Talk:Casino Royale (2006 film)/Archive 5

message: How about making one of those sections which goes through little mistakes in the movie eg. bond wins a hand of no limit texas hold em with a straight of the same suit when suits usually are irrelevant
*Typically, these sections are frowned upon because their information is usually very trivial. The Filmaker 03:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  mistakes section? 

message: The plot summary currently says the following:
:Bond, who has Vesper's mobile phone, discovers that she left Mr. White's name and number for him to find.
The message begins "For James:" which seems to me to indicate that it was sent by someone else to Vesper (in order that she might give it to James).  If she had intended for him to find it, she would have more likely addressed it "James:" or omitted the form of address entirely (and just given the number).  There don't appear to be any more details about the message (that would clarify whether it was a note written by Vesper or a message sent to her).—Kbolino 20:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not if she didn't know he would look at it or not. With the chance that he follows some protocol (yeah right), he may turn the phone over to MI6, who would say "hey this is for you". Also, I'm not that familiar on British etiquette, but maybe it's just polite when you address a note. Who knows, but it's not a probably to send yourself a text message or leave a note in some sort of "dayplanner" on a phone. The point is, it's based on what we see and not what we don't, and since no one questions it in the film (like when Bond clarifies that Mathis isn't innocent or guilty, yet) we just have to go with what they do. You could, if you want to be more ambiguous just say "Bond, who has Vesper's mobile phone, discovers Mr. Whites name and number". The rest can be left up to the viewer how he finds it.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 22:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mr. White's Number 

message: When I was checking out GoldenEye and Tomorrow Never Dies, which are GAs, I noticed that their vehicles and gadgets sections also included the weapons that were used in the movie. Perhaps we should do the same thing. Cliff smith 16:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's unnecessary, and GA and FA criteria has been changed since a lot of articles first received it. Also, it depends on the article. The previous Bond films relied heavily on these things, where as this one didn't.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 16:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true. I was thinking about it, and I just thought they might have to be in this article since they were in the other two. But yes, I better understand now. Cliff smith 16:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, you can almost guarantee that "listing" vehicles and gadgets won't get you through a FAC as lists are generally frowned upon (unless that is the nature of the article .. i.e. List of Bond gadgets). If those other articles want to be FA, I think they are going to need a lot of work.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 16:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally. Yeah. TYVM. Well then it's a really good thing I took care of the Awards section cause it was a straight list before.But the article's shaping up nicely. Cliff smith 16:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm. That could work. Interesting idea. And I agree that this looks much better than some of the others. Cliff smith 16:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We just have to find the information that says it was their intention to NOT include that stuff, which shouldn't be hard. I think some of the sources we already have in that section may have that information. I think it would be neater to turn it into prose, because it would help with limiting people from expanding the list if they have to write it out and include reliable sourcing for its use. I'm thinking that finding a "reason" as to why they chose this and that for the vehicles and such would help to expand the section as a whole.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 16:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree. Cliff smith 16:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have to look for some sources this weekend, because I can't access certain sites at work. I did find a Latino Review interview with Campbell where he says that none of those other actors were ever in the running for Bond, let alone signed anything.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 16:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. Well, I'll look for some more references this weekend too, when I have more time. Cliff smith 17:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vehicles and gadgets 

message: To me the "Reaction" section seems too crowded and disconnected. The last paragraph is basically a (very crowded, difficult to read) section on some awards or nominations Casino Royale has garnered. That should go into another section. "Awards" would make more sense. Ealgian 01:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it could possibly be a subsection within Reacton, however that "very crowded" paragraph is more appropriate than a listy section on each and every award the film won or was nominated for, which is basically what it was before I turned it into prose. Some of the stuff that was there before wasn't really necessary per WP:NOT. Also, there are many other film articles that organize their Reaction section as seen here, like the articles for Star Wars episodes I, II, III, IV, and V — and those are all Featured Articles.Cliff smith 16:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would suggest a subsection as, again, it's quite lengthy (list or no list). In addition, various featured film articles include an Awards and Noms (sub)section which are not in paragraph form; I'm fine with paragraphs, though, it just seems to me that a subsection would be more appropriate.Ealgian 01:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The information on the awards is not particularly abundant enough to warrant a subsection. The prose should actually be copyedited. But the section does appear lengthy to me at all. The Filmaker 02:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The peer review will help with things like copyediting, but if necessary we could go to the WP:LoCE for further refinement. Cliff smith 15:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The special effects subsection is good, nice work. But I'd like to note that the lists of wins and nominations that have been added are redundant with the prose.Cliff smith 23:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We need a better picture of the DVD. Cliff smith 16:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This might or might not help mi6.co.uk CR DVD. And this one: dvdactive CR. El Greco 18:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The second link, first picture (widescreen edition) is the best one I've seen yet. Cliff smith 18:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Break up "Reaction" section? 

message: I'd like to see these following improvements until it is ready for FA nomination:
*Intergrate award list fully into written text and avoid redundant repetition.
*Copy edit the article fully -most notably in the reaction and release section where some wording is not quite polished enough -too many short sentences and some phrasing is still quite clumsy.
*Try to intergrate a bit of basic summary of the screenplay into an existing section basic differences from original novel -the similarity to Flemings and original charcter and plot also needs at the very least mentioning. No quoting but some mention of the dialogue in places might help -Judi Dench's character is even more hostile this time and she uses stonger language than ever before in fitting with the "darker Bond".
*Mentioning the dates of casting - it was actually done in September 2005 and the final decsion for Craig for made in only a few weeks announced in October although the production team had had their eye on Craig since 2003.
*One final image please. of the actual DVD COVER from than the poster. I'll forget about the award and Mr White. 
What do you think amigo?  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦  "Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E" 12:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds real good. We'll get them in before FAC. Cliff smith 18:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Are there any reliable sources that mention sites like these, though?  I believe it's generally acceptable to mention online petitions and blogs when they enter the public scope (newspapers, TV media, etc). —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Whatever. Just offering what I hoped were helpful suggestions. Best of luck. — WiseKwai 03:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvements to make before FA nomination

message: A point was brought up on the film article's FAC page about the lack of mention of any controversy over casting Daniel Craig as the new 007.  The information existed in the article a while ago, but seems to have been phased out since.  Also, there was discussion about this matter, which can be found at Talk:Casino Royale (2006 film)/Archive 4#Cast Section/Search for.....  Is it possible to re-evaluate the possibility of mentioning the media's initial reaction to Craig as Bond?  I know that there were online petitions contesting the casting decision, but is there anything authoritative that addresses this? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there any reliable sources that mention sites like these, though?  I believe it's generally acceptable to mention online petitions and blogs when they enter the public scope (newspapers, TV media, etc). —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy over casting 

message: According to the WP:FILM Style guide the section ought to be entitled "Reception". It could be further broken up by such subheadings as "Critical reception" or "Critical reaction" and "Awards". The subheadings in the section could even call to the specifics of the criticism, with such subheadings as "Positive reviews" or "Negative reviews". I should also mention, Daily Mirror "Bland, James Bland" article link leads to a blank page, which is a bummer. — WiseKwai 18:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever. Just offering what I hoped were helpful suggestions. Best of luck. — WiseKwai 03:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reaction section

message: Another section summarizing details of how the credits were designed and the reasons behind it
*http://www.mi6.co.uk/news/index.php?itemid=4511
 ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦  "Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E" 10:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I brief mention in the lead for the production section.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 11:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That subsection is too small to be a subsection.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 11:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You were also better with the other image or no image as the gunbarrel sequence is just one sentence in the entire section.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 12:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Still, compare the other subsections to the new one, it is far too small to be a subsection. It's something that is minor in the process of filmaking and should be in the Production sections lead paragraph.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 23:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with Bignole on this one—the info about the credit sequence belongs in the Production lead, not a separate subsection. Cliff smith 00:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, the quote is unnecessary and the bits about "only Bond to do this" or whatever are trivial and fall under WP:NOT#IINFO. Cliff smith 00:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New section:Title sequence

message: did anyone else catch the "money penny" refrence when Lynd and Bond first meet on the plane.
Clever i thought, left her demise open to interpritations and some speculation if you ask me.
When1eight=2zeros
:#This has been discussed before and from memory the consensus was this was original research.
:#They met on a train, not a plane.
:#This isn't really the place to discuss interpretation or speculation. It's to discuss the article. Mark83 19:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MONEY PENNY refrence 

message: At the end of the film when M says to 007 "well at least this clears mathis" bond says "no".  What has Mathis done wrong and why is he stunned and taken away?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Matthewcl375 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't the place for this type of question, more inline with a forum. Please remember that for future reference, but to answer you, Bond believed that it was Mathis that informed LeChiffre that he knew what his "tell" was. Bond believed he was a double agent, and when M replied that Vesper giving the money to the Organization was proof that Mathis was innocent, Bond's response was that no one had proven his innocence or guilt. Thus, this is why he ordered the further interrogation.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 15:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What did Mathis do wrong? 

message: When Pierce Brosnan became the fifth actor to portray the character in 1995, he had a three film contract with an option for a fourth that expired with Die Another Day in 2002. In the Die Another Day DVD documentary, Brosnan stated: "I had a blast. I wanted to go out with a high note, but I think it's time for both me and the producers to move on. I'm done with Bond".
Can anyone tell me exactly which documentary this was? I've looked through them and I can't seem to find the quote. Is it in the commentary by Brosnan? -- Britishagent 22:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote from article 

message: To add a bit more trivia to this page...
:The password Bond enters in the Casino is the number 836547. Later in the film, the password is revealed to be VESPER, but the key sequence required to enter that word is 837737.
Call me picky but... SniperAngel 21:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, you're picky. :)  Hey, you asked.  We'd like to avoid trivia sections, though. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Trivia 

message: Rather than adding and removing the segment on whole, it might be a better idea if you put your heads together and typed Casino Royale product placement into Google (I have, loads of citable info there, even a direct quote from Craig) you could then add citations where appropriate and remove OR where appropriate. Just a thought seeing as "stable" is a criteria for the FA review that this article is going through at the moment. - X201 11:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Explain the importance not noting such a thing. Let's also not confuse having lots of google results as being notable to an encyclopedia. I'm not saying that is what you were suggesting when you said that, just that I see that being said now that you've mentioned finding "loads of citable info" on Google. Product Placement occurred in Fight Club, and Fincher, Pitt, and Norton discussed it on the commentary for the film, but that doesn't make it that notable. I'm curious as to what the reason behind its inclusion is.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 12:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not my info, and to be honest I'm not bothered if it's in or out of the article. I said what I said because I'm more concerned about the article being stable enough for a successful  FA status than anything else. I'm pretty sure that the original contributor was trying to make the point that there seemed to be a lot of Sony devices since they've taken over from MGM. Has he got a point? Yes. Is it OR? Definitely. Is it notable? No. - X201 15:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: A better way to search on Google would be to search for the keywords "casino royale" "product placement" on Google News Archive Search.  This produces 187 results instead of the extremely faulty 127,000 results with a normal Google search and no quotations.  There seem to be some decent articles in the midst of these results, but your contribution wasn't backed by any of them.  Especially considering that this article is undergoing FA review, I think it may be best if the contribution was made with attributable citations attached, instead of sounding like you're writing using your personal observation. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said above, it wasn't my contribution, I didn't add it to the article. I was getting fed up of the revert war that I could see developing in front of me. So I made the suggestion that both sides should start citing and editing rather than wholesale removal and replacement - X201 15:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Product Placement

message: Don't forget to reguarly check the statement
" the 33rd highest-grossing film of all-time,[4] and the 6th highest grossing film of all-time in the United Kingdom."
because it will reguarly change with films such as Pirates 3 and Spider-Man 3, although you shouldn't ignore the information, It's not going to get higher on the list and eventuarly it will be off the list all together, so note that it peaked at 33rd and 6th. It is still 6th at england but 34th for world wide.
SpecialWindler talk 09:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: update

message: :The following is removed until it can be re-integrated in a more encyclopedic manner. Alientraveller 15:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what's so encyclopedic about it. The "test drive" sentence is the only real-world commentary that is presented, and I know that the gadgets are "important" to the Bond universe, but at the very least we can let the Gadget article take care of that. Here it has no purpose. The Filmaker 16:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm thinking information on why Campbell opted not to have lots of gadgets/vehicles, and why he chose these things would make it relevant. But as a whole, I agree, not very encyclopedic beyond it being a staple of the franchise. Bignole 16:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vehicles and gadgets

message: I request the image of Vesper Lynd under the Cast section to be removed, firstly because it's fair use-rationale only covers the article of the character Vesper Lynd and none else. Secondly, I think the image of her on the top of the Cast section would be unnecessary or innapropriate. At least if there should be an image there, it should be an image of the main character - Daniel Craig as James Bond.
(Wikiburger 18:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not being funny or awkward, but you can remove it yourself. Just edit the page and say why you've removed it in the edit summary or on this talk page if a longer explanation is needed. Just don't do it all in CAPITALS please. - X201 19:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  REQUESTING REMOVAL OF VESPER LYND IMAGE 

message: Is there any room in the article for a mention that Richard Branson had a cameo appearance in the movie, or is that too trivial? Spawn Man 05:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol, never mind. I just saw the comments on the FAC opting for the removal of the cameo section. :) Spawn Man 05:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, it's too trivial, so removed.  Vikrant Phadkay 15:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cameo appearance: 

message: Just in case there is some controversy:
# Parkour vs. free running: although the term "parkour" may be slightly more well known, "free running" is the more accurate term, per Foucan and the credits.
# Mentioning "the tell": without sufficient context on the way Bond set about reading Le Chiffre, referencing "the tell" in quote marks is confusing for people who do not already know the plot of the film.  Since it would bloat the section and give undue weight to provide that context, we should remove the mention for the sake of better, more concise writing.
# Vesper assigned to sabotage Bond: I don't think that this is clear enough from the film for us to say.  It makes sense, but we just learn that she was beholden to Mr. White's organization, not to Le Chiffre.  Without a better source, I don't think we can say what that section had said.  
The rest of my edits were largely about grammar or punching up sentences.  I do not claim that my edits here should be final or authoritative, but I do believe that they are improvements.  Croctotheface 04:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't Tell (poker) an article? Thus, it doesn't need explaining, people can get the details from there.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 11:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm....it wasn't linked before, and it certainly would've been better if it were.  However, I'm not saying that mentioning it would be confusing to people unfamiliar with poker or the term, though that could be the case.  I'm saying that mentioning it without explaining the context presupposes that readers are familiar with the context.  If they're not, it's kind of this vaguely-alluded-to, out of place detail.  To provide necessary context, we'd basically have to say that Bond discovered the tell, Le Chiffre found out that he found out, so he intentionally performed it to send Bond down the wrong path.  Otherwise, it doesn't really provide more information to mention "his 'tell'", in quote marks, since "misreading" is really the same concept as that.  Croctotheface 18:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't read the plot in awhile, so I had to go back and read what it actually said. I thought it explained it how you just suggested, but it didn't. The way you rewrote it is fine anyway.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 18:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot section edits