Talk:Bond 23

Or see Talk:James Bond (film series).

Why does this redirect to Bond 22

Why is Bond 23 redirected to Bond 22, we know Daniel Craig is James Bond, thats it. I know there isn't enough info to start this article but why does it redirect to Bond 22. 202.80.179.207 06:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People kept linking to this title when they meant Bond 22. I thought the redirect would simply things. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 07:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong with it

I don't see anything wrong with it, we know almost nothing about either movie, except the same basic facts. btw its not the same article Ace Class Shadow.

On the speedy deletion tag

The addition of the tag is unfounded. It says here: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event isn't already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented."

Is "Bond 23" notable? Yes, any new Bond film is notable.
Is "Bond 23" almost certain to take place? Yes. Sony scheduled the film for 2010, thereby also following the original 2-year release pattern of the James Bond film franchise. In addition, as the article on Daniel Craig confirms, Craig has a 3-picture deal with EON. (Some sources say it's an option, others say it's a tight deal. Both viewpoints are expressed in the Craig article.)
Documentation provided? Yes: article in one of the leading film industry magazines (Variety). There's no speculation involved here.
Is preparation in progress? Yes: cf. the Variety article.

—Eickenberg 19:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes from the original speedy deletion discussion (2006): 1) "Due to the EON production schedule, though, it is entirely likely that verifiable information will be available significantly before the release of Bond 22." and 2) "Wait until actual information about the film surfaces before creating a page." ... both has now happened. —Eickenberg 19:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I vote Speedy Delete. All there is to prop this article up is a vague article in Variety. Heck, they don't even have a final script or title for Bond 22 yet. I realize some people are anxious as all hell to be the first to put up an article such as this, but there is no movie yet, no confirmation of anything whatsoever, and not even a vague idea of what it's all about. Remember, they planned a Bond film for the early 90s (rumored to be called "Property Of A Lady", which would have been Timothy Dalton's third), but problems within the studio and other concerns put it all on the shelf. What if it happened again? I say put more emphasis on the Bond 22 article before this one. This is just a waste of time. And remember, nobody cares who's first on Wikipedia with the info. They only care about who writes it best. --Fightingirish 07:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other WP-articles (e.g. the one on Avatar I think) use this specific Variety article, so even if the Bond info is vague—and the only vague thing about it is the day and month, because they are apparently not yet set—it's sufficient for use in WP and as a basis for the Bond 23 article. I do remember "Property of a Lady", but we're often talking different writers, rewriters, screenplays, scriptdoctors etc.. That's film business. The thing with Bond however is that if a script is dumped, another one is written, and unless MGM publicly cancels the franchise, there'll be another Bond, someday. And in this case we have MGM and Sony dedicated to a specific year of release. This needs to be included in WP and is sufficient for a new article, especially with an ongoing die hard film franchise. It has nothing to do with wanting to be the first or playing with a crystal ball. If MGM publicly cancels their plans for Bond 23, I'll be happy to enter this article for speedy deletion myself. —Eickenberg 13:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added salary info regarding Craig's deal for the remaining two Bond films. I think it gives credence to the film being in production, and hence its notability. --Madchester 16:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are now at least 2 major publications -- Variety and Guardian Unlimited -- reporting on aspects of this film. Plus there is precedent for this as Bond 22 was announced several months before filming even began on Casino Royale. There's more than enough here for a starter article. 23skidoo 01:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete August 2007

I am not the author of this article but...as mentioned in 23skidoo's post above. this article now has two major publications reporting on it and aspects of it. They should be more than enough to allow the article to stay. The previous delete was a rightful delete but this proposal appears to be based on the fact that the article was deleted in 2006 and not on the merits of the article in the present day. - X201 13:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both sources are based on conjecture and rumors their not reliable sources. Whispe ring 13:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Variety definitely qualifies as a reliable source. It's a major film industry trade publication. Likewise, the Guardian is a respected and renowned newspaper. I don't see your point. —Eickenberg 15:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply on the AfD. Whispe ring 15:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on the speedy delete page; In 2 or 3 years this article will have to be created with the updated info so why not keep it. I think the Bond franchise is somewhat different from your typical film series. It's certain to get made, many of the particulars are known well in advance Highfields 16:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian

The reference from the Guardian on how much Craig is being paid states approximately how much money he will be paid to "to don the black tuxedo a third time." This appears to verify that Craig will portray Bond in Bond 23. Cliff smith 04:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]