Franchises are Ending with Two Part Finales

Both 2018 instalments of the 'Halloween' and 'Mission: Impossible' series are getting back-to-back, two part finales from the same filmmakers, forming a new trend in Hollywood

'Halloween' (CREDIT: Universal Pictures/Blumhouse)

by Jack Linsdell

This is a bit of a "interesting to those who care" think-piece article, but still, if that applies then the other day, it dawned on me that two long-standing and immensely popular movies franchises are coming to an end very soon. Furthermore, they are both following the Avengers series template, and bowing out with a two-part finale where both films are shot back-to-back. Added to this, the first sequel ("part 1 of 2 finale") movie for both franchises will come out in 2021, whilst the "part 2 of 2" instalment will debut in 2022. Coincidence? Most likely. Anyway, so sateth the title, I'm talking about are Universal's Halloween series and Paramount's Mission: Impossible franchise.

What's more, both respective franchises seem to have found one immensely talented filmmaker that they can't bare to let go. Halloween saw a critical (and commercial) resurgence after they hired Stronger's David Gordon Green to helm the 2018 slasher-horror remake/sequel to John Carpenter's 1978 original, so much so that they've rehired him to helm the final two films of Halloween Kills in 2021, and Halloween Ends in 2022. The Mission: Impossible series has found it's rhythm under the competent storyteller that is director Christopher McQuarrie, whose long-term partnership with leading man Tom Cruise bagged him the directing gig for Rogue Nation and Fallout (both of which were again critical and commercial highs for the franchise). And, now, he's been hired to write/direct the two-part finale films (Mission: Impossible 7 and Mission: Impossible 8) too. What's more interesting is that the studios have seemingly stumbled across two of the best modern genre filmmakers, who happen to be quality writer/directors too. So, really, this is a case where two longstanding movie franchises (which have been born from extremely surprisingly popular original flicks) are coming to an end through the (mostly) singular creative vision of a writer/director filmmaker, who've been trusted to bring together decades of prior instalments (all helmed by various different directors) to a satisfying conclusion.

This feels very much like (whether it's an conscious choice from the studio's part or not) both franchises are copying the template of Marvel's Avengers series. Firstly, both worldwide box office smashes Avengers Infinity War and this year's Avengers Endgame were filmed back-to-back, acting as a two-part finale to the series, and a whole incarnation of the entire MCU. Disney most likely did this to stretch out the amount of money they could earn (that's not a criticism per say as Lionsgate did it with The Hunger Games series), over a two-part finale rather than a one film curtain call. But, either way, fans and general audiences showed up in great numbers on both occasions. Although I'm not doubting either David Gordon Green or Christopher McQuarrie's abilities to deliver two caulking finale movies to end their respective franchises, I do feel a little apprehensive, especially considering both have just made the best movie that their respective franchises have had so far. But, still, nothing like a challenge right? Still, the notion of shooting two movies back-to-back is no easy task and it'll remain to be seen if they can not only deliver one solid finale, but if they can stretch that over two films too.

But, the similarities don't stop there. If you count Captain America: Civil War as Avengers 2.5 (which I do), then that was the first movie in the MCU/Avengers series that was helmed by filmmakers Anthony and Joe Russo. Indeed, Civil War was a worldwide smash (over $1.1 billion in 2016) and a critical win (especially in comparison to most MCU movies), and was a key reason why the Russo brothers were brought back to helm the two-part finale movies of Infinity War and Endgame. My point being is that it seemed to work for Avengers and Marvel, but will it work for Mission: Impossible and Halloween?

As I've said, commercially speaking (unless all four films are utter crap) then the answer is a straight yes. Halloween impressively legged it's way to $255 million in October/November of 2018 worldwide on a very mere $10 million budget. However, there are two factors to consider here. Firstly, this was the first Halloween installment for 9 years, allowing a vast amount of audience (let alone fan) demand for another one to have built up. Halloween Ends and Halloween Kills won't have that advantage, opening only three years later, with only one year between them too. Secondly, this was considered a direct sequel to the first movie, discounting every other installment in between, and bringing back the likes of John Carpenter (in a role as composer/executive producer this time) and Jamie Lee Curtis as Laurie Strode (albeit much older). Therefore, it became a cinematic event unto itself (what's called a legacy sequel - think this November's Terminator: Dark Fate bringing back Linda Hamilton and James Cameron, alongside Arnie), again something Ends and Kills won't have. But, perhaps most importantly, Halloween was successfully sold as Laurie Strode's final battle with Myers, which (spoiler alert) sees him trapped in a burning building. So, to bring him back and stretch it over two instalments is not only scraping the barrel (a lot) but has the potentional to actually undo all the good work Halloween did to originally end the series.

Unlike Halloween, Christopher McQuarrie deliberately tied off unanswered questions regarding Ethan Hunt (in particular his relationship with Julia) in Mission: Impossible - Fallout to cut the franchise free of any baggage, whilst also leaving us with an open enough ending and lots of new characters which can be brought back and played with over future films. So, I'm far more optimistic about future Ethan Hunt adventures, if only because there is actually things to play with, added to that the fact the it's far easier to give Hunt a new mission than create a whole personal reason why Strode needs to fight Myers again. With the news that the likes of Haley Atwell have already signed onto Mission: Impossible 7, I'm much looking forward to seeing what McQuarrie and Cruise do. Still, not only have they exhausted every single type of action sequence in the previous entries, but also I can't think of a place they haven't set a story in either, meaning that perhaps M:I 7's greatest challenge is not story but action/geography related.

You do have to wonder if studio pressures to eek out their financial profits over a two-film finale instead of one other instalment, or in fact leaving a series on a very commercially and critically adored sequel instead of trying to continue on is an oversight on any level. Yes, both franchise's two-part finales will make money. But, artistic integrity and critical reception also counts in a big way too, and by gambling on not one more, but two more films could potentially leave both studios on the defensive as people may be going "well, you had a solid ending and then you went and ruined it". It's similar to 2016's Jason Bourne which although made over $415 million worldwide after bringing back franchise vet director Paul Greengrass and Bourne himself Matt Damon to the series, was considered a weaker movie by fans and critics alike, especially after The Bourne Ultimatum gave the character a solid ending. I don't agree at all, because I think Jason Bourne does tell a story that needed to be told (we knew the answers to who, where, when, what and how, but not why) as well as being set in a technology/intelligence landscape that had changed significantly since 2007 - not to mention I think it's a much better film than you. But, I digress.

The point is, the film made a lot of money, yet in the eyes of most fans and critics left the franchise in an (artistically speaking) worse place because Universal wanted more money off one of their only profitable IPs. No, I don't think McQuarrie or Gordon Green, much like Greengrass, will mess anything up, as they are both two of the best filmmakers in the industry. But, it does raise the question within movie series of when it's best to quit. When your winning, do you continue playing or do you collect your chips and leave the table? Well...we'll find out in 2021 if Universal and Paramount made the right decision.