Talk:Spectre (2015 film)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Casting

Please add your questions or concerns here...

Extra casting

How is the website from an extra casting company that works with the Spectre filmmakers listing extras who have been cast in the Mexican portion of filming, including names and roles played not a reliable source for extras cast in the portion of the film? -http://juliotoledo.com/extras/index.php/home/seleccion-casting-007 http://www.milenio.com/hey/cine/Buscan-espectros-mexicanos-James-Bond_0_460153998.html http://www.larazonsanluis.com/index.php/agencia-reforma/espectaculos/item/65595-filmara-007-9-dias-en-el-df 80.44.205.48 (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The first link in the list (juliotoledo.com) tells us absolutely nothing at all. It's a list a names, unconnected to the film. This was the only link you added to the article, which is why the whole lot was pulled: because it doesn't support the information it claimed to. The larazonsanluis.com reference has some good info to use, but the milenio.com isn't working on my iPad, so I can't comment on it. Short answer: drop the info back in, using the larazonsanluis.com reference, and make sure all the information in the sentence is based on something in the source. - SchroCat (talk) 00:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Additional Cast

Prisonermonkeys has added some "additional cast members" with the tag - should these be removed until WP:RS are found? 2.101.167.133 (talk) 22:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Stephanie Sigman

Stephanie Sigman is not a member of the principal cast, and so should not be listed with the other members of the principal cast. She has not been announced as a member of the principal cast, and the actors who were introduced at the 007 Stage were announced as the principal cast. Furthermore, during production of Skyfall, EON announced that they had cast an actor (whose name escapes me right now) in the film who ultimately proved to be the police officer who stopped M on the bridge before MI6 blew up. Therefore, since we cannot conclusively prove that Sigman is a member of the principal cast, we cannot list her with the other members of the principal cast, which implies that she is is a member. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Ralph Fiennes as M / Mallory

Bernard Lee's M was named as Admiral Sir Miles Messervy, he is credited as M in the films and Wikipedia articles.

Robert Brown in The Spy Who Loved Me was named as Admiral Hargreaves, after Bernard Lee's death his character was promoted to M, and he was credited as such in the films and Wikipedia articles from Octopussy onwards.

Ralph Fiennes character, from SPECTRE until he leaves the series, is now M, and should be credited as such in the article - as this is the precedent set from previous James Bond articles until such time as the SPECTRE posters or film credits show differently 2.101.167.133 (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

He is credited as M, but as Mallory too. This is something of a stopgap until the credits roll on the film and we can see how he has been credited: we will follow the cast list as soon as we know it. We don't have to follow the other lists at the moment - and certainly not for Brown, as no-one know whether his character was Hargreaves or not. - SchroCat (talk) 10:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

And we have no name for Dench's M, either—only the apocryphal suggestion that the character's name was "Olivia Mansfield". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/007/status/547007252574785537 - From the official twitter account. Shown as M, not Mallory. https://twitter.com/007/status/540462487335075840 - Again, M - not Mallory. 2.101.167.133 (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

At the risk of stating the obvious, that's a Twitter feed, not the film's closing credits. - SchroCat (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

And even then, we still know that the character's name is "Gareth Mallory". Having a code-name doesn't change that. To continue listing him as "Ralph Fiennes as M" would be the same as listing "Daniel Craig as 007". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Desmond Llewelyn as Boothroyd/Q? 2.101.167.133 (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

If the character has a name, then I don't see why not. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The point is even though Desmond Llewelyn's character had a name, and had one from his first appearance, from Goldfinger onwards he was credited as Q in the official credits (and this is reflected in wikipedia's articles on each of the films.) The announcement of the cast for SPECTRE, and the happy birthday message for Fiennes, boths suggest that this will be the case for M in this film. Even though he was named Mallory previously, it appears from this film onwards he will be credited as M.

And that's pure speculation. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Please stop reverting these edits. There is a consensus to keep it as is until such time as a full cast list is published. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Can I point out here that that there is not a consensus, it seems to be 2 against two in this talk page, myself (2.101.167.133 and the previous poster (106.69.181.205 and yourself and SchroCat, each have valid points. My point being that the Premise, in the lead in to the article, names the character as M. In the Cast section I have changed it to Ralph Fiennes as M/Gareth Mallory - which works with both sides consensus and is clearer for the article, especially with the lead in Premise 2.101.167.133 (talk) 00:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

A consensus is not a vote. And that issue—if ever it was one—has been fixed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

As per the press release "While M battles political forces to keep the secret service alive" Here 2.101.167.133 (talk) 02:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The press release is not a cast list. You need a consensus to make these changes, as referring to the character exclusively as M is writing in-universe. If you persist in trying to force through these changes despite the existing consensus, you can and probably will be referred to ANI for vandalism. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Except that it isn't vandalism, it's valid editing

"Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page. Abusive creation or usage of user accounts and IP addresses may also constitute vandalism."

I have given valid points listing the character as "Ralph Fiennes as M/Gareth Mallory" Just because two editors agree on a point, it doesn't make it a consensus - especially when the point is counteracted by two other editors. 2.101.167.133 (talk) 02:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

You have ignored an established consensus. An edit in agreement with you does not make for consensus, espevially when that editor has not participated in this discussion. Furthermore, your "valid point" ignores the way multiple actirs have played characters with the same name, and representing content in the form of prose is generally preferable to listing it, as you have done. It's also inconsistent with the description of Bond. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

What makes it an "Established consensus"? and how does it make it preferable to an official Press release from Eon/Sony/MGM, naming the character as M? 2.101.167.133 (talk) 02:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Because we are naming the character as M. But we are also recognising that he has an actual name, as well. Expressing that in prose is preferable to simply listing him as M/Gareth Mallory. And, as pointed out, it is consistent with the description of Bond having a code-name as well. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Except that the Press Release names Daniel Craig's character as Bond in the synopsis, rather than 007. It names Fiennes character as M, rather than Mallory 2.101.167.133 (talk) 03:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

But you have no objection to Bond being listed as both Bond and 007, whereas you do object to Mallory being listed as Mallory and M. You also haven't addressed the way two actors have played two characters with the same name in two consecutive films. Recognising Fiennes as Mallory further distinguishes him from Dench's M. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

"whereas you do object to Mallory being listed as Mallory and M" This is incorrect, my compromise was to list him as "Ralph Fiennes as M/Gareth Mallory" which works for both camps. I have also pointed out that Desmond Llewelyn's character Q was listed as such in all articles after From Russia with Love, yet in the credits for From Russia with Love and the article, his character is credited as "Boothroyd"/"Major Boothroyd" 2.101.167.133 (talk) 10:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

As I pointed out, prose is preferable to listing the names with a backslash. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree: slashes in text are a poor practice to get into. - SchroCat (talk) 11:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Alessandro Cremona

Why is Alessandro Cremona listed in the main cast as Marco Sciarra, when Stephanie Sigman is not, seeing as Sigman has been officially announced by EON/Sony and been involved with press conferences etc, when Cremona's character has not? Isn't listing him as main cast when listing Sigman as additional cast Speculation / Crystal? It should be both listed or neither listed 2.101.167.133 (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Simple—we know the nature of the role Cremona is playing. We know nothing of Sigman other than that she's in the film and her character has a name. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Just because some reports name him as an assassin, he shouldn't be named as principle cast until he is officially named by EON or the studios 2.101.167.133 (talk) 01:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

EON didn't name Chistensen as White, and you have had no problem with it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Except that Christensen confirmed his involvement and his character is known to be a major part of the Bond universe from Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace. 2.101.167.133 (talk) 01:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

That's in-universe. You're assuming that he is important based on his previous appearances. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

True, but it's a lot stronger than the information on Cremona. I'd have said if you want to remove Christensen, be my guest, but the teaser negates that. It still doesn't warrant Cremona's inclusion in the principle cast 2.101.167.133 (talk) 02:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I should also point out that the source you provided states "It is probably safe to assume that Marco Sciarra will not survive the high-octane opening sequence." and "Mexican actress Stephanie Sigman, who only appears in the pre-credits action, will be Bond's accomplice in the field." 2.101.167.133 (talk) 02:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I have seen alternative sources that describe Sigman's role as being very minor—she is a bystander, not a field agent. I have not included those references in the article because I do not think that the role is large enough to justify any further detail in the article. On the other hand, Marco Sciarra might die early on, but he is important to the story—his funeral is shown in the trailer, and his name is clearly visible on an epitaph in set photos. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Update—I have included that source in the article to substantiate Cremona as Sciarra. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Folks, one of the few things that IMDB is accepted for as a WP:RS is cast lists [1]. Sigman and others are listed meaning there is an official source (reliable to IMDB staff at least) stating that she is in the movie. What her role is or is not currently is insignificant and can easily be updated when the movie comes out. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The only things that IMDB is suitable as a source for is writing credits when they are directly supplied by the WGA and MPAA ratings per WP:CITINGIMDB. Neither WP:CITINGIMDB nor WP:RS/IMDB state it is acceptable for cast credits; in fact cast lists—especially for unreleased films—frequently contain errors. Betty Logan (talk) 19:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

That's an excellent cite of policy, but the reality is there are 80,000 (give or take) instances of the use of IMDB on WP. Are you telling me these are all writing citations? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Yep, the IMDb template on the bottom of each film will guarantee high numbers, but that doesn't mean that it's being used to support any information in articles (and where they are used in articles, broadly they shouldn't be (as per the above). We have other reliable sources for the members of the cast here, which are much more reliable than IMDb ever will be. - SchroCat (talk) 21:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Even the template use doesn't explain numbers like what IMDB has attributed to it. I'm not saying that it should be used over clearly WP:RS sources, but the claims that its not reliable for cast lists just don't go anywhere or result in anything. The site is relied on as the work history of the entertainment industry (performers and otherwise) including the primary union (SAG/AFTRA). Again, the reality is that IMDB contains information that is cited as a source on this site every day. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I would say the majority of articles on Wikipedia probably contain at least one piece of original research or unsourced claim too but that doesn't mean it is acceptable. The problems with IMDB highlighted are at Variety Insight. Betty Logan (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Betty, wow, thank you, I did not know about this, good stuff! I won't be signing up for a subscription, but I'll have to look into it to make sure my personal entry stay intact. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

When it comes to Sigman, we have a source—the one about Cremona's casting—that makes it pretty clear that her role is extremely minor. Yes, she was formally announced as having a role when production first moved to Mexico, but if you read the section on shooting in Mexico, it's clear that the announcement was made to generate publicity. Unlike Cremona, who clearly plays a major role in the opening scenes and who has some impact throughout the film, I can find no evidence whatsoever that Sigman has a role significant enough for inclusion in the cast list.

To put it in perspective, think back to the scene in Skyfall where M is stopped on the bridge and witnesses the explosion at MI6. She is stopped by a policeman, and when he was cast, EON put out a press release announcing it. This was a role that lasted for a matter of seconds and had a single speaking line—hardly significant enough for inclusion in the cast list in the Skyfall article, is it? So where is the evidence that Sigman is playing a big enough role for inclusion in the cast list, given that we have a source which states that she is in the film for a single scene? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

And why were all the discussions collapsed and condensed into a single section? It's bloody confusing. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Sequel?

I'm wondering if the film can be referred to as a sequel to Skyfall, in the same way that Quantum Of Solace is to Royale on that page? The trailer features the bombed ruins of the MI6 building, the appearance of Mr White (now the only villain played by the same actor to have appeared in the series more than twice), Moneypenny specfically referring to items "recovered from Skyfall", and in the plot summary here referencing Raoul Silva.

Wouldn't lose sleep over it if not, though - just find it interesting that there seems to be a consistent in-universe continuity being maintained for the first time since...well, the Connery years I suppose? Nsign (talk) 12:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe, once the film is released, or based on any further Eon press releases, but I think the evidence is too thin just yet for us to commit to it. - SchroCat (talk) 12:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thin in what way, given the above? Nsign (talk) 14:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thin as in not enough to justify it yet. Tiny snippets in a trailer can be massively misleading, and rather than mislead people, we can just not mention the sequal question until we have clarity on the matter either from the film itself or from Eon (or an interview with a senior cast member). There's no rush on shoving in something we think may be true if there isn't any justification: time will sort it out, and the article will reflect it at the right time. - SchroCat (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

OK fair enough. Nsign (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

(BTW, to say that Mr White is "the only villain played by the same actor to have appeared in the series more than twice" is wrong: General Gogol - the head of the KGB - was played by Walter Gotell in six films). - SchroCat (talk) 15:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

"Villain"? Bit strong. He was never a villain in the same way that Blofeld, Stromberg, Drax etc were. In at least three films he has common cause with MI6: in The Spy Who Loved Me he's working in a formal partnership with them to investigate Stromberg, in Octopussy he and Bond are both working to stop Orlov (one of the actual villains), and in A View to a Kill he opposes Zorin and even stops by at M's office for a friendly Scotch to award Bond the Order of Lenin! I seem to recall he turns up at the end of The Living Daylights too to grant the Bond girl some kind of travel visa as a reward? Pretty supportive kind of villain. Nsign (talk) 15:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh - Moonraker, too. MI6 phones him up in the middle of the night to ask if he put the space thing there. He didn't, because he wasn't the villain, again. Come to think of it, the guy was an ally more often than not. Nsign (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Coming back to the subject at hand, all we can really say about those establishing shots in the trailer is that they ground Spectre in the same timeline as the other films. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes...which I would have thought made it a sequel. I'm trying to think of other examples of films set in consistent timelines referencing plot points from previous entries that aren't defined as either sequels or prequels, but can't...but hey, its fine with me - I get the reasoning, was just a suggestion. Nsign (talk) 08:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

OHMSS may the one you're trying to think of – it references several of the earlier films (it was a way of reinforcing Lazenby as Bond). In doing so it put the film in a timeline with its predecessors, but wasn't a sequel per se. That's the closest I can think of one of the films not being a direct sequel. - SchroCat (talk) 08:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Casting Section

What is Wikipedia guidelines on Movies Casting List?

Should a Casting List just contain information about "Who" is in the Movie and not what happens to them during the movie?

"Monica Bellucci as Lucia Sciarra, the widow of an assassin killed by Bond."

This description does not tell Who Lucia husband was, who was her widow?

Would this be better then?

Marco Sciarra

"Monica Bellucci as Lucia Sciarra, the widow of Marco Sciarra (an assassin) who was killed by Bond." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbdavis07 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The entry on Cremona as Marco Sciarra makes the relationship clear. Including it as part of Lucia's entry would just be redundant. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

MOS:FILM is the guideline, and says "If roles are described outside of the plot summary, keep such descriptions concise." Whether to describe her as the "widow" or "wife" of another character would depend on the plot - from the source given, it sounds as if Marco Sciarra dies in a pre-credits chase sequence, so "widow" seems fine here. --McGeddon (talk) 08:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I think "Monica Bellucci as Lucia Sciarra, the widow of Marco Sciarra" reads better than "Monica Bellucci as Lucia Sciarra, the widow of an assassin killed by Bond". Nothing to do with spoilers, because it still includes the widow part, and Marco Sciarra's description describes him as Monica's husband, so it keeps continuity in the article 2.101.167.133 (talk) 10:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't need continuity in the article if it's a redundancy. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Spoilers Alert

Even through Wikipedia no longer officially supports Spoiler Alerts Wikipedia:Spoiler Could we at least include spoilers at the very end of the article?

Having this in the Cast Section at the very top is not good :)

"Monica Bellucci as Lucia Sciarra, the widow of an assassin killed by Bond."

Can this be mention at the very end of the article and this not "censoring" but providing readers a chance not to read it if they don't want to?

I would find it some what okay to have it after the movie been out for over a year or two, but having it just released would spoil things for those that had not seen the movie yet.

I understand the censorship issue, but that can be resolved just by including that information at the very end of the article and not at the very top.

Don't even have to have a special section or warning, just list spoilers at the very end that is all.

Kbdavis07 (talk) 05:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

No, a section dedicated to "spoiled" info would just look like trivia, and contain the plot and cast list. If you don't want to know what happens films, don't visit their Wiki articles, as they will tell you exactly what happens, and give you information about the characters. - SchroCat (talk) 05:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Kbdavis07, please stop trying to circumvent WP:SPOILER by trying to remove content based on other policies. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Dangit, I didn't KNOW that was a spoiler until YOU mentioned it. Nice going Kbdavis07... --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Jez Butterworth

Whilst I understand and abide by SchroCat's revert of my initial edit to the infobox, regarding Jez Butterworth (We don't know if he will get an official credit), I believe a footnote is acceptable, as it is known and credited (with a reliable reference) that he worked on the screenplay, even if he isn't credited. A footnote is a practical way of showing this for anyone interested without going against official credits 2.101.167.133 (talk) 21:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

He's mentioned in the body of the article, so there is no need for a footnote. The MoS on the IB stresses the inclusion of credited writers only. This is another one of those pieces of information that will have to wait until further details of the film come out, possibly close to the release date. – SchroCat (talk) 22:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

actor or actress?

The article says Monica Belluci is the oldest "actor" ever to play a Bond girl. But isn't the female form of actor = actress? 93.219.179.115 (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

No. The gender neutral term is "actor", for male or female. - SchroCat (talk) 19:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Per MOS:GNL. Betty Logan (talk) 19:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Childhood acquaintances

Removed from article because of conjecture/WP:NOR - The trailer shows that Hannes Oberhauser was Bond's temporary guardian, and showed a photo of two younger boys with a man. It does not say that they knew each other, so we should not say they were childhood acquaintances in the article. Also, the line "It's been a long time" could be interpreted multiple ways. Please don't say they were childhood acquaintances, we have no evidence that they were 2.103.20.108 (talk) 21:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Stop edit warring on this. Several editors have reverted back to the current version, so discuss on this page BEFORE trying to force your preferred version onto the page please. As far as I am aware, the information is not just from the trailer. – SchroCat (talk) 11:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Are there any references? 213.205.194.42 (talk) 11:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Why not look for them, rather than just delete the info? - SchroCat (talk) 11:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I have and the only evidence I could find was discussions on the trailer pointing out that Hannes was Bond's temporary guardian, so "Bond and Franz must be foster brothers" - that's conjecture as for all we know Franz was somewhere else. There's been nothing I could find that specifically states they knew each other. Which is why I think until a reference can be found to support the claim other than trailer breakdowns I think it should be removed for now 213.205.194.42 (talk) 11:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Where on earth does it say anything about them being foster brothers? – SchroCat (talk) 11:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't in the article, I'm talking about websites I've seen. I was just pointing out that there is no evidence rather than theories that they knew each other previously 213.205.194.42 (talk) 12:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Release date

It has now been officially confirmed that the release date will be on 26 October in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland followed by the worldwide roll out in November. Please do not change it back again - http://www.007.com/spectre-world-premiere-in-london/ This is NOT "based on the old press release info, BEFORE the change"

https://twitter.com/007/status/622053335768678401 https://www.facebook.com/JamesBond007/photos/a.314165885264996.95866.266350353379883/1103098536371723/?type=1 78.146.47.250 (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

NBA Finals

I have had to remove a passage from the marketing section several times, which details the release of the TV spot during the NBA Finals; however, it keeps getting added back into the article. I have been removing it because of the guidelines on marketing sections in WP:MOSFILM, which states the following:

"Do not merely identify and describe the content of customary marketing methods such as trailers, TV spots, radio ads, and posters."

Simply mentioning that a TV spot was released (and when) contravenes this. There was nothing particularly notable about it, except that it was released, and it is a common enough marketing ploy. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Copyvio

It his evening I reverted a re-write of the premise section (I called it unsourced, as I didn't realise that the sources had been changed), but it turned out that it was a major COPYVIO from the Eon press release. The IP tried to claim that they had re-written the prose, but the comparison on my talk page shows this claim is untrue. Could people please keep an eye out for straight copying or close paraphrasing please. – SchroCat (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted it to the old version that had been in place for weeks. The updated version didn't add anything that the old one did not already contain, and the old version has none of the problems associated with COPYVIO. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I think that's the best move until either something more concrete comes out, or the film itself is released. Trying to double guess the plot from snippets in a trailer seems pointless at this stage. - SchroCat (talk) 14:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

SPECTRE

SPECTRE exists also in Never Say Never Again plus leader of the SPECTRE attacks Bond in For Your Eyes Only, though SPECTRE as an organisation is not mentioned there. -Melilac (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

NSNA is not an Eon film, so has no relevance here. Neither Spectre nor its leader attack Bond in FYEO: Eon were careful not to identify the bald man in a wheelchair as anything to do with Spectre/Blofeld. - SchroCat (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

marking the organisation's first appearance in a film since... It does not say in an Eon produced film, so NSNA should either haver relevance or that sentence should be re-worded. Neither Spectre nor its leader attack Bond in FYEO: Eon were careful not to identify the bald man in a wheelchair as anything to do with Spectre/Blofeld. While the person was left to be anonymous, there were still soem clues to identify him as Blofeld (cat, Tracy, who was killed from Blofeld's car).-Melilac (talk) 18:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

? cat, Tracy, who was killed from Blofeld's car? That's nothing to do with FYEO - that's an entirely different film altogether. – SchroCat (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Worldwide release date

Page states that worldwide release date is 6th November. This is incorrect. Movie will open around the world on that weekend, however it will follow local customs on day of week when movies are released - meaning that it will be released in some countries as soon as 4th November (Wednesday of that week). IMDb confirms this: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2379713/releaseinfo?ref_=tt_dt_dt

As movie will open in countries around the world before 6th November, I suggest editing page to reflect this. Stating that 26th November is UK release date and 6th November is worldwide release date ignores fact, that many countries across the world will have movie released between these dates.

EDIT: I found out that IMDb is considered unreliable source, so I'd like to add to more sources: http://ufd.cz/system/files/clanky/32-2015.xls - official release plan of Movie Distributors Union of Czech Republic http://www.ufd.sk/filmy - official release plan of Movie Distributors Union of Slovakia These are two countries with release dates before 5th November. I believe you could find similar sources on film distributors' websites in other countries listed on IMDb.

--95.105.235.40 (talk) 09:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Budget

Will editors please refrain from adding unconfirmed budget estimates attributed to sources such as Forbes and The Hollywood Reporter, published much earlier in the year. The "mid 300s" figure comes from the Sony leaks, and apart from the figure being very vague the leaks also made it clear that Sony were pursuing cost reduction. In short it is not known what the budget ended up so it is best to wait until there is further information. Adding erroneous information only serves to misinform and there is no WP:NODEADLINE. Betty Logan (talk) 03:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Poster updates

Please refer to the newly released poster (at 007.com) high res version here http://114.imagebam.com/download/Ap3qegZzyOKVMIS4ibSXgQ/43361/433605351/spectre-Spectre-Onesheet_rgb.jpg - Jez Butterworth is given a Screenplay credit, Daniel Craig is given a Co-Producer credit and Ralph Fiennes is listed as "M" - Why were my edits rejected as "rubbish" and "Not on the Poster"? 78.146.47.250 (talk) 20:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, before the poster's release we had people talk pages insisting that we don't know whether Fienne's will be credited as 'M' or 'Mallory' in SPECTRE so the Mallory credit was kept. While this poster confirms beyond any doubt that he will be credited as M in the final film, and even though we know his character's real name, the credits should be accurately reflected. (In the same way earlier articles list Desmond Llewelyn's character as 'Q', rather than Major Boothroyd in keeping with the credits of the film.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.68.24.146 (talk) 03:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Stop feckng around with the Mallory credit – as discussed previously this is one and the same person, so the order doesn't matter. Presently the article has Mallory first, which is fine. – SchroCat (talk) 07:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually the discussion previously was resolved as crediting both names, until we knew what the official credit was. Thanks to the poster we now know that he will be officially credited as 'M' in the film and cast-list- something you yourself said previously was what was required for a change. (I've attatched the relevant quote from you below.)

He is credited as M, but as Mallory too. This is something of a stopgap until the credits roll on the film and we can see how he has been credited: we will follow the cast list as soon as we know it. We don't have to follow the other lists at the moment - and certainly not for Brown, as no-one know whether his character was Hargreaves or not. - SchroCat (talk) 10:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

As you said the previous credit was a stop-gap, now that we know that he is officially credited as 'M' (thanks to the poster) the credit should be changed accordingly (and there is precedant of doing so in Bond films- Desmond Llewelyn is credited as Q from Goldfinger onwards, even though he was introduced as Major Boothroyd in From Russia With Love.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.68.24.146 (talk) 08:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

We,don't go by the poster block for the credit list - thus "credits roll on the film" - so stop edit warring just because of your own preference. - SchroCat (talk) 09:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Why would the films Official Theatrical Poster not be considered a credible enough source to justify the change? It is an official enough source to credit Jezz Butterworth as a screenwriter on the film, so why should the clear statement "and Ralph Fiennes as 'M'" be enough to tell us that he will be credited as 'M' and not Mallory in the film? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.68.24.146 (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Can we go for majority consensus with this? I vote crediting as M 78.146.47.250 (talk) 17:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

As before, we can still wait for the credits and make a final decision then. – SchroCat (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd second the call for a majority concensus, and I am still curious about why the Theatrical Poster is not considered an official enough source. 106.68.24.146 (talk) 03:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Firstly consensus is not determined through a vote- this is not a democracy, as we base things on the guidelines and strength of arguement rather than how many people can change their IP address to register their vote. Secondly the MoS bases the cast list on the film's credits, not the poster. The poster gives some basic info, which we use to order the infobox, not the cast list, as the two normally often differ. - SchroCat (talk) 04:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

There is WP:NODEADLINE. The poster may accurately reflect how the actors are credited in the film in this case, but the film itself ultimately has the "final say". It comes out in less than two months and many of these issues will be resolved naturally when it does. I understand that editors are eager to see the article develop but at the end of the day Wikipedia is about documenting facts not assumptions. Betty Logan (talk) 07:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The new TV spot again has the credit 'Ralph Fiennes as M', and given the fact that all official releases from the film have consistantly credited him as 'M' (the Sony press release, cast announcement, plot synopsis, official poster credits, trailer credits etc) it would appear logical to change his credit to acknowledge the officially released information.106.68.110.218 (talk) 07:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Lack of Listed US Release Date

Can someone explain why only the UK release date is being listed and why there's a message in Edit Mode that says not to add any others? I read the WP:FilmRelease page, but didn't find an explanation. I understand it is a UK film, but it isn't a UK exclusive. Skyfall had more than just the UK release date listed, so why isn't it the same for Spectre? Valenka (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Any reason why we should put the date in for the US, and not others? Per FILMRELEASE we don't just list places we want to because that's where we live. – SchroCat (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:FILMRELEASE seems clear enough " Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival, a world premiere, or a public release, and the release date(s) in the country or countries that produced the film,". Spectre's first release is in the UK and it was produced in the UK, so no other country dates need to be present. - X201 (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

International release

International release is on 5th October. I supported this with references from official websites of movie distributors and their associations in different European countries. Yet, this change was once again reverted. May ask for reason why? How can movie distributor be an unreliable source? --95.105.235.40 (talk) 10:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

See the discussion above this.- X201 (talk) 10:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry , thought you were talking about the infobox. - X201 (talk) 10:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't the title be capitalized?

Shouldn't the title of this page be all capitalized since the title of the film is an acronym? The official Sony sights write the title as SPECTRE as these links can show. [2] [3] OAN92 (talk) 10:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

See this previous discussion. The way Sony write the word has nothing to do with the way we do - they also capitalise Skyfall in the second link. - SchroCat (talk) 10:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Sam Smith reviews

The critical reviews of Smith's song have so far been negative. Most of the "mixed" reviews are coming from fans, not critics, and critical opinion is what should be covered. If you want to change the critical consensus, then more positive reviews from reliable sources need to be introduced. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Baron Samedi

Who is playing Baron Samedi in this movie?2602:306:3789:8B00:C437:B1BB:F635:1C71 (talk) 07:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

No-one. - SchroCat (talk) 07:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the editor in question has mistaken the costume in the backdrop of the poster is Baron Samedi. It's just a costume from the Day of the Dead sequence. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Capitalisation

Comment moved from /Talk:Spectre (2015 film) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The title of the film is SPECTRE in capital letters and the original Ian Fleming novels where SPECTRE originated are clear that it is an acronym for Special Executive for Counterintelligence, Terrorism, Revenge, and Extortion, hence the capitalisation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pitcroft (talk • contribs)

While that might be true for the novels and the original run of films, you need a reliable, verifiable source to make that change here. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Just because it is in the novel doesn't mean it should be for the movies. M was also a man in all of the novels, unless I missed one out? There was also no invisible carCharlr6 (talk) 11:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

As for the comment - 'With the acquisition of the film rights and the organisation's re-introduction to the series' continuity, the SPECTRE acronym was discarded and the organisation reimagined as "Spectre"' - there is no independent and verifiable confirmation of this. EON productions have made no such clarifications on the matter either way. Cited proof has to be given on this. Pitcroft (talk —Preceding undated comment added 18:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• Now added. From Eon. - SchroCat (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• Thankyou for your efforts. Unfortunately EON doesnt refer to the subject in the link you have referenced, and is simply an advert for the film. Pitcroft —Preceding undated comment added 18:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• No, it's not an advert: it's the main Eon website. In their own synopsis of the film the eschew the capitals of an acronym and instead use the format "Spectre". Once again, could you please sign your posts by using four tildes ~~~~. You have been asked several times. - SchroCat (talk) 18:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• Of course its an advert and provides no verification for your assertions!. Its clear that any thoughts on this matter other than your own will be unacceptable, and that you will threaten anyone who 'disrupts' your edicts. That is petty online autocracy not 'editing'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pitcroft (talk • contribs) 19:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• Not at all: I have clearly stated in one of my edit summaries that this is the place to discuss any changes to the wording. If you are not satisfied with something written by Eon about the film they made, then I don't know where you want to see information come from. As I've asked you several times before, please do not comment on other editors, particularly in disparaging terms, and please remmber to sign your posts by using four tildes (~~~~). - SchroCat (talk) 19:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• Nothing in the link you have posted to EON productions supports your assertion that SPECTRE is not an acronym or that the insertion of an acronym is not warranted. It is simply an advert, as I have had to tell you so many times before. Take your own advice and stop threatening others when they disagree with you. Pitcroft

~sigh~ if you're going to misrepresent my warnings to not disrupt articles as "threats" then there is little point in trying to discuss things, especially if you only wish to see the piece labelled "SYNOPSIS" on the Eon site as an advert. - SchroCat (talk) 19:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• Im sure this is all very wearying for you, though I am also sure you have become accustomed to people who don't like being spoken to this way as if by a self appointed online headmaster. The synopsis for the film makes no mention, one way or another, of whether SPECTRE should be an acronym or not. Therefore the Fleming novels' are the canon, regardless of what you and your friends say. Initially all I did was change a very small part of this grossly inaccurate article, had it reverted and then even when speaking about it on the talk page, was threatened by you and your pals with blocking. No wonder so many people dont trust wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pitcroft (talk • contribs) 20:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• Are you able to post comments without insulting or trying to belitte others? If so, could you do so please. To correct your inaccuracies: a) this article is not "grossly inaccurate", despite what you think it is; b) The Fleming novels are not canon for the films – there is a world of difference between the two as has been pointed out endlessly to you; c) You were not threatened with blocking for discussing this on the talk page – you were threatened with blocking because you promised to return to the article and repeat the actions you were blocked for first time, edit warring. Finally, and for the nth time, please sign your posts by using four tildes (~~~~). - SchroCat (talk) 20:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud - you have continued to edit war by adding back something under dispute and under discussion? - SchroCat (talk) 20:25, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• (Redacted) The Bond films wouldn't exist were it not for the Fleming films for heaven's sake! You may have your opinions on that, but that is all they are (admittedly that applies to me too). The difference between us is that I am not trying to silence dissent as you are. However you have managed at least to add another genuine citation to the Economist, (Redacted) Pitcroft —Preceding undated comment added 22:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• Personal attacks removed. The remainder of your comment borders more PAs, but I'm bored of trying to explain this to you, or point out just how you should sign your posts. As to statements about the "Fleming films", that's a hoot. – SchroCat (talk) 22:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• Two can play at that game. Anybody who cant see the connection between the Fleming novels and the films is wilfully wanting to ignore the obvious. You can't tolerate disagreement without resorting to threats and warnings. Its as simple as that! Pitcroft

• Just too far from the truth to have to deal with. Look at a thread below between me and Calvin: no threats or warnings. He acted properly in coming to the talk page and opening a thread (no reverts from him, just open and civil discussion). We ended up with a compromise wording in the article. If you can't see that it's the best and only way to make Wikipedia work, I suggest you think of editing one of the specialist Bond Wikis, rather than Wikipedia. - SchroCat (talk) 09:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2015

The music section should include "Cum Dederit" from Nisi Dominus by Vivaldi Andreas Scholl, Australian Brandenburg Orchestra, Paul Dyer

Ian654321 (talk) 08:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Ian654321, Thank you for the information. Do you have a WP:RELIABLESOURCE that we can link this to? Without it there we can't judge on the veracity or the importance. Many thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 08:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Wrong international release date

Why is article stating that international release is starting on 6th November when there is Scandinavian release on 30th October (tickets are already being sold) and release in many European countries on 4th or 5th November (tickets also in sale in many countries). 6th November is US release date, but international release starts earlier. I've noticed there were some reverted changes of international release date in past - what kind of sources should be provided to support such change? Are cinemas websites which sell tickets for earlier dates suffiecient?--77.218.253.31 (talk) 08:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Aircraft

Apparently, this was the aircraft used for parachuting in the film. -Mardus /talk 22:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Correction: ES-PNA was sold by the Estonian Parachute Club in 2012, and the plane ended up in Scotland; it was one of eight aircraft used to film parachuting for the movie. -Mardus /talk 23:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Piece of plot

Hey, SchroCat. A sentence about her saying she doesn't want to be apart of it and saying goodbye must be added. Because at the must it's jilted. One minute she is with bond and the others in chase, then all of a sudden she is wired up to a bomb without explaining how.  — Calvin999 22:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Aaron, I'm not sure it's needed. When you ignore the minor spat she had with Bond—which adds very little to the explanation of the plot—then her changing her mind isn't needed. It's not a major plot point, and we are already at the 700 word mark, so if we add this info, we need to do it in a very few words, and slim down on the work count. elsewhere. If you think this is a key point (which I think we need the input of others to judge one way or the other) can you see where else we can lose enough words for a slimmed down version of this? Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 22:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

It is a key point though, because it's not explained how she was with them then suddenly strapped up to a bomb in MI5. There's no continuity with this point. I'm in the film industry so to me, it shouts out that this point is missing. It's also misleading because as it is currently written, it implies that she joins them, and she doesn't. She says goodbye and is captured, but this is not explained.  — Calvin999 22:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Calvin999 I've added a slimmed down version and managed to trim some excess words from the plot as a whole to fit it all in under the 700 words limit. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. It makes now how she suddenly appeared in MI6.  — Calvin999 09:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Bad English

You have a compound subject with a singular verb in the Music section. If you can't find it, get with somebody who teaches English and get them to show you where it is. 108.18.136.147 (talk) 14:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

If you know about it, then why don't you show us?! ..... Charlr6 (talk) 16:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

As someone who teaches English, I have no issues with it. A rigid adherence to the rules of grammar can sometimes be a bad thing. Now, if it was a regular occurrence, then we might have something to discuss. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The organisation Spectre

In this film Spectre made a re-appearance. It is the name of the organisation and it was not stated within the film at any point was an acronym, abbreviation or other shortened form of anything. Following the series re-boot in CR this is the pattern with other Bond tropes, where something with its roots in Fleming or the original Eon series has been tweaked and adapted. As it has not been stated in this film that the organisation is an acronym, we should write it as "Spectre", rather than "SPECTRE". I invite comments on this, particularly from the disruptive edit warrior who reverts to his preferred choice but does not seem to want to use the talk page. – SchroCat (talk) 09:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I haven't seen the film myself yet, but if it's not explicitly stated to be an acronym in the film, then it shouldn't be represented as an acronym in the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Moreover, the synopsis as given at the official James Bond website uses lowercase. Unless the film itself establishes that "Spectre" is an acronym then that is about as official as it gets if we are referring to an "in universe" name. Betty Logan (talk) 19:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree Charlr6 (talk) 11:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Just looked at the website and it uses upper case in the most recent articles for the film's title. Feel free to check it out: http://www.007.com/spectre/mexico-city-to-host-spectre-premiere-of-the-americas/ & http://www.007.com/spectre/the-music-of-spectre/ & http://www.007.com/spectre/the-action-of-spectre/ & http://www.007.com/spectre/writings-on-the-wall-video/ & http://www.007.com/spectre/trailers/ SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

That website also has 'Skyfall' in capital letters so.... yeah. Charlr6 (talk) 15:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

It does? Didn't see that. Can you provide a link? Thanks. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Would have been much quicker for yourself to do a search than rely on me, especially as on very same website you posted but...

http://www.007.com/adele-wins-grammy-for-skyfall/, http://www.007.com/skyfall-earns-five-oscar-nominations/, http://www.007.com/download-skyfall-today/, http://www.007.com/production-begins/

It also lists all other Bond films in caps - http://www.007.com/david-arnold-and-don-black-interviews/. Charlr6 (talk) 15:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

SoT, this one does too. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 15:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I looked myself and couldn't find anything so thanks for providing the links. SonOfThornhill (talk) 20:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

It makes no sense to have "Spectre" in mixed case as a wikilink. If everyone agrees that the article SPECTRE should be renamed "Spectre", and that article gets renamed/moved, then fine, let the organization be "Spectre" in this article too. Or if everyone agrees that the organization "Spectre" shouldn't be a wikilink, because it's different than SPECTRE, then fine, leave it as "Spectre" in this article, unwikilinked. But otherwise, when the reader clicks on "Spectre" (the organization), he/she goes to SPECTRE, and - since that's obviously a mistake - we're going to have a continual stream of editors making that change, as I did.

More to the point: The article is inconsistent in whether the organization is capitalized or not. I strongly suggest that the organization be "SPECTRE" and the film be "Spectre", and that someone edit the article to make that consistent. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The capitalization does not appear inconsistent to me. SPECTRE as a concept from the books and when discussed as an intellectual property should be capitalized, because that is how it is referred to. That is quite distinct from its "in universe" name in one particular film. Betty Logan (talk) 02:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The SPECTRE article should remain as it is. In that article, the name is still an acroynm, and clearly states in the lead. Just like NASA. But this film, in this new universe never hinted at all that Spectre was anything but a name. Charlr6 (talk) 11:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Has any of the consensus formers contacted the film makers (Brocolli?) to tell them that they got the name of the film wrong? -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:03, 7 November 2015 (GMT)

Looking at the provided sources it seems that the name of the film is always capitalized, whereas the name of the criminal organization is never capitalized. We should follow the sources and therefore I suggest to move the article's title back to the capitalized version, while leaving the name of the organization within the article uncapitalized. By the way, has the full name of the organization ever been mentioned in any movie they appeared in or has the acronym fact only been mentioned in the novels? If it's the latter, surely the "acronym has not been explicitly mentioned in the film" argument can be applied to every movie they appeared in. Tvx1 18:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Names of films are always in capitals when there's no italic font. DonQuixote (talk) 18:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that the argument really bears scrutiny. For one, you can't assume that "SPECTRE" is the title because "Spectre" is its own word. Even if the organisation in the film is SPECTRE, the title can still be Spectre'". Secondly, and more importantly, the reboot effectively wiped the out SPECTRE out of the continuity, and this film writes the organisation back in. We can't assume that this version of the organisation is SPECTRE simply because the old one was. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

British?

I always have assumed that these films are British, but is there an actual citation? It's an EON production, the producers are American, and the film is distributed by Sony. How is it British? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:CA0D:8C00:DCF8:EDE6:C47C:BFC4 (talk) 01:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Eon Productions is a British company. It doesn't matter what nationality its employees are. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Blofeld

THat comparison of Moneypenny is crap. People knew she was returning. The fact that Blofeld isn't revealed until halfway through means its plot detail, and thus its unfair to put it right there in the first section, not letting people avoid it. Rusted AutoParts 19:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

It's exactly the same thing: people knew Blofeld was returning too (there were enough reverts of IPs adding his name before the release to show the veracity of that). As a return of a long-standing and well-known character, it's justifiable that the info is included. – SchroCat (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't know that Blofeld was returning. IP's must have been speculating that he would because of it being called Spectre. But as such, I found out Blofeld was returning when he said "I Am Ernst Stavro Blofeld" in the film.  — Calvin999 19:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Case in point. Luckily for Calvin he found out the right way. American audiences have yet to see this film, and that kind of spoiler will ruin it for many of the fans. Especially since its in the first section of the article. Im ok with it being in the plot section, as well as cast, but this shouldn't be in the article introduction. It's an unexpected, unwarranted and unfair spoiler for those wanting to seek info outside of the plot. Rusted AutoParts 19:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Lots of others did (see the edit history). See also WP:SPOILER and WP:NOTCENSORED: your explanation of why you think it shouldn't be in the lede falls foul of both these. – SchroCat (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't fail WP:COMMONSENSE. It's common sense to have at least some common courtesy to those who've yet to see it and don't wish to be spoiled reading the first sentences of Spectre's article. Rusted AutoParts 20:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

It should also be common sense for people to avoid this wikipedia page then until it is released in their country and they see it. It really isn't that hard to not search something. It was announced months ago when this film would be released in the UK, so the entire world knew that on that date there would be obvious 'spoilers' for them. Charlr6 (talk) 20:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you mad because you found out on here? How about when movies and TV-shows come out in America first, and then are all spoilt for the rest of the world? Wikipedia is an online encyclopaedia that gets updated practically every few seconds 24/7. This page is reflecting that fact. As Schro mentioned, look at WP:SPOILER and WP:NOTCENSORED. Also, I didn't know Moneypenny was returned in Skyfall. We all knew Q was in there, but it wasn't until the film was released (and I saw it opening day) that our hopes were proven right and Moneypenny had returned. And her character didn't reveal her full name until over half way through film too. Charlr6 (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

That the official stance you're going with "Fuck you, don't read the article"? I couldnt care less about getting spoiled, I too have seen the movie. And I understand SPOILER AND NOTCENSORED, but considering that Waltz indeed plays Blofeld is the films twist, would it not be fair to keep that out of the first sentence of the article, before people get the chance to bypass the plot section to get to Production news. Rusted AutoParts 14:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

My two cents - the page for The Usual Suspects manages to avoid revealing the film's big who-someone-really-is twist in the opening paragraph. Granted, that's a significantly more integral part of the movie, but likewise the article on The Dark Knight Rises doesn't reveal the comparable identity twist. I don't see the harm in following suit with this film's article.--Leigh Burne (talk) 15:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

RAP, It's nothing like that at all, and your overly-emotive language isn't needed. This is an encyclopaedia, not a listings guide, and one of the notable points of interest in terms of the Eon series is the return of the Blofeld character. As we did with Moneypenny and Skyfall the return is significant enough to go in the lead. – SchroCat (talk) 15:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. So what if you did it with Moneypenny over at Skyfall? Her identity wasn't important to the plot. Blofeld's in this movie's is, and having the films twist in the lead section is a shitty thing to do to someone who hasn't seen the film. "It's not hard to not search something" is very dismissive. And you are correct, this is an encyclopedia, PEOPLE ARE GOING TO WANT TO READ IT. And if they don't want to read the plot, they can skip over it. But they can't skip over that first sentence, and that deflates their excitement to see it. Why are we heavily advertising Waltz up there anyway? The likes of Fiennes, Bautista, Seydoux and others are mentioned in passing. This isn't me saying "remove all references of Blofeld cause of spoilers, I'm just saying delete it from the introductory sentence, so people don't stumble upon it inadvertently. Then it's their own fault for reading the plot section. Rusted AutoParts 05:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

As per the consensus that was established when the decision to remove spoiler tags from articles was made, it is reasonable to assume that if someone reads the article, then they can forsee encountering spoilers. We have no obligation to conceal information form those readers.

To answer your question about why Waltz is covered in the lead, we always cover the actor playing Bond and the actor playing the primary antagonist. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

• Then why not refer to his character as Franz Oberhauser in the article lead and save the Blofeld reveal for the Plot section? It's a *seriously* shitty thing to do; not everybody follows the "abstinence" policy when it comes to upcoming films. Hiding behind WP:NOTCENSORED isn't going to cut it. (And no, before you jump to conclusions, I wasn't spoilered by this page - I saw the film first. Doesn't mean I can't stick up for all the people who will be spoiled by this asinine decision.) CNash (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• The return of the Blofeld character back to,the series is a seriously noteworthy incident. Blofeld is often seen as the archetypal Bond villain (he appeared in three of the Fleming novels, several of the Eon and non-Eon films etc), so it is entirely reasonable that we mention this major aspect up front in the lead. It's not a "shitty" thing to do: this is an encyclopaedia, not some listings guide. – SchroCat (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

"It's a *seriously* shitty thing to do; not everybody follows the "abstinence" policy when it comes to upcoming films."

If they don't follow the policy, then that's their problem.

"Hiding behind WP:NOTCENSORED isn't going to cut it."

We're not "hiding behind it". We're following the policy. We are under no obligation to hide details of the plot from people who consciously choose to read the article after its release. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The twist of Usual Suspects is hardly like a major come-back for an iconic famous character. As said before, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia that gets updated 24/7. You can moan about spoilers all you want. Skyfall lists the return of Q and Moneypenny in the lead. Everything you are saying here, could be very said about Game of Thrones for example. When it airs in America and any big events that happen in it will be edited then and there on Wikipedia. Yes, the parts of the world have to wait like a day to see the episode, but doesn't stop Wikipedia from being edited. Also, are people really going to JUST read the lead? People like to read cast list too. So what about the innocent people who scroll down wanting to see who is in it and who is playing who? They will see Blofeld mentioned there. But that will be their fault? Right? Or is it all of ours again? Blofeld says in the film he is NO LONGER Oberhauser, that he died 20 years ago, and now he is Blofeld. We can't just put in the lead who he 'used' to be. Unless you want to say in lead "as a man believed to be Franz Oberhauser". Because by Bond he is sure it is him, even though he is supposed to have been dead? Also, anyone reading this page who actually knows about the Bond films, should know that a film called Spectre, and after the company got all the rights back are very likely to use Blofeld. So in that knowledge itself, unless they know nothing of Bond at all, but then they simply can stay away from the page more. Because it is highly likely he would appear in a film with this title, and when the rights have gotten back to them, than the previous Bond film for example as some final surprise cameo. Charlr6 (talk) 10:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I saw the film yesterday and instantly knew this would be an issue on this page a la the Moneypenny issue on the Skyfall page, and lo and behold here it is. However I have to agree that there is no obligation not to include the character’s name in the introduction, as Wikipedia is not about not spoiling films for people who haven’t seen them yet. It might seem unfair and there may be an argument to be had about the fairness of that to the casual browser, but the fact is that Wikipedia policy makes no allowances for spoilers. Stay off the page if you don’t want the film spoiled.

I would object if Oberhauser was referred to in the plot summary as Blofeld prior to the narrative point in the film where he identifies himself as Blofeld, as that would misrepresent the plot. But he isn’t. Nsign (talk) 11:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Look at all other Bond pages. The villains are in the lead, first or second paragraph at latest. To say he is Oberhauser in the lead would be misinforming the audience. Yes, it can be classed as a 'twist' him turning out to be Blofeld. But in the film it is only MI6 and Bond who believe he is still Oberhauser until he actually corrects Bond and reveals himself. Skyfall even mentions the return of Q and Moneypenny. But as I said somewhere previously, a due to them getting the rights back to Spectre and Blofeld, any Bond fan with the knowledge of that existence (not some 12 year old who only saw Brosnans or Craigs) would have the assumption Blofeld would appear in some form or another, instead of just some surprise appearance. It is pretty obvious, and for anyone knowing that they should unfortunately stay of the page. If they want to be surprised, they will have to keep off the page, because of how much evidence there is towards Blofeld with return of Spectre, and even subtle hints in trailer then no one can really complain. There is more evidence than there is Darth Vader is Luke's father. Charlr6 (talk) 11:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I am outraged! Outraged that this site would tell me that the villain is Blofeld! How dare you not try to mislead me! What do you think this is an encyclopaedia? ;) MisterShiney ✉ 16:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Critical reception

The film received 64% on RT and 60 out of 100 on Metacritic which these mean "positive". So why it says mixed. Can't we describe this like "Spectre has received positive reviews from critics totally" or something like that, or just "Spectre has received positive reviews from critics"? 78.168.141.129 (talk) 18:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Because they are mixed... Metacritic classify that score as "mixed or average reviews", not in any way the "positive" you think. - SchroCat (talk) 18:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Goldmember similarities

There is an article in The Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/spectre-has-an-austin-powers-connection-you-cant-unsee_56393d5ee4b0307f2cab2ac2) that points out/criticizes the similarities between Spectre and Austin Powers in Goldmember - specifically the twist that Bond and Blofeld are brothers by adoption. May I reference it in the Critical Reception section of the article?

One of the reasons I removed the info in the first place is that there way waaaay to much info there for one minor review. There were other points too, tho. It's not a connection anyone else has picked up, and it's not a terribly good point for the reviewer to make. Tenuous sums it up, and a little editorial discretion on some of the more outlandish views is normally a good thing. – SchroCat (talk) 00:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

"It's not a connection anyone else has picked up"… in print, maybe, but my brother mentioned it to me on the way out of the cinema on opening night. Opera hat (talk) 01:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

If your brother publishes in a reliable source, then that'll help increase the weight of this. DonQuixote (talk) 01:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

User:SchroCat described the similarity as "tenuous" - I was giving an example of an average punter noticing it. Opera hat (talk) 01:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Here are more articles which speak of the similarities:

https://ca.movies.yahoo.com/post/132700263691/so-who-does-christoph-waltz-play-in-spectre

http://www.sanfordherald.com/features/spectre-evokes-nostalgia-but-misses-mark/article_cee5e828-8410-11e5-aab4-2fda4e24f98b.html

http://theweekender.com/moviereviews/13691/movie-review-spectre-continues-the-bond-dominance

http://theweek.com/articles/587311/spectre-flabby-botched-attempt-honor-007s-legacy

It is a similarity that multiple critics have picked up on. I think that five different reliable sources would give the similarities the weight to be discussed in the article.

This article made the Top 25 Report

This article made the Wikipedia:Top 25 Report at number 3 with 1,069,633 views for the week November 1 to 7, 2015. It was also number 3 the week before and number 25 the week before that. Congratulations to the editors of this article for the exposure of their work.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  19:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

The article was the third most popular article on Wikipedia again with even more (1,199,500) views for the week of November 8 to 14, 2015.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  16:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Broken image

Recent attempts at reverting to the British poster show a broken image in the article. The international poster appesrs just fine, and thus should be used.

Furthermore, I can find no requirement that the posted displayed be from the country of origin, particularly when it is a join UK-US production. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Cast list.

There are currently two issues regarding the article's cast list that are being discussed. The first being Ralph Fiennes listed as 'Gareth Mallory' rather than as M. The second being the use of the word 'Henchman' in the description of the character Mr. Hinx. In order to bring these issues to an end, I'd like to offer the following to resolve both issues. While 'henchman' is an accurate description of Mr. Hinx's character it is not essential. The current description is adequate if not totally accurate. In regard to Ralph Fiennes, I would like to again propose that it be changed to: "Ralph Fiennes as M, code name for Gareth Mallory, the head of MI6". This follows how he is credited in the film, as well as how his character is identified on screen for most of the film and acknowledges the character's history and that his name is used in the film. I think this while not perfect is a decent compromise and that everyone will agree. SonOfThornhill (talk) 11:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I think that you're creating a problem to fit a solution. There is nothing wrong with the current cast list. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

That's your opinion. The Hinx listing has been changed back and forth by several times. And other editors have questioned the Ralph Fiennes listing as well. I'm trying to find a compromise that will hopefully satisfy everyone. SonOfThornhill (talk) 23:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

No, the Hinx listing has been changed several times by you. You're the only one who has shown any disagreement with it, and you're clearly misrepresenting it as a situation that the community needs to resolve. In other words, it's a case of "I'm not getting my way, so I will put it to a wider vote", and you're dressing it up as being related to Fiennes' appearance in the cast list—again, a non-issue— justify it. But here's the problem: a consensus is not a vote. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually the Hinx listing was originally changed by Mister what on 11/17 [4]] and you were the editor who reverted it on the same day[[5]]. The Fiennes discussion [[6]] was started by an IP editor and Charlr6 quickly agreed. So rather than resort to a personal back and forth, let's discuss the issue and find a compromise that will satisfy everyone. SonOfThornhill (talk) 02:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

thanks for the tag but rather not get involved in possibly another heated debate that gets out of hand by all parties again so soon. Thinking over it again, he should be classed as M but as Dench's M appears in a post humourous message I'd say it isn't that big of a deal. He is called M and Mallory in the film. He is credited as M yes, but maybe just say Mallory, the newly appointed M. But I'd rather stand aside. But if there is a poll or you want to reference my opinion again, then you can say I am for M. Charlr6 (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Files of cast and crew where the file itself is not directly related to the film

I removed several files of biographical subjects where the file itself is not related to the film in this edit. Files that are not related to the film itself, such as images of cast and/or crew where the image is not of the person actually taking part in an event or scene related to the film, distracts from the encyclopedic tone of any film article and almost looks like advertising for the subject of the person themself. (Stating this, I did not remove the promotional image of four people together specifically related to the film's premier; that is directly related to the subject of this article.) Steel1943 (talk) 00:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Is there any Wikipedia guideline against pics that are not directly related to a film being included in an article? SonOfThornhill (talk) 02:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I could not find any, but I looked at a few film articles of GA and FA status, and there weren't any in those. Avatar (2009 film) is an example. Steel1943 (talk) 02:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

It is acceptable to include images of cast and crew members even when the images are not directly related to the film. It is not advertising to provide visual aids. They help break up a wall of text. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with that most of the time, given that it really is distracting and saying that we are trying to avoid "wall(s) of text" is akin to saying that we should mask the content or lack thereof with images so that the reader gets a good feeling from reading an article. Encyclopedia articles are supposed to be content-heavy, not file heavy. But I'll leave that to be decided when this article gets nominated for GA; at that point, the files will probably be suggested to be removed. Steel1943 (talk) 03:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why it should be found distracting. The content is not being masked. It is a regular practice to break up text in different ways. For example, nobody wants to read a page's worth of text without any paragraph breaks. In the same vein, files and tables can be inserted to address the monotony. We can discuss if showing someone is worthwhile or not. A picture of an executive producer would not mean much, but the director and the stars can qualify. There can be too many files inserted, sure, but whether or not the file is directly related to the film is not a reason. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

If there is no specific guideline against it, I don't see the harm in including these pics for now, as placeholder, until pics from the film can be obtained. SonOfThornhill (talk) 11:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring

SoT, rather than reverting, perhaps you could explain why you didn't bother with the talk page, as requested? Neither alteration is good (fucking awful, to be honest), and I don't know why you've decided to edit war a backwards step into the article? – SchroCat (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Why didn't you bother with the Talk page before reverting another editor? The rules apply to everyone, not just those you disagree with. And those rules include WP:CIVILITY. SonOfThornhill (talk) 16:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Per BRD I reverted the first edit, after which the thread should have been opened. You didn't: you edit warred. Second point is that I have in no way breached CIVILITY, so please do not try and cast slurs by innuendo. Do you want to try again and discuss why and how you think it is somehow an improvement? – SchroCat (talk) 16:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

So your argument is you got there first? And I didn't accuse you of violating [WP:CIVILITY]], just reminded you it was a rule such as WP:OWN is a rule. Finally, it is an improvement since it accurately describes the character's function in the film. SonOfThornhill (talk) 17:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you now back-handedly accusing me of OWN now? Perhaps you could try to avoid the ad hominem comments going forward. As to the substantive point in hand, please see WP:FILMCAST: "Interpretations in the form of labels (e.g. protagonist, villain, main character) should be avoided." – SchroCat (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, not accusing you of anything. You're making those assumptions on your own. And WP:FILMCAST doesn't apply since it is not an interpretation. SonOfThornhill (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I make no assumptions at all, but it does rather look like you are casting aspersions here. As to the main point, of course it applies. Where is he described in the film as "a henchman"? I struggle to see how you can say it's not an interpretation in all honesty. – SchroCat (talk) 17:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

It is not an interpretation at all. Maybe it is the definition of 'henchman' that is at issue: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/henchman SonOfThornhill (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

No: the description falls foul of the guidelines provided. The "definition" is neither here nor there: this runs directly counter to the MoS. – SchroCat (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

No it doesn't, that is just your opinion. The character engages in illegal acts for Blofeld. He's a henchman. SonOfThornhill (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that you can really call Hinx a henchman. He has one scene with Blofeld, and never follows a direct order from him. The film positions him as an enforcer, someone who kills anyone who is a threat to Spectre. He succeeds Sciarra as Spectre's direct representative, someone who oversees their operations and is Spectre's only real connection to the events they orchestrate. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

So what that he has only one scene? He is clearly acting on Blofeld's orders. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

See WP:OR. – SchroCat (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Off-topic post (NPA/Edits, not editors...) - SchroCat (talk) 17:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. Schro posting this made me laugh. Also, didn't need to swear. Charlr6 (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC) ? What was the point of your comment? Do you have anything useful to add to whether the edit was an improvement or not? – SchroCat (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC) Absolutely nothing. Just wanted to comment on how accidentally funny you are. And not in a good way. Hashtag smiles. Hashtag you are hardly perfect. Hashtag I'm done now. Charlr6 (talk) 16:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I just saw this interview of Daniel Craig on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNO8DynLFZo. While I wouldn't call this primary or credible research, I do find it interesting that at 1:20 Craig refers to Dave Bautista (Mr. Hinx) at a henchman. SonOfThornhill (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Another interesting video on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nW1ZwX6ImFI, Dave Bautista on Jimmy Kimmel. At about 1:55 he compares his character to 'nostalgic henchmen' like Oddjob and Jaws. SonOfThornhill (talk) 20:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

plot is too long

Can whoever has been editing the plot, make it a little shorter? I can do it if needed, but it doesn't seem fair to the original editor. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Well actually no one owns a Wikipedia article, so it's fine for you to have a go, but it seems to be a reasonable size to me - which is actually quite rare on popular blockbusters' articles. It's just a little under 700 words, which is the maximum recommended size, and since this is an action film with a linear plot I don't see how it can be trimmed more. Mezigue (talk) 10:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)