Jump to content

Talk:Dr. No (film)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

I don't think the article should be split into a separate article for the soundtrack. It works just fine where it is, and the Dr. No page isn't terribly long. Leave it there. --CaesarGJ 05:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I second the motion to leave it as is. Sblowes 06:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

How can an article be split into an article? Just asking. Your kindergarten grammar teacher.


Racism?

There should be a section about the way that females and black people are portrayed in the film. It may not have mattered at the time, but the way that both Honey and Quarrel are portrayed as being very naive should be mentioned, the same with all the females in the early films. There are two bits that are almost too hard to watch these days: First of all, I think the girl at the front desk of Bond's hotel says something like "One of the blacks brought it for you" or something like that. Also when Bond says to Quarrel "Fetch my shoes". (Bubz chilis (talk) 11:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC))

Utter nonsense.
Bubz chilis, by your logic, someone should go through all the historical articles and write something about slavery and social hierarchy just to please the political correctness fanatics. The fact is that back then, attitudes to women and blacks were different and everyone knows that anyway. (Huey45 (talk) 01:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC))

I just read "Dr. No" the novel. In it Bond treats Quarrel as an equal and as a friend, and Honey is shown to be a very intelligent and resourceful woman, whom Bond treats with much tenderness and respect. (I am not kidding- give it a read.) I was rather put off by the way Bond treated them in the movie. I would not blame Ian Fleming (or Sean Connery) for the film Bond, as the book Bond is a far more thoughtful and nicer man. The fault must lie with whoever wrote the dialog, and ultimately the director. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.193.149 (talk) 04:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


Mistake in Plot Section

I took away the link to General Potter, as this incorrectly linked to Commissioner Duff.
Jb.agent007 16:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Critique

Should we add any info. on the critiques the film received?  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Image of Sean Connery

The current image seems warped. I think that a screenshot would do better. Cliff smith 17:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

GA fail

It's ok so far, but some things really distract. IMDB is not a reliable source, as it's a wiki that doesn't cite sources, and there isn't much on the reaction. Remember, this is the first Bond film: how did book fans react? Bad reviews? You can't just use Rotten Tomatoes' rose-tinted memories of the film. Alientraveller 10:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.5.132.204 (talk) 23:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

GA review

My comments:

  • The lead is a bit choppy, the prose needs to flow better in my opinion.
    •  Done
  • The lead overview of the plot needs a bit of work - Bond meets Ryder and suddenly they're both captured, I can understand why Bond was captured, but why Ryder, what does she have to do with anything?
    •  Done
  • "..in order to avenge himself on the West..." why?
    •  Done
  • "Dr. No's success, as the first Bond film, ..." - was the success due to it being the first Bond film?
    •  Done
  • "Through Ken Adam,..." what did he do?
    •  Done
  • Background section prose needs work.
  • "...producers offered the part ..." - is the director really "a part"?
    •  Done
  • Disambiguate Guy Green.
    •  Done
  • "...that Young, could make..." - why comma?
    •  Done
  • "(see Thunderball Conflict)" - yuck, wikilink this intelligently in the prose rather than (see ...).
    •  Done
  • Why wikilink Brocolli in the Search for an actor section when he's already wikilinked in the lead, and not in the Background?
    •  Done
  • "...due to having seen..." not pleasant reading.
    •  Done
  • "...October 4, 1962;only one day..." wikilink whole day, why semi-colon?
    •  Done
  • "relativly" - spell check required.
    •  Done
  • "Gun barrel" or "gunbarrel" - consistency required.
    •  Done
  • No citations for the final paragraph of Themes which asserts a number of 'facts'.
  • "...England .The..." - copyedit required.
    •  Done
  • Flow Filming paragraphs into one.
    •  Done
  • "(by the Three Blind Mice)" - why in parentheses?
    •  Done
  • "At the airport in Kingston, Bond walks past a suspicious female photographer who tries to take a picture of him, Bond is greeted by Mr. Jones a uniformed driver, saying he's been sent to drive him to Government House." - this sentence needs work.
    •  Done
  • "Later through Pleydell-Smith, the local governor, and General Potter, who regularly played cards with Strangways. Bond learns that Strangways had recently taken up fishing and that he had hired a man in the harbour named Quarrel to guide him around." - these sentences need to be joined I assume?
    •  Done

I'm half way through the article and really feel it needs to be seriously copyedited before it should be resubmitted for GA. I'm failing it for the time being until such can take place. The Rambling Man 11:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Many of these now corrected.... :) David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 13:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

GA fail

This article needs much more work before it can reach GA, several weeks, I would guess. It needs radical expansion based on substantial research in some sections and a significant amount of copy editing.

  • This article needs quite a bit of copy editing. Glaring problems: colloquial language, wordy sentences, imprecise diction, grammar mistakes, punctuation errors, dropped words, and awkward syntax.
    •  Done
  • Much of the material listed under "Themes" reflects the plot rather than the themes. There is next to nothing on the actual themes of the film here. Such material can be found in the scholarship on this film. None of that has been used, meaning that the article does not represent the published work on the topic. Such works should lead you to yet other works of scholarship - that is the glory of a bibliography. This is what I found immediately on google scholar.
  • The plot summary is difficult to follow. Try to put yourself in the position of someone who hasn't seen the movie - that is who the plot summary is primarily for.
    •  Done
  • The "Reception" section needs to be greatly expanded - cite some of the reviews from the 1960s, for example.
  • It would make more sense for the "Soundtrack" section to come before "Reception", since that is part of the discussion of the film itself.
    •  Done

If you have any questions regarding this review, please drop me a line at my talk page. Awadewit | talk 09:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Good Article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of July 26, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Very well-written. Standout sections include the introduction and the synopsis. It's nice to see a plot section that acutally meets the definition of a summary. But I have one quick suggestion.
  • While the article generally does a great job of stating the obvious, isn't it perhaps overly modest to call it "just" a spy film in the intro? I suggest the first sentence should read, "Dr. No is an iconic 1962 spy film." That status is certainly supported by sources and further information in the intro.
2. Factually accurate?: Mostly great, just a few quick things.
  • Just for clarification, the sentence "When Harry Saltzman gained the rights for the James Bond book, he did not go through with the project" should say he initially did not go through with the project.
  • I just want to make sure the "fight with a giant squid" bit isn't a hoax. If no one has a solid source for this, then I can get access to the actual book fairly quickly.
3. Broad in coverage?: Most certainly broad and comprehensive.
4. Neutral point of view?: Sí, esto es bueno.
5. Article stability? Seems to be stable.
6. Images?: Images are good and properly licensed.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — VanTucky (talk) 01:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Please address any improvements made or comments in a separate section below to preserve readability. Thanks VanTucky (talk) 01:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Improvements

Two of the three improvements are done. Vikrant Phadkay 16:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

As to the squid thing: hoaxers often try to place the same hoax in several articles, so today I'll try and check it out for myself. Is it cited in the novel article? VanTucky (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It's legit. As all the issues I brought uphave been addressed, I'm passing this article as GA-status. Congrats everyone! VanTucky (talk) 23:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Differences from the Novel?

Should the page have a section on differences between the Movie and the Novel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.192.173.146 (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Budget

I have just changed the budget for the film as the priginal production notes (I have a PDF copy dated "Jun -3 1968") that says. "The first James Bond film, "DR. NO," made at a cost of $1,250,000,..." 217.34.223.179 (talk) 10:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Dr. No (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA Sweeps: On hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to determine if the article should remain a Good article. I went through the article and made some changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are several issues that needs to be addressed.

  1. More details should be mentioned in the prose to warrant the use of the non-free image File:007ConneryDr.No.jpg. As it currently stands, it appears it is being used just for decoration. If additional details cannot be found, then consider another non-free image that is more relevant to the prose.
  2. The "Themes" and "Writing" sections needs further citations.
  3. "Bad reviews came from the direction that the sardonic humour was not appropriate, and some did not think that Ursula Andress was particularly attractive." Address the "who?" tag.
  4. There are several one/two-sentence paragraphs in the "Release and reception" section. Consider merging these together or expanding on them to improve the flow of the section.
  5. Some of the citations only have a title. Ensure that all citations have author, date, publisher, access date, etc. The citation templates at WP:CITET can help with formatting.
  6. There should be a section on the home media release. It's had several releases since the film debuted.
  7. There are several dabs that need to be fixed.

This article covers the topic well. I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. If no progress is made, the article may be delisted, which can then later be renominated at WP:GAN. I'll contact all of the main contributors and related WikiProjects so the workload can be shared. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps: Delisted

The article has been on hold for a week and no improvements were made. As a result I have delisted the article as it still has a way to go before meeting the GA criteria. Continue to improve the article, addressing the issues above. Once they are addressed, please renominate the article at WP:GAN. I look forward to seeing the further improvement of the article, and don't hesitate to contact me if you need assistance with any of these. If you disagree with this review, a community consensus can be reached at WP:GAR. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Review

As of this version of the article: [1]

I've sweeped through the article highlighing possible referencing problems. I think there is also a coverage issue. In the lede we have the statement "Dr. No also launched a successful genre of "secret agent" films that flourished in the 1960s" which I requested a source for. The problem here though is that the lede shouldn't need to be sourced because it is supposed to be a summary of what is already in the article, so this highlights something that is missing i.e. a legacy section which addresses the influence that Dr No had on the genre. Apart from that the article provides decent coverage, and is relatively neutral. I think once these two issue are address it should get its GA status back. Betty Logan (talk) 10:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Two other areas that might need to be improved are the "Cast" and "Writing" sections. WP:FILMCAST states that the "cast" section should provide background information, with an emphasis on 'real-life' information and that the key is to provide significant behind-the-scenes production information. Currently there is very little of that. Maybe some of the casting information in the production section can be moved to here. The "Writing" section is basically a list of differences between the film and the source novel. Wikipedia:MOSFILM#Adaptation from source material states that coverage of differences should be provided by secondary sources on why those changes were made, and that writing about changes between a film and its source material without real-world context is discouraged. Creating a section that merely lists the differences is especially discouraged. Both of these sections are currently in breach of the film article guidelines, and I am not sure how much a GA reviewer is obliged to adhere to the guidelines. Either way, it still indicates an area for imrpovement. Betty Logan (talk) 10:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a possible licensing issue with File:Ursula Andress as Honey Ryder crop.jpg which is used in the article. The file is currently hosted on Wiki Commons as a public domain image, although I seriously doubt it is in the public domain. It states it comes from the trailer but trailers aren't usually in the public domain are they? Betty Logan (talk) 10:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for identifying some of the problems: I'll start working through them to see what I can sort out, although some of them I know I wont be able to sort - Roger Moore's autobiog, for example - but we'll have to see if others can help out on those. There are some significant gaps between the article and the 'ideal' as per WP:MOSFILM, but we'll have to give it a crack as best we can!--Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk) 11:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I'd be happy to do some research on this topic. Some print sources will provide an in-depth analysis of the film. The analysis does not necessarily have to be included for Good Article status, but if there is interest in Featured Article status at some point, the article should be comprehensive with such analyses. For example, in WorldCat.org, searching for "Dr. No" and under the category "Performing Arts", there are some useful references. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Erik, that's great - thanks for helping out. There are a few citation tags left in the Search for an actor section can you see if there is anything that can be done about them?--Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk) 13:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Japan - We Have No Need of a Doctor

I've taken the following out of the article as I can't find a reliable source for the reference. Is there someone who can find something concrete we can base the info on?

In Japan the film was titled We Have No Need of a Doctor when promotional materials sent to Japan by United Artists mistakenly featured a question mark instead of a full stop/period following the "Dr.".< ref>Collectors Australian Broadcasting Corporation television show</ref>

I think it's correct, I vaguely recall it from a documentary. Generally I would say leave in with a citation tag, but that would trip up a GA review so it's better out until a source can be found. Betty Logan (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement

As this article makes it way to returning to GA status, I've made a list of some areas that should be improved prior to nominating:

  1. There are many common topics that are linked within the article. Go through and remove the wikilinks for topics that the average reader likely would already know of for reading and understanding this article (such as British, American, radio, Jamacia, etc.)  Done--Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk) 07:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
  2. I spotted a contraction in the lead, make sure to address that any other occurrences throughout the article.  Done--Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk) 08:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
  3. "Dr. No was produced with a low budget, but was a financial success, leading to a series of films that continues to this day." Instead of referring to present day (since we're still waiting on the next film), perhaps mention the number of films so far in the series, and include the most recent Quantum of Solace with the year.  Done--Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk) 07:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
  4. I do this all the time myself, but try and reword the lead and rest of the article to remove the repetitive use of "the film". Either consider rewording to using the title or rearranging the sentence. That will help to add more variety to the article and make it more interesting for readers.  Done--Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk) 13:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
  5. "...is summoned to M's (his superior's) office." Maybe "is summoned to the office of his superior, M." Also link to M's article as unaware readers may be confused by the one letter name.  Done--Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  6. The writing section could use additional citations to source the material.  Done--Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk) 13:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
  7. "Dr. No premiered in London on 5 October 1962[46] and on 5 October 1962 in the US." This can be reworded to say it premiered in both locations on the same date.  Done Correct dates now in place--Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk) 07:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  8. The newspaper/magazine titles in the reception section should be italicized.  Done--Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk) 07:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  9. There are a few single sentences throughout the article. Try and expand on the sentences or incorporate them into another paragraph to improve the reading flow.  Done - if you mean single sentence paragraphs (with one exception, which looks OK as it is)--Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk) 13:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC) FURTHER UPDATE: Now altered sole remaining para to expand with further information.--Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk) 10:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
  10. The broadcast television versions section could be included in the release section, especially if better citations can be found. Part done: all moved etc, although no new citations found.--Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk) 16:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
  11. The use of the image of Connery as Bond still seems to me that it conveys the impact of the introduction of the character. I think including a brief video clip of the scene announcing his name will better illustrate the introduction for readers. Done --Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk) 16:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The article is in much better shape than when I delisted it, but has just a few more things to address to help it return to GA. There is definitely a lot more additional sources available for further expanding this article and I would recommend further adding to the article, especially for the production and reception/legacy sections. When the above issues are addressed and you are ready to nominate, let me know and I'll fix any remaining minor issues I can find along with a grammar check. Again, good work on striving to return this article to its former status. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

11 - I agree with your point on the Bond video clip, as opposed to a still, but I have no idea where (or how) to get a legal copy. I think there is a good version here but does anyone know how we can get something suitable for here?--Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk) 08:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Fair use generally allows for up to 5% or 30 seconds of a film (whichever is lower). For the FUR to be valid, the scene in question has to be discussed in the text, its notability needs to be established (i.e. it's an iconic scene), and it has to be clarified that there is no free alternative (because the film is under copyright). If you want an example, check out the Don't Look Now article which I uploaded a clip to (and also the relevant templates on the file description page). Betty Logan (talk) 21:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that - now done. Hope it looks good, but a bit of a pain having both images in the same space - but that's the most relevant place for them--Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk) 16:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
10 - I've moved it into a better section, but I'm struggling to find verifiable confirmation of the edits. (Apart from the fact that I remember some of them from years ago - I remember a TV version in the UK that was cut down to about an hour 10 mins!) Can anyone else help with better citations?--Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I did a search as well and couldn't find anything. Maybe try looking in the special features of the DVD and see if anything's there. If not, consider just removing the section, it doesn't see that notable about the edits if there wasn't significant coverage about it. Some of the fan-specific print encyclopedias and trivia books for the James Bond series may have something also. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Broadcast television versions - citations

Rather like the Japanese version, where we have only limited reference (and those are questionable) I've taken the following section out temporarily until such time as a valid citation can be found:

Broadcast television versions

Some TV broadcasts shorten the opening scenes to speed up Bond's introduction. In particular, the scene featuring a fellow agent arriving at the casino in search of Bond is cut. Additionally, the card game with Sylvia Trench begins just prior to the famous "Bond, James Bond" introduction from Sean Connery, which then omits the lengthy lead-up in the original, cinema cut. "Dr. No (1962)". MI6 - The Home of James Bond 007. mi6-hq.com. Retrieved 9 June 2011.</ref>[unreliable source?]

During the Dent execution, some TV versions omit Bond's second gunshot into Dent's back. Some versions simply omit the scene entirely, as it was considered controversial at the time when it was unusual for a film hero to kill an unarmed man in cold blood. (Ref as above) [unreliable source?]

Can anyone help with providing citations for these two facts?--Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk) 08:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

  • On the subject of citations, there are a couple more dubious sources at 18 and 82 (currently): Her Majesty's Secret Servant and ComicBookdb.com. I've flagged them, but they may well be reliable. My concern is that hmss.com looks self-published (although I could be wrong) and ComicBookdb.com looks like it accepts user contributions, which often affects how we judge reliability. The information looks accurate, but they might not withstand GA scrutiny. Personally I would try and replace them, but if you feel you can argue for their reliability then feel free to remove the tags. I also replaced the source for the US release date as per WP:RS/IMDB. Betty Logan (talk) 03:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Dr. No (film)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Matthew RD 18:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I shall be conducting this review. At first glance the article seems to be in descent shape, but I'll have a more thorough look at it soon. -- Matthew RD 18:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience, now lets get on with the review. I may do bits at a time. This is how the article fairs against the GA criteria:

  1. Well written: ✗ Fail, just a few notes below. Address those, and I'll pass it
  2. Factually accurate: Sources all seem reliable, mostly from print sources (books) and DVD features, web sources mostly link to newspapers. ✓ Pass
  3. Broadness in coverage: ✓ Pass
  4. Neutral: ✓ Pass
  5. Stability: No issue, just a nice lot of work between Shrodinger's cat and Betty Logan ✓ Pass
  6. Images: They both check out fine ✓ Pass

Plot

  • Section is under the 700 word limit per WP:FILMPLOT, summarises the film nicely.

Cast

Production

  • No issues there, everything checks out fine.

Themes

I'll continue later, so far it seems in order for GA pass. -- Matthew RD 11:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's more,

Reception

And that is that. Just these to sort out, and I will pass the article and thereby bringing back its former GA glory. Good luck. -- Matthew RD 13:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

That was quick, well done. I will now pass it. The article is good again. -- Matthew RD 15:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Good film, bad movie?

I observe that the word "film" is used 14 times in the lead, but "movie" not once. Scia, given your copyedit of my copyedit to the caption of that clip, I must ask, Do you have some sort of problem with the word "movie"? It is absolutely standard and appropriate English, everywhere in the world where English is spoken. Especially in the case of a commercial motion picture, it is an applicable and useful word and no less fitting than "film".—DCGeist (talk) 09:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Not anything against it per se, but "movie" is by origin an AE word and the BE word is "film" (thus the naming of the British Film Institute, the British film industry etc). Although "movie" is creeping more and more into BE (and is becoming more and more accepted, especially for the more modern 'blockbuster'-style output), "film" is technically the more correct BE version. - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Seminal ogg

I removed this as it seems to breach NFCC, but it was replaced. One suggestion at the recent inconclusive nonfree use review was to replace it with audio, and I would support that. We could also afford to lose the dreadful caption. --John (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It was reverted because it isn't in breach of NFCC, or at least there is a very strong case for keeping it and the decision is a tight one. Replacing with audio is pointless: this is a film, not a radio broadcast or audio book. Rather than continuing the delete / undelete argument here, perhaps you could join in? - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
There are arguments for and against at that discussion, which in any case hasn't been closed yet. Removing it from the article doesn't really alter the legal status of the clip if it is still held on Wikipedia servers (in fact it can weaken the position if its presence on the servers are dependent on a fair use rationale tied to this article), so it is best to keep it in the article for now so editors participating in this discussion can at least review the context of the clip's use. If the outcome is to delete the clip the article can follow suit then. Betty Logan (talk) 16:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

2012 Dollars

Hey there,

I noticed that on the "Dr. No" page it says that the films budget in 2012 dollars would be $8 million ($1 million in 1962). On the "From Russia With Love" page it has the films gross and then it has what the gross would be in 2012 dollars. Both of these link to this website here.

I haven't checked the other James Bond pages to see if anyone has put these in on those pages, but I used the exact same calculation from the site and the format which is this;

This is the format for Dr. No's $1 million budget in 2012 dollars; 

 (${{formatnum:{{Inflation|US|1.0|1962}}}} million in {{CURRENTYEAR}} dollars{{inflation-fn|US}})

This is the format for From Russia With Loves gross in 2012 dollars; 

 (US${{formatnum:{{Inflation|US|78|1963}}}} million in {{CURRENTYEAR}} dollars{{inflation-fn|US}})

And this is the edit I'm putting in; 

 (${{formatnum:{{Inflation|US|59|1962}}}} million in {{CURRENTYEAR}} dollars{{inflation-fn|US}})

All of these respectfully become; Dr No's budget: 

• ($10 million in 2024 dollars[1])

From Russia With Love's gross 

• (US$776 million in 2024 dollars[1])

Dr No's gross which I am trying to put in: 

• ($594 million in 2024 dollars[1])

I went onto the website and followed the math on there; 

 What is $1 in 1850 worth in 2011?
2012 Price = 1850 Price x (2012 CPI / 1850 CPI)
2012 Price = $1 x (696.0 / 25)
2012 Price = $27.84
$1 in 1850 is worth $27.84 in 2012.
CPI-U
1967 = 100

References

  1. ^ a b c 1634–1699: McCusker, J. J. (1997). How Much Is That in Real Money? A Historical Price Index for Use as a Deflator of Money Values in the Economy of the United States: Addenda et Corrigenda (PDF). American Antiquarian Society. 1700–1799: McCusker, J. J. (1992). How Much Is That in Real Money? A Historical Price Index for Use as a Deflator of Money Values in the Economy of the United States (PDF). American Antiquarian Society. 1800–present: Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. "Consumer Price Index (estimate) 1800–". Retrieved February 29, 2024.

I then looked at the two edits and used the same format as you can see. If my edit is a 'conjecture' then what are the other two? Whoever edited those in managed to work it out by themselves and by the look of it managed to use a Wikipedia format to help them. It may not be clearly written on the website about these specific Dr. No and From Russia With Love 1960s dollars being converted into 2012 dollars but it does have the math to figure it out clearly and is from an official website, it's a bank website with the calculations and differences. It isn't some fan site or IMDB, it's a bank website that gives you that math and difference to convert the money from any year from 1850 onwards into 2012 dollars. The other two edits seemed to be fine and left alone which I clearly mentioned twice so you could see it had been done before. Charlr6 (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the problem here Charl6, is not that the editor who reverted you contests your math (this is easy to verify by looking up the US CPI figures), it is that James Bond films (along with everything else made back then) in the 60s and 70s were periodically re-released, so it didn't make all it's money on its first release. I think Dr No made something like $40 million on its first run and the rest from reissues, so you shouldn't really inflate the $60 million figure from its 1962 value (the same goes for From Russia with Love too). I had to revert an editor who did this on the Gone with the Wind article once, because inflating its gross from 1939 gives you a number over $6 billion, whereas if you adjust it by each release it actually comes out at about $3 billion, so it makes a substantial difference. That's why it is important to have a source for the inflated figure. The budget on the other hand can be inflated, because all the accounts on a film tend to be submitted in the same fiscal year, either the year the film is released or the year after. Betty Logan (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Do we actually know for certain that the budget we have is the over-all budget, even from it's re-released? Are we sure that the $19 million (Like you said it made $40ish million and the gross on here says $59 mil) is from re-released? I just re-read the part on the article and it says "The film ended up grossing $6 million, making it a financial success compared to its $1 million budget.", but does that mean worldwide or just in Europe? If so then was the $53 million from re-released instead? But like what you said about it being re-released, what if I mentioned that its gross over-all including the times it was re-released and shown back-to-back with other Bond films was the $400+ in 2012 dollars? Charlr6 (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Betty Logan you pretty much said all my points. Like I said, its a conjectural edit. It shouldn't be mentioned at all without a source saying what you've added. Saying 400 could fall under or be over the mark.

No, she said that the Math is easy to verify by looking up the figures so it isn't just my own calculated opinion. But what do you think about if I mentioned that it would be the modern day gross from all of the releases? I know you said it could fall under of over the mark but the other two calculations seem about right. We could even try to find another website with similar data and try to use their calculations. I actually did a calculation of myself multiplying it by 8 and the answer actually went just a few numbers over the answer from the calculation I got from the website. But what do you think if we just mentioned it was the over-all gross from all of the release? Charlr6 (talk) 14:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


I thought that my edit about the 2012 grosses had been taken out, and then I a few days ago took out the 2012 budget from the 'development' section I think it was. But my edit about the gross has been taken out, I have reverted it. And this feels like a personal attack because what I don't get is why (and I'm fed up of mentioning this) From Russia With Love's page had the 2012 gross and Dr. No's page had the 2012 budget, I mentioned those but those never seemed to get taken out, only my edit. Which feels like a personal attack, and I will report it if it continues. I used the exact same Math and website to work out the 2012 gross for Dr No that was used for Dr No's 2012 budget and FRWL 2012 gross. Charlr6 (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I doubt this is a personal attack. Reasons were stated why it should be removed. I removed the reference to From Russia with love.

They weren't clear solid statements, it was just complaining about the Math, which the readers could figure out themselves, and it wasn't even OR as any one who went onto the website could figure it out, so the website is helping it get the 2012 dollars. And I found it funny how no one seemed to notice the other 2012 dollars (for FRWL gross and Dr No budget) until I put one up about the Dr No gross. And I didn't actually see the From Russia With Love one being removed at all or the Dr No one, which I removed the other day, only for it to get reverted.
I will happily leave this as it as without any 2012 dollars as long as the other ones are out, because if they are left in or put back in the future while my edit isn't, then I will take that as a personal attack. But until something like that happens, I will happily leave it alone. Charlr6 (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


I took out the 2012 budget on Dr. No, and then "Schrodinger's cat is alive" reverted it and claims I am vandalising the place and says he will cite me for vandalism. Seems like he doesn't bother looking at the rest of the edit list or talk page. Starting to feel more and more like a personal attack towards me now. Unless you, Odoital25, want to tell "Schrodinger's cat is alive" about this too. He doesn't listen to me. It would be very contradicting if the 2012 budget can be kept in as thats as much OR as me keeping in the 2012 gross. Charlr6 (talk) 21:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Charlr6, I've reverted your edits and please don't take this personally because it really isn't. The issue is that many of the inflation figures (esp of Dr. No) are for a single year entry. Thus the budget of £14,000 in 1962 can be converted into 2012 figures because it's only 1962 £ that we're talking about. The overall gross of the film is from a number of years, so to be able to convert to 2012 figures you'd have to:
  1. Find the 1962 gross, then convert to 2012 figures
  2. Find the 1963 gross, then convert to 2012 figures
  3. Find the 1964 gross, then convert to 2012 figures
  4. Find the 1965 gross, then convert to 2012 figures
  5. Find the 1966 gross, then convert etc etc....
What you've been doing is trying to convert the income from a number of years under one inflation figure, which is hugely misleading. It's not personal and it's not about the maths, it's just people trying to keep the information correct. - hydeblake (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
As you have been helpful and non-agreesive about this I won't take your reverts as a personal attack. But what I was doing was looking at the website and found the 1962 gross and converted it into 2012 dollars. I did this several times and in a few mildly different ways and it all came out with a similar answer. And I found the overall gross of the film and then I converted it into 2012 figures.
But if I'm converting the income, well that is the information I am getting from the Wikipedia page. Where is the exact budget from 1962?
What would the 1962 gross be converted into 2012 figures be? Charlr6 (talk) 22:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
The root of the problem is that the gross figure of $59.6 million is not from 1962. It is the income from a number of years and a number of territories. There is therefore the problem I outlined above, where you're trying to convert money that includes the 1966 income (for example) from Dr. No by using the 1962 conversion template: this means that the final answer is fundamentally wrong. The gross figure will also probably include income from a number of jurisdictions. Again, the UK and US inflation rates (for example) will all be different, so you're converting some of the UK amounts using the US conversion figures. The Dr. No figure of £14,000 is OK to convert: it refers to a single currency in a single year and can therefore be safely converted using the template. I hope this is clear! - hydeblake (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Then where can we find the actual 1962 worldwide gross? Charlr6 (talk) 22:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately the figures are not around for single year takings as (I think I remember reading somewhere) that it wasn't thought important at the time. The best we have are the multiple year, multiple territory aggregates. - hydeblake (talk) 07:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Then what if what was put in was the over-all gross then? As you said it comes from 1966, not many years at all after 1962, so it's not like there was a major re-release in the 90s that earned a big box office. But if it's from 1966, then why isn't it mentioned at all? If that was in then I would understand and wouldn't have put in the 1962 gross anyway, so shouldn't that be put in? Because readers will think it's the gross from '62. Charlr6 (talk) 07:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Dr. No was practically never out of release during the 1960s and 1970s. It was re-released virtually every year up until 1977. All we really know is how much it made in total over that 15 year period. Only Variety was doing any serious box-office tracking in those days and that was only for US grosses. Worldwide tracking is a relatively recent thing, so the data you want to put in probably just doesn't exist. Betty Logan (talk) 08:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Because the overall gross is not just the 1962-66 figure, it covers a larger range of years - I only picked '66 out of thin air. Anyway, even if you did put in the '66 inflation template, it would still be wrong as the takings from the previous years would be converted on the wrong figures. I'm afraid it's one of those situations where the overall gross has to go in and stay as it stands because to try and force a conversion on it would only add incorrect information. - hydeblake (talk) 08:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
So as it was never 'out of release', then that was how they viewed their movies as obviously they had no video or DVD to buy it on, so it just stayed on at the cinema?
And also, last question about the budget on the page, what world wide gross is that actually from? Do we know if that is from 1962 to (for example) 1980, and after that there were no more re-release? Or is that gross the over-all gross from 1962 to present day? As I always thought that the box office was just the first box office revenue. So I am guessing that the Gone With the Wind $400 million gross wasn't just from its first release, even though it was very popular, it was all of the other re-releases? Charlr6 (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Gone with the Wind made $32 million during its initial release, the rest of its money came from re-releases. Snow White made $8 million on its first release, but went on to earn $370 million through further releases; in fact, Snow White made half its total gross since 1980. Re-releases were big money up until the 1970s. In the 1980s VHS took hold and pretty much killed off the re-release market, but the first five Bond films were all definitely reissued at some point. As for the budget that is how much the film cost to make in 1962. Since no new scenes were filmed for it the budget wouldn't increase in later years. Sometimes the budget can increase, for example on the Avatar article it states the cost of the original film and the budget for the Special Edition. In the box office section we also record its original gross and the total after its reissue, which is the best approach I think, but unfortunately we don't have all the data for older films. Betty Logan (talk) 15:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Where have 'Preceded by' and 'Followed by' gone?

Hey there,

I noticed this several months ago, but whenever there was a film series in the info box it would say 'preceded by' and then have a link to the film made before and if there was a sequel it would say 'followed by' leading onto a page for the sequel. But I've noticed that this hasn't been on Wikipedia for quite a while and after trying to edit it back in on some pages a couple of months ago I didn't actually show on the info box on the page, just on the edit page. So I was wondering if there was some Wikipedia rule about this or whether some main editor has taken these away? I'm only wondering as I was just about to edit 'followed by From Russia With Love' in but remembered that it probably wouldn't show it. So does anyone know why this has happened?Charlr6 (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, these fields were removed from the infobox following consensus to do so. Please look through the talk archives of the infobox to find out more. Lugnuts And the horse 12:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

TV Premier of Dr No.

Does anyone know what year this film received it's UK TV premier? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.157.152 (talk) 22:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Not a Catchphrase, Originally: The Very First Mention of "Bond, James Bond"

For what it's worth: what is fascinating — if that is the correct word — is that in this very first Bond film, "Bond, James Bond" is not a catchphrase of 007's at all (nor for that matter is it the very first line spoken by the spy in the very first Bond film). Au contraire.

The line, as written by the screenwriters, is one that is improvised by 007, and that in order to mock another character's introducing herself in that exact same manner. Presumably, the James Bond character in the Dr. No screenwriters' mind would never use the phrase for any other reason than to mock any character introducing themselves in like stuffy manner…

Search "James Bond's First Line" on Youtube and take a look at the whole scene:

• Sean Connery: I admire your courage, Miss…?
• Eunice Gayson: Trench. Sylvia Trench.
[slight pause] … I admire your luck, Mister…?
• Sean Connery: Bond. James Bond.

Thus, Sean Connery's very first "Bond, James Bond" line turns out to be little more (so to speak) than a (slightly mocking) response to Eunice Gayson's similar and slightly stuffy "Trench, Sylvia Trench" (and, incidentally, this "bad boy", devil-may-care attitude is what she cannot resist finding seductive in 007). Asteriks (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

That's probably why we say just that in the "Themes" section. - SchroCat (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

puzzled over revert of helpful addn info: "preceded by" and "followed by"

Several WP articles (e.g. The Valley of Fear, and Peter the Great) have Infoboxes featuring 'Preceded by ..." and "Followed by ...", and "Predecessor..." and "Successor...". This is really helpful.

I tried entering in the "Infobox" list for Dr. No:

"Preceded by 1957 Climax! television adaptation of Casino Royale", and
"Followed by From Russia with Love (1963)"

but had no success (and I don't know why). So I entered the info in the lead of the article. I intended to help readers who want a sequential link both to the previous work and to the following one. SchroCat reverted the edit as "Good Faith edit not needed". As a reader of WP I have often been frustrated by lack of this kind of info, and wanted to help.

Would appreciate WP explanation of why this info not really needed. I wish you well --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

What, apart from the fact that it's wrong? Dr. No wasn't preceded by anything, so putting down a television programme from eight years previously (1957 is very wrong too - it was 1954) just isn't right. The preceded / seceded by field was removed by site-wide consensus a few years ago. The information you added to the lead just isn't needed in the lead. This article is about Dr No, not about any other Bond film, or a TV programme. There is a box at the bottom of the article (James Bond films) which lists all the films which provides the details of all the films. - SchroCat (talk) 19:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
1950s TV execs were trying to draw the public back from the movie theaters with films for television. The first screen presentation of the James Bond character was Casino Royale (Climax!), and being a film for television, was in fact the first James Bond film, the only James Bond film which preceded Dr. No.. It was included in the 2002 MGM DVD Home Entertainment issue of Casino Royale in Special Features as Original "Casino Royale" Made-for-TV Movie. It's a film, not presented as part of a continuing series, and it preceded Dr. No.
The 1957 date reference I made above was an overlooked typo, so thank you for the corr.
You reason "This article is about Dr No, not about any other Bond film". I'll point out the article intro lead reference to Casino Royale (linked to the WP article with its mention of the TV adaptation) and mention of the general visual production pattern developed after Dr. No in the successive series of Bond films, so the intro lead is not strictly and solely about Dr. No (film). As you pointed out, a list of other Bond films is made available end of article. see WP:intro lead: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview." A simple mention of the next Bond film is part of that.
After my first submitted comment, above, I noticed an entry on this Talk page asking what happened to preceded by and followed by, but I wasn't able to access the "history of the infobox" mentioned there (unless it's part of the edit history of the article). Can you help?
More generally, please explain why the rationale of consensus on this Infobox did not extend also to articles like those cited above (The Valley of Fear; Peter the Great, et al.) Some WP consistency would be most welcome. --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 21:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
It's a television programme and was part of the Climax Mystery Theater series. It's not a film and is unconnected with Dr. No. In terms of the Preceded by/Followed by discussions, see the following for details:
A lead is about a balance of things summarising the article. Putting an unconnected TV programme and the following film into a lead is putting too much detail in a section which should only be a summary of the rest of the article. As to the other articles, Valley of Fear is a novel, not a film; Peter the Great is an individual. Both novels and individuals use different infoboxes to films. - SchroCat (talk) 22:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Appreciate quick response, details in answer (links saved you a lot of copytime! —happy for you about that!). Skimmed over texts and comments—seems satisfying, but think it will make interesting reading on its own as a whole, like a daytime soap opera. (No, I'm not that bored!) Thanks for highlighting difference in infoboxes—wasn't aware before, thought they were of standard form.
Comment: a BF is an AM—a British "film" is an American "movie" (ref earlier inquiry this Talk page). Without any semantic difference 1954 Casino Royale is a movie is a film is a movie, making James Bond films James Bond movies and a TV movie a film and any Made-for-TV film a movie...and an anthology is not a series, but a collection of movies, none of them connected.
RE "revert" of your revert. It wasn't. I re-entered one sentence of the original two submitted, together with ref-link to Talk page for explanation completely according to WP:BRD; I did not revert your revert. If the whole issue rests on a one sentence paragraph being rather meaningless per your second edit summary, the substance of the sentence can be incorporated into the paragraph that preceded it and that should fulfill the criterion you stated, but it just seems like there's so much more to it for you than that. I'll go ahead and incorporate the info from the single sentence into the last intro lead paragraph.
Thanks for your answer! Das ist alles. --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately I have had no choice but to revert your recent spate of edits: they comprised of unsourced edits, non sequiturs and information that was just plain wrong. Please note that the lead is supposed to summarize the article: therefore neither unsourced or even sourced commentary belongs in the lede unless it is already documented in the main body of the article. Betty Logan (talk) 06:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Espresso, Could you please finish the discussion on this page before you try and shoehorn inappropriate material into the leads of the other films? Another editor has reverted your edits, and it's an action I back fully and would have done myself if they had not done it first. The lead of an article "serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects" (see WP:LEAD). I'll stress again, "important aspects". Trying to connect an episode from a television drama series and the next film are not important aspects of this article and so do not belong in the lead, which should be very much about the important aspects of the article only. - SchroCat (talk) 08:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

No "Q" in Dr. No

When Bond's Beretta is replaced by the Walther PPK, Major Boothroyd is not called "Q" at any time, but rather "the armorer" --- quite in contrast with later films. Renaissongsman (talk) 04:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

This was placed in order to gain consensus for an edit, not to chit-chat about the film; thank you for leaving it in place and discussing whether or not the article should reflect this fact instead of erroneous post-Golden-Age terminology. Renaissongsman (talk) 02:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
The character of Boothroyd appears in Dr No (played by Peter Burton) and From Russia with Love (played by Desmond Llewelyn), and in FRWL it is mentioned Boothroyd is assigned to Q branch. From Goldfinger onwards the character is just referred to as Q. It is obviously meant to be the same character. Betty Logan (talk) 03:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Julius No????

I noticed that the summary and the cast list refer to Dr. No as Dr. Julius No. While the character was given the first name Julius in the novel is is never used in the film. The end credits of the film list the character as Dr. No without a first name. Since this article is about the film and not the novel, shouldn't Julius be deleted. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I've checked the BFI cast list and Eon website and neither of them have the first name shown. - SchroCat (talk) 14:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

John Strangways????

The plot summary and cast list refer to the character as "John Strangways". I don't believe that he is ever given a first name in the film. His secretary is given the name of Mary but this is never stated in the film or in the credits. References to both should be revised to reflect what's in the film. SonOfThornhill (talk) 22:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

If no one has any objections I'd like to revise the article to omit the first name "John" from the references to Strangways since they don't appear in the film. As well as revising the entry for "Mary" to Strangways Secretary since she that is how she's referred to in the film and never given a first name. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
AMPAS, the AFI and BFI seem to agree about Strangways, but all three sources credit Dolores Keator as "Mary" which is confirmed by the end credits (watch on Youtube). Betty Logan (talk) 17:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
OK Leave the entry for Mary as is but omit the first name John from Strangways. Odd the end credits don't list Strangways but do list his secretary. SonOfThornhill (talk) 13:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Dr. No (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Summary

I think the summary should show starring Sean Connery, Ursula Andress and Joseph Wiseman as they are second and third billed even if their screen time is not very long. (or it could be SC with UA and JW) If the argument is they were'nt stars neither was Sean Connery before this film. Also Spectre reappeared in six films which is more than several.Atlantic306 (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

A monkey?? A MONKEY?!?!?

"An initial draft of the screenplay was rejected because the scriptwriters had made the villain, Dr. No, a monkey."

I understand that this rather surprising fact comes from Broccoli himself, so there is no doubt something to it. However, the statement in its present form is quite confusing: are we to believe that the writers imagined Bond pitted against a super-intelligent monkey? A quick web search turns up several statements (example) that in this draft Dr. No was the name of a pet monkey belonging to the villain, who was presumably human. If this is true (and can be verified), it would be much clearer to state that the writers had transposed the NAME Dr. No from the villain to his pet monkey than to state that they had "made the villain, Dr. No, a monkey". Skaltavista (talk) 13:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

So, it may be more accurate to say that they made a monkey's uncle out of the villain. WHPratt (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

American Film Institute recognition

Please, allow me to edit this short mixed (prose+points) information (as you have recommended me) about well-notable AFI’s recognition:

The film is recognized by American Film Institute in these lists:

References

  1. ^ "AFI's 100 Years...100 Heroes & Villains" (PDF). American Film Institute. Retrieved 2016-08-05.
  2. ^ "AFI's 100 Years...100 Movie Quotes" (PDF). American Film Institute. Retrieved 2016-08-05.

If there is another possible method how I can add this information I will acclimatize willingly. I am very sorry for difficulties. I want to remain that user Atlantic306 have already thanked me for this edit so you can ask him and have a respect to my notable editing. Dr.saze (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with adding these. As long as the links are good and accurate, I don't understand why anyone would. SonOfThornhill (talk) 18:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Someone has written that mentioning AMERICAN Film Institute recognition is not proper for British film. I do not understand his attitude so I will write it again into Legacy section (I think it is the best choice). I thank for your acclamation. I hope it will be same by another unaccessible articles... And yes, the links are in the best order. Dr.saze (talk) 20:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Stop bloody edit warring and let people comment properly before you force something in. – SchroCat (talk) 19:02, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought that opinion was clear. I will wait for others.Dr.saze (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) In terms of the information, one of the points is dubious (Bond as a hero), leaving us with a foreign film institute thinking one line is vaguely noteworthy. Woo-hop. If this one piece of trivial nonsense is to be included, it's damned lazy to use bullet points for something that should be in prose, and awful to use an inconsistent (and inappropriate) American date form and spelling. Drsaze, there is no rush on this and just because one editor cannot see problems, that is not the signal to force the issue again. Leave it for several days for others to comment. - SchroCat (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
So if i give it in prose form in better way and in British English can I try to add it right now, or should I wait for another reactions? - Dr.saze (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Do not add it. As I have said above, Leave it for several days for others to comment. As I have also said, I am not sure that a foreign institute's opinion of one line (the only thing they have said about this film is worth including: it is trivial dross. – SchroCat (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Okay. Be sure I will mainly follow your advices. I hope you will advise me in another unaccessible films. - Dr.saze (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Please don't delete my comment again just because you disagree with it. As I said before, the film had an American producer and was financed & distributed by an American studio. So it is silly to argue that the American Film Institute is a foreign entity. We should be endeavoring to provide as much information regarding the film as possible, not censoring it based on bias and bigotry. SonOfThornhill (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
I did not deliberately delete anything, (there was an (edit conflict) and there is a bug that sometimes affects subsequent edits) so take your head out of wherever it is and AGF. Speaking of AGF, the comments of "bias and bigotry" are ridiculously way off the mark, so. Again, don't put your misguided prejudice of another editor ahead of common decency. This is a British film (regardless of the nationality of one individual), and the thoughts of a non-domestic institute onver one line of script is getting deep into trivia. I will, however, point out that the AFI 'recognition' of hat on line is already covered in the article. Drsaze, you should check before you clumsily add information like this, that it is not present. You should also note that this is how to add such information in relevant articles: as part of the text, not clumsily rammed in with bullet points as an addendum. - SchroCat (talk) 21:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Looking again, the information about Bond is also present (superfluously) and it's included in the text again. - SchroCat (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Edit bug??? You've got to be kidding me. And it is not only the nationality of Cubby Broccoli but that United Artists, the studio that financed and distributed the film was an American film studio. So to say that this was a solely a British film and that the AFI is a foreign entity because it is American is just denying reality. Should the Academy Awards be censored too because it is a "foreign" organization and only BAFTRA awards be noted? Of course not, that same standard applies here. SonOfThornhill (talk) 13:30, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it happens, and I care not one iota whether you believe me or not. Unlike your disgusting behaviour on the Star Trek talk page, I do not remove people's comments, especially when they are easily dismissed as yours. – SchroCat (talk) 13:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Please stay on topic and don't resort to personal attacks. Can you refute that Cubby Broccoli, the film's producer, was American or that United Artists, which financed and distributed the film, was an American film studio? SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
You have accused me of "censoring ... based on bias and bigotry" and of deleting something I did not do deliberately (I have explained about the (edit conflict)) and you now accuse me of personal attacks? Perhaps you should take a page from your own book and not delete other people's comments (as on Star Trek), where you were also edit warring with your deletions. Your comments are moot, as I have explained above. - SchroCat (talk) 14:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I didn't accuse you of anything. Reread what I wrote, I make no personal accusation. As far as the Star Trek talk page, I was personally attack by an unregistered IP hopper. And the comment in question was ultimately deleted by other editors because it was a personal attack. Now stay on topic, can you refute that Cubby Broccoli, the film's producer, was American or that United Artists, which financed and distributed the film, was an American film studio? Should the Academy Awards be censored too because it is a "foreign" organization and only BAFTRA awards be noted? SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Bollocks: you have accused me of those things, which is a calumny. As I have already explained, the point is moot and there is nothing more to discuss. (And no, the comment had a small portion removed: you deleted the entire comment and edit warred: that's sub-standard behaviour) - SchroCat (talk) 15:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I made no personal accusations, I was discussing the issue. If you personalized it, that's on you not me. Now let's get back to the issue. Can you refute that Cubby Broccoli, the film's producer, was American or that United Artists, which financed and distributed the film, was an American film studio? Should the Academy Awards be censored too because it is a "foreign" organization and only BAFTRA awards be noted? SonOfThornhill (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Don't lie.
The point is moot and the matter does not need to be discussed further. - SchroCat (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I think we should wait for another editors and their opinions. How it seems, SchroCat has not mood to discuss. Maybe he has another more important work because he haven't rewritten me on his talk page yet. - Dr.saze (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you both read what I have already written, because it's now bloody obvious that neither of you have bothered so far. So, let me repeat myself to make this as clear as I can: the information is already in the article. Read it again and let it sink in, both of you. It's time to move on to something useful, and Drsaze, I suggest you look at how it's been done: in text, not lazily bullet pointed; the spelling is in British English and the date format is in the appropriate and consistent format. - SchroCat (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

But I do not see anywhere you mentioned the emplacement of James Bond's quote among AFI's 100 Movie Quotes. So if you let me fix it in your suggested prose format I will be really glad. - Dr.saze (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Then look more closely: it is already in the article. - SchroCat (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Okay. I see it now. But couldn't be both accolades together somehow (in prose format, of course)? I think it is better and more panoramic... - Dr.saze (talk) 19:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
"panoramic"? No, they shouldn't go together: they address entirely different things, which are dealt with separately in the article. - SchroCat (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
But only for abstract, you know. Film fans will appreciate it when this compact recognition will be by every film. - Dr.saze (talk) 19:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
There is absolutely no reason why it should be in the same format for each film, particularly when - as is the case with this article - the examination of certain aspects of the film means it makes more sense to separate them. We are still only dealing with minor recognition by an institute, not something more heavyweight, like splitting up multiple awards into different areas. You should also note that this is an encyclopaedia, and we do not write solely for "film fans", but a broad audience. Your statement predicting what "film fans will appreciate" carries no weight: you (or anyone) do not know what film fans will or will not appreciate. - SchroCat (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Okay, your arguments are good. But with one I disagree. I am one of the most fiery film fan so I surely know what we will possibly appreciate... Only one more suggest: Could we wait for opinions of other editors as you have said for the first time? - Dr.saze (talk) 19:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
You can wait as long as you like, but as you were asking for the information to be included, and it's been there all the time, I am not sure what there is to wait for. - SchroCat (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Me myself is not very content with this. I would like it in aome collective place. But as you have written it is more encyklopedia so I have to submit to majority. - Dr.saze (talk) 19:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm sirry, but I have no idea what you are saying, aside from the fact you are not happy with the structure of the article. - SchroCat (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that was exactly what I said :-) - Dr.saze (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Well that shows an inexperience of what constitutes a well-written or well-structured article. - SchroCat (talk) 19:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I would not tell that. I rather prefer my own system. That is all. But I have not any problem to conform to. - Dr.saze (talk) 21:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Film release date countries

Atlantic306, could you please provide a rationale for going against the guidelines that specifically state otherwise?

Looking back through the history, it looks like the article has been stable showing just the UK's release date until it was added in this edit in October. Since then there has been considerable edit warring over the inclusion, and I think it's probably best to leave it as the long-standing stable version without the US date. Let's be clear: this was a British production with a mostly British cast and crew adapting a British novel. Template:Infobox film states "Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release ... and the release date(s) in the country or countries that produced the film, excluding sneak previews or screenings. If other release dates are found to be notable, it may be appropriate to include them in the main body of the article (example)." I look forward to hearing your rationale without further reversions. The Bounder (talk) 08:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dr. No (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dr._No_(film)/Archive_1&oldid=1183731462"