The final calculation reveals a direct link with a classic mission: the impossible character

This article contains spoilers for “The Final Reckoning”.

Since the rise of geek culture, various pre -existing properties and series have tended to be treated with the greatest respect. Although it is generally a good approach, societies and studios have been too frequented at the hordes of Fandom and too often, to the point where the main live adaptations are a little more than copying and checking cases and “supervisory discussion” to ensure that each gignes of the fans base is treated. In our current IP-Mad time, the notion of anyone who actively insults a long-standing television series with a new adaptation of the film is essentially an anathema. It is almost impossible for such a business to never do it before the cameras.

Advertisement

Needless to say, the 90s were a different period. Not only was a cinematographic version of a long -term television program was created where the only major of the preserved equipment was the theme song of the show and the basic premise, but the main character of this series was refused with another actor and turned into an insidious badness in history. After the release of “Mission: Impossible” by Brian de Palma in May 1996, he won $ 457.7 million at the box office. If this same film had been published in the last decade, it might have been very well able to earn less money, and would certainly have been the epicenter of a vitriolic discourse started by fans of the 1966-1973 series (and perhaps even fans of the revival of 1988-1990).

Advertisement

Even to those of us who find the film by De Palma, a masterpiece of a spy / robbery film and who takes advantage of the wickedness to transform Jim Phelps (Peter Graves in the series, Jon Voight in the film) into a selfish villain who is responsible for the death of all his team, there is no nie that torsion of the border between the ball and the incorporation. After all, there is hardly another example of the wave of television adaptations to the film where the hero is transformed into a bad guy, not to mention a young impetuous actor who decided to make his own (it would be M. Tom Cruise as Agent Ethan Hunt). Although social media was not one thing in 1996, there was not surprisingly a reaction against the film on its release despite everything, both fans and especially members of the original distribution. Over the past 30 years, the films “Mission: Impossible” have cut their own path and inheritance, with buffoonemeries of Cruise cascader now dominating the story. However, neither the star nor the co-scriptwriter / director Christopher McQuarrie forgot the debt they owe to the original series and to the character of Jim Phelps, as shown in a surprising touch in “The Final Reckoning” of this month. This is a moment that may not compensate for what the films have done to “original” Phelps, but that is a fascinating and moving addition.

Advertisement

In “Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning” (“Part One” if you are mean), the character of Jasper Briggs (Shea Whigham) was presented, and he seemed to have a chip on his shoulder concerning Ethan Hunt. Nothing too visible, beware-a casual remark to never meet Hunt personally here, a reflection on what someone like Hunt would do with the possession of the digital anti-Dieu known as the entity there. However, his treatment as a Hunt in the shape of Jonah Jameson as a threat is curious. While McQuarrie never points to big “torsion fingers in Briggs during” Dead Reckoning “, the little clue he brought to the character has made his identity theorize in the past two years. Knowing: Briggs is the family name of the first IMF, Dan Brigg (Steven Hill), which was the head of” Mission: Impossible “for his first season.

Advertisement

As “the Final Reckoning” reveals, Jasper Briggs is not linked to Dan Briggs, but he is linked to Jim Phelps: it is his son, and he shares the same name as his father. It turns out that the chip on his shoulder is twofold: he has become an intelligence agent to try to recover his last name, and he wants to hunt for man in the disappearance of his father, of course, traitor. It is an intriguing characterization, demonstrating that Briggs / Phelps Jr. is wary of Ethan at the same time for his well -documented imprudence, but also because his own father – an agent standing for 30 years – ended up becoming an outfit. This is a theme that is part of “Mission: Impossible” the films since the very first film, the idea that Hunt is continuously suspected of changing sides (even and especially if this side could be his). From Eugene Kittridge (Henry Czerny) easily believing that it was Hunt who killed his own team to Erika Sloane (Angela Bassett) convinced that Hunt was the terrorist John Lark in “Fallout”, Ethan is often unhappy by those who do not know him well. In a metallic sense, this is what the relationship was between fans of the television series and films: supposing that Cruise means to harm their beloved show. And, although this is certainly not the case, the fate of the elder Jim Phelps acts as proof.

Advertisement

All this story, both on and off screen, lends the revelation scene of Briggs / Phelps with Ethan in “The Final Cyloning” a large amount of emotional weight, especially since Phelps Jr. refuses to trust Ethan despite the calls of man. It is an intelligent choice on the part of McQuarrie and the co-scriptwriter Erik Jendesen, because he pivots the torsion of being a simple moment of fans. This is something that it would have been if Phelps Jr. was already influenced alongside Ethan after the events of “Dead Reckoning” and the beginning of “The Final Reckoning”, during which the ex-partner of Briggs / Phelps, Degas (Greg Tarzan Davis), indeed converts to the IMF team. Reconciliation between Ethan and Phelps Jr. should not be easy and indeed this is not the case, especially because the betrayal of Ethan by Phelps Sr. is the incident of incentive of the series of films.

Advertisement

Although peace between Hunt and Phelps Jr. may seem inevitable given the general tone of these films and this type of story, there is another element that is the key to the character of Briggs / Phelps to help reconcile the television series with the films. Although Briggs / Phelps is an antagonist during “Dead Reckoning”, and that he has essentially associated himself with unscrupulous kitten during “The Final Reckoning”, at no time during his appearances, he is described as mean, but simply a man who tries to maintain the law and order as dictated circumstances. So, even if there are tensions between Briggs / Phelps and Hunt, there is no animosity either a relationship which or not only opens the way to their relaxation but allows Briggs / Phelps to be morally frank, compared to his father.

Advertisement

Thus, while Ethan Hunt and (most) his team survive the events of “The Final Reckoning”, the film’s final proves that a conclusion to the films never concerned who lives and who dies, but is rather a question of confidence. De Palma’s initial film is a bitter look at uncertain loyalty in a world after the Cold War, and each film of “mission” since has treated themes of duplicity, obscure and, with the rise of the entity, the loss of truth itself. It is therefore radically appropriate and fulfilled that the films end with the truth and the confidence restoring, and Hunt and Phelps – the movies and the television program – finally respecting themselves, with a “good guy” Jim Phelps being recovered. It may have already seemed impossible, but this mission has now been accomplished.