Jump to content

Talk:James Bond (film series)/Archive 1

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



To Do List

The cleanup tag is at the top of the article. There needs to be a specific list of things to work on. ColdFusion650 22:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, since the tag is gone now, I guess we don't need one, unless someone has something to contribute. ColdFusion650 10:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I added the tag again. The article does not meet Wikipedia standards. It needs rewording, paragraphing, reorganisation of content, citations and other things that I can't think of right now. Jscarle 14:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Definitely citations. Whilst Bond may have not been academically analyzed as much as some film series, we can still find a lot to incorporate. As an encyclopedia, the article should best analyze how Bond is so popular and generally why the films topped the books in the popularity stakes. WikiNew 10:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the tradition section could be expanded. What about the bad guys, that is a mjor feature in a lot of the films? Jaws and Odd Job for example. Also what about the stunts? Bond films are famous for their stunts. Another tradition is the locations, traditionally superb locations all around the world have been used in the films. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.158.143 (talk) 11:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

In References,
^ "Academy Awards Database". Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Retrieved 2007-11-03.
now goes to their default Tomcat home page, created after Tomcat setup. Someone who is familiar with what the reference was supposed to link to may want to replace the linkage. Kid Bugs (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

UK only information

I think that it violates Wikipedia standards of it's open-source attitude to try to restrain people from adding non-UK information. Clarification that the numbers pertain to the UK box office and the dates to UK releases is needed so that US and international numbers and dates can be added. Jscarle 14:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

official/unofficial[who?]‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed][original research?]

and


"Unofficial" sounds rather unencyclopedic and a tad fancrufty without reliable sources justifying the use of this distinction in the article. Not going to edit it, as I don't want to piss anyone off, but this should be taken care of by users interested in the quality of this article. —AldeBaer 14:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. There also seens to be a confusion between Eon Productions as the 'official' Bond film licensees (no argument there), and the films themselves, the rights to which in a couple of cases got into the hands of others (viz. Kevin McClory and Charles K. Feldman). These individuals made James Bond films under legitimate licenses. So how did they become "unofficial", and who decided? On a related note, both films appear under a heading entitled "Radio and Television", which isn't very helpful, or accurate. --Stevouk 13:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

All this has been cleaned up

Vietnam?

According to the location map, James Bond has visited Vietnam. But which film? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kreativevn (talk • contribs) 11:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC).


In Tomorrow Never Dies he does a parachute jump over sea which is explicitly stated to be Vietnamese territorial waters. Not the strongest of connections but I'd say it qualifies as having been 'in Vietnam'.Tilefish 00:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Didn't the motorcycle chase of that movie also take place in Vietnam? Emperor001 01:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Just watched the movie again. They were in Vietnam. Emperor001 20:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Good article review

I am reviewing this article as it has been nominated for review as a good article candidate. I find that it meets most of the criteria for a good article, and have put it on hold. I have inserted a number of {{fact}} (citation needed) tags in the article. Once these are addressed properly, I'll review the article again. Apart from these unsourced statements, however, I see no problems with passing the article as a good article: It is stable, has good layout, proper wikilinks, good language, fair use images, is broad in coverage and has a neutral point of view. Please note that while the GA-review tag says that it will be in place for no more than seven days, I may leave it in place until Sunday the 12th of August, 2007. Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 10:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well for me the article is missing vital ingredients. Why doesn't it attempt to discuss the essential ingredients to the films such as exotic locations and cars, beautiful women, casinos and tuxedos etc? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you?" Contribs 14:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Vikrant. That is not to say, however, that the article couldn't be substantially improved by adding these elements, without using original research and by using verifiable references. Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 15:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 Done I have added the vehicles and girls information, removed OR as it was prevalent, and referenced. Vikrant Phadkay 16:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Good work. But who doesn't know the difference between a GA and an FA? Even a start class article should have covered the essential "recipe" to the Bond film genre. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you?" Contribs 18:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Not quite there yet

There are still a couple of small issues. First of all, there's still no citation about Craig being cast for the next movie - the reference to that line only pertains to the release dates. Also, I've introduced a {{fact}} tag in the bond girls section. Also, the vehicles section lacks info on all the gadgets found in Bond films. Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 18:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

GA passed

I have passed the article as a good article. It is reasonably well written, factually verifiable and accurate, stable, is broad, and contains images. The article can still be improved, e.g. by expanding the sections on Bond girls and Bond gadgets, but that's not something I'll use to fail the article as a good article. Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 06:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Clean-up

This article was in, and still is, in serious need of a rewrite. Yesterday, it clearly was just a split from James Bond, and a film series article should not discuss television or radio adaptations, nor discuss traditions in the novels. Luckily, I have two Bond books, which I shall be using to bring this up to the standards of X-Men film series or Friday the 13th (franchise). Alientraveller 12:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

All the subsections in "Traditions" should remain. The pre-credits teasers, opening titles, etc. are all notable as repeated elements within the series. They are not covered elsewhere in Wikipedia. I agree that maybe the info on the gunbarrel sequence could be shortened, but everything that is there are staples of the film series, which is what this article is supposed to be about. Chris 42 14:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
They are actually discussed without subsectioning because those are the main cinematographic traditions. I haven't fully completed the clean-up. Alientraveller 14:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll wait until you've finished before discussing this further, but I assume that the actors who have played Bond are going to be at least named within this article? Chris 42 14:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I know they're named on the table of films, but I still think the article deserves more about them. Chris 42 14:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
True, a strong lead actor is the key to Bond's success, more so than grotesque villains, exotic locations and heavenly cleavage, so when I write development expect a lot on casting. It's just I felt in rewriting the article, the character article would benefit from that stand-alone section on the actors. Alientraveller 14:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:007.svg

Image:007.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone else went ahead and fixed the problem. Just leaving a note for reference purposes. El Greco(talk) 15:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Bond 23

Shouldn't Bond 23 have its own article now? Lord Cornwallis (talk) 06:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

See WP:FUTFILMS. It's all talk for now. Alientraveller (talk) 08:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it should have its own article, even if it is a provisional stub.23:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.146.148 (talk)

No, read the guideline I linked. Alientraveller (talk) 09:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Somebody distorted the meaning of a Barbara Broccoli quote. The Wikipedia entry about the 23rd Bond movie contains the sentence: "Barbara Broccoli has been quoted as saying that the next film will complete a trilogy, and will end with Daniel Craig's Bond being a "whole" character with whom the franchise can do what they want." Actually, she said "Hopefully at the end of Quantum Of Solace, we have this 'whole' character. And now we can do what we want." -> The character is complete after Quantum of Solace and NOT after the third movie. Frogshake (talk) 16:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Judi Dench Cast as M

The information is wrong in the text - Stella Rimmington was head of MI5, not MI6. I think this might render the whole point invalid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.171.237 (talk) 08:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Based on Ian Fleming novels

I'm probably just dense, but is there a list of which films were based directly on Fleming novels? I think this info is interesting and relevant to the article. Like I said, maybe its already in the article but i missed it?Moss Ryder (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Question about the plotline

I haven't watched much bond film (only watched three), but I was wondering, that Do all official Bond movies follow a general stotyline or are the movies unrelated? If they do have a storyline, do they follow it when they change the actors or just reboot the entire story? --Gman124 talk 00:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The movies are generally unrelated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaukator (talk • contribs) 21:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

A few errors

In the 'Pre-title sequence'-section, it says that the teaser "is loosely connected or not at all connected" to the plot. However, in Die Another Day the teaser (and the main credit sequence) is very important plotwise. Also, under 'Climax' it says that in Live and Let Die the supervillain escapes. This is not the case. Gaukator (talk) 21:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, not entirely true, although I thought it was until I watched them all over and over again recently. "Spector" is the universal evil agency that they are secretly fighting against in almost half of the films. Bond goes up against many of the head agents movie after movie, and has to even kill one of them a second time when he realizes that he had 2 doubles. Also the movies usually open with bond with a woman, and within the movie he always flirts with Money Penny (underlying plot builds over multiple movies, but not strong enough to see in one) Gets orders from M, then he surveys the scene. He usually gets equipment from Q, information from a good girl, then the rest of the info he needs from sleeping with the bad girl. Finally he gets his man. Although in some of the movies the bad guy does get away.File077 (talk) 00:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Not sure what relevance of new comment is to old, but FYI it is "SPECTRE" not "Spector", and this agency disappeared after the Connery era, which is a bit less than 1/3rd of the films (7 out of 23 EON films) , not "almost half".
As for original comment, yes in some Bond films the teaser is very important to the plot, but frequently it is not.--WickerGuy (talk) 02:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Compiled table

Table of films has been compiled and organised into EON and non-EON films for greater density of quick info —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.166.40.234 (talk) 08:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's create a separate article of very short synopses

Since the in-chart plot synopses are not working, let's create a spin-off article of List of Bond films with synopses and we don't have to worry about their ungainly appearance. The first person to remove them reverted way way too much, undoing a gazillion good edits. When they tried again (from an IP address) they zapped all but one (leaving in the "View to a Kill" synopsis) and then in frustration once again went with reversion zapping way wayy wayyy too much other good edits (including restoral of a section I felt never belonged myself.) To avoid the temptation to do this (Removing each synopsis by hand is hard) I suggest a separate spinoff article.

--WickerGuy (talk) 22:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

No, if we want to keep the article short we'd better leave out these mini plot summaries and cut down much of the "trademarks" section. In fact, these trademarks belong to the James Bond franchise as whole. Per WP:PLOT. Alientraveller (talk) 22:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Lots (but by no means all) of the trademarks are fairly unique to the film series and are not part of Fleming's novels. This includes the relationships with Moneypenny and Q and quotes like "Bond, James Bond" and having martinis shaken not stirred.

--WickerGuy (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's what I wrote in the deletion discussion page.

Attempts to incorporate synopses into the James Bond_(film series) article were rather unfruitful, because they were placed (by me) in the table that included box office reciepts. Films with rather Byzantine plots (notably The Living Daylights) always got a bit too long making the chart there a bit unsightly. Most users were Ok with them, but one fellow working only from an IP address twice reverted by doing a whole article reversion that simultaneously reverted dozens and dozens of other legit edits. The first time I undid his work, I pleaded to remove synopses only and not undo. This is actually rather hard to do given that they are table entries. The second time he tried, he on pass 1 got rid of all synopses except for View to a Kill and instead of removing this, once again did the date revert which undid well over a week of lots of other good changes not only by me but by "Chris42" (an excellent editor) and others. We do in fact have separate articles with lists of TV episodes such as "list of doctor who episodes" "list of Seinfeld episodes" or "list of Star Trek comic books". I think if the box office figures are not in the table, a similar tabular list of Bond films with short synopses is viable. It's the squeeze in the table created by box office figures combined with the difficulty of summarizing more Byzantine films like Octopussy and The Living Daylights which seems to be the source of the problem.

Better of course to find a better solution to incorporating short synopses into main article or perhaps just give up on synopses altogether. But we just can't provide any editor with the temptation to remove them by reverting several days of other legitimate changes!!!!

--WickerGuy (talk) 23:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I've attempted to save the synopses by splitting box office and synopses into two separate tables. This is similar to the way the Spiderman article has three tables, one for box office, one for cast, and one for reviews.

--WickerGuy (talk) 02:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the synopses should be removed from the chart, because they take up space needlessly; if people want to know more about a specific movie, they can follow the link to that movie's page. Here's what the chart would look like without the synopses:
EON Films
Title Year Bond actor Director Actual Adjusted
Box
office[1] 		Budget[1] Box
office 		Budget
Dr. No 1962 Sean Connery Terence Young $59.6M $1M $419.35M $8.44M
From Russia with Love 1963 $78.9M $2M $547.835M $17.35M
Goldfinger 1964 Guy Hamilton $124.9M $3M $853.2M $23.9M
Thunderball 1965 Terence Young $141.2M $9M $955.27M $37.9M
You Only Live Twice 1967 Lewis Gilbert $111.6M $9.5M $716M $61M
On Her Majesty's Secret Service 1969 George Lazenby Peter R. Hunt $82M $8M $518.2M $41.5M
Diamonds Are Forever 1971 Sean Connery Guy Hamilton $116M $7.2M $615.2M $38.2M
Live and Let Die 1973 Roger Moore $161.8M $7M $801.7M $38.7M
The Man with the Golden Gun 1974 $97.6M $7M $442M $31.7M
The Spy Who Loved Me 1977 Lewis Gilbert $185.4M $14M $669M $50.5M
Moonraker 1979 $210.3M $31M $650M $77.3M
For Your Eyes Only 1981 John Glen $195.3M $28M $474M $68M
Octopussy 1983 $187.5M $27.5M $404.7M $75.5M
A View to a Kill 1985 $152.6M $30M $304.9M $60M
The Living Daylights 1987 Timothy Dalton $191.2M $40M $363M $76M
Licence to Kill 1989 $156.2M $32M $272.2M $73.2M
GoldenEye 1995 Pierce Brosnan Martin Campbell $356.4M $60M $496.3M $84.2M
Tomorrow Never Dies 1997 Roger Spottiswoode $339.5M $110M $459.8M $145.9M
The World Is Not Enough 1999 Michael Apted $361.7M $135M $501M $173.4M
Die Another Day 2002 Lee Tamahori $431.9M $142M $543.5M $169.2M
Casino Royale 2006 Daniel Craig Martin Campbell $596.4M $102M $632.5M $138.4M
Quantum of Solace 2008 Marc Forster $586.1M $230M
Totals Films 1–22 $5,021.7M $1,045.2M $11,640M $1,720M
Non-EON Films
Casino Royale (Climax! TV episode) 1954 Barry Nelson William H. Brown, Jr. Not applicable unknown
Casino Royale (parody) 1967 David Niven Ken Hughes
and others 		$44.4M $12M $274.2M unknown
Never Say Never Again 1983 Sean Connery Irvin Kershner $160M $36M $331.4M unknown
  1. ^ a b "Box Office History for James Bond Movies". The Numbers. Retrieved 2007-11-08.

Wrightaway (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Repeated Reversions- Open letter to 76.230.6.145

User 76.230.6.145,

Your repeated efforts to remove the new chart structure and specifically the new plot synopses would be more credible if it didn't involve reverting so much other stuff by User:Chris_42, User:Alientraveller, User:Kazuba, User:Hammersfan, User:Emperor001 and others as well as myself, including very legitimate spelling and capitalization corrections!!

The correct plural of "femme fatale" really is "femmes fatales", and the correct spelling is "mementos" not "momentos" and "installment" really can be spelled with either one or two letter 'l's as in "instalment". In several other cases, since Bond is a British agent and Brit film franchise, it is appropriate to use British spelling such as "rumour" instead of "rumor" and so forth. Nor is there any reason to put names like Honey Ryder in quote marks. Also in titles like "James Bond of the Secret Service" it is absolutely correct to not capitalize 'of' and 'the', and you do not capitalize the word following a colon if what follows is just a list instead of a sentence.

Even if you object aesthetically or philosophically to the more content-oriented stuff of the dozens and dozens of edits you reverted in one fell swoop, the spelling and capitalization errors you reverted were all entirely correct as they stood before your reversion.

So if you really want to revert so much stuff, could you be a little less trigger-happy, use an identity, and make a case for what you are doing on the talk page? Please. It would be the proper etiquette.

--WickerGuy (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Good Brit spelling reference

Given that quite a few editors have tried to interject American spelling into this article about a British franchise, folks might be interested in the Wikipedia article American and British English spelling differences. While it is slightly debatable what spelling one would use when simply talking about the franchise generally, unquestionably any named entity in the Bond-world should be spelled in the British way. The Brits have a "Ministry of Defense", not a "Ministry of Defence"!! (This was the issue in the most recent edit which was reverted.) Generally, the convention in this article seems to be to use Brit spellings. At any rate, the WP article mentioned above is a good resource.

--WickerGuy (talk) 21:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You'll find that you have that the opposite way around I'm afraid. UK = "Defence", US = "Defense". --WebHamster 22:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Mea culpa!! Both Random House and American Heritage back you. Obviously then , no point in my being defensive (for which there is only one correct spelling Brit or Yank) :)

--WickerGuy (talk) 01:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Concatenation of tables helps clarity but not space

The combination of the non-EON films in a separate section (or sequence) of the same chart as the EON films makes sense to me. If one were to undo this change it would make sense to have at the bottom of the EON chart a link to the non-EON chart.

The combining of the box office chart with the recently added synopses chart makes some sense re quick reference, but doesn't actually save space. If you check "print preview" on your browser, the total space taken up in either case is one and one-third printer pages. This is because when box office is added in, the synopses invariably take up about 2 to 3 extra lines each making them a little less light to read.

What do other folks out there in WP-land think?

--WickerGuy (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I Think that the Synopses really shouldn't be in the chart, or should be shortened (there's only one or two that need to be shortened to make the field a lot smaller) but left them in for the sake of preserving a previous contributors work. The combined table also takes up 2kb less space 219.90.206.129 (talk) 14:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Space on the printed page (or monitor/screen) isn't the same thing as space on a hard drive!! There's a gain by having the chart-info not so far removed, but there really isn't any appreciable reduction in human display-space.

--WickerGuy (talk) 14:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The 2kb difference was a side comment, as for me the compiled table takes up a lot less space ad can be viewed in it's entirety on a single screen. As for the printed version try in landscape 219.90.206.129 (talk) 07:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Modest concession

On a high-resolution screen (which I don't have at home with my 1024 x 728 screen) you're right. Also taking up your suggestion to try printing on landscape, you get just over 2 pages with the new version and just about 3 pages with the old, a reduction of practically an entire page rather than the 3/10 page reduction you get on portrait printing. My prior comparison (below) with the Potter and Star Wars pages may then be not applicable given they are franchises with only 5 and 6 movies and can more easily afford dual charts. Comments underneath this were made before this one.

--WickerGuy (talk) 17:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Just tested this with WP's own "printable versions" of old and new versions. 1 and 1/3 pages for the new version. 1 and 6/10 pages for the old version. Of course, in the old version the three charts were many pages apart from each other, and yes that was a problem. But the new format saves less space than you think because of necessity the synopses occupy almost twice as many lines. Again, I'm talking human display space, not hard drive space.

--WickerGuy (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Dual charts in other articles

The article James Bond (which includes novels, films, radio) has separate charts for EON films and non-EON films (though fairly close together in the article).
More relevantly, both the article Star Wars (admittedly covering only six films) and the article Harry Potter (film series) (covering only five) have two separate charts, one chart for critical reaction (which we don't have, though we have directors and actors which they don't), and another chart for box office. In both cases the two charts are almost (HP) or exactly (SW) adjacent to each other in the article, but in both cases each film title appears twice, once for each chart. I don't especially like the big-sized bulky chart, but favor separate smaller charts, although I realize that when covering 22 films that involves a greater amount of repetition of titles.

Any other opinions??

--WickerGuy (talk) 05:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Note on Bond being called on case while with a woman

A few minutes ago I deleted a sentence in the section "Pre-title sequence" stating these frequently featured Bond being shown with a woman while called away on a case. Actually, this scenario really does happen in quite a lot of Bond films. However, it appears only once specifically in a pre-title sequence!!! That is The Spy Who Loved Me. Bond is also with a woman in the pre-title sequence of You Only Live Twice just before his faked assassination, but this does not involve a mission call.

--WickerGuy (talk) 20:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Maybe a rewording is in order, as Bond is seen in a romantic dalliance with a woman in a number of the films, but not necessarily called away: Goldfinger, Thunderball (well, flirting), YOLT, Spy, Moonraker, Never Say Never, A View to a Kill and The Living Daylights. We won't count Marie in DAF as that was hardly romantic! 23skidoo (talk) 05:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

On the "male organ" euphemism

I really had hoped I wouldn't have to bring this up on the talk page, but apparently I must. Is something like "male organ" really appropriate for an encyclopedia? Wikipedia is uncensored, and as per this site's own article on euphemisms, "A euphemism is a substitution of an agreeable or less offensive expression in place of one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant to the listener,[1] or in the case of doublespeak, to make it less troublesome for the speaker". I changed it once, and WickerGuy claimed, "It's "Euphemism" & in Woody Allen films & scholarly books on Bond". Nothing as such is cited in the article, and the sentence I'm referring to is not a quotation. I feel this is, quite simply, a stupid term to use. As I stated when I reverted it a second time, "It'd be laughable to replace every instance of the word "penis" with "male organ" in, say, Ron Jeremy's article." There's no reason it should be acceptable here. 207.255.58.152 (talk) 06:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't exactly provide citations in an edit-explanation which is limited to X number of characters. When you first replaced "male organ" with "penis", your explanation was that "Really, this euphamism is silly. Leave stuff like that to bad erotic fan fiction". In addition to my correcting your misspelling of "euphemism", I pointed out in my revert edit that the phrase "male organ" appears in Woody Allen movies and scholarly works on Bond, and as such is not exclusively confined to "bad erotic fan fiction".
If you want citations, here they are. In the Woody Allen movie "Manhattan", Diane Keaton says "My problem is I'm both attracted and repelled by the male organ." And never mind James Bond scholarship. Try the source material!!! In Ian Fleming's very own James Bond novel "The Man With the Golden Gun" we read "the pistol...has significance for the owner as a symbol of virility - an extension of the male organ" (page 33 of the current paperback edition- the same phrase is also on the next page).
Albert Broccoli has stated that he regards the Bond films as "family films" perhaps not in the narrow sense of Disney stuff but in the sense that Star Trek is. (See Licence to Thrill: A Cultural History of the James Bond Films by James Chapman p. 129 and elsewhere in the book if you are going to again ask me for a citation.) The sexuality in Bond is all on the level of Playboy magazine, not Ron Jeremy movies. In seems reasonable to match the level of language talking about entertainment, to the level of the content itself. Thus in writing about hard-core entertainment, it's fine to use hard-core language, and in writing about moderately suggestive entertainment, one would use moderately suggestive language. WP:NOTCENSORED is a disclaimer of content, not of style!!!
Other opinions from other editors welcome.

Regards,

--WickerGuy (talk) 08:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

If that were true, then the article on Barney & Friends likely averages too many syllables. 207.255.58.152 (talk) 08:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I was talking about the aesthetic level of the language, not the reading comprehension level!! The readership for material about entertainment includes interested parties beyond the fans who might want to view it themselves. In such a case, information beyond fun facts for fans is important!! Parents, educators, CampFire USA troop leaders all might look at Wikipedia to find out about Barney without having the slightest interest in viewing it themselves. In this case, you need something at their greater comprehension level. Parties beyond Bond fans who would look at Wikipedia's article on Bond might include students or writers researching the history of spy fiction, reviewers of the new Bond film, or local movie theatre owners writing publicity blurbs or intros for a midnight show of Bond. For example, the Aquarius theatre in Palo Alto, CA has weekly Saturday midnight shows of old movies which now and then are James Bond films. These are usually preceded by a live 5-minute intro to the film given by a theatre employee. They might use Wikipedia as a reference. However, in the cases I cited for Barney, the article gains by reaching beyond the fanbase for Barney. In the cases I cite for Bond, nothing whatsoever is gained by the semi-gratuitous use of more hardcore language.
Your point is a total red herring!!!

--WickerGuy (talk) 10:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The way the article is written has nothing whatsoever to do with Fleming's terminology or his aims for Bond's demographic. This is an encyclopaedic article and as such should be written in straight-forward and unimaginative terms and syntax. Euphemisms have no place in an encyclopaedia unless the article is on "euphemism". The article is about Fleming's work, it should not be written in Fleming style. I've never heard something so bloody stupid. The correct term should be "penis" as that is what is being referred to... unless you'd like to use "pee pee" instead FFS!. --WebHamster 12:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
"Genitals" would also work, but it's much more fun for the IP address to use the specific terms. It's like vandalizing and getting away with it under the guise of being "encyclopedic". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
The word "penis" is hardly a "semi-gratuitous" word, unless you are really, really conservative. That would make biologists and doctors foul-mouthed bastards. 146.186.77.92 (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I'll defer since it's now two against two, but I wonder if this is another Brit-Yank thing. I associate the phrase "male organ" with synopses of sitcoms like Seinfeld, scholarly writing about erotica (numerous forewords to DH Lawrence novels), discussion groups about Sigmund Freud, and music journalists writing about wrap music, but not at all with bad romance novels. Of course, I've never read any bad romance novels, and I never even heard of the British publishing firm of "Mills and Boon" (see WebHamster's edit comments) until now.
The WP article on "euphemisms" says that some are now so well-established that they are no longer recognized as euphemisms. (They give "undertaker" as an example.) (In fact, I'm not even convinced WP is correct that "gay" even qualifies as a euphemism.) The current usage in the Bond article of "penis" struck me as being crypto-graffiti masked as encyclopedic writing, but if other editors don't see it that way, I'll let it go.
--WickerGuy (talk) 18:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
No, you're exactly right about "crypto-graffiti masked as encyclopedic writing." IP addresses and red-links often try to slip references to "naughty bits" into articles. In a case like this, they can do it "legitimately", or so they think. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
The IP address has a name and a face behind it, just so you know. My username is Popisfizzy, but my browser is set to clear cookies, and unless I have to log into something, I don't, as it's annoying to make a minor change (which is generally what my edits are). And it's not "crypto-graffiti". A euphemism like "male organ" has no more place here than "wing dang doodle" or, as mentioned above, "pee pee". 146.186.77.92 (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
"Male organ" is not an established euphamism. I am American, born and raised in the states, and when I read that it immediately struck me as a silly euphemism that serves no purpose in an encyclopedic article. 146.186.77.92 (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of the rightness or wrongness of the final outcome, IP-signed Popisfizzy continues to use confused arguments. "wing dang" is slang, not a euphemism, slang is what euphemisms are sometimes used to avoid. "Male organ" borders on being a euphemism, except that full euphemisms are often evasive and imprecise and depend on context to be understood. If one wants to relieve oneself while hiking in the woods to say you need to "water a tree" is a euphemism in the fullest sense of the word. "Male organ" isn't really a euphemism in the fullest sense, and it certainly isn't slang like "pee pee".
Contrary to Popisfizzy, it is very established!!! It is all over 'medical manuals' everywhere, and often used in media. Standard usage in medical science actually (re your remark I imply doctors are 'foul-mouthed bastards'). Look up phalloplasty, phallitus in many medical manuals, and the definition will include the phrase "male organ". Not established????? It's standard usage!! Same with media. See for example this BBC headline http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/207674.stm entitled "Transplanting the male organ".
--WickerGuy (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Just a comment, but penis is more of a medical term than "male organ" -- which frankly is a euphemism. The irony is that, although the link above ("Transplanting the male organ") has "male organ" in the title, the article proper uses "penis" throughout. Anyway, other than that, I really don't mind one way or the other whether we use the actual name of the organ or the euphemism. DonQuixote (talk) 23:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Humorous postscript

http://snltranscripts.jt.org/88/88bnudebeach.phtml and http://snltranscripts.jt.org/06/06orps.phtml --WickerGuy (talk) 03:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Kiss kiss bang bang

One misconception about the Bond film series that might be worth noting is the claim (usually in the context of negative criticism) that a frequent element of the Bond films is that Bond sleeps with the Bond girl and then kills them which sort of paints a picture of Bond being more a serial killer than anything else. I remember seeing this claim in print once but cannot place it now, so I can't add it to the article as yet. But if anyone can cite such a source, it might be worth adding. Near as I can recall, there are only two occasions in which this claim is true (though in neither case did Bond do the deed immediately after, er, doing the deed: blowing up Fatima Blush in Never Say Never and shooting Elektra in TWINE. Xenia in GoldenEye almost qualifies, but not quite. And whether Fiona in Thunderball counts depends on one's point of view as to whether her use as a human shield by Bond was intentional or not. 23skidoo (talk) 05:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed?

What happened to the list of all the bond films that had how much they had grossed and all that punk? IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 12:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Adjusted Dollars

How are the Adjusted box office and budget numbers calculated? Using the linked Consumer Price Index doesn't come up with those values. Values from the same movie aren't even consistent. How can $1M be $8.44M (8.44X) in 2008 dollars, but $59.6M is only $419.35M (7.03X)? When I use the linked web page, I get $7.17M and $427.41M (7.17X) respectively for 1962 dollars in 2008. Mkwan79 (talk) 06:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


Haven't verified the validity of the above user's question, but noticed also that the graph for the bond actors and their adjusted gross values seem wildly off. it doesnt even pass a smell test -- Lazenby's numbers adjusted gross is nearly as high as sean connery. if you assume the table above the chart has anywhere near accurate numbers, then it is severely off. I recommend that the math in this article get a firm relook. Fry.garrett (talk) 00:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyone Know official reason for deletion of short-lived Bond-Moneypenny image??

There's a way to look this up on WP I'm sure, but I don't exactly know what it is. Does anyone else? I mean I can make a very good guess but I'd like to know the actual history, the official story. --WickerGuy (talk) 16:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC) Got it. "Image lacking sources or licensing information for more than seven days". That will do it, just about every time. Must provide image source. --WickerGuy (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The image File:Barry Nelson.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --17:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. El Greco(talk) 20:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Box Office

This article needs a better box office bit. I say making it like Batman_(film_series)#Box_office_performance. With the oringinal films, and the last two films as the ones split up.IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 17:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

IMDb/ metacritic rating?

How about adding an average rating to the table of the films? This would give the reader an idea of how well each film was received by the media/public, and may explain differences in profits etc. Just an idea - what do people think?--Tom dl (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Total Income Image is wrong

The adjusted income is wrong in the the 'red/black' bar graph. Does it mean per film? Sean Connery is barely above Lazenby, yet he was in 6 films to Lazenby's one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.196.81.85 (talk) 18:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The Bond actors image

What the hell is up with the new image of all six Bond actors? It looks like it was put up by an anti-Craig fan or something - the first five all have polished publicity photos where they are dressed impeccably, Craig gets a random still from QoS where he's all battered and bloody. That aside, the image compilation doesn't even look good - both Moore and Craig are bothpartly cut off. The old image was far better. Cyclone49 (talk) 04:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Throughout his films, Craig can be seen covered in blood. This is the "new Bond" - he gets hurt and he bleeds. It's probably better to have an image that signifies this and differentiates him from the other Bonds, who was always immaculately dressed. Greg Tyler (t • c) 19:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I think Pierce Brosnan's Die Another Day beard disagrees with you. Craig is immaculately dressed for most of CR and QoS anyway, and Bonds like Dalton got all bruised and bloody at the finales of their films. Sheavsey33 (talk) 05:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Bond Film unique infobox template

I just noticed that there's a unique "james bond film" infobox template, as opposed to using the standard film template. The problem is that it only contains the "Distributor" entry, while lacking the "Studio" entry as found in the standard box. I don't think I need to make my case why this is definitely an important differentiation in the film world. But for Bond, this is especially important because the recent films are co-financed by Columbia and MGM, while also EON productions and other rights holders like United Artists are credited as production companies/studios. Imperatore (talk) 06:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:James Bond (film series)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject James Bond, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/American cinema task force, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/British cinema task force, WickerGuy (talk · contribs), Chris 42 (talk · contribs), Ultraviolet scissor flame (talk · contribs), El Greco (talk · contribs), X201 (talk · contribs), WebHamster (talk · contribs), SpecialWindler (talk · contribs)--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Delisted as noted below.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I am reviewing this article as part of GA Sweeps. This article is a very enjoyable read for those who may chance upon the article, but needs much work to bring it in line with the current standards of WP:WIAGA. I am about to outline a partial list of issues that need to be addressed. After I post this listing, I will give concerned and interested editors a week before I reevaluate the article's quality rating. I will be following along with the progress of the article and may make additional comments as it is appropriate.


I will monitor the progress toward addressing my concerns.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I am somewhat disappointed in the progress, but there has been notable progress. I will check back in a few days to see if there has been any further progres.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
There has been significant progress in the last week, especially in regard to citations. Keep up the good work because many paragraphs remain entirely uncited. I will check back in a few days.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Delisted There has been no progress since my last check on the citations. The fair use images remain overused. Now the table of contents is overly detailed. Although, you might be able to convince me to allow 007 fair use images, I am fairly certain only about three or four at most would survive a serious image review. I am not failing this for the images, but rather the lack of adequate inline citations. I believe that for an easily sourced topic like this, if each paragraph is properly formulated to cover a distinct topic, then it should have at least one inline citation. This article fails that simple test.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
A lot of attention in this article is given to recurring motifs, most of which are fairly obvious to viewers of the films, and are hard to provide citations for. Possibly, this much attention to that issue isn't all that encyclopedic to begin with. While we may have too many images, the choice of deletion seems slightly arbitrary. No set of images seems more or less necessary to the article except for the image with all the Bonds. I would have definitely retained the Barry Nelson image. I note the section "Characters with only two Bond film appearances" has been deleted. That may make some sense as too trivial.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Excellent work on the alt text.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Images

Well, I'm the miscreant who uploaded most of the images that are in montage form. I don't exactly know how this is best addressed in WP policy. When one is talking about a series (or director), the recurrence of certain motifs seems to be good to address pictorially. This is often done with books on directors like Hitchcock or Kubrick. Is there a way to improve the fair-use rationale of these? --WickerGuy (talk) 17:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not an expert on fair use policy and know that in movie articles they are fairly common. I am just not sure what should be allowed. You might want to actually see if you can find an expert on this subject or I could do so for you. We will need to get someone else to come by and decide this issue for us.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I see no problems with the actual images. 201.17.85.216 (talk) 16:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Missing Bond Movie in both charts

Never Say Never Again (1983) is excluded from both charts listing the films. I assume this is either an error or vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.19.66.37 (talk) 04:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe Never Say Never Again was left out because it wasn't part of the EON Productions series; also, because it was essentially a remake of Thunderball. Wrightaway (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Box office problem

At the top of the article at the bottom of the small chart thing it says the series has made 5.5 billion but the film chart page says 5.2 billion ANYONE CARE TO EXPLAIN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.134.232.172 (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what the sources used are, but they need to get updated regularly as DVDs are sold etc, and clearly the two figures are not always updated simultaneously--WickerGuy (talk) 00:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes column?

Would it be a good idea to put the rating of each of the Bond movies on Rotten Tomatoes in the graph with thier buget, with a note explaining the significance? 24.2.45.138 (talk) 09:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

That would add undue weight to a Rotten Tomatoes review. - X201 (talk) 11:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
As has been hashed out on the talk page of Star Trek (films), Rotten Tomatoes was established long after many of these films were released, thus making it somewhat less reliable for older films.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

More on Franchise vs. Series

Thanks to User:Cultcultcult for noting 'the word "franchise" was not used in relation to film until after 2000, never in the 1960's.' Yes, 'series' is better. Isn't it also the case that "franchise" is mainly applicable if the series is corporately owned and they license out various elements of it to others, licensing one company to make tie-in toys, a publisher to publish tie-in novels, a video-game manufacturer to make games etc. etc. A franchise is an intellectual property that is leased out. The Bond films themselves (regardless of video games etc,) have always been produced by the relatively small Eon productions which is mom-and-pop family-owned film company, the family being the Broccolis. Connery wanted to leave the films. As such 'franchise' seems especially non-applicable.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, hang on. You just described the Bond series: Corgi makes the toys, Fleming publications (formerly Glidrose) makes the novels, and EA and Activision make the video games. That makes it sound even more like a franchise to me. Sheavsey33 (talk) 05:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I think you are right, and am puzzled as to what motivated my earlier remarks, other than the observation that Eon is not a large corporation.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

What does this mean ?

"Adding to the appeal of mounting the picture", "From Russia with Love was also cited by President John F. Kennedy as one of his ten favourite books" -- I am unfamiliar with this idiom. What is this "appeal of mounting the picture" ? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.104.88 (talk) 19:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

"Mounting the picture" means putting the movie into production. The full idiom "adding to the appeal of mounting the picture" is a tad clumsy but reasonably clear once the other is understood.--WickerGuy (talk) 01:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Mr. White

This page says that Jesper Christensen will not return. But The Mr. White page says he probably will. I have no clue where to find accurate information. I suggest someone figures it out and corrects the error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.214.137.48 (talk) 00:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Tanner in Recurring Characters Table

Tanner, M's chief of staff has been played by a few actors and appeared in a few films, notably For Your Eyes Only and Quantum of Solace. I think he should be included in the recurring characters table. --Paulus (talk) 04:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Five films- four actors.
  1. Quantum of Solace (2008) Played by Rory Kinnear
  2. The World Is Not Enough (1999) Played by Michael Kitchen
  3. GoldenEye (1995) Played by Michael Kitchen
  4. For Your Eyes Only (1981) Played by James Villiers (as Chief Of Staff Bill Tanner)
  5. The Man with the Golden Gun (1974) Played by Michael Goodliffe (as Chief Of Staff Bill Tanner)
--WickerGuy (talk) 04:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Help me please

I have been trying very had to figure this out. I have a memory from my childhood that I can't seem to work out. I seem to remember seeing a film where Bond actually is accused of being a double agent, and has a gun fight at headquarters. As it ends up he is a triple agent and it was all staged. I have reviewed wikipidia for plot on all of his films and can't seem to figure out which one it was. Anyone? File077 (talk) 00:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Bond Girls

In the Romancing the Bond Girl section it is stated that Bond only falls in love twice, with Tracy and Vesper. There is a source attached so I won't muck that bit up but I do feel it is inaccurate so I have added in a bit about Bond showing regret at someone like Elektra King's death, but not for Xenia's, indicating he has more feelings for some girls than others. I don't have a source for this, and I don't know if it can be considered OR, but I'm pretty sure the statement is obvious enough that a source is not required, and there are a couple of similarly uncited statements in the section. Sheavsey33 (talk) 05:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be more correct that Bond actually resolved to marry two women, Tracy and Vesper. At least in the novel, he is clearly in love with Dr. No's Honey Ryder.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

New Future Bond Information + November 2012 Release Date (Bond 23)

Today information has surfaced from MGM that confirms they would like to try and film Bond 23 over the next two years for a release in November 2012. Also, they have made clear they would like to try and release a Bond every other year. Would be good if someone could add this? Or create Bond 23 page already?!

This information along with a little more can be found here: http://www.movieweb.com/news/NEMYJDzIPzNLRQ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.113.223 (talk) 20:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

The Infobox for this article includes only composers and screenwriters who worked on more than one Bond film. (For example, Roald Dahl, the screenwriter for You Only Live Twice is not listed.) However, the infobox includes every director ever who did a film, including several who did only one. Maybe the list is still short enough. (Of course, it makes sense to include every actor who played Bond.) Any thoughts??--WickerGuy (talk) 04:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Bloodstone?

There appears to be a false entry in the Actors of Recurring Characters table. Bloodstone isn't a James Bond movie, nor is John Cleese involved. In fact, the title of the James Bond video game is Blood Stone, two words. I think it may be vandalism, but I am not an expert. Anyone care to clarify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.33.166.190 (talk) 05:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_Bond_(film_series)/Archive_1&oldid=452172850"