- 90% Refund @Courses
- Trending Now
- Data Structures & Algorithms
- Foundational Courses
- Data Science
- Practice Problem
- Machine Learning
- DevOps Tutorial
- System Design
- Web Development
- Web Browser
- Explore Our Geeks Community
- What is JSON-RPC in Ethereum?
- What are Ethereum Accounts?
- What is Meant By Turing-Complete in Ethereum?
- What is Layer 2 on Ethereum?
- Ethereum vs Polygon - Which is Better For NFTs?
- What are the Different Units Used in Ethereum?
- How to Store Data on Ethereum Blockchain?
- What are ETH Internal Transactions?
- What are Nodes and Clients in Ethereum?
- How To Build A Node.js API For Ethereum
- What is Ether?
- What is Ethereum Mempool?
- Ethereum - Gas and Fees
- How to Create an Ethereum Wallet Address From a Private Key?
- How to Debug Ethereum Smart Contracts?
- What are Ethereum Disk Space Needs?
- Normal Transactions vs Internal Transactions in Etherscan
- What is ERC721 Token?
- What is Ethereum Virtual Machine and How it Works?
What is GHOST Protocol For Ethereum?
Blockchain technology is the talk of the town and many people are starting to explore it because of its numerous benefits. One such benefit, or pro as it’s called in blockchain, is GHOST Protocol. This article focuses on discussing the following topics on GHOST Protocol.
What is GHOST Protocol?
Need for ghost protocol, implementation of ghost protocol, pros of ghost protocol, cons of ghost protocol.
Let’s discuss these topics in detail.
The Ghost Protocol is a development in the cryptographic protocol behind Bitcoin that allows for transactions to be processed without broadcasting them. It is an end-to-end encryption protocol that provides authentication without having to rely on centralized trust authorities. It can be either symmetric or asymmetric, depending on how it’s used. The principle of GHOST is that the sender only sends a ghost (or dummy) packet to the receiver, which can then reply with as many packets as it needs.
- The sender creates a digital signature by encrypting the packet with the receiver’s public key.
- The receiver decrypts it using his private key (the public key is used to encrypt).
- If the decryption was done correctly, the sender is assumed to be who he claims to be, and the transaction is accepted.
- He may also send this ghost packet to other receivers (i.e., the transaction is broadcasted) using the same procedure.
- Since there may be more than one receiver, this protocol is called “GHOST”, which stands for ” Greedy Heaviest Observed Sub-Tree”, as a reference to how it routes packets through other nodes in addition to its direct route between sender and receiver.
The transactions in blockchain can be published from anywhere. In PoW blockchains like Bitcoin, Ethereum, etc due to the random nature of hashing two miners can be working on the same transaction producing two blocks.
- Only one of these transactions can be added to the main blockchain.
- This means that all the work done by the second miner on verifying the second block is lost (orphaned).
- The miner does not get rewarded. These blocks are called uncle blocks in Ethereum.
GHOST protocol is a chain selection rule that makes use of previously orphaned blocks and adds them to the main blockchain and partially rewards the miner also. This increases the difficulty of an attack on the network as now winning miner is not the only one who owns the computing power. More nodes retain the power and discourage the need for centralized mining pools on larger chains.
Bitcore, a bitcoin development team implemented the GHOST Protocol. This is also the first public implementation of the GHOST protocol.
GHOST Protocol and Bitcoin:
The two are complementary, not mutually exclusive.
- They can be used together in various ways to maximize their effectiveness.
- For example, a GHOST channel can be used to exchange coins or other digital assets that do not benefit from the benefits of Bitcoin’s block verification times and consensus process (e.g., coins that require trustless processing such as stablecoins).
How Does the GHOST Protocol Work?
- GHOST works by sending dummy/empty packets or ‘ghosts’ to the receiver.
- A sender sends a ghost packet with a header and encrypted payload, but no block reward (i.e., no transactions), and waits for an empty packet from the receiver.
- If an empty packet is received, then it means that the receiver received the ghost, so he can send up to 2*pendingtxns to the network without broadcasting them.
- When more than one node has a pending transaction in the queue, then there must be some sort of protocol in place for deciding which node will broadcast its block (i.e., which node will win).
- Scalability: GHOST protocol was designed and built with scalability and security in mind so that it can easily handle thousands.
- Easy transactions: In a world where cryptocurrency transactions can be completed within seconds from anywhere in the world, GHOST Protocol allows individuals to make transactions with ease through efficient use of computing power.
- Freedom to developers: If a developer doesn’t want to take on the responsibility of maintaining their own infrastructure, they can utilize GHOST-powered smart contracts which run on top of it instead.
- Saves time and effort: It saves them time and effort. Smart contracts are much quicker and easier than writing applications from scratch. It allows for more people to get involved in the dApp space. This is a great thing for new developers and entrepreneurs to get involved in.
- Better transparency: It provides better transparency than Ethereum’s ERC20 standard (which platforms like MyEtherWallet and MetaMask still use). It allows developers to accept payments while being completely anonymous. A non-anonymous or pseudonymous payment system is much preferred by hackers and online phishers, preventing them from either targeting you or stealing your funds.
- Hampers adoption growth: It hampers adoption growth.
- When not in use over-complicated: If no one wants to use the GHOST protocol, it will remain an over-complicated means of paying users in their tokens or Ether.
- Not viable option: It’s not a viable option for certain platforms. Blockchain-based games are the first thing that comes to mind.
- Makes dApps expensive: It makes dApps more expensive.
- Gas costs for all transactions: dApps utilizing this protocol need to pay the gas costs of all transactions, even those that don’t involve them.
Please Login to comment...
- Top 10 AI Photo Editing Tools for Beginners in 2024 (Free & Easy!)
- How To Get Coordinates From Google Maps
- Best Wi-Fi Routers for 2024
- Adam Sandler Net Worth 2024
- 10 Best Free AI Art Generators to Create Image From Text [Free & Paid]
Improve your Coding Skills with Practice
Examining the Ghost Protocol Problem and 5 Possible Outcomes
by Chad Elliott | Jul 19, 2019 | Security
The U.K.’s GCHQ , a parallel agency like the United States N.S.A., recently proposed a Ghost Protocol solution. They could finally use it to spy on encrypted conversations. GCHQ has been attempting to fight this battle for years. They have repeatedly argued that law enforcement needs access to personal discussions to conduct investigations. GCHQ’s original stance has been that users don’t need encrypted channels to speak on.
After that argument failed, they proposed the idea of adding back doors to encryption algorithms that would almost certainly weaken those encryption algorithms and leave communication apps subject to hacks. After receiving the mass industry push back on that argument, the GCHQ proposes what is being dubbed as ‘The Ghost Protocol’ to snoop on private conversations. This proposal could potentially impact everyone globally, though, and not just citizens in the United Kingdom.
Table of Contents
What is the Ghost Protocol, and how does it work?
It’s important to note that the Ghost Protocol isn’t formalized in the same sense that the TCP/IP protocol is. Instead, it’s a framework of how law enforcement might listen to encrypted communications. It would be impossible to build a standard protocol around messaging systems as most messaging systems, like Apple Message and WhatsApp, all use different encryption schemes to protect conversations.
Most messaging systems work by using public and private critical methods of encryption, though this varies between communication platforms. For instance, Apple stores keys on their servers while other platforms like Threema use very traditional encryption methods like PGP.
In a public/private key scheme, a message is encrypted using someone’s public key. Only the person possessing the matching private access to that public key can decrypt and read that encrypted message. If multiple people are included in that conversation, that same message needs to be encrypted multiple times with each different public key.
The Ghost Protocol states that another account should be included in those messages. That account would be owned by law enforcement. The people communicating within that message thread wouldn’t see that copies of their statements are also being sent to GCHQ.
The Cost Incurred by App Platforms
To implement the Ghost Protocol, the costs are going to be massive.
First, it needs to be stated that implementing a system like this for app platforms will not be cheap. A lot of code will have to be re-written and tested to make this work. That means special development teams need to be created within each app platform to make these changes. Each messaging platform will need to hire extra developers or pull talent away from other projects. An entirely new IT toolchain would need to be created and deployed at each company to make this work.
There’s also the cost of storage. Storing a single message on an information system isn’t expensive, but the Ghost Protocol would require that a duplicate copy of every single message sent on that app’s platform would need to be stored. Storage and database costs will double overnight if the Ghost Protocol is implemented.
The Ghost Protocol will affect messaging platforms, and it won’t be in a positive way.
Messaging systems will have to figure out how to deploy two different apps in both the U.K. and the rest of the world — one that includes the Ghost Protocol and one that doesn’t. There’s a lot of questions they will need to answer. For instance, would WhatsApp need to create a different app for the U.K., the United States, and Canada? If they do, what happens if one of their users travels to and from the U.K.?
Would that person be required to install the U.K. version of that app? If that person does, would that Ghost Protocol feature continue to work after that user left the U.K.? If it does, how is that app platform going to handle local laws?
An excellent example of this is GDPR . If someone outside of the U.K. visits the United Kingdom, but lives within the EU, is the app platform subject to GDPR laws? If they are, that could mean huge fines and costs for that app platform for violating GDPR once that user returns home. It’s going to cost a lot of money to figure out these answers.
How could the Ghost Protocol affect the rest of the world?
If the Ghost Protocol is implemented within the U.K., it won’t be long before other countries start requesting that same access. The United States has been pushing for similar laws requiring that law enforcement should be allowed to access encrypted, private communication for some time now. If the U.K. implements this as law, that will give the United States precedent to enforce similar laws.
It could be assumed that messaging services would implement the code to handle the Ghost Protocol in all versions of their apps deployed worldwide. App developers would likely implement some geofencing form within the app to either enable or disable that functionality. Once this functionality is implemented within messaging apps, nothing prevents nation-states, like China or Russia, from allowing this functionality within their borders. What kind of implications does that have for business travelers? Businesses will need to analyze these risks and create solutions for them.
Should the Ghost Protocol be implemented, there will be many costs and support issues that businesses will need to figure out worldwide. Companies within the United States are going to have to determine new security policies for traveling employees. That might mean revising already costly policies and implementing new loaner devices that can be easily sanitized. There are many other issues that businesses may need to handle, primarily if similar laws are enforced within the United States.
For more information about the Ghost Protocol, please send us a message or call 480-493-5999.
- VoIP Optimization To Gain A Competitive Edge
- Your E-Commerce WordPress Site May Not Be Safe
- The Google Voice Verification Scam That’s Creating Malicious Accounts
- Is It Helpdesk or Help Desk And How Can It Help Your Businesses?
- 4 Ways to Stop a Botnet Attack From Destroying Your Database
- 3CX Conference Rooms
- Cloud Backup
- Cloud Restore
- Conference Rooms
- Disaster Recovery
- Microsoft Teams
- Remote Workers
- Risk Management
- Video Conferencing
10 Years Ago, 'Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol' Gave Tom Cruise's Career New Life
(Welcome to Man on a Mission , a monthly series where we revisit the films of the Mission: Impossible franchise as we sprint toward the release of the seventh film.)
Modern action-movie franchises are typified by recurring tropes and action aesthetics. Watch an entry in the John Wick films, and you can rest assured you'll see bloody, intense, and impressively staged fight scenes. Check out the latest Fast and Furious film, and you know that you'll see increasingly outlandish and ridiculous chases and fights, from underground heists to scenes literally set in outer space. And if you watch a Mission: Impossible movie, you are all but guaranteed to see at least one stunt in which Tom Cruise appears to indulge in one of the most grandiose death wishes known to man.
Even now, a decade later, it's possible that the fourth entry in the series, Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol , has the most jaw-dropping stunt of all, simply because of how willing Cruise was to place himself in a deadly, risky situation just to entertain an audience he can't see.
An Animated Leap
Mission: Impossible III was well-liked by critics, and its reputation a few years later was far stronger than that of Mission: Impossible 2 , in spite of the 2000 film vastly outgrossing it at the box office. But the intervening few years were spotty for star Tom Cruise. After the very public controversies he courted (and largely created for himself) related to his Scientology beliefs and his relationship with Katie Holmes, films like Valkyrie and Lions for Lambs fizzled at the box office, and more action-heavy fare like Knight and Day failed to make an impact. ( Lions for Lambs is the last straight-up drama Cruise has appeared in. Just about everything since that time has been either a full-on action/genre film, or a film with elements of action, like Valkyrie . The jukebox musical Rock of Ages is the exception to this rule.) The only late-2000s film featuring Cruise that raised his profile in a good way was Tropic Thunder , the outrageous comedy in which he appeared in prosthetics as an obnoxious and aggressive Hollywood executive.
The one standard for Cruise was the Mission: Impossible franchise. Even with the third film being less successful at the box office, Paramount was willing to pursue a fourth entry. As with the previous three entries, Cruise would work with a different director, though J.J. Abrams would shift to a position he's become vastly more comfortable with throughout his career, as producer. (His Bad Robot Productions shingle has produced all remaining Mission: Impossible films, including the upcoming entries.) In some ways, the choice for the director of the fourth entry made vastly more sense than Abrams did. But just as Abrams made the jump from television to feature films with Mission: Impossible III , so too would the Ghost Protocol director jump: from animation to live-action.
By the late 2000s, Brad Bird had proven himself to be one of the great living animation filmmakers. He was invited to join the braintrust at Pixar Animation Studios earlier in the decade, serving as the first filmmaker to be both writer and director, helming the dazzling and propulsive superhero action-comedy The Incredibles . Upon the success of that 2004 film, he took over the struggling production of a story of a rat in France who wants to cook, and turned it into Ratatouille , the best film Pixar has ever made. And if those titles weren't enough, he'd previously written and directed The Iron Giant , a fine feature debut, and served as creative consultant on the first eight seasons (AKA the best seasons) of The Simpsons . But Bird hadn't directed live-action...until Cruise and Abrams took a chance on the animation filmmaker (roughly around the same time that Disney was taking a chance on fellow Pixar filmmaker Andrew Stanton with John Carter ).
The Next Ethan Hunt
There's one other aspect of Ghost Protocol that serves as the production considering taking a chance on an untested quantity. Early in the film's production, there were whispers that perhaps it was time for Cruise to move on, or pass the torch symbolically. Oscar-winning cinematographer Robert Elswit confirmed as much a couple years ago: the film was originally meant to end with Ethan becoming the next Secretary of the IMF, with another agent taking over in the field.
Just as the public seemed to move past Tom Cruise in the late 2000s, the thinking went, maybe Ethan Hunt needed to take a rest, especially with the star approaching his 50th birthday. (He turned 50 just six months after Ghost Protocol was released in theaters.) Enter Jeremy Renner, the Academy Award-nominated breakout star of Best Picture winner The Hurt Locker . That film's success led to some big-deal roles for Renner: he was going to be the next Jason Bourne in The Bourne Legacy , he got a meaty supporting role in The Town that netted him his second consecutive Oscar nod; and he was going to be one of The Avengers as gifted archer Hawkeye. But he approached receiving another feather in his cap: being the next Ethan Hunt.
That, at least, is part of the story of Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol . The film spends its first half in Eastern Europe, as Ethan is broken out of a Moscow prison to help out on a mission with two newer IMF agents: Jane Carter (Paula Patton) and a now-in-the-field Benji Dunn (Simon Pegg, who joins Ving Rhames here as a rare returning cast member). Ethan presumes their breaking him out must mean things are worse on the outside. And as you'd expect, Ethan's right: they soon learn that a mysterious, fiercely intelligent, and obsessed nuclear strategist, Kurt Hendricks (Michael Nyqvist), is trying to get his hands on nuclear weapons to invoke the apocalypse and restart with a new world order. When an attempt to stop Hendricks from getting valuable intel at the Kremlin goes south, the IMF is blamed for a massive explosion at the Russian landmark. As you may already know, the U.S. President has to invoke ghost protocol. (Or, if you were online enough a decade ago, "ghotocol". Do you remember " ghotocol "? Good times.)
Ghost protocol, as explained by the oft-mentioned but now finally seen IMF Secretary (an uncredited Tom Wilkinson), means that Ethan, Jane, and Benji, and a single caravan of equipment are all that remains of the IMF. Well...them and IMF analyst William Brandt (Renner), who soon begins carrying himself with a bit more physical aplomb than the traditional analyst would. But he's onboard for the ride after he and Ethan survive an attack that offs the Secretary. That attack occurs after what is truly the most hilariously demented moment in any Mission: Impossible film, when Ethan draws a detailed police-sketch-style drawing of Hendricks on the palm of his hand in the span of 15 seconds and demands that Brandt identify the person.
Hanging On for Dear Life
Plot is rarely important in the Mission: Impossible films, but it feels especially unimportant in Ghost Protocol . (The script is credited to Josh Appelbaum and Andre Nemec, but a couple of years after they worked together for the first time on Valkyrie , Cruise enlisted Christopher McQuarrie to revise the script, in an uncredited capacity. It's a collaboration that has led to many fruitful results.) The premise of the film is, in its own way, very much the same as it is in every Mission : the IMF is whittled down to a bare few, and in hoping to win the day, they must prove their own viability as an organization. Perhaps the best running gag of Ghost Protocol is that the equipment the IMF has now, at least the bare-bones gadgets that our remaining quartet can access, are woefully unable to actually do the job. Remember the masks of previous entries? They're gone here because, in a key moment, the mask-making machine that Benji has brought with him conks out. The infamous "This tape will self-destruct in five seconds" device? It's on the fritz – Ethan has to bang on an old-school telephone booth to make the tape blow up, like he's jostling a stodgy desktop computer.
The most obvious example of technology making things harder for Ethan and his crew comes in the middle of a centerpiece sequence, primarily set at the Burj Khalifa in Dubai. There are many contenders for this title, but the 30-minute section in this film's middle, from when Ethan and the agents arrive in Dubai to the conclusion of a race between Ethan and Hendricks through a sandstorm, is the single greatest section in any of these movies. There's much more to the sequence than the part you remember – the IMF team has to fool a wily assassin (Lea Seydoux) who previously killed Jane's boyfriend and fellow agent, while also fooling Hendricks' henchman and a hapless nuclear physicist, trying to swap out real nuclear codes for fake ones and retrieving the real ones before any baddies use them.
But before any of that goes down, they have to get access to the security center at the Burj Khalifa, which means that Ethan has to break into a server room from the outside...of the tallest building in the world. Ghost Protocol , above all else, is known for the image of Tom Cruise climbing up the side of the Burj Khalifa, with just his hands and feet holding him up. (Ethan is supposed to be aided by two powerful gloves that adhere to the windows of the Burj, but they stop working almost as soon as he starts climbing.)
Watching the scene now, it's a little difficult to communicate exactly how breathtaking it was to behold the vertiginous sight of Tom Cruise hanging by almost literally a thread in a proper IMAX theater. (Bird, to his credit, advocated for filming roughly 30 minutes of the film with IMAX cameras, as opposed to the film simply being placed in IMAX theaters without using the tech itself.) The shot of Ethan, wearing goggles to protect his eyes from the gusting wind, slowly approaching the side of the building was presented with the aspect ratio gradually shifting from 2.35:1 to 1.66:1, a shift that feels mammoth on an IMAX screen. Rarely has the IMAX tagline that you can "be part" of a movie felt more apt – watching Tom Cruise desperately ascend the Burj Khalifa is thrilling enough, but in IMAX, it felt like the audience was climbing up with him.
A Template for the Future
If there is anything to truly criticize with the Dubai section of Ghost Protocol , it's that the film cannot possibly approach the high quality of its middle portion elsewhere. Throughout, it's eminently clear that Brad Bird is as gifted a filmmaker when working in the medium of live-action as he is in animation. Even the spatial geography of Ethan and a fellow inmate he's breaking out in the opening sequence is communicated clearly, which should not feel revolutionary to the modern viewer, but is simply because of how few action films are staged and choreographed coherently. In the final chunk of the film, set in Mumbai, Ethan's battle with the maniacally determined Hendricks in a revolving and rotating circular parking garage is carefully staged to heighten the suspense. The sequence can't hold a candle to the mid-section, but it's here in Ghost Protocol that an important element of the first entry in the series is brought back to the fore: action that you can actually visually understand .
It's a stylistic choice that hasn't been consistent in each Mission: Impossible – whatever else is true of the third film, Abrams' directing style is intentionally jittery and harder to visually parse. But clean, crisply shot action is now a hallmark of the franchise, thanks in no small part to Bird's outstanding work in Ghost Protocol . Reviews on the film were positive, by far the highest to date in the series. And more importantly for Paramount, audiences flocked to the return of Ethan Hunt in droves: inflation aside, Ghost Protocol was the highest-grossing entry in the franchise worldwide to date, and nearly outgrossed the second film domestically.
Considering that the film doesn't end as was originally planned, it was a clear-cut case of audiences willing to embrace Cruise as a movie star once more, at least in this specific role. Renner's character William Brandt sticks around at the end, and the Mumbai finale even gives Brandt a brief visual callback to the fantastic CIA break-in sequence of the original Mission: Impossible . But it's clear that Hunt is still calling the shots, a creative decision Elswit (in the above link) acknowledges occurred thanks to the arrival of Christopher McQuarrie to the production. As noted above, McQuarrie's connection to Cruise led to some major creative success.
Next Time: McQuarrie moves beyond just being an uncredited writer, taking the reins with a Rogue Nation .
Log in or sign up for Rotten Tomatoes
Trouble logging in?
Email not verified
Let's keep in touch.
Sign up for the Rotten Tomatoes newsletter to get weekly updates on:
- Upcoming Movies and TV shows
- Trivia & Rotter Tomatoes Podcast
- Media News + More
OK, got it!
Movies / TV
No results found.
- What's the Tomatometer®?
Movies in theaters
- Opening this week
- Top box office
- Coming soon to theaters
- Certified fresh movies
Movies at home
- Netflix streaming
- Amazon prime
- Most popular streaming movies
- What to Watch New
Certified fresh picks
- The Color Purple Link to The Color Purple
- American Symphony Link to American Symphony
- Society of the Snow Link to Society of the Snow
New TV Tonight
- Criminal Record: Season 1
- Echo: Season 1
- Ted: Season 1
- Grimsburg: Season 1
- Golden Globes: Season 81
- All Creatures Great and Small: Season 4
- The Trust: A Game of Greed: Season 1
- Miss Scarlet and the Duke: Season 4
- The Traitors: Season 2
- SkyMed: Season 2
Most Popular TV on RT
- True Detective: Season 4
- Fool Me Once: Season 1
- Boy Swallows Universe: Season 1
- The Brothers Sun: Season 1
- Reacher: Season 2
- Best TV Shows
- Most Popular TV
- TV & Streaming News
- Prime Video
Certified fresh pick
- The Brothers Sun: Season 1 Link to The Brothers Sun: Season 1
- All-Time Lists
- Binge Guide
- Comics on TV
- Five Favorite Films
- Video Interviews
- Weekend Box Office
- Weekly Ketchup
- What to Watch
All 27 Pixar Movies Ranked by Tomatometer
All Marvel Movies In Order: How To Watch MCU Chronologically
Golden Tomato Awards: Best Movies & TV of 2023
2024 Producers Guild Awards Nominations: The Full List
2023 Emmy Awards Ballot: Complete with Tomatometer & Audience Scores
- Trending on RT
- The Beekeeper
- Vote Fan Favorite Movie
- Vote Fan Favorite TV
Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol
2011, Action/Adventure, 2h 13m
What to know
Stylish, fast-paced, and loaded with gripping set pieces, the fourth Mission: Impossible is big-budget popcorn entertainment that really works. Read critic reviews
You might also like
Where to watch mission: impossible - ghost protocol.
Watch Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol with a subscription on Paramount Plus, Amazon Prime Video, rent on Apple TV, Vudu, or buy on Vudu.
Rate And Review
Rate this movie
Oof, that was Rotten.
Meh, it passed the time.
It’s good – I’d recommend it.
So Fresh: Absolute Must See!
What did you think of the movie? (optional)
You're almost there! Just confirm how you got your ticket.
Step 2 of 2
How did you buy your ticket?
Let's get your review verified..
AMCTheatres.com or AMC App New
Cinemark Coming Soon
We won’t be able to verify your ticket today, but it’s great to know for the future.
Regal Coming Soon
Theater box office or somewhere else
By opting to have your ticket verified for this movie, you are allowing us to check the email address associated with your Rotten Tomatoes account against an email address associated with a Fandango ticket purchase for the same movie.
You're almost there! Just confirm how you got your ticket.
Mission: impossible - ghost protocol videos, mission: impossible - ghost protocol photos.
Blamed for a terrorist attack on the Kremlin, Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) and the entire IMF agency are disavowed by the U.S. government, while the president initiates the Ghost Protocol. Forced to go "off the grid" -- left without resources or backup -- Hunt must somehow clear the agency's name and prevent another attack. Complicating matters even more, Ethan must undertake the impossible mission with a group of fellow IMF fugitives whose actual motives are suspect.
Rating: PG-13 (Seq of Intense Action Violence)
Genre: Action, Adventure, Mystery & thriller
Original Language: English
Director: Brad Bird
Producer: Tom Cruise , J.J. Abrams , Bryan Burk
Writer: Josh Appelbaum , Andre Nemec
Release Date (Theaters): Dec 21, 2011 wide
Release Date (Streaming): Dec 31, 2013
Box Office (Gross USA): $209.4M
Runtime: 2h 13m
Distributor: Paramount Pictures
Production Co: Bad Robot
Sound Mix: SDDS, Dolby Digital
View the collection: Mission: Impossible
Cast & Crew
News & Interviews for Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol
The More Tom Cruise Runs, The Better His Movies Are: We Did the Math
New on Netflix in August 2022
Your Epic Movie Franchise Binge Guide: The Best Way to Watch the Biggest Series
Critic Reviews for Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol
Audience reviews for mission: impossible - ghost protocol.
bit of a cheesy start but an easy 4 and as good as the very first.
Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol is filled with edge of your set thrills executed with great performances, visual splendor and great direction all thanks to Brad Bird!
I may not agree with the critics and other reviewers as to how well this sequel matches up with the others, but I can say with some certitude that if you liked any of the previous ones, you should like this one.
Movie & TV guides
Golden Tomato Awards
Discover What to Watch
Rotten Tomatoes Podcasts
- Cast & crew
- User reviews
Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol
The IMF is shut down when it's implicated in the bombing of the Kremlin, causing Ethan Hunt and his new team to go rogue to clear their organization's name. The IMF is shut down when it's implicated in the bombing of the Kremlin, causing Ethan Hunt and his new team to go rogue to clear their organization's name. The IMF is shut down when it's implicated in the bombing of the Kremlin, causing Ethan Hunt and his new team to go rogue to clear their organization's name.
- Bruce Geller
- Josh Appelbaum
- André Nemec
- Jeremy Renner
- 677 User reviews
- 304 Critic reviews
- 73 Metascore
- 5 wins & 30 nominations
- Leonid Lisenker
- Sabine Moreau
- Marek Stefanski
- Burly Russian Prisoner
- Prison Guard
- Control Room Guard
- (as Jan Filipensky)
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
More like this
Did you know
- Trivia Tom Cruise performed the sequence where Ethan Hunt scales the outside of the Burj Khalifa tower himself without the use of a stunt double. The Burj Khalifa tower is the tallest building in the world at 2,722 feet, or 829.8 meters. Cruise dangled outside the tower at approximately 1,700 feet, or 518 meters.
- Goofs In the climax sequence, at the multilevel car park in India, all the cars are left-hand drive but in India cars are right-hand drive, like in Britain.
Benji Dunn : [explaining Ethan's gloves] Easy way to remember: blue is glue.
Ethan Hunt : And when it's red?
Benji Dunn : Dead.
- Crazy credits Much like the first 'Mission: Impossible' movie, the opening credits to this film contain major plot points to the film.
- Alternate versions American broadcast TV replaces Ethan's response to Brandt's "Your line's too short," ("No s***!") with an alternate take ("Yeah, I know!")
- Connections Featured in Breakfast: Episode dated 16 September 2011 (2011)
- Soundtracks Ain't That a Kick in the Head Written by Sammy Cahn and Jimmy Van Heusen (as James Van Heusen) Performed by Dean Martin Courtesy of Capitol Records Under license from EMI Film & Television Music
User reviews 677
- Jul 5, 2023
Everything New on Prime Video in January
- How long is Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol? Powered by Alexa
- What is 'Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol' about?
- Is 'Ghost Protocol' based on a book?
- Where are Dubai and Mumbai located?
- December 21, 2011 (United States)
- United States
- Paramount (United States)
- Burj Khalifa, Dubai, United Arab Emirates
- Paramount Pictures
- Skydance Media
- TC Productions
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
- $145,000,000 (estimated)
- Dec 18, 2011
- Runtime 2 hours 12 minutes
- Dolby Digital
- IMAX 6-Track
Contribute to this page.
- IMDb Answers: Help fill gaps in our data
- Learn more about contributing
More to explore
Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol's Original Ending Would Have Changed Everything
"Mission: Impossible" seems to reach new heights — literally — with each new installment. The franchise kicked off with director Brian de Palma at the helm in 1996, and nearly three decades later, series headliner Tom Cruise is still saving the day as Ethan Hunt. It's hard to separate Cruise from "Mission," a series he's been producing since the first installment, and it'd be even harder to imagine the Impossible Mission Force without the maverick creative. However, if things had gone as planned, Cruise wouldn't have been the one fighting on a train or hanging off planes — he'd have been the one calling the shots.
While appearing on the podcast "Light the Fuse," "Mission: Impossible — Ghost Protocol" cinematographer Robert Elswit dropped a major bombshell: Hunt was supposed to retire as an agent, kind of. "The original version of this movie was, at the end of it, Tom Cruise stops being Ethan Hunt the agent and becomes Ethan Hunt the secretary," Elswit revealed. The Oscar-winning cinematographer continued by discussing how the original version of "Ghost Protocol" would have featured another IMF mission unit being put together. This would have led to "a new agent [taking] over the franchise," with Elswit implying that the series would have then rested on Jeremy Renner's shoulders. "Which I think seemed kind of nutty, but that was kind of the marching orders," Elswit added.
Jeremy Renner could have taken over the Mission: Impossible franchise
Following the release of "Mission: Impossible III," Tom Cruise's clout as Hollywood royalty was dropping, no thanks to his trampoline-like treatment of Oprah's sofa. Paramount was clearly interested in getting rid of Cruise, especially with his reputation in decline, and the studio made its split with the "Magnolia" actor formal in 2006, with Viacom chairman Sumner M. Redstone telling The Wall Street Journal that the actor's "recent conduct [had] not been acceptable to Paramount."
Of course, "Ghost Protocol" entered production in 2010, reuniting the actor and studio. A year earlier, The Hollywood Reporter had suggested that "Mission: Impossible III" director J.J. Abrams and Cruise were figuring out how to hand the franchise over to a younger lead or an ensemble. Then, in 2010, THR posited that Jeremy Renner was the candidate Cruise had in mind.
The rumor mill at the time was churning with the possibility of Renner spearheading the "Mission" franchise, but that never happened. Why? Robert Elswit says that we have franchise steward Christopher McQuarrie to thank. McQuarrie was brought on board to rewrite "Ghost Protocol," a decision that changed the franchise's direction.
"Chris came in, and he rewrote it, the last half, maybe more, and made it so that we had to change a few things that we shot at the beginning, like add lines, reshoot little pieces so that it all made sense," Elswit told "Light the Fuse." "He tied the whole thing together and made it so that at the end of the movie, Tom ends up not becoming the secretary but just goes on in his own lonely way."
Home > Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol Ending Explained
Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol Ending Explained
- UPDATED: September 19, 2023
Table of Contents
The fourth installment in the Mission: Impossible franchise, Ghost Protocol, left audiences on the edge of their seats with its thrilling action sequences and mind-bending plot twists. However, the ending of the film left many viewers scratching their heads, trying to piece together the final puzzle. In this article, we will delve into the intricacies of the Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol ending and attempt to shed some light on its meaning.
The climax of Ghost Protocol sees Ethan Hunt (played by Tom Cruise) successfully preventing a nuclear warhead from detonating in San Francisco. With his team by his side, including Benji Dunn (Simon Pegg), Jane Carter (Paula Patton), and William Brandt (Jeremy Renner), they manage to save the day and avert disaster. But it is what happens next that leaves audiences puzzled.
As Ethan Hunt walks away from the scene of destruction, he receives a phone call from his superior, Alan Hunley (Alec Baldwin). Hunley informs Hunt that he has been reinstated as an IMF agent and is given a new mission. This revelation comes as a surprise since earlier in the film, Hunt had been disavowed by the IMF due to his involvement in a failed operation.
The ending raises several questions. How did Ethan Hunt go from being disavowed to being reinstated so quickly? What does this mean for his future missions? And most importantly, who was behind this sudden change of heart?
To understand the ending fully, we need to look back at an earlier scene in the film. During their mission in Dubai, Ethan and his team encounter an enigmatic character known as “Cobalt” (Michael Nyqvist). Cobalt reveals that he is part of an organization called “The Syndicate,” which operates as a rogue intelligence agency.
It is later revealed that The Syndicate has infiltrated various governments and organizations worldwide, manipulating events to further its own agenda. The IMF had been unaware of The Syndicate’s existence until Ethan and his team stumbled upon it during their mission.
With this knowledge in mind, it becomes clear that the phone call from Alan Hunley was orchestrated by The Syndicate. They wanted to use Ethan Hunt as their pawn, reinstating him into the IMF to carry out their nefarious plans. By doing so, they could manipulate him into doing their bidding while remaining undetected.
The ending of Ghost Protocol sets the stage for the next installment in the franchise, Rogue Nation, where Ethan Hunt must confront The Syndicate head-on. It also serves as a reminder that no matter how successful our heroes may be, there are always larger forces at play, pulling the strings behind the scenes.
In conclusion, the ending of Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol leaves audiences with a tantalizing glimpse into the complex world of espionage and intrigue. It sets up future storylines while leaving us with more questions than answers. As fans eagerly await the next chapter in Ethan Hunt’s journey, one thing is certain: nothing is ever as it seems in the world of Mission: Impossible.
- Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol Ending Explained
Related articles you'll love:
Saltburn (2023) Ending Explained
Jungle ending explained, the beguiled ending explained, the bad batch ending explained, you get me ending explained, tom and jerry: willy wonka and the chocolate factory ending explained, latest articles, society of the snow real survivors, society of the snow on netflix: a gripping tale of survival against all odds, 15 best movies about wine, the rich tapestry of pop culture in “shrek 2”: a deep dive, this actress actually lived in drayton house while filming saltburn.
Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.
Ad Blocker Enabled!
- Ribbonfarm Studio Substack
- For New Readers
- Now Reading
constructions in magical thinking
A ghost protocol is a pattern of interactions between two parties wherein one party pretends the other does not exist. A simple example is the “silent treatment” pattern we all learn as kids. In highly entangled family life, the silent treatment is not possible to sustain for very long, but in looser friendship circles, it is both practical and useful to be able to ghost people indefinitely. Arguably, in the hyperconnected and decentered age of social media, the ability to ghost people at an individual level is a practical necessity, and not necessarily cruel. People have enough social optionality and legal protections now that not being recognized by a particular person or group, even a very powerful one, is not as big a deal as it once was.
At the other end of the spectrum of complexity of ghosted states is the condition of officially disavowed spies, as in the eponymous Mission Impossible movie. I don’t know if “ghost protocol” is a real term of art in the intelligence world, but it’s got a nice ring to it, so I’ll take it. One of my favorite shows, Burn Notice, is set within a ghost protocol situation.
If you pretend a person or entire group doesn’t exist, and they’re real, they don’t go away of course. As Philip K. Dick said, reality is that which doesn’t go away when you stop believing in it.
So you need ways of dealing with live people who are dead to you, and preventing them from getting in your way, without acknowledging their existence. When you put some thought and structure around those ways, you’ve got a ghost protocol.
Organizations have an easy time of it. If you delete all the records of a person’s existence, in many ways they don’t exist for all practical purposes. When you see like a state, you can be blind like a state, and that’s a powerful thing. That’s a Gesellschaft ghost protocol. Then there’s softer Gemeinschaft ghost protocols, like the one the housed adopt towards the homeless.
A ghost protocol cannot be announced or otherwise ceremonialized. Cancelation, exile, or excommunication are not forms of ghosting. They are harsher in many material ways, since they explicitly withdraw privileges, but in other ways, being explicitly cast out of society is something of a relief. At least you know where you stand. An outcaste is not a ghost.
A true ghost protocol is when an individual, group, or organization simply stops recognizing your existence without warning or explanation. Unless some kindhearted ally on the other side clues you in on your changed state, you may not even discover you’re being ghosted for a while, until you notice a pattern of failed transactions and recognize what’s happening. When a sufficiently large and nebulous counterparty ghosts you, it might simply feel like your luck has changed for the worse. Sometimes ghost protocols are the default state, and there is never an acknowledgement to begin with. People will studiously avoid ever having to know each other.
The tendency to identify bad luck regimes with ghosted conditions is so strong, I suspect it is one of the reasons humans invented gods and religions. Bad luck is narrativized as god ghosting you. For the religious, there is no ghost protocol worse than being abandoned by god. For the politically hyperconscious, being ghosted by the state is nearly as bad, since they derive a larger part of their identities from the state, and take pride in being legible to it. For theocrats, of course, the two conditions are identical. At this scale, being ghosted is as good as being dead. It can cause enormous PTSD, and people may go past being unable to see a future for themselves to being unable to experience time in a normal way.
But not all ghostings are one-way, coercively imposed by a stronger party, or undesired states. Sometimes two parties will ghost each other at the same time. Sometimes a weaker party will ghost a stronger party and retreat to a situation of significant deprivation to enable it. An example is heretics retreating to lawless frontier regions or ungovernable slums (such retreat is in fact a costly signal of actually being a heretic instead of just pretending to be one).
Sometimes one side may even opt for a ghosted status against the desires of those who would rather not ghost them. Opt-in ghost statuses are rare, but do exist.
One of the most important opt-in ghost protocols is the one between adults who have, or want kids, and adults who neither want, nor have kids. The voluntarily and successfully childless (accidental children are a thing) are an opt-in community of ghosts. They are often subjected to years of persuasion by society until they age out.
I’m not a card-carrying anti-natalist. I have no strong views on whether people should have kids, or on the ethics of creating a life that may or may not want to have been created. I also quite like kids, and enjoy their company, at least in small doses. I just don’t want kids, don’t have any, and married someone who felt the same way. This is the sort of decision you make early in life (I knew I didn’t want kids as a teenager), but fully understand late, at which point you may or may not end up regretting it. I don’t. In my experience, the majority who choose childlessness in modernity don’t end up regretting it.
The ghost protocol between the rest of society and the voluntarily childless doesn’t begin to have consequential impacts until well into middle age. It’s just beginning to hit for me. I’ll be 47 this month, and some of my classmates from college are about to send their eldest kids off to college. Some will become empty-nesters. Others have more kids to launch. The true divergence of life paths becomes evident with adult children around I think.
This is a ghost protocol because once you’re past the divergence point, you realize children are how societies measure the stake older adults have in futures they will not live to see. They are how societies can trust the participation of older adults in any collective decisions with consequences that extend past their own lives.
Children are the default form of skin in the game of civilization. To be voluntarily childless is to have no legible stake in the future that society can see. This means you’re untrustworthy until you prove yourself trustworthy (ideally through a child-focused behavior such as being a good aunt or uncle, or a caring teacher or mentor). Certain classes of voluntarily childless types, such as celibate monks and nuns, are granted exemptions from being ghosted. The rest must prove they can be trusted around long-term decisions. This comes as a surprise to many of the voluntarily childless who were either too lazy or too dumb to think it through.
I at least unconsciously anticipated this, and in hindsight have always been fine with it. In fact, I increasingly prefer the ghosted condition and think it’s a good deal. I get all the benefits of having a younger generation around, keeping things going and paying into social security when I’m old, but wouldn’t have had to invest anything in childcare myself, besides paying some taxes.
That intellectual appreciation of the social contract of childlessness is beginning to sink in at a visceral level now. It is starting to feel like that the future of the world is not really mine to think about. This means, as a generally future-oriented thinker, I’m kinda free to think about futures that are personally interesting to me, rather than preferred or valuable ones. Enough people are thinking about important and likely futures their kids might actually live to experience. I can hang out in the interesting corners of the adjacent possible.
While I do have a preference for futures where humans continue to exist over ones where they don’t, it doesn’t really matter to me what people assume about my preferences. That’s one of the perks of living in modernity. You don’t have to care whether others see you as human or approve of your preferences. You just need them to not get in your way, and modernity makes that possible. Being a ghost doesn’t matter in relation to people you don’t care to haunt.
But for many, it is a shock to have their preferences either disregarded or discounted by the childlessness ghost protocol due to lack of kids to stake. This leads to dissonant responses. Apparently, there’s now a lot of people haunting school board meetings in the US to complain about the teaching of critical race theory — and they have no kids in the schools in question (I wonder how many of them have no kids at all, not just at the schools they show up at to speak). I’m not saying the childless shouldn’t have rights. I’m saying it is fine for those rights to be circumscribed by a childlessness ghost protocol. If you have no kids and want a say in matters beyond your own lifetime, you have to earn it in some other way.
There are many powerful ghost protocols around us today, and increasingly, we deploy technology to manage them. Besides the obvious connection between ghost protocols and things like mute and block buttons (and their descendants envisioned on shows like Black Mirror, which I reviewed here ), even mundane things like incompatible standards serve as weak ghost protocols. Arguably every language is something like a soft ghost protocol. Especially minority languages in a multilingual society. Anytime I speak Hindi in public in America (rare), I effectively ghost most of the country. This is an example of a ghost protocol deployable by an asymmetrically weaker party, which is one reason it drives linguistic-nationalists everywhere insane.
Ghost protocols are a good thing. Civilization is a complicated thing. Humans are a complicated species. We don’t always get along, and often there are good reasons for that that we don’t come to appreciate until centuries later. In the meantime, in order to live and let live, sometimes it is necessary to pretend others aren’t really there. Such an implicit detente is more humane than warring over totalizing stances on unknowns and unknowables.
Ghost protocols allow us to break civilization up into manageable, mutually incommensurable and non-interoperable chunks. This makes civilization at least a somewhat uncorrelated portfolio of mutually escaped realities . One that can undergo a healthy divergence of futures , and sustain genuine pluralism.
A world where all humans were in one large puddle of mutual recognition and understanding would be a dangerously fragile and unhedged. As Douglas Adams showed in Hitchhiker’s Guide through the device of the babelfish, universal mutual intelligibility is how you get to total war of all against all. The internet has taken us to the brink of that condition. Fortunately, we are beginning to install the right ghost protocols to pull back from the brink.
We are as gods, and part of being good at it is striking down our own towers of babel.
Get Ribbonfarm in your inbox
Get new post updates by email
New post updates are sent out once a week
Venkat is the founder and editor-in-chief of ribbonfarm. Follow him on Twitter
First, I’m disappointed in the lack of “Proof of Stake” metaphors.
Second, this article makes me sad. Over the years I’ve come to count on you as somewhat of a compass on what to expect next in the Great Weirding.
The logical conclusion of this article is that anyone who has such “stake” in the future beyond their own is that we should no longer trust your outlook, or even consider it really.
Or do you intend to provide (or feel you have already provided), some PoS on that front?
Are you self-ghosting your readership? or more met: You don’t care that you are self-ghosting your readership? (and we will only later or not at all realize it.)
Haha, it’s for everybody else to decide whether or not I’ve provided PoS in the future. I had that metaphor in originally, but decided it was too geeky and took it out.
Tbh, I’ve never really thought about readers as a party I have any sort of mutual contract with. I do things, and occasionally change what I do, and each time, some people stay with me, others leave, and new people join. I suspect this attitude affects mainstream prospects, and explains why I’ve never gotten to mainstream notoriety in any way, and don’t expect to. The internet is large enough that any marginal random person who publishes enough will acquire *some* audience, but mainstream audiences still require significant PoS in the future of the species.
Crypto ultimate Klaus Schwab snowclone:
You will all be ghosts and be happy
Saw a tweet about someone appreciating their filter bubble for its ability to remove unwanted information about their outgroup. Reminds me of deliberate self-ghosting.
First a question: does the treatment of madogiwa zoku in Japan qualify as a ghost protocol?
Second, a comment: it seems that analyzing phatic speech in the context of ghost protocols could prove fruitful. It occurred to me in your example of how we treat the unhoused (and how they treat us, which is via a highly ritualized phatic speech transaction, the only path they have to any recognition).
Ultimate elephant in the room topic is the vaxxed vs unvaxxed; impressed you managed to dodge it. It seems to me the two groups are near ready to go all in on ghosting each other, each gambling their group will be ultimately favored by Darwin (or God, the meta-Darwin). The fact that it prevents a tower of Babel is an extremely refreshing and optimistic take on what otherwise looks like an ugly divide. Great writing as always V.
This was an awesome read! I am in an almost identical boat personally so I felt like my thoughts were echoed really clearly here!
There is a somewhat orthogonal, perhaps unrelated, but nevertheless interesting idea that I have to mention here. The idea of weighting an individual’s social standing in direct proportion to their skin in the game or proof of civilizational stake. That most obvious proof is progeny, of course, but there are other indirect indicators too. Age being the most intuitive of those. It is a fairly radical idea at this point but if you really think about it, it is kinda BS that a 90-year old and an 19-year old enjoy the same weight in any civilization-unfolding discussion. Events like Brexit sort of brought this idea within the Overton window a little bit, but it is bizarre that a 90-year old gets to have the same say on what the future should look like when they don’t really have to live with the consequences of their choices. So absent all the accompanying fracas that the idea would inevitably bring, it would make sense that as you cross say 60, your skin in the game starts to progressively count at 0.9x, 0.8x all the way up 0x by default. Unless you can demonstrably argue why not, by exception.
I know that’s a bit of a tangent here, but I do think it is an idea that is going to find more acceptance in our lifetimes going forward, not less, so maybe there’s a there there?
What if i told you this is already happening in credit agencies and insurance companies?
It has always happened with anything that has a transactional nature and a time-decay consideration, which is what credit and insurance are all about. The point I was making is that there is a lot to be said about using the same lens to look at more seemingly infinite games where we’ve somehow convinced ourselves that time-decay isn’t a big enough factor.
Well Ravi, speaking as a 57 years old who is closer to the end than the beginning, my argument would be that a 90 year old is wise where as a 19 year old is dumb. The extra 71 years the old guy has experienced on this rock allow him a point of vue which is, according to Alan Kay, worth 85 IQ points.
The question remains, does skin in the game beats wisdom in making better choices?
There’s definitely that consideration, Karl. The point is not to dismiss the value of experience and wisdom, but to rather weight it so that it is applied contextually against a time scale. By the same token, it may even make sense to weight a person’s opinion at say 0.5x at age 16/17/18 to account for any alleged lack of wisdom that comes with a young age and progressively increase it to a full 1x by 22/23/24.
The point is that at one end of the spectrum you have a ton of skin in the game but accompanied with alleged handicaps like lack of experience, irrational exuberance, and other blindspots while at the other end while you have more experience and wisdom it’s value is somewhat suspect because of a lack of skin in the game, other baggage and miscellaneous life inflicted trauma etc. Neither of those combinations are particularly helpful in advancing civilizational conversations, in my opinion, and have a very high noise-to-signal ratio.
I’m surprised nobody has mentioned China Mieville yet, so I will. Lots of his work covers this sort of thing, but of course The City and The City is entirely built around a Ghost Protocol as you put it.
“You don’t have to care whether others see you as human or approve of your preferences. You just need them to not get in your way, and modernity makes that possible.”
The whole premise of this article is unethical. And these kind of beliefs are what makes society degenerate into nihilism and despair. It’s good to just ignore people if they get in your way? That’s somehow ok to do because modernity? Yes, you cannot please everyone nor should you try. You cannot respond to everybody. But the internet does not change basic human dignity and treating people with decency. It doesn’t change the fact that we are required to love.
If members of the public, who are paying school taxes, but have no children currently enrolled in that school system, are to be excluded from any say in how that school district is run; than logically all school administrators should have children currently enrolled in their school district.
- Annual Roundups
- Captain's Log
- Domestic Cozy
- Elderblog Sutra
- Into the Pluriverse
Crash Early, Crash Often
Be Slightly Evil
- Entries feed
- Comments feed
Return to top of page
Copyright © 2024 · Prose on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in
- Edit source
- View history
Ghost Protocol is a contingency protocol implemented by the President of the United States that shuts down the IMF should something go wrong to compromise the entirety of the agency.
Ghost Protocols prohibits any and all agents affiliated with IMF from acting in sanctioned operations. In the words of Ethan Hunt , "We're shut down. No satellite, safe house, support, or extraction."
- 1 Julia Meade-Hunt
- 2 Ilsa Faust
- 3 Ethan Hunt
Mission impossible 4 director was afraid burj khalifa stunt could go wrong.
Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol director Brad Bird reveals that he was very worried about filming the movie's audacious Burj Khalifa stunt.
Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol director Brad Bird reveals that he was afraid that something might go wrong during production on the audacious Burj Khalifa stunt. While the Mission: Impossible franchise reached new heights with the most recent entry, Fallout , it was arguably 2011's Ghost Protocol that set the franchise on its current path – one built specifically around death-defying stunts. Ghost Protocol has a number of standout sequences, but Tom Cruise climbing up the Burj Khalifa, the world's tallest building, is by far the most iconic.
The sequence features Cruise, as superspy Ethan Hunt, attempting to gain access to a secure room on the 130th floor of the Burj Khalifa by climbing up the outside of the building. Using a set of prototype gloves that give him the ability to stick to the glass, Hunt scales the outside of the structure. Upon reaching the target room, Hunt then needs to quickly return to the suite his companions are in but, with the prototype gloves malfunctioning, he fashions himself a makeshift rope and harness and runs down the side of the building. The breathtaking sequence ends with Cruise using his harness to push off from the building in order to hurl himself back through the window he started at.
Related: Mission: Impossible: How Tom Cruise Pulled Off Ghost Protocol's Burj Khalifa Stunt
In a new interview with RadioTimes.com commemorating the 10th anniversary of Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol , Bird reflected on his time shooting the Burj Khalifa stunt and shares that anxiety over the feat was literally keeping him up at night. With Cruise in very real danger dangling on the outside of the tallest building in the world, Bird explains that, if anything went wrong, the entire production was "toast." Check out Bird's full comment below:
“I very clearly remember waking up with a start at about two in the morning, with the thought that if anything went wrong this movie was just toast. Because, it’s Tom’s movie and if anything happened to him, we were just absolutely toast. So I mean, I woke up going, ‘What are we doing?’"
Although Cruise seems only too happy to continuously put himself into death-defying situations, Bird had primarily directed animated movies like The Iron Giant , The Incredibles , and Ratatouille prior to coming aboard Ghost Protocol , meaning live-action stunts as big – and as dangerous – as the Burj Khalifa sequence were likely quite an adjustment. In fact, the stunt was considered so dangerous for a lead actor (and producer) to do, that the initial insurance company for the film had to be replaced after they refused to insure the production if Cruise did the stunt himself. Fortunately, however, everything went according to plan, with Bird praising the stunt team, saying, “ Really fantastic, super safe people ."
While Cruise frequently does his own stunts , most people that work with him stress that safety is always at the top of his list. Mission: Impossible – Fallout , for example, featured Cruise doing a dangerous helicopter stunt. In order to do the stunt safely, Cruise trained for months as a helicopter pilot, ensuring that, not only would he be safe, but members of the crew would also be safe. Ultimately, however, accidents can still happen and, even though safety protocols were in place for the Burj Khalifa stunt, Bird had every right to be worried. Thankfully, everything turned out fine and Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol gave fans one of the most thrilling sequences in the entire franchise.
More: Mission: Impossible 7's Most Dangerous Stunt Is Why It Needs Tom Cruise
Key Release Dates
Mission: impossible - dead reckoning part one, mission: impossible - dead reckoning - part two.