Posted by Derek Janssen on 12/14/06 06:01

dgates wrote:
>
> I'll name a few changes that I prefer. I think, however, that I'm in
> the minority on my preference for the post-Landau years over the
> Landau years.
>
> #1. In the L (Landau) years, the episodes began with Briggs/Phelps
> ("BP") carefully going through a dossier of agents, and always picking
> the exact same team (with possibly a bonus specialist agent).
> In the PL (Post-Landau) years, that bit was skipped.
>
> #2. In a way, my point #1 can be generalized to the idea that, once
> the show accepted that people understood the formula, it could pick up
> the pace a little.

(Darn, I'd have thought they'd lost that by the end of the first season,
and we could accept that Landau was no longer a "guest star".)

> #5. More surprises. This could possibly be debated but, following up
> on #2 and the idea that folks now understood the basics of the show,
> the PL years could offer a lot more interesting ways for the plan to
> go somewhat wrong, forcing the team to think on their feet.
>
> I say this is debatable because, in the three Season 1 episodes I
> remember clearly, something went wrong each time, forcing Briggs to
> improvise.

Just in the first four Disk 1 eps., "Operation Rogoff" is the only one
that throws a wrench into the mix at the last minute, and "Old Man Out"
uses it as the cliffhanger.

> In short, people knew the show better, allowing for a couple more
> surprises, and the show also became a little less serious.
>
>>>In all fairness to Tom C and Brian D, I can see where movies about a
>>>single character are more compelling than movies about an ensemble
>>>team. And I even liked how Tom Cruise had to... well, it's hard to
>>>say much about the first MI movie without giving any spoilers.
>>
>>The initial [...] setup felt more in the
>>spirit of an upgraded old-school episode...
>
> I guess we've decided De Palma spoilers are fair game... ? Okay.

(Only if they're before or not affecting...you know.)

> I think the filmmakers have decided that the spirit of the series is
> wrong for a feature length plot. As you've said, the series was about
> the "how," not the "who." I think each movie has tried to honor the
> spirit of the series in one or two scenes.
>
> The first had the Political Fundraiser and the CIA break-in.
>
> The second, which I don't remember that well, has at least one scene
> where someone was being tricked into revealing something he wouldn't
> ordinarily (in a hospital bed, IIRC?)
>
> The third had the scene... was it at the Vatican? That was paced
> about like a condensed little episode.

I take #3 as an unofficial "apology" sequel for #2--
Not a real apology, but at least they had Cruise working with other team
members again.
(Albeit bringing back characters from the first movie is the mark of
Apology Sequels.)

> I wonder what a movie based exactly on the spirit of the series would
> be like? Probably somewhere between The Bunker and the movie
> Sneakers, I suppose.

Definitely "Sneakers", with more Sidney Poitier than Dan Aykroyd.
And less "Field of Dreams" post-hippie nostalgia.

Derek Janssen
ejanss@comcast.net

[Back to original message]