Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mission: Impossible – Fallout/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10 June 2024 [1].

Mission: Impossible – Fallout

edit
Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Mission: Impossible – Fallout. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from LegalSmeagolian

"relatively brief" - is not the case, article is potentially overly detailed. Additionally just because you liked a film does not mean the article meets the FA criteria. LegalSmeagolian (talk) LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what was the purpose of this comment when you clicked publish? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To highlight the size of the article and the fact that it was not relatively brief, which you must agree with to some extent as you edited your nomination to be more accurate towards the length of the article. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't agree, I removed it because it was meant to be a joke and it's attracted unnecessary comments like this. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by TompaDompa

edit

Without committing to a full review, I have to agree that roughly 8,000 words is not relatively brief. It's at the upper end of what might be appropriate for most well-covered topics. I think it's a pretty good length to aim for when writing about topics where the literature is extensive—Assassination of John F. Kennedy is about that length, for instance. Rarely, some topics may warrant lengthier treatments. WP:SIZERULE says roughly the same thing, as it turns out. TompaDompa (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP: Size is a guide. When discussing popular culture topics the size goes up and with every. single. nomination. 1000 of those words are thematic analysis which I have to include, don't choose to, and am forced to make reasonable coverage thereof. Hence the actual content is 7000 words but even if it was 8000 there would be no justification for splitting the article because it's all within scope and this isn't Geocities. As always, I appreciate your boundless support Tompa, it isn't killing my passion for this process at all. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, the current length of this article is about what I would aim for if I were writing an article on a topic about which there is (fairly) extensive literature. I don't know if this is such a topic, not having taken a close look at either the article or the sources (at least not yet), but it very well might be. Generally speaking, 1,000 words of thematic analysis by no means seems excessive to me; it obviously depends on the work in question and the coverage in the sources, but in many cases an even greater (absolute or relative) length would be appropriate. TompaDompa (talk) 22:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, makes sense Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the images, I think there are definitely better alternatives for at least Rebecca Ferguson and Henry Cavill. Ferguson's face is partly obscured by her hair in File:Rebecca Ferguson in Paris 2018.jpg—something like File:Rebecca Ferguson in 2018 (2).jpg, even if the resolution is low, would be better (she is much more recognizable in that image, at least). For Cavill, File:Henry Cavill (48418063617) (cropped)(1).jpg has him looking very far away from the camera—something like File:Henry Cavill (48417913146) (cropped).jpg, which is much closer to head-on, would be better. The image of Vanessa Kirby is likewise not a particularly good one in terms of angle and lighting, though there do not seem to be any great alternatives at Commons. The headshot used at Rotten Tomatoes is much better, as is this image at IMDb which seems to be from an outright photoshoot, but I'm guessing those aren't free. TompaDompa (talk) 19:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the Ferguson one, I don't particularly see much difference between the current and proposed Cavill ones but I know the proposed one has him facing out of the article which is frowned upon from a MOS perspective. The Kirby one from RT appears to actually be from the Fallout premiere according to google image search but it is professionally taken so while I can't see the copyright it's unlikely to be free, same with the IMDb one unfortunately. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Draken Bowser

edit

I don't immediately balk at the length, but I'll do what I can to help you cut it down to standard. I'll start off by providing my assessment on the production section, hopefully some of the suggestions can also help in polishing other sections.

  • I'm concerned with the citation stacking. Three I'd consider borderline, but often fine. Four to five stacked citations could with few exceptions be considered overkill. If several reliable sources agree there is no need to cite them all. If citing up to five sources are necessary to piece together the preceding sentence, the text is probably trying too hard.
  • The text talks a lot about the sensibilities and motivations of the involved. Maybe this is just a personal sentiment, but I occasionally find it a bit jarring to state this in prose (until things have moved further into the past), I much prefer the use of quotes. My skittishness is not universal, sentences like this is perfectly fine: "Cruise was particularly interested in resolving the long-running narrative between Ethan and his wife Julia.."
    • For example: "McQuarrie's main interest was in better exploring Ethan's emotions and motivations. He felt that the previous films made the character effectively a cipher on which the audience could project thoughts and motivations without depicting the character's true thoughts and feelings. For Fallout, McQuarrie wanted Ethan to be vulnerable and more relatable, exploring his fears such as the threat of nuclear annihilation, so audiences could establish a more emotional connection to the character." This is an occasion where I'd appreciate anchoring his motivations to a quote at some point during the paragraph.
  • "..ideas they wanted to explore through the narrative." or story.
  • "Fans often asked Cruise about Julia's fate and he wanted to provide them with closure, for Ethan and Julia which could also serve as Fallout's primary emotional narrative arc.
  • "Abandoning this plot helped other scenes come together, such as the England-based sequences." "McQuarrie described his four main women characters — Alanna, Erica, Ilsa, and Julia — as independent and not requiring Ethan's protection." I suggest cutting these as superfluous.
  • "A dispute over Cruise's pay stalled production in August 2016." "Although the dispute was resolved by September, it further delayed filming from January 2017 by several months." This can be rewritten into one sentence.
  • "The helicopter weighed 14 t (14,000 kg) while the helipad was only rated to hold four so the pilot hovered the craft imperceptibly above the pad's surface." In my estimation this is an interesting tidbit, but still trivia.
  • Filming: there are no technical details on the cameras used, although I'll have give you props for including details on lighting, which is easily overlooked. :)

I'll hold here for now. Cheers, and thanks for taking Dredd to FA-status. That's a boss movie. Draken Bowser (talk) 21:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know I've seen this, I've had the good fortune of spending the extended weekend in perpetual pain from migraines, I will get to this as soon as it passes. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, ain't no hurry. Get well soon though! Draken Bowser (talk) 22:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Funny thing, I lost my original print out and made another one. I was surprised to learn that the movie was released in 2015 (I swear I saw it a few years ago with my mates, time sure flies..), halfway through the plot-section I realized my mistake. The good news is I was able to do some light c/e-work on Rogue Nation.

Now for Fallout.

Lead

  • "McQuarrie's return marked the first time that anyone would direct more than one film in the series." Feels a bit clunky, is it ok to call him a "returning director" in English?
  • "..by the interesting filming locations the production identified and allowing.."

Plot

  • "..Ilsa explains that MI6 assigned her to kill Lane to prevent foreign governments interrogating him and prove her loyalty after working undercover as a Syndicate agent." Could use a comma or two.
  • "Walker is also unable to kill Ethan.."

Stunts and effects

  • "For the pursuit sequence through Paris after Ethan recovers Lane, Ethan's and Walker's escape truck becomes lodged in an alley, and they kick out the windscreen to escape; the scene had to be refilmed as Cavill's initial kick was powerful enough to knock it well away from the vehicle." To me this is trivia, re-shoots happen all the time. Ultimately it didn't affect the end result or impact the production.

Post production

  • "Hamilton suggested adding sound effects, but McQuarrie wanted the score to further convince the audience that the events were happening." Perhaps I'm just being dumb here, but how would sound effects run contrary to realism?

Box office

  • The final list in the third paragraph is not in order.

Release

  • "..the proceedings, and making Fallout.."

Thematic analysis

  • For me these kinds of sections offer the writer a lot of poetic license, since there is no obvious standard for balancing prose with quotes. Only stacking quotes is probably wrong. Only writing prose makes the section read like it's entirely in wikivoice, offering a few quotes would remind the reader that we are restating the views of prominent experts. How many quotes would be required for this? No idea, poetic licence.
  • Fake news: why the first two thematic sections are included is obvious. This one confounds me a bit. Is it really unusual for news anchors to perform in movies like this in the US? Actual news anchors have been used to add realism to Swedish movies for at least a couple of decades. I understand reliable sources said all those things, but I'm still uncertain whether the coverage is extensive enough to make the information due when compared to coverage of themes in Fallout as a whole.

Legacy

  • "..Fallout is often ranked as the best or second-best film." If Fallout is beaten by the same movie in most of the polls it should be spelled out, otherwise leave it as it is.

References

  • The harvnb/sfn-anchors of Jinde, Lamb and Purse are broken.

Other than my concerns over refbombing, we're good. Draken Bowser (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Draken Bowser, I think I've done all of these now. I haven't removed the helicopter information because unlike kicking out the window I think it's a very interesting technical aspect of the film while yeah kicking out the window is not very important. With the ranking, it's almost always number 1 and if it's not it's always different films so there isn't a consistent challenger. Regarding themes, on all 3 of my previous nominations I have been criticized for using direct quotes so while I get where you're coming from if I start introducing quotes someone else will probably just tell me to take them out. Rest assured I have done my best to be faithful to the texts since I hate having to re-read sources, especially thematic ones that can be 30 pages of waffle with one page of interesting information. As for the fake news, I don't think it's always super common but there were several sources that focused on this aspect and I think in terms of contemporary media it came along at the same time fake news became a more prominent theme in real life which may be why it got more attention in analytical sources, I especially think it's a growing trend still. If several sources cover it it's more difficult for me to ignore that when tasked with comprehensiveness whereas if it's one fringe theory it's easier to ignore. Sorry for taking so long btw, still not feeling great.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: Oh and I added some camera technical details per your mention. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good work, especially finding a decent source for "cameras".
Ok, I can buy into the "having to fake realness" aspect of the helicopter scene.
Yeah, I suppose "fake news" is zeitgeist, but the section still feels a bit forced to me, maybe that is clouding my judgement. The Vanity fair and Esquire articles make the case for such a section. I don't think that using Lamb here makes sense though. It's about the mustache Caville had to grow for Fallout, sure. But the fake news aspect is the retouching done for Justice League, which also seems to be used more as an example of what the technology can do (no direct connection made between Fallout and fake news).
I'm still clueless on the "post-production" question. Could you ELI5? Draken Bowser (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh missed that one, let me try to rewrite it. The gist is that McQuarrie wanted to use the score to evoke whatever feelings necessary in the audience that would convince them the scene was real rather than hypothetical, and he thought sound effects would lessen the effect since previous MI films have similar hypothetical scenes but it's obvious they are hypothetical. I'll re-read the source and try to give a better explanation. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just removed it, the actual explanation is too convoluted to properly parse and I don't think it's super important in retrospect as we've got hte main point of it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for the explanation. I think it's time to pass the torch. I still want Lamb removed, but I'm willing to agree to disagree on the section as a whole. Either way, the article seems to meet the criteria as far as I can tell. Support A final note on length: for many (most?) movies we don't have the kind of overarching sources discussed on the FAC-talk page, which might help us decide on appropriate length. This should result in a lot more leeway than usual. After the few tiny trims we agreed on, I'm not sure that theres even anything I'd want removed, so the size does not bother me. Thanks for making the effort to address or contend with my concerns. Draken Bowser (talk) 05:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Lamb, thanks for the support Draken. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Igordebraga

edit
Support I understand pushing straight for FA even though it would possibly pass the GA with ease (though both are taking quite long to review nowadays), and it's weird to see so many stacked refs (it's understandable regarding opinionated parts such as the ones on reception, but on Production, seems more fit for more complex sentences like the one regarding Cruise's rehabiliation, the ones in Development could backed up by one or two sources alone). Otherwise, can't deny this type of work deserves a promotion. igordebraga ≠ 19:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Igordebraga! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airship

edit

The reception section seems rather problematic, with excessive references and poor organisation.

  • "Richard Roeper and Stephanie Zacharek, among others, praised Fallout as one of, if not the best films in the franchise." why are Roeper and Zacharek specifically highlighted?
    • Per WP:DAILYEXPRESS, the Daily Express is considered "generally unreliable".
  • A sentence on "an evolved continuity" feels out of place between two sentences saying "best film in franchise" and "best spy film ever made"—you can place it after.
    • Also, "believed"? Does he not believe it anymore? Why not just "wrote"?
  • I've changed it
    • Why is Jolin cited at the end of a sentence about Tallerico and Ehrlich's thoughts?
  • Why are Maltin and Travers singled out in the following sentences? And why are fifteen citations necessary, all placed in a block at the end of the two sentences so you can't tell what they're actually citing? Textbook WP:CITEKILL. Take the first (Nashawaty): the only part of the preceding sentences he appears to support is "The action sequences were praised".
  • Per above, I'm not going to list every reviewer cited and if I have citations that say the same thing it saves me trouble when people determine one of them is no longer reliable or one is beyond saving due to link rot. It also heads off the recent issues where reviewers claim there aren't enough sources for a statement or the sources aren't good enough to make such a claim but good enough otherwise.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, why are there four citations for a sentence which cites the views of only Kinnard and Phillips?
  • Per above, I can add "among others" every time or just include additional references that back up the same sentiment. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please do, but make sure that the "others" or additional references are backing up the same sentiment and are not just in the same vague ballpark.
  • Once again, six citations for the four critics "Ann Hornaday, Roeper, Phillips, and Slate's Sam Adams"?
    • And no, they don't all "[compliment] the narrative for its intriguing ideas, moral dilemmas, and complex twists, while criticizing the seemingly improvisational nature of some scenes and "thought-provoking" ideas that are posited and ignored, such as the villains' plans to bomb holy cities. Roeper (the first citation and only one I had the time to check) does none of that, as far as I can see: he does mention "a dizzying array of twists", but notes that "some you can see coming right down the aisle of your multiplex"—not quite the same as "complimenting the narrative for its complex twists".
  • This seems like a matter of perspective, someone saying a "dizzying array of twists" is a compliment as I read it, some of them being predictable doesn't undermine their quality. Again the summary style is how I've been instructed to do this multiple times. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • "someone saying a "dizzying array of twists" is a compliment as I read it, some of them being predictable doesn't undermine their quality" but the quality of the twists isn't brought up in the article, their complexity is. This is not "summary style", which has a very distinct meaning on WP; this is attributing to a critic several opinions he hasn't espoused. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are extensive problems with a small section of the article; as I don't want to enter a WP:FIXLOOP, I'll note a weak oppose and stand ready to strike it should the nominator feel that all similar issues have been fixed. Perhaps GA/PR would have been better than a straight FA nom?

No, GA/PR would not have been better, you've raised relatively minor issues, not extensive problems, that are exclusive to this section and are per instructions I've received multiple times. It's not an extensive problem for me to remove a few citations. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to take text-source integrity seriously, especially at FAC. A selection of responses above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right I've reworked the section. The discussion is in my previous FACs, I'm not sure which one and I don't have the time to search for it, it's moot now regardless. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29 Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29 Sorry, have you seen this? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry, the improvements look good, will do a read-through of the article shortly. One thing: why are notes w & x separate? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. W is for "action genre" I believe and X for "spy genre", I split them up to reduce the amount of refs in the note and make it easier to tell one from the other. I've used a lot of refs because the last 2 nominations were derailed because it was determined these were extraordinary claims without sufficient backing. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't have time to do a full review. Many apologies. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, thank you Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image review

edit

Images seem well-placed and pertinent. Why do so many Flickr links 403? File:Mission Impossible - Fallout Cast at the Screening (42922591624).jpg might warrant a description. What's the copyright status of File:Vanessa Kirby in Paris, 2018.png? Most of the sources seem to be major magazines, entertainment websites and news articles. Source formatting seems pretty consistent as well. #186 needs to say what website/portal it is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jo-Jo Eumerus, I added a description and fixed the ref. I replaced the image of Kirby as I didn't realize it had been screencapped from a Vimeo video with a CC 3.0 license but I'm not sure if the person posting it would have the authority to do that? He seems to be the videographer but I'm not clear on who would own the copyright if he was hired for the event so I've just replaced it.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo, any more to come on this? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo ? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to add from my side, other than a caveat that this isn't a topic where I am finely familiar with source reliability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

edit

The nomination has been open for roughly nine weeks and still doesn't have a strong consensus to promote. Unless that changes in the next few days, it is liable to be archived. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't do much about participation since I'm not allowed to canvas but surely it'd take up more time being renominated than it would waiting for another reviewer? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DWB, to mildly tweak my standard advice on this, you are allowed to place a polite neutrally phrased request on the talk pages of a few of the more frequent reviewers. Or on the talk pages of relevant Wikiprojects. Or of editors you know are interested in the topic of the nomination. Or who have contributed at PR, or assessed at GAN, or edited the article. @FAC coordinators: for correction or nuancing from any of my colleagues. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice Gog, hopefully with the two supports I had, getting the oppose withdrawn, the new support and potential new review I will be set at least for this one now! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A FAC nomination needs a bare minimum of three general supports for a coordinator to consider that a consensus to promotie has been reached. Note, I am not saying that three supports would be sufficient to promote any give article including this one, just that it will not even be considered with fewer. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PresN

edit

Overall note: the writing here is solid, so I'm mostly focusing on structural changes and not copyediting. It's also very lengthy- kind of a paean to an otherwise thoughtless action movie sequel; ideally it would be about half the length, but I find this kind of thing pretty charming, so no complaints here.

  • "The ensemble cast comprises" - comprises means "is made up of", so unless there are no other actors in the film "includes" is a better word.
  • At first, I thought the plot section was confusing, but on closer read it's actually just a pile of nonsense. I completely believe that the director started shooting without bothering to have an actual script first for their incredibly expensive film and made up the details as they went. The idea that the 58-year-old Cruise is an over-the-top action hero is nowhere near the least believable thing about this. He could be 80 and I'd still find it more believable than half of these plot points, including "the CIA director thinks their best multi-decade agent is a terrorist mastermind because some rando told them so" and "the grand plan to crash the modern world order is to kill a bunch of people in the poor parts of South Asia and leave all of the first world alone."
  • "However, Cruise specifically wanted McQuarrie to lead the sequel." - reads oddly and "specifically" doesn't add anything; swapping to "Cruise, however, wanted McQuarrie to lead the sequel." would be better.
  • So, there's a bit of a problem- McQuarrie wanted to explore Ethan's motivations. (minor aside- you refer to the character as "Ethan" instead of "Hunt", which is atypical, but I guess that's how he's referred to in sources?). So McQuarrie included a long section of Ethan pretending to be the villain. But... it was mostly all cut. So then in the lede, where you say "He intended for Fallout to better explore Ethan's character and emotions, believing previous entries had left him primarily a cipher for audiences, and test the limits of Ethan's abilities, morality, and personal relationships.", that's technically true in that he "intended" to do that... but he didn't. Ethan pretends to be a bad guy for just a bit as a ruse, and then immediately doesn't kill Lane in an action sequence. So it seems oversold in the lede.
  • "He wanted the audience to experience what would happen if the antagonist actually won and how Ethan would feel in response." - again, he may have wanted to, but as far as I can tell it's the bog standard 3rd-act "oh no the villain has won" followed by the triumph of the hero, so written like this it seems to say that he wanted to so he tried to... but he really didn't actually try to in the film as created. Literally none of the villain's (nonsensical) goals are accomplished.
  • You emphasize it in the lede, so I was surprised to find the "the original script was only 33 pages" bit buried five paragraphs into the "writing" section. The idea that the writer didn't... really even start to write an actual script until a couple months after shooting was supposed to start seems pretty critical to the "writing" process of the movie, especially when it caused a delay in filming of 2 months on a "rapid turnaround" project.
  • Okay, confused again. Writing para 5 says that "something about the script", presumably its absence, caused a delay of filming from November to January. But then the next para, Casting 1, says that negotiations over Cruise's salary, although sorted out by September, caused the delay. You actually even cite them to the same references. So... I'm guessing they both contributed, but saying first one "caused" it and then the other did, is off.
  • "The filmmakers had determined that killing Lane was not the right choice for Rogue Nation as they already had future ideas for him." - the narrative of the article has McQuarrie calling all the shots, so if it was his idea you should just say so (did not check the source, the vague wording just jumped at me)
  • "because Hardy considered it impractical to" - you don't introduce who Rob Hardy is for a couple paragraphs
  • "McQuarrie realized that the contrast" - feel free to ignore, but I think "decided" is a better verb here
  • "He only wanted the scene of Ethan waking up following the nightmare to appear cold" - ah, the problem of writing for a general audience: no such scene is described in the article (so you need to give a bit of context, or move it, or cut it)
  • "For the camp scenes, Julia was scripted to have a baby, but McQuarrie opted to remove this only two days before her scenes were filmed." - this is in "Filming", but seems more like a Writing thing maybe? Since they didn't film it?
  • "the camera ran out of film" - this film cost $180 million. They spent weeks (months?) filming the HALO jump, and he couldn't be bothered to do a second take of the ending scene of the film? I'm not saying he was wrong, but McQuarrie really had a clear vision on the relative importance of the plot vs cool action scenes to the film, didn't he.
  • "the HALO jump" - confusing, because you don't explain what this is until the next paragraph, and nothing in Plot ever said there was a halo jump in the movie.
  • "McQuarrie considered the theatrical cut to be the director's cut" - the phrasing is a little jargony; consider "to be the definitive version of the film" or similar.
  • "Paramount also debuted the first 360-degree virtual reality experience of the jump on Oculus VR" - marketing language; "debuted" is nonsense, it's also the only VR version of the jump, and all VR "experiences" are 360 degrees. "Paramount published a virtual reality version of the jump on Oculus VR...".
  • Very, very minor point- there's a lot of reference groups out of number order, like [47][48][35]. There's a script that can fix it, though I don't recall what it is, but consider just sorting it out by hand.
  • This is not the first film article I've read, and I know what movie people are like, but I feel the need to point out that the first 3 paragraphs of Box office are a pile of dense trivia. I know people care about all of these little details about sales, but I wish they wouldn't.
  • "In another scene, Ethan sacrifices his cover as Lark to save a police officer from execution, showcasing his moral compass in every action and encounter." - "showcasing his moral compass in every action and encounter"? Editorializing.
  • " leveraging Cruise's public image as a cinema star with a conscience and steadfast convictions." - that's not what the source says. It says that the action-hero characters he plays have a conscience and steadfast convictions. It's only a small difference, but the way its written here is a weird way to describe the actual person.
  • Para 3 of Morality and sacrifice is just restating things you already said earlier in the article. If you're going to restate them, it needs to be much shorter.
  • Actually, while I don't have as much of a detailed breakdown, the whole Thematic analysis is overly wordy. Most of the article is wordy because you're including a ton of details, but this section, mostly the Morality and sacrifice subsection, feels like you're taking a lot of words to say things you've already said earlier in fewer words but without adding more information. Consider if you could use less than four paragraphs to say "Ethan tries to save people without regard to his own health and happiness, and feels bad when saving individuals puts others at risk."
Working, thanks PresN! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The ensemble cast comprises" - comprises means "is made up of", so unless there are no other actors in the film "includes" is a better word.
  • At first, I thought the plot section was confusing, but on closer read it's actually just a pile of nonsense. I completely believe that the director started shooting without bothering to have an actual script first for their incredibly expensive film and made up the details as they went. The idea that the 58-year-old Cruise is an over-the-top action hero is nowhere near the least believable thing about this. He could be 80 and I'd still find it more believable than half of these plot points, including "the CIA director thinks their best multi-decade agent is a terrorist mastermind because some rando told them so" and "the grand plan to crash the modern world order is to kill a bunch of people in the poor parts of South Asia and leave all of the first world alone."
    • Have you not seen Fallout? I do recommend it, yeah there are some scenes that go nowhere because of the improvisational way they do things but it really is a great action film. But yes, the script comes second to cool backdrops and scenes. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, Cruise specifically wanted McQuarrie to lead the sequel." - reads oddly and "specifically" doesn't add anything; swapping to "Cruise, however, wanted McQuarrie to lead the sequel." would be better.
  • So, there's a bit of a problem- McQuarrie wanted to explore Ethan's motivations. (minor aside- you refer to the character as "Ethan" instead of "Hunt", which is atypical, but I guess that's how he's referred to in sources?). So McQuarrie included a long section of Ethan pretending to be the villain. But... it was mostly all cut. So then in the lede, where you say "He intended for Fallout to better explore Ethan's character and emotions, believing previous entries had left him primarily a cipher for audiences, and test the limits of Ethan's abilities, morality, and personal relationships.", that's technically true in that he "intended" to do that... but he didn't. Ethan pretends to be a bad guy for just a bit as a ruse, and then immediately doesn't kill Lane in an action sequence. So it seems oversold in the lede.
    • Him pretending to be a bad guy is most of the ...first act, some of the second. They don't go as dark as they apparently intended but the sentence from the lede remains accurate as Fallout does explore him as a character, his relationships, and gives him moral challenges from beginning to end. Him being assumed to be a bad guy is also present through acts 1 and 2, while the 3rd act is more his limits and relationships. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He wanted the audience to experience what would happen if the antagonist actually won and how Ethan would feel in response." - again, he may have wanted to, but as far as I can tell it's the bog standard 3rd-act "oh no the villain has won" followed by the triumph of the hero, so written like this it seems to say that he wanted to so he tried to... but he really didn't actually try to in the film as created. Literally none of the villain's (nonsensical) goals are accomplished.
  • You emphasize it in the lede, so I was surprised to find the "the original script was only 33 pages" bit buried five paragraphs into the "writing" section. The idea that the writer didn't... really even start to write an actual script until a couple months after shooting was supposed to start seems pretty critical to the "writing" process of the movie, especially when it caused a delay in filming of 2 months on a "rapid turnaround" project.
  • Okay, confused again. Writing para 5 says that "something about the script", presumably its absence, caused a delay of filming from November to January. But then the next para, Casting 1, says that negotiations over Cruise's salary, although sorted out by September, caused the delay. You actually even cite them to the same references. So... I'm guessing they both contributed, but saying first one "caused" it and then the other did, is off.
    • Ok so this is in reference to the two above points. The script issues took place in July 26 and delayed filming from November 2016 to January 2017. The Cruise pay dispute I have clarified stalled "pre-production" which added additional delays but they are separate delays. I don't know when the script was actually finished but I put it at the end since I'm talking about the finished script being 33 pages long. If they had script issues just before filming was meant to begin I would guess a script was there but either not complete, not viable, or just not interesting and needed reworking but sadly the issues mentioned are vague. The mention of Cruise's pay dispute does say that it created an "additional" delay and doesn't claim to be the same delay as the script issues. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The filmmakers had determined that killing Lane was not the right choice for Rogue Nation as they already had future ideas for him." - the narrative of the article has McQuarrie calling all the shots, so if it was his idea you should just say so (did not check the source, the vague wording just jumped at me)
  • "because Hardy considered it impractical to" - you don't introduce who Rob Hardy is for a couple paragraphs
  • "McQuarrie realized that the contrast" - feel free to ignore, but I think "decided" is a better verb here
  • "He only wanted the scene of Ethan waking up following the nightmare to appear cold" - ah, the problem of writing for a general audience: no such scene is described in the article (so you need to give a bit of context, or move it, or cut it)
  • "For the camp scenes, Julia was scripted to have a baby, but McQuarrie opted to remove this only two days before her scenes were filmed." - this is in "Filming", but seems more like a Writing thing maybe? Since they didn't film it?
    • I like to keep things chronological if possible and I think this speaks, as you mention above, to the rapidly changing, improvisational nature of filming which unfortunately led to Rebecca Ferguson leaving after the next sequel, and caused Jeremy Renner to leave as well. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the camera ran out of film" - this film cost $180 million. They spent weeks (months?) filming the HALO jump, and he couldn't be bothered to do a second take of the ending scene of the film? I'm not saying he was wrong, but McQuarrie really had a clear vision on the relative importance of the plot vs cool action scenes to the film, didn't he.
  • "the HALO jump" - confusing, because you don't explain what this is until the next paragraph, and nothing in Plot ever said there was a halo jump in the movie.
    • I've reworked this, I didn't consider the HALO jump important enough to mention in the plot since it is just ultimately a method of transportation to a destination (Obviously more interesting to watch in the film) but I've added a very brief mention to provide more context. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "McQuarrie considered the theatrical cut to be the director's cut" - the phrasing is a little jargony; consider "to be the definitive version of the film" or similar.
  • "Paramount also debuted the first 360-degree virtual reality experience of the jump on Oculus VR" - marketing language; "debuted" is nonsense, it's also the only VR version of the jump, and all VR "experiences" are 360 degrees. "Paramount published a virtual reality version of the jump on Oculus VR...".
  • Very, very minor point- there's a lot of reference groups out of number order, like [47][48][35]. There's a script that can fix it, though I don't recall what it is, but consider just sorting it out by hand.
  • This is not the first film article I've read, and I know what movie people are like, but I feel the need to point out that the first 3 paragraphs of Box office are a pile of dense trivia. I know people care about all of these little details about sales, but I wish they wouldn't.
  • "In another scene, Ethan sacrifices his cover as Lark to save a police officer from execution, showcasing his moral compass in every action and encounter." - "showcasing his moral compass in every action and encounter"? Editorializing.
  • " leveraging Cruise's public image as a cinema star with a conscience and steadfast convictions." - that's not what the source says. It says that the action-hero characters he plays have a conscience and steadfast convictions. It's only a small difference, but the way its written here is a weird way to describe the actual person.
    • I'm not sure what you mean, the quote is "As far as Hunt’s IMF boss (Alec Baldwin) is concerned, that’s an asset. But it also fits with Cruise’s image as a moralistic matinee idol, a figure whose unrelenting perfectionism ensures that he’ll save the day, even with one second to spare. We elect movie stars the way we do world leaders, buying tickets instead of casting ballots, and the reason Cruise has remained on top for more consecutive terms than Vladimir Putin is that he represents a kind of best-case American: homecoming-king hunky, a hero with a conscience, unwavering in his convictions." That's explicitly about Cruise's public image, it's blending it with Ethan's character but it strictly mentioned Cruise by name twice in applying those descriptors to his image and how he portrays himself in public media. The text in the article is clear that this is talking about his public image and not him. I have reworded and culled some of this per request though. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 3 of Morality and sacrifice is just restating things you already said earlier in the article. If you're going to restate them, it needs to be much shorter.
  • Actually, while I don't have as much of a detailed breakdown, the whole Thematic analysis is overly wordy. Most of the article is wordy because you're including a ton of details, but this section, mostly the Morality and sacrifice subsection, feels like you're taking a lot of words to say things you've already said earlier in fewer words but without adding more information. Consider if you could use less than four paragraphs to say "Ethan tries to save people without regard to his own health and happiness, and feels bad when saving individuals puts others at risk."

Support, I feel my points were addressed. --PresN 15:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NegativeMP1

edit

Soon. λ NegativeMP1 03:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't able to find anything, most things that I could've picked up on were already addressed above. The article is overall really good and I wasn't left wanting more information, and so it seems complete. Support. λ NegativeMP1 20:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG

edit

Recusing to review soon. FrB.TG (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FrB.TG, have you had a chance to look yet? Thanks! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tomorrow 100% :) FrB.TG (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a big fan of the film series, I'm grateful to you for bringing it to FAC.

  • Given my knowledge of the film series, I went ahead and made several changes myself instead of suggesting them here so I don't have a whole lot of concerns anymore. My changes were mostly copyedits for brevity (I reduced the word count from 7,780 to 7,706) and MoS adjustments. Please check here to see if I messed something up or accidentally changed the meaning of something. Feel free to revert what you don't consider an improvement.
  • "Comparing the seven films in the Mission: Impossible franchise, Fallout is often ranked as the best or second-best film." The way this sentence is structured, it sounds like Fallout itself is doing the comparing. The phrase "Comparing the seven films in the Mission: Impossible franchise" is a participial phrase that seems to modify Fallout, suggesting that "Fallout" is performing the action of comparing. However, since Fallout is a film and cannot compare, this creates confusion.
  • Regarding the same sentence above, which one is considered the best by those who deems this film the second-best? I would be interested to know this (my personal favorite among the series is Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One, which I still can't believe underperformed commercially).

I expect to support once my point above is addressed. FrB.TG (talk) 18:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing FrB.TG. There isn't a consistent film that appears above Fallout, Fallout is almost always number 1 and then alternately behind Rogue Nation, Dead Reckoning, and Ghost Protocol, most often Dead Reckoning and Ghost Protocol (twice each in the 13 sources used). I've made a slight rewording here, is that any better? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support with a note that I made several copy-edits. FrB.TG (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
<3 thanks FrB.TG!
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Mission:_Impossible_–_Fallout/archive1&oldid=1235873296"