Talk:No Time to Die

Title

is the actual name of the film Bond 25, or is this the working name?

It's a working title. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)thanks

Rami Malek

@Yodaanakin, could you pleaee stop adding Rami Malek to the cast unless you have a reliable and verifiable source to support his inclusion? So far all we have is reports that he is in negotiations to play a role, not that he has actually been cast. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Screenwriters

@Mclarenfan17, Just out of curiosity, why did you remove Purvis & Wade's names from the screenplay list? They have written the bulk of the screenplay (Burns and Waller-Bridge merely provided re-writes/polishes). They are also the only writers to be confirmed by EON. Jake24-007 (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2019 (EST)

@Jake24-007 — without credits, we cannot know for sure. SGA rules about who gets credited and when are tricky; Purvis, Wade and Haggis were credited as writing Quantum of Solace even though Haggis wrote it solo. Right now, all the sources tell us is that Purvis and Wade wrote the story and that Burns and Waller-Bridge did re-writes. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 20:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17, Fair enough, thanks. Though I'd be surprised if P&W went uncredited. Jake24-007 (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2019 (EST)

I would be surprised too, but until we're members of the Screenwriters' Guild, it's just speculation. SGA rules don't always make sense—Graham Yost got full credit for Speed, even though he admitted that Joss Whedon (who never got credited) threw his script out and started afresh. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17, Now that Purvis & Wade have been officially announced for writing duties, I suggest we re-add them to the screenwriters list. Jake24-007 (talk) 13:51, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@Jake24-007 — the same problem still applies. "Story by" and "screenplay by" are specific SGA credits and that's what the infobox reflects. Michael G. Wilson said that Purvis and Wade wrote the script, but that does not mean that they will be credited for it. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 20:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17 — at the credits at the bottom of this article it specifically says "written by" Purvis & Wade, Burns, Fukunaga & Waller-Bridge, without splitting into story and screenplay. Is that enough to add them to the infobox? Jimmio78 (talk) 00:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

No, because it's not an SGA credit. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:46, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@Jimmio78 — please stop assuming that because a source says that Purvis and Wade wrote the script, they will be credited for it. It does not work that way. Eon have to submit all of the scripts (including drafts) to the SGA, who then tell them who should be credited and for what. It's why Purvis and Wade got credited for the story and script of QOS separately, even though Paul Haggis completely rewrote their script. The sources that you cite don't have the authority to declare who is credited for what. Only the SGA can do that. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17 — But can you explain why it is any less of an assumption that Purvis & Wade wrote the story and the others wrote the scripts. Explain to me what your reasoning is that we should split the credit up before we have the official SGA credits. Surely it makes more sense to give them all a broader credit until we have more details. Why are the sources for the rewrites acceptable to put into the screenplay category, while similar sources for Purvis & Wade aren't? It seems like much more of an assumption to split the credit than to just put them all together, the way an OFFICIAL SOURCE has tentatively credited them. If the sources "don't have the authority to declare who is credited for what", surely we don't have the authority to guess who will get a story credit and who will get a screenplay credit, contrary to official sources? Jimmio78 (talk) 12:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Jimmio78 — You are absolutely correct here. It's quite presumptuous to assume how they're going to be credited without knowing the SGA credits beforehand. It makes much more sense to include all writers in the "screenwriters" list until we know exactly how they will be credited on screen. Jake24-007 (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that crediting them as screenwriters presumes that their script has been used in some capacity when Burns and Waller-Bridge hired to rewrite their script. Now that may be as simple as tweaking elements of the dialogue, or completely revising it (see the aforementioned example of Speed). We cannot know for sure, so we have to go by the language used: "rewrite". Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Can any other editors chip in here? I think so far we have a majority agreeing we should all put them in the 'writers' category as has been officially announced. Jimmio78 (talk) 07:24, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

That's hardly a majority. And nor is in an official announcement—only the SGA can declare it. Studios can get in pretty serious trouble if they ignore the SGA's rules. Plus, you haven't even bothered to address the fact that the majority of sources point out that Burns and Waller-Bridge were hired to rewrite the script. Where is your proof that anything Purvis and Wade wrote is in the script? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17 — First of all, who are you referring to when you discuss the SGA? Do you mean the Writers Guild of America (WGA)? The Writers' Guild of Great Britain (WGGB)? I'm sure you're not referring to the Songwriters Guild of America. The fact that you have consistently misremembered the Guild's name doesn't exactly do wonders for your believability. Next, your whole argument that we must not ignore these rules and we must wait until we have official 'SGA' credits would only be fair if you were arguing to leave out the writing credits altogether for now: the WGA complexities don't remotely justify your arbitrary guesswork in splitting up the writers. I also don't understand why you've drawn the line at Purvis & Wade, when Waller-Bridge was also reported as "rewriting" Burns' iteration of the script. By your logic shouldn't Waller-Bridge be the only one listed in the screenplay category as she was the most recent contributor reported as having "rewritten" the script? Finally, if studios can get in serious trouble for ignoring these rules, surely the fact that the studio itself has used the wording "written by" in an official press statement would then suggest that its the official WGA credit? It is our most reliable source on the matter for now, and your insistence on splitting them up is just your personal opinion and original research. Jimmio78 (talk) 12:48, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

As of now, we have an official source crediting all of them as "writers". So, until the film is released and we know who's credited for what, we simply cannot make assumptions on behalf of the WGA. Jake24-007 (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

"By your logic shouldn't Waller-Bridge be the only one listed in the screenplay category as she was the most recent contributor reported as having 'rewritten' the script?"

And by your logic, Danny Boyle and John Hodge should be listed as screenwriters because they worked on the script. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, Twitter is never the most reliable source. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17 — No, my logic is that the officially announced writers should be credited the way they have been announced: no more, no less. I'm changing it back now. Please don't revert it to your preference without agreement or support from any other editors.

And the tweet was from the official Bond account so I think it is reliable, if superfluous; I was just trying to show that multiple official sources have credited them that way. Jimmio78 (talk) 03:14, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

"officially announced writers should be credited the way they have been announced"

But, as I have repeatedly pointed out, the source lacks authority. Please present a source that demonstrates that P&W's script is still being used (ie that Burns/Waller-Bridge did not discard it).

"I'm changing it back now."

That's edit-warring.

"And the tweet was from the official Bond account so I think it is reliable, if superfluous."

If it's superfluous, it's unnecessary. And if you're relying on unnecessary sources to make an argument, you have a poor argument. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:27, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17 — In what world does an official formal first-party announcement "lack authority"? You're being stubborn and ignoring what the source explicitly says, just because you've got a different story in your head from inferences and guesswork. You're also consistently failing to respond to my main argument, simply highlighting minor sub-arguments in an attempt to discredit me. And it takes two to edit-war; not to mention my support from Jake24-007 and an anonymous IP user.

And what's your issue with the cast now? How can you possibly use the argument "we don't know who is getting billed or how" to justify selectively placing the cast members of your personal choice in the infobox, as opposed to listing all officially announced cast members? Yet again, you're completely disregarding sources in order to make the page fit your presumed vision of the credits, and going against the exact arguments you have made while repeatedly reverting other users' edits.

If you continue editing in this detrimental way I am going to seek dispute resolution. Thanks Jimmio78 (talk) 05:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

"In what world does an official formal first-party announcement 'lack authority'?"

In the world of film-making. Production studios do not decide credits. Not just screenwriting, but almost every major cast and crew role. They hire people to fill the various roles, but the various guilds dictate who gets credited, when and how; for example, the WGA screenwriting credit system. All you have provided is a single self-published source and when I have asked you to present additional third-party sources to support your claims, you have been unable to do so.

"If you continue editing in this detrimental way I am going to seek dispute resolution."

"If you don't give up and let me have my way, I'll go to admins/DRN/etc." is usually an argument made by people who have nothing left to argue. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 05:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17 — I provided reliable third-party sources on my talk page and you disregarded them. Your request for me to demonstrate "something that [the writers] wrote must be in the final version of the script" before putitng them in the infobox is unrealistic and silly. Can you demonstrate this is the case for ANY of the writers?

Also you're absolutely right that I have nothing left to argue. At this stage I've made my argument completely clear and backed it up, to support from other users, and from my perspective you are just being stubborn, presenting a vague esoteric argument that hasn't been specifically supported by a single source. Our discussion has come to an unproductive standstill, so I'm going to request a third opinion to finally resolve this. Jimmio78 (talk) 05:31, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

"you disregarded them"

Yes, because if you look at them, they were written on 25 April—the day the press event was held. All they do is re-state the content of the press release. You need something independent of the press release. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 05:35, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17 All writers are not only listed in an official tweet, but in EON's official press release as well. With respect, your argument that film studios don't decide writing credits is highly hypocritical, as you seem to be deciding it on the WGA's behalf. What's more, you seem to be basing the "story by Purvis & Wade" argument on the Quantum of Solace credits, when these things vary greatly depending on each production. Also, why would Hodge be credited "based on our logic" when he is nowhere to be found in the press release? Again, it is not our job to make decisions on behalf of the Writers Guild. We present what we know as fact, and we don't make extrapolations based on a previous production. It doesn't work like that. Please don't revert back to your version of the credits. Jake24-007 (talk) 18:35, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The infobox should be consistent with the text of the article and the text of the article makes clear that P&W were only involved in the earliest stages of the writing process before their script was re-written at least twice. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17 Sorry, but that is not a valid argument in the slightest. Now you're saying that because the wiki article says what you made it say, the infobox has to match? This is beyond immature and downright stubborn. There are four confirmed writers for Bond 25 - Purvis, Wade, Burns, and Waller-Bridge. We have nobody remotely reliable telling us that whatever work the latter two writers have done to the script is a complete re-working of Purvis and Wade's draft. We do not know if there was a collaboration between the four writers, and we most certainly do not know how they will be credited. Therefore, it makes absolutely zero sense to split the writers into separate "screenwriters" and "story by" sections when we have no clue who contributed what. Nor does it make any sense to assume that Burns and Bridge were hired to contribute to 'an earlier draft by Purvis & Wade' when there is no indication that Purvis & Wade left the project to begin with. Stop making assumptions and predictions on behalf of the WGA. It's wildly unprofessional and goes against Wikipedia's policy. What we know - Purvis, Wade, Burns, and Waller-Bridge have written the script. What we don't know - who were the main contributors to the current story, how much the new writers contributed, and how the writers will be credited on-screen. Therefore, no assumptions can be made on the matter. Jake24-007 (talk) 22:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

"Now you're saying that because the wiki article says what you made it say, the infobox has to match?"

No, I'm saying that the article—including the infobox—has to reflect what the sources say, and the sources provided make it clear that P&W wrote the early drafts before Burns and Waller-Bridge rewrote it.

And before you go accusing me of changing the article to justify changing the infobox, check the edit history of the page. I'm not the person who rewrote the lead to say that P&W worked on the earliest version of the script. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

It seems you are incapable of having a genuine discussion about this as you're not even acknowledging my argument. Clearly you feel as if you own this article and will find any way to rationalize undoing edits that disrupt your vision of what it should look like. I believe that myself and @Jimmio78 raise a fair point but it seems to be going over your head entirely. I won't waste any more time engaging in this dead-end conversation. I'm hoping more editors chime in so that we can finally revert the article back to the proper version, one that isn't ruined by a multitude of assumptions made about the film. Jake24-007 (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17 You have two editors who are actively arguing for the inclusion of Purvis & Wade. You have another two IP users who have attempted to re-add Purvis & Wade to the page. You have FOUR users trying to keep Purvis & Wade in the infobox, and you alone arguing against it and reverting incessantly. In fact you have reverted the page back to your preference on this specific issues SIX separate times, and not a single editor (or source) has supported your opinion on this. You've also failed to justify your selectiveness in who you've included in the infobox (which again you've reverted multiple times). Your behaviour on the article is starting to just come across as dangerously possessive. I am making a request for comment now and I hope we can finally reach a viable consensus and just put this behind us. Jimmio78 (talk) 13:10, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

"You've also failed to justify your selectiveness in who you've included in the infobox"

I have repeatedly justified my edits. You have repeatedly ignored them because they were inconvenient to you. I have repeatedly asked you to provide sources to support your position and further clarify the situation. You have repeatedly failed to do so; the only sources you could provide were clearly derived from the original contested source. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I was referring to your reversions of the cast list, which you have completely failed to justify. And you are the one who has not provided a single source that supports your argument, and just chosen to turn a blind eye to our perfectly reliable sources. Jimmio78 (talk) 09:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Synopsis

This is the synopsis given by Eon:

"Bond has left active service and is enjoying a tranquil life in Jamaica. His peace is short-lived when his old friend Felix Leiter from the CIA turns up asking for help. The mission to rescue a kidnapped scientist turns out to be far more treacherous than expected, leading Bond onto the trail of a mysterious villain armed with dangerous new technology."

Firstly, there is no indication that he has retired. For all we know, it's long service leave. Secondly, describing Malek's character as "a villain who threatens everything Bond has fought to protect" is the same way Greene, Silva and Oberhauser were described.

The most salient points from the synopsis are 1) Bond is no longer on active duty, 2) Leiter recruits him for a mission, and 3) the mission is to find a kidnapped scientist. Everything else is superfluous. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17 I would double check that, because that phrase has not been used in a single EON press release. The dangerous tech bit is equally integral to the plot as the scientist bit. Jake24-007 (talk) 13:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

It just sounds so generic. I'm sure I've read it on Wikipedia before. It could apply to any villain in a long-running film franchise—like Voldemort or Thanos or Kylo Ren or Idris Elba in that Fast and Furious movie looks like it will do more damage to your brain cells than really cheap vodka.

What's more, it's not supported by the official synopsis. All we know is that Rami Malek is "armed with dangerous new technology". We don't know what it is or how he intends to use it. How can we say in Wikipedia's voice that "threatens everything Bond has fought to protect"? It's generic to the point of cliché and feels bolted onto the synopsis to differentiate it from the press release. It's bad writing. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 06:29, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@Jake24-007 — could you please read what you are reverting before you revert it? You said here that the "previous version makes it seem like Bond and Felix were abducted", but this is the line you changed:

"When it becomes apparent that the scientist was abducted ..."

So please make sure you check first in future. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17 Fair enough, I thought it still said "they". I still don't understand why you reverted back to the original premise as it seems a bit poorly worded. Not sure if it was your's or someone else's, but I thought the version I came up with was a bit clearer. Jake24-007 (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not clearer at all. The version you came up with contained the phrase "when the mission turns deadly", but there is nothing in the synopsis to suggest this. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

"The mission to rescue a kidnapped scientist turns much more treacherous than expected"

Treacherous: Hazardous because of presenting hidden or unpredictable dangers. Jake24-007 (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Really? "Much more treacherous than expected"? You've got an (apparently) ex-MI6 agent and a CIA agent investigating the kidnapping of a scientist and it turns out to be "much more treacherous than expected"? It's not like they're on a mission to get a bottle of milk and run into a notorious terrorist at the checkout. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17 Uhh, I was literally quoting the official synopsis' wording to justify using the word "deadly." Did you not read the original? Look, you do you. I was merely attempting to improve the wording a bit to reflect the synopsis a bit more accurately. If you're as attached to this article as you seem to be, just be prepared for others like myself who change a thing or two into something that doesn't necessarily fit your vision. Wikipedia is meant to be collaborative after all.Jake24-007 (talk) 16:48, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

"I was literally quoting the official synopsis' wording"

Don't quote sources directly unless you're actually quoting them. When you write, you write in Wikipedia's voice which is not—and cannot be—the same voice as the voice of the source.

"just be prepared for others like myself who change a thing or two into something that doesn't necessarily fit your vision"

And you should be prepared for people like me who know what quality writing looks like. "Much more treacherous than expected" is an empty phrasing because, given the subject matter of the film, the audience can expect that the film involves some element of danger. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17 Stop cherry-picking my words and turning them into a whole new argument. The "treacherous" thing is EON's wording, not mine. I never once quoted anyone's words in the article. What I did was quote it in the talk page as a means for rationalizing my use of the word "deadly." And by your logic, your use of the phrase "when it becomes apparent that the scientist was abducted" is completely redundant when the previous sentence states that he was missing. A lot of what you've been doing on this article is literally the definition of edit-warring. Clearly, you're the zeitgeist of "quality writing" everywhere. As always, you win. Enjoy your article. Jake24-007 (talk) 00:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

"I never once quoted anyone's words in the article."

Paraphrasing requires more than just using a thesaurus. It still doesn't change the fact that it was bad writing because it said nothing.

"And by your logic, your use of the phrase "when it becomes apparent that the scientist was abducted" is completely redundant when the previous sentence states that he was missing."

I can think of at least three reasons why they would be missing, but not kidnapped:

1. They're already dead. The villain killed them, stole their research/invention and disposed of or hid their body.
2. They staged their own disappearance because they are the mastermind behind the entire plot.
3. They're not missing at all—rather, they vanished and then reappeared and Bond has to figure out what happened.

And that's just off the top of my head. I'm sure I could think of half a dozen more if I needed to.

"A lot of what you've been doing on this article is literally the definition of edit-warring."

Nope. Per WP:EDITWAR:

"An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts."

Disagreeing with you does not mean that I am edit-warring. A lot of what I have been doing amounts to adding reliably-sourced content rewriting prose for clarity and removing superfluous details and content supported by sources that are tabloid junk. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 06:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Ana de Armas

Ana de Armas revealed that she plays Paloma during the press junket this week, but I cannot find any reliable English-language sources reporting it—just fan sites and tabloids. It might have been reported in a Spanish-language source (like Denchik playing Waldo in Aftonbladet), but I can't speak or read Spanish. Can anyone find a source? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:58, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment on inclusion of screenwriters

There is a rough consensus to remove all writers from the article's infobox, which has been done. Bond 25 is scheduled to be released 3 April 2020. Editors agreed that the film's release and final credits would help clarify matters.

Cunard (talk) 23:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

---

There has been disagreement and extensive discussion about whether or not Neal Purvis & Robert Wade should be listed as writers in the article's infobox. Jimmio78 (talk) 13:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Please review WP:RFC and clarify what the scope and intention of this RfC is. Are you just asking for additional opinions as to whether or not they should be included? If appropriate, is there any chance of getting a brief recap of the arguments for/against? DonIago (talk) 04:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

@Doniago — the issue is what the "written by" field of the infobox is intended to convey. The argument for including Purvis and Wade is that they (along with Burns and Waller-Bridge) were named in the press release announcing the start of filming. However, the body of the article shows that this is more complex: they were hired to write the script, then replaced when Danny Boyle signed on to direct. When Boyle left the project, Purvis and Wade were re-hired. Cary Fukunaga was then hired to direct and Scott Z. Burns was brought on to rewrite the script (specifically to rewrite it, not be a script doctor, who makes minor changes to an existing script). Phoebe Waller-Bridge was also brought on to work on the film at a later date. There is simply no evidence that the script in use is actually written by Purvis and Wade anymore. I have repeatedly asked for additional sources to demonstrate their involvement and all anyone has been able to produce are articles that are just rewrites of the press release. Meanwhile there are a slew of sources that detail Burns' and Waller-Bridge's involvement as rewriting the film. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 04:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

If the issue is complicated then it probably shouldn't be inappropriately simplified in the infobox. I'm only saying that somewhat tongue-in-cheek. DonIago (talk) 04:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@Doniago How would you suggest we handle this issue? It is my opinion (and that of Jake24-007, as well as a few anonymous users on the page) that Mclarenfan17 has synthesised his/her own understanding of previous sources to predict that Purvis & Wade won't receive credit, while ignoring the more recent, official, source which directly attributes Purvis & Wade with credit (to be specific the press release states "Written by Neal Purvis & Robert Wade, Scott Z. Burns with Cary Joji Fukunaga and Phoebe Waller-Bridge"; numerous third party sources have since backed this information up). I would suggest that if Mclarenfan17 will not accept us including the writers as credited, we should not include them at all, as the synthesised list currently included in the article has not been supported with a strong source. I don't, however, think that removing the list is neccesary. The press release is pretty much as reliable a source as it gets for an official credit such as this, and there hasn't been a single source that actually disputes or offers an alternative perspective to the credits as included on the release. That is, there is no evidence that Purvis & Wade will NOT be credited, while the press release acts as strong evidence/confirmation that they will be credited. We have gone back and forth a lot on this issue, but I would love to hear how you think we should move ahead. Jimmio78 (talk) 07:21, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

"numerous third party sources have since backed this information up"

Those "numerous third-party sources" were all produced after the original press release was published and do little more than restate its content. To rely on them would be the same as relying on a syndicated newspaper column republished in three newspapers and calling it three separate sources when it is one source in three papers.

"The press release is pretty much as reliable a source as it gets for an official credit such as this"

But, as has been pointed out, the press release was published by the producers and the producers have no authority to determine credits. That power rests with the Writers' Guild if you want an "official credit", you need a source from the guild. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17 First of all, I am well aware of your perspective on this, and I was asking Doniago to weigh in. Secondly, the WGA doesn't even publicly release credits itself. They approve credits, which are then shared by the film and studio itself through materials such as one sheet posters, the film credits and...press releases. You have said yourself that studios can get in trouble for ignoring WGA rules, which suggests that these credits are already WGA-approved, and there is no source which suggests they are not. I cannot find a single major film article on Wikipedia which sources the writing credits from the Guild directly, and not through official materials such as posters or press releases. Regardless, this doesn't need to devolve into an argument again. Let's wait until Doniago responds.

Another similar issue, Doniago, which I forgot to mention, is the cast list of the infobox. Since we have no official billing order or list, I adjusted the cast list in the infobox to include ALL officially announced actors/actresses, as included in the cast section of the article, to avoid speculative selectiveness. Mclarenfan17 then removed a selection of the cast, with the argument that "we don't know who is getting billed or how", while completely neglecting to explain or justify his selective removal of certain cast members. This selectiveness completely flew in the face of his/her own argument, in my opinion. I'd also appreciate another opinion on this matter Jimmio78 (talk) 07:41, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm well aware that you were trying to inform Doniago of the situation. I also felt that you were misrepresenting things. Your claim of "numerous third-party sources" is misleading, to say the least. Likewise, you present the press release as an "official source", which is again misleading.

"They approve credits, which are then shared by the film and studio itself through materials such as one sheet posters, the film credits and...press releases."

Where is your evidence that this press release was approved by the WGA? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Is there any reason that all of these issues can't wait until the film is released, versus us trying to gaze into a crystal ball? DonIago (talk) 07:50, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@Doniago – Does that mean you would support removing the writing credits from the infobox and lede altogether for now? If so, would you suggest the same for the cast list? Jimmio78 (talk) 08:09, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

It means that we have WP:NODEADLINE, and if we're disputing the proper way to address an infobox field in a case where the film's release and final credits may help to clarify matters, then maybe that's the best course of action. In the meantime, such matters can be addressed in prose. DonIago (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I completely forgot about this discussion. I agree with @Doniago's suggestion that all writers be removed from the infobox for now. I've been looking into it and things are getting murkier, thanks in no small part to the tabloids waging war on Eon Productions again. At first they were trying to make out that Phoebe Waller-Bridge was hired to push an open feminist agenda onto the film. Now they're suggesting that she was hired to make sense of a too-complex high-concept plot. All of this is filtering down into the mainstream media, so it's unclear who is writing what. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Yep, definitely murky. They have started running stories about "filming an ILLEGAL car chase" in Norway. It looks like they're upset that Eon haven't been forthcoming with details, so they're trying to trash production—the way they did with Quantum of Solace and the "production starts a gang war!" fiasco—to force Eon to give them something to publish. Everything they're printing is a mix of a feminist agenda, production breaking the law, and now the plot being derivative of the new Fast and Furious spin-off.

@Doniago — I don't really know why the issue of the cast list was raised. Right now the list contains all of the returning actors in alphabetical order, plus Rami Malek who, as the main villain, we could reasonably assume will have high billing (probably second to Craig, or third to Craig and the female lead). Mclarenfan17 (talk) 04:41, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding snarky, this RfC is about the writers, not the cast, but I think everyone knows the consensus is that only top-billed cast members should be listed in the infobox. I don't think listing "everyone" is an appropriate 'holding pattern' approach, and I imagine you know what I'll say if I'm pressed to propose a solution. Anyway, I think we have this settled now? DonIago (talk) 23:06, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

@Doniago — I agree that we can consider it settled. Like I said, I don't know why the cast was brought into this RfC. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:36, 2 June 2019 (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.

"A Reason to Die"

Please note that the recent reports that the film had the working title come from MI6-HQ.com, which is a fansite and not reliable. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Christoph Waltz

Did anyone actually read The Guardian's article "confirming" Waltz's return? I'm guessing not, since if you read it, you would see some immediate red flags:

"The much-rumoured return of Christoph Waltz’s Blofeld to the James Bond series appears to have been confirmed after the actor was spotted at the studio where the latest film is being shot."

So first of all, it hasn't actually been confirmed; it "appears to have been confirmed", which is pure speculation.

Secondly:

"A visitor to Pinewood Studios tipped off the Daily Mail’s entertainment reporter Baz Bamigboye to the sighting, reporting that Waltz urged them not to spread news of his involvement, saying: 'You haven’t seen me.'

It's Baz Bamigboye and the Daily Mail. They're practically the reason WP:RS exists. Bamigboye's job is to shit all over production until production release details of the film—he's the one behind the talk of Bond 25 being "cursed", and was also responsible for the rumours of Quantum of Solace starting a gang war. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 13:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

This Variety source has the same problem as the one from The Guardian: it doesn't actually confirm anything, just repeats what The Daily Mail are "reporting". Please read sources and not just the headlines. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:50, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bartallen2 — could you please read your sources a little more carefully? The Variety source you added is the same one I pointed out above. The source offers no actual information; it claims to have had confirmation from an unnamed source who is not quoted. It's basically a recap of the Daily Mail "source" with some exposition on the film try and hide the way they are re-posting the Daily Mail's article. One of the key policies of Wikipedia is verifiability—the idea that the reader should be able to confirm for themselves the content of the source. Since we're not in a position to visit Pinewood Studios ourselves, we need the source to give us the next-best alternative: some evidence (like a quote from someone who is named) that we can have confidence in.

That might be a more-rigid interpretation of Wikipedia policy than is normally used, but it's needed and it's justified in this case. The Bond films get a lot of tabloid scrutiny, and between talk of a "cursed" production, Malek being unable to film with Craig, Fukunaga being more interested in video games than his job, and a radical feminist agenda in the script, Bond 25 is copping it worse than usual. The Daily Mail is pissed off that Eon keep a tight lid on things (and are being more secretive this time around), so their plan is to trash the production until they cough something up. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 12:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@DisneyMetalhead — can you please stop adding Waltz based on the Variety article? There is nothing in the article which actually confirms his casting. This is as close as they come to confirmation (emphasis mine):

"Another familiar face is returning to the James Bond franchise, as sources confirmed to Variety that Christoph Waltz will reprise his role of the super-villain Blofeld in Bond 25."

Who are these sources Variety claims to have? What did they say? Are their comments repeated elsewhere so we can check it out independently? The answers are no, no and no. This story fails verifiability checks because we have no way of knowing if it is true. You're effectively saying that we should trust Variety's reputation in lieu of having actual information, but we cannot do that. How do you know that a source told Variety this rather than Variety making it up to save face because the Daily Mail beat them to the punch? You don't because there is nothing in the source.

If you cannot observe critical policies such as WP:VERIFY or WP:RELIABLE, you really have no business editing Wikipedia. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:20, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17: no, you cannot simply remove a reliable source because they don't state the persons they spoke with. Variety is one of the most reliable sources out there. They also do not state that they got their intel from Daily Mail... they just state that Daily Mail broke the news first. Also, do not talk down to other editors. You cannot state "you really have no business editing Wikipedia". Wikipedia is a public online encyclopedia contributed to by all editors. Not just yourself.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 22:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

@DisneyMetalhead

"you cannot simply remove a reliable source because they don't state the persons they spoke with"

The fact that they don't name their source means that the article fails WP:VERIFY. You're asking editors to accept Variety's reputation in lieu of specific details. For that to work, they have to get it right every single time—because as soon as they get it wrong, any publication that relies on anonymous sources becomes valid. And that is especially a problem in this article because of the amount of stuff that is published with relying on confirmation, like Fukunaga blowing off filming to play Red Dead Redemption 2, or Craig being a diva because he wasn't happy about accomodations in Scotland, or Waller-Bridge having a radical feminist agenda, or any one of the dozens of nonsense stories that have been published about production. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Potential Edit to Cast Description

Per the Daily Mail story published 14/07/19, the tag "Agent 007" should be attached to Nomi rather than Bond in the cast description. However I note neither Eon nor Lynch seem to have issued any official statement confirming the story. Given that Bond seems to have followed up on his decision to retire at least from the field following the events of Spectre, and thus logically would have lost his 00 status, might I suggest the "Agent 007" descriptor be removed altogether until we have confirmation either way? Misterandersen (talk) 13:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Absent an official release perhaps the article could discuss her rumored role, citing the Daily Mail and other articles, but make it clear that currently Eon has neither confirmed nor denied it. Emperor001 (talk) 20:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Only official confirmed roles should be described here. My opinion is that Wikipedia is no place to share rumours based on nothing but speculation.

Lobo151 (talk)

"Per the Daily Mail"

And that's where I stopped reading. The Daily Mail fails WP:RS. The Daily Mail is the reason why policies like WP:RS exist in the first place.

"My opinion is that Wikipedia is no place to share rumours based on nothing but speculation."

And Wikipedia agrees with you. It's called WP:CRYSTAL (as in looking into a crystal ball). Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

"I note neither Eon nor Lynch seem to have issued any official statement confirming the story."

A lack of a denial is by no means a confirmation. If you have ever followed production of a Bond film before, you would know that Eon are notorious for keeping tight-lipped about production. They don't discuss details until they're ready to discuss them. It does not help that the Daily Mail is clearly trying to pressure Eon into speaking up because they're annoyed that they don't have anything to print. Between presenting Phoebe Waller-Bridge as having a radical feminist approach to the film and talking up Lynch as a "new 007" and replacement for Craig, they're obviously trying to stir up Ghostbusters-style discontent in the hopes that the backlash will force Eon into saying something.

For what it's worth, I suspect this story will actually pan out (Nomi probably inherits the 007 title; I doubt she is the new Bond the Daily Mail is making her out to be). Ever since their stunt during production of Quantum of Solace (claiming that production recklessly started a gang war in Panama), Eon have discreetly fed the Daily Mail details to keep them happy. But that's not enough to take this story at face value. The Daily Mail were the first to name Malek as being in contention for the villain role, but they also claimed that Lupita Nyong'o and Jodie Comer would also join the cast. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 13:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• Do believe that since July 18 it's been officially confirmed about Lynch's casting and character as I've seen it reported on major media, not just the tabloids. It has also been reported in major media that the film starts after Bond has retired, so in fact what is unconfirmed at this point is whether Bond does carry the 007 number in the film. Yes, I know the just-released logo for the film includes the 007 icon. But this is the symbol of the franchise and not easily dropped. (Plus one could argue it might as easily apply to Lynch's character.) 136.159.160.122 (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)