Talk:James Bond/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

The anime Bond rumor

I'm uncomfortable with new "Rumors" section about an apparent anime version of Bond that was added a few days ago. I don't think we should have rumors on this page, unless a direct source can be given. Also, the anonymous contributor who added this also put up some dubious edits on a number of Bond movie pages that K1Bond007 had to revert. Perhaps this item might be more suited for the James Bond 21 page which already has a few rumors of its own. Thoughts? 23skidoo 01:18, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I don't like it either, I'll remove it. Somehow I missed this one. I went through the rest of that guys contributions and reverted anything that was off. He's the same one that made up that whole rumor on Bond-21 about Emma Watson being a Bond girl. K1Bond007 03:41, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't realize it was the same guy. Emma might be a good Bond girl around Bond 24, though... 23skidoo 04:35, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Parody

In order to decrease the size of the page, I'm planning on moving the parody section to it's own article. To be frank, it really doesn't add much to the character of James Bond, the films or the novels. Hopefully with the new article we can add more films and novels to the list (because I'm sure there are tons more) and hopefully create more of an article including the arguement that the modern Bond has basically become a parody of himself (see above). If anyone objects, please reply. I believe the name of the article will be James Bond parodies or Parodies of James Bond. One or the other. K1Bond007 04:04, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

Works for me. James Bond parodies is my preferred title. 23skidoo 04:40, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Rumours

This rumour states that Disney-MGM accquired Pierce Brosnan's 007 titles in '004. The rumour was started in '004. - 24.159.186.88

Uhhh what? K1Bond007 20:20, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

I just started a rumor that Angelina Jolie is my girlfriend, too... ;) Seriously, though, this is getting into vandalism territory. And since when has Disney ever had anything to do with MGM, which has owned the Bond films for more than 20 years anyway? 23skidoo 20:26, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Since 1989. Ryan F

It's a theme park only. It has no relevance to James Bond. See Disney-MGM Studios. K1Bond007 21:38, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Bond's drink tally question

I've noticed over the last few weeks a steady stream of different numbers being cited for how many drinks Bond has consumed over the years. The latest number posted, 300 in the Fleming novels alone, is questionable. I've read all of Fleming's Bonds, and half of Gardner's, and for Bond to have that many drinks would require him pretty much to have a drink in his hand in every chapter all the way up to Brokenclaw. Can anyone cite a source for this number? If not, I'm not convinced of its accuracy. 23skidoo 05:29, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

LOL, I was wondering this too. K1Bond007 05:42, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Ok heres a webiste: http://home.earthlink.net/~atomic_rom/007/stats.htm - I don't know how accurate it is though. K1Bond007 03:29, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. There should be an Official James Bond Fact Book for such dilemmas. There probably is one. Though I assume that James Bond's drink tally would be constantly increasing as time goes on. -Alexander 007 05:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Date of Birth

Are we absolutely sure that Bond's DoB is in 1924? I only ask because I've seen numerous websites claim it was 1920. I've also read a few times that the dates (if you do the math), during Fleming's novels seem to change off and on to balance out the fact that Bond is somewhere between upper 30's to lower 40's (forever). Anyone have any sources or can cite from which book where it's listed that he was born in 1924? K1Bond007 19:18, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

According to the Pearson biography of Bond, he was born in Wattenscheid, Germany (near Essen) on Nov. 11, 1920 to a Scottish father and a Swiss mother. I have seen 1924 mentioned elsewhere but can't recall where exactly. The You Only live Twice obituary doesn't give a year. That still would only make Bond 13 when he took possession of his Bentley (per Fleming). 23skidoo 20:53, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well I made a few changes to this. See what you think. It may need to be reworded.

Also while rummaging the internet, I found a statement saying that Bond lost his virginity at 16 according to FromAVTAK - our bio seems to state otherwise? Are we sure we're correct on this? Source for that info: http://www.mjnewton.demon.co.uk/bond/jbond.htm Heh.. we need to start looking into this. K1Bond007 02:29, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

The Bond Files gives a different age from AVTAK which is contradicted by Gardner. I'll have to dig out my copy and read it again. I personally don't recall this even being mentioned in the story. 23skidoo 03:34, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What book does Fleming say the year in which Bond purchased the vehicle? I'm currently reading Live and Let Die and Fleming only mentions that the car is a 1933 Bentley - not that Bond bought it in that year. ??? K1Bond007 06:20, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

I believe Moonraker gives this information but it's been several years since I last read it. 23skidoo 06:48, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hmm well reading on the internet plus reading this book is confusing. A lot of websites (see Forbes.com [1]) claim the first Bentley was a 1930 Bentley bought by Bond in 1933 and stored during WW2, but Fleming clearly states in Ch2 of Live and Let Die (first sentence): "The grey Bentley convertible, the 1933 4.5 litre.....". It makes no sense. It's been a while since I read Casino Royale, but I thought these Bentleys were the same? Bond's 2nd Bentley is bought in Moonraker according to the same websites, but they also say that after being damaged in Casino Royale (which I remember) it was repaired and brought back briefly in Moonraker. I've come to three conclusions 1) No one read Live and Let Die 2) My book sucks?? 3) I'm going insane. Heh.. K1Bond007 07:28, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Haha wow.. I'm reading Moonraker now and the car is described as a 1930 Bentley bought by Bond in 1933. Totally contradicts Live and Let Die. I wonder if my copy is off or something. Wouldn't surprise me if my copy of Live and Let Die was edited more than just changing a few british spellings (centre -> center) and the infamous "chapter five" title. K1Bond007 05:05, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Trimming the fat

I hate to bring it up again, but this page somehow keeps getting bigger. After removing the parody stuff we went from something like 50K to 43K. Somehow we've grown to 45K - doh. Does anyone have an idea what we can remove to thin the page? For starters, IMO, I think we should remove the Bond characters section. Merge the 00-agents with List of James Bond allies and just leave the section with links to villains, allies and Bond girls. The section is totally redundant and some of these characters are mentioned elsewhere in the page, such as M.

Also I've mentioned it in the past in the edit summary, but I think the supporting cast column in the film table should be removed. It's something I see as unnecessary since they're all listed on the seperate film pages. It just seems kind of wrong when we don't even list regular cast members that play the roles of M, Q, Moneypenny, and sometimes although not always, Felix Leiter.

Ideas, comments ? K1Bond007 07:58, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that there's no need to list film supporting characters. Actually, I don't see the need to list any film information beyond title, year, and the actor playing Bond, since all the other information of interest can be found under the appropriate pages, just like we can have a minimum of information about the books since each book has its own page where that information can be provided. 23skidoo 06:12, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

James Bond themes

I'm thinking of creating a page titled James Bond themes where we could expand on the "Music" section that was recently added to this page. Currently I'm thinking of moving The James Bond Theme there and adding The 007 Theme article to it. ?? Thoughts. K1Bond007 22:51, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Works for me. Probably better than doing individual articles for each. I didn't even know there was an article for "007". 23skidoo 00:52, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Was recently created by someone. I noticed it yesterday. I just don't think there's that much room to grow really with these articles and they would do better to be compiled in a bigger article about the music of James Bond (in general -> at least keeping in mind that specific soundtracks are covered on their respective film articles). K1Bond007 00:58, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah. Although a number of songs have their own Wiki articles, they also tend to be VFD magnets. I think it works better to have them all in one place where details like the alternate version of "You Only Live Twice" or Sheena Easton's Oscar night performance of "For Your Eyes Only" complete with cameos by Jaws and Oddjob, can be discussed. 23skidoo 02:55, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So James Bond themes is a good name? Comprised of List of James Bond theme songs, The James Bond Theme, and The 007 Theme? Just checking. K1Bond007 06:04, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Given our own disagreement over what constitutes a "theme" per se, maybe "James Bond music" might be a better title, since that would also make it applicable to featured songs like "We Have All the Time in the World" and "If You Asked Me To" and other popular songs introduced by the movies. 23skidoo 04:45, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I was actually thinking the same. K1Bond007 04:52, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Great minds think alike! 23skidoo 04:58, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My Reason for adjusting the pic size

"Users hate scrolling left to right. Vertical scrolling seems to be okay, maybe because it's much more common. Web pages that require horizontal scrolling in standard-sized windows, such as 800x600 pixels, are particularly annoying.

From Top Ten Web-Design Mistakes by Jakob Nielsen (usability consultant)

With the pictures of the 5 movie Bonds at a 125px width, you are causing people with 800x600 screens to horizontal scroll. Zzyzx11 00:07, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • I Found The Answer!!!

Wikipedia:Picture tutorial#Wiki markup and CSS Zzyzx11 01:49, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fact check

I fact checked a lot of the information (specifically dates) using a variety of resources in addition to the books that I actually have - Biographies of Fleming, the Bedside Companion (Benson), etc.

• The specific date of Bond's birth in which we only had "other data point to November 16" - I couldn't find the actual day anywhere so I removed this until a reputable source can be found - however I did expand on 1924.

• The year in which he lost his virginity - I fixed this too. According to Fleming he was 16. What I can't confirm, although I left in, is the mention in Brokenclaw. I'll leave that to someone who has the novel. It could have been accidentally flipped, which is my guess. K1Bond007 22:22, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Biography

The biography section is an absolute mess to be honest. I tried to organize it, at first literary v cinematic, but I had to change that to reduce redundancy from "In the novels ____, but in the films ___." Some of the information is redundant found in the Character overview section or for that section entirely out of place, such as the mention of Bond's polymathy. Honestly, I believe the best course of action here is to remove it all from the page to it's own page on the character where more sense of this can be made. - Truly not all information as it would be best to leave information about the background of the character, such as what hes known for and where the name, inspiration (Fleming) came from, information that if you're searching for James Bond you'd actually want instead of details such as when Bond lost his virginity or to a more extreme extent the lengthly information on when Bond was born. The more detailed information isn't needed for this page, especially when its written like this.

This needs to be discussed at least on how we can organize this information better. Please note that this page is horribly over the preferable article size (currently 50+kilobyes when we should be technically down around 35), a cut like this would be pretty good. At least discuss options here. K1Bond007 07:39, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

One possible alternative:

If the dual biographies (book and movie) of James Bond are similar, one could write an integrated "story". But if they're sufficiently different, then perhaps the approach to take is to write the "book" biography or the "movie" biography, and then write a separate section describing how the "other" biography differs.

Which to write as the main biography? Well, a purist would probably write the book-based biography. But more people are probably familiar with the movie-based character. Is there enough "movie-based" biography to make a compelling, consistent story?

Atlant 11:24, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They're pretty different. Even the things that make Bond, Bond such as ordering a martini shaken not stirred or announcing himself as "Bond.. James Bond.." are not in most books (rarely if used). The problem with the literary version is that Fleming, besides You Only Live Twice, didn't write a backstory for Bond. A lot of it came from John Pearson's official biography and soon to be Charlie Higson's Young James Bond. So you have technically three people telling you similar, but different things (see the paragraph on age) + a different cinematic biography = pretty confusing. I understand most of it and its still confusing to me from the way we have it written, grouped together etc. K1Bond007 15:39, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Psychological/Medical survey on James Bond

Does anyone know about this old Psychological/Medical survey, where several psychiatrists/doctors etc. investigated the Bond character, and found that his personal habits, (sex with exotic prostitutes, heavy drinking, smoking etc) would have been just as dangerous for him as adventurous lifestyle?

Never heard of this, but all of the above were contributors to Ian Fleming's death (well except the sex probably). K1Bond007 15:32, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

SilverFin, the car

About the line addressing the issue of the Bentley, I'm not really sure how to rephrase this. I'll list the facts and if anybody wants to put this info back in then go for it I guess. The truth is in SilverFin Bond inherits a 1.5 liter Bamford & Martin Sidevalue Short Chassis Tourer. Bamford & Martin later became Aston Martin. In the novel he's thirteen and learns to drive from his Uncle. In fact Bond's knowledge and love for cars and engines actually comes from his Uncle. The Bentley, from what I understand is (in the book) currently owned by his Aunt Charmain who is his guardian (the Uncle and Aunt are sister and brother of James's father, FYI). It is possible that his Aunt's car is not the Bentley spoke of in Casino Royale, but it is identical, Bond has a thought like "if ever I were to own a car it would be one like this." Considering the book takes place in 1933, I'm sure its the same one.

So really the issue of the car isn't that big of a deal. At 13 Bond knows how to drive and technically has his own car (though its technically stored).

I also don't think adding the line about the Bentley isn't useful to determine Bond's age since it's creation itself is unclear. Bond says its from 1933 in Casino Royale and Live and Let Die, but in Moonraker its from 1930. This is an example of Fleming fudging the numbers (3 years, Moonraker is the 3rd book). K1Bond007 16:33, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Whoever is reverting my edits

hey, i realize this page is important to you. but this is wiki.

I have no problem with you criticizing my writing, correct me if you wish. but i do have a problem with you reverting my work like it was vandalism. it is not. I like bond and i'm just trying to make this page better. and i know you are too. i think there's a bit of ego involved here.

if you don't like my changes, react in the spirit of wiki and edit my writing as i have done to yours. don't just discard my changes with a reversion as though you don't have the time to even consider my writing and edit it.

Humbly, Joe21983813

Actually, to revert when a number of changes have been made that need to be changed is perfectly fine. K1Bond007 beat me to it because I felt the changes added nothing to the article and in a couple of places were quite confusing. If there are any particular reverts to which you object, I invite you to go into the history, cut-and-paste the edit in question here, and then we can look at it. I would like to remind you of point No. 2 under the "Do not submit copyrighted work without permission" headline on the Edit page: "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it." Editing -- and reverting -- is in the spirit of Wikipedia provided it is done so in the spirit of making the article has good as possible. Not everyone will agree. That's why we have a discussion page. PS. I have gone through the first few sections and done some copyediting. I've kept some of your edits and reverted others, and have also cleaned up stuff that I have written there in the past. 23skidoo 21:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not to say all your edits were bad, but I disagreed with a good number of them as most either didn't add anything to the article as 23skidoo mentioned or were merely rewordings of sentences that didn't have the same effect or was missing information including the opening statement that James Bond is fictional, which is a common thing to note at the top of fictional characters, organizations or whatever on Wikipedia to seperate from what is real and what isn't regardless if it's explained that he/she/it comes from a work of literature or film. James T. Kirk for example. K1Bond007 21:42, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Well, i will say that i don't nearly have as much time as you all to bicker over this. so enjoy. sometimes, I think the closedmindedness of wikipedians hurt this this article. so, good luck and good bye.

Sorry you're upset at all this, but part of being a Wikipedia editor is you have to work together. You'll find it in most other articles. And if you think K1Bond007 (or myself) have any ownership over this article, or think that it's perfect, check the failed feature article nomination link at the top of this talk page. My suggestion is to spend time exploring the different pages and looking at how edits are handled and what types of edits people make. You'll find, for example, that not all reverts are due to vandalism by any means (I certainly never saw your edits as such), and reverts happen to users with longtime experience here (happened to me just the other day at The Prisoner when I posted something the general consensus disagreed with). There is no close-mindedness here except to make articles as clean, clear, and factually accurate as possible. 23skidoo 22:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with this totally. K1Bond007 22:10, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Okay boys, I'm not referring to the recent edits. I can see how some of my writing was incorporated. i defintely appreciate that.

What i am refering to is the revert done by k1bond007 here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Bond&diff=15508735&oldid=15483152

I spent some time doing the revisions that I thought would improve on this article and bond007 just deletes all of them with one click. I like editing wiki, but k1bond007's action was a real turn off. what's the point of doing all of this if a zealous editor will change it without considering its merits, or even explaining himself???

I can see K1bond007 likes to guard his territory here, and i think it damages the article. I certainly found it hard to read when i first looked it up. that's why i changed it. but i now realize why its hard to read - people who try to improve it are shut out by egotisical reversions like the one i saw.

again, i like doing this - that's why we all spend time here, but that was the last time i'm going to help editing the bond page. i'm sure some of y'all are glad to hear that. bye.

Please don't forget to sign your comments as it makes it easier to read these threads. I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on the assessment of K1Bond007's motives (at the risk of talking out of turn). Forget his nick for a moment, he has no "territory" to guard any more than I do. What occurred was an obvious difference of opinion, but the fact is anyone who edits Wikipedia could have jumped in and reverted K1Bond007's reversion of your work. The fact no one did suggests implied agreement with his edit. I could have reverted his changes anytime I wanted to, but I didn't because I happened to agree with them; I was able to incorporate some of your additions later. But the fact is several of your edits resulted in incomplete sentences and improper grammar, and you also created a couple of factual errors by deleting material (i.e. changing a sentence so that it would read at first glance that Bond was a real person, as noted by K1Bond007). The same sort of editing will happen in other articles. It's the nature of this community and we don't always agree. The "Golden Pen Attitude" simply cannot exist because there's always someone waiting to revert or "mercilessly edit" you. And I treat personally everyone fairly; unless you're a known vandal I don't go out of my way to see what Joe21983813 or K1Bond007 is up to (although I could if I wanted to). I have more than 200 Wikipedia pages on my Watchlist, and if I see an edit that in my opinion is not a good one, I will revert or edit it and am prepared to discuss my actions with the parties involved. And someone may come along and make another change, or revert me, or say to hell with the article and nominate it for deletion. Most people have no problem with edits, and they usually submit another edit that 9 times out of 10 is better than the last one.23skidoo 02:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hey this has taken up way too much time. all i can say is i have never come across this the attitude i've seen here on any other page i've done.: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Bond&diff=15508735&oldid=15483152

yes the edit was imperfect, and so was the orinal article, but one does not discard it completely. you say that bond007's revert was justified because no one reinstated my version. tis a silly argument because no one would have saw it. I say again i do not have a golden pen attitude. i have an attitude that does not react well to revertin my writing like it was trash. bond007 didn't comment, didn't edit didn't keep anything. i'm tired. this is my last edit here. i will read your comments, though if you have any for me. thanks boys. Joe21983813 02:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Joe21983813 02:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think I've already said enough on the matter (in addition to what 23skidoo has already said) and I did explain the reasoning for my revert in the edit summary as well as here. All I can do now is quote Wikipedia policy. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it. Anyone and everyone has the opportunity to revert my edits and I do not, regardless of what your belief is, view this page or any other page for that matter as my "territory". My apologies if you think my edit was personal or something. K1Bond007 03:36, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Famous numbers categorization

Regarding the recent revert of my moving the Category:Famous numbers tag from this page to 007 (a disambig page), my reason for categorizing the number itself instead of James Bond is that the 007 page lists both the articles which make it a famous number, namely the one about our good Cdr. Bond, and the one about the Korean Air Flight 007 shootdown. In short, 007 is a number, "James Bond" is not. --Wernher 17:30, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I understand your rationale, but James Bond is the ONLY reason why the number is famous. I don't see TWA Flight 800 in that category and it is far more known than the Korean Air Flight 007. To also say "James Bond is not a number" is also a good point, but then what about "The Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything", "Number of the Beast (numerology)", and a couple others on that page. They're no more numbers than James Bond. K1Bond007 19:13, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I guess we'll just leave it there. Main thing is that Bond is a member of the category, this way or that (shaken or stirred, as it were...). --Wernher 19:48, 16 July 2005 (UTC)