Talk:Mission: Impossible (film)

When I first heard Brian De Palma was to direct mission:impossible the movie I was somewhat excited. I expected a bloody look into the world of international spies. I was hoping for the scarface of the spy genre. Instead we get a fantasy film of super spies done on a comic book level. This wasn't the story I was expecting. I don't blame De Palma. He was given an ordinary flat script and made it more interesting then it should have been. De Palma was a director for hire. What disappointed this viewer was they took Peter Graves character and turned him into a murderer and villian. This is a complete betrayal to fans of the tv series. There's a plethora of villians and they chose the star of the tv series to play a post cold war villian. They should be ashamed of themselves. What the two films fail to successfully capture is the surreal illusion of deception within the methodology of the IMF operations that the tv series did so brilliantly. Finally I have my fingers crossed to all those missing scenes in MI2 coming out in a directors cut. Hopefully soon. Maybe third time lucky. HARRY GEORGATOS

Plot Summary

EventideWatcher, if this user continues to extensively edit the article without discussing it here first, immediately revert the changes back to normal. Thank you.
Watemon 06:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thief12, it's a plot overview, not a play–by–play of the entire film. The formatting made the overview too long, the new article contained too much irrelevant information in reference to the plot, and you broke Wiki protocol by not discussing your desired changes first.
Watemon 20:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
If you wish to discuss editing the article, you can go ahead and do it here.

Missing Plot Elements

There were MANY details to the actual plot of this film missing. For anyone looking forward to read this article on Mission: Impossible hoping to get a detailed and accurate plot synopsis on the movie, they would've been disappointed. Luckily I had the DVD on hand and added much more to the synopsis. It only outlines the important events to the story, but for now, it tells all the important aspects of the story, Krieger's involvement in the betrayal, more details about the NOC List and Max's involvement, and more detail about the actual end of the film. Watemon 06:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

tgv

I thought the tgv sequence was set in france and they were going north into the chunnel? --Astrokey44 16:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope, the TGV was headed from London to Paris (or England to France). Recall that when Ethan called the CIA after watching the news report about his mother and uncle, they were in Europe, and Kittridge remarks "He wanted us to know he was in London".
Watemon 17:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Wrong Agency?

The article talks about the CIA when I think they mean IMF.--Will 18:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the CIA runs the IMF. The IMF is the Mission Force created by the CIA; which is why they had to go to Langley, where the CIA is based, to steal the NOC List.
Watemon 01:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the article only mentioned the CIA. IMF was left out completely.--Will 05:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Now if you're talking about the Plot Summary article, it clearly identifies and briefly describes IMF. And further throughout the article, both IMF and CIA are mentioned a near equal amount of times when necessary (CIA: 8 times, IMF: 7 times).

Also, keep in mind, there was a lot of detail from the film left out in the plot summary and I expanded it, considerably, the other day. So now IMF does appear a bit more frequently than it previously did. Aside from that, IMF and CIA were correctly mentioned as separate agencies.
Watemon 07:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I saw it before your changes. My apologies.--Will 18:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Heck, no problem, I saw the article the other day while watching the film and was appalled and disgusted with how much was wrong and left out of it. Since I had the DVD on and the TV right there, I went through the movie and fixed a lot of the article. It's considerably larger than it was a day ago.
Watemon 11:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Movie disappointments

• Jim Phelps as a murderer and villian. Is the next Star Trek, also from Paramount, movie going to have James T. Kirk as a villian? I can just see Kirk being a double agent for the Romulans during the time frame of the original Star Trek series.
• Jim Phelps played by anyone other than Peter Graves. Surely, his refusal to play the part should have tipped off Cruise and the other screenwriters to a problem.

I can see why some people would be disappointed by Phelps turn as a villain in the flick, but I think it was a daring move from the producers, screenwriter, director, or whoever called that shot. IMO, it shows that it doesn't matter if you were a goodie-old-shoe, anything can corrupt you. Corruption is bound to reach the highest levels and Phelps isn't an exception.

My only slight disappointment with this installment is that they focused too much on Cruise's character, but that was what the plot called for. However, it pains me to see the road they took on the second installment. As an espionage film, I totally hated that one (even though on an action level it can be remotely enjoyable). If people hated this one, I suppose they would hate the second one even more, because it has less to do with spies and more with Cruise showing off. I haven't even seen the third one. Thief12 18:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Can I ask a question - do you have a problem with Hunt showing off, or Cruise showing off?

If Cruise showing off gets to you, you won't like 3. If Hunt showing off gets to you, don't worry, 3 takes a whole new slant from that shown in 2. I would say it's a mistake to allow the actor playing a character to interfere with your view of the character in the film. Although aspects of MI3 are reminiscent of Cruise on Oprah, et al, I have to say that on the whole viewing MI3 as it is meant to be seen is very satisfying - his personal life is of a greater magnitude than his screen persona, which is I suppose a moot point. chrlsuk 21:09, 3 September 2006 {GMT)

Changes to the synopsis

Watemon said: "overview too long, too much unnecessary information; if you EVER wish to make such an extensive edit to the article, you discuss it in the talk page FIRST"

I don't see how the changes I did were TOO long as opposed to the previous version. The only changes I did was dividing the synopsis in several sections and add a paragraph describing the scene at Langley, Virginia, considering it is the most famous scene of the flick. Thief12 20:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Compromise: How about we divide the synopsis into three different acts: Mole Hunt (the betrayal), Rogue Hunt (deal with Max and finding out about Jim/Claire), Finale (everything from the train on), and Conclusion (the last 2 lines).

There's really no sense in dividing up the synopsis into each "mission" that they did; it makes it more cumbersome than effective. Also seeing as some sections were considerably shorter than others, it would be visually easier on the eyes and more practical for plot synopsis to divide it into its 3 acts.

Also, the added paragraph had more irrelevant information than it had useful.

Some changes weren't as "bad" as some, but the main problem was that was a vast edit with no discussion before hand. I reverted so while discussin further edits, we could work with the format and material we previously had.
Watemon 20:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that would be ok. Thief12 20:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

All right, the changes have been made; on the Langley paragraph, I would suggest revising it a bit, just to include the necessary details. Something like:

Ethan steals the NOC list in an elaborate and daring mission that involved infiltrating CIA Headquarters, sneaking into a vaulted, high–security room, and downloading TOP SECRET information from a computer terminal while dangling from a vent 30 feet above the floor.

— Mission: Langley

This way, we include details to the mission, while not changing the focus of the article, it's relatively short, and shows the... logistical difficulty, for lack of a better phrase, of the task they set out to do.

(this is just a suggestion after all)
Watemon 20:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we could put the scene in a separate section, such as trivia or maybe something like world famous scenes. - Redmess 21:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

IMF name

I have corrected the name of the IMF to Impossible Missions Force per what we see shown on screen in the TV series. If, for some reason, the film version uses "Mission" plural then this can be reverted, however it would need to be noted in this article and in the Impossible Missions Force article that a variation was used for the movies. 23skidoo 02:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Reaction section

The parts in the reaction section regarding the critical reception are completely biased and unsourced. It's 100% POV, and if you check Rottentomatoes.com or Metacritic (which comprise professional reviews), Mission: Impossible received fairly positive reviews. The biased statements regarding "some fans" are clearly someone projecting their own opinions... 1337wesm 02:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mission-impossible1.jpg

Image:Mission-impossible1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)