Talk:List of James Bond villains/Archive 1

Villains vs Henchmen
Many characters listed under the villain section in the Eon films section are henchmen and not main villains. These include Red Grant, Kronsteen, Morenzy, OddJobb, Irma Bunt, Fiona Volpe, Zao, Miranda Frost, Mr.Stamper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MegaVergan (talk • contribs) 23:10, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Schäuble?
Seems incomplete without Wolfgang Schäuble

90.206.146.169 (talk) 09:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Page name
Shouldn't this article be entitled "List of James Bond villains" since it is, after all, a list, and the 'v' shouldn't be capitalized? If there's no protest I'll move the article. &ETH;&aring;&ntilde;&eta;&yuml;&szlig;&ocirc;&yacute; | Talk 21:18, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * That sounds fine to me. We may have to do the same for the Bond girls page. Bond girl. K1Bond007 06:13, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Am now moving both pages. &ETH;&aring;&ntilde;&eta;&yuml;&szlig;&ocirc;&yacute; | Talk 04:51, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * ...never mind, I don't think the Bond girl page needs moving, as it is an article defining the term "Bond girl," which is popular slang; it isn't just a list. &ETH;&aring;&ntilde;&eta;&yuml;&szlig;&ocirc;&yacute; | Talk 04:56, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Novel villains
Should the section "Novel villains" really be there? It only has one entry, which is duplicated in the list of "Unofficial movie villains". Or should it be expanded, if there are more villains from novels that should be there? As it is, it looks like wasteful duplication to me... &alpha;&gamma;&delta;&epsilon;&epsilon; (&tau;) 04:54, 2004 Sep 23 (UTC)


 * I think it should be expanded. Thats what I intended anyway. K1Bond007 17:08, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

Villains additions
I added a few names to the list. Elektra King was actually the main villain of World is Not Enough since she masterminded the plan. Technically Renard should be listed as a henchman, but I think we can get away with listing him as a main villain if for no other reason than he got the big explosion death at the end usually reserved for the main baddies. I also added Blofeld to From Russia with Love and Thunderball. Although he never met Bond, his influence was there (and Blofeld is listed in this capacity for Never Say Never Again anyway). Lastly, I popped Dr. Noah into the Casino Royale '67 entry as well. Can't forget Woody. 23skidoo 06:33, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, I honestly disagree that Renard was a henchman. IMO he was the main villain, however, I can see how someone could make the arguement that she was also the main villain. But I don't agree. I don't mind listing them both though K1Bond007 08:30, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * Elektra has been mentioned as the main villain in a few sources and movie reviews. WiNE has actually been "applauded" (not the right word given the context but it's the only one I can think of right now) as being the first Bond film to have a female main villain ever and the first to have a woman in a major villainous role (as opposed to just being a "bad girl" or henchman) since Irma Bunt in OHMSS or even Rosa Klebb. But the film makes it clear that Elektra was behind the murder of her father and the whole pipeline scheme, and it is she who kidnaps M and sets up the whole situation in Turkey because of the Stockholm Syndrome she experienced. But if you do a villains article on her, it wouldn't hurt to mention the controversy over whether she should be considered the main villain or not. At the very least, Elektra and Renard should be considered co-villains. 23skidoo 13:07, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem saying they're co-villains. Thats pretty much what I think. What I don't think, is that it was entirely all her plan. By the way, should we really list Blofeld for Thunderball and From Russia With Love? Shouldn't it be S.P.E.C.T.R.E. and Largo, S.P.E.C.T.R.E. and Kronsteen? This would make YOLT Blofeld and S.P.E.C.T.R.E. as well, but everything else just Blofeld. ?? K1Bond007 18:08, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * I was thinking about this too. Maybe the co-villain idea again. Blofeld does appear in Russia and Thunderball and, while he doesn't interact directly with Bond, it's clear he's the driving force behind the schemes even if it's clear he doesn't come up with the ideas. The place of Kronsteen as a villain is also tenuous since he also never meets Bond. I agree that he's clearly the mastermind behind the scheme in that film, of course. It might be worth noting that he's the only Bond film villain who never actually meets James Bond. I've seen Rosa Klebb listed as the main villain of the piece, but she's more of a henchman alongside Red Grant. I think Blofeld should be listed for the two films, but with some sort of footnote saying he doesn't directly interact with Bond -- the same for Blofeld in Never Say Never. 23skidoo 21:24, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I added Miranda Frost to the Die Another Day henchmen and Hans (Blofeld's Bodyguard) to the You Only Live Twice henchmen. Ian911299

Spoiler
When listing the villain for For Special Services I double checked to see if we had a spoiler warning, which we do, but noticed that the intro to the article flat out tells everyone that Mr. Big and Kanaga from Live and Let Die are one and the same. Should this just be reworded, moved or should it all just be removed? The listing of Stromberg as the first Non-Fleming villain is listed on his page and most likely listed if not just implied anyway on the page for The Spy Who Loves Me. ??? K1Bond007 02:14, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need it. Now that we have a complete list of unique novel villains (takes a bow) I think the reader can work this out for themselves. That said, I do mention that Mr. Big is a Kananga alias on the list, which should probably be reworded (which I'll do right now). 23skidoo 02:41, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Official" status?
Can anyone explain the "official" or otherwise status of a villain? Which body or person makes something official - is it the Fleming estate or something similar? Mswake 15:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I get it -- it's the films, not the villains, that are un/official. Have edited table headings accordingly. Mswake 16:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It sais that Dominic greene died in the dessert but HOW did he die. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.147.92 (talk) 22:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Why are they all Deceased?
Many of the JB villians are "Deceased". How do we know that? Books, OK! But films don't tell us if they're deceased or not (there are exceptions). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.101.57.207 (talk) 17:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Think about it this way with JB villains about the deceased status. How many people can survive getting boiled in radioactive water, shot in the chest, blown out of a plan, stabbed in the back with a harpoon, blown to smithereens, shot through the heart, blown into outer space, get a knife thrown into their back, crash into a mountain, get shot in the back with machine guns, fall off the Golden Gate Bridge into San Francisco Bay back-first, get crushed beneath a stone bust, set on fire, crushed beneath a satellite, grinded to pulp with a portable chainsaw-like machine, impaled with a plutonium rod, sucked into a plane engine, shot in the forehead or drink motor oil and get shot twice in the back of the head. Yeah think about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flashpenny (talk • contribs) 12:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Novels Table
Could someone please help me fix the novels table? Emperor001 (talk) 15:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Never mind, it was just fixed. Emperor001 (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Blofeld "disputed" in FYEO?
The table for the EON film villains notes that Blofeld is "disputed". By whom, and in what way? 86.166.86.195 (talk) 11:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Devil May Care
shouldn't the villain, julius gorner, be listed in this article somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.55.6 (talk) 10:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the Devil may care villian should be added on the novel villian section. I know the novel villians section is only about the Ian fleming books but Sabastian faulks is writing as Ian and I think it is concidered part of the Bond series unlike the other writers who write Bond books.

Image copyright problem with File:Blofeldpleasance67.jpg
The image File:Blofeldpleasance67.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 Media copyright questions. --21:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Gone Over Board?
I was going over the page today and noticed that recently the villain listing (in the films mainly) has been flooded with with the names of any characters who seem to have a seperate agenda. For example under Goldinger in the movie section it lists Mr. Solo and all his fellow hoods. In my oppinion this section should be reserved for the film Heavies only. The Goldfinger hoods, Jaws and anyone else like that should be taken off and kept off the list. They are henchmen and should be listed in the henchmen sections. 98.149.226.19 (talk) 05:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Gaven Rocker
 * I agree. Also, where does much of this info come from?  Many of these pre-title villains are gettin mentioned with info that wasn't in the movie.  The only pretitle villain to be included should be Blofeld in FYEO because he was a main villain in other films.  Emperor001 (talk) 18:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Although I'm not the guy who did it I do agree with the inclusion of more villains. The reason for this is because they don't serve the main villain but they still do antagonize Bond being somewhat secondary villains. This makes quite a bit of sense since they wouldn't fit on the henchmen page since they aren't henchmen in the traditional sense. I mean really: Steven Obanno in Casino Royale wasn't a henchman he was one of the film's main villains. Dryden also had quite an antagonistic role in the opening parts. I agree that they should remain on the list since they do fit in the villains role (that does include Solo and his hoods in Goldfinger). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flashpenny (talk • contribs) 12:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

"Although I'm not the guy who did it", wow THAT'S not conspicous in the least. For the people who don't know, "Flashpenny" or 24.46.117.40 is a user who is continually adding these minor and background henchmen. He also gives names to henchmen not even named and adds them to the individual henchmen lists. Several other editors have told him to cease and decist but to no avail. Please do what you can to undue his edits as they have no references and are just claims. Thank you. FelixRodriguez (talk) 01:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Trim the film list
If no one objects, I am going to heavily trim the film list. This should be a list of main villains. I suppose we could create separate table for more minor villains (such as pretitle villains or co-villains that are more puppets to the main villain such as Hai Fat to Scaramanga) that technically weren't henchmen, but I think that since they are so minor, they should go on the henchmen lists with mentionings as being a little more than henchmen. This is who would be listed in my edited list:


 * Dr. No: Dr. No
 * From Russia with Love: Blofeld and Klebb
 * Goldfinger: Goldfinger
 * Thunderball: Blofeld and Largo
 * You Only Live Twice: Blofeld
 * On Her Majesty's Secret Service: Blofeld
 * Diamonds Are Forever: Blofeld
 * Live and Let Die: Mr. Big
 * The Man with the Golden Gun: Scaramanga
 * The Spy Who Loved Me: Stromberg
 * Moonraker: Drax
 * For Your Eyes Only: Kristatos
 * Octopussy: Khan and Orlov
 * A View to a Kill: Zorin
 * The Living Daylights: Koskov and Whitaker
 * GoldenEye: Trevlan
 * Tomorrow Never Dies: Carter (or was it Carver?)
 * The World Is Not Enough: Elektra and Renard
 * Die Another Day: Moon aka Graves
 * Casino Royale: Le Chiffre
 * Quantum of Solace: Greene

Forgot to sign last time, but if know one responds soon, I'll go through with these edits. Anyone wishing to add minor villains should create a separate table. This table should be for main villains only. I have no objections to a separate table for those who weren't the main villain but were more than just henchmen (such as Hai Fat, Gen. Chang, etc.) Emperor001 (talk) 16:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You know that may not be such a bad idea. I was with keeping the table with more expansive people but that works as well. I'd just like to through this out there however. If this table is going to be about just main villains only than you're going to need to subtract Blofeld from For Your Eyes Only, include Gogol in For Your Eyes Only (he was one of the film's main villains) and also you're going to need to include Mr. White in Casino Royale since he was one of the main bad guys. I'll do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flashpenny (talk • contribs) 12:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Fix Box
Ok, I've done some trimming, but could someone please fix the box. I don't know much about them. Emperor001 (talk) 15:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks to those who fixed it. Emperor001 (talk) 21:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Henri Straun: A Hoax?
I can't find ANYTHING on the Internet, with multiple searches, in regards to Henri Straun and his "work" in the 007 arena. Did somebody add the stuff in as a joke or a hoax? Apple8800 (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Never heard of it. Sounds like bullshit. Feel free to revert pending sources. Blue Danube (talk) 01:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

John Gardner vandalism
Excuse me for not having an account, but: the descriptions of some villains of the John Gardner era look to me as if they're vandalised. The best example is David Dragonpol. According to this article, his scheme is to impregnate the British queen, in which he fails because "Bond gets to her first". I suggest that someone with knowledge of the John Gardner novels changes this as soon as possible! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.81.208.222 (talk) 18:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Order
Please keep in chronological order - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 08:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

There's no reason to make three sections for just one novel each. This is not List of James Bond novels and stories. --Niemti (talk) 08:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is if it keeps it in chronological order. The only other option is to follow the headings in List of James Bond novels and stories. You'll also note that the headings are correct in this one, rather than the abominations you've invented for this article. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 09:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Nope. It's just a list of villains, andalso the chronological order is actually kept in the new section "In other novels" (and if you want, you can add the release date to every novel, film and game in the article, next to the title). --Niemti (talk) 09:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Firstly please indent your comments using a colon: it makes it easier to follow. Secondly, the chronological order of appearance is probably best. Have you seen the way of organising on List of James Bond novels and stories? This is an FL, so it's been rigourously reviewed and deemed to be an acceptable approach. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 09:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * No, it isn't - these are multiple sections for one novel each. And I alrady said, this is NOT List of James Bond novels and stories, this is just List of James Bond villains. Also for example Kingsley Amis won't write any more of plural "novels" ("In Kingsley Amis' novels (writing as Robert Markham)") to his single novel, because he's dead. --Niemti (talk) 09:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Also I actually wanted to rid of all the sections for the authors other then Fleming too, but it was too much work. --Niemti (talk) 09:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, but it's the same argument for the villains and the books: three of these authors are dead, but we still show their works (or their villains) in chronological order. Why are you so set against considering the structure of a Bond-centred Featured List as the possible structure of a Bond-centred list?


 * The one section for all three novels of them is still in chronological order, it's just the final one becasue of the "other" thing. Also as I already said, if you want go thorough the article and just add the dates everywhere (no, I don't think it's needed, that's what the other lists are for). --Niemti (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Your approach really is illogical. There is no need to take things out of chronological order, regardless of whether there is only one book or not. Having separate section that fall out of the chronology is nonsense. I'm bemused by your rejection of the other structure - one that has gained an FL rating and are still ensuring this remains as a rather poor, second rate article. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 09:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't "take things out of chronological order", I just group them in one category by removing the categories for just single novel (THAT is "illogical" and "nonsense"). It's like if the villains here were grouped by the films by Bond actors (in chronological order), including the categories such as "In George Lazenby films" despite it being just one film. Or by director, or by writers, or whatever. And it was indeed "a poor, second rate article", but I am trying to make it better (and you're not really helpful much). --Niemti (talk) 09:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "I am trying to make it better (and you're not really helpful much)" This smacks of WP:OWN. In order to get to a decent standard in articles you need to accept that consensus is needed and that people will disagree with some of your own personal preferences. You need to get past that or you'll end up edit-warring yourself into trouble - and I note you've been tagged for it a few times before. The Eon films are classed together, in chronological order and there is a good argument for including the non-Eon films in the same list too, but the agreed consensus is to keep them separate. The agreed consensus in a number of other articles (including GA and FL ones) is to retain the published chronology and not to shuffle them around. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 09:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

No, this "smacks of WP:OWN" from you. It's you who's barring me from making improvements and trying to keep the "original version" (as you called it). I didn't even ever edit this article before last week or so, so I have nothing to own here, and you're edit warring with me. As as I already said more than once, the grouped section still maintains chronological order, and if you want you can also date the every title here. As I also already said, I'd actually group ALL of non-Fleming authors into one section (just like almost all of the film writers, actors, and directors here are grouped into a single section with a single list, "Villains in Eon Productions films", with the only other one being just "Villains in non-Eon Bond films") but this was too much work. --Niemti (talk) 10:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That's a hugely spurious argument and not entirely conducive to the editing process, so please don't throw around accusations improperly. I'm not barring you from making improvements at all. I have reverted you on two points, upon which I believe you are making the article weaker: the headings and the chronology. Nopthing else. I've already said on your talk page that 99% of your edits are completely correct and proper. They have improved the article. How is this a matter of my OWN and how is this me barring you from making edits? And no, I'm not edit warring with you. After I reverted you the first time I asked you to come to the talk page, as per WP:BRD and you didn't see fit to do that, so it's a little too much of a stretch to accuse me of WP:OWN The chronology runs fine as it is and it does not need moving out of chronological order. And the headings as they stand are still awful: the original (minus the links) were better: those from the FL article, better still. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 10:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * In regards to changing the sub-headings, I think SchroCat makes a fair point that having "In ... novels" for each writer is needlessly repetitive; by the same token I agree with Niemti that it should be made explicit that these are the authors and not the names of the villains. Why not make the second-level heading "Novel villains by author" and then put the third-level headings back to how they were? Similarly you could have "Film villains by production", you don't need to keep writing "Villains" in each sub-heading. Betty Logan (talk) 19:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Patrice
Raoul Silva is, without a doubt, the main villain of Skyfall. So why is Patrice given equal weight? The link for his name doesn't even lead to an article about him specifically, just the disambiguation page for his name. He is a mid-tier adversary at best, and should go on the list of henchmen, not of the main villains. I have some of the same reservations about Xenia Onatopp, but since she has her own article, I'll give her the benefit of the doubt. I will clean up the description of her though, since "getting the squeeze on Bond" doesn't sound like it fits in with Wikipedia's tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.98.19.140 (talk) 01:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)