Why didn’t they just name Tom Cruise’s character Jim Phelps?
Figure it would’ve given away the ending of the first movie.
Yeah, they had a Jim Phelps in the first movie, but he turned out to be the bad guy. The MI movies are entertaining action pieces, but they really shit on the original series.
Why not Dan Briggs while we’re asking?
But given the plot of the first movie, it’s fairly clear. If he were Phelps, the movie would have had less impact.
I tend to read Wikipedia articles about movies anyway, so that wouldn’t have been a concern for me. I did find out that Jim Phelps wasn’t going to be the protagonist, so my interest in even doing that was nil.
I’m sure that they would have been just as entertaining with the character being named Jim Phelps and the traitor being named Ethan Frome, or Ethan Hawke, or Ethan Allen, or whatever.
I don’t see it.
If I’m watching the first movie for the first time, and you tell me this guy getting ordered around by the planner who got the If You Choose To Accept It mission is a young Jim Phelps, I’m going to think oh, this is, like, a reimagining-prequel thing, where by the end of the movie Jim Phelps graduates to being the guy who gets the If You Choose To Accept it briefings and gives orders to team members. And if that then happens, then by the end of the movie I’m gonna say yup.
Jim ordering Ethan around sidesteps that.
Is that what happened to Ethan Frome? Because I don’t see how that would have been a problem.
The problem isn’t what the traitor is named. The problem is the name of the protagonist who, by the end of the movie, becomes the guy who gets the If You Choose To Accept It missions.
If that’s Jim Phelps, the ending is telegraphed.
I thought Ethan Frome was injured in a sledding accident?
Yeah, I just can’t be bothered to learn the guy’s actual last name.
Knowing James Kirk’s career arc in advance isn’t what made the Star Trek reboot a piece of dreck.
If he were Jim Phelps, the big twist would have far less impact.
A different name would not have been someone the audience knew going into the movie and would have no resonance. He would have been just another villain. It was an interesting choice, but upset the fans of the series.
What upset this fan of the series was the fact they turned it into an action/adventure series instead of being about The Big Con. I didn’t want another Bond series.
Turns out, they made really great Bond movies. Better than real Bond movies.
I’m still mad they shit on Jim Phelps, though. I understand why, but I still hate it. They could have just adjusted the story where Cruise is Phelps, is betrayed by Kittridge, and it would have been just as good without crapping on the series.
What bugs me in the totality is, in every movie, the CIA thinks Hunt is corrupt. Then he goes rogue and proves his loyalty. Then the next movie, they think he’s bad again, he goes rogue, proves his loyalty. Rinse, repeat.
At some point, if you’re Ethan, maybe you start to think you’d be better off if you actually went rogue. The pay’s probably better!
Peter Graves was approached to reprise his role of Jim Phelps but rejected it out of hand when he learned Jim would be a turncoat. Jon Voight (the actor, not the periodontist 
) was cast instead.
I saw the first movie and it did absolutely nothing for me. I haven’t bothered with any of the others.
I always thought they should have had a first movie where Phelps was a good guy and showed the friendship and history between Ethan and he. It could have had scenes showing why Jim was disgruntled but not heavily so. Just little hints like a marriage that was blah, the rotten system, etc…
Then the 2nd movie would have been what the first movie was. Seeing good guy Phelps become a traitor and bad guy would have been a huge plot twist and would have made the flick way more interesting.
They should have just had Phelps be the voice on the self-destructing messages.
Yeah, I like MI well enough as the American James Bond, but it’s relation to the source material is like that of Starship Troopers.