Every Mission: Impossible Video Game, Ever
Slipping subtly past Micro Games of America's 1996 dedicated handheld game based on the series, we next find the spies appearing in video games in 1998, with the Tom Cruise era of Mission: Impossible now underway. And it's on N64 (and a year later, PlayStation). Sometimes known as Mission: Impossible – Expect the Impossible , this console game was intended to be a tie-in with the first of the Cruise-led movies. Except, keen chronologers will note, 1998 was two years after 1996.
This was originally supposed to be created by Ocean, a studio famous for its movie-based games. Think RoboCop , Platoon , Total Recall , and Lethal Weapon , all improbably realized as side-scrolling action games. That wasn't the plan this time, however—ambitions were far higher. Mission: Impossible was an attempt to create something in the style of Rare's GoldenEye 007 , and, well, it wasn't going great.
After three years in development, and the slow realization that the N64 wasn't powerful enough for their plans, Ocean was bought by Infogrames in 1997, and a whole new team was assigned to the project. Apparently at that time, the game was running at four frames per second . Things were made harder by Viacom, owners of the film rights, refusing to let the game feature too much gun-based violence, and Tom Cruise refusing to allow his face to be in games The new team wound up crunching for months.
Yet, despite all this, it went on to sell over a million copies, even though its reviews weren't exactly great. A late '90s IGN went as low as a 6.6, which was about as a low a score as the site back then would give.
READ SOURCE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Travel Weekly
2 hours ago
- Travel Weekly
All paws on deck! Meet Royal Caribbean's 'chief dog officers'
Royal Caribbean International's next ship, Star of the Seas, is getting ever closer to its debut. And one of its most important crew members has sounded her first "woof." Sailor, a 3-month-old golden retriever, will be the ship's resident puppy and the cruise line's second "chief dog officer." The concept debuted with chief dog officer Rover on the Icon of the Seas, the first ship in the Icon class, as a way to bring a different element of joy and fun onboard for guests and crew members, said Kara Wallace, Royal Caribbean International's chief marketing officer. Rover has since become a cruise highlight for many young guests, and the two canines are social media celebrities, thanks in part to an Instagram page that has garnered more than 50,000 followers. Kara Wallace "We build big, iconic, bold ships with features that people can't really even dream up, but we don't let the small things go to waste," Wallace said. "There's always an opportunity to bring depth and richness to the experiences, and this is another way that we did it." Rover, and soon Sailor, don't have meet-and-greets or special schedules to interact with guests, making those interactions spontaneous and organic, Wallace said. She said the dogs are not mascots but crew members that might serve as a pet at sea for the human crew and similarly help young guests who might be missing their companions while on vacation. "That was the primary driver of it," Wallace said, "creating this home away from home." It's cruising cats and dogs Having animals on cruise ships isn't entirely novel but is certainly rare. Bug Naked, a hairless cat, could for years be found onboard Celebrity ships, Royal's sister line, thanks to Capt. Kate McCue, who brought Bug on as a companion in 2017. Like Rover, Bug became a ship celebrity and darling of the crew. Cunard Line's Queen Mary 2 allows transatlantic guests to bring pets on as passengers via 24 kennels that are in high demand. But Royal's decision to bring animals onboard for guest and crew enjoyment is likely a first. It's a small offering compared to other projects Royal is investing in simultaneously, like building the tallest waterslides in North America and new private destinations across the world. But that attention to offering small details is a point of pride for Royal, Wallace said. Though Wallace said she thinks it's unlikely that guests will book cruises with Royal just because of Rover or Sailor, they are a differentiator. "I have colleagues here who have young kids, and they came back and all they could talk about was, 'We met Rover,'" she said. "It was an amazing ship that went to all these places, but it was one of the highlights of their cruise. … I think that that's a testament to the power of bringing this warm, family-oriented addition to round out that whole experience." Royal Caribbean International CEO Michael Bayley was the one to posit the idea of having a dog onboard, Wallace said. From there, the team explored the possibility with the American Humane Society, which has been its partner in the program ever since. There was plenty of planning involved, from choosing a breed to designing the dogs' accommodations and selecting a designated onboard caretaker. What started as one more way to enhance the guest and crew experience expanded into an opportunity to keep the Icon experience in guests' social media feeds every week, as they watch Sailor grow and Rover travel the world. On their Instagram page (@chiefdogofficers), you'll find a video of Sailor being lovingly cuddled and cooed at during her first visit to Royal Caribbean's corporate office as well as videos comically captioned in typical TikTok and Instagram form (in a recent post, a video of Sailor dozing off is accompanied by the text "How I sleep knowing I have a full-time job secured"). "We were just going to see what happens and see how people responded," Wallace said of the social media account. "I don't know that there was really an expectation in terms of, 'Oh, we're going to grow this to be a million followers.' That's not why we did this, but it's more kind of, 'How can we share Sailor and Rover with the world and let people see what we see?'"
New York Post
3 hours ago
- New York Post
How to watch ‘Beckham and Friends Live' Champions League final with Tom Cruise for free
New York Post may be compensated and/or receive an affiliate commission if you click or buy through our links. Featured pricing is subject to change. There's nothing impossible about this mission: watch and comment on one of the biggest sporting events of the year. Just days after contributing to a record-breaking Memorial Day box office with the eighth (and final?) 'Mission: Impossible' installment, Tom Cruise will join David Beckham live on 'Beckham and Friends Live' during this afternoon's UEFA Champions League final between Inter Milan and Paris Saint-Germain. 'Beckham and Friends Live' is an altcast (similar to ESPN's 'Manningcast,' which airs during select Monday Night Football games) that debuted on Paramount+ earlier in this year's Champions League cycle featuring the soccer legend, with former celebrity guests including Stanley Tucci, Guy Ritchie, Joseph Fiennes, and James Corden. Advertisement During the altcast, Beckham and his guests watch, comment on, and react to the game in real time. Kate Scott, host of CBS Sports' 'UEFA Champions League Today' show is also on hand to host. In addition to Cruise, Beckham will also be joined by Super Bowl winner Odell Beckham Jr. during today's Champions League final broadcast. What time is 'Beckham and Friends Live' and the Champions League final on? Today's edition of 'Beckham and Friends Live' with Tom Cruise begins at the same time as the Inter Milan vs. PSG match: 3 p.m. EST today (May 31). How to watch 'Beckham & Friends Live' for free: Advertisement 'Beckham and Friends Live' is an original broadcast exclusive to Paramount+, so you'll need a subscription to stream it. Paramount+ offers two plans. The ad-supported plan costs $7.99/month, while the ad-free plan costs $12.99/month. If you subscribe through Amazon Prime Video Channels, you can take advantage of a seven-day free trial to watch the series. How does this work? First, you'll need to be an Amazon Prime member (but if you aren't, you can get started with a 30-day free trial). From there, you can add a Paramount+ subscription to your Prime Video membership. Advertisement You can also stream the regular broadcast feed of the Inter Milan vs. PSG match with a Paramount+ subscription. How to watch 'Beckham & Friends Live' from anywhere: If you want to tune into the Paramount+ exclusive 'Beckham and Friends Live' broadcast from anywhere in the world, consider using a VPN. It's easy to use a VPN, which masks the IP address on your device and lets you select a new virtual location to stream from. Whether you're in the UK, Canada, Mexico or anywhere else in the world, you can access virtually anything using a VPN. Our favorite is NordVPN, which is currently offering up to 76% off with plans starting at just $3.39/month. Why Trust Post Wanted by the New York Post This article was written by Angela Tricarico, Commerce Writer/Reporter for Post Wanted Shopping and New York Post's streaming property, Decider. Angela keeps readers up to date with cord-cutter-friendly deals, and information on how to watch your favorite sports teams, TV shows, and movies on every streaming service. Not only does Angela test and compare the streaming services she writes about to ensure readers are getting the best prices, but she's also a superfan specializing in the intersection of shopping, tech, sports, and pop culture. Prior to joining Decider and The New York Post in 2023, she wrote about streaming and consumer tech at Insider Reviews
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
When Mission: Impossible Had No Mission
Every major movie franchise has boxes to check. In Jurassic Park, dinosaurs must run amok; in Planet of the Apes, apes have to meditate on intelligence; in The Fast and the Furious, Vin Diesel absolutely has to evangelize the benefits of family, Corona beers, and tricked-out cars. But Mission: Impossible took four films to fully establish its franchise must-have: the ever more blurred lines between its death-defying, stunt-loving star, Tom Cruise, and the superspy he plays. For more than a decade, the series was defined instead by its lack of definition—at least, beyond having Cruise in the lead role as Ethan Hunt, and Ving Rhames recur as Hunt's ally. Each installment felt made by a director with a specific take on the material, and Cruise was their versatile instrument. But the four Mission: Impossible films that followed—culminating in the eighth and purportedly final installment, now in theaters—have taken a different approach. Instead of relying on a select few characters and story beats to link the films together, the movies have abided by a stricter canon. Mission: Impossible—The Final Reckoning, which earned a record-setting $63 million at the box office over its opening weekend, represents the most aggressive pivot away from the saga's more freewheeling origins: It self-seriously inserts supercuts of footage from its predecessors, reveals the purpose of a long-forgotten plot device, and turns a bit player from 1996's Mission: Impossible into a crucial character. In the process, it streamlines those earlier, delightfully unpredictable stories to the point of overlooking their true appeal. That tactic may be familiar to today's audiences, who are used to cinematic universes and intersecting story threads, but the Mission: Impossible franchise initially distinguished itself by eschewing continuity. New cast members came and went. Hunt lacked signature skills and catchphrases. The movies were messy, and didn't seem interested in building toward an overarching plan. Yet in their inconsistency, they prove the value of ignoring the brand-building pressures that have become the norm for big-budget features today. [Read: The unbearable weight of Mission: Impossible] Like the 1960s television show on which they're loosely based, the early Mission: Impossibles were stand-alone stories. The first two movies in particular stuck out for their bold authorial styles. First came Brian De Palma's film, which he drenched in noir-ish flair while also deploying vivid color and Dutch angles. It arrived at a time when blockbusters such as Independence Day and Twister leveled cities and prioritized world-ending spectacle. Without a formula in place, De Palma got to challenge genre conventions—for instance, by mining tension out of mere silence during the central set piece, which saw Hunt's team staging a tricky heist. The second film, 2000's Mission: Impossible II, went maximalist under the direction of John Woo, who punctuated almost every sequence with slow-motion visuals and dizzying snap zooms. The filmmaker also asserted that Hunt himself was malleable: Whereas in the first film, he fights off his enemies without ever firing a gun, in Woo's version, he's a cocksure Casanova mowing down his targets in hails of bullets. Woo also indulged in the action pageantry that De Palma had avoided—Mission: Impossible II seemed to contain twice the amount of explosions necessary for a popcorn film—but the climactic stunt is perhaps the smallest Cruise has ever had to pull off: When the villain stabs at Hunt with a knife, the point stops just before reaching his eye. The two films that followed conveyed a similar sense of unpredictability. For 2006's Mission: Impossible III and 2011's Mission: Impossible—Ghost Protocol, Cruise, who also served as a producer, picked unconventional choices to direct: J. J. Abrams, then best known for creating twisty TV dramas such as Alias and Lost, took on the third entry, while Brad Bird, who'd cut his teeth in animation, handled Ghost Protocol. Like their more accomplished predecessors, both filmmakers were entrusted by Cruise and company to treat Mission: Impossible as a playground where they could demonstrate their own creative strengths. [Read: The sincerity and absurdity of Hollywood's best action franchise] Where De Palma and Woo focused on visual panache, Abrams and Bird stretched the limits of tone—and in doing so, revealed the adaptability of the franchise. Mission: Impossible III is unnervingly sobering amid its shootouts and double crosses; the film features a memorably chilling Philip Seymour Hoffman as the villain, a character's disturbing death, and a subplot about Hunt getting married. Ghost Protocol, meanwhile, is essentially a screwball comedy: Simon Pegg's character, Benji, provides a humorous button to many of the film's biggest scenes, and Bird treats Hunt like a marble caught in a Rube Goldberg machine packed with goofy gadgets, whether he's pinballing through a prison or being launched out of a car in the middle of a sandstorm. (Hunt even declares 'Mission accomplished,' only for the film to play the line for laughs.) In the years since Ghost Protocol, much of big-budget filmmaking has come to feel made by committee. Studios offer fans remakes, legacy sequels, and spin-offs that connect disparate story threads, bending over backwards to ensure that viewers understand they're being shown something related to preexisting media. (Just look at the title of the upcoming John Wick spin-off.) The new Mission: Impossible suffers by making similar moves. It struggles to make sense of Hunt's story as one long saga, yielding an awkwardly paced, lethargic-in-stretches film. The Final Reckoning insists that every assignment Hunt has ever taken, every ally he's ever made, and every enemy he's ever foiled have been connected, forming a neat line of stepping stones that paved the way for him to save the world one more time. Taken together, the first four Mission: Impossibles were compellingly disorganized, a stark contrast with Hollywood's ever more rigid notion of how to construct a franchise. They didn't build consistent lore. Each new installment didn't try to top the previous one—a popular move that's had diminishing returns. Although some observers critique their varying quality, the lack of consensus emphasizes the singularity of each of these efforts. They remind me of the instances of an individual filmmaker's vision found amid major cinematic properties these days, such as Taika Waititi putting his witty stamp on a Thor sequel, Fede Alvarez turning Alien: Romulus into a soundscape of jump scares, and on television, Tony Gilroy ensuring that the Star Wars prequel Andor never included a single Skywalker. If the older Mission: Impossible movies now feel dated and incongruous—whether within the franchise itself or as part of the cinematic landscape writ large—that's to their benefit. They let creative sensibilities, not commercial ones, take the lead. Article originally published at The Atlantic
