Jump to content

Talk:No Time to Die

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 1.129.105.133 (talk) at 23:57, 2 January 2021. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Possible digital release

Per Variety. Also see how this can be used. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilers?

How is "Nomi is the new 007" a spoiler? It is being extensively discussed in the media, and confirmed by the actor herself. If "Formerly known as agent 007, (Bond) been retired for five years at the start of the film" is not a spoiler, and "(Nomi is a) "00" agent who entered active service some time after Bond's retirement" is not a spoiler, than "The new 007, who entered active service some time after Bond's retirement" can not be a spoiler. SixFourThree (talk) 19:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC)SixFourThree[reply]

Moreover, per WP:SPOILERS we don't refrain from including spoilers when writing a better article. Debresser (talk) 00:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely gotten sufficient RS coverage from a quick check right now (searching "Lashana Lynch" and "007" so yes, this fails to be something to hide as a spoiler. If it was something that was like a paywall bit of info (like an insider podcast) and did not have mass reporting, that might be a reason to hide it, but we're talking all major entertainment RSes and several mainstream news RSes. No reason to hide it, and if readers don't like that, that's too bad.
SPOILER would be appropriate if the film had a very limited screening before COVID hit, and someone there used that to write the plot summary. We would not accept that because of the lack of public means to confirm. --Masem (t) 00:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020 release

User:Zack41Attack, can you please explain why this edit is necessary? Yes, it is reliably sourced, but that does not make it relevant to the article. The decision to delay the release to November 2020 because of the pandemic is relevant. The decision to further delay to April 2021 is also relevant. But why is the decision to change the US release by five days in November so important, especially since that decision decision was rendered moot by the move to a worldwide release in April? 1.129.106.236 (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it was mentioned back in June and ALL movies with release date changes mentioned them, no matter how long it is. Zack41Attack (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Zack41Attack, that doesn't answer my question. Yes, it was first mentioned in June, but it's no longer relevant. Secondly, release dates can and do change frequently, but that's not a reason to include them unless it's for a particularly notable reason. Right now, your argument amounts to "it happened, so it should be included". 1.129.106.236 (talk) 22:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, your point was considered good faith (which is something this wiki has) and pertinent. It's staying there. Zack41Attack (talk) 22:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that this doesn't seem like critical information to include. For the sake of perspective, this is probably not information anyone would fight to include, or would benefit anyone, if it were about a Bond film that came out 50 years ago. It is WP:RECENTISM that makes this feel more relevant than it really is. Popcornfud (talk) 22:58, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the wording is that it says the release date was changed by five days and nothing else. That's why I removed it in the first place - there was nothing to demonstrate why the change was made at all. If it could be substantiated, then it might be worth including, but right now there's none of that. If you want to claim that it'a pertinent to the article, as User:Dmartin969 did in their edit summary, then you have to show why. "It happened" is not good enough. 2001:8003:2312:E301:D1D3:D94C:AF1C:E76E (talk) 23:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Final outing"

There's a hidden comment on this text: "Craig himself has said it's his final film; to qualify this as "reportedly final" undermines his comments."

Has a consensus been established about this? Couldn't find any discussion in the talk archives. I don't think Wikipedia cares about "undermining" anyone's comments - if we choose to state this, it shouldn't be out of respect to Daniel Craig but because we think it's true and it's supported by reliable sources.

In this case, it's difficult to know if this is true without knowing the future - It's not impossible that Craig will return as Bond, never say never - so this is potentially a WP:CRYSTALBALL situation. I don't feel super strongly but we could keep it safe by just saying something like "Craig said it will be his last performance as Bond."

Interesting to compare this to the article about the album The Endless River, where a consensus is to avoid calling it the final Pink Floyd album despite both members stating as much. (They had been wrong before.) Popcornfud (talk) 18:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Popcornfud:
It's not impossible that Craig will return as Bond, never say never - so this is potentially a WP:CRYSTALBALL situation.
No, it's not impossible, but we have to take what he says at face value. You suggest it is speculative to include Craig's comment, but consider the alternative: that because he might change his mind at some indeterminate point in the future, his current comments - which were made to a reliable and verifiable source - are invalidated. That's even more speculative.
The most sensible thing to do here is to go with the sources. Craig says it is his last film, so the article should reflect that. If and when he changes his mind, we can update this article accordingly. 1.129.105.106 (talk) 11:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"You suggest it is speculative to include Craig's comment, " - no, I think it would be a very good idea to include Craig's comment - just saying something like "Craig said it will be his last performance as Bond" solves the whole thing. Popcornfud (talk) 13:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. That opens up the possibility that it will not be Craig's final film, even though there is no evidence to the contrary. It's almost the opposite of WP:WEASEL; rather than vaguely attribute a claim, it's undercutting a specific one. 1.129.105.140 (talk) 11:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If merely reporting that Craig says it will be his final film "opens up the possibility that it will not be Craig's final film" then you've undone your own argument. Craig's statement is the only thing we're basing this "final film" claim on. There is no "undercutting" or "undermining" going on here. Popcornfud (talk) 13:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As long as it's attributed to Craig, there is no crystal ball issues, in any fashion. He says it's his last film. If he changes his mind later we can report that, but that doesn't change the facts of the present, and to weasel that would be the actual crystal balling. oknazevad (talk) 13:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed CRYSTAL to say it is or is not his last film as fact, based on whatever source, as the only time we will know that as fact will be when filming for the next Bond film is complete (and maybe not even then; Sonic this past year was "complete" until it wasn't).
It is certainly reasonable to attribute a comment on the point to the person saying it, however (as I imagine is in the article today): "Craig has said it is his last Bond film", or some such, which can be converted at some later date to "It was Craig's last Bond film" (based on some later RS) or "Craig said it was his last Bond film, but he acted in another after" (based likely on some RS alone, but if necessary his now statement and a later RS would be fine, then). --Izno (talk) 14:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the deep interest that some editors have in declaring things final when there's no incontrovertible proof that they are in fact final. If something is only final until it isn't, why bother to say it at all? Actors are retired until they're not. Rocky X is the last Rocky film until it isn't. This is Daniel Craig's last Bond film until it isn't. I'm fine with noting that he stated it would be his last Bond film, but we should not be making a fact-based argument that it is his last Bond film without proof. Not evidence; proof. DonIago (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the deep interest that some editors have in declaring things final when there's no incontrovertible proof that they are in fact final.
All of the available proof says that it will be. Daniel Craig himself has said that he will not be returning for another film. You would have us disregard something that he definitely said in favour of something that may or may not happen. 1.129.105.133 (talk) 23:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:No_Time_to_Die&oldid=997938345"