Talk:From Russia with Love (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleFrom Russia with Love (film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starFrom Russia with Love (film) is part of the James Bond films series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 10, 2007Good article nomineeListed
May 17, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
January 23, 2012Good topic candidatePromoted
June 30, 2016Good topic removal candidateDemoted
July 6, 2017Good topic candidatePromoted
March 30, 2022Good topic removal candidateDemoted
September 27, 2022Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

Untitled[edit]

This article was split off from From Russia with Love. Edit history prior to the split is at [1].--Kchase T 19:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Background[edit]

The background section appears to me to lack a neutral tone of voice. Sum0 23:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I've removed the last part now, since it has nothing to do with the background. - Jetro 13:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Budget[edit]

Sorry to mess up this article again... but about everywhere I've read, the budget for this film was $ 2 000 000, not $2 500 000. I've often heard: "The producers doubled their budget for their next film". I googled it just now and according to most pages the budget was $ 2 000 000, not 2,5 mill. - Jetro 15:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now changing the number of the budget, as no one seems to react. According to IMDb, I'm right. - Jetro 20:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is questionable as a reliable source, but if you can find another legit reference (online or otherwise, but cite it properly, please!) that corroborates that figure, that's sensible. (Background: discussions on WikiProject Films are asserting that IMDB is getting less and less support on WP as a RS, since it has minimal editorial control, and numerious errors infiltrate the database.) David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 14:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to put yet another spanner in the works over the budget. I have just got a copy of the production notes (dated 1968) that is says the budget was increased to $1,750,000 - I don't think you could get a better source than that! It also mentions that Connery's wardrobe cost $3,000 217.34.223.179 (talk) 10:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plot[edit]

All references to "pre-credits", "the film opens ..." & "the theme song plays" and the like should be edited out as they are nothing to do with "plot". Only the story within the film is relevant. This was corrected until reverted!--Olaf Legend 05:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plot accuracy and other accuracies[edit]

Please do not incorporate changes based on what you think you remember from the film, or they will be eliminated with extreme prejudice (joke). ... As this article is a GA candidate, please ensure your changes are verified with cited references and based on review of the film in front of you. Shouldn't be hard, it's out on video in 4-5 forms. Thanks. - David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 17:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • When will WP:007 learn to send specific, and neutral comments? Which references are you talking about? Vikrant Phadkay 14:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stop edit warring ... and certainly, desist from personal remarks here and in your edit summaries. How are my comments not neutral? By sources, I refer you to WP:RS for the policy guidelines on sources to cite. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 14:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now you see it, now you don't:: Stock image of mosque[edit]

The images (or an image) of Basilica Cistern and Hagia Sophia, the mosque where Tatiana passes the embassy floor plan to Bond, have been coming and going. I agree with the removers that a stock photo, even if it's public domain, is decorative at best, and not as illustrative as a screen shot or a pic from spring, 1963, when filming was done in Instanbul. I think that if we've got to have a shot from that location, a screen shot is better. As I'm reviewing the Inside FRWL documentary for reception and production info (and fact checking), I'll try to take a capture. Hope that will make everyone happy(ier). David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 01:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a number of screen captures and can post a gallery to choose from. Before I edit, I'm curious what other editors would prefer ... wide angle of the mosque w/Connery ... Bianchi ... Bianchi in bg w/Man with Glasses hiding...?

One of JFK's favorite films?[edit]

An editor posted uncited trivia that this is Connery's favorite of (his) Bond films (no mention in Inside FRWL, ... perhaps elsewhere?), and added another uncited rumor that it was one of JFK's favorite films as well. The film was released in England 10/10(?)/63, and released publicly in the USA after his assassination. There is uncorroborated trivia at IMDB that states that this was the last film that JFK viewed (private screening in the White House no doubt, two days before his death in Dallas), but no mention of being a favorite. As this article is a GA candidate, if something can't be tied in with a verifiable, reliable source, it may removed. Please cite sources for rumors like this. (BTW, there is discussion in the WikiProject Films about using IMDB as a RS ... consensus, last time I checked, was decidedly against accepting IMDB as a RS, as there is loose editorial control, no visible fact-checking, and no citing of sources, or even contributors (which allows the insidious inclusion of biased information).) -- David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 13:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the companion Wikipedia article on the book makes it quite clear that it was the book, not the film, that JFK was stated as having said he particularly liked. Whether such attribution to JFK was based in fact or not I cannot tell, but it was used as publicity for the book to great effect (again, see the Wikipedia article on the film). Partnerfrance (talk) 18:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing[edit]

There are a few sentences that need to be referenced, but I've got the feeling that they can be ref'd with the inside documentary from the DVD. Here they are:

  • For the opening chess match, Kronsteen wins the game with a reenactment of Boris Spassky's victory over David Bronstein in 1960. (Production Designer Syd Cain built up the "chess pawn" motive in his $150,000 set for this brief sequence.) A boxer at Cambridge, Young choreographed the final battle between Grant and Bond, a scene so violent some on the production worried the unbridled brutality was excessive.
    This paragraph has one more sentence, the only one with an inline citation. All of this needs to be cited—one inline citation at the end of the paragraph is insufficient.
  • After the unexpected loss, production proceeded, experiencing complications from rewriting by Richard Maibaum during filming. Editor Peter Hunt set about editing the film while key elements were still to be filmed, helping to restructure the opening scenes. Hunt and Young conceived of moving the training exercise on a Bond double to preface the main title, a signature feature that has been an enduring hallmark of every Bond film since. The briefing with Blofeld was rewritten, and back projection was used to refilm Lotte Lenya's lines.
    This entire paragraph lacks citations and it needs some.
  • On July 6, 1963, while scouting locations in Argyll, Scotland, for that day's filming of the climactic boat chase, Terence Young's helicopter crashed into the lake with Art Director Michael White and a cameraman aboard. The craft sank into 40-50 feet of water , but all escaped with minor injuries. Despite the calamity, Young was behind the camera for the full days' work.
    Again, a paragraph with only one citation at its end (which I omitted so that only what needs citing is presented here).

Cliff smith 03:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added all three (as per my comments on the To-Do list above), and the information is from Inside From Russia With Love. Do I need to cite after every sentence? I thought that in formal writing, if the source is the same for the entire paragraph, the footnote is placed at the end of the paragraph. Please let me know if there's another which specifies sources must be after each and every sentence. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 13:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under the Harvard referencing system, a book is cited in the text in parentheses, after the section, sentence, or paragraph for which the book was used as a source...

— WP:Citing sources(emphasis added
Ah. However, Harvard refs aren't in use on this page, though footnote refs are inline citations all the same. But at any rate, I think that the main thing is to eliminate any possibility of any material in the article being challenged if it were not specifically cited. Citations at paragraph ends are cool, but if you've got two sources for one paragraph, for example, you wouldn't know specifically what in the paragraph came from where. Cliff smith 02:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA review comments[edit]

Hello, sorry for the delay, here are my comments:

  • Flow the first sentence into the second. "X is a Y spy film." - not a great intro line. Whole first paragraph doesn't read like elegant prose.
  • No real need to wikilink Film on its own after Spy film is already linked.
  • "...widely considered..." vs "...many critics..." - use one or the other.
  • "...that each film strives to aim for." - not great English.
  • "...Michael G. Wilson, the current co-producer of the series with his half sister Barbara Broccoli, has stated..." - has stated? or just stated? should half sister be half-sister?
  • WP:DASH for year ranges, e.g. in infobox.
    •  Done I didn't understand anything on the dash page, so copyedited the IFbox. Vikrant Phadkay 16:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • SPECTRE is wikilinked the second time it's used, make it the first time for context for the non-expert.
  • Fourth para of Production section way overuses parentheses, it detracts from the prose.
  • Make sure you wikilink Cambridge and wikilink the right one so we don't confuse US readers with their version of the city.
  • Wikilink full dates.
  • Vehicles and gadgets section lacks citation.
    •  Done I have merged it with the context with the Bond-Grant fight. All other things are CRUFT Vikrant Phadkay 16:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:KlebbtestsGrant.jpg lacks specific copyright information and fair use rationale for use in this specific article.
  • Not sure why all characters and actors are in bold, is this a film wikiproject manual of style suggestion?

So, I'll put the article on hold until these are attended to. Let me know when you'd like a re-review. Cheers, and apologies once again for the delay. The Rambling Man 16:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:MOSFILMS#Cast and crew information, actors and characters are supposed to be bold. Cliff smith 02:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, I thought as much. Thanks for clearing that up for me. The Rambling Man 07:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-review[edit]

Sorry to be a pain but something has just dawned on me - in the lead you talk about the computer game, but this isn't developed in the article at all. Perhaps a new section is required to discuss the impact of the film on culture or similar. Otherwise it ought not appear in the lead. I think all the other modifications have been carried out well, so I'm sorry to drop this in at the last minute. See what you can do and I'll be happy to promote to GA if you can sort it. The Rambling Man 16:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great, good and dedicated work, well done, I'm promoting now. The Rambling Man 16:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helicopter attack[edit]

When Bond and his girl leave the train, they're attacked by a helicopter at some point, are they not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Racooon (talk • contribs) 09:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sure are! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.27.162 (talk) 03:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gypsy camp[edit]

What language do the 2 gypsy women speak in the fight scene at the camp? It sounded like it could be Turkish, but I am far from sure. Is this authentic, or would they have spoken Romany? This scene does look like Gorgio fantasy. PatGallacher (talk) 17:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are trying to speak in Turkish. One of the worst spellings I've ever heard actually. By the way, they are drinking Rakı straight, which is completely against the proper way. One should add ice and water on top of Rakı and drink it in its special glass. Yes, even a freedom-loving Gypsy would drink it that way. Deliogul (talk) 00:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bot report : Found duplicate references ![edit]

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "James Bond Theme" :
    • {{cite web|url=http://www.listology.com/content_show.cfm/content_id.10101|title=Listology: Rating the James Bond Theme Songs|accessdate=2007-07-28|publisher=Listology.com}}
    • {{cite web|url=http://www.listology.com/content_show.cfm/content_id.10101|title=Listology: Rating the James Bond Theme Songs|accessdate=2007-07-28}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 07:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment[edit]

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

GA Sweeps: Pass[edit]

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I went through the article and made various changes including cutting down the plot and removing the screenshots, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2007. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would be beneficial to cover the home media releases, and see if there are any more recent stories in the news. I would also recommend updating the access dates of the sources. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

This move request has been withdrawn by myself. YeshuaDavid (talk) 19:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

From Russia with Love (film) → From Russia with Love — I have requested that the film page be moved here, having nominated the disimbaguation page be moved to From Russia with Love (disimbaguation) and the novel to From Russia, with Love (with a comma). See full discussion here. YeshuaDavid (talk) 15:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review section[edit]

I've removed the uncited review from Universal Exports. I've not heard of the reviewer and there're no references for it. Universal Exports was the code name for British Secret Service in the Bond books, so this suggests it's either a joke or there's a fan site of that name. If the latter, suggest a footnote is added with a link. Phettyplace (talk) 06:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Call Me Bwana[edit]

Note blatant plug of another EON Productions film Call Me Bwana via poster on side of building with a bad guy climbing out of the mouth of Anita Ekberg.119.11.30.181 (talk) 15:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC) MBG[reply]

Discussion pertaining to non-free image(s) used in article[edit]

A cleanup page has been created for WP:FILMS' spotlight articles. One element that is being checked in ensuring the quality of the articles is the non-free images. Currently, one or more non-free images being used in this article are under discussion to determine if they should be removed from the article for not complying with non-free and fair use requirements. Please comment at the corresponding section within the image cleanup listing. Before contributing the discussion, please first read WP:FILMNFI concerning non-free images. Ideally the discussions pertaining to the spotlight articles will be concluded by the end of June, so please comment soon to ensure there is clear consensus. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Similarity to "Diplomatic Courier"[edit]

"From Russia With Love" has an uncanny resemblance to the Tyrone Power film "Diplomatic Courier", which might be considered the first James Bond type film. Did Fleming use "Diplomatic Courier" as the basis to write the book? 63.192.100.48 (talk) 21:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Title[edit]

What is the current capitalization of the title ("From Russia with Love", with the lowercased "with") based on? In the film, the title is in all caps, and if mixed case is at all used (which I believe makes sense), then shouldn't it however be "From Russia With Love"? 31.18.253.188 (talk) 00:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Beswick[edit]

Actress Martine Beswick is credited as MARTIN Beswick in the opening titles. This is a fact proven by viewing the film and is verified by approx 6000 references through a google search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.112.123.191 (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well why don't you add just one WP:RELIABLE one then - and remove the rather ridiculous number you've added in? - SchroCat (talk) 16:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please cease these personal attacks and stop making threats on my talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.112.123.191 (talk) 17:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please point out one personal attack I have made on you and one threat I have made towards you? Considering the filth you have written on your talk page I think your accusation to be mis-guided. Please also remove the WP:unreliable citations from the 15 you have added to suppot one tiny, insignificant pointless detail of trivia? - SchroCat (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sixteen sources. So they are all wrong, but you are right? Logging in under your alter-ego wiki name of Dr Blofeld doesn't fool anyone either. You are 'both' making a mockery of wikipeida and undermining it by dismissing 16 (and there are many, many, many more) sources as "unreliable". What you are actually doing is making wikipedia unreliable. Pity you can't see that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.112.123.191 (talk) 18:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few issues here that you need to try and take on board. Firstly, no-one is attacking you or trying to stop you editing. You are trying to add a piece of trivia to the article. Wiki is always questioning of the merits of trivia and this is borderline of whether it should stay in or not. IF is stays, it needs to carry a reliable source. What you are providing are not reliable sources. they are from fansites, public-editing sites etc. they are inherently unreliable. The info is all at WP:RELIABLE, which is what I have been trying to tell you all along. You need to add a reliable source in order for the info to even stand a chance of remaining. - SchroCat (talk) 18:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You really can't make this up! And I quote: "they are from fansites, public-editing sites etc. they are inherently unreliable." I hate to break it to you but, wikipedia is a.... public-editing site! So it is inherently unreliable by your own admission. Goodbye. The bullies always win. (Personal attack removed) I have a life and I'm off to enjoy it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.116.242.88 (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction of iconic elements mention in the lead[edit]

The lead of Dr. No (film) states which iconic elements of the series, the kind of elements which viewers have come to expect to see in every movie, were introduced in that movie. For consistency in the Bond articles it may be a good idea to mention these kind of items in the lead of this article too. The first part of the section "Production" describes what iconic elements were introduced in this movie:

"The film introduced several conventions which would become essential elements of the series: a pre-title sequence, the Blofeld character (referred in the film only as "Number 1"), a secret-weapon gadget for Bond, a helicopter sequence (repeated in every subsequent Bond film except The Man with the Golden Gun (film)|The Man with the Golden Gun), a postscript action scene after the main climax, a theme song with lyrics, and the line "James Bond will return/be back" in the credits."

Of these, the pre-title sequence and the secret-weapon gadget are important enough to warrant mentioning their introduction in the lead. One of those elements is still missing from the article: this was the first movie with the titles projected upon the contours/silhouettes/shapes of female bodies.MackyBeth (talk) 07:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on From Russia with Love (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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on From Russia with Love (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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 23:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on From Russia with Love (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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 06:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot removed[edit]

I've removed a screenshot from the video game spinoff. It doesn't seem to meet the fair use requirements. See this discussion. Andrewa (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Potential Plot Inaccuracy Regarding Teargas Briefcase Trap[edit]

Just before the fight between Grant and Bond in the train, it doesn't seem like Bond tricks Grant into setting off the teargas bomb in Bond's briefcase, but rather Nash's, the agent Grant is impersonating. Before they went to the dinner cart in the previous scene, Bond has Grant leave the stolen case whereupon he opens it in the secret way Q instructed him to earlier and inspects the contents. Later when he asks Grant for a last cigarette, he offers to pay for it with Sovereigns in his own briefcase. Grant asks if there are more in the other one where Bond says it's likely as it's a standard briefcase for field agents. Bond begins to open it, but Grant interjects and does it himself, setting off the teargas bomb. 2603:8080:CEF0:97F0:A878:98B8:BBD9:D4EC (talk) 06:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:From_Russia_with_Love_(film)&oldid=1209300918"