Talk:Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol/Archive 1

Title punctuation
So, we now know the subtitle of this film. The problem is, how is it punctuated? The standard for subtitles in English is a colon. But this is Mission: Impossible, which already uses a colon, of course. And using two colons is odd, so that's out.

Looking at the various new reports that have cropped up in the past day or so on this, there seems to be a split between those who have no punctuation and those that do, with the latter itself split between a hyphen and a dash. Neither of those articles, nor our Manual of Style, give any indication of when or how to use a dash for a subtitle. It should be noted, though, that the current, hyphen-bearing title of this article is likely incorrect, as hyphens have far fewer uses than people think, often confused with dashes as they are. Also, of related note, the video game spin-off of the series is at Mission: Impossible – Operation Surma. That may be correct, or incorrect, as well. oknazevad (talk) 18:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Per WP:HYPHEN, we should not use a hyphen because hyphens do not have spacing before and after (except when hanging). We should do an en dash, as WP:ENDASH is okay with spacing in the original presentation. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 18:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I tend to agree that we should ditch the hyphen, but I'm not sure that it should have a dash, as I'm not sure if there's any punctuation there, at all.oknazevad (talk) 18:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there a press release? We should keep an eye out for one. This is where we can look, but the only mention of this film is the older title (with IV). Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 18:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just because something looks odd does not mean that it is not still correct English. We should use the colon because that is the standard.  As Erik points out, it might be acceptable to use non-standard punctuation if that is what the producers et al have chosen for their film's official title, but until we have a reliable source, we should go with standard English.  Related issue: If there are no reliable sources giving the official title, then why isn't this article still at "Mission Impossible IV"? Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The title is official; there was an official announcement. I only suggested looking for a press release so we could see how the studio itself would write it. We have a lot of sources reporting on the announcement that use either Mission: Impossible Ghost Protocol or Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol. There was even a backdrop of the title for the announcement, but it basically shows the title as Mission: Impossible, line break, Ghost Protocol, which doesn't help us. So we have to make this work. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 13:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Jennifer Stone in the cast?
I can't find reliable sources other than gossip sites that says that Ms. Stone will be in the film. Neither is she listed on IMDb, Which why I made this edit:, which has since been undone.  Quasy Boy  23:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Question
I realize that this is going to sound forum-ish, so if it ends up deleted I understand, but I was wondering if the villains in this movie were in any way related to the IMF. In the other three films it seemed to me that all Ethan Hunt was doing was was cleaning up rouge aspects of the IMF team, so it would be nice to know if this film is going to have him back in the role of IMF internal affairs. 75.31.187.242 (talk) 06:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Footnote 13 down
Footnote 13 links to a defunct site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.128.6.98 (talk) 21:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like the domain no longer exists. It was a reference for a passage about leaked photos of Tom Cruise in disguise, which is not valuable for this encyclopedic article, so I am removing the passage and the defunct reference anyway. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 21:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Infobox release date
WP:FILMRELEASE states "Release dates should [...] be restricted to the film's earliest release [...] and the release date(s) in the country or countries that produced the film, excluding sneak previews or screenings." Even though the distributor is calling the large-format screen release a "preview", it's being released to over 250 screens, all of which will have several showings a day. That's probably over 5,000 "previews" before the "general release". Hardly a "sneak preview", which implies a handful of one-off screenings. In any case, we've got a note in the main body giving the release dates in more detail. Barry Wom (talk) 07:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * But it is being promoted as a preview screening, it doesn't matter that it doesn't match up to your definition of the term. Plus it's just simpler to leave it at the general wide release date. The fact that it is being screened early on IMAX can be left to the lead and release sections.76.190.253.173 (talk) 09:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not being "promoted as a preview screening" though. The distributor referred to a "preview run" in their press release, presumably struggling to think of something else to call it. None of the exhibitors nor IMAX themselves are using the term. Besides, as already pointed out, WP:FILMRELEASE specifically refers to excluding "sneak previews or screenings". A "sneak preview", by definition, refers to a single screening to test audience reaction. 5,000+ screenings are in no way a "sneak preview". Barry Wom (talk) 09:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree with Barry Wom. The IMAX date is a wide public release, with full advertising, marketing and promotion. It is by no definition a "sneak preview or screening." --Tenebrae (talk) 15:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Wistrom or Winstrom?
The plot has it both ways, and the cast list has Wistrom. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Burj Khalifa Picture
I don't think a picture of Burj Khalifa is needed in this article. Doesn't it digress from the topic? It is already mentioned that the film is being shot in Dubai; then why do we need a picture of Burj Khalifa? I think it is enough to mention that the film was shot in Burj Khalifa. We don't have to put up a picture of it. That would go too far.

We shouldn't digress from the topic. This is what I think. What do you think? Halemane (talk) 12:00, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur. It strikes me as an unneeded image that was likely added simply because there's no other images. Well, it's okay for an article on a in-production film to not have images. i'll remove it.oknazevad (talk) 12:54, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I agree with you. The article looks a lot cleaner now although there are no pictures. I wanted to discuss it before removing the picture but, since you have removed it anyway, thank you. Halemane (talk) 13:56, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a picture from the actual movie may be more suitable. Pictures don't necessarily deviate readers from the true meaning and essence of the article. It only gives visual aid or cognition to what the building is and where it was shoot. I would say a picture from the movie would make the article seem more interesting than just full of excessive words which can pull away readers. I hope my reasoning can make sense to you. I hope you concur to allow the insertion of the image from the movie ( if available)--Eddyghazaley (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Continuous Changes to the Cast and other non-constructive edits
User 59.161.166.64 has changed the cast section a few too many times. He is not the only one who has been vandalizing this article. Many other users including the one stated above have been adding and editing certain sections where the article stipulates: "DON'T CHANGE". His interminable intransigence and obliviousness is noted on his talk page. I think it is time to semi-protect it from IP users.--Eddyghazaley (talk) 20:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree. This often happens with new releases, so the admins are usually pretty good about semi-protecting them. I say go for it.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 January 2012
Please change "The film climax scene was shot in Sun TV office, Chennai, India.[17]" to "The film climax scene was shot in Sun TV office, Bengaluru, India." This is not correct as the climax scene is shot in Sun Group office, Bengaluru, in the movie one can easily see the Kannada sign boards clearly. The Film was shot in Mumbai and then the crew had moved to Bengaluru (see the TOI article in the below link)

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-04-25/news-interviews/29470787_1_anil-kapoor-tom-cruise-second-unit

Nkmail123 (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done &mdash;  Abhishek  Talk 05:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Hendricks – Swedish or Russian?
In the article, Kurt Hendricks is referred to as a "Swedish-born Russian". Where is it stated that he is Russian at all? I could only notice that he was referred to as Swedish all the time, and he even gives a speech in Swedish. (The only time he speaks Russian, the actor's voice was noticeably dubbed, BTW) AEriksson (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Last scene
The last scene said it was in Seattle, not San Francisco. But I saw it at the Boeing IMAX in Seattle, so I'm wondering if they're changing the location-title depending on where it's shown. The scene did look like the Seattle waterfront around Pier 70, although the buildings were kind of vague. Sluggoster (talk) 08:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, at the beginning of the film, the first subtitle was Russian (even though the person was speaking Russian). The second was Russian but then dissolved into English. The rest were in English. Do all the US showings do this? Sluggoster (talk)

I am kind of lost myself as well whether the ending is in San Francisco or Seattle. I watched the film and I think heard San Francisco. I guess we have to wait for the DVD or someone has to watch it again and tell us. --Eddyghazaley (talk) 09:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

It was Seattle. I think the confusion stems from the climax scene before it where the warhead tumbled into San Francisco Bay as well as the news broadcast in the final scene discussing it. 66.136.147.141 (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The confusion also stems from the comment being made in the last scene, by one of the team members, that people in this city had no clue that they had been spared from being fried by a nuclear weapon - implying that it was San Francisco, not Seattle, that they were in. I think this was a continuity error on the part of the script writers. Tony (talk) 13:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)