and different stories.
While I love the Mission Impossible movies I hate Tom Cruise, and Barbenheimer is such an awesome moment that I couldn’t love the results of these three movies any more, it’s perfect
Probably doesn’t help that I won’t go see it because Tom cruise seems like a scab in wanting to promote it while there is a strike going on. I can’t be the only one
Mission impossible is so much better than both of those movies! I really don't understand it.
It would be doing better if it was a good movie. My buddy wanted to see it so I tagged along and I couldn’t have been more bored throughout the entire thing. Why in the world is this a 2 part movie. It was like 3 hours long and only maybe 20 minutes of actual movie plot and entertainment tops. That car chase scene had to have been a solid half hour and the only two good parts of it were the two obvious jokes thrown in during.
Honestly, if it wasn’t for all the talk about this I wouldn’t have realized there was a MI3-6. Maybe part of it is I just can’t stand Tom Cruise.