Talk:Mission: Impossible III
Add topic| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mission: Impossible III article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
References to use
[edit]- Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
- Mulhall, Stephen (2008). "An accelerated mutator: J.J. Abrams' Mission: Impossible III". On Film. Thinking in Action. Routledge. pp. 231–260. ISBN 0415441536. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik (talk • contribs) 15:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Plot Summary
[edit]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
[edit]@Oknazevad: 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Thandie Newton
[edit]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)
Rabbit's Foot in The Final Reckoning
[edit]Since the name "Rabbit's Foot" is now brought up and its now shown to have use for The Entity (could be demonstrated as a case of MacGuffin of which the Rabbit's Foot now has plot significance in The Final Reckoning), can that be mentioned in a form of a footnote saying for example: "This is later to have a use in Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning (2025)" (or anything else in particular).
Otherwise that is just a name and the object is different and I may be wrong and that is not necessary... (I was just typing this as I had not been in a theater (nor I was planning to as of now), and I also haven't watched it on Netflix (that was in the Home section on my end for a brief while that says "Coming Soon" but then it isn't; it's just pulled out).
EDIT: its about dead reckoning, not the final. It's still there and... again its just sitting there when i searched it meaning it will be in Netflix but there is no specified release date...