User:23skidoo/Archive2

Welcome to the Archive! Please do not edit this page.

If you'd like to leave me a comment, a criticism, a question or whatever please Click here.

Archive: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14

James Bond

More templates YEAH!

Haha ok moving onto the novels, I decided to move ahead and make it a template, however, I changed it totally. Before I add it to any page I want your opinion first. I'm still tweaking it when it comes to the UK/US dates. We can discuss it further on it's discussion page where theres an actual example using the template. Template:Bondbook K1Bond007 21:56, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, thats kind of the look I was going for. The last infobox, while good, was also horrible when it came to space (so much empty space on it's sides), so I figured making it wider would be better. Wikipedia also keeps failing on me too, not so much today, but I made a rather sizable edit to Casino Royale yesterday that I couldn't submit because of this. I had to leave a tab open virtually all day on the page so I wouldn't lose it. K1Bond007 22:32, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

One sort of bad side effect is that I have to add a break above the box, which on some pages, currently, leaves a big space because of the book images (looks bad if I don't). I'm hoping we can add more info to these sections though. More plot, more info on the book itself etc. An example of this would be Diamonds Are Forever. So far I've only done the first 4 Fleming novels. I hope to finish Fleming off by the end of the day. K1Bond007 01:43, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Bond's age

In Moonraker Bond is 37 years old. He talks about how retirement age as a 00 is set at 45 and then states he has 8 years to go. During the novel, Bond also purchases a 1953 Bentley. So granted that Bond bought the Bentley between 1953 and the books publication year of 1955, that would mean he was born somewhere between 1916-1918. Interesting eh? I think I'm of the opinion that Fleming either 1) didn't keep track 2) attempted to keep Bond at age 37 indefinitely. - I'll know more as I continue to read. K1Bond007 01:15, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Bond Girls Are Forever

I got mine for free, perhaps it was an exlusive-store offer (Best Buy) or a U.S. offer only. It was a limited time only thing naturally. K1Bond007 03:46, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Casino Royale

I'm in the process of making changes myself. I'm also planning on writing the starter of the article and informing them that copying and pasting is a no-no on Wikipedia and that the article should have been moved. I'm actually kinda peeved about this. I'm thinking of consulting an admin to see if it's possible to merge the history or something. I dunno. All the previous discussion, all the credit for the initial writers of the article (namely you and I) are gone. It's just kind of upsetting. BTW, it would be my luck to make a bold statement about the timing of an announcement by EON and then be TOTALLY wrong the following day. :D -- Oh and btw, sorry about Enterprise getting canned. (Not really, I liked every series of Star Trek until Enterprise which I loathe with a passion. I stopped watching it altogether about a quarter of the way through season 1.) K1Bond007 22:50, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that they should be kept seperate for the time being and as you said merged later when there's more facts than speculation. At the very least until an actor is announced. - About ST, well I'm going to have to disagree with you :) My Dad likes the show, but once in a while I catch an episode (saw the Brent Spiner arc) and I never liked it. I never got over the prequel thing and I hated how Enterprise basically blew off the Original Series. Oh well. I'm hoping they don't go on some hiatus, but rather just start with a new series set in the Next Gen/DS9/Voy timeframe. I'd actually like for Paramount to boot B&B, but I doubt that will happen :( K1Bond007 23:10, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Q

I'm almost certain. I think the guy who goes over it is "just a guy" from Q-Branch or actually, I'm not so sure anyone went over it with him at all. I seem to recall that it was a flashback about being given the briefcase by Q-Branch and Bond explaining the tricks/gadgets installed. I could be wrong. I wrote that after I finished Dr. No so I'm not 100% and sometimes with Fleming -- I have no idea what the hell is going on. :) I had to read the part where Dr. No dies about two or three times because I didn't understand what was happening. He got hit by whatever the crane Bond was handling and flew into a pile of guano (had to read this twice because I wasn't sure No was dead, but rather died from being smothered by the guano) ?? heh :D K1Bond007 20:19, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Re - Cool. Looking good. Did you find about Q yet? I'm curious if I just misinterpreted it or something. I don't have FRWL anymore to be able to check. K1Bond007 01:22, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Well, like I said. "Didn't appear". Theres a time before FRWL where Bond references Q-Branch (I'm thinking either LALD or Moonraker). Perhaps the sentence should be changed again to reflect that, but again I'm almost positive that Q isn't referenced in anything prior to FRWL, just Q-Branch. K1Bond007 05:49, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Barbarossa

Yeah, I had heard it wasn't that good. When I saw your edit I also read the part and decided something should be added to explain why. Gardner's website, BTW is pretty interesting, specifically the part about No Deals, Mr. Bond. Something should probably be stated about that if not already done. K1Bond007 21:15, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

I noticed about Enterprise earlier when I was thinking about making an edit to the article (decided against it - grammar). Make sure you don't break this Wikipedia:Three-revert rule although this might be considered reverting "simple vandalism". I've actually been reading the Enterprise stuff a lot lately. I rewrote a bunch of intros not long ago for the 4th season episodes (basically to keep consistancy throughout the episodes - others were horribly written, Observer Effect (ENT episode), IMO). K1Bond007 03:57, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

Goldfinger

Well, it's not your fault and it's no big deal. No one else knew or no one else cared to fix it. From the sounds of it, it's going to be a pain to read Barbarossa. Hmm.. I'll get to it eventually. I think after I finish off Fleming, I'm going to jump to Benson. I enjoyed his Splinter Cell novel, so I kind of want to read Zero Minus Ten and see how he does with a Bond novel. Anyway, I have trouble reading Fleming. I love his novels, but the first half of his novels are usually dreadful and painfully slow. It's always the second half of the book where I actually really start to enjoy it and in most cases like Goldfinger make up for their lackluster beginning. So far I'd probably rank them as: 1.From Russia With Love, 2.Casino Royale, 3.Goldfinger, 4.Moonraker, 5.Live and Let Die, 6.Dr. No, 7.Diamonds Are Forever. I'm going to start Thunderball perhaps tomorrow, I don't know - my copy from the Library has Thunderball, FYEO and The Spy Who Loved Me in the same book, so I might jump to an FYEO short story if I get bored with it. As I said, Fleming is great except that his openings tend to suck :) Glad to see you're back. K1Bond007 05:39, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Then it should be rewritten. Saying "Honor Blackman was 3 years older than Connery" means nothing to me and truthfully anyone else not familiar with the ages of Bond and his girls. As written, that's a pretty big "whoop-ti-do". If anything it should be written at Bond girl that Rigg Blackman, AND Zena Marshall (Miss Taro) were the only Bond girls older than Bond himself. K1Bond007 05:44, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

Glidrose

I already fixed it all. Either the first or the last time for Productions (can't recall of the top of my head) was Colonel Sun. I made the corrections (doubled checked them with Copyright info found at CommanderBond.net see http://www.commanderbond.net/Public/Stories/1538-1.shtml) - I automatically assumed that Fleming's three other works were Productions. I never double checked those.

BTW, I just did major rewrites of Timothy Dalton's and Brosnan's pages. I really tore into Brosnan's article, specifically removing all the information about Brosnan in Casino Royale and all the rollercoaster action. I thought a lot of it was stupid and most of it was redundant. (By stupid it was: Brosnan was quoted as saying he's done. Brosnan claims he was misquoted. Brosnan claims he was fired. Feels he's back in! Brosnan denies! etc etc etc. All the front runner stuff was redundant too and better written at Casino Royale so I removed that too.

Might need to be proofread :) K1Bond007 06:38, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Gallery

The "gallery" is going to be a double edged sword as seen already. No doubt many attempts will be made to change the images to others etc.. Some guy rescaled my Lazenby image and then reuploaded it --? So I changed it back and put theirs on IFD :) (against the rules anyway). Lazenby's is the only one I really don't care for, but I couldn't find one that I was certain could be used under "fairuse" so I used what the official website had. Anyway, I had a chance to check out the Enterprise thing you were talking about. Does seem rather coincidental theres a guy who writes for the show (and Voyager) and edited here under the M_Sussman. Neat anyway. FYI, if it had been Berman I'd revert it on the grounds that it's Berman :) Haha.. K1Bond007 18:45, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Trial and error. I think I just fixed it (looks good for me). It's because the images were nowhere near the same dimensions (Connery's having more height). The Lazenby image was apparently a mistake or something. I'll eventually find one to replace it, I was kinda going for what I have for Brosnan, Dalton and Moore. I don't have OHMSS on DVD so I can't do that. I only have the first box set of the DVDs (Dr. No, Goldfinger, TMWTGG, TSWLM, LTK, GE, TND) and I have the rest of Brosnans. The rest I have on VHS sans NSNA and CR-1967 which I don't have at all. I'm just going to wait till the "Ultimate" ones come out before I get the rest. The Special editions, while better than the VHS aren't that great and some of the video isn't properly formatted (see current MGM lawsuit) K1Bond007 19:07, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

MGM lawsuit

I can't really begin to explain this to you because I'm not really sure what the deal is. The problem is with numerous MGM dvds, some being Bond, one being -that I'm sure of- LALD. I guess it also has to do with false advertisement or something too http://www.mgmdvdsettlement.com/ Anyway it's not so much the format of the video, the video quality, while like I said better than VHS really isn't all that special and the "Ultimate" ones will probably be out next year or maybe the year after with superior quality and the most likely the same DVD extras. I don't know. I haven't upgraded because of this....and theres a few Bond films I don't like, all being Moore films, FYI :) I refuse to watch AVTAK and I dislike LALD and I don't really care, but neither like nor dislike FYEO and Octopussy. -- I'm just not a Roger Moore person. K1Bond007 19:38, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Heh.. nice job. I've never seen CR-Spoof so I can't help you. Perhaps it's worth picking up. K1Bond007 05:02, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Featured article

Yeah I responded to the FAC stuff. They make a lot of good points, but as I responded: It's extremely hard to write a general article on Bond. 20+ films, 30+ novels, short stories, parodies, video games, a character's inspiration that's neither true nor really false, his biography that is wishywashy as it is because Fleming and a bajillion other writers couldn't see eye to eye and couldn't write anything definitive about the character (his birth for instance) etc etc etc and all of this needs to be written in under 32K? I noted we've been as high as something like 55K. --But anyway, I personally never really liked the James Bond article for these reasons. I'm actually shocked it's being nominated before another article like Dr. No, From Russia With Love etc and Thunderball which has more of a reason to be a FAC with this being it's 40th anniversary. But whatever they decide. I'm not really against it. K1Bond007 06:16, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that's how this whole FAC works. --> Nominating a bunch of articles anyway. Too hard to do, I'd guess with all the feedback. K1Bond007 07:52, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

I think you're gonna hate me

Haha.. think on this idea momentarily. What if we removed the James Bond novel section from the James Bond article? :D Seriously. Move it to an article at James Bond novels and then we take the section at James Bond and transform it into a general section on the books, the writers -specifically more on Fleming etc etc etc and then pull one of those "Main article: " deals. ? Would that be so bad? I just thought of this while explaining to User talk:H1523702 about the official films table. He apparently wants to add the things we took away from it back in (supporting cast, director) etc. Anyway and theres tons I think should be expanded including the official films paragraph, we need to incorporate soundtrack information - at the very least mention John Barry, Monty Norman and the changes of the theme with the "time" etc. See H1523702's discussion page for more on that.

I'm not saying we make the change now, but I'm just trying to open the floor for discussion. The FAC people made some valid points about the page being pretty much just "lists" etc. I'm just trying to think of ways of reducing that. Thoughts :D heh K1Bond007 19:50, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea what we should do, but I do think something should be done. I guess I'll have to ponder this more when certain additions (see above) are made. Maybe this is the best course of action. I don't know. More on this later K1Bond007 05:07, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Music

I really disagree with calling "Three Blind Mice" a theme. That's just a song that the film opened with, it's not really a repeated meolody or whatever throughout the film. Both films have instrumental themes and both have alternative themes in the film such as Dr. No's "Underneath the Mango Tree" and OHMSS's "We Have All the Time in the World". Saying "Three Blind Mice" is a theme is incorrect, IMHO. K1Bond007 17:12, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Come on. No one questions "The James Bond Theme" as the main theme for Dr. No, it doesn't matter if it's used in the series again, it's still the main theme of the film. This is what I'm talking about. The main theme, not just songs that are being played. Kingston is an alternative theme, but not the main theme. Same goes for "We Have All The Time In The World" along with "Jump Up". - Rereading, I was unaware that Kingston and 3BM are the same. I still disagree with saying OHMSS is only film with an instrumental theme. It makes absolutely no sense to me. K1Bond007 19:07, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

I always hit the "diff" link regardless of who posts on my watchlist. I've actually had someone accuse me of "following them around" after they had edited a few pages on my watchlist. It's kinda why if you edit a page I might also edit that page later on.. it's not really to fix an edit you made (although it might :D) but it's because I notice other things while reading whatever changes whomever made -- DOH -> "You have 264 pages on your watchlist (not counting talk pages)" -- I swear it doesn't feel like that many. Hahaha.. maybe I should remove a few. Anyway.. I missed the Thunderball one, but I saw the Casino Royale one. You can probably now imagine why I missed the Thunderball one heh. K1Bond007 05:00, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

FYI James Bond music is up. I just moved The James Bond Theme there and added a tiny intro which I'm hoping you can help expand. After moving it I then thought "hmm how does one go about starting this article" - I came up with nothing :( Sooo help !! :P I'll be moving The 007 Theme there shortly and "List of James Bond themes", after I move the information into a table. I'm going to change the List/table into "Main themes" only to avoid confusion and to make it easier. All the "alternative themes" or songs that could possibly double as a theme such as k.d. lang's "Surrender" for TND can get special mention if it really needs mentioning at all (TND article probably has this info). K1Bond007 04:54, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Ok. I went ahead and merged List of James Bond themes too. BTW heh.. umm the date thing... it's MM DD, but in the end it doesn't matter, the software auto changes it to MM DD. (and yes I'm watching everything you're doing. Actually, I checked your user contribs right before writing this. Heh.. does your "message notification" sometimes not go away? It kept telling me I had messages and sometimes it's only one certain page.. weird..) K1Bond007 05:56, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Thunderball

Hey you don't happen to have an image of a book cover for Thunderball that says this: "based on a screen treatment by Kevin McClory, Jack Whittingham, and Ian Fleming" or something close to it do you? I just went through Bondian and I can't find any that says this. Some I see getting around it by saying "Ian Fleming's James Bond in..." but was this something that was just stated on the inside of the book? I wanted an image to show the the line, but I can't find one. I think I'm going to expand this section, FYI. There was a page (I'd have to find again) that showed for Wikipedia how to make an easy timeline (probably made it for you). Anyway I was thinking of adding something like that. K1Bond007 04:31, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Followup Booo.. nevermind about the timeline. I tinkered with making one and it was just too much work. K1Bond007 04:50, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Format

I'll keep this in mind, but I'm not sure where this can be used on the James Bond article. According to the FAC and "what makes a good article", we should be moving away from lists and so far we kinda have. Only Gardner's section really reads like a list. Not much information is there on him.

BTW, I want to get rid of that section "Misc Bond trivia", it's not really Bond trivia. These are just other people (1 fictional) that have the name of "James Bond". Should we just remove these totally seeing that they have no real connection to the fictional agent, James Bond, or should these be moved? The Agatha Christie one is the only one worth keeping, IMO, but I think that should be moved to Inspirations for James Bond. The other two might be notable enough to move to the disambig page on "Bond". Whats your thought on this section? I've never really liked this section and I think I was the one who created it because of all the BS accusations throughout the article of where James Bond was inspired from (which lead to some anon creating Inspirations...) K1Bond007 19:38, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

Well theres a small paragraph under "Name" at inspirations that already mentions one coincidence, I don't really see a problem with saying something along the lines of "...also by coincidence a James Bond in Agatha Christie's _____" K1Bond007 20:41, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure it's fake. The Casino Royale title, although never announced has been known for quite some time. In fact CommanderBond.net -confirmed- it back in like July 04. [1] There was also tons of buzz about it from MI6.co.uk as well. I also think it's fake because Mariah Carey would be the absolute worse choice ever (this is IMO, but comeon.. her track record as far as acting is horrible; now that they don't have to pay Brosnan 40 million or whatever I'm sure they can pay for someone a little better :D) It's also false because there was no director signed at the time. Highly unlikely they would cast anyone before 1) having a director and 2) securing an actor to play Bond - On a side note, good to have Wikipedia back up. :) K1Bond007 05:26, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not really a fan of picking well-known actress' to play the role. All of them (starting pretty much at TND) have been bad so far. Teri Hatcher was ok I guess, but Denise Richards and Halle were awful. I think they should pick some reltaive unknowns. Izabella Scorupco, D'abo etc were tons better probably because they came off as someone real. Frankly I wish they would pick "normal" types of roles too. Not every woman needs to be an agent from some foreign government or some super smart physicist just so they don't fall into the "Bond girl" stereotype. Kate Beckinsale wouldn't be a bad choice. Off the top of my head I wouldn't mind seeing Evangeline Lilly or the girl who currently plays Sydney Bristow's sister on Alias. I'd pick Garner herself but that'd be a little weird (perhaps cliche) with her being on a sort of "copy" of Bond/Mission Impossible type show - If Alias never happened, she'd be perfect though. K1Bond007 06:17, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Casino Royale

I'm upset about it too. I don't think it's quite like Spy Kids though. Heh. But yeah it's a ...semi-prequel like the Sum of All Fears type thing (which even though most people didn't like, I actually liked that movie and I'm not a Ben Affleck fan at all - but at the same time Jack Ryan is no James Bond or Star Trek or Star Wars. Theres a huge difference there). Anyway. I'm hoping that either 1) Campbell was misinterpreted and CR won't be this semi-prequel crap but rather possibly a flashback (somewhat like GoldenEye) or maybe not a flashback per se, but a reflection as to why he became a 00-agent. This is actually in the book after he's tortured so it might give some credibility that he was misinterpreted. The problem, however, is that in Die Another Day he was captured and tortured and yet.... nothing. Part of the reason why I don't like that film. The good news though is that this is James Bond and consistancy and continuity has never been that big of an issue OHMSS -> DAF, Blofeld and Bond meeting etc. To give more credibility to this, Judi Dench has said that she's signed on and John Cleese although maybe not in Casino Royale is said be contracted for 3 (1 being DAD), if this is true, then this comment makes absolutely no sense. Why do this semi-sequel restart yet keep Dench and Cleese? That's stupid. 2) EON sees all the negative feedback from that comment and changes this. I've seen tons on CBN, MI6, etc etc.

That said, I honestly don't see a younger James Bond regardless of it being a prequel. I bet they don't go below 30. I'll also bet it's not Clive Owen. K1Bond007 05:37, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Re: That would be even dumber. LOL A somewhat faithful adaptation of a Fleming novel novelized? Come on. :) I'll hold back further judgement until either we get more news or the actor to play Bond is announced.

Anyway, did you see the Higson interview at CBN? As much as I was against the young James Bond series when I first heard about it, I'm actually really wanting to read what he's done. I mean it sounds like it's going to be faithful to Fleming (and Fleming only). Sucks that I gotta wait till April though. The interview talks about books 2,3, and 4. I still need to start Thunderball and finish Fleming's novels. I said I was going to awhile back but I ended up reading From A View To A Kill then I just stopped for a few days. :) Maybe tomorrow. :P K1Bond007 06:34, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Eh.. never really cared about this FAC. Still a lot of work to be done with it. I question whether I would have supported it myself. It's got a lot of good info, but theres a lot of crap in there too and a lot of stuff that needs to be fixed (at the time the Video game list, absence of music etc) we're making good progress though. K1Bond007 22:29, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

The anon is Patrick O'Brien (yeah, he signed it) and he has previously attempted to place the POV review on the Casino Royale article before. It was added in Jul 04 and reverted not long after. (About 1-2 edits before I started on the article.) As for the other edit by a different anon, well that information is on the Inspirations of Bond page so it was ok to revert that too. Btw, I'm going to get rid of that misc section now as previously discussed. K1Bond007 02:03, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

The Bond bits

Ok one of the biggest complaints of the FAC was that the Bond bits section was essentially a list. I agree, in fact when the section was created it was pretty basic. Now it's all over the place and needs to be cleaned up and dissolved into the rest of the article. I rewrote a lot of the Bond bits stuff today (even making a huge error when I was trying to make sense of the end credit information - basically rewriting and I missed it, which has apparently been there for quite sometime ?) Anyway to do what I said above I think the page needs to be rearranged a bit. Heres what I think the structure should look like:

• Overview
  • The Character
  • The Franchise
• Character's biography
• Books etc (sub sections remain, I'm just not typing it)
• Official films
  • Music
• Unofficial films
• Bond characters
• Vehicles and gadgets
• The rest....

The way this is set up is so that when you read the article you get a good overview of the franchise, information on the Character, the books he was in, the films he was in then the rest. Most of the "Bond bits" are from the films so what I'm thinking is that we move that section there and use what's written in the Bond bits about what makes Bond films unique and interesting. The line Bond. James Bond which is mostly in the films and not so much the novels, James Bond will return, and the gun barrel. The rest can go in the section about the character. Theres already information on Bond's drinking habit-merge that and the info on the cars can be moved to the vehicles and gadget section.

Any problems with this? The remainder of the problems I have with the page that I want to attack next :)

• I want to gather a bunch of 007 gun logos and put them in a nice table at the top of the page where the Goldfinger book is. The book would get moved to the Fleming section (or an expanded novel section). Honestly, I'd like to replace the book with From Russia With Love since FRWL was really the novel that 1) gets the highest acclaim 2) is really the book that started the whole craze and 3) if you agree with what I aid about about the Bond bits then the official films section will be expanded and there will be room room for Goldfinger's poster. I figure Goldfinger is the most popular/recognized/award winning (even in retrospect getting honors from the AFI for villain etc) and should be the one out of all (perhaps except Dr. No) to get the spot.
• Other films pertaining to Bond. If the move takes place, I'm moving this section out and to the bottom of the page. I'd like to somehow get rid of it. Theres good information there, but then again this information can probably be merged elsewhere. As it is I've only heard of one of those and that one is already (the series anyway) briefly talked about under franchise where this could be expanded. Not really sure what to do with the rest. ??
• Expand references with books, specifically those written by John Cork.

Anyway let me know what you think about any of this. Not so much the bottom part, but go ahead and give me your thoughts. ^^^I wrote a ton :) Good luck reading - my writing skills aren't that great. K1Bond007 04:02, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Featured articles really don't work like that. They're really just the articles that have been added to the main page for a day and articles that represent what Wikipedia is striving to do. That's really it. Theres tons of unrecognized articles and the people that do FAC realise this so they're very meticulous about picking articles. As for the Star Trek article, he does make some valid points, though I wouldn't go so far as to have it removed. These problems are just some that can be fixed with proper discussion. As I said about the James Bond article, I was never really satisfied that it was good enough to be labeled an article that every article should aspire to be. Theres been some great progress with it, but it's not quite there. Furthermore, I really wouldn't worry about size. Theres really no problem with having an article over 32K, it's just a guideline they try to establish for all articles. There are some, like Bond, Star Trek, Star Wars, World War II where a good article on the subject can be presented in only 32K. My philosophy (and this has changed recently) is to build a good article first and worry about the size later. Some parts to the article may warrant an entire page of it's own and therefore would be easy to remove.

Anyway, I'm going to start making some changes to James Bond soon. BTW did you get your hands on SilverFin yet? I was thinking of ordering it from Amazon.co.uk since they ship limited amounts of books overseas (something about publishing rights or something) - I'm from Illinois so either I get it now or I have to wait till late April, which sucks. I'm kinda eager to read it since I've read a lot of good stuff on it. Maybe it's all hype. Either way... K1Bond007 04:30, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Followup:Well, theres nothing wrong with having the From Russia With Love image on Bond be exclusive to Bond. I like the other one at FRWL too. If you want to expand, go for it, though, I think if you count the table + the book, we're pretty maxed out for the book section. The film portion could definitely be expanded which may give enough room to add the book. 3 books might be too much though. I'd almost rather see an image from the comic book such as [2] rather than another book (Note: I couldn't find specific FRWL in the link in the short time I searched). I say leave or swap. It really doesn't matter. :) K1Bond007 04:47, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Update, I guess I couldn't find it because they merged it with Dr. No. and Diamonds Are Forever. It's available through Amazon.co.uk :( Oh well. K1Bond007 04:54, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Covered under fairuse. Many websites have it and the copyright information is on the image article. Perhaps the actual information about Danjaq should be mentioned on the image page. Can you take the last two Bond bits and get rid of the section? I was just gonna merge it with Character biography, but I just wrote a ton for the official film stuff (please proofread :D) I was thinking of of adding a small image from the credits of GoldenEye (one of my fav credits) probably this one [3] or one that displays the film title - heh.. do you think it's a good idea? I think it's covered under a type of a fairuse see: Terminator 2: Judgment Day, which has a ton of images from the film. K1Bond007 06:05, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Good deal. I made some changes to the page and I added those two images I said I would. The information about Bond's drinking habits is linked under fan sites. Should probably be moved upto references - it's called "Make Mine a 007" or something similar. The paragraph about James Bond will return - should that be moved above the list of films? I wasn't sure. It seems out of place now and the little paragraph right above the pictures of the actors I think needs to be rewritten or expanded or something. It just seems like an odd paragraph. I don't know. K1Bond007 21:30, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

I've seen MI6 both ways, but I had always thought it was MI6 and not MI-6. Maybe I'm wrong, the MI6 article has the same format "MI6". I guess I didn't think it might be written differently somewhere else on the page, but now that it's MI6 I think we should keep it that way for consistancy. I don't know if you noticed but someone changed the pic size for the Bonds to a smaller size? I pretty much reverted that. I don't see a problem with the size they're at now. In the future we may need to make them smaller because of the next Bond (whomever it may be) to fit them on one line, but for now, whats the deal? I guess I don't get it - and why change them, but leave the Unofficial ones the same? Weird. Speaking of which though, I replaced the Connery NSNA picture with an the same image, but it's more proportional to the other two and therefore looks better next to them instead of Nelson and Niven one size and Connery totally different. Looks nicer anyway. K1Bond007 22:53, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

A new section

Hahah don't feel so bad about having your page vandalised btw. Mine was just vandalised by some guy most likely in retaliation for reverted his edit. :D Btw, might be time to archive again :) If you want you can just delete my stuff, I don't care - it's up to you. K1Bond007 05:24, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

I noticed it yesterday on (I think) Goldfinger, but after doing a ton of work on all the articles + moving info to Wikiquote I decided I wasn't gonna touch it till today. Probably should look through it all. K1Bond007 17:39, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I think the whole virginity thing on Bond might be wrong. I read From A View To A Kill a few weeks ago and I could have sworn Fleming said he was 16. When I searched on this, I found a few websites to back this up. Searching for age 14 I only got mirrors of Wikipedia. This may need to be double checked. I don't have my copy anymore. By the way, I think it might be a good idea to either break up the character biography by literary vs cinematic or to remove the section totally and place a good biography under the book section and the official film section. I lean towards the first idea. If you read the section, some of it is written well, but then it gets kind of "choppy" while explaining the vast differences between the two versions. Theres also some duplication in there that could be removed. Good idea? K1Bond007 18:37, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind about the fact check thing. I double checked a bunch of sources. See Bond talk page. K1Bond007 22:24, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Round 2

Perhaps I put too much thought into this. I don't know. Anyway, I talked a long time ago about possibly moving the book section out, moving the character section out, moving the films out, and a variety of combination of these to trim the page. All of which I don't really want to do anymore. Instead, I'd rather keep the Ian Fleming section and expand on it greatly and move the rest out to maybe "James Bond books" or "James Bond continuation novels". One reason for doing so is the lack of information on the page about Ian Fleming writing Bond. It's essentially a list and hurts when you think that theres really more text and descriptions for the unofficial novels, Young Bond, Benson and the novelizations than there really is for Fleming. In the place of the continuation novels/unofficial novels we obviously leave a sizable general section similar to that of unofficial films describing the novels perhaps reaction etc. The main article for that section can then be greatly expanded because I think a lot more needs to be said.

Beyond that heres what I still want to do:

• Expand the franchise section a little more talking about Saltzman, Broccoli, EON etc getting the rights and actually starting the official franchise. I think this needs to be established to be able to definitively say what makes their series official. Right now we just say they started it in 62 with Connery.
• The character section see above. It may be possible with what I proposed above to actually break the section up film v books and place it under their sections.
• Still want to get rid of those "other films". Do you think some of these may be considered Parodies? Hmm..
• Possible expansion of the Comic book stuff.

Anyway, tell me what you think about any of this. K1Bond007 06:43, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Look I'm just trying to go off of the advice from what the FAC gave us and I actually agree with this. The Book section is way too large and purely lists. The rest of it's context "The Killing Field" is irrelevant to the official series of Bond - a general article on Bond, which is what this is supposed to be about. This could easily be made into it's own page with a mention on the article, but instead it's on the Bond article and has way more of an description and so forth than the official author, Gardner. Same goes for Per Fine Ounce where the information is not only on it's own article, but the Bond article and the authors article as well. What makes Per Fine Ounce and the Killing Field more notable than the all the James Bond fan fiction, biographies on Bond and Fleming, and even Benson's Bedside Companion which in comparison gets a mere mention. I'm not saying that should be expanded either.

What about 1) merging the unofficials + Pearson + James Bond Jr. into a smaller section of "Other Bond-related fiction". 2) Merging official continuation novels into a table (title, year, author) and having a good sized paragraph to that (also Bensons shorts being below the table with explanation)? Basically...

• Books
  • By Ian Fleming
  • Continuation novels
  • Novelizations
  • Other Bond-related fiction

??K1Bond007 07:59, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Well I disagree. They should be filed under continuation. I realize all of them wrote alot, but they didn't create James Bond, their books are hardly notable in comparison to Fleming etc etc and I disagree GREATLY with giving them all their own tables. I really don't see the problem with merging Amis, Gardner, and Benson together with a paragraph above the table. We're not making anyone "jump through hoops" here and we're not indignifying them by grouping them together.

Do you at least agree that we can remove the sections and paragraphs of the unofficial novels and mention them - with link to their own (respective) articles - under Other Bond-related fiction? K1Bond007 17:15, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

---

Take a look at User:K1Bond007/Temp. I started a temp page where we can throw ideas around etc. Right now it's grouped by Adult v Young v Other. I don't like the size of the huge Simon Templar table you keep refering to so I broke up the table into 3 parts to prevent tha, but it takes up less space. The concept came from another article you showed me a while back. The text on there has been merely copied and pasted, although I stripped a lot of detailed information that was necessary for this page and can be found on either the author's page or the article for the book itself + reworded a little. It could actually be stripped some more *, but I only did a once-over here. I haven't even proofread.

• I left Pearson in "Other". I could easily remove that, write something more slimming in the adult section and add him to the table (+adjust). K1Bond007 02:02, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Temp

Did you by any chance proofread the User:K1Bond007/Temp yet and if so did you have any problems with it? I kinda want to finish this up so I can use the page again for List of James Bond vehicles, which I'm planning to rewrite per movie and remove all the new BS that was recently added. K1Bond007 01:55, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Ponsonby is in a number of novels. I'm reading Thunderball and she had a small role in that after Bond returns from the health clinic. Personally, I don't think the information about her is really relevant to Dr. No. It's the first of the film series, I get it, but there are so many differences between the novel series and the film series that this is almost irrelevant for this page. I'd rather see that information get moved to Miss Moneypenny. I believe it's listed on List of allies already.

Anyway, after I make a few more adjustments I'll probably move the novel stuff over to James Bond. FYI. In the meantime, if you think of anything else worth adding or subtracting. Go for it. K1Bond007 05:15, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Cool. I think the main page looks much better, not just because of the new addition, but the many changes we've done lately. My only problem is the Character biography as I've stated before. In all honesty, I'd like to reduce that to more of an overview and move it out and expand. The article has become more general to the James Bond franchise—Books, movies, games, etc. Theres more to Bond than whats written in his biography and I think it really needs to be written better - sectioned by perhaps author/film series to avoid tangents like -this happened according to Fleming, explained by Higson, never happened according to Pearson and it happened this way in the films (something to this effect ex. Bond's knowledge of foreign languages). This would be kind of like Harry Potter - where the main article is a general overview of the franchise and the character has it's own article (Harry Potter (character). This is what we need to do IMO. Speaking of which, I have a picture of the "The World Is Not Enough" family crest thing that I can scan in, I'd like to use somewhere, but just haven't gotten around to it. K1Bond007 07:51, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

Vehicles

Ok I started work on the vehicle section on my temp page, but I've already hit some snags. First off if we seperate them by film, what do we do about the novels? What about repeated apparences by the same vehicle (DB5)? What really defines a Bond car - one he's ridden in, one he's driven, one he's issued by MI6? There are some cars that we list that aren't driven by Bond, Leiters Ford Thunderbird, Jinx's Thunderbird, Zao's Jag etc - two of the three were advertised as Bond cars, but where do we draw the line? Do you have any thoughts about any of this? K1Bond007 00:09, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

Images

It's a glitch. Occasionally it does this. Hold CTRL on your keyboard then hit F5. That should, in most cases, fix it. K1Bond007 05:22, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

CR

I've never heard them talk about pushing back the time time of release till 2007 except for the rumor of doing the 2007 marketing thing, which IMHO is just stupid. Granted it's once in a lifetime thing, but it's not that big of a deal. According to Campbell and the official press release by EON they're going to release in late 2006. Filming in early 2006 really doesn't mean anything - principal photography starts before that and a lot of work is done before shooting. The thing that takes the longest time is post-production which deals with CG and other crap and considering it's Casino Royale and Purvis/Wade have stated it will be a fairly faithful adaptation I don't think there will be that much to really do in that area. They could definitely make 2006. K1Bond007 19:10, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Update: I made some changes to the article. Notably moving the information around to maintain the seperation of the article from what is confirmed and what is not confirmed. This also keeps the page from being redundant. Until EON, MGM, or some other authority on the film says otherwise, the page should maintain a 2006 release date as the only date of release in the intro of the article, unless of course this starts to become totally unlikely. Given the current situation, however, there is plenty of time to make a film and release in 2006 even with the rumored beginning 2006 production start time. K1Bond007 19:22, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Re: I know you wrote it. I've read speculation like that before, but I've kinda pushed it out of my head since the film was delayed from 2005 to 2006. I don't see them delaying again just so they can market that. It'd be pretty weak on their part. I don't know about the whole "inability" to choose an actor to portray Bond. I think it's more of a no need to rush. K1Bond007 22:25, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

I have no preference who should play Bond. I really don't. I have a few requirements mostly having to do with age, but I trust if they choose someone after screen testing they really can't be that bad and really can't go wrong. I don't really see Casino Royale as a make or break film. I think today, more people will go see it just to see the new actor portraying Bond. If it does fail I think it'll be OHMSS all over again. Forget and move on with someone else and rebuild. Thats how James Bond works. Statistically though the first film by a new actor usually does well. I think Lazenby got the shaft though being the first after Connery— that was the hardest. K1Bond007 05:32, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Doh... don't compare Bond to Enterprise :( Haha.. its fun to criticize series' because lately most of them haven't been so good. Star Trek started getting weak about half way through Voyager then Insurrection and Nemesis sucked and then they gave the public Enterprise. Give me a break. Enterprise might be good in your opinion, but even you can probably agree that it was a horrible time to introduce it and they didn't do so hot with their first two seasons. I realize that most fans of the show recongize it getting better in S3, but too little too late. I don't think Trek is dead or needs time off. I think big-daddy Paramount needs to step in and fire Berman and Braga and get someone fresh in there. It still has life. Same goes for Star Wars. People bitched the entire way, but demand for Episode 3 (and even further films) is still very high. If I had to choose a Bond right now, I'd probably pick Owen flat out because the series for at least the first and maybe even second film with him as Bond would succeed. Honestly though I think Owen (although looking the part) is uncharasmatic and wouldn't do so hot in the role, but thats me. Daniel Craig seems very intriguing to me though. I've never seen a film of his besides Road to Perdition so I'm not really going to comment on him. K1Bond007 06:00, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Well I gotta disagree about the B&B comment. I'm not so sure. They haven't made the best of decisions at all. People criticized Enterprise before it was released because it was a stupid idea and everyone was on this "prequel" kick, most of which were failures. No one wanted that. Some people were more open to the idea than others, but I think the general consensus was to have a story in the timeline of TNG or post-TNG like DS9 and Voyager. I really resent prequels. If you build a franchise like Bond, you should always be moving forward, never attempting to wiggle a full series/movie in a small space of time because you think you have a good idea (Enterprise). I'm generally ok with Star Wars 1,2,3 because the actual franchise was created with the thought of going back and doing those films, but some of the others, including Enterprise, Young Bond etc just annoy me regardless if they're good or if after a bad start they get better. I want to read SilverFin and I'm betting I'll probably like it, but I still don't like the idea of it and I think theres tons of people who agree with me here. Like I said Enterprise failed because it sucked in its first season. It already had being a prequel going against it. Had Enterprise come out of the door with a good season then things would be most likely be different. I think the ratings for the show prove this. Opening day it had a very sizable number of viewers and from there it just dropped. Trek isn't dead and it doesn't need a vacation. It needs to have a proper continuation in the series, it needs almost a fresh start, and IMO it needs to stop using TNG whenever they feel they're at their lowest point. I'll leave that that last comment rather vague so perhaps one day you may understand if not already. K1Bond007 18:33, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Biography

Under Temp, I asked you if you thought moving the James Bond biography to its own page would be a good idea and I don't think I ever got a reply. Do you have a problem with this? I was thinking of naming it James Bond (character)? I'd like to see the bio expanded, but I don't think thats possible on the main article.

Anyway, asI see it right now the page could be broken up by differing authors and so forth to see what they added overall to the character. I don't think it's really fair to list everything into one big section because not everything is true across authors (ex.Bond's age). Somethng like:

• Ian Fleming
• Films
• Pearson
• Gardner
• Benson
• Higson

Or some variation of that. Maybe literary vs film and a break down of literary by author. I don't know. Whats your thought on this? K1Bond007 18:44, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Theres no way they would ever VFD an article on James Bond the character, Mr. Wint & Mr. Kidd probably yes, but not James Bond. Theres currently discussion right now about what is worthy of a page and James Bond definitely fits that bill regardless of what they decide. But anyway, I totally disagree. First, I don't understand why you would suggest moving the books after I offered this idea a long time ago. You were pretty against this at the time and I ended up agreeing with you and changing my thought on that. I can't possibly think of moving that out now or the films, or anything else. Perhaps Simon Templar should do what I'm suggesting too, but then again it's page is no where near the size of Bonds. Harry Potter does what I'm proposing. See Harry Potter and Harry Potter (character). As said, the biography section needs to be or at least could be expanded. K1Bond007 21:03, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Forget it. It's not worth arguing over. If you can't move it then it's not worth expanding because the page can't handle anymore expansion. I fail to see the logic with not doing this considering every Wikipedia Guideline says if the page is too big info can and should be moved out. Bond is 50K, but oh well. We'll leave it alone. K1Bond007 21:29, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

OHMSS

It's coincidental, perhaps even intentional, but the line was also a reference to Cinderella. After she takes his car drives up to hers and races off, he bends down picks up her slippers and says the line. Regardless, this is trivial information not meant for a Plot summary. This should be under "trivia".

I heard the Owen thing, actually I saw the video. While this really doesn't have much more truth than any other rumor his expression and so forth looked authentic to it being true, but really who knows.

The whole SilverFin thing is crap. As I've mentioned elsewhere, EON/MGM own the sole rights to the film version of James Bond regardless if he's old, young, male, female, a different race, or from outer space. Given that, they'll probably never (at least now anyway) go with a Young Bond (younger than maybe 30 that is) and they would never novelize another official Bond author's work because it's cheaper to have their own writers write a story. The book would probably have to be damn good for EON to go back to IFP and get the film rights. Cubby was very much against this. Of course he was also for always moving forward never looking back, which if this reboot stuff is true, I guess they broke. I don't buy the reboot stuff though. I'm betting on a "reboot" like Licence to Kill -> GoldenEye, nothing more. Makes no sense to claim a reboot then hire Judi Dench and possibly John Cleese. K1Bond007 22:01, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

SilverFin

I guess so. It's listed as such at CBn and MI6, whether it really is remains to be seen, but considering the hardcore fans for Bond, a first edition is always collectable - especially one for a new series. K1Bond007 19:29, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)