Today, I explain why the villain reveal in the first Mission: Impossible movie was such a bad idea.
In Remember to Forget, we spotlight pop culture stories that I wish I could forget, but I can’t, so I instead share them with you all, so you’re stuck in the same boat as me!
The Mission: Impossible film franchise has somehow become so much bigger than the original Mission: Impossible TV series, with the series now at six films and counting (the seventh film will be released next year, with the eighth following right after, as it is a two-part story. Allegedly, the eighth film will be the final one with Tom Cruise as Impossible Missions Force agent Ethan Hunt, but it’s unknown if that means that the series will end there until a future reboot, or if the series will continue with a new lead after Cruise is finished).
For years, the films famously hired what you would call “visionary” directors who were allowed to do their own particular take on the concept, from Brian De Palma (the first Mission: Impossible film) to John Woo (Mission: Impossible 2) to J.J. Abrams (Mission: Impossible III) to Brad Bird (Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol). With the fifth film, though, Cruise decided to go with the vision of one writer/director, the great Christopher McQuarrie, who Cruise had first worked with on the 2008 film, Valkyrie, and who has formed a strong bond with Cruise (counting the upcoming seventh and eighth Mission: Impossible films, the last SEVEN films that McQuarrie has written have all been Cruise films and the last FIVE films McQuarrie has directed have been Cruise films).
All six released Mission: Impossible films have been good movies, but the first one still made what I find to be a colossal blunder.
You see, the Mission: Impossible TV series starred Peter Graves as Agent Jim Phelps.
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.
Thanks to my pal Garth for essentially suggesting this one!
If anyone else has an idea for a future Remember to Forget, feel free to drop me a line at brian@popculturereferences.com.
My mother, who grew up on the show, hated this movie for precisely this reason, so Garth isn’t the only one. I’ve never cared for the franchise in general.
Once the spoiler about this got out, I never wanted to watch the film. I felt it completely disrespected the TV series (and I wasn’t even a big fan!). I’ve no desire to see any of the films, and I’m sure so many others had the same opinion that it crippled the box office …aaaand apparently I’m in the minority.
As a fan of the TV series, this was incredibly annoying to see back in 1996. I got over it of course, but why even go this way at all?
An alternative idea might have been to have Cruise play a young Jim Phelps, and make Jon Voight into Dan Briggs (the less well-remembered original IMF team leader, whose departure from the show was never explained). That would have tied to the TV series as well and been less difficult of a hurdle for fans to get over.
But probably the best idea, as you say, would have simply been change Voight’s character all together.
According to Wikipedia, Graves was offered the chance to reprise his role as Phelps but turned it down when he saw the twist.
I watched reruns of the show as a kid and enjoyed it and didn’t have a problem with this in the films.
I would’ve accepted it if they used Dan Briggs (never liked the character), or pulled a James Bond-twist, where “Jim Phelps” was a code name and the villain was the guy who took over after the TV version retired, with Hunt being the new Jim Phelps at the end. But the way they just crapped over the legacy was horrible and insulting.
I recall Greg Morris from the original TV series lambasting this movie in interviews. I’ll bet the studio’s PR flaks were having conniptions whenever he was asked by a reporter or TV news show to comment on the film. He was truly irate, and rightfully so, I think.
The twist was one that cropped up in spec scripts for the TV show all the time (according to the Mission Impossible Dossier — what if the voice on the tape is setting them up? Trouble is, once you do that, how do you ever trust the tape again?
The movies, by contrast, have used the tape to set the team up what, four times?
Yeah, this twist ticked me off so much I have refused to watch any if the subsequent films.
I wasn’t a big fan of this twist. It was too far removed from years of Jim Phelps proving himself to be a hero and a good guy. If he was at all like the portrayal in the first movie we would have seen cracks in the armor throughout the run of the series. It just didn’t make sense.
Excuse me, good sirs, I was always wondering how Hunt could figure out the true identity of Phelps in the movie. As far as I remember, when Hunt spotted a Bible from Drake Hotel (if I remember correctly) in Chicago, he grew suspicious. But frankly speaking, I really don’t understand what it is to do with the exposure of Phelps. Grateful if someone could explain to me. Thanks.
This twist so disgusted me that I’ve never seen any of the other movies. They could have made the traitor John Smith or anything else. This was so unnecessary and was a grave insult to the fan base of the TV show.
In my mind, this takes place in the same continuity as the show, but this Jim Phelps isn’t the same one Peter Graves played. He’s some newer guy, trading on the reputation of the original. I’ve always kind of wanted to see a novel or comic book or something address this, maybe set after M:I2, and explaining Ethan Hunt’s clear break from reality (the man thought the world moved in slow motion, he could do kung-fu with motorcycles, and maybe he could control pigeons? He probably snapped after M:I1 and after he recovered, perhaps with the help of the original Jim Phelps, was able to come back as a trainer by the time of M:I3).
I love the first film’s twist, honestly. It’s an appropriate viking funeral to the nature of the original series, especially since the films have excelled in ultimately taking M:I into another realm entirely, one that has become vastly more successful.