Talk:On Her Majesty's Secret Service (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article On Her Majesty's Secret Service (film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic star On Her Majesty's Secret Service (film) is part of the James Bond films series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject James Bond (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject James Bond, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of James Bond on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article was the collaborated on by the WikiProject James Bond on November 1 2008 - November 29 2008.
WikiProject Film (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
 

Ordered, but uncollected[edit]

This phrase is unnecessarily dense. Anyone who knows what is really meant is urged to edit this to plainer English. Qermaq (talk) 00:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Still curious. "(ordered, but uncollected, by Connery)" is weird, and it is in the Casting section. Can anyone clarify this? Qermaq (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
It means that it is a custom (UK: bespoke) suit of clothing, which was made for and paid for by Connery, but never picked up from the tailor's, and was obtained by Lazenby instead of Connery. Dkendr (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Kilt[edit]

Was this Bond's only film appearance in a Kilt? I believe so, but need additional confirmation from other editors. 76.186.118.246 (talk) 07:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Emperor001 (talk) 13:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thug in Tracy's room[edit]

I'm almost certain, having seen the film in the last two weeks, that Bond does not kill the "thug" in Tracy's hotel room, as the same man is later seen listening at the door of Bond's suite and apparently leaves satisfied as to her safety. Is it another thug or is this an error in the synopsis? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.37.132 (talk) 03:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Short reference to the first three Bond movies[edit]

Just after Bond has told miss Moneypenny to write M that he wants to quit his job, he unpacks his briefcase, and takes out three special items which appear in the first three movies. During the time he observes these items, you hear respectively of the song "under the mango tree", the "from russia with love"-theme and "goldfinger". Maybe something to put in a trivia-section? 83.86.1.159 (talk) 19:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The 3rd song was Thunderball, not Goldfinger (but the janiter in Draco's buidlding did whistle Goldfinger). Emperor001 (talk) 13:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Ultimate Edition[edit]

How come the DVD boxes for every Bond film in the Ultimate DVD package have so-and-so as James Bond 007 or so-and-so as Ian Fleming's James Bond 007 but the box for this one simply says James Bond 007 without the George Lazenby as part? Emperor001 (talk) 13:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Curious. Presumably just prejudice — in that they don't think of him as a familiar "Bond name". After all, the covers are probably designed by a professional cover-designer, rather than a Bond fan. – Kieran T (talk) 13:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
That in itself was a prejudicial and unsupported statement. 69.253.219.207 (talk) 07:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

I have started a review of this article to see if it fits the criteria for a WP:Good article. The criteria and my comments can be found here. SilkTork *YES! 23:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The article hasn't met the criteria for GA. Comments can be found on Talk:On_Her_Majesty's_Secret_Service_(film)/GA1. SilkTork *YES! 23:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The only bond film filmed and set entirely in Europe[edit]

Is not "for your eyes only" also not set exclusively in Europe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.50.247 (talk) 22:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

No:
Also, "From Russia with Love" is also set exclusively in Europe. I've removed the claim. Swanny18 (talk) 11:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Playboy Trivia[edit]

Oops, stupid "minor edit" tick box being over the "save page" button. Anyway, edit summary for the last edit would have been: "Removed Playboy trivia because it's non-notable." Cheers. DonQuixote (talk) 22:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Blofeld does not recognise Bond[edit]

The script stays so close to the book that there are several continuity errors due to the movies taking place in a different order, such as Blofeld not recognising Bond, despite having met him face-to-face in the previous film, You Only Live Twice. In the original script, Bond undergoes plastic surgery to disguise him from his enemies. The intention was to allow an unrecognizable Bond to infiltrate Blofeld's hideout, and help the audience accept the new actor in the role. However, this was dropped in favor of ignoring the change in actor.

Bond had surgery to disguise himself in You Only Live Twice (book & film). When Bond met Blofeld face-to-face in that film, Bond was supposed to appear Japanese!
Assuming Bond had more surgery to restore his original appearance (or even get a new one) would explain this continuity error. If there are other continuity errors due to changing the order of the stories from book to film, I'd be interested. Sante Sangre (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Peer review[edit]

This article is in pretty good nick but there are a couple of neutrality issues. In the cast section, some of the entries include critical reception "snippets". In Lazenby's case the critical summary certainly isn't representative of the critical consensus, and I think all critical commentary should be removed from this section and added to the critical reception section. In most "good articles" this section seems to just document information related to the casting, and it is impossible to provide a balanced and neutral commentary in a couple of lines.

Secondly, in the critical reception section there is a box quote; while there is nothing wrong with box quotes, and nothing wrong with including this particular piece of information, I don't think we should box quote critical commentary because it elevates one opinion above another, which can affect the neutrality and it could discourage readers from reading the whole section which is necessary to form a balanced view.

Most of the references look reliable and the article seems pretty well sourced, but I will perform a more thorough check of the sourcing over the weekend. Betty Logan (talk) 00:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The Ebert summary I think sums it up perfectly so I think should be elevated above the others in a box.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
As a rule I'm against boxed info, it makes it look like a magazine rather than an encylcopedic article. Obviously that is just my personal preference, and with something like the Lazenby quote in the production section it does no harm; however I'm against boxing opinions because even if it is balanced and representative it still gives too much weight to a single opinion. My view is that critical reception section should be straight prose; readers should be encouraged to read the whole section and that is the only way to balance the various viewpoints. Betty Logan (talk) 14:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the boxed quote and dropped the quote into the text with the others. Fairbanks is only one point of view that runs counter to a number of the other reviews and so to put him in a box skews the NPOV a little too much. - SchroCat (^@) 18:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Betty Logan (talk) 08:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Checked through the article fully now; apart from the dead link and the box quote in the reviews section which give too much weight to a single opinion, the other problems are restricted to the Cast section. There is a dubious source and an unsubstantiated claim; the review snippets should be moved to the main review section where they can be placed in a balanced context, because at the moment they compromise neutrality. Apart from that, and with a more substantial lead, this looks good to go in terms of a GA application. Betty Logan (talk) 13:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM Assessment[edit]

Per a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Assessment, I have reviewed the article to see if it should be upgraded from C class. I went through the entire article and made some fixes throughout. Please review my changes for accuracy. I've noted the below that should be resolved prior to a GAN review:

  1. The lead should be further expanded to touch on all of the various sections in the article.
  2. Some of the citations are duplicated and can make use of "ref name=". See the Screeonline citations.
  3. The screenshot appear somewhat decorative, only showing the Angels of Death and Bond together. Expand the caption to help justify the image. See if any of the book sources touch on the cast diversity, costume design, etc.
  4. Consider cutting down the lengthy quote in the reflective reviews section, it seems to overwhelm the section, especially for possible NPOV concerns.
  5. This isn't a requirement, but I would highly recommend using WebCite to archive the links before they begin to go bad. It would be a shame to lose the large amount of sources that are available for citing this article.

As these can be resolved prior to a reviewer looking over the article, I am going to assesses this as B for now. Please let me know if there are any questions on the above. I'm glad there continues to be a combined effort in improving the Bond films to higher quality. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 01:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Sorted the screenonline reference duplication. Betty Logan (talk) 01:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I'll write the lead in a couple of days when the rest of the article is nearly there and sort out the review section too - SchroCat (^@)
  • I've performed a webcite comb; not all the links were cached but a good few were, so if you find any dead links do a search on the link at http://www.webcitation.org/query. Betty Logan (talk) 14:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
As per above, I´ve moved sections of the quoted text into the main body to provide better balance between the two schools of thought. - SchroCat (^@) 19:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I´m not convinced the Bond / Angels pic is a shot from the film - it looks too much like a promo shot (and I think I´ve seen it described as such in a book, although I´m not at home at the moment and so can´t check) If it is a promo shot, I´ll get rid of it as I think it´s more window dressing than anything else - unless anyone objects.....? - SchroCat (^@) 19:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Articles with no images of the characters look worse off in my view.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

  • I believe in the case of FUR pics there is a preference for "group" photos, and since the section describes the ethnic make-up of the girls and thus decribes their appearance to a degree, I think the photo probably does complement the section. I suggest we keep it in for now and wait for the formal review. If the reviewer has a problem we can remove it then. Betty Logan (talk) 19:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I've gone over WP:FILMNFI and it's a little doubtful whether it could be used as it stands as it does not meet the Significance criteria: "The non-free image should be significant in increasing the readers' understanding of the topic. Non-free images can illustrate technical and/or thematic aspects of the film. Examples include, but are not limited to: production design, makeup, costume design, camera technique, visual effects, lighting, and iconic shots." Whilst there doesn't seem to be any criteria that would stop the image being used, we do need to address this point more fully to justify the use for the GA review. I suggest a better intro to the 2.1 Blofeld's Angels of Death section and a better descriptor to the image itself. I´m on a flight back home tonight, so I'll do it when I get there, unless someone beats me to it (or complains vehemently about the suggestion!) - SchroCat (^@) 10:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

GA Nomination[edit]

On the basis of the edits of the previous couple of weeks and the completion of the points raised in both the Peer review and WP:FILM Assessment sections above, I've gone ahead with the listing, as I think it's in good enough shape to pass as it stands. If the reviewer doesn't agree, then I think that at the very worst they may be one or two small points to clarify, but I feel we should be able to cover those as and when they arise. Finger crossed everyone! - SchroCat (^@) 09:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

There can't be any major issues with it, there is possibly only the "angels of death" image that might be a problem. Sorry about changing "sterilize" BTW, you learn something new everyday! I still can't get over it—"sterilise" gets more hits on Google UK than "sterilize", so I bet it will be listed when the new edition comes out! Betty Logan (talk) 09:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I know - I was very surprised too! I changed it lower down in the article some time ago and only found out about the 'ize' version today and had to change it back! I'll have another look over a couple of books at home this evening to see if there is anything additional to beef it up a bit more, but I think this may be the only major bone of contention, although there are bound to be a couple of minor points to clear up too.... we'll see! And then we'll see about where to go next... MWTGG fills me with dread just looking at it! - SchroCat (^@) 10:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Good to see you share both my hopes for this article and my fear of going chronologically to what's maybe the worst Bond film (thank God the strongest contender for the title is already a GA...). igordebraga 18:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Whilst we're waiting for the process to kick in, I've made a start on The Man with the Golden Gun (film) but it's a thankless and joyless task in some respects! I've asked the reviewer from Dr. No and Goldfinger if he would mind doing this one and he's agreed to do it in a couple of days, which is great news. - SchroCat (^@) 15:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
MWTGG is now in slightly better shape - at least it is in a position where it can now be worked on properly, with a lot of the dross removed that was there before! There's still a long way to go on it first, but it's looking as if GA is achievable in the next few weeks, with luck and a prevailing wind! Any thoughts as to major changes / alterations would be appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (^@) 14:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

Toolbox

See WP:DEADREF
for dead URLs

This review is transcluded from Talk:On Her Majesty's Secret Service (film)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Matthew RD 02:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I shall be conducting this review. I hope to start soon, probably tomorrow. Thanks, -- Matthew RD 02:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for waiting. I'll get some reviewing done; this is how the article fairs against the GA criteria;

  1. Well written: See notes below
  2. Sources and verifiability:  Pass
  3. Broad in coverage:  Pass
  4. Neutral:  Pass
  5. Stability: No edit wars, just work from the usual suspects.  Pass
  6. Images:  Pass
  • "where the sets don't look like sets" should end with reference, like the last 007 film I reviews. Yes check.svg Done - SchroCat (^@) 18:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Same for "change[d] his mind all the time, but he had to do what I wanted him to do." Yes check.svg Done (removed quote and re-worked sentence) - SchroCat (^@) 18:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • And the same goes for (in reception section);
    • "there are moments when one yearns for a little of his louche panache." Yes check.svg Done - SchroCat (^@) 18:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
    • "Lazenby is that man, and his performance in superb." Yes check.svg Done - SchroCat (^@) 18:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
    • "and who actually dares to think that one woman who is his equal is better than a thousand part-time playmates." Yes check.svg Done - SchroCat (^@) 18:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
    • "but I think that it still might be the best Bond film, as many Bond cultists claim." Yes check.svg Done - SchroCat (^@) 18:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
    • "He looks uncomfortably in the part like a size four foot in a size ten gumboot." Yes check.svg Done - SchroCat (^@) 18:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Who are the Propellerheads, what genre of music do they specialise in? Yes check.svg Done - SchroCat (^@) 18:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

And that's all that needs doing. Nice work so far. As always I'll place it on hold and leave you to deal with them. -- Matthew RD 18:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with them quickly. I'll pass it. Good job! -- Matthew RD 19:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Book/Film Title[edit]

As my edit stated, the title of the book and movie was a typical Fleming-like spoof of a well known phrase. IE, "You Only Live Twice", "Live and Let Die" etc. Fleming loved to goof/spoof on his titles, character names, etc.

The point I bring up would not be argued by a UK resident. The phrase "On Her Majesty's Service" has been around as long or longer than Fleming himself. Of course most Americans (like myself) couldn't/wouldn't know this unless they visited or lived in Britain, as I did. Just because you went your whole life without knowing this doesn't make it not so. I inserted a link to photos of examples of this phrase, so doubting Thomas's would know. And Americans.

It should be quite obvious what Fleming was going for here. "Find another source" yeah right. How could you find another source saying what he was going for on "Octopussy" for example.

It's bloody well obvious. Or should be to anyone who can read and look at a photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misterweiss (talkcontribs) 19:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

--Misterweiss (talk) 19:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your original observation. Please cite a reliable source that verifies this, or feel free to publish your original research in a reliable source so that we can cite you. DonQuixote (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

AND...

Is another Wiki article by another author proof enough for you self-appointed guardians of this realm? Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O.H.M.S.

Pasted in from that page: "In popular culture

O.H.M.S. is a 1937 action comedy film, while the title of Ian Fleming's 1963 James Bond novel On Her Majesty's Secret Service, along with its film adaptation, is a play on the term."

IT'S SELF-EVIDENT!

--Misterweiss (talk) 19:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't concern itself with "self-evident", it concerns itself with "verifiable". From just above the edit box: "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used and redistributed by other people at will."
As for the other article, "is a play on the term" is probably fine...but the other stuff in your edit ("The joke...is lost on most American's", "Fleming was being cheeky", etc.) is original research. DonQuixote (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
If it is that self evident then you shouldn't find it too difficult locating a source for it. Before you start looking, however, you should consider that the only thing that matters for this article is that the title was taken from Fleming's novel. You may want to look at the article about the novel, where the source of the title is identified: Fleming chose it "after being told of a nineteenth-century sailing novel called On Her Majesty's Secret Service, seen by Fleming's friend Nicholas Henderson in Portobello Road Market." You'll also note that the source of the information carries with it a citation from a reliable source. As to your Octopussy reference, try looking at the article of that novel: you'll find the source of the title identified there too. - SchroCat (^@) 20:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect box office figures from thenumbers.com[edit]

This article has for a very long time used an incorrect box office gross from a single source thenumbers.com - the amount listed as a gross of $82 million is factually incorrect. The actual gross was $87.4 million. For some reason the worldwide gross is being cited as the international gross, then "further releases" as the incorrect $82 million gross. Actual initial gross was $22.8 million domestic and $64.6 million international - $87.4 million worldwide. This is the correct gross initially, and no gross information for further releases was ever given. This error needs to be corrected, and not put back without a proper discussion. Because it is an error. Due to old books citing the error, and a website with a new error. But Wikipedia should be able to get the actual right gross on the article, without always reverting back to the incorrect one.173.216.233.111 (talk) 08:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

You need to provide a source to back up the information you are trying to add into the article. The Numbers is considered a WP:RELIABLE site, which is why the figures from there have been used. You have not given us any source information, either on the article or above, to let us know here you are getting these figures from, and I'm not entirely sure they are right. The Cork & Stutz book James Bond: The Legacy suggests that the initial worldwide box office was $64.6 million, a figure backed up by Block & Autrey Wilson's George Lucas's Blockbusting: A Decade-by-Decade Survey of Timeless Movies Including Untold Secrets of Their Financial and Cultural Success. The figure of 87.4 million takes into account the amount after re-releases, not the initial release amounts. - SchroCat (talk) 08:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that's not the correct gross. I researched for a book I was writing and the correct number was $87.4 million. The current source is always considered correct, even though it is not. So it always is considered factual. So there is no point in putting sources, it just gets reverted back every single time. I think more appropriate is to discuss that the current source should not be used in this instance solely, due to being in conflict with other sources. At the very least, it should be noted that other sources give a higher gross. The problem is that you can't simply edit the article to reflect that. It will always get reverted back due to the reliable tag. Anyway, it's not that important I guess, but it is the wrong gross.173.216.233.111 (talk) 08:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
The initial gross was $87.4 million. Again, these are errors that are being cited. The initial gross was $22.8 million domestic, and $64.6 million internationally. The $64.6 million international gross is not the worldwide gross. That counts box office only outside of the USA and Canada. The world wide combines the two. This is why I think the article should be corrected. It is simply not true that the initial gross was $64.6 million world wide. That was the international gross. That should be stated properly as international, not "world wide". And the discussion about it making more on re-release to $82 million is factually untrue. The initial gross was $87.4 million. Domestic plus international combined $22.8 + $64.6. The re-releases were never listed by those studios as to what the Bond films made. So there is an error, and also a confusion. I think we should simply correct here. It's not hard to see why this confusion exists of the international gross being claimed as the world gross. However, the claim about reruns and further grosses and then making $82 million is totally false.173.216.233.111 (talk) 08:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that not only do we have a number of independent third-party reliable sources pointing to $64.6 million as the worldwide gross, we also have books authorised by Eon (who should know), and industry experts like Block and Autrey Wilson who all say the same thing. a number discuss "worldwide boxoffice", regardless of territory. Worldwide incorporates all countries and does not artificially split off two countries for no reason. All you can say to back up your position is that you did some research for an unknown book and have a different number. You haven't provided any sources to back up what you're saying and nothing that we can use to change the current position. Can you say where the information came from, or provide a link or reference to a reliable source that goes against a number of other references? - SchroCat (talk) 08:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
This is why I wanted the discussion. The sources being touted simply made an error. I was just hoping to discuss that, point the error out, get it resolved and fixed through discussion. For example, it's not that hard to contact the studios and get the info. Like I said, it's not important. But I was just trying to fix it through discussion. Not get into a whole thing about sources. We can Google it right now, hundreds of sites use both figures. That's really not a solution, when the figure being used will always be used because of the reliable tag. But this won't get resolved this way as I can see, and it's just you and me. So let's just drop it. But in the future, it would be nice if someone can edit it to the correct figure and not have it reverted every single time. But I guess that's not going to happen. Thanks for the discussion.173.216.233.111 (talk) 08:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Concur with SchroCat. We can't use original research, even if it is correct. I have no opinion on which set of figures is correct though this won't be the first time a RS has been wrong. Despite this I support SchroCat's decision to revert unless you can cite a RS. - Fanthrillers (talk) 21:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I am distinctly dubious over the 87 million figure, since there seems to be common confusion over what constitutes an "international" figure: in some sources the "international" figure refers to the worldwide figure, whereas in others (usually US based sources) it is taken to mean the non-US figure, and without access to accounts or contemporary reports we have no way of knowing which is correct. However, if the film did gross 87 million that would be only be 13 million less than You Only Live Twice, which I don't think would have been considered "financially disappointing" at the time after losing Connery. It's worth noting that the Connery films immediately before and after made about 40% of their total gross in the US, whereas if the 87 million figure holds true the US share of OHMSS would stand at 25%. If OHMSS did indeed earn 64 million on its initial release then the US share would stand at 35%, roughly in line with the other Bond films of that period. Ultimately though, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to collect together published content, so there's a good reason why unsupported figures are removed; however, we do endeavour to use accurate figures so if you can provide your sources we may be able to corroborate them. Betty Logan (talk) 09:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

breaking the fourth wall[edit]

The film article claims: "These include Bond breaking the fourth wall by stating "This never happened to the other fellow" directly to the camera[.]" A discussion about this exists at Talk:George Lazenby#Fourth wall in OHMSS. - Fantr (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Her Majesty's portrait in Bond's office[edit]

It looks like Bond has a copy of Pietro Annigoni's 1956 portrait of Queen Elizabeth in his office. He apologizes to her portrait ("Sorry ma'am!"), before taking a drink from his hip flask, shortly after his resignation. Group29 (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Longest JB film, but with a shorter version too[edit]

Worth pointing out is that this is the longest JB film of them all. Also worth pointing out that a much shorter version was released in several territories. Have this at home on a HK VCD.

Stein S., Oslo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.209.88.240 (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Film ending[edit]

The death of Tracy was filmed here on this road in Portugal. Hasn't changed much!81.129.200.228 (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)