# Talk:Skyfall

The article states
"Judi Dench in her final appearance as M."
She appeared in the next film Spectre in a video
Therefore the article is incorrect
Montalban (talk) 03:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I think it's classed as a cameo and therefore the article is correct. - X201 (talk) 12:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

The nationality of this film is disputed, and so I wanted to start a talk page section for it. I think the film has both British and American production and national interests, and that we should follow the MOS in avoiding the production country in the lead sentence. There appear to be sources that mention the film's American production and refer to it as an "American film" (such as [1]). I think the film dealing with "Britishness" would be relevant to include in the article and possibly the lead, but not as the singular nationality in the first sentence. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 06:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

It is helpful to bring this here, as the reverting editor is already in breach of 3RR and warring it isn’t going to resolve.  As per MoSfilm, what we are interested in is how the artistic product is described by reliable sources; that there were multiple national interests involved in the production isn’t disputed and is already set out in both the infobox and the article.  Your source above is the blog of an individual critic and uses the phrase “in American film history”; you infer from that a description applying to this particular film, which is perhaps questionable.  Whereas the BAFTA award is the decision of a reputable industry body (with rules as to what qualifies) and is a direct description as a British film, which as per the links from my earlier edit[2][3][4] does appear to have some support in both academic and media sources.  What would be useful would be wider survey of international sources (including beyond the UK and US) to see what descriptions are typically used. MapReader (talk) 06:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure how the BAFTA Award for Outstanding British Film is particularly relevant. No one denies that Skyfall is a British film or has "significant creative involvement by individuals who are British", but the BAFTA award for "Outstanding British Film" is not given to exclusively British films. The question here is whether the film's nationality is "singularly defined" as British, and obviously the film has "significant creative involvement by individuals who are non-British". All three sources you cite seem to be discussing the film's content and advertising, rather than the production interests or nationality of the film. I'm not sure why we would ignore the nationalities explicitly stated in sources like the BFI and AFI for a more arbitrary sense of "Britishness" that ignores significant creative involvement by non-British individuals. I think a better solution would be to include some information about that aspect of "Britishness" from your sources into the production or reception. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:48, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't believe there is any dispute about the film's nationality in any meaningful sense among reliable sources. Skyfall is a co-production between both Great Britain and the USA (see the European AudioVisual Observatory, the British Film Institute, the American Film Institute, Encyclopedia of British Film, ScreenDaily and Variety). In fact all the modern James Bond films are considered co-productions between the UK and the US. Of course, if a film is a co-production between two countries it is often eligible for nationality based awards, so winning a "British film" award does not preclude its status as a co-production. An article about the film's cultural sense of "British-ness" does not preclude it from being a co-production. The real issue here isn't nationality, it is whether we should state it in the lead. WP:FILMLEAD states "If the film's nationality is singularly defined by reliable sources (e.g., being called an American film), it should be identified in the opening sentence. If the nationality is not singular, cover the different national interests later in the lead section."  I have no wish to get into a protracted dispute over this; I reverted the sequence edits because i) they were unsourced; ii) they contradicted what was in the infobox; iii) they consequently were not MOS-compliant. My last edit was to simply made the lead consistent with the countries in the infobox, my reasoning being that it should at least be accurate even if it is not compliant with the MOS. Betty Logan (talk) 07:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
You shouldn’t have made your last edit, both for 3RR and MoS, but that doesn’t matter now.  There is a difference between a footnote or infobox to a source that lists the countries involved in production - which appears to be the case in most of your links - and a direct description of the nationality of the film.  That UK and US entities were involved isn’t disputed, and is set out in the article and the infobox (which is the WP equivalent of most of your references).  What we are looking for are DIRECT references to the nationality of the film as an artistic product.  I notice that the book you link to does actually describe Skyfall as a British film. MapReader (talk) 08:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
My last edit was not a revert. It simply made the countries in the lead consistent with the sourced countries in the infobox (which to the best of my knowledge are treated synonymously on all other articles). Nowhere does the MOS say that sources must treat the film as an "artistic" product; it stipulates the "nationality" and per WP:DUE we should interpret that in conventional terms i.e. in the manner that most reliable sources do.  Per Lumiere: country of origin of the film: defining the nationality of a film is a complex task. There are no widely accepted international or even European definitions of the criteria to be used to determine the country of origin of a film. This is both a legal and a statistical problem. It is enlightening to compare the lists provided by the different national sources that we use: countries involved in a joint production are not always indicated (even when the main coproducer is from another country). Different national records - and the statistics on which they are based - can show the same film as having a whole range of nationalities.. In other words reliable sources deploy a whole variety of methodologies. In the case of Skyfall the sources are broadly consistent. Betty Logan (talk) 09:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
On the contrary, it isn’t our job to import a definition from elsewhere, which would be both OR and synthesis.  As per the MoS WP is to rely upon and reflect how reliable sources decide to describe the film.  Few of your linked sources contain such descriptions and I suggest more work is needed. MapReader (talk) 13:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Appropriating and redefining the "nationality" of a film would be WP:Original research, so we absolutely should be importing a definition from elsewhere. If the majority of sources regard a film as American/British then that should be reflected in how Wikipedia describes it. All the sources I have linked to above explicitly provide the nationality. Betty Logan (talk) 15:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Let's look at other similar articles. For starters, Casino Royale (FA-status), Quantum of Solace (GA-status), Spectre (GA-status), and No Time to Die all omit the nationalities from the lede, given that they're all co-productions between the UK and US, so there's already a precedent for this. The Harry Potter film series is another example, and all eight films in that series (out of which the first, fifth, seventh and eighth are GA-status) omit the nationalities from the lede, given that they're also co-productions between the UK and US; even the Fantastic Beasts do so. Let's check the Lord of the Rings trilogy, all three films are co-productions between New Zealand and the US, and all three articles omit the nationalities from their respectives ledes; same with the Hobbit trilogy. We acknowledge that the main nationality of these film series is the one other than the US, that's why we use British English in all of them, but they're still co-productions so, per our Manual of Style, the nationality should be omitted from the lede. El Millo (talk) 17:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

In 2021 Daniel was made an honorary Commander Royal Navy.  Awarded in recognition of his promotion of the senior service through his films. Commander being the rank of James Bond. 86.15.123.249 (talk) 23:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what (in "Plot") the following is meant to mean?
"Although she [M.] says she is still useful, MI6's servers are hacked..."
Not sure I (or anyone, for that matter) can understand how these two things are supposed to be related...
To me it looks like a (rather gross) editing error ?? 2A02:908:2810:8780:10B:5DF1:CCCA:695C (talk) 18:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

The Plot section refers to Moneypenny by name, although she is unnamed throughout most of the film and her name is a "reveal" at the end.
In order to preserve the feeling of story, I plan to edit the Plot section to obscure her name until the point where it's revealed. If it comes out sounding silly, I may refer to the fact that the closed captions refer to her as "Eve". — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShawnVW (talk • contribs) 

The plot section isn't there to reproduce the feeling of the story. It's there as a reference for the other sections when discussing the events of the film. DonQuixote (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)