Talk:Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang/Archive 1

Copyright
"The movie was referenced by United States Senator Orrin Hatch during the June 23, 2004 discussion of the Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act, comparing illegal file sharing on P2P networks, with stealing candy under the guise of it being free."

That sounds interesting, but I don't quite understand it. Could someone clarify, please?  17:58, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Romania
According to my wife the story is about Romania (oppressed people & castles). Anybody know?GordyB 16:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Vulgaria
Is it supposed to say Vulgaria and Vulgarian in the article?--Jcvamp 02:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

License Plate Number
I always thought GEN 11 was Gensis II (roman numeral 2) referring to the fact that this car was reborn from the remains of a wrecked racer. Phoenix could have been just as appropriate.


 * As a child, I always read it as a variation on 'Genie,' wholly appropriate for a magical car.


 * However, Wikipedia says that 'genii' is the plural of the Latin word 'genius', a word with a quite different meaning than the English word 'genius'. "In ancient Roman religion, the genius was the individual instance of a general divine nature that is present in every individual person, place or thing."  That sounds like the intended origin of the plate.  Can anyone confirm this?--174.70.117.125 (talk) 14:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have a copy of the book, and it explicitly cites the "genie" source: "GEN II. Don't you realize what that spells? 'Genii' - like magical people, sort of spirits, like that story about the Bottle Imp by Robert Lois Stevenson that Mimsie read to us once.". Page 18 of a volume with LCCN 64-21282. --The Wanderer (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Chitty bang.JPG
Image:Chitty bang.JPG 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 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) 20:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Book cover
The present photograph of the book cover is not a film tie-in issue of Fleming's novel but a separate novelisation of the film, which is totally different. It should not, therefore, be used in this article. Opera hat (talk) 13:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced material
The following is unsourced information:

While this is interesting, we can't use it unless you provide a source. Also, none of this is really trivia, as trivia by its definition is "unimportant information" - it therefore shouldn't be in a trivia section but instead the information should be incorporated into the main article. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 10:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Chitty Chitty Bang Bang's number plate number was GEN 11, the closest to the word "genie" that the UK motor vehicle registration system would have allowed up to the time the novel was written. However, by the time the film was made (1968), this UK Number Plate would have been available - as GEN 1E - from January to July 1967, when cars were allotted the "E" year suffix - well before the film's launch, in December 1968. These are, incidentally, Bury (Lancashire) official registrations (both the original GEN 11, and the potential GEN 1E).The "official" website for the car (www.chittygen11.com)- only because the car has been since sold to another owner - states that the license plate was GEN11 because, "In the novel, the number plate GEN11 had significance in that if you read the number ones as " i's ", it spelled out the latin word "genii" meaning magical person or being."
 * During the song and dance routine, "Toot Sweets", a dog falls off the scaffolding.
 * The name of Potts is believed to come from Albert William Potts, who caddied for Ian Fleming at The Royal St George's Golf Club, Sandwich. After asking Potts' name, Fleming commented that the name Potts was unusual.

Novelisation of film
It might be worth mentioning that there was a novel produced based on the film. Although aimed at children it was just a shade darker than the film, it made it clear that the Baron Bomburst sequences were intended as extended fantasy scenes (which the film was confused about) and it indicated that Caractacus Potts had found it difficult coping after the death of his wife.

I need to check the film again on this, but I suspect that when Grandpa was kidnapped by the Vulgarians it was because of confusion between "laboratory" and "lavatory" (a gag they possibly pinched from another film whose name now escapes me). PatGallacher (talk) 02:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Primary meaning
Can we treat the novel as the primary meaning of "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang"? I think the film is now considerably better known, even the stage musical is better known, and Fleming's novel could even have been superseded to some extent by the later novelisation of the film (although I am not aware that either is still in print). Maybe we should turn this into a disambiguation, although I am inclined to thin the film should be the primary meaning. PatGallacher (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Musical Information
The information about the musical adaptation needs to be moved to the Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (musical) page. There's a good bit here that isn't on that page.

And really, it's a stage adaptation of the movie musical, not this novel directly, anyway. Two reasons to move it.--174.70.117.125 (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Article
You know, it really ticks me off that the article of the movie of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang is the main article of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. The book was made first, so the main article should be about the book. All the rest of the articles on this site that are about movies based on books make the novel the main article. Can somebody please change it so that the book is the main article? I don't know how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.249.103.9 (talk) 21:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. SchroCat (talk) 03:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang (book) → Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang (novel) – Using "novel" rather than "book" is more appropriate, and is in line with MOS. SchroCat (talk) 19:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I support SchroCat's request. - Fanthrillers (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: Why was Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang moved to Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang (book) in the first place? Moving it to Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang (novel) will still leave Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang as WP:MALPLACED disambiguation if it redirects to Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang (novel). There are two possible solutions as I see it:
 * 1) The novel should be at Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang if the book is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this version of the title, or
 * 2) The novel should be at Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (novel) and Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang should redirect to either Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (if the film is the PRIMARYTOPIC for Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang) or Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (disambiguation) (if there is no PRIMARYTOPIC for Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang). Betty Logan (talk) 08:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why, but all the CCBB pages seem to have been re-named (making something of a mess in the process) and some have been cleared up, while others have not. There is a minor complication in the that book, initially published as Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang, has for a number of years been published as Chitty Chitty Bang Bang - in other words sans hyphens. I'm not sure I agree with the 2010 consensus as the two shared the same current names and having the articles identified as novel and film in brackets seemed to be a pretty good way to go (although I know you are not a fan of such a mechanism!) - SchroCat (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll defer to whatever SchroCat and Betty Logan decide. - Fanthrillers (talk) 19:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * There appears to be several discussions going on at once here. There was a clear decision following a formal move request about a year ago that the film is the primary topic.  I agree that "novel" rather than "book" is the correct disambiguator in keeping with naming conventions for books, "book" should be used for non-fiction.  It's not clear to me that there is a malplaced disambiguation page anywhere, can anyone clarify. PatGallacher (talk) 00:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang is either the primary topic for the book or it is not. If it is not (which is what you seem to be saying), then Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang shouldn't redirect to Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (book), it should redirect to primary topic or the disambiguation page. If it is the primary topic then having a redirect at the main article to a disambiguated page is malplaced disambiguation, because you don't need to disambiguate a primary topic article. Betty Logan (talk) 00:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * On further reflection, I suggest we move this article to "Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang", hyphens, no disambiguator. PatGallacher (talk) 00:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll change my original request to fall into line with the consensus (and with the MOS on titles). As this makes it a non-controversial move I have moved the page and am closing the RM process. - SchroCat (talk) 03:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Dates in Background section
I extract the following apparent chain of events (my bolding of dates):
 * The case was heard on 24 March 1961 and allowed [Thunderball] to be published, although the door was left open for McClory to pursue further action at a later date. He did so and, on 19 November 1963, the case of McClory v Fleming was heard at the Chancery Division of the High Court. The proceedings lasted three weeks, during which time Fleming was unwell, suffering a heart attack as the case progressed.
 * Two weeks after the case, during the weekly Tuesday staff conference at his employers, The Sunday Times, Fleming suffered a serious, second heart attack that necessitated convalescence, which he undertook at the Dudley Hotel in Hove. Whilst there, one of Fleming's friends, Duff Dunbar, gave him a copy of Beatrix Potter's The Tale of Squirrel Nutkin to read and suggested that he took the time to write up the bedtime story that Fleming used to tell to tell his son Caspar each evening. Fleming attacked the project with gusto and wrote to his publisher, Michael Howard of Jonathan Cape, joking that "There is not a moment, even on the edge of the tomb, when I am not slaving for you".
 * In May 1961, Fleming sent his publisher the manuscripts for the first two volumes of Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang.
 * In May 1961, Fleming sent his publisher the manuscripts for the first two volumes of Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang.

Something is out of whack here, not to be glibly explained away as a 'delay in publication.' The simplest explanation is a typo in the last date (possibly from the source?). Alternatively, the events described might be out of order. — Pingkudimmi 13:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * My edit summary was not "glib". However you are correct saying that something does appear to be out of whack. The article implies that Fleming's first heart attack occurred in 1963. In fact, he suffered his first heart attack - in either April or May 1961 - shortly after McClory's failed injunction. In fairness the passages quoted above should replace "Two weeks after the case" with "Two weeks after McClory's failed injunction" to avoid any confusion. I'll defer to SchroCat how to rewrite/restructure the passages. - Fantr (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)