MovieChat Forums > Mission: Impossible (1996) Discussion > Disavow any connection between TV series...

Disavow any connection between TV series and movies


As someone who is loyal to the TV shows and as a way to reconcile with the likelihood that there will be more movies to come, I like to disavow any connection between the Mission: Impossible TV shows and the distinct film series.

Anyone who was outraged as I am with Jim Phelps being turned into the villain in the first movie should do the same in disavowing any such connection.

It could easily be argued that the Jim Phelps played by Jon Voight has a similar history to the one played by Peter Graves but there is nothing solid to suggest that both were playing the same character.

There is no narrative link between the TV series and movies and I don't think any such link should be established due to Jim Phelps being the villain in the first movie.

reply

Thank you! It's time somebody finally said that!

I was so disappointed in the first movie, I didn't even see the rest. There is a huge disconnect between the series and the films, so much so that I don't think the movies should even use the title of Mission Impossible. The pacing, the tone, the style are all radically different.

Actually, I think the Ocean's 11, 12, 13 movies do a better job of capturing the essence of the TV series. And the humor makes them even more fun.

reply

I love it when movies take something that we know and love, and turn it sideways and completely subvert it. And this movie did exactly that.

Besides, Dan Briggs was the true and original leader of IMF. Phelps couldn't hold a candle to him.

reply

Making Jim the villain was a really weird idea from the writers.

reply

I liked it though it's only fair that when it comes time to replace Cruise with someone younger they should consider making Ethan Hunt a villain too (a choice that would play into Cruise's strengths as an actor).

reply

I dont like that idea, it cheapens the character, and its kind of a kick in the face to fans to have someone as a good guy suddenly become bad. I never watched the tv show so it never bothered me that Jim went bad, I think the film series is a reboot of the show anyway, not something that should be considered canon as far as the tv show is concerned, but to have a long film series of over 20 years, and have Hunt turn bad would suck imo. As much as I think Cruise plays a great bad guy, he kinda did it in MI2 when he was the acting as the villain wearing a mask of Hunt.

reply

Mission: Impossible’s Villain Reveal Was a Major Mistake

https://popculturereferences.com/mission-impossibles-villain-reveal-was-a-major-mistake/

In the first Mission: Impossible movie, Phelps is still in charge of the main IMF team (only played by Jon Voight now), with Cruise’s Ethan Hunt as his point man. However, for some unfathomable reason, it is revealed that Phelps has turned bad, disgusted by the post-Cold War world of spycraft, and he becomes the main villain of the film.

It’s just an astonishingly bad idea to do a film adaptation of a popular TV series, KEEP the lead character from the show and have him become a villain. The only thing in its favor is that it is a surprise, but it’s surprising because it’s such a bad idea. For instance, you’ll never expect Batman to just knife Robin in the ribs in the middle of the next Batman movie, but it doesn’t mean that it is a good idea.

Similarly, taking the beloved star, the only real constant in the Mission: Impossible universe before the film series, and having him become a bad guy is essentially telling the very fans who you are turning to because they like the property and figuratively slapping them in the face.

Heroically killing Jim Phelps off and having his protegee take over as the lead of the series is totally normal, and would have been a fine approach. Not tying into the original series PERIOD would have been fine, too, with Ethan just part of a different IMF team, or just doing a total reboot would have been fine.

But to tie into the original series while making the original star the BAD GUY? Why would you do that? Who does that? It doesn’t make any sense.

I mean, whatever, obviously, as a fan, you just treat this as a whole different continuity and that this Jim Phelps is a different Jim Phelps than the TV show Jim Phelps, but it is still an extra little annoying thing that was very unnecessary.

reply

[deleted]

It's always been clear that this movie wasn't based in the same universe, the first clue being that this is a different Phelps, played by a different actor with clearly very different motives. No need to disavow any connection between the two franchises when there's no connection to begin with.

While I would have loved a movie starring the original cast, I still enjoy DePalma's "version," Just as I enjoyed his film "version" of The Untouchables.

reply

it was simple.

cast Peter Graves as Jim Phelps (Peter Graves wouldve been like an A list star in a MI movie, like Shatner in a Star Trek film, a much bigger deal than Jon Voight)

not have him be the villain (or married to the beautiful young french girl)

still kill Jim off in the opening? (wouldve been a huge shock for the audience/huge event in the MI universe/all bets are off type deal. and no point him having him around for the execrable MI2)

in trivia it states Graves was approached about reprising the role but did not want to be killed or be the villain (however if thats true then they couldve easily rewritten so Kitteridge or someone turns out as the main villian. then just offered Graves more money to basically cameo - even if it was just Cruise walking past him in the CIA corridors!)

reply

cast Peter Graves as Jim Phelps (Peter Graves wouldve been like an A list star in a MI movie, like Shatner in a Star Trek film, a much bigger deal than Jon Voight)


I imagine this would only be true for older folks who were familiar with the show. I literally had never heard of Peter Graves until I stumbled upon this thread but I know Voight quite well.

reply

my thoughts exactly

reply