Talk:James Bond/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Merge {{James Bond characters}}

The template is too big and most of the articles that have links on it are small. An example of this is most of the James Bond girls, they should all be merged into one article, possibly called List of James Bond characters. If this is not replied to in a couple days, I will merge them. Cbrown1023 17:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

True, it's a huge template but I'd rather have it than click on another article. Wiki-newbie 18:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I HAVE NOW SPLIT ALL OF THE CHARACTER BIOS CONCISELY INTO THE INDIVIDUALS FILMS BUT SOMEONE NEEDS TO SORT OUT THE NAVIGATION BOX DIRECTS AND THE INDIVIDUAL CHARACTER DIRECTSErnst Stavro Blofeld 11:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

How about merging characters by film? That would trim the list down to 21 entries. - X201 18:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be a good idea, but how would they be accessed? would you still use the {{James Bond characters}} template? Cbrown1023 18:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

My original idea would have been like:

Official James Bond film characters

But of course edit it a bit to make it look better. Your idea is good too... but would you want them to be like List of characters from Goldfinger. If so, then what about character who appear in more than one movie? Cbrown1023 18:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we just included the characters of a story in the article about that story, and then create redirects from the names of all characters so included to the article for the story? That way you have no separate "list of X characters" article," unless you want to create a general index as well. We'll still have separate articles for recurring characters, but that will cut down on the bloat of having every bad guy's henchman and girlfriend having their own article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to merge them since this has been up to discussion for 11 days. Cbrown1023 00:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a rough idea of a film one

Official James Bond film characters

It's nice but the Blue on Black "Show" link dosen't do it any favours. X201 13:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I like yours.

Master Template at Template:007

I was thinking of having a master template for anything on James Bond, whether it be novels, films, characters, or what ever, I am working on a design now and I will post it on this page soon to see what you have to think??? SpecialWindler 04:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Lose the red banners on the template. It's ugly and makes my eyes hurt just looking at it. Stick to white text on black - it's simple, easy to read. 23skidoo 04:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Original Template

There, I did my best

Could any one improve the novels section, i tried at least three different ways before simply going the way it is, but it looks a little untidy?????????
SpecialWindler 05:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

"Uniques Locations / Things of the Films" ??!! Is there, just perhaps, a better way to word that? Cardinal Wurzel 15:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

How about Locations, Vehicles, Objects & Organisations  ? - X201 17:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Photos in the articles

Why are there only photos of the "James Bond Girls" in the articles for the movies? Why not have photos of all of his enemies and friend as well? 156.34.213.131 18:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure it is not intentional, there may not be images that can be used in other articles (either they are not on wikipedia or their copyrights cannot let them be used there). Cbrown1023 20:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Inspiration contradiction

There seems to be a contradiction within this article and with another related article, Inspirations_for_James_Bond. This article states: "Fleming was inspired by a real spy - Dushan Popov, a Serbian playboy..." and "Although some names share similarities with Bond, none have ever been confirmed by Fleming, Ian Fleming Publications or any of Ian Fleming's biographers such as Fleming's assistant and friend, John Pearson." Also, the Inspirations_for_James_Bond article states: "Regarding him, Ian Fleming wrote in The Times, 21 October 1962: 'James Bond is a highly romanticized version of a true spy. The real thing is... William Stephenson'" Maybe I'm missing something, but these statements appear to conflict. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable about the subject could help. ndyguy 19:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• This is the first I've heard of this Popov character. If a source can be cited (such as the recent James Bond: The Man and His World?) that would be good. About 6 months ago there was some bogus information added regarding an alleged inspiration for Bond; is this the same thing all over again? 23skidoo 23:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Bond Girls

I think this page, especially the table is missing the Bond Girls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.150.83 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 7 November 2006

Please sign your comments. The Bond girls have their own page. 23skidoo 15:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Missing Info

A big chunk of the bottom of the article went missing during a vandal/revert/vandal/revert episode over the last few days. I think I've managed to put back everything that went AWOL, could someone give the article a check over to make sure. Thanks - X201 14:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a missing movie in that chart. Never say never again. I dont know all the specifics, just figured someone would know if they seen it was missing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.196.117.80 (talk • contribs) 04:22, November 26, 2006

Never Say Never Again is not considered an official Bond film. Prometheus^-X303- 14:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why Never Say Never Again is not considered to be an "official" bond film. That seems like something that would make one movie studio very happy, but I'd like to see a more substantive reason for not including it. The movie certainly follows most of the "Bond formula" and has Sean Connery as James Bond. It seems much more important than the other programs mentioned in the "non-Eon films" section.

The fact that Bond has a license to kill (in both the books and movies) is not mentioned in the article. This is a major point in both media. In a related point, although "007" is mentioned frequently, there is no reference to him being a "double 0" and that such agents have a license to kill. MatthewBrooklyn 20:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Bond Girls By Film???

I some people may have noticed the henchmen and allies have gone under By films as seen on the James Bond characters template.

Bond girls are more improtant than henchmen or allies, but as there is an average of 2-3 girls per film, should we put the articles by film?? It is part of the plan to make this template shorter??
SpecialWindler 06:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Box office figures

Did Thunderball really do 5 x You Only Live Twice ? Or is one inflation adjusted and the other real ? -- Beardo 01:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Well spotted. Somebody was playing around with the figures. JW 13:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

has been vandalised

the word sex and porn seem to have been put in random places. letting you all know, id clean it up myself but, well i cant be bothered

This appears to have been fixed now. --Polkaparty 20:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Budget

can we confrim the budget for Casino Royale(2006) in the table it states it was 150 million US dollars but in the actual casino royale article it states it cost approximatly 130 million dollars.Barcode 16:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

wrong numbers ($)

An excellent article, but there must be any absurdities:

• The average US Box Office per Total Box Office ratio is always about 30 % (all Bond films). In "Die Another Day" it would be >70 %. I don't think this can be true (all other films have 20..40 %).
• The Total Box Office per Admission ratio increases continuously from 0.83$ in 1962 to 5.08$ in 1999. There are two significant exceptions and I think, they very strong indicate wrong numbers: "Fireball" (three times higher) and "Die Another Day" (only the half).
• Moreover, if you add the numbers, the summ will not be the same as in Wikipedia table.

--131.188.3.20 18:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC), DuMonde (GER)

Remark: Ok, obviously, my last week downloaded version had some vandalism. Now, most of current numbers ar correct, except the Budget: Adding the 20 numbers, I get 718, not 796 Mio $.--131.188.3.20 19:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC), DuMonde (GER)

• The total admissions seem to vastly overinflated for Thunderball. It says that there were 36 millions more admissions than Goldfinger, when the box office take was only $17 million higher. Seeing as a ticket cost approximately $1.01 according to Box Office Mojo, this would look to be wrong. I have changed the total admissions to 139.8 million to account for this.

James Bond is over 70 years old

James Bond is over 70 years old but still doing field missions for the MI6. Proof: At the end of You only live twice, M writes a eulogy to Bond, who he thinks died in Japan. In this eulogy, M reveals that Bond was born in the 1920s. A later book, Zero minus ten, is shown to happen in 1999. Therefore Bond must have been at least 70 years old at that time, and he's nearing 80 now. Not bad for an old-timer. JIP | Talk 19:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

And Dennis the Menace is 55, etc etc Cardinal Wurzel 21:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Is Dennis's age or the current year ever stated in the Dennis comics? JIP | Talk 08:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Consider James Bond (character)#Alternative biographies and theories for an explanation (for Bond, not Dennis! ;) – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to explain. This are basicly what Charlie Higson said: My books (Young Bond), fit in with Flemings bond who did work in the 50s and 60s, and was borns in 1920. You can count the films, Gardener, and Benson and Person as alternate worlds.:

Daniel Craig's picture

I wonder if someone could replace the picture of Craig's Bond with one that doesn't make him look like a flouncing pretty boy? A more recent shot with the right hair and everything (perhaps something from the film or pre-release stuff rather than from the initial announcement of the film) would be better than the one that's there now. I'd do it myself, but I don't like doing pics because of the potential legal issues. Thanks. --Possecomitatus 23:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang

Wasn't Cdr. Bond known as Mister Kiss Kiss Bang Bang to his fans? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.41.142.242 (talk • contribs) on 08:22, 27 November 2006

And to Shirley Bassey and Dionne Warwick - see Thunderball (soundtrack), also http://www.ianfleming.org/index.shtml . -- Beardo 17:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to split Bond Films into its own article

I don't feel it is proper for the list of James Bond novels to be split off from this article, and yet the Bond films not only get a large section, but also an extensive chart as well. I would like to propose that James Bond films be made into its own article, with a sufficient link from this article. Either that or we just have to bring back a list of the novels. James Bond started out as a literary character and to emphasize the films over the books is incorrect. I'd like to see if there's any objection before I go ahead and do this. Thoughts? 23skidoo 00:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Before "casting a vote" I'd like to know more about what you'd propose to leave in the "rump" article — bearing in mind that we already have James Bond (character) as well. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe something should be done. This article has really destroyed James Bond as a literary creation and has clearly put more emphasis and thus bias on the films. This is not right and needs to be rectified. K1Bond007 06:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"Dealing with the changing actor" section

My changes to the section involved deleting two items relating to the 1967 and 2006 Casino Royale films and restructuring the section into a paragraph rather than a list of four bullets. The part about the 2006 Casino Royale:

In the 2006 Casino Royale, where M promotes Bond to double-0 status, Dench's character is the same M we have seen with existing Bonds, whilst the film is set in the present day, suggesting a further transition of the name (and function), followed by the number and status. However, it's been suggested by the makers of Casino Royale that the movie is a "reboot" of the character.

...really doesn't say anything about "dealing with changing actors". The actor playing M in this case did not change, not to mention the film is set in a different continuity than the previous 20. The rationale given for reverting this part was "And regarding 2006 film, "reboot" doesn't mean there isn't "self-awareness." However, the section is not about "instances where filmmakers and actors are aware of what they're doing" or anything of the sort. The first sentence is really just WP:OR speculation about what it means that Dench played M before the reboot and after. There's no citation of a reliable source, so this is almost certainly one or two editors' original analysis. Second, this is an article about James Bond, not about M.

On the quote about the 1967 Casino Royale:

In the early scenes of the 1967 Casino Royale, David Niven's retired Bond berates M for giving his number and his name to a brash new agent; the description he gives fits Sean Connery's Bond.

My problems are twofold: first, it suggests that the film is from the same contunity as the Connery films, which it is not. A reader less familiar with the history of the films may get the wrong idea. Second, it's not a matter of dealing with different actors playing the same character within the franchise, which is, I believe, the spirit of what this section is getting at. The edit summary of the editor who reverted me says, "as regards 67 film, bear in mind how seriously Sellers took it; it shouldn't be totally written off like that." My deletion was not based on a belief that the film shouldn't be "taken seriously", but rather that it was set in its own continuity, not that of the Eon films, and as such there wasn't a need to deal with casting a different actor in the role. I see this quote as a piece of satire directed at the Connery films, not as a method of dealing with the fact that the Bond franchise has outlived the capacity to recast the same actors for the same roles. There is no citation affirming that this is what the line refers to, which brings up OR concerns.

Third, I think you could make the argument that this whole section is OR since it is an analysis and synthesis of the film dialogue. There are no citations, which leads me to believe that an editor who is also a fan wrote it becasue he finds the material interesting, not because his interpretation is a consensus opinion reflected in in source material.

Fourth, my edit that was reverted included cleaning up the prose and turning the section into paragraph form, which I hope most people would agree is more encyclopedic than a list.

I'd be in favor of reinstating my version, which was offered in good faith. Croctotheface 12:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Although I contributed some of that section, I actually agree with you that some of it (chiefly to do with the current film) is close to "O.R." since it's hard to pin down sources for each element (gathered from various interviews and articles, not, for my contributions at least, pure O.R.) I will try to glean some citations which I guess I shied away from doing when I first added some of those points because I don't particularly want to pour over the sources again! ;)

However, (going slightly off on a tangent here) I must say that the same charge can be directed at a great deal of several of the Bond articles, and if we are to be consistent there's a lot which is P.o.V. interpretation of the films. I don't want to seem to be trying to justify making Wikipedia into an essay site, which of course it is not, and I'm certainly not saying that two wrongs make a right. But at the same time it's always going to be a grey area when writing about fiction. I would hate to see the article turned into simply a list of films and characters, avoiding all reference to facts which are contradictory or cannot be checked because they never happened in the real world and are only referred to in passing by characters. Perhaps there's a debate for another place here about how we treat descriptions of fictional universes across Wikipedia.

On the specific point about the 1967 film not being part of the canon; I see the discussion at that point being about Bond, and not about the Eon films in particular. (The sub-heading levels bear this out; it's a sub-section of "films".) So although it doesn't directly deal with the decisions made by the official franchise, it does help describe the way in which people interested in Bond have chosen to develop the mainstream portrayal of the character over the years.

On the point about lists being unencyclopaedic, I'm afraid I just don't agree. Lists are valid parts of an article where they cover several distinct, relatively short points.

Overall, I'd be in favour of maintaining this section because it does state facts from the films, and the other way of viewing it is that it does describe things which were factually correct and simply tries to put them into context. Would a reasonable compromise be to remove the reference to the current film, which seems to me to be the most potentially controversial?

Also intended in the best of faith, and by the way, sincerely thanks for being so polite about it :-) – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your politeness as well (here, at least, and not so much in reverting my edits! ;) ). Anyway, to what you actually said:

• It seems that we're in agreement (perhaps begrudgingly on your part) about the sentences dealing with the 2006 film, so I won't continue to discuss it.
• On the subject of original research, I think that you're aware of the problems that the section/artilcle has with it. Your answer does, as you acknowledge, smack of "two wrongs make a right." I think that most Wikipedia editors who write about things thay they are also fans of run into this issue. My approach is basically that while you don't need to rigorously question whether your pet article has OR, if someone else comes along and points out a case where it does, the jig is up, and you should acknowledge it and not obstruct that person's edits. If you're really suggesting that we can excuse OR here because it exists elsewhere, then anyone could use that argument to prevent OR from being removed from any article.
• For the 1967 film, if the passage dealt with the subject you're talking about: development of how Bond was portrayed, then I'm not sure it would belong in this section. I think that if you really consider what the spirit of this section is about, you'd agree with me that it's really about the complexity of the Bond from Dr. No being the same character as the Bond from Die Another Day, and the troubles that can arise when you have the same character, same continuity, and a different actor. However, the passage in question really isn't about either development of the portrayal or the difficulties with "same character/different actor", it's about one joke in a parody that makes reference to the material they are parodying. The whole film is conscious of the fact that another set of Bond movies exist; it's not particularly striking that there's a line that references Connery's portrayal. It is certainly not an exception to the way that the films generally change actors without acknowledging it, since there was no change of actors in the continuity that that film is set in.
• I was not suggesting that lists are unencyclopedic, just that a list is not an appropriate way to organize this kind of information. In general, my view is that paragraphs should be used when possible, and bulleting off a mere four examples rather than incorporating them into a coherent paragraph just strikes me as lazy writing. It makes the section look like a trivia section, which pushes the boundaries of what should be included in an encyclopedia.

For the time being, I'd be fine with compromising by removing the reference to the 2006 film and leaving the other one in. However, I don't want to make that the end of the discussion. I think that my changes are more in accord with WIkipedia policy and guidelines, so I think that it would be more appropriate to at the very least allow other editors to weigh in before deciding that the matter is closed. If anything, it seems to me that you recognize the problems with the section but still don't want to see it removed or reduced. I understand where that's coming from, but that doesn't mean that it's the right move to make. Croctotheface 15:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, let's keep this open and canvass some more opinions. I'm sorry the revert seemed rude. I was of course reverting a deletion, though, which could in itself seem... oh, you know. And that's because I think we get much more out of things being discussed on talk pages - as we're now finding, I hope :-) – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 15:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed this section from Trivia

I'm not sure why "other actors" are relevant to the James Bond article. Perhaps this would belong in an article on the film franchise or something similar. Removed text:

Other actors

• Joe Don Baker played Brad Whitaker, the villain in The Living Daylights. Baker shows up in later James Bond films, portraying Jack Wade, one of the spy's allies in both Goldeneye and Tomorrow Never Dies.
• Like Joe Don Baker, Charles Gray, has appeared in a Bond film as both a villain and a Bond ally. Gray portrayed Bond's contact Dikko Henderson in You Only Live Twice and four years later he played Blofeld in Diamonds are Forever.
• Walter Gotell appeared as henchman Morzeny in From Russia with Love and later as competitor, and arguably collaborator, General Gogol in The Spy Who Loved Me, Moonraker, For Your Eyes Only, Octopussy, A View to a Kill and The Living Daylights.
• Desmond Llewelyn holds a record for having appeared in the greatest number of Bond films, having appeared in 17 of the films as Q, a.k.a. Major Boothroyd, and head of Q branch.
• Actress Eunice Gayson played Bond Girl Sylvia Trench in Dr. No, and returned briefly in From Russia with Love, making her the only Bond girl to appear as the same character in more than one film.
• Maud Adams plays Scaramanga's (and then Bond's) love interest Andrea Anders in The Man with the Golden Gun and then returned to play the title role in Octopussy, making her the third actress to appear twice as a "Bond woman", and the second to play more than one "Bond woman". She also appears as an uncredited extra during a scene in A View To A Kill where Bond and a secret service contact meet at the San Francisco harbour.

Comment

I think that part is a darn sight more useful than some of the stuff here, but agree it is better on the film franchise page. I'll try to find somewhere to put it there. -- Beardo 21:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

All things Bond in Wikipedia

Adding a link, in "See Also", to "Category:James Bond" page, titling the link, "All things Bond in Wikipedia". The category page is a rich resource for those wanting to explore more on James Bond. Without this link most users would never on their own stumble onto this page. This link also highlights the Category feature built into Wikipedia—helpful for newcomers. WikiLen 03:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Categories are placed at the bottom of pages as categories. Cbrown1023 03:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Plus, your reversion in big letters that I should "SEE" the discussion was a little rude considering I reverted 37 minutes before you posted the above. Cbrown1023 03:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

"SEE" in caps was rude, my mistake with apologies. Did all-caps for a different reason. WikiLen 18:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It is fine, sorry about my saying it is rude, but that's what happens on talk page and in edit summaries... people can't hear your tone, so they do not know in what way you mean it. This was slightly a learning thing... (WP:CIVIL and WP:TALK for more information, note that this is not saying you are not civil, you are, it is just giving you a link to interesting policies) Cbrown1023 00:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Another thing, "See also" sections are frowned upon, like trivia sections. Cbrown1023 03:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

CBrown, you have far more experience than I on Wikipedia and I defer to your experience. Seeing my intent, if you want to undo or improve my "All things Bond in Wikipedia" link you will be doing so without my objection. Would you please steer me to a page that will help me understand your statement, "Categories are placed at the bottom of pages as categories". Anything about "See also" sections would also be appreciated — Thanks! WikiLen 18:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:CAT. About the "see also" sections, I think they're kinda ugly and unorganized and another user (more experienced than me) told me that they are frowned upon. Cbrown1023 00:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Figured out the Categories stuff—mostly. I see "James Bond" is already listed in the Category section at the bottom of the page, but mixed in with items only there to server editors — seems like a weak location for such an interesting page as "Category:James Bond". WikiLen 18:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It is because when you place a category link at the bottom of a page (without the ":" (colon) in the link), it places the article in the category. This allows "categorization" of the pages and quick access at one page. This is common practice for all pages. I do agree that it is a big help... but that is the reason it exists and why the navigation boxes (blue boxes with the show/hide buttons) are there. Cbrown1023 00:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Please also note my other responses scattered through this section. Cbrown1023 00:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks... WikiLen 01:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Job role

I thought Bond was classed more as an assassin than a agent?Halbared 14:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Surely not. Whilst the 00 allows him to kill on the job, most of his assignments don't involve missins of assassination but of investigation or espionage. -- Beardo 23:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The non-Eon Bonds section

This section has grown. I really don't think the photos of Moore 1964 or Cazenove (and probably not Holness) belong on this main page. I wonder whether this section should be spun off into another page, or if there is another way of dealing with it ? -- Beardo 21:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

One can make a case against the Holness picture on the grounds that it's non even a contemporary generic publicity shot of him, let alone one connected with the radio production, although presumably it serves the purpose of showing what he looked like around the time. Obviously Cazenove only did a few selected scenes from the novels, but these were within the context of a serious arts documentary, rather than a spoof or parody. As far as I know, these scenes were properly licensed/acknowledged by Eon, and so are technically not "unofficial" in the way SSNA or the first two versions of Casino Royale are. Moore '64 I can't comment on, because I've not seen it, although Millicent Martin's programme was variety/light entertainment, so I presume it's not very serious in tone. Nick Cooper 10:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

James Bond actors

The years that say when the actors were Bond, are they the official numbers or just first movie to last movie? They should be the official ones, but they most likely aren't, as Dalton was officialy Bond until 1994, even if he didn't do any movies. Someone please clarify this.

Bond 22

Someone has changed Bond 22 to Risico But that redirect to For your eyes only. Has the name of Bond 22 been confirmed ? -- Beardo 04:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Bond 22 does not yet have a certain name. Risico is only a false rumour. The truth is nobody from the production team has even thought about a definate name! Get someone to change it back to Bond 22! Who changed it anyway? If they had chosen a name everybody would know! --Highfields 17:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Question for you Bond experts

I bought a box set of all the ultimate edition DVDs, and noticed something. Would anyone be able to tell me why Goldeneye and Diamonds Are Forever the only two titles in the entire set that have a little trademark 'TM' sign next to their names? Thanks. Proto::► 21:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps they are the only ones that anyone saw fit to trade mark. Diamonds are Forever is trademarked ? I'm surprised Thunderball isn't - but perhaps that is part of the McClory thing. Most of the others are fairly ordinary phrases. -- Beardo 05:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"Thunderball" is the name given to the Nestene meteorites by a poacher in the 1970 Doctor Who story Spearhead from Space and according to an article/letter correction in Doctor Who Magazine some years ago "thunderball" has a traditional meaning that has now been all but forgotten due to the Bond movie. Does anyone have access to a super dictionary? If the name is there then trademarking it could be tricky. Timrollpickering 02:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Trademarking in this instance is usually used to protect a word or name that didn't exist or have a meaning until it was put to a use. The GoldenEye trade mark could be for the form of the words i.e. the capital E in the middle and not the actual word itself. Or perhaps the Goldeneye hotel/resort had already trade marked it and the film company were using it under license. Not a definitive answer I know, but a few things to think about. - X201 09:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

All 20 Bond movies with adjusted inflation.

By the way, what the hell happened to the Bond US Box office? Or are we only going by world wide now?

01. Dr. No (1962) - $384,662,260 02. From Russia with Love (1963) - $503,238,732 03. Goldfinger (1964) - $786,109,249 04. Thunderball (1965) - $873,775,665 05. You Only Live Twice (1967) - $652,559,281 06. On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969) - $465,481,865 07. Diamonds Are Forever (1971) - $559,239,693 08. Live and Let Die (1973) - $710,900,787 09. The Man with the Golden gun (1974) - $386,403,405 10. The Spy Who Loved Me (1977) - $597,403,398 11. Moonraker (1979) - $565,980,043 12. For Your Eyes Only (1981) - $419,466,512 13. Octopussy (1983) - $367,658,132 14. A View to a Kill (1985) - $276,614,498 15. The Living Daylights (1987) - $328,709,154 16. Licence to Kill (1989) - $246,015,000 17. Goldeneye (1995) - $450,445,866 18. Tomorrow Never Dies (1997) - $405,215,336 19. The World is not Enough (1999) - $424,164,872 20. Die Another Day (2002) - $468,949,188

I'd also like to point out that "Thunderball", is the most selling Bond film of all time...

To be fair why should the US box office have it's own separate column, there isn't one for UK, Europe, Asia or any other. Wikipedia is a global encyclopaedia, not a US one. Ben W Bell talk 08:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Plus there is, of course, now 21 Bond films. You missed one. Proto::► 09:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur with the original message, the box office data are useless for comparison unless adjusted for inflation. Of course we need to know the base year as well (i.e., 2000 dollars or 2006 dollars?) As for regional breakdowns, why not have a seperate table with US, UK, Europe, etc.? That would be interesting. Then you could compare regional shifts in Bond interest over the years. Is Australia watching less Bond now than 20 years ago? Do the Japanese even care? --Polkaparty 20:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Even inflation adjusted figures aren't the whole answer. The only true representation of a present day films' popularity versus an old films' popularity is an attendance, "bums on seats" figure. The data must be available, it's just getting hold of it that may be the problem. - X201 10:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The latest Casino Royale box office reports, another nail in the boycott coffin.

$417,298,658

[[1]] So much for the boycott, right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MrClarkWithoutRemorse (talk • contribs) 01:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

Sum for the table?

Could somebody more code knowledgable than I possibly put some into the film earnings table to automatically add up the totals? People are changing the still increasing total of Casino Royale, but few are changing the total, making it pretty difficult to add up everything again. I'm not even sure if it's possible, but it might be worth a try... Cheers, SteveLamacq43 14:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Small mistake, needs reference

Under the sections "James Bond will return.." appears the sentence:

Despite George Lazenby's short tenure in the tuxedo, some reviewers have also warmed to On Her Majesty's Secret Service – Leonard Maltin's TV Movies (a.k.a. Leonard Maltin’s Movie & Video Guide) review book states it might have been the best Bond film ever had Connery appeared in it; Raymond Benson concurs in The James Bond Bedside Companion.

Does anyone have the Leonard Maltin Book to check whether he refers to Lazenby's film or a different one? I couldn't find any references elsewhere on the internet, only numerous sites that appear to have copy and pasted text from this wikipedia article. --Polkaparty 20:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Bond's Car in Casino Royale

Just a quick note out to you car enthusiasts - I noticed the article mention that Bond's signature car is the Aston Martin DB5, and it noted the new Casino Royale as among the films it features in. I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure the badge on the car named it as a DB7, a newer model, rather than a DB5.

Can someone who knows more about cars comment and/or correct this?

FraterNLST 22:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)FraterNLST

The DB5 is Bonds signature car and was in Casino Royale - the one he won from Demetrios. The one was got from MI6 was the DBS, the one that he crashes (Agghhh). Both the DB5 and the DBS were in the film —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chris huh (talk • contribs) 13:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

James Bond Music

Placebo are NOT an english band and feature no english members. Edit needed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.240.87.158 (talk) 05:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

• Could a comment actually be more wrong? Placebo was formed in London. Steve Hewitt was born in Manchester and Brian Molko was born in London.

Help!

Bondpedia - the James Bond encyclopedia. Is a Wiki-based James Bond encyclopedia and if you are a fan then we must ask for your help! We have 12 members and are in need of more contributions. Please Help!

For more information go to the above named website and search for: 'User talk:Tom' or 'User talk:James Bond' and ask us anything. This is a desperate plee! Thank You.

--Highfields 17:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Bondpedia

I am a representative for Bondpedia which can be found at Bondpedia - the James Bond encyclopedia. If you want to help or join you are always welcome. Follow link above and search for 'User talk:Tom' and ask me any questions there or you can contact me on User talk:Highfields here on Wikipedia. Its a free wikia dedicated to the world of 007. As Bondpedia online ambassador I ask you please (we only have 12 members!). Talk to you soon!

--Highfields 17:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Never say Never Again.

I don't see Never say Never Again listed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.229.144.21 (talk) 03:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

Where wasn't it listed? --Highfields 11:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

ummmmmmm

what happened to Sean Connery's other Bond film - Never Say Never Again... its not on the listings, lol

This question is already answered in the article (see "Non-Eon Films, Radio and Television Programmes") as well it is on this talk page (see "Missing Info"). --- Der_Hans

Never Say Never Again is not an official film of the EON series --Highfields 19:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it starred Sean Connery and the character's name was James Bond. It should be included in the list, but with a footnote explaining the peculiarity. Otherwise, it's confusing; the omission decreases the value of the article. JTBurman 01:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Ambiguous Broccoli

The article states: "Broccoli and Saltzman's family company, Danjaq, LLC, has owned the James Bond film series". In this instance, who is Broccoli?. The article earlier refers to two people named Broccoli. Although the answer to this question may seem obvious to a subject matter expert, it is not obvious to a reader visiting this article to learn about the subject, who does not already know. Since the latter case is the purpose of an encyclopedia, I suggest making this sentence more clear, by specifying which Broccoli owned the company with Saltzman. And while we're at it, who's Saltzman? Jerry lavoie 00:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact it refers to 'saltzman' means it is talking of Harry Saltzman. This means it is talking about Albert R 'Cubby' Broccoli --Highfields 16:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

North American Box Offic

I've removed this a couple of times, but it's being added back by an anon user. As the films aren't an American franchise and adding one nation's box office shows absolutely nothing, is there any possible reason to justify it's inclusion? If nobody replies, I'll remove it again. SteveLamacq43 01:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

I feel that intro section is too long, and contains too much minor detail (some of which is duplicated later). I will try to reduce/reallocate. -- Beardo 18:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

BONDPEDIA

Help Needed

If anyone is a fan of James Bond, or just wants to help clean up some wiki pages, the site Bondpedia needs alot of help. It only has 16 users and needs alot of help, so please help.

Help Needed

--82.27.17.105 17:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

We need help as well. Someone keeps spamming the talk page. This is the third time a Bondpedia "appeal" has been put here. We read the first one. - X201 22:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Bond 22 - Policy Idea

I've added a request in the article that the name of Bond 22 is not changed until the title is confirmed by EON/MGM themselves. There will be numerous exclusives in newspapers and magazines that the new Bond film is called 'x' over the coming months. Would it be an idea to have a vote and make it a policy for Bond films that the name is Bond 22, Bond 23 etc until and only until the name is confirmed by EON/MGM? - X201 11:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems pretty obvious. Do we need to vote on it ? -- Beardo 14:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Not really. Just thought it would provide a discussion to point to if anyone contests a revert from their entry back to Bond 22. - X201 14:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that WP:OR and WP:CITE provide pretty good grounds for that in the first place.--chris.lawson 15:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The aspect that worried me was that newspapers, specifically in this case tabloids, are used as citable sources in Wikipedia and some newspapers have reported in the past that "x" is the tile of the new Bond film to be greeted by much scratching of heads at EON. Does WP:CITE allow for certain sources to be allowable on one subject but not on another, because this is the problem that I can see arising. - X201 16:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

My general opinion is that media speculation is worth approximately nothing, regardless of whether the media outlet is a reliable source or not. Unless the media is reporting confirmation on the part of Eon Productions of a film title, the only way something like that belongs here is if it's clearly worded as being speculation. (In other words, we still have a pretty strong argument for keeping it out of the table of official Bond films until Eon confirms the title.)--chris.lawson 16:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me - X201 16:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

In any event, all of that should be on the Bond 22 page, not here. -- Beardo 10:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Roger Moore and Ian Fleming

You know, I keep on hearing rumors and such that Ian Fleming wanted Roger Moore to play bond after viewing an episode of the saint before Doctor No; but of course this rumor is false because "The Saint", didn't begin airing untill one day after DN came out into theaters. Can someone provide a documented source of where it states Ian Fleming liked Roger Moore or wanted him to play bond? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MrClarkWithoutRemorse (talk • contribs) 06:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Forget about dates and (if the quote is true) it is perfectly possible. Fleming could have said at any point after seeing The Saint that Moore was the one he wanted to play Bond. It doesn't need DN and The Saint to be in any kind of chronological order for Fleming to express a preference for Moore. - X201 18:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Alphabetical External Links?

The external links section looks a bit unorganized, should it be put alphabetically? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.112.44.103 (talk) 18:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

Movie with most sequels

Bond movies have made 21 sequels while the japanese Godzilla series have had 28, some clarity would be appreciated when announcing accomplishments for such things. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.247.113.80 (talk) 15:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

I removed the line about the second most number of films. I don't think it's true. Other long series include the Carry On films (more than 25)and Layrel and Hardy (around 100). Even if these don't count I think there would need to be a very good source to back up the claim, I'm sure in other countires there will be motion picture series with a greater number of sequels.

Split Suggestion

I think the films should be split into another article, because the film section now ravels on about opening credits, gun barrel sequences and stuff that doesn't need to be on the james Bond page. Especially the Opening Credits section, why do we need told what every credit look like, so a seperate page should be better so people can read it there. However I think the films should be summarised and a smaller table (like the one there is with out director, inflation etc.) should be left. It also make it look as if the novels are nothing and the films are everything???????? SpecialWindler 04:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree. The films are a separate body of knowledge within the franchise, and there is enough shared features that James Bond (film) can exist alongside other articles specific to each individual film. James Bond is getting way too large, and not because irrelevant details are being added. Kransky 00:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the films section shouldn't be put in a separate article from the rest. If you did separate them you would have to separate the novels as well - but I agree about the novels bieng underestimated --Highfields 19:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

There is already a sub-article James Bond (novels), though it needs expansion. -- Beardo 14:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Archive

I think this page should also be archived again as it is a bit long??????? SpecialWindler 04:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree --Highfields 19:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Opinions a la Tom Bendall

I think James Bond should be renominated for featured article I also think the films section shouldn't be put in a separate article from the rest. If you did separate them you would have to separate the novels as well --Highfields 19:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The best/worst Bond films

I think it's totally legit to mention three, four, or maybe even five Bond films, which are GENERALLY regarded as the best. But lately, the expansion of the respective section of the article is getting a bit out of hand. Currently, no less then TEN films are mentioned there as potential candidates for the best Bond movie (From Russia with Love, Goldfinger, Dr. No, Thunderball, GoldenEye, The World Is Not Enough, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, The Spy Who Loved Me, Licence To Kill, Casino Royale).

I mean, when half of all Bond films ever produced are mentioned as the best movie(s), what exactly is the point of this section of the article? That the question of the best Bond film is hotly debated and has no definitive answer? Add two additional "best" films and you are mentioning the majority of all Bond films. In that case we should simply rephrase it too "In general, most Bond films are considered good movies." ;-)

No, seriously, I think we should either reduce the number of films mentioned to a maximum of five titles (as it was the case a few weeks ago, before someone started to add more and more films)... or the delete the whole section. Does anyone agree with me?

--Der_Hans 17 February 2007

I agree. Wipe the lot. Even though there are citation links to some of the content the whole section stinks of POV and even worse POV by proxy. - X201 12:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It is pure conjecture, without any solid evidence, and besides, I don't think if fits an encyclopedia too well - to say "Casino Royale is the highest grossing Bond film to date", for instance, and with evidence supporting it, is what can be considered legit, while saying "Some say Thunderball is the best Bond film", without even giving sources, is, I repeat, pure conjecture. So, I suggest taking it out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.196.75.241 (talk) 14:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

I've removed all of it. - X201 15:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

'Best James Bond Film' & 'Worst James Bond Film'

Am I the only one who sees these two sections rather redundant? All it is is conjecture and speculation as to what some people (and as such generalising) think is the best Bond film - not much of it is fact or even helpful information. There isn't much point in saying 'some people think that Pierce Brosnan's third entry The Would is Not Enough, is the best film' I mean 'some people could think Moonraker is the best film' - there is no polls or surveys that cite a reason for making distinctions on what some people may think and other don't - and the main point is it isn't relevent. Things like 'Casino Royale is the top rated Bond film on the IMDB' or 'From Russia With Love is Sean Connery's favourite Bond film that he made' could easily go in the respective films or actors in a trivia section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.168.245.30 (talk) 12:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

I agree, and suggest taking it out from the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.196.75.241 (talk) 14:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

Vandal

I think someone vandalized the ticket admissions page, can someone get the figures back up? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MrClarkTeamRainbow6 (talk • contribs) 10:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Item from Dom Pérignon (wine)

I removed the following section from the Dom Perignon article since it is quite trival an doesn't have much encyclopedic relevance to the article about the wine. I'm not an editor of this page so I don't know if it merits inclusion here but I figure I would drop a note to see if any editors want to include it here. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 08:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

James Bond James Bond is a famous drinker of Dom Pérignon, if not quaffing his favorite martini. He feels that it must always be stored at the "appropriate temperature of 38 degrees Fahrenheit." - Goldfinger, 1964.

He also attempted to use a bottle of 1955 Dom Pérignon as a weapon and remarked that "I prefer the '53 myself." - Dr. No, 1962. (Since there was no '53 vintage, Dr. No says that this is a "clumsy attempt"...)

Not really for here, would probably be more at home at James Bond (character) - X201 09:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)