Talk:Goldfinger (film)

Good article nomination successful

This article meets all of the GA criteria. My only suggestion is that more references could be included in the Plot section and the first paragraph in the lead section. I wish you all the best with your editing... -- Johnfos 00:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You can't reference plot, it's basically citing the film, which is pointless. And the lead should only be cited if that information is not going to be repeated in the article. SpecialWindler talk 10:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

I am opening a peer review for additional suggestions and refinement. Cliff smith 18:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Vehicles and gadgets

Some of the stuff added therein looks a little trivial since it lacks references. And also, is it necessary to make note of every vehicle that was in the film? Cliff smith 16:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Well it needs referncing asap and some of the more trivial info taken out certainly. But it definately needs a solid section on it. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you?" Contribs} 18:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• I have removed silly trivia as I dont want this article to get delisted. Vikrant Phadkay 15:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Minor Correction

In paragraph 3 of RECEPTION, the phrase, "It was recently announced" appears. It does not seem proper for an encyclopedia that may be read years later.

Les Sellinger70.18.216.238 05:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's not paper, so it will change with the times to some extent. Cliff smith 21:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Citation for use

• Nigel Kendall (2007-07-26). "Goldfinger? Dr No? Or Casino Royale?". The Times. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Brilliant review of Bond's incompetence throughout the film. Worth including for some exploration of how Cubby and Broccoli were attempting to perfect the formula. Alientraveller 21:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, if you think a "controversial storyline" section can be supported by reliable sources. But a single 40-year-later critique isn't terribly notable. FWIW, I agree with the bloke, I've long known that Goldfinger (film) was a) a terrible Bond story, b) bursting with panache, and gorgeous color photography (Ted Moore?), and c) the worst possible but most imitated Bond formula. He doesn't do any detecting, so much as fall out of one goofup into another. He puts one girl in harm's way without reason (excluding wild, spontaneous sex), and fails to protect another. (In teh book, IIRC, Tilly lasted until Kentucky, but died there. I don't remember how. It's one of the few books in which 007 has two damsels.) Why does Goldfinger kill off all the mob bosses ... does he think he'll avoid an all-out underworld war over that? Oh, and the barn scene ... Bond, the British Superspy Date Rapist? Today, that scene just wouldn't track. Totally against the Fleming character, too. Film-Bond's lasciviousness always disgusted me, and some of his sleazy, manipulative behavior in Live and Let Die is a low point of the whole series. Still ... you can't deny Guy Hamilton's panache in "having a little fun" with the character (Inside Goldfinger, 2000, MGM Home Entertainment). From start to finish, Goldfinger is big, loud, jovial, slick, and entertaining. In that frame of reference, Goldfinger spawned 40 years of action films with questionable ethics.

And because WP has no place for OR or soapboxing, all of what I've said doesn't belong in the article. Perhaps this reference is the start of a "controversial storyline" section after all. I say ... Be bold, go for it, Alien! :) David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 17:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Video with opening

This site: [[1]] has the opening of this movie.Agre22 (talk) 16:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)agre22

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Goldfinger (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

As part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles' Project quality task force, all old good articles are being re-reviewed to ensure that they meet current good article criteria (as detailed at WP:WIAGA. I have determined that this article needs some upkeep to maintain its status:

• The plot is waaay too long. For instance, we've got a blow-by-blow of the precredits sequence.
• The lead doesn't talk about the production or marketing of the film, thus does not summarize the entire article.
• Large portions of the "Impact" section are unreferenced.
• I'm concerned about possible misquoting of sources, especially in the Impact section. For example, the article reads: "In Quantum of Solace, the director, Marc Forster, decided to pay homage to the gold body paint death scene by having another female character, MI6 operative Strawberry Fields, dead on a bed nude in a similar pose as Jill Masterson's, but instead of being covered in gold paint, her entire body was daubed in crude oil. Her cause of death was given as drowning in crude oil with her lungs completely filled with the sticky substance, rather than dying from skin suffocation. Forster wanted the scene to show that oil has replaced gold as the most precious substance." The source, however, only says "Forster uses a classic Bond icon to signal this shift in perception. Instead of a dead Shirley Eaton coated from head to toe in gold, we get Gemma Atherton stretched naked on a bed, doused in oil. "Oil is the new gold," he says."[2]
• There are several dead links that should be replaced.

I am putting the article on hold for a week pending improvements to the above. Please appraise me of questions or progress in this space. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

As no meaningful action has been taken on addressing the above, I am delisting the article. You may renominate the article any time at WP:GAN, but I strongly recommend fixing the above. If you have any questions, you can drop a line on my talk page; I don't watch these reviews, so comments left here won't be followed up. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sales of the soundtrack album

A figure of 1,000,000 in sales for the single (not the soundtrack) has been used in various places, using Guinness Records as a source, but with no reference to a book or online source or anything else. (Such a reference would be welcome). It is not even clear now whether this 1,000,000 figure refers to the single or the soundtrack, which is why a specific reference would be nice. If it really sold that many copies in America, one has to wonder why there is no RIAA Gold or Platinum certification, I have looked under Goldfinger, John Barry, Shirley Bassey, and United Artists. http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH --Nyctc7 (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Errors section

Perhaps we could add an errors section for this article. I watched the movie last night and noticed a few myself, namely:

• When Bond throws the lamp into the bathtub, it goes halfway across the room, which is presumably longer than the cord can reach. Either the cord would stop the lamp short or it would become unplugged and the lamp wouldn't have any effect on the water in the bath.

• When the door to the safe opens during the gunfight, one of the Japanese henchmen supposedly gets crushed by it, even though an earlier shot gives the impression that there was plenty of room for him to stand there and the actor is really unconvincing.

• Some of the damage to the woman's car seems to have disappeared after Bond ran her off the road. It seemed that he cut into the chassis while she was next to him, but when they stop, the chassis is barely scratched.

• The townspeople around Fort Knox crash their cars upon being "gassed", even though the gas was actually harmless. If they were just faking it, then why would they kill each other in staged car crashes?

• Bond seems to easily stroll into the cockpit after Goldfinger gets sucked out of the plane, even though he was struggling to hold on just beforehand.

(Huey45 (talk) 03:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC))

There are all kinds of errors, like what a Lincoln Continental weighs, and whether or not that dinky little Rancheo Truck could carry one, which of course doesn't get any lighter after being crushed. But somebody else has to have noticed them in print before you can put them in here.SBHarris 06:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Inaccurate source? Authenticity of actor burning anecdote

The reference to Jamesbondmm.co.uk is used to support the claim that the actor playing Oddjob was actually burned in the electrocution scene, however I was unable to find any support for this claim on that page. I didn’t read it completely, but searching within the page for words like "burn" and "hospital" returned only matches describing the in-film action or providing analysis. --X883 (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Impact

I can't believe that the "Impact" section includes references to Kim Possible and "Due mafiosi contro Goldginger" but doesn't mention Austin Powers, International Man of Mystery, which lifts the "Do you expect me to talk..." bit almost word for word. PurpleChez (talk) 22:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

And let's not also forget that Random Task and Arlotta Fagina are puns on Oddjob and Pussy Galore respectively. Lee M (talk) 19:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

What about the attempt to stop the use of the title "Goldmember"?Marzolian (talk) 07:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Solo's Gold

"It is another mystery why Oddjob does not remove the gold bar from boot of the car before the car is crushed thus avoiding the need for Goldfinger's chemists to extract the gold from the cube."

But we previously saw the gold being loaded into Solo's trunk with a fork lift truck. Presumably not even Oddjob could lift that much. But yes, the weight of the car plus gold would have crushed the pickup after it was cubed. Lee M (talk) 19:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Most of it the car weight, tho. In 1960 the "official" US gold price was $40 a troy ounce (about $36.5 per standard oz.) [3], although it was a little difficult to tell, since gold was not an open-market traded commodity, and its "price" was manipulated (making existence of simple gold smugglers like Goldfinger possible, one supposes). A million in gold at $583 per standard lb avoidupois would be 1714 lbs-- indeed too heavy for Oddjob and needing a forklift. But the Lincoln would have been 3 times that weight.

Interestingly, a million in gold today at $1544/oz. troy or $1400/ avoirdupois oz., would only weigh less than 45 lbs. You could carry it in a single (very tough) little briefcase, and wouldn't need Oddjob or even Peter Lupus (the guy on Mission Impossible who only did that one thing-- carry stuff that's heavier than it looks). SBHarris 21:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments on the article

Overall, the article is much improved since I reviewed it for a good article reappraisal a while ago. There are still some things I think could be improved: the lead doesn't really cover much of the production of the film, nor the plot; I think mentioning the directors/production staff isn't that important unless there's some context added; and while the plot section is much improved, it could probably still be condensed a little. Good job on including actual critic commentary from the time period; I'm not really sure adding a Rotten Tomatoes reference does much because it's based on non-contemporary reviews, but if there are refs that talk about more modern reception those might be better. Also—you should really have secondary sources to support the homages in the cartoons and movies rather than just linking to the data for the episodes itself. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes the lead does need to be expanded since it doesn't summarise the contents of the article as accurately as it might. The critical reception section isn't quite up to par either since it is not neutral. It doesn't present any negative criticism, and while I appreciate that it was an almost unversally praised film, there must have have been some dissent which should be included. That would be enough to address the problem with that section, but this was the film where Connery came of age in the part so it would be good to include some writing on his performance in this film. Goldfinger and Pussy are iconic characters too and it would be interesting to see some critical analysis of these characters/actors. It's a strong article, I've bene working my way through it, but the critical recption section could be improved. I'll have a look at the "Impact" section tomorrow since I have to knock off now. Betty Logan (talk) 17:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

There has been extensive analysis of both Goldfinger and Pussy in this article, but nearly all of it has been spun off into the subarticles on those characters. It's rather annoying to put it in, have it removed, put it in, have it removed, then have a reviewer ask where is it. Answer: it was removed. See the links. SBHarris 19:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

If there are separate articles covering the critical analysis of these characters/actors, then they can at least be summarised in the main article. Lots of articles have "spin-offs" to provide more depth and further analysis, but there should still be some coverage of the characters/actors in this article, even if it is just a summary of what is at the other articles. This article was obviously de-listed for a reason, and the fact is the GA review applies to this article, not a group of articles and coverage is one of the criteria of the review. Betty Logan (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no critical analysis of the actors or characters in those chararacter profiles form what I can see; I am eithe rlooking in the wrong place or you haven't understood the point I am making. My comments are specifically addressing the critical coverage. Betty Logan (talk) 20:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I've added some additional critical comments from the reviews - it's now more balanced, although the criticism is (apart from the NYT) muted. Impact needs a lot of work - it's just a general dumping ground for any time the film has been homaged or parodied and could do with being culled quite a lot GF is an important film in the Bond series as it set a number of the ongoing elements the appear elsewhere and this needs to be highlighted - I've got some good references to cite from, so it should be relatively straightforward to put those in soon. I've trimmed a little of the plot, but there may still be something to come off it (for 110 minute straightforward plot it's quite long! The lead is obviously weak - I suggest we get the rest of the piece looking good and then condense it to make it something much stronger. - Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk) 23:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Good to be keen and to keep the momentum going, but IMHO I think it's way to soon for a nomination - there's still a lot of work to do to get this thing watertight... - Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk) 07:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. There are still minor sourcing issues although overall the article is well sourced. The two sections that need overhauling are the critical reception sections and the legacy section. I think it's important for this article to have a good legacy section, because this film along with Dr No pretty much set the Bond formula. Betty Logan (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

I've withdrawn the review until we're happy that the page is of a suitably high standard - which it certainly isn't at the moment. I think we should be able to re-nominate in a week or so, but that is only if we manage to sort out a couple of the sections more completely. It's getting closer and the article os starting to take some good shape, but we're a way off yet! - Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree it's the best course of action. The Legacy/Impact section was the major factor in it being de-listed so I agree that needs to be sorted out before re-assessment is applied for. Betty Logan (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I've added a bit to the critical reception section - a little more on the reception of the actors - Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk) 11:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm happier with it now - the legacy section is much improved with all details sourced and additional material in there strengthening it. The critcal reception section is more balanced, containing some negative aspects, as well as providing some nods towards Frobe / Blackman's roles in the film. I'm going to GA Nominate now - at the very worst they may be one or two small points to clarify in the review, but I feel we should be able to cover those as and when they arise. - Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk) 12:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The main issues have been addressed, at least to the extent to satisfy the GA criteria i.e. the neutrality of the eeception and the coverage of the legacy/impact section. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the article, so anything it is calle dup on can be corrected fairly quickly I think. Betty Logan (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Goldfinger (film)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Matthew RD 19:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I shall conduct this GA review, which I'll do soon. -- Matthew RD 19:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

This is how the article fairs against the GA criteria:

1. Well written: ✗ Fail, notes for improvement found below
2. Factually accurate and verifiable: All sources seem reliable, mostly from newspapers, books and DVD special features. None I can think of where the reliability is questionable. ✓ Pass
3. Broad in coverage: ✓ Pass
4. Neutral: ✓ Pass
5. Stable: ✓ Pass
6. Images: Non-free images check out fine, both provice sufficient commentary to the subject. ✓ Pass

More to come. -- Matthew RD 08:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Notes for improvement

• "They listen to Goldfinger's plan to knock over Fort Knox before Goldfinger kills them all." I think it would be best to mention they were killed by nerve gas. In another sentence it is mentioned that Galore's flying circus used "the gas" with no previous mention of it, so I think stating the mafiosi died from nerve gas would be a good place to mention it, or the flying circus bit (hope you understand :)

 Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• There are some quotations in the plot section that uses (') and others with ("). I'd like to keep the quote marks uniformed to (") as they all seem like this. Also throughout the article (“) was used. According to WP:PUNCT, the latter format is not recommended by Wikipedia. This is where they are found:
  • “must stand as one of the great cinematic combats”
  • There's a lot of that in the Critical response section
  • “the most highly and consistently praised Bond picture of them all” and “became a true phenomenon.”

 Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Bond's masseuse from the pre-credits sequence." I thought Dink was the girl in Miami, after the opening credits. Or am I interprating this wrong?

 Done No, you've interpreted nothing incorrectly - I wrote it incorrectly! - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• "we [the crew] decided to let our imaginations run wild." A reference is needed after a direct quote

 Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Harry Saltzman learned of the new technology "that could shoot all the way to the moon"." Again, reference after direct quote.

 Done No idea on where this came from as it's been unsourced for some time: sentence removed - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• "The premiere was held cinema in London." That sentence did not make sense to me.

 Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• "It is the mixture as before, only more so: it is superb hokum." Again, reference after direct quote.

 Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Connery plays the hero with an insultingly cool, commanding air." Reference again needed after direct quote.

 Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Who does Danny Peary write for in his review?

 Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• The American Film Institute rankings, is there a source for these?

 Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Indeed it has been said that Goldfinger was the cause of the boom in espionage films in the 1960s" This needs a comma afterwards for the rest of the sentence, to allow the reader to breathe.

 Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

And there you have. I nice effort to bring it up for nomination. Sort those out, and I'll be sure to pass it. Thanks. -- Matthew RD 10:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that everything has been dealt with now, but please let me know if there is anything else we need to do to get this up to GA. Thanks again - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response dealing with the issues. Everything now looks in order, so it's a pass. Well done. -- Matthew RD 12:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

That's great news - Thanks very much Matthew - you're an absolue star for getting all this sorted so quickly! - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Roger Ebert -- Review

No treatment of the following review? -- http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19990131/REVIEWS08/401010322/1023 -- maybe such a treatment could be a move towards the wholeness of the present article. -- Twipley (talk) 20:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It would be interesting to include the reviews from non-British sources, or to include reviews of the rereleased versions. Strange that no one has done so yet. -- 109.79.100.242 (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Goldfinger's golden rule

Goldfinger's fetish for wearing golden-ish clothes and accessories is definitely departed from in his final scene in the film - no gold visible as he is sucked out of the plane (albeit to start playing his golden harp) ... Straw Cat (talk) 12:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

If you can find an independent secondary source to back that up then it's fine to go in, but not otherwise, I'm afraid. (I also think the golden gun was around earlier in the scene too, from memory) There was already some debate over something similar in a previous thread and the consensus was that it needs to be sourced in order to go in, rather than just relying on our own interpretations having seen the film. - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, there is a primary independent source - the film scene itself. The fact is that the article's assertion that Goldfinger "sports yellow or golden items of clothing in every film scene" is incorrect - and the source relied on for this statement only says that it "seems" to be the case.Straw Cat (talk) 12:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

See WP:SOURCES, which states that articles should be based on "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". In other words, not the films themselves. I think you're twisting the word "seems" just a little there: the article in question talks about the fact that gold runs throughout the film and seems to appear in every scene. In other words it doesn't give it as an absolute fact and neither does the article, which refers to the gold pistol he carries as a colonel. - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the point the source is making is that there is a visual connection between Goldfinger and gold in every scene he appears. Could we not just alter the wording slightly, and instead of saying "items of clothing" we could state "items and clothing"; he clearly has gold coloured possessions, and he has a gold gun when he wears the USAF uniform. It would still capture the intended meaning of the source and bear out observations from the film itself. Betty Logan (talk) 12:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC).

Link from See also to navboxes

That's the bloody laziest edit I've ever seen if you're trying to get consensus on anything: do it properly if you want to convince people. I've now followed your second link, which is just you floating a proposal which no-one supported. The best thing that can be said about it is that no-one said no to it. It's hardly a consensus-building discussion you've put forward to support the change and no-where near anything resembling a policy. The article is, as it stands, in line and consistent with all the other Bond film articles. As this has been classed a "Good Topic", it means that there has to be some coherence between them all and individual articles shouldn't be used as an experimental testing ground for your little pet project. - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Yikes. I write to quickly assure you that I am proceeding in good faith (however unartfully). The folks at Layout suggested I test the concept out and see what reaction I got and that is what I have been doing. Yours is the first negative feedback I've received. I don't have the time to get into the substance of your concerns at this moment, but I hope to do a post on that within the next day or three. Meanwhile, I apologize for whatever offense I've caused. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone given any good feedback yet, because lack of negative feedback isn't a justification for it. I saw the suggestion to "do it a few times" to try it - something that has seen you do it to a large number of articles, rather than "a few". I see what you're trying to do, but it's just not necessary and—on my settings at least—messes up the formatting of the article. - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow up. I really am going to post more, but these are busy times for me in the real world. Please stand by. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Two preliminary matters before seeking your comments below. First, I want you to know that I understand your position that the See also/navbox link is not ready for prime time and, until it is ready, you will remove it from articles that you are maintaining. I hope that you will understand that, should I add it to one of those articles in the future, I will have done so out of ignorance of your involvement. Second, I want to be sure that you noticed that my second change to Goldfinger did not change the navboxes in any way other than to put an anchor above them. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Introduction of the link

The idea of a See also side box linking to navboxes actually came from another user. I then floated the idea to a couple of other folks and received neutral responses. I then took the idea to Layout and received a third editor's neutral response. So I guess that's 2 in favor (the originator and me) and 3 neutral.

I took the Layout suggestion to "do it a few times" to mean I should try it on a few articles and, if I didn't get any resistance I could then try it on a few more. So I field tested the idea on a few articles a day, including George Washington, a good article with more than 1,800 watchers, and World War II, a good article with more than 2,500 watchers. While no one leaped to a talk page to exclaim that the change was a vast improvement, given the fact that humans are more inclined to complain than to compliment I suggest it is significant that - just considering these two articles - more than 4,000 editors were exposed to the proposal and not one of them reverted.

Given the organic nature of Wikipedia, it seems best to continue down this path. Maybe other editors will pick up on it, maybe they won't. If they don't then, since there are almost 4,000,000 Wikipedia articles out there, the proposed link will not make much of a dent on the site. Meanwhile, it seems mostly harmless to introduce it over time and see what happens. Or is there some other approach you'd recommend instead? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

What do you think?

Whether or not the specific proposal I am touting is ready for prime time, would you agree with the proposition that providing a link in the See also section to navboxes would be helpful to casual readers (who might not even know that there are such things as "navboxes")? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The ever-pointless Rotten Tomatoes

IP, stop edit warring on the Rotten Tomatoes text please and try and discuss it here first. The hideously awful system they use for "scoring" a balanced piece of text into a raw number needs to be phrased properly, not just the equally crass "an overall score of 96%", which is far from the truth of the matter. - SchroCat (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:MOSFILM and WP:RTMC have several things to say about Rotten Tomatoes. Rotten Tomatoes started roughly in 2000, for films before then the score from Rotten Tomatoes is often deemphasized and put at the end of the critical response section, as it is done in the case of this article.

Weasel words like "mostly" should be avoided, when the wording can be specific and the wording should be improved to avoid this.

If you look at the reviews for Goldfinger you will see they are all dated post 2000, this can be specifically stated and vague weasel words avoided. [Edit: Bah, Rotten Tomatoes indicates the date the review was collected, only by clicking through to the article can you see if the reviews were contemporary or if they were reviews of the rerelease, several are from the '60s, others from different dates, Roger Ebert reviewed it in 1999. We can only be sure they were collected/aggregated post 2000. Still the lazy "mostly" can and should be avoided.]

An editor stated that the percentage given by Rotten Tomatoes is not the "score" and that the score was "8.4" but this was clearly an incorrect description, Rotten Tomatoes describes 8.4 as the "rating average". It would probably be good to include the 8.4 rating average, if editors feel the Rotten Tomatoes percentage is somehow "dishonest".

Keep comments on relevant article talk pages. Do not make comments personal talk pages. If you want to start a discussion on the talk page then better to actually start it, than telling someone else to start it. -- 109.79.100.242 (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I recommend changing the wording to:

Review aggregation website Rotten Tomatoes retrospectively collected 54 reviews ...

and I would suggest adding the rating average too. -- 109.79.100.242 (talk) 20:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I did start it - right above this thread (I have now merged the two threads together for completeness sake). As I mentioned on your talk page, read WP:BRD: when your Bold edit if Reverted, you need to Discuss, not wait for others to do it while you re-revert. My comments on your talk page were entirely justified to make you come to this page, rather than edit war.

To be entirely honest, I'd rather not have anything as crassly awful as Rotten Tomatoes in articles at all: they are a monumental dumbing down of the crafted prose of a reviewer, to a meaningless "score" or percentage. It panders only to those who are too stupid or lazy to read reviews and who just want to look at a number, without really understanding what is behind that number: as such the 8.4 rating average is even more of a useless waste of time than the rest of the site. However, if we don't add them, some lazy, non-thinking drive-by editor will only add it in and do such in such a turgidly awful way that will mislead others into thinking there is actually some truth in the "score" the site somehow creates out of nothing. The current wording is fine as it stands, IMO. - SchroCat (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I find your attitude unhelpful. If you think [Rotten Tomatoes] is so crap, why do you even care if I change the wording? -- 109.79.100.242 (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I found your edit warring unhelpful, let alone your unwillingness to come to the talk page before having to be asked several times. I'm sorry that I don't slavishly follow what you've written, but we are allowed to have differing opinions here. I also care because Rancid Tomatoes is so abjectly crass in their practices that it needs to be phrased correctly to limit possible misconceptions about what the "score" actually is. - SchroCat (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

You're overthinking it. You say "truth" and assert that yours is the "honest" way to present the score, but you're missing the point, it is exactly the simplistic reductionist overall score that you dislike so much that people find so useful. They can still read the more detailed reviews too. Since you so clearly dislike Rotten Tomatoes you'd be better off pretending it isn't there and ignoring that paragraph, but I'm not going to spend any further time on this. Enjoy your article -- 109.79.100.242 (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, a baseless accusation of ownership from a drive-by IP... I'm cut to the core. I see your reading matter needs to cover AGF and CIVIL, as well as BRD. - SchroCat (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment Firstly I actually think the RT "scores" could be dropped for the early Bond films. We use aggregators for recent films simply because in many cases it is the only objective means available to us to assess a film's overall critical standing, but the critical standing of Goldfinger as the best Bond film or one of the best is easily sourcable. There is plenty of retrospective assessment of the Bond films so I'm not sure what purpose the aggregator serves in this regard. Moving on to this particular issue, the RT percentage is the share of positive reviews out of all the reviews RT has surveyed. It is not a score, it is a metric: RT assigns a binary score i.e. Fresh/Rotten and works out the ratio. I presume the "rating" is just an average of the critic scores normalised to 10. In this case I think SchroCat's wording better reflects what the RT percentage represents. I think the IP may well be confusing the methodology with the approach that Metacritic uses, which can be correctly described as assigning a "score". Betty Logan (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The Mythbuster season and airdate for Citation #112 are totally wrong.

Here are correct references for the episode dealing with Goldfinger:

http://fandomania.com/tv-review-mythbusters-8-23-minimyth-madness/

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/MythBusters_(2010_season)#Episode_153_-_.22Mini_Myth_Madness.22

For starters Mythbusters didn't even start airing until 2003 so how is the "ninth season" start airing in 2004?

I was trying to locate the episode with the Goldfinger test using this citation and found it to be wrong on both airdate and season and have since watched the segment which can be found here:

http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/minimyth-madness.htm

It was not Season 9 it was season 8. And it DEFINITELY was not 2004.

Update: I guess it doesn't really matter because any reasonably intelligent person would be able to find the correct episode based on it's title, season, and airdate but Schrocat's citation still lists the incorrect episode number even if he claims it's correct in the update note:

http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/2010-episodes17.htm

This is definitely the discovery channel's episode guide to their show mythbusters which lists the Mini Myth Madness episode as #17. They are the producers of the show and air them on their channel there can be absolutely no better no MORE reliable source than the discovery channel's own episode guide to Mythbusters.

I am going to change it back to episode 17 and after that I will leave it up to other wikipedia editors who value utmost accuracy in the articles to determine if schrocat should be allowed to revert it back to episode 18 without providing his own reliable source.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.47.229.235 (talk) 03:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

IP, in future, post your comments at the bottom of both page and thread, indent by use of colons' sign using four tildes, and never, ever pull a stunt like this again. - SchroCat (talk) 05:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Goldfinger (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nytimes.com/1964/12/22/screen-agent-007-meets-goldfinger.html?_r=0
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cinemaretro.com/index.php?%2Farchives%2F100-00-HEAVEN-DIGITAL-GOLDFINGER-REISSUE-IN-UK-THEATERS.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.parkcircus.com/releases/goldfinger/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080821071914/http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/driving/features/article3552927.ece to http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/driving/features/article3552927.ece
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cinemaretro.com/index.php?%2Farchives%2F1802-HONOR-BLACKMAN-PRESENTS-GUY-HAMILTON-WITH-CINEMA-RETRO-AWARD-AT-PINEWOOD-STUDIOS-GOLDFINGER-REUNION.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Goldfinger (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.theofficialcharts.com/artist/_/john%20barry/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110217185509/http://www.theofficialcharts.com/artist/_/shirley%20bassey/ to http://www.theofficialcharts.com/artist/_/shirley%20bassey/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110409131057/http://blogs.suntimes.com/foreignc/2010/12/the-james-bond-template.html to http://blogs.suntimes.com/foreignc/2010/12/the-james-bond-template.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Three more ticks

Did the original US release always have seven seconds at the end? I grew up with the three seconds versions, but I realise they changed it some years ago.Halbared (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Not sure about the original release but I saw it in 68 and it had the 007. SonOfThornhill (talk) 20:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

"Dirty bomb" reference

Here's one for someone who wants to do the research. Although the term "dirty bomb" is in common use today to refer to a (usually) small nuclear device with low yield but intended to irradiate a region, it's a term that didn't really come into wide use until the last 20 years or so (I started hearing it post-9/11). Yet in 1964 we had Goldfinger all but using the term as he described his Fort Knox bomb. I contend that this is the first time in pop culture that the concept of a "dirty bomb" (small nuke intended to irradiate an area rather than cause mass destruction) was discussed. Obviously this can't be added to the article without a source to back this up (assuming my contention is even accurate). So I'll just leave this here and let anyone interested pick it up for confirmation - or debunking. 70.73.90.119 (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Fort Knox vault

The article says that the film set for the vault was created at Pinewood. However, a number of sources, e.g. [4], [5], [6], [7], suggest that the vault at the old headquarters of the Midland Bank at 27-35 Poultry, London was used in part - particularly the vault door? I'm wanting to do a short article on the Midland Bank, to fill an irritating redlink here. Its use in Goldfinger would warrant a mention, if true. Does anyone have any solid sources on this. The journalistic sources I've found sound a bit like they are repeating each other, and I wonder if we're in urban myth territory? But for the BEEB, the FT and RIBA (although a student editor) to all claim it, makes me uncertain. Any thoughts gratefully received. KJP1 (talk) 08:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

p.s. I see that the current occupant, The Ned, doesn't make the claim. By no means definitive, but it's the sort of thing you'd expect a hotel to reference. KJP1 (talk) 08:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi KJP1, I hope you're keeping well. There are several sources (of varying (un)reliablity) that make the connection, but none of the books I have (about 12 on the film series alone) says anything about filming in a bank. Most discuss the construction of the vault at Pinewood, and I think it likely that was where the vault door scene was filmed. The vault from the film (see one view of it here) looks sufficiently different from the views shown here, here and here to make me doubt the claim. I suspect Adams would have visited the bank to get a view of it, and then built it at Pinewood with everything else - even Golfinger's stud ranch in Kentucky was built in West London, so one vault door would have made no major difference to them. Most of that is OR, unfortunately, but what can be said is that none of the books that I have that include location information, mention any filming in the bank. Hope that helps! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

SchroCat - Many thanks, most helpful. It had the “ring” of an, oft-repeated, myth, although I’m a little disappointed to see that the BBC, the FT and RIBA all repeat it! A salutary lesson in not being able to believe all that you read. I shall leave it out, or maybe cover the myth in a footnote, unless a solid RS can be found. KJP1 (talk) 18:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)