# Talk:Goldfinger (film)

IP, stop edit warring on the Rotten Tomatoes text please and try and discuss it here first. The hideously awful system they use for "scoring" a balanced piece of text into a raw number needs to be phrased properly, not just the equally crass "an overall score of 96%", which is far from the truth of the matter. - SchroCat (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:MOSFILM and WP:RTMC have several things to say about Rotten Tomatoes.  Rotten Tomatoes started roughly in 2000, for films before then the score from Rotten Tomatoes is often deemphasized and put at the end of the critical response section, as it is done in the case of this article.
Weasel words like "mostly" should be avoided, when the wording can be specific and the wording should be improved to avoid this.
If you look at the reviews for Goldfinger you will see they are all dated post 2000, this can be specifically stated and vague weasel words avoided. [Edit: Bah, Rotten Tomatoes indicates the date the review was collected, only by clicking through to the article can you see if the reviews were contemporary or if they were reviews of the rerelease, several are from the '60s, others from different dates, Roger Ebert reviewed it in 1999. We can only be sure they were collected/aggregated post 2000. Still the lazy "mostly" can and should be avoided.]
An editor stated that the percentage given by Rotten Tomatoes is not the "score" and that the score was "8.4" but this was clearly an incorrect description, Rotten Tomatoes describes 8.4 as the "rating average". It would probably be good to include the 8.4 rating average, if editors feel the Rotten Tomatoes percentage is somehow "dishonest".
Keep comments on relevant article talk pages. Do not make comments personal talk pages. If you want to start a discussion on the talk page then better to actually start it, than telling someone else to start it. -- 109.79.100.242 (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I recommend changing the wording to:
Review aggregation website Rotten Tomatoes retrospectively collected 54 reviews ...
and I would suggest adding the rating average too. -- 109.79.100.242 (talk) 20:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I did start it - right above this thread (I have now merged the two threads together for completeness sake). As I mentioned on your talk page, read WP:BRD: when your Bold edit if Reverted, you need to Discuss, not wait for others to do it while you re-revert. My comments on your talk page were entirely justified to make you come to this page, rather than edit war.
To be entirely honest, I'd rather not have anything as crassly awful as Rotten Tomatoes in articles at all: they are a monumental dumbing down of the crafted prose of a reviewer, to a meaningless "score" or percentage. It panders only to those who are too stupid or lazy to read reviews and who just want to look at a number, without really understanding what is behind that number: as such the 8.4 rating average is even more of a useless waste of time than the rest of the site. However, if we don't add them, some lazy, non-thinking drive-by editor will only add it in and do such in such a turgidly awful way that will mislead others into thinking there is actually some truth in the "score" the site somehow creates out of nothing. The current wording is fine as it stands, IMO. - SchroCat (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I find your attitude unhelpful. If you think [Rotten Tomatoes] is so crap, why do you even care if I change the wording? -- 109.79.100.242 (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I found your edit warring unhelpful, let alone your unwillingness to come to the talk page before having to be asked several times. I'm sorry that I don't slavishly follow what you've written, but we are allowed to have differing opinions here. I also care because Rancid Tomatoes is so abjectly crass in their practices that it needs to be phrased correctly to limit possible misconceptions about what the "score" actually is. - SchroCat (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
You're overthinking it. You say "truth" and assert that yours is the "honest" way to present the score, but you're missing the point, it is exactly the simplistic reductionist overall score that you dislike so much that people find so useful. They can still read the more detailed reviews too. Since you so clearly dislike Rotten Tomatoes you'd be better off pretending it isn't there and ignoring that paragraph, but I'm not going to spend any further time on this. Enjoy your article -- 109.79.100.242 (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh, a baseless accusation of ownership from a drive-by IP... I'm cut to the core. I see your reading matter needs to cover AGF and CIVIL, as well as BRD. - SchroCat (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Comment Firstly I actually think the RT "scores" could be dropped for the early Bond films. We use aggregators for recent films simply because in many cases it is the only objective means available to us to assess a film's overall critical standing, but the critical standing of Goldfinger as the best Bond film or one of the best is easily sourcable. There is plenty of retrospective assessment of the Bond films so I'm not sure what purpose the aggregator serves in this regard. Moving on to this particular issue, the RT percentage is the share of positive reviews out of all the reviews RT has surveyed. It is not a score, it is a metric: RT assigns a binary score i.e. Fresh/Rotten and works out the ratio. I presume the "rating" is just an average of the critic scores normalised to 10. In this case I think SchroCat's wording better reflects what the RT percentage represents. I think the IP may well be confusing the methodology with the approach that Metacritic uses, which can be correctly described as assigning a "score". Betty Logan (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Here are correct references for the episode dealing with Goldfinger:
http://fandomania.com/tv-review-mythbusters-8-23-minimyth-madness/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_(2010_season)#Episode_153_-_.22Mini_Myth_Madness.22
For starters Mythbusters didn't even start airing until 2003 so how is the "ninth season" start airing in 2004?
I was trying to locate the episode with the Goldfinger test using this citation and found it to be wrong on both airdate and season and have since watched the segment which can be found here:
http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/minimyth-madness.htm
It was not Season 9 it was season 8. And it DEFINITELY was not 2004.
Update: I guess it doesn't really matter because any reasonably intelligent person would be able to find the correct episode based on it's title, season, and airdate but Schrocat's citation still lists the incorrect episode number even if he claims it's correct in the update note:
http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/2010-episodes17.htm
This is definitely the discovery channel's episode guide to their show mythbusters which lists the Mini Myth Madness episode as #17. They are the producers of the show and air them on their channel there can be absolutely no better no MORE reliable source than the discovery channel's own episode guide to Mythbusters.

I am going to change it back to episode 17 and after that I will leave it up to other wikipedia editors who value utmost accuracy in the articles to determine if schrocat should be allowed to revert it back to episode 18 without providing his own reliable source.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.47.229.235 (talk) 03:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
IP, in future, post your comments at the bottom of both page and thread, indent by use of colons' sign using four tildes, and never, ever pull a stunt like this again. - SchroCat (talk) 05:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Did the original US release always have seven seconds at the end? I grew up with the three seconds versions, but I realise they changed it some years ago.Halbared (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Not sure about the original release but I saw it in 68 and it had the 007. SonOfThornhill (talk) 20:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Here's one for someone who wants to do the research. Although the term "dirty bomb" is in common use today to refer to a (usually) small nuclear device with low yield but intended to irradiate a region, it's a term that didn't really come into wide use until the last 20 years or so (I started hearing it post-9/11). Yet in 1964 we had Goldfinger all but using the term as he described his Fort Knox bomb. I contend that this is the first time in pop culture that the concept of a "dirty bomb" (small nuke intended to irradiate an area rather than cause mass destruction) was discussed. Obviously this can't be added to the article without a source to back this up (assuming my contention is even accurate). So I'll just leave this here and let anyone interested pick it up for confirmation - or debunking. 70.73.90.119 (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

The article says that the film set for the vault was created at Pinewood. However, a number of sources, e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4], suggest that the vault at the old headquarters of the Midland Bank at 27-35 Poultry, London was used in part - particularly the vault door? I'm wanting to do a short article on the Midland Bank, to fill an irritating redlink here. Its use in Goldfinger would warrant a mention, if true. Does anyone have any solid sources on this. The journalistic sources I've found sound a bit like they are repeating each other, and I wonder if we're in urban myth territory? But for the BEEB, the FT and RIBA (although a student editor) to all claim it, makes me uncertain. Any thoughts gratefully received. KJP1 (talk) 08:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

p.s. I see that the current occupant, The Ned, doesn't make the claim. By no means definitive, but it's the sort of thing you'd expect a hotel to reference. KJP1 (talk) 08:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi KJP1, I hope you're keeping well. There are several sources (of varying (un)reliablity) that make the connection, but none of the books I have (about 12 on the film series alone) says anything about filming in a bank. Most discuss the construction of the vault at Pinewood, and I think it likely that was where the vault door scene was filmed. The vault from the film (see one view of it here) looks sufficiently different from the views shown here, here and here to make me doubt the claim. I suspect Adams would have visited the bank to get a view of it, and then built it at Pinewood with everything else - even Golfinger's stud ranch in Kentucky was built in West London, so one vault door would have made no major difference to them. Most of that is OR, unfortunately, but what can be said is that none of the books that I have that include location information, mention any filming in the bank. Hope that helps! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
SchroCat - Many thanks, most helpful. It had the “ring” of an, oft-repeated, myth, although I’m a little disappointed to see that the BBC, the FT and RIBA all repeat it! A salutary lesson in not being able to believe all that you read. I shall leave it out, or maybe cover the myth in a footnote, unless a solid RS can be found. KJP1 (talk) 18:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

An interesting piece on the car.

Hungerford, Betsy (20 September 1973). "Fireworks Master Fears Classic Art Is Sputtering Out". The Philadelphia Inquirer. p. 3. Retrieved 1 February 2025. DOWNINGTOWN, Pa. (AP). It was about 4 A. M. when a sleek Aston Martin swung into the parking lot of a Chester County diner. Suddenly, machine guns appeared at the front of the car and a burst of gunfire caused the few patrons leaving the diner to dive for cover. The local police chief threw himself to the ground and drew his gun. "We nearly got ourselves shot," said Barry Rothman, who was in the car with his brother, Alan. Fortunately, the police chief recognized the men in the car before he opened fire. The Rothmans really weren't out to shoot, kill, maim or rob. They were testing the car for which they had designed and installed some extraordinary accessories simulated machine guns, a smoke screen and ejection seat. It was the car for James Bond to drive and chase all the baddies in the movie, "Goldfinger."
Lent (talk) 12:00, 1 February 2025 (UTC)