I agree. And I wasn't a watcher of the original show, however even I understood how that could be a slap in the face. One of my relatives was and he expressed that he didn't like that move. As a Trek fan it would be like them doing a new movie that says Captain Kirk is a traitor, which would not be cool at all.
Granted it did establish the films as separate from the series-but then again, why did they need to be? It seemed like making Phelps the bad guy was really about establishing Tom Cruise's Ethan Hunt as the alpha dog of the movie MI franchise-essentially the franchise now going forward.
On one level I can get it as an oh crap moment, I mean the one guy you wouldn't expect is the mastermind behind it all. I get that. But of course it would've worked better if Peter Graves had done it rather than have a new actor. They could've just as easily created a new character for Voight without having to trash Jim Phelps. And maybe had the old MI crew in cameos as high ranking IMF officials. The old crew gets respect while Hunt still gets to be the big man. Everyone wins.[/QUOTE
Graves turned down the role of Phelps in MI1.
He stated that he wished that Voight had not played Phelps but his successor instead.
He thought that could have been established with with a note from Phelps Wishing the new guy luck.
Graves did not seem pleased with the twist at all.