Talk:GoldenEye

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GoldenEye has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

	GoldenEye has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
Article Milestones Date Process Result November 23, 2006 Peer review Reviewed November 25, 2006 Good article nominee Listed December 15, 2006 Peer review Reviewed January 9, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted Current Status: Good article

	This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as High-Importance on the importance scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
	A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed by the Films WikiProject.

	To-do list for GoldenEye:	edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
Contents 1 GoldenEye 2 Clean-up of Grammar 3 Learn spanish please 4 New IMDb tournament 5 IMDb reference 6 Die Another Day reference 7 Rogue Agent Quote 8 Economic supremacy and terrorism 9 Ratings 10 Do not split the article 11 From main Bond page 12 "One of two actors to appear twice" 13 Vandalism 14 The Women of GoldenEye 15 Women of GoldenEye 16 GA Passing 17 The original Timothy Dalton plot. 18 Musical question 19 Where did the novelization section go???? 20 Requested move 20.1 Survey 20.1.1 Survey - in support of the move 20.1.2 Survey - in opposition to the move 20.2 Discussion 21 Featured Article Nomination 22 Goldeneye Source? 23 Cameras [edit] GoldenEye The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[1] Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article. Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[2] Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid using special characters (ex: &+{}[]) in headings. There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example, it has been allege might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[3] Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.) Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.” Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a. [4] You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR t 22:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clean-up of Grammar

This article is currently written with horrible grammar. Many broken links and images.

"Th story opns with Jams Bond, agnt 007, and his frind/ally Alc Trvlyan, agnt 006, infiltrating a Sovit chmical wapons factory in Arkhanglsk, th USSR (modrn day Russia)."

^ Messy

Nope, seems to me vandilisim was commited seeing as words were purposely editied to be spelled wrong, i'll fix it.--Nubbie44 22:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

well, look at it. only the "e"s are missing. someone apparently has a broken keyboard, and doesn't realize it. i edited some minor grammar problems and changed a few little things around. Parsecboy 13:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Learn spanish please

"Oracabessa" isn't Spanish for anything. It's not even a spanish word, but just a name. "Golden Head" will be "Cabeza de Oro".

This http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/pages/history/story0048.htm suggests a different derivation - "* Oracabessa, St. Mary: comes from the Spanish for 'aura' meaning 'air or breeze' and 'cabeza' meaning head, resulting in a phrase that could be read as 'fanciful'." -- Beardo 06:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

-Actually oracabessa sounds like pretty much gibberish. "Ora", if anything, is a verb for "pray", and sounds like "hora", which means hour. Cabeza is "head", which sounds like cabessa, but it's still gibberish. As for "aura", it stays the same, as it is directly derived from Latin for Spanish, AND English... and...fanciful? Yeah okay...nice one. There is no Spanish meaning, as "oro" is gold, and that's all there is to it. Learn spanish please.

-On occasion--especially with particularly uneducated speakers of Spanish--a sloppy speaker will slip the adjective in front of the noun instead of after it. Especially considering that Jamaica was actually claimed by the Spanish and therefore mixed with some of Spanish culture and linguistics, it's not very hard to believe that uneducated Jamaicans who speak Spanish poorly would make such a mistake.

[edit] New IMDb tournament

Well, this is an odd world. IMDb just held one of their official polls (not a message board tournament like the earlier thing) on the best Pierce Brosnan Bond film, and GoldenEye won by a landslide [1]. So, does this belong here? I'm hesistant, but I want your opinions. Deltabeignet 01:51, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC) Update: Also, if you're wondering why the talk page history has so many posts that do the same thing, it's because my computer was being slow and I was being impatient.

---

Casino Royale I can understand, but why might you not include Never Say Never Again in a list of Bond movies? --VampWillow 18:56, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

It's not an EON production. It's also a remake of an EON picture (Thunderball). It has no real connection to the EON series other than Kevin McClory owning the film rights to the original book and Sean Connery being signed to play the lead. Timrollpickering 13:55, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

But surely in the concept of a (Bond) film is a (Bond) film it shouldn't be an absolute that a single production company should be responsible; after all the actors change (how many Felixes have there been? and there was a sex change too!) and the producer changes too. Surely, the only thing that matters is that the basic concept remains (which is why I'd agree that Casino Royale isn't a part of the series of films). Isn't it that films are based on characters, and as such NSNG fulfills that requirement. (You might as otherwise exclude OHMSS, for example) --VampWillow 14:05, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Erm it's not a sex change - it's clear from the dialogue that this is a new M. Generally the EON films are the ones considered the "main" series, with NSNA considered an aside. The numbering most commonly used is that of the EON films and often attached - my video copy of GoldenEye has #17 on the sleeve, whilst recently EON often refer to their current production as "Bond 17" (or equiv) whilst in production. Furthermore NSNA severely breaches the EON continuity - this adventure and Thunderball cannot both have taken place, whilst Blofeld was killed off in an earlier Bond film. All in all I'd say that NSNA should not be listed in the main lists - though maybe the page could be a little clearer. Timrollpickering 14:27, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

I'll agree with you that it isn't easy or clear! I just take the view that if the franchise is to continue (and it appears that it should do for a while yet) then everything is up for change and one shouldn't define a 'bond film' as being from a particular source. The 'sex change' I was referring to, btw, wasn't M (clearly a different person) but to Felix Leitner ... a different person playing the same-named character in (iirc) *every* film but in one case being an actress not an actor (without wishing to otherwise disparage the unisexuality of the latter term in any way). I'm not sure there is a 'standard' continuity in some other elements of the franchise either. --VampWillow 14:43, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Erm when did Felix change sex? He does change race if you count NSNA, as well as changing height, age, weight and hair colour in the other films (but does at least have the same actor, David Hedison, in Live and Let Die and Licence to Kill). I agree the continuity in the EON films has some slips (for instance did Bond visit Japan before You Only Live Twice?), but the same studio and same team have produced the EON films as a clear series and any films produced outside it have to be acknowledged as separate. Timrollpickering 15:23, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] IMDb reference

I'm reluctant to delete information added to articles out of hand, but I don't think the recent addition stating that an IMDb "tournament" (I assume 'poll' was the word intended) voted it the best Bond film really belongs here. For one thing IMDb polls are highly suspect (though to say so in the article would violate NPOV), plus I'm a regular visitor to IMDb and have never seen any reference to a "Best Bond Film" tournament or poll. I moved the item to trivia and reworded it, but if someone else wants to cut it, I'd have no objection. 23skidoo 02:42, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

From the originator- It actually was an elimination-style tournament (as my last edit now reflects), not a poll. It was held on the Die Another Day boards, which were the most visited Bond boards at the time. As a side note, characters from GoldenEye have done very well in subsequent tournaments.

The problem with the statement is it doesn't add anything to the article. IMDB is a credible website on film and so on, but that doesn't mean its users are. Stating, even unofficially, that fans at IMDB selected it as their favorite doesn't mean anything. Websites have these sort of tournaments, polls, what have you all the time. Theres no notability in this. I'm sorry. I object to including it. K1Bond007 05:46, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I can see the logic there. I had just seen a large number of Bond fans call it the best, and wanted to mention this without resorting to weasel words. As long as no one else puts any POV statements or even "critics consider" pieces, I'll agree to leave it off.

[edit] Die Another Day reference

"This unusual candor, combined with a well-received performance by Brosnan as the new James Bond, assured the franchise's future, at least until Die Another Day's release in 2002"

This sounds like a snide POV reference. I'm tempted to delete the Die Another Day part, but I'll wait for someone else to weigh in.

I think it should be cleaned up a little, perhaps remove the reference to Die Another Day, but I don't think anyone will say that Brosnan's performance wasn't well-received and we all know that his films did revitalize the franchise. K1Bond007 23:49, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

I made some changes, take a look and see if it's any better.

K1Bond007 00:12, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

Much better. Thanks. Brosnan definitely revived the field- I just didn't want any bias.

[edit] Rogue Agent Quote

This was considered by many fans to be the weakest James Bond game to date.

I don't like this sentence. I think its more of an opinion.--Martin925 19:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Among gamers, it's a very widely accepted opinion.

[edit] Economic supremacy and terrorism

Someone keeps adding:

"Before detonating GoldenEye, his plan is to steal completely from the Bank of England in London, thus having the transaction erased after GoldenEye goes off, causing the British economy and government to be destroyed and a catastrophic currency crisis to occur in the New York Stock Exchange and the world economy. Alec Trevelyan, having obtained the only valuable currency of pounds sterling, could have economic supremacy over the British and the world in an era of terrorism for decades."

As far as I can remember, this is speculation on possible aftermath. I don't recall there being any mention of the NYSE and the world economy or economic supremacy, or an era of terrorism. Can the mystery author please explain where this comes up. Preferably with the actual quotes? Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure this is just a bank heist on a large scale. Bond even states that it comes down to "petty theft." K1Bond007 21:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I just watched the scene again where Alec spills all. The best they came to any of this was when Bond says "causing a worldwide financial meltdown [...] all so mad little Alec can get even with the world...." - I hardly feel that justifies what was previously stated by the anon. K1Bond007 21:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ratings

I have changed the wording and section heading of MPAA history (to Ratings history). One reason for this is a particular sentence;

This was not requested by the MPAA, but the BBFC, the British equivalent of our ratings system.

which suggests an exclusively US readership. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 23:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do not split the article

I oppose splitting the article into separate film and novel articles. I fail to see how this would benefit Wikipedia, plus the resulting article would be simply a stub unless you want to simply repeat the plot summary given here. 23skidoo 13:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, that wouldn't be long enough of an article nor important enough. Reignbow 23:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From main Bond page

This was included on the James Bond page - I don't know if there is anything worth salvaging:

"The movies' inlfuence on British culture cannot be underestimated. Hence the assimilation of so many phrases into the national lexicon. Amongst Generation Y, by example, the phrase "Shut the door Alec, there's a draft.......Alec?" is instantly recognisable as James Bond in the opening gambit of Goldeneye. Released in 1995, the film and of course the franchise are a cultural institution withing Britain. Latterly, the franchise has been part of the Cool Britannia movement."

-- Beardo 06:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "One of two actors to appear twice"

I support the deletion of the statement added that Baker is only one of two actors to appear twice in different roles. Besides the cited example of Charles Gray, there's also Martine Beswick, Angela Scholar and Caroline Munro (if you want to count the first Casino Royale), possibly the actor who played M in the late Moore-Dalton era (who may have been playing a different character in Spy Who Loved Me). And I think both of the gypsy girls in From Russia with Love played different roles, too. The list goes on. 23skidoo 16:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

I've just reverted the page, as someone had removed most of the 'e's. If I've removed any genuine edits, please re-apply.

[edit] The Women of GoldenEye

Is there a need for this section? It is simply a repeat of what is in the cast section, with screenshots (which push the Fair Use rationale, as you're only supposed to use a "limited number"). It gives undue weight to Caroline, a very minor character. Unless someone can say why it should be kept, I am going to remove it. Trebor 17:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Women of GoldenEye

KenL 02:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)The Bond girls are a very important element of the series, in fact every single Bond film on Wikipedia has a section devoted to them. It is obvious that Trebor here has a thing for GoldenEye, but that doesn't mean he has the sole right to decide what should be in on this page or not. I like the Bond films I feel this section should stay. If he keeps deleting it, I will continue to revert it.

But you added all these sections to the Bond movies, and others seem to feel the same way as me.[2]. Explain, using policy, why they should be kept considering they give undue weight to minor characters, repeat information in the cast list and push the boundaries of fair use by using multiple screenshots? I'm sorry, but "I like the Bond films I feel this section should stay" is not a valid argument. I don't have the sole right to decide what's in the article, true, but without reasoned argument neither do you. Trebor 08:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

KenL 08:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)The Bond girl section was up before you came along and decided to give mini bios on all the characters listed under the cast section. So if there is any redundancy, you were the one who created it. Those who have trouble with the Bond girl section are in the minority because the overwhelming majority who have no problems with it and thus have no reason to voice an opinion on it.

I removed them from the articles actually. You have no way of knowing what others think of simply by them not raising an objection. I've had a problem with the sections for a long time but the first time I've discussed it is here. Here are my reasons:

• They gave undue weight to some very minor characters (e.g. the girls who fought at the Gypsy camp in From Russia With Love)
• Why not sections on "the henchmen of James Bond", "the weapons of James Bond" etc. etc.
• In many cases they repeated what was written in plot summary
• Some contained very very trivial information - for example who Daniela Bianchi's room mate was at the 1960 Miss Universe pageant - see What Wikipedia is not
• With all due respect, they were written like an entry in a tabloid newspaper, not an encyclopedia. If you want me to list all my objections about the writing let me know, but here's a few problems I had with A View to a Kill: "A damsel in distress in every sense of the word" and "May Day's scrumptious all-female bodyguard regiment". And possibly the worst one was in TWINE: "the pair spend Christmas in Turkey where Bond found out that Christmas comes more than once a year." Explain please, how anybody could consider immature sexual innuendo to be encyclopedic??? Mark83 13:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

And also, your argument that nobody has voiced an opinion therefore it must be okay is clearly flawed. The tendency of editors is to add relevant information and not to delete. It is only really when the article is looked upon as a whole (as I am trying to do) that these sections get reviewed. Again, I ask that you support your position with relevant policy and not personal opinion. Trebor 21:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Passing

There's very little for me to say, my only initial gripe would be the Gadgets section, but after reading that I was pleased. Sorry about the shoddy review it's just everything is pretty down pat, before sending this to FAC remember to give it a copyedit and take care of the little things, like refs comming after punctuation.This article makes me want to watch GoldenEye again, good Work everyone

†he Bread 23:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The original Timothy Dalton plot.

Here we go.

http://www.mi6.co.uk/sections/articles/bond_17_elements.php3?t=&s=

Every time I read this, I feel Timothy Dalton should've done two. Would someone mind placing this into the page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MrClarkWithoutRemorse (talk • contribs) 07:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

This doesn't have much to do with GoldenEye. This is a project predating that. See Licence to Kill. K1Bond007 07:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Musical question

Hey, does anyone know the name of the song played by the marching band in one scene? 24.250.1.196 02:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where did the novelization section go????

The novelization was part of a series of articles, complete with a succession box and it was also part of the NovelsWikiProject. Why was it deleted when it should have been made a separate article at least??? That's what happens when you take an article off the watchlist; I should have caught this weeks ago. 23skidoo 18:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't made a separate article per the brief discussion further up on the page, because there was essentially no new information to put in it's own article. All it would be is a repeat of the plot summary. I put a paragraph in the "Other media" section, and honestly can't see any other information to add. The succession box was removed because it is rarely used anymore (7 mainspace articles) and never really fitted neatly into the page; the Bond book template at the bottom has more than enough information. If you want to create a separate article for the novel, be my guest, but I can't see how it'll ever be more than a stub. Trebor 19:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

howcome the novelization section is on answers.com? Sniper 99 02:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for doing this a 2nd time, but the novelization section is gone. Sniper 99 02:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Answers.com isn't updated immediately, so it won't normally show the latest version of the page. Trebor 11:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved.--Stemonitis 16:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Article Nomination

After some significant work on the plot section, I think this article is ready for FA status. Does anyone have any objections to it being nominated? ColdFusion650 17:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I've requested a peer review to get some comments on what is needed for it to be a Featured Article. ColdFusion650 21:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Goldeneye Source?

There is currently a free third party modification for the source engine based off of the original goldeneye game. I believe that it warrants being added to this article, dont you guys agree? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.49.43.98 (talk) 07:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Cameras

Oh my god!! In one scene you can honestly see a camera man and some sort of assistant reflected in a glass behind the actors! Like, not a small reflection, a fairly decent reflection!

(see Moneypenny in elevator with James Bond)

... not really wikipeida-info, but it was funny enough to make me laugh and want to point it out. Enjoy! JimmmyThePiep 04:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)