Talk:James Bond/Archive 4

message: The designation "R" was only ever a joke by Bond despite the onscreen credit. I have amended the Desmond Llewelyn trivia accordingly. Tomsalinsky 01:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Cleese as "R" 

message: Daniel Craig is the first British James Bond Actor, as I heard the others were Irish. Please correct me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AusKuba (talk • contribs) .
:No. Speaking purely of where they were born, Lazenby (Australia) and Brosnan (Republic of Ireland) are not British - although Australia is part of the Commonwealth and Brosnan moved to London when he was still a young boy. I might be wrong on my definition of "British," regardless Moore is definitely English; born in London. K1Bond007 03:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dalton was also English (although many sources say he's Welsh) and Connery was Scottish. Although nationalists may disagree, Connery is still considered British as well. 23skidoo 18:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dalton was born in Wales. He's not English - not by birth anyway, but he is British as is Connery. You're right, I just didn't feel the need to state where they all came from to debunk what he had heard. K1Bond007 20:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Britain

message: *An anonymous editor changed the link to www.jamesbond.com to jamesbond.com/home. This actually at first glance makes sense because the basic link currently just goes to a list of release dates for Casino Royale. However I cannot get the /home link to work for me. Does it lead anywhere or does it go to an outdated page? If so, might as well revert back to the basic link for now. 23skidoo 18:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jamesbond.com link

message: The map idea is cool, but shouldn't there be a key to explain the meaning of the colors? And is this an overall map including films and books, or just the movies? This should be noted. (I couldn't find any references in the text itself; pardon me if there are (maybe it might be an indicator the map needs to be relocated). 23skidoo 19:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in the image description, but it should be actually on the map IMHO. K1Bond007 22:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ok, Ive added it on the map here, hope the key makes sense. A separate map here shows the book locations by the way  -- Astrokey44|talk 23:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work! Since this article is just as much about the novels as it is about the films, the books map should also be placed somewhere. 23skidoo 00:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The book map is at James Bond locations, I think one map might be sufficient for the main JB article. -- Astrokey44|talk 10:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Location map

message: I might get spanked for this, but I cut the whole bit about Bond being "sexually aggressive" and "not taking No for an answer". I know this is better than a previous edit that all but called Bond a serial rapist, but I really don't feel it has a lot to do with the subject at hand. The books don't really dwell on it too much, and Bond's treatment of women in the films tended to refect the mores of the day. Also, the whole "don't take no for an answer" bit ... looking over the Bond movies I can think of Pussy Galore, Solitaire (although that's debatable) and, well, really that's it if you think about it. The vast majority of Bond's romantic "conquests" in the films have been willing partners (maybe there's one or two I missed, but you get my point). It's sort of the same as the old myth that Bond kills every woman he sleeps with (if I had a dime for every time I heard that one...) This bit about his attitude towards women becoming progressive and "letting women get under his skin" is definitely inaccurate as it discounts Tracy, among others. His attitude didn't change any more than it did during Timothy Dalton's time. 23skidoo 20:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bond does have a certain... way with the ladies and this should be noted, but not in the character section. That's bio info, IMHO. I even outlined a section for it: "Description and love life," but have yet to really expand on it. I don't think the "letting women get under his skin" is correct either. It's been the same (or thereabouts depending on the decade) for the novels and the films. The only two women that really effected him or were able to get past his "defenses" were Vesper and Tracy - the former being the major reason for his "way with the ladies." K1Bond007 21:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did the last edit of the "sexually agressive" sentence. I have no problem with you removing it. As I saw it, it was just a very badly constructed sentence that needed rearranging — I almost commented it out because I initially couldn't make any sense of it! However, even when I did finally piece it together, I thought the content looked a bit dodgy: however you phrased it, there was no way he didn't come across as a rapist, for want of a better word. Chris 42 23:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Sexual aggression" discussion

message: I've seen in print the statement that McGoohan was the first offered the role, and I'm trying to track it down. At present the closest I have is the book The Prisoner: The Official Companion to the Classic TV Series by Robert Fairclough that says McGoohan was offered the role in 1961 and rejected it due to his moral values. According to The Bond Files by Lane and Simpson, McGoohan is listed ahead of Cary Grant in terms of being approached with the role (after Fleming's initial choices David Niven and Roger Moore were rejected by EON), though a male model named Peter Anthony actually appears in the list before PMG. But there's nothing to indicate this is a chronological list. 23skidoo 20:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: McGoohan was offerred it early on, along with Mason. Dalton was offered it before Moore in the 70's.(Halbared 05:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Anthony is mentioned in detail at Dr. No - he wasn't offered. I don't think McGoohan was first offered. That's all I can really say. As I said, Cary Grant usually gets the honor, however, yes David Niven was name dropped first and Fleming's choice, but I don't think they offered it to him. I doubt Moore was offered, let alone even mentioned by Fleming. The same crap about Moore is printed over and over exactly the same and it's obviously false. No one decided to do fact checking on that one. The Dr. No DVD insert gives another reason beyond The Saint for why Moore was mentioned but not chosen - something about Moore being too young, except he's older than Sean - so how does that make sense? Hell Roger Moore even states that he had no idea and never even met Fleming. I honestly think (and this is my own POV and belief) that Moore's supposed mention is the product of EON PR (specifically Cubby) during the 70s to build Roger Moore up as James Bond and link him to Fleming. Post DAF, you have to think that whoever would come next would have to do a hell of a job to make the audience forget Sean because they didn't accept Lazenby even though the film didn't do that bad by comparison to others. K1Bond007 22:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: McGoohan

message: An anon listed that he couldn't find where it mentions Bond goes to the University of Geneva. The article says "Octopussy," which I looked through and couldn't find it either. I didn't write that AFAIK, but I do know for a fact that James Bond went to the University of Geneva. I have a number of books that support this (none state which novel it is said) and I remember reading it myself quite vividly. While flipping through From Russia with Love, theres a scene where Bond is in an airplane and he has a flashback to him rock climbing with his companions from the University of Geneva, but it's somewhat ambiguous (Chapter 13: 'BEA Takes You There. . .'):
 "[...] bracing himself against the top of a rock-chimney on the Aiguilles Rouges as his two companions from the University of Geneva inched up the smooth rock towards him."
That is unfortunately the best I can find at the moment. If it isn't in "Octopussy" it may be that it was meant to say Octopussy and The Living Daylights (Octopussy being an alternative title). It's also worth noting that further confusion might be because while he attends the University or immediately after he gets out, he is taught how to ski by Oberhauser who is killed in "Octopussy" by Smythe. Bond was 17 and then immediately following this he joins the RNVR. When I have more free time, I'll try and find more. If anyone knows, feel free (it might be in Goldfinger or OHMSS, Geneva being a locale in these novels). K1Bond007 07:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently Pearson strikes again. I changed the line to note this, but it may need to be removed entirely. Pearson's "additions" to Bond's life (if this is exclusively Pearson) tend to contradict Fleming. Although.. arguably Fleming often contradicts Fleming and Pearson's additions are usually debated as whether they're canon - contradiction or not. :P I don't know. K1Bond007 08:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: University of Geneva comment

message: I wondered if anyone knows the extent to which the Bond name has been licenced beyond the obvious promotional issues. I have seen it on [watches], and [corporate and adventure training].
 
There also seems to be a lot more [product placement].
MHolly 16:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what's being asked here. The Bond logo has been on tons of products for just about anything. The height of it all was right around the release of Thunderball in the mid-60s. Pretty sure this is covered fairly well in John Cork's James Bond: The Legacy. K1Bond007 19:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Licencing of the Bond logo

message: A lot of the images in this article are fair use claims. While I believe valid claims can be made for all of these, they should all have a fair use rationale specific to their particular use in this article included on the image page (and, if you're being really fussy, also included in the source text for this page - you can use   ). Even book covers aren't "automatic", blanket guarantees that fair use applies (you still can't use them for purely decorative purposes or in an irrelevant way; identification and critical commentary are fine, though). What might be a little dodgy is the "007" logo. It's not the logo of a corporation, sports team or other organization (unlike the image tag claims, though I can't think of a more suitable one) and so isn't being used for "identification" in the same way that the "Ford" logo is used in the Ford Motor Company article. Indeed, it wouldn't be allowed to use the "007" logo to "brand" Wikipedia's coverage of James Bond. The most similar instance I can think of this is the use of the Formula One logo at the featured article on Formula One; the logo for that franchise is kept about halfway down the article rather than at the top, because it was felt that putting it at the top wouldn't qualify as fair use. Its use there is restricted to critical commentary (the use of modern branding indicated a "corporatization" of the franchise...) and maybe something similar could be done here. This may be copyright paranoia, however! Also, the sketch of James Bond for the Express is labelled as PD, but no source information is given, it's clearly not been published pre-1923 in the USA nor is it covered by "life of creator + 70 years", and if it has been released into the PD by the rights owner, some evidence would need to be provided. That could do with being sorted out too. Getting copyright dealt with properly is one of the prerequisites of a featured article (which is where this seems to be heading) and also necessary if the article is to be kept on the list of good articles. If you can deal with copyright issues and "listification" then I bet this has a good chance of making featured status in the near future! TheGrappler 15:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm trying to find out the correct information on the Fleming-Bond illustration. I hope to have that cleared up soon. The "007 logo" is kind of an interesting thing. It may be copyright paranoia as you suggest, but I just wanted to add that the "007 logo" is stictly for the official film franchise and its offshoots (e.g., video games, comic books, novelisations) and not for the literary franchise and its offshoots (e.g., comic strips, possibly some comic books/graphic novels). So that might be something to take into account. There are a ton of different logos for the literary franchise, none of which are probably of any notability. I believe the current one is "007" in a circle or just plain "007." K1Bond007 20:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use claims 

message: Has the choice of the 007 code any connection with the fact that this is the international dialing code for Russia (and the Soviet Union)? 134.219.128.121 09:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isnt the dialing code for Russia a plain 7, not 007? -- Astrokey44|talk 09:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Doubtful if that is correct. '007' to my knowledge, and I don't think it's discussed here, comes from the Admiralty during WWII according to Fleming. Top secret signals had the double-O prefix. This was supposedly done to honor and celebrate the interception and breaking of the Zimmermann telegraph during WWI which had a German diplomatic code of '0070'. Fleming said this was later changed for security reasons. There are tons of other ideas where the number came from, but most, if not all, are just speculation. Theres the locomotive in the Kipling short story (.007), John Dee who used it (007) on a bunch of documents for the Queen (the prefix was meant to be 'eyes': "for her eyes only"), the Washington D.C. zip code (20007) where a lot of CIA agents used to live, the double-O prefix used by The Duke of Marlborough in comminication with spies during the War of Spanish Succession, the coach service from Dover to London, in Kent, England, that passed by Higham Park, where Ian Fleming spent a lot of time. I've seen all of these at one point or another mentioned. K1Bond007 19:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. Thanks for the reply. (When you dial an international number (in Britian anyway) you dial 00 and then the country code. To dial Moscow for example, 007 095 123456. I know its different in other countries - dialing the UK from Russia you press '8' to get an international line and then the country code '44') 134.219.128.121 11:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Little correction, Moscow changed area code. It would 007 495 ... But this adds nothing to the point. Actually, in most countries in Western and Central Europe you dial 00 + country code to call abroad. Gian Giorgis 14:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  007 dialing code? 

message: This page is 77 kb long, which is almost double what it should be.  When I came to this page, I was looking for a biography on the character, not a recap of the franchise.  I propose we split this article into two parts, like what was done to the Mortal Kombat page.  The Mortal Kombat page was about the game and the series, which attracted a lot of complaints.  So, it was split into a page about the series and a page about the game.  I propose we do the same to this article, a page James Bond for the character and James Bond (series) (or something like that) for the entire history of novels, movies, etc. Trosk 18:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I object to this proposal at the moment. The page can't easily be split up like you're saying. If you split the way you want, you'd have to make 3 different articles, not 2. The James Bond "franchise" is by far the more important part of the article than the bio of the character. Most people coming here want information on that, not specifically of the character. Other big franchises do it this way such as Harry Potter and Doctor Who (see biography). I was planning to go ahead with that when I have more time to invest in doing it correctly. K1Bond007 20:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Exactly like I said. Leave the franchise here, the bio goes. That's why I used Potter and Who as examples. Doctor Who is a featured article too. K1Bond007 00:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: ok, Ive made a start on it at James Bond (character) -- Astrokey44|talk 08:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Franchise vs. The Character Proposal

message: Although George Lucas created a stir in 1977 by including only the title of the original Star Wars at the beginning, it started to become commonplace in 1989, with Lethal Weapon 2. This practice has grown to the present situation, where 90% of summer blockbusters employ the device. Some films, such as The Mummy Returns, even save the title for the end. See also Billing. Chris 42 10:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is explained in the article. I also recommend reading the novel Casino Royale or watching the movie version of Dr. No which also explains it. 23skidoo 02:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Just to be clear, Dr. No does not show how Bond came to be 007. It only mentions what the 00 designation stands for. 23skidoo 04:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film title vs. full credits 

message: I've never heard of this before, and I can't find anything to support it in any of the books on the Bond film series that I have (this includes both FYEO and the disputed Spy Who Loved Me). If we're going to keep it at all, we need to have a citation. Personally I feel this trivia item is too long and too film-specific and shouldn't be on this page at all; it should be in the For Your Eyes Only article. 23skidoo 19:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spielberg connection trivia item

message: Steven Spielberg was definitely NOT in line to direct "The Spy Who Loved Me".  The famous story (which can be heard on the "Indiana Jones" DVD and "The Director's Steven Spielberg") goes that Spielberg and George Lucas were on vacation the week "Star Wars" opened (which would have been May 25, 1977) and Lucas asked Spielberg what he wanted to do next.  Spielberg said he was trying to get a meeting with Cubby Broccoli to do the next Bond picture.  "The Spy Who Loved Me" was already done by this point, it premiered approximately 43 DAYS after Spielberg was telling Lucas that he was in talks with Broccoli, and Spielberg obviously wouldn't be attempting to direct a film that had been shot long before and was scheduled for release in just over six weeks.
"For Your Eyes Only" was the film that was next in line before the aforementioned "Star Wars" premiere came along and changed EON's plans from "FYEO" to "Moonraker".  If Spielberg was discussing a Bond film to direct in 1977 before May 25, it would have undoubtedly been "For Your Eyes Only".GuruAskew 20:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In any event, as requested above and in the article itself, we need a citation and IMO this whole trivia item should be moved to FYEO anyway. 23skidoo 19:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everywhere I've ever seen always said The Spy Who Loved Me. Maybe it was supposed to be post-The Spy Who Loved Me. I don't know. FYEO needs to be removed as being specifically mentioned, regardless unless of course Spielberg mentions it by name. Either typed up as "the next film after TSWLM" or "either FYEO or Moonraker". There is no logical way to guess. The initial line up Broccoli announced (circa 1976) was TSWLM followed by Moonraker, followed by FYEO, this was changed, and then clearly changed back. It's also possible that Spielberg may have also pitched his own idea - not really any of these. I kind of agree with 23skidoo that this trivia may not be fitting for this article anyway. Perhaps TSWLM, MR, or FYEO. K1Bond007 20:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: All I'm saying is that I'd rather go with the wording to the effect of "the one after TSWLM" since it may have been FYEO or knowing Spielberg it may have been an original story - but at the very least we know for sure it was not the "same" FYEO as IMDb paints it since it was because of Moonraker's effect that FYEO was a 'back to basics' Bond outing. Outright saying FYEO is misleading and outright saying TSWLM is wrong. K1Bond007 07:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spielberg: FYEO vs TSWLM 

message: Is that triva aboot West and the other Americans being offered the role all qualified?
Also, in the same interview that Gambon gave opn Top Gear he admitted, that he 'makes things up in interviews'.(Halbared 10:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The trivia about the American actors is true, at least for Gavin and West. I have no idea about James Brolin and Robert Wagner, I'd have to look it up. All of these should probably be sourced though. As far as Gambon is concerned, it might be true. It should at the least be rewritten to say that "he claims" rather than it saying outright that Cubby asked him. According to Gambon though after auditioning he left to see a line of about 19 people that were also auditioning. See here for the full account. K1Bond007 02:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Brolin I believe is confirmed in James Bond: The Legacy. I have read in several places that he was signed to play Bond in Octopussy before Moore changed his mind. I vaguely recall seeing a TV news item about that. Gavin is well documented as having been given the role of Bond for DAF before Connery came back. Broccoli is on record as saying he wanted Burt Reynolds for the role, as ridiculous as it seems now. 23skidoo 04:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia

message: Don't you think James Bond article is to long??
I think you should make a new article James Bond Official Film Series and James Bond Novels
??
: Please sign your comments. This has been discussed on other occasions. We can't really split the article up very easily (as it is all biographical information about the character has been removed). We certainly can't do one called "official film series" as that leaves out the unofficial films and as a perusal of the various talk pages reveals, not everyone agrees what "Official" means anyway. 23skidoo 00:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: James Bond Article Too Long=

message: Several places mention in passing legal wranglings causing a long gap in the series.  Who were wrangling ?  Shouldn't we have more on that somewhere ?  -- Beardo 07:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the "legal wranglings" as they're being called are discussed at MGM/UA, Turner and Pathe & Giancarlo Parretti. It wasn't so much a James Bond centric legal battle, but the entire company. The guy who owned it essentially tried to licence and sell MGM's assets to pay for his purchase of MGM (money he didn't have) and Cubby Broccoli was one of many that filed lawsuits to prevent it. As far as Bond is concerned, there's a little more detail on it at Timothy Dalton, and for what was planned to happen but didn't is at Licence to Kill. I'll think about snagging a couple good sources on this and expanding on the franchise section here. K1Bond007 19:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal wranglings 

message: Something I noticed here and elsewhere is Brosnan's tenure is shown as ending in 2002, which makes sense of course since DAD was released then. However, Brosnan did play Bond (or at least provide his voice) in the later videogame Everything or Nothing.  This is a rather unique situation since no other Bond actor -- except Connery doing the videogame of FRWL -- has had such a close involvement in a game. I'm not suggesting that we change Brosnan's tenure to ending in 2004, but perhaps a footnote should be added to the actor list to indicate that Brosnan played the role one more time (in an official capacity) after DAD. Thoughts? 23skidoo 01:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's mentioned in the video games section and I don't think we should mention outside of that because then we'd have to recognize Connery and no doubt Craig starting, perhaps, next year. As far as the intro is concerned we should stick to literature and films. The intro is huge as it is and needs to probably be sized down. To be honest, I'm not sure how this is a good article, but I digress. K1Bond007 02:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Good article" seems to be a rather recent innovation to recognize articles that don't meet the FA standards but are still considered, er, good. Then again, having seen some rejected FA nominations in my time, there's really no way to predict what people might consider FA anymore so I've given up trying. IMO this article should have received FA status long ago. The new assessment rating thing that's kicking around the NovelsWikiproject and elsewhere makes no sense to me and has just muddied the waters further (but I digress). I still find this article enjoyable to read, and that's good enough for me. 23skidoo 03:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be enjoyable, but it's not exactly written that well hence why I don't even think it should be a 'good article'. That is what I was getting at. I honestly have no idea what the NovelsWikiproject is on. :P Seriously, I don't get the assessment thing either. Seems like a waste of time, but that's me. K1Bond007 04:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Status of Everything or Nothing

message: For characters that are both in Fleming's novels and film characters and happen to have different names in both (but are the same), what should we use? For a long while I've pushed them to be the original Fleming name. I am hoping to gain some sort of consensus here so we can bypass future arguments over this. Some of the ones affected: Judy Havelock, Jill Masterton, Tilly Masterton, Domino Vitali (changed to simply Domino to avoid 3 different arguments), and there are a number of others. The names listed here are the Fleming originals. K1Bond007 02:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should be listing these characters under Fleming's original names.  They're characters created and written by Ian Fleming, in original works by Ian Fleming.  Their names may have been altered in subsequent film adaptations, but they are just that: adaptations of Fleming's work.  Fleming's versions take precedent as the originals.  If the issue can be neutralised, as in a case like Domino's where one name will do, then we should do that.  But if the name is just different, then Fleming's should be the one used, with a redirect set up on the changed name so everyone can find what they're looking for.  We should also make sure to have clear explanations on the character pages that "in the subsequent film adaptation, the name was changed to...", along with a reason (if we know it).  Cardinal Wurzel 09:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Having two names in the title would be unnecessary (either or). Having a second article on the character which is clearly the same person is also unnecessary and would most definitely be marked as 'to merge' not long after. It'd be one thing if they were incredibly different, but they aren't. So we have to go with one or the other. Domino is an odd case - going with just Domino we'd have to disambiguate it "Domino (James Bond)" - not a fan of this when it's not completely necessary. I'm ok with leaving her first name as "Domino" in the article title, however. K1Bond007 04:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That doesn't make it right and it could just as easily been about the novel version of said character - in fact a number of the characters that I started were for both, not just one or the other. Original intent by the initial author doesn't matter at all. It never has. K1Bond007 05:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Character article titles

message: I support the deletion of Bond 23 from the Official films list. Yes there have been some media reports that Craig is signed for 23 -- and others such as one published today in the Calgary Herald -- that say he is only signed for 22. In either case, Bond 23 has not even been officially announced (unlike Bond 22) so it is crystal ball to list it this early on. Wait till the film is announced first. 23skidoo 01:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It hasn't been announced so we shouldn't list. I think it's that simple. He's signed for 3 with an optional 4th just like Brosnan and I believe Dalton. K1Bond007 06:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dalton is an excellent example since he never made a third Bond film, even though everyone assumed he would. Anything could happen between now and the end of Bond 22 -- including Craig getting fed up with being bashed about by fanboys in the Internet and quitting. 23skidoo 11:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I doubt that since he'd take a sizeable penalty for quitting a contract. Dalton was a rare case, but I'm sure it could happen again. One never knows. K1Bond007 18:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are other things that could happen. The "new direction" Bond could tank at the box office, or there could be a major delay before Bond 23 is made (such a delay is the reason why Dalton quit). It's interesting that while some people are listing Craig already for Bond 23 there are others who are already saying this Denisof character has been signed to take over for Bond 23. Go figure. In any event, until there's a press conference it's all crystal ball. You'd think people would have learned their lessons from all the false reports -- many reported by major media -- involving who was going to play Bond and Vesper. 23skidoo 13:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Listing Bond 23

message: I updated and fixed the budgets, admissions, grosses. The grosses and budgets have been updated and also the admissions. Also people need to understand that the budgets listed on imdb.com are wrong. I guess we need to not only fix this here, but also try and get imdb.com to get their info right as well.
BTW, here is the updated data from Sony and Eon
http://www.freewebs.com/moonrakerbondstation2/
http://www.freewebs.com/sonybankablebonds/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TruthOverAll (talk • contribs) .
:That website apparently needs to do a little fact checking. The numbers I have from Sony's Revenue Data reporting, which was given out in a similar style to what is posted there, is different. The errors that I caught were Dr. No, Thunderball, and CR67 (the budgets). The rest appears to be correct. For the record, other sources such as John Cork's The Legacy and numerous websites on the Internet including Box Office Mojo are actually wrong in what they list - at least according to Sony. I know John Cork has OHMSS messed up in The Legacy. Cubby Broccoli was quoted a couple times stating what we have here, however, the Legacy is way off. K1Bond007 05:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Numbers

message: I removed this trivia item as NN: Bond appears, albiet incognito, in the Dirk Pitt novel Night Probe! by Clive Cussler. For one thing it's doubtful Cussler would have gotten the rights to use Bond, and in any event this is one of many books in which Bond-like characters have appeared. I took out the ski-jump item as well as that should be in the Spy Who Loved Me film article, not here. 23skidoo 05:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dirk Pitt and other trivia

message: Note: This article has a small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and subject content. Currently it would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 04:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Re-Review and In-line citations 

message: There is a lot of mention like "This is generally considered to be not an official film" or similar comments. I quite understand it may not be an EON prouduction but there are no citations for this "unofficial" tag nor does it make sense to me since at least one of them was bought for $1000 from the author. So what does it all mean? Would it not be more NPV to list them as "EON productions" and "Others" or some other way of remaining neutral? sorry about not signing i forgot.Abtract 00:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please sign your comments. This was discussed some months ago. The terms "official"/"unofficial" are pervasive in film literature when referring to the different films, and attempts to use other terms just ended up confusing people. (For example using "canonical" is senseless since inter-film continuity is loose at best.) The general rule of thumb -- and this is common practice, like calling Marilyn Monroe a sex symbol - is EON Productions = Official, Non-EON = Unofficial and that includes any versions of Casino Royale produced before 2006 as well as the Warner Brothers-produced Never Say Never Again. 23skidoo 23:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But this is not film literature its an encyclopedia. As an innocent observor, official and unofficial added nothing to my knowledge and indeed I found it a little offputting. My suggestion is that the article would be better and more NPV by ommitting ideas that are only "generally considered" (para 2) and concentrating on verifyable facts like the who, what, and when of each film and series. For instance it is verifyable that EON produced the bulk of the JB films and it is verifyable that other productions also occurred. Why not simply call them the "EON films" and "Others" or some such? Using a word like "unofficial" implies to me that these are of "lesser" value which is hardly a NPV. Apologies for not signing last time. Abtract 00:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I advise you to go through the archives for this page before doing so otherwise someone -- not necessarily me -- will revert you based on previous discussion. It is not POV to describe the EON films as official, just as it is not POV to describe Star Trek productions by Paramount Pictures or Doctor Who productions by the BBC as official as opposed to the unofficial spin-offs of these two franchises, some licenced and some not. 23skidoo 19:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there any items of Star Trek or Dr. Who which are licensed but are referred to as "unofficial" ?  -- Beardo 19:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Official/unofficial?

message: The 1990s saw a revival and renewal of the series beginning with GoldenEye in 1995. Pierce Brosnan filled 007's shoes with a mix of Sean Connery cool and Roger Moore wit. The combination saw Bond's success return to a level it hadn't enjoyed since 1979's Moonraker. In all, Brosnan made 4 films before being replaced in 2006 by Daniel Craig, who will star in a reboot of the series. Although Craig's Casino Royale is the 21st film of the series, it will be Bond's first mission after obtaining his double-0 status from MI6.
What does this last sentence mean?  Casual readers such as myself, accustomed to calling Bond "007," will not understand this.
It means that the film is a "reboot" of the series in the way that Batman Begins was.  While it's the 21st film, it's supposed to be chronologically Bond's first adventure (and is based on the first book of the series).  Thus, Bond has only just received his double-o status giving him his licence to kill, and the other 20 films take place after this one.  Cardinal Wurzel 07:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification of paragraph