We usually discuss what we would recommend for a series to do next. In the case of Mission: Impossible, this subject is a bit moot. There are currently two more Missions being filmed under the guiding light of Christopher McQuarrie as both writer and director again and Tom Cruise producing. It seems to be in good hands. So let’s switch this one up to be a little different – at one point, Cruise was thinking of handing the series off to another character and retiring Ethan, so let’s take that scenario – Cruise is looking to leave Hunt behind (maybe up for a cameo, but not necessary for our purposes) AND McQuarrie is also retiring from the series, so…

1. How do you phase out Ethan but continue the series?

2. What director and/or writer would we WANT to see direct an installment of the series and why?

In this episode we focus on the characters that populate the franchise.

When, if ever, did we start to enjoy them? Was there a point for us where Luther, Ethan, or any of the others struck us as the people we want to see again? Which characters are they and when did they click for us?

How important are any of these characters to the franchise itself, now or going forward?

The MI films have been criticized for having overly complicated plots. Let’s discuss the plots of each of the films—do they work and make sense? Can you follow them?

And most importantly, how important is the Plot of the films to the franchise itself?

MI is based on a television series that pre-dates it. It also has had a rotating cast of directors and writers from the get-go.

Did the fact that it was based on a TV series help it or hurt it? Does the film version do a good job of “honoring” the fans of the TV show?

Mission: Impossible is often held up as a franchise that generally improves as it goes along. Is this true, and if so why?

We revisit our thought experiment where we put ourselves in the shoes of an industry exec. How would we bring the franchise back to life, re-energize it for new audiences and old?

Would we look for story? Director or writers? Do we look for ways to build anticipation up before it comes back as a film? Or take a new tack and move to television?

Jurassic World is what is referred to as a “soft reboot” of the franchise. Not wiping away what came before, but largely using the idea of it as a launchpad for something a bit different. Do familiar elements make this feel more like Jurassic Park, or do the different cast and new factors like the dinosaur-hybrid push it away?

Jurassic Park made a splash for a few reasons in the summer of 1993. The realism of the dinosaurs captured audiences, but why? Was it just the advancements in special effects (which we discussed in regards to Terminator 2, released just two years earlier) or was it more than that that made this dinosaurs seem so real? Do we care about the human characters as much?

The original Jurassic park broke box office records and set a new standard for technical achievement. How did we react on a gut level? Did we love it? Hate it? Did we realize we had just seen something that would cement a place in pop culture history?

We engage in a thought experiment of how one goes about rebuilding a franchise.

You're the studio exec - what do you do? If you are looking to bring this cultural touchstone back to life, how do you re-energize the franchise from this point forward?

Do you look for story? Director or writers? Do you look for ways to build the franchise and anticipation up for it before it comes back as a film? Do you move to TV like it has before?

And… GO!