Talk:James Bond/Archive 3

message: Please source the claim that Bond is better known fopr his films. You claim there are thousands so providing one or two should be easy, SqueakBox 18:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see your discussion page. In short, I don't feel it is necessary to site a source on this issue (same as it is unnecessary to cite a source to provide evidence that Marilyn Monroe was a sex symbol. On the contrary I challenge anyone to find a source that says he ISN'T best known from the films. That would be far more interesting. Cheers. 23skidoo 18:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Dude, I don't even think this is debatable. Yeah, Fleming's novels were popular in the late 50s early 60s, but since, probably 1964 he's best known for the films. Theres no question here. I love Fleming's novels, but I don't think theres any way someone could create a credible argument saying Bond is best known from the novels. You can say he was popularized by the novels, but best known today for the films, but that's it. Since 1953, if you add Fleming's Amis', Gardner's, Benson's and other misc 007 novels by other authors together, the number sold comes to approximately 100 million. Die Another Day, the last film, had about 80 million see the film in theaters. That's just theaters. Add in how many spoofs of James Bond films are out there, rentals, DVD/VHS purchases, promotional material - products associated with Bond (e.g. Aston Martin), books analyzing or whatever the James Bond films -- all of this in damn near every country. There's no question that hands down the films are by far more popular. You see a news story on the BBC.. something like "using James Bond like gadgets", etc they're referring to the films, not the novels - virtually 100% of the time. I'm with 23skidoo here. Find a source that says he isn't best known from the films. K1Bond007 21:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Best known for his films

message: I believe that Timothy Dalton's proposed third film should be mentioned within the movie section, whether it got beyond the proposal stage or not, as it is relevant with regards to the legal wranglings of the early 1990s. I have included this within the table of films, with a note explaining the occurences of why it was not made. I believe it is clear and explicit that the film was not made. Hammersfan 09:25 25 October 2005
: I'm leaving it be until I see more opinions on it, but my opinion is the film should not be included on the chart. For one thing I know of only one source that has ever suggested the Property of a Lady title and that's the book "The Bond Files" by Andy Lane. And even it states that the title was pure speculation. There was -- to my knowledge -- never an official announcement regarding the title of Dalton's third Bond film. I have no objection to it being mentioned in the film section and elsewhere as a point of trivia, but unless someone can find additional sources (preferably official such as a press release) to suggest the title was ever in any way official, I oppose it being included in the table. 23skidoo 14:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Theres absolutely no reason to list it as an official film. The script was never completed and it was never made. If you include this in the list then at what point do we draw the line on anything? Just because there were plans to make a third Dalton movie, does not mean we should add it to a list of official movies that were made. The information on The Property of a Lady is already at the book article, Dalton's article, and LTK's article - and most of it is (unfortunately) unfounded considering there has never been any official aknowledgment of it (especially the title). This is redundant and trivial. Should we list Thunderball as the first James Bond film? No. What about all the other times Casino Royale was attempted at being made into a film? No. This is minor trivia that doesn't belong in the list. K1Bond007 18:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I would go as far to say that a lot of people today are being introduced to the novels because of the films.  That's how it worked for me.  Rowlan 20:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Property of a Lady

message: Shouldn't we include stuff about the theme of the James Bond movies/story/blah? like eg. Based in the 60's Soviet spy craze, when cold war ended more tactical espionage...
Also, there is a 1980s-early 1990's series of Hong Kong movies titled "King Kong" which tells of a cop/secret agent called "King Kong". In one of the movies, Sean Connery guest-stars as James Bond and in the movie James Bond retires and (apparently) turns evil, tries to steal the Queen (of Britain)'s crown and kill everyone. --Benlisquare 8:37PM AUEST
:Probably add this to "The franchise." This page is long as it is, so if it's not something that can be grouped together, then I would say this might be more film-specific information. At some point in this article there is discussion on the themes and genres. Maybe just expand on that. K1Bond007 17:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theme of movies/storyline/etc. 

message: I remember reading an online article about the notoriety of all Bond actors' facial scarring.
http://itsb.ucsf.edu/~vcr/SpotBondMen.html
This seems to be the one I read.  Just thought it would be interesting to note in the trivia section, especially the tidbit about how Pierce Brosnan's scar is the only one earned during his tour of duty as Bond.
But, thought I'd post it up here on the talk page before adding it in.
TotalTommyTerror 20:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bond Scars 

message: Sadly I've discovered the the Qbranch link is now dead.  I'll leave it to the editors of this page to fix/delete it. --CPQD 07:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Links

message: This article has many, many links to fan sites; is there a way we can reduce how many there are? Personally, I think there should be maybe five or something, or else maybe just one link to a directory of them all. I dislike the fact that it has it's own heading as it seems to encourage anons/users to add their site to the list whether or not it's notable/different/useful etc. Thoughts? --Qirex 11:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I trimmed it down, but it'll grow...again. K1Bond007 22:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I "trimmed" it per Wikipedia:External links but that was reverted.  I'm not seeing any reason per that guideline that all of those links should not go. - brenneman(t)(c) 06:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree that some of them should go. But they shouldn't be eliminated down to just two links as you did. There were more there that appeared to be relevant to the article, and not simply fluff or spam. The Wookieepedian 07:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I side with Wookiepedian on this. Yes, I agree that half the article shouldn't be external links, but at the same time there are a large number of noted and (and this is key) useful links. Each one needs to be judged in its own merits. There are some that are obviously spammy and/or fluff pieces, and I think editors have been pretty good at catching those. And then there are other sites that are relevant, useful, and are just as worthy as a long list of References and Sources which is something Wikipolicy says every article should (in theory) have. 23skidoo 15:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did click on every one of those links and examine them.  The Ian Fleming sites should go in the Ian Fleming article, and unless we can demonstrate that any one fan site is much more notable than the others it's POV to put some in and not all of them.  Anything that is used as a reference must be from a Wikipedia:Reliable source, and very few fansites will qualify. - brenneman(t)(c) 23:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fan site links