Talk:GoldenEye/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Clean-up of Grammar

This article is currently written with horrible grammar. Many broken links and images.

"Th story opns with Jams Bond, agnt 007, and his frind/ally Alc Trvlyan, agnt 006, infiltrating a Sovit chmical wapons factory in Arkhanglsk, th USSR (modrn day Russia)."

^ Messy

Nope, seems to me vandilisim was commited seeing as words were purposely editied to be spelled wrong, i'll fix it.--Nubbie44 22:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

well, look at it. only the "e"s are missing. someone apparently has a broken keyboard, and doesn't realize it. i edited some minor grammar problems and changed a few little things around. Parsecboy 13:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Learn spanish please

"Oracabessa" isn't Spanish for anything. It's not even a spanish word, but just a name. "Golden Head" will be "Cabeza de Oro".

This http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/pages/history/story0048.htm suggests a different derivation - "* Oracabessa, St. Mary: comes from the Spanish for 'aura' meaning 'air or breeze' and 'cabeza' meaning head, resulting in a phrase that could be read as 'fanciful'." -- Beardo 06:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


-Actually oracabessa sounds like pretty much gibberish. "Ora", if anything, is a verb for "pray", and sounds like "hora", which means hour. Cabeza is "head", which sounds like cabessa, but it's still gibberish. As for "aura", it stays the same, as it is directly derived from Latin for Spanish, AND English... and...fanciful? Yeah okay...nice one. There is no Spanish meaning, as "oro" is gold, and that's all there is to it. Learn spanish please.

-On occasion--especially with particularly uneducated speakers of Spanish--a sloppy speaker will slip the adjective in front of the noun instead of after it. Especially considering that Jamaica was actually claimed by the Spanish and therefore mixed with some of Spanish culture and linguistics, it's not very hard to believe that uneducated Jamaicans who speak Spanish poorly would make such a mistake.

New IMDb tournament

Well, this is an odd world. IMDb just held one of their official polls (not a message board tournament like the earlier thing) on the best Pierce Brosnan Bond film, and GoldenEye won by a landslide [1]. So, does this belong here? I'm hesistant, but I want your opinions. Deltabeignet 01:51, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC) Update: Also, if you're wondering why the talk page history has so many posts that do the same thing, it's because my computer was being slow and I was being impatient.


Casino Royale I can understand, but why might you not include Never Say Never Again in a list of Bond movies? --VampWillow 18:56, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

It's not an EON production. It's also a remake of an EON picture (Thunderball). It has no real connection to the EON series other than Kevin McClory owning the film rights to the original book and Sean Connery being signed to play the lead. Timrollpickering 13:55, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
But surely in the concept of a (Bond) film is a (Bond) film it shouldn't be an absolute that a single production company should be responsible; after all the actors change (how many Felixes have there been? and there was a sex change too!) and the producer changes too. Surely, the only thing that matters is that the basic concept remains (which is why I'd agree that Casino Royale isn't a part of the series of films). Isn't it that films are based on characters, and as such NSNG fulfills that requirement. (You might as otherwise exclude OHMSS, for example) --VampWillow 14:05, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
Erm it's not a sex change - it's clear from the dialogue that this is a new M. Generally the EON films are the ones considered the "main" series, with NSNA considered an aside. The numbering most commonly used is that of the EON films and often attached - my video copy of GoldenEye has #17 on the sleeve, whilst recently EON often refer to their current production as "Bond 17" (or equiv) whilst in production. Furthermore NSNA severely breaches the EON continuity - this adventure and Thunderball cannot both have taken place, whilst Blofeld was killed off in an earlier Bond film. All in all I'd say that NSNA should not be listed in the main lists - though maybe the page could be a little clearer. Timrollpickering 14:27, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
I'll agree with you that it isn't easy or clear! I just take the view that if the franchise is to continue (and it appears that it should do for a while yet) then everything is up for change and one shouldn't define a 'bond film' as being from a particular source. The 'sex change' I was referring to, btw, wasn't M (clearly a different person) but to Felix Leitner ... a different person playing the same-named character in (iirc) *every* film but in one case being an actress not an actor (without wishing to otherwise disparage the unisexuality of the latter term in any way). I'm not sure there is a 'standard' continuity in some other elements of the franchise either. --VampWillow 14:43, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
Erm when did Felix change sex? He does change race if you count NSNA, as well as changing height, age, weight and hair colour in the other films (but does at least have the same actor, David Hedison, in Live and Let Die and Licence to Kill). I agree the continuity in the EON films has some slips (for instance did Bond visit Japan before You Only Live Twice?), but the same studio and same team have produced the EON films as a clear series and any films produced outside it have to be acknowledged as separate. Timrollpickering 15:23, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

IMDb reference

I'm reluctant to delete information added to articles out of hand, but I don't think the recent addition stating that an IMDb "tournament" (I assume 'poll' was the word intended) voted it the best Bond film really belongs here. For one thing IMDb polls are highly suspect (though to say so in the article would violate NPOV), plus I'm a regular visitor to IMDb and have never seen any reference to a "Best Bond Film" tournament or poll. I moved the item to trivia and reworded it, but if someone else wants to cut it, I'd have no objection. 23skidoo 02:42, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

From the originator- It actually was an elimination-style tournament (as my last edit now reflects), not a poll. It was held on the Die Another Day boards, which were the most visited Bond boards at the time. As a side note, characters from GoldenEye have done very well in subsequent tournaments.

The problem with the statement is it doesn't add anything to the article. IMDB is a credible website on film and so on, but that doesn't mean its users are. Stating, even unofficially, that fans at IMDB selected it as their favorite doesn't mean anything. Websites have these sort of tournaments, polls, what have you all the time. Theres no notability in this. I'm sorry. I object to including it. K1Bond007 05:46, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I can see the logic there. I had just seen a large number of Bond fans call it the best, and wanted to mention this without resorting to weasel words. As long as no one else puts any POV statements or even "critics consider" pieces, I'll agree to leave it off.

Die Another Day reference

"This unusual candor, combined with a well-received performance by Brosnan as the new James Bond, assured the franchise's future, at least until Die Another Day's release in 2002"

This sounds like a snide POV reference. I'm tempted to delete the Die Another Day part, but I'll wait for someone else to weigh in.

I think it should be cleaned up a little, perhaps remove the reference to Die Another Day, but I don't think anyone will say that Brosnan's performance wasn't well-received and we all know that his films did revitalize the franchise. K1Bond007 23:49, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
I made some changes, take a look and see if it's any better.

K1Bond007 00:12, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

Much better. Thanks. Brosnan definitely revived the field- I just didn't want any bias.

Rogue Agent Quote

This was considered by many fans to be the weakest James Bond game to date.

I don't like this sentence. I think its more of an opinion.--Martin925 19:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Among gamers, it's a very widely accepted opinion.

Economic supremacy and terrorism

Someone keeps adding:

"Before detonating GoldenEye, his plan is to steal completely from the Bank of England in London, thus having the transaction erased after GoldenEye goes off, causing the British economy and government to be destroyed and a catastrophic currency crisis to occur in the New York Stock Exchange and the world economy. Alec Trevelyan, having obtained the only valuable currency of pounds sterling, could have economic supremacy over the British and the world in an era of terrorism for decades."

As far as I can remember, this is speculation on possible aftermath. I don't recall there being any mention of the NYSE and the world economy or economic supremacy, or an era of terrorism. Can the mystery author please explain where this comes up. Preferably with the actual quotes? Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure this is just a bank heist on a large scale. Bond even states that it comes down to "petty theft." K1Bond007 21:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I just watched the scene again where Alec spills all. The best they came to any of this was when Bond says "causing a worldwide financial meltdown [...] all so mad little Alec can get even with the world...." - I hardly feel that justifies what was previously stated by the anon. K1Bond007 21:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Ratings

I have changed the wording and section heading of MPAA history (to Ratings history). One reason for this is a particular sentence; 

This was not requested by the MPAA, but the BBFC, the British equivalent of our ratings system.

which suggests an exclusively US readership. CaptainVindaloo t c e 23:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Do not split the article

I oppose splitting the article into separate film and novel articles. I fail to see how this would benefit Wikipedia, plus the resulting article would be simply a stub unless you want to simply repeat the plot summary given here. 23skidoo 13:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, that wouldn't be long enough of an article nor important enough. Reignbow 23:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

From main Bond page

This was included on the James Bond page - I don't know if there is anything worth salvaging:

"The movies' inlfuence on British culture cannot be underestimated. Hence the assimilation of so many phrases into the national lexicon. Amongst Generation Y, by example, the phrase "Shut the door Alec, there's a draft.......Alec?" is instantly recognisable as James Bond in the opening gambit of Goldeneye. Released in 1995, the film and of course the franchise are a cultural institution withing Britain. Latterly, the franchise has been part of the Cool Britannia movement."

-- Beardo 06:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

"One of two actors to appear twice"

I support the deletion of the statement added that Baker is only one of two actors to appear twice in different roles. Besides the cited example of Charles Gray, there's also Martine Beswick, Angela Scholar and Caroline Munro (if you want to count the first Casino Royale), possibly the actor who played M in the late Moore-Dalton era (who may have been playing a different character in Spy Who Loved Me). And I think both of the gypsy girls in From Russia with Love played different roles, too. The list goes on. 23skidoo 16:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

I've just reverted the page, as someone had removed most of the 'e's. If I've removed any genuine edits, please re-apply.

The Women of GoldenEye

Is there a need for this section? It is simply a repeat of what is in the cast section, with screenshots (which push the Fair Use rationale, as you're only supposed to use a "limited number"). It gives undue weight to Caroline, a very minor character. Unless someone can say why it should be kept, I am going to remove it. Trebor 17:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Women of GoldenEye

KenL 02:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)The Bond girls are a very important element of the series, in fact every single Bond film on Wikipedia has a section devoted to them. It is obvious that Trebor here has a thing for GoldenEye, but that doesn't mean he has the sole right to decide what should be in on this page or not. I like the Bond films I feel this section should stay. If he keeps deleting it, I will continue to revert it.

But you added all these sections to the Bond movies, and others seem to feel the same way as me.[2]. Explain, using policy, why they should be kept considering they give undue weight to minor characters, repeat information in the cast list and push the boundaries of fair use by using multiple screenshots? I'm sorry, but "I like the Bond films I feel this section should stay" is not a valid argument. I don't have the sole right to decide what's in the article, true, but without reasoned argument neither do you. Trebor 08:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

KenL 08:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)The Bond girl section was up before you came along and decided to give mini bios on all the characters listed under the cast section. So if there is any redundancy, you were the one who created it. Those who have trouble with the Bond girl section are in the minority because the overwhelming majority who have no problems with it and thus have no reason to voice an opinion on it.

I removed them from the articles actually. You have no way of knowing what others think of simply by them not raising an objection. I've had a problem with the sections for a long time but the first time I've discussed it is here. Here are my reasons:
  • They gave undue weight to some very minor characters (e.g. the girls who fought at the Gypsy camp in From Russia With Love)
  • Why not sections on "the henchmen of James Bond", "the weapons of James Bond" etc. etc.
  • In many cases they repeated what was written in plot summary
  • Some contained very very trivial information - for example who Daniela Bianchi's room mate was at the 1960 Miss Universe pageant - see What Wikipedia is not
  • With all due respect, they were written like an entry in a tabloid newspaper, not an encyclopedia. If you want me to list all my objections about the writing let me know, but here's a few problems I had with A View to a Kill: "A damsel in distress in every sense of the word" and "May Day's scrumptious all-female bodyguard regiment". And possibly the worst one was in TWINE: "the pair spend Christmas in Turkey where Bond found out that Christmas comes more than once a year." Explain please, how anybody could consider immature sexual innuendo to be encyclopedic??? Mark83 13:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
And also, your argument that nobody has voiced an opinion therefore it must be okay is clearly flawed. The tendency of editors is to add relevant information and not to delete. It is only really when the article is looked upon as a whole (as I am trying to do) that these sections get reviewed. Again, I ask that you support your position with relevant policy and not personal opinion. Trebor 21:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

GA Passing

There's very little for me to say, my only initial gripe would be the Gadgets section, but after reading that I was pleased. Sorry about the shoddy review it's just everything is pretty down pat, before sending this to FAC remember to give it a copyedit and take care of the little things, like refs comming after punctuation.This article makes me want to watch GoldenEye again, good Work everyone

†he Bread 23:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The original Timothy Dalton plot.

Here we go.


http://www.mi6.co.uk/sections/articles/bond_17_elements.php3?t=&s=

Every time I read this, I feel Timothy Dalton should've done two. Would someone mind placing this into the page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MrClarkWithoutRemorse (talk • contribs) 07:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

This doesn't have much to do with GoldenEye. This is a project predating that. See Licence to Kill. K1Bond007 07:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Musical question

Hey, does anyone know the name of the song played by the marching band in one scene? 24.250.1.196 02:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Where did the novelization section go????

The novelization was part of a series of articles, complete with a succession box and it was also part of the NovelsWikiProject. Why was it deleted when it should have been made a separate article at least??? That's what happens when you take an article off the watchlist; I should have caught this weeks ago. 23skidoo 18:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't made a separate article per the brief discussion further up on the page, because there was essentially no new information to put in it's own article. All it would be is a repeat of the plot summary. I put a paragraph in the "Other media" section, and honestly can't see any other information to add. The succession box was removed because it is rarely used anymore (7 mainspace articles) and never really fitted neatly into the page; the Bond book template at the bottom has more than enough information. If you want to create a separate article for the novel, be my guest, but I can't see how it'll ever be more than a stub. Trebor 19:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

howcome the novelization section is on answers.com? Sniper 99 02:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for doing this a 2nd time, but the novelization section is gone. Sniper 99 02:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Answers.com isn't updated immediately, so it won't normally show the latest version of the page. Trebor 11:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


GoldenEye → GoldenEye (film) — Goldeneye refers to many things and this may not be the most common usage. Also GoldenEye (disambiguation) --> Goldeneye 147.197.138.238 12:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

Survey - in opposition to the move

  1. Every single other reference on the dab page is to a subject that is a derivative of this one. This is clearly the main use of it. --Serge 22:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Yup. I agree with Serge. Aside from Goldeneye (duck) everything on the page is in relation to the film and the case is unique to the movie. Clearly the primary use of the term. --Bobblehead 02:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. I oppose as well for reasons similar to Serge. However, I question of the disambiguation page shouldn't have a lowercase "e" in its title since it also includes entries such as the duck? GassyGuy 23:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:
  • Voting is evil. But seriously, it's far better to discuss than immediately start a poll. I am against the change, because I feel that the film is by far the main usage of the word. Trebor 15:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved.--Stemonitis 16:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article Nomination

After some significant work on the plot section, I think this article is ready for FA status. Does anyone have any objections to it being nominated? ColdFusion650 17:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I've requested a peer review to get some comments on what is needed for it to be a Featured Article. ColdFusion650 21:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Goldeneye Source?

There is currently a free third party modification for the source engine based off of the original goldeneye game. I believe that it warrants being added to this article, dont you guys agree? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.49.43.98 (talk) 07:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

Cameras

Oh my god!! In one scene you can honestly see a camera man and some sort of assistant reflected in a glass behind the actors! Like, not a small reflection, a fairly decent reflection!

(see Moneypenny in elevator with James Bond)

... not really wikipeida-info, but it was funny enough to make me laugh and want to point it out. Enjoy! JimmmyThePiep 04:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Images

Possible suggestions for better/more relevant images to this already good article.

The "new" James Bond in 1994...

Could this fair-use image (or similar?) replace the shot of Brosnan (took recently - relevant?) which is also the key image for his own article? This image is after all the first publicity image to come from Goldeneye back in 1994. Whataboutbob 12:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Teaser poster No.1

Teaser poster? There are two of them ("There is no substitute" is the other) Whataboutbob 13:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Judi Dench as "M"

Is it of relevance to have a image of Judi Dench as M? She was after the first women to play the part. Whataboutbob 13:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

"No more foreplay..."

I think this one is just really sexy.

Generally there are some fantastic images surrounding Goldeneye - superb promo shots for example by people like John Stoddart. It was after all a slick and sexy Bond film, and that could maybe come out better in the article?!

Image of Sean Bean? He was the main villian. Just some suggestions folks, thats why I've put the images up here. Whataboutbob 13:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Well all of these lack a fair use rationale, which will hurt any reviews of the article. So work on those.
  • Fair point about the current image of Brosnan being recent. However it's a free image - and the image above is not. Replacing a free image with a non-free one just to show someone at a different stage of their life is not acceptable. Also the recent image shows Brosnan closer to the Goldeneye look than the promo shot look.
  • I'm not really sure where your going with the "slick and sexy" point. More than previous films? Yes. More than contemporary films of the same genre? No. Mark83 18:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • There is an image of Bean. Mark83 18:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Frigate La Fayette

The frigate La Fayette of the French Navy was shown on this movie. Would it be smart to write it in "Trivia" or somthin else? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by T-9000 (talk • contribs) 05:41, April 20, 2007 (CDT).

First, it's not notable. Second, trivia sections are outlawed under the authority of the Bond Wikiproject. ColdFusion650 16:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. The French defence ministry went out of its way to work with the producers - they lent them the frigate, the helicopter, granted them the use of French Navy and Ministry logos for the promotional activities. Also notable because after all of this Brosnan registered his protest at French nuclear tests leading French officials to cancel the premiere.
Also trivia sections are against the Manual of Style, not just Bond WP. Mark83 18:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The name of the frigate is not significant. None of the information you just stated was ever in the article that I know of. All that was there was an out of place sentence stating the name. If you can source all of that information and fit it into the production section, go ahead. ColdFusion650 19:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

At no point did I suggest the information I provided was originally in the article. You said it wasn't notable and I was disagreeing. If T-9000 would like it added I'll provide the refs etc. Mark83 19:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The name by itself is not notable. That's what I saying originally. That's why I removed it. The name becomes notable when you add all the information you mentioned. Your post has altered the importance significantly. Now I agree that something about it should be included. I would to see the references first. ColdFusion650 19:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, see what you mean - merely stating "the frigate La Fayette was featured...." is not notable. I have a couple of refs, but the one that covers all the info I provided is The Sunday Times, 3 December 1995 "Bond drops a bomb" by Kirsty Lang:
"French defence officials have quietly dropped plans for a gala premiere of GoldenEye, the new James Bond film, after learning that its star is an outspoken foe of nuclear testing. The French navy had cooperated extensively with the producers, lending them the frigate La Fayette and its newest attack helicopter, the Tigre. Navy logos were even allowed on film promotional material. But officials were horrified to discover that Pierce Brosnan, the film's star, is an admirer of Greenpeace, which has spearheaded protest against France's nuclear testing. I will never be convinced that nuclear arms are good for peace, Brosnan said during a Paris promotional tour." Mark83 19:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

See what you think. ColdFusion650 20:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I can tell you a good reference, me. --T-9000 20:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC) (This entry was written by me, T-9000 although it may look as 88.235.121.14 wrote it, which is my IP.)

T-9000 we all agree it was in the film!! - it's the notability that's in question. Mark83 20:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, but trust doesn't go a long way here. "It's the truth. I pinky swear." Everything must be cited with a credible source. ColdFusion650 20:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

ColdFusion650, who was that addressed to? If it was me, i.e. your doubting the source I gave you're are violating Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Mark83 20:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, Obviously not me since you used my reference 50 mins before my comment! Sorry again. Mark83 21:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was talking to T-9000, who cited himself as a reference. Sorry I didn't make it clear who I was addressing. ColdFusion650 21:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and just for fun, by citing WP:AGF, you're violating WP:AAGF. ColdFusion650 21:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Touché. Mark83 18:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Requesting photo

As this was Brosnan's first peformance as Bond, I think it might make sense to include a photo of him from the movie in the article. John Carter 18:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Does the poster count? His head kind of dominates it. ColdFusion650 19:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It does. I was hoping to also the photo to the List of actors who portrayed James Bond page as well, to show him in his first performance in the role. John Carter 19:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
There are way too many photos here. We should use Casino Royale as an example and remove most of the photos. The suggestion of a photo of Brosnan as Bond is completely appropriate, but images of other characters beyond the main villain and perhaps the main Bond girl probably aren't necessary. Cliff smith 01:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree. The screencaps barely fall under fair use, so shouldn't be in there. Trebor 19:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Article rating

Just so that this is known, GoldenEye is now A-Class. This is because it has passed GA review but is currently FAC, like Casino Royale. Cliff smith 01:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessary Plot Details

I've seen some of the recent plot changes, and all they do is slow things down. Details that have nothing to do with the story are included, and it just reads horribly. I'd appreciate it if only things that mattered were included. All of the other articles have overly long plots, and the project is currently trying to shorten them all. We don't need to be working against ourselves. ColdFusion650 17:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The plot section was pretty short. Some details were cut, and it made the story sound as if it went in a completely different order than it actually did. I admit, cut backs will probably have to be made, but the plot needs to be laid out in more detail. The article is not comprehensive enough. - • The Giant Puffin • 18:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
The project page even says, "The length of the plot should be short and only use very important information." The stuff that I removed does not belong and makes it just plain bad. I will resist correcting the plot section again until we can get some more opinions. ColdFusion650 18:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Plot section is way too long, is over 7k. I've done some initial edits (one paragraph was practically a blow-by-blow account of a fight scene!), suggest more reduction is needed. --Oscarthecat 18:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I have made cutbacks. What is left is relevant. I know cutback must be made, but the plot didnt include whole parts of the film to start with. - • The Giant Puffin • 18:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Here's what I suggest. We put it back to the version without the extended plot and then discuss additions on a case by case basis, or one paragraph at a time. ColdFusion650 18:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Thats not needed. A simple bit of trimming and cleaning up of the current plot will be better. Goldfinger's plot section is longer, efen after a cutback. Simply reverting stuff does not help - • The Giant Puffin • 18:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that everything added in the plot since my last revert in that section is unneeded. So we have to come up with some kind of way to fix this. I can do cutbacks, but you won't like them. You can add stuff, but if it's anything like what you've done, I won't like it. I'm just trying to find a solution. ColdFusion650 18:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I dont mind cutbacks that arent basically reverting - • The Giant Puffin • 19:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Does that mean I just have to be sneaky about it? ;) ColdFusion650 19:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
(replaced indent) lol, no just go ahead and cut-back. This is a wiki, so if you go too far it can always be fixed. Im not going to lurk on the history page pressing F5 every 10 seconds, so go ahead - • The Giant Puffin • 19:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit and comments

I was asked by The Great Puffin to do some copyediting and just did so. There wasn't much to fix, though, since both the prose and the article as a whole has been fairly tightly composed. I've inserted two hidden queries concerning "Danjaq" (person? company?) and a detail described in the plot (the helicopter and repelling rope sorta comes out of nowhere). When it comes to content, I think some of the detail concerning the production is a bit excessive. Is all the information about the twists and turns of the script necessary? The vehicle and gadget section is not an entirely bad idea, but it does smack a bit too much of trivia. Perhaps it could be boiled down to just a small paragraph with some examples without being a full list.

The citation is certainly thorough, but in some places it's just puzzling to see fairly straightforward facts being doubly referenced. Do we really need two separate references for Dalton's contract running out and three on the hiring of Pierce Brosnan? And since the lead is supposed to be a summary, it shouldn't require footnotes. And while it seems to be somewhat of an uphill battle, I must stress that all the excess code resulting from the use of citation templates make it a lot harder to edit articles. I mean, why do we need such extreme template dinkiness just to get a few reference facts in the same order within the same article? The rather minor standardization benefits don't seem to at all outweigh the harm generated by all that code garbage.

Peter Isotalo 10:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Plot Holes

Is there room for a section for plot holes? For there's at least one - the "CCCP" on the satellite. The USSR was disbanded four years earlier.

Presumably, the satellite was launched years earlier by the USSR, and had simply been taken over by the successor military/space agency of the new Russian Federation. Considering the financial difficulties of the Russian Federation at this time, and the ultra-secret nature of the satellite, it's reasonable to presume that they just never bothered changing the country identification on the satellite. 68.196.19.147 (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't the Silo mission in the Goldeneye game set 4 years before. Like how the Dam/Facility/Runway are 9 years prior? Also, it's pretty unfeasable to bring a satellite down, just to repaint/brand it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.177.101 (talk) 02:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Real-life context needed

Some real-life context is needed for the vehicle and gadgets section. At the moment, it is purely about the item in the film, as opposed to a production-related information about using that item in the film. Do not archive this:

  1. "Bond also drives an Aston Martin DB5 near the beginning of the film, which is equipped with a refrigerator in the middle armrest to hold champagne and two glasses; and a communications system including voice commands and a fax machine, which prints out from the CD player.'
  2. Q gives Bond a Parker Jotter pen that doubles as a "class-four" (C4) grenade. Three consecutive clicks arms the four-second fuse; another three disarms it. Boris Grishenko unwittingly sets this off at one point, allowing Bond and Simonova to escape. Bond's watch, standard issue for MI6 agents, can remotely detonate mines and has a built-in laser that can cut through metal.
  3. Q also gives Bond a size-34 belt containing a 23 m rappelling cord and a piton-shooting buckle. When fired, it shoots a grapple attached to high-tensile-strength wire designed to support Bond's weight. At the start of the film, when Bond bungee jumps off a dam, he uses the grapple gun to lock on to the building below. He then uses the gun's built-in motor to pull him down. Once on the building, he uses the laser function of the watch to get into the building's ventilation system. Bond also uses the grapple gun to escape from Ourumov and his troops.
  4. Bond's standard issue pistol, a Walther PPK, is chambered for the 7.65 x 17mm Browning (or .32 ACP) cartridge. It is shown in the film's promotional poster equipped with a silencer."

We need some sort of real-life context for this setion, it is one of the article's major criticisms - • The Giant Puffin • 12:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Nothing has been found, nothing! I have divided the Vehicles and Gadgets and merged it into Plot and Production. Now there wont be any criticism called fancruft. Vikrant Phadkay 15:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Automatic addition of "class=GA"

A bot has added class=GA to the WikiProject banners on this page, as it's listed as a good article. If you see a mistake, please revert, and leave a note on the bot's talk page. Thanks, BOT Giggabot (talk) 05:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Move

I am on a campaign to move all James Bond film articles to have the reference (film) in them. For example, I just moved The World Is Not Enough to The World Is Not Enough (film). The reason for this is because there is more than one thing with this title. (books, films, games, etc). That is why this should be moved to GoldenEye (film) and the disambiguation page should be GoldenEye. Emperor001 (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

First wholly original Bond film

I think that this is the first wholly original Bond film and that it should possibly state that in this article. Until recently, The Spy Who Loved Me was listed as the first wholly original Bond film, but I removed that statement, as the element in which a nuclear missile's targeting coordinates are redirected so that the missile destroys a submarine is borrowed from the novel Moonraker.--Urban Rose 20:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You forget, 006 was mentioned in the novel OHMSS. Emperor001 (talk) 13:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
006 was mentioned but never named. There have always been more 00 agents than just Bond. Thunderball showed at least 8 "00" agents taking seats for the briefing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.81.76 (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Primary Topic

Currently, this article is at GoldenEye because it's the "primary topic", but this wasn't the first thing called GoldenEye. The Operation and the estate came first, so one of them should be GoldenEye and this should be GoldenEye (film). Emperor001 (talk) 13:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just noticed, this is basically your move suggestion from above in a different guise. - X201 (talk) 13:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. Given the number of entries on Goldeneye (disambiguation), neither of them should be here. If anything, Goldeneye should be the disambiguation page and the film should be moved to Goldeneye(film). - X201 (talk) 13:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with your suggestion, but everytime I tried this with Tomorrow Never Dies and The World Is Not Enough, but they were just moved back. I still believe that since it can be debated as to what the primary topic is, the name should lead to the disambiguation page. Emperor001 (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

St. Petersberg Tank difference

Having read through the article, I noticed that in the plot section, the tank is referred to as a T-80, but in the production section, it is referred to as a T-55. So which one is it? I am not an expert on types of tanks so I didn't change anything. In the film, I don't remember them specifying what type of tank it was. --Moviemaniacx (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

According to this, its T-55 - • The Giant Puffin • 09:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The Cable Guy (1996)

In the scene with the massive TV satellite transmitter where Steven beats Chip and rescues Robin, Chip mentions the present moment as being a familiar scene from Goldeneye just before he jumps off and lands painfully on the Transmitter's Signal Spire. --Arima (talk) 23:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

T-72 or T-55?

I´ve changed the T-72 Tank into T-55 because of this: http://www.thebondmuseum.com/pages/17goldeneye.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.235.8.242 (talk) 20:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Xenia's cigar

At the baccarat table, what is she smoking? --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 03:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I Googled for an answer but could not find an answer. In any case, this isn't the place to ask such questions... the talk page is for discussing improvements to the article! :) I would try the IMDb discussion page for the film. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, but actually this is the place, as if it can be documented, it goes to the brand or style itself. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 04:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure why we would need to get so specific? A quick Googling did not provide an answer, and even if we found it in an obscure source, the value of identifying a cigar's brand is very small. Is there a problem with just saying "cigar"? Erik (talk | contribs) 11:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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) 05:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Unused sequence

When the film came out, I clearly recall a bit on Entertainment tonight where we saw a large scale miniature with a crashed GoldenEye satellite. Was this a closing bit for the film that was dropped? I've never found any reference to it on-line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.184.88 (talk) 23:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Satelitte Dish at Severnaya

What was the real world name for the the Dish or was it a movie prop?204.184.80.26 (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Still wondering. 204.184.80.26 (talk) 22:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC) It is a prop just trust me on this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.17.135.187 (talk) 23:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Boris's Death Fail

Boris isn't originally killed by the explosion but by the liquid nitrogen that freezes him... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.46.50 (talk) 04:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Not in Cuba

The article currently states this:

"In Cuba, Bond and Natalya meet Jack Wade and trade Bond's car for Wade's aeroplane."

However, in the film, near the end of this conversation, Wade tells Bond and Natalya that all they have to do is "take a right and Cuba is 80 miles away." I presume this means they're in the Florida Keys, not Cuba. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.23.216.170 (talk) 15:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Excellent point. It's been a while since I last saw the film. I've marked it "dubious". Perhaps an editor who has the film fresh in mind or readily at hand can confirm one way or another. However, I don't think the film actually specifies where they are at the moment, therefore we cannot speculate that they are in the Florida Keys. Thank you for noticing this. - Fanthrillers (talk) 01:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I've removed the location: I don't think it's clear where they are and it doesn't actually matter that much. They are on their way to Cuba, which is what matters. - SchroCat (talk) 04:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

From the spike Natalya sent to locate Boris it is clear Boris was somewhere in Eastern Cuba. They where most likely in Haiti or Jamaica, most likey the latter. The Florida Keys have no mountains, and it's over 1000 miles from there to eastern Cuba so they couldn't be there. --- Luis A. Plata Oct 19th, 2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:130:7BD0:BD82:9BF9:7FD5:6E9F (talk) 02:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.45.157.45 (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Valentin Zukovsky

Valentin Zukovsky does not appear in one film alone; he appears in two: Goldeneye and The World is Not Enough. This deserves a separate article from Goldeneye. --Thenewguy34 (talk) 18:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Not really: he's not really notable enough. - SchroCat (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
But I really think it should be separated and not redirected to just one of the movies. --96.242.188.43 (talk) 19:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Because he's in two films? See Wikipedia:Notability and appreciate the fact that don't have pages for General Gogol or Sir Frederick Gray—and they were both in six films. There's not really that much notable about the Zukovsky character, and not enough for an article. - SchroCat (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

" Llewelyn was the only actor to reprise a role from a previous Bond film"

This is not strictly true, this is Joe Don Baker's 2nd bond movie86.3.137.58 (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

"Reprise" means "play the same character". DonQuixote (talk) 17:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Filming the road chase scene

Anybody know where the road chase scene in the beginning was filmed? I was looking up "twisty roads" in google and thought I might know which one it was, but there's not enough (readily available) film to make a determination. Enorl76 (talk) 13:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on GoldenEye. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 02:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Xenia's frigate accomplice

More than once the article has been edited to say that somebody else boarded the frigate with Xenia in the disguise of first Farrell and then one of the pilots. I have read others (not on Wikipedia) assume that it was Trevelyan, or the one Bond knocks out with the bucket in the sauna later, due to actually having Farrell's build. I always considered the accomplice to be Ourumov, as those two get out of the helicopter at Severnaya, not Xenia and Trevelyan or Xenia and other guy (sauna bucket victim). 108.49.241.247 (talk) 01:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on GoldenEye. 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) 06:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on GoldenEye. 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) 14:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on GoldenEye. 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) 17:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Shirley Bassey comments

In this change, IP editor 5.148.42.186 introduced some personal analysis, saying that in the BBC's Shirley Bassey documentary, Bassey criticized Tina Turner's version of "Goldeneye", but that "it's not entirely clear Bassey was aware her conversation was being recorded and would be in the programme." This observation is not in the documentary. The IP editor continues with more unreferenced personal analysis: "There is however no record of any artist other than Turner being offered the song."

The IP editor supplied a link to a video but this video is not part of the BBC documentary. Instead, it's a personal video of a dinner party, with lots of drunken revelry, including Bassey making rude comments about Tina Turner. I think it's violation of WP:BLP to have such material in the biography. Binksternet (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

The 'Notes' tab should be removed

In my opinion, the 'Notes' tab should be removed as in my opinion it is pointless to have an empty tab contained within the article. Xboxsponge15 (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Supporting closing credits

This is a list of the actors in the closing credits that were not listed in the opening title cards:

  • Simon Kunz as Severnaya Duty Officer
  • Pavel Douglas as French Warship Captain
  • Cmdt. Olivier Lajous as French Warship Officer
  • Billy J. Mitchell as Admiral Chuck Farrell, a Canadian Navy officer, seduced and murdered by Xenia Onatopp.
  • Constantine Gregory as Computer Store Manager
  • Minnie Driver as Irina, a Russian nightclub singer and mistress of Valentin Dmitrovich Zukovsky.
  • Michelle Arther as Anna
  • Ravil Isyanov as MIG Pilot
  • Vladimir Milanovich as Croupier
  • Trevor Byfield as Train Driver
  • Peter Majer as Valentin's Bodyguard
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:GoldenEye/Archive_1&oldid=1142357719"