This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
Real? Not real? Couldn't see any info on this. -- Τασουλα ( talk) 16:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Actually there is a not-dissimilar house there, not in the main glen itself but just off a bit, called Dalness Lodge. I believe the crew used it as a base while filming. Not sure if they used it for any exterior shots. 194.73.118.78 ( talk) 12:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Is it really sensible to include box office figures for a film that hasn't even been released in some countries yet? I personally think it's misleading: at the moment, it looks like a massive flop, a fifty-million dollar loss (whereas I assume it will take at least half a billion). The fact that a film has certain box office figures an arbitrary length of time after it opens is not really important, and moreover cannot be compared to other films on equal footing (unless anyone knows how much money, say, Titanic had taken a similar period after release). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.13.2 ( talk) 16:34, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I thought they should of been added from the beginning, but now they have a substantial amount, deffo get them added. MisterShiney (Come say hi) 19:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
What's the purpose of providing a picture that is exactly the same as the one on his profile in the music section? MisterShiney (Come say hi) 00:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
What tone? It was a serious reply. I was trying to be as specific as possible. It just seems when anybody adds anything to Skyfall they have to justify it here on the talk page.
So We can reach a consensus, do any other editors have any views/opinions on this? MisterShiney (Come say hi) 10:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. For the record, I didn't really mind either with. I dont think it adds much to the article, I just wanted to double check that people would find it useful/would be happy with it staying. MisterShiney (Come say hi) 13:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I thought I'd heard Dench say "Tiago" in the film, but the BFI lists "Gerardo Rodriguez" as Silva's other, rather pointless name (see here). A quick i'net search shows nothing definitive, but has anyone come across anything official? - SchroCat ( ^ • @) 19:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I heard Tiago very clearly. Didn't even know Gerardo was a name. Nsign ( talk) 11:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Haffleyg ( talk) 13:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Kincaid is the more typical spelling (particularly for a Scots name). Is there a reliable source for the spelling? Jmorrison230582 ( talk) 00:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree, the usual spelling is Kincaid (I grew up in Kincaidston, for example). That BFI link is a review, I wouldn't consider it an official source. Anyone get a good look at the credits? Nsign ( talk) 11:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough then 81.96.134.214 ( talk) 17:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
The lead section currently contains the phrase "Skyfall was the last film of the series for Judi Dench who played M...". (Until a couple of days ago it was "After starring as M for seven consecutive Bond films, Skyfall marks Judi Dench's last performance in the role.") Later, in the Cast section we have "Skyfall is Dench's seventh and final appearance in the role."
At the moment it certainly appears that way. But although I doubt the filmmakers will do this, there's still the potential for future Bond movies to be set in the gap between QOS and Skyfall, or for her M to appear in flashbacks. Because of that, and in the absence of any interviews with her commenting on whether she'll do any more, is it a bit speculative to assert that it's definitely her last? -- Nick R Talk 23:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
It would be nice for someone to find a reliable source for this. I for one am of the mind it is/should be her last one, as for them putting in prequel/sequel between film sucks! MisterShiney (Come say hi) 13:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I think also going by the fact that (as far as I can remember) no Bond film has ever featured flashbacks featuring previously deceased characters, its fine to call this as Dench's last. Charlr6 is correct - you can't wait for confirmation on everything. Nsign ( talk) 15:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Is there possible a slightly larger version of this? As it does seem quite small. Just to the edges of the info box more. Charlr6 ( talk) 00:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I am confused as to why the poster was changed....? I seem to remember it being something different. MisterShiney (Come say hi) 16:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Box Office Mojo officially reported that the film's budget is $200 million. Can we change it?---- Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 07:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
[Box Office Mojo]] is a reliable source? http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2012/oct/23/skyfall-marketing-james-bond says otherwise. Also, when this film got made it was a big deal that the budget was lower than QOS? Think it should be changed back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamGallagherWright ( talk • contribs) 18:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Seems we have two "reliable" sources here. What do we go with? I am inclined to say Guardian because they I have heard of and it is a reputable broadsheet in the UK. MisterShiney ✉ 21:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Box office mojo's budgets frequently changes. According to the site Skyfall's budget was $130million, then £150million and now $200million. I'd be inclinded to believe The Guardian, The Dailymail etc. Rather than BOM on this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamGallagherWright ( talk • contribs) 16:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Skyfall is an action movie. Not spy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamGallagherWright ( talk • contribs) 18:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
No. Its a spy genre film, with like the rest of the James Bond Franchise films, aspects of action film. An Action film would be something like Green Zone or the Die Hard films. MisterShiney ✉ 21:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Yet all the other Bond films don't list a genre? I think genre should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamGallagherWright ( talk • contribs) 16:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
I've copied over a little part of a discussion on the Dark Knight Rises Talk Page in which I discuss the similarity between the reveal at the end of Skyfall and that at the end of TDKR:
As mentioned above, an edit was made to the Skyfall article, but this was reverted by Darkwarriorblake. If you want to see the reasoning behind the original discussion, and change, see the whole thing on the TDKR talk page. I want to know how people feel about the article so far, and whether it should be changed. I think that it should be given a little more recognition within the summary, so it is written less as a throwaway, but I've not got the conviction to take action on this without consensus. Thanks, drewmunn ( talk) 14:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
I am of the opinion that the current version as it stands is much better than what it was. Having Miss Moneypenny on an active mission from the beginning would just confuse readers as most who know the franchise would be like "Wait, isn't she the secretary? What the hell?" so revealing her as Moneypenny at the end is a much better alternative. MisterShiney ✉ 15:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Agreed - as it is its accurate, logical and consistent with the narrative. Leave it alone. Nsign ( talk) 12:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Just pointing out that (1) Blitzer is definitely in the movie as himself; and (2) while a nice little touch of pseudo-realism, it's probably too trivial to mention in this article. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
just out of cinema and i might be wrong... is bond crying at m's death szene? this imhop would be the first time. Fansoft ( talk) 00:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I thought he cried when Vesper died in Royale? And when Le Chiffre was torturing him? Nsign ( talk) 13:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Somewhere in the article it probably warrants mentioning that this is the first original Bond film (as opposed to one based upon a novel or suggested by a short story) not to have a specially commissioned novelisation. All others going back to Licence to Kill (which was in fact based on several Fleming sources) have been adapted; Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace saw the original stories reissued. 70.72.211.35 ( talk) 19:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
On the page it says: "Set reports dated April 2012 recorded that scenes would be set on Hashima Island, an abandoned island off the coast of Nagasaki, Japan. In actuality, the scene was set on an unnamed island off the coast of Macau, though based on the real-life Hashima." I think the wording is a bit vague and doesn't make clear whether the scenes were actually shot at Hashima Island (regardless of the setting of the story). -- 178.12.54.149 ( talk) 22:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Raoul Silva's real name, Tiago Rodriguez, is mispelled. Mr. Silva is implied to be of Lusophone origin (Silva, Tiago), and so his correct name would be spelt Tiago Rodrigues. This is minor, but it should be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.8.110.0 ( talk) 05:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
The source is wrong. The Titanic re-release this year grossed £10 million, which gives Titanic a total of just shy of £80 million in the UK ( source), so Skyfall is currently the third highest grossing film in the UK, not the second, at least until the weekend. -- Allthestrongbowintheworld ( talk) 01:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Requested addition: Although the title and plot does not come from a Fleming work, there are at least three major elements in this film that parallel events in Fleming novels: M writing Bond's obituary and an injured Bond disappearing on an island somewhere comes from the closing chapters of You Only Live Twice, while the very next Fleming novel, The Man with the Golden Gun begins with Bond returning after his disappearance and having to prove himself fit for duty again. The idea of M going to bat for Bond and putting him back in the field could also be seen as reflecting the early stages of You Only Live Twice in which Bond is given the designation 7777 and given a potential suicide mission. 70.72.211.35 ( talk) 03:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Why would Bond get a PPK/S? That version was made specifically to be able to import the guns into the United States, not because it made the gun "better" in any way. If anything he'd get a PPK/E. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.194.186.128 ( talk) 15:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
When weighing consensus on a closely divided issue like this one a critical factor is which poisition has the support of Wikipedia policies or common practices. Policy says Wikipedia contains spoilers so any comments that it was a spoiler are given less weight. Policy also says that generally an item should be linked the first time it is mentioned. However, there is a valid point made that common practice is that plot summaries relate the narrative faithfully, which would generally mean in the order and manner it is presented in the film. The rest of the article is of course explicitly exempt from this. So, as amatter of policy we could use the characters full name and link it the first time the character is mentioned in the plot, but there is nothing saying we have to. It seems alterations were made to the article during the course of this discussion to try and reconcile the two options and that there are not any serious objections. It seems prudent to simply leave it at that and consider the current arrangement the "consensus version" of those aspects of the plot summary. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC) |
Comments are invited on an issue with the Plot summary of the Skyfall article. A character is shown in the first scenes of the film and the plot summary currently contains a wikilink. Her surname is not revealed until the final scenes of the film and can be considered a minor twist, although not one that affects the film's plot. Is it more appropriate to link the name at the front of the summary, or to leave it until the end (and refer to the character by her first name throughout the rest of the summary)? - SchroCat ( ^ • @) 15:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
...and many more. I don't think I've seen a single plot summary that does what SchroCat is doing, and it really does read strangely. It seems to be jarring for a lot of people, given the huge numbers who have felt strongly enough that it didn't sound right to come on here - Charlr6, Nsign, 194.73.118.78, 86.156.13.63, 99.229.136.215, 80.167.205.66, Silver seren, Blethering Scot, A wild Rattata, me. I agree with A wild Rattata that Moneypenny should remain in the lead section before the plot summary. Edbrims ( talk) 21:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Support for deletion of Moneypenny in plot summary until the end As per my lengthy, tiresome and frustrating exchange with schrodinger above in the 'plot' section, there is no logical reason to reveal Moneypenny's name at the beginning of the summary, other than wikipedia rules say that you can. Well maybe they do, but why on earth would you? The logical thing to do here is to provide an accurate summation of the narrative AS TOLD. Therefore the summary should reveal Eve's name as Moneypenny at the end so that it reflects the plot of the film. Seems very simple and straightforward, doesn't it? One wonders why one person feels they have the right to arbitrarily police an entry, undo edits made by others without explaining why and ignore what seems to be the majority view. 194.73.118.78 ( talk) 12:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Also, to specifically rebut Schrocat - he says "The subsequent identity of that character as Miss Moneypenny has no bearing on the plot or storyline of the film". That is entirely his own opinion and is subjective. Others may regard Eve's identity and her story arc in the film to be part of the plot. Because, er, that's what it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.73.118.78 ( talk) 16:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
No one is disputing the policies. The view is that just because one is allowed to name the character's identity at a point in the summary where the film does not, it is preferable not to because it is not an accurate reflection of the narrative as told. The impression is that the character has been identified as Miss Moneypenny at this point in the plot when she hasn't, and I would suggest that makes it slightly misleading. To have her identified as Eve until she actually reveals her full name is an accurate reflection of the narrative as it unfolds. If the consensus says otherwise I'll accept it but until then I don't believe it should stand. 194.73.118.78 ( talk) 15:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
So it has. It reads better and gives a more accurate representation of the flow of the story. Wasn't so hard, was it? 194.73.118.78 ( talk) 15:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Then three cheers for democracy. 194.73.118.78 ( talk) 16:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I also don't object to the use of the full name in the lead - just the plot summary. 194.73.118.78 ( talk) 15:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
ive always seen in plots if one character ends up being a revealed character near the end its said when it happens in the plot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.64.255 ( talk) 14:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
To delete would be incorrect IMO. I completely agree with SchroCat. -- Cassianto Talk 21:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Include it from the start. After numerous (possibly unnecessary) discussions, I support SchroCat. drewmunn ( talk) 15:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
That's not the point. Mentioning the character's return in the lead is acceptable because its a noteworthy feature of the film in relation to the franchise as a whole. Identifying her as Moneypenny right away in the summary isn't, because it misleadingly implies that she is identified as Moneypenny at that point in the film when she isn't, and is therefore not a faithful account of the narrative. Nsign ( talk) 12:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
It appears I'm not the only guy who noticed a more than passing resemblance between the Bond villain in the film and the Wikileaks founder
More than just physical resemblance as the character releases sensitive information on the internet (on youtube, no less) as his main crime. Does anybody think this might be an issue that should be addressed?-- Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 02:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
It is not revealed until the end of the film that Harris is playing Moneypenny- in fact this was denied for quite some time. Should this information be at the very beginning of the article? I'm not totally familiar with protocol in this area. 331dot ( talk) 23:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Two editors, independent of each other, myself and User:Schrodinger's cat is alive, have trimmed the wordy version preferred by User:Prisonermonkeys, who inexplicably appears to insist on using the passive voice ("The car is driven by Carl") rather than the active voice ("Carl drives the car') — a standard thing that Writing 101 teaches you not to do— and creates plot-bloat taking the straightforward plot to over 700 words. He and I have discussed this on his talk page, but so far he has been re-inserting his wordy version with passive-voice writing. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 06:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I think it may be time to move on from the edit warring arguments and focus on the issue in hand, which is to agree the wording which was the cause of this all. There really is little point in flogging the dead horse of 'he said - she said' and we've all got better things to do. Below is the current opening paragraph of the plot section: any suggestions as to the future form it could take, bearing in mind we'd prefer to keep the whole thing under 700 words? - SchroCat ( talk) 18:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
In Turkey, MI6 agents James Bond and Eve attempt to recover a stolen computer hard drive containing details of agents placed undercover in terrorist organisations by NATO states. As they chase the mercenary Patrice, who killed MI6 agents to steal the drive, Patrice shoots Bond in the shoulder. As the two men fight, Eve accidentally shoots Bond, allowing Patrice to escape. Bond goes missing, presumed dead.
I think the wording could use some work. Particularly this part:
I think two things can be addressed here:
In Turkey MI6 agents James Bond and Eve attempt to recover a computer hard drive stolen from a murdered MI6 agent; the drive contains details of agents placed undercover in terrorist organisations by NATO states. Bond and Eve chase the killer, the mercenary 'Patrice', and attempt to recover the disk. During the chase, Bond is wounded by a ricocheting bullet. While fighting Patrice, Bond is accidentally shot by Eve and is later considered "missing, presumed killed".
In Istanbul, MI6 agents James Bond and Eve attempt to recover a computer hard drive stolen from a murdered MI6 agent; the drive contains details of agents placed undercover in terrorist organisations by NATO states. Bond and Eve chase the killer, the mercenary Patrice, and Bond is wounded by a ricocheting bullet. While fighting Patrice, Bond is accidentally shot by Eve. Patrice escapes and Bond is considered "missing, presumed killed".
Why this is being changed I do not know. It was fine the way it was. It seem's like there is one user who is trying to put his personal opinion on something that is disagreed by not one but two (and myself) and so insists on edit warring and has now ruined editing this page for other users. MisterShiney ✉ 21:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
In Turkey, MI6 agents James Bond and Eve chase the mercenary Patrice, who
stolehas stolen a computer hard drive containing details of undercover agents placed in terrorist organisations by NATO states. Patrice shoots Bond in the shoulder, and as the two men fight atop a train, Eve accidentally shoots Bond, allowing Patrice to escape. Bond goes missing, presumed dead.
Change "Patrice shoots Bond in the shoulder" to "Patrice wounds Bond in the shoulder" and I'm happy with it. I still feel that saying Patrice shoots Bond and that Eve shoots Bond implies that Bond has a similar injury from both and that the circumstances of his being shot are the same, neither of which is true. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 06:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Perfect. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 22:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
Real? Not real? Couldn't see any info on this. -- Τασουλα ( talk) 16:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Actually there is a not-dissimilar house there, not in the main glen itself but just off a bit, called Dalness Lodge. I believe the crew used it as a base while filming. Not sure if they used it for any exterior shots. 194.73.118.78 ( talk) 12:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Is it really sensible to include box office figures for a film that hasn't even been released in some countries yet? I personally think it's misleading: at the moment, it looks like a massive flop, a fifty-million dollar loss (whereas I assume it will take at least half a billion). The fact that a film has certain box office figures an arbitrary length of time after it opens is not really important, and moreover cannot be compared to other films on equal footing (unless anyone knows how much money, say, Titanic had taken a similar period after release). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.13.2 ( talk) 16:34, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I thought they should of been added from the beginning, but now they have a substantial amount, deffo get them added. MisterShiney (Come say hi) 19:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
What's the purpose of providing a picture that is exactly the same as the one on his profile in the music section? MisterShiney (Come say hi) 00:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
What tone? It was a serious reply. I was trying to be as specific as possible. It just seems when anybody adds anything to Skyfall they have to justify it here on the talk page.
So We can reach a consensus, do any other editors have any views/opinions on this? MisterShiney (Come say hi) 10:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. For the record, I didn't really mind either with. I dont think it adds much to the article, I just wanted to double check that people would find it useful/would be happy with it staying. MisterShiney (Come say hi) 13:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I thought I'd heard Dench say "Tiago" in the film, but the BFI lists "Gerardo Rodriguez" as Silva's other, rather pointless name (see here). A quick i'net search shows nothing definitive, but has anyone come across anything official? - SchroCat ( ^ • @) 19:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I heard Tiago very clearly. Didn't even know Gerardo was a name. Nsign ( talk) 11:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Haffleyg ( talk) 13:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Kincaid is the more typical spelling (particularly for a Scots name). Is there a reliable source for the spelling? Jmorrison230582 ( talk) 00:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree, the usual spelling is Kincaid (I grew up in Kincaidston, for example). That BFI link is a review, I wouldn't consider it an official source. Anyone get a good look at the credits? Nsign ( talk) 11:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough then 81.96.134.214 ( talk) 17:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
The lead section currently contains the phrase "Skyfall was the last film of the series for Judi Dench who played M...". (Until a couple of days ago it was "After starring as M for seven consecutive Bond films, Skyfall marks Judi Dench's last performance in the role.") Later, in the Cast section we have "Skyfall is Dench's seventh and final appearance in the role."
At the moment it certainly appears that way. But although I doubt the filmmakers will do this, there's still the potential for future Bond movies to be set in the gap between QOS and Skyfall, or for her M to appear in flashbacks. Because of that, and in the absence of any interviews with her commenting on whether she'll do any more, is it a bit speculative to assert that it's definitely her last? -- Nick R Talk 23:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
It would be nice for someone to find a reliable source for this. I for one am of the mind it is/should be her last one, as for them putting in prequel/sequel between film sucks! MisterShiney (Come say hi) 13:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I think also going by the fact that (as far as I can remember) no Bond film has ever featured flashbacks featuring previously deceased characters, its fine to call this as Dench's last. Charlr6 is correct - you can't wait for confirmation on everything. Nsign ( talk) 15:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Is there possible a slightly larger version of this? As it does seem quite small. Just to the edges of the info box more. Charlr6 ( talk) 00:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I am confused as to why the poster was changed....? I seem to remember it being something different. MisterShiney (Come say hi) 16:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Box Office Mojo officially reported that the film's budget is $200 million. Can we change it?---- Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 07:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
[Box Office Mojo]] is a reliable source? http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2012/oct/23/skyfall-marketing-james-bond says otherwise. Also, when this film got made it was a big deal that the budget was lower than QOS? Think it should be changed back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamGallagherWright ( talk • contribs) 18:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Seems we have two "reliable" sources here. What do we go with? I am inclined to say Guardian because they I have heard of and it is a reputable broadsheet in the UK. MisterShiney ✉ 21:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Box office mojo's budgets frequently changes. According to the site Skyfall's budget was $130million, then £150million and now $200million. I'd be inclinded to believe The Guardian, The Dailymail etc. Rather than BOM on this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamGallagherWright ( talk • contribs) 16:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Skyfall is an action movie. Not spy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamGallagherWright ( talk • contribs) 18:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
No. Its a spy genre film, with like the rest of the James Bond Franchise films, aspects of action film. An Action film would be something like Green Zone or the Die Hard films. MisterShiney ✉ 21:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Yet all the other Bond films don't list a genre? I think genre should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamGallagherWright ( talk • contribs) 16:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
I've copied over a little part of a discussion on the Dark Knight Rises Talk Page in which I discuss the similarity between the reveal at the end of Skyfall and that at the end of TDKR:
As mentioned above, an edit was made to the Skyfall article, but this was reverted by Darkwarriorblake. If you want to see the reasoning behind the original discussion, and change, see the whole thing on the TDKR talk page. I want to know how people feel about the article so far, and whether it should be changed. I think that it should be given a little more recognition within the summary, so it is written less as a throwaway, but I've not got the conviction to take action on this without consensus. Thanks, drewmunn ( talk) 14:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
I am of the opinion that the current version as it stands is much better than what it was. Having Miss Moneypenny on an active mission from the beginning would just confuse readers as most who know the franchise would be like "Wait, isn't she the secretary? What the hell?" so revealing her as Moneypenny at the end is a much better alternative. MisterShiney ✉ 15:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Agreed - as it is its accurate, logical and consistent with the narrative. Leave it alone. Nsign ( talk) 12:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Just pointing out that (1) Blitzer is definitely in the movie as himself; and (2) while a nice little touch of pseudo-realism, it's probably too trivial to mention in this article. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
just out of cinema and i might be wrong... is bond crying at m's death szene? this imhop would be the first time. Fansoft ( talk) 00:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I thought he cried when Vesper died in Royale? And when Le Chiffre was torturing him? Nsign ( talk) 13:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Somewhere in the article it probably warrants mentioning that this is the first original Bond film (as opposed to one based upon a novel or suggested by a short story) not to have a specially commissioned novelisation. All others going back to Licence to Kill (which was in fact based on several Fleming sources) have been adapted; Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace saw the original stories reissued. 70.72.211.35 ( talk) 19:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
On the page it says: "Set reports dated April 2012 recorded that scenes would be set on Hashima Island, an abandoned island off the coast of Nagasaki, Japan. In actuality, the scene was set on an unnamed island off the coast of Macau, though based on the real-life Hashima." I think the wording is a bit vague and doesn't make clear whether the scenes were actually shot at Hashima Island (regardless of the setting of the story). -- 178.12.54.149 ( talk) 22:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Raoul Silva's real name, Tiago Rodriguez, is mispelled. Mr. Silva is implied to be of Lusophone origin (Silva, Tiago), and so his correct name would be spelt Tiago Rodrigues. This is minor, but it should be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.8.110.0 ( talk) 05:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
The source is wrong. The Titanic re-release this year grossed £10 million, which gives Titanic a total of just shy of £80 million in the UK ( source), so Skyfall is currently the third highest grossing film in the UK, not the second, at least until the weekend. -- Allthestrongbowintheworld ( talk) 01:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Requested addition: Although the title and plot does not come from a Fleming work, there are at least three major elements in this film that parallel events in Fleming novels: M writing Bond's obituary and an injured Bond disappearing on an island somewhere comes from the closing chapters of You Only Live Twice, while the very next Fleming novel, The Man with the Golden Gun begins with Bond returning after his disappearance and having to prove himself fit for duty again. The idea of M going to bat for Bond and putting him back in the field could also be seen as reflecting the early stages of You Only Live Twice in which Bond is given the designation 7777 and given a potential suicide mission. 70.72.211.35 ( talk) 03:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Why would Bond get a PPK/S? That version was made specifically to be able to import the guns into the United States, not because it made the gun "better" in any way. If anything he'd get a PPK/E. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.194.186.128 ( talk) 15:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
When weighing consensus on a closely divided issue like this one a critical factor is which poisition has the support of Wikipedia policies or common practices. Policy says Wikipedia contains spoilers so any comments that it was a spoiler are given less weight. Policy also says that generally an item should be linked the first time it is mentioned. However, there is a valid point made that common practice is that plot summaries relate the narrative faithfully, which would generally mean in the order and manner it is presented in the film. The rest of the article is of course explicitly exempt from this. So, as amatter of policy we could use the characters full name and link it the first time the character is mentioned in the plot, but there is nothing saying we have to. It seems alterations were made to the article during the course of this discussion to try and reconcile the two options and that there are not any serious objections. It seems prudent to simply leave it at that and consider the current arrangement the "consensus version" of those aspects of the plot summary. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC) |
Comments are invited on an issue with the Plot summary of the Skyfall article. A character is shown in the first scenes of the film and the plot summary currently contains a wikilink. Her surname is not revealed until the final scenes of the film and can be considered a minor twist, although not one that affects the film's plot. Is it more appropriate to link the name at the front of the summary, or to leave it until the end (and refer to the character by her first name throughout the rest of the summary)? - SchroCat ( ^ • @) 15:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
...and many more. I don't think I've seen a single plot summary that does what SchroCat is doing, and it really does read strangely. It seems to be jarring for a lot of people, given the huge numbers who have felt strongly enough that it didn't sound right to come on here - Charlr6, Nsign, 194.73.118.78, 86.156.13.63, 99.229.136.215, 80.167.205.66, Silver seren, Blethering Scot, A wild Rattata, me. I agree with A wild Rattata that Moneypenny should remain in the lead section before the plot summary. Edbrims ( talk) 21:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Support for deletion of Moneypenny in plot summary until the end As per my lengthy, tiresome and frustrating exchange with schrodinger above in the 'plot' section, there is no logical reason to reveal Moneypenny's name at the beginning of the summary, other than wikipedia rules say that you can. Well maybe they do, but why on earth would you? The logical thing to do here is to provide an accurate summation of the narrative AS TOLD. Therefore the summary should reveal Eve's name as Moneypenny at the end so that it reflects the plot of the film. Seems very simple and straightforward, doesn't it? One wonders why one person feels they have the right to arbitrarily police an entry, undo edits made by others without explaining why and ignore what seems to be the majority view. 194.73.118.78 ( talk) 12:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Also, to specifically rebut Schrocat - he says "The subsequent identity of that character as Miss Moneypenny has no bearing on the plot or storyline of the film". That is entirely his own opinion and is subjective. Others may regard Eve's identity and her story arc in the film to be part of the plot. Because, er, that's what it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.73.118.78 ( talk) 16:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
No one is disputing the policies. The view is that just because one is allowed to name the character's identity at a point in the summary where the film does not, it is preferable not to because it is not an accurate reflection of the narrative as told. The impression is that the character has been identified as Miss Moneypenny at this point in the plot when she hasn't, and I would suggest that makes it slightly misleading. To have her identified as Eve until she actually reveals her full name is an accurate reflection of the narrative as it unfolds. If the consensus says otherwise I'll accept it but until then I don't believe it should stand. 194.73.118.78 ( talk) 15:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
So it has. It reads better and gives a more accurate representation of the flow of the story. Wasn't so hard, was it? 194.73.118.78 ( talk) 15:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Then three cheers for democracy. 194.73.118.78 ( talk) 16:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I also don't object to the use of the full name in the lead - just the plot summary. 194.73.118.78 ( talk) 15:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
ive always seen in plots if one character ends up being a revealed character near the end its said when it happens in the plot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.64.255 ( talk) 14:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
To delete would be incorrect IMO. I completely agree with SchroCat. -- Cassianto Talk 21:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Include it from the start. After numerous (possibly unnecessary) discussions, I support SchroCat. drewmunn ( talk) 15:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
That's not the point. Mentioning the character's return in the lead is acceptable because its a noteworthy feature of the film in relation to the franchise as a whole. Identifying her as Moneypenny right away in the summary isn't, because it misleadingly implies that she is identified as Moneypenny at that point in the film when she isn't, and is therefore not a faithful account of the narrative. Nsign ( talk) 12:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
It appears I'm not the only guy who noticed a more than passing resemblance between the Bond villain in the film and the Wikileaks founder
More than just physical resemblance as the character releases sensitive information on the internet (on youtube, no less) as his main crime. Does anybody think this might be an issue that should be addressed?-- Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 02:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
It is not revealed until the end of the film that Harris is playing Moneypenny- in fact this was denied for quite some time. Should this information be at the very beginning of the article? I'm not totally familiar with protocol in this area. 331dot ( talk) 23:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Two editors, independent of each other, myself and User:Schrodinger's cat is alive, have trimmed the wordy version preferred by User:Prisonermonkeys, who inexplicably appears to insist on using the passive voice ("The car is driven by Carl") rather than the active voice ("Carl drives the car') — a standard thing that Writing 101 teaches you not to do— and creates plot-bloat taking the straightforward plot to over 700 words. He and I have discussed this on his talk page, but so far he has been re-inserting his wordy version with passive-voice writing. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 06:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I think it may be time to move on from the edit warring arguments and focus on the issue in hand, which is to agree the wording which was the cause of this all. There really is little point in flogging the dead horse of 'he said - she said' and we've all got better things to do. Below is the current opening paragraph of the plot section: any suggestions as to the future form it could take, bearing in mind we'd prefer to keep the whole thing under 700 words? - SchroCat ( talk) 18:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
In Turkey, MI6 agents James Bond and Eve attempt to recover a stolen computer hard drive containing details of agents placed undercover in terrorist organisations by NATO states. As they chase the mercenary Patrice, who killed MI6 agents to steal the drive, Patrice shoots Bond in the shoulder. As the two men fight, Eve accidentally shoots Bond, allowing Patrice to escape. Bond goes missing, presumed dead.
I think the wording could use some work. Particularly this part:
I think two things can be addressed here:
In Turkey MI6 agents James Bond and Eve attempt to recover a computer hard drive stolen from a murdered MI6 agent; the drive contains details of agents placed undercover in terrorist organisations by NATO states. Bond and Eve chase the killer, the mercenary 'Patrice', and attempt to recover the disk. During the chase, Bond is wounded by a ricocheting bullet. While fighting Patrice, Bond is accidentally shot by Eve and is later considered "missing, presumed killed".
In Istanbul, MI6 agents James Bond and Eve attempt to recover a computer hard drive stolen from a murdered MI6 agent; the drive contains details of agents placed undercover in terrorist organisations by NATO states. Bond and Eve chase the killer, the mercenary Patrice, and Bond is wounded by a ricocheting bullet. While fighting Patrice, Bond is accidentally shot by Eve. Patrice escapes and Bond is considered "missing, presumed killed".
Why this is being changed I do not know. It was fine the way it was. It seem's like there is one user who is trying to put his personal opinion on something that is disagreed by not one but two (and myself) and so insists on edit warring and has now ruined editing this page for other users. MisterShiney ✉ 21:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
In Turkey, MI6 agents James Bond and Eve chase the mercenary Patrice, who
stolehas stolen a computer hard drive containing details of undercover agents placed in terrorist organisations by NATO states. Patrice shoots Bond in the shoulder, and as the two men fight atop a train, Eve accidentally shoots Bond, allowing Patrice to escape. Bond goes missing, presumed dead.
Change "Patrice shoots Bond in the shoulder" to "Patrice wounds Bond in the shoulder" and I'm happy with it. I still feel that saying Patrice shoots Bond and that Eve shoots Bond implies that Bond has a similar injury from both and that the circumstances of his being shot are the same, neither of which is true. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 06:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Perfect. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 22:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)