Talk:No Time to Die/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Royal Navy ship was seen in the trailer. Should it be added?

https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/defence/royal-navy-warship-hms-dragon-set-to-make-a-starring-role-in-new-james-bond-film-no-time-to-die-3368930

Condo951795 (talk) 06:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I see no problem adding a line for this in the "Filming"section. Placing the mention after the "Faroe Islands" sentence would be best as we don't know the date of the shoot. --GloMonster^Talk 06:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, busy you can make the change. Condo951795 (talk) 02:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

You haven't told us what you think the wording should be. We're happy to wait until you find the time. --GloMonster^Talk 07:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Can we please put some sort of lock on this page?

Joined wikipedia because of this.

The movie has just come out and people are messing with the summary.

The current summary is correct. But there was an older, completely wrong one.

We need to wait to verify it.

Idiedyesterday (talk) 10:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Plot copyright violation

The plot (which may well be incorrect) keeps getting replaced with copyrighted text, eg from this site's web page. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 11:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I changed it back to version it was before all kind of changes where made Lobo151 (talk) 11:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 11:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Please could you both stop edit warring on this. The plot has been rewritten (by JoeUnexotic). Demands from Lobo151 and Esowteric for a citation are laughable, given WP:PLOTCITE states "Citations about the plot summary itself, however, may refer to the primary source—the work of fiction itself." No citations are needed to support the plot summary: I hope this is clear enough for you both. 81.152.148.0 (talk) 11:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the Plot Summary

Hi all, I (JoeUnexotic) am the guy who last rewrote the full plot. I'd like to note that I haven't seen the film myself, but I had adapted it from this Reddit comment. I know that it's not the most reliable of sources, but it had been verified by other users on the thread (and here on Wikipedia) and the plot details mentioned had been corroborated by spoiler-heavy reviews released after today's embargo lift. I notice that the summary is gone now and it needs to be verified, and that it has caused some conflict surrounding the edits of this page. If I've done anything wrong, I genuinely apologize for it.

Cheers. JoeUnexotic (talk) 13:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

No, you did nothing too wrong. I've seen the film and what we had was broadly correct. I have edited the plot down to a more manageable length. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:847C:2403:BF9C:97AD (talk) 14:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

A 3D film?

According to the end credits of this film, it was created in 3D. Has it actually been shown in 3D anywhere, and can it be added to the category “2021 3D films”? --Mlang.Finn (talk) 14:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Looks like it - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:388F:1CF9:D9AE:1FE0 (talk) 14:54, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Edit request

Can someone please revert this edit? It’s not “seemingly” at all. There are enough sources to back this up, including this one as an example. Thanks 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:5DC0:8ED3:84D5:E8B6 (talk) 05:16, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Plot Revealed

Why is the plot revealed can’t you wait until a significant number of people have seen it and then you can reveal it, it isn’t fair to the producers either and the plot now could be shown to many people spoiling the film I suggest you remove the plot and revert it back to the premise. Thank you. Salandarianflag (talk) 14:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Salandarianflag, that isn't going to happen, I'm afraid. Wikipedia contains spoilers - it's just the nature of the beast. It's all covered at WP:SPOILERS, something that has been discussed several times by the community at large, which always agrees that we should continue to have spoilers as part of the full description of any work of fiction. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:6040:6FF1:608F:F51A (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

As long as the film has been released to the public, even if that's not worldwide, the spoiler-filled plot is fair game. We'd not want a full plot based only on limited screenings but with the wide release in the UK yesterday, that's no longer the case. --Masem (t) 15:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Edit Future section

Please remove the Henry Cavill comment, it is irrelevant. ModestySquared (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Plot, ENGVAR, length and the punishment of unregistered editors

ToBeFree, unfortunately your protection of the article for the next couple of weeks because of the recent problematic removal of parts of the plot has led to further issues that no-one seems to be addressing. It also misses the part of the problem that the first people removing the entire plot, or various "spoiler" parts were actually registered users, not unregistered IP editors. A couple of days ago I trimmed the over-long lead down to c750 words, realising it still needs trimming further. Since then (and since your 'protection' of the article), the section has been bloated out with extraneous detail added and US spelling, grammar and punctuation has been introduced. No-one watching the article seems to have either noticed or cared enough to remove the ENGVAR breach, or to trim it down further. Is there any chance you could lift the protection to allow unregistered editors (many of whom can do better than the registered ones) to edit constructively? Thanks - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:10EE:7F1C:E77E:DEEF (talk) 10:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:10EE:7F1C:E77E:DEEF, Thank you very much for the ping. The article currently receives a surge of attention, and when there are edit summaries such as "I guess you haven't seen the film. I have" and "RV idiocy" as well as edits such as [2] and [3] occurring within the same day, there is a need for slowing down contributions and limiting them to users who can be selectively asked to join discussions, and who can be selectively blocked if they persistently exhibit the same behavior. Theoretically, this is possible for non-autoconfirmed contributors as well; practically, the amount of disruption and the lack of accountability in non-autoconfirmed editing is unmanageable for topics such as this one here during the current days.

That all said: Do feel free to request specific changes in a "replace X by Y" format using {{Edit semi-protected}} at any time. The talk page is well-visited enough to guarantee a timely answer to your request. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:26, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

ToBeFree I think short range blocks on disruptive IPs would be a better way to go than a blanket ban on all IPs, particularly when we’ve seen registered editors causing problems on the page too.

I have limited faith in edit requests. The one a couple of threads above asking for the “plot” tag to be applied still remains unanswered, and the bloating it still present. A more general editing to slim the plot down is probably needed, rather than a series of 20 or so edit requests asking for a series of minor but important changes. Thanks - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:3005:CFD6:D85C:99FB (talk) 12:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

The cited section does not propose specific changes to the actual content, such as the removal or replacement of specific plot sentences. It also doesn't use {{Edit semi-protected}} to display a large banner until the request is formally answered. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:58, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

And this is one of the reasons I left WP... The common sense approach to anyone seeing that section is to realise the IP is right, and add the Plot tag. It’s been there for over 24 hours, so many of the 242 page watchers would have seen it, but no action. It’s been seven hours since the grammar, spelling and punctuation was changed from UK to US formats (breaching ENGVAR), and no-one has done anything about it.

You have someone here asking to be able to edit and improve the article, but because of a mix of registered and unregistered editors (about five or six maximum) deleting the plot section, the only action taken was to stop all IP editors. This doesn’t seem to be a proportionate measure to take when the disruption was by a such a small number. I just don’t see how this helps improve the encyclopaedia. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:3005:CFD6:D85C:99FB (talk) 13:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

The common sense approach to anyone reading my message is to realize I'm (always) right and to do exactly what I have proposed to do. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

What a rather bizarre statement. I’m not sure you’re trying to help the situation here. You’ve taken a path of blocking a wide number of editors, while allowing registered editors to vandalise the article. I’ll step away now and try to work through the logic here. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:3005:CFD6:D85C:99FB (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• ToBeFree, yet another REGISTERED user removing the plot section. That makes it three registered and three unregistered editors who have removed the plot. This does bring into question just why IP editors have been stopped from editing the page, while registered editors are free to continue disrupting it by deleting an entire section. I just can’t see the logic in this, particularly as the problems with breaches of ENGVAR in the plot still haven’t been addressed. Can you please unlock the article so constructive editing can proceed. “The encyclopaedia that anyone can edit” has its risks, but when the registered accounts are continuing the disruption, there is no point is stopping constructive IPs from editing. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:3005:CFD6:D85C:99FB (talk) 14:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

ps. Epeemaster, can I suggest you self revert your deletion of the plot section. WP:SPOILERS suggests you are in error in deleting it. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:3005:CFD6:D85C:99FB (talk) 14:21, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, one with eleven edits, who can now be individually warned. Edit count thresholds are generally not ideal indicators for distinguishing between experienced and unexperienced editors. They're the best we have at hand, though. I'm sorry for the collateral damage, but unprotection does not seem to be a viable solution. Any disruptive edit that goes through the protection is just additional proof that protection is necessary. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

ToBeFree, so you’ve added an edit request template to the thread above? This asks people to slim down the plot or add the ‘plot too long’ tag. Unfortunately the removal of the plot three hours ago means there is no plot to slim down. Two editors have edited the article without reverting that deletion. I’m struggling to get the logic of approach here, where the registered editors are ignoring what boils down to vandalism by registered editors, but it’s the IPs (one of whom is trying to fix it) that are unable to do so. The mind reels at the rather Kafkaesque approach here! Never mind. ‘The encyclopaedia that anyone can edit’ is dying on its knees, and it’s actions like this are causing its death knell. 🤦‍♂️ - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:3005:CFD6:D85C:99FB (talk) 16:17, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Great. The request for adding a {{plot}} tag will draw attention to the section removal as well. Two issues, one solution. If you don't mind, I'd like to watch the article develop during the next 24 hours. I won't edit it myself; people would quickly complain about involvement. Predictions about the death of the project have become a cliché by now: Volunteer contributors don't do exactly what I had hoped them to do, so the project must be doomed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

1. No administrator gets accused of being involved for reverting vandalism - that’s a straw man.

2. What you have done is not a “solution”. There are still ENGVAR issues that will remain after the reversion is undertaken, but I guess breaches of core guidelines are just not worth bothering about if vandalism is allowed to sit untreated for several hours. Well done: good work. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:3005:CFD6:D85C:99FB (talk) 16:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Attempting to improve the encyclopedia for its readers by removing information genuinely considered undesirable for them is not vandalism. It is a good example of a potentially disruptive action done in best faith. ENGVAR issues are among the least important things that can be "fixed" in an article. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Jesus, how did you get to be an admin? You are just fundamentally wrong on so many points throughout this it’s unbelievable, but too stubborn to admit that anyone else may be right. Deleting an entire section just because one doesn’t like it, isn’t acceptable: it is vandalism. You blocking IP editors when just as many registered editors have been vandalising the article or being disruptive is exceedingly problematic - it’s a narrow unthinking mindset that is damaging the view of WP to outsiders (to whole the concept of ‘the encyclopaedia anyone can edit’ is dying by inches). And ENGVAR issues have ended up at ANI and ArbCom too many times for anyone to have kept count of. But please feel free to ignore all of this - you know you’re 100 per cent correct, despite what a mere IP may think - you’re an admin, and we all know just how perfect they are all the time. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:3005:CFD6:D85C:99FB (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• Aaaaaannndddd...... the same REGISTERED editor vandalising the article, but bravo on stopping IPs from correcting the problems in the article. Excellent work. The “protection” measures on the page are not fit for purpose. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:3005:CFD6:D85C:99FB (talk) 22:07, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Plot length and recent bloating

Could someone please add the {{Plot|film|date=September 2021}} template to the top of the plot section? I trimmed the long version down to about 750 words yesterday, but this has since been bloated out with some unneeded details to about 800 words. MOS:PLOTLENGTH suggests a maximum of 700 words, so being a hundred words over is too long. If the tag could be added, or the section re-edited to bring it back down to a more manageable length, that would be great. Thanks 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:388F:1CF9:D9AE:1FE0 (talk) 11:53, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done At 871 words (according to a word counting website I found), this is probably more than appropriate. Cheers! —Sirdog (talk) 23:26, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2021

Revealing Nomi as the new 007 in the cast section is most definitely a spoiler. 2A00:23C7:E987:7B00:7DC5:8653:8176:8BAA (talk) 15:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

It is not clear what you want me to add to/remove from the article. I assume, though, that you're asking me to remove some content because it's a spoiler, see Wikipedia:Spoilers. Content isn't removed just because it's a spoiler. --Ferien (talk) 15:37, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 1 on 4 October 2021

FN 165 has the US date format that should (for consistency, if nothing else) should be changed into the UK format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c7:2b86:9800:d486:bedf:c706:8923 (talk • contribs)

 Done we have a nice script to make dates consistent. --Masem (t) 23:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 2 on 4 October 2021

As was the case for Spectre (2015 film), references to Spectre should be in the form Spectre, not SPECTRE, as the Craig-era Bond doesn’t use Spectre as an acronym. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:D486:BEDF:C706:8923 (talk) 23:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done Also saw a couple inconsistent uses at Casino Royale and Spectre. --Masem (t) 23:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for these Masem, much appreciated. - The editor formally known as SchroCat, editing from 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:C9A6:5975:8A9A:D14B (talk) 09:16, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 1 on 5 October 2021

Could someone please revert this? This is not part of the plot and only bloats it out (it's back up to 770 words and should be under 700 - another problem I would be delighted to help with, but can't. I would do this edit and the necessary slimming down myself, but a poor admining decision means someone else has to do the work, rather than me doing it... 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:C9A6:5975:8A9A:D14B (talk) 09:16, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done but not be me, this appears to have been fixed already. --Masem (t) 13:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 2 on 5 October 2021

Could someone please revert this? The grammar is now poor and the film was released into multiple locations, but we only put the production countries in the the lead (the UK and US, in this case). I would do this myself, but a poor admining decision means someone else has to do the work, rather than me doing it... 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:C9A6:5975:8A9A:D14B (talk) 10:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done but not by me. --Masem (t) 13:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 3 on 5 October 2021

Paragraph five of the plot begins "(James Bond)|Q]] and set up a meeting..." Could someone please edit to start it as "Moneypenny and Bond meet Q and set up a meeting ..." Thanks very much. I would do this myself, but a poor admining decision means someone else has to do the work, rather than me doing it... 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:C9A6:5975:8A9A:D14B (talk) 11:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Only because this got fixed already but with more concise wording "Moneypenny and Q arrange a meeting between Bond and Blofeld..." --Masem (t) 13:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 4 on 5 October 2021

In the Ben Wishaw entry of the cast list, it currently reads "when Moneypenny and Bond interrupts him planning"; could this be changed to the grammatically correct "Moneypenny and Bond interrupt him". Thanks. I would do this myself, but a poor admining decision means someone else has to do the work, rather than me doing it... - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:C9A6:5975:8A9A:D14B (talk) 18:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done --Masem (t) 13:41, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 5 on 5 October 2021

Another point on the Wishaw entry on the cast list, the text currently reads "was... contracted". Per WP:ELLIPSIS, this should be "was ... contracted". Thanks. I would do this myself, but a poor admining decision means someone else has to do the work, rather than me doing it... - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:C9A6:5975:8A9A:D14B (talk) 19:18, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done --Masem (t) 13:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 6 on 5 October 2021

Could this edit be reverted please? There is no need for such weasel phrasing, particularly as there are numerous reliable sources that are clear on Bond's death ([https://www.theguardian.com/film/2021/sep/30/james-bond-no-time-to-die-daniel-craig-007-ending-villain-surprise-spoilers this is one such example). Thanks. I would do this myself, but a poor admining decision means someone else has to do the work, rather than me doing it... - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:C9A6:5975:8A9A:D14B (talk) 19:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done but not by me, offending text already removed. --Masem (t) 13:43, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 1 on 6 October 2021

Could this series of edits be reverted please. Not only does this bloat the plot section beyond the recommended 700 words, it also changes the spelling from UK to US English and brings back the capitalisation of Spectre, which isn’t the case with the Craig-era Bond films. Thanks. I would do this myself, but a poor admining decision means someone else has to do the work, rather than me doing it... - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:C57F:93BF:79A5:1A60 (talk) 02:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done but not by me --Masem (t) 13:44, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 2 on 6 October 2021

In paragraph two of the plot, the link to Spectre needs to be put as [[SPECTRE|Spectre]], as it is currently a disambiguation. Thanks. I would do this myself, but a poor admining decision means someone else has to do the work, rather than me doing it... - 86.174.105.114 (talk) 12:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done --Masem (t) 13:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 3 on 6 October 2021

In the fourth paragraph of the plot, it currently reads "meeting up with Leiter and Ash on a boat". As "meet with" is an American construction, can this be changed to "meeting Leiter and Ash." The "on a boat" can also be removed, as it's superfluous. Thanks. I would do this myself, but a poor admining decision means someone else has to do the work, rather than me doing it... - 86.174.105.114 (talk) 12:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done --Masem (t) 13:46, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 4 on 6 October 2021

In the final paragraph of the plot, "honor" needs to be spelled "honour", as the article in in BrEng. Thanks. I would do this myself, but a poor admining decision means someone else has to do the work, rather than me doing it... - 86.174.105.114 (talk) 12:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done Also as a recommendation, I would try to group similar "gnoming" style requests (eg like these last three all dealing with fixes in the plot). Less spammy on the page and easier to resolve. --Masem (t) 13:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again Masem. I’ll bunch them together in future - I thought I read years ago they should be separate requests for each one, but there’s nothing I can now see to back that up, so I’ll bunch together from now. Cheers - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:F866:142C:BED3:8808 (talk) 03:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2021

The plot currently has “from the HMS Dragon”. This should be “from [[HMS Dragon (D35)|HMS ''Dragon'']]” (no definite article and the ship name in italics). Thanks. I would do this myself, but a poor admining decision means someone else has to do the work, rather than me doing it... - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:F866:142C:BED3:8808 (talk) 03:08, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 05:06, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

“Bond will return”

Averagenoon, you’ve added a paragraph at the end of the plot about “Bond will return” three times now, and it has been reverted three times now. Please note that this is not part of the plot, it’s part of the credits. The line has appeared in nearly all the Bond films, as far as I can recall, and I don’t think it appears in the plot section of any of the articles. Can you explain how you think the words form part of the plot? 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:7DB5:AE5F:AE05:4E07 (talk) 08:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2021

The casting section currently has “next two installments”; could this be put into the British English spelling of “next two instalments”. Thanks. I would do this myself, but a poor admining decision means someone else has to do the work, rather than me doing it... - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:7DB5:AE5F:AE05:4E07 (talk) 22:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done --Masem (t) 22:21, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:7DB5:AE5F:AE05:4E07 (talk) 08:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 1-3 on 9 October 2021

1. The plot currently has “from HMS Dragon”. This should be “from [[HMS Dragon (D35)|HMS ''Dragon'']]” (the ship name in italics, not the HMS).

2. Can the final paragraph be changed to “At MI6, M, Moneypenny, Q, Tanner and Nomi drink in Bond's honour. Madeleine takes Mathilde to Matera and her about her father, James Bond.”

3. Can someone please revert this edit. As there is a note in the credits that Bond will return (and the producers have said they will recast in 2022), this is OR gone very wrong.

Thanks. I would do this myself, but a poor admining decision means someone else has to do the work, rather than me doing it... - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:7DB5:AE5F:AE05:4E07 (talk) 07:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done: I've performed your first request per MOS:TITLE. I have not performed the second request as the use of a serial comma appears to be consistent across the article and I do not think it causes ambiguity or confusion in the placement you refer to. I have not performed the third request as it appears you are currently attempting to engage in discussion with the editor you wish to be reverted. It's preferable if they reply and a mini-consensus forms rather than I unilaterally revert them. If they don't reply, or I find your rationale to supersede there's, I'll perform this. I'll watch this page for a week or so to see what happens. Alternatively, any other editor may decide to be bolder and just do it regardless. Cheers! —Sirdog (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind, it appears another editor already indirectly performed your third request. That's my fault for not looking at the diff prior to assuming you were referring to Averagenoon. I really do need to start doublechecking things before I talk more. Cheers! —Sirdog (talk) 16:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 4 on 9 October 2021

The plot currently reads “from a MI6 laboratory”; as this is a first syllable homophone, it should be “from an MI6 laboratory”. Thanks. I would do this myself, but a poor admining decision means someone else has to do the work, rather than me doing it... - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:946F:6CDD:FBE1:5DD8 (talk) 17:19, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 20:00, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Land attack missiles

I added the line "The film inaccurately depicts the Type 45’s Aster Surface-to-Air missiles as land attack missiles."

This has been reverted twice as "original research". DonQuixote and Kingoflettuce, can we discuss this further please? The ships only carry Aster surface to air missiles, are shown firing these, but they are depicted as land attack missiles, which they are not. What am I missing (or others missing) here? Mark83 (talk) 11:28, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

References

It’s not really worth adding. Do we have to explain that the nanobots can’t do what the film claims? Or that the Aston Martin doesn’t really have canons behind the headlights? I think people realise this is a work of fiction and it doesn’t reflect reality. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:C819:DBF4:CE02:5ED9 (talk) 11:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, that's a good point. I think I'm letting my passion and knowledge for the engineering of the Type 45 destroyer get in the way here. It's not exactly the same thing (the Aston Martin and its modifications are an important part of the James Bond character/story), but I take your wider point. Thanks for the reply. Mark83 (talk) 11:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're missing a direct quote that states what you're trying to say, otherwise it's original research (one that falls under specialist knowledge--of which we have no way of verifying that your a reputable expert)). DonQuixote (talk) 11:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

The reference I added the second time states it's a surface to air missile and not a land attack missile. What specialist knowledge do you require there? Mark83 (talk) 12:06, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

You're probably right that it's not a land attack missile --- I have no clue! --- but you need a source specifically stating that the missiles as depicted in the film are surface to air ones in real life. The source you're using only pertains to the missiles irl, and not to the film. Kingoflettuce (talk) 12:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 2 & 3 on 10 October 2021

1. Can these two edits been reverted please? Firstly there are reliable sources that confirm Bind dies (and it’s very obvious in the film too). Secondly, the final paragraph additions are bloating that fail WP:OR and are not plot points.

2. More OR with this edit which either needs a source or a CN tag.

Thanks. I would do this myself, but a poor admining decision means someone else has to do the work, rather than me doing it... - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:946F:6CDD:FBE1:5DD8 (talk) 07:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done The two edits were reverted by DonQuixote. -- LuK3 (Talk) 22:35, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit requests 1 & 2 on 12 October 2021

1. Per MOS:PLOTSOURCE, this shouldn't be quoted (the dialogue isn't crucial to the plot); if it is decided to keep the needless quote, it will need to be supported by a reliable secondary source (again per MOS:PLOTSOURCE).

2. This isn't particularly good and should be reverted: he is not "Chief of the MI6", he is "The head of MI6", as it was before.

Thanks. I would do these myself, but a poor admining decision means someone else has to do the work, rather than me doing it... - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9 (talk) 08:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done: For #1, I added a source for the ending quote per PLOTSOURCE. I believe the quote is a key part of the plot however I'm fine with removing it if other editors decide against it. For #2, I changed it to "head" to match both what sources and previous Bond film articles say. -- LuK3 (Talk) 12:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

1. It's still grammatical gibberish. It's not "the MI6", it's just "MI6".

2. How is the quote "a key part of the plot"? How does the plot change between "her father, "James Bond". and "her father, "Bond, James Bond."? It doesn't change anything at all, so it's definitely not a plot point and can't be seen in that way by any measure. It also fails WP:LQ in its current format.

Again, I would make these basic changes myself, but a staggeringly poor admining decision means someone else has to do the work, rather than me doing it... - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9 (talk) 13:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

So I removed the direct quote. Unfortunately I could not find enough sources to back up the use of the quote. -- LuK3 (Talk) 16:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 4 on 12 October 2021

This needs a better source than IMDB, which isn’t considered reliable. Thanks. I would do this myself, but a poor admining decision means someone else has to do the work, rather than me doing it... - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:843E:ECED:D48D:C6F6 (talk) 22:12, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done added refs for all of the cast credits except for Millar. I did a cursory search and could not find a reliable source for her credit. I will take a deeper look later. -- LuK3 (Talk) 23:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Added a reference for Brigitte Millar as well. -- LuK3 (Talk) 00:27, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Rappaccini's Daughter

The film’s plot seems to allude to the Nathanael Hawthorne story, due to the presence in the film of a poison garden similar to the one in the story, as well as a character (in the film, Bond himself) becoming inherently “poisonous” to those he loves. The similarity is strong enough that it’s one of the first things I thought of when I saw the movie. But I’m not sure if it was intentional, or if it’s worth mentioning in the article. Keep an eye out for sources, though; I’m sure someone connected to the film will comment on the possible inspiration, if they haven’t already. 2600:1014:B052:5149:95C:4427:987D:75D4 (talk) 03:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

No, it’s lifted from You Only Live Twice. One of the rumoured working titles was Shatterhand, which fits the Blofeld connection. In the novel, Bond supposedly dies and his obituary includes a line from Jack London; M reads the wider quote in NTTD. Bond also fathers a child in YOLT. I’ve not seen any good sources discussing it, just some fan cruft that isn’t reliable enough. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:FD75:FFCD:BB4D:3446 (talk) 05:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 1 on 10 October 2021

Can the final paragraph be changed to “At MI6, M, Moneypenny, Q, Tanner and Nomi drink in Bond's honour. Madeleine takes Mathilde to Matera and tells her about her father, James Bond.” The quote isn’t needed, and if people insist on it, it needs to carry a reliable source per MOS:PLOTSOURCE. Thanks. I would do this myself, but a poor admining decision means someone else has to do the work, rather than me doing it... - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:946F:6CDD:FBE1:5DD8 (talk) 23:51, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 3 on 12 October 2021

Footnotes a, c, d and e either need sources or CN tags. Thanks. I would do this myself, but a poor admining decision means someone else has to do the work, rather than me doing it... - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:843E:ECED:D48D:C6F6 (talk) 20:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Re: Footnote D - Did you read the citation for the next sentence (No weapons were fired)? ...Mr Grumpy Sourpuss! 😉 --GloMonster^Talk 21:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Then it needs to be at the end of the citation too. As the two are separated by much of the article, and as the footnote isn’t itself supported, it needs to be repeated. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:843E:ECED:D48D:C6F6 (talk) 22:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Footnote "d"  Done...If I've read your note correctly.🤔 I'll leave the other citations to the admins. Unless you're familiar with these remaining footnotes and are able to provide sources. That would be helpful. Cheers --GloMonster^Talk 23:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

"a Second World War base"

Which Soviet Second World War bases have missile silos? Safin doesn't have any missiles. Some of it may be supposedly built in WWII, but per Q's line, it's an abandoned (extremely unlikely) Cold War base. Lovingboth (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Lovingboth, if I recall correctly they stated in the film the island is disputed between Russia and Japan. Therefore it is most likely in the northern portion of the Sea of Japan or Sea of Okhotsk. I did a quick search and couldn't find any evidence of a Soviet missile base in either sea. -- LuK3 (Talk) 01:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh, it's obviously nothing like real - the actual location used is in the Faroe Islands, and who has missile silos such that launching one missile would have the hot exhaust hit adjacent missiles? I dunno, perhaps Safin got some really good interior designers in to remodel it, removing the blast walls between silos - but even in the film, it's a Cold War base with what's said to be old submarine base. On an island that the Russians have just abandoned and don't mind the British hitting with missiles without bothering to say why. (Yeah, right, that's plausible... :) ) Lovingboth (talk) 10:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Q's sexuality

Per the leading reference for this, Gay Times, the UK's longest running magazine / website "for gay and bisexual men", says in the ref'd article that Ben Whishaw "is gay" - it's what he's out as - but does not say anywhere that Q is shown to be 'gay'. Instead, it says "queer".

If you want half a dozen references to demonstrate that this is shorthand - to its audience - for saying that Q is either gay or bisexual, they are out there. He's shown as being interested in other men, so until and unless there's anything to say otherwise, he could be gay or he could be bisexual. If there was any indication in the film that Q is not attracted to more than one gender, they'd be justified in only saying 'gay' - as they are quite happy to do for Ben himself - but there isn't, hence they don't.

Another leading UK site, Pink News, also says "A short scene in the new James Bond film No Time To Die has casually confirmed that the Quartermaster – aka Q – is queer". Again as you'd expect, Pink News knows the difference. It's not their fault if, a straight / 'mainstream' US publication like Newsweek has jumped to a conclusion that shows its ignorance here.

If you can't tolerate having "gay or bisexual" (and please do say why not) then it's "queer", not "gay". Lovingboth (talk) 22:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Then go back to the reliable sources to avoid OR: [4], [5], [6] and [7]. All have “gay”, none have “bisexual”. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:15B0:7BC9:5AC:5475 (talk) 05:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I do not know why I am arguing with someone who can't be bothered to log in, but... GT IS the reliable source for the UK LGBTQ+ perspective. Looking at assorted straight publications is like getting your medical references from the Daily Mail. In the Radio Times example, the source that Q is gay rather than bisexual is... comments from assorted random Twitter accounts: that's not reliable! The Newsweek article references the more explicit line from Skyfall about Bond having had "gay experience". Do we say based on that reference that Bond is gay? No, we do not.

Per its own page, "queer" in this context = "not straight". For anyone who's not read / understood the Kinsey Reports and all subsequent research in the past 70+ years, that does not mean "gay". It means, in terms of attraction/behaviour that they could be gay or they could be bisexual. GT making the distinction between 'gay' for the actor and 'queer' for the character is a) them making it clear to anyone with any understanding of the terminology that they're not sure which of the two options it is - there's nothing in the film to say - and b) a slight joke because the first letter of "queer" is "Q".

So, it's "queer". Don't change it back without a more reliable UK LGBT source quoting the producers / scriptwriters to say explicitly that he's gay. Lovingboth (talk) 07:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

"I do not know why I am arguing with someone who can't be bothered to log in". I am an IP editor and whether I hold an account does not diminish the argument I put forward. (I formerly held an account, but that was a scrambled password ago and I do not need to start another account to edit. Please comment on the content, not the contributor and leave out any comments on me as an editor.

It doesn't matter what the producers say. It's what the reliable sources say. And it's not just about what the LGBTQ+ press says either, it's about the weight of reliable sources and what they say. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs, and that includes in the use of terminology that may be common enough for most people to understand. You may want to cherry pick from certain sources and ignore what you don't like, but that's not the way a neutrally-worded encyclopaedia should work.

Don't try and tell me what I can and cannot do, particularly when you're making up spurious guidelines that are not backed up by policy, guideline or common wiki practice. Per BRD you're edit warring on the terminology right now and I'm not, and you're doing so against sourcing guidelines. – 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9 (talk) 09:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

You are choosing to treat random Twitter users as more significant on this than editorial content of what I think is the UK's longest running LGBT news source just because a non-LGBT TV/Radio listings magazine quotes them. Radio Times is reliable on things relating to TV/Radio but not sexuality, just as The Lancet is not a reliable source for astrophysics. The weight of reliable sources on this literally says "queer" in specific and explicit contrast to using "gay". Lovingboth (talk) 10:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

No, I am doing no such thing. You are again deciding to cherry pick issues with one source and ignore the weight of all other reliable sources. As the examples I gave were from a 2 minute google search, do you want me to gather other reliable sources? You cannot unilaterally decide only to focus on two sources and ignore everything else. Please see WP:RELIABLE and WP:NPOV about how to use sources properly. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9 (talk) 10:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Break-even

Quote: "Due to its combined production and promotional costs of at least $350 million, the film needs to gross at least $800 million worldwide in order to break-even."

Can somebody please explain to me how something that cost X amount in total requires more than two times X to break even? How does that make any sense? Unless maybe X is not the total cost. But it does say "combined production and promotional costs", so what else would come on top of that? 87.141.116.247 (talk) 09:53, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

There's probably other costs, like theatres, etc. DonQuixote (talk) 10:25, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

In my understanding, it is the movie theatres that have to pay money so as to be able to show a copy of the film, no? 87.141.116.247 (talk) 11:43, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Gross is ticket sales. DonQuixote (talk) 11:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps the $350 million only accounts for domestic costs and not worldwide? I'm trying to find clarification in the sources. -- LuK3 (Talk) 12:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Normally you would have productions costs (cost of making the film) and distribution costs (including marketing and promotions). The cinemas would take between 20-40% of the gross, although different films would have different deals. The distributor takes about 50-60% of the gross. The production company gets about 20-25% of the gross. Assuming the actual cost of making the film was only $250m, the production company would still need a gross of at least $1billion to break even. This source might simply be wrong. Wdford (talk) 13:15, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I know this sounds crazy, but have you folks tried Wikipedia? 😉 For example, Film distribution and Film distributor. Here's a couple of explainers too. [8] [9] Let me know if you've worked out the "nuts"!

A general rule-of-thumb is that the box office takings are split 50/50 (less in China, about 25%) between the distributor (i.e. the studio) and the theatre/theater (i.e. cinemas aka exhibitors).

Therefore, if NTTD full costs are: production + marketing + distribution = $400m, and the film grosses $800m worldwide, then a 50% cut is $400m, hence break-even.

Don't worry about the producer/distributor split. Focus on the distributor's cut on the box office takings, that's what the press reports are about. This SlashFilm article may inform the reader as a source here. Hope this helps --GloMonster^Talk 18:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Land Rover cars

In actual version of article are mentioned several Aston Martin cars, but in film there are several Land Rover cars including old Series model of LR, Range Rover Classic and contemporary, and also then-new model of LR Defender. Could someone more familiar with what is allowed and appropriate on en.wiki find correct way to include it in article? Thank you! --Adam Hauner (talk) 09:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Bond dies

Juanpumpchump Before edit warring further on the line about Bond dying, could you please discuss here first? Before you keep insisting on us not saying Bond died, a few of the reliable sources that state quite categorically that Bond dies can be seen at [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15] and [16]. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:85DC:FD81:E452:CDB (talk) 11:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

objectively we cannot say Bond dies. Those who watch see what they see and they do not see a dead Bond. —¿philoserf? (talk) 14:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Although objectively, yes we can, what you are saying is WP:OR. I have listed seven reliable sources that state otherwise. Do you have any reliable sources that state he survives? Please continue the discussion here, rather than just reverting. Thanks - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:B01E:FD24:D924:C52E (talk) 14:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

As mentioned by several of those sources, the very end of the film's credits says "James Bond will return". Unless it's Casino Royale (1967) all over again where almost everyone is, at some point, called 'James Bond', it's difficult to see how he would do so if he's dead and the producers don't want to be stuck with doing prequels that are never set post-2020. All but one of those sources can be read as having done their own 'big explosion + memorial drinks at MI6 = he's dead' original research. The exception, the Independent piece, is the only one that seems to quote the producers, albeit indirectly, about all this: "They've been mum on how the franchise will resume after the conclusion of 'No Time to Die' except to stay that it will be a clean slate. The next film could pretend Bond never died, or allude to it in some way." It also says "It is, however, only a partial death". As we know from The Princess Bride, "There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead". Would you be happy with saying "presumably killing Bond" on the basis that M et all think he is dead and one of your own sources says that the series could continue on as if he is not? Lovingboth (talk) 22:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

it's difficult to see how he would do so if he's dead and the producers don't want to be stuck with doing prequels that are never set post-2020.

James Bond is a fictional character. He's not a real person. These films aren't biographies. The filmmakers can do whatever they want. DonQuixote (talk) 22:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ”Presumably”? No. He’s dead. The sources all say it and no source says he escaped or is still alive. Do you have a source that says otherwise? (And trying to say reliable sources are somehow “original research” is a straw man. These are film journalists that will have been to the various interviews, briefings and chatted to the Broccolis and Craig. There are too many of them to claim they are guilty of OR).

There was forty years of Bond being a 00 agent before Craig turned up and earned his 00 status in 2006; they’ve rebooted and reset before, and they can do it again. Either way, the reliable sources are against you. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:6CCA:AC8:E41F:CF04 (talk) 22:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

As the 'other feller' says, he's a fictional character and via reboots etc does not obey normal rules about ageing - in the Eon universe, it's been 59 years since the release of Dr No, which would make Bond over 90 now, based on Connery's age then - or much else.

If it so unambiguous and so well-sourced, why do none of those sources quote the producers as the only people to know one way or another to say that he is dead? Instead from the ones you listed we have, at best, "clean slate" and specifically writing that the next film could say that he did not die in this one. Lovingboth (talk) 22:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

"why do none of those sources quote the producers as the only people to know one way or another to say that he is dead Because they don't do spoilers. The film hasn't been released in some countries, so they haven't talked openly about the ending yet. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:B01E:FD24:D924:C52E (talk) 12:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

If there is anywhere taking bets, I'd have a small one on the true position being that the producers currently don't know / haven't decided if he's canonically dead or not. Obviously, I'm not going to add that to the article, just as obviously you're not going to move on this... but I will laugh if Bond 26 comes out with him having somehow survived but looking rather different, rather than being the adventures of his previously unknown son or whatever :) Lovingboth (talk) 23:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Lovingboth - "but I will laugh if Bond 26 comes out with him having somehow survived but looking rather different, rather than being the adventures of his previously unknown son or whatever..."

I find it staggering a person can actually be a contributing editor on this platform and not even do the most remedial of research before making a statement like this. Bond's "death scene" in this movie, along with numerous other elements, is lifted directly from the novel *You Only Live Twice* and actually, yes - this is what happens. Bond survives the explosion everyone believes must have killed him. Though left badly injured and suffering amnesia he actually does look different because he had plastic surgery in order to pass as a Japanese...

Bond surviving this is authentic to Ian Fleming, something the franchise have been keen to establish since Daniel Craig took on the role and - in a series of follow on movies that have netted the franchise something over 3.5 billion on just the performance of the previous four movies alone, is a formula Eon are unlikely to steer away from given the success they've had with it from the general movie going audience.

Just because this was Craig's last time playing the lead, doesn't follow Eon plan to deviate from the kind of ongoing storylines they've been making for the better part of almost 20 years now and Bond *surviving* is actually what happens in the books.

If you're serious about making a bet here, I'm happy to take a piece of that action. Read the books, and don't kid yourself the movies don't follow them because actually, they do. Other than Moore's in the 70s and 80s, a lot closer than people generally give them credit for.

Einheit947 (talk) 23:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)einheit947 23:06 19/11/2021

As to

Has nobody in this discussion watched the film's let alone read the books?

Wow - that's a number of responses to is he dead or alive!

I will not be looking to start an edit war as clearly this is a contentious subject so, we will either have to wait until the film comes out on dvd and then the death scene will probably end up all over YouTube and then secondly wait until the producers have decided on how the franchise will continue.

Thank you everyone for your input.

Juanpumpchump (talk) 05:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

To @Einheit947: who insists on casting doubt on Bond's death, see this thread and all the sources brought by Philoserf in the first comment that all consider Bond's death as a fact. See also Digital Spy, Polygon, TheWrap, GamesRadar+, and Los Angeles Times as further examples of this. —El Millo (talk) 14:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, if it turns out in the next Bond film that they narratively showed how he survived (don't ask me how), we can retroactively fix this article to "apparently dies", but it is silly to ignore what nearly every major source is saying "he dies" and no RS seriously putting doubt to that. (The "Bond will return" post-credits should not be taken as part of the story). --Masem (t) 14:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Right, if it turns out he didn't die we change it here, but until that happens it stays unambiguous. —El Millo (talk) 14:55, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Einheit947: That kind of image analysis is pure original research. DonQuixote (talk) 15:11, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Einheit947: Seriously, dude, this isn't a documentary, it's a work of fiction. All those screen grabs show is that the cgi missiles didn't kill the actor Daniel Craig. *eyeroll* DonQuixote (talk) 15:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Einheit947#TO:DonQuixote — Preceding unsigned comment added by Einheit947 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

They didn't actually kill Craig? These actors aren't committed to their roles anymore. —El Millo (talk) 16:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Facu-el Millo" They didn't actually kill Craig? These actors aren't committed to their roles anymore"

You were citing some rule or other about personal insults....?

Einheit947 (talk) 23:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)einheit947 23:06 19/11/2021

Why censor the working title Shatterhand?

Why was the edit, citing one of the world's biggest newspapers The Guardian (hence a non-trivial source), that had the working title announced as Shatterhand removed? 23skidoo (talk) 18:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Because it was not true.Lobo151 (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

References

@Lobo151 - Have you actually read that article? Barbera Broccoli confirms the movies release title isn't going to be Shatterhand, but the fact is its working title *is* confirmed as having been Shatterhand originally and is confirmed in that same article by Production Magazine [17]

Einheit947 (talk) 00:16, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Inconsistent and Incorrect Facts Contained in Plot Summary and Omissions

A: In refference to the nightclub scene in Cuba:

"Blofeld uses a disembodied "bionic eye" to lead the meeting and order his members to kill Bond with a "nanobot mist", but it kills all the Spectre members instead"

This is both factually inaccurate as well as untrue:

1. Blofeld doesn't just use a disembodied bionic eye to lead the meeting, he specifically uses the eye of his henchman, Primo from both the Matera attack against Bond 5 years earlier as well as squad leader of the SPECTRE raid to steal Heracles in London who retrieves said eyeball and puts it back in his own eyesocket during the attack.
2. The "nanobot mist" (Heracles) doesn't kill all the SPECTRE members. Primo is a SPECTRE member, he's exposed to the same mist, he doesn't die - in fact non of the foot soldier level SPECTRE agents appear effected despite exposure and contamination, only the upper tier level SPECTRE members are targeted. Basically, all the people who really should have organised Blofelds release from jail, failed but yet miraculously manage to organise themselves enough to crawl back out of the woodwork to make a public show of kissing Blofelds backside.

B: Omission

It is omitted the fact that information concerning SPECTRE'S activities has clearly been leaked to Safin thereby allowing him to take control of Heracles. He communicates with Obruchev as the SPECTRE raid to steal Heracles is underway intimate inside knowledge of the inner workings of the operation, even to the extent of knowing what security level authority squad leader, Primo, will require and - this being Primo - by definition meaning Blofeld is litterally leading the raid. This fact establishes right at the begining that actually nothing concerned with this is in anyway straight forward or necessarily quite what it seems.

C: In refference to Blofeld's "death" in Belmarsh:

"Bond reacts by attacking Blofeld, unintentionally causing the nanobots to infect and kill him."

Leaving aside the fact this same article states that Christopher Waltz has signed for two movies following SPECTRE - Bond 25 and 26 confirmed in the Mirror artical updated January 3rd 2016 "Christoph Waltz has signed on for two more Bond films but there's a big catch.".- all criteria met by Daniel Craig in fact returning for Bond 25 - the plot summary makes no mention of the fact that Blofeld's death is markedly different from those depicted of other SPECTRE members and their families exposed to Heracles.

• Everyone in Cuba dies screaming in agony with blood coming out of their faces, Blofeld dies a painless and silent death so swift, he's gone before Bond can calm down enough to turn round.
• Given the point of contrast does nobody find it odd Safin goes to all this trouble just to give Blofeld a swift and merciful end when leaving him alive to rot in prison for the rest of his days would have been crueller?

I am not pointing out a plot inconsistency here, I am simply pointing out Blofeld's death is inconsist with the effects Heracles is shown to produce as being, of itself, an overlooked plot point.

• If a man like Blofeld serving life in prison were to break out, the hunt to track him down and put him straight back inside again would never stop until successful, but - were a man like Blofeld to die in prison - that would simply be his sentence over, the manhunt would never start. Not only that it would though mean he'd no longer be kept in prison.

In short - do we actually know that Blofeld dies here?

• It is narratively established in the previous movie SPECTRE that, after murdering his father, the first act Oberhauser took on the path to becoming Ernst Stavro Blofeld was to fake his own death.
• We know Blofeld's henchman is seen to be recruited by Logan Ash into Safins organisation, post Cuba giving him access to Heracles and Obruchev. More importantly, we learn this from data recovered from Blofeld eye while he was still alive. Blofeld was aware of the "defection" and in point of fact present during it. If Primo was going to betray Blofeld, you'd think he'd have the sense take they eye out first, wouldn't you? Especially after it being established precisely what he's capable of doing to people while still locked up in prison right at the start of the movie.
• Why would Safin give Blofeld a painless, merciful death? The answers really very simple. He wouldn't.
• Christopher Waltz has signed for Bond 26.

D: Bonds "Death".

This is not depicted on screen and it's also not supported anywhere in the literature. In this movie it certainly appears that Bond dies, absolutely - same as in the novel that ending is taken from, You Only Live Twice but it is a bold statement indeed to say that - after almost 60 years of movies - Eon have descided to kill James Bond on screen, not without a citation stating this to be fact.

All anyone here has pointed to by way of citation are reviews of the movie - nobody is questioning that Bond appears to die - what is questioned however and what will continue to be petitioned for is this be backed up with either a definitive statement from the movies producers to the effect that James Bond has been killed - or - the entry is modified to "Bond appears to be killed."

There is no precedent for the character of James Bond actually dying in either any of the official Eon produced movies, or the novels - in terms of an almost 60 year old franchise it is an extraordinary claim that this should be the case and, therefore, to make this statement that this is so as fact requires proof or else to err on the side of caution.

Without one single recorded previous instance of Bond being killed it is bizarre this issue has been - and is continued to be - steamrollered as being canonical fact based on so little evidence other than the wholly superficial.

Citation needed.

Einheit947 (talk) 16:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Quibbles Go Here:

The biggest problem is you want to ignore what happened in the movie, because it doesn't meet your expectations. For example the given sources for Blofeld not to die are because he (unconfirmed) signed for Bond 26? For your information we can still have a Bond 26 with Blofeld en James Bond. It can be rebooted again or it can take place before the events of No Time to Die. But that is all WP:CRYSTALBALL. All the given reasons are ,how I see it, you want to

things they did in the movie. Yes they can kill Bond after 60 years. And untill Bond 26 is released that is how it is right now.Lobo151 (talk) 08:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Lobo151 -

"The biggest problem is you want to ignore what happened in the movie, because it doesn't meet your expectations."

Assumptive as well as factually quite incorrect - I have not one single problem whatsoever regarding the movie or for that matter what happens in it - not one. I'm actually very satisfied with the film. I do however have many problems concerning the shoddy job done on its write up here. Hence, these notes. Kindly please refer to above in specific if you have anything to actually contribute to this discussion and keep the armchair psychological evaluations about the author to yourself. You're really not very good at it. Stick to the topics.

Thanks and appreciated in advance.

Einheit947 (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Please read Writing about Fiction, and understand that we do not analyze films, only write what is patently obvious to an average viewer without any other context - unless that interpretation or analysis is given by a reliable source. For example, we cannot use the fact that Waltz signed up for two more Bond films (one includes this one) to make any interpretation of Blofeld's fate in this one. Also it should be noted that Waltz said he would only return as Blofeld if Craig returned as Bond, and since we know Craig is NOT returning, it certainly cannot be said Waltz is returning in the next one. Our goals of plot summaries is to write concisely (under 700 words) and hit the major points of the film, and if that means some fine details get lost, that's acceptable to us. --Masem (t) 17:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Masem -

"Also it should be noted that Waltz said he would only return as Blofeld if Craig returned as Bond, and since we know Craig is NOT returning, it certainly cannot be said Waltz is returning in the next one."

.

I refer you to the 2016 mirror article - Waltz's statement regarding his return for Bond 25 and Bond 26 is not conditional upon Daniel Craig returning for Bond 26 as you, spuriously and quite incorrectly, surmise - simply Craig returning for Bond 25 (No Time To Die) only.

The clue is mostly in the headline, but moving ones eyes across the words and actually reading what the article says generally helps.

As to your point regarding what can reasonably be discerned from watching the movie - the disparity between Blofelds death and literally everyone else exposed to the same nano-virus toxin (Heracles) is perfectly apparent to any person possessive of reasonable intelligence and eyeballs watching the movie in normal conditions: Blofelds lack of screaming and blood pouring out of his face is painfully obvious to anyone. Everyone else exposed to Heracles dies screaming, including its inventor. This is clearly not a continuity error, this is a plot point and disregarded....

By someone who apparently can't manage to successfully digest a Daily Mirror article about Christopher Waltz.

Einheit947 (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

The Mirror is not a reliable source, as a UK Tabloid. But the same report about Waltz's return in The Independent spells out that conditional. (Also we do not use headlines, those are not considered to have any fact-checking involved).

Again, similar to Bond's death scene, there are artistic licenses used by the filmmaker. Just because Blofeld was the only one calm could have several interpretations, only that later he is considered dead by the in-universe characters. As soon as you apply that level of nitpicking on a scene-by-scene anaylsis, you are crossing the line of original research. We have to stay with what is apparent at the very surface of the film, unless we have reliable sources that give us deeper analysis. --Masem (t) 17:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Masem:

"The Mirror is not a reliable source, as a UK Tabloid"

Leaving aside the somewhat unsurprising fact that, until it was edited, Christopher Waltz's entry in this article regarding his comitment to a further Bond movie following No Time To Die included the following link to IGN itself carrying direct citation to the Mirror article - let's examine what the Independant's article from this 2016 that you do apparently accept has to say on the matter, shall we...? But first, I need to ask you a question

Headline -"Christopher Waltz will appear in two more James Bond films as long as Daniel Craig returns as 007",

At which point during No Time To Die did you first become unaware of the total absence of Daniel Craig playing the lead role of James Bond in the film?

If the answer transpires to be, roughly, something along the lines of "at no point was I aware of the fact Daniel Craig wasn't playing James Bond in NTTD because he was in it" are we not correct in establishing the fact that, as far as Christopher Waltz's conditions regarding himself signing for two movies (25 and 26) prior to signing for Bond 25 were, in point of fact, subsequently and fully met and Daniel Craig did in fact sign up for Bond 25, exactly as Waltz required.

Waltz's terms as stipulate make no requirement for Daniel Craig to return for Bond 26 - only Bond 25 - which is this movie.

Or, let me guess - is your source suddenly not good enough, even though you yourself brought it up...?

Curious minds, and all that.

Einheit947 (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

The Independent source also does not say that Waltz was committed two more films. Simply in 2016 he said that he would be willing to come back for two films if Craig came back as Bond. There's enough vagueness in that statement that we cannot say firmly (as you are trying) Waltz committed to two more films. Additionally, we're looking at a 2016 source and things can change since. Fundamentally, we cannot use these statements at all to content the point that to the casual viewer (how we're to write plot summaries) Blofeld died in this film. If that changes on the next film, we can retroactively fix this, but for now, this is the most obvious conclusion that does not attempt any analysis or interpreation of the work. --Masem (t) 16:41, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@Masem:

The Independent source also does not say that Waltz was committed two more films. Simply in 2016 he said that he would be willing to come back for two films if Craig came back as Bond.

Actually the artical says, clearly and with no ambiguity at all - ""Christopher Waltz will appear in two more James Bond films as long as Daniel Craig returns as 007" using language. There is nothing remotely vague about that statement. Daniel Craig did in point of fact return for Bond 25 - therefore Waltz is signed for 26. The headline is quite unequivocal on that subject. Also your statement fails to explain the clear an obvious disparity between the way Waltz's character appears to die on screen and the way every other targeted characters death is depicted after being exposed to the same toxic agent, FoxDie - I mean - Heracles.

There can be no denying - Blofelds death as depicted is noticeably and strikingly different to that of every other targeted individual. The others all died screaming with blood pouring out of their faces and neither quickly or well. Blofeld on the other hand dies painlessly and mercifully quickly, slumped in the corner of his cage for all the word as if asleep rather than contorted in agony.

Exactly the same as with Bond, the description of Blofelds death should be modified to reflect what actually happens in the movie, not the assumed conclusion imposed upon it by the editors here.

Blofeld is declared dead, killed by exposure to Heracles. This is not to say narratively his character actually is. The same as with Bond later on. We at no point witness the characters actual demise, only receive the pre-digested conclusion that he just is and no note whatsoever is drawn to the clear marked difference in the extremely quick and painless manner this so-called death took place.

These descriptions should follow what happens in the film, not be buried under an indifferent and inaccurate description not reflective of what we actually see take place - which is a marked difference to a depiction of the way characters are seen to die from exposure to the nano-vifus toxin as previously established.

Einheit947 (talk) 01:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I've said it before, headlines are not considered part of a reliable source, per WP:HEADLINES. The article text actually does not support that headline. And while you, perhaps a cinophile and thus drawn to those details, that again is not the level of detail we take plot descriptions. We can judge what the average viewer saw from reliable sources that recapped the film, all which consider both Blofeld and Bond dead. What you're seeing is not the "average" take on the film. --Masem (t) 02:05, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Masem - "I've said it before, headlines are not considered part of a reliable source, per WP:HEADLINES." - and yet you're one who introduced this specific article in the first place - The Independent - on the grounds you didn't like the Mirror article - because it does confirm waltz signed a two movie deal when signing for Bond 25. I'd also appreciate where the article you introduced doesn't confirm this - this actual article itself confirms Waltz signed for multiple movies:

"After the release of Spectre it was reported that Christoph Waltz had signed on to return as Ernst Stavro Blofeld for further Bond films, on the condition that Craig returned as Bond."

Either pick a lane or move on, so far your argument has been all over the place. You're even disallowing evidence you yourself have personally introduced. Start being consistent or I start making changes, we can argue the toss via arbitration and I'm quite happy to go to Eon direct about this and everything else here. You are literally cutting the cloth as you go.

Unacceptable. Einheit947 (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Masem, I admire your patience, and that of the editors on the user's talk page. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies - If you could find some way of keeping your comments to the topics raised please, that might be appreciated. Comments like these are not only off topic - they wound, please - in future follow general guidelines and be considerate to other users feelings and don't post simply to be hurtful about others. Thank you in advance.

Einheit947 (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Sources

Use of serial commas in the lead

A couple of people have tried to force the use of the serial comma into the lead, despite the whole article not using it. WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD suggest they should be using the talk page to discuss this, but no takers so far, so I am opening the thread for them to discuss. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:9816:1424:7638:C8AE (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Box office performance

I added a note about how this film is the worst-performing Bond in the franchise with Daniel Craig, but was reverted[18] by Lobo151 (talk · contribs) with the edit summary "Not fo t". I'm not entirely certain what that means, but since this stands to lose the studio tens of millions of dollars, and will become the first Bond film to lose money, I think we should note this in the lead and the box office sections. The way it reads now, one would think that the film is a financial success, which it wasn't. Thoughts? Incerto501 (talk) 14:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for that, I meant Not for the lead. This was in my opinion to much detailed information for the lead. Should be in the box office section. Also it is not a fact or proven that the movie was not a financial success. But that is already mention in the box office section.Lobo151 (talk) 14:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

"Worst-performing" is probably not really all that accurate either. Adjusted for inflation it is still the 6th highest-grossing Bond film. It has still been incredibly successful in these extremely challenging times—it is the biggest non-Chinese release since the start of the pandemic, and in the UK it has still managed to become the 3rd highest nominal grosser. Ordinarily a gross of $770 million would have been enough for a Bond film to break even with the home video markets and TV revenue still yet to come but the film effectively had to be marketed twice—once early in 2020 and again in late 2021. As a result the film has likely lost tens of millions on its theatrical run (a break-even gross of $900 million would suggest a loss in the $50–100 million range). This probably should be included in the article but I agree it belongs in the box-office section where context can be added. Betty Logan (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

There's definitely a variety of factors that could be to blame for its performance, absolutely. But I don't know of any Bond film that has lost money, let alone up to $100 mil after all is said and done. I think it's noteworthy enough for the lead that it's the first film out of a series of 25 to lose money. That's quite a distinction for a franchise with this kind of staying power. I'm not saying people are going to get fired or this is comparable to a Hudson Hawk or Waterworld type situation, but the sentence in the lead about its gross may give the impression that this film made money, when it did the exact opposite. I understand the argument about it grossing a large amount compared to some of the competition, but it also must be acknowledged that plenty of other films released in 2021 did manage to net studios money (e.g. Shang-Chi, Free Guy. Eternals, Venom 2, etc.) despite Covid fears. Incerto501 (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Insofar as a tertiary source is concerned, it doesn't matter if any of that is true. It only matters if a secondary source considers it notable. DonQuixote (talk) 20:45, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

So in other words we should get confirmation of the financial loss, since Variety and other publications are using anonymous sources rather than hard financial data? Incerto501 (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

If we can cite a source that says that it's the first Bond film to lose money (or something similar), then that'll be great. If the sources then says "...because..." then it'll be better as we can write an expanded summary of it. If we can cite multiple sources and/or one or more prestigious sources, then it'll help to add more weight in it being notable. DonQuixote (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2021 (UTC)