Talk:Skyfall

Running Time

According to the BBFC 'Skyfall is 142 minutes and 58 sec's long and Rated as a '12A'

                         Reference: http://www.bbfc.org.uk/BFF289704/

Hetty2012 (talk) 19:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

"Contains moderate action violence and one use of strong language".

Thats a first for a James Bond film. "one use of strong language" implies we will hear a clear F-word. It was implied and very very quietly heard in Live and Let Die, but quiet enough to pass through the censors and stay a PG. I'm surprised if there won't be any articles about this because the James Bond films have barely had any swearing in them. If there are articles it might be good to mention. If there was an F-word in each Bond film then it wouldn't really matter. It's not hugely important though Charlr6 (talk) 19:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I think I did hear one use of fuck - by M. - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't notice it the first time but did the second time I saw it. It is after they have boarded up Skyfall and Bond is standing by the window, M is sat on a chair and I believe she actually said "I've fucked up haven't I?". Isn't exactly 100% clear as I thought she said "screwed up" the first time I saw it, so was surprised when it wasn't 'screwed up' but a F-bomb. Charlr6 (talk) 19:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I heard "fucked" too. On a different note, you Americans and your "F Bomb" make me giggle. lol. MisterShiney (Come say hi) 19:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm from the UK. I presume I've picked it up from Wiki forums and IMDB and American movies. Whoops. Charlr6 (talk) 19:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Reception

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/james-bond-soars-early-skyfall-reviews-002659751--finance.html

Critics have gone as far as calling it the Greatest Bond Film of All-Time (SuperCell3000 (talk) 00:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC))

They say that about pretty much every Bond film when it gets released. Right now, there are only a handful of reviews online, and with the staggered release dates, it will be a while before a truly representative picture of the film's critical reaction emerges. Until then, we shouldn't over-react to individual reviews, mostly because doing so could be interpreted as advertising. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't remember them saying that for Quantum of Solace or Die Another Die, because since the 70s, there have been more mixed to negative reviews on Bond films then there have been positive.

I don't think putting up reviews that are already out, especially ones that are from big reliable sources would class as advertising, because even when there might be a good handful of reviews, it could still be classed as advertising that the film is good so people would want to see it more. Charlr6 (talk) 11:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

But the problem is that theonly reviews are coming from the UK, because that is the only place that has had a press screening. If we include too many reviews too soon, it leaves the section unbalanced. I think having the source that calls it "the best Bond ever" is taking things too far, because that seems to be a reviewer's favourite go-to line for a new film. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree with PM here, unless each reviewer states that they have sat through each and every Bond film and then compared the latest film, its a fairly lax statement to make. If it was a consistent theme across multiple reviews it could be a point to be made in that section but trying to open the section with it is an attempt to puff up the film, when it apparently doesn't need it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Well I can sort of see what you mean. But I'm sure there would have been American journalists for example who were sent there to review the film and have a review up online somewhere. But I think that "the best Bond ever" can be taken out, but the article should still mention the early reviews it had. Even if its just a couple of lines for reliable and often used sources. Charlr6 (talk) 07:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not arguing against removing the entire reception section. Just the "best Bond film ever" line. It's definately something that would need a consensus among critics before we could even think of including it in the article. Even then, it's questionable, as the best Bond film is purely subjective; for example, a lot of people think OHMSS is the best film, but I cannot personally stand it. Similarly, I really like TWINE (mostly for sentimental reasons; it was my first Bond film), but it usually gets mauled by the fandom. So including that line about SF being the "best Bond ever" now - particularly to open the reception section - comes across, as DWB points out, as an attempt to hype up the film, and so the article loses its neutrality. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure they should even be classed as early reviews, when the film is that close to release they just seem like normal critic reviews that decent films get when the studio isn't afraid of them being negative about it and diminishing box office business. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I meant "early" in the sense that they are the first ones to be posted. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

We'll be able to tell if the critics think it is one of the best Bond films by Rotten Tomatoes or Meta Critic and how high up it is. But even if it does get very good reviews, maybe better than Casino Roylae we shouldn't put 'critical acclaim', just refer to if it got positive or negative reviews (and put 'very' if we have to if the film was closer to universal acclaim or universally panned, so it would be 'very positive' or 'very negative'). What if they were called pre-release reviews? As it would be referring to before its actual wide public theatrical release. Not that it matters but I am the opposite with what you feel for OHMSS and TWINE. I love the first, but dislike the latter. Haha. Do like the villains though, think they were good. Charlr6 (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Going by consensus established at The Dark Knight Rises, I think that waiting for a minimum number of reviews on RT or Metacritic before mentioning the rating from each website is the best way forward. I believe TDRK required 30 reviews on RT and 40 on Metacritic, and the condition that both sites had to reach that number before either could be added in. I don't think that's unreasonable. RT currently has 17 reviews; Metacritic has 4. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind what we do. Possible just mention a couple of big reviews for the film, for example IGN posted a review. Could mention that now. Charlr6 (talk) 11:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• As long as there is a balanced selection of reviews I don't see any problem with covering advanced opinion. Obviously not every reviewer is going to think it's a masterpiece so it shouldn't be represented as such. There is a reasonable review here, which basically calls it a solid film, but nothing special. Betty Logan (talk) 13:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the only reason that they say that about every Bond film that is released is because supposedly they get better each time. If its a general consensus among the critics then it should be included. As for the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic that shouldn't be the case, reviews might not even get up that high and it (to my knowledge) isn't Wiki policy. That is like saying don't include the current turnover until it has been removed from the cinema. Its only one named precedent. Almost all other films have just included the general consensus and updated it as when it has changed. MisterShiney (Come say hi) 15:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The films "get better each time"? I think Quantum of Solace disproves that one fairly easily (not to mention Die Another Day!) I agree that the general consensus amongst critics should be included, but it's a question of at what point a true consensus actually develops. Only a handful of reviews doesn't make a consensus and the more there are, the more stable it will be. I'm in agreement with PM to keep the numbers off for a little while, and instead try and use the words of the critics to point out the strengths and weaknesses of the film, rather than just a rather undescriptive and not altogether helpful number. - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I also support the removal of the numbers for a while and try to use words provided by film critics to point out the positives and the negatives of the film. Only a handful of reviews do not make a consensus and if there are more reviews, the more stable the consensus will be. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The Reception area appears to have just a single American newspaper, the Chicago Sun-Times. I think for an accurate view of its reception in America, we need to go beyond film trade magazines (Variety, Hollywood Reporter) and fim buff sites/magazines (Total Film, Sight & Sound, Empire) and include The New York Times, USA Today and a couple of regional papers from (for example), Houston, Texas; Cleveland, Ohio; Denver, Colorado, and Seattle, Washington, to name a few. I also don't think we need both Sight & Sound AND Total Film, and I'm not sure we need SIX reviews from UK and Irish papers. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why having six UK reviews is excessive? It also sounds like you're suggesting a similar number from the US? - SchroCat (talk) 15:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I was suggesting Chicago Sun-Times, NY Times, USA and "a couple" of others, which would be 5, not 6, and for a much more populous country with enormous regional differences (as you may have heard!). In comparison, given the relatively small population of the UK and Ireland, I do think having 6 newspapers for a relatively small region is overkill. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Having six for the home production country doesn't seem excessive to me. (MOS:FILM notes that "Reviews from the film's country of origin are recommended") I'm also really not sure that the size makes that much difference: the UK consists of four countries, so there are some fairly fundamenal differences here too! - SchroCat (talk) 15:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, far be it from me to offend Brit pride!   :- )   In an event we do need more reviews from US newspapers, particularly since this is the country containing the single largest audience for the movie and will be the single largest source of the film's box office. That makes US critical consensus important by any objective standard. (Yes, I know China and India may be more populous, but only a constrained percentage can afford to attend a first-run foreign movie.) --Tenebrae (talk) 15:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree entirely about the US reviews - there is definately a need for more of them in there for a bit of balance. There will be some other good ones to go in too by the end of the run. - SchroCat (talk) 16:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Cool, Cat! --Tenebrae (talk) 16:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

New set of US reviews now added, one blog review removed. - SchroCat (talk) 08:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Silva page

A while ago, I created a page for Raoul Silva, shortly before the entire Bond project underwent a substantial clean-up, and the only villains that kept dedicated pages were the most-notable in the franchise's history. The Silva article has since been redirected back to the Skyfall page.

However, given that almost every review to date - even the ones that give the films lower scores - has praised Bardem's performance, the sheer volume of content under Bardem's entry in the cast subsection, and the way that Skyfall is the fiftieth anniversay, I think he is certainly notable enough to have his own dedicated page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It'd be a dangerous day that an actor being mentioned in reviews meant their character needed its own page. And there really is not that much info under his character, have you seen The Avengers (2012 film)? He is not notable at all yet, especially if the reviews are referencing the actor and not the character. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying it should be done straight away - just that we should keep an eye on things. If critical consensus acknowledges Silva as one of the best villains in the franchise's history, then that should be the tipping point where we should seriously consider a page for him. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I really hate these character pages. As I've said before they belong on fan sites, not wikipedia. Were it up to me I'd delete the bulk of them. Anything that needs to be said about Silva will probably fit in the main Skyfall article. - Fanthrillers (talk) 21:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thankfully, it's not up to you - under your logic, James Bond would not actually have a page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Please don't misquote me. Notice that I said "bulk of them", not "all of them". As you should know, many of these character pages have major notability issues. They often consist of plot synopsis and opinions. Bond deserves a page because he has iconic importance. Silva - so far as any of us knows - doesn't. - Fanthrillers (talk) 21:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

We should wait I think before doing anything. Maybe IGN might revisit their Best Bond villains and put him near the top, if they did then there would be a source there that proves he is more worthy. And also the film is released next week, we should wait I think until mid-November, after the US release until discussing more. I don't mean we should stop discussing more, I just meant that by then there will be enough stuff probably we could use on a page for him. Charlr6 (talk) 22:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

There are two scenarios where you might want to have a separate article for a character: the character appears in more than one film, making it a natural decision to have a separate article, or the coverage of the character starts to unbalance the film article, necessitating a split. The first case doesn't apply here, and the second may apply in time, but not as yet, so I agree with Charl6 on the "wait and see" approach. Betty Logan (talk) 00:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I saw the film yesterday. Are we sure about Silva's firts name as Raoul ? It seems that "Silva" is beeing called with this single word as a code name. Besides, in section Cast of this page, Silva's real name is refered to be 'Tiago Gonzalez'. Are we sure about it ? During the film I remembered to hear M saying 'Tiago Rodriguez' as Silva's real identity. Rodriguez instead of Gonzalez. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.57.238.42 (talk) 11:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The new James Bond films are remakes aren't they. They re introduce characters but are in a different timeline and style to past bonds. So how has no one picked up how Silvas charecter is a re imaganing of an iconic Bond villain. They thankfully didn't name him but the one scene where he removes his prosthesis and you hear the back story on his disfigurement and you see the messed up blackened teeth you realise he is actually JAWS???

So yes, his charecter deserves his own page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.229.143 (talk) 00:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

To my knowledge the only "remake" was Casio Royale, and that was a reimagining. I would hardly say that Solva was Bond and I don't recall him having a disability..... But if you can find a reliable source for it then by all means mention it. MisterShiney (Come say hi) 10:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Even if Silva was verifiably based on Jaws I would suggest that merge to the Jaws article would make the most sense. Also just because both characters have fake teeth does not mean that Silva was based on Jaws since the context was different for the characters (Silva lost his teeth in a failed suicide attempt, and Jaws used metal teeth to crush things) and second, Skyfall was not in any way based on the films that Jaws appeared in making the case for Silva being based on Jaws weaker.--174.93.171.10 (talk) 23:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 October 2012

Filming was at Ascot Racecourse not Royal Ascot which is an event staged at the racecourse once a year. Ash101215 (talk) 21:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

 Not done. No source, formatted incorrectly for an edit request. gwickwire | Leave a message 22:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

There needs to be a picture and a reference to the new moneypenny, portrayed by Naomi Harris. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prometheusfactor (talk • contribs) 08:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

North American Release Date

The release dates subcategory should be edited to convey the November 9th, 2012 North American release date. See here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.2.114.100 (talk) 22:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

If you are talking about the infobox, then no, it shouldn't. It's a British film, so there is no need for the release dates for any other territory to be listed. - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:FILMRELEASE

We should only have the date where the premiere is, and the date that the film originated from. Charlr6 (talk) 22:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah. I mistakenly thought that MGM, Sony Pictures Entertainment, and Columbia Pictures were involved in the production, and not simply the distribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.2.114.100 (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The production is by Eon Productions, a UK company. The other companies all play different roles, including financing etc, but they are not the producers, which is what is important. A little request for the future, could you please sign your posts using the four tildes (~~~~) so we can keep a tack of the conversation? - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer and Columbia Pictures only distribute it. Columbia Pictures became involved for Casino Royale I think because they had the rights for the book, and the 1967 spoof Casino Royale was made under Columbia. Funny thing is I remember reading that Columbia wouldn't distribute it for Bond 23 and Quantum was their last film. Charlr6 (talk) 22:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the information does not belong in the information box given current formatting standards. However, given the likely size of the market for the film in North America and the number of individuals that likely come to this Wiki page specifically for that particular piece of information, it might be prudent to make it more readily available in the main body of the article (as in the example provided in WP:FILMRELEASE) along with release dates for other key markets for this film. While this information is present (for NA, that is), I didn't actually find it until after having searched for it elsewhere. 128.2.114.100 (talk) 22:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The UK is often one of the larger markets (while not anywhere comparable to the US) but its release date doesn't get added to American film articles, neither do Russian or Chinese dates. Don't see why America should be special. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Release date is a key piece of data usually sought when looking up information on as yet unreleased movies. Having this information buried in the main body of the text causes the article to fail in a key purpose of any encyclopedic article: to clearly convey information in a way that makes the information easy to find.

The reason I brought this up in the first place is that Wikipedia's article on Skyfall failed to quickly and conveniently provide me with the information I wanted, making me go elsewhere for it. The question then becomes: is release date a significant enough piece of information that it should be a standard part of the main body of any article for any major film release?128.2.114.100 (talk) 22:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

An American James Bond who wants to find out when Skyfall is released should know by now. And it would only take less than 30 seconds to do another search through Google or scroll down the page or something for them to find the release date in the US. Charlr6 (talk) 23:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

That has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not release dates warrant being more prominently displayed in the article. Your argument is basically: 'The information can be easily obtained elsewhere, so why offer it here?' Hopefully you can understand why such an argument is ridiculous.128.2.114.100 (talk) 14:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes is does have something to do with the article as you said "... given the likely size of the market for the film in North America and the number of individuals that likely come to this Wiki page specifically for that particular piece of information...". If they can't find the information they want in the info box, they will be able to scroll down and find it. Its still on the page, just not the info box. Charlr6 (talk) 17:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOTADVERTISING. That means we include encylopedic information, not consumer information. A year from now it will not matter a jot if the film came out in the US a week or two after its European release. Betty Logan (talk) 15:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC

You might take that line of argument up with the example listed in WP:FILMRELEASE. Why should the release dates in various markets of Water be significant enough to warrant inclusion in the body of the article, where they are not significant enough to warrant inclusion in the article for Skyfall?128.2.114.100 (talk) 15:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not at all ridiculous. This is an encyclopedia, not a listings service or Google. If you want a news feed or listings, go to the services that offer it, not Wiki. SchroCat (^ • @) 14:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The release date on any film in any market can be obtained in a similar fashion. Why offer any amount of that information in any location in the article if, as you say, 'this is an encyclopedia, not a listings service or Google?' Just asnwer the question: is the release date a significant piece of information for people coming to this article ?128.2.114.100 (talk) 15:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The question has already been answered by a number of editors, so I don't think we need to go over the same material ad nauseam. Please see WP:! for a summary of what Wikipedia is not, which covers most of the things already covered above. - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted the deletion of the US dates: because it now transpires that as this is classed as a Anglo-American production, the US release date should be in there alongside the UK one. - SchroCat (^ • @) 06:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Where does it say that it is a Joint Anglo-American production? MisterShiney (Come say hi) 10:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

A few places, not least the BFI website. - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

What about the points you already made? And RELEASE DATES does say the place where it premiered and main country of origin, which is the UK, but you will already know that. And it already says on the article anyway the it is from the "United Kingdom" and "United States". But the main place is the UK. And it should be the place where it premiered, and the main country of origin or first proper release date. And as James Bond is a British film series. Even though the past couple of films have been co-produced by Columbia Pictures, its still mostly British made. Such as Harry Potter. And it is also supposed to have the main two release dates. But what about the points you already made, which also still apply and I agree with.

This isn't related to the article but why call it "Anglo-American"? It isn't something you'd see on the article. I'm just interested because wouldn't it be British-American? Not like its Anglo-Yank. HahaCharlr6 (talk) 15:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Currency conversion

In regards to adding a sterling conversion to the infobox as per [1], I think this would be unwise. While sometimes currency conversions are legitimate in analysis (such as comparing GDP), I think it is wholly unnecessary here, especially in the infobox which is primarily concerned with presenting factual information. What could be 93 million today could have been 90 million last week, or 95 million tomorrow, so you risk factual inaccuracy creeping into the article based on the arbitrary selection of an exchange rate.

I don't think telling a reader the film cost 93 million quid is all that informative really, because there is no contextual reference point for such a figure. Even if you go through all the Bond articles adding conversions (which would become very messy to read), it would offer a reader no greater insight into the film's financial aspects beyond what the sourced dollar figures already do. Basically you only need one set of figures—either pounds or dollars—to convey the financial background of the films, and since we can source all the figures in dollars that seems to be the natural choice to me. Betty Logan (talk) 14:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. - Fanthrillers (talk) 23:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. It is a British film and I have no idea why it has $$ under the budget. Especially if it was produced by British companies (and the finances provided by I assume mostly British backers also). It seems that the only reason for the $ is because wikipedia is predominantly American. There should be some mention of the £ budget especially seeing as the film was filmed in the UK except for the Turkey scene. MisterShiney (Come say hi) 22:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, if you look at the top of this talk page, it says that the article is written "This article is written in British English, and some terms used in it are different or absent from American English and other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus." which to me suggests that it should also have British currency conversions. MisterShiney (Come say hi) 23:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

That's only applicable if they released the figures in terms of pounds, but the public figures are in dollars. Extrapolating pounds based on the current exchange rate is factually incorrect, not to mention original research. DonQuixote (talk) 00:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. You learn something new everyday. MisterShiney (Come say hi) 01:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Plot section

I appreciate that a large number of people have not seen the film and do not want to know what the plot is, and we also have WP:SPOILER which points towards not pulling any info, but are people happy if I draft up a more complete plot summary to use? - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm seeing the film soon, when I get back home and if there isn't a draft on here then I'll write one up.

Want it around the 700 word mark again? Even though from experience when I've written around that tons of smaller editors write loads more. Charlr6 (talk) 17:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Go for it. If neither of you do it someone else will have one up by tomorrow, and it's best if it's done by someone familiar with the guidelines. Betty Logan (talk) 17:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

OK - I'll have something up within the hour. - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Well done, SchroCat! If people do not want to know what the plot is they should not read several lengthy paragraphs marked "plot". - Fanthrillers (talk) 19:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

LOL - it is a bit of a giveaway, really! 700 words on the nail too: not too shabby!- SchroCat (^ • @) 20:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Beat me to it Schro. Haha. Finally a first review that actually hits the guidelines. Gonna read it to see if there is anything wrong, but I doubt there is. Is there anyway we can break the rules on here and all discuss Skyfall and what we thought of it? I'd love to know what you guys thought. Haha. I thought it was brilliant. As soon as it was over I updated my Twitter and Facebook via text saying "Why write a review when the word 'perfect' still wouldn't come close to how great it was?", which in my opinion is true.

We should keep an eye on the plot though in the next couple of weeks, because there will most likely be some mild occasional editors who don't know the rules and might write it over 1000 words. That happened with Paranormal Activity 4. I wrote the plot, more than there should at first but later had to shorter it to 800 words (I know, 100 over but was the best I could do without getting rid of important detail) but milder editors (mostly IP addresses) came and added tons of words, mentioned things that weren't necessary.

Anyway, I'm lingering on. Charlr6 (talk) 22:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Read the plot. It's good. One thing I'm not that keen on is how it mentions Moneypenny straight away. I would prefer we don't mention her name until the end, just like what happens in the movie. But as we can't just write 'woman', I feel that we should just mention her being called 'Eve', then in the last sentence mention that Bond and her introduce officially and that reveal in the plot she is Moneypenny. What do you guys think? I would prefer it because it is how it is revealed in the film even though we don't know her first name Eve until the end as well, we should mention that so like said, it isn't just going to be 'woman'.

And also, I don't mind if we do or not, but should we mention, and please don't tell me we need a source as its in the film, but should we mention how the new offices at the end have a striking resemblance to Connery's Bond MI6? And that isn't going to be OR I hope because it is in the film and I highly doubt it was by accident with how similar Moneypenny and M's offices and how they connect, even the door are similar to Connery's Bond. I don't know how we could mention it though, but like I said I don't mind, but I think it would be worthy to mention. Charlr6 (talk) 22:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that would come under a section by itself if we could provide some sort of section for homages to the "Old films" would be more appropriate I think. If it can be worded right then Eve's true identity should be revealed at the end. MisterShiney (Come say hi) 23:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, a new section on the homages would be good. Also on the Aston Martin did anyone else also notice the 'spikes' on the wheels? The ones that destroyed the wheels on the girls car from Goldfinger. That could be mentioned.

But like I said about Eve Moneypenny. We should call her Eve to start off with, because we don't just want 'woman', haha. But then leave it until the end that it is revealed fully in the plot she is Moneypenny. Charlr6 (talk) 23:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I took out "which has moved into its original headquarters (first seen in Dr. No" as I don't think it can be said it has returned as the new location just bears similarities and pays homage to the older films. But lets discuss. MisterShiney (Come say hi) 01:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the location of the pre-1995 digs of the MI6 HQ (now the SIS Building), but I'm also under the impression that the scene in question is still set in the current building with a new (or "vintage") office that's an homage to the 1960s office. A wild Rattata (talk) 05:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I've moved Moneypenny's identity back to the front, which is where it should be: we identify the characters properly in the plot section, not leave them hiding. As to the comments above concerning the office space and homages to previous films, this all falls under WP:OR and we'll have to wait for the secondary sources to provide us with sufficient back-up before they can be used. - SchroCat (^ • @) 05:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know who put in "which has moved into its original headquarters (first seen in Dr. No)", but even I wouldn't put that even though I thought it should be mentioned.

But, and its not and is at the same time, original research, but I have (and I presume some of you) seen all of the Bond movies a good amount of time, and know that the final office in MI6 at the end is an obvious homage to the original one from the early Connery films. I know we are supposed to have secondary sources, but even we can't deny its an accident. Hopefully there will be some article in a couple of weeks, or some new making-of video released that says it.

Did any of you notice the wine/champagne bottle (whatever it was) on the island that Silva had and it was from 1962. Another obvious homage. It has been 50 years, and I doubt that was an accident as well. Not saying we should mention that though, we could on the possible homage section MisterShiney suggested.

And with the Moneypenny thing, I don't know who changed her identity as I've been away from Wiki in the last 14 hours until now. But I think we should mention her as being 'Eve' to start off with, and then reveal in the last sentence her full name and Bond and Eve formally introduce each other. Discuss.

Oh and did it say how Bonds parents died in the movie? I can't remember. I know originally it was a skiing accident or something, but was that what it was in the film? Charlr6 (talk) 13:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

No details were given, just that Bond was an orphan. I seem to remember from the Fleming novels that it was a skiing or climbing accident. - SchroCat (^ • @) 10:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, it was me who put Moneypenny's name back at the front. When her character first appears I have linked the name: there is no good reason not to do it. It was dropped to the bottom by someone who said that "Eve's reveal is a major plot point". Utter ridiculous nonsense: it has absolutely nothing to do with the plot at all. Plot summaries do not have to chronologically follow a film and if it makes more sense to tweak them round then that is the way we are supposed to do it. Apart from the minor fact that some people may consider that a spoiler, what other purpose is there in keeping the character's full details until the end? - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I meant I don't know who changed it originally to just Eve, as I just suggested it but haven't changed anything in the plot yet except adding a comma. Haha. I don't feel her reveal is a major plot point, just a sort of mild twist that the film makers nicely managed to hide. And I know plot summaries don't have to keep in chronological order. Although when a film itself is shown in chronological order, and doesn't jump back and forth between a timeline I feel we should reflect what happens there. And like I previously said I think we should just mention Eve to begin with and throughout, then her full name in the end. And should we mention she becomes a secretary? Because she will be because Moneypenny was always M's secretary. And wouldn't make any sense that she went to sit by a desk outside M (Mallory's) office if she wasn't a secretary. But I don't see a purpose why it should be mentioned fully in the beginning. Thats the only thing I would prefer and according to that "Eve's reveal is a major plot point" guy as well. I don't see any problem it moving around.

And also changing her name to Eve through-out until the last sentence will also result in less letters, less characters, which would be a good thing as Eve is seven letters shorter than Moneypenny. Even though it won't take a huge chunk of characters away, it would still be good. Charlr6 (talk) 14:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah OK - no probs. The number of characters doesn't matter - it's the word count that does. And we don't use anyone else's first name, so the surname is fine throughout. She's mentioned at the beginning as her character first appears at the beginning - and in rather an important way too! Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with revealing Moneypenny's name at the start of the article - the summary should follow the film's sequence of events to give a sense of the story AS TOLD on screen, rather than giving away plot details out of sequence. For example, the summary for The Sixth Sense does not begin by saying Bruce Willis is a ghost, and the Fight Club summary does not tell you that Brad Pitt is a facet of Ed Norton's mind as soon as he is mentioned. OK, this is not such a big spoiler, but the principle is exactly the same. Nsign (talk) 09:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Spoiler. Plot summaries are exactly that, and will, therefore, include spoilers. There is also no need to slavishly follow the chronology of a film. Please note that this point is being discussed here and it is preferred on Wiki to discuss matters fully and gain a consensus. - SchroCat (^ • @) 10:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes and the consensus seems to be that it is preferable to refer to her as Eve until the end of the summary to better reflect the narrative arc of the plot. There may be no need to "slavishly" follow the chronology of a film, but why wouldn't you? The purpose of a plot summary is to summarise the plot accurately. A plot isn't just a plot - its a narrative. Why would you give an incorrect account of the narrative? Moneypenny is not revealed to be Moneypenny until the closing moments of the film - it is therefore not logical to use this name as though it were part of the narrative before it has been revealed. I find it odd that anyone would want to. Nsign (talk) 10:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

That's not the consensus at the moment and it's still a point under discussion. The character appears in the opening scenes of the fil and her name is linked to her character right there and then: to do so elsewhere is just not logical. The plot summary here summarises the plot accurately. Eve's surname is nothing to do with the plot, in other words it makes no difference if she's Eve Monneypenny or Eve Smmith, the storyline does not change because of it. I suggest you read WP:FILMPLOT fully: "events in the film do not have to be written in the order in which they appear on screen". - SchroCat (^ • @) 10:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

"The character appears in the opening scenes...and her name is linked to her character right there and then: to do so elsewhere is just not logical". You're just wrong - the film reveals her full name at the end of the narrative. It is therefore entirely logical to do the same thing in the summary. You're also wrong that its "nothing to do" with the plot. It is, by definition, part of the plot and the narrative, albeit a minor part - the reintroduction of a recognizable character from the Bond franchise, one that is fully revealed at the end. I fail to see what purpose is served in not having the summary following the actual narrative, other than to be obtuse. Why not start Star Wars by saying, "Darth Vader, who is Luke Skywalker's father, enters..." 194.73.118.78 (talk) 11:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not wrong: this is a difference of opinion and a judgment call and not about right and wrong. The character appears at the start of the film and it is linked there: that is a logical place.I think you may be confusing plot with detail here: her identity is not part of the plot. If it was, then it would change something within the narrative dialogue of the film. It doesn't. It's certainly not "by definition, part of the plot": it's a minor tweak at the end of the film as the series still goes through some of the re-boot process. It's also not about being obtuse. Wiki has spoilers in the film (and novel) pages: you should respect that stance and accept that they happen, just as it is happening here. By the way, just a minor point, but Bond isn't a franchise: it's a series. - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry and all that, but you are wrong and its not opinion. Here's why: it is NOT logical to name the character as Moneypenny at the start of the summary. Why? Because the film doesn't. If a summary is intended to be an accurate reflection of a narrative then it should logically follow that narrative. To do otherwise may be within whatever wikipedia policy is but there's no reason to make that change other than to be awkward. Also, it very much is, by definition, part of the plot. It is in the script, and forms part of the story. To say otherwise is not opinion - its wrong. You may as well say black is white. How does one go about getting consensus on this? I've argued this using facts and demonstrable logic, your stance is illogical and simply seems to be, "it doesn't have to be at the end of the article, even though its at the end of the film". Why not just be consistent with the film? 194.73.118.78 (talk) 12:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure you understand what the situation is here, and you're calling me wrong is proof of that: this is a situation without right or wrong, is an opinion and a judgement and repeating "you're wrong" will not change the situation except to weaken your own argument. Your argument seems to be based on nothing more than "it should be at the end because I want it to be there", which doesn't seem to be terribly logical really. My stance is not illogical, it is based on logic and Wiki policies and guidelines. I also think your stance may be based on a fallacy, however. The character's name (and identity) is not part of the plot. If it was, then it would have ramifications within the storyline: it doesn't. Nothing in the story changes because of her identity. There is absolutely no reason not to link her name at the start—on the appearance of the character—except some vague nation of it being a spoiler, a topic covered in WP:SPOILER. Again, I urge you to please read WP:FILMPLOT, paying particular attention to the phrase "events in the film do not have to be written in the order in which they appear on screen". - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

You're wrong again, and I'm staring to think you're doing it deliberately - wilfilly ignoring or deliberately misinterpreting what I have actually said and failing to provide any logical rebuttal. I'll therefore set them out very clearly:

- You say, 'your argument seems to be based on nothing more than 'it should be at the end because I want it to be there'. Wrong, and that is very clearly not what I said - the argument is it should be at the end of the summary because it is at the end of the film. Logically a summary should be an accurate summation of a narrative. You do not start a summary by giving away a piece of information that is only revealed at the end of a narrative. And I ask again, why would you want to?

- You say, "the character's name (and identity) is not part of the plot". Your understanding of the definition of the term "plot" is flawed. Anything within the script involving characters must, by definition, be part of the plot. It is not arguable to say it isn't - this is a simple fact and your denial of this is simply not a matter of opinion. Your definition of "plot" ("if it was, it would have some ramifications within the storyline") is entirely subjective and seems to be something that you have come up with on your own. Whether something is a major plot detail or a minor plot detail is more arguable, but nonetheless, going by your shonky definition of "plot", your statement that "nothing in the story changes" is still demonstrably false, because by the end of the film the audience is introduced to a recognizable character from "Bond mythology", if you like. This is, by any definition, a plot point - part of the storyline and part of the narrative.

- "Events in the film do not have to be written in the order in which they appear on screen". I can't say I understand this particular rule, but what exactly is the point of changing the flow of events in the summary? Anyone who hadn't seen the film would, going by your version, assume that from the start of the film the audience and the main character were aware that this character is Miss Moneypenny. But this is not the case, and your summary is therefore, if not inaccurate, then certainly misleading. So I ask again - why? Why would you not simply follow the narrative structure of the story that has been told? What purpose is served by giving a misleading account of a narrative? Because that's what it is.

- I do not know how consensus is reached on Wikipedia or how these things are resolved. Therefore could I ask others for their assistance, opinion and expertise on resolving this issue. Having set out several clear explanations now for why I believe this summary could be better, and received no reply that actually rebuts them, I'd like some assistance. 194.73.118.78 (talk) 14:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I really don't know how to reply to this mess of a flawed argument, except to try and point you, once again, in the direction of WP:FILMPLOT and WP:SPOILER and ask you to read them fully and properly. You have not raised a single solid line of argument that somehow shows how or why we should ignore these. You are basing your arguments on flawed and incomplete logic and your own personal desires to have a link somewhere other than where it is. Again you keep repeating the mindless mantra of "you're wrong", but without actually seeing what I am trying to explain to you. What I have explained is not "demonstrably false", but actually rather simple and straightforward and I'm surprised you can't grasp it. To call the information "misleading" simply because we identify someone's surname at the beginning of the summary is twisting the truth back on itself as it's the very opposite of misleading to explain something up front. How is that misleading? As to your points about what constitutes the plot, I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree as I cannot accept such a woolly and vague notion of a plot such as you foster. - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

"I really don't know how to reply to this mess of a flawed argument.." No, you don't know how to reply to clearly explained points, using facts and logic, which is what I have laid out. You have failed to respond to any of them because you know you're wrong, and so are resorting to the classic 'rubbish the whole context of an argument without addressing the fine detail' defence. My definition of plot was also quite plain and clear. Again, I ask for how consensus is reached on this issue as you are incapable of addressing facts and logic. 194.73.118.78 (talk) 14:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

No: you are not clearly explaining anything. Your arguments are not logical or factual, but are flawed and based on erroneous assumptions and false presuppositions. Please do not misrepresent what I have written or try and rubbish it without actually reading it properly: I read your definition of a plot, I disagree with it, because I think you are wrong and are defining it incorrectly, which is why I have said we will have to agree to disagree. It's not your explanation that I find woolly and unclear, it's your how you interpret the term "plot summary" which I find to be deeply flawed. Your arguments are not addressing the main problems here at all, which is why we should re-write the guidelines of WP:FILMPLOT and WP:SPOILER simply to satisfy your whim. - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I can't agree. M's death would be perfectly appropriate in the production section or in the plot. As pretty much spelled out the beginning of the article, it's a major spoiler and completely unlike the majority of Wikipedia articles on films. (I have no problems with spoilers in the plot section, where they're unavoidable.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.124.237 (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I have rarely come across such a blatant, head-in-the-sand, black-is-white obfuscator such as yourself. You're fond of telling me my arguments are flawed but not once have you actually addressed any of the points I've clearly raised above, preferring instead to say, "I disagree". You say my definition of "plot summary" is "flawed" without explaining why, when you have previously provided a spurious and subjective "definition" of plot that could have been scribbled on a fag packet. You say I make "false assumptions" and "presuppositions" without explaining what they are. You say my arguments don't address the "real problems", without providing any rebuttal at all to those arguments. I fail to see why your version of this should take precedence over mine given that you cannot respond to facts and logic. If anyone is acting on "whim" here it is you. Your only response to logical, factual argument is to say its not logical or factual without saying WHY it isn't, other than you disagree with it. To quote Mark Kermode, "other opinions are available, but they're wrong". 194.73.118.78 (talk) 15:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the Ad hominem attacks, although I'm not entirely sure they are either appropriate or necessary. Thanks also for you repetition of your "you are wrong and I am right" mantra, although I'm not sure it takes us any further forward. I have addressed your points where I feel that is applicable, although I note that you have not gone as far as to address mine: why should we re-write the guidelines of WP:FILMPLOT and WP:SPOILER simply to satisfy your whim. - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I know its a different page, (not sure if any of the editors on here edit on it much, presume so as its Bond), but on Quantum of Soalce Camille Montes, is referred to as Camille through-out, and in Casino Royale Vesper Lynd is just called Vesper. Same goes for mostly the other Bond films. So it seems that the Bond girls are all called by their first name.

Should we possibly reflect that do you think? Charlr6 (talk) 14:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Which version we use is a minor point really, but I think that we should try and keep some consistency where we can. We refer to Bond as Bond, not as James and the same for the other characters, so it doesn't seem suitable to use the first name for one character against the surname for the others, I think. - SchroCat (^ • @) 10:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Just to wade in at this point for what its worth, I totally disagree with the first name usage of any of the characters. Consistancy should be an integral part of every article. -- Cassianto^Talk 14:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Then how can you explain on all of the other Bond pages that all of the Bond girls are called by their first names? Why should Skyfall have the Bond girls referred to by their last name, when the other pages its all by their first name.

If there should be any consistency then it should be the consistency between the pages on how all of the Bond girls are referred to by their first name. Which if you check, they are. Charlr6 (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem is a number of the articles are inconsistent on this point, but that's something of a side issue; a page should carry internal consistency wherever possible, which is more important than consistency across a range of inconsistent articles. I should point out that about half the Bond articles use the surname (or title), rather than the first name of all their characters. - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't feel that the conventions are anything like so set in stone that it is violating the rules of Wikipedia to have no spoilers at the start of the article. Having mention of Moneypenny and M at the very start of the article is cruel and not needed. It does not make the article any better to have them there than in a discussion section after the plot summary. If you look at articles for Bond films with similar plot twists (FYEO, DAD), none of them lead with details of plot twists as clear as those you have insisted upon beginning the article with. (Unsigned)

Not entirely sure where you're coming from with this. I don't remember a long-running character from the series returning after a hiatus in either FYEO or DAD, or the replacement of a high-profile actor in major long-running role with another high-profile actor, or even something of equal significance to the series as a whole. That's they the information is in the lead and not buried elsewhere, and having it there is fully in line with WP:LEAD. Just to save you having to read it (although I suggest you do), the important part reads:

"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies."

Cruel? Hardly. "not needed"? Quite the opposite. - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I maintain that these facts don't belong at the start of the article, they belong in the trivia section. Moonraker doesn't mention that this is a comparable actor's last appearance until the cast list. TWINE doesn't mention that this film is the one in which a comparable character retires. OHMSS's article doesn't mention the death of _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ or that this is _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _'s only appearance in a pretty significant role for Bond's character arc (fairly obvious though that is). DAD doesn't reveal the name of either a mole in MI6 or the true identity of a character in the start of the article-indeed, neither character is even mentioned. FYEO and TWINE's articles don't say who the ultimate villain is at the start of the article. (Unsigned) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.124.237 (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

You can carry on mantaining that as much as you want, it does not alter the fact the the lead reflects important points in the article, which includes changes in the cast, even if these are spoilers. Please see the consensus-led Wiki policy on spoilers at WP:SPOILER for further clarification on the fact that Wiki includes spoilers. Please also note that, according to the discussions on this page, the majority of those who raised the point were in favour of having the information in the lead. As to the "Trivia section" suggestion, I think this is slightly more important than trivia, don't you? (and anyway, trivia sections are discouraged).- SchroCat (^ • @) 17:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

location of the finale mansion

Would it be interesting to add the precise location of the finale mansion, which seems to be Dalness Lodge? I found some reference to it here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2099410/Daniel-Craig-keeps-cool-filming-Bond-freezing-temperatures.html After some more research, it seems that a fake mansion was also constructed in Hankley: http://theforagingphotographer.wordpress.com/category/james-bond-skyfall/

Yes, what is currently there is completely wrong. I visited the set which the user above rightly points out is Hankley Common in Surrey. Here are a few pictures for proof: http://imgur.com/a/yPvCv — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.175.25 (talk) 13:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC) --Céropégia (talk) 08:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Céropégia

Edit request on 27 October 2012

The twist of the movie is revealed in the first sentence of the plot synopsis completely unnecessarily! 86.156.13.63 (talk) 15:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

It's already been discussed above under 'plot section'. Charlr6 (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

 Not done See section above. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 22:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

BBFC

Shouldn't we add the BBFC rating (12A)? 3|9|3|0|K (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Isn't any need to. Skyfall is the first film to use the F-word (except for the strongly implied but unheard F-word from Live and Let Die). M says that they are 'f**ked up', and the film was rated 12 for moderate action violence and one use of strong language, which hasn't been said before. Charlr6 (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Heritage/Historic References to the old films.

So it being safe to say that this film has a lot of nods and references to the older films. So is the opinion of this editor that it would be in the benifit of the article to include these as and where they are identified. What is the best way to include these? MisterShiney (Come say hi) 20:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

By finding reliable secondary sources that identify them, which will allow us to include them with the appropriate citations. - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Spoilers

The revelation of Naomie Harris's role as Moneypenny is not revealed until the final moments of the film, and is thus a spoiler and should be treated as such (it shouldn't be revealed in the first sentence of the synopsis). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.136.215 (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Spoiler. Plot summaries are exactly that, and will, therefore, include spoilers. Putting her identity at the front is a standard way of linking the names of individuals and there is no reason not to do so when the character is first introduced. - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

On "The Sixth Sense"s page the twist in the end it is revealed at the end. I know that movies page is a different movie to Skyfall and probably the same editors here aren't involved, maybe there are, I haven't checked. But if Wiki plots can have spoilers, I could just mention in the plot there that he died at the beginning, and explain he thinks he is alive throughout the movie.

But like I've said before, all of the Bond girls names are referred to on the other Bond pages by their first names, not their last names.

There is no harm her just being referred to as Eve until the end when her full name is revealed in the plot. It would make the editors complaining about it happy, and any editors who want to keep it in at the beginning are just being, no offence, but awkward. Charlr6 (talk) 14:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

As I've mentioned before: "all of the Bond girls names are referred to on the other Bond pages by their first names" is just not true and I think you need to look over the articles again. Secondly, If you want to edit the Sixth sense, carry on: that's not this article, it's a different one and different editors took a different route. Thirdly, yes, I do take offence at you calling me awkward. I am following an entirely logical path that sits well with the current Wiki guidelines and I do not have any issue with that. I do have an issue with you starting to throw names around at people. - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

But there wouldn't be any harm to just simply name her Eve, then reveal her full name in the end. And I was referring the 'awkward' to being as changing a possible edit back, if an editor was to take any mention of Moneypenny out until the name, even though it has been explained by a couple of people now, why it should be mentioned last. Lets say I went and just now got rid of Moneypenny's name until the final sentence and then you undid my edit. You know why I did it, as I have mentioned several times why the edit should be made, and as editors can't have control of certain things on Wikipedia, such as a plot summary, then you wouldn't be letting me add my edit in. It isn't as if I would be completely re-writing the entire plot and deleting your one to make room for a newly written one by me. Imagine it from my and other editors perspective and that an editor keeps deleting and ignoring edits you made. That would insult you wouldn't it? This editor not letting you change or add a single edit in. Do you understand that? Charlr6 (talk) 14:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I resent and reject the implication that I am not allowing others to edit: a number or people have done so and, where the article has been improved, they still stand. Any editor can edit any part of the article you would like, but I'd suggest that the Moneypenny references are left alone until the discussion is concluded, which is only right and proper. - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The article would be improved and reflect and be closer to the film more, if Moneypenny's name was mentioned last. It would be improved because that is how it is revealed in the film. And as her name was revealed as Eve officially before the film was released, then she would be called that in the plot until the end instead of just 'woman'.

But it would be improving the article because it would be reflecting the movie more. Charlr6 (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with Charlr6 and support the statement that you are not allowing others to edit. You reverted edits I made not only with regards to the pointless naming of Moneypenny in the first paragraph but other small details with no explanation.

I would also point out that a number of people including myself have now objected to this awkward and obtuse piece of reasoning. At what point does this become consensus? How many are needed to point this out? 5? 10? I don't know the rules on this and would like some clarification so that we can end up with a summary that people aren't objecting to. Which this isn't. 194.73.118.78 (talk) 10:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous: of course others are able to edit the article, as many have done. However, as there is an RfC over one small point, it is preferred to retain that point until a consensus is formed, which may take a week or so, maybe more, probably less. I should add that summaries will always be objected to on some ground or other and will have ongoing tweaks from a number of editors going on over the course of years, so the aim of "a summary that people aren't objecting to" may be something of a pipe dream. - SchroCat (^ • @) 10:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that the inclusion of the following statement within the opening paragraph does not add any value to the article but would spoil the enjoyment of the film for many. The statement reads... "Following the death in the film of Judi Dench's M, the post of head of MI6 is taken up by Gareth Mallory, played by Ralph Fiennes." I believe that it would be more reasonable to keep details such as this in the Plot section and to change the wording in the opening passage as follows. "The film sees the return of Judi Dench's M and two recurring characters after an absence of two films: Q, played by Ben Whishaw, and Miss Moneypenny, played by Naomie Harris. Skyfall also introduces the original character of Gareth Mallory, played by Ralph Fiennes." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markc113 (talk • contribs) 04:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the above contributor; the lead as it currently stands does give away plot elements which are fine to discuss in the main plot section, but unneccessary in the lead (one cannot skip over that as easily as the plot summary). I must admit, knowing it would be spoilt, I stayed well away from this page before seeing the film, and I have to say I'm glad I did. I'm not sure other less experienced readers may know that we give away the plot in the first few sentences, and may have just come here for some of the reviews/production information. Bob talk 17:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bob, The lead has already been tweaked to reflect Markc113's comments. As the lead reflects the rest of the article—and the returning characters and the replacement of Dench as M are covered in both the Plot and Cast sections—it's natural to reflect these important points in the article's lead. Thanks - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I saw that someone tried to get rid of the 'Skyfall is Dench's seventh and final appearance in the role.' line next to M and Judi Dench on the cast section. I don't think there is a problem with that, because it doesn't spoil actually anything on how it is her last film. Some people I know thought she would hook up with the old caretaker Albert Finney. But I just thought I'd say I'm happy with the "Skyfall is Dench's seventh and final appearance in the role." line. Charlr6 (talk) 18:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I support getting rid of such speculation. I've tried to find an interview where Judi Dench says "In the next Bond film someone else will replace me as M" but I can't find one. It does not seem at all unreasonable that Bond 24 goes back to a different point in the chronology that once again has Dench playing M. Connor Behan (talk) 00:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

As discussed below (#Judi Dench) there is a source for this. - SchroCat (talk) 04:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Year Skyfall is set in

Skyfall has been released about six years after Casino Royale, was which was set in 2006 same for Quantum of Solace, so Skyfall is set six years after Quantum of Solace. --Smokeyfire (talk)Smokeyfire~

I've taken it out of the plot summary on a couple of grounds. Firstly it's not mentioned when the events take place and secondly it doesn't have any bearing on the plot whether it was six days, six months or six years after QoS. - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay fair enough. --~~Smokeyfire~~

Ahem..

Why on earth have you just revealed EVERY single spoiler in the entire film at the start of the page now? Luckily i've seen the film by now, but there are others who haven't, so may i suggest removing those revelations, and save them for later perhaps? 80.167.205.66 (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Spoiler. Wiki articles will contain spoilers, I'm afraid. - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant. That topic still suggests that spoilers be in clearly denoted sections with titles like 'Plot' and 'Ending'. Starting the article with references to Moneypenny, M and Mallory are adding pub trivia (What was Judi Dench's last film as M?) at the expense of overall quality of experience for users. You're in a small minority on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.124.237 (talk) 16:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not irrelevant at all. the topic does not limit spoilers to any section at all. And no, according to the discussion on this page, the majority of those who have commented on the lead think it is appropriate to mention the various characters there, so I'm really not sure how to get to the "small majority" conclusion? - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Unofficial RfC on mentioning of Moneypenny name at beginning

I also agree with users above that, following the narrative of the film and how it reveals information, it would be much better to mention the Moneypenny last name at the end of the Plot summary section, rather than at the beginning. It's fine just to use the name Eve and then have a sentence at the end saying that it is revealed her last name is Moneypenny.

I don't want to make an official Request for Comment of it, because that would take too long, but an unofficial RfC to gauge consensus would be good. So, opinions? Support moving Moneypenny to the end of the Plot section or oppose? Silverseren^C 05:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

If you want an RfC then I suggest a proper one to gain full consensus. If you don't want to go to the bother of drawing on up, then I'll happily oblige. - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The issue is I don't want it taking 30 days. Silverseren^C 08:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Why not? What's the rush? Surely it's better to take a little more time to get a broader viewpoint and a wider, more stable consensus? - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Personally its shouldn't be included, especially right at that beginning. Its only revealed at the very end for the briefest of time. Therefore does not including it take anything away from the plot no it doesn't.Blethering Scot 12:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

So you'd rathr not mention the return of one of the longest-running characters in the series at all? I find that strange... - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The reason as you would have read and know for the full name being said at the beginning, was because all names are being referred with the surname. But I have mentioned, which no one responded to directly yet is that on all of the other Bond pages the Bond girls are referred to by their first name, not their last. And the reason its a surname here, is to keep consistency. But the main consistency should be following what the other Bond pages have. Which is the Bond girl names by their first names. Don't believe me? Take a look.

Her name was revealed as Eve before the film was released, not Eve Moneypenny. I don't see any reason as because of it being a 'small thing', why I wouldn't just go and change it. I'm not going to do it because I know it will be changed back.

It was previously mentioned that film plots aren't going to be in chronological order, but this film isn't told in flashback. The only movie plots on Wikipedia I've seen that aren't told in chronological order are the films that actually themselves aren't told in chronological order or told in flashbacks, then back to the present day. Skyfall is told in chronological order. And the consistency should be we follow the 'twist' of Eve actually being Moneypenny.

If film plots, even if the film themselves are told in chronological order, aren't on Wikipedia going to be told in chronological order. Then I might as well go onto The Sixth Sense's page and change it and reveal in the first line that he died and is a ghost throughout the movie. If the film makers didn't want to reveal Eve being Moneypenny in the end as a 'twist', they would have revealed it straight away or sometime in the middle of the film, than the last scene. Doesn't matter that the Sixth Sense has a twist in the end, and that in Skyfall its more of a surprise, it would be the same situation if I went onto the Sixth Senses page and changed the plot to reveal he died at the beginning and is a ghost through-out the movie but he doesn't realise it. Charlr6 (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

"on all of the other Bond pages the Bond girls are referred to by their first name". Charlr6, this just isn't even close to being true! As I've mentioned above, internal consitency in an article is more important than across other articles. Eve's identity is actually a very minor point in Skyfall (although it will have have a bigger impact on subsequent films). - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

It is true. And I meant mostly actually (and I did refer to it as being 'most' before). I've gone through the pages and 75% of them are by their first names. And I saw what you did on the Dr. No's page. You went and changed Honey's name all to Ryder. It may have been yesterday, but it was also after I mentioned above on Sunday that the Bond girls names are referred to by their first name. And then funnily enough the next day Honey's name changed to Ryder on the page. I highly hope you weren't trying to back up what you said by changing an edit to reflect it.

And also Moneypenny hasn't been in the films since Die Another Day.

But, as Casino Royale rebooted the franchises. Lets treat the classic films and the reboot as a separate series, which they sort of are. But Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace pages, both Craig Bond films, refer to the Bond girls by their first names. Charlr6 (talk) 14:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I did change Ryder's name - largely for consistency, there is nothing wrong with that at all. As I have said a few times, it is the consistency within an article that is important, unless you'd like to call Bond "James" throughout? or perhaps change references from Mallory to "Gareth"? I don't see why we should use the surname of some characters and the first name of others - it seems a rather strange stance to adapt. As to your last point: no, they are not a separate series and there is no need to treat them separately. If they were a separate series then how on earth do you explain the references on this page to the number of "homages" to other Bond films (not to mention the novels) contained within Skyfall. - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:46, 30 October 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.

Edit request on 30 October 2012

The name of Bond's home in Scotland i called Skyfall Lodge, not Skyfall. Please change it. 94.14.201.75 (talk) 16:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you have something you could point to which backs up the name? If so, then we would be happy to change it. - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

It is actually Skyfall Lodge. It is on the sign at the entrance to the grounds with the model dear above it. As it is in the film, written on a sign that anyone who understand English can read, there shouldn't be any secondary source because we don't need any for a film plot as its the film itself. Charlr6 (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Honestly do people not even bother to look for sources for an encyclopaedia these days.[2][3]Blethering Scot 17:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Erm excuse me, a couple of months ago before Skyfall was released, I've seen articles as well mentioning this, and they have called it "Skyfall Ranch" as well. And I have actually looked up references for other people before, even though I wasn't supposed to. Now has been the first time in ages I haven't. And as it says Skyfall Lodge in the actual film, then that is the source. You don't need a source for a movies plot because its the film itself. So there shouldn't be one, because it IS the movie itself. Charlr6 (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, do people still believe what they read in the Daily Mail these days? I seem to remember the RfC where it was decided that it was decided that it fails WP:RELIABLE too often for comfort. Considering they have based the first "report" on a blog site and the second "report" on the first, this does make it highly questionable in this instance too. - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

No your not excused because you failed to look for a valid source or actually acknowledge when provided with the evidence you asked the ip for..You didn't look for sources and you never looked at the fact its called Skyfall Lodge clearly in the movie. The Daily Mail is a reliable source for something like this. Sometimes just sometimes its helpful to actually look for sources, this is an encyclopaedia we write what sources tell us not what as a fan you want it to say.Blethering Scot 18:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see the name in the film, but I'll take on good faith the fact that others did. I also do not have time to chase after every request from an IP, so I asked them if they could help out with a reference and I don't see that there is any problem with that. As I've explained above, the Mail is a hideous rag that fails to be consistently reliable, and as they have based their info on an amateur blog I don't see any reason why I should start thinking they are a credit-worthy news organisation in this instance. I reject your insinuation that I write what I want as a fan: try considering good faith once in a while when dealing with a polite request for a little further information or clarity. - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

How could you not see the name in the film? It is shown clearly. And its funny that you don't have time to look it up but you seem to respond quickly back to anything on the talk page. 31.109.10.127 (talk) 12:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see it, simple as that. I saw Skyfall, not Skyfall Lodge. All I did was to politely ask for you to point to something that could justify it. As it was someone else did see the word Lodge and added it in. As I was trying to help you I'm not entirely sure what your beef is here? - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

That you aren't very observant. The camera very clearly shows the sign of Skyfall Lodge in the film. 31.109.10.127 (talk) 12:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Please do not make ridiculous statements such as that. I missed one detail, so what? Did you see what was on the pictures in Mallory / M's office? Or the one behind Q and Bond in the National Gallery? - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Did I see what wasn't lingered upon? And what obviously isn't worth mentioning? The pictures in M's office are in the background, they aren't lingered upon. But the Skyfall Lodge sign is covering half of the screen. And lingers on it at least 3 times, and long enough to read the sign. 31.109.10.127 (talk) 12:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Then you aren't very observant. The National Gallery pics were behind them for the whole scene - much longer than the word lodge. As I said before, I didn't see the word Lodge and I really don't know why you are making such a big issue over the fact I tried to help you because I missed one word. In future I'll ignore all requests for help from IPs, that seems to be the only way to avoid getting pointless grief and insults going forward. - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, notice something that is hardly related to the actual plot of the movie. A picture in the background. You seem to be making a big fuss over the Moneypenny thing, which more people are agaisnt it being mentioned at the beginning of the plot. You don't really want anyone to change that part. And if you actually don't mind, thne you would have let them.

And I'm not the IP who requested an edit, that isn't me. 31.109.10.127 (talk) 12:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, I wonder why I am faced with your opprobrium for trying to help someone? As I've already indicated, in future I will not bother even reading edit requests for any Wiki article - well done for achieving that at least. - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Good. Less grief you cause for people. Glad I've saved a few people from that. 31.109.10.127 (talk) 13:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Could you please try and be less abusive to editors? As I've mentioned before, I was trying to help the person who put in the original request: I am not entirely sure sure why I am now subject to your ongoing abuse because of it, but I will ask you to please read through WP:CIVIL and try to bear it in mind when dealing with others. - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually Schro is right. It only says "Skyfall" on the sign by the deer. And not that it matters. But I remembered that the paintings at the art gallery behind Bond and Q was one which I have seen many times before, and is people in a dark room surrounding something. Don't know what its called, but I could point it out straight away. The one next to that was of a duke and duchess, well 16th, 17th century. And the painting in M's office at the end was of MI6. Charlr6 (talk) 15:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, ‎Charlr6, I thought I'd remembered that correctly—and so much for being labelled by some as not being "observant". By the way, the "dark room" picture in the NG was An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump, by Joseph Wright of Derby. The pictures in M's office were of naval scenes—part of the homage references to the original office M occupied in Dr. No. The M paintings are not hugely important, but given the references back to previous Bond films, they are of interest and worth mentioning, once there is a source to back it up. - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes. I forgot about the naval scene pictures. I was on about the one behind M's desk though of MI6. And that is the painting. An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump. I wonder if they actually filmed in the museum or built up a set. Forgot to check the end credits as that could be something mentioned in 'Production' if they did film there. Charlr6 (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't hear any abuse - he/she simply disagrees with you and has explained why. I have noticed your tactic when dealing with this entirely reasonable approach is to claim that people are engaging in ad-hominem attacks or are being abusive. No, they're not - they, like I, seem to be encountering someone who wants it his way and his way only and who will not respond to logical argument. It is not "abuse" and to call it so reeks of pettiness. 194.73.118.78 (talk) 15:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Coming from someone who is prepared to thow racist insults around (see this [4]) and throw insults at people (also at the Hüseyin Göçek article) then I'm afraid your standards of civility don't really mean much to me. - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, that wasn't me, it was someone using this IP address. I've only just noticed that I haven't been signed as me using the tildes thing. Secondly, not that it matters since it wasn't me, I don't actually see any racist insults on the links you provided. Nsign (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

And additionally I note that once again you avoid the point that was made - no one has "abused" you. Unless you consider "disagreement" to be abuse, which you clearly do. Nsign (talk) 17:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Funny how it looked as if you changed Honey's name in the Dr. No plot to Ryder, the day after I said a couple of times on here that on the other Bond pages they mostly use the first name. Kind of like creating something to back yourself up. Kind of cheating. And I doubt it was an accident and a big coincidence. Charlr6 (talk) 19:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Jeez, what complete nonsense this thread has degenerated into. From an outsider looking in like me, this appears to be one of the most unwarranted and thoroughly bullish attacks at a main editor, I have ever seen. -- Cassianto^Talk 23:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Then there's alot of thin skin around here. The editor in question has been quite happy to accuse others of "abuse" when they've simply disagreed with him. 194.73.118.78 (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh bore off IP. I would request that you spend your efforts in trying to improve the article rather than trolling the talk page. But if your edits are anything like your uncivil nonsense here then I would rather you didn't. -- Cassianto^Talk 20:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I cannot believe such a blatantly hypocritical statement was posted with a straight face. At no point did I abuse or insult. And yet you begin your post where you accuse others of "bullish attacks" by telling them to "bore off"? Rather puts a hole in your credibility, to say the least. 194.73.118.78 (talk) 09:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

And by the way, trying to improve the article was exactly what I tried to do, only to have edits promptly reverted, which is what led to the disagreement. Consensus has now been reached and the article has been changed, in my view for the better. Just a shame I had to go through all this nonsense. Nsign (talk) 09:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Having seen the film twice, the only word on the sign is "Skyfall" no sign of lodge, ranch/whatever. It may seem an odd name for a home. But anyway, that is no excuse for the bad vibes that have been created on this thread. MisterShiney (Come say hi) 19:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

It does just say Skyfall. I think it is also in the logo for the movie as well. Charlr6 (talk) 19:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

In the news

Editors working on this article might be interested in reading: James Bond fans beware: Wikipedia reveals major 'Skyfall' spoiler (Chicago Tribune, 29 October 2012). --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 17:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the editor's working on this article give two hoots about spoiler's, as they revealed the plot and other details to U.S. readers before the official release date (November 9) here in the states. Wow, what a shame.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:SPOILER, which explains Wiki's stance on this point. The film has been released in a significant series of markets (including its domestic one) and this is what tends to happen, I'm afraid. - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Cool, added a tag to the top of this page. Regards, FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  20:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps this is just an example of how too many movie plots are spoiled on Wikipedia because the fact that its such a free site, so many users are able to add any content they want, including detailed descriptions of many films. Not that I am complaining, because I often use the site to look up any films. But it is my own choice, meaning I can look only if I choose to. But its a matter that probably should be taken into consideration in general. Aidensdaddy2k9 (talk) 00:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The point is, what exactly do people expect to see in the Plot section? Stuff that isn't the plot? If you're looking in that section, then you should be expecting to see spoilers. Silverseren^C 04:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

No, the point is that for readers who are not familiar with the policies of WP, like WP:SPOILER, common courtesy and common sense would seem to indicate that you pre-warn those readers about spoilers (spoiler alert).-- Isaidnoway (talk) 20:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

If you'd like to raise the issue in the appropriate forum to try and gain a consensus to change WP:SPOILER, then I am sure you will recieve a lot of support. However, the current consensus (at least last time it was tested) was to include spoilers, but not to include the warnings. Thanks - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Spoken like a true blue WP editor. I am aware of what the current consensus says about spoilers, but like I stated above, the people who read the article probably are not as versed in WP policies and guidelines like you and I are. Sometimes it's OK to step outside the box and think about who these articles are actually created for. Just sayin'.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 00:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Silver, I think the bone of contention here is having the ending revealed in the second paragraph of the lead section, and not anything to do with the Plot section. --Dorsal Axe 21:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I can agree on that point, I'm not sure that such a piece of information is notable enough to be in hte lede, it comes across as trivia and in the grand scheme is only 2 minutes of the entire film. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you there. There shouldn't be any spoilers outside of the Plot section. That should be self-evident. Silverseren^C 05:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with that at all, and it's certainly not the general view of those who commented on the lead in the RfC above (which was on a separate point). Although one person thought the Eve character shouldn't be identified as Moneypenny, others who commented on it disagreed and said that the return of the character was notable enough for inclusion in the lead. If you ignore the whole spoiler issue and think about whether the return of two major characters from the previous films and the death and replacement of a third will be in the lead in a year's time because they are notewothy, then the answer is that they probably will be. Given wiki's stance on spoiler's in general (which isn't just confined to the polt section) then there is no reason not to have the info in the lead. - SchroCat (^ • @) 05:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Well I'm talking about the line about M. Telling people in the opening paragraph who takes over the role in the last 3 minutes of the film isn't notable information. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I think all it will take is a little creative editing. Why not just have "Skyfall marks the introduction of Ralph Fiennes' character Gareth Mallory, who is tasked with overseeing MI6." or something like that. --Dorsal Axe 12:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can entirely agree with you on that one: the replacement of a long-running cast member—and a high-profile actress in her own right—with a high-profile actor is notable (if it wasn't then there would not be quite so much of a kerfuffle about it being there). Is it likely that the info will comfortably and uncontroversially sit in the lead in a year's time? I think it probably is, in which case the only reason for not including it is because it's a spoiler, which is no good reason to keep it out. As the lead reflects the article and we refer to this replacement in both plot and cast sections (and possibly other sections in future), then I think the inclusion is entirely justified. - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I've read WP: SPOILER. And it doesn't ever say 'reveal what is revealed in the end of the movie, at the beginning of the Wikipedia plot'. I can't see anything on there that can actually back-up what you did, except it says Wikipedia can use spoilers. But as a lot of people have complained, and even an article has been written about the spoilers, I think it would be best to just move some of the main spoilers. Most people reading Wikipedia will read the plot, cast and reception probably. And I don't think in the cast section we should mention what happens to Judi Dench's M. It doesn't need to be mentioned there, isn't any need to. Could mention 'last role after seven movies', still a sort of spoiler, but people may think the character just retires. But as with Moneypenny, because of the complaints, and like said, now an article written about the spoilers, that should be moved. It doesn't add anything to the article it revealing Eve is Moneypenny at the beginning, as it would mis-lead readers into thinking maybe possibly its announced at the beginning of the movie, and also the wikilink is obvious and quite hard not to see. Would be better to have maybe one wikilink to Moneypenny's name and that could be the cast section, but not at the beginning of the plot where readers will accidentally see straight away. We should respect the readers.

I would go and change it on the article on how it could be shown, but would probably be reverted back. If you any of you are interested, I could move it onto my sandbox and edit it on there so you could see what it might look like? Charlr6 (talk) 15:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh wait, doesn't matter. It's been changed. Apparently it changed yesterday sometime. Strange as wikipedia only just updated it for me. Charlr6 (talk) 16:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

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)

Acclaim VS positive

I have been involved on other film talk pages on which should be used on a film that receives very high reviews, such as 'positive reviews' or 'critical acclaim'. Most people agreed that it would be bias if we used 'critical acclaim', and that the reviews will speak for themselves if a film does have more acclaim than a nother, which is true. For example a reader could look at the score on Rotten Tomatoes and see it is 95% and then the reader will be able to tell how 'acclaimed' it is, we don't need to tell them. And all we need to say is whether the film received positive or negative reviews. If a film does receive high or low reviews though, we can add in 'very' so it will say 'very positive reviews' or 'very negative reviews', respectively.

But, for this page I'm happy to discuss it and come up with a consensus for this page. As I have already said, if we have in 'critical acclaim' it is bias, and we can just let the reviews speak for themselves on how greatly acclaimed a movie is. Adding 'critically panned/acclaimed', even if it was panned or acclaimed is bias because it is like we are ourselves trying to convince the reader with words how good a film is, when like said, the reviews can speak for themselves on how acclaimed or panned a movie is. Neutral language is representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Charlr6 (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I've tweaked slightly to "Skyfall has received generally positive reviews", which is correct and neutral. The film has recieved very good press so far, but it has not been without criticism and I think it is only right and proper to reflect this. We are using a lot of reviews in the article and, if they are used peoperly, we do not need to peacock the wording, just let the reviews speak for themselves. - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thats fine. Forgot to mention 'generally' can be used as well. Like you said it is correct and neutral. Charlr6 (talk) 22:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

SchroCat First off your summary saying that I should have opened the topic first is incorrect, that responsibility falls to Charlr6 as per the link to the essay (Not policy) that you provided as I was undoing his "bold" change. You can't put a neutral tone on positive reviews. In what way is Critical Acclaim bias? Especially when its saying the same thing as what was changed!! Its pointing out that critics have reviewed the film not just any dogs body on Rotten Tomatoes. MisterShiney (Come say hi) 22:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Some IP just called it "Universal acclaim". I think it is released on Pluto at Christmas, so just waiting for the critics at The Intergalactic Times to give their verdict first. I reverted. -- Cassianto^Talk 22:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

It is bias because us writing in 'critical acclaim' is almost like we are giving our own thoughts on the film, yes it is true the film is acclaimed, but we don't need to say so. The reviews speak for themselves. The readers aren't stupid and will know how more acclaimed this film is than the previous one. And it will point out critics who have reviewed the film no matter what. We could say 'received positive reviews from movie critics' and it is still the same, shows that movie critics have reviewed the film. There is no Wikipedia rule that says we should include 'critical acclaim' if a film is highly praised, there is though for neutral point of view.

And I actually came on here and added a new section two minutes before you reverted my edit and told me to discuss this on the talk page. Charlr6 (talk) 18:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Universal acclaim is not true, almost, but not quite. Revert.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I love some of the stuff IP users come out with sometimes. MisterShiney (Come say hi) 23:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it should say "highly positive reviews" instead of "generally positive reviews". The film has mostly received critical praise, and I don't think "generally positive reviews" reflects that fact very well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.139.144 (talk) 23:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

"highly positive" is misleading, not entirely correct and poor English, I'm afraid. "Generally positive" is both correct and neutral as it allows for the fact that there have been some less-than-positive reviews of the films. On top of that, rather than just the splitting of hairs over one word, readers are able to read fair and balanced samples of the reviewers own words and come to their own conclusion without us needing to spoon-feed them like children. - SchroCat (^ • @) 23:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

"Generally positive" implies there are more positive reviews than negative ones. I'm happy to be contradicted on this but I must say I haven't actually seen a negative review yet. I think "critical acclaim" isn't actually biased - just a reflection of the how the film has been received. Am I wrong? 81.96.134.214 (talk) 19:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

If you read the section fully, you'll see where there have been criticisms of the film, so "generally positive" is the more appropriate course at the moment. - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I have read it fully - thanks for the advice though. My point is that although criticisms have been mentioned, the reviews are overwhelmingly positive, so to describe it as "generally positive" seems inaccurate. If you look at The Dark Knight page, the film is described as having received "highly positive" reviews and it also mentions the criticisms that were made in those reviews. Same thing with The Godfather and Apocalypse Now. I'd be prepared to put down money that no film in history was reviewed without criticism somewhere - the point here is that there do not seem to be any reviews out there of a negative tenor. Although in fairness it isn't out in the US yet. Nsign (talk) 15:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Just looked on Rotten Tomatoes - 93% based on 86 reviews. "Generally positive"? Nsign (talk) 15:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

As it has previously said. Generally positive reflects that the film has gotten positive reviews, but also negative ones. 93% is as much positive as one that has 83%. I am for though, like you have mentioned Dark Knight having "highly positive reviews", for the Skyfall page to say that as well. Because 'highly' implies a lot, but not all. Charlr6 (talk) 22:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I've changed it to "positively received by film critics" which seems fair to me. Nsign (talk) 13:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Why? What was wrong with the previous and correct version? The current version smacks of peacockery and does not seem a fair reflection of the fact some reviews have been critical. The discussion here seems to veer slightly towards the previous version, so I'm wondering why it's been changed away from the consensus. That just seems to be done on a personal whim, rather than being the outcome of a fair discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.211.32.34 (talk) 14:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what "peacockery" is.

It's based on the fact that reviews are overwhelmingly positive. This is not opinion, or whim - its fact. Consequently, as per precedents set on other articles (The Dark Knight, for example), to describe it a "positively received" film is correct. I would ask this - when can a film ever be regarded as more than "generally positive" in terms of critical reception, when there will always be critical elements within reviews? The Godfather and Apocalypse Now are both described as critically acclaimed masterpieces and yet they also have critical elements to their reviews which are mentioned in their articles. So why are they not described as "generally positive"? We are trying to reflect the wider critical perception of the film as a consensus view. Going by, for example, Rotten Tomatoes, the film is "positively received". "Generally positive" is, I would suggest, a term suited to a film that was more tepidly received. Amazing Spider Man, maybe. Nsign (talk) 15:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

See WP:PEACOCK for the definition of "peacockery". I've reverted to the general consensus expressed on here and certainly without failing WP:PEACOCK. The reviews contain criticisms and we are a long way away from having all reviews in - sometime after the Aus/NZ reviews come out after 22 Nov. At that point, a more balanced and considered wording can be decided upon, but until then something that covers the positive, while still allowing for the negative, is the best way forward. - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with calling it "generally positive" but I agree to waiting to change it until all reviews are in. However I ask again - how can any film be described as anything other than "generally positive" according to your standards, when some reviews will always contain some elements of criticism, as per the examples of Godfather, TDK etc I've already given? You're setting the bar impossibly high - must a film be reviewed across the board without any criticism at all to be described as "positively received"? And if so, what are they? 194.73.118.78 (talk) 09:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, having read the definition of "peacockery" you are wrong to assert that describing the film as "positively received" meets that definition. Its a factual description of the aggregated critical consensus, not an opinion. Had it read "Skyfall is a brilliant film" you would have a point. 194.73.118.78 (talk) 09:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The Godfather has 100% positive reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. So on that page, it should just say 'positive reviews', because it was all positive. The Dark Knight received negative reviews as well, even though it was only a few.

But putting in 'critical acclaim' is bias, because we are putting those words in ourselves, us as editors, so its like we are giving our own opinion. It doesn't matter that it has gotten high reviews, we should just say what the film received - good or bad reviews. Positive or negative. The reviews speak for themselves, and we don't need to tell the readers what they will be able to see themselves. Charlr6 (talk) 10:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It is not bias or opinion to state that a film has received critical acclaim if that is what it has had. It is a statement of fact. 194.73.118.78 (talk) 12:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is a statement of fact, but we don't need to say that and can just let the reviews speak for themselves. It could say 'highly positive' reviews, which isn't misleading as it did get a high number of reviews. Charlr6 (talk) 13:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It's a POV. It may only be a small one, but others will interpret the reviews (and the accumlator scores) differently. We have used summaries of a number of the available reviews—including direct quotes—to provide readers with enough information that they can make up their own minds, without us having to fluff their impressions first. Once we get into December, the reviews will mostly be out and the figures will stabilise. I'm happier to allow for some leeway in the language of the opening sentence, rather than needlessly peacock it up, especially as the reviews will speak for themselves. You should also note that although the RT number appears high (93%), it has fallen from the very first shows of 100%, as has the "Top Critic" showing, which is now 89% (down from 100% a few days ago). Metacritic is at 82%, which is another slip on where it was. This is also what tends to happen—we saw it clearly in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy recently: high figures from the UK reviews, which dropped once it opened in the US. - SchroCat (talk) 14:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It is not a POV. It is, as I have already stated, a factual description of the aggregated critical consensus. No one is "fluffing", "telling others what to think" or "peacocking" and to suggest that describing the film as "positively received" is doing any of those things is incorrect. However as the review situation is fluid at present I'm happy to wait until they're all out of the stalls. 194.73.118.78 (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

As I've said above, others will interpret the term critical acclaim (and the accumlator scores) differently, which means that any summary runs the risk of being a POV. Either way, the consensus here is to retain the status quo and not use "critical acclaim" on the grounds that it is, or can be constued, as "fluffing", "telling others what to think" or "peacocking". - SchroCat (talk) 15:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we need to establish a conciseness on how we word how well a film was reviewed and keep it constant for all films. We also need to note a huge flaw in rotten tomatoes scoring, films like jaws and the god father are at 100%, but is this accurate? The only have about 60 votes while most blockbuster films these days get at least 200+. Toy story 3 is a prime example of what happens if the votes are very high and very positive, both toy story 1/2 got 100% but at the very least it's widely accepted that toy story 3 is better than 2 and i am not sure about 1 and if 2 was to get the same votes as 3 it's as a safe assumption that it won't be at 100% score and this gose for jaws and the godfather, there will be one critic that doesn't like the film. So to say for example, jaws is critically acclaimed compared to say the deathly hallows part 2 is very positive would be a very poor comparison as jaws has only a sample of 60 is critically claimed and potter is not. I believe we need to set a definition on wikipedia what defines how well is received and I think the simplest way is set in 10% intervals eg. 60% is postive to mixed reviews, 70% is posstive reviews, 80% is very positive reviews and 90% or greater is critical acclaim, because it looks a bit messed up when two films of similar scores get two different reactions. For skyfall atm callign it mainly positive reviews is undermining it as it sounds like it's good a reasonable chunk of negative reviews like 20%, when infact there is very little negativity against the film 7% of over a bulky 218 votes.86.138.82.224 (talk) 19:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed that there needs to be some consensus on the designation of reviews. However, this can sometimes be troublesome, as the descriptions are so very qualitative. A film may get many 5 star reviews, and a minority of 2 or 3 star reviews, giving it an overall score of 4 stars (80%). Alternatively, a film may get all 4 star reviews, and therefore also get 80%. The phrase "mostly positive" would cover the first film, but not the second as well. Also, it's not Wikipedia's place to question to reliability of Rotten Tomatoes, it's simply used as a review aggregator. Older films are accepted to have possibly skewed results, the same way as they have significantly lower box office profits. With profits, there is a way of adjusting for inflation, but this still doesn't provide perfectly accurate results. There is no such way with reviews. Rotten Tomatoes is one of the best aggregators available, providing a highly reliable overall view of a film. However, it's known that it may not be perfect, the same as any other such source. drewmunn (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

If its "it's widely accepted that toy story 3 is better than 2" then Toy Story 3 wouldn't have 99% on Rotten Tomatoes, and a slightly lower score from critics. And you proved no source for that, but everyone I know in real life prefer 2 over 3. And the number of reviews is irrelevant because older films will have less reviews than modern day films. Nothing can help that. Charlr6 (talk) 20:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

As you wish I'll use rotten tomatoes as my source, although it's irrelevant to skyfall, toy story 2 has a score of 8.6/10 with 161 votes while toy story 3 has 8.8/10 with 255 votes, so despite getting 3 negative votes 3 is higher /10 than 2 by .2%, also the score of rotten tomatoes audiance is 91% 3 and 2 72 %, despite them not being critics due to how close the two are and how huge of gap the audience opinions, it's no unreasonable to use the 890,000 audience votes as a decider of which is the preferred film critically. 86.138.82.224 (talk) 21:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

It would be "890,000 audience votes as a decider of which is the preferred film publically", not critically because that still would be Toy Story 2 for the main score. 100%.

But like I said, older films will have less reviews than modern day films. Charlr6 (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Why bother using the RT scores at all? They means sweet FA: they are just a number. The true reflection of a film's reviews are in the words of the reviewers, not some abritary and questionable assigning or a percentage score to a critics words. The critics don't assign a numerical rating, so to turn their fine prose into a raw number has always seemed rather suspect to me. - SchroCat (talk) 05:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

They get their percentage by how good reviews are, and most critics seem to give some score. But whether Wikipedia uses RT or not isn't down to us to decide, you can bring it up with the main board, because even if we didn't include it other editors in the future would come along and add it back in, even if we did revert it, we would eventually forget and it would find its place back here.

But if you don't want to include it, bring it up with the main board on Wiki, where you can suggest changes. Forgotten what its called. Charlr6 (talk) 11:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

"They get their percentage by how good reviews are". So they read a review and guess: they translate finely balanced prose into a hard, dumbed down simplistic number. It's simply not possible to accurately guage a reviewers percentage score based on their prose. That's the issue I have with them. Sadly you are right that if they are taken out, someone who doesn't understand or care what the issues are, will drop them back in again. This problem is at the core of the language we open the section and the arguments here are "acclaim v positive v mostly v general etc", all based on a rather questionable technique. - SchroCat (talk) 15:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Charlr6, like you said older films get lower numbers of reviews and 1% and 0.2 difference are too close to call in saying which is received better critically as the gap in reviews is over 100 which could make a big difference in the score. So it's not a valid to say 2 is received better than 3 on the basis of such a small difference in % and with a huge difference in reviews and like i said before 3 is higher /10 than 2 by .2 despite having 3 negative reviews, which indicates those who gave it positive reviews rated it higher 2. However the audience give us a solid comparison in which is better and as i said over 890,000 voted for 2 and it was 20% lower, it's madness to claim 3 was revived lower critically than 2 as a valid comparison due to a very bulky difference in reviews, this is the same with any film, they need to have similar numbers or something as close as 1% says very little, so we look at the next best thing which is top critics which is 100% and then we go to the lowest order of priority the audience which demonstrates the biggest difference. 86.138.82.224 (talk) 12:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

286, 431 users gave a rating on Rotten Tomatoes to Toy Story 3 of 91%. While 890,698 for Toy Story 2 of 72%. I'd like to see what the 604,267 people think about it and how the user percentage will then be different.

And the older films getting lower reviews is critical reviews before you come back and say mention the different in users. There are more movie critics nowadays than there were 50 years ago. But 'critical reception' is about how the critics received the film. There have been instances about what the public think as well. Charlr6 (talk) 14:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Veterans of the last Harry Potter film will know we've had this discussion before. We say "generally positive" reviews, since even glowing reviews may have some criticisms and since Rotten Tomatoes has no capability of handling middling reviews — it's either "positive" or "negative," which is a false dichotomy: Many of the things RT classifies as "positive" are actually mixed-leaning-toward-positive. That's one reason we don't use WP:PEACOCK terms like "acclaim." The other it that "generally positive" and "generally negative" and "mixed" are about the most neutral terms there are . --Tenebrae (talk) 15:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I find this very interesting. We are effectively saying that unless a film receives blanket reviews containing no critical elements at all, calling its reception "generally positive" is as far as we can go, and mentioning "critical acclaim" is peacockery? Hmm, I can't say I agree, especially considering precedents already set here on Wikipedia (Dark Knight, Star Trek 2009). However if that is policy I won't argue about it. Just seems to set the bar unrealistically high. Is it right that The Godfather is apparently the only movie worthy of being described as "critically acclaimed"...? Nsign (talk) 12:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The point is that wikipedia shouldn't be the first source to say that something is critically acclaimed. Someone else has to say it first and then we cite them. DonQuixote (talk) 12:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Such as who? There are God knows how many glowing reviews out there now. Its one of the most critically successful Bond films ever and yet Wikipedia is apparently the only place where it can't be described as such? Nsign (talk) 13:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Have you seen any reliable third party sources referring to the film as "critically acclaimed"? (I'll admit that I have not yet looked, largely becuase the reviews are not all out, and I don't see the point in jumping too early on the phrase before all the reviews have come in). - SchroCat (talk) 13:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Where does it say on Rotten Tomatoes or IMDB 'critically acclaimed'? Meta critic is the only website I know that uses critical acclaim. And it would be better if a big movie review score website said it, than using some silly article written by a journalist that uses 'critically acclaimed'. Charlr6 (talk) 17:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Well a quick google search of "skyfall critically acclaimed" gives you recent several newspaper and web articles using that phrase. What reliable third party sources do we need? 194.73.118.78 (talk) 13:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

"newspaper and web articles" that are written by journalists who just put any information in, we all know how unreliable journalists can be. Write down literally anything they hear. And if these are movie reviews they would say 'critically acclaimed' just to make their review sort of stick out more and make people believe what they are saying more. Charlr6 (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, the ones that come out after the reviews have come out, which isn't until after 22 November, when the film is released in Aus and NZ. There is absolutely no need to rush into plastering epithets onto the article which are not generally representative of the consensus of the reviewers. "Critical acclaim" also tends to be used for those films which have won awards, which again means there needs to be a delay while reaction to the film mellows, matures and the consensus of the critical community (reviewers, film academies and popularly-voted for awards etc) can be reflected more appropriately. - SchroCat (talk) 13:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Terms like "acclaim" are inherently advertising hype. And I don't think there has ever been a film with "universal" acclaim. Terms like "generally" positive/negative or "mostly" positive/negative are a reasonable summary of factual data that can be reported. And I would also agree that a film which garners a lot of awards could possibly allow the word "acclaim" to show up - after such awards are given. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The term acclaim is not "inherently advertising hype" if that is what a film has received. It is a factual representation of a critical consensus. If it said, "Skyfall got great reviews because its the best Bond film" - that would be hype.

I am perfectly happy to wait until the film is out in all markets before the final wording is agreed. I just find it very peculiar that everywhere you turn (RT, Metacritic, google searches) Skyfall is described a "critically acclaimed" or something along those lines, yet to reflect that on Wikipedia is to "hype" it (as if it needs it) or indulge in "peacockery"? Curious. 194.73.118.78 (talk) 15:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Not that curious really: journalists tend to exaggerate in order to to somehow "improve" their stories. We don't. RT and Metacritic are rather questionable raw numbers based on the prose of others. We don't. We try and keep neutral language wherever possible and remove all POV and peacockery from something that should be written in encyclopaedic language, not journalistic hyperbole - it's not that curious really. - SchroCat (talk) 15:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I've seen some of the reviews that indeedargue this is the best Bond film ever. Those are folks with short memories. "Mostly positive reviews [so far]" is quite sufficient. If it gets some awards, it might start to edge into "acclaim" territory. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Concur with SchroCat, and in addition: We've had this discussion before at WikiProject Film. If you want to start calling this or any particular movie "critically acclaimed," take the discussion there — and you will find, as editors have found multiple times before, that WikiProject Film consensus is not to use terms like "critical acclaim". It's for a variety of reasons including non-encyclopedic WP:TONE and because of the apples-and-oranges factor: Skyfall is "acclaimed" for what it is — as a popcorn action movie that has no relation to real-life, unless you think supervillains like Silva are real. To consider positive reviews for that kind of movie "critical acclaim" is misleading when you talk about works of art that have stood of test of time and in retrospect and with perspective are recognized as pinnacles of the form. Skyfall is great, don't get me wrong. Is it Citizen Kane? Is it ]]Paths of Glory]]? Is it City Lights? No.

Take this discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. It doesn't belong here. But do everyone a favor use the archive-search function there to see past discussions on the topic before repeating arguments everyone has heard and which have been rejected by consensus. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Well thanks for the direction at least - sorry to bore you with arguments "everyone has heard" but I'm not that familiar with how the site works. But who said something had to be Citizen Kane for it to receive "critical acclaim"? And who said Skyfall wasn't a popcorn film? Not me. The Evil Dead is critically acclaimed. So was Toy Story. Are they "works of art"? 194.73.118.78 (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC) Also - I actually don't say that we should call it "critically acclaimed". I only say that "mostly positive" or "positively received" is a more accurate reflection of the critical consensus than "generally positive". 194.73.118.78 (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Citizen Kane, Evil Dead and Toy Story should all say "highly/very positive reviews", or if there hasn't been a single negative review, we just say "positive reviews". Until there are a few negatives then we should say "generally positive reviews" Charlr6 (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

In my view 91% (Rotten Tomatoes) and 81% (Metacritic) positive reviews are "mostly" positive not "generally". In the 2500 edits I have made so far (95%+ in film articles), this is what I have seen in most of the articles when 80+ or 90+ scores are there. When scores are between 70-80 I have seen "generally".Surge_Elec (talk) 17:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

As per the above, we're sticking with "generally positive" at the moment until after the majority of the reviews are in, which will be after the film has been released in all territories. Once the mindless and unthinking RT figures are stable a more considered and balanced view can be shown. - SchroCat (talk) 17:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• I didn't know this discussion was going on, but the crux of the problem is that aggregators are not arbiters of critical consensus as per WP:AGG. When Rotten Tomatoes says a movie has received 90% positive reviews, this is not a statistical fact. Its sample is not exhaustive (not least because it is limited to English language reviews only), and its criteria for assigning scores is set according to its own discretion i.e. they carry out a survey and provide their own interpretation of the data. Even drawing the conclusion that the movie has "received generally positive reviews" is putting spin on it, because what we really mean is that "Rotten Tomatoes regards 90% of the reviews they sampled to be positive". We as editors should not be extrapolating their results to the film's entire critical reception unless they explicitly do this themselves, which they don't. Betty Logan (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Concur completely with Betty Logan, who is reiterating WP:FILM consensus.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Also entirely agree with Betty Logan. - Fanthrillers (talk) 20:46, 16 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)

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)

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)

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)

Critical reception

I think the "Critical reception" sub-section of this article is far too long. I understand that the film has been met with overwhelmingly-positive reviews, but right now we have five paragraphs of positive buzz and two short paragraphs of criticisms (one of which is directed at a very specific scene). I feel that this has the potential to violate WP:NPOV, and it's also redundant. I lost interest reading it halfway through because the section was just repeating itself. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that it violates NPOV; if it received more praise than criticism then it would be appropriate to have more positive reviews mentioned. However, I completely agree it is far too long. Right now there are 9 paragraphs and over 1400 words in the Reviews section. A lot of those specific mentions and quotes from critics should be gone. The paragraph about the sex trafficking victim and maybe even the reference to Asange could be in its own "Criticism" section as they're not necessarily critical reviews of the film.Bobbyandbeans (talk) 02:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The section is ridiculous, it seems to have actually doubled since I last checked on it, as if people were just adding reviews so the pictures didn't bleed into the next section. Just because pictures exist they do not have to be used, especially the Craig one as he is in the poster. The reception section needs hobbling, it should be 3-4 smallish paragraphs, 2-3 reviews per paragraph covering positive -> mixed - > negative. The sexual abuse thing is too long (reexplaining plot) and nonsense, all kinds of groups complain about every single film ever because someone always has to be offended to be relevant. 5 paragraphs performing the textual fellatio of the film are not necessary. I'd remove ALL references to Craig's performances in the reviews you keep, including the Roger Moore one, and put them together referring to the reviewers who make the relevant comments by their surname that should have been established in their overall review of the film. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

All good points except I would be more hesitant to remove the criticism over the human trafficking plot point. The organization quoted is not some fly-by-night, "I need to get my panties in a bunch over nothing just for attention" group. They're very well-known and work with the CDC and other reputable groups, so their comments are worth reciting. It should be edited since we don't need all the details of the plot, but I don't think it's "nonsense."Bobbyandbeans (talk) 02:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, but it does need trimming and potentially merging into a criticism paragraph. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. Anyone know when and if it will be removed from protection so it can be done? The whole section is downright embarrassing right now.Bobbyandbeans (talk) 02:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

It's protected until the 25th, but if the source of conflict is resolved, it can be requested to be unblocked sooner. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I guess because it's not controversial it can wait until the protection is removed, but good god what a mess. I've never seen a movie page with that many quotes from critics. Whoever did all that must have a lot of free time on their hands or they love this movie more than life itself.Bobbyandbeans (talk) 03:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I did some of the work on this, including adding some of the quotes. Bobbyandbeans, you can knock off the asides about other editors and their thoughts (criticise the edit not the editor), and I really don't care if you consider it a mess of not: your POV is really not germane to point here. - SchroCat (talk) 03:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The section is a mess, which is why this entire thread exists. If it weren't a mess no one would be bringing up the length and unnecessary details. As far as criticizing other editors, I've had a lot worse said to me including blatant name-calling, and administrators have pointed out that unless you outright call someone an "ass hat," it's not a personal attack and that strongly worded opinions are allowed, so you can keep the hypocritical lectures to yourself. You "don't care" if I consider it a mess; well, that's your personal POV, so what you care about or don't is immaterial, and you don't need to tell other editors what to do or say.Bobbyandbeans (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Try reading what's been said before trying to stir up further arguments: I didn't say you'd been name calling, I said you should focus on the edit not the editor. So, my previous comment still stands: knock off the asides about other editors and their thoughts. I really don't see that saying that is a "hypocritical lecture", so try and focus on what the content of the article is. The section isn't a mess, it just has too many quotes according to some. That's not a mess: that's just a need for some minor and mild tweaking, not criticising the work of others with name calling or accusations of "hypocritical lectures". - SchroCat (talk) 14:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is starting to not become conducive to getting the article unlocked. It's a critical reception section, not something to argue over. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, DWB, the critical reception section isn't the cause of the page protection. The precise wording of the plot section is. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand the value of having the section reflect the reviews. But as it stands, it looks like there is more content in the reception section than in any other part of the page. Some of the postiive reviews - particularly from lesser publications - could easily be remvoed without affecting the content of the section. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll trim down some of the quotes, although you should note that the balance of criticism is broadly right: most of the reviews have been praiseworthy, with only a niggles here and there, so the section doesn't fail NPOV, it is a balanced reflection of what the critics have been saying. - SchroCat (talk) 03:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it doesn't fail NPOV, but it is mightliy long. From a quick look over it, I think you could probably knock it down to 4 or 5 paragraphs by removing and reshuffling the quotes/ opinions of individual reviewers. I don't think a separate criticism section is needed; that would really limit the critical reaction section to a bunch of positive reviews. drewmunn (talk) 08:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The Criticism section isn't being suggested for critical reviews, but to separate the remark from the human rights group and the comment about the similarity to Assange from the reviews themselves. They don't seem to belong in a section about reviews but they're still worth mentioning.Bobbyandbeans (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

One bit that I'd trim straight away if the page wasn't protected is this bit about Roger Ebert's opinion: "adding that he did not know what what to expect from the film, but was pleasantly suprised that it was "invigorating"". Either trim it down to something like, "he described watching the film as an 'invigorating' experience", or remove it entirely as IMO the first Ebert quote is sufficient.

The section is currently structured as a simple list of "Reviewer A said... reviewer B said... reviewer C said...". I always find these Reception sections more interesting to read if there's some connection between consecutive comments so that they flow together a little bit. At the moment, there's a bit of that (e.g. a couple I added: "cinematographer Roger Deakins... delivers the most impressive visuals this series has had since the 1960s". Henry K. Miller of Sight & Sound also singled out Deakins' work..."), but not much: the comments are mostly pretty isolated from each other, and jump all over the place in terms of the subjects they cover. So would it be better if more of the comments were instead grouped together thematically? i.e. group together all the quotes about performances (Henry K. Miller on Javier Bardem; Kim Newman on Albert Finney; Philip French, Ryan Gilbey, Daniel Krupa etc on Daniel Craig) into their own paragraph, and so on.

Restructuring it like that would require a lot of editing work, but would that sort of structure be an improvement? --Nick R^Talk 19:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I certainly think so. Otherwise, it does feel a lot like advertising. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Updating gross

Creating this since there is going to be big changes to bonds gross and it's locked atm for edits here we go

please sign which you shoukd do anyways to get the date of the gross from box office mojo who i believe the wiki uses for film grosses.

$708,370,000 --86.137.14.0 (talk) 01:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)--86.137.14.0 (talk) 01:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

How should we describe the praise of bond

I was advised to come here on the issue and come here i have come. Anyways the terms generally positive reviews is currently " generally positive reviews" I think this is rather inappropriate due to the films status of having 92% and when me and my friend read it, we just thought generally positive reviews indicates minimum 60 to maximum 80% of reviews being positive, rather than indicating the real value of 90%+. here is a few definitions from the oxford dictionary of generally

in most cases; usually in general terms; without regard to particulars or exceptions: by or to most people; widely:

generally seems to be tab short of what skyfall was really rated, on the looper it mentions this "On Metacritic, the film holds an 84/100 average rating based on 44 critics, indicating "universal acclaim"" skyfall got 81/10 while looper got 84/10 and a similar small diffrence can be seen int he rotten tomatoes score of 92% vs 95% and generally was used in the avengers that got 69/10 "generally favorable reviews" which is off skyfalls 8.2/10 as mentioned. So I think taking a lesson out of meta critics book would not be a bad idea, a well Established critic site, that knows what it's talking about and thus for regards to films in future when metacritic and rotten tomatoes are not too different in reception we can use the metacritic description to describe how well it was recieved. In this situation I would like to put farward we change skyfalls wording from "generally positive" to universal acclaim as both critic sites have rated the film at sucha level under the metacritic description of hwo well it was rated there. Food for thought skyfall was also 8.2/10 on rotten tomatoes so out of /* both are extremely close. Typhlosion-fan (talk) 22:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

This is already being discussed on "Acclaim VS Positive" above, where points have been given. But it is neutral point of view. We don't need to say how acclaimed it is, just that it received positive reviews, but the generally implies that it also received a few negatives, which is did. Charlr6 (talk) 01:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, I'm seeing that Metacritic calls anything an 80 "universal acclaim," which stretches the term "universal" so far beyond definition that it's meaningless. We need to bring this up at WP:FILM. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

That is true. The amount of times I've seen that is unbelievable. By looking at the numbers on Rotten Tomaotes it could look like critical acclaim, then on Meta critic it could be 10-15% lower and still classed as 'critical acclaim' on the website. But if we were to bring it up, it would of course have to be with every film article. Charlr6 (talk) 07:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

generally implies that it got a lot more than 8% negative more like 20%, 30% reviews would be negative if using the term "generally". 86.137.14.0 (talk) 12:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Torch

"Torch" means something completely different in U.S. English and could reasonably lead people to think that old country gamekeeper Kincade is carrying a flaming torch like an old villager. Does British English really not contain the word "flashlight"? This isn't like "lorry" where there's no homonym in U.S. English. It would be clearer overall to use a different word than "torch".

Torch also has two meanings in BrEng too, but having a "torch beam" mentioned indicates it's not the flaming variety. Flashlight is AmEng and would be like putting truck instead of lorry: understandable, but jarring. - SchroCat (talk) 06:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Clever solution. Pip pip, old boy! (Clearly, I've been watch too many DVDs of Yes Minister!) --Tenebrae (talk) 07:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

And as it says above, as a British film it should be where possible be written in British English unless a broad consensus is reached. MisterShiney ✉ 08:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)