Talk:For Your Eyes Only (film)

message: "Now why don't you put your clothes back on, and I'll buy you an ice cream." -- Beardo 01:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. I'm trying to figure out when Bibi's age is mentioned. The actress was less than a year younger than Carole Bouquet, and both were in their early 20s. For many like me in the AUDIENCE, it was certainly a sign that Moore was too old.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.24.168.39 (talk) 18:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sign that Moore was too old? 

message: :Image:For Your Eyes Onlydrag.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 15:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:For Your Eyes Onlydrag.jpg

message: Note that Blofeld is not actually mentioned in the PCS or anywhere else in the movie. I believe that the "rights" to his name were owned by the producers of Never Say Never Again, the non-canonical Bond movie with Sean Connery made at about the same time. Yet there can be little doubt that Blofeld is the villain dropped down the chimney, as he is seen with his white cat, and the opening has Bond at his wife's grave, and she was murdered by Blofeld (then played by Telly Savalas in his pre-Kojak days) at the end of On Her Majesty's Secret Service. 64.85.225.235 (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  PCS with Blofeld 

message: * We are missing the book that goes with reference (currently ref 13):  Cork & d'Abo 2003  - Put the wrong book in the cites! Correct one now inserted. -  SchroCat (^ • @) 06:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  -  SchroCat (^ • @) 07:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a fan of the minutiae of where words appear in titles etc. To me it smacks of being over-detailed, which is not what is needed (and goes against WP:DETAIL) Would anyone object if we just lost the whole paragraph? -  SchroCat (^ • @) 08:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thoughts (and with WP:BOLD as a defence) I've taken it out already and if anyone wants to argue then they can put it back in later! -  SchroCat (^ • @) 17:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm ok with that.  I personally thought the same thing, and as an 'editor' probably would have removed it myself. When I peer review though I try to restrict myself just to issues that stand in the way of article promotion. Betty Logan (talk) 20:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Not sure whether to leave the following info in the 'Cast' section, or include it in 'Writing' or both! Any thoughts / suggestions? -  SchroCat (^ • @) 07:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the final paragraph has relatively little to do with the writing or indeed the development of FYEO, so I would merge it into the casting section. Betty Logan (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had another go at the section in writing as I think it needed to be addressed (it's a notable sequence in its own right and we had a lot of un-sourced material in there) Let me know what you think - feel free to revert or re-write if you think it's still rubbish! -  SchroCat (^ • @) 06:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

text:  I can find no information to support any of the points raised, so I've removed the paragraph.  It looks a little too much like original research to me.  Again, if anyone can find a suitable source then it can br put back in in a more appropiate. -  SchroCat (^ • @) 08:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

text: I can't find anything on this from my sources... I'll tag it and let him let us know where he got it from. -  SchroCat (^ • @) 08:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review 

message: Per a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Assessment, I have assessed this article, reassessing it at B class. I also went through and did some copyediting in the article, please review my edits. I unfortunately started this without realizing that the above GA review had taken place. Please offset any issues I may have caused that conflict with the above. Going through the article, the only qualms I had was that the plot could still use another workover or two, and the that the image of the watch may have the same issue as the toy gun in The Man with the Golden Gun. Please verify if it is Commons acceptable for any non-free issues. I would also recommend expanding/cleaning up the fair use rationale on the comic book image. If you have any questions about this assessment, please let me know. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:FILM Assessment

message: I've removed the image of the grave stone from the article, pending a decision from Media Copyright people as to whether this is a copyright free image or not. if they say it is okay, it can go back in.  if they do not, then I suggest it is not worth putting it back into the article. -  SchroCat (^ • @) 14:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tracy Bond gravestone.jpg 

message: The article claims that Peter "Marrinker" (sic) did Blofeld's voice. The Smith book misspells Peter Marinker's name - never a good sign. Apparently the book contains more than its fair share of errors. For example, the authors claim that OHMSS clocks in at 152 minutes. See here. (Google search the following review: "A good book but with some howlers, October 23, 2002" "By Edward Nelson".) All other sources indicate Robert Rietti did the voice, though I can't immediately locate a primary source citation. Fanthrillers (talk) 20:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite right - the Cork & Stutz encyclopaedia confirm it. Cheers -  SchroCat (^ • @) 22:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much; I had a feeling the source was wrong... most notably, because Rietty's voice from the Bond films is now quite recognizable to my ears. Wish I could've supplied a better source, but thanks. :-) Stolengood (talk) 23:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blofeld's voice 

message: The article mentions that one of the 2CV cars was modified for the film with a plate on its roof so that it could be spun upside-down, and I've checked the linked reference and it does indeed corroborate this - except it is wrong. In the film, it is one of the black villain cars that ends up on its roof, only to be struck by the second black car and left spinning upside-down. The 2CV never ends up on its roof (it does briefly roll down a hill, but it never comes to a rest on its roof). The information being referenced is incorrect, as is this article.--Leigh Burne (talk) 10:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Error in reference

message: The article states that he overhears Lisl inform Bond that he is known to be a secret agent. I watched this last night for about the 15th time this month, and no such conversation happens. He merely tells her he wants to write an article on Greek smugglers and inquires as to whether or not she can help him, moments before she, unsurprisingly for a woman in a Bond film, melts into his arms. Maybe I'm watching a different version... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.157.126.80 (talk) 10:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're right. In future please remember to sign your posts with four ascii tildes ~~~~. - Fanthrillers (talk) 00:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lisl's driver? 

message: Hi. I noticed that some tags have just been added to this article by someone else, claiming that it needs more citations and possibly contains original research. This doesn't seem to be the case in my opinion; the article is full of citations. But if it really is true, wouldn't the article need to be stripped of its "Good article" status? I think someone needs to look at this. All I can say is that the person who did this seems to have a track record of being disruptive. 108.95.130.150 (talk) 23:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: you are right, i did not scroll all the way down to the production section. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article status dispute  

message: Should the appearance of transsexual actress Caroline Cossey be incorporated into the article? On the one hand, she had an uncredited bit role, and thus is hardly worthy of note; on the other hand, a number of urban legends have sprung up because of her part in the movie, including the mistaken belief that Carole Bouquet, the actress playing Melina Havelock, was in fact the transsexual. Would mentioning her role clear up any confusion that some readers might have—or simply make things worse? 108.246.205.134 (talk) 08:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it may make things worse, and is—as far as this particular article is concerned—she was a she way before the film was made and so the impact on the film was nominal. We don't tend to dwell on the trivial stuff on the film page itself. Her personal history and situation is adequately covered on her talk page. That's just my take on it: others may disagree. - SchroCat (talk) 09:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caroline Cossey 

message: The fourth paragraph, starting with "For Your Eyes ... ", mentions "10 years since Diamonds ... ", which makes it sound like there was some kind of gap between film production, when clearly there was not.  What is the significance in the gap between this film and the other? What is the relevance of the statement?  SquashEngineer (talk) 19:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misdirection 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on For Your Eyes Only (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927015430/http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/746/746573p3.html to http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/746/746573p3.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I am not sure that this is an appropriate category for the article to be in - the film is hardly about Margaret Thatcher, with her 'appearance' being restricted to an obvious gag at the end which lasts for less than a minute. Dunarc (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't say about the categorization, but I thought it was inappropriate to not even mention the Thatcher appearance, as that was quite unusual for a Bond film—I think it's the only time the series has shown a real politician, even if only as a gag. So I added a very brief mention of it in the appropriate spot. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Films about Margaret Thatcher 

message: In the scene when Bond and Columbo attack Kristatos's warehouse, you can clearly see naval mines just like the one from the St. George's sinking (in fact, this is what Locque blows up to escape). Could it be that it wasn't an "old naval mine," but rather a mine that Kristatos planted?
Deane (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting but speculative. None of the characters on screen refer to this, so it cannot be confirmed. The opening sequence on the trawler gives the impression that the incident is accidental, so the article wording is OK.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "accidentally trawling an old naval mine in the Ionian Sea" 

message: The "cite video" template fields are messed up and causing CS1 errors. Instead of this:
:title=Inside For Your Eyes Only|location=For Your Eyes Only – Ultimate Edition, Disk 2
it should be something like this:
:title=For Your Eyes Only|chapter=Inside For Your Eyes Only|edition=Ultimate|volume=2
GA-RT-22 (talk) 01:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  cite video