Talk:Goldfinger (film)/Archive 1

message: Is there a source beyond "in a televised interview" where she claimed she almost passed out while recording the theme? I've yet to find any shred of information that proves this to be true. K1Bond007 05:19, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
* It's new to me, too. There was a recent interview in which she stated outright that she hates the song, however. 23skidoo 05:24, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Shirley Bassey

message: I think I know, but it's original research/speculation, so I'll put it here. Originally, bowlers were made by hand, and had a circular flat brim. That would have been fine for throwing with a metal rim, and I think almost certainly Fleming wrote Oddjob with a bowler because of the "iron hat" connection of bowlers. They were already a cross between hardhat and dresshat. 
Unfortunately, by the time of the film, most bowler/derbys were of the later style with the more stylish curved rim, boatlike and no longer throwable like a frisbee. Rather than give Oddjob an old-style derby with a funny-looking flat round rim, the film makers were forced, in order to have something throwable (no special effects available for this in 1964 so the hat actually had to work), to give Oddjob a short top hat, which still could have the traditional flat, perfectly circular brim, without looking, er, Odd. And there you are. SBHarris 18:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why switch from bowler to top hat for Oddjob, from novel to movie?

message: It has been proposed to split the soundtrack section into a separate article.
:For the time being I don't agree with this proposal. It isn't clear if the soundtrack section is just talking about the soundtrack being part of the film or if it is about the soundtrack CD/LP. I'd would give it a separate article if (a) the CD/LP was noticable on its own (which I'm not convinced about) and (b) the section was entirely about the CD/LP. --MarkS (talk) 21:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Split

message: The analysis of the wetsuit/drysuit didn't add up as the suit is bone dry a second later so it all has to be given up to poetic license.
:Thats the point, it wouldnt work
::Actually, some models of real drysuits have a slick outer plastic shell (being foam insulated inside or separately), and could be more or less dry not long after getting out the water. Water runs right off them like a plastic trashbag. And as I recall, Bond works on the demolition stuff a bit before peeling it off (which in real life would him to overheat-- he'd be getting out of that thing ASAP.)  But the tux is more effective in plot if you're surprised by it. Also a guy in a tux laying down plastic explosive looks silly. Not as silly as a drum ostensibly full of nitroglycerin (or charitably nitromethane) labeled "NITRO", of course (guess they use that for cocaine solvent extraction and like to live dangerously). But there's way too long a list of such stuff to get it all in. I've yet to see a real drysuit without a rubber neck-gasket, though. SBHarris 18:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wetsuit 

message: A complaint has been made that the end section has too much stuff about proving the film wrong, with POV stuff. Well, these things, of course, all must be POV. But there's been endless speculation about some of the Goldfinger scenes, enough that people have devoted whole TV shows to debunking them or not. That makes them notable enough to list here. But as I say, I'd rather err on the side of too much material than too little. If you want a really detailed analysis, I suggest the IMDB. A LOT of possible trivia has been left out of this article, I promise.  Anyway, other opinions on the matter now formally solicited. RfC. SBHarris 23:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing wrong with having a section that discusses the debunking of certain scenes in the film. However, it is POV to label such a section "Myths" because, in doing that, we are taking the side of the debunkers (i.e. we're saying that the debunkers are right when they say that such-and-such can't happen). Right now, the tone of that section is too one-sided. It needs to be written with the formal, detached tone of an encyclopedia and can't take the debunkers' side. --Hnsampat 05:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It can if nobody is around seriously arguing for the reality of OTHER side. Do YOU know of any evidence that a bullet will blow out a modern airliner window under ANY circumstances whatsoever? Has ANYBODY ever SEEN or reported this?  Has it EVER been seen in any test? Or is it to be found only in works of fiction? If you can find tests, write them up an put them here. We don't delete them, and will give you equal space. But if you can't find them, there may be a reason why you can't: it doesn't happen. Wikipedia is NOT required to give equal weight to all points of view, especially those with no empirical evidence to support them. SBHarris 21:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proving the film "wrong" 

message: An editor has objected that calling a shooting mistake or blooper a mistake, is POV. It is indeed, but it misses the point of WP:NPOV. As a little thought will show, since the removal of the section is also representative of a POV. Every edit we make on wikipedia represents a POV. All error fixes, and all fixes of fixes. Ultimately, every choice of every ASCII symbol rather than some other, is a POV. But this is not what NPOV was intended for. Errors do exist. Concensus opinion implies that some POVs are better than others, and indeed the WP:NPOV clearly spells out what to do when this is the case. A film-shooting blooper, like a spelllllllng error that everybody sees and nobody has questioned, deserves to be fixed or mentioned without a counterimposed point of view. If there is significant disagreement as to whether or not something really was a mistake (did the director intend for you to see that mike boom hanging down on the scene?), an argument from the minority side can always be constructed, if there's a cite for it or good reason to think so.  But please, don't try to suggest to us that NPOV means no errors exist objectively in the world, or can be acknowledged. That would make the very idea of an encyclopedia impossible. SBHarris 04:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Point well taken, although I was using POV in a different sense . Regardless of that, goofs still do not belong here. For one thing, unless they have been published somewhere, they are original research. But more than that, though, they are just plain unencyclopedic. That's fine for IMDb, but not Wikipedia. --Hnsampat 16:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is saying a shooting mistake ''is'' a mistake, "POV"? 

message: Please stop removing these templates. I am disputing the neutrality of the "Myths" section and I feel that there is way too much trivia in the "Miscellanea" section. As long as this dispute exists, the templates must stay. Also, I don't know if this is the case, but if the same user is using multiple IP addresses to revert my edits, please stop. That can constitute sockpuppetry. --Hnsampat 16:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, I can find you ONE guy to dispute ANYTHING. I can find you far more than one guy to dispute that we ever landed on the moon, or that the Earth is more than a few thousand years old. I can find you people who don't like the structure of any section of ANY wikipedia article. Are we therefore to add dispute tags to EVERY section of EVERY article? I think not. But that is the subtext and implied argument you're giving us. YOU, just one guy, dispute something, and there think it should sport a dispute tag as long as you live. Sorry, but Wikipedia doesn't work this way.  Okay, I'm soliciting comments here: RfC. We want a significant number of people unhappy with an issue before we muck it up with a unsightly tag, forever. I'll leave your tags were they are, as WP:AGF and out of politeness. But you'll have to muster up some support after a while, or they go. The reason being that Wikipedia is concensus-driven, and 100% concensus is never a reality. But to require it for the absense of all dispute tags would make Wikipedia a jungle of nothing but dispute tags. There, I've said this two ways, now. I hope the point is getting across. SBHarris 21:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sure I'm as guilty as the next guy in feeling a BIT of misplaced "ownership" over stuff I've worked on, or worked over, or added to. Impossible not to. However, I think that most of this is concern over deletion of *content* which results in citable information lost, when it should remain available somewhere (since content of questionble "notability" is always easier to ignore than to find again after somebody has deleted it). I think that's proper. If you want to change anything that looks too POV in judgement, or looks like OR, feel free to do it. I think Mythbusters (a citable source, and not my opinion) is already cited as much as possible for any direct "plausable" vs. "implausable" comments and judgements on the gold painting and the airplane window. *I* didn't write those sections-- somebody else did. Stuff I've done on this article is mostly getting the trivia/miscellanea sections on gold and gadgets in some kind of sensible order, and I wouldn't like to see that material all re-randomized, or deleted. That's not the same as feeling I own it. If you want to put it back the way it was a year ago, go ahead. Somebody (not my sockpuppet) will doubtless change it mostly back. And if not, I'll be wrong.  As for the Wikipedia "policy" that notability is not subjective, that ROFLMAO you can't hear, is the sound of me doing that (Rolling On Floor, Laughing). In Jimbo or somebody else's fevered dreams or fantasies this may be an objective of Wikipedia, but it will never be a reality. Wikipedia will always (why do I have to even point this out?) reflect the interests and areas of knowledge of its relatively few editors (just 2300 people have more than 5000 edits: ), NOT some perfectly distilled essense of the sum of interests and knowledge of the Writers of the World. If the Writers of the World all had an equal interest in Wikipedia (which they don't), and each was willing to do his or her part to contribute his or her Wikifiable thoughts to the project (which they are not), and each actually attempted this (which thank god they don't), there would be a sort of cyberspace explosion and lockup which be the World Wide Web plus academia plus commercial publishing, all trying to cram a subset of itself into a bunch of servers in Florida. But meanwhile, back to reality. I'm tired of Wikipedians trying to tell me what Wikipedia is NOT, ala WP:NOT. That's like trying to command the tides. Wikipedia is what it is, and I can see what it is, for myself. As for what others think it is or should be, they are each welcome to their POV. In actuality, only Jimbo's POV counts there, and that's in regard to what he WANTS Wikipedia to be, but again, is like commanding the tides to think makes the actual product into something which it manifestly is not, and never will or can be. SBHarris 08:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV, toomuchtrivia, etc. templates 

message: Here's my POV. Goldfinger is not the greatest film ever made, up there in the running with Citizen Kane or whatever. But it has consistantly (and this is not just MY opinion--the polls are cited) been the most popular Bond film of a great many, despite having been made relatively early-on, before a lot of money and special effects had been poured in, or invented. Why? My OPINION is that this is largely due to a lot of attention to a great many interlocking artistic details. The film is very tightly shot, and there are no boring scenes, despite the fact that there are a lot of scenes in which there is very little of what we now call "action," in Bond films. How is that? Artistic detail. "Perfection consists of an an endless series of trifles, but perfection is no trifle." (Michaelangelo). These details are what we call "trivia" in another context. But in any artwork, the whole is more than the sum of its parts. This one is a good example. SBHarris 22:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: My own take on Goldfinger "trivia" 

message: I compliment you, SBHarris, on your work to de-POV the "Myths" section. While it obviously still needs work, I think that you've de-POV'd it enough to merit removal of the POV and tone tags. I was about to do what you did myself, but you beat me to it! And, as it turns out, you did it better than I would have done it. Kudos. --Hnsampat 05:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compliments 

message: It's a common myth that Shirley Eaton died while filming this movie; although the topic of "skin suffocation" is brought up, this isn't even mentioned... I think it should be, even if it's just under "trivia."
Yoda921 13:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a reliable source that describes the prevalence of that myth? If not, then unfortunately we can't include it, as it is non-notable information. (Much of the trivia section, as a matter of fact, probably needs to either be deleted or modified because of the volume of non-notable information.) If the material is unsourced, then we have no way of verifying whether the myth truly is "common" or not. --Hnsampat 13:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skin suffocation 

message: Per WP:007, I have edited down the Plot section; I kept the markup for the images below in case they are needed, but they are not of much use as a narrative aid; certainly images of characters would be better suited to a list of characters or in the Cast section. 
 

 

Feel free to revert if you think I've messed up horribly. Editus Reloaded 15:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot abridgement 

message: It needs its own article. Cliff smith 00:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soundtrack 

message: What is their purpose, please?  You want to use this article on Goldfinger the film to educate me on what national flags look like?  I fixed it for space (which is short) and have been reverted on the grounds that "other articles like this have them."  That's not an argument at all. Except one pointing out the regimentation-problems that can be caused by insisting on stuffing all the Bond films into one "Projekt" format. Well, here you are. Nice flags in all your articles. I'm impressed. Blofeld, is this another example of your world domination? :) Nice FLAGS, buddy. SBHarris 23:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You do realize that every film article, stratch that, every article with a list of countries has the flags next to them. Look at video game releases. When it says released in the US and released in the UK, it has the flags next to them. This has nothing to do with Bond or films or anything other than standard Wikipedia formatting. ColdFusion650 00:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I assure you that it's not standard Wikipedia formatting (let's see you find it in WP:MOS if it is), but rather some overzelous wikignome's formatting. Though I admit it looks more widespread than I'd realized. It's complete baloney, however, that every Wikipedia article with a list of nations has these flags. You can, for example, look through the article on United Nations, which has many lists of nations, but no little flags that I can see. And no, I don't suggest doing in and adding them, either, or you'll have an army of blue-helmetted guys after you for wasting the space in their article. It's just silly. SBHarris 23:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The dumb flags in the film location section

message: I simply don't get the use of italics in this part of the Production para:
:The scene where Bond pushes down the light switch to turn on his suite's light, discovering the dead, golden Jill, is an English light switch on an English sound stage.
Do light switches in America work in a specific, predetermined way which would make them different from the specific, predetermined way an English light switch would work? Excuse my Central European ignorance here, but I just don't get it. Where I come from, light switches are pretty much left to everyone's electrician's devices, they can go either up for on, or down. TomorrowTime 19:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's some help in having a standard, so that you know where to "look" for a switch in a dark room, and what to do with it. In the England of the early 60's, it was indeed most common to have a room light toggle-switch flip down, for "on." And in America, it nearly universal, even now, to have it the other way. SBHarris 21:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  light switches and stuff 

message: I see that somebody has offloaded all the soundtrack into its own article, leaving nothing but a "please expand" note. That's about as polite as leaving a sinkful of dirty dishes after eating.
Look, I don't care if you think some of this is too long. But if you condense it, make sure the info is SOMEWHERE on wikipedia. Summarize main articles spun off. If you think everything is repeated in mythbusters, then you should leave a short summary and link to there. Etc.
SBHarris 01:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not do what happened to the soundtrack article, I merely placed a tag, I did not remove any of it. Also, I shall adress your concern with the Mythbusters info. However, note that I only moved sections into what they should be, per WP:FILMS, and following the example of the A-class article Casino Royale (2006 film). Cliff smith 01:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, but please remember that each film is different. There are a lot of artistic and stylistic touches in Goldfinger that are simply lacking in the last Casino Royale, so there's no point in addressing them. SBHarris 01:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand this. I did not remove anything, I just moved it to sections with different names. And I made a link to Mythbusters. Cliff smith 01:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you, but please remember also that we do not simply delete trivia sections as being "unacceptable." Again, getting rid of them requires work, not a push of a button. From WP:TRIVIA Don't simply remove such sections; it may be possible to integrate some items into the article in a more organized fashion. Some facts may belong in existing sections; others can be grouped into a new section of related material. Convert bullet points to prose where possible, although in certain cases a narrowly-focused list may be appropriate, such as Cameos or Continuity errors. See the point? Again, dirty dishes. Don't delete good information in Wikipedia. Reorganize and add so that nothing is lost. A note linking back to the IMDb isn't good enough. We might as well do that with ALL film entries here, and leave them blank, if that was the idea. So link to somewhere where the info exists in Wikipedia, so the reader knows it's there, and can go if they like to see it. SBHarris 02:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of sections 

message: There is a link to a German website with pictures of the location where Goldfinger was shot at by Tilly Masterson. Should we keep or delete this? Cliff smith 17:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Link to pictures on German website

message: This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of July 16, 2007, compares against the  six good article criteria:
:1. Well written?: Overall not bad, gererally sound prose, but the article could have better fluidity.  Here are some areas for improvement:
:*James Bond craze should be in quotation marks
:*" United States during filming," - that should end with a semi-colon and not a comma
:*"in Europe, primarily" - there should be a dash (not a comma) between Europe and primarily
:*This sentence  is seriously jarring.  Probably context should be added to it to show how it fits in the narrative.  For example, "Evidence in the film of it's European location include..." or something like that.  Alternately, it can be added as a footnote.
:*This part  is written like a laundry list of trivia.  You should have a paragraph devoted to locations, and some type of introductory statement that unifies these statements. Like "Many scenes from Goldfinger were shot on location."  Something.  In fact the second two paragraphs in that section are very fragmented in general.
:*"gadegetry" should be spelled "gadgetry" (unless that's the correct British spelling, which I doubt)
:*"team on their 'vivid imaginations'" - is that a compliment or a left-handed compliment (insult).
:*"though they had to be removed to emplace a large bulletproof shield in the rear of the vehicle" needs to be in parentheses
:*"was depicted to have been a feature on the actual vehicle, though it was actually a separate rig that was filmed in a studio" is too wordy.  Try "was depicted as a feature of the actual vehicle, when it was actually a separate rig filmed in the studio"
:*" the gearshift – and all of " - end the (severely long) sentence with gearshift.  Delete and and begin new sentence with "All".
:*This sentence  is confusing.  Maybe split it into two sentences, and give some context.  We (the readers) read one sentence about receiving a message, and, without skipping a beat, go to a poker game.
:*"where he meets Tilly Masterson" - who is "he"?  Bond or Goldfinger?
:*"when she attempts " - when should be where
:*"Bond drives his car attempting to leave the plant" - good.  Better? "Bond attempts to leave the plant by car"
:*"image of his own car" - car is used too much in this sentence.  Say vehicle.
:*"He is tied to a gold table underneath" - say "He is then tied" to help with the narrative.  Also, who ties him?  It sounds so vague.
:*"table, and Bond, in" - use dashes instead of commas
:*"He lies that another Double-O agent who possesses the same information about Operation Grand Slam that he does, will replace him ." - Who does he lie to?  Also, "who possesses the same information about Operation Grand Slam that he does" should be in parenthesis.
:*"take the risk of" = "take on the risk of"
:*"On landing" - "Upon landing"
:*" lecture's" - that's an odd word choice.  Was it a lecture?  or a meeting?
:*"and guards recapture" - "and the guards recapture"
:*"60 years; and to" - that should be a dash, not a semicolon
:*"Circus distribute gas" - odd phrasing.  I would say "Circus release gas" 
:*"unknowingly persuading" - this needs clarification.  You can't unknowingly persuade someone to do something. Persuasion is done conscientiously by both the speaker and the listener.  Bond could have "unknowingly convinced" (he didn't know she was actually convinced) or take out unknowingly (because there is no way she wouldn't know she was persuaded).
:*"who have" - who had
:*"the entirety of Fort Knox, which had been faking death" - Huh?  The entirety of Fort Knox refers to all of it - walls, doors, grass outside, etc... Do you mean all the personnel?  That needs clarifying.  Also, why were they collaborating to fake death?  That needs to be explained, and probably earlier on.
:*"In the vault, Bond kills Oddjob" - How, if he's strapped to the atomic device?
:*"sparing seven seconds" - "leaving seven seconds"
:*"seconds: the" - that should be a semicolon, not a colon
:*The sentence that begins "With Fort Knox safe..." should start a new paragraph.  The previous sentence should be merged with the previous paragraph.
:*"Release and Reception" - reception should be lowercase
:*"United Kingdom; and on" - that should be a comma instead of a semi-colon
:*The paragraph that begins "Goldfinger is the first James Bond..." should come after the paragraph that begins "At the 1965 Academy Awards, Norman..." (chronologically)
:*"Notes and References" - references should be lowercase
:2. Factually accurate?: Not bad, but I put in a few  tags to show what needs to be referenced.
:3. Broad in coverage?: What is here is excellent.  But there could be a little more mention of critical responses (maybe some critics of the day).
:4. Neutral point of view?: Great here as well.
:5. Article stability? Great here!
:6. Images?: :Image:007Goldfingerlaserclassic.jpg has no fair use rationale.  See WP:FURE for suggestions.
When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration.  If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review.  Thank you for your work so far. 
— Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 19:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed "good article" nomination