This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the
Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 [1]. 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 [2]. 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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
So... we gotta agree on something. Is it $291 million? $220 million? $220-291 million? DougheGojiraMan ( talk) 03:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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 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)
Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One (retitled Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning for its streaming release[6][a])? That literally takes up almost the entire first line on my screen, and I imagine it's probably worse on the (still awful) Vector 2022, especially on smaller screens. There isn't a guideline or "standard" way of formatting alternative film titles (many use parentheses and many use efn's), so per MOS:VAR the status quo should remain unless it's causing problems. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 06:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
It is very obvious to me that Paramount would also use the new name, once they re-release it in the movie theater, say ahead of the next one. I am not sure why we are not respecting what the production company wants. Supermann ( talk) 09:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Although official ... names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred." We do not always use the official name for an article title. Assuming that we must do that is "a very easy mistake to make, and a very common one". You can read more about this at WP:OFFICIAL. The important elements that the article title should satisfy are:
Respecting what the production company wantsisn't a factor. Perhaps in a year or two the title without the Part One is so much more recognizable that it's considered enough justification for that to be the article's title. But not yet. — El Millo ( talk) 17:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
most casual readers won't understand"
in the future people who look up the movie are inevitably going to be searching the new title, so we shouldn't make decisions based on that assumption. The film was released both in theaters and in home media with that title and, as Spanneraol says above, we still don't know what the title of the next film will be. — El Millo ( talk) 14:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the
Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 [1]. 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 [2]. 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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
So... we gotta agree on something. Is it $291 million? $220 million? $220-291 million? DougheGojiraMan ( talk) 03:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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 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)
Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One (retitled Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning for its streaming release[6][a])? That literally takes up almost the entire first line on my screen, and I imagine it's probably worse on the (still awful) Vector 2022, especially on smaller screens. There isn't a guideline or "standard" way of formatting alternative film titles (many use parentheses and many use efn's), so per MOS:VAR the status quo should remain unless it's causing problems. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 06:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
It is very obvious to me that Paramount would also use the new name, once they re-release it in the movie theater, say ahead of the next one. I am not sure why we are not respecting what the production company wants. Supermann ( talk) 09:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Although official ... names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred." We do not always use the official name for an article title. Assuming that we must do that is "a very easy mistake to make, and a very common one". You can read more about this at WP:OFFICIAL. The important elements that the article title should satisfy are:
Respecting what the production company wantsisn't a factor. Perhaps in a year or two the title without the Part One is so much more recognizable that it's considered enough justification for that to be the article's title. But not yet. — El Millo ( talk) 17:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
most casual readers won't understand"
in the future people who look up the movie are inevitably going to be searching the new title, so we shouldn't make decisions based on that assumption. The film was released both in theaters and in home media with that title and, as Spanneraol says above, we still don't know what the title of the next film will be. — El Millo ( talk) 14:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)