Talk:James Bond/Archive 4

Biography
I practically rewrote the biography section to be more flowing and cohesive. There were a lot of inconsistancies in there and and incorrect information. It was also, at times, confusing with so many contradictions or exceptions to 'the rule'. I expanded on it a lot and tried to make more sense of it, which resulted in sectioning if off (feel free to rename them if you can think of better titles).

I'd like to actually move the biography altogether to it's own page because what we have now is actually pretty light. It doesn't really go into detail on some of his more notable adventures (e.g. his battles with Blofeld or SMERSH..etc). The biography isn't really needed on this page anyway IMHO. We already have a section on "the character" that gives a good background into him and I think that's good enough. Any thoughts? K1Bond007 22:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur. The Wookieepedian 23:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no objection. 23skidoo 23:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

'''Dusko Popov (aka Tricycle) should be mentioned somewhere as there are indications that he was inspiration to Fleming. See Dusko Popov ''' —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.108.102.209 (talk • contribs).
 * Please sign your comments. The National Enquirer is not considered a reputable source. Find a book or a respected newspaper that makes this allegation -- or better still, find a biography of Ian Fleming that makes any mention of this -- and then let's see about mentioning it. Otherwise, Tricycle is just one of dozens of rumored inspirations for Bond. 23skidoo 22:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't buy the source either. Regardless it is mentioned at Inspirations for James Bond. There are literally hundreds of "spies" (and the like) that have been named as inspirations, but most are just speculation created by the press and are completely unfounded. Ian met a number of spies during his tenure at Naval Intelligence, however, the 2 that I think had been the most inspirational to the character's creation, outside of Fleming himself and Fleming's imagination, would be William Stephenson and Peter Fleming. That's just my own 2 cents from everything I've read. K1Bond007 04:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I was looking the Wikipedia article on Dusko Popov and found the information there. I don't know if National Enquirer is a reputable source or not; it looks like Tricycle and Fleming knew each other and given that Tricycle had an impressive track record my guess that there is some space for speculation on Tricycle's influence on Fleming/James Bond. Maybe ythe article on Dusko Popov should be amended to be more precise about this relation.
 * The Enquirer is a gossip newspaper with a very iffy reputation and as a result is not really considered a reputable source for an encyclopedia. As K1Bond007 says above, however, the Tricycle influence is already mentioned in another article so there is no need to repeat it here. 23skidoo 14:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

John Cleese as "R"
The designation "R" was only ever a joke by Bond despite the onscreen credit. I have amended the Desmond Llewelyn trivia accordingly. Tomsalinsky 01:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Mistake in the location map
There is ( at least ) one mistake on the map showing Bond's visited locations. In Die Another Day, Bond goes to Iceland, yet this country is not colored. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gradlon (talk &bull; contribs).
 * Iceland is fixed now. What are the other mistakes? -- Astrokey44 |talk 05:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * In Diamonds are forever, James Bond goes to Mexico (Baja California). Don't know in which film, but in one of them he gets married in Portugal, then his wife is killed when they are crossing the 25th April Bridge. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.154.196.25 (talk • contribs).


 * On Her Majesty's Secret Service.


 * "Atlant 00:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Britain
Daniel Craig is the first British James Bond Actor, as I heard the others were Irish. Please correct me. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by AusKuba (talk &bull; contribs).
 * No. Speaking purely of where they were born, Lazenby (Australia) and Brosnan (Republic of Ireland) are not British - although Australia is part of the Commonwealth and Brosnan moved to London when he was still a young boy. I might be wrong on my definition of "British," regardless Moore is definitely English; born in London. K1Bond007 03:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Dalton was also English (although many sources say he's Welsh) and Connery was Scottish. Although nationalists may disagree, Connery is still considered British as well. 23skidoo 18:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Dalton was born in Wales. He's not English - not by birth anyway, but he is British as is Connery. You're right, I just didn't feel the need to state where they all came from to debunk what he had heard. K1Bond007 20:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Jamesbond.com link

 * An anonymous editor changed the link to www.jamesbond.com to jamesbond.com/home. This actually at first glance makes sense because the basic link currently just goes to a list of release dates for Casino Royale. However I cannot get the /home link to work for me. Does it lead anywhere or does it go to an outdated page? If so, might as well revert back to the basic link for now. 23skidoo 18:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Problem solved; it just needed a left slash at the end. :) The Wookieepedian 19:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Location map
The map idea is cool, but shouldn't there be a key to explain the meaning of the colors? And is this an overall map including films and books, or just the movies? This should be noted. (I couldn't find any references in the text itself; pardon me if there are (maybe it might be an indicator the map needs to be relocated). 23skidoo 19:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It's in the image description, but it should be actually on the map IMHO. K1Bond007 22:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * ok, Ive added it on the map here, hope the key makes sense. A separate map here shows the book locations by the way -- Astrokey44 |talk 23:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Good work! Since this article is just as much about the novels as it is about the films, the books map should also be placed somewhere. 23skidoo 00:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The book map is at James Bond locations, I think one map might be sufficient for the main JB article. -- Astrokey44 |talk 10:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

"Sexual aggression" discussion
I might get spanked for this, but I cut the whole bit about Bond being "sexually aggressive" and "not taking No for an answer". I know this is better than a previous edit that all but called Bond a serial rapist, but I really don't feel it has a lot to do with the subject at hand. The books don't really dwell on it too much, and Bond's treatment of women in the films tended to refect the mores of the day. Also, the whole "don't take no for an answer" bit ... looking over the Bond movies I can think of Pussy Galore, Solitaire (although that's debatable) and, well, really that's it if you think about it. The vast majority of Bond's romantic "conquests" in the films have been willing partners (maybe there's one or two I missed, but you get my point). It's sort of the same as the old myth that Bond kills every woman he sleeps with (if I had a dime for every time I heard that one...) This bit about his attitude towards women becoming progressive and "letting women get under his skin" is definitely inaccurate as it discounts Tracy, among others. His attitude didn't change any more than it did during Timothy Dalton's time. 23skidoo 20:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Bond does have a certain... way with the ladies and this should be noted, but not in the character section. That's bio info, IMHO. I even outlined a section for it: "Description and love life," but have yet to really expand on it. I don't think the "letting women get under his skin" is correct either. It's been the same (or thereabouts depending on the decade) for the novels and the films. The only two women that really effected him or were able to get past his "defenses" were Vesper and Tracy - the former being the major reason for his "way with the ladies." K1Bond007 21:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I did the last edit of the "sexually agressive" sentence. I have no problem with you removing it. As I saw it, it was just a very badly constructed sentence that needed rearranging &mdash; I almost commented it out because I initially couldn't make any sense of it! However, even when I did finally piece it together, I thought the content looked a bit dodgy: however you phrased it, there was no way he didn't come across as a rapist, for want of a better word. Chris 42 23:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

McGoohan
I've seen in print the statement that McGoohan was the first offered the role, and I'm trying to track it down. At present the closest I have is the book The Prisoner: The Official Companion to the Classic TV Series by Robert Fairclough that says McGoohan was offered the role in 1961 and rejected it due to his moral values. According to The Bond Files by Lane and Simpson, McGoohan is listed ahead of Cary Grant in terms of being approached with the role (after Fleming's initial choices David Niven and Roger Moore were rejected by EON), though a male model named Peter Anthony actually appears in the list before PMG. But there's nothing to indicate this is a chronological list. 23skidoo 20:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * McGoohan was offerred it early on, along with Mason. Dalton was offered it before Moore in the 70's.(Halbared 05:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC))


 * Anthony is mentioned in detail at Dr. No - he wasn't offered. I don't think McGoohan was first offered. That's all I can really say. As I said, Cary Grant usually gets the honor, however, yes David Niven was name dropped first and Fleming's choice, but I don't think they offered it to him. I doubt Moore was offered, let alone even mentioned by Fleming. The same crap about Moore is printed over and over exactly the same and it's obviously false. No one decided to do fact checking on that one. The Dr. No DVD insert gives another reason beyond The Saint for why Moore was mentioned but not chosen - something about Moore being too young, except he's older than Sean - so how does that make sense? Hell Roger Moore even states that he had no idea and never even met Fleming. I honestly think (and this is my own POV and belief) that Moore's supposed mention is the product of EON PR (specifically Cubby) during the 70s to build Roger Moore up as James Bond and link him to Fleming. Post DAF, you have to think that whoever would come next would have to do a hell of a job to make the audience forget Sean because they didn't accept Lazenby even though the film didn't do that bad by comparison to others. K1Bond007 22:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

University of Geneva comment
An anon listed that he couldn't find where it mentions Bond goes to the University of Geneva. The article says "Octopussy," which I looked through and couldn't find it either. I didn't write that AFAIK, but I do know for a fact that James Bond went to the University of Geneva. I have a number of books that support this (none state which novel it is said) and I remember reading it myself quite vividly. While flipping through From Russia with Love, theres a scene where Bond is in an airplane and he has a flashback to him rock climbing with his companions from the University of Geneva, but it's somewhat ambiguous (Chapter 13: 'BEA Takes You There. . .'): "'[...] bracing himself against the top of a rock-chimney on the Aiguilles Rouges as his two companions from the University of Geneva inched up the smooth rock towards him.'" That is unfortunately the best I can find at the moment. If it isn't in "Octopussy" it may be that it was meant to say Octopussy and The Living Daylights (Octopussy being an alternative title). It's also worth noting that further confusion might be because while he attends the University or immediately after he gets out, he is taught how to ski by Oberhauser who is killed in "Octopussy" by Smythe. Bond was 17 and then immediately following this he joins the RNVR. When I have more free time, I'll try and find more. If anyone knows, feel free (it might be in Goldfinger or OHMSS, Geneva being a locale in these novels). K1Bond007 07:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Apparently Pearson strikes again. I changed the line to note this, but it may need to be removed entirely. Pearson's "additions" to Bond's life (if this is exclusively Pearson) tend to contradict Fleming. Although.. arguably Fleming often contradicts Fleming and Pearson's additions are usually debated as whether they're canon - contradiction or not. :P I don't know. K1Bond007 08:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Licencing of the Bond logo
I wondered if anyone knows the extent to which the Bond name has been licenced beyond the obvious promotional issues. I have seen it on [watches], and [corporate and adventure training]. There also seems to be a lot more [product placement].

MHolly 16:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what's being asked here. The Bond logo has been on tons of products for just about anything. The height of it all was right around the release of Thunderball in the mid-60s. Pretty sure this is covered fairly well in John Cork's James Bond: The Legacy. K1Bond007 19:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, i have just found the book on amazon and will use that to dig a bit deeper. MHolly 15:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair use claims
A lot of the images in this article are fair use claims. While I believe valid claims can be made for all of these, they should all have a fair use rationale specific to their particular use in this article included on the image page (and, if you're being really fussy, also included in the source text for this page - you can use ). Even book covers aren't "automatic", blanket guarantees that fair use applies (you still can't use them for purely decorative purposes or in an irrelevant way; identification and critical commentary are fine, though). What might be a little dodgy is the "007" logo. It's not the logo of a corporation, sports team or other organization (unlike the image tag claims, though I can't think of a more suitable one) and so isn't being used for "identification" in the same way that the "Ford" logo is used in the Ford Motor Company article. Indeed, it wouldn't be allowed to use the "007" logo to "brand" Wikipedia's coverage of James Bond. The most similar instance I can think of this is the use of the Formula One logo at the featured article on Formula One; the logo for that franchise is kept about halfway down the article rather than at the top, because it was felt that putting it at the top wouldn't qualify as fair use. Its use there is restricted to critical commentary (the use of modern branding indicated a "corporatization" of the franchise...) and maybe something similar could be done here. This may be copyright paranoia, however! Also, the sketch of James Bond for the Express is labelled as PD, but no source information is given, it's clearly not been published pre-1923 in the USA nor is it covered by "life of creator + 70 years", and if it has been released into the PD by the rights owner, some evidence would need to be provided. That could do with being sorted out too. Getting copyright dealt with properly is one of the prerequisites of a featured article (which is where this seems to be heading) and also necessary if the article is to be kept on the list of good articles. If you can deal with copyright issues and "listification" then I bet this has a good chance of making featured status in the near future! TheGrappler 15:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to find out the correct information on the Fleming-Bond illustration. I hope to have that cleared up soon. The "007 logo" is kind of an interesting thing. It may be copyright paranoia as you suggest, but I just wanted to add that the "007 logo" is stictly for the official film franchise and its offshoots (e.g., video games, comic books, novelisations) and not for the literary franchise and its offshoots (e.g., comic strips, possibly some comic books/graphic novels). So that might be something to take into account. There are a ton of different logos for the literary franchise, none of which are probably of any notability. I believe the current one is "007" in a circle or just plain "007." K1Bond007 20:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

007 dialing code?
Has the choice of the 007 code any connection with the fact that this is the international dialing code for Russia (and the Soviet Union)? 134.219.128.121 09:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Isnt the dialing code for Russia a plain 7, not 007? -- Astrokey44 |talk 09:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Doubtful if that is correct. '007' to my knowledge, and I don't think it's discussed here, comes from the Admiralty during WWII according to Fleming. Top secret signals had the double-O prefix. This was supposedly done to honor and celebrate the interception and breaking of the Zimmermann telegraph during WWI which had a German diplomatic code of '0070'. Fleming said this was later changed for security reasons. There are tons of other ideas where the number came from, but most, if not all, are just speculation. Theres the locomotive in the Kipling short story (.007), John Dee who used it (007) on a bunch of documents for the Queen (the prefix was meant to be 'eyes': "for her eyes only"), the Washington D.C. zip code (20007) where a lot of CIA agents used to live, the double-O prefix used by The Duke of Marlborough in comminication with spies during the War of Spanish Succession, the coach service from Dover to London, in Kent, England, that passed by Higham Park, where Ian Fleming spent a lot of time. I've seen all of these at one point or another mentioned. K1Bond007 19:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Cool. Thanks for the reply. (When you dial an international number (in Britian anyway) you dial 00 and then the country code. To dial Moscow for example, 007 095 123456. I know its different in other countries - dialing the UK from Russia you press '8' to get an international line and then the country code '44') 134.219.128.121 11:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Little correction, Moscow changed area code. It would 007 495 ... But this adds nothing to the point. Actually, in most countries in Western and Central Europe you dial 00 + country code to call abroad. Gian Giorgis 14:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The Franchise vs. The Character Proposal
This page is 77 kb long, which is almost double what it should be. When I came to this page, I was looking for a biography on the character, not a recap of the franchise. I propose we split this article into two parts, like what was done to the Mortal Kombat page. The Mortal Kombat page was about the game and the series, which attracted a lot of complaints. So, it was split into a page about the series and a page about the game. I propose we do the same to this article, a page James Bond for the character and James Bond (series) (or something like that) for the entire history of novels, movies, etc. Trosk 18:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I object to this proposal at the moment. The page can't easily be split up like you're saying. If you split the way you want, you'd have to make 3 different articles, not 2. The James Bond "franchise" is by far the more important part of the article than the bio of the character. Most people coming here want information on that, not specifically of the character. Other big franchises do it this way such as Harry Potter and Doctor Who (see biography). I was planning to go ahead with that when I have more time to invest in doing it correctly. K1Bond007 20:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Harry potter has an article about the franchise and a seperate one on the character. Trosk 00:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly like I said. Leave the franchise here, the bio goes. That's why I used Potter and Who as examples. Doctor Who is a featured article too. K1Bond007 00:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I misunderstood you. That is also a good idea, though I thought I implied it in my original message. I guess I wasn't clear enough. Trosk 02:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I second (third?) this. (^'-')^ Covington 05:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I support the idea of a James Bond character articles, but the main James Bond article should be about the franchise - books and films. 23skidoo 06:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * ok, Ive made a start on it at James Bond (character) -- Astrokey44 |talk 08:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Film title vs. full credits
Although George Lucas created a stir in 1977 by including only the title of the original Star Wars at the beginning, it started to become commonplace in 1989, with Lethal Weapon 2. This practice has grown to the present situation, where 90% of summer blockbusters employ the device. Some films, such as The Mummy Returns, even save the title for the end. See also Billing. Chris 42 10:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

There is some truth in this, but I don't believe it really became common to show only the title until a decade after Lethal Weapon 2. Even then, most films still have some production company/distributor credits at the beginning. JW 21:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Why do they call him 007?
--Bumba claat 01:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This is explained in the article. I also recommend reading the novel Casino Royale or watching the movie version of Dr. No which also explains it. 23skidoo 02:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I've never seen Dr. No but I will now.--Bumba claat 03:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, Dr. No does not show how Bond came to be 007. It only mentions what the 00 designation stands for. 23skidoo 04:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Spielberg connection trivia item
I've never heard of this before, and I can't find anything to support it in any of the books on the Bond film series that I have (this includes both FYEO and the disputed Spy Who Loved Me). If we're going to keep it at all, we need to have a citation. Personally I feel this trivia item is too long and too film-specific and shouldn't be on this page at all; it should be in the For Your Eyes Only article. 23skidoo 19:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Spielberg: FYEO vs TSWLM
Steven Spielberg was definitely NOT in line to direct "The Spy Who Loved Me". The famous story (which can be heard on the "Indiana Jones" DVD and "The Director's Steven Spielberg") goes that Spielberg and George Lucas were on vacation the week "Star Wars" opened (which would have been May 25, 1977) and Lucas asked Spielberg what he wanted to do next. Spielberg said he was trying to get a meeting with Cubby Broccoli to do the next Bond picture. "The Spy Who Loved Me" was already done by this point, it premiered approximately 43 DAYS after Spielberg was telling Lucas that he was in talks with Broccoli, and Spielberg obviously wouldn't be attempting to direct a film that had been shot long before and was scheduled for release in just over six weeks.

"For Your Eyes Only" was the film that was next in line before the aforementioned "Star Wars" premiere came along and changed EON's plans from "FYEO" to "Moonraker". If Spielberg was discussing a Bond film to direct in 1977 before May 25, it would have undoubtedly been "For Your Eyes Only".GuruAskew 20:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In any event, as requested above and in the article itself, we need a citation and IMO this whole trivia item should be moved to FYEO anyway. 23skidoo 19:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Everywhere I've ever seen always said The Spy Who Loved Me. Maybe it was supposed to be post-The Spy Who Loved Me. I don't know. FYEO needs to be removed as being specifically mentioned, regardless unless of course Spielberg mentions it by name. Either typed up as "the next film after TSWLM" or "either FYEO or Moonraker". There is no logical way to guess. The initial line up Broccoli announced (circa 1976) was TSWLM followed by Moonraker, followed by FYEO, this was changed, and then clearly changed back. It's also possible that Spielberg may have also pitched his own idea - not really any of these. I kind of agree with 23skidoo that this trivia may not be fitting for this article anyway. Perhaps TSWLM, MR, or FYEO. K1Bond007 20:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

No, "For Your Eyes Only" was scheduled to follow "The Spy Who Loved Me" as late as 1977 (that's what film is announced at the end of "TSWLM") and it wasn't until after "Star Wars" and "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" were massive successes that same year that "FYEO" was delayed in favor of "Moonraker" due to it's sci-fi elements. Regardless, based on Spielberg himself you can specifically place his talks with Cubby after the production of "The Spy Who Loved Me" and before "Moonraker" was decided upon.

Everywhere I've read has said it was "For Your Eyes Only" (but I briefly looked for a citation and all I could find is the IMDB trivia page for "FYEO" which agrees with me, though IMDB is notoriously inaccurate) and the timing pretty much rules anything else out. The film he made as an alternative to the Bond film was "Raiders of the Lost Ark", which came out in 1981, the same year "For Your Eyes Only" came out. That doesn't definitively prove anything either way but it certainly supports "FYEO" over "TSWLM".GuruAskew 05:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * All I'm saying is that I'd rather go with the wording to the effect of "the one after TSWLM" since it may have been FYEO or knowing Spielberg it may have been an original story - but at the very least we know for sure it was not the "same" FYEO as IMDb paints it since it was because of Moonraker's effect that FYEO was a 'back to basics' Bond outing. Outright saying FYEO is misleading and outright saying TSWLM is wrong. K1Bond007 07:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Marriage?
According to the sonypictures.com page under "dossier", it says that James was never married. Bond was in fact married to Tracy (in OHMSS). ViperBite 01:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * My guess is the Sony Pictures page is using information based upon the character of Bond as he will appear in the upcoming Casino Royale. That Bond has yet to experience the events of OHMSS so has never married. 23skidoo 01:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That is the modern bio from Casino Royale and on. CR is a reboot. K1Bond007 02:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought as much, but Sony should make a note of this somewhere on the page, otherwise it might confuse people, especially newcomers to the franchise, in light of the upcoming DVD reissues (plus the fact there are folks who might see the bio as erroneous as evidenced above, particularly if they're unaware CR is a reboot). 23skidoo 02:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well it is on the Casino Royale website. I don't think it's that ambiguous, especially given the teaser trailer. K1Bond007 03:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well i think its because Casino Royal is the first book, and at the time where Casino Royal is apperence Bond have not been maried yet. Eventhough we now that he someday will gram123 14:30, 05 June 2006 (ECT)
 * He was also married in You Only Live Twice.(Halbared 05:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC))
 * It was never a legitimate marriage though. Same with Scorpius. K1Bond007 05:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Character templates
Not really pertaining to this article, but this is about the best place for it:

Are there any fields that should be added the to the Template:James Bond Character template? Someone went through and added "Friend or foe" which I changed to something called "Role" where the field would be 'ally', 'villain', 'Bond girl', or 'henchman', or perhaps a combination of them (see Elektra King). The person also added "Novel, film, or both" which I think is rather confusing. Take someone like Maximillian Largo - he didn't appear the novel, yet he was listed as both, and yet he's based off of a character in Thunderball. There are also other problems, like Kristatos from FYEO (appeared in the film, but not the short story, he was from Risico) and there are many of these inconsistencies ... so I just got rid of the field altogether. Maybe change this to "First appeared in"?

Anyone have any comments on the template? It was only initially designed to be on a couple of articles (namely notable characters like Auric Goldfinger), but now it's used on 50+ articles and it really hasn't evolved since first being made. K1Bond007 20:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think its nice with the Role insted of Freind_or_foe its much more specifik. I also like the "first apperence". Could be nice to have that in the charecter template. I think it could be interesting to add even more to the template. Im not sure what kind of info should be added, but i think we should think about it. gram123 21:02, 5 June 2006 (ECT)

Trivia
Is that triva aboot West and the other Americans being offered the role all qualified? Also, in the same interview that Gambon gave opn Top Gear he admitted, that he 'makes things up in interviews'.(Halbared 10:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC))
 * The trivia about the American actors is true, at least for Gavin and West. I have no idea about James Brolin and Robert Wagner, I'd have to look it up. All of these should probably be sourced though. As far as Gambon is concerned, it might be true. It should at the least be rewritten to say that "he claims" rather than it saying outright that Cubby asked him. According to Gambon though after auditioning he left to see a line of about 19 people that were also auditioning. See here for the full account. K1Bond007 02:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Brolin I believe is confirmed in James Bond: The Legacy. I have read in several places that he was signed to play Bond in Octopussy before Moore changed his mind. I vaguely recall seeing a TV news item about that. Gavin is well documented as having been given the role of Bond for DAF before Connery came back. Broccoli is on record as saying he wanted Burt Reynolds for the role, as ridiculous as it seems now. 23skidoo 04:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where this would fall other than under trivia. Maybe someone can verify this for me as well. The well known drink of Bond in the films is Martini, shaken not stirred. However, in the book, does he in fact have a Gin and Tonic with Lime as his usual drink? If this is the case, does anyone know how and why this was changed?

James Bond Article Too Long
Don't you think James Bond article is to long??

I think you should make a new article James Bond Official Film Series and James Bond Novels

??
 * Please sign your comments. This has been discussed on other occasions. We can't really split the article up very easily (as it is all biographical information about the character has been removed). We certainly can't do one called "official film series" as that leaves out the unofficial films and as a perusal of the various talk pages reveals, not everyone agrees what "Official" means anyway. 23skidoo 00:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

However, to continue the above, there was no need to run essentially the same tables for allies, Bond girls, and villains that are already featured in the breakout articles. That's why they were created - to cut the length down a bit. So I have deleted these extraneous tables. 23skidoo 14:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think an article for the films as separate from the novels makes sense. Although the films has virtually overshadowed the novels, the novels did have a life of their own, especially at their origin. It would give more weight to the author and novels as independent and influential of their own accord if the novels had a page of their own, rather than oweing all of the success of the books to the movies.

Legal wranglings
Several places mention in passing legal wranglings causing a long gap in the series. Who were wrangling ? Shouldn't we have more on that somewhere ? -- Beardo 07:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well the "legal wranglings" as they're being called are discussed at MGM/UA, Turner and Pathe & Giancarlo Parretti. It wasn't so much a James Bond centric legal battle, but the entire company. The guy who owned it essentially tried to licence and sell MGM's assets to pay for his purchase of MGM (money he didn't have) and Cubby Broccoli was one of many that filed lawsuits to prevent it. As far as Bond is concerned, there's a little more detail on it at Timothy Dalton, and for what was planned to happen but didn't is at Licence to Kill. I'll think about snagging a couple good sources on this and expanding on the franchise section here. K1Bond007 19:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Status of Everything or Nothing
Something I noticed here and elsewhere is Brosnan's tenure is shown as ending in 2002, which makes sense of course since DAD was released then. However, Brosnan did play Bond (or at least provide his voice) in the later videogame Everything or Nothing. This is a rather unique situation since no other Bond actor -- except Connery doing the videogame of FRWL -- has had such a close involvement in a game. I'm not suggesting that we change Brosnan's tenure to ending in 2004, but perhaps a footnote should be added to the actor list to indicate that Brosnan played the role one more time (in an official capacity) after DAD. Thoughts? 23skidoo 01:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's mentioned in the video games section and I don't think we should mention outside of that because then we'd have to recognize Connery and no doubt Craig starting, perhaps, next year. As far as the intro is concerned we should stick to literature and films. The intro is huge as it is and needs to probably be sized down. To be honest, I'm not sure how this is a good article, but I digress. K1Bond007 02:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "Good article" seems to be a rather recent innovation to recognize articles that don't meet the FA standards but are still considered, er, good. Then again, having seen some rejected FA nominations in my time, there's really no way to predict what people might consider FA anymore so I've given up trying. IMO this article should have received FA status long ago. The new assessment rating thing that's kicking around the NovelsWikiproject and elsewhere makes no sense to me and has just muddied the waters further (but I digress). I still find this article enjoyable to read, and that's good enough for me. 23skidoo 03:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It may be enjoyable, but it's not exactly written that well hence why I don't even think it should be a 'good article'. That is what I was getting at. I honestly have no idea what the NovelsWikiproject is on. :P Seriously, I don't get the assessment thing either. Seems like a waste of time, but that's me. K1Bond007 04:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Character article titles
For characters that are both in Fleming's novels and film characters and happen to have different names in both (but are the same), what should we use? For a long while I've pushed them to be the original Fleming name. I am hoping to gain some sort of consensus here so we can bypass future arguments over this. Some of the ones affected: Judy Havelock, Jill Masterton, Tilly Masterton, Domino Vitali (changed to simply Domino to avoid 3 different arguments), and there are a number of others. The names listed here are the Fleming originals. K1Bond007 02:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * We should be listing these characters under Fleming's original names. They're characters created and written by Ian Fleming, in original works by Ian Fleming.  Their names may have been altered in subsequent film adaptations, but they are just that: adaptations of Fleming's work.  Fleming's versions take precedent as the originals.  If the issue can be neutralised, as in a case like Domino's where one name will do, then we should do that.  But if the name is just different, then Fleming's should be the one used, with a redirect set up on the changed name so everyone can find what they're looking for.  We should also make sure to have clear explanations on the character pages that "in the subsequent film adaptation, the name was changed to...", along with a reason (if we know it).  Cardinal Wurzel 09:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is my point: There are just a few characters from Fleming's book adapted to screen with another name, then I suggest:

1. Write another articles for Judy Havelock, Domino, Jill and Tilly Mastterton, etc (without photographs in it, because it hasn't.)

OR (and this is my favourite)

-Domino´s article could be named just....Domino. Why not?

- The others could have two names. Example:

- Melina Havelock (Judy Havelock) -Jill Mastterson (Jil Mastterton)

or

-Melina Havelock / Judy Havelock

etc.

I think it could be great, This is my suggestion. Thank you. Machocarioca 01:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC) machocarioca
 * Having two names in the title would be unnecessary (either or). Having a second article on the character which is clearly the same person is also unnecessary and would most definitely be marked as 'to merge' not long after. It'd be one thing if they were incredibly different, but they aren't. So we have to go with one or the other. Domino is an odd case - going with just Domino we'd have to disambiguate it "Domino (James Bond)" - not a fan of this when it's not completely necessary. I'm ok with leaving her first name as "Domino" in the article title, however. K1Bond007 04:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I support using Fleming's original names whenever possible. As long as the proper redirects are in place, and it's stated in the first paragraph of each article that the character name was changed for the movie adaptation, I don't see a problem. 23skidoo 04:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I do not agree that having two names in the title would be unnecessary, of course not, there are two names to the character in the article, film and book. I think it's a must having two names in the article title. Melina Havelock (Judy Havelock). Sounds fine. And EXACTLY. Or just the films character's name.

I support 'Domino', just that, in the character's article title. For me, no problems with a disambiguation. Thank you. Machocarioca 08:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)machocarioca

I support the idea of the articles having one name, the full name of the character as it first appeared in Ian Fleming's work. The movie character is a version of the book character; the book character is not a version of the movie character. Nareek 22:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

To Nareek: but the articles were originally done for films' characters, not book's characters. We're talking about the actual articles. Machocarioca 23:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)machocarioca
 * That doesn't make it right and it could just as easily been about the novel version of said character - in fact a number of the characters that I started were for both, not just one or the other. Original intent by the initial author doesn't matter at all. It never has. K1Bond007 05:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Listing Bond 23
I support the deletion of Bond 23 from the Official films list. Yes there have been some media reports that Craig is signed for 23 -- and others such as one published today in the Calgary Herald -- that say he is only signed for 22. In either case, Bond 23 has not even been officially announced (unlike Bond 22) so it is crystal ball to list it this early on. Wait till the film is announced first. 23skidoo 01:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It hasn't been announced so we shouldn't list. I think it's that simple. He's signed for 3 with an optional 4th just like Brosnan and I believe Dalton. K1Bond007 06:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Dalton is an excellent example since he never made a third Bond film, even though everyone assumed he would. Anything could happen between now and the end of Bond 22 -- including Craig getting fed up with being bashed about by fanboys in the Internet and quitting. 23skidoo 11:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I doubt that since he'd take a sizeable penalty for quitting a contract. Dalton was a rare case, but I'm sure it could happen again. One never knows. K1Bond007 18:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * There are other things that could happen. The "new direction" Bond could tank at the box office, or there could be a major delay before Bond 23 is made (such a delay is the reason why Dalton quit). It's interesting that while some people are listing Craig already for Bond 23 there are others who are already saying this Denisof character has been signed to take over for Bond 23. Go figure. In any event, until there's a press conference it's all crystal ball. You'd think people would have learned their lessons from all the false reports -- many reported by major media -- involving who was going to play Bond and Vesper. 23skidoo 13:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Alexis Denisof
Alexis Denisof is listed here as being Bond number 7, with Daniel Craig being 2006-2008 and then Alexis Denisof being 2010- I can find no evidence that this is remotely true, not even his IMDb page or any Bond fansites suggests such a move can anyone clarify? until then i will remove the name BritBoy 15:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't put it there, but it was on Entertainment Tonight that Craig had only signed on for 2 movies, and that the studio was paying Denisof not to sign any movie contracts after September 2009.


 * Let's wait until things actually happen before we put them in authoritative dated lists. We don't want to deteriorate into a rumor site, and tabloid TV shows aren't exactly infallible. - DavidWBrooks 19:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Considering other media have already reported that Craig is rumored to have already committed to Bond 23, I'd take this with a tremendous grain of salt. The fact this Denisof guy wasn't even an acknowledged contender for Casino Royale has my B.S. detector ringing. 23skidoo 20:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Numbers
I updated and fixed the budgets, admissions, grosses. The grosses and budgets have been updated and also the admissions. Also people need to understand that the budgets listed on imdb.com are wrong. I guess we need to not only fix this here, but also try and get imdb.com to get their info right as well.

BTW, here is the updated data from Sony and Eon

http://www.freewebs.com/moonrakerbondstation2/

http://www.freewebs.com/sonybankablebonds/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TruthOverAll (talk • contribs).


 * That website apparently needs to do a little fact checking. The numbers I have from Sony's Revenue Data reporting, which was given out in a similar style to what is posted there, is different. The errors that I caught were Dr. No, Thunderball, and CR67 (the budgets). The rest appears to be correct. For the record, other sources such as John Cork's The Legacy and numerous websites on the Internet including Box Office Mojo are actually wrong in what they list - at least according to Sony. I know John Cork has OHMSS messed up in The Legacy. Cubby Broccoli was quoted a couple times stating what we have here, however, the Legacy is way off. K1Bond007 05:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Dirk Pitt and other trivia
I removed this trivia item as NN: Bond appears, albiet incognito, in the Dirk Pitt novel Night Probe! by Clive Cussler. For one thing it's doubtful Cussler would have gotten the rights to use Bond, and in any event this is one of many books in which Bond-like characters have appeared. I took out the ski-jump item as well as that should be in the Spy Who Loved Me film article, not here. 23skidoo 05:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations
''Note: This article has a small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and subject content. Currently it would not pass criteria 2b.'' Members of the WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 04:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Official/unofficial?
There is a lot of mention like "This is generally considered to be not an official film" or similar comments. I quite understand it may not be an EON prouduction but there are no citations for this "unofficial" tag nor does it make sense to me since at least one of them was bought for $1000 from the author. So what does it all mean? Would it not be more NPV to list them as "EON productions" and "Others" or some other way of remaining neutral? sorry about not signing i forgot.Abtract 00:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please sign your comments. This was discussed some months ago. The terms "official"/"unofficial" are pervasive in film literature when referring to the different films, and attempts to use other terms just ended up confusing people. (For example using "canonical" is senseless since inter-film continuity is loose at best.) The general rule of thumb -- and this is common practice, like calling Marilyn Monroe a sex symbol - is EON Productions = Official, Non-EON = Unofficial and that includes any versions of Casino Royale produced before 2006 as well as the Warner Brothers-produced Never Say Never Again. 23skidoo 23:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * But this is not film literature its an encyclopedia. As an innocent observor, official and unofficial added nothing to my knowledge and indeed I found it a little offputting. My suggestion is that the article would be better and more NPV by ommitting ideas that are only "generally considered" (para 2) and concentrating on verifyable facts like the who, what, and when of each film and series. For instance it is verifyable that EON produced the bulk of the JB films and it is verifyable that other productions also occurred. Why not simply call them the "EON films" and "Others" or some such? Using a word like "unofficial" implies to me that these are of "lesser" value which is hardly a NPV. Apologies for not signing last time. Abtract 00:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Just read this para from the article "Harry Saltzman and Albert R. Broccoli started the official cinematic run of Bond in 1962, with Dr. No starring Sean Connery. The films made by their production company, EON Productions are regarded as the "official films" by all parties, although the 3 "unofficial" adaptations were authorised." Note there is no citation or reference for the "official" tag and even the paragraph itself states that "the 3 unofficial adaptations were authorised" ... 'so how can they be unofficial?' I ask myself. I am becoming more convinced that there is a, probably inadvertant, POV creeping in here and the term "official" should be mentioned only as a passing comment and not as though it had the backing of Congress. I am working on a suitable edit.Abtract 23:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I advise you to go through the archives for this page before doing so otherwise someone -- not necessarily me -- will revert you based on previous discussion. It is not POV to describe the EON films as official, just as it is not POV to describe Star Trek productions by Paramount Pictures or Doctor Who productions by the BBC as official as opposed to the unofficial spin-offs of these two franchises, some licenced and some not. 23skidoo 19:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Are there any items of Star Trek or Dr. Who which are licensed but are referred to as "unofficial" ? -- Beardo 19:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Kind of. Both Star Trek and Dr Who have huge series of novels which are licenced and therefore "official" but are not considered canon. Similarly, the two 1960s Dalek films starring Peter Cushing are considered peripheral to the main body of Dr Who. They were officially licenced adaptations of television stories but they made pretty significant alterations and don't fit with the TV series at all. Cardinal Wurzel 07:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Clarification of paragraph
The 1990s saw a revival and renewal of the series beginning with GoldenEye in 1995. Pierce Brosnan filled 007's shoes with a mix of Sean Connery cool and Roger Moore wit. The combination saw Bond's success return to a level it hadn't enjoyed since 1979's Moonraker. In all, Brosnan made 4 films before being replaced in 2006 by Daniel Craig, who will star in a reboot of the series. Although Craig's Casino Royale is the 21st film of the series, it will be Bond's first mission after obtaining his double-0 status from MI6.

What does this last sentence mean? Casual readers such as myself, accustomed to calling Bond "007," will not understand this.

It means that the film is a "reboot" of the series in the way that Batman Begins was. While it's the 21st film, it's supposed to be chronologically Bond's first adventure (and is based on the first book of the series). Thus, Bond has only just received his double-o status giving him his licence to kill, and the other 20 films take place after this one. Cardinal Wurzel 07:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)