Talk:Skyfall/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

The house in Glencoe? (Skyfall house)

Real? Not real? Couldn't see any info on this. --Τασουλα (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

No, made of plaster and plywood in Surrey, the other end of the country from where it was supposed to be. Info now added with a reliable source (which doesn't use the name "Lodge"). - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Haha, thanks for updating. I had a distinct feeling I saw no houses like that on my one time trip to the area...--Τασουλα (talk) 11:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually there is a not-dissimilar house there, not in the main glen itself but just off a bit, called Dalness Lodge. I believe the crew used it as a base while filming. Not sure if they used it for any exterior shots. 194.73.118.78 (talk) 12:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The production used one in Scotland as a creative starting point and constructed a replica in Surrey (which they blew up in the middle of the night). Dalness Lodge, the Scottish one, was owned by Ian Flemings family at some point, that's why it was used. drewmunn (talk) 12:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

That's a nice titbit to drop in - do you have a reliable source for it? We can drop it in if you do. Scratch that - found one that isn't the Daily Mail - I'll add it to the section I'm pulling together about the homages. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I was looking for a source as well! drewmunn (talk) 12:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Box office

Is it really sensible to include box office figures for a film that hasn't even been released in some countries yet? I personally think it's misleading: at the moment, it looks like a massive flop, a fifty-million dollar loss (whereas I assume it will take at least half a billion). The fact that a film has certain box office figures an arbitrary length of time after it opens is not really important, and moreover cannot be compared to other films on equal footing (unless anyone knows how much money, say, Titanic had taken a similar period after release). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.13.2 (talk) 16:34, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Even if it was released world wide on the 26th, it wouldn't get its budget back over the weekend or first week. I can see how you'd think it looks like a massive flop, but it really isn't. I think I read on BBC News earlier today it had the highest opening for a Bond film, and thats great even though it has just been released in a few places already. I believe it will probably take between half a billion and a billion dollars world wide, but only time will tell. It might not even be hugely successful in America and Canada and the rest of the current places it hasn't been released yet, but I doubt it. Charlr6 (talk) 18:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I can't see how he'd think it's a massive flop, its been out 5 days and earned 100 million dollars. This seems to tie into the release date thing where we shouldn't be doing anything unless it centers around particular countries, normally North America. We are not a news source and having an up to the minute Box office figure is not vital, but hiding box office information because unless a certain country is included it doesn't look good? What is that? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

He meant as in currently it looks like a flop, if you didn't think about that its only been released for less than a week. I don't think we should hide box office information, because it wouldn't really make sense to release some information on here at the movies latest release date so that its 'fair' for worldwide. Charlr6 (talk) 19:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

We do already mention the fact that the film was second highest UK weekend debut ever etc, but it goes back to the same point as Rotten Tomatoes scores: when is a sensible time to add them in? I'm ambivalent on them really, but there is no right or wrong on getting a degree of stability on the one hand and not picking an arbitrary timeframe on the other (or only after certain markets have been covered. - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The current Rotten Tomatoes score is 73 reviews, which I think is a good amount of reviews to put the RT score on a film page. Although that is up to anyones decision. Charlr6 (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I thought they should of been added from the beginning, but now they have a substantial amount, deffo get them added. MisterShiney (Come say hi) 19:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

If the number of Rotten Tom reviews follow QoS, then it'll end up with around 250, so it'll still swing about a bit, especially with the poor bloody Aussies not being able to see it until 22 Nov! But it's certainly right to have it in there now, as well as the box office figure. - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

22 Nov? Gutted.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

See this is why I dont want to move to Australia! lol MisterShiney ✉ 21:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Newman Picture

What's the purpose of providing a picture that is exactly the same as the one on his profile in the music section? MisterShiney (Come say hi) 00:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

To prevent the reader from clicking away onto a separate article to find out who Thomas Newman is. Its called illustration which is a desired, if not essential, part of the GAC criteria. Also the picture is relevant to the text and that's because the text explains that it was he who wrote the music. What is this, create a new section for the sake of creating a new section? -- Cassianto^Talk 00:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

. It was a justified question and the tone of your comment needs work to be more positive rather than indirectly attacking an editor for a justified question. There is no point in an image that doesn't add anything to the article. If people want to know what the guy looks like then they should just click on his link. Otherwise why don't we have Images for every cast member/directero/writer/producer? Illustration is used when there is something notable about the scene/music/score and the GAC you linked to mentions nothing about images. Images shouldn't be included for the same of being included. MisterShiney (Come say hi) 01:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

What tone? It was a serious reply. I was trying to be as specific as possible. It just seems when anybody adds anything to Skyfall they have to justify it here on the talk page.

• 1 "If people want to know what the guy looks like then they should just click on his link" As the editors of this article, we don't want people to click off to another article to find information that can be given here.
• 2. "and the GAC you linked to mentions nothing about images." (Look at the footnotes, article 10 I believe).
• 3. "Images shouldn't be included for the same of being included."[sic] It's not. Images are included for relevance which it is; Newman wrote the score to Skyfall. That to me is relevant. -- Cassianto^Talk 01:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

May of been, but it comes across like you are trying to devalue another editors contribution. I was just trying to find out why it was on there rather than deleting if. So why isn't an image of Adele included? I just don't think that in the grand scheme of the article, people need to know or care what the composer looks like because it is not relevant. If its going to be included though can it at least be resized because It looks untidy at the moment. MisterShiney (Come say hi) 01:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead, add Adele. although she only sung the theme tune; Newman scored the whole film, so I don't think this would be correct. BTW, In what way does the Newman image look untidy. If anything, it would look untidy bleeding into the next subsection. I would think it is worth noting as much as possible about Newman. Especially as he is the first American composer for the series, not to mention the new replacement for the excellent David Arnold. -- Cassianto^Talk 01:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

So We can reach a consensus, do any other editors have any views/opinions on this? MisterShiney (Come say hi) 10:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Ultimately, as with every edit you have to ask the question "does this improve the article?" I think it does and I'm not sure why it shouldn't be there. It's a free image, would pass muster at GAC or FAC and does not detract from anything, so I'd say to keep it. SchroCat (^ • @) 16:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind if we keep it in. Shows who the composer is. Sometimes when an article talks about someone and there isn't a picture I actually myself go "what does he/she look like" and then click on their profile or search on Google. But it helps I guess. Also makes the article look a bit more pretty, not that that matters hugely though. Haha Charlr6 (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep it, but he does kind of look like a middle aged Harry potter with that haircut!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

In reply to Cassianto above: Newman is not the first American composer for the series. Hamlisch, Conti and Kamen are all American. I mention this in case someone adds it to relevant articles. - Fanthrillers (talk) 18:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, of course. How forgetful of me. Thanks for the correction :-) -- Cassianto^Talk 19:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. For the record, I didn't really mind either with. I dont think it adds much to the article, I just wanted to double check that people would find it useful/would be happy with it staying. MisterShiney (Come say hi) 13:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Tiago Rodriguez?

I thought I'd heard Dench say "Tiago" in the film, but the BFI lists "Gerardo Rodriguez" as Silva's other, rather pointless name (see here). A quick i'net search shows nothing definitive, but has anyone come across anything official? - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I haven't found anything but thats exactly what I heard in the film. Tiago Rodriguez. Probably have to re-watch the film and pay attention to that scene a bit more to see, but still wouldn't be a full confirmation. Charlr6 (talk) 19:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I thought that whoever said it, said Tiago Rodriguez. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Bugger - going to have to wait until the official info is released then! - SchroCat (^ • @) 06:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe one of us should just go and see a subtitled version of the film. Then when it comes up we can quickly scribble it down. Haha. Charlr6 (talk) 16:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I heard Tiago very clearly. Didn't even know Gerardo was a name. Nsign (talk) 11:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

This has been corrected in the article, with source. Thanks. drewmunn (talk) 14:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 November 2012

Haffleyg (talk) 13:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• Almost two hours have passed, and no requested edit has been given. Closing. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 15:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

"Kincade"

Kincaid is the more typical spelling (particularly for a Scots name). Is there a reliable source for the spelling? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a few, notably the BFI. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 00:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the usual spelling is Kincaid (I grew up in Kincaidston, for example). That BFI link is a review, I wouldn't consider it an official source. Anyone get a good look at the credits? Nsign (talk) 11:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Try a goole search for the name - there are a few references, not least the one we use in the cast list, which show Kincade. And yes, the BFI is classed as a reliable source. - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

A media search through LexisNexis shows no hits for skyfall, finney and Kincaid, while 28 for the Kincade variant. - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough then 81.96.134.214 (talk) 17:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Judi Dench

The lead section currently contains the phrase "Skyfall was the last film of the series for Judi Dench who played M...". (Until a couple of days ago it was "After starring as M for seven consecutive Bond films, Skyfall marks Judi Dench's last performance in the role.") Later, in the Cast section we have "Skyfall is Dench's seventh and final appearance in the role."

At the moment it certainly appears that way. But although I doubt the filmmakers will do this, there's still the potential for future Bond movies to be set in the gap between QOS and Skyfall, or for her M to appear in flashbacks. Because of that, and in the absence of any interviews with her commenting on whether she'll do any more, is it a bit speculative to assert that it's definitely her last? --Nick R^Talk 23:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that was me. I did it for copy editing purposes and not informational. Since looking, I have noticed that there are no reliable sources to back this up in the article. It appears this is gossip only started by a crew member in an interview for some third rate website. I elect to remove this all together until a reliable source can be found that suggests otherwise. -- Cassianto^Talk 12:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

You have a good point. Even though she dies in the film, and it is unlikely they would do a prequel movie to Skyfall set between Quantum and Skyfall. Maybe a flashback or something. But until there is an official confirmation she won't return for the next film then it could be classed as OR. But if she isn't announced to be in the next film, then I'd presume that she won't come back. If we still didn't change it by then, then it would be like saying John Cleese will return as Q's father, playing an ex-MI6 Q-branch employee, but we have to wait until there is a confirmation saying he won't ever come back ever. Charlr6 (talk) 13:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

It would be nice for someone to find a reliable source for this. I for one am of the mind it is/should be her last one, as for them putting in prequel/sequel between film sucks! MisterShiney (Come say hi) 13:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I think also going by the fact that (as far as I can remember) no Bond film has ever featured flashbacks featuring previously deceased characters, its fine to call this as Dench's last. Charlr6 is correct - you can't wait for confirmation on everything. Nsign (talk) 15:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

There is now a source saying it's her last film. - SchroCat (talk) 17:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

So there is :). If I may beat a dead horse, I think that removing my "citation needed" tag before finding such a source was bad form on the part of another editor. Connor Behan (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Grow up - I removed it because I found the source. Don't accuse me of bad form unless you know what you're talking about. try and remember WP:UNCIVIL before throwing around the childish insults. - SchroCat (talk) 04:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The current British quad poster

Is there possible a slightly larger version of this? As it does seem quite small. Just to the edges of the info box more. Charlr6 (talk) 00:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I am confused as to why the poster was changed....? I seem to remember it being something different. MisterShiney (Come say hi) 16:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it's because this is the quad version, which is the size of the standard British cinema poster. It's also the same format that is in use on all the Bond film articles, so there is consistency throughout all the Bond articles on this. - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

"Is there possible a slightly larger version of this? As it does seem quite small." -- unfortunately this is largely down to the info box. Infoboxes force image sizes down by default. Reason No. 12,586 as to why I don't like them. I don't mind them on film articles though.  ;) -- Cassianto^Talk 21:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I've seen them on the other pages. And they look too small on all of them. Even the posters when you click on it and it takes you to the actual poster image for each page is still quite small. Isn't there anything we can do with this? Charlr6 (talk) 22:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Not really. Sadly the actual poster image has to be small to comply with WP:NFCC. If you look at the image history, someone did upload a larger version, but this was sooon replaced by the current smaller version to fit in with the image rules. - SchroCat (^ • @) 05:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Budget

Box Office Mojo officially reported that the film's budget is $200 million. Can we change it?----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 07:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Good spot. Now updated to reflect the source. - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

[Box Office Mojo]] is a reliable source? http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2012/oct/23/skyfall-marketing-james-bond says otherwise. Also, when this film got made it was a big deal that the budget was lower than QOS? Think it should be changed back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamGallagherWright (talk • contribs) 18:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Seems we have two "reliable" sources here. What do we go with? I am inclined to say Guardian because they I have heard of and it is a reputable broadsheet in the UK. MisterShiney ✉ 21:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

They are both reliable, although one is a general newspaper and the other is a reputable website which focuses entirely on the film industry. - SchroCat (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The fact that it's a general newspaper is irrelevant; newspapers, especially the size of the Guardian, have dedicated teams working on each section. Since there isn't an official figure released by Eon or Sony then in all likelihood both figures are guesstimates and neither should have credence over the other.--Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 00:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Could the section not be included to have "between $150-$200 million" instead then? MisterShiney ✉ 01:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah - done that in infobox and the text - the cites are in the text, rather than the box. - SchroCat (talk) 10:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. I would of done it, but I was on my phone last night and wanted to check that would of been ok first :) MisterShiney ✉ 11:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Box office mojo's budgets frequently changes. According to the site Skyfall's budget was $130million, then £150million and now $200million. I'd be inclinded to believe The Guardian, The Dailymail etc. Rather than BOM on this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamGallagherWright (talk • contribs) 16:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Believe the Daily Mail? Really? Has hell frozen over...?! ;) We've got a range in there now, which will cover all eventualities until there is something a little more definitive. - SchroCat (talk) 16:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I know Daily Mail counts as a tabloid, but I would beleive that over say The Sun. MisterShiney ✉ 15:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

They could have saved a few quid with getting a nodding Churchill dog instead of the porcelin one. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Genre

Skyfall is an action movie. Not spy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamGallagherWright (talk • contribs) 18:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

No. Its a spy genre film, with like the rest of the James Bond Franchise films, aspects of action film. An Action film would be something like Green Zone or the Die Hard films. MisterShiney ✉ 21:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Yet all the other Bond films don't list a genre? I think genre should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamGallagherWright (talk • contribs) 16:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Miss Moneypenny

I've copied over a little part of a discussion on the Dark Knight Rises Talk Page in which I discuss the similarity between the reveal at the end of Skyfall and that at the end of TDKR:

Interesting side note to this conversation: in the Skyfall plot section, a similarly worded final line from Eve reveals her to be Miss Moneypenny. However, this is noted in the plot section, unlike here. In the case of Bond, it fits into further continuity as far as future films, as she is an established character. What do you think about its inclusion in that article? drewmunn (talk) 12:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I edited it to be less plot-twisty. You're right, she is an established character and official sources point out that fact, so we should just skip the mention of the one-liner and state that she is Eve Moneypenny from line one. DonQuixote (talk) 13:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I note that your edit to the Skyfall article has been reverted by a contributor to this conversation. I agreed with your edit, but I don't feel strongly enough that I am correct in my assumptions to undo the edit. Instead, I'm going to copy over this bit of the conversation to the Skyfall talk and link to the rest. drewmunn (talk) 2:37 pm, Today (UTC+0) Ported from this discussion.

As mentioned above, an edit was made to the Skyfall article, but this was reverted by Darkwarriorblake. If you want to see the reasoning behind the original discussion, and change, see the whole thing on the TDKR talk page. I want to know how people feel about the article so far, and whether it should be changed. I think that it should be given a little more recognition within the summary, so it is written less as a throwaway, but I've not got the conviction to take action on this without consensus. Thanks, drewmunn (talk) 14:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I wish there was some way the previous version could stand, as it mirrored the first plot summary here which I wrote. However, after that the IP masses had their say (see #Plot section, #Unofficial RfC on mentioning of Moneypenny name at beginning and #RfC: the position of a character's wikilink above for the various bits and pieces that went on) this came to the decision—the wrong one, in my opinion—not to link the name at the beginning of the plot summary. - SchroCat (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't see that discussion (I blame my sheer laziness when it comes to reading tables of contents), and I've just gone through the history to find your original edit. I much prefer that, and support your opinion. I shall now add my support for inclusion to the RfC! drewmunn (talk) 15:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

No probs. I suspect the discussion will run on until early December, buy which time it will have been out in all territories for at least a couple of weeks. The original discussion would have been editors from the UK, Ireland and 3 or 4 other countries, so the opinion may change once the US, Canada, Japan and Aus/NZ all get to have their say too. - SchroCat (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that the current version as it stands is much better than what it was. Having Miss Moneypenny on an active mission from the beginning would just confuse readers as most who know the franchise would be like "Wait, isn't she the secretary? What the hell?" so revealing her as Moneypenny at the end is a much better alternative. MisterShiney ✉ 15:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

As has been said above, we've already had the conversation in three places further up the page, so there's no real need to go over the same stale ground once again and open up the can of worms at this stage. - SchroCat (talk) 15:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed - as it is its accurate, logical and consistent with the narrative. Leave it alone. Nsign (talk) 12:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Wolf Blitzer

Just pointing out that (1) Blitzer is definitely in the movie as himself; and (2) while a nice little touch of pseudo-realism, it's probably too trivial to mention in this article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed; if he gets a mention, then surely Huw Edwards should too? He had a bigger part overall, but still trivial. drewmunn (talk) 18:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

If there are multiple persons playing themselves, there could be a comment somewhere stating that several real-life newsmen appear in the film. That makes more sense than singling out one of them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I've taken him out again: he shouldn't have been in there first time round, let alone second time (which breached WP:BRD) - SchroCat (talk) 23:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Why did you restore the advertisement for the "designer" of the movie poster? That information could go with the image itself, but it doesn't belong in the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Firstly there's no reason for it not to be in the article; secondly it's the same format and structure as all the other Bond film articles (quad poster, workding and design / artist credit). - SchroCat (talk) 23:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the rules have changed, but I was under the impression that credits for posters within movie articles are considered inappropriate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

There is a considerable amount of flexibility within article content so there are no "rules" which state that this can't be used. A small four word addition to the infobox to cover one small aspect of the film's development seems appropriate. - SchroCat (talk) 05:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

bond cries?

just out of cinema and i might be wrong... is bond crying at m's death szene? this imhop would be the first time.Fansoft (talk) 00:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

He certainly was crying. I think you may be right, but I'll have to check the end of OHMSS just to confirm (although there could be others too). - SchroCat (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes he was. Kind of subdued tears, but still unusual for old 007. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I certainly don't remember Bond crying at the end of OHMSS. -- Cassianto^Talk 16:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Thought he may have done when Tracy was shot (he does in the book, I think), but I'd need to see it again. I can't remember seeing him cry elsewhere. It's an interesting point for the character article, if I can find a good source. - SchroCat (talk) 16:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The book I wasn't sure about. I agree it is a good point and it would essentially be worth noting. It would give me a good excuse to load up the DVD player again much to Mrs. Cassianto's loathing....to think of it that's an even better reason! -- Cassianto^Talk 17:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen OHMSS for a long time, but my recollection is that George Lazenby kind of "acts like" he's crying, or like he wants to cry, or something like that - but doesn't actually cry. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

We hear him sob when his face is buried in Tracy's. - Fanthrillers (talk) 21:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for clearing that up. So we have two examples. I'm guessing you're a real Bond buff. Can you think of any other such instances? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I thought he cried when Vesper died in Royale? And when Le Chiffre was torturing him? Nsign (talk) 13:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

So we've got 3 tears from Daniel Craig, 1 from George Lazenby, and none mentioned so far for Connery, Moore, Dalton or Brosnan. Did I leave anyone out? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Niven. Too much the gentleman to cry in public, however. ;) SchroCat (talk) 16:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Right. And also Barry Nelson. I think we can safely rule them out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I know about the spoiler policy but come on

• SPOILERS* Putting that this is Judi Dench's last portrayal of M is blatantly shoving that she dies right down the viewers throat. Then you have the statement that Fiennes' character takes the role, ALSO not until the very end after M dies. And, we have that Eve is really Miss Moneypenny, all in the opening paragraph. For a film that's only approaching its third day, that's a bit too much. --KЯĀŽΨÇÉV13 03:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

It's been out for two weeks outside of America. Anyway, saying it's Judi Dench's last portrayal isn't necessarily implying that her character dies, that nature of the Bond series means loads of actors have come and go throughout the decades.--Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 04:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

It's been known for some time that this was to be her last appearance in the series. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

As per WP:LEAD, the lead reflects the article and should "summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies". The replacement of Dench's character with Fiennes and the return of two lon-running characters after a gap certainly fills that criteria. - SchroCat (talk) 05:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Just because it says it's her last film...doesnt mean she dies. Who said she dies?? Hmmm? At the end of the day Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and its going to include spoilers. If people dont want to know what's going on then they shouldnt be reading it. MisterShiney ✉ 15:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I jumped to that conclusion when I heard, some time back, that this would be her last film. The lead doesn't say she dies (unless I overlooked it), but it does say it's her last film, which was known ahead of time, so it's not really a "spoiler". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree, that line could just as easily implied that she retired, was forced out for political reasons, or simply vanished into the night. Now, if the lead specifically said that that she died and how it happened there could be a case for a rewrite but I don't see any reason to rewrite what we have now.--174.93.171.10 (talk) 00:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Lack of novelisation

Somewhere in the article it probably warrants mentioning that this is the first original Bond film (as opposed to one based upon a novel or suggested by a short story) not to have a specially commissioned novelisation. All others going back to Licence to Kill (which was in fact based on several Fleming sources) have been adapted; Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace saw the original stories reissued. 70.72.211.35 (talk) 19:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

May be worth nothing, although QoS was an original story (it just took the name of a Fleming novel, no plot was lifted), and there was no novelisation released for that. If it's noted on the Skyfall page, it mustn't say that it's the first, because it's not. That honour goes to QoS. drewmunn (talk) 20:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Unless it is officially cited, I dont think it can be included. To my knowledge Goldeneye, Tomorrow Never Dies, The World is Not Enough and Die Another Day were not based on/adapted from books either. They are however based on Flemings Characters. MisterShiney ✉ 11:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

But there were novelizations subsequently written for GE, TND, TWINE and DAD, which is what the original poster was talking about. QoS is the only original story without a novelization; Skyfall is the only original story with original title but without an accompanying novel. - SchroCat (talk) 11:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

But they aren't Flemming novels are they? They are novelisations of the films....or do I have that wrong? MisterShiney ✉ 11:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

You're right: they are not Fleming novels, but that isn't what the first poster was on about, they were commenting on the lack of subsequent novelization for an original storyline. All the films up to QoS were either based on original works, or had novelizations written to tie into the film release. - SchroCat (talk) 12:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Ahh my mistake. Thanks for clearing that up. I havnt had my coffee yet lol. MisterShiney ✉ 12:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I never start editing without at least two cups! I've tweaked your strike slightly as the first part still holds as true as ever: not to be included without a citation! - SchroCat (talk) 12:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Thats cool :) MisterShiney ✉ 12:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I must quibble with some of the statements here. "The Spy Who Loved Me" and "Moonraker" both come from original Fleming novels and were also subsequently novelised. "Quantum of Solace" is an original story in that it dispenses with the Fleming original, but we can and must say that of "A View to a Kill" which dispenses with the original Fleming story, location aside. I don't think we should mention that there is no "Skyfall" novelisation because, among other reasons, it's not relevant. It's fancruft. - Fanthrillers (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how any statements made in the conversation contradict anything you've said above; we've only discussed original films (not taken from source material), and specifically those that were not novelised at any time. At no time was the originality of any film other than QoS questioned but, beyond that, we came to consensus that both QoS and Skyfall lack novelisations. We agreed that nothing could be included without citation. However, I do agree with your closing statement in part, in that it's not particularly notable, as it seems to be a new trend. However, it could be noted on the QoS page, as that was the first, and possible trend-setter. drewmunn (talk) 07:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Hashima Island

On the page it says: "Set reports dated April 2012 recorded that scenes would be set on Hashima Island, an abandoned island off the coast of Nagasaki, Japan. In actuality, the scene was set on an unnamed island off the coast of Macau, though based on the real-life Hashima." I think the wording is a bit vague and doesn't make clear whether the scenes were actually shot at Hashima Island (regardless of the setting of the story). --178.12.54.149 (talk) 22:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Tiago Rodriguez

Raoul Silva's real name, Tiago Rodriguez, is mispelled. Mr. Silva is implied to be of Lusophone origin (Silva, Tiago), and so his correct name would be spelt Tiago Rodrigues. This is minor, but it should be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.8.110.0 (talk) 05:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. We have the unfortunate issue of not having a source to confirm any spelling of the name as of yet, nor where he originated. His currently listed name is un-cited. If you can find a source to definitely pin-point him with a certain name, please include, we're in dire need of one. Remember that it's likely that the film makers don't know where the names would suggest he originates, they pick names to fit the plot or sound good. In this case, 'Tiago' was most probably chosen because it's a version of 'James', and Silva sounds plausible but villainous at the same time. drewmunn (talk) 07:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

We've sort of covered this above at #Tiago Rodriguez?, although more about the first name. There is one reliable source, the BFI, but they list the character as "Gerardo Rodriguez" (see here). A general consensus was that although this shows Gerardo, we're leaving Tiago in there. I think we'll need to wait for something more official, although this is something so minor I suspect they may not even cover it. - SchroCat (talk) 07:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Is not the second highest grossing film in the UK (yet)

The source is wrong. The Titanic re-release this year grossed £10 million, which gives Titanic a total of just shy of £80 million in the UK (source), so Skyfall is currently the third highest grossing film in the UK, not the second, at least until the weekend. --Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 01:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Does that count though? A film being re-released?? Surly its not fair on other films to just pop on what they earn 10 years later? Did we do it for Back to the Future when that was re-released? Surely it should count as its own release? I'm just throwing it out there. MisterShiney ✉ 08:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

My opinion (whatever that's worth) is that it should be treated as a separate film. Its own Wikipedia article differentiates between Box Office earnings made in 1997 and 2012, and the 2012 release has a separate entry on Rotten Tomatoes. Perhaps most importantly however, is the fact that there are two separate entries within Fox's own film catalogue (see the Titanic entry and the Titanic 3D entry). As such, I don't think collaborative earnings should be used as a measure, and the 2012 re-release should be treated as its own film entirely. drewmunn (talk) 09:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, at the top of the North America all time list on Box Office Mojo for example, Titanic, Star Wars, Star Wars Ep I, E.T., Lion King and Finding Nemo's totals all include re-releases grosses. Remastered or 3D, they're for all intents and purposes the same film (in my opinion).--Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 10:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Shall we just keep this string going for a few days, at which point the topic will become moot? I tend to agree that the film is the film, regardless of re-issues, and so should be counted as one overall figure, although I am not sure about how Wiki-film project views this. The writer was probably working from an out of date list when they made the comparison, and as such what they have written is wrong. I'm going to take the info out and hope that someone in the media makes the same point next week when the figures as we know them all tally up properly. - SchroCat (talk) 11:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it should be left out until it surpasses, but maybe this is something to be clarified in future, so we know what to do. drewmunn (talk) 13:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

It has surpassed. That's why the site with the insiders knowledge said it had. BOM says it was at 114 million for Titanic, 117 for Skyfall according to deadline and other actual film sites. Why is this 25h frame site better than all of them? And how does that alter the 2D information that was in the article? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

We use Pound Sterling here in Blighty, not US dollars. Titanic has grossed £79.9 million, so is still currently ahead of Skyfall. Incidently here's an article from British tabloid the Metro that ranks Skyfall as 3rd behind Titanic --Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 17:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, income from reissues count. Most all-time charts include reissue grosses, and in cases such as Gone with the Wind, Star Wars and some Disney classics they have actually earned more through their reissues than on their first release. Obviously some sources will get this incorrect because they are working from the older records that haven't factored in the Titanic re-release yet. Allthestrongbowintheworld is also correct that the UK record should be gauged in sterling, otherwise, whichever film has the record could change with a fluctuating exchange rate. Betty Logan (talk) 11:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Connection to Fleming works

Requested addition: Although the title and plot does not come from a Fleming work, there are at least three major elements in this film that parallel events in Fleming novels: M writing Bond's obituary and an injured Bond disappearing on an island somewhere comes from the closing chapters of You Only Live Twice, while the very next Fleming novel, The Man with the Golden Gun begins with Bond returning after his disappearance and having to prove himself fit for duty again. The idea of M going to bat for Bond and putting him back in the field could also be seen as reflecting the early stages of You Only Live Twice in which Bond is given the designation 7777 and given a potential suicide mission. 70.72.211.35 (talk) 03:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable secondary source to support it, and you consider it passes WP:WEIGHT and WP:FANCRUFT, then it is should certainly be considered. - SchroCat (talk) 03:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I read ages ago that they did take inspiration from You Only Live twice mildly, but I can't find that source again. Charlr6 (talk) 14:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

One connection that's actually been substantiated is the similarity between Silva and Jaws. Bardem is a life-long fan of the character, and IndieWire notes their similar deformities. —Flax5 17:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

That's a blog and fails WP:RELIABLE. - SchroCat (talk) 10:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. I for one see little or no resemblance. Maybe the hair. But that's only because its a psyclogical aryan thing left over from the days when we were told during WW2 that people with blonde hair blue eyes were evil nazis. MisterShiney ✉ 11:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Walther PPK/S

Why would Bond get a PPK/S? That version was made specifically to be able to import the guns into the United States, not because it made the gun "better" in any way. If anything he'd get a PPK/E. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.194.186.128 (talk) 15:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Because that was the version the props department could source? If I remember rightly, it's only referred to as a PPK, so I doubt they would have stipulated anything beyond that. Some guns are easier to source as props than others, and easier movement between countries probably means that the /S is more commonly used by prop weapon companies than other variants. At least the type of gun quoted is correct; some shows use one gun as the prop, and announce it as a completely different pistol. drewmunn (talk) 16:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

RfC: the position of a character's wikilink

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Comments are invited on an issue with the Plot summary of the Skyfall article. A character is shown in the first scenes of the film and the plot summary currently contains a wikilink. Her surname is not revealed until the final scenes of the film and can be considered a minor twist, although not one that affects the film's plot. Is it more appropriate to link the name at the front of the summary, or to leave it until the end (and refer to the character by her first name throughout the rest of the summary)? - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• The link should remain at the top of the summary, with the introduction of the character Eve. The subsequent identity of that character as Miss Moneypenny has no bearing on the plot or storyline of the film and there is therefore no need to hide it away at the end. As per WP:FILMPLOT, "events in the film do not have to be written in the order in which they appear on screen", and identifying the character falls into this area: we know who she is, so hiding her identity until later serves no real purpose. Furthermore, in having the link at the top we are also able to retain consistency in using the surnames of characters throughout the plot summary. - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support for deletion of Moneypenny reference in plot until the very end. Will improve article as it will reflect the movie more, and the characters name was confirmed as Eve before the film was released, and in the credits of the movie her name is listed as "Eve" as well. As per WP:FILMPLOT, "If necessary, reorder the film's events to improve understanding of the plot.". The article currently implies to a normal reader that it is revealed as Moneypenny at the beginning. And changing it does not improve anything of the films plot, if detracts away from the truth of how she is revealed in the actual movie. And as Skyfall is told in chronological order, there was no need to change the order of when her name appears. The character was confirmed as Eve before the films released, and as mentioned she is listed in the end credits as just 'Eve'. If the film makers didn't want it to be a surprise in the final scene then it would have been mentioned she is Moneypenny earlier in the film. What I'm about to say won't have any effect on The Sixth Sense's films page, but that movie is told in chronological order and the twist in the movie is revealed at the end of the plot, just like in the movie. As it is mentioned that the reveal of Moneypenny would be a 'minor twist', then it should be mentioned at the end. Charlr6 (talk) 15:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support for deletion of Moneypenny reference. The mentioning of the character name does not add anything to the actual plot of the movie. The character is unnamed for 99.9% of the movie, mentioning the name of the character not only doesn't add anything to the actual plot section its also an unneeded or at the very least a premature spoiler and shouldn't be mentioned until at the very least the end of the plot section. To be honest i dont think it should be mentioned at all other than in the character section. Plus it should be removed from the lead where there is no need whatsoever for there to be spoilers Blethering Scot 16:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• And why should we ignore WP:SPOILER when covering events in the film? Wiki uses spoilers and you should respect that stance, I'm afraid. As for the info being in the lead, please see WP:LEAD: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects". It's a matter of opinion, but thre return of two long-established roles back to the series, and the replacement of a third is an important aspect of the film (and series) and really should be covered. - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no need to include spoilers in the lead whatsoever, the plot and all aspects of this article can be covered within the lead without doing so. Also you dont own the article this is an RFC and everyone is entitled to their opinion also im well aware of what a lead is and this does not need mentioned in it as its as something that isn't mentioned for 99.9% of the movie is not overall important to the article. Let the closer decide rather than badgering other editors.Blethering Scot 18:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm aware it's an RfC: I opened it and it concerns whether a character's link appears at the start or end of the plot summary, not the contents of the lead, which you're obviously struggling to understand. I also seriously object to your accusation of my ownership: I do not claim to own it, have never claimed to own it and don't want to own it, so unless you have proof that I have said somewhere "it's my article" then I'll assume you've withdrawn the unwarranted ad hominum attack. - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• You referred to the Moneypenny as a "minor spoiler" before. And as it was minor then it wouldn't be an "important aspect of the film (and series) and should be covered". It is however an important surprise at the end of the film, so should be mentioned at the end of the film. Charlr6 (talk) 18:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• You misunderstand slightly: the return of the characters is important in relation to the series. It isn't an important part of the plot. If she turned out to be Eve Silva (or Rodriguez) then it would be, but in terms of the film's narrative, it means very little. - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• Says who? That is entirely your own opinion and completely subjective. Others may have come out of the film saying, "Wow, I can't believe that was Miss Moneypenny?" (like, for example, the couple in front of me on Saturday night). You are arbitrarily deciding for yourself what should be considered important and others clearly disagree. 194.73.118.78 (talk) 12:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• Leave her full name at beginning of the article. Her first mention should use her full name. After that, it should refer to her by her surname. The article is currently in compliance with policy regarding spoilers WP:SPOILER and is encyclopedic in tone. Shoeless Ho (talk) 19:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support for deletion of Moneypenny reference in plot summary until the very end, but keep reference in lead. I agree that the reintroduction of two previously-absent characters (Q and Moneypenny) should be fully highlighted in the lead (first and last name of the character, actress's name, etc.). In the same way that the Casino Royale article's lead mentions Moneypenny's absence, the Skyfall article's lead should mention her return, even if it is considered a spoiler, as per WP:LEAD. However, I do think that Moneypenny should be referred to as "Eve" in the beginning of the plot summary, with her last name revealed at the end of the summary, as per Charlr6 above. A wild Rattata (talk) 19:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support for deletion of Moneypenny in plot summary until the end. Plot summaries pretty much always reveal information in the same order it comes out in the film, as it's just easier to read that way.
  • In the plot summary of The Dark Knight Rises, Blake and Tate are referred to as Blake and Tate, even though both are later revealed to be characters from the Batman comics.
  • In the plot summary of Sleuth (1972 film), Inspector Doppler is referred to as such until the moment in the plot when his true identity is revealed.

...and many more. I don't think I've seen a single plot summary that does what SchroCat is doing, and it really does read strangely. It seems to be jarring for a lot of people, given the huge numbers who have felt strongly enough that it didn't sound right to come on here - Charlr6, Nsign, 194.73.118.78, 86.156.13.63, 99.229.136.215, 80.167.205.66, Silver seren, Blethering Scot, A wild Rattata, me. I agree with A wild Rattata that Moneypenny should remain in the lead section before the plot summary.Edbrims (talk) 21:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• Leave her full name and wikilink at beginning of the plot synopsis. Per SchroCat's reasons above. - Fanthrillers (talk) 21:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support deletion of full name and wikilink at beginning. It can move to the end. Per Charlr6 and Edbrims. And it does seem like Schro isn't letting anyone else edit that part, and will revert any edit made to Moneypenny's name. It seems like they feel, even if they say they won't, like they own that part of the article. I have also looked at the other Bond pages to see if Charlr6 is right, and most of them do have the Bond girl names with their first name. And it does seem that Schro has edited the pages, such as Dr. No where s/he changed the name from Honey to Ryder. It seems as if they were editing those pages, only to try and prove a point by using edits they've done, to back themselves up. 31.109.10.127 (talk) 12:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• Don't accuse me of WP:OWN unless you know what you're talking about. The article is free to be edited, although is a point is under discussion at an RfC it should be left in situ until a consensus is reached, which will probably be in the next few days. - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Then don't act like you own the page. There has been a good ammount of people now against the Moneypenny mention at the very beginning of the plot. And actually, I went through the edit history and saw people tried to change it, but you reverted them. And this was before the RfC came about on the talk page. 31.109.10.127 (talk) 12:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I have never acted as if I own the page and I am bored of ad hominem attacks from someone who can't even be bothered to register their own account. Don't accuse people of things unless you can back them up. - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I can't be bothered with people who register? I don't have the time, just like you don't have the time to look references up like Skyfall Lodge.

And I can back it up, which is the reverts you've done when people have tried to edit Moneypenny's name out. You don't let them. You want to keep it as it is, which is 'owning' that part. If it isn't then I don't know what is. 31.109.10.127 (talk) 12:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

You appear to have enough time to attack editors who try and help you; you have enough time to throw mindless accusations at people without actually understanding what you're talking about, but you don't have time to register? Laughable - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

You appear to have enough time to reply to most comments, but don't for looking up a source? Laughable. This can go both ways. 31.109.10.127 (talk) 12:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Support for deletion of Moneypenny in plot summary until the end As per my lengthy, tiresome and frustrating exchange with schrodinger above in the 'plot' section, there is no logical reason to reveal Moneypenny's name at the beginning of the summary, other than wikipedia rules say that you can. Well maybe they do, but why on earth would you? The logical thing to do here is to provide an accurate summation of the narrative AS TOLD. Therefore the summary should reveal Eve's name as Moneypenny at the end so that it reflects the plot of the film. Seems very simple and straightforward, doesn't it? One wonders why one person feels they have the right to arbitrarily police an entry, undo edits made by others without explaining why and ignore what seems to be the majority view. 194.73.118.78 (talk) 12:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, to specifically rebut Schrocat - he says "The subsequent identity of that character as Miss Moneypenny has no bearing on the plot or storyline of the film". That is entirely his own opinion and is subjective. Others may regard Eve's identity and her story arc in the film to be part of the plot. Because, er, that's what it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.73.118.78 (talk) 16:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The film is not about Eve/Moneypenny. In a 700 word plot synopsis she can only be at best a minor element. If this were a five thousand word plot synopsis then you'd have a point. I really don't understand why so many people have so much trouble grasping SchroCat's reasons or the wikipedia policies he cites to support his position. - Fanthrillers (talk) 23:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

No one is disputing the policies. The view is that just because one is allowed to name the character's identity at a point in the summary where the film does not, it is preferable not to because it is not an accurate reflection of the narrative as told. The impression is that the character has been identified as Miss Moneypenny at this point in the plot when she hasn't, and I would suggest that makes it slightly misleading. To have her identified as Eve until she actually reveals her full name is an accurate reflection of the narrative as it unfolds. If the consensus says otherwise I'll accept it but until then I don't believe it should stand. 194.73.118.78 (talk) 15:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

You're about 20 hours late: it doesn't stand - the plot was altered sometime yesterday and the link and identity dropped to the bottom. - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

So it has. It reads better and gives a more accurate representation of the flow of the story. Wasn't so hard, was it? 194.73.118.78 (talk) 15:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Personally I still don't agree with it: it's a community decision and not a personal one. - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Then three cheers for democracy. 194.73.118.78 (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I also don't object to the use of the full name in the lead - just the plot summary. 194.73.118.78 (talk) 15:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support deletion of name

ive always seen in plots if one character ends up being a revealed character near the end its said when it happens in the plot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.64.255 (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Leave Moneypenny's name at the top and keep the wikilink at beginning of the plot synopsis.

To delete would be incorrect IMO. I completely agree with SchroCat. -- Cassianto^Talk 21:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Include it from the start. After numerous (possibly unnecessary) discussions, I support SchroCat. drewmunn (talk) 15:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Include it from the start. Doesn't affect the plot and emphasizing the one-liner gives it undue weight. Also, describing the reveal is made redundant by the intro. DonQuixote (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Remove reference from the lead of the article. I realize this is somewhat settled, but my two cents is that the article should reflect the narrative of the movie and not reveal who she is until further down the article; it's not a matter of spoilers, which I realize are included if made available and documented. 331dot (talk) 10:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Not too late, actually, we're deliberately keeping it open to let the dust settle. On a note of my opinion however, we already mention her return earlier in the article, and even list her actor, so the narrative is broken by that earlier revelation. drewmunn (talk) 11:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

That's not the point. Mentioning the character's return in the lead is acceptable because its a noteworthy feature of the film in relation to the franchise as a whole. Identifying her as Moneypenny right away in the summary isn't, because it misleadingly implies that she is identified as Moneypenny at that point in the film when she isn't, and is therefore not a faithful account of the narrative. Nsign (talk) 12:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, "faithful account of the narrative" is "unnamed agent". She doesn't reveal her name to Bond (and the audience) till the end. DonQuixote (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Julian Assange

It appears I'm not the only guy who noticed a more than passing resemblance between the Bond villain in the film and the Wikileaks founder

http://kevinpatrickleech.com/2012/11/12/skyfalls-villain-is-the-julian-assange-worst-case-scenario-2/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/01/bond-villains-javier-bardem-fears-era?cat=commentisfree&type=article

More than just physical resemblance as the character releases sensitive information on the internet (on youtube, no less) as his main crime. Does anybody think this might be an issue that should be addressed?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 02:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

If there's media that qualify as reliable sources per Wikipedia policy discussing it (the first appears to be a blog, so it's disqualified, but the second is a major media outlet) then I don't see why not. However WP:BLP applies to Assange, so use caution. 70.72.211.35 (talk) 03:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that there's little to no relation between Silva and Assange. Take into account that plans for this film can be traced as far back as 2008, when Assange was a name only a select few knew. I can't pin-point when the characterisation of Silva first occurred, but pre-production had begun before MGM's 2010 bankruptcy, so before Assange became a household name. By then, however, the idea of sensitive information being leaked online was already cemented in the mind of the collective, so it's unlikely that Silva was based on Assange. On top of that, Assange doesn't look much like Silva anyway: Silva has grey hair, Assange has blonde; Silva is tall, Assange is short. Agreed, both have longish hair, but in different styles; if it was shorter, he'd probably be compared to Bradley Manning.

Putting aside my opinion, however, I must note at this point that it is extremely important that a massive amount of research goes into this before a single line is added to this page suggesting a relation. Both of the articles you've cited above can't really be used as sources; the first is a blog, the second written just as one man's trailer analysis. We'd need sources galore stating that Silva is based entirely on Assange before adding it into the article. Not only will people want a cited reference (everyone likes clamouring about Original Research), but you will be treading the line between encyclopaedia and Libel. Should the resemblance be non-official, then you'd be posting what could be considered slander. After all, you're comparing someone to one of the biggest film villains of the decade; don't expect that to go unnoticed. Especially when that person is spending a lot of time and effort fighting not to be called a law-breaker. drewmunn (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the character is based entirely on Assange, I'm just saying there is a resemblance. There are plenty of online commentators who have made the connection, but the Guardian is the only one from a major news source. I am not an expert on movie shooting schedules, but considering that Wikileaks made its big "splash" in Oct-Nov 2010, I think its likely that Assange could have been an influence on the character, perhaps has an after thought, adding some things into an already present elements to make the film more topical. Here are some more people who have made the connection, I am not sure if any count as being WP:RS

http://jabcatmovies.com/2012/11/skyfall-review-by-ed-rampell-from-the-afi-film-fest-2012/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/jamesbond/9628354/Skyfall-James-Bond-review.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/oct/15/skyfall-james-bond-critics-daniel-craig

I think more references to this will pop up in more mainstream reviews.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 03:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Assange doesn't look like Javier Bardem. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Of the three sources quoted above, none provide the necessary information; one is a blog, the second states that Silva's hair "calls to mind Julian Assange", and the third quotes the second. At best, a line could be added to the reviews area saying that reviewers likened Silva to Assange, but more reliable sources are needed before that. As far as influencing the character, it is certainly possible. During the first months of the scandal, production was halted, but when it re-started, nobody can tell what changes were made. However, it's not up to us to make the connection. Either the studio confirms it, or we wait until plenty of reputable reviewers make the connection. There are a whole load of problems rolled up into this one, so keep in mind WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:Libel when making any changes to the article about this matter. drewmunn (talk) 07:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Moneypenny

It is not revealed until the end of the film that Harris is playing Moneypenny- in fact this was denied for quite some time. Should this information be at the very beginning of the article? I'm not totally familiar with protocol in this area. 331dot (talk) 23:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Please see above conversations on this topic. MisterShiney ✉ 06:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Plot over 700 words

Two editors, independent of each other, myself and User:Schrodinger's cat is alive, have trimmed the wordy version preferred by User:Prisonermonkeys, who inexplicably appears to insist on using the passive voice ("The car is driven by Carl") rather than the active voice ("Carl drives the car') — a standard thing that Writing 101 teaches you not to do— and creates plot-bloat taking the straightforward plot to over 700 words. He and I have discussed this on his talk page, but so far he has been re-inserting his wordy version with passive-voice writing. --Tenebrae (talk) 06:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I realise now that I was accidentally reverting stuff that I didn't intend to revert. That has been fixed. My issue was the way content was presented, with confusing wording and details that were glossed over. I've found a way to word it that only changes what I intended to change all along, whilst addressing my issue with it. That itself might need to be re-touched a little as I may have slipped into passive voice, but it is the only change that has been made. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

It is the height of disingenuousness to say you inadvertently broke 3RR when you had been warned not once, but twice on your talk page.

It is inexplicable why you would deliberately reinsert verbose, needlessly wordy writing. "Bond drives M away from the scene and takes her to Skyfall, his childhood home in Scotland." Drives her away from the scene? What else could he be driving her away from? It is inexplicable to me how you object to "Bond drives M to to Skyfall, his childhood home in Scotland," which says the exact same thing but with far fewer words.

Why would you revert to this sentence — "He instructs Q to leave an electronic trail for Silva to follow, a decision supported by Mallory" — rather than one ending "a decision Mallory support"? What is the possible reason you would switch to passive voice from the shorter and better writing of the active voice. This is Writing 101: Don't use the passive voice when you can use the active."

And one more example: "Bond and M are met by Kincade, the gamekeeper to the Bond family estate." As a professional writer, I cannot comprehend why you would prefer that to "Kincade, the gamekeeper of the Bond family estate, welcomes Bond and M."

In any event, you have been edit-warring with two editors, and as noted on your talk page, an admin has been notified of your 3RR vio. --Tenebrae (talk) 06:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps this will give you some perspective. In summary:

a) You never made me aware of this discussion, and nor did you invite SchroCat to comment.

b) You apparently never checked the content of my edits, even though one edit was noticeably larger than previous edits. And my edit summary for the edit at 6:19 made it pretty clear that I had edited something different.

c) Even though I described my issues with the page twice, you never actually addressed my concerns, instead preferring to browbeat me with threats of going to 3RR.

In short, I made an error, which I have since acknowledged and moved to correct. But if you had done any of the three things I outlined, I might have realised it sooner, therefore making the 3RR report unnecessary. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I see. It's my fault. I made you edit-war. --Tenebrae (talk) 07:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Can we please try to remain civilised? I'm a latecomer to this discussion, but whatever happens, I don't think we need to descend into arguing about 'who started it'. The text of the article seems to have now become superfluous to the discussion at hand, but I thought I'd point out that it's been polished by the wonderful Schrodinger's cat is alive. The point of the final edit made by Prisonermonkeys was to clear up a possibly confusing section, and that has been refined now. To avoid this kind of argument, I'd suggest Prisonermonkeys could have opened an edit request after the 'final warning', asking for his changes to be made. That way, this would have never gotten sillily complex and damaging. Although there is a 700 word guideline for the plot section, it shouldn't limit the readability of it; if something makes no sense, change it. You may be able to trim a few words elsewhere, but going 1 or 2 over 700 for the sake of clarity is not the wrong thing to do. Another editor will be able to come along and clean things up as necessary, even if you can't see a way. Should an editor revert your changes, open a discussion on the article's talk page immediately, describing your concerns, so other editors can get involved and make it less about two people arguing unnecessarily. Thanks. drewmunn (talk) 07:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

" a decision supported by Mallory" and "Bond and M are met by Kincade, the gamekeeper..." are needless passive-voice and bad writing. That's Writing 101. So is the use of a form of "to be" when a more active verb can be used. "a decision Mallory supports" is better, more active writing. "Kincade, the gamekeeper..., welcomes Bond and M" is better, more active writing. And "trio" is a singular noun: One trio, two trios. One trio improvises, two trios improvise. I find it hard to understand why Prisonermonkeys edit-wars over an insistence to insert bad writing and grammar. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it may be time to move on from the edit warring arguments and focus on the issue in hand, which is to agree the wording which was the cause of this all. There really is little point in flogging the dead horse of 'he said - she said' and we've all got better things to do. Below is the current opening paragraph of the plot section: any suggestions as to the future form it could take, bearing in mind we'd prefer to keep the whole thing under 700 words? - SchroCat (talk) 18:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

In Turkey, MI6 agents James Bond and Eve attempt to recover a stolen computer hard drive containing details of agents placed undercover in terrorist organisations by NATO states. As they chase the mercenary Patrice, who killed MI6 agents to steal the drive, Patrice shoots Bond in the shoulder. As the two men fight, Eve accidentally shoots Bond, allowing Patrice to escape. Bond goes missing, presumed dead.

That's good. I'd add "in Istanbul" since locale is an important part of any plot. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Added Turkey - slightly wider than Istanbul to avoid any pedantic observations of the train leaving Istanbul! - SchroCat (talk) 18:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Good thinking. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the wording could use some work. Particularly this part:

As they chase the mercenary Patrice, who killed MI6 agents to steal the drive, Patrice shoots Bond in the shoulder. As the two men fight, Eve accidentally shoots Bond, allowing Patrice to escape.

I think two things can be addressed here:

1) The two sentences start in a very similar way, "as they chase" and "as the two men". I think that could be rephrased a little.

2) Bond gets shot twice in two sentences. Yes, I know he gets shot twice in the pre-titles, but I think this can be split up. When Bond cuts the shrapnel from his shoulder, he only removes shavings rather than a whole slug. Given that he is sitting in a reinforced steel cockpit at the time of his injury, that the bullet is made of depleted uranium so that it has more stopping power, and that the fragments do not appear to be buried deeply in his shoulder (Bond's mobility is barely affected by it), I think it's far more accurate to say that he is hit by a ricocheting bullet and is injured rather than outright shot. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

You are right on the ricochet and the "As the..." sentences. Then how about the following, which moves the murder into the opening sentence:

In Turkey MI6 agents James Bond and Eve attempt to recover a computer hard drive stolen from a murdered MI6 agent; the drive contains details of agents placed undercover in terrorist organisations by NATO states. Bond and Eve chase the killer, the mercenary 'Patrice', and attempt to recover the disk. During the chase, Bond is wounded by a ricocheting bullet. While fighting Patrice, Bond is accidentally shot by Eve and is later considered "missing, presumed killed".

Thoughts? – SchroCat (talk) 04:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

That sounds better, but you don't need the inverted commas for Patrice's name. Even if the character is never mentioned by name in the script, the name was still confirmed by production, and there is nothing to suggest it might be an alias.

Also, I think it's pertinent to mention that Bond's being shot enables Patrice's escape. Perhaps this would be a suitable alternative:

In Istanbul, MI6 agents James Bond and Eve attempt to recover a computer hard drive stolen from a murdered MI6 agent; the drive contains details of agents placed undercover in terrorist organisations by NATO states. Bond and Eve chase the killer, the mercenary Patrice, and Bond is wounded by a ricocheting bullet. While fighting Patrice, Bond is accidentally shot by Eve. Patrice escapes and Bond is considered "missing, presumed killed".

That also cuts out the double mention of the chase. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Why this is being changed I do not know. It was fine the way it was. It seem's like there is one user who is trying to put his personal opinion on something that is disagreed by not one but two (and myself) and so insists on edit warring and has now ruined editing this page for other users. MisterShiney ✉ 21:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Why is it being changed? Because it is flawed. Editors have valued a succinct word count and grammatical perfection over actually representing the content of the film, which is a poor way to make decisions about the content of the page. While these things are to be valued, they should not be given such priority over everything else. For instance, WP:FILMPLOT states that a recount of the plot should be no more than 700 words if it is possible, but if you have to take 707 words in writing it up to accurately detail the story, that is okay.

If you still think people are making decisions based on their egoes, then I suggest you re-read the plot section as it currently appears in the article, and some of the more-recent points of discussion so far. This is what the article says:

MI6 agents James Bond and Eve attempt to recover a stolen computer hard drive containing details of agents placed undercover in terrorist organisations by NATO states. As they chase the mercenary Patrice, who killed MI6 agents to steal the drive, Patrice shoots Bond in the shoulder. As the two men fight, Eve accidentally shoots Bond, allowing Patrice to escape. Bond goes missing, presumed dead.

However, as was demonstrated above, this is inaccurate — Patrice does not shoot Bond. He shoots at Bond, but Bond is only hit by a ricocheting bullet. We know this because Patrice uses bullets made of depleted uranium, which are use that material to give them a greater stopping power because of its armour-piercing qualities. However, when Bond is hit, he is sitting in a reinforced steel cockpit, and when he removes the shrapnel from his shoulder, he only removes fragments rather than a whole slug. If you read through the recent discussion, you will see that there is support for this as opposed to Bond simply being shot the way he is by Eve.

Now, you can sit there and say "the article is fine the way it is". And it probably is. But if you look over some of the other film pages, you will see that they all have at least GA status. This page doesn't have it, and will not have it so long as the "close enough is good enough" attitude prevails. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

That is all OR analysis. Unless the movie itself says Bond was hit by a ricocheting bullet, we can't say it. An alternate explanation would be that the uranium bullet exited cleanly except for a piece that nicked a bone and broke up. Or it could be a magic bullet. Whatever. We can only say what the movie says, and the movie says Bond was wounded by Patrice's bullet.

And given that three editors now disagree with Prisonermonkeys, I would hesitate, if I were he, to talk about other editors' egos. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

To address his concern about two sentences starting the same way, and SchroCat's over pedantic editors regarding "Istanbul," I propose

In Turkey, MI6 agents James Bond and Eve chase the mercenary Patrice, who stole a computer hard drive containing details of undercover agents placed in terrorist organisations by NATO states. Patrice shoots Bond in the shoulder, and as the two men fight atop a train, Eve accidentally shoots Bond, allowing Patrice to escape. Bond goes missing, presumed dead.

--Tenebrae (talk) 22:50, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you go back and count the editors again. I suggested "wounded" is a better way of describing the point in question; SchroCat agrees with me. You say "shot" is a better way of describing the point in question; MisterShiney agrees with you. So I'm not sure where you're getting this third editor opposing me from, considering that the only other editor to have contributed is drewmunn, and he hasn't commented one way or the other on the specific wording.

Furthermore, describing Bond as having been shot by Patrice and shot by Eve implies that the action is the same, and therefore the injury is the same. This is clearly not the case, and I feel that limiting the description to that so that the word count does not exceed 700 words is an example of valuing the word count over accurately recounting the plot. I know FILMPLOT says that the recount "should be" no more than 700 words, but that does not mean that it must not be more than 700 words. It's okay to take 710 words if we have to. After all, the Manual of Style is to be treated as guidelines, not religious commandments. I have found that the rigid adherance to the MoS above all other considerations ultimately leads to the detriment of the page, an outcome that I do not want to see here.

Based on the discussion so far, this is perhaps the best wording that we could have:

In Turkey, MI6 agents James Bond and Eve attempt to recover a stolen computer hard drive containing details of agents placed undercover in terrorist organisations by NATO states. As they chase the mercenary Patrice, who killed MI6 agents to steal the drive, Bond is wounded by Patrice. As the two men fight, Eve accidentally shoots Bond, allowing Patrice to escape. Bond goes missing, and is presumed to be dead.

That is a synthesis of SchroCat's wording and your wording, and one that I feel best-represents the sequence of events. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I can count. SchroCat's version is not the same as your version. Secondly, why do you insist on the passive-voice construction ("Bond is wounded by Patrice.")? It's bad writing. Any introductory writing course will tell you this. And finally, there is one person like you at many new movie articles who insists that a movie they like couldn't possibly be summed up in 700 words or less. They are uniformly wrong. There is virtually no movie that can't be summed up in 700 words or less, and a straightforward action movie like this certainly can be. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I have a minor issue with the sentence "As they chase the mercenary Patrice, who killed MI6 agents to steal the drive, Bond is wounded by Patrice": to me it feels awkward. Could I suggest:

In Turkey, MI6 agents James Bond and Eve attempt to recover a stolen computer hard drive containing details of agents placed undercover in terrorist organisations by NATO states. As they chase the mercenary Patrice, who killed MI6 agents to steal the drive, Patrice wounds Bond in the shoulder. As the two men fight, Eve accidentally shoots Bond, allowing Patrice to escape. Bond goes missing, and is presumed to be dead.

I'm also not sure about the wounding being WP:OR: Tanner refers to the hit as Bond not being shot (or not being a clean shot, or similar) after the slivers are analysed, saying Bond would have been cut in half is he'd been shot—or words to that effect: it's been a few weeks since I saw the film now. - SchroCat (talk) 04:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

He says a direct hit, and really this is something that we can be abstract about. We don't need to know if it was a richochet or bullet splinters or what type of bullet it was, a bullet in whole or part entered his shoulder, hes injured, he later recovers teh shrapnel. All we need to say is that he is shot. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 05:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

It's wordy to have one sentence saying they're attempting to recover the drive and another saying they're chasing the man who stole the drive — those points can be combined. Also, the fact Patrice has killed MI6 agents has no effect on the plot — Bond and Eve would be chasing him to recover the drive regardless. Proposing

In Turkey, MI6 agents James Bond and Eve chase the mercenary Patrice, who stole has stolen a computer hard drive containing details of undercover agents placed in terrorist organisations by NATO states. Patrice shoots Bond in the shoulder, and as the two men fight atop a train, Eve accidentally shoots Bond, allowing Patrice to escape. Bond goes missing, presumed dead.

This is 59 words, as opposed to the 70-word version at 04:56, 24 November 2012 above. If we remove "atop a train," that's 56 words. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

"has stolen" for tense. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 05:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Done! --Tenebrae (talk) 06:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Change "Patrice shoots Bond in the shoulder" to "Patrice wounds Bond in the shoulder" and I'm happy with it. I still feel that saying Patrice shoots Bond and that Eve shoots Bond implies that Bond has a similar injury from both and that the circumstances of his being shot are the same, neither of which is true. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

So that last minor tweak gives us an agreed version? (I'll admit I'm also happier with the broader "wounds" than the misleading "shoots"):

In Turkey, MI6 agents James Bond and Eve chase the mercenary Patrice, who stole has stolen a computer hard drive containing details of undercover agents placed in terrorist organisations by NATO states. Patrice wounds Bond in the shoulder and, as the two men fight atop a train, Eve accidentally shoots Bond, allowing Patrice to escape. Bond goes missing, presumed dead.

Is everyone happy with that? - SchroCat (talk) 11:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Totally. And it's just 60 words.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I was fine with how it was before. But this does seem like an appropriate compromise. MisterShiney ✉ 15:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Perfect. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)