Talk:James Bond/Archive 3

Daniel Craig

On April 6, 2005, news sources are reporting that Daniel Craig has been picked by EON productions to be the next James Bond. But this is still unofficial. Therefore, until further notice, all references to Craig will be reverted. Zzyzx11 21:26, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Additionally, this is already noted at Casino Royale (2006 movie). All speculation, rumors, and confirmations by the tabloids and other sources that are not EON should be noted there, not here. EON stated today (see BBC article), it's not likely they'll announce the new Bond anytime soon. IMO we won't see an announcement for awhile. Just for reference GoldenEye came out Christmas 1995 and Brosnan was announced in June 1994. K1Bond007 21:35, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

He just signed. The ink is wet, and yes, we have a new bond...--Bond007 22:16, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Until EON Productions officially announces it, speculation and rumor will not be listed here. The BBC report from today is not "old news". In it EON said officially that they haven't chosen anyone and that they won't announce anything anytime soon. K1Bond007 22:20, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Update: [1] Daniel Craig denies it. So there we go. K1Bond007 22:39, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

There was some other name mentioned as well. And the Calgary Sun just ran another story suggesting the Brosnan is coming back (though it's obvious they're just vamping based upon the IMDb rumor from a few days ago). According to EON, nothing will be decided until Martin Campbell finishes Legend of Zorro. I support the idea of reverting cast rumors in this article, since these are being handled in the Casino Royale 2006 movie article as K1Bond007 notes above. 23skidoo 17:20, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Many news outlets are reporting it as fact. This fact... the reporting... is noteworthy enough to be included in this article so I have added it. Ben Arnold 05:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I flat out disagree, but for one and a half days I'm not going to argue it. While it's 99% likely Craig will be named as Bond, the fact of the matter is that Eric Bana was confirmed as Bond in 2004 by a ton of major media outlets. So was Daniel Craig - in April and now again. We have an entire article devoted to this search with these mentions including the latest on Craig at Casino Royale (2006 film), which is even linked in the intro of this article (directly to the section too). Whatever though. Like I said in a day and a half we'll have the official confirmation for whichever way the wind blows. (Trivial fact: October 14 is Roger Moore's birthday) K1Bond007 05:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted the latest edit as well. I agree with K1Bond007 that it's likely to be Craig (despite other media outlets "confirming" that Bond is supposed to be in his 20s in the film, not late 30s). It was also announced that Connery had filmed a role in Die Another Day and that turned out to be bogus. The fact media are reporting Craig as a front runner is already well-covered in the article on the movie. Let's be patient. The announcement is only hours away and if it ends up being someone other than Craig -- and there's plenty of speculation that Craig is just a red herring -- we'd have egg on our face if we crowned him prematurely. 23skidoo 05:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Well thank heavens all that is finally over. It's interesting to note that according to media coverage Daniel Craig wasn't formally offered the role until last Monday (October 10), so all the reports that he had the role prior to then were indeed premature as he could have said No. I'm still curious as to what effect this will have on Casino Royale's reported prequel concept. 23skidoo 12:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

They didn't really get into it being a prequel during the conference. They alluded to it being Bond's first mission, but that could have been taken as an acknwowledgment that it was the first as written by Ian Fleming. I'm also glad this long searching crap is done. It's interesting to note that Michael Wilson said at the press conference that they looked at "over 200" names, but "only offered the role to Daniel". So there went all the Owen and Jackman rumors of them turning it down. Then again, it could be taken that they never formally offered it. K1Bond007 13:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

To the editor who keeps reinstating the implication that Craig has already played Bond: If you're so keen to see him in the 007 list near the top of the page, I suggest you reword the introduction to the list. To present Craig's name in a list prefixed by "Bond has been portrayed in the official series by" is unambiguously wrong. jamesgibbon 21:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Hence the word "announced". I'm not saying he already has portrayed Bond. I'm saying he is Bond and will be in the next film. It's silly to leave him out of the list. All you had to do was reword the sentence if you had a problem. K1Bond007 22:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The word "announced" didn't really work, I'm afraid; clearly it hasn't been announced that he's portrayed Bond in the official series, but that he's going to. I see that the introductory sentence has been reworded; unfortunately the piece is worse for that, I think; while at least it's not actually obviously incorrect now, it's nonetheless a little awkward. A mention that he is due to play Bond in the next sentence after the list was to be preferred, I think. Anyway it's late now, I may sort it out again tomorrow. 04:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

How is it awkward and incorrect? What's awkward is making a list of all the people to officially be cast as Bond yet not list the latest one because the film won't be released till next year. Maybe we shouldn't list Casino Royale in the list of Bond films towards the bottom because it hasn't been released yet. I mean, it's not an official Bond film...yet. Isn't that your argument here? This is the same logic. If you think the wording is "awkward" then by all means reword it, but leave Craig in the list. K1Bond007 04:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Lazenby Trivia

The lazenby trivia i added was factual.

I have seen ALL of those instances where Lazenby played Bond.

I guess someone thought that didn't need to be mentioned.

That's nice, but what trivia are you referring to? I don't recall seeing any Lazenby trivia added recently that was removed. Also, please sign your comments. 23skidoo 03:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Probably here George Lazenby. The lastest edit needs to be cleaned up a little and rewritten. Would be more suitable in the article as prose rather than a bulleted list under trivia. K1Bond007 03:50, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Oh ... I'm a little puzzled as to why the anon would comment here rather than in the Lazenby article talk age. I don't dispute most of the trivia with the exception of the alleged appearance on the Nude Bomb. I hesitate to confess that I've seen that film a number of times over the years and I have no recollection of Lazenby appearing in it, as Bond or otherwise. 23skidoo 12:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Film and Actor info

I changed OHMSS's gross to 87.4 million, because I was reading on here and noticed the gross of 82 million. I checked the sites listed, but they are wrong. This is because I have read in my book from 1985 The Fantastic World of Bond and slo in a 1983 book The Quintessential James Bond, that OHMSS made 87.4 million, roughly 22.8 million domestic, and 64.6 million international. The grosses listed in these books match for all films DN-OP of the grosses listed here so they must be right. Also one of the books, the 1985 one, has a quote from Broccoli stating that, "On Her Majesty's Secret Service just didn't do that well compared to Sean's films, it only made about $87.4 million worldwide, while You Only Live Twice made about $111.6 million, Diamonds Are Forever made about $116 million. Still, Secret Service did quite well looking at it in its own terms since we only spent about $7 million on its actual production." Hopefully someone else knows this too, but since all the other figures match, and since this adds up 22.8 and 64.6 which I see a lot. Anyway according to THE man himself it should be $87.4 million. Lords tracy 25 August 2005

Best known for his films

Please source the claim that Bond is better known fopr his films. You claim there are thousands so providing one or two should be easy, SqueakBox 18:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Please see your discussion page. In short, I don't feel it is necessary to site a source on this issue (same as it is unnecessary to cite a source to provide evidence that Marilyn Monroe was a sex symbol. On the contrary I challenge anyone to find a source that says he ISN'T best known from the films. That would be far more interesting. Cheers. 23skidoo 18:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Dude, I don't even think this is debatable. Yeah, Fleming's novels were popular in the late 50s early 60s, but since, probably 1964 he's best known for the films. Theres no question here. I love Fleming's novels, but I don't think theres any way someone could create a credible argument saying Bond is best known from the novels. You can say he was popularized by the novels, but best known today for the films, but that's it. Since 1953, if you add Fleming's Amis', Gardner's, Benson's and other misc 007 novels by other authors together, the number sold comes to approximately 100 million. Die Another Day, the last film, had about 80 million see the film in theaters. That's just theaters. Add in how many spoofs of James Bond films are out there, rentals, DVD/VHS purchases, promotional material - products associated with Bond (e.g. Aston Martin), books analyzing or whatever the James Bond films -- all of this in damn near every country. There's no question that hands down the films are by far more popular. You see a news story on the BBC.. something like "using James Bond like gadgets", etc they're referring to the films, not the novels - virtually 100% of the time. I'm with 23skidoo here. Find a source that says he isn't best known from the films. K1Bond007 21:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The Property of a Lady

I believe that Timothy Dalton's proposed third film should be mentioned within the movie section, whether it got beyond the proposal stage or not, as it is relevant with regards to the legal wranglings of the early 1990s. I have included this within the table of films, with a note explaining the occurences of why it was not made. I believe it is clear and explicit that the film was not made. Hammersfan 09:25 25 October 2005

I'm leaving it be until I see more opinions on it, but my opinion is the film should not be included on the chart. For one thing I know of only one source that has ever suggested the Property of a Lady title and that's the book "The Bond Files" by Andy Lane. And even it states that the title was pure speculation. There was -- to my knowledge -- never an official announcement regarding the title of Dalton's third Bond film. I have no objection to it being mentioned in the film section and elsewhere as a point of trivia, but unless someone can find additional sources (preferably official such as a press release) to suggest the title was ever in any way official, I oppose it being included in the table. 23skidoo 14:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

No. Theres absolutely no reason to list it as an official film. The script was never completed and it was never made. If you include this in the list then at what point do we draw the line on anything? Just because there were plans to make a third Dalton movie, does not mean we should add it to a list of official movies that were made. The information on The Property of a Lady is already at the book article, Dalton's article, and LTK's article - and most of it is (unfortunately) unfounded considering there has never been any official aknowledgment of it (especially the title). This is redundant and trivial. Should we list Thunderball as the first James Bond film? No. What about all the other times Casino Royale was attempted at being made into a film? No. This is minor trivia that doesn't belong in the list. K1Bond007 18:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I would go as far to say that a lot of people today are being introduced to the novels because of the films. That's how it worked for me. Rowlan 20:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Vittorio Vidali

It is interesting to read of Vittorio Vidali, an adroit and prolific killer always in the company of beautiful women, and surely a personage that Fleming was familiar with or had been briefed on. El Jigüe 12/06/05

I had to remove this piece of information, unfortunately, because it was speculation. If you can provide a source that indicates Fleming was aware of Vidali, then please feel free to add this information again (but please cite the source). 23skidoo 01:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I doubt theres a credible source out there. A lot of news sites once in while come up with a so-and-so was a model for Bond, but they're always totally unfounded except that person A was a supposed secret agent. All of it is really unfounded. Fleming has never stated whom he modeled Bond after, if anyone at all. Just going from Fleming's history with everything else, IMHO, if he didn't know the person personally then they weren't the model for anything. Everyone that Fleming wanted for the films were people he knew personally; Noel Coward, David Niven - models like Erno Goldfinger, possibly Godfrey (M) etc. Theres a long list of examples like this. K1Bond007 01:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Making things even more confusing is the existence of the semi-fictional biopics of Fleming that have been produced. For example, there was the one with Jason Connery that was in many ways just a Bond movie in disguise, complete with a Moneypenny-like character. Someone seeing that might think Fleming based Moneypenny on a real secretary he knew. Maybe he did -- but you'd need to source that sort of info before making a blind statement. In any event the Vidali statement had to be deleted as it was worded as clear speculation anyway. 23skidoo 05:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, my knowledge of Italian stinks. A site: http://www.pioxii.150m.com/articoli.htm

does mention both:

"Donovan ha già un suo uomo al Vaticano, il frate domenicano Felix Morlion, fondatore della «Pro Deo», da lui spostato nel ’41 da Lisbona, un covo di spie britanniche destinate a divenire illustri, dal diplomatico Kim Philby, una «talpa» sovietica, ai romanzieri Graham Greene e Ian Fleming (il padre di James Bond)." (my links to Wikipedia sites)/

What the heck is a: "una «talpa» sovietica" is sounds to me like a soviet agent and Vittorio Vidale was one, fresh from Spain and just about in Mexico at roughly that time. I do not think the phrase refers to Philby, since this is a list separated by commas ......

and

"Il rapporto Houck, che cita di nuovo Montini, propone anche per la prima volta che la strategia del contenimento dell’Urss venga estesa al Sud America con la creazione di un «Ufficio latino» dell’Oss. «Il Papa desidera formare un blocco dei Paesi latini, dall’Italia alla Spagna, al Messico e all’Argentina. Nei Paesi sudamericani è attiva l’Alleanza internazionale Garibaldi, di comunisti e socialisti, creata da Mario Montagnana, il cognato di Togliatti, da Vittorio Vidali e da altri»"

Thus Fleming's knowledge of Vidali perhaps as "Comandante Carlos Contreras" is probable.

BTW And there are some who consider Graham Greene to have far too much "sympathy" with the left.

I hope that some will read Vittorio Vidali piece and perhaps something with "click" El Jigüe 12/07/05

I'd rather see an English language source cited, preferably a biography of Fleming. What does John Pearson's book say, or instance? 23skidoo 02:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't recall. If Pearson mentions anybody as a model, the comparison would probably be Fleming's quote about a high-romanticised version of William Stephenson; see Inspirations for James Bond. K1Bond007 02:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

A single article in a language you cannot read mentions Ian Fleming briefly in passing, and then a thousand words later mentions Vidali briefly in passing, with a dozen names mentioned in between, and you are claiming this as "probable" grounds for believing that Fleming not only knew of Vidali but also knew of his undercover identity? What an interesting game, maybe I can play too. I did a search for "Ian Fleming" + "Lee Harvey Oswald" and got a bunch of hits, one of which is this German article which I can't read. Thus Fleming's knowledge of Oswald as the future assassin of Kennedy is probable.

Please, this is nonsense. You cite a reference in support of something you wrote which turns out not to support it at all... I hope this doesn't apply to the references you cite in your other contributions elsewhere. If you are doing scholarly writing you have to aim for a high standard and not take careless shortcuts like this. -- Curps 10:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Curps It would be most rude of me to question why are following me around on the web, postulating theories about my input without reading the citations and then lambasting my input in the harshest possible way, and when ever possible deleting my entries on the most spurious of grounds. So I will not raise that question. El Jigüe 13-8-05

I did not mean to imply that I could not read Italian (Germanic languages are a completely different kettle of fish) what i said is that I read it with difficulty. All that is besides the point, I suggest followers of this thread read the Vittorio Vidali article and see if it brings James Bond to mind as a man judged handsome by women, who themselves to him, even though he is a ready killer who does not suffer remorse. One may also note that while Italian men as a group are not commonly looked at favorably by English men, English women frequently differ on this point. Let me assure you that others, some Italians by the way, see certain parallels, as has occurred to me and others. We will need to wait to see if there is any link. Meanwhile, as is appropriate one should be to be able to hold several competing ideas in ones mind, before making any judgement. However, my bias is that I dislike assassins, and I have had the misfortune to know a few. El Jigüe 13-8-05

I'm sure there are plenty of parallels to be seen. The point is that it's pure speculation whether or not Fleming based any of the character upon the man, just as, say, the suggestion that Marlow from Heart of Darkness might have inspired the character. I can speculate this, but that's not the same as having proof that Fleming was so inspired. 23skidoo 01:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

"Pure speculation" is where an investigation starts. However, I find it difficult for Fleming to be in "next door" in Portugal just a few years later, without knowing of how dangerous "Comandante Carlos Contreras" (Vittorio Vidali) was both as an ally and as possible opposition depending on whether it was before or after the infamous Stalin-Hitler pact was ruptures. Besides reading on Vidale gives great insight into spy tactics of the time, it is said that Vidale killed as much ast 400 "accidentally" in Spain. Just keep Vidale in mind, because he as part of the mileu in which Fleming "swam" in those days when the water was full of sharks. El Jigüe 13-9-0

Wikipedia:No original research. All we're asking for is a good credible citation. Personally, I'd throw this under the "pure speculation" section too. I've read a lot of biographys on Fleming and who he possibly modeled Bond after, from very credible sources like John Pearson, Raymond Benson (people that either knew Fleming personally or know the world of Bond). This is the first time I've ever heard of Vidali. K1Bond007 16:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

K1 You make an interesting point when you say "This is the first time I've ever heard of Vidali." You are correct, all this was over half a century past, I only heard of Vidale myself perhaps two months ago. And yet if one reads about Vittorio Vidali and his activities including his vast notoriety that extended to inclusion in Diego Rivera's mural the Arsenal, and his well known love affair with the beautiful talented Tina Modotti who some say was also a spy or agent, apparently inherited from one of Vidali's victims, one could readily presume (given the chronology of events) that Ian Fleming must, by the necessities of his employment, have heard of Vidali. Thus perhaps we should await the emergence of a non-Italian source before including this matter in the James Bond article, and yet still keep the matter alive in our minds. El Jigüe 23-9-05

?? With my comment, I meant that I've read a ton on Fleming and all the possible "inspirations" for Bond, yet of all the names I've never heard of this guy. Thus this falls under original research unless you can provide a very reputable source. I'll bet you can't. You're trying to draw a link where there isn't one basing it entirely off circumstantial (i.e. similar) evidence. It's like trying to prove that Donkey Kong and King Kong are related because both have the name "Kong", they're both gorillas, and both have a tendancy to kidnap beautiful human females. K1Bond007 17:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Theme of movies/storyline/etc.

Shouldn't we include stuff about the theme of the James Bond movies/story/blah? like eg. Based in the 60's Soviet spy craze, when cold war ended more tactical espionage...

Also, there is a 1980s-early 1990's series of Hong Kong movies titled "King Kong" which tells of a cop/secret agent called "King Kong". In one of the movies, Sean Connery guest-stars as James Bond and in the movie James Bond retires and (apparently) turns evil, tries to steal the Queen (of Britain)'s crown and kill everyone. --Benlisquare 8:37PM AUEST

Probably add this to "The franchise." This page is long as it is, so if it's not something that can be grouped together, then I would say this might be more film-specific information. At some point in this article there is discussion on the themes and genres. Maybe just expand on that. K1Bond007 17:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Bond Scars

I remember reading an online article about the notoriety of all Bond actors' facial scarring.

http://itsb.ucsf.edu/~vcr/SpotBondMen.html

This seems to be the one I read. Just thought it would be interesting to note in the trivia section, especially the tidbit about how Pierce Brosnan's scar is the only one earned during his tour of duty as Bond.

But, thought I'd post it up here on the talk page before adding it in.

TotalTommyTerror 20:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Habits

The article says The literary 007 is a heavy cigarette smoker, at one point smoking up to 70 a day Where does this number come from? That's nearly 3 an hour, assuming he smoked around the clock. If he sleeps, say, 6 hours, that's almost 4 an hour, or 1 every 15 minutes. PrometheusX303 17:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe this number comes from one of Fleming's books - I think Thunderball. This number is quite realistic, particularly for chain smokers. 23skidoo 18:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

No it's not Thunderball. Thunderball claims "60" (the latest edition from Penguin). I've changed that number back to 60 a few times, but someone (I assume more than one person) claims 70. I'd wager a guess it comes from Casino Royale if anywhere. Perhaps we should cite Thunderball. K1Bond007 19:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I say go with Thunderball for now unless a different number can be found in another book. I'm too far away from reading Fleming's Bonds to remember that sort of detail. I vaguely recall that one other book besides Casino Royale also addresses Bond's smoking habits. My gut tells me its Moonraker. But Thunderball seems to be the logical source to cite since Bond's bad habits are a prime motivator in the book. 23skidoo 21:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

If it's from one of the books, I can't argue. I've only read one book, but the number seems high, considering his occupation. I wouldn't think he would have time for so many smokes. PrometheusX303 17:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It varies in the books actually. I did some digging on the issue. First and most obviously, Bond's smoking habit is Fleming's. Fleming actually had a personalized cigarette from Morland that had a higher tar content than other brands in addition to (apparently) three gold bands on the filter that represented the three gold stripes on his 'Commander' uniform. Bond and Fleming both smoked 60 cigarettes a day, however, Bond reached 70 in Casino Royale — after that it's 60. Bond does cut back so that he can do certain feats such as his underwater swim in Live and Let Die. He temporarily drops to 20 there. He also cuts back again in Thunderball, after M sends him to Shrublands, but I don't think it's ever stated how much, just a "considerable" amount. Later in the book he's back to his old habit, I seem to recall K1Bond007 20:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The films seem to vary a bit based on the actor too I think. I recall reading an interview with Pierce Brosnan where he had stated why he didn't want to smoke in any of his Bond films. (Because of his children.) TotalTommyTerror 21:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Well he smoked a cigar in Die Another Day. I don't think he smoked cigarettes because in the 90s smoking became more of a faux pas. Pretty much the same reason why Craig won't be smoking in Casino Royale — it's not so much the children, and there was a debate over the appropriateness of cigarettes and their product placment in Licence to Kill. LTK afterall is the only Bond film to include the Sergeon General warning. I think Roger Moore just didn't smoke (with the exception of a cigar here and there), I have nothing to back that up though. K1Bond007 21:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

He gets away with having sex at least twice in each film, drinking "shaken-not-stirred" martinis, and shooting but he doesn't smoke. At least that's one bad habit he's gotten rid of. 206.211.69.253 17:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

---

It would probably be good to note then that 007 has trimmed down his smoking habits. In character (probably for his own health) and/or for the negative image that smokers are getting in pop-culture today.

Though, I can't quite recall any line in a recent Bond film where he talks about his (reduced) smoking. But in the beginning of Tomorrow Never Dies, Bond (Brosnan) punches out a guard after lighting his cigarette and remarks "Filthy habit." It may just be the typical Bond sarcasm, but may actually reflect a change in his opinion of smoking itself. (Hey, some ex-smokers view it as such sometimes.) TotalTommyTerror 19:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I know a ton of people who smoke that are quite aware that it is a "filthy habit," bad for them, whatever. It doesn't matter. The quote doesn't necessarily mean anything. Fleming knew it was bad for him, but he blamed it on the old saying "I don't know what to do with my hands" (IIRC). He tried and failed to quit and is quoted as saying (I think the line is in a Bond book too, maybe YOLT) "I shall not waste my life trying to prolong it. I will use my time." — I guess we can add that Bond does on occasion attempt to cut down, notably in Thunderball, but I wouldn't even begin to think of Bond as an ex-smoker because we don't know what he'll do in the future and as recently in Die Another Day was seen smoking a cigar. He probably smoked in Benson's novels too (I've yet to read them). K1Bond007 19:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

But smoking cigarettes and smoking cigars are viewed in two different ways usually. Cigarette smoking has a modern connotation of just being trashy and a dirty past time, but cigar smoking is seen as a more refined habit. Especially among cigar conosseiuers (did I spell that right?) There's the general practice where cigar smoke (in contrast to cigarette smoking) is not inhaled, but simply held in the mouth for a time.

I think it would be safe to say that currently Bond doesn't smoke cigarettes (noting personal/cultural reasons) while still partaking in cigar smoking. It wouldn't even be forward of us to make a note of it, because in the future, should he return to smoking, it's just as simple to note that Bond quit smoking for a time, and then returned to it. Hey, sometimes people quit smoking and end up going back to it.

What I'd be worried about now is where this could end up stepping on canon. MGM is the owner of the Bond franchise, aren't they? Making whatever they put into film new Bond canon. Albeit, if the books are licensed and he does smoke in the books, that makes them canon as well. As such, it would probably be of interest to note that in film Bond doesn't smoke, where he might smoke in continuing novelizations. Citing of course cultural connotations on the act of smoking for the reason of its lack of appearance in the films. TotalTommyTerror 20:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the elimination of smoking from Bond films was done for a bit more pragmatic reason. First, MGM/EON got spanked for featuring smoking in Licence to Kill, to the point where they were required to include the Surgeon General's warning in the credits. Second, as I recall, Brosnan quit smoking in real life prior to making TND so it was decided Bond would quit too. There are a lot of folks who do not equate smoking cigarettes with smoking cigars so the presence of a cigar in DAD doesn't really contradict TND - plus it was a genuine plot point anyway. I can't remember what Benson does regarding smoking, but Gardner's books has Bond using a specially blended cigarette specially made for him, at least early on in the series. 23skidoo 20:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

He smokes in Benson's. I found a quote on the Internet from one of his books that has Bond smoking. K1Bond007 21:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I have seen a photograph of Brosnan from December 2005 where he has a lit cigarette in his mouth. Perhaps it was just for the picture, or perhaps he now only smokes socially.

Or maybe he started again. Was it a candid shot, or was it a picture of him from The Matador? 23skidoo 17:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I think Brosnan still smokes cigarettes. I remember reading something about it. Up until the Matador, I don't remember him smoking much in films. In Remington Steele he had a couple cigars and once smoked a cigarette when pretending to be some kind of gangster.

It was in a magazine.

Whatever Brosnan's smoking habits are is none of our concern. Let's not forget that 007 drinks and has sex at least twice in each film. If we're going to focus on his smoking only, you ought to retitle the section. 206.211.69.253 17:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Links

Sadly I've discovered the the Qbranch link is now dead. I'll leave it to the editors of this page to fix/delete it. --CPQD 07:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Fan site links

This article has many, many links to fan sites; is there a way we can reduce how many there are? Personally, I think there should be maybe five or something, or else maybe just one link to a directory of them all. I dislike the fact that it has it's own heading as it seems to encourage anons/users to add their site to the list whether or not it's notable/different/useful etc. Thoughts? --Qirex 11:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I trimmed it down, but it'll grow...again. K1Bond007 22:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I "trimmed" it per Wikipedia:External links but that was reverted. I'm not seeing any reason per that guideline that all of those links should not go. - brenneman^(t)(c) 06:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that some of them should go. But they shouldn't be eliminated down to just two links as you did. There were more there that appeared to be relevant to the article, and not simply fluff or spam. The Wookieepedian 07:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I side with Wookiepedian on this. Yes, I agree that half the article shouldn't be external links, but at the same time there are a large number of noted and (and this is key) useful links. Each one needs to be judged in its own merits. There are some that are obviously spammy and/or fluff pieces, and I think editors have been pretty good at catching those. And then there are other sites that are relevant, useful, and are just as worthy as a long list of References and Sources which is something Wikipolicy says every article should (in theory) have. 23skidoo 15:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I did click on every one of those links and examine them. The Ian Fleming sites should go in the Ian Fleming article, and unless we can demonstrate that any one fan site is much more notable than the others it's POV to put some in and not all of them. Anything that is used as a reference must be from a Wikipedia:Reliable source, and very few fansites will qualify. - brenneman^(t)(c) 23:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)