User:K1Bond007/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to the Archive!
If you'd like to leave me a new comment, a criticism, a question or whatever please click here.
ArchiveTalk archive: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Works in progress Works in progress: /Temp1 /Temp2 /todo

Contents

[edit] James Bond

[edit] Age

Interesting stuff! I last read Moonraker about 3 years ago (when I started my multi-year project to read the entire Bond canon from Casino Royale to Man with the Red Tattoo) so little details like that were forgotten. Then again I wasn't reading the books at the time with a mind to writing about them! Good job! As far as the difference in ages, it's possible that Fleming wanted to keep Bond at a set age. Peter O'Donnell had the same attitude regarding Modesty Blaise. He wrote comic strips and novels about her for close to 40 years yet she never got much older than 26 except in the very last story. 23skidoo 06:42, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd

I have no objection to merging the two articles. As you so aptly put it, you really can't mention one without the other!  :) Dale Arnett 06:31, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Casino Royale

Well that's cool, indeed. I noticed when the other user redirected everything he/she deleted a number of sections from Bond 21 including the still-topical speculation over Bond, as well as discussion of what the plot might be like. I went ahead and put them back, tweaked slightly where required. 23skidoo 22:31, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Followup. I agree that just doing that sort of redirect was a bit much. I've done a few of those myself, but usually just with articles that were duplicates and had a minimum of information. I also think that the new article should be merged with the book article, since we've done that with the other films. Maybe for the time being the two can stay separate until details about the movie firm up. Re: Enterprise. It's a bummer. Too bad you stopped watching when you did. It became an excellent show in its third season and one of the best Treks ever in its fourth. Problem was, a lot of people were tired of Trek by 2001 and ENT had a very small window to grab people, but it took awhile to get going just like the other shows.23skidoo 22:54, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Q's first appearance

Are you sure Q doesn't appear in the books until Dr. No? I'm pretty certain it's Boothroyd who goes through the trick briefcase in FRWL and Boothroyd is Q. I'll have to check my copy again. 23skidoo 20:11, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Followup. I pulled out my copy of FRWL. It mentions Q-branch had given him the case, and that "Q's craftsmen" had done this and that to it. So while Q doesn't appear per se, he is still referenced. However I need to check some of the earlier books because I'm pretty certain that Q/Boothroyd is mentioned in one of the earlier books, possibly Moonraker. 23skidoo 02:19, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Book covers, etc.

Just FYI I got my hands on some good scans of the remaining 2002-2003 Penguin reissues that someone else had started to add to the book pages earlier but stopped. All the Fleming book articles now have the new covers featured, including Octopussy/Living Daylights which I reorganized. I also found a possible reason for why Moonraker was renamed. 23skidoo 23:40, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Man from Barbarossa

It's interesting that Gardner likes this book so much. To be honest with you, I'm reading it now and I don't care for it at all and I'm having great difficulty finishing it. In my opinion Nobody Lives For Ever, Brokenclaw, and For Special Services are far superior books! 23skidoo 21:01, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Gardner's site is very interesting. I wasn't aware that one reason he quit writing the books was due to cancer. I'm assuming you were referring to the unused titles for No Deals. You're right, I'll add those right away. BTW on another note, I'm in the middle of a revert war over at Star Trek: Enterprise. Some anonymous user is insisting on deleting any links related to pro-Enterprise websites! Argh. 23skidoo 00:46, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Goldfinger

I'm back up and running. Man, did the memory cheat with regards to my plot summary for Goldfinger (which was from memory). I seem to recall Pussy having a larger role to play, but I read the comic strip the other night and it was Tilly Masterson who played the major role in that. I'll have to read the book again. I'm within 75 pages of the end of Barbarossa and I'll be glad to have that one behind me. On the whole I've been pleasantly surprised by Gardner's books, but this one left me cold. 23skidoo 04:52, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Glidrose

I just noticed that my copy of Man from Barbarossa says "Glidrose Publications". I wonder when it changed from "Productions"? 23skidoo 06:28, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bond pictures and Enterprise

I just noticed the addition of photos to the main Bond article. Nicely done - they look great! In Enterprise-related news, the article I've been shepherding Star Trek: Enterprise alleged continuity problems just took an interesting turn as I think one of the producers of the show is doing some additions and replies to the criticisms (certainly the fellow's username looks very familiar). No, it is not Rick Berman! 23skidoo 17:36, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Followup. That's weird about the Lazenby pic. There are some better ones out there, but that one's OK for now. Maybe if you can get ahold of the DVD for OHMSS you could crop out the image of Lazenby and use it under the DVDcover tag? The one thing I did notice (but don't know how to fix) is the Nelson and Niven pictures which are smaller than the 1983 Connery. I don't know how you would resize those to be the same. In other news, I dropped M_Sussman a PM to see if he's the same guy. He's actually made some very good comments and even corrected some of the statements I and others had made. IIRC he was the guy who wrote the controversial Borg episode for ENT and I like the way he discusses it here. It looks like he started as an anon. and then got himself a username, so hopefully he'll make revisions to other Enteprise-related articles. 23skidoo 18:51, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MGM lawsuit?

The resized pictures look good. What's this lawsuit over the Special Editions you mentioned? I have several and I quite like them, personally. The extras are worth the purchase price alone, but I haven't noticed any picture problems. Then again, as I say, I don't have them all (I have No, YOLT, LALD, MWGG, Moonraker, FYEO and DAD) so maybe the fault lies in one of the other DVDs. BTW the Casino Royale DVD is worth getting because it includes the 1954 TV episode and some interesting discussion about why the movie had a zillion directors. 23skidoo 19:12, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Casino Royale, or, My Brain Hurts

I just wrote a plot summary for the 1967 film. Now time for a lie down. ;-) 23skidoo 19:48, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Every Bond fan has to see Casino Royale at least once. And once is probably enough! I actually find the movie has a bit of goofy charm to it, but then I've always been a David Niven fan. Incidentally I'm watching the 1954 version right now (slow moving, but fascinating from an historical POV), and it features a very funny exchange of dialogue that I'll be adding to the page momentarily. 23skidoo 05:29, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Goldfinger edit

I think it's interesting to note that Honor Blackman was older than Connery. The only other occasion in which a Bond girl was older than her leading man was Diana Rigg being a year older than Lazenby. I think it's a harmless piece of trivia, personally, but your call. 23skidoo 05:33, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I was actually planning to do such a rewrite as you suggested, but decided to leave it be. If you check OHMSS you'll see I do something of this sort (explaining the significance of the trivia) regarding Rigg and Lazenby. I wasn't aware Zena Marshall was also older, though I was thinking of the main Bond girls, I guess. Isn't Lois Maxwell older than Connery, too? In other news, I see we've been nominated for Feature article. Some of the comments being made against the article are kind of interesting, in that they seem to suggest a) we shouldn't list the books and movies and b) we should incorporate the book articles into the main. Hey - if they're OK with us having a 200K article, I'm game! ;-) Oh well. I did, however, add an introductory paragraph to the Books section to both give the section a little context (not that it needed much) and also to stress that the individual books all have their own articles. You might want to give it a quick peek and a tweak. 23skidoo 05:54, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Theme issue

Although it's not a theme per se, "Three Blind Mice" does get played over the opening credits, so that makes it an opening credits music, if nothing else. Similarly, you can't really call "All Time High" a theme either, because it was just a song put on the opening credits that had no reference to the title. And the "James Bond Theme" on Dr. No isn't the theme to Dr. No, either. So in some respects, given the literal definition of theme (a piece of music that recurs throughout the film), Dr. No has no theme. (This assumes the Bond theme is a series theme, not a film theme). Even so, I think it's correct to mention Kingston Calypso as a "theme" in this context anyway, because IIRC the melody is actually reprised at the end of the film (just before the Bond theme kicks in), and the lyrics (written by Monte Norman) directly relate to the storyline. 23skidoo 17:22, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh well, I guess we can't agree on everything! :) For me, the theme is whatever is heard on screen during the opening credits, especially with a movie that has a full credit sequence. (Obviously, that definition no longer works for most movies made recently that don't have opening credits; Bond films are pretty much among the last of a dying breed in that regard.) If the James Bond Theme was used throughout the opening credits of Dr. No, there'd be no question. But John Barry and/or Monty Norman decided to do a medley of three pieces of music as the opening theme of the movie, so that creates the issue. However, I will agree with you that OHMSS is definitely NOT the only Bond film with an instrumental. I had forgotten From Russia with Love, because Matt Monro's version is not heard during the opening credits; John Barry's instrumental is, so I have never considered Monro's version to be the true theme song of the movie, just an alternate version. 23skidoo 04:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)]

I went in and did some tweaking to the Music article. Looks good so far. I added a few notes such as Norman performing Good Sign Bad Sign on the Dr. No documentary (the two songs are indeed identical in melody and even the lyrics work for Bond); one thing I missed earlier is the title of the second theme is simply "007", not "The 007 Theme". All the records I have use the shorter title, including the FRWL soundtrack. 23skidoo 05:32, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Followup. I took the liberty of adding a secondary songs tables to the music article. I also added Casino Royale and Never Say Never to both tables. Look of Love from Casino Royale is arguably the only successful aspect of that film, as it was nominated for an Oscar and has become a standard. It might be worth adding at some point a section on cultural influences of Bond music. For example, Look of Love in the Austin Powers film, If You Asked Me To becoming (rather dubiously) an early 90s standard after being covered by Celine Dion, and Live and Let Die gaining a second wind years later when Guns and Roses covered it... BTW yes I also continue to receive message notifications after I've read them. I have no idea why. 23skidoo 04:28, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal on the loose

In other news, looks like there's an anonymous user running around adding some statement in ALL CAPS claiming that Sony merged with MGM as a result of the lawsuit over Thunderball. I don't think a 45-year-old lawsuit has anything to do with it. Anyway, the guy hit the Thunderball and Casino Royale articles. I caught the TB one and someone else fixed Royale. But just a heads up. These days I've made it a habit to closely scrutinize any anonymous edit on my watchlist. 23skidoo 04:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thunderball

The novels have only ever had Ian Fleming credited on the cover. The other credits only appear on the title page inside. (Similarly, I've never seen an edition of Spy Who Loved Me with the faux credit for Viviene Michel on the cover, either). The only possible exception is the movie tie-in edition for Thunderball that Signet put out. I believe the cover was based upon the movie poster, so if it includes the credit lines then you might see the other names mentioned. 23skidoo 08:11, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting idea

Take a look at the article on Philip Glass. Scroll down and you'll see that there's coding available that creates a column format so lists can be displayed side-by-side. Maybe there's a possible application for this in the Bond article or some of the others? 23skidoo 15:37, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Followup: I think you can safely delete the two other "James Bonds". They don't really serve a purpose. The Agatha Christie one could be moved to Inspirations ... but do we know that the character was an inspiration for Bond, or was it simply a coincidence? I think we can lose it as well. The only acknowledged Bond inspiration was the birdwatcher, and he's covered elsewhere. (BTW it might be worth checking to see if the Agatha Christie article includes the Bond reference, though). 23skidoo 20:29, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bond girl

I'll let you decide whether this is worth including in the Casino Royale movie article. I came across this gossip website which has an item dated November 2004. Not only does it say that Mariah Carey has been signed to appear in the next Bond film, but it correctly guessed that the next film would be Casino Royale! Weird. The site says Mariah would play Vesper Lynd. All BS, of course, but still weird they'd get the film title right months before the fact, huh... 23skidoo 05:15, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I was suffering withdrawal when Wikipedia went down, too! I'm 100% certain the rumor was a fake and I just remembered we already have Mariah listed in the rumors section anyway. I agree she'd be terrible, though probably not as bad as Halle Berry's hatchet job on Die Another Day (that's IMO of course but I couldn't stand her as Jinx). The most intriguing name on that list is Alizee who is like a 17 year old French Britney Spears (except with a better singing voice). Although listed as debunked I think Keira Knightley is still a good possibility, as is Kate Beckinsale, although she's tied up with the Underworld franchise right now. After decades of films with international actresses, I'd like to see a British actress get the nod as the main Bond girl for once. Miranda Frost in DAD wasn't a main Bond girl, so you have to pretty well go back all the way to Diana Rigg in OHMSS for the last time a British actress played the lead. Mary Goodnight was British but played by a Dutch actress, and considering Rigg actually played an Italian you need to go back even further to Pussy Galore who may or may not have been British before you find a British actress playing a British character. 23skidoo 05:39, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Jennifer Garner would be a terrific Bond girl, but you're right - it's just too obvious. Mia Maestro (her sister on Alias) would be pretty good, though. Evangeline Lilly (who hails from Alberta where I am) is hot right now so I agree she might be a good choice. Funnily enough I kinda liked the idea of Kylie Minogue as a Bond girl as she has that look and isn't a bad actress from what little I've seen (not that you need to be an Oscar winner to play a Bond girl). Problem is odds are the next Bond might be YOUNGER than Kylie! I agree that having an "average girl" would be a nice change, although going a bit against the grain. 23skidoo 18:35, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] It's a prequel?

I was afraid of that. I wish people would learn that prequels don't work, certainly not in this sort of arena. People are already nitpicking Casino Royale at the TrekBBS and the script hasn't even been released yet. Enterprise was a prequel and it was rejected, Star Wars Eps I and II were pretty much rejected by a lot of people. And the Jack Ryan prequel sank without a trace. The irony is Orlando Bloom is starting to look more likely all the time. Maybe Bond 22 will be an adaptation of SilverFin? And here I thought it was funny that teen singer Alizee was tipped as a possible Bond girl. Maybe they'll just call it Spy Kids IV and be done with it. Sorry for the rant, but the last thing the series needs is a prequel. I'm fearful that this could be the end of Bond because some money-counter decided to appeal to teenagers. Argh. 23skidoo 04:38, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Followup It wouldn't be the first time someone misquoted somebody. And this is the New York Daily News, which isn't exactly the Times. I don't think the torture will make it into the film, since Die Another Day already covered that aspect. (Though I'd hope a prequel would explain where Bond learned how to stop his heart like that). I agree Bond films are hardly bastions of continuity (although the different Blofelds actually does fit in with how Fleming wrote the character). Having Dench would be problematic unless they are indeed going for a complete reboot, meaning this new Bond will have never dealt with Messervy or Boothroyd. The Spy Kids IV crack was tongue in cheek, but I am concerned with this overall skewing to younger audiences that I'm seeing. I wouldn't mind seeing Bond taken back to his roots to an extent - although livened up a bit; you've read Fleming, which are well written novels but cinematically a bit boring at first. A strong Bourne Identity like film would be great - although still with the Bond sensibilities otherwise it just becomes a clone of a clone. I really liked For Your Eyes Only which had a minimum of gadgets. But that's different than literally going back to the roots and starting over with a giant reset button. Having said all this, if the Higson series hadn't been launched I might have agreed that the idea of a young Bond was probably just a misquote on the part of the Daily News. But with Young James Bond being the direction Ian Fleming Pubs. wants to take for the foreseeable future, I'm not so certain. Maybe Higson will end up writing the novelization of C.R. after all... 23skidoo 06:08, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anon edits

I just re-read that Casino Royale book report and man it was brutal. It seems we have another anon user dropping first person comment too (note the change made to the main Bond article). Maybe the guy thinks this is a blog or something? 23skidoo 23:06, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganizing the main article

I like where you're going with this. I don't mind replacing the Goldfinger image with FRWL. I recently got my hands on a 1st edition Pan paperback from the late 50s which has a cool, classic cover and one that IMO would work better than the "nude" cover or the 2002 version from the book's article. I will scan it and upload it and replace the Goldfinger book image on the main Bond article. Incidentally, I have come to the conclusion that "franchise" articles have the deck stacked against them for Featured Article status because people want so much information included, yet at the same time it needs to stay close to the 32Kb limit. If you go back to my talk page, scroll down to the end and you'll see a fellow who wants to have the main Star Trek article removed from Feature Article status, and if you read his reasons why, it's clear the article would need to be 100Kb to include everything he wants. I'm thinking of putting forth a proposal that entire sets of articles be eligible for some form of Featured status - I'm quite proud of the Bond book articles you and I have worked on, particularly those for Fleming's books. Any idea how I'd make such a suggestion to the Powers That Be? 23skidoo 04:12, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Followup. I changed the image on the main article to FRWL. I'm torn as to whether to replace the "nude" cover in the book article with this version. I like them both, but the format of the article doesn't leave room for another image. (Maybe I need to write a longer synopsis?). Can you do me a favor? Can you make the call? Whichever one you pick for the book article I'm fine with, though in order to keep consistency with the other articles we should keep the 2002 version as the lead image. 23skidoo 04:24, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: America's Army

Ugh. I see that "While the game primarily fits the definition of a playable and subliminal piece of video game propaganda and recruiting tool, a lot of players do not believe it is." has snuck in there. Hmm. I guess I'll try to take a crack at the article again, but I probably won't have a chance until after midterms end - this weekend. Alternately, you could start an RfC on the offending user - I'd certify it in an instant, and probably others who have dealt with him will as well. Andre (talk) 02:07, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

K1Bond007, thanks for your help in dealing with <whatever his name is>. He sure is a whack-o. He acts as if adding in the reference that AA is a serious game is some sort of sinister brainwashing plot. What should we do about the single sentence reference? Should we just add it and hopes he misses it or wait until he is banned? — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:56, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
Yawn. Some people need to act their age here. Do you actually think you could make me afraid of getting banned? Lol. Not everyone can be controlled by fear that easily. Oh help me! I'm getting banned for requesting the truth! Oh what a reason for banning! User:62.52.37.185 12:42, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for mediation, but mediation is usually a 1:1 user matter. I recommend you start an RfC on Nightbeast himself to address his behavior. Andre (talk) 19:05, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
No, the talk page of America's Army is listed on RfC - I mean starting an RfC on a user, scroll down and you'll see the instructions, etc. Oh yeah, and I archive my talk page by copy and pasting large segments of it to new subpages. Andre (talk) 19:19, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
You and Frecklefoot should both certify the RfC. Andre (talk) 01:16, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

K1Bond007, sorry that whole America's Army/serious game thing went sour. I don't understand those user's objections to the info. They really muddied the waters, didn't they? Wikipedia will suffer for it. Mentioning the world's most successful serious game is some sort of sinister plot? What's that all about? Anyway, thanks for your help in trying to resolve the matter. I'm sorry we weren't successful, but we sure tried! Thanks again, — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:42, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GCOTW

I'm giving you this message because you have been active on Gaming Collaboration of the week in the past. The collaboration had a bit of a hiatus, but it's now active again. A new article will be chosen this Sunday. It would be greatly appreciated if you visited the page to vote and/or make new nominations and worked on next week's GCOTW. Thanks. --Slowking Man 08:19, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts

Re: the Enterprise reverts. Yeah, I'm keeping the 3-revert rule in mind and will probably end up having to post something at the Village Pump or Peer Review about it. I'm giving myself a bit of a "time out" on Wikipedia for the next day anyway (I've spent far too much time on the computer these past couple of weeks) so I doubt I'm in any danger of breaking the rule. (BTW feel free to do a revert yourself if the guy comes back, though! ;) ) There's a similar situation happening at, of all places, Mary Poppins where I added a bunch of interesting stuff about deleted songs, etc. Another anonymous user is insisting on creating links for every character in the movie, even the minor ones, though he isn't bothering to actually create articles. And even if he does, I can imagine an article about Ellen the maid or Uncle Albert would probably last about 5 minutes before someone VFD'd it. But the ENT situation bugs me because someone is consciously trying to eliminate pro-ENT websites. I know not everyone likes the show (present company included) but I can't see the logic in those edits. I'm not even bothing to check my watchlist right now because if it's been changed again I'd be frustrated because of the 3-revert rule. BTW good work on the episode articles. I've only done minimial work on those myself (so I can't be blamed for the intros! ;-) ) but there is some pretty rough stuff. The article for the latest episode, United, was nothing more than a cut-and-paste of the official promo last I looked. 23skidoo 06:19, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alexa

Thanks for the clarification, but I don't get the ranking system. A friend of mine who has an obscure blog is ranked at No. 116 while a site I do that gets hits worldwide is down at 250,000 somewhere. Weird 23skidoo 05:35, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving

I've been meaning to ask about that. How do I go about archiving? Do I just create new pages as I would an article? Also, am I allowed to delete older messages or is that against the rules (I got a mixed message on that)? Feel free to e-mail me on this if you don't want to make my discussion page any longer. Thanks! 23skidoo 05:45, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] hey

hey what's up? Good to see a fellow Bond fan on here.

I was trying to edit the Connery NSNA pic in and I accidentally removed the lazenby pic first because I clicked on the wrong edit, then I got mixed up.

For some reason my keyboard blinker went to that second pic there and when I went to cut it it was that pic.

I didn't realize it till I tried to put the pic in.

So I had to go back and try to edit the pic back in, I didn't realize that I resized it, i thought I just went to the cource listed james bond.com and used that pic, or was it because that pic had since been resized? User:Durbanreginald 12:41, Feb 10, 2005

[edit] Nevermind I figured it out now

I didn't realize the actual pics are uploaded then resized. I used the small pic from jamesbond.com because I thought that was the one used, but it was actually the full size one then resized, nevermind I didn't get what you meant.

Next time if I go to add a pic in I will make sure my keyboard cursor is on the right thing and I'm on the right edit.

The edits are a little trick because sometimes it gets confusing which edit goes for which text and stuff. Anyway there's a lot of good stuff on here on Bond. Must be some great people that contribute here. User:Durbanreginald 12:48, Feb 10, 2005

[edit] Nomination of James Bond

Hey, Just thought I'd let you know I have nominated James Bond to become a featured article. You're one of the most active contributors to that page so I wanted to give notice.Phils 11:46, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Officially, there's no reason you couldn't support the article, but your vote probably will not have much weight - FAC vote is not
an entirely democratic process and in the end, the responsible admins have the final say. I refrain from voting if I were you, but you can certainly reply to possible objections on FAC. Phils 20:58, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As I asked Phils, I wonder if it's not possible to nominate an entire set of articles for some sort of recognition. While the James Bond article does a good job setting the stage and explaining the character, most of our heart and soul has gone into the book/movie articles as well as spinoffs such as the Bond Girls, Villains, etc. pieces you've worked on, and some of the related stuff like, say Robert Markham or Per Fine Ounce. One of these days I plan to write an article on The Killing Zone. It would be great for all these articles, taken as a big picture, to get recognization rather than just one chapter. But I agree - I'm certainly grateful for whatever recognition the main article gets. 23skidoo 06:21, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Oh well, it looks like the powers that be didn't like the article enough to feature it. Looking at other featured articles, it really doesn't strike me as the type of thing they feature anyway. Pop culture always has an uphill battle. 23skidoo 21:42, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] James Bond: Official films table

I hesitate to challenge your edits of James Bond given your obvious knowledge and interest in the subject but I do have a complaint.

You chose to remove; supporting cast, writer(s), screenwriter(s) and director from the table I constructed - describing them as "superfluous". I would suggest that at least one of the removed categories (director perhaps) is as important as the film's takings (which you added), after all I believe I could name all the Bond directors but would struggle to list the films by box office gross! Perhaps you would consider agreeing to reintroducing the table as it first was (containing the information previously not in table format):

  • No.
  • Title
  • Actor
  • Supporting cast
  • Director
  • Box office gross?

but excluding my later additions, writers and screenwriters. Mark 18:55, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moving the books list out

I can understand the idea of moving the book lists out, but if it goes, in some respects the movie lists also have to go, too, otherwise the article becomes dominated by the movies. Perhaps that's what is needed: an overall article on James Bond the character (which we basically have already), then a separate article on the books (which could incorporate some of the detail about the lawsuit, Robert Markham, did Amis write MWGG, etc. that can also be found in the separate articles), and another on the movies with detail about the unofficial films? The main article could still have a paragraph or two on each broad topic in the main article, similar to the paragraphs on each of the Trek series in the main Star Trek article. That way all the detailed info Mark and others wants to see can be included (albeit elsewhere), while the main article would lose the lists that IMO are vital but that the critics seem to be allergic to. Thoughts? 23skidoo 21:48, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More on Official films table

Sorry, I didn't refer to the talk page. I can't argue with the need to reduce clutter, I hope you realise that the table was an attempt to rationalise the information previously there: e.g.

became:

No. Title Year Actor Supporting cast Director
17 GoldenEye 1995 Pierce Brosnan Izabella Scorupco, Alan Cumming, Sean Bean, Robbie Coltrane, Joe Don Baker and Famke Janssen Martin Campbell
20 Die Another Day 2002 Pierce Brosnan Halle Berry, Toby Stephens, and Rick Yune Lee Tamahori

However like you mentioned such information is adequately covered on individual pages.

In editing this page I've encountered an edit conflict from someone suggesting the same as myself:
BTW, it's never something I would take on myself, but have you ever considered making the James Bond page just a short bio with prominent links to James Bond in literature/James Bond in books and James Bond in film. This would solve the size issues. (Probably not the best time to suggest it, given its nominated status!!)

Anyway, good luck with "trimming the fat!" p.s. Any private thoughts re. the choice of Casino Royale and Martin Campbell? Mark 22:02, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how accurate any of that is but the reason I changed it was because I told one of my freinds abot the Bond stuff here how great it was, and he told me everything was great but the wrong gross was listed for DAD, he said he had just written an article on DAD for a college paper (about the product placemet sellling) and we contacted MGm about some info they said the film grossed $456 million. This was just he said like 2 days ago. I checked through boxofficemojo.com extensively and found that they list sometimes dozens of countries that the films are released in as N/A, and they don't count that gross at all, even though the film's are released there, it is imply n/a and not counted. But if you don't want it changed whatever change it back and I won't mess with it, I was merely trying to help, i would have not changed it had not my freind told me that and not matches came back from the net when I entered it in.

[edit] Well I changed It Back

How about this? If the-numbers.com or some source condisered official for box office grosses changes it then we wll change it? I noticed someone posted it on a couple of Bond message boards to that MGM "changed their shareholder information on DAD's gross to $456 million." Maybe some sources would not have updated it yet. So if some major box office source changes it we can change it, for now let's just leave it at $435. Although I admit looking at boxofficemojo's number of $432 then it lists SEVERAL entire countries grosses as N/A, so probably it in all likelyhood is $456. But I guess time will tell. It's like the older Bond films are being updated all the time to, like Moonraker, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, Live and Let Die, The World Is Not Enough, etc. Durbanreginald 16:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)Durbanreginald

[edit] AA page

Hello Iv been having problems on the AA page. I noiced you worked on it as well and need help with a user who keeps reverting it. Ele9699 02:18, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why deleting the link?

Why are you deleting a perfectly valid addition to the Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell article? // Liftarn

Well, you are wrong. But please see Talk:Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell. // Liftarn

[edit] Great fox pic

I created a topic on the Great Fox the same time you put that pic up. Whoops! Thunderbrand 04:25, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brothers In Arms

Done. Andre (talk) 21:36, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What Do You Think of This?

It was posted on imdb.com http://www.freewebs.com/doubleo7/cliveowen.htm Durbanreginald 19:45, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)Durbanreginald

[edit] Oh Ok

Oh ok, I thought maybe you knew something about it if he had been signed or something, because I noticed a few other websites had said so, and then on that site it actually suddenly added him. Durbanreginald 19:17, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)Durbaneginald