Talk:Mission: Impossible III

Untitled

 * This article was nominated for deletion on June 10, 2005; the consensus was to keep. For discussion, please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Mission: Impossible III. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeremyA (talk • contribs) 22:53, 19 June 2005 (UTC)

Early discussion
Although many details about the plot are still under wraps - and will remain so until the film is released - enough information has been made public to warrant an expansion of this article. I've added an infobox and the first - and only - officially released publicty shot.

Some of the details are speculative, but this is an article about a movie, not Palestine. People coming to visit this page expect more than a few guarded comments. Of course, if anyone has any more information to add, go ahead. As the film's release approaches, the article will take shape. But until then, I think this article could be at least as long as the Casino Royale (2006 film) page, which is also full of conjecture. Scott197827. 10/10/05.


 * Regarding Scarlett Johansson: as far as I know (which is not much since the film hasn't been released yet) Johannson was asked to play the lead female character, the part I'm pretty sure is now played by Michelle Monaghan (a new article on imdb.com says she's Cruise's kickboxing new co-star). Lindsay Lohan was also suggested for the part. Keri Russell, I think, is playing the secondary female role, that vacated by Carrie-Anne Moss. Moss would not say what the part was, but I think it may be a baddie/villainess. I'll move the information to the other almost-cast actors. user: Scott197827 10/14/05


 * According to IMDB, Johannson was originally casted for the Keri Russle role. As for Moss' role, it was completely removed from the script after Abrams took over. Kenimaru 23:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Major Article Edit
I FINALLY got to see this film (spectacular, by the way), and was reading the article and found not only a slew of ugly grammatical errors, but quite a few plot mistakes. I fixed the plot mistakes I found, and tried to edit the article a bit to make it flow better. It was redundant in some places, choppy in others, and a little awkward–feeling in a few more spots. If something doesn't work or is innaccurate, feel free to fix it, I'm just giving everyone a heads up! Watemon 19:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Filming Locations

 * "Location filming took place in Berlin, Italy, Shanghai, Xitang, Virginia, and California" is rather inconsistent. Someone should change it so that all the places named are cities, or provinces/states or countries. Because switching from nation to city to province to state is maddening. Just go with "Germany, Italy, China and USA." --WongFeiHung 05:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The statement on location filming is correct. Who says there must be consistency?  The information is meaningful.  It is regrettable if this style induces madness in you. Wikismile 15:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Does the review section strike you as somewhat, well, VERY biased?!
I mean MI:III got a bathing by critics, made approx. $30 million less in opening weekend (adjusted for inflation) than MI(1) and was written off as a disaster by media everywhere... and that doesn't even get a meantion? C'mon. I'd like feedback as it seems like I may have to add some alternative perspectives - Gl e n   TC (Stollery)  16:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It reads like promo material. I think the article would be strengthened by more diverse comments. Also, the "reaction" section focusses on how much money the film made, which is worth including but only in the context of (non-financial) reaction to the film (e.g. were there "2 thumbs" up or down?) Hu Gadarn 15:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Netherlands Box Office?
Would i be the only one wondering why the Netherlands box office has a mention. Does this seem out of place to anyone else?Jabbathenut 08:44, 11 August 2006 (AST)

"Berlin security"
I removed the following line from the "Trivia section":

"When Ethan Hunt's team rescued him in Shangai, Declan said "Get in they're coming...Berlin security and they're pissed." Shouldn't it be Shangai security?"

He said building security, not "Berlin" security. 220.235.11.48 10:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Mission: Impossible IV?
How can we address the possible 4th film in the series? Reports that came out today say that Paramount is ready to offer the lead to Brad Pitt.

SpikeZoft 00:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * - Daily Mail article about Pitt and MI:IV

Mission: Impossible IV in Tokyo?.
There was a report that Mission Impossible IV would be filmed in Tokyo. Tom Cruise will return as Ethan Hunt and Brad Pitt will most likely be a villian. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:thechroniclesofratman (talk • contribs) 10:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC).

No mention of the controversy between this film and proceeds to Scientology?
I think I've seen that in several places. Comments?-- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  00:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

in an article of star wars insider it states that john knoll and jj abrams hid r2 d2 in mi 3 has ANYONE SPOTTED IT ??

Grammar problem
"it is with great difficulty that Ethan's partners convinces" - If it's one partner, then "partner convinces." If it's >1, then "partners convince." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.225.32.197 (talk • contribs) Thanks for pointing that out. In the future, please try to fix the articles yourself. Don't worry, you won't be accused of vandalism if it's just some little spelling mistake fixed. If you're using puplic comupter I suggest you registering, to avoid being banned for something you didn't do. TheBlazikenMaster 14:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Rabbit's Foot = MacGuffin?
I think it would be an interesting piece of trivia to include a link to the MacGuffin film technique. When you think about it, the Rabbit's Foot is a perfect MacGuffin - it is never revealed what the item is, nor is it anyway relevent to the plot. Rather, it is a device which serves to move the plot forward.

It's almost exactly like the briefcase in Ronin, yet that page makes explicit reference to MacGuffins, and this page does not. I'm not one to edit pages, especially as there are many who get a bit antsy when people edit pages without discussion. So I'm putting it out there as a suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.133.24 (talk) 11:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. The technique has great importance in this film. Many people don't know of such techniques and a link to the macguffin article would help. --Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 18:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I just watched the film, and think that the Rabbit's Foot is a good example of a MacGuffin, so I found a way to slip a link to that article in the synopsis. Cinemaniac (talk •  contribs  •  critique) 23:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mi 3 teaser poster.jpg
Image:Mi 3 teaser poster.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mi III.jpg
Image:Mi III.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

We must do something QUICK!!!!
Without a poster it's hard to know how the movie really looks like. TheBlazikenMaster 12:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

"it's a fulcrum"
Watching this film again recently, I noticed an error in the script; I would like to edit the article to reflect this, but it doesn't seem that "Trivia" is the correct section for it. Any advice? Littlebluedog 23:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Too many bulleted lists.
Way too many. Those should be made into paragraphs. So that's why I'm brining this up here. We need to discuss how to get them into paragraphs. I will note this to the movie project if this discussion remains unreplied for twenty-four hours. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's it, I'm way over the deadline, I will bring this up. Since getting people here will take within 5 minutes I can do it even if I wanna relax. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The production notes in particular should be easy enough to convert to a reasonably well-flowing piece of prose, though it contains some trivia and some unsourced statements. The Other information section less so, as it appears to largely consist of trivia unrelated to anything else. In any case, most of that section can probably be culled. Do you require assistance in the actual rewriting of these? Steve T • C 15:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I also agree. As a matter of fact, a lot of it seems like poorly renamed trivia sections (e.g "Other Informations").  Jauerbackdude?/dude. 19:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

References to use

 * Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.


 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik (talk • contribs) 15:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Plot Summary
Why does it seem like a 12 year old wrote this for a 7th grade essay? Way too long with unnecessary details. Coolsharkymd (talk) 02:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I trimmed it back down to around 650 words. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Title
I would say this is pretty straightforward. When in doubt, we always refer to a film's billing block to determine what the official title as registered and licensed by the studio is, and in this case it's M:i:III. Here's a high-res image of the theatrical release poster (notice the logo doesn't even say Mission: Impossible III, nor does any poster you can find online). This page currently exists at this title because (a) Mission: Impossible III has become the WP:COMMONNAME, and (b) it is not possible to move it to M:i:III due to technical reasons. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:01, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * See here. The MPAA ratings certificate (which is the actual registration) is clearly listed as Mission: Impossible III. Note also that they list M: I: III as an alternate title. Long story short is the poster billing block is clearly in error here. oknazevad (talk) 01:33, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I would say that the billing block and logo, which are found on all marketing materials for the film, trumps the MPAA website. After all, the MPAA is a third-party organization. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:42, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * They're the organization that issues the certificates that we are referring to when we talk about official registration. It's not a third-party organization, it's the first-party organization for official titles. And Paramount themselves use the full name on Paramount+, home video releases, and tons of other places. Logo stylization is irrelevant per MOS:TM. oknazevad (talk) 01:59, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, that is a good point. But FWIW, I was referring to the marketing materials released at the time of the film's release, not the ones right now. I am aware they've switched to calling this film Mission: Impossible III in contemporary marketing and home media releases. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:25, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * My point is that stylization on a poster isn't the official title, the MPA registered one is. Usually they're the same, as the convention for poster billing blocks, which are governed by agreements with the various guilds like the DGA, WGA, and SAG-AFTRA, is to use the registered title regardless of what logo styling there is. The use of the abbreviation in the billing block was clearly not compliant with the usual practice and can be called an error. Either way, there's no reason not to lead the article with the correct registered title. oknazevad (talk) 17:09, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Thandie Newton
The article says she was offered a role but declined, citing the trivia page on the IMDb. In an interview with Newton, she states "I was never asked". I think this would be considered a more accurate source.

https://www.vulture.com/article/thandie-newton-in-conversation.html 2600:8800:3000:4300:98A9:8706:2EF3:AE91 (talk) 06:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)