Talk:Skyfall/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Article previously existed

Even though i informed several editors that i have created Skyfall in my userspace in August, the article has already been recreated. It bothers me mostly because of editors being informed and that i worked hard to research it. Not an WP:OWN problem, but it be appreciated if i was informed this occured so i wouldn't of wasted my time. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 13:25 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it anywhere. And considering that 90% of the content that actually made the creation of this page justified was only unveiled today, I find it hard to believe that there was much research that could be done at all until today. Anything else came straight from the James Bond in film page. And why did you delete everything and return it to the redirect page an hour after everything was announced? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Because i didn't hear the announcemnt until you informed me of it. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 13:48 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Then where is this page you claim to have created in your userspace? If it's as heavily-researched as you say it is, surely it contains something of value to the current page? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Type in User:Rusted AutoParts. It's one of the articles that pops up. You'll notice it redirects here, as i just did that, but just view the edit history and see why im agitated. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 14:00 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Nope, I don't see it. And I still don't really understand what your issue is. You created a page, based on limited information. More information became available, and the page was created anew. The only problem seems to be that you weren't the one to create it. And looking back over the older versions of this page, some of them were very poorly-written (though I'm still not seeing your name). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 14:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Looking back at the history of that page, it seems to be merely a skeletal version of the article as it currently exists. I don't understand what AutoParts is hoping to achieve here. LANTZY^TALK 14:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Just that no one bothered to check if it was already made. Assumptions aren't good. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 14:21 3 November 2011 (UTC)

And where were we supposed to check, given that there were no notes on the redirect page, or anything to indicate that a page had been made at all? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 14:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't Edison check to make sure no one invented the lightbulb before he made it, for example? You can't assume something doesn't exist without looking it up first. It's called thoroughness. But no matter. I'm gonna make the Star Trek 2 page, place it on my userspace and wait to see if anyone makes a duplicate. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 14:39 3 November 2011 (UTC)

So are we supposed to check the userspaces for all 16 million users before we can create a new page now, just incase there's a duplicate draft? What exactly is your point, AutoParts? - HIGHFIELDS (TALK • CONTRIBUTIONS) 16:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. I'm getting questioned why i'm wondering why no one checked to make sure this didn't already exist, but when i make the Man of Steel article, i get questioned why i didn't check. This is starting to feel a bit one-sided in my opinion. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 19:32 3 November 2011 (UTC)

This sounded exactly like an WP:OWN problem. Adambro (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. It sounds like "You started making this page without asking me first!" to me. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Nah, i couldn't care less, i'm just shocked how lazy some editors are. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 12:23 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, when you give no indication that your existing research existed, no indication of where it could be found, and when the majority of the information included in the article was unveiled last night (and the minority was taken from an old version of the James Bond in film article), exactly what your original page included that is not on the current page seems marginal at best. And your behaviour in this discussion seems to be you complaining that somebody created a page without asking you about it first (and by the way, I still cannot find that original article you claim to have written).

But whatever. The issue is not worth debating now. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a given. But here's the article anyway. [1]. My goal wasn't to prove it was my article first, i was only annoyed that i wasted my time. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 13:36 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Reading over that article, there's nothing there that isn't already covered here. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• The old article is at Bond 23. Its last edit with text is 01:31, 26 July 2009‎ by User:82.28.12.205 (1,248 bytes); edits after that are redirects, most with comments. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

CamelCase?

Based on the logo (of which a large image is available here, it looks like the title is "SkyFall", in CamelCase as was GoldenEye. Should the title be changed to SkyFall? If so, no parenthetical "film" qualification would be required, incidentally. LANTZY^TALK 13:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

There hasn't been any official word on whether the title is Skyfall or SkyFall. The elongated 'f' may simply be a stylistic choice for the logo. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 14:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I suppose so. We'll have to wait and see. LANTZY^TALK 14:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, until we know more, I've listed both in the opening line - "Skyfall (sometimes stylised as SkyFall)". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 14:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Based on the way it's printed at IMDBb and virtually every news source, it looks like the title is definitely not CamelCase. I think we can safely remove that bit from the opening line. The long F is, as you suspected, just a stylistic quirk of the typeface. LANTZY^TALK 10:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

According to the website, http://www.skyfall-movie.com/, at Sony Pictures, the name is listed as Skyfall in the copyright and legal information. That probably settles it. The logo is just probably stylized (and, if you look closely, you can see that the "S" is even larger than the "F"). A wild Rattata (talk) 20:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, it is confirmed that the title will NOT be translated to German. That only makes sense if it is a name, because every Bond movie had a translated title unless they were names (e.g. GoldenEye). In this confirmation that move was reasoned with the capital F. But even after half an hour of research I could not find the original article... And to the promo articles: I do not think that the PR department is involved in south a minor thing. Maybe this capital F is the brainchild of one sole screenwriter who didn't went very public with that... --Eiragorn (talk) 14:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Skyfallimage.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Skyfallimage.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

"Eve Moneypenny"

The Daily Mail is currently claiming that Naomie Harris will be playing Miss Moneypenny despite her character being named Eve and being a field agent. This, I think, it not a valid source - tabloids have a documented history of starting rumours, particularly with Bond films, which they know to be a money-spinner. Until we get some more information, I think the cast section should remain as it is for now: that speculation suggested Harris would be Miss Moneypenny, but the character was revealed to be a field agent named Eve and no surname was given.

Beware of using The Daily Mail as a source. They're not particularly reliable. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it depends on whether we make the bold-face claim that "Naomie Harris plays Moneypenny", or that we state the fact that "A British tabloid is claiming that "Naomie Harris will play Moneypenny". After all, we were happy to mention the rumours that film was to be called "Carte Blache", and it was clear that it was a rumour. A very quick straw poll of the news media (via Google News) finds other sources linking Harris to Moneypenny. The rumour is a fact, the facts of the rumour are not! --Iantresman (talk) 10:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

But we can't post that there is a rumour that Harris will be Moneypenny. It violates WP:CRYSTAL, and if we say "a British tabloid is reporting this", then it's against WP:WEASEL. Although the article does say that Carte Blanche was rumoured by a tabloid (Blic), the difference is that Eon Productions issued a denial, which is also references. Doing it here, without a denial or confirmation, is essentially the same as saying "she might be Moneypenny, but she might not be". It might be a fact that the rumour exists, but the existence of that rumour does not make it notable enough to be included in the article. And even if we look at all those articles from other publications claiming that Harris is Moneypenny, they still have no substantiating evidence - like a quote from Harris herself or someone involved in production (who is named - it's too easy to claim something that is not true by referencing an anonymous person). Prisonermonkeys (talk)

It is a fact that there is rumour. That does not violate WP:CRYSTAL, claiming Harris will be Moneypenny would violate it. Attributing no-one (ie "some people") violates WP:WEASEL, attributing the Daily Mail does not. The rumour is the fact, and stands irrespective of whether Harris turns out to be Moneypenny. I think the rumour is extensive, notable and has multiple (poor) sources, which may in fact all stem from the Daily Mail. But the media is still making the (unsubstantiated) claim. It's not like we're claiming a cure for cancer. I would be in favour of including the claim as long as it is clear that (a) it is a claim/rumour (b) attributed to a couple of sources. I should also say that I don't feel strongly about it, and would be almost has happy if it wasn't included at all.--Iantresman (talk) 11:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Mentioning a rumor is not the same as repeating it. I don't see what's wrong with noting, briefly, that such-and-such newspaper made such-and-such claim, as long as it's properly sourced. LANTZY^TALK 12:02, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that it is still a rumour. Like I said, the difference between this rumour and the "Carte Blanche" one is that a denial was issued, and that that denial has been referenced. Saying that rumours suggest Harris will play "Eve Moneypenny" is an open-ended statement, which could be interpreted any way the reader chooses. There is nothing to substantiate the idea that she is, and nothing to substantiate the idea that she is not. So all we're really saying is that there is a rumour, and with nothing more to go on, we would have to repeat every rumour about production, and that's not what Wikipedia is about. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 14:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

"Skyfall" redirect

I'm looking at all of the entries listed on the "Skyfall" redirect page, and I'm wondering if things should be rearranged or not. This page is probably going to be the biggest and most-involved page before long; when people go looking for "Skyfall", they will most likely be searching for this page. Looking at the disambiguation page, we have this film, a novel that is little more than just a plot summary, a redirect to a trilogy of novels, an obscure Transformers character, another novel without an actual page created for it, and a series of choose-your-own-adventure books. So this is probably going to be the most notable page - maybe everything should be arranged so that this is the priority. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

It's worth noting that most of our articles on Bond films, including all those produced before Octopussy, have the "Title (film)" format. So this article is hardly an aberration. But I agree that this film is by far the most prominent entity bearing the name Skyfall. So it would be fine to move it to Skyfall and consolidate all the obscure namesakes under Skyfall (disambiguation). LANTZY^TALK 11:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The naming format is because the Bond novels and stories - on which the films are based - also have claim to the names and as such an obvious differentiation is needed between the two. That's not quite the case here, but yes, have this at the top of the disambiguation list. - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

It's more than just being at the top of the disambiguation list, Schro - I think "Skyfall" should redirect to the film article, with a note forwarding users on to the disambiguation page (I don't know the exact term Wikiepdia gives it, but you know what I mean: a header reading "This article is about the James Bond film. For other used of the term, see Skyfall (disambiguation)"). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 14:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

That makes the most sense, considering how obscure the other "Skyfall" articles are. LANTZY^TALK 20:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I thought I might run it past everyone here first. Plus, I don't really know how to make "Skyfall" redirect to this page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. LANTZY^TALK 05:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

By redirecting Skyfall to Skyfall (film), this has essentially made the film the defacto primary topic. Because there has been consensus for this here, I have gone ahead and moved the article so it is now an official primary topic. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Sony Pictures

Sony Pictures are mentioned in the text, but their role is not entirely clear to me, and they are not mentioned in the info box? --Iantresman (talk) 11:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

According to the source, it seems they are financing it, so assumedly they should be listed under studio? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

David Arnold and Thomas Newman

Please be aware that the reports that have emerged overnight of Thomas Newman replacing David Arnold originate with MI6.co.uk. This is a fan site, and the story itself is by no means confirmation - it does not quote anybody involved in production of the film. Therefore, it is not an acceptable source. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Budget cuts

Shortly before the SOPA blackout, reports out of England suggested that Skyfall has had its budget slashed and international shooting locations have been shelved. Please be aware that these reports are not to be trusted. Nobody from EON has commented on the subject, and none of the reports name their sources. Furthermore, there are claims that "six international locations" have been cut out, including Bali and India, but there was never any evidence that shooting would take place in Bali and India was scrapped months ago.

All of these reports can be traced back to The Daily Mirror, which is a tabloid newspaper. They have a documented history of attacking Bond films, and have published stories in the past that have been demonstrated to be complete fabrications. Therefore, The Daily Mirror and any stories that were written from it cannot be trusted. Any edits claiming that the budget has been cut MUST have a source who is NAMED and QUOTED directly, or else they will be reverted. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Barry Nelson and Sean Connery

Although Barry Nelson was the first actor to play James Bond, his appearance in the "Casino Royale" television episode is not considred canonical - he is not recognised by EON as an official actor, and as they are the ones producing Bond films, they are the authority on the subject. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

That's rather POV. It's not "canonical" in relation to the EON films, but it's "canonical" in that it's a licenced adaptation of the novel. Besides, mentioning who's "first" is a little bit fannish and trivial. (Some might even say that mentioning the exact fifty year difference is a little bit trivial too.) Anyway, I copedited it to just mention the fifty year difference between this and Dr. No. DonQuixote (talk) 23:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. EON sets the canon. Barry Nelson is not recognised as an official Bond by EON.

Also, the "fifty years to the day" is not trivial. Skyfall is the film released for the 50th anniversary, so it's no coincidence that the cast was announced fifty years to the day that Sean Connery was announced as taking the role. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Call sheets

I've taken out the details of the character names for Bardem and Rapace. Upon review, the Rapace call sheet was quite blurry, and could easily be mistaken as something else - there's a visual cue there, and it could easily be promting the reader to see something that isn't necessarily there. As for the Bardem one, I have equal suspicions; it could have easily been a mock-up passed off as the real thing. Until such time as we have a new source reporting it or confirmation from EON, we'll have to leave it blank for now. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I've removed Silva again. The source supplied was The Daily Mail, which is questionable at best. For instance, they are reporting that Naomie Harris is playing Moneypenny, even though we have a direct quote from Harris in the article that says otherwise. I know some of the references given in the article are from tabloids, but they are either a) describing media speculation about certain elements of the film (which is then expanded upon with a proper source), or b) contain a direct quote from someone involved in the film (which the tabloids wouldn't make up because then they'd be liable). The Daily Mail source reporting that Javier Bardem is playing a character named Silva isn't good enough because it isn't reliable. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't know how reliable Bleeding Cool is, but here's some docs they got off of James Bond Brasil [2] which says Silva. DonQuixote (talk) 07:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Bond Brasil were the ones to originally post those call sheets. We have no way of knowing if they're actually real. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

New Poster Update

Hey,

I found a poster, I don't know how to upload myself, but could someone else do it?

Here it is - poster

Doesn't matter about uploaded. I figured it out. I've uploaded another poster I have found which you can see here: File:Skyfall_Teaser_Poster_2.jpgCharlr6 (talk) 21:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

That's not the poster. It's fan art. Good fan art, to be sure, but fan art nonetheless. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Not a book

Isn't this film meant to be the first film not based on a James Bond book? Simply south...... going on editing sprees for just 6 years (as of 28/03/2006) 19:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Nope - a number of others prior to this have also not been based on a book. - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Surrey & Glencoe locations

I've removed the following from the article because 1) Foraging photographer is a self-published site and is therefore unreliable (it's all reportedly and apparently) Secondly it's not standing in for Glencoe, as cited to MI6.com: the MI6 site says filming was in Scotland. The confusion in locations shows what comes from taking a self-published blog as a reliable source...

In March 2012, after weeks of set building, filming began in Surrey, England at Hankley Common (standing in for Glencoe, Scotland). Production was documented by an amateur photographer who discovered the set by accident. The site consisted of a monastery-like building which is reportedly the manor house to be known as "Skyfall Lodge", the Bond family estate. The site also included a chapel with a graveyard, and a third building with an unknown purpose.

The MI6.com info should be re-worded before it goes in, but not the blog, which could be pics of anything! - SchroCat (^ • @) 06:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

It is not pics of "anything"; it is a replica of the Glencoe manor house, build to be blown up. The footage is even in the newest teaser trailer! Stolengood (talk) 00:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Marketing section

Upon review, I don't think the marketing section is necessary for the page. It's really only promoting the film, which is not what Wikipedia is about. The release of images from the film, teaser trailers and video game tie-ins don't really affect the film at all, so they're not needed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I can (sort of) see where you're coming from,but I'm not convinced about the removal, not least because it rids us of an official image. If the image were re-inserted within the article I'd be happier about it... Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 06:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm no really sure where it could go. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry—missed your comment here. It could go pretty much anywhere, although within the "Filming" section seems appropriate, as it's a still from a location scene. I still think that the marketing should go back in, after all, pre-production promotion of the film is still an important part of the film's promotion (and we do put in aspects of the promotion for most film articles). The key is keeping the balance beteween the reporting of it and stepping over the line into doing the film's promoting for them! Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I put the marketing section in today, but didn't see this on the talk page as there is always a 'marketing' section, talking about how the film has been marketed. But I've moved the information on the trailer to 'development', more suitable there than any other places on the page. I don't get how just because you though however don't want marketing section makes you run the entire page and delete the parts myself and the other editors edited on the short-lived marketing section we edited today. But oh well, they are in 'development' now. Charlr6 (talk) 11:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:MOS-FILM#Marketing, basic things like trailer and poster releases are not normally covered unless there is something notable about them or they provide some sort of commentary. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. And I resent the insinuation that I am somehow under the impression that I own the article. I feel that a marketing section is inappropriate because what little information is available is intended to promote the film, and its inclusion in the article feels like we are promoting the film, which is not what Wikipedia is about. If you feel otherwise, then by all means, the floor is yours. But please, show me a compelling argument for its inclusion first.

I have removed the section on the trailer launch, as per WP:MOS-FILM. I also refer you to the page for The Dark Knight Rises, where critical reactions to the trailer were more important than the actual release date of the trailer. Just because information exists - ie, the trailer premiering on BBC Breakfast and the 007.com website going down - that does not make it notable enough for inclusion. After all, every film has a teaser poster and trailer these days. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Fair dues. Charlr6 (talk) 12:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi everyone. First off, I commend the work done on this particular page, as I know it's a project that has many people curious and interested, but also one that's run rampant with speculation and rumor (which of course can be fun, but don't particularly have a home here). After reading the discussion on Marketing (and the comments in the article), I have added a Marketing section. The note in the article justifiably mentioned that no such section should be added until the conversation here had ended. I apologize if I misinterpreted, but it appeared the discussion had reached the conclusion that Marketing sections are acceptable for films, as so long as they were constructed along with some critical assessment. I have found that people are quite interested in the marketing of movies, and are even more interested when they learn what critics make of the marketing efforts put forth. For that reason I have included some information about the Skyfall trailer, but have also made sure to include some specific critical response to it. I do not believe this information necessarily "promotes" the film (which I agree is not Wikipedia's purpose), but does offer relevant information about the marketing of the movie as well as reaction. Thanks very much to the whole team for your efforts! GambitEyes (talk) 16:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC) UPDATE - Okay, so my revisions were removed under the argument that this discussion is still going forward. I then submit the above as what I "would do" to enhance the article and would be happy to listen to comments for or against.GambitEyes (talk) 17:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I've read your edits, and I have to say that I'm still not fussed on them. Yes, you've put in a critical reaction section, but reading those comments - especially the GeekScholars Movie News one - they seem like the kind of things EON would say in a press release. The lines about Craig embracing the character and what the audience can expect from the film wouldn't be out of place in a press conference.

I still question the need for a marketing section at all. Why is it so important that the article absolutely has to have it? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it is important in some cases, although there is nothing particularly noteworthy about the Skyfall approach at the moment. If they do something different (have Craig abseil down the Houses of Parliament, for example) then it would be very worthwhile the section going in. Apart from the unusual events, then I think the marketing is only something that can be judged as a whole—ie. after the film has been released and the marketing has run a large part of its course, or unless respected, reliable media sees something worth objectively commenting on, not just repeating for the sake of promoting. - SchroCat (^ • @) 06:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

To Prisonermonkeys-I suppose my thinking was that this is the next step in our culture which craves both information and assessment. Almost every film page has a "Reception" section. And, if in that section, supposing that reviews were glaringly positive, then wouldn't that be promotion of the film, just in a different way? Perhaps if the Marketing section included information that reflect a more balanced cumulative viewpoint (i.e. both positive and negative reviews) you'd be more apt to include it? To Scrodinger's cat is alive- I would make the claim that every trailer or piece of marketing DOES have something worth objectively commenting on, to some extent. Trailers, posters, etc., I would argue as someone who once worked in the industry, are pieces of art, carefully constructed and executed to present the audience with a specific feeling in the hopes of evoking a feeling or emotion. Now, this is not to say it is always successful, but that in it of itself, I believe, is a good opportunity for commentary. With this in mind, I would think it foolhardy to assume that because on the surface a trailer looks like most others, there aren't unique elements that might be best extrapolated through some analysis. I believe the marketing helps paint a "complete" picture of today's movie-going experience because of the influence they have on the general public, as much as, if not more so, than any other industry. But, I understand that I may be in the minority on this point, and I in no way feel this is an issue worth fighting over at any level, because as always, I bend to what is best for the Wikipedia community on the whole, and if my thoughts do reflect the wishes of the majority, I am happy to say my peace and leave it be. :) GambitEyes (talk) 13:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

If there is something in a trailer that is unique then industry commentators and academics are normally fairly quick to point these out. As soon as they do then they act as the reliable, independent secondary source that we will quite happily use to back up any points. Normally this is all done with the benefit of balanced hindsight, rather than as instantaneous reportage. Similarly, whilst every film does have a Reception section, these are included in articles in a balanced way, so that if a film is 50% praised and 50% panned, the section should reflect the balance of opinion and not just how one editor may want it to sound. There is no deadline on getting an article to where it needs to get to, so allowing for a couple of months to let a bigger picture pan out is often the best way of doing things. - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

And a "Reception" section is hardly advertising the film. It is simply showing critical response to the film. Its purpose is not to promote the film, but to show the opinions of professional film critics. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Prisonermonkeys that a marketing section focussing as it does on the teaser is unnecessary and entirely trivial. Those details belong on a fan message board, not Wikipedia. As SchroCat says, "there is nothing particularly noteworthy about the Skyfall approach at the moment". Six months from now no one will care about the teaser. Fanthrillers (talk) 20:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I imagine that a Marketing section may be useful eventually (what with the talk of a 50th anniversary documentary, special merchandising, and the Olympics tie-in), but for now I agree that nothing special has happened to warrant the addition of this section yet. A wild Rattata (talk) 23:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

If there cannot be a marketing section, then there should at least be something about the reveal of the teaser trailer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 007DaRk KnIgHt LoLz (talk • contribs) 03:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Quoting above "Wikipedia:MOS-FILM#Marketing, basic things like trailer and poster releases are not normally covered unless there is something notable about them or they provide some sort of commentary. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)" DonQuixote (talk) 03:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair use candidate from Commons: File:SKY DIGI ONLN TSR 1762D363.jpg

The file File:SKY DIGI ONLN TSR 1762D363.jpg, used on this page, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons and re-uploaded at File:SKY DIGI ONLN TSR 1762D363.jpg. It should be reviewed to determine if it is compliant with this project's non-free content policy, or else should be deleted and removed from this page. Commons fair use upload bot (talk) 05:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

File now renamed to File:Skyfall - coming soon poster.jpg - X201 (talk) 11:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Change title to film

The title should be "Skyfall (film)" and not "Skyfall". I was going to change it, but I don't want to mess anything up. Mattjsrules (talk) 00:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I think this movie is pretty clearly the main topic. Adding the "(film)" disambig would just make it harder to find. --Boycool † (talk) 03:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

When you look at the disambiguation page for "Skyfall", the only other articles listed are three novels - only one of which has its own page (and is in violation of WP:PLOT) - and a Transformers toy. The film is clearly the primary topic here. There is no need to move it to "Skyfall (film)". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Ola Rapace is an antagonist

Ola Rapaces character is a baddie he said so himself so leave it on their! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milkshake6789 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

On their what? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

PMSL! DWB is right: what is known from reliable sources is reflected in the existing text. There is no need to change the entry until a reliable secondary source gives more information. It's not that long until the film is released and it can even wait until after it comes out before it gets changed - there really is no rush over this. - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

He said so in an interview... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milkshake6789 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC) And another thing Darkwarriorblake, what did you think I meant when I said leave it on their??????? I meant leave it ON THE PAGE SHERLOCK!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milkshake6789 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

LOL, it's even funnier now. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

User now blocked indefinately after Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive757#Libellous vandalism - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Ending of principal photography

Hi, I´m working for the German article of Skyfall and I need to know, when principal photography ended. Does someone know it and/or can give me a link to find it out? --M(e)ister Eiskalt (talk) 10:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

http://www.darkhorizons.com/news/23997/-skyfall-wraps-new-blu-ray-details Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much ;~) --M(e)ister Eiskalt (talk) 23:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Crew

This website; http://www.tomfennell.com/Tom_Fennell/cv.html Is the website of someone who is involved in the production of Skyfall. It seems that this website, along with two other ones were 'unreliable'. The other two I can see why they might be considered that, but this one I cannot because like said, it is someone who is involved n the production and it seems like the edit was removed and called 'unreliable', simply because the websites wasn't liked by the persons themselves then used WP:RELIABLE as a reason. I couldn't find anything that would make the website unreliable. Like I said, the other two I can see reasons, but I found them as sort of a 'back-up'. You can see on his CV films he has worked on and I then managed to find him in the credits of one of them movies as coincidentally I had just finished watching that movie and also found him related to those movies through Google as well. People need to remember they don't OWN any article, just because they may be one of the editors most involved in the page doesn't make them own it any more than someone who edits occasionally. I found the website to be reliable, and it seems that the other editor, if he even sees this message simply reverted as he himself didn't find the websites reliable. I did, so therefore I could simply add any websites I find reliable and revert any edits with sources for websites I find unreliable and then use WP:RELIABLE almost like a shield to back up my claim. If you do read this, did you even look at the websites properly? And I mean mainly Tom Fennell and then look him up more? Charlr6 (talk) 00:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

An online resume doesn't suffice. The other two websites are blatantly "unreliable". Further, Stuart Wilson is not the "Production Mixer" whatever that is. He's the "sound mixer", which does not warrant mention. We mention only key production staff. I find SchroCat's actions appropriate and not at all indicative of someone who thinks he OWNs the article. - Fanthrillers (talk) 00:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I looked 'resume' up on RELIABLE SOURCES, can't find anything. Or anything about a CV. So if its not mentioned then what does that mean? Is it relaible or not? The page doesn't reference if resumes would be reliable, so then its down to whoever thinks its unreliable to make that claim. Which would then cause the OWN, just because they don't like it and think its unreliable they delete it, even though RELIABLE SOURCES doesn't mention resumes or CVs as being reliable or not. And actually SchroCat seems to edit on this page a lot, and reverts little edits, even things that don't really matter and didn't need to be deleted. Even sometimes someone would change a sentence slightly and then it gets changed back to how it was before. That is him thinking that its better as it was before, even though another editor wanted to change it slightly. If his actions aren't at all indicative of someone who thinks he OWNs an article, then he wouldn't change the tinest of things such as a mild change in a sentence. It wasn't necessary to change it, and it wasn't necessary to revert it. Charlr6 (talk) 01:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I think depending on the information, if its first hand then they like a second source for verification. Otherwise I could create a CV saying I'm Samuel L. Jackson, and who can question my sleek coolness? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes but that is the mans website. For example lets say we were going to quote something from an actor who said it on his Twitter. Everyone may know it is his official Twitter, but where would be the second source of vertificaition saying "yes, this is 100% this mans twitter", not just someone on an article saying "yeah its him", because they themselves might not even know, just think it is. And as this man isn't someone as big as Samuel L Jackson, the question is why would some one pretend to be someone part of the crew of a movie, whose name they saw in end credits then randomly think they should make a website pretending they are this person, if though this person is no one big. Yes it has been established that their role wasn't needed on the page anyway, but I'm talking about his website with his CV. No one would randomly create a website for someone no one knows nothing about except when looking them up in an instant like this, I never heard of him before, and its not like I went and created the website just to pretend its actually a source we can use.

And like I said, on RELAIBLE SOURCES there isn't a mention of us not being able to mention a resume or CV, and no one will randomly create a fake website pretending its for a person, because they won't get anything out of that. And saying a website is unreliable and redirect me to RELIABLE SOURCES where it actually doesn't mention that a website like that would be unreliable is kind of stupid. It would be like me saying James Bond actually faked his death in On Her Majesty's Secret Service, not You Only Live Twice and then give a link to You Only Live Twice where it actually says that he faked his death. Charlr6 (talk) 01:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The section that states this man's website may be unreliable is WP:SPS. - X201 (talk) 08:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, because a random person created a website for a crew member of the production just to trick people. And it still never says anything about CVs or resumes. I can agree that it isn't relevant to the article, but it never mentions resumes or CVs are unreliable. Charlr6 (talk) 23:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I think "self-published media, such as ... personal websites..."' makes it pretty clear. The listed items are examples, not an exhaustive list. - X201 (talk) 07:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Charlr6, I'd also add a request you try and remain civil with dealing with people and you'll have a much easier time of things: accusing people of WP:OWN just because they revert your edit is not conducive to a collegiate editing process. - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I have been civil. Where have I called people stupid? Where have I insulted someone? And you edit this article a lot and take away little things, that actually didn't need to be changed or reverted. They have been fine either way. Sometimes I've seen wording change in a sentence, wasn't any point on changing it, but also wasn't any point on reverting it. And if you remember, I said that people need to remember they don't own the page, just because you are one of the main editors doesn't grant you anything more than any one else. Charlr6 (talk) 23:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

No, you have not been civil. Baselessly accusing someone of WP:OWNership is uncivil, no matter how you may try and justify it; furthermore, this addition to the discussion is hugely uncivil. As to your continued accusation of my editing: I will edit where I feel that an edit falls foul of being beneficial to the article; this may include, inter alia: poor grammer, incorrect spelling, WP:ENGVAR issues, fancruft, unsourced information (including rumours), in-universe language and information that is just plain wrong. If others feel my edits or reversions have not been for the overall benefit of the article they are free to revert or bring the matter to the talk page. - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Whoever that person was, never signed their post. Didn't even know who they are except their name on the edit history page. And there has been barely any information on who is singing the theme song. And what was uncivil there? Only "who the hell are you" I can see. Just the word "hell". And it seems like that person wants to edit in the article the few websites about Adele and the rumours of her singing the theme song. And I will edit, where I feel information should be put. You undid the persons edit and said it was 'unsourced', so I thought I'd be kind and find a reference, which I did. You could have said "unsourced and not needed". And I reverted, and then bought to the talk page. And if you don't like being accused of ownership, then don't act like you do editing and reverting something every single day, and like I said, I've even seen things that didn't need to be changed, or reverted back, they were fine either way. Charlr6 (talk) 09:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

charlr6, I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, I'm trying to ensure that your time on Wiki is slightly more enjoyable by not being so confrontational, so please try and see it that way. The "Who the Hell are you? You can sign your posts by putting in four tildes" was aimed at a newbie, and just by showing a little bit of WP:GOODFAITH you could have tried to help them understand how things are done by suggesting the tildes, rather than blasting off at them. As they are a newbie they are probably also unaware of WP:SOURCE, WP:RELIABLE and a host of other policies that point the way to the verification of information. Again, please try and remember WP:GOODFAITH. Could you also try and remember GOOD FAITH when you are talking about my edits too. I have never tried to "own" this page, and I have always tried to avoid giving that impression: I have edited where I see fit and where an edit does falls short of beneficial article development: if that means that I revert something every single day, it's only because things are added every single day that fall short of decent standards. - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Good faith was telling them how to do it, with the four tildes. If I wasn't trying to help them I wouldn't have told them to put the four tildes. And I could also say that if anyone is a new be to Wikipedia, not everyone is going to know about referencing every single thing, then when their comment gets reverted and BURDEN comes about, they aren't going to know. I've helped people, even though BURDEN itself says its down to the original person. And actually, things I've seen, like I have already said about even a single word change in a sentence, and then gets reverted back, the original change wasn't necessary and also wasn't necessary to revert it. Charlr6 (talk) 11:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem with new and IP editors is that they may never have heard of WP:BURDEN, so they need to be shown it is there, and it needs to be done so in a civil manner, not by saying something rather curt such as "Who the Hell are you?", which comes across as rather impolite, as do ridiculous accusations of WP:OWN where there is no need to do so. - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

You know, just because someone is new to Wikipedia doesn't mean they don't know how to actually start a proper discussion. They just basically said "its gonna be Adele, lets get serious guys and include it". Charlr6 (talk) 13:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

No, they said the reverse—and that was part of the problem. Read it again and you'll see they said "the internet says it is all rumours; Wiki says it is for definate" They were actually calling for the information to either be removed, or to have a solid citation behind it. - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

He said its probably true Adele will sing the song but that only "Only some guy on the internet said so. Yet - the article says it's definite. Let's be serious, people." He never said the word rumour or Wiki. And I haven't seen Adele mentioned on Wikipedia at all. And even though I am kind and do find sources for other people, why should we then go and find a confirmation about Adele when he could easily do it? Charlr6 (talk) 16:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Good grief, have you never seen someone paraphrase something for the sake of clarity? The point is you chewed the guy up, despite arguing the same point as him! On top of that you did it in far too brusque a way to be considered "civil". - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Whats the point of paraphrasing when he didn't say much any way and you could have simply copy and pasted it over. And you paraphrasing was just trying to show your argument more. And actually, before I've seen you and DarkWarriorBlake be 'brusque' to other people. Charlr6 (talk) 18:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I give up: I am trying to help you see that your approach to dealing with people is not always helpful, especially when it falls outside the umbrella of "civil". As I said above: you chewed a guy up while you aagreed with his argument—it's resulted in other people hjaving to waste time and effort dealing with it, rather than getting on developing articles. I paraphrased because you obviously misunderstood what he was saying—and I'm still not 100% sure you've got it now. It's a friendly piece of advice and well-meant: use "Show preview", take a deep breath, count to ten and then read through your responses before posting - you may be able to avoid so much of the grief you seem to attract. - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• Back on subject: Tom Deakin's website would be ok for information relating to himself but not for someone else (as per WP:SPS which states Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people). That means you can't use someone's personal website to assign credits to another living person. You will be able to source the sound mixer next month once it comes out via the film credits, but you really have to question if the sound mixer is notable. There are plenty of other notable people who work on films before you get to the sound guy: the set designer, the production design, the second unit director etc; the sound mixer is pretty low down the pecking order. Unless he get nominated for a major award I don't think he's that relevant. Betty Logan (talk) 20:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Betty. I again note that Charlr6 (talk) kept erroneously identifying Wilson as the "Production Mixer", whatever that is. - Fanthrillers (talk) 20:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Look at Production sound mixer. And I never said 'production mixer', I just found a source for the guy. And don't say 'kept' like I did tons of times. Charlr6 (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Charlr6, but yes you did... - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I think what's happened there he has reverted and just added the refs; this is why you have to be careful when reverting, but we've probably all inadvertently restored errors by reverting at some point. The important thing here is that he understands how the policy applies to personal websites. Betty Logan (talk) 21:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes Scho, because me putting the edit back in means I actually automatically re-wrote all of it and wrote 'production mixer' myself. Oh wait no, I didn't, I reverted it, which you knew I did. But thank you Betty, you are correct. Charlr6 (talk) 22:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

As per the above: use "Show preview", take a deep breath, count to ten and then read through your responses before posting - you may be able to avoid so much of the grief you seem to attract - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow, really? I've already explained that I just found the sources for them, you know that. As you like paraphrasing then you practically said "Hey, Rowan, here is a link to prove you are wrong for an edit you actually did". Charlr6 (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Good grief... if you can't see when someone is trying to help you, then I don't think there is anything more that can be said. - SchroCat (^ • @) 23:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

So how exactly was sending me a link trying to prove what I was saying wrong helping me? I said that I didn't add in 'production mixer', which I didn't, I just found sources, and you already knew that, you then send m a link and imply I put 'production mixer' in, even though we all know by now that I reverted the edit back in, and found sources for it. I found the sources, I didn't re-write all of it and write 'production mixer'. Don't know how trying to prove what I said was wrong was helping me, or just sending me the edit comparison was helping me at all. Love to see how you think that was helping me.

Really don't get how saying "Sorry Charlr6, but yes you did..." along with a link to the edit comparison, AFTER I said I didn't put production mixer in was helping me, or anybody. Closest thing would be trying to help me see my mistake, even though I clearly said I just found the sources and put them in. Good grief. Charlr6 (talk) 23:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Adele to sing the song?

Really? Let's make things straight - it's probably true Adele will sing a song for "Skyfall" but NOTHING'S BEEN CONFIRMED OFFICIALLY. Only some guy on the internet said so. Yet - the article says it's definite. Let's be serious, people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Mitch Brenner (talk • contribs) 20:47, 16 September 2012

A), Who the Hell are you? You can sign your posts by putting in four tildes.

B), Yes it has been rumoured, but there haven't been any huge amount of articles on it. I haven't even heard any rumours on the radio or news about who could possibly sing the song. But if this article says its definite, copy and paste it here. I would go and find it but I don't know what specific article you are on about.

C), Like I said, there haven't been a huge amount of articles on the subject. So, and this isn't just for Wikipedia, this is for everywhere, no site can just make up stuff about a singer singing the new theme. Not even BBC News.

D), Lets be serious, that until the day when something new is released on the Skyfall theme song, then THATS when we will insert something about the theme song, just like every other website will be. But until then, we can't just assume, and that isn't just Wikipedia, thats all sites. All big news sites can't just assume who will sing the song. Charlr6 (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

It's in the online version of the New York Daily News Entertainment section. Google it. You have Google, don't you? 108.45.122.74 (talk) 10:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I used Google to find the New York Daily News Entertainment section and I followed the source of that story, which lead to the Total Film website. I followed the source stated in that and it lead to a site called Worst Previews, their source led to a blog that starts its story with "'I think I can confirm" and fails to list any reason for the claim, apart from validating its speculation story from May 2012. Not really a valid source. - X201 (talk) 10:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes I have Google, but it was never stated where it was. So how would I know which of the few websites would have been referred to. But I still don't believe, just because of very few articles that Adele is singing the song. I'm not doubting she is, I just mean as in there are only a few articles. Nothing huge yet. I'm happy to just wait.Charlr6 (talk) 14:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The main thing to remember is that Wikipedia is not a news outlet and having up to the second news details is not a priority, being accurate and encyclopedic is. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Previous edit deleted parts of the discussion - now replaced and the text moved to below: (changes undertaken by SchroCat (^ • @) 07:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC))
Both the New York Daily News article and the EW article use sources which ultimately source a Showbiz411 article. The articles "confirmation" is very poor and has lines like "I think I can confirm for you what I said some months ago–Adele is performing the theme song for “Skyfall,” the 23rd James Bond movie. As far as I know the song is called “Skyfall.”". Please do not use the Entertainment Weekly article or the NY Daily News article as a source until the singer is confirmed by EON or MGM or Sony or the artist or their representative - anything else is NOT OFFICIAL 2.103.22.145 (talk) 06:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Confirmation? FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  17:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed 2.120.245.211 (talk) 13:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Should we mention early reviews from the 30-90 second preview/leaked clip? Such as a few people mentioning it sounds closer to the classic Bond theme songs than newer ones? Charlr6 (talk) 14:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that would be too much recentism, akin to providing reviews for film trailers (with some noteworthy exceptions like Cloverfield). We'll obviously get reviews of the music when the film comes out, so we can reference these for the entire theme song and not just a sample. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Released on Friday, three days time, so there will be multiple reviews over the weekend anyway. Charlr6 (talk) 15:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Protection

Well done DWB: that will at least cover us until the film has been launched and save an awful lot of grief! - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

It was essential, this article has been attracting vandalism as long as I've been watching it, I've never seen ana rticle attract so much vandalism over such a long period. Normally it only picks up as release gets closer, for a while after release and then home media and things like that. You get infrequent stuff in between but nothing like this article attracts. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I offer my thanks too. However if you want to see an article that's attracted an egregious amount of vandalism for an unconscionable time, far worse than this, visit Roald Dahl. - Fanthrillers (talk) 20:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Tweaks

I've done some formatting tweaks to this article to make it look better. Hope nobody minds :). Any problems, please leave a message in my talk page. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I added the right honorifics for Dame Judi Dench. She is a Knight of the British Empire, she should be accorded the proper title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nstokes (talk • contribs) 03:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there a reason why only the London premiere/UK release date is posted? I assumed it would have been updated by now... Vancealmighty (talk) 14:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, because it's a British film, so the British release is listed. No others are important for that field. - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:FILMRELEASE that only applies to the infobox, I have not read anywhere disallowing a US release date in the summary text for a major film. Valoem ^talk 19:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

95% of the world doesn't live in the United States. Where do we draw the line for release dates? - Fanthrillers (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Marketing Section

I think a marketing section is required for this page. Loads of other upcoming films and films that are out at the moment have marketing sections, so why does this film not have one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.141.228 (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:FILMMOS#Marketing is why it doesn't have one, the sections are for describing unique or notable marketing efforts, releasing trailers and posters by itself is not a unique piece of information. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Then why do other film pages have them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.141.228 (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Please don't keep adding the information without gaining a consensus. If you do so one more time without agreement on this page then I will tag you for vandalism and take it from there. - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

For the same reason that other articles do not have them: different editors work different articles, and as such some apply the guidelines more rigidly than others. Betty Logan (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

They are stupid. I object — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.141.228 (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Please do not revert again. If you do then you will be in breach of WP:3RR. This could lead to you being blocked. I strongly suggest you try and discuss things here in a mature and calm fashion to gain a consensus of how to proceed before trying to revert again. You may also want to read through this talk thread here, where it was agreed not to include a section involving the marketing. - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I concur with everyone else about not having a "Marketing" section. It is appropriate when there is something unique to report, and that ought to be based on reliable sources and consensus. Film trailers and posters are standard fare not to be included unless reported otherwise. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I was being perfectly calm and mature. I just believe that a marketing section is required for this page, and now that the film has been released, it is essential. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.141.221 (talk) 16:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

There is still no reason to have such a section. The film was marketed, but there was nothing unusual or noteworthy about the campaign which has brought it under a media spotlight. It can't even reach the low level of "wanted", let alone "essential". - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

There has been some controversy in regards to the product placement, with both Craig and Mendes defending it from a financial perspective. Product placement is increasingly becoming an issue in films, and Bond especially, so I think there is scope for covering that aspect. Some interesting articles at the BBC, The Guardian and George Lazenby. Betty Logan (talk) 16:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree - although it'll probably sit better in production section? I've had a flick back at the last few (Goldeneye onwards) and there is no consistency in the approach taken. - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

"Gay flirt scene"

I have removed a content from the reception sub-section that read like this:

The film has generated mixed reactions concerning a scene that reportedly questions Bond's sexuality when he openly flirts with the movie's villain Silva.

I removed it for three reasons:

1) It's prejudicial. The wording implies that there is something wrong with homosexuality, especially when it is separate from the other criticisms of the film.

2) It's factually incorrect. The scene in question has Bond restrained while Silva inspects the bullet wound in his chest. It is certainly sexually-charged, but the intention is clearly to put Bond in a position where he might be unconfortable and throw him off-balance. The so-called "flirting back" is Bond refusing to bow to Silva's psychological intimidation. The mild homoeroticismof this is a by-product of the scene, not its purpose.

3) It's misleading. The statement says it lead to "mixed reactions", but provides no actual evidence of this - and some of the early reviews praised the scene as summarising the tension between Bond and Silva.

That said, I am not against including coverage of reactions to the scene. It is unique within the Bond canon, and almost certain to be a talking point. Well do I recall the outrage that was generated in the aftermath of Quantum of Solace when a tabloid "quoted" Craig as saying he would like to include a scene where Bond had to seduce/was seduced by a man. But I feel that if coverage of the reactions to this scene are to be included in the article, then it is something that we as a collective of editors need to agree upon first, particularly the wording of it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I think it's worth leaving it a little longer to see if there is any widespread coverage of it in the media before inclusion. - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I know there has been some coverage, but I'm trying to avoid anything for the next month lest I run into spoilers (yeah, I know about the Eve thing; I'm glad I do beecause it would be a rude shock otherwise); I have no idea why we in Australia we SKYFALL a month after the UK does. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that. It probably won't help to tell you I have a ticket to see it in 4 hours time then... ;) Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 05:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's maddening, mostly because the film seems to have been pushed back to 22 November so that B-grade celebrities could have their fifteen minutes being seen attending the premiere. Not much I can do about it except avoid spoilers and smoulder about it. I'll just entrust editing the page to you and DWB, who know the conventions of WP:FILM far better than I do. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm now tempted to add things like "Bond is killed at the end of the film" just to hear the explosion from the other side of the world! - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

You're smarter that that. For one, you'd be flagged for vandalism. Two, you just revealed your sinister master plan, so it would obviously be fake. And three, most of the fans I know are actively avoiding spoilers, making the whole exercise pointless. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Damn - that's a good film! I enjoyed that more than any I've seen for a while (better than CR, which is saying something). Great story, the cast are superb and a cracking ending. Craig really is the business as Bond, and it wouldn't surprise me if this film picked up a few awards along the way. - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I've just seen the film, and the scene mentioned, Bond doesn't actually flirt apart from when Silva says "you can always have a first time", referring to that those two should hook up together, but Bond then says "what makes you think this is my first time". He isn't directly flirting, and whatever movie critic or person is feeling uncomfortable with that line isn't necessary going to be homophobic, but would come across that. There wasn't anything wrong with the line, and everyone in my screen laughed. Just a bit of mild humour. Charlr6 (talk) 22:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 October 2012

The twist of the movie is revealed in the first sentence of the plot synopsis completely unnecessarily! 86.156.13.63 (talk) 15:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

It's already been discussed above under 'plot section'. Charlr6 (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

 Not done See section above. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 22:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

BBFC

Shouldn't we add the BBFC rating (12A)? 3|9|3|0|K (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Isn't any need to. Skyfall is the first film to use the F-word (except for the strongly implied but unheard F-word from Live and Let Die). M says that they are 'f**ked up', and the film was rated 12 for moderate action violence and one use of strong language, which hasn't been said before. Charlr6 (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Heritage/Historic References to the old films.

So it being safe to say that this film has a lot of nods and references to the older films. So is the opinion of this editor that it would be in the benifit of the article to include these as and where they are identified. What is the best way to include these? MisterShiney (Come say hi) 20:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

By finding reliable secondary sources that identify them, which will allow us to include them with the appropriate citations. - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

location of the finale mansion

Would it be interesting to add the precise location of the finale mansion, which seems to be Dalness Lodge? I found some reference to it here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2099410/Daniel-Craig-keeps-cool-filming-Bond-freezing-temperatures.html After some more research, it seems that a fake mansion was also constructed in Hankley: http://theforagingphotographer.wordpress.com/category/james-bond-skyfall/

Yes, what is currently there is completely wrong. I visited the set which the user above rightly points out is Hankley Common in Surrey. Here are a few pictures for proof: http://imgur.com/a/yPvCv — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.175.25 (talk) 13:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC) --Céropégia (talk) 08:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Céropégia

Year Skyfall is set in

Skyfall has been released about six years after Casino Royale, was which was set in 2006 same for Quantum of Solace, so Skyfall is set six years after Quantum of Solace. --Smokeyfire (talk)Smokeyfire~

I've taken it out of the plot summary on a couple of grounds. Firstly it's not mentioned when the events take place and secondly it doesn't have any bearing on the plot whether it was six days, six months or six years after QoS. - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay fair enough. --~~Smokeyfire~~

Unofficial RfC on mentioning of Moneypenny name at beginning

I also agree with users above that, following the narrative of the film and how it reveals information, it would be much better to mention the Moneypenny last name at the end of the Plot summary section, rather than at the beginning. It's fine just to use the name Eve and then have a sentence at the end saying that it is revealed her last name is Moneypenny.

I don't want to make an official Request for Comment of it, because that would take too long, but an unofficial RfC to gauge consensus would be good. So, opinions? Support moving Moneypenny to the end of the Plot section or oppose? Silverseren^C 05:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

If you want an RfC then I suggest a proper one to gain full consensus. If you don't want to go to the bother of drawing on up, then I'll happily oblige. - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The issue is I don't want it taking 30 days. Silverseren^C 08:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Why not? What's the rush? Surely it's better to take a little more time to get a broader viewpoint and a wider, more stable consensus? - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Personally its shouldn't be included, especially right at that beginning. Its only revealed at the very end for the briefest of time. Therefore does not including it take anything away from the plot no it doesn't.Blethering Scot 12:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

So you'd rathr not mention the return of one of the longest-running characters in the series at all? I find that strange... - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The reason as you would have read and know for the full name being said at the beginning, was because all names are being referred with the surname. But I have mentioned, which no one responded to directly yet is that on all of the other Bond pages the Bond girls are referred to by their first name, not their last. And the reason its a surname here, is to keep consistency. But the main consistency should be following what the other Bond pages have. Which is the Bond girl names by their first names. Don't believe me? Take a look.

Her name was revealed as Eve before the film was released, not Eve Moneypenny. I don't see any reason as because of it being a 'small thing', why I wouldn't just go and change it. I'm not going to do it because I know it will be changed back.

It was previously mentioned that film plots aren't going to be in chronological order, but this film isn't told in flashback. The only movie plots on Wikipedia I've seen that aren't told in chronological order are the films that actually themselves aren't told in chronological order or told in flashbacks, then back to the present day. Skyfall is told in chronological order. And the consistency should be we follow the 'twist' of Eve actually being Moneypenny.

If film plots, even if the film themselves are told in chronological order, aren't on Wikipedia going to be told in chronological order. Then I might as well go onto The Sixth Sense's page and change it and reveal in the first line that he died and is a ghost throughout the movie. If the film makers didn't want to reveal Eve being Moneypenny in the end as a 'twist', they would have revealed it straight away or sometime in the middle of the film, than the last scene. Doesn't matter that the Sixth Sense has a twist in the end, and that in Skyfall its more of a surprise, it would be the same situation if I went onto the Sixth Senses page and changed the plot to reveal he died at the beginning and is a ghost through-out the movie but he doesn't realise it. Charlr6 (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

"on all of the other Bond pages the Bond girls are referred to by their first name". Charlr6, this just isn't even close to being true! As I've mentioned above, internal consitency in an article is more important than across other articles. Eve's identity is actually a very minor point in Skyfall (although it will have have a bigger impact on subsequent films). - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

It is true. And I meant mostly actually (and I did refer to it as being 'most' before). I've gone through the pages and 75% of them are by their first names. And I saw what you did on the Dr. No's page. You went and changed Honey's name all to Ryder. It may have been yesterday, but it was also after I mentioned above on Sunday that the Bond girls names are referred to by their first name. And then funnily enough the next day Honey's name changed to Ryder on the page. I highly hope you weren't trying to back up what you said by changing an edit to reflect it.

And also Moneypenny hasn't been in the films since Die Another Day.

But, as Casino Royale rebooted the franchises. Lets treat the classic films and the reboot as a separate series, which they sort of are. But Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace pages, both Craig Bond films, refer to the Bond girls by their first names. Charlr6 (talk) 14:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I did change Ryder's name - largely for consistency, there is nothing wrong with that at all. As I have said a few times, it is the consistency within an article that is important, unless you'd like to call Bond "James" throughout? or perhaps change references from Mallory to "Gareth"? I don't see why we should use the surname of some characters and the first name of others - it seems a rather strange stance to adapt. As to your last point: no, they are not a separate series and there is no need to treat them separately. If they were a separate series then how on earth do you explain the references on this page to the number of "homages" to other Bond films (not to mention the novels) contained within Skyfall. - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)