Talk:The Spy Who Loved Me (film)
|The Spy Who Loved Me (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.|
|The Spy Who Loved Me (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:|
- 1 Untitled
- 2 GA comment
- 3 Moore gets burned
- 4 Passed "good article" nomination
- 5 Not the first wholly original Bond film
- 6 Ski jump?
- 7 Fleming's Request
- 8 Shouldn't it be noted that that's the first Bond in surround sound?
- 9 Discussion pertaining to non-free image(s) used in article
- 10 Sock Puppet Critics
- 11 Bond working for MI6 in the Movie? - Not possible
- 12 IP edit warring
No, I think it's a bad idea to split the soundtrack into another article. It just doesn't make sense! I mean, if you were to look for the soundtrack, you'd naturally go to the movie article, because naturally it would be there, as it is now.
Any else think the reference to nudity and images of "sex organs" reads peculiarly?
One of the images is missing a fair use rationale, and the some of the other ones should be better explained for their use. Some are only using one word descriptions for their inclusion in the article. Make sure to address these before somebody reviews the article. --Nehrams2020 08:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Moore gets burned
in this video at the very end, Moore stats that he got burned from fire sometime during the shoot, might be interesting for trivia? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1iZCdLVJ3I&feature=dir —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 21:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Passed "good article" nomination
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
- It is stable.
- It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
- a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
Not the first wholly original Bond film
I've removed the statement that says that this is the first wholly original Bond film, as the element in which the targeting coordinates of a nuclear missile are redirected so that the missile destroys a submarine is borrowed from the novel Moonraker.--Urban Rose 20:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Because Fleming sold the film rights for all of the books (bar a couple where the rights were already elsewhere) before his death. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be noted that that's the first Bond in surround sound?
Even better than surround, the raw material (5 channel discrete sound) was enough to create DD 5.1 english track on the DVD. Subsequent James Bond were only Dolby Surround. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 18:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Discussion pertaining to non-free image(s) used in article
A cleanup page has been created for WP:FILMS' spotlight articles. One element that is being checked in ensuring the quality of the articles is the non-free images. Currently, one or more non-free images being used in this article are under discussion to determine if they should be removed from the article for not complying with non-free and fair use requirements. Please comment at the corresponding section within the image cleanup listing. Before contributing the discussion, please first read WP:FILMNFI concerning non-free images. Ideally the discussions pertaining to the spotlight articles will be concluded by the end of June, so please comment soon to ensure there is clear consensus. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Sock Puppet Critics
Am I the only one disturbed by the prominent placement given to opinions by James Berardinelli and Daniel Peary in the entries for nearly every Bond film listed in Wikipedia?
For one thing, these latter day commentators are usually listed first in the "Release and Reception" section (in this article, they are placed well before Janet Maslin, perhaps the most significant commentator writing at the time of the film's release, even though they were not writing at the time of the film's release).
But more importantly, it seems pretty clear these comments have been added systematically to these essays in a blanket (and probably self-promotional) sense, while genuine research into the actual critical reactions to the films at the time of their creation is lacking.
In my humble and solitary opinion, Wikipedia has, in a general sense, become an un-policed repository for these types of "factoids"--the critics whose opinions show up in Wiki film essays tend to be recent, relatively minor, and accompanied by Roger Ebert for balance. The great critical voices of the past--Pauline Kael, Andrew Sarris, Molly Haskell, Jay Cocks--and the secondary but notable ones like Bosley Crowther, Rex Reed and Judith Christ are shouldered aside and rarely mentioned.
It smacks of self-promotion, and the knowledgeable reader doubts the credibility of the entire entry as a result.
- (I've moved your comments to the bottom of the page - which is where they should be, rather than the top, just for future reference).
- You are right about their critiques: if at all possible the contemporary references should be in place in the articles, but that takes a fair amount of effort to do all the required research and re-writing needed. Relatively recently a small group of three of us undertook a program of re-writing a number of the Bond film articles to get them up to GA status, an d that included ensuring the contemporary reviews—largely British, as they are British films—took primary place, alongside the more recent reflective reviews, which included the likes of Peary and Berardinelli, as the later assessments arealso important. (Just for refernce, the articles which were re-vamped were Dr. No, Goldfinger, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, The Man with the Golden Gun, For Your Eyes Only, Never Say Never Again, Licence to Kill). I can assure you that the process took an awful lot of time and effort—and that was for only seven of the films! To do a re-vamp for the remaining 17 films is something we may get round to at some point, when we get a spare year or so! ;) - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Appreciate your hard work! I guess I should just state my biggest complaint directly: Peary and Berardinelli appear to me to have inserted themselves into all of these essays, and that seems real wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 06:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Bond working for MI6 in the Movie? - Not possible
Bond in the movie reported to the Minister of Defence in TSWLM therefore he could not have for MI6 since MI6 is under the Foreign Ministry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perdogg (talk • contribs) 15:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Could it be that the film is in fact fiction, rather than a documentary...? - SchroCat (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
IP edit warring
To the IP who wants to add bloat to the plot section, please discuss this here before you edit war any further. You are trying to add unnecessary superfluous information to the plot section. This is known as bloating, and we try and avoid it if possible. - SchroCat (talk) 10:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)