Talk:Dr. No (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleDr. No (film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starDr. No (film) is part of the James Bond films series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 27, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
July 22, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
July 27, 2007Good article nomineeListed
July 18, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
July 14, 2011Good article nomineeListed
August 24, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
September 6, 2011Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 23, 2012Good topic candidatePromoted
June 30, 2016Good topic removal candidateDemoted
July 6, 2017Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

A monkey?? A MONKEY?!?!?[edit]

"An initial draft of the screenplay was rejected because the scriptwriters had made the villain, Dr. No, a monkey."

I understand that this rather surprising fact comes from Broccoli himself, so there is no doubt something to it. However, the statement in its present form is quite confusing: are we to believe that the writers imagined Bond pitted against a super-intelligent monkey? A quick web search turns up several statements (example) that in this draft Dr. No was the name of a pet monkey belonging to the villain, who was presumably human. If this is true (and can be verified), it would be much clearer to state that the writers had transposed the NAME Dr. No from the villain to his pet monkey than to state that they had "made the villain, Dr. No, a monkey". Skaltavista (talk) 13:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

So, it may be more accurate to say that they made a monkey's uncle out of the villain. WHPratt (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

American Film Institute recognition[edit]

Please, allow me to edit this short mixed (prose+points) information (as you have recommended me) about well-notable AFI’s recognition:

The film is recognized by American Film Institute in these lists:

References

  1. ^ "AFI's 100 Years...100 Heroes & Villains" (PDF). American Film Institute. Retrieved 2016-08-05.
  2. ^ "AFI's 100 Years...100 Movie Quotes" (PDF). American Film Institute. Retrieved 2016-08-05.

If there is another possible method how I can add this information I will acclimatize willingly. I am very sorry for difficulties. I want to remain that user Atlantic306 have already thanked me for this edit so you can ask him and have a respect to my notable editing. Dr.saze (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with adding these. As long as the links are good and accurate, I don't understand why anyone would. SonOfThornhill (talk) 18:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Someone has written that mentioning AMERICAN Film Institute recognition is not proper for British film. I do not understand his attitude so I will write it again into Legacy section (I think it is the best choice). I thank for your acclamation. I hope it will be same by another unaccessible articles... And yes, the links are in the best order. Dr.saze (talk) 20:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Stop bloody edit warring and let people comment properly before you force something in. – SchroCat (talk) 19:02, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought that opinion was clear. I will wait for others.Dr.saze (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) In terms of the information, one of the points is dubious (Bond as a hero), leaving us with a foreign film institute thinking one line is vaguely noteworthy. Woo-hop. If this one piece of trivial nonsense is to be included, it's damned lazy to use bullet points for something that should be in prose, and awful to use an inconsistent (and inappropriate) American date form and spelling. Drsaze, there is no rush on this and just because one editor cannot see problems, that is not the signal to force the issue again. Leave it for several days for others to comment. - SchroCat (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
So if i give it in prose form in better way and in British English can I try to add it right now, or should I wait for another reactions? - Dr.saze (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Do not add it. As I have said above, Leave it for several days for others to comment. As I have also said, I am not sure that a foreign institute's opinion of one line (the only thing they have said about this film is worth including: it is trivial dross. – SchroCat (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Okay. Be sure I will mainly follow your advices. I hope you will advise me in another unaccessible films. - Dr.saze (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Please don't delete my comment again just because you disagree with it. As I said before, the film had an American producer and was financed & distributed by an American studio. So it is silly to argue that the American Film Institute is a foreign entity. We should be endeavoring to provide as much information regarding the film as possible, not censoring it based on bias and bigotry. SonOfThornhill (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
I did not deliberately delete anything, (there was an (edit conflict) and there is a bug that sometimes affects subsequent edits) so take your head out of wherever it is and AGF. Speaking of AGF, the comments of "bias and bigotry" are ridiculously way off the mark, so. Again, don't put your misguided prejudice of another editor ahead of common decency. This is a British film (regardless of the nationality of one individual), and the thoughts of a non-domestic institute onver one line of script is getting deep into trivia. I will, however, point out that the AFI 'recognition' of hat on line is already covered in the article. Drsaze, you should check before you clumsily add information like this, that it is not present. You should also note that this is how to add such information in relevant articles: as part of the text, not clumsily rammed in with bullet points as an addendum. - SchroCat (talk) 21:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Looking again, the information about Bond is also present (superfluously) and it's included in the text again. - SchroCat (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Edit bug??? You've got to be kidding me. And it is not only the nationality of Cubby Broccoli but that United Artists, the studio that financed and distributed the film was an American film studio. So to say that this was a solely a British film and that the AFI is a foreign entity because it is American is just denying reality. Should the Academy Awards be censored too because it is a "foreign" organization and only BAFTRA awards be noted? Of course not, that same standard applies here. SonOfThornhill (talk) 13:30, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it happens, and I care not one iota whether you believe me or not. Unlike your disgusting behaviour on the Star Trek talk page, I do not remove people's comments, especially when they are easily dismissed as yours. – SchroCat (talk) 13:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Please stay on topic and don't resort to personal attacks. Can you refute that Cubby Broccoli, the film's producer, was American or that United Artists, which financed and distributed the film, was an American film studio? SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
You have accused me of "censoring ... based on bias and bigotry" and of deleting something I did not do deliberately (I have explained about the (edit conflict)) and you now accuse me of personal attacks? Perhaps you should take a page from your own book and not delete other people's comments (as on Star Trek), where you were also edit warring with your deletions. Your comments are moot, as I have explained above. - SchroCat (talk) 14:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I didn't accuse you of anything. Reread what I wrote, I make no personal accusation. As far as the Star Trek talk page, I was personally attack by an unregistered IP hopper. And the comment in question was ultimately deleted by other editors because it was a personal attack. Now stay on topic, can you refute that Cubby Broccoli, the film's producer, was American or that United Artists, which financed and distributed the film, was an American film studio? Should the Academy Awards be censored too because it is a "foreign" organization and only BAFTRA awards be noted? SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Bollocks: you have accused me of those things, which is a calumny. As I have already explained, the point is moot and there is nothing more to discuss. (And no, the comment had a small portion removed: you deleted the entire comment and edit warred: that's sub-standard behaviour) - SchroCat (talk) 15:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I made no personal accusations, I was discussing the issue. If you personalized it, that's on you not me. Now let's get back to the issue. Can you refute that Cubby Broccoli, the film's producer, was American or that United Artists, which financed and distributed the film, was an American film studio? Should the Academy Awards be censored too because it is a "foreign" organization and only BAFTRA awards be noted? SonOfThornhill (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Don't lie.
The point is moot and the matter does not need to be discussed further. - SchroCat (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I think we should wait for another editors and their opinions. How it seems, SchroCat has not mood to discuss. Maybe he has another more important work because he haven't rewritten me on his talk page yet. - Dr.saze (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I suggest you both read what I have already written, because it's now bloody obvious that neither of you have bothered so far. So, let me repeat myself to make this as clear as I can: the information is already in the article. Read it again and let it sink in, both of you. It's time to move on to something useful, and Drsaze, I suggest you look at how it's been done: in text, not lazily bullet pointed; the spelling is in British English and the date format is in the appropriate and consistent format. - SchroCat (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

But I do not see anywhere you mentioned the emplacement of James Bond's quote among AFI's 100 Movie Quotes. So if you let me fix it in your suggested prose format I will be really glad. - Dr.saze (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Then look more closely: it is already in the article. - SchroCat (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Okay. I see it now. But couldn't be both accolades together somehow (in prose format, of course)? I think it is better and more panoramic... - Dr.saze (talk) 19:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
"panoramic"? No, they shouldn't go together: they address entirely different things, which are dealt with separately in the article. - SchroCat (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
But only for abstract, you know. Film fans will appreciate it when this compact recognition will be by every film. - Dr.saze (talk) 19:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
There is absolutely no reason why it should be in the same format for each film, particularly when - as is the case with this article - the examination of certain aspects of the film means it makes more sense to separate them. We are still only dealing with minor recognition by an institute, not something more heavyweight, like splitting up multiple awards into different areas. You should also note that this is an encyclopaedia, and we do not write solely for "film fans", but a broad audience. Your statement predicting what "film fans will appreciate" carries no weight: you (or anyone) do not know what film fans will or will not appreciate. - SchroCat (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Okay, your arguments are good. But with one I disagree. I am one of the most fiery film fan so I surely know what we will possibly appreciate... Only one more suggest: Could we wait for opinions of other editors as you have said for the first time? - Dr.saze (talk) 19:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
You can wait as long as you like, but as you were asking for the information to be included, and it's been there all the time, I am not sure what there is to wait for. - SchroCat (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Me myself is not very content with this. I would like it in aome collective place. But as you have written it is more encyklopedia so I have to submit to majority. - Dr.saze (talk) 19:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm sirry, but I have no idea what you are saying, aside from the fact you are not happy with the structure of the article. - SchroCat (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that was exactly what I said :-) - Dr.saze (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Well that shows an inexperience of what constitutes a well-written or well-structured article. - SchroCat (talk) 19:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I would not tell that. I rather prefer my own system. That is all. But I have not any problem to conform to. - Dr.saze (talk) 21:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Film release date countries[edit]

Atlantic306, could you please provide a rationale for going against the guidelines that specifically state otherwise?

Looking back through the history, it looks like the article has been stable showing just the UK's release date until it was added in this edit in October. Since then there has been considerable edit warring over the inclusion, and I think it's probably best to leave it as the long-standing stable version without the US date. Let's be clear: this was a British production with a mostly British cast and crew adapting a British novel. Template:Infobox film states "Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release ... and the release date(s) in the country or countries that produced the film, excluding sneak previews or screenings. If other release dates are found to be notable, it may be appropriate to include them in the main body of the article (example)." I look forward to hearing your rationale without further reversions. The Bounder (talk) 08:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

  • As it was only added in October, accept your argument although there was American involvement though United Artists. Atlantic306 (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Thank you. There may have been "American involvement", but it was not to the level of production, and this has never been classed as a dual-county production. - The Bounder (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dr. No (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dr. No (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:47, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dr. No (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

☑Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC)