Talk:Mission: Impossible II

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is not a forum for general discussion of your views on the film. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mission: Impossible II article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (nations and regions): Australian cinema task force

I have added some material on missing scenes that I had previously posted on the IMDB thread for M:i2 (where it will probably be seen by nobody). I hope it might clarify a few things. Scott197827. 10/11/05.

Several parts of this have confused me;

I wrote it a long time ago.

"Stamp hits Ethan in the jaw (a move which might have thrown audience members who had seen Darkman off the scent)."

Darkman? This is a very random reference, I don't think it should be included. ALthough I haven't seen Darkman, I understand what your saying, but it probably shouldn't be included to conform to a higher quality.

Anyone who has seen Darkman - and that won't be as many as have seen Mi:2 - will recognise that the scene with Stamp and the tape across his mouth was inspired by the same scene on Darkman when the villains kill one of their own wearing a mask thinking its the hero.

"The script states clearly that the gun Hunt kicks out of the sand is his own. It does not state where Ambrose got his gun from (though it was probably Hunt's spare gun; he liked to keep two different makes as a psychological backup)."

The script is wrong, you can clearly see that the gun Hunt kicks up in the finale is Stamp's, Stamp has Hunt's, both were dropped during the mtorbike crash.

No, no, no. And no. This debate has been raging for five and a half years so I doubt if I'll settle it now, but here goes: Filmmakers are smart. They do make mistakes, but not usually as big as this one. Even if they did, they can easily change it with modern CGI. Anyway, in the BioCyte shootout Hunt has two Berettas, but he could easily change to two DIFFERENT guns for the raid on Bear Island. In Mission: Impossible One, Clair Phelps says Hunt has a Beretta AND a SIG Sauer.

Can we really justify having such a large section of the article dedicated to a tiny little mistake that most viewers won't spot nor care about? I think perhaps we could have a section called "Goofs" and have a line or two about it in there, nothing more. How does that sound?

"The soundtrack for Mission:Impossible II included "I Disappear" by Metallica."

Thats very nice, but why does it need to be included?

I didn't include it; it was just added by someone else to the end of my subsection.

" * The revelation of the villain's project is longer:

"McCloy offers Ambrose $A30 million (all he can afford, he says in the script; not true replies Wallis, but it doesn't matter). Ambrose says what he really wants are stock options. These are the options given to company employees, etc. to enable them to buy shares in the company in the future. These options are currently valued at $A31, but Ambrose (in the script) says he will buy them for $A50. (The implication is that BioCyte isn't doing so well, so the owners of the options (who do not know about Belerophon or Chimera) will be willing to sell at the higher price)."

"When people start panic buying Belerophon, the stocks will be worth over $A200 each and people will now want to buy shares in BioCyte. But it's too late. Ambrose has the options now and will use the power they afford him to buy 48,000,000 shares... 51% controlling stake of BioCyte. According to the script, Ambrose will borrow the $A1.488 billion needed to do this from various sources. All in all, Ambrose stands to make $A8.112 billion ($6.112 billion USD). McCloy will also be rich, but Ambrose could buy him out. In any case, he would have no say over what Ambrose could do with his company."

whats with all the 'A's in front of numbers?

Australian dollars, mate. But I'll round up the numbers, its a little confusing.

The correct terminology would be "$ XX Australian", "Australian $ XX" or "AUD XX" TinyMark 03:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

"Nekhorvich explains the "I'm sorry, you're sorry" line as coming from Dr. Strangelove, and that he called Hunt "Dimitri" because he didn't know his real name (implying that Hunt isn't pretending to be someone else, which is why he doesn't speak with a Russian accent). This extended monologue (which might not have been filmed) clarifies the genuine friendship between the two - that Hunt saved Nekhorvich's life - and adds an emotional depth to the scene."

how is it implying hunt wasn't pretneding? if he was using a russina accent surely he was? ARGH! this is confusing.

It IS confusing, this was my whole point. M:i2 was criticized by many for being simplistic, but its actually quite complicated!. Appropos, I hate it when people talk about factual errors, plot holes, etc. as if the writers, producers and director and various technical experts are all thick. They're not, they just don't want to bog down the script with expositional dialogue.

Some people may have wondered why Ambrose impersonating Hunt doesn't affect a Russian accent when Nekorovich (played by a Croation actor after all) calls him Dimitri. Is it because Cruise can't do accents? No. Hunt hasn't told Nekorovich his real name for security reasons, so he calls him Dimitri in the same way you might call someone you didn't know Joe or Fred. Our first hint that all is not right is when Nekorovich says ”I'm Sorry, you're sorry”, since Ambrose didn't know this (though how Swanbeck knew this I'm not sure)

Just a little pointers. much obliged

That's all right. This article could do with a spruce up before the release of the sequel this summer. I'll have a think about it. FYI, please sign and date comments, it makes it more friendly. Scott1987 28/2/2006

Contents 1 Gun debate 2 GOOFS 3 Another mistake or maybe they thought people wouldn't notice 4 U.K. Versions Discussion 5 Fair use rationale for Image:Missionimp2reg46192.jpg

[edit] Gun debate

i find it interesting this hasn't been taken out yet. it seems to be more of an argument of hard-core gun enthusiasts or MI2 enthusaists...the average movie-goer can't distinguish guns. -- 152.3.240.57 14:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It's an obvious goof and probably worthy of note. As you said, unfortunately the average movie-goer does seem to be a complete idiot (or at least that's what studio executives seem to think and what box office sales would indicate) which is why dross such as this movie are undeserved financial successes, whilst being utter artistic failures. - 85.210.44.98 08:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GOOFS

A goof section should be added, the biggest or , better said, grossest is almost all involving Spain, Spain dont have yellow road markings (it was filmed in australia), but that´s not important. The worst thing wast their stupid mix of three big spanish celebrations wich are not at all involved with each other (and are celebrated at very diferenct places) suchs as the saint week (sevilla), the San Juan´s fallas (Valencia) and San Fermins (Pamplona). In the mvoie they mix all three in one party and Anthony even have a stupid coment about "spaniards are weird people, the honor saints by burning them", no party in spain have any saint burned, the San Juan´s fallas burn funny sculptures. Apart from that social insult, we could talk about that a 747 FCS overrides manual auto to avoid collision if detected, how on earth a gun kicked at the side would rise verticaly, or how a motorist in the air going at some 30-40mph can be thrown backwards with a single 9mm hit..

First you did not sign your post. Second, as we saw on 9-11, I have to believe that the FCS could be disabled.--Will 18:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another mistake or maybe they thought people wouldn't notice

I noticed that toward the end when Tom is on the motor bike, he is riding out in the bush whilst being chased or something like that. I think the location was inland Sydney, around the Holsworthy Army base. When all of a sudden the bike becomes airbourn, when the bike lands he some how ends up in North Head Manly, a completly different area about an hours drive away from the place where the bike first became airbourn. I think this is just before the end fight seen. If you get a chance check it out. I think you can actually see the difference in the vegetation between the two areas.Mindys12345 00:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I did notice that the terrain seemed different, and was confused about where they were going, but the terrain wasn't different enough for me to say for sure while watching the movie.12.182.100.224 19:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] U.K. Versions Discussion

It remains unclear exactly what versions of the film U.K. audiences have been able to view. Some sources suggest that the conflicting statements regarding the uncut status in the U.K. are explained by the British cinema version differing from the version used for British home entertainment.

The IMDb reports three instances of violence removed from the PG-13 rated theatrical release on the 'Alternate Versions' section of the entry for the film (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120755/alternateversions) that feature in the British cinema print. These moments are not featured on the U.K. D.V.D. classified in 2000 and although the film has been repackaged with the current '15' certificate logo first created in 2003, no home video submissions after 2000 are recorded. Note that the phrase "UK cinema version" is used on IMDb, possibly to diffrentiate it from any U.K. video versions.

The B.B.F.C. content information provided for the cinema release (http://www.bbfc.co.uk/website/Classified.nsf/c2fb077ba3f9b33980256b4f002da32c/5a945a922753d101802568f700254097?OpenDocument) indicates "strong violence", but confusingly the information provided for the subsequent submissions for home viewing vary considerably. Only the first complies with the cinema consumer advice, describing the violence as "Frequent, strong", the second submission describes the violence as "Occasional, moderate" and the two most recent listed submissions both note "Occasional, strong" under the 'Violence' descriptor but with a two-second difference in runtime between both. Whether such discrepencies denote changes in the Board's opinion over the same version or differing versions is unclear, but standard practice is to add notable changes in content between versions of the same work under the 'General Remarks' section of each submission. This is not the case as only notes referring to the subtitling and the ratio used exist here.

D1152029 18:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Missionimp2reg46192.jpg

Image:Missionimp2reg46192.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)