Talk:Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One

Polish railway bridge controversy

I don't think that it warrants as much article space as has been written. Might I suggest that it is brought more on-topic, or moved to the article regarding the bridge itself? TN 20:26, 11 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TransportNut (talk • contribs)

So far, the majority of international coverage about the film applied to the bridge scandal and bridge itself. Once the production moves on with subsequent locations, the article will have a new perspective, and perhaps some details could be edited. — Kochas 19:20, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, thing is this is an article about a *film* not some social media - many things get undue attention and that's speaking more about certain people not connected with the film, then the production itself - there shouldn't be that much about this controversy in the article, in the first place. Mithoron (talk) 21:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mithoron: Sure, the article is about the film, and so the paragraph is about the *production* of said film. Hence the described conundrum summarized here relates to the film's production per se. The fact itself of it to have been the *national* news throughout a well part of the year, to then spread into other European news outlets, and the WSJ, is a good measure, and a rare occasion really, of the film production process, wouldn't you agree? — Kochas 22:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Has any coverage been released of the film throwing their train off the cliff and into the fjord in Norway, which was the alternative use for their replica steam loco. 2A02:C7F:5078:B700:4C03:1B22:9EF6:C98A (talk) 17:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Too much space has been given to the bridge.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Libra

Kochas moved the article from Mission: Impossible 7 to Mission: Impossible – Libra, but I reverted it. A working title is temporary, and furthermore, we adhere to WP:COMMONNAME. Gauging reliable sources, there are no sources using any title with Libra in it. Even if this turns out to be the official title, we do not know that at this time, and we follow sources in continuing to call the topic Mission: Impossible 7 until we find out more, especially about what sources call this film. Wikipedia follows, it does not lead. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Erik, Thank you for the revert. I was thinking of doing this but refrained. Shall I revert them back? Starzoner (talk) 02:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Erik:, oh well, I guess the "follow not lead" argument is relevant (looked like a straight-forward move) — still, why turn back the time completely? The source was always and still is valid and a WP:RS, so wouldn't we re-add it, and edit the instances in the prose back please? — Kochas 04:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

The working title is valid, but it does not mean it needs to be mentioned more than once. And I would not mention it upfront in "Production" either since that is undue weight; later in the section would be better. The film is widely known as Mission: Impossible 7 at this time, and that is what incoming readers know it as, and will continue to know it as, for the foreseeable future. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Title

A suggestion, if I may. Considering the film isn't going to be called Mission: Impossible 7 as Cruise has abandoned the numeral titling of the series since Ghost Protocol, wouldn't it be more appropriate to rename the page to "Untitled seventh Mission: Impossible film" the way the article on the fifth Indiana Jones film is currently titled? Just my two cents.--ZeroMinusTen (talk) 05:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Disney officially calls that film "Untitled Indiana Jones" (see here). By contrast, Paramount officially calls this film "Mission: Impossible 7" (see here). InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Visual Effects

Since the film is in Post Production, we all know Lorne Balfe is composing the film, but should we add Industrial Light & Magic (ILM) as the VFX company - here's the link to Alex Wuttke the VFX supervisor for ILM London . There's also an Instagram post by Christopher McQuarrie but he usually deactivates his account usually after he finishes filming a Mission movie, same with his Twitter. The only backup post I found was on IMFUpdates on Tumblr . I do apologise if the cites are a bit off — Preceding unsigned comment added by MOVIEFAN2001 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Charles Parnell link is kinda wrong

The cast list on the right has a link to a dead man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.63.99.146 (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

When I posted this, it did. The history is logged, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.63.99.146 (talk) 02:52, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@66.63.99.146: remember to sign your comments going forward CreecregofLife (talk) 03:01, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Not really. Here is the version of the article when you posted your comment, hence my reply. By the way, CreecregofLife, pings do not work with IP users. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Logo

Since the trailer was released, and the official logo was shown, should we include the logo in the article? Red4Smash (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Well yeah, but someone needs to upload it first (with proper fair use rationale). InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

This has now been done. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Bridge

the whole chapter about the bridge written by Poles should be removed, it is too much, 1-2 sentences on this subject is enough if it has to be here. 178.235.182.80 (talk) 16:24, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Please don't unliterally blank sections before discussing them first on the talk page. All of the information there is sourced and accurate. If you feel it should be trimmed, feel free to do so, but please don't remove the section entirely. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

The opening paragraph of the lead section violates WP:LEAD by relegating mention of Tom Cruise to the end and bundled with other actors' names. The due weight of recognition is far more in favor of Cruise than McQuarrie and Jendresen. There is no requirement for the director and writer to be mentioned at the very beginning every time since due weight takes precedence over editors' personal preference in worshipping these crew members. See User:Erik/Best practices#First sentences about films for a breakdown of why the current approach violates policies and guidelines. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

It is a stretch to call this a violation. You have a preference, for which you are free to make your case (and reasonably so since Cruise is very well known), but the current revision does not break any hard-and-fast rules. Especially WP:UNDUE, when you consider that Cruise is mentioned right after the franchise in the opening paragraph. Or you are suggesting that naming the director in the first line is undue when they are not a household name, which opens a whole other can of worms. McQuarrie is no no-name debutant, he holds a BAFTA and an Oscar (with two nominations) to his credit. If he isn't noteworthy enough for the lead sentence then where are we setting this bar? Shyamalan? Spielberg? 2001:8F8:172B:41ED:E1B3:E84A:626D:D202 (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Pom Klementieff's character's fate

The article as it stands says that Paris, Pom Klementieff's character dies at the end of the film; however, Greg Tarzan Davis's character has a line of dialogue at the end of the scene that states that she still has a pulse. I think the article should be changed to reflect the ambigious state of her character at the end of the film rather than unequivocally stating that she dies. 80.189.122.195 (talk) 17:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Typographical error

"Other filming locations for the movie included a terinal still under construction"

Can someone with a confirmed account correct terinal -> terminal? Thanks. 148.253.156.219 (talk) 14:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

When can it be declared a flop

Based on current trends, this movie will never show a profit or break even by quite a wide margin, using the standard formula of Hollywood math ([box office > film budget * 2]). This movie is becoming a textbook flop. At what date is it appropriate to add that fact to the article, and/or what unforeseen turn of events could negate this outcome? 74.104.130.145 (talk) 19:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Until sources say otherwise we cannot say that. That is WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. It’s best to wait and see how it’s theatrical run goes before making a concrete decision. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 19:49, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

It may have flopped to a certain extent, but such claims must be tied to very strong sources. The best sources will wait to provide in-depth analysis after all the numbers come in, including production budget, marketing costs, and of course, box office revenues. Not quite there yet. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

It's about to reach the 700 Million milestone.[1] Hardly a flop. 2804:389:B118:B87:1:0:79DD:7E5E (talk) 15:06, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

It is not about to reach the "700 Million milestone." As of this comment, your citation has it at a worldwide gross of ~$452.7 million. PookiWooki (talk) 02:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it was just a glitch. They've changed it again. 2804:389:B02C:20EA:0:54:DCF5:8D01 (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Actually it's not even to the 600 mil mark. 172.13.1.35 (talk) 19:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

C2 Motion Picture Group

So the official website for the company plus a deadline article claimed the company worked on the film, but Jason Cloth and Dave Caplan never got credited unlike Babylon which they got credit for. Should C2 Motion Picture Group remain on the wikipedia page for this film or should it be removed? MOVIEFAN2001 (talk) 11:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Critical reviews in lead

Should we keep critical reviews in lead or just remove critical review in lead because I've seen IPs removing lead. LancedSoul (talk) 21:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@LancedSoul It’s not a one size fit all approach, nor a hard and fast rule. Depends on what’s best for the article. It’s simply not notable to mention this again in the already bloated lead. This wasn’t some smash hit with the critics, if you actually study the majority of the reviews that thought it was a decent enough “action” flick but they weren’t over the moon about it. Then Barbenheimer happened, and it was essentially forgot in all

senses—- tailspinning into a flop.

The lead isn’t meant to be PR for a movie.lol It’s a form of WP:PUFFERY for redundant info that’s not all that WP:NOTABLE, i.e.the critics’ reaction to this film really wasn’t all that a significant part of this film’s history, that it lost money and was part of a larger trend of summer tentpole films flopping was notable. 2601:280:CB03:869:8CBC:5442:1D05:A90 (talk) 22:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Unless some agreement forms here in this discussion (linked to a reliable source that supports it), we should simply just say that the film received positive reviews, as done in this edit. The summary that was there previously was a form of WP:SYNTH, which is not permitted. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Critical acclaim

At least one IP editor has continued to add "critical acclaim" to the lead, as in this edit, without the support of necessary sourcing. Please discuss here instead of constantly reverting back to this unsupported claim. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

... and this is why we need something at MOS:FILM. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I was never opposed to the idea, just the initial length of the proposal. Furthermore, only editors with good intentions and knowledge that the MOS exists will benefit, which sadly can be a small percentage of those who insert such claims. Synthesizing critical reception summary statements, for example, still occur regularly despite guidance in the MOS.--GoneIn60 (talk) 17:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, once WP:ACCLAIMED exists, we would be able to point IP editors to that guideline in edit summaries, and it would also encourage experienced editors to start reverting on sight. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely. Something to point to is better than nothing to point to. But I can tell you despite the number of times I've pointed to WP:FILMLEAD for unsourced summary statements, it doesn't phase the drive-bys. Having guidance added to MOS:FILM is a necessity, but for a different reason. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Budget

So... we gotta agree on something. Is it $291 million? $220 million? $220-291 million? DougheGojiraMan (talk) 03:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

With these edits from Betty Logan, it would seem that the budget should be a singular number (not a range) at $291 million. If there is any disagreement, editors who keep changing the number need to be referred to this talk page to discuss. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

This is what the Collider source states: "The accounts also disclose that a staggering $905 million has been spent on making these three movies so far, with expenses peaking at $221 million in the previous year when production of Dead Reckoning Part One was in full swing. The total costs are expected to rise further as filming of Part One and its sequel continued well past the end of 2022'." In other words the film had accumulated costs of $221 million up to the end of 2022. We have the Deadline source in the article saying that costs topped out at $290 million. There is no source as far as I'm aware that reports the total budget as $221 million. The insurance payout is a separate matter; an insurance payout doesn't work like a tax rebate so we shouldn't be making assumptions about how that is factored into the final costs. Betty Logan (talk) 13:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

This is proof that the budget is reduced to $220 after the insurance payout.

Proof: https://collider.com/mission-impossible-dead-reckoning-part-one-domestic-box-office-172-million/ Itsonline6 (talk) 01:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I've read it, and how is that "proof"? I have literally included the quote above that puts costs at $221 million as of the end of 2022, and you have completely ignored what Collider has actually said. If it were "proof" as you insist, Collider would state that the final budget is $221 million after factoring in the insurance payout. But they don't actually say that, do they? They clearly state that the cost as of last year stood at $221 million and "total costs are expected to rise". Deadline has now reported the total cost. Betty Logan (talk) 01:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

"Thankfully for Paramount, the film was able to secure a vast insurance payout which brought their overall budget down to around $220 million meaning, after advertising and exhibitor costs were taken into account, the film would reach profitability"

https://collider.com/mission-impossible-dead-reckoning-part-one-domestic-box-office-172-million/ DougheGojiraMan (talk) 13:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

It's becoming confusing lol DougheGojiraMan (talk) 13:04, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Collider themselves are being inconsistent. I don't agree that you can deduct an insurance payout from your budget like a tax credit. For example, if I pay the gaffer 120k including VAT, and claim back the 20k VAT through the the UK's FTR tax credit scheme then the gaffer has been paid 100k. On the other hand, if I pay my gaffer 120k including 20k extra to cover a COVID lockdown, and the insurance company compensates me for that 20k, the gaffer has still been paid 120k. The insurance payout reduces what you have to recover, but it doesn't reduce expenditure. However, that's a call for reliable sources not for editors. But even so, Collider clearly says the cost as of last year was $221 million and filming and post-production continued into 2023, so clearly the total cost has to be over $221 million. There will be another set of accounts published in 2024 for 2023, so we can settle this debate then once we have the full, audited, figures. Betty Logan (talk) 16:59, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I mean, it was delayed by COVID. 172.13.1.35 (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Page-Protect

I think it's better if we page-protect this article because many users are putting unofficial budgets or information that is already down below. Plus, my country is still playing the movie in certain theaters, so the film isn't out of the theaters altogether. Itsonline6 (talk) 10:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

You may make a request at WP:RFPP/I. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

And just an FYI I had requested page protection recently suggesting 2 weeks or more, but it was only protected for 2 days. I'll get this escalated, as the disruption is clearly continuing. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

One of the IP ranges causing most of the disruption has been blocked. If other IP ranges start popping up, we can revisit page protection. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2023

Restore the lead to say, "The film received positive reviews from critics and has grossed $567 million worldwide." per WP:STATUSQUO, WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTH, and WP:RS as advised by WP:ACCLAIM which says that describing a film with superlatives such as "critically acclaimed" or "box-office bomb" is loaded language and an exceptional claim that must be attributed to multiple high-quality sources, which is clearly lacking here (i.e. without the support of necessary sourcing).

Unless some consensus forms here (which to date, there is not) in this ongoing discussion (linked to a reliable source that supports it), we should simply just say that the film received positive reviews, as done in this edit. The summary that was there previously was a form of WP:SYNTH, which is not permitted. 2603:300B:909:8C00:84E0:D4BC:6424:CAC4 (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: See references in the first sentence § Critical response. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

This IP looks like my follower TropicAxe because they keep reverting the addition of references. ภץאคгöร 15:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Joe Biden

I had a feeling someone was going to add this, and indeed, it happened. While it's an interesting piece of information, I don't know if it's appropriate to create an entire section for one sentence. And we don't know whether this will actually leave a meaningful "political impact" (it's not like the executive order was entirely dedicated to the film). InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Can someone with permission correct the spelling in the sentence "News outlets have claimed that the film may have lead to Biden signing an executive order about AI."

Unless it is referring to the metal with atomic number 82, the word "lead" rhymes with reed.

The correct spelling for the past participle of the verb "to lead" is "led". OUR-BOY-FLYNN (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Name change

Can we move the page to a new one titled Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning without the Part One, since the name has been dropped by Paramount? [2] Twinbros04 (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

The film was released in theaters and also on home video under its original title. A name change six months after the original release, just for streaming, should be described in the article, but is no different from Edge of Tomorrow being marketed as "Live Die Repeat" on home video. The original theatrical release title is the one that matters. Jamesluckard (talk) 01:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree with the above, but another point is that a lot can happen between now and the next film's release. The studio can still do a 360 and name the next film Part Two, for example. Generally we stick with the official name at the time of release, and there needs to be an indication in reliable sources that an alternative title is more commonly used before we'd move away from the original. General naming conventions for film articles can be found at WP:NCF. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

No, because we do not use retroactive titles. See Star Wars (film), Dark Phoenix, Gran Turismo (film), Birds of Prey (2020 film), Raiders of the Lost Ark, etc. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi all, can we get a consensus on including both titles in bold (matching the style at Star Wars (film)) versus including only the original title? IMO the amount of confusion on this page, as well as the repeated edits, indicate that readers are confused by the title, and a bold face in the header itself would help absolve that confusion. See diff1, revert for comparison. Thanks! 19:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC) Caleb Stanford (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the requirement for this for such a minor change of title. The footnote works fine. Barry Wom (talk) 11:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Barry, I'll count that as a WP:3O against, but a consensus is required in this case to avoid an edit war in the lead. Caleb Stanford (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the "repeated edits" indicate confusion. The removal of "Part One" doesn't fundamentally change the title all that much. A lot of these drive-by edits are likely from editors who decided to hop over to Wikipedia after reading a clickbait article about the title change. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

While uninformed, these editors felt that the article was incorrect in its present form, indicating a level of confusion about the way the information is presented in the lead. Caleb Stanford (talk) 21:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I am for the title update, though I lament the short-sightedness of Paramount and the unpatriotic American audience who didn't appreciate Ethan Hunt's kinds of patriotism and turn out for the movie. Supermann (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Supermann, this is not simply a vote of who's in favor and who's not. We have guidelines in place about using the official title at the time of release, and there is a long list of film articles that have previously set this precedent (see the comments above). Instead of voting "aye" or "nay", please describe the reason(s) why you feel these items – precedence and existing guidelines – should be ignored. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I believe the proposal currently under discussion is not to update the title, but to mention the new title prominently at the beginning of the article (rather than in a footnote). The title of the article should not be changed, per precedent and WP guidelines. Caleb Stanford (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The indentation above suggests that Supermann is responding directly to Twinbros04, and as such, would indicate support for moving the page (i.e. updating the article title).

As for mentioning the new title in the lead, let's see what Jamesluckard and InfiniteNexus think. I generally agree with Barry Wom that the footnote is sufficient, but I'm not entirely opposed to a prominent mention of the new title somewhere in the lead. In the scope of things important to Wikipedia, this issue is very minor. However, I wouldn't let disruption from uninformed drive-bys dictate how we react or our course of action. These things can be dealt with using page protection. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't mind people citing precedents and guidelines, but as the conservative Supreme Court could overturn Roe v Wade via Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, we should follow, "Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense. Occasional exceptions may apply. Naming conventions are considered guidelines" as in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_policies_and_guidelines. I am sure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles would also have some good reasoning. Supermann (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)