Talk:Mission: Impossible (film)/Archive 1

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'll never forgive the writer of this travesty. A good film remake of a TV series honors it's source material (The Fugitive is the classic example).  This was an abortion.


 * 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)

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.

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: 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)

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 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)

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)

Fan reception
I've placed this section here as it contains original research and is unsourced. When it can be properly cited, it can be moved back to the main article.--J.D. (talk) 06:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Though the first film and sequels were profitable, many fans felt that they ignored the elaborate plotting that was a significant feature of the TV series. The first movie was somewhat closer to the spirit of the original series than the second one, which focused more on elaborate action, rather than espionage. None of the films were considered true adaptations of the series. Fans were also upset that Jim Phelps, team leader in the TV series, became a traitor in the first movie, selling the details of government agents to an arms dealer. As a result, several actors from the original TV series declined invitations to make guest appearances in the films--the role of Jim Phelps went to Jon Voight while no other characters from the series appeared in the final version. Voight's lack of resemblance to Graves and his Phelps becoming a traitor and even being killed in the first movie, in fact, has led some fans to conclude that he was never even actually acting out the real James Phelps. Greg Morris was reportedly so disgusted with the first film's treatment of the Phelps character that when he went to see the movie, he walked out of the theater before it ended calling it ‘an abomination’.

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)
 * I think there are may be a minor error in the plot summary: It says Ethan blew up the "Aquarium" bar or whatever you want to call it. In fact, I believe Kittridge did it, if I recall correctly. Might be worth looking into. 46.194.247.160 (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In the movie, Ethan squashes some of the explosive gum in his hands while talking to Kittridge and then throws it at the fish tank. Kittridge was just about to arrest him as the mole; why would Kittridge blow it up ? Kegon (talk) 16:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

In point of fact the plot summary unaccountably omits the key revelation that implicates Phelps as the real mole and mastermind behind the murders of Ethan's team, i.e., Ethan's discovery, after his argument with Krieger in the London hotel, that the Bible he has been consulting to communicate with Max was originally from the Drake hotel in Chicago. This points the finger at Phelps' being in the Prague safe house prior to his purportedly first meeting with the team to discuss the mission and where he incidentally mentions his stay at the Drake. The pivotal bearing of this on the plot is made obvious at the time of its discovery and is later confirmed during the showdown in the baggage compartment when Phelps asks Ethan when he "knew," and then remarks "damn Gideons!" Orthotox (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect plot summary
"Hunt sees Phelps, via Phelps' video glasses, stabbed" Jim is shot, it's Sarah that gets stabbed. I've made the edit for this. It's notable that the angle required to show him being shot on the glasses-cam doesn't match with what's shown happening in other shots. 194.66.32.16 (talk) 11:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

In the summary it says that Phelps kills Claire, which is true, but it was accidental — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kegon (talk • contribs) 16:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The Mission
Should be "CIA NOC List" not "IMF NOC Lst".

And the mission is neither to retrieve or stop the theft at the embassy. It was to obtain photographic proof of the theft, shadow Alexander Golitsyn to his buyer, and apprehend them both. Josestefan (talk) 23:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

TGV in Kent!
I thought the tgv sequence was set in france and they were going north into the chunnel? --Astrokey 44 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)


 * As was widely commented on in the UK when this film was released, the production team seem unaware (or don't care) that there are no TGV trains running through the Channel Tunnel, either in 1996 or now. TGV trains are part of the French SNCF system. The fast trains from London to Paris and Brussels are Eurostars (and there are no 'baggage cars') though the trains are partly derived from TGV designs. I guess this sort of creative licence doesn't worry teenage kids in middle America much, though it isn't clear why getting it right would have cost anything. --Ef80 (talk) 02:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The tunnel is clearly not the channel tunnel either -- 2 tracks for one thing. The news report at the end (at least in the UK "Sky News" version) just says "a tunnel". Dramatic license. The baggage car was essential to the plot, and in 1994 most people had heard of TGV, but not of Eurostar. 81.211.8.2 (talk) 22:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Both Eurostar an TGV run on tracks with overhead lines. So it's a mission impossible for a helicopter to follow a TGV in a way it did in the movie - ridiculous and very disappointing. --W-j-s (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Eurostar ran on third rail to Waterloo. But not with the sharp bends in the sped-up film. But the whole sequence is ludicrous, especially after the helicopter enters the tunnel. Gawd knows why the article praises Cruise for getting a wind machine when he couldn't source convincing special effects round it. Vicarage (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mission: Impossible (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-14/entertainment/obit.peter.graves_1_phelps-character-mission-publicist
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091228001842/http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2009/10/29/martin-landau-is-not-interested-in-appearing-in-a-mission-impossible-movie to http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2009/10/29/martin-landau-is-not-interested-in-appearing-in-a-mission-impossible-movie/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Writing and development ambiguity
"There were rumors that the actor and De Palma did not get along". The previous sentence references Jon Voight, Tom Cruise, and Emmanuelle Béart's characters, so "the actor" is ambiguous. Since the original article is not online, I don't know who "the actor" was in order to correct it. I presume Tom Cruise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudejohn (talk • contribs) 14:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

NOC List Content
I have entered the content of the NOC list shown in the film below. Some of them are actually interesting. Please consider adding them somewhere. 65.110.213.55 (talk) 06:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

The following is the NOC List displayed on the computer screen from the vault scene. Apparently, there were only 26 entries in the list. After the ZENITH entry was displayed, it continued to display from the first entry, TOPHAT, again.

Some notable entries in the list: The following is the NOC List displayed on the computer screen from the train scene. Apparently, some of the code numbers and true names were changed when compared to the list in the vault scene.
 * Ethan Hunt has code name Yankee
 * The code name Maverick exists in the list
 * Conflicting code number IMF23R87 for SANDCORN and SOUTHERN
 * Conflicting code number IMF36K33 for TIGER and HANGMAN
 * Conflicting code number IMF54G66 for PLUTO and ZENITH
 * Conflicting code number IMF68S12 for JUPITER and UPTOWN
 * Conflicting code number IMF94U85 for SCORPION and SCARECROW