# Talk:The Spy Who Loved Me (film)

No, I think it's a bad idea to split the soundtrack into another article. It just doesn't make sense! I mean, if you were to look for the soundtrack, you'd naturally go to the movie article, because naturally it would be there, as it is now.
Any else think the reference to nudity and images of "sex organs" reads peculiarly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.183.171 (talk) 22:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

One of the images is missing a fair use rationale, and the some of the other ones should be better explained for their use. Some are only using one word descriptions for their inclusion in the article. Make sure to address these before somebody reviews the article. --Nehrams2020 08:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

All images seem to have a proper rationale now. VanTucky (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

in this video at the very end, Moore stats that he got burned from fire sometime during the shoot, might be interesting for trivia?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1iZCdLVJ3I&feature=dir  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.11.88.148 (talk) 21:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC) 

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
It is stable.

It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned):  b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
Overall:
a Pass/Fail:  VanTucky (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the statement that says that this is the first wholly original Bond film, as the element in which the targeting coordinates of a nuclear missile are redirected so that the missile destroys a submarine is borrowed from the novel Moonraker.--Urban Rose 20:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Can we get some info on the ski jump?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.147.38.14 (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC) 

Can someone explain to me how an author that died in 1964 can request that no elements of his book are used in this film, which started filming around 1975? -SleweD (talk) 21:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Because Fleming sold the film rights for all of the books (bar a couple where the rights were already elsewhere) before his death. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Even better than surround, the raw material (5 channel discrete sound) was enough to create DD 5.1 english track on the DVD. Subsequent James Bond were only Dolby Surround.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.98.139.219 (talk) 18:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC) 

A cleanup page has been created for WP:FILMS' spotlight articles. One element that is being checked in ensuring the quality of the articles is the non-free images. Currently, one or more non-free images being used in this article are under discussion to determine if they should be removed from the article for not complying with non-free and fair use requirements. Please comment at the corresponding section within the image cleanup listing. Before contributing the discussion, please first read WP:FILMNFI concerning non-free images. Ideally the discussions pertaining to the spotlight articles will be concluded by the end of June, so please comment soon to ensure there is clear consensus. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Am I the only one disturbed by the prominent placement given to opinions by  James Berardinelli and Daniel Peary in the entries for nearly every Bond film listed in Wikipedia? 
For one thing, these latter day commentators are usually listed first in the "Release and Reception" section (in this article, they are placed well before Janet Maslin, perhaps the most significant commentator writing at the time of the film's release, even though they were not writing at the time of the film's release). 
But more importantly, it seems pretty clear these comments have been added systematically to these essays in a blanket (and probably self-promotional) sense, while genuine research into the actual critical reactions to the films at the time of their creation is lacking.
In my humble and solitary opinion, Wikipedia has, in a general sense, become an un-policed repository for these types of "factoids"--the critics whose opinions show up in Wiki film essays tend to be recent, relatively minor, and accompanied by Roger Ebert for balance. The great critical voices of the past--Pauline Kael, Andrew Sarris, Molly Haskell, Jay Cocks--and the secondary but notable ones like Bosley Crowther, Rex Reed and Judith Christ are shouldered aside and rarely mentioned. 
It smacks of self-promotion, and the knowledgeable reader doubts the credibility of the entire entry as a result.
PS: Daniel Peary's Wikipedia bio reads like a press release by the way.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.72.220 (talk) 07:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC) 

(I've moved your comments to the bottom of the page - which is where they should be, rather than the top, just for future reference).
You are right about their critiques: if at all possible the contemporary references should be in place in the articles, but that takes a fair amount of effort to do all the required research and re-writing needed. Relatively recently a small group of three of us undertook a program of re-writing a number of the Bond film articles to get them up to GA status, an d that included ensuring the contemporary reviews—largely British, as they are British films—took primary place, alongside the more recent reflective reviews, which included the likes of Peary and Berardinelli, as the later assessments arealso important. (Just for refernce, the articles which were re-vamped were Dr. No, Goldfinger, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, The Man with the Golden Gun, For Your Eyes Only, Never Say Never Again, Licence to Kill). I can assure you that the process took an awful lot of time and effort—and that was for only seven of the films! To do a re-vamp for the remaining 17 films is something we may get round to at some point, when we get a spare year or so! ;) -  SchroCat (^ • @) 08:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Appreciate your hard work! I guess I should just state my biggest complaint directly: Peary and Berardinelli appear to me to have inserted themselves into all of these essays, and that seems real wrong.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.72.220 (talk) 06:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC) 

Bond in the movie reported to the Minister of Defence in TSWLM therefore he could not have for MI6 since MI6 is under the Foreign Ministry.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perdogg (talk • contribs) 15:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC) 

Could it be that the film is in fact fiction, rather than a documentary...? - SchroCat (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

To the IP who wants to add bloat to the plot section, please discuss this here before you edit war any further. You are trying to add unnecessary superfluous information to the plot section. This is known as bloating, and we try and avoid it if possible. - SchroCat (talk) 10:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

possibly the most boring question/query ever, but...
it says the water tank was 1.2m Gallons. Which is then converts to 4.5m Litres. This would only be the case if they were American Gallons. Presumably not as it was filmed in the UK; so it should really be almost 5.5m Litres. As the tank measured 91 m by 22.5 m by 2.7 m, this equals 5528 Cu M - which implies Imperial measures, not American.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.196.43.45 (talk) 10:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC) 

@DPdH: The Plot summary is implicitly citing the primary source, so it can only summarise what's stated directly in the film. If you can't directly quote the film that it's the Fearless, then you can't state it in the plot summary. Anything else such as "HMS Fearless heads for scrapyard" (thanks for finding it, by the way) should be in more appropriate sections, such as Production. DonQuixote (talk) 13:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, that makes sense. Please give me a few hours and I'll make the required changes in both sections. Regards, DPdH (talk) 13:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Is that information available? Will (Talk - contribs) 15:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

If anyone can find the information available in a reliable secondary source, then they can add them. DonQuixote (talk) 15:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

These folks were listed in the closing credits but not the opening title cards.

Robert Brown as Admiral Hargreaves, Flag Officer, Submarines of Royal Navy
Marilyn Galsworthy as Stromberg's Assistant: Treacherous secretary who steals the tracking system microfilm. In the novelisation of the film, her name is said to be Kate Chapman.
Milton Reid as Sandor, a Stromberg's henchman
Cyril Shaps as Bechmann
Milo Sperber as Markowitz
Albert Moses as Barman
Rafiq Anwar as Cairo Club Waiter
Felicity York, Dawn Rodrigues, Anika Pavel, and Jill Goodall as Arab Beauties
The Egyptian Folklore Group
Jeremy Bulloch  plays one of the members of the H.M.S. Ranger, captured British submarine.
At the very least I think Milton Reid should be added. I came here to find out who the actor was that played one of the henchmen and I was surprised to find that it was not listed.  Peacetype (talk) 18:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

"We'd need a source, but" Valerie Leon's little cameo as the hotel receptionist who brings Bond a message is an almost direct repeat of a similar part which she played in "The Italian Job", in which she gives Michael Caine a message at the desk as he arrives. On the other hand, a receptionist is shown gazing dreamily at Connery in, I think, "Thunderball".Paulturtle (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Atlantis is a bathyscaphe? Why do we think that? GA-RT-22 (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Did the motorcycle sidecar missile really have five wheels? I don't have a copy of the cited source. I suspect it actually had only one scooter wheel on each side. GA-RT-22 (talk) 23:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

This has gone back and forth a few times so let's discuss it and reach a consensus. There are three possible ways to spell this name:

Curd Jürgens, which is the title of his WP page, apparently his real name, and the way he is usually credited in German language films. Most of his films are German language.
Curt Jurgens, which is how it's spelled in the opening credits and most promotional material for The Spy Who Loved Me
Curt Jürgens, which is what we've been using but I don't see a source for this and don't know where it came from
MOS:FILMCAST says "Names should be referred to as credited, or by common name supported by a reliable source." I'm inclined to go with his name as credited in the title sequence, "Curt Jurgens". GA-RT-22 (talk) 18:46, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

It has been several years since this article was reviewed, so I have taken another look at it and saw several uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 22:30, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

The unsourced paragraphs I see are in the Music and Novelisation sections. I'd like to see most of both sections removed, since there are separate articles on both those topics. GA-RT-22 (talk) 22:49, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
@GA-RT-22: Sorry I did not respond sooner. Thanks for editing those sections. "Novelisation" is still uncited and there are other uncited statements in the article. Did you or anyone else want to continue working on this (and would adding citation needed templates help)? If not, should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
I've added the source from the main article for Novelisation but have not verified it myself and have tagged it as such. I doubt I'll be doing any more work on sourcing. The rest of it doesn't look too bad. I'm not a fan of just tagging every unsourced statement in an article but certainly anything that seems contentious should be tagged, and anything that's both unsourced and trivial should be removed. As for GAR, I don't have a strong opinion. GA-RT-22 (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)