# Talk:Thunderball (film)

This article needs a thorough section on crew and cast.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.221.34.20 (talk) 12:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC) 

It has a very thorough section on the cast. Feel free to add any sourced material you can find on the crew. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
There's an error in the line about Fiona. "Fiona Volpe: SPECTRE agent, who becomes François Derval's mistress and kills him before being sent to Nassau."  She didn't kill Derval; Angelo shot him with gamma gas, probably at her instruction.  Would it be better to say, "...mistress and has him killed before she is sent to Nassau"?   Moioci (talk) 06:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

"The film premiered on 21 December 1965 in the United States — a first for a James Bond film - ...."
Am I missing something? Why is this date memorable as a "first"?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.177.234 (talk) 08:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC) 

The date is not significant but the place is. Previous Bond films had premiered in the UK. –Saruwine (talk) 22:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
the article refers to the scene where the boat is blown up with rocket fuel, and thus breaking windows in Nassau 30 miles away. This is untrue. Rocket fuel? The Saturn V used liquid oxygen and kerosene. I doubt liquid oxygen was used, and kerosene wouldn't have made such an explosion. I saw it in the movie, no way it could have broken windows in Nassau. Other types of rocket fuel would have been too hazardous to transport. Total nonsense, and shouldn't have been included in the article.

I'll post this on the Skyfall talk page as well: Using the US Inflation Calculator, I calculate the adjusted box office earnings for Thunderball (unadjusted $141.2m) to be $1,031,974,768.25. This uses the latest available CPI data from the US government. Therefore, Skyfall will have to break the $1.032 barrier to successfully overtake Thunderball as the highest grossing Bond film (adjusted for inflation). Until such a time, please don't update the claim. Thanks. drewmunn (talk) 08:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The article says it's been continuing as of 2008. Well, it's been 5 years since 2008 and whether or not the battle is still continuing is valuable information. 24.9.253.197 (talk) 21:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Pretty much sorted out in 2006 - the death of McClory ended the last of the battles. - SchroCat (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I just think how funny that WIKI considers "Rotten Tomatoes.com" the definitive choice for society's review of films.
S  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.116.55 (talk) 19:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC) 

First off, please create a new section for a new topic. There is a button at the top of each talk page for this. Also, please sign posts using 4 tildes (~~~~). Finally, this isn't really the place to be debating what sites we use to provide review aggregations. All this aside, Rotten Tomatoes is one of the best, but we also use Metacritic to ensure impartiality. drewmunn talk 19:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Rotten Tomatoes provides a useful but limited overview, flawed as it may be it provides a consistent approach. It is not the be-all-and-end-all, other options such as Metacritic and MRQE also exist. Specific reviews and comments from individual critics are what is most important though, I don't think anyone wants to put unnecessary emphasis on Rotten Tomatoes, and the best articles focus on the reviews. -- 109.76.202.17 (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Please do not edit war over any article: see WP:BRD, and if you are reverted, use the article's talk page. In this instance I reverted your original edit (three times now) because it breached WP:OVERLINKING, which is why I am about to return it to it's stable state once again. If you wish to discuss the matter here about why, in this instance, we should ignore OVERLINKING, I look forward,to your comments, but make sure they are BEFORE any further edits. - SchroCat (talk) 22:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The second paragraph includes the line "in exchange for not destroying an unspecified major city in either England or the United States"
To use the term "England" here is surely incorrect. Whosoever chose to use "England", when they're meaning to refer to the name of the sovereign state in question obviously doesn't know much about British geographical terminology. Probably because you're not British is my guess.
England has not been a sovereign state since the year 1707 when through the Act of Union, England (and Wales) joined Scotland to become the sovereign state of Great Britain. (In 1800 Ireland was added to the Union to become the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
And since early in the last century, it has been the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland).
The United Kingdom consists of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The usage of the term England is inappropriate. It should be either the "UK" or maybe "Great Britain"/"Britain". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.204.133 (talk) 16:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
At last you have found the talk page, rather than continuing to edit war: I suspect you would have continued to revert without discussion if the page hadn't been locked down. As far as I remember the film specifically refers to England, rather than anything else. I will check later to see if my memory on this is correct, but either way, it shouldn't be linked. Fleming normally used England as a shorthand for Britain—as did many of his generation—and several references also made their way into the early Eon films. - SchroCat (talk) 17:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
(And, indeed, the later ones: Sean Bean's character in GoldenEye asks Brosnan's Bond, "For England, James?". Not ""For Great Britain", or "For the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", or British Isles, or any of the other geo-political titles that can be used to make up, singularly or in it's entirety, the islands located off the northwestern coast of continental Europe, but just England, as Fleming did). - SchroCat (talk) 09:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh, your guess is very wrong: I'm British and I know all of the above very well, thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 17:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Having watched the relevant scene again, guess what: the threat is to blow up an unnamed city in ENGLAND or the United States. - SchroCat (talk) 09:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Ah so! You are a fellow Brit after all. I take your point above re actor Sean Bean's dialogue, fair enough. But surely it only serves to perpetuate the age-old, widely accepted misuse of the term 'England' and not to enlighten (educate?) the unknowing people at large. What other ‘falsehoods’ could we throw in to ‘entertain’ rather than to ‘inform’?
All I know is it makes me 'cringe' when someone says 'England' when they mean the UK. And I'm English too (well, I'm ¾ English, ¼ Welsh - ethnically speaking).

It's not about entertaining: it's about being correct. The film said England, and so do we. How do you know that in this film they meant Britain and not England? If the plot had been to blow up something in Scotland, it would probably have said Scotland, and we would reflect that, rather than generalise to the UK. We are simply reflecting what the film said: we are not trying to make some point about the difference between England and Britain. - SchroCat (talk) 22:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The article states that the title sequence of Thunderball was the first nudity (albeit concealed) in a 007 film, but that is not correct, in From Russia With Love released in 1963 there is a shot from behind and to the side of a nude body double for the main actress getting into a bed. This occurs at 53 minutes 9 seconds into the film and lasts for two to three seconds. It's shot through sheer curtains but there is a very clear view of her bottom and a murkier view of her breasts including as she partially turns toward the camera.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sexplosion (talk • contribs) 10:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC) 

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Thunderball (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.butseriously.com/jetpack.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

It was ages ago since I saw this film, but I'm quite sure one could get a good glimpse at the bombs recovered from the sunken Vulcan. Can anyone say if the bombs were pointed like the Violet Club or blunt-nosed like the Yellow Sun? I would like to know if the dummies used in the film have any similarities with the real bombs and if so include that information in the swedish article sv:Avro Vulcan. /Esquilo (talk) 12:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

You're better off finding a reliable source that would answer your question as you can't cite a talk page. DonQuixote (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
The film photage itself would be reliable enough, but I don't have acces to that at the time being. /Esquilo (talk) 13:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Nope, you'll need a secondary source to identify them as Violet Club or Yellow Sun or any other real bomb, otherwise it'll be original research. DonQuixote (talk) 14:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
A primary source such as the film is perfectly acceptable, but I guess enwp is just as unhelpfull and unfriendly as six years ago when I stopped editing here for just that reason. /Esquilo (talk) 11:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
The primary source doesn't say whether it's a Violet Club or Yellow Sun or any other real bomb, so it's not helpful in that regard. And how is following policy unfriendly? DonQuixote (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
First you don't respect the fact that different language versions do not apply the same set of rules. Secondly, you have not answered my question, only provided excuses not to answer it. /Esquilo (talk) 12:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm not going to engage in original research for you. As I have suggested before, you should probably look up this information in a reliable source such as a book. DonQuixote (talk) 14:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Also, yes, different language versions do not apply the same set of rules. So you need to remember that when you ask us (English Wikipedia) to do something contrary to our rules. that we can't do what you ask us to do. Please respect that we have our rules that we can't break. DonQuixote (talk) 14:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
The 'bombs' seen in the film are simply dummies. The actual appearance of British nuclear weapons at the time was secret. In reality, by 1965, nuclear-armed Vulcans would have carried the Blue Steel stand-off missile and not free-fall bombs. Live nuclear weapons would never be carried on a training flight, as depicted in the novel and the film, for blindingly obvious reasons. Live weapons were only ever loaded for ground exercises and Quick Reaction Alert duty. US bombers carried live nuclear weapons on training flights, resulting in several nasty accidents, but RAF bombers sensibly did not. Ian Fleming's plot could never have worked, but that's fiction for you, it's all a fantasy, and it seemed vaguely credible to audiences at the time. In the film, SPECTRE's blackmail tape refers to the stolen bombs as 'MOS type', which means nothing in the context. On p.70 of the 1961 novel, the blackmail letter says, 'The Ministry of Supply Identification Numbers on the atomic weapons are MOS/bd/654/MkV and MOS/bd/655/MkV. There are also USAF identification numbers in such profusion and of such prolixity that I will not weary you with them.' MOS, of course, means Ministry of Supply, but the film audience aren't told that. In fact UK weapons would not carry US marks and Vulcans, unlike Nimrods, never carried US weapons. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The second paragraph in the plot section starts with an error. It states, "Bond is sent by M to the Shrublands clinic to improve his health." That is true of the novel but not of the film. It is never mentioned why Bond is at Shrublands I the film. Anyone mind if it is changed to something more accurate? SonOfThornhill (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Thunderball (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mi6.co.uk/sections/movies/tb_production.php3?t=tb&s=tb
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071218123749/http://www.mi6.co.uk/sections/movies/tb_production.php3?t=tb&s=tb to http://www.mi6.co.uk/sections/movies/tb_production.php3?t=tb&s=tb
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

What does ENHOH at the end of the subtitle stand for?
--2003:D4:7F4B:4200:89F0:B99:5CAE:61E5 (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

What have subjective and unrepresentative opinions lost in Wikipedia?
--2003:D4:7F4B:4200:89F0:B99:5CAE:61E5 (talk) 23:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The Cast section described Volpe as "SPECTRE assassin who becomes Derval's mistress to kill and replace him with his double ...."  It would be unlikely but not impossible for Domino Derval to have a lesbian mistress, so I specified that Volpe was Francois Derval's mistress.  This seems to follow from the plot summary.  I haven't seen the movie so I hope someone who has can confirm.  69.117.8.89 (talk) 00:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

"Huntington Hartford gave permission to shoot footage on his Paradise Island and is thanked at the end of the film."
Yes, that's right but his first name has there been misspelt to Huntingdon!
Let's hope that happened erroneously not intentionally.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orbis*Non*Sufficit (talk • contribs) 01:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC) 

There is no mention in the Plot section of the pre-credit sequence where Bond attends a SPECTRE agent's funeral.  This is of particular note as it leads to the ommision of the presence of the Bell Rocket Belt in the movie. I would note that the use of the Fulton Recovery system at the end does get mentioned. Dhericean (talk) 14:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

There should be an explanation why it was necessary to dub Native-English  actresses.
--2A02:908:1223:D2E0:C113:4BC8:E175:546F (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)