Talk:List of James Bond films

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Featured listList of James Bond films is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Good topic starList of James Bond films is the main article in 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
October 13, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
December 4, 2011Featured list candidatePromoted
January 23, 2012Good topic candidatePromoted
June 30, 2016Good topic removal candidateDemoted
January 6, 2017Featured list removal candidateKept
July 6, 2017Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured list
WikiProject Lists (Rated FL-class)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Featured list FL  This article has been rated as FL-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject James Bond    (Inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject James Bond, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
 
WikiProject Film (Rated FL-class)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
Featured list FL  This article has been rated as FL-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
 


Overview Table[edit]

My recent addition of the below table keeps being reverted for reasons which have little justification. The table matches the overview tables shown on franchises such as X-Men, Harry Potter, MCU, The Fast and the Furious and many more. Why should Bond be the exception?

Apparently there's a "superior" (which is entirely subjective) table on a totally different article. What's the relevance of that? People come to a "List of James Bond films" page to look for a list of James Bond films (and not necessarily to scroll through loads of info - hence why overview tables are always at the top of an article). A table like the one I made below shows a condensed list of films, release dates and directors and is far more simplified and easier to understand than the messy box office table at the bottom (which doesn't even show release dates). This page looks very much 2010 Wikipedia. We need to make it a part of 2018 Wikipedia.

Film U.K. release date Director Screenwriter(s) Story by Producer(s)
Dr No 5 October 1962 (1962-10-05) Terence Young Richard Maibaum, Johanna Harwood and Berkely Mather Harry Saltzman and Albert R. Broccoli
From Russia with Love 11 October 1963 (1963-10-11) Richard Maibaum Johanna Harwood
Goldfinger 18 September 1964 (1964-09-18) Guy Hamilton Richard Maibaum, Paul Dehn and Berkely Mather Johanna Harwood and Berkely Mather
Thunderball 29 December 1965 (1965-12-29) Terence Young Richard Maibaum and John Hopkins Kevin McClory, Jack Whittingham and Ian Fleming Kevin McClory
You Only Live Twice 13 June 1967 (1967-06-13) Lewis Gilbert Roald Dahl Harold Jack Bloom Albert R. Broccoli and Harry Saltzman
On Her Majesty's Secret Service 18 December 1969 (1969-12-18) Peter R. Hunt Richard Maibaum and Simon Raven
Diamonds Are Forever 30 December 1971 (1971-12-30) Guy Hamilton Richard Maibaum and Tom Mankiewicz
Live and Let Die 6 July 1973 (1973-07-06) Tom Mankiewicz
The Man with the Golden Gun 19 December 1974 (1974-12-19) Richard Maibaum and Tom Mankiewicz
The Spy Who Loved Me 7 July 1967 (1967-07-07) Lewis Gilbert Christopher Wood and Richard Maibaum Albert R. Broccoli
Moonraker 26 June 1979 (1979-06-26) Christopher Wood
For Your Eyes Only 24 June 1981 (1981-06-24) John Glen Michael G. Wilson and Richard Maibaum
Octopussy 6 June 1983 (1983-06-06) George MacDonald Fraser, Michael G. Wilson and Richard Maibaum
A View to a Kill 13 June 1985 (1985-06-13) Michael G. Wilson and Richard Maibaum Albert R. Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson
The Living Daylights 29 June 1987 (1987-06-29)
License to Kill 13 June 1989 (1989-06-13)
GoldenEye 24 November 1995 (1995-11-24) Martin Campbell Jeffrey Caine, Bruce Feirstein, Michael France and Kevin Wade Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli
Tomorrow Never Dies 12 December 1997 (1997-12-12) Roger Spottiswoode Bruce Feirstein, Nicholas Meyer and Daniel Petrie Jr.
The World is Not Enough 26 November 1999 (1999-11-26) Michael Apted Neal Purvis and Robert Wade and Bruce Feirstein
Die Another Day 20 November 2002 (2002-11-20) Lee Tamahori Neal Purvis and Robert Wade
Casino Royale 16 November 2006 (2006-11-16) Martin Campbell Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and Paul Haggis
Quantum of Solace 31 October 2008 (2008-10-31) Marc Forster
Skyfall 26 October 2012 (2012-10-26) Sam Mendes Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and John Logan
Spectre 26 October 2015 (2015-10-26) John Logan, Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and Jez Butterworth
Bond 25 25 October 2019 (2019-10-25) Danny Boyle John Hodge

Hopefully people could give their thoughts and feedback and the table can be implemented. Thanks. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 13:36, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

The Mysterious editor has twice now attempted to add what I consider a completely redundnant table. Aside from the fact it utilises problematic row spans, the table replicates much of the data already present in the two existing tables. It is also completely redundant next to the table at James Bond in film#Core crew. Now, to be fair I can actually see same some value in importing the crew table into this article and housing all the Bond tables at this article. The other more extreme option would be to merge the two articles. Either way, we don't need two tables essentially covering the same data at two different articles. Betty Logan (talk) 13:36, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
WP:OSE on what is on other pages is no basis to argue for changes. Having a table at the top (as per this version) is horrible and, to my eye, shocking poor practice. Tables need to be integrated into articles by introduction with text: they should not replace the need for all text, and you have to help the readers, but bludgeon them round the head with information but no context.
The formatting of this version is hideous: it's too easy to get lost trying to scan across a line to see who was involved in each film - and even worse on a mobile where the column and rowspans make it near impossible to read properly, with readers having to scan up and down and back and forth to try and get the information. Trying to claim it is "part of 2018 Wikipedia" is wrong: we are trying to make access to content for screen readers and smaller screens more beneficial, not less beneficial - let alone such a claim being entirely subjective.
I'm not convinced about adding one or two parts of the core crew to this table (why them, and not other, equally important individuals), and if we try and have them ALL in a table, it would just be too unwieldy. If we merge the two articles we'll end up with a long and unmanageable mush with no focus, with a series of tables dotted throughout. It will become less useful and unreadable because of that. - SchroCat (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
"Horrible" and "hideous". How very polite and diplomatic. Anyhow, a merge of the various articles about Bond films is needed. A major overhaul is necessary. At the moment it's like 3 different pages which are very confusing and involve masses of duplication and poorly formatted tables. I guess I'll leave it down to you guys - since all I was doing was introducing a format that is popular on literally every single other major film franchise table. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 15:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Merging would be a poor idea. If I recall correctly this article was formed by splitting out content from James Bond in film. WP:SIZERULE advises that articles over 100kb in size should ideally be split (James Bond in film is 150kb and this one is 80k). It is ironic that your argument for duplicating a table from another article is that there is too much duplication across the three articles. When you have multiple articles covering a topic duplication is always a concern, and we should endeavor to keep it to a minimum (which incidentally is why I reverted you in the first place). The reason we have three articles is because the guidelines encourage articles to be a sensible size, so we have to find natural divisions within the topic. Also, we have discussed this before: the tables here are not "poorly formatted". You may not like them but to my knowledge they are all compliant with our obligation to accommodate screenreaders, which rowspans can cause problems for. If you have a problem with the design we can discuss that, but the goal is to impart pertinent information, not to achieve conformity with articles about a completely different topic. Betty Logan (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree. Bond is different from the examples given above as it's a series of 25 films over 50+ years, not 7 or 8. The MCU series is the closest in length, but that breaks the list of films into phases of 6 or 7 films, in which the main character changes. It would be counter-productive to try and break the Bond list into main actor (the only break I think would be logical), as the remaining cast and crew were much more long-running than the other examples given. – SchroCat (talk) 06:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
I think the table should include the artists performing the intro music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.18.168.74 (talk) 07:56, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Why should you be against a table? On Wikipedia there is currently no 007 page which has a complete overview of James Bond Films. Lobo151 (talk) 18:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

It depends on what you call a "complete overview". There is no table anywhere in the world that claims to be a "complete overview": it would just be too massive. Instead we have fairly full tables here and on the Production article. - SchroCat (talk) 18:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Bond grosses[edit]

The financial data across the films is generally inconsistent, often varying by several million in some cases, even for the recent films. Anyway, several years ago I constructed a table to cross-reference the box-office data which I am shifting to this talk page so it can be referred back to, to help editors understand why the table uses different sources for different figures. The table in the article uses a system of corroboration (i.e. if one source is anomalous we use the corroborated figure) based on the table below. I hope this clears up any confusion. Betty Logan (talk)

Sources
Film Block 2010 Cork 2006 Forrest 2008 The Numbers BOM Boxoffice.com
Dr No 59.5 59.5 59.5 59.6
From Russia with Love 78.9 78.9 68.9 78.9
Goldfinger 124.9 124.9 124.8 124.9
Thunderball 141.2 141.2 141.2 141.2
You Only Live Twice 101.0 111.6 111.6 111.6
On Her Majesty's Secret Service 64.6 64.6 64.5 82.0
Diamonds Are Forever 116.0 116.0 116.0
Live and Let Die 126.4 126.4 161.8
The Man with the Golden Gun 98.5 97.6 97.6
The Spy Who Loved Me 185.4 185.4 185.4
Moonraker 210.3 202.7 210.3 210.3 210.3
For Your Eyes Only 194.9 194.9 195.3
Octopussy 183.7 183.7 187.5
A View to a Kill 152.4 152.4 152.6
The Living Daylights 191.2 191.2 191.2
Licence to Kill 156.2 156.2 156.2 156.2 156.2
Goldeneye 351.9 350.7 356.4 352.2 352.4
Tomorrow never Dies 338.9 335.3 339.5 333.0 333.0
The World is Not Enough 361.8 352.0 361.7 361.8 361.8
Die Another Day 431.9 431.9 431.9 432.0 432.0
Casino Royale 594.2 596.4 599.0 594.2
Quantum of Solace 576.0 591.7 586.1 586.1
Skyfall 1,108.7 1,108.6 1,108.7
Spectre 879.6 880.7
The figures for this particular franchise are evidently inconsistent, however The Numbers has consistent figures for every single film. Would it therefore be best to use numbers from one single reliable source rather than various different sources? TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 20:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
No. You can't pick and choose one source just because you want to: there is nothing to mark that as more or less accurate than any of the others. - SchroCat (talk) 21:25, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
I really don't get this bizarre attitude. All I asked was a simple question. All films on wikipedia predominantly use Box Office Mojo or The Numbers, so why does Bond have to be special? The Numbers source is the only source that has a figure for every single film. It's reliable. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 14:05, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
There is nothing bizarre about this, and there is no attitude. We cannot just pick one figure. You say "It's reliable", but so are all the others. The only reason Bond is different (not "special") is that because the series has been going on so long, many of the sources used for returns on the modern films did not exist for the earlier part of the series. If the sources say different things, we have to reflect the differences that they do. - SchroCat (talk) 14:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Edit Warring[edit]

Not sure why I am the one who has to take this here simply because of the immaturity of @SchroCat:. You cannot just revert (violating the W:3RR rule in the process) something that you don't like. Multiple editors have come to the agreement (through the edit history and collaboration over the last month or so) that this new page is the best way forward. You appear to be the only one who doesn't like this, so it should be you who puts your case forward for the completely backwards edits of this page. Hopefully @Elijahandskip:, @Lobo151: and others can back me up here for how ridiculous this is. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 13:43, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

TheMysteriousEditor, This is not the first time I've told you not to be insulting to other editors - just stop. I have put the article back to the long-standing STATUS QUO. There is an active consensus AGAINST what you are claiming, so if you want to change, then you have to DISCUSS. Just because your attitude is abrasive, insulting and disruptive,it doesn't mean you get to revert to your preferred version, reintroducing errors while you do it. You want to overturn the consensus, stop edit warring and bloody well DISCUSS the matter. (BTW, I've not violated 3RR: you need to read up and understand what the guidelines actiually are before you throw around the accusations). - SchroCat (talk) 13:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
You cannot accuse me of insulting you after the rude message you left on my talk page. You have not been an active editor on this page since January so you cannot just come back and disrupt everything like this. The status quo has changed. An outdated page that's not changed for literally a decade is wrong. I guess I'll open up a new consensus here then - we HAVE had multiple discussions which you can read throughout the edit history of the page. Various editors collaborated and calmly discussed changes which have been altered and implemented. The evidence is all there. It's only since you came back that things seem to have turned sour. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 13:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Go back through this page and the archives and you will see a huge number of references you have made about other editors (I think one of your first comments here was calling people "dictators" when you tried to edit war a sub-standard table onto the page). Yes, you'll find that when you are rude to, and about, people, they will reply in the same vein, so just knock it off. - SchroCat (talk) 14:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Fully agree It doesn't matter how the page was for years. This means for years the page was incomplete. Now @SchroCat: is the one Edit Warring. Lobo151 (talk) 13:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
That's rubbish. It wasn't incomplete at all, it's just that the IDONTLIKEIT faction are trying to force a change against a stated consensus on this page. if you want to overturn it, have a discussion and stop edit warring. - SchroCat (talk) 13:52, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
What is the problem with this overview? At the moment you can't find a list on Wiki with this basic data. Lobo151 (talk) 13:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
The "faction" does not exist. It's the majority. You are LITERALLY the only editor here who now comes under IDONTLIKE IT. Why can't you see this? TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 14:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
If you think that, then have the discussion to overturn the stated consensus about this table. Until the consensus is overturned, the extant version remains. - SchroCat (talk) 14:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
I think we're having the discussion right now. At the moment it is two against one. Hopefully more editors can come in and pick a viewpoint. This version (which is obviously mine and others preferred version) or this version (which is the preference of SchroCat). TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 14:18, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
No, that is NOT the choice. There are several different factors in several places to be discussed, not a one-or-the-other choice. I'll also say "two against one" is possibly the most crass way you can look at this: we don't vote on which way things should be, we discuss and come to a consensus. For example, I've already pointed out that you reintroduced grammatical and formatting errors: are you asking for people to choose those too? I'll list my concerns about the various changes below, and these can help you and others understand my opinion on the changes. Anything else that anyone else can see of think of can also be thrown in the mix. - SchroCat (talk) 14:23, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Nope, I'm not asking for grammatical and formatting errors. Those errors could have been fixed had you simply changed them then and there rather than reverting mass sections of the page. The two versions I've given are just highlighting the overview table and the entire reception section. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 14:26, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Excellent: I'm glad you now agree that it's not a choice between one version and another. I'll draw up the list shortly of the various problems I see. While I do so, you can acknowledge that, despite your claims, I have not reverted the page back entirely to how it was pre-October: there are a number of changes I left in place (just to save you the time and effort, they are here). - SchroCat (talk) 14:30, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Problems with recent changes and suggestions for compromise solution[edit]

  • "Overview" table.
This seems like an "overkill table", rather than overview, with some odd choices all round, and a WP:ACCESS-breaching problem with the formatting.
  • Why does the actor name come first?
  • Why are producers listed?
  • Why Screenwriters and story writers?
  • Why the UK release date?
The key information is the name of the film and the year (which is actually a repetition of the Table of contents just above it).
IF there is a table (and I've not seen a good idea why one is needed), the contents have to be considered. On the Production of the James Bond films page we already have a table with directors, writers and producers, so why are we replicating most of it here?
IF there is a table is cannot have the woeful row and column spans. WP:ACCESS is a policy.
  • "Box office" table :I'm not sure why the actor and director were removed from this (apart from the desire to have the overkill table at the top). Having them here allows people to compare and contrast the figures for the various actors/directors against box office takings. In fact, one of the ways round this situation would be to move a hybrid of this table to the top in place of the flawed overview one. I would suggest the headings:
Title – Year – Bond actor – Director – Box office (millions) – Budget (millions) – refs
I don't mind the removal of the Bond salary. It makes sense to have it there alongside all the other financials, but it's available on the Portrayals page, so won't be missed here. I also like the Box office (Actual $ – Adjusted 2005 $) and Budget (Actual $ – Adjusted 2005 $) pairings – that works better than the old version.
  • "Reception" table
Not needed. Given the poor manner in which these stats are gathered and the historical v modern difference in the way these are dealt with, this raises more questions than it answers

Most of this can be overcome with moving a hybrid version of what is called the "Box office" table to replace the "overview" table, which doesn't seem to know what it is supposed to be. As I said above, this isn't a "one version v another version": there is a bit more to consider in several areas of the changes. – SchroCat (talk) 15:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Actors' names are first to act as convenient groupings as almost sub-series, not unlike in other charts such as at Star Wars or on sports league articles (personally I'm not wedded to keeping it first). Producers and writers are listed as major production staff; this is standard on film series articles. The writers should definitely stay. The UK release dates are there as the domestic release dates; the Bond series is a British film series. The table of contents is never te be relied on instead of article content. It does not appear on the mobile site and can be hidden in regular view. The box office chart should be separate and focused on being the box office chart. Reception charts are standard on film series articles.
The previous chart was the bloated mess that tried to do too many things at once. Recombining them is a bad idea. This is a marked improvement that brings this article more in line with every other film series article. Reverting just because the old version is the old version when there's clear consensus for implementing the improvements is an ad look. oknazevad (talk) 15:38, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Clear consensus? That's odd, because the discussion at the top of the page says the exact opposite of what you are claiming.
The overkill chart at the top is currently a bloated mess that breaches our ACCESS requirements. As this is a list about the films, the film name should come first. We have another article on the production staff, and listing have the production staff but not others is bizarre. It would be a vast improvement to have a chart that listed Title – Year – Bond actor – Director – Box office (millions) – Budget (millions) – refs at the top of the page, rather than the unwieldy more recent addition. The reception chart is about as moronic as it can get, if you consider that the reviews were written on an entirely different basis in the early films compared to the more modern ones. When you also take into account that Rancid Tomatoes take balanced prose and dumb it down into a percentage figure, you may start to graps why they are misleading at best and damaging at worst. - SchroCat (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
But there again I see you're open minded enough to reintroduce errors into the article, despite the consensus on this page and WP:STATUS QUO. - SchroCat (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok, putting the overview table aside completely for a moment, I'm just gonna focus on the box office table. Myself and Betty Logan had some discussions about it and made the below table:

Bond films produced by Eon Productions
Title Year Bond actor Director Box office (millions)[1] Budget (millions)[1] Ref(s)
Actual $ Adjusted 2005 $ Actual $ Adjusted 2005 $
Dr. No 1962 Sean Connery Terence Young 59.5 448.8 1.1 7.0 [1][2]
From Russia with Love 1963 Sean Connery Terence Young 78.9 543.8 2.0 12.6 [1][2][3]
Goldfinger 1964 Sean Connery Guy Hamilton 124.9 820.4 3.0 18.6 [1][2][4]
Thunderball 1965 Sean Connery Terence Young 141.2 848.1 6.8 41.9 [1][2][5]
You Only Live Twice 1967 Sean Connery Lewis Gilbert 111.6 514.2 10.3 59.9 [2][6]
On Her Majesty's Secret Service 1969 George Lazenby Peter R. Hunt 64.6 291.5 7.0 37.3 [1][2]
Diamonds Are Forever 1971 Sean Connery Guy Hamilton 116.0 442.5 7.2 34.7 [1][2][7]
Live and Let Die 1973 Roger Moore Guy Hamilton 126.4 460.3 7.0 30.8 [1][2]
The Man with the Golden Gun 1974 Roger Moore Guy Hamilton 97.6 334.0 7.0 27.7 [2][8]
The Spy Who Loved Me 1977 Roger Moore Lewis Gilbert 185.4 533.0 14.0 45.1 [1][2][9]
Moonraker 1979 Roger Moore Lewis Gilbert 210.3 535.0 34.0 91.5 [1][10]
For Your Eyes Only 1981 Roger Moore John Glen 194.9 449.4 28.0 60.2 [1][2]
Octopussy 1983 Roger Moore John Glen 183.7 373.8 27.5 53.9 [1][2]
A View to a Kill 1985 Roger Moore John Glen 152.4 275.2 30.0 54.5 [1][2]
The Living Daylights 1987 Timothy Dalton John Glen 191.2 313.5 40.0 68.8 [1][2][11]
Licence to Kill 1989 Timothy Dalton John Glen 156.2 250.9 36.0 56.7 [1][2][12]
GoldenEye 1995 Pierce Brosnan Martin Campbell 352.0 518.5 60.0 76.9 [1][13]
Tomorrow Never Dies 1997 Pierce Brosnan Roger Spottiswoode 333.0 463.2 110.0 133.9 [14]
The World Is Not Enough 1999 Pierce Brosnan Michael Apted 361.8 439.5 135.0 158.3 [1][15]
Die Another Day 2002 Pierce Brosnan Lee Tamahori 432.0 465.4 142.0 154.2 [1][2][16]
Casino Royale 2006 Daniel Craig Martin Campbell 594.2 581.5 150.0 145.3 [1]
Quantum of Solace 2008 Daniel Craig Marc Forster 586.1 514.2 200.0 181.4 [17]
Skyfall 2012 Daniel Craig Sam Mendes 1108.6 943.5 150.0–200.0 127.7–170.2 [18][19][20][21]
Spectre 2015 Daniel Craig Sam Mendes 880.7 725.5 245.0–250.0[a] 201.8–205.9 [29][21]
No Time to Die 2020 Daniel Craig Cary Joji Fukunaga TBA TBA 250.0 212.8 [30]
Total of Eon-produced films 6,829.1 12,085.6 1,452.91,507.9 1,880.7–1,927.3
  1. ^ The official production budget for Spectre has been debated. Estimates range from $245–250[22][23][24][25] to as high as $300–350 million[26][27] The $350 million figure also incorporates the $100 million marketing budget.[28]
Bond films produced by third parties
Title Year Bond actor Director(s) Box office (millions)[1] Budget (millions)[1] Ref(s)
Actual $ Adjusted 2005 $ Actual $ Adjusted 2005 $
Casino Royale 1967 David Niven Ken Hughes
John Huston
Joseph McGrath
Robert Parrish
Val Guest
Richard Talmadge
44.4 260.0 12.0 70.0 [31][32][21]
Never Say Never Again 1983 Sean Connery Irvin Kershner 160.0 314.0 36.0 71.0 [33][21]
Total of non-Eon films 204.4 574.0 48.0 141.0
Sources

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v Block & Autrey Wilson 2010, pp. 428–429.
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p Cork & Scivally 2002, pp. 300-303.
  3. ^ "From Russia With Love (1963)". The Numbers. Retrieved 12 October 2019.
  4. ^ "Goldfinger (1964)". The Numbers. Retrieved 12 October 2019.
  5. ^ "Thunderball (1965)". The Numbers. Retrieved 12 October 2019.
  6. ^ "You Only Live Twice (1967)". The Numbers. Retrieved 12 October 2019.
  7. ^ "Diamonds Are Forever (1971)". The Numbers. Retrieved 12 October 2019.
  8. ^ "The Man with the Golden Gun (1974)". The Numbers. Retrieved 12 October 2019.
  9. ^ "The Spy Who Loved Me (1977)". The Numbers. Retrieved 12 October 2019.
  10. ^ "Moonraker (1979)". The Numbers. Retrieved 12 October 2019.
  11. ^ "The Living Daylights (1987)". The Numbers. Retrieved 12 October 2019.
  12. ^ "Licence to Kill (1989)". Box Office Mojo. IMDb. Retrieved 12 October 2019.
  13. ^ "GoldenEye (1995)". Box Office Mojo. IMDb. Retrieved 12 October 2019.
  14. ^ "Tomorrow Never Dies (1997)". Box Office Mojo. IMDb. Retrieved 12 October 2019.
  15. ^ "The World Is Not Enough (1999)". Box Office Mojo. IMDb. Retrieved 12 October 2019.
  16. ^ "Die Another Day (2002)". Box Office Mojo. IMDb. Retrieved 12 October 2019.
  17. ^ "Quantum of Solace (2008)". Box Office Mojo. IMDb. Retrieved 12 October 2019.
  18. ^ "Skyfall (2012)". Box Office Mojo. IMDb. Retrieved 12 October 2019.
  19. ^ Sizemore, Charles (10 October 2012). "Bond Investing. James Bond Investing". Forbes. Retrieved 16 November 2012.
  20. ^ Smith, Grady (1 November 2012). "Box office update: 'Skyfall' blazes past $100 million internationally". Entertainment Weekly. Retrieved 16 November 2012.
  21. ^ a b c d Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. "Consumer Price Index (estimate) 1800–". Retrieved 2 January 2019.
  22. ^ Pamela McClintock (4 November 2015). "Box-Office Preview: 'Spectre' and 'Peanuts Movie' to the Rescue". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved 4 November 2015.
  23. ^ Anthony D'Alessandro (7 November 2015). "Spectre Now Targeting $73M to $74M Opening; The Peanuts Movie Cracking $40M-$45M – Updated". Deadline Hollywood. Retrieved 8 November 2015.
  24. ^ Brent Lang (4 November 2015). "Box Office: Spectre Needs to Make $650 Million to Break Even". Variety. Retrieved 8 November 2015.
  25. ^ Ben Fritz (8 November 2015). "Spectre, The Peanuts Movie Give Box Office a Welcome Boost". The Wall Street Journals. Retrieved 10 November 2015.
  26. ^ Scott Mendelson (21 October 2015). "'Spectre' Doesn't Need To Top 'Skyfall' Because 'James Bond' Is A Bullet-Proof Franchise". Forbes. Retrieved 8 November 2015.
  27. ^ Alicia Adejobi (25 October 2015). "Spectre movie in numbers: Daniel Craig salary, film budget and James Bond theme tune sales". International Business Times. Retrieved 8 November 2015.
  28. ^ Anthony D'Alessandro (9 November 2015). "Even Shy Of Skyfall, Spectre Picked Up Sluggish Box Office; Will It Turn A Profit? – Monday Postmortem". Deadline Hollywood. Retrieved 11 November 2015.
  29. ^ "Spectre (2015)". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved 12 October 2019.
  30. ^ "No Time to Die (2020)". The Numbers. IMDb. Retrieved 23 November 2019.
  31. ^ Cite error: The named reference numbers was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  32. ^ "Casino Royal (1967)". The Numbers. Retrieved 12 October 2019.
  33. ^ "Never Say Never Again (1983)". The Numbers. Retrieved 12 October 2019.
  • The references are neatly organised in a separate refs column.
  • Nobody knows what "excluding profit participation" means. Having the Bond actor salary at all is pointless in a box office table. The salaries can be found here at Portrayal of James Bond in film for people who care and just want to look at a box office table for box office figures.
  • The director does not need to be in the table at all. Again, it's inconsistent with Wikipedia as a whole and Wikipedia:WikiProject Film. I guess the actors could remain but the salary should not.
  • Having a clearer split between the Eon films and non-Eon films should go without saying. Having the blocky notes again overcomplicates things.

Ok I also seemed to somehow miss a lot of the above discussion so sorry about things being repeated. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 16:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, the refs in a separate colum are good (but they should not be sortable)
As I said above, the salary, profit participation etc are fine being left out
"inconsistent with Wikipedia as a whole and Wikipedia:WikiProject Film": neither WP not the film project have set guidance for this; it is decided on an article-by-article basis, and many film series articles follow differeing formats and layouts. As I suggested above, if you add actor and director to this list, it could replace the mess of the "overkill list" that was at the top. There is no need to keep repeating the same list of 27 films in four tables and also shown in the table of contents, particularly when the selection of fields in that table is as arbitrary as this one appears to be.
As i said above, I agree with splitting the Eon/non-Eon films and 'blocky notes'. - SchroCat (talk) 16:44, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Ok I have tweaked the above table to make the refs column unsortable and the actors have been added. However I still cannot get behind having the directors in a box office table. If this is adequate, should I implement it? TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 17:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
No, I think you should leave this article alone. CassiantoTalk 17:17, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your input. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 17:55, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
If you add actors and directors to the table it won't be a box office table: it will be an overview table. And then it can go at the top of the article. - SchroCat (talk) 17:22, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
So do you or do you not want actors and directors in the box office table? I'm very confused. The table already has actors and directors. I was originally proposing to remove them. Now you're saying it's not a box office table? That's all I'm focusing on at the moment. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 17:55, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
As I said above, have a table with the following columns:
Title – Year – Bond actor – Director – Box office (millions) – Budget (millions) – refs
Have it at the top of the article as the "overview", then get rid of the box office section. - SchroCat (talk) 18:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
BTW, having the table split in this manner (with the blue bars) doesn't work. As soon as any column is rearranged, the blue bars go off to different places and Eon and non-Eon are mixed up. - SchroCat (talk) 18:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Ok I have edited it and would go to add it now. But the page has been locked. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 11:41, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind, but I have edited this to show just the release year. Although it's mainly a British series, the more recent films have been heavily funded by the Americans and many of the first release dates have been outside the UK). I've coded 1967 and 1983 to ensure that they sort into the correct order.
I see you've added the Non-Eon films back in to this. I think this is the only way to have them in a sortable chat (we can code the blue dividers not to sort, but all the other films will ignore them and sort above and below). To have them separate from the Eon films, I think I'm right in saying that a separate chart is needed. Having two charts is certainly the way we did it to begin with - from memory someone merged them together about three years ago to give what is one the page now.
Ok I've separated them back into the sections and added the blue bars back for now. I was unaware that there was a code you can use, and I think it looks a lot better like this. As of right now I think the table is adequate enough to be added in, but like you said, it's best to hold off until other editors chip in - no rush. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Can I suggest you undo the ‘split and sections’ (you need to check the impact of changes you make to tables). When any column is re-sorted, it all goes horribly wrong again. When I said two tables, this page used to have two SEPARATE tables (as it was here - the next edit is the one that merged the two together), not one table trying to do two separate things. - SchroCat (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Actually yeah that makes sense. There's already the article split between Eon and non-Eon films, so the Eon table can go in the Eon section and the non-Eon table can go in the non-Eon section. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 14:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
The way it was previously had the mixed table and the mixed plots - all the films running chronologically regardless of producers, which is one possible logical way. As these were all changed in October to split them out into two separate groups (back to it's pre-2016 order), then it makes sense to replicate the 2016 situation in having two tables. Both are entirely valid viewpoints, and I've never made up my own mind as to which I prefer or which is the superior way of doing it.
As you will have seen, I've made a couple of very minor tweaks to the tables - let me know if you want me to explain the rationale or if there is something you don't like. - SchroCat (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
I disagree with the removal of the .0's. In a chart like this all figures should be to the same decimal place. At least that's what maths in school always told me. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
And did you mean to re-add "$21.5 million was spent on television advertisements and a further $100 million was spent on promotion and advertising", despite the fact it contradicts the previous sentence and is nothing to do with the figures in the table? - SchroCat (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Nope my bad. There was an edit conflict when I was editing it. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 16:44, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
I've also split the actors and directors into separate rows. There are two reasons for this. Firstly it's 100% WP:ACCESS compliant, so it fits the policies we need to stick to; secondly (and I know people complain about the aesthetics of it), but if it is in the rowspan version, as soon as the table is resorted, all the formatting goes out of the window anyway: rowspans disappear, and even when you re-sort back to the original order, it still sticks into the single entry version. This way, there is less of a surprise for people when they sort the various filed out.
The only final tweak I would make is to now have "125.0", but "125" (of course any actual ".5"s should be retained, just the ".0"
I would advise holding off adding it now: Betty Logan has said below that she will add some thoughts, and others may still want to chip in with comments, suggestions or criticism. We're all OK to mull over this for a day or two to get it right. - SchroCat (talk) 12:47, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment TheMysteriousEditor and I had reached an understanding on the box-office table but if the table above represents a "new" consensus I can live with that. As an alternative I would also consider folding the non-Eon films back into the main table but making those rows non-sortable so they don't get mixed in with the Eon films. I have never been in favour of adding the Overview table to the article. Aside from the huge redundancy (most of this information is already present at Production_of_the_James_Bond_films#Core_crew) the rowspans slap bang in the middle of the table will play havoc with screen readers. Betty Logan (talk) 21:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
"I would also consider folding the non-Eon films back into the main table but making those rows non-sortable so they don't get mixed in with the Eon films" any chance of you editing the above tables to do that please? Not sure of exactly what you'd prefer. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 12:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
The only problem with making them non-sortable is that they will not sort between themselves or with the Eon films. It's not a problem if they don't sort with the Eon films (although there will be some who want to see how they compare with the Eon films), but if they don't sort between themselves, that would be problematic. - SchroCat (talk) 13:30, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
I think that is technically possible. I know you can exclude rows from sorting. I will play around with it and see what I can come up with. Betty Logan (talk) 20:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Any news? TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 10:16, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Take a look at this: User:Betty Logan/Sandbox/draft2. The Eon and non-Eon films are in the same table but the sorting only work on the Eon films. You can't mix up the Eon and non-Eon films but you can't do this anyway if you have them in separate tables. Betty Logan (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
That looks significantly better. As an overview it's still quite odd but I guess that's the compromise we've had to come to. Hopefully that new table you've made is good enough to replace the one that is currently there. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 09:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Except that the non-Eon films don't sort. We should return to the old version of two sortable tables in two sections. - SchroCat (talk) 10:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
There's TWO Non-Eon films. Do they really need to be sortable? TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 10:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
They don't need to be, but there is no good reason why not. Either way they should not be unsortable elements in a sortable table. - SchroCat (talk) 10:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
There are benefits and drawbacks to both approaches. Obviously you can't sort the non-Eon films without them getting jumbled up with the Eon films. That's a limitation of the software. On the other hand by having both the Eon and non-Eon films in the same table you do also get an overall total which is lost when you split the content into two separate tables. Neither solution is perfect but in one we lose functionality and in the other we lose information. Betty Logan (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
This is true, but as we have a split in the article for Eon v non-Eon plots, we may as well continue the split here. If not, I would personally prefer the current version of having all the films in the mix together, sorted chronologically. Having some sortable and some not seems neither fish nor fowl. I'll stop here, my huge paragraphs are exhausting, apparently. - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
There may be another way to do this: get rid of the separation but maybe tag or notify the two non-Eon films. It will make the table less complicated and more functional and without losing any information. Betty Logan (talk) 21:07, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Here is what I have in mind: User:Betty_Logan/Sandbox/draft2#Table_2. Of course, it doesn't have to be exactly like that, we can play around with the formatting but that is the generally gist. Betty Logan (talk)

That would work for me too. - SchroCat (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok so since there's not gonna be a reception table, having the box office table by itself doesn't seem right. How about we do what we agreed earlier and have them split up as the overviews? We all seemed to agree to that compromise. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 15:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Reception table[edit]

  • TheMysteriousEditor, No, it wasn't "lost in the mix": it's a poor addition that was removed for good reason, as I wrote above. Are we now going to just edit war piecemeal about crap stuff, rather than in one big chunk? Please actually read what I've written in this section before you start re-adding things. - SchroCat (talk) 16:15, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Oh apologies, I missed this. I simply don't understand how you can be *for* the salary of the Bond actors in a messy overkill box office table, but *against* a fully sourced reception table. A reception table is a staple of every single movie franchise on wikipedia and allows the user to see how each movie was received and compare them against each other. The table is also sortable which allows proper rankings to be played with. I cannot fathom how someone could be against this. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 16:21, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
I think you actually need to read what I wrote above. 1. I've agreed above that removing the Bond salary is an acceptable step; 2. As I've already said twice, older reviews don't translate well to Rancid Tomatoes - anything rating from before 2000 (when the site started picking up momentum) is flawed. Actually their whole ethos is flawed, but that's a different point. Comparing the 1962 reviews with the 2019 reviews doesn't work - it's like comparing apples and goldfish. - SchroCat (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the debate as to whether we should include Rotten Tomatoes/Metacritic is a different one to how the data should be integrated into the article. I am more than happy to have that discussion but as of now it has always been a long-standing feature so I would rather it were not conflated with the structural issues of the tables. Personally I think separating the aggregator data from the awards is a positive step because they are different concepts. If the data is to be retained then I think separate tables are a better format going forward; if we decide to scrap the aggregator data then it is just a case of deleting the table without having to rebuild the awards table. Betty Logan (talk) 21:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
I absolutely believe the below table should be added back to the article. It allows comparisons to be made and even though it's obviously not 100% perfect it's still as good as you can get. Rotten Tomatoes/Metacritic scores are standard across Wikipedia. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 12:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Film Critical Public
Rotten Tomatoes Metacritic CinemaScore
Eon films
Dr. No 95% (56 reviews)[1] 78 (8 reviews)[2]
From Russia with Love 95% (57 reviews)[3] 85 (13 reviews)[4]
Goldfinger 97% (61 reviews)[5] 87 (12 reviews)[6]
Thunderball 87% (46 reviews)[7] 64 (9 reviews)[8]
You Only Live Twice 72% (47 reviews)[9] 61 (14 reviews)[10]
On Her Majesty's Secret Service 81% (48 reviews)[11] 61 (12 reviews)[12]
Diamonds Are Forever 64% (45 reviews)[13] 59 (11 reviews)[14]
Live and Let Die 67% (45 reviews)[15] 55 (9 reviews)[16]
The Man with the Golden Gun 44% (45 reviews)[17] 43 (11 reviews)[18]
The Spy Who Loved Me 80% (50 reviews)[19] 55 (12 reviews)[20]
Moonraker 63% (48 reviews)[21] 66 (13 reviews)[22]
For Your Eyes Only 73% (48 reviews)[23] 54 (12 reviews)[24]
Octopussy 42% (45 reviews)[25] 63 (14 reviews)[26]
A View to a Kill 37% (57 reviews)[27] 40 (20 reviews)[28]
The Living Daylights 71% (52 reviews)[29] 60 (17 reviews)[30] A[31]
Licence to Kill 77% (53 reviews)[32] 58 (25 reviews)[33] B+[31]
GoldenEye 78% (73 reviews)[34] 65 (18 reviews)[35] A−[31]
Tomorrow Never Dies 58% (85 reviews)[36] 52 (38 reviews)[37] A−[31]
The World Is Not Enough 52% (139 reviews)[38] 57 (38 reviews)[39] B+[31]
Die Another Day 57% (216 reviews)[40] 56 (43 reviews)[41] A−[31]
Casino Royale 94% (254 reviews)[42] 80 (46 reviews)[43] A−[31]
Quantum of Solace 65% (288 reviews)[44] 58 (48 reviews)[45] B−[31]
Skyfall 92% (368 reviews)[46] 81 (49 reviews)[47] A[31]
Spectre 63% (347 reviews)[48] 60 (48 reviews)[49] A−[50]
Non-Eon films
Casino Royale 26% (38 reviews)[51] 48 (11 reviews)[52]
Never Say Never Again 66% (47 reviews)[53] 68 (15 reviews)[54]
Sources

  1. ^ "Dr. No (1962)". Rotten Tomatoes. Retrieved 26 August 2019.
  2. ^ "Dr. No Reviews". Metacritic. Retrieved 12 December 2017.
  3. ^ "From Russia with Love (1963)". Rotten Tomatoes. Retrieved 26 August 2019.
  4. ^ "From Russia with Love Reviews". Metacritic. Retrieved 12 December 2017.
  5. ^ "Goldfinger (1964)". Rotten Tomatoes. Retrieved 26 August 2019.
  6. ^ "Goldfinger Reviews". Metacritic. Retrieved 12 December 2017.
  7. ^ "Thunderball (1965)". Rotten Tomatoes. Retrieved 26 August 2019.
  8. ^ "Thunderball Reviews". Metacritic. Retrieved 12 December 2017.
  9. ^ "You Only Live Twice (1967)". Rotten Tomatoes. Retrieved 26 August 2019.
  10. ^ "You Only Live Twice Reviews". Metacritic. Retrieved 12 December 2017.
  11. ^ "On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969)". Rotten Tomatoes. Retrieved 26 August 2019.
  12. ^ "On Her Majesty's Secret Service Reviews". Metacritic. Retrieved 12 December 2017.
  13. ^ "Diamonds Are Forever (1971)". Rotten Tomatoes. Retrieved 26 August 2019.
  14. ^ "Diamonds Are Forever Reviews". Metacritic. Retrieved 12 December 2017.
  15. ^ "Live and Let Die (1973)". Rotten Tomatoes. Retrieved 26 August 2019.
  16. ^ "Live and Let Die Reviews". Metacritic. Retrieved 12 December 2017.
  17. ^ "The Man with the Golden Gun (1974)". Rotten Tomatoes. Retrieved 26 August 2019.
  18. ^ "The Man with the Golden Gun Reviews". Metacritic. Retrieved 12 December 2017.
  19. ^ "The Spy Who Loved Me (1977)". Rotten Tomatoes. Retrieved 26 August 2019.
  20. ^ "The Spy Who Loved Me Reviews". Metacritic. Retrieved 12 December 2017.
  21. ^ "Moonraker (1979)". Rotten Tomatoes. Retrieved 26 August 2019.
  22. ^ "Moonraker Reviews". Metacritic. Retrieved 12 December 2017.
  23. ^ "For Your Eyes Only (1981)". Rotten Tomatoes. Retrieved 26 August 2019.
  24. ^ "For Your Eyes Only Reviews". Metacritic. Retrieved 12 December 2017.
  25. ^ "Octopussy (1983)". Rotten Tomatoes. Retrieved 26 August 2019.
  26. ^ "Octopussy Reviews". Metacritic. Retrieved 12 December 2017.
  27. ^ "A View to a Kill (1985)". Rotten Tomatoes. Retrieved 26 August 2019.
  28. ^ "A View to a Kill Reviews". Metacritic. Retrieved 12 December 2017.
  29. ^ "The Living Daylights (1987)". Rotten Tomatoes. Retrieved 26 August 2019.
  30. ^ "The Living Daylights Reviews". Metacritic. Retrieved 12 December 2017.
  31. ^ a b c d e f g h i "CinemaScore". cinemascore.com. Retrieved 25 March 2015.
  32. ^ "Licence to Kill (1989)". Rotten Tomatoes. Retrieved 26 August 2019.
  33. ^ "Licence to Kill Reviews". Metacritic. Retrieved 12 December 2017.
  34. ^ "GoldenEye (1995)". Rotten Tomatoes. Retrieved 26 August 2019.
  35. ^ "GoldenEye Reviews". Metacritic. Retrieved 8 November 2015.
  36. ^ "Tomorrow Never Dies (1997)". Rotten Tomatoes. Retrieved 26 August 2019.
  37. ^ "Tomorrow Never Dies". Metacritic. Retrieved 8 November 2015.
  38. ^ "The World Is Not Enough (1999)". Rotten Tomatoes. Retrieved 8 November 2015.
  39. ^ "The World Is Not Enough Reviews". Metacritic. Retrieved 8 November 2015.
  40. ^ "Die Another Day (2002)". Rotten Tomatoes. Retrieved 26 August 2019.
  41. ^ "Die Another Day Reviews". Metacritic. Retrieved 8 November 2015.
  42. ^ "Casino Royale (2006)". Rotten Tomatoes. Retrieved 26 August 2019.
  43. ^ "Casino Royale Reviews". Metacritic. Retrieved 8 November 2015.
  44. ^ "Quantum of Solace (2008)". Rotten Tomatoes. Retrieved 26 August 2019.
  45. ^ "Quantum of Solace Reviews". Metacritic. Retrieved 8 November 2015.
  46. ^ "Skyfall (2012)". Rotten Tomatoes. Retrieved 26 August 2019.
  47. ^ "Skyfall Reviews". Metacritic. Retrieved 8 November 2015.
  48. ^ "Spectre (2015)". Rotten Tomatoes. Retrieved 26 August 2019.
  49. ^ "Spectre Reviews". Metacritic. Retrieved 18 November 2015.
  50. ^ "CinemaScore". www.cinemascore.com. Retrieved 8 November 2015.
  51. ^ "Casino Royale (1967)". Rotten Tomatoes. Retrieved 26 August 2019.
  52. ^ "Casino Royale (1967) Reviews". Metacritic. Retrieved 15 May 2019.
  53. ^ "Never Say Never Again (1983)". Rotten Tomatoes. Retrieved 26 August 2019.
  54. ^ "Never Say Never Again Reviews". Metacritic. Retrieved 12 December 2017.
  • No. Just because a couple of other pages use this does not mean it has to appear here. Anything pre-2000 on RT is complete bollocks. Applying some moronic percentage “score” to well-thought and balanced prose is a woeful way to do things at the best of times, but for an American employee in RT in c.2005, with all their cultural and linguistic biases, to try and “translate” the prose of a British reviewer from the early 1960s into that percentage is so knuckle-draggingly, mind-numbingly stupid and crass that is beggars belief that we should think of it as encyclopaedic in any way, shape or form. - SchroCat (talk) 12:59, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
That's...not how Rotten Tomatoes works. The percentage figure is the percentage of reviewers who gave a film a positive review. A score of 75% for a film means 75% of reviewers were positive and 25% were negative. It does not equate to a "score" from individual reviews. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 14:17, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
So you honestly think that an American employee in RT in c.2005, with all their cultural and linguistic biases, can “translate” the prose of a British reviewer from the early 1960s into a black and white positive or negative? Reviewers discuss pluses and minuses from the film and provide a balanced piece of writing. It should not be for a third party from a different cultural background in a completely different time to try and decide whether it is positive or negative. We already have two metrics on the page: box office takings, to show how popular it was, and an awards section, to show what the industry and professional critics thought of it. RT is dumbed down nonsense for those too stupid or lazy to bother reading a couple of reviews. If people really want to know what the critical view of the films were, we have the articles where excerpts of the reviews and an overview of the reception can be appreciated, not a percentage number for the brain dead to look at. - SchroCat (talk) 14:51, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Erm, ok...TIL Wikipedia viewers are all brain dead. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 15:15, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
FFS - that's bollocks and a complete misrepresentation of what I have written, as I am sure you know. Readers of Rancid Tomatoes can do what they want. This is an encyclopaedia that should have standards far above the dross that RT churns out. There is no reason or need to lower the standards of a WP article to pander to the lowest common denominator of the RT reader. If you want RT scores, add this link to an External Links section, but don't highlight it in a chart that is misleading, pointless and deeply, deeply flawed. - SchroCat (talk) 15:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
At the end of your angry rant you literally said that Rotten Tomatoes scores are something that brain dead people look at lol. All these unnecessary adjectives you've used have been very colourful. We get it, you passionately hate Rotten Tomatoes - could anybody else offer their thoughts on this? TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
FFS... don't try and patronise me; it should be clear that the brain dead go to RT, so please don't try to misrepresrent what I am saying - and it wasn't "an angry rant" either. At least I have managed to give you a reason why it shouldn't be included. All I've seen from you is that you think it should be there, but no justification, so try not to pick holes in other people's comments like some second-rate politician, but actually try and explain why you think this article should include this second rate dross - oh, and please try something different from 'well, other articles have it, so this should too'. - SchroCat (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
You're really not a nice person are you. Please just calm down. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 17:58, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
I take it from that, with yet more passive-aggressive poking, that you do not have any arguments as to why we should include this table in this article? As I have had to say to you countless times before, comment on the content, not other contributors. I am entirely calm, I have been calm throughout this discussion, with just a touch of exasperation at the continued pushing on this page over several years. Now, as you want this table to be on this page, do you actually have any solid arguments as to why it should be included? (and, as I've already said, 'other articles have it, so this should too' is neither sufficient or true, so try and come up with something positve). - SchroCat (talk) 18:07, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
I just don't get how someone can be so deluded. Looking back on all of these discussions, it has always been you who starts the sourness and passive aggressiveness. I'm just exhausted at your huge paragraphs. You could cut so much out of them and just get to the point rather than unnecessarily berating things you don't like instead of providing calm, rational criticism.
"RT is dumbed down nonsense for those too stupid or lazy to bother reading a couple of reviews" - how do you expect me to counteract this brutal subjective statement? "There is no reason or need to lower the standards of a WP article to pander to the lowest common denominator of the RT reader" - another one. "....not a percentage number for the brain dead to look at". Seriously? And then you accuse me of being patronising? Mental - your God complex needs tuning down.
It's therefore very difficult for me to condense your messages down into meaningful arguments so it's rather exasperating. Your entire position seems to just be bullying people into agreeing with you and then patronising them when they pick up on your questionable debating methods. You got me to calm down and come to this talk page and be rational, and it seemed to be going well. But now as soon as I am back beneath you again, you've reverted back to your ways of just putting me down rather than having a sensible conversation. It wasn't "passive aggressive poking" - it was an honest, open and obvious request for you to please calm down. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 18:33, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
And thank you for that foray into incivility once again (please comment on the content, not other contributors - and I've lost count of the number of times I have asked you to do that).
Again, for the third time, do you actually have any solid arguments as to why it should be included?" - SchroCat (talk) 18:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry are you joking? How are you in any position to talk about incivility? I'm providing you with constructive criticism - please dont play the victim here. I'm not insulting you. You are the only one here making "incivil" comments. And no, I don't anymore. I just wish for somebody else to come in and add their viewpoint. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 18:46, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The following comment was conflicted in response to this edit: SC: "do you actually have any solid arguments as to why it should be included?"; TME: "No".
If you do not have any arguments to include this table, then I think we can bring this section to a close. Just for the record, you are not giving "constructive criticism": you are being rude, and yes, you are insulting me. According to you, I am "deluded", I have a "God complex", I am "not a nice person" and I am "playing the victim". These are all uncivil, whether you like it or not. Thankfully, as you do not have any arguments as to why this table should be included, we can leave it out and all move on. - SchroCat (talk) 18:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
I really cannot believe you. I hope one day you can look back on yourself through a fresh set of eyes. YOU are being rude too! And if you deny this, then you know how I feel. I might be being rude without realising it, but you are doing exactly the same. But yes, let's move on from this for now (I still want someone to add their viewpoint to this - mine and your viewpoints are incredibly stale). TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 19:06, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
  • FFS, are you just going to carry on edit warring, despite not bothering to give ONE good reason for inclusion despite being asked multiple times. This is getting ridiculously disruptive now. - SchroCat (talk) 11:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
The public CinemaScore is a very good and reliable comparison to have for the films of the last 20 years. I find them very interesting too. Rotten Tomatoes and MetaCritic scores are a reliable metric post-2000, though I understand the concerns with the scores pre-2000. However, it's the best we're gonna get and a reception table is a staple of film franchises on Wikipedia (to the point where people come to a franchise page expecting to see one). If there isn't one, people cannot gage the reception without deciphering box office numbers (which aren't a good indicator of critical/public reception). TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 11:22, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
So your basis is that some other film series also have them? Great, and because you are prepared to edit war to secure your preferred version, we have a misleading piece of dross in the article. 👏 - SchroCat (talk) 11:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
How mature. It's not a "piece of dross". The CinemaScore and post-2000 RT/MC points still stand. Everything is reliably sourced here. I'm sure an understanding or compromise could be reached rather than shutting it down and removing the table entirely. Again, I get the issues regarding the pre-2000 Rotten Tomatoes but where else can you get it? If it was just Rotten Tomatoes, then yeah. But MetaCritic is there alongside it for cross-comparisons and the ratings give a good comparison among themselves. It's obviously not far off what it should be. There might be a few issues, but it's the most reliable thing we're gonna get here. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 11:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
You and I endlessly arguing isn't gonna get us anywhere - so I'm waiting on other editors to chip in with their thoughts here. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 11:46, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Please don’t keep insulting others, as you have continued to do. If information on an encyclopaedia misleads, then its dross. If you want second rate on what is supposed to be a quality article, then come up with a better rationale for it than it being included in the modern series of superhero films. - SchroCat (talk) 12:07, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Again, you really love pretending to be insulted when there's nothing that's insulting you. It is not misleading. It's no more misleading than the box office table which uses multiple sources for figures rather than one single reliable source. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 13:41, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
I’m not saying I’m insulted: I am telling you to stop commenting on other people. You are continuing to make inappropriate comments, and you need to stop. The box office figures is a completely different topic in a different thread, so please don’t conflate the two topics. - SchroCat (talk) 14:03, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Edit Warring 30 November 2019[edit]

This is utterly ridiculous. I'm opening this new thread to separate the warring from the actual discussion about the table. A reception table has existed on this article for many many years. One editor suddenly decides to delete it completely, so I add it back. Then they continue deleting and suddenly I'm the one who's edit warring and being threatened with being reported? What on earth is going on here? TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 14:16, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Stop edit warring with others and discuss. STATUSQUO isn’t an excuse to keep a sub-standard version in place. Please use the above thread to discuss exactly WHY we should have this table? - SchroCat (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Ending the edit war[edit]

Ok. Now this is stupid. I mistakes were made a few days ago by me and sochrocat. We both agreed to disagree in a sense. This issue has not turned into a full on Editting War, and I want to put a stop to it. I do not care if there is other Editting issues over an edit (Adter the issue me and Sochrocat had.). Let us all agree to disagree. If the Editting war continues, Imwill get the Wikipedia administration team involved to end it. Let us be mature to agree to disagree. If you have a comment over a SINGLE edit, then we can calmly talk about it. But let us not be reverting and unreverting edits without first discussing them. That is what started this whole mess, and let us be calm about it in the future. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I entirely agree. Adding a large slab of uncited material to a Featured List without proper discussion is discourteous to the main editors and to the reviewers who have judged the page to be of FL quality. Tim riley talk 16:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
It is certainly getting out of hand. I was in agreement to some of the changes to the box-office table and I had no objections to separating the awards and reception. Some of the redundancy may be tackled by re-arranging the page per SchroCat's suggestion above. I will give a more comprehensive breakdown of my thoughts in due course. Betty Logan (talk) 20:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
A large additional table where the sorting doesn't work and that has no references, which is a BLP violation. Hopefully the proposed compromise above should overcome at least some of the problems. - SchroCat (talk) 21:39, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Per a request at WP:RFPP, I have fully protected this article for a week. Protection can be removed by any admin once consensus has been reached, or at least the participants agree to let it be while discussion continues. Hint: pointing out that the other side is edit warring is not an exemption from the edit warring policy. Johnuniq (talk) 02:34, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

As per the discussion above, I believe concessions have been made and some sort of agreement has been come to now. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 11:54, 23 November 2019 (UTC)