# Talk:Portrayal of James Bond in film

Actually, Barry Nelson and not Sean Connery was the very first Bond in the first of three renditions of Casino Royale in 1954, an episode of the TV Show "Climax!". This should be added, IMHO. Kennin (talk) 10:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

It already says that in the lead, which I suggest you read. As Nelson took part in a television programme, it doesn't make it onto this filmography page. - SchroCat (talk) 10:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Casino Royale (1954) WAS made on film however. Why is it not counted the same way? They used the Kinescope method to put the movie on TV. It was not a theater release but this list is "In Film"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.149.115.58 (talk) 13:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC) 

Context matters. Was it eligible for an Oscar or an Emmy? DonQuixote (talk) 13:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Does this determine what qualifies as a film? DeaconShotFire (talk) 21:37, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Seriously, context matters. I don't think that many people would consider a play performance broadcast live on television a film. DonQuixote (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
That has yet to be determined on this page as far as I can tell. It's open for anyone to include it, which I may well do.
Cambridge Dictionary:
film /fɪlm/ (noun)
"A series of moving pictures, usually shown in a cinema or on television and often telling a story." DeaconShotFire (talk) 01:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
If you can show that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to this as a film rather than an episode of a television anthology series, then go right ahead and do so, but it's highly doubtful that you'll be successful because of other similar programmes like Ellery Queen and The Twilight Zone (which are commonly and consistently referred to as television programmes and not films). DonQuixote (talk) 01:26, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm not obligated to provide such sources when the article currently provides no sources at all on Nelson's Casino Royale. In fact, I would be equally justified in omitting it from the article entirely. DeaconShotFire (talk) 01:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
The episode itself is the primary source, which secondary sources like TV Guide and, appropriately, the 1956, 1957 and 1958 Emmies refer to as a television programme. Since you're the one making a different claim, the burden of proof is on you. DonQuixote (talk) 01:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Except this is dependant on consensus. Sources within another article don't constitute consensus on this page. The film can be referred to as either a film or a television episode due to this and dictionary definition. DeaconShotFire (talk) 03:22, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Except no one calls it a film. It's not even a TV film. It's literally an episode of a TV series. Seriously, unless you can show that sources actually call it a film (commonly and consistently), no one has to accept your personal definition. DonQuixote (talk) 03:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
I concur with DonQuixote's analysis. "Film" in this sense, refers to the medium rather than the media. Many older TV programmes where shot on film, but belong to the medium of television. "Film" as it is used here is a euphemism for "feature motion picture". James Bond films from Skyfall onwards have been shot digitally (i.e. not film), so if we interpret the term in a literal sense (rather than as a euphemism for feature motion pictures) then we would be obliged to remove the most recent three films from the article. Betty Logan (talk) 07:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Dealmaces, can you please stop edit warring and use this talk page to discuss your proposed changes. Over the last three days you have reverted four times and it's better if you stop the reverting and DISCUSS properly. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:A8DB:6284:D2D7:F53D (talk) 13:42, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Different info. Could you say what specifically you want out? Dealmaces (talk) 15:51, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
That's not a proper discussion. Just saying "Different info" doesn't really explain much. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
@Dealmaces: Please explain your reasoning for your edits. See WP:BRD. You have made edits and the IP has started a discussion here which you should use to reach a consensus. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
I do not know what 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:A8DB:6284:D2D7:F53D specifically disagrees with. Dealmaces (talk) 15:54, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
They appear to be disagreeing with the edits you are making. @2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:A8DB:6284:D2D7:F53D: Care to explain what you disagree with? ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Explaining what you disagree with and why can help discussion. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
I have restored the edit as the IP has not bothered to explain the reasoning why they don't like the edit. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:41, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Blaze The Wolf, please note I have not refused to do anything; reverting when there is an open thread isn't constructive and the WP:STATUSQUO should remain while the discussion progresses. Dealmaces should have been the one who opened this thread and he should have been the one who put forward reasons why he thinks the changes are an improvement. The fact he's at 5RR is a bit of a joke, but I suppose at least he's here, even if his justification of "Different info" is no justification, not any help to anyone. The various reasons I have for the revert I made are:
1. Given the Bond universe is increasingly broad and sprawling (one reboot already, another to come and differing back stories within the other Bonds), with different story lines that cannot be adequately aligned with one another, bloating out the infobox with too much information can be misleading to anyone coming to the article wanting some basic information (one example is having a child from a non-Eon film with one from a Craig-era Eon film). It's also questionable to have Blofeld listed as his foster brother, given the previous incarnations of the character. Leave it with the parents only - which at least also aligns with the novels too.
2. We don't need to link British (see MOS:OVERLINK)
3. We don't need to include "Commander" at the beginning - the naval connection has been increasingly dropped over time and is non-existent in the Craig-era films
4. linking "fictional" is more MOS:OVERLINK
5. There could be an argument for linking fictional character with Character (arts), but any more than that is stretching it a bit. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:C874:46E5:B7A5:3989 (talk) 16:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
First, he is NOT as 5RR. He has reverted no edits whatsoever, you are the only one who has reverted edits. I do agree that the bloating the infobox is a bit unnecessary. Dealmaces, care to explain why you made the reasons? ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Just to clarify, the SIX reverts over the last few days are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. I'm not sure how you can say he hasn't reverted anything - the edit history suggests otherwise. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:C874:46E5:B7A5:3989 (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm going to see if I can get another editor to weigh in on this since I"m unsure if this would actually classify as a violation of 3RR since some of the edits were reverting different editors. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:11, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
It actually makes it worse that they were edit warring with multiple editors. I'm not over fussed about the edit warring that much (it's happened and now it's stopped), but as long as the talk page discussion can progress to get to a consensus that is all that really matters. There's no point in people getting blocked, as long as he doesn't continue to revert and discusses the matter here. Thanks - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:C874:46E5:B7A5:3989 (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
3RR is not reverting the same editor three times, it's making any three edits which wholly or in part undo a change made to the article. IP is correct that the burden of WP:BRD is on Dealmaces as the editor who first made the change to then discuss its merits when it was reverted, but neither user is covered in glory when both are reverting each other like this. Overlink is to be avoided, indiscriminate lists are to be avoided, and most of all, edit warring rather than discussing why an addition was or wasn't necessary is to be avoided. I agree with IP's assessment of the changes but in future, if BRD isn't followed, start the talk header yourself, ping the editor who isn't engaging, and if they refuse to weigh in then WP:DRR is available, or a user talk warning for edit warring may be issued by any user too. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 17:42, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Comment I think the overlinking of generic terms is clearly addressed by WP:OVERLINK, as pointed out by 2A00:23C7 above. As for the infobox bloat, this speaks to the issue I highlight in the discussion above. This article is not a biography of a fictional character; it is about the casting of the character and the portrayals. This is a key distinction, and incidentally, why we shouldn't be fuzzying the title of the article. There are at least FOUR different Bond "universes" represented on film: the Eon films have at least two explicit timelines, and both Casino Royale (1967) and Never Say Never Again both exist outside of the Eon depictions, and mashing them all up in the infobox is not particularly useful. This stuff traditionally isn't important for James Bond films, and the character never really had a story arc until the Daniel Craig era. Craig's portrayal is literally the only one that it would make sense to document "in universe" details for, from an encyclopedic perspective. Personally I don't think the "in universe" stuff really belongs in the infobox. Betty Logan (talk) 04:23, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

“GoldenEye” should be italicized in the opener. I’d change it, but I don’t have edit privileges. Packer1028 (talk) 22:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Timothy Dalton's and Pierce Brosnan's tenure as Bond should end with the release year of their respective last movies, regardless of if they were contracted for further movies or not. For example, to say the Timothy Dalton's tenure ended in 1994 could imply that he continued to portray Bond beyond 1989's "Licence To Kill". While he was still contracted for a third movie, and that contract ended in 1994, his last portrayal was in 1989. Similar situation applies to Pierce Brosnan.  He didn't portray Bond again after 2002, regardless of contract. Furthermore, the table at the top of the page list the actor's tenure based on the release years of the actor's movies, not the contracts. This creates conflicting information on their tenures. We should keep it the same across the board.
1983's Never Say Never Again is another example for my reasoning. Connery's tenure currently is listed as "1962-1967, 1971 and 1983", yet Connery's involvement with NSNA dates back to the late 1970's, so if he was contracted to appear that far back should we alter his tenure to say "1962-1967, 1971 and late 1970's-1983"? No. If we were to go by filming dates, it began filming in 1982, so again, he was contracted at least that far back, so should we say "1962-1967, 1971, 1982-1983"? Again, no, we don't. We simply say 1983 and leave it at that. OHMSS began filming in 1968, by which time Lazenby was under contract, but we don't say "1968-1969" for his tenure. But why shouldn't we? Live And Let Die began filming in 1972, and as such, Roger Moore's tenure in the main body of the page is listed as "1972-1985", so why aren't we using the same logic for all the actor's? If we want to list them by movie dates at the top, then list them that way in the main body. If we want to go by contracts, then why are we applying that rule to Lazenby and NSNA when we used that rule for Moore, Dalton and Brosnan? Thanks for reading. Allindsey1978 (talk) 20:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Whichever way it is done it should be consistent. Checking back through the article the dates have always encompassed the contractual period rather than the release of the films. The film release dates are noted in the infobox, while the body of the article opts to use the contractual period. I don't know the reason for this, but I assume it is a pragmatic one: an actor is cast a year or two before the film so a new section for a new actor will begin one or two years before the release of the film. Similarly, an actor's association with the role can extend beyond the film: Timothy Dalton was still James Bond in 1994, and Pierce Brosnan was still James Bond in 2004, contractually in Dalton's case, and certainly in the public consciousness. I think the problem here is using both the actor's names and dates. Using dates that only reflect the screen appearances misrepresents the periods covered, while using the dates that cover the periods is counter-intuitive in relation to the release dates of the films. Betty Logan (talk) 00:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
I agree with what you are saying, but again, I'm looking for consistency. I will acquiesce to the fact that one method (release date) is used for the info box while another (contract period) is used for the main body. However, even then, there is still inconsistency. Moore, Dalton, Brosnan and Craig's tenures are still based on when contracts began as they were hired to play Bond a year before their respective first movie, so the same should be done for Connery and Lazenby. Lazenby was announced as the next Bond in 1968. Connery was announced as the first Bond in 1961, signed to return to the role in 1970 for Diamonds Are Forever, and again in the late 70's-early 80's for Never Say Never Again. However, Connery's initial association with NSNA didn't involve his participation as the actor playing Bond. That came later, and since we don't know exactly when that happened, we do know that it happened by 1982 when filming began. This was why I propose altering the beginning years to reflect when they were signed/contracted, since we use that same reasoning to note the end years. So, I agree with your reasoning for the end years being how the they are, but again for consistency, let's follow suit for the beginning year as well. Allindsey1978 (talk) 12:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree with that. The article is out of protection now (so need to place a request), but I suggest leaving it a day or two to see if anybody else wishes to contribute to this discussion, and then implement it. Betty Logan (talk) 12:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
I think it is a good idea to change the beginning years(That has been done for Daniel Craig) so it is strange that it is not done at Connery and Lazenby.Lobo151 (talk) 09:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable to include Mathilde as Bond's daughter? I'm not asking with regards to spoilers, as Wikipedia:Spoiler covers this well enough, but as Craig's Bond represents one specific (official) continuity. BOTTO (T•C) 21:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Should this article also include Lashana Lynch, who played 007 in No Time to Die? 114.77.154.121 (talk) 10:39, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

No, because she didn't play James Bond.Lobo151 (talk) 12:22, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Maybe not but they left out one person that played Bond in the non-Eon production of Casino Royale. In that movie two actors played james bond. David Niven AND Peter Sellers. 73.65.10.79 (talk) 17:52, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
Not true, only David Niven and he is included. Peter Sellers played Evelyn Tremble.Lobo151 (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
Only one actor played James Bond in Casino Royale. All the others player other characters who merely pretended to be James Bond: https://catalog.afi.com/Catalog/moviedetails/23875?sid=325f04c1-bdb4-4af4-bd1e-0e94f2075edc Betty Logan (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Why is this page in Category:Fictional double agents? GA-RT-22 (talk) 13:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Added by an anonymous editor six years ago. No explanation, and it clearly fails WP:CATVER. Betty Logan (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)