Talk:Mission: Impossible – Fallout

Action

change ((action)) to ((Action film|action)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:541:4500:1760:1c50:13ba:7843:a475 (talk)

 Done, thanks! ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Removed a clear and obvious plot spoiler in cast and character list.

Hopefully no one minds this. Seemed like an unnecessary spoiler for people who might just glance at the page without reading the plot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.157.36.228 (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Puffery about being the best action film ever made

Recently, editors – IP editors, mostly, I think – have been adding puffery about how critics consider this either the best film ever made or the best action film ever made. For such a strong claim, this requires solid sourcing. It can't be to some random blog host, like Medium.com. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

The puffery is getting really undue and disruptive. One critic called it the best action film, and this goes into the lead? That belongs in the reception with the rest of the reviews, not in the lead. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Just because a handful of critics may have proclaimed it as such it is misrepresenting the critical consensus elevating these claims to the lead. The critical consensus should go in the lead an nothing more. If it starts topping serious polls and surveys in the way Die Hard does then that is the time to incorporate such statements into the lead. Betty Logan (talk) 06:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it is puffery. Such strong claims require true passage of time. It is completely unrealistic to do that now, especially using sources from the time of release. If sources said it was the best action film of 2018, that would make more sense, but there needs to be more retrospective sources for an "all time" claim. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Why the article don't mentioned ...

that India's censor board suggest cuts on disputed mention of "Indian occupied Kashmir" instead of Kashmir and wrong map of the nation.[ https://scroll.in/reel/888534/mission-impossible-fallout-removed-mentions-of-kashmir-before-india-release]. We should write this. Tesla car owner (talk) 11:54, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Production company/Distributor

IP, you're just cherry picking a reference when there are more reliable references stating these in the body.

• 'Mission: Impossible -- Fallout' Review -- Variety Critic's Pick

Production: A Paramount Pictures release, presented with Skydance, of a Tom Cruise, Bad Robot Production. Producers: Tom Cruise, David Ellison, Christopher McQuarrie, Jake Myers, J.J. Abrams. Executive producers: David Ellison, Dana Goldberg, Don Granger. Co-producer: Tommy Gormley.

• 'Mission: Impossible - Fallout' Box Office: Sequel Eyes $60 Million (variety.com)

“Mission: Impossible — Fallout” is produced and financed by Paramount and partner Skydance Productions, headed by David Ellison. Cruise is a producer along with J.J. Abrams, Bryan Burk, David Ellison, Dana Goldberg, and Don Granger.

• Mission: Impossible Fallout (2018) | BFI (archive.org)

A Tom Cruise production Tom Cruise
Production Company Bad Robot
In association with Alibaba Pictures
Presents Paramount Pictures
Presents Skydance

• And Alibaba Pictures to Promote ‘Mission: Impossible — Fallout’ in China – The Hollywood Reporter provided finance and got an In Association credit not a production company one.

Plus there are just the plain credits in the film itself that say Paramount and Skydance present, a Tom Cruise Production, a Bad Robot Production, in Association with Alibaba Pictures, and Presents, per Ben Schott | Assembling a Film’s Billing Block - Interactive Feature - NYTimes.com this reference is the distributor credit.

I've also gone to great lengths to source and explain the breakdown in the body text.

McQuarrie, Cruise (via his TC Productions company), J. J. Abrams (via Bad Robot Productions), and Jake Myers served as Fallout's producers, with Skydance executives David Ellison, Don Granger, and Dana Goldberg receiving executive producer roles. Paramount Pictures and Skydance Media provided the film's finance.{{efn|Attributed to multiple references:<ref name="ReutersPrediction"/><ref name="VarietyFilmDate"/><ref name="VarietyBOPredict"/><ref name="ReviewVariety"/><ref name="MWebTCProd"/><ref name="VarietyBadRobot"/><ref name="BFICast"/>}} Chinese film company Alibaba Pictures provided investment financing in exchange for serving as a local marketing partner in China.<ref name="THRAlibaba"/>

Please don't keep changing this without providing sufficient evidence that somehow proves more reliable than Variety, THR, and the film. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 09:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, an IP editor asked for my input on this topic. Here it is: Production companies, such as those stated in billing blocks, are the ones stated prominently and placed in the infobox. "In association with", co-financers and other copyright holders are not production co's. I invite you to check out the talk page for Deadpool & Wolverine for an exemplary example of this sort of thing.

Cheers, BarntToust (talk) 04:08, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Did you mean "20th Century Studios" discussion section? ​ 183.171.121.127 (talk) 06:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I also invite you guys to check out the discussion about "Label" or "distributor" for the album release history table. 183.171.122.127 (talk) 18:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC) Oh never mind.

Presented by is not always the distributor and according to the Documentary Producers Alliance (page 8) , the Presented by credit can be "given to a distributor, exhibitor and/or financier that provides a majority of the budget." 183.171.122.223 (talk) 09:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Also adding on that "in association with" is also a gray area that could mean a production company or other partner. It's also not the same internationally; ex. Riddick (2013) in the US says "Universal Pictures presents" while internationally it's "in association with Universal Pictures". Really, this is a category where third-party sources are useful for determination. Screen Daily's review put Alibaba as a production company. With that and the sources above, I think we can put and cite Paramount, Skydance, TC, Bad Robot, and Alibaba (if under consensus) all as production companies. IAmNMFlores (talk) 17:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I can't believe this discussion is still going on, but Alibaba is in no way a production company and it's mentioned multiple times above. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Somebody just came to me in my talk page to add input. So it's agreed that Paramount, Skydance, TC, and Bad Robot are it then? IAmNMFlores (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Paramount and Skydance are not production companies (in this context). " McQuarrie, Cruise (via his TC Productions company), J. J. Abrams (via Bad Robot), and Jake Myers served as Fallout's producers; Skydance executives David Ellison, Don Granger, and Dana Goldberg were executive producers. Paramount Pictures and Skydance Media provided the film's finance.[b] Chinese film company Alibaba Pictures provided investment financing in exchange for serving as a local marketing partner in China.[33]" It's all sourced in the article and was before this discussion. SkyDance and Paramount co-funded and Paramount distributed. Someone has already put Skydance in as a production company and I just don't care enough to change it, but the film literally opens with "A Paramount Pictures release, presented with Skydance, of a Tom Cruise, Bad Robot Production." This should not require any further discussion. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

It literally says Paramount and Skydance produced in a source YOU showed. “Mission: Impossible — Fallout” is produced and financed by Paramount and partner Skydance Productions." Also, that's what Variety put, not the film (which puts "Paramount Pictures and Skydance present"). IAmNMFlores (talk) 21:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

And "presents" means distributed according to this. On top of that, you're picking one Variety reference that says "produced" when there are multiple other references provided that don't say that. It should be left as it currently is. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 08:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

As I was saying, "presents" is not always the distributor; for example "Illumination presents Migration", "Albert R. Broccoli's Eon Productions presents", "Steven Spielberg presents Back to the Future" etc. 183.171.122.254 (talk) 01:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

It also given to an exhibitor and/or financier that provides a majority of the budget. So that means Skydance is a finance company, not distributor. ​​​ 183.171.120.20 (talk) 07:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

You're just making things up. If the answer were clear, then there'd be evidence to override the paragraph of cited information within the article, but all I'm getting is "'presents' is not always the distributor". Darkwarriorblake (talk) 08:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Check the BFI or AFI catalogue. BarntToust (talk) 12:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

You mean the BFI linked above and in the article? Stop guys, you're embarrassing yourselves at this point. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

See the Documentary Producers Alliance page 8 for details. 183.171.121.253 (talk) 02:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)