Talk:No Time to Die

"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)

@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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I literally just said, "I'm fine with noting that he stated it would be his last Bond film". DonIago (talk) 00:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Though the IP editor seems to think that to include Craig's statement would be to undermine it... Popcornfud (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

In that event, what the IP thinks would be undermining it I would consider reporting the facts as they exist. We don't know this will be Craig's final film; we know he said it would be. DonIago (talk) 03:42, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Now you're just trying to find loopholes. The article also says that the film will release in April, and despite proof of a release date, we don't know that it will be released then. In fact, we don't know anything about the film, so by your logic, the article should be blank. 1.144.105.5 (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually, the article doesn't say it will be released in April. It says it is "scheduled for 2 April 2021" and that the current release date is "2 April 2021", both of which are verifiably true. It's good practice to avoid writing that things "will be released" exactly for WP:CRYSTALBALL reasons. Popcornfud (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I put this discussion back. Because this intro was changed again. We don't need to have the discussion all over again.Lobo151 (talk) 07:45, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, just adding a little bit to the discussion - I did see the film last week and when the missiles hit the base you didn't see Bond blown to pieces, they exploded all around him (this is Britain's greatest secret agent of course) so did he die?

The nanobots plot and him not being able to go near Madeline and their daughter has ended so that story arc is finished and also he is believed dead by MI6.

The Mrs and I at the end of the film in the cinema we waited until the end credits had rolled and then the familiar final caption came up in white letters on a red background: "James Bond Will Return".

The producers will either now switch to a younger, cheaper actor or the door is still open for Craig, but he is now getting to Roger Moore's View To A Kill age so probably that will be it.

Kind regards

Juanpumpchump (talk) 06:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Why censor the working title Shatterhand?

Why was the edit, citing one of the world's biggest newspapers The Guardian (hence a non-trivial source), that had the working title announced as Shatterhand removed? 23skidoo (talk) 18:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Because it was not true.Lobo151 (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

References

@Lobo151 - Have you actually read that article? Barbera Broccoli confirms the movies release title isn't going to be Shatterhand, but the fact is its working title *is* confirmed as having been Shatterhand originally and is confirmed in that same article by Production Magazine [1]

Einheit947 (talk) 00:16, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Inconsistent and Incorrect Facts Contained in Plot Summary and Omissions

A: In refference to the nightclub scene in Cuba:

"Blofeld uses a disembodied "bionic eye" to lead the meeting and order his members to kill Bond with a "nanobot mist", but it kills all the Spectre members instead"

This is both factually inaccurate as well as untrue:

1. Blofeld doesn't just use a disembodied bionic eye to lead the meeting, he specifically uses the eye of his henchman, Primo from both the Matera attack against Bond 5 years earlier as well as squad leader of the SPECTRE raid to steal Heracles in London who retrieves said eyeball and puts it back in his own eyesocket during the attack.
2. The "nanobot mist" (Heracles) doesn't kill all the SPECTRE members. Primo is a SPECTRE member, he's exposed to the same mist, he doesn't die - in fact non of the foot soldier level SPECTRE agents appear effected despite exposure and contamination, only the upper tier level SPECTRE members are targeted. Basically, all the people who really should have organised Blofelds release from jail, failed but yet miraculously manage to organise themselves enough to crawl back out of the woodwork to make a public show of kissing Blofelds backside.

B: Omission

It is omitted the fact that information concerning SPECTRE'S activities has clearly been leaked to Safin thereby allowing him to take control of Heracles. He communicates with Obruchev as the SPECTRE raid to steal Heracles is underway intimate inside knowledge of the inner workings of the operation, even to the extent of knowing what security level authority squad leader, Primo, will require and - this being Primo - by definition meaning Blofeld is litterally leading the raid. This fact establishes right at the begining that actually nothing concerned with this is in anyway straight forward or necessarily quite what it seems.

C: In refference to Blofeld's "death" in Belmarsh:

"Bond reacts by attacking Blofeld, unintentionally causing the nanobots to infect and kill him."

Leaving aside the fact this same article states that Christopher Waltz has signed for two movies following SPECTRE - Bond 25 and 26 confirmed in the Mirror artical updated January 3rd 2016 "Christoph Waltz has signed on for two more Bond films but there's a big catch.".- all criteria met by Daniel Craig in fact returning for Bond 25 - the plot summary makes no mention of the fact that Blofeld's death is markedly different from those depicted of other SPECTRE members and their families exposed to Heracles.

• Everyone in Cuba dies screaming in agony with blood coming out of their faces, Blofeld dies a painless and silent death so swift, he's gone before Bond can calm down enough to turn round.
• Given the point of contrast does nobody find it odd Safin goes to all this trouble just to give Blofeld a swift and merciful end when leaving him alive to rot in prison for the rest of his days would have been crueller?

I am not pointing out a plot inconsistency here, I am simply pointing out Blofeld's death is inconsist with the effects Heracles is shown to produce as being, of itself, an overlooked plot point.

• If a man like Blofeld serving life in prison were to break out, the hunt to track him down and put him straight back inside again would never stop until successful, but - were a man like Blofeld to die in prison - that would simply be his sentence over, the manhunt would never start. Not only that it would though mean he'd no longer be kept in prison.

In short - do we actually know that Blofeld dies here?

• It is narratively established in the previous movie SPECTRE that, after murdering his father, the first act Oberhauser took on the path to becoming Ernst Stavro Blofeld was to fake his own death.
• We know Blofeld's henchman is seen to be recruited by Logan Ash into Safins organisation, post Cuba giving him access to Heracles and Obruchev. More importantly, we learn this from data recovered from Blofeld eye while he was still alive. Blofeld was aware of the "defection" and in point of fact present during it. If Primo was going to betray Blofeld, you'd think he'd have the sense take they eye out first, wouldn't you? Especially after it being established precisely what he's capable of doing to people while still locked up in prison right at the start of the movie.
• Why would Safin give Blofeld a painless, merciful death? The answers really very simple. He wouldn't.
• Christopher Waltz has signed for Bond 26.

D: Bonds "Death".

This is not depicted on screen and it's also not supported anywhere in the literature. In this movie it certainly appears that Bond dies, absolutely - same as in the novel that ending is taken from, You Only Live Twice but it is a bold statement indeed to say that - after almost 60 years of movies - Eon have descided to kill James Bond on screen, not without a citation stating this to be fact.

All anyone here has pointed to by way of citation are reviews of the movie - nobody is questioning that Bond appears to die - what is questioned however and what will continue to be petitioned for is this be backed up with either a definitive statement from the movies producers to the effect that James Bond has been killed - or - the entry is modified to "Bond appears to be killed."

There is no precedent for the character of James Bond actually dying in either any of the official Eon produced movies, or the novels - in terms of an almost 60 year old franchise it is an extraordinary claim that this should be the case and, therefore, to make this statement that this is so as fact requires proof or else to err on the side of caution.

Without one single recorded previous instance of Bond being killed it is bizarre this issue has been - and is continued to be - steamrollered as being canonical fact based on so little evidence other than the wholly superficial.

Citation needed.

Einheit947 (talk) 16:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Quibbles Go Here:

The biggest problem is you want to ignore what happened in the movie, because it doesn't meet your expectations. For example the given sources for Blofeld not to die are because he (unconfirmed) signed for Bond 26? For your information we can still have a Bond 26 with Blofeld en James Bond. It can be rebooted again or it can take place before the events of No Time to Die. But that is all WP:CRYSTALBALL. All the given reasons are ,how I see it, you want to

things they did in the movie. Yes they can kill Bond after 60 years. And untill Bond 26 is released that is how it is right now.Lobo151 (talk) 08:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Lobo151 -

"The biggest problem is you want to ignore what happened in the movie, because it doesn't meet your expectations."

Assumptive as well as factually quite incorrect - I have not one single problem whatsoever regarding the movie or for that matter what happens in it - not one. I'm actually very satisfied with the film. I do however have many problems concerning the shoddy job done on its write up here. Hence, these notes. Kindly please refer to above in specific if you have anything to actually contribute to this discussion and keep the armchair psychological evaluations about the author to yourself. You're really not very good at it. Stick to the topics.

Thanks and appreciated in advance.

Einheit947 (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Please read Writing about Fiction, and understand that we do not analyze films, only write what is patently obvious to an average viewer without any other context - unless that interpretation or analysis is given by a reliable source. For example, we cannot use the fact that Waltz signed up for two more Bond films (one includes this one) to make any interpretation of Blofeld's fate in this one. Also it should be noted that Waltz said he would only return as Blofeld if Craig returned as Bond, and since we know Craig is NOT returning, it certainly cannot be said Waltz is returning in the next one. Our goals of plot summaries is to write concisely (under 700 words) and hit the major points of the film, and if that means some fine details get lost, that's acceptable to us. --Masem (t) 17:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Masem -

"Also it should be noted that Waltz said he would only return as Blofeld if Craig returned as Bond, and since we know Craig is NOT returning, it certainly cannot be said Waltz is returning in the next one."

.

I refer you to the 2016 mirror article - Waltz's statement regarding his return for Bond 25 and Bond 26 is not conditional upon Daniel Craig returning for Bond 26 as you, spuriously and quite incorrectly, surmise - simply Craig returning for Bond 25 (No Time To Die) only.

The clue is mostly in the headline, but moving ones eyes across the words and actually reading what the article says generally helps.

As to your point regarding what can reasonably be discerned from watching the movie - the disparity between Blofelds death and literally everyone else exposed to the same nano-virus toxin (Heracles) is perfectly apparent to any person possessive of reasonable intelligence and eyeballs watching the movie in normal conditions: Blofelds lack of screaming and blood pouring out of his face is painfully obvious to anyone. Everyone else exposed to Heracles dies screaming, including its inventor. This is clearly not a continuity error, this is a plot point and disregarded....

By someone who apparently can't manage to successfully digest a Daily Mirror article about Christopher Waltz.

Einheit947 (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

The Mirror is not a reliable source, as a UK Tabloid. But the same report about Waltz's return in The Independent spells out that conditional. (Also we do not use headlines, those are not considered to have any fact-checking involved).

Again, similar to Bond's death scene, there are artistic licenses used by the filmmaker. Just because Blofeld was the only one calm could have several interpretations, only that later he is considered dead by the in-universe characters. As soon as you apply that level of nitpicking on a scene-by-scene anaylsis, you are crossing the line of original research. We have to stay with what is apparent at the very surface of the film, unless we have reliable sources that give us deeper analysis. --Masem (t) 17:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Masem:

"The Mirror is not a reliable source, as a UK Tabloid"

Leaving aside the somewhat unsurprising fact that, until it was edited, Christopher Waltz's entry in this article regarding his comitment to a further Bond movie following No Time To Die included the following link to IGN itself carrying direct citation to the Mirror article - let's examine what the Independant's article from this 2016 that you do apparently accept has to say on the matter, shall we...? But first, I need to ask you a question

Headline -"Christopher Waltz will appear in two more James Bond films as long as Daniel Craig returns as 007",

At which point during No Time To Die did you first become unaware of the total absence of Daniel Craig playing the lead role of James Bond in the film?

If the answer transpires to be, roughly, something along the lines of "at no point was I aware of the fact Daniel Craig wasn't playing James Bond in NTTD because he was in it" are we not correct in establishing the fact that, as far as Christopher Waltz's conditions regarding himself signing for two movies (25 and 26) prior to signing for Bond 25 were, in point of fact, subsequently and fully met and Daniel Craig did in fact sign up for Bond 25, exactly as Waltz required.

Waltz's terms as stipulate make no requirement for Daniel Craig to return for Bond 26 - only Bond 25 - which is this movie.

Or, let me guess - is your source suddenly not good enough, even though you yourself brought it up...?

Curious minds, and all that.

Einheit947 (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

The Independent source also does not say that Waltz was committed two more films. Simply in 2016 he said that he would be willing to come back for two films if Craig came back as Bond. There's enough vagueness in that statement that we cannot say firmly (as you are trying) Waltz committed to two more films. Additionally, we're looking at a 2016 source and things can change since. Fundamentally, we cannot use these statements at all to content the point that to the casual viewer (how we're to write plot summaries) Blofeld died in this film. If that changes on the next film, we can retroactively fix this, but for now, this is the most obvious conclusion that does not attempt any analysis or interpreation of the work. --Masem (t) 16:41, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@Masem:

The Independent source also does not say that Waltz was committed two more films. Simply in 2016 he said that he would be willing to come back for two films if Craig came back as Bond.

Actually the artical says, clearly and with no ambiguity at all - ""Christopher Waltz will appear in two more James Bond films as long as Daniel Craig returns as 007" using language. There is nothing remotely vague about that statement. Daniel Craig did in point of fact return for Bond 25 - therefore Waltz is signed for 26. The headline is quite unequivocal on that subject. Also your statement fails to explain the clear an obvious disparity between the way Waltz's character appears to die on screen and the way every other targeted characters death is depicted after being exposed to the same toxic agent, FoxDie - I mean - Heracles.

There can be no denying - Blofelds death as depicted is noticeably and strikingly different to that of every other targeted individual. The others all died screaming with blood pouring out of their faces and neither quickly or well. Blofeld on the other hand dies painlessly and mercifully quickly, slumped in the corner of his cage for all the word as if asleep rather than contorted in agony.

Exactly the same as with Bond, the description of Blofelds death should be modified to reflect what actually happens in the movie, not the assumed conclusion imposed upon it by the editors here.

Blofeld is declared dead, killed by exposure to Heracles. This is not to say narratively his character actually is. The same as with Bond later on. We at no point witness the characters actual demise, only receive the pre-digested conclusion that he just is and no note whatsoever is drawn to the clear marked difference in the extremely quick and painless manner this so-called death took place.

These descriptions should follow what happens in the film, not be buried under an indifferent and inaccurate description not reflective of what we actually see take place - which is a marked difference to a depiction of the way characters are seen to die from exposure to the nano-vifus toxin as previously established.

Einheit947 (talk) 01:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I've said it before, headlines are not considered part of a reliable source, per WP:HEADLINES. The article text actually does not support that headline. And while you, perhaps a cinophile and thus drawn to those details, that again is not the level of detail we take plot descriptions. We can judge what the average viewer saw from reliable sources that recapped the film, all which consider both Blofeld and Bond dead. What you're seeing is not the "average" take on the film. --Masem (t) 02:05, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Masem - "I've said it before, headlines are not considered part of a reliable source, per WP:HEADLINES." - and yet you're one who introduced this specific article in the first place - The Independent - on the grounds you didn't like the Mirror article - because it does confirm waltz signed a two movie deal when signing for Bond 25. I'd also appreciate where the article you introduced doesn't confirm this - this actual article itself confirms Waltz signed for multiple movies:

"After the release of Spectre it was reported that Christoph Waltz had signed on to return as Ernst Stavro Blofeld for further Bond films, on the condition that Craig returned as Bond."

Either pick a lane or move on, so far your argument has been all over the place. You're even disallowing evidence you yourself have personally introduced. Start being consistent or I start making changes, we can argue the toss via arbitration and I'm quite happy to go to Eon direct about this and everything else here. You are literally cutting the cloth as you go.

Unacceptable. Einheit947 (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Masem, I admire your patience, and that of the editors on the user's talk page. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies - If you could find some way of keeping your comments to the topics raised please, that might be appreciated. Comments like these are not only off topic - they wound, please - in future follow general guidelines and be considerate to other users feelings and don't post simply to be hurtful about others. Thank you in advance.

Einheit947 (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Sources

Use of serial commas in the lead

A couple of people have tried to force the use of the serial comma into the lead, despite the whole article not using it. WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD suggest they should be using the talk page to discuss this, but no takers so far, so I am opening the thread for them to discuss. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:9816:1424:7638:C8AE (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Box office performance

I added a note about how this film is the worst-performing Bond in the franchise with Daniel Craig, but was reverted[2] by Lobo151 (talk · contribs) with the edit summary "Not fo t". I'm not entirely certain what that means, but since this stands to lose the studio tens of millions of dollars, and will become the first Bond film to lose money, I think we should note this in the lead and the box office sections. The way it reads now, one would think that the film is a financial success, which it wasn't. Thoughts? Incerto501 (talk) 14:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for that, I meant Not for the lead. This was in my opinion to much detailed information for the lead. Should be in the box office section. Also it is not a fact or proven that the movie was not a financial success. But that is already mention in the box office section.Lobo151 (talk) 14:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

"Worst-performing" is probably not really all that accurate either. Adjusted for inflation it is still the 6th highest-grossing Bond film. It has still been incredibly successful in these extremely challenging times—it is the biggest non-Chinese release since the start of the pandemic, and in the UK it has still managed to become the 3rd highest nominal grosser. Ordinarily a gross of $770 million would have been enough for a Bond film to break even with the home video markets and TV revenue still yet to come but the film effectively had to be marketed twice—once early in 2020 and again in late 2021. As a result the film has likely lost tens of millions on its theatrical run (a break-even gross of $900 million would suggest a loss in the $50–100 million range). This probably should be included in the article but I agree it belongs in the box-office section where context can be added. Betty Logan (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

There's definitely a variety of factors that could be to blame for its performance, absolutely. But I don't know of any Bond film that has lost money, let alone up to $100 mil after all is said and done. I think it's noteworthy enough for the lead that it's the first film out of a series of 25 to lose money. That's quite a distinction for a franchise with this kind of staying power. I'm not saying people are going to get fired or this is comparable to a Hudson Hawk or Waterworld type situation, but the sentence in the lead about its gross may give the impression that this film made money, when it did the exact opposite. I understand the argument about it grossing a large amount compared to some of the competition, but it also must be acknowledged that plenty of other films released in 2021 did manage to net studios money (e.g. Shang-Chi, Free Guy. Eternals, Venom 2, etc.) despite Covid fears. Incerto501 (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Insofar as a tertiary source is concerned, it doesn't matter if any of that is true. It only matters if a secondary source considers it notable. DonQuixote (talk) 20:45, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

So in other words we should get confirmation of the financial loss, since Variety and other publications are using anonymous sources rather than hard financial data? Incerto501 (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

If we can cite a source that says that it's the first Bond film to lose money (or something similar), then that'll be great. If the sources then says "...because..." then it'll be better as we can write an expanded summary of it. If we can cite multiple sources and/or one or more prestigious sources, then it'll help to add more weight in it being notable. DonQuixote (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Heracles

Should Heracles really link to Heracles? Gah4 (talk) 02:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Home media

Do we really need weekly details? Seems to be overkill. Andyross (talk) 19:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)