Talk:James Bond/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about James Bond. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Film and Actor info

I think we should make it more clear of the distinction between the real/official Bond films/actors and the spoofs & unofficial versions. For example, David Niven & Casino Royale are spoofs, you can't possibly compare these with the true Bond films. Grunners 20:10, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Personal information

"In the movies he has a degree in Oriental Languages from Cambridge University, although this contradicts the information in the novels and the scene in Tomorrow Never Dies where Bond is unable to use a computer with a Chinese keyboard. "

is this really a contradiction? Just because you have a degree in something that doesn't mean you should know everything that's related to it. He could've specialized in Korean instead of Chinese while receiving that degree.

Also he may have concentrated on the spoken forms of Oriental languages but not the written, which are usually taught separately. (Ben W Bell 13:48, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC))

removed! Highwind 03:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Wa wa wa waah ... :-)

To me, Sean Connery was the only and best Bond.

No, in this you are mistaken: David Niven's Bond in Casino Royale was a masterpiece. sjc

Connery. :-)

He certainly is now seen as the definitive Bond. But Niven is much more tongue in cheek and more in keeping with the underlying irony in Fleming's novels. sjc

Irony! Fleming's Bond was cruel/vicious not ironic.

Moved here, because it's one person's idiosyncratic opinion written in first person style:

Many people prefer Sean Connery as Bond. His films are my favorites; I enjoy them enough that I can ignore the male chauvinism of the times they were made. (Feminists beware: character names "Pussy Galore", slapping women on the butt, etc.) With Sean C. as the chavinist, I would let him get away with quite a lot myself!! The later Roger Moore films are more tongue-in-cheek; I think the Sean Connery's are more realistic. In Dr.No, the hero spy shows fear (tarantula!) and boredom. In addition, he actually LOOKS hurt, instead of later films' heroes who never muss their hair or get dirty. In addition, the villains are better; even the secondary henchmen are well done (Odd Job and a young Robert Shaw). Favorite line is by Auric Goldfinger after Bond asks "Do you expect me to talk?" Goldfinger: "No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die!"

As far as Wikipedia is concerned, more than likely your opinion doesn't count - a collective opinion, or the opinion of some noted critics, is. See the new neutral point of view page for discussion on this point. --Robert Merkel

As for the Goldfinger line - it doesn't end there, but in the film version the rest got left out. It went: "Do you expect me to talk?" "No, Mr Bond, I expect you to die!" "Well, then you can go and f--- yourself." "No, Mr Bond, not even I am capable of that!"

A list of the books (at least the Fleming originals) might be a good thing to add; also, how about some information on the copyright issues surrounding Blofeld, Never Say Never Again, etc.? (I will do these if/when I have time to research it properly but it's exactly the sort of thing some people know off the top of their heads) - Bth

"The Rough Guide to James Bond" ISBN 1-84353-142-9 addresses Blofeld (Kevin McClory owned the rights to him); which is why he is 'bumped off' during the opening of "For Your Eyes Only." Sparky

Not doubting that it's the case, but I'm just wondering how they rationalize it: How can he both be an orphan and have a family motto ('The World is Not Enough')? -- John Owens 23:36 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Just because both his parents are dead, it doesn't mean he doesn't know who they were. — Paul A 01:12 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, shortly after I asked, I realized that while I was en route. Was hoping I could retract the question before anyone noticed, but I see it's too late. ;) -- John Owens (away from home)

I was about to make a minor correction about Desmond Llewellyn (he wasn't in Live and Let Die) but I thought it simpler to move the info to Q's own page. DJ Clayworth 14:15, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The Property of a Lady, 1991. Never made due to the legal issues surrounding EON at this time. What is EON? RickK 23:15, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The company that makes the films--(i think?). Alexandros 23:19, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Yes, Eon productions. See the official web site http://www.007.com . Chrysalis 18:40, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Removed the fan films as they were all either speculative, not yet produced, or in one case clearly in violation of copyright. DJ Clayworth 18:18, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

No, all of them were made except for "James Bond 2015", I checked all of them. Go to fanfilms.net's James Bond section and see for yourself, that's where I got my info.

Assuming you mean "Alligator" is in violation of copyright (in case that's the one you mean, sorry if it isn't), as it's a school-based production (it's technically my final for Advanced Filmmaking), copyright is overridden. (Or so the school told me...) Also, the authors of the book will be notified before any Internet release can take place; not to mention some people relatively close to the Bond business have been previously contacted, and are under the impression that it will not cause a serious problem. If need necessary, the movie will drop all references to James Bond and his surroundings.

Like I said, sorry to jump on you if it's not the one you meant, it's just something I worry about - I don't want it to be killed before it's born, if you know what I mean :-)

The adaptation of "Casino Royale" on the other hand is questionable, but from what I've heard, the EON people are fine with fan produced materials as long as there is no release outside of the Internet - which is why fanfilm sites make it clear that no videos or DVD's are available. I don't know if the rules for using an actual, licensed Fleming story are different or not. But otherwise, EON has not taken any action on fanfilms. (Fan-written stories are a different matter; Glidrose is not happy about those.)

Casino Royale was the 'copyright' one I was thinking of. Of the others, one said 'due to start filing in December 2003', the others 'to be produced'. Seriously, how many fan films are produced each year, and how many use 'James Bond' as a basis? DJ Clayworth 14:41, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

(P.S. It's normal to sign your postings ontalk pages - you can it conveniently by putting four tildes in a row ~~~~)

Oh, sorry for biting your head off then. I suppose about one a year - there hasn't been much of a James Bond fan film scene. I had an article describing mine here, but someone else deleted it (grrr....) Well, hope this tilde thing works: 151.201.140.39 17:31, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Added a few bits then fell into some notions on tech improvement of the page:

Added some parody refs (mostly found on the de: Page) then found out that oops, maybe 'Parody', 'Other J.B. movies' and 'starring David Niven' should be collated somehow.
I consider Casino Royale parody. Well, maybe others object (although the article so far has it that Casino Royal is a spoof)
The de: version of the page involves the habit of using IMDb links. What about copying them?

00:26, 19 Mar 2004 - 62.180.204.140 (Sorry I'm being lazy at the moment...)

Bond villains

Is there a page on Bond villains ? Jay 17:30, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it's located here: Bond Villains K1Bond007

Self-parody

"... the successful 1990s revival with Pierce Brosnan in the lead role has increasingly turned the series into self-parody."

Can someone provide examples of self-parody ? Jay 17:30, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

A very early Hemingway novel called The Torrents of Spring, written to be so bad that it would break a publishing contract he wanted to get out of, is generally considered to be a self-parody. As the Bond movies went on and became more and more tongue-in-cheek, they too, I believe, are frequently called self-parody. But I'm no expert on them. Some critics have also called some of the very last Hemingway books to be unwitting self-parodies of his early work.Hayford Peirce 23:22, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This question prompted me to start an article on self-parody. However, I didn't include The Torrents of Spring because reviews on the Web suggested that it was a parody of Sherwood Anderson's book Dark Laughter. (And what about Turgenev?) —JerryFriedman 22:24, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ornothologist

Shouldn't the paragraph at the bottom about the ornothologist be on a seperate page? On this page there should be a link explaining that he was the basis for the Bond name. Grunners

Not necessary in this case, as there is only a little information on the ornithologist, and the ornithologist is primarily famous only as the namesake of the fictional spy. --Lowellian 20:10, May 17, 2004 (UTC)

I rewrote the article on the birder and provided a disambiguation at the top of this page. It's at James Bond (ornithologist). I believe the section here could now be deleted. PedanticallySpeaking 17:12, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I condensed the section and dropped it into Misc Trivia. K1Bond007 18:13, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Q

I removed Q's name from the link to Q, because the Q article deals with John Cleese Q whose name is clearly not Major Boothroyd. He's much better known as Q. DJ Clayworth 16:26, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Your arguement is right DJ,but we should write Q's name without any conflicts,for all of us Q is Desmond Llewelyn .--Sina 22:06, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Positive identification of Bond-21 as Casino Royale

As far as I know, there's been no official announcement made about the title of Bond-21, so why is it definitively listed as being called Casino Royale? Hig Hertenfleurst 22:35, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think it IS official. look here http://imdb.com/title/tt0381061/ 12:09 2/3/2005 (CET)

Please note this discussion took place in early August. The page has since been updated with the official word that Casino Royale is Bond-21. K1Bond007 23:11, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Link to the official press release. http://www.jamesbond.com/news/pressRelease20050203.html Ben W Bell 08:14, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bond Bits

In my last edit I removed a part in the bond bits section that talked about how the number 007 came to be. I removed it for two reasons. 1) Because I didn't feel it was a "Bond Bit". Bond bits, as you can see from what the others describe are things that are always in a Bond movie. Bond saying "Bond, James Bond".. ordering a martini "Shaken not Stirred". That sort of thing. The history of how the number came to be is more part of 007's history or overview. 2) Because it was my long understanding that the number came from Riyard Kiplings stories about a train numbered "007". This is actually even stated in the article under James Bond Ornithologist, although it is my belief that this should be moved elsewhere in the article. If there are multiple stories of how the number came to be, by all means replace what I removed and add the Riyard Kipling part in the the Overview section. K1Bond007 20:51, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I added a section called Miscellaneous Bond Trivia to hold this type of information. I have readded that story on the origins of the number as one possibility, and moved your story into the same section plus a couple of other bits and pieces that seemed to be irrelevant to their actual sections. (Ben W Bell 09:43, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC))

This sounds good to me. K1Bond007 16:13, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

We should not have contradictory information here. Personally I would like to see references given for things like origins of numbers, especially when it's something as obscure as this. DJ Clayworth 13:24, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The problem with that is that there are so many contradictory stories on the origin of the number. I think we should have all the stories since no one but Fleming himself knows the truth. My one came from the official tour of Higham Park where Ian Fleming spent a lot of his time and did a lot of writing, and the 007 was the number of the coach from the 1940s right up until about 4 years ago and does indeed pass by in easy view of the main house. (Ben W Bell 13:45, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC))

Bond Vehicles

Should the "Bond Vehicles" section of the article be moved to it's own page ("List of James Bond vehicles" ??) where information on them can be expanded and some that aren't listed can be added? Just curious, what you guys think. K1Bond007 21:05, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Anyone object? I'm thinking since it's now been molded into "Gadgets" that we move it to another page "List of James Bond Gadgets" perhaps where we can list the gadgets and give more info on the vehicles. K1Bond007 22:54, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Books to Screenplays

Under "Screenplays to Books" it lists 2 by Christopher Wood, The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker. Aren't these technically "Books to Screenplays" or based on the books by Ian Fleming? I realise that the two Screenplays are original works by Christopher Wood since they're nothing really similar at all to what happens in the Fleming novels, but were these actually books too besides the novels that Ian Fleming wrote? If they're not really books, shouldn't these be listed elsewhere? K1Bond007 21:03, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

I believe it's referring to the novelisations that Christopher Wood did of the two films to which he wrote original screenplays (Moonraker's film is mainly an original work, despite using a few elements from the novel), entitled "James Bond, The Spy Who Loved Me", and "James Bond and Moonraker", presumably to differentiate between the novelisations and Fleming's novels. Hig Hertenfleurst 23:46, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ok thanks for clearing that up. Just wanted to make sure these were ACTUAL novelizations and not just screenplays.

Books/Movie differences

Shouldn't there be some brief info about the diffrences between the books and the movies?

I actually disagree. All of information between the books and the movies should be on the seperate movie/book articles. I think most people know that books adapted for film are never (or perhaps rarely) the same. K1Bond007 23:33, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

Just to add to the above, all the articles based on the individual Fleming Bond novels have been overhauled to include discussions of both the novels and the film versions. There isn't room to do that here as the main article is already well past the 32Kb limit set by Wikipedia. 23skidoo 18:28, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Inspiration

Should there be mention of William Stephenson (codename Intrepid)? Fleming trained in Stephenson's Camp X. "James Bond is a highly romanticized version of a true spy. The real thing is ...William Stephenson" -- Ian Fleming, The Times, October 21, 1962 BeavisSanchez

MI-7?

Although Bond is now a fictional agent of the real MI-6, am I right that the early Bond movies with Connery put hime as a member of a fictional MI-7? Dainamo 01:23, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No. I've seen the movies dozens of times and never noticed this. I believe the first Ian Fleming book, Casino Royale, also specifically mentions MI6 on a bio of SMERSH. The only thing I can think of to really support this claim is that you may be remembering some spoof of a James Bond film, perhaps even Casino Royale (TV or film) or perhaps something else. K1Bond007 23:27, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

I think you'll find that James Bond is working for MI7 in the film version of Dr No. The organisation is frequently referred to as 'Her Majesty's Secret Service' and 'The (British) Secret Service' up until Goldeneye, when Trevelyan specifically asks Bond: "Still working for MI6, James? I hear the new M is a lady." Hig Hertenfleurst 00:59, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and this coincides with them starting to use exterior shots of the real SIS Vauxhall Cross building as scene-setters. Hig Hertenfleurst 01:03, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Looking into the matter more, I popped in the DVD of Dr. No and Bernard Lee claims he is the head of MI7, however, this scene is dubbed or redeubbed since you can clearly see him saying MI6. (Scene occurs when the Quartermaster is in the room and M is explaining the negative side effects of using a Beretta.) So you guys are right. HOWEVER - in another scene prior to this one a radio operator clearly states something about contacting MI6. Some things to note: 1) There is no real MI7. 2) "Her Majesty's Secret Service" is another name for MI6. (See Wikipedia article on MI6 for support on this one). 3) According to a Google search there are no other mentions of MI7 in any other James Bond film or book. 4) Trevelyan never asks the question listed above to Bond in GoldenEye. It was Zukovsky. K1Bond007 01:50, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

Pedant. ;-) Hig Hertenfleurst 04:03, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In fact, if you're going to be that pedantic, I feel I should point out that MI7 did, in fact, exist at one time. I believe it dealt with Russia and the RSFSR after the Revolution. Hig Hertenfleurst 04:10, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

First off I don't think I'm being that pedantic. I was stating well-known -current- facts. As far as MI7 goes, if you really want to get into it - it was a temporary subsection only lasting during the first World War. It dealt with propaganda. That's it. Unfortunately I lack more knowledge on the subject, otherwise I would have written a Wikipedia article on it since it's apparently missing. Otherwise it's fictional and hardly worth mentioning. Furthermore the MI7 stuff from Dr. No has been mentioned on countless websites with almost the same exact information I gave you (some with more, including the subtitles listing "MI6"). All this information has been added to the Dr. No movie article un trivia. K1Bond007 05:30, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

The DVD release of Dr. No has a trailer in which M clearly says MI6. I read somewhere that for awhile it was actually illegal to mention MI6 in media, so maybe that's why that happened.23skidoo 18:31, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In the novels, Bond works for the Secret Service, not MI6. I'll modify the article to reflect this. Even in the films, the notion that he is an MI6 agent only started with Brosnan in the role. jamesgibbon 00:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are incorrect on both counts as he is frequently said to be an MI6 agent in the Gardner novels, and IIRC in Fleming as well, and as noted above he is explictly said to be an agent for MI6 in Dr. No, the movie. 23skidoo 00:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

23skidoo is correct. MI6 is referenced in Fleming's novels more so in the later books as MI6 was more of a "covert" (I suppose is the term?) name as previously mentioned. The Secret Service you speak of is MI6, it's just a name. See the article on Secret Intelligence Service. K1Bond007 01:27, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I will admit I hadn't taken the Gardner books into account, but would be interested to see a reference to 007 working for MI6 in one of the Fleming novels? Page number if poss or general context ref - I've read them all and don't remember one. Many thanks jamesgibbon 17:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As K1Bond007 says, I refer you to the SIS article. The term SIS is used frequently in the books, as is Secret Service and this is the same as MI6. The term was forbidden for awhile (much like actors won't say the name Macbeth) but the two names refer to the same organization. "From Russia with Love" refers to both MI5 and the Secret Service, indicating that the Secret Service is a level higher. 23skidoo 19:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the term SIS is used in Fleming's books, and it's clear that this is the organisation for which Bond works. But it's not at all clear that, in the fictional 007 Universe, MI6 and SIS are the same thing. The term wasn't actually forbidden as far as I'm aware BTW, though it was never officially acknowledged to exist by the UK government until a few years ago. Personally, I suspect that Fleming would have used the term 'MI6' in his novels if that had been his intention. Most tellingly, MI6 never had a headquarters overlooking Regents' Park, but at the time of Fleming's novels were based in St James Street. jamesgibbon 19:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not exactly sure where you're going to take this out of. It is always assumed that Bond works for MI6. The British Secret Service or the SIS is MI6. You need to read that page. It's MI6 (technically) in the film Dr. No and is blatantly stated as such from GoldenEye on. I wouldn't remove it at all. In fact I very much oppose this given post-Fleming novels that I know for sure reference MI6 (as well as the films mentioned aboved). K1Bond007 20:05, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I've already noted that Bond became an MI6 agent in the Brosnan films, and accept that he may have done in some of the Gardner or Benson novels. You say "it's assumed" that Fleming's SIS is the same as MI6, but by whom? I really don't think it was Fleming's intention, otherwise he'd have mentioned it, and used the genuine location - as you surely know, he was a stickler for details, and it wasn't a national secret. I grant you, SIS is the same as MI6 in the real world, but in the real world there's no 00 section, no 'licence to kill', and no SIS headquarters overlooking Regents Park. Unless Fleming knew something we didn't, but if he did he wouldn't have put it in his books. jamesgibbon 22:30, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My understanding is that it was illegal to use the term MI6 in media in the 1950s-early 60s. So the terms SIS and Secret Service were used instead. This is why Bernard Lee is overdubbed "MI5" when he really said "MI6" in Dr. No (the uncensored dialogue can be heard in a special feature on the DVD). (And to say Bond works for MI5 is most certainly wrong because MI5 was prohibited from working outside the UK, just as MI6, technically, cannot work within the country, but that's an error that was corrected later.) Similarly, John Drake in Danger Man had to work for M9 rather than MI6. So for Fleming not to mention MI6 by name in the early novels (though I'm certain he does so in one of the later ones) is in keeping with the law of the land at the time. Every reference book I have ever seen on the subject (The Bond Files by Lane and Simpson, for random example) makes the connection and states outright that Bond is an MI6 agent in the Fleming stories. 23skidoo 22:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do believe you mean that the line was dubbed to "MI7", not "MI5", as mentioned above and in The Bond Files. Ah, pedantry... Hig Hertenfleurst 23:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My error. Beg pardon. Interestingly, the subtitles on the DVD still say MI6. 23skidoo 23:44, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First off I don't know whether 23skidoo is right about it being illegal, but I can tell you that British Government technically didn't officially acknowledge MI6 until 1994. One such source says: However, for many years this most secretive of government departments was not officially acknowledged. It wasn't until 1994, when the Intelligence Services Act was passed under the then Prime Minister John Major, that its official role was acknowledged and defined. BBC

From the Secret Intelligence Service: During the Second World War SIS first began to be referred to as 'MI6' when, under a reorganization of military intelligence at the War Office, the War Office circulating section acquired the Military designation MI6 (within SIS it was termed Section VI).

Under SIS building: In July 1988 Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher approved the purchase of the new building for the SIS. At this stage the government proposed to pay for the building outright in order to maintain secrecy over the intended use of the site. It is important to note that at this time the existence of MI6 was not officially acknowledged.

From the intro: The Secret Intelligence Service (SIS), more commonly known as MI6 (originally Military Intelligence [section] 6), or Her Majesty's Secret Service or just the Secret Service, is the British external security agency.

So there it is. K1Bond007 01:43, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, there it is - in the real world, as I've already acknowledged. However I was referring to Fleming's works of fiction jamesgibbon 10:59, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

True, but as you stated above, Fleming bases his work on fact so it wouldn't make sense for him to create a fictional SIS. As an aside, I think you're been doing excellent work in polishing this article. Nicely done. 23skidoo 15:29, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

thanks! appreciate that jamesgibbon 20:32, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fleming worked for the Naval Intelligence branch of the secret service aka MI6 during WW2. It's highly unlikely he would make up a fictional organization when he had full knowledge of the workings of the real thing. You have to remember that it is -based- on the real thing, it is not the real thing. Fleming, probably more than anyother author at the time was heavily scrutinized under the Official Secrets Act, which he notes a number of times. This has all been covered by hundreds of books down to details and similarities between M and Mansfield Smith-Cumming aka C. You should look into reading up on Fleming. Try The Life of Ian Fleming and The James Bond Bedside Companion, both have excellent biographies on him. I don't think you'll find much information, if any at all, that says Fleming didn't base it on the real thing. This is a very widely known fact. K1Bond007 17:28, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't suggest that it wasn't based on the real thing; I'm suggesting that it's not the same as the real thing. As I've already pointed out, he could have used the real location of MI6 headquarters in his novels if he'd wanted to. He could also have used the term 'MI6', which has been in common usage in the UK for as long as I can remember, including in works of fiction, even it its existence wasn't officially acknowledged until relatively recently.

I suspect that Fleming felt that a different, fictional secret service - albeit based on the real one, as you rightly state - would give him greater licence for his dramatic inventions: the 00 section, Universal Exports and so on. jamesgibbon 19:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No he couldn't have used their real location if he wanted to. That would be in violation of the Official Secrets Act (that was the meat of my last edit here). Do you have any proof to back up your claim? Seriously, beyond your own suspicion? K1Bond007 19:22, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Interesting point about the Official Secrets Act, but are you sure the location was an official secret? To answer your question : like you I don't have 'proof' to support my position, but I do have evidence, as I've already noted. In particular, don't you find it slightly odd that (unless I'm mistaken) Fleming never mentions the term MI6 in any of his novels? I don't want to sound too emphatic about this as it's not something I can be certain of; it's merely a strong suspicion - but the evidence does tend to support my point of view. jamesgibbon 19:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, not really; MI6 was never the official name of the organization. He did, however, use other references to it including "Her Majesty's Secret Service," which is another common name associated with the SIS/MI6. Fleming had a penchant for using certain words and phrases - I always got the feel "Her Majesty's Secret Service" was one of those as is 'spectre'. Theres enough information that Fleming gives away for anyone to come to the conclusion that the org that Bond works for is SIS/MI6/Her Majesty's Secret Service etc. K1Bond007 21:08, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

We'll just have to disagree about that, I'm afraid. By the way, as far as I'm aware the term "Her Majesty's Secret Service" is only used by Fleming in the title of OHMSS, as a pun on the old phrase "On Her Majesty's Service" which was printed on mundane postal items sent by the government as O.H.M.S - tax letters and so on. The Secret Service has never really been known as "Her Majesty's Secret Service", although some have picked this up from the title of OHMSS - ironically really, since it's only meant as a play on words. jamesgibbon 23:38, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually no, he mentions it a couple of times, not just in the title, and not just in book OHMSS. Secret Intelligence Service also claims that SIS is also known as "Her Majesty's Secret Service", so if thats wrong you better argue it there. I guess we're going to just have to disagree. This discussion is really going nowhere. Sorry K1Bond007 02:16, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

My own sympathies in turn, however I don't believe that's correct. Never mind jamesgibbon 12:05, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nonsensical movie titles

Is there any way of removing the titles La Resurrection du Dragon and The Green Jade Mahjongg from the James Bond Movies list? I can't get in there to edit it. I've never heard of these films and can't find any information and no one has bothered to create articles for them. 23skidoo 18:31, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

See your talk page. Personally, that template should be deleted. It's the same thing as Template:Bond movies. Only Casino Royale and Never Say Never Again need to be added to it at the bottom or something. K1Bond007 18:53, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)]

Much obliged. I went ahead and deleted those two titles but I'll leave the template for now until I (or someone else, of course) have a chance to check to see where this one is linked so it can be replaced with the other template. I left Property of a Lady on there too, but added a notation that it was an unmade film. 23skidoo 18:56, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The "what links here" claims: James Bond, Property of a Lady, Never Say Never Again, and Casino Royale. K1Bond007 19:03, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

Merge?

"Bond bits" and "Miscellaneous Trivia" seem to overlap.

I don't know if merging is necessary, as Bond Bits deals directly with James Bond while Misc Trivia deals with other James Bonds and inspirations. That said there are a couple of trivia items dealing with the origin of the name that could be moved to Bond Bits. Thoughts? 23skidoo 03:24, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bond bits are things found in virtually ever Bond film. The gun barrel scene. My name is Bond, James Bond. Vodka Martini. etc etc. Things that make Bond - Bond. Perhaps the name needs to be changed, but thats how that's been going. It IMO needs to be moved above "Bond characters" though. The Trivia is more background "where'd it come from" stuff that is pretty irrelevant to the character or novels/films. It's just extra information. The two IMO shoud be seperate. K1Bond007 04:23, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Real life models for Bond

I have already put up a request for a wikipedia article on Fitzroy MacLean, and I'm very surprised they didn't already have one...

There have been a variety of real life models for Bond suggested --

Fitzroy MacLean, Scottish adventurer, spy etc in the Balkans

James Bond. Yes an actual James Bond DID exist, and he even went to the same school as him Fettes College. He was in the SBS and a frogman, whereas the fictional JB has a naval background.

Feel free to add any more. I think there may be as many as five. Worth their own section, and FMacL worth his own article.

Restoring cut material

Someone clearly went on an editing spree after Christmas. I know the article is too long by Wikipedia standards, but things like categories and links need to be added so we can find the cut material. I think separate pages on things like James Bond Parodies and even Bond Trivia is a good idea, however. For the time being I have restored all the cut that was below the Brosnan films listing as of 27 December. There may be other sections missing from earlier revisions. 23skidoo 02:55, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I forsee that Bond may have to be cut into movies vs novels. I think thats where we're heading and ultimately have to do. Cutting the Parodies to "List of James Bond parodies" might be a temporary solution until we can define how we want the page to be. We could also shorten the "Bond characters" section by just putting a See: List of James Bond villains, List of James Bond allies, Bond girls etc instead of listing the main ones. Characters like M, Q, Moneypenny, Leiter and Blofeld should be mentioned in some way already in the Overview Bond bio sections. So theres really no loss there. K1Bond007 03:45, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)