Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:07, 27 August 2014

	Production of the James Bond films has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 12, 2007 Good article nominee Listed March 14, 2008 Peer review Reviewed September 28, 2009 Good article reassessment Delisted April 2, 2013 Good article nominee Listed Current status: Good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage James Bond (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject James Bond, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.James BondWikipedia:WikiProject James BondTemplate:WikiProject James BondJames Bond Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Film: British / American This 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.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm This article is supported by the British cinema task force. This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

There is a request, submitted by Snowman Guy (talk), for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages. The rationale behind the request is: "important article detailing a relevant film series".

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

"Video game adaptations" and "Home media" sections

I've removed the above sections on the ground they are unconnected to the production history of the film series. Video game adaptations is covered in its own article, as well as in the James Bond article, which is the overview of Bond and the various spin-off bits to the Bond industry (from books to radio, tv, films and video). - SchroCat (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Production history revamp

As per two talk page discussions (here and here) the consensus was that this article is about the production history and development of the Bond films, largely focussing on the Eon Productions series, but also further examining the two non-Eon films and why they exist etc. As such the previous version of article did not really fulfil that ambition and was instead focussed more on the hiring process behind the Bond actors. The following changes have taken place which have streamlined the article and made the information more manageable.

1. This article has been restructured to address its main focus: the production history.
2. A new article has been created: James Bond (film character), which carries the history of the Bond screen role and examine the differences between the characterisations of the various actors.

There has been some information removed, much of this—(box office figures etc)—is present elsewhere, such as at the List of James Bond films. Rather than a straightforward reversion to the previous version, could there please be a discussion on this page of the changes towards what has already been discussed and agreed upon? – SchroCat (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm putting the information on "Happy and Glorious" back in the non-Eon section. It makes sense to list it here - technically, it is still a film, albeit a short, and by removing it here it removed almost all information about it from Misplaced Pages (Happy and Glorious redirects to this page, and there's only a short mention of it on the 2012 Olympics opening ceremony page). If there's a better page for it, feel free to movie it there (and repoint the redirect), but until another page can be found this page seems the best place for it. Grutness...wha? 00:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Why were the tables removed?

Where did the various tables at the end of the article go? The budgets + box office totals was surely worth keeping. I am tempted to readd this stuff. Dontreadalone (talk) 16:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Please see the section above about the re-vamp, where this point is discussed. The tables are second-rate duplicates of those that appear in the FL-rated List of James Bond films. - SchroCat (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Although the statistical data is better in its own dedicated article, this article will probably still get a lot of readers looking for it, and they shouldn't really have to familiarise themselves with the organization of the Bond articles. Perhaps the hatnote at the top can be a bit more explicit in this regard? Betty Logan (talk) 16:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. Which form of hatnote is best - I can never get the damned things to work properly! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:James Bond in film/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 02:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Schrocat, I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-5 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one--sorry you've had to wait so long for a review! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

That's great: many thanks - and no worries about the wait, there's been a few other bits to do elsewhere! - Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick responses and fixes. I'll continue checking this one tonight, and hopefully will get through it, mostly depending on whether my daughter stays asleep. =) -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

I got distracted by a few other things, so unfortunately didn't make it through the full article tonight. Below are a few initial quibbles to start you off. I've also been doing some copyediting as I go for grammar, style, and minor MOS tweaks. Please double-check that I haven't inadvertently introduced any error, and feel free to revert anything you disagree with.

My preliminary impression is that this is looking good. Thanks for all your hard work to get this organized and up to its current quality! More tomorrow -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• Always enjoyable to work on the big "overview" topics, especially after having gone over so much Bond ground recently. I've had a spin over your copy edits, and they are all improvements on what was there previously, so many thanks for those. - SchroCat (talk) 14:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• "The series has grossed just over US$6 billion to date" -- I'd suggest adding an "as of" to this figure in place of "to date" per WP:REALTIME, so the article doesn't quickly go out of date.

• Good point: done. - SchroCat (talk) 14:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• "In 1954 the American CBS television network paid Ian Fleming $1,000 ($8,549 in 2013 dollars) to adapt his first novel, Casino Royale, into a one-hour television adventure as part of their dramatic anthology series Climax Mystery Theater, which ran between October 1954 and June 1958. It was adapted for the screen by Anthony Ellis and Charles Bennett" -- this paragraph confused me a bit. If Fleming got paid to adapt the novel, did the two other screenwriters then readapt it? Or is the sense here simply that CBS paid Fleming for the right to adapt it?

• For the rights - now clarified. - SchroCat (talk) 14:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• "he was selected after Eon had been rejected by Patrick McGoohan and they had rejected both Richard Johnson" -- this sentence confuses me. it's odd phrasing to say that McGoohan "rejected" Eon. Maybe we could say instead that he rejected the part? Also, is the "they" here Eon as a group, or Broccoli and Fleming? Last, is there a name missing after that "both" -- "they had rejected both Johnson and Joe Schmo"?

• Reworked the lot. Hope it reads better now. - SchroCat (talk) 14:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• The set for Goldfinger's factory is said to be at Pinewood, while later it says this filming took place in Switzerland. I assume that means the sequence was a mix of the two, but I wonder if there's a way to add just a few words clarifying this. ("and additional footage for the Goldfinger's factory sequence")

• Done - SchroCat (talk) 14:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• " Ian Fleming had always considered that Bond was a possibility for the cinema" -- I'm not entirely sure what this means--something like "considered that they could be adapted for the cinema"?

• Reworded as per your suggestion. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Made it through the Eon films, will finish tomorrow:

• " since Mankiewicz knew he was a jazz fan, suggested they film in New Orleans" -- this is mildly confusing to me--why did Hamilton make the suggestion because of Mankiewicz's knowledge of his jazz fandom (if that phrasing makes sense)? Or is it Mankiewicz who made the suggestion?

• Yes, it is a little on the confusing side! Now reworked to provide clarity. - SchroCat (talk) 08:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• "with three days shooting exterior scenes with the St Georges" -- what is the St Georges?

• Tweaked. - SchroCat (talk) 08:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• " They resumed pre-production following MGM's exit " -- who is "they" here?

• "Eon" now added for clarity. - SchroCat (talk) 08:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• On a more general note, I'm concerned in some places the context may fall a little short of WP:WAF, particularly in mentioning character names without a hint of their role in the story. I've cleaned up a very few of these, but haven't been too thorough yet. Phrases like "the obsession with which Bond pursues Sanchez on behalf of Leiter and his dead wife " or " Blofeld's volcano hideaway set" need a moment's context to indicate who these characters are (and you should probably give the characters' full names on first use). Phrases like "for the moon buggy scenes" could be rewritten as the "scenes in which Bond drives a moon buggy". This one could probably use a top-to-bottom look for this, unfortunately. I'll try to start pointing out more of these as I go along. -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• Very probably! I have a overly high degree of familiarity with the material, so it's obvious to me, but certainly won't be for the majority of readers. I'll do a run through to see if I can nail down as many as I can. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've done a runthrough and made a series of tweaks, which I think covers all the relevant points. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

More comments

• Would it be possible to add a header or caption to the Timeline--"Timeline of Eon-produced James Bond films", something like that? (This only shows the Eon films, correct?) -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've had a play and I'm not sure how this can be done. I've tried adding to the template on the page, and into the source code, but neither works. Any thoughts on how to add one? I agree that there should be one—it sits there without any indication of what it is otherwise, but I'm just not sure on the technical side. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• The inestimable Betty Logan has provided the fix on this now. - SchroCat (talk) 12:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Non-Eon

Wow, you and Betty are quick! Thanks for fixing all these things practically as fast as I can point them out. Only one thing left before I turn to the checklist:

• "with five different directors helming different segments of the film, Ken Hughes, John Huston, Joseph McGrath, Robert Parrish, Val Guest and Richard Talmadge" -- Admittedly my math doesn't really kick in until my second cup of morning coffee, but I keep getting six when I count these up. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

A mistake that probably adequately sums up the film itself, really! Now clarified - it's both five and six simultaneously... - SchroCat (talk) 15:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Lol. Okay, I made a few more tiny tweaks. Now I'm on to the checklist. Thanks again for your patience with my many comments and tweaks, I think we're moving into the home stretch. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is excellent; spotchecks show no sign of copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass

• Fantastic news: many thanks indeed for all your attention copy edits and comments here; your time and effort is much appreciated! - SchroCat (talk) 16:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

References

1. Cite error: The named reference McGoohan Obit was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Why is the term "Milliard" used in a very specific place in the article?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Capping: as per WP:NOTFORUM. A consensus has been reached and the usefulness of this thread has come to an end.

As noted in the edit summary and also internal comments, the term "milliard" is not used in contemporary English and has not been for many years; officially obsolete in British politics since 1970s. The wikipedia entry for milliard says that the billion "...has been used unambiguously to mean one thousand million (1,000,000,000) for some time." The word is obsolete in contemporary UK, US, Australian and Canadian cultures, as well as in the vast majority of their territories. In addition, the rest of the article references billions.

If there is actually a "consensus to retain this," as stated in the request to take it to the talk page, why isn't that consensus also revealed, as opposed to simply being able to see many English people making the obvious change and finding it changed back?

The argument to keep "milliard" is illogical in that not only is it not oft used elsewhere in Misplaced Pages, but it isn't even used again in this article itself.

Making changes and logically explaining why they are made is a good faith edit. Changing them back with nothing more than a "nope" and claiming a consensus wants the word to be used once and only once in an article, and that someone trying to fix it is "imposing your own preference" is bad editing and elitism. I request that it be changed from making sense in whatever "different territories" use the term to making sense to the rest of the English speaking world that may come across the article and not know what the term even means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.234.136.194 (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I am almost certain it was me that added the term because to most British readers a billion carries a different meaning to the American short-scale usage, so it is counter-intuitive to use American terminology on an article written in British English. In retrospect it probably wasn't one of my better ideas. That said I don't think mixing terminology is a good idea, and a milliard is largely unknown outside of the UK, so I recommend simply replacing milliard/billion with $1,000 million through the article. A "million" is known throughout the world and is unambiguous, and when discussing such large numbers clarity is the main priority. Betty Logan (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Respectfully, this is one place where it is not a matter of British English vs. American English. We're not talking about lift vs. elevator, rather this is a situation where the term is obsolete and has been for decades. Due to financial entanglements between the two major English speaking governments (or 4 if you want to include Canada and Australia), I would put forth that when we're talking about currency in English (British or American), using the accepted number is not likely to cause confusion Oxford Dictionary Article. $1,000 million is a way to compromise and remain accurate, I suppose, but from an anecdotal standpoint it is not common on either side of the Atlantic. Thanks for doing the good work over the many edits, and also for discussing instead of simply changing back.

Respectfully, according to the Oxford English Dictionary the primary definition of a billion is "orig. and still commonly in Great Britain: A million millions." Official usage may favor the short scale these days, but even in city finance most traders avoid the term to avoid confusion. In British English it is ambiguous and there are sensible alternatives for making it unambiguous. Betty Logan (talk) 01:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Originally and "commonly" may be accurate for milliard; however, that same "commonly," along with "increasingly," and *officially* would be accurate for short-scale billion in the UK, and it's not an issue throughout most of the English speaking world. One can clutch tightly to a solitary sticking point affecting this article using "it's British English" as a shield, but ultimately the current solution of keeping it as is makes a very well done, informative page harder to read. It remains odd, at best, to have the term used just once in conflict with the other monetary references on the page; alternatively the read will be stilted with the change to "thousand million" for every monetary reference on the page. Considering the milliards of people who do *NOT* use the term in the English speaking world (city finance traders of course excepted), it still seems to be logical to lean toward making the article a better read as opposed to an opportunity to enforce Queen's English orthodoxy. Perhaps putting (short-scale) by the first monetary reference of a billion would establish the scale and allow for consistency with that which follows? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.234.136.194 (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, the Economist article referenced in the sentence uses billion, not milliard, and it is a British publication. Unless my research into this is incomplete (I'm new), over the last couple of years there seems to be 4 unique attempts to change it from milliard and only two unique to keep switching it back. The last change mentions "a consensus to retain this." Can someone please point me to this consensus so I can end my quixotic attempt to do the right thing in the face of the vast numbers of people who are defending this majority compromise which must be real and triggering the undos of my poor work, as opposed to this fictional insistence on defending a position based on stubbornness, which I clearly am wrongly imagining? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.234.136.194 (talk) 00:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The Economist may be a British publication, but theirs is a global market, which is why they moved to a the current form. That said, we don't slavishly follow the style guidelines of one particular journal just to suit our own personal tastes. Some of us still raise a question about "which billion" when we see it written out in most publications. - SchroCat (talk) 17:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Adding "short scale" after "billion" is clumsy IMO. While the British government and modern publications may opt for the short scale the reality is it remains ambiguous to readers since the word in common usage has two meanings. There is no guarantee that a reader—especially one from the older generation—will not confuse it with the long-scale equivalent: we are not writing for members of parliament here, we are writing for people from different backgrounds, different generations and even different countries (some of which use the long scale). I agree with homogenising the terminology but we should just go with 1,000 million etc and avoid the issue altogether. Betty Logan (talk) 17:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and think that the addition of "(short scale)" is likely to confuse more than enlighten. 1,000 million is the same in whichever variant. - SchroCat (talk) 17:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

With that logic, This page may be in British English, but Misplaced Pages is a global construct, which is why milliard should be moved to the current form of billion. That said, it seems as if the insistence on moving back to milliard after many attempts to change it is slavishly following one's own personal tastes.

The fact that some still raise a question about "which billion" does not excuse constantly changing it to a phrase to which millions will raise question of "what's a milliard." "Common usage" should take into account ACTUAL commonality across the globe, not anecdotal experience in an editor's small region. If you feel as if "1,000 million" is the way to go, and somehow that term is going to read less clumsy than referencing "(short scale)" once with a link, go for it, I suppose. But from what I'm seeing here, despite the stated goal the result has *NOT* been to think of the greater good, nor has it been to make the article easier to read. When editors entrench themselves and change the text back with little more than "nope, see the note," continue to fight against possibility of one misunderstanding by defending a potentially bigger misunderstanding, then claim a consensus even though more people have tried to solve the problem by changing it than have actually changed it back without adding a solution, it's unfortunate. I have no personal stake in this, other than trying to make a better read for a majority of visitors, and a reasonable expectation of fairness; I apologize for my strong reaction as that has not been possible. While I appreciate your hard work and caring, I hope in the future your edits take into account a global, neutral point of view, as opposed to a provincial one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.234.136.194 (talk) 01:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Saints preserve us from a wall of text rantings from a drive-by IP with a bee in their bonnet. We try on this site not to show the cultural arrogance of a single language or culture, but instead adopt a multi-national (as opposed from international) approach. Because of this, there are things you may not fully appreciate or graps, but that's the nature of the cultural and linguistic differences between countries, and to dismiss the approach of one country (in an article which has adopted that language variant) as being "provincial" is, quite frankly, ignorant. As opposed to the rest of your eye-glazingly tedious lecture, the "greater good" has been taken into account, balanced with cultural and lingustic differences; rather than bulldozing your own POV about your cultural norm, you should appreciate that other cultures use different measures, different language and take different approaches. As you have agreed to 1,000 million, we will go with that as being the most sensible and sulturally appropriate path to take. - SchroCat (talk) 10:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

It is disingenuous at best to call what happened here the result of a multi-national approach. My arguments from the very beginning considered how to best use a phrase consistent with the entire English speaking world (as this is an English article, British English or otherwise), not a personal POV. There is nothing that indicates that my change was predicated on *MY* cultural norm, rather it comes from my ongoing understanding of the word and its history, followed by additional confirmation research into what is being used globally, what has been taught in schools, and the number of people using that term. Other cultures *DO* use different measures, approaches, etc...and that was precisely the point: in this case they are by far using a different measure than the one which was being used. One's disagreement with your view of what is multi-national is not equal to ignorance, and your claim of my ignorance is ironic, even more so after claiming multi-nationality, then complaining that I am dismissing the approach of ONE country. While I apologize for appearing contentious when my change was summarily dismissed, things are not helped by what appears quite smellingly to be an elitist behavior which is counterproductive to this site's well being. Harshly judging a good-faith contributor, who has chosen for reasons unknown to you to not be logged in, as a "Drive-by IP with a bee in their bonnet," is how editors who do good work and treat all legitimate contributions fairly end up saddled with a reputation of appearing superior and uncivil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.234.136.194 (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Yaaawwwnnnn..... Thanks for the attempt to justify your own cultural arrogance and ignore the cultural mores and needs of people who you will probably never understand because you just don't want to. Move on, before you send us all to sleep with your contorted attempts to justify yourself. There is a whole big world out there, including a large number of English speaking countries who don't use the short scale, and who don't necessarily do things just because that's the way things are done in California. - SchroCat (talk) 18:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Batman in film which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Media and drama good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class film articles
• GA-Class British cinema articles
• British cinema task force articles
• GA-Class American cinema articles
• American cinema task force articles
• WikiProject Film articles
• Misplaced Pages articles that use British English
• Spoken Misplaced Pages requests