Talk:Never Say Never Again/Archive 1

Archive 1

Initial table is trashed

Somebody who knows how please fix

I don't see anything wrong? Maybe if you explain what you think is wrong with the table? Nude Amazon (talk) 04:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Early discussion

This film is not considered a James Bond film by most fans, though it was made by Harry Saltzman, one-time partner of Cubby Broccoli, the force behind the Bond films.

Never Say Never Again also marks the beginning of a long legal battle between United Artists and one of the writers of the original scripts, in that copyright of the primary Bond villain Ernst Stavro Blofeld seemed to belong to the writer, and not UA. Oddly enough, the previous 1981 Bond film For Your Eyes Only opened with James Bond finally getting his revenge on Blofeld (albeit uncredited for legal reasons) for the death of his wife Tracy by killing him off... or so we thought. How Blofeld managed to survive this to appear in "Never Say Never" is left up to the viewer.

Was it Saltzman? I thought the link is Kevin McClory. Back in the late 1950s McClory collaborated with Flemming on an original story for a proposed Bond movie which fell through. Flemming later adapted the plot into the book Thunderball, but McClory sued and got a court to rule that a) all future printings of the book must state it is based on a film treatment by McClory, Whittingham and Flemming (in that order) and b) the McClory held the film rights. He sold them to United Artists for 10 years so they made Thunderball and other movies with SPECTRE. Then in the mid 1970s the rights reverted and McClory decided to try again. A further court case established that McClory owns the film copyright on Blofeld and SPECTRE and so they were removed from the script of The Spy Who Loved Me.

The battle was ongoing for many years. The Blofeld lookalike is included in For Your Eyes Only as United Artist's way of writing out the character (to show he was no longer needed) and as a one up to McClory. Never Say Never Again simply doesn't fit the UA films' continuity since NSNA is a remake of Thunderball. So issues of survival are irrelevant. Timrollpickering 10:24, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Maximilian Largo not Emilio in NSNA! ciao 15:32, 8 sept 2004

MGM/UA (through their Orion division) currently holds the broadcast rights to NSNA. I noted that about last week and you changed it. WHY? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.111.209.99 (talk • contribs) .

Because Orion is defunct. All Orion releases now bear the MGM name. K1Bond007 20:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

If Orion is defunct, then how come I saw the 1997 Orion logo before NSNA instead of the Lion? And no, I don't know my signature. 206.211.69.253

When did you see this? It is common for defunct studio logos to still be shown. You still see Carolco's logo before broadcasts/DVD release of Total Recall, and RKO Pictures has been out of business for decades but the logo still appears on the DVD releases of those old Fred Astaire musicals... 23skidoo 16:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I saw it on AMC about a week ago. I asked a dumb question. When did YOU last see this? What logo is on the DVD release? Should the current distributor be listed in the summary? Sorry, forgot to sign it. 206.211.69.253 16:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I last saw it about a year ago on TBS. I can't remember what logo was on it. 23skidoo 16:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I listed MGM as the current distributor and made a reference to Orion. So there. 206.211.69.253 17:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, buddy! What did you do with Orion? You must give credit where credit is due. 206.211.68.217 17:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I fixed it. (PS, I'm the same guy from before.)71.111.209.99 22:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

'Official' films

More importantly is how we define "official". I would say Fleming can help us here- the novel Thunderball is officially credited with being "based on a screen treatment by Kevin McClory". Kevin McClory wrote NSNA, aswell as "Thunderball" (the EON film). Arguably, NSNA is considerably closer to teh Fleming novel than theEON version (subjective, I know, but still often claimed). This lends the film some degree of "officialdom" surely? Im not arguing that the "unofficial" tag be dropped- it is true that the canonical Bond films, dubbed "official", are the EON ones, but it is certainly not clear cut enough for it to dominate the article. Patch86 23:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding 23skidoo's edit, the reason I take exception to "unofficial" in describing this film is that McClory won the right to produce a "James Bond" film as the centerpiece of his lawsuit; the option on the story and characters is every bit as valid legally as Broccoli's films. In that sense it is just as "official" (i.e. authorized) as the franchise films. Besides, what does "official" mean? Is there an "Office of James Bond films" somewhere? Heh heh. MFNickster 16:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, yes there is. It's called EON Productions and/or Ian Fleming Publications. And they do not consider NSNA or the 1967 Casino Royale to be official productions. 23skidoo 18:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, Broccoli sure doesn't, being dead and all. MFNickster

23skidoo is right. EON Production's 21 films are considered the official series. You can check anywhere. This is widely accepted. Never Say Never Again and Casino Royale (1954/1967) are unofficial. K1Bond007 22:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I know what you mean and I agree with the distinction, I just think the term "official" is unnecessarily vague and has strong connotations. If it means "part of the franchise" or "canonical", then NSNA isn't "official." If it means "authorized" or "licensed", then it is. MFNickster

All I'm saying is that this "official/unofficial" label is an established practice. Even EON Productions refers to it this way in their "authorized" books. There could be reasons for the use of this exact term. For instance, EON was 'authorized' by Ian Fleming, while McClory (regardless if he needed to be or not) was not. EON claims, have claimed, and even have won a few court cases that establishes them as the exclusive holder to the film rights to James Bond (the character) on film. This may be part of the whole argument. I really don't know - and I truthfully don't care that much since this is widely acknowledged and accepted. K1Bond007 22:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

That's fine by me, I don't think any further editing is necessary. MFNickster 22:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Is the official/unofficial distintion so important that it is the very first adjective to describe the movie in the acticle, and consumes the first three paragraphs? It is so UNimportant and needless, that it should be at the very very end of the article, or not in there at all. Who cares?! Point 2, just because the producers here were different, and EON (predicably!) calls other productions "unofficial" - all this in NO WAY makes "unofficial" a proper term. It's very misleading; you should replace "unofficial" with just "non-EON produced" and link to the EON Productions article. The problem with Wikipedia is that me, and 99% of the people who have seen this movie (or will read this article) are not obsessive enough to come here and change it over and over again and make it clear. Well, back to regular life.[Anonymous] 5 November 2006

I've cited a source (mi6.com) that establishes the status of NSNA as an "unofficial" film. Can we let this drop now? Editus Reloaded 17:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Distribution Rights

How did Orion Pictures (and MGM with it) get the distribution rights to NSNA from Warner Bros.?

It's a confusing mess to me. Orion was originally formed as a joint venture between Warner Bros and UA, however it became independent in 1982. Never Say Never Again was made by TaliaFilm (owned by Talia Shire and Jack Schwartzman) and distributed by Warner Bros (see poster) even on home video (VHS) way into the 90s. So your guess is as good as mine. If anyone finds any info on this, let me know. K1Bond007 18:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

According to imdb.com's list of company credits, Orion was the film's original distributor. NSNA was (I believe) a negative pick-up, like Superman or The Empire Strikes Back. Warner Bros. agreed to pay a sum for the distribution rights in America - a sum usually equivalent to half the agreed budget - when the film was finished. The producer would sell the international, video and TV rights to make up the other half. It was therefore up to Schwartman to raise the money and make the film. If the movie ran over budget, it would be up to him to pay the difference. Probably, like the Salkinds and George Lucas, Schwartzman had to go cap-in-hand to Warners when the film went overbudget by about $6 million and sell them the video rights. Of course, now MGM/Sony own the rights and put out the rather bland DVD in 2000/2001. Scott197827 22/1/2006

Thanks. 71.111.215.224 18:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Q's real name

The fact that Q's name is given as Algernon does not necessarily conflict with the fact that he is called Major Boothroyd in the official films, because Boothroyd is his surname, whereas Algernon is clearly a Christian name (cf. Algernon Moncrieff in The Importance of Being Earnest). For all we know, then, Q's full name is Algernon Boothroyd. I don't know if this was the only evidence suggesting that this Q was not the same person as the "official" one, so I have let that part of the statement stand. It might be worthwhile, however, to check out if there is any other evidence for this contention. Nude Amazon 11:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

“Q” - as such - does not appear in the Ian Fleming novels, and in particular not in the novel Thunderball. There is a Q-Branch and there is a character called Major Boothroyd, but it is the films (specifically Christopher Wood in The Spy who Loved Me) that suggest they are the same character. Part of the deal for making NSNA was that it couldn't be adapted from the movies, only from the book - hence, Algernon the Armorer. Scott197827 12/2/2006

Actually the film version of From Russia With Love also makes the same connection Wood does by having Major Boothroyd appear and be identified as Q. I'm pretty certain there is a reference to "Q" in the Goldfinger novel; I just checked and there is a direct reference to "Q's craftsmen" re: the briefcase in the FRWL novel. And both Gardner and Benson directly link Boothroyd and Q as the same man. Regardless of all this, Die Another Day confirm that, at least in terms of the films, Q (or Quartermaster) is a title passed from person to person; when Boothroyd retired or died, John Cleese's unnamed character became Q. In all likelihood Algernon was the NSNA's equivalent of Cleese. There's nothing to suggest he's the same man played by Desmond Llewellyn (unlike Moneypenny who is supposed to be the same person Lois Maxwell played). 23skidoo 22:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

An early screenplay of The Man with the Golden Gun featured both Q and Boothroyd as two seperate characters (I guess he became the character Colthorpe in the movie). TSWLM is the first film in which Desmond Llewellyn is called Boothroyd. As another interesting note, the James Bond Role Playing Game - licensed from both the novels and films - identifies Q as Major Geoffrey Boothroyd, the name of the real life armorer who advised Ian Fleming, even though the Boothroyd in Doctor No is not given a first name. You're right that there are mentions of Q in the book as if he was a man, but the point I was making is this, and it it brings it back to the subject of this article; Jack Schwartzman and Lorenzo Semple, Jr. were under pressure to do a literal adaptation of the book. They could use the names James Bond, 007, Miss Moneypenny, M, Largo, Blofeld, Domino, Petachi, etc. because they were in the book. Other ideas like the gunbarrel and the Bond theme obviously couldn't be used. Less obviously, the writer couldn't copy the same interactions between Eon's Moneypenny and Q. It was a tightrope. Scott197827 13/2/2006

First appearence of an older Bond?

The 'Changes to the Bond Universe' section notes that it's the first time an older Bond is potrayed. Roger Moore is three years older than Connery though, and was older in For Your Eyes Only two years prior than Connery is in Never Say Never Again. 142.68.204.246 20:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

True and for that matter David Niven was an "older Bond" in the comedy version of Casino Royale. I think what the text is trying to say is that this is the first serious attempt to present a Bond who is meant to be older than the more regular norm. Films where the hero is an older version of a classic hero returning to the fray are not unknown - for example Connery himself appeared as an old Robin Hood in Robin and Marian in 1976 - and NSNA fits this genre, the only time this was done with Bond. (Although three of the Brosnan films - GoldenEye, The World Is Not Enough and Die Another Day - feature conflict taking place over a long scale than normal, with flashbacks, discussion of past events and a one year gap respectively, this doesn't come close to the sub-genre.) Timrollpickering 20:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

change not all bad

i have to say, when comparing this to the latest bond i think many of the people within the bond franchise really didn't like the sleek slippery bond and instead opted for the rough edged Never Say Never Again style bond. also the way the current Casino Royal is filmed looks very cheap compared to the slik big *bang* pierce brosnan movies "this is not bad", it's really like the writers were sick of the old James Bond can do all attitude and forgetting he's human. my point is that some of the quirks of this movie ended up in the Casino Royal 2006 James Bond Markthemac 00:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Trivia should be organized, not destroyed

I have restored the Gaffes section previously removed by El Greco without any replacement. As the trivia policy states, "This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all" (emphasis mine). The mere destruction of information under the guise of (misunderstood) style policies adds no value to Wikipedia, however "trivial" some might judge the removed information. Moreover, the policy further states that a "trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and unselective list. However, a selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information" (emphasis in original). El Greco's implied judgement notwithstanding, a precis of notable gaffes is arguably a perfect example of an organized selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme :) Nude Amazon (talk) 09:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Within less than 30 minutes of my restoration of the Gaffes section for which I provided what I thought was a passably cogent rationale here on this Talk page, SpecialWindler once again effectively destroys the information hiding smugly behind yet another policy (and yet again without so much as the token courtesy of a reasoned explanation here). It seems some people are committed to hunting down and killing this information by any legal excuse they can get their hands on. Whatever :( I'm not going to start an edit war over this, but I wish to put it on record that I disapprove of the cheap and lazy raiding and nuking that some people here seem to mistake for a valuable contribution to Wikipedia. As far as I can tell, it is mere wanton destruction of information and differs from vandalism only in managing to claim the legal backing of WP policies Nude Amazon (talk) 09:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Fine, you want an explination, here:

1. The information is absoultly nothing compared to rest of the article. It dosen't have notability. The mistakes in the film are nothing compared to the fact that Sean Connery returned as James Bond. The mistakes in the film are nothing compared to the title being chosen by Connery's wife. etc. The information has no real notabilty in the context of the article.
2. The removal of the information, is not vandalism, I'm not using legal responses. For your sake, maybe you should look at WP:IAR, but the guidelines, are generally accepted by the wider Wikipedia community. But try adding a Mistakes section to Casino Royale (2006 film), it'll be gone less than 30 minutes. Perhaps even Quantum of Solace. I give it 5 minutes max. The point is, it is irrelevent to the actual film. If there is a notable mistake in which it creates notability in itself, then you can add it. But none of the mistakes you point to explains notability.
3. The information you have placed on the article, is nothing more than "miscellaneous facts", as outlined in WP:TRIVIA. Which states "Editors should follow it, except where common sense and the occasional exception". Thats exactly what your mistakes section is, a miscellaneous list of information.
4. The information is unsourced, how do I know if thats true or not. I could say "Sean Connery had a hair misplaced in one shot but the next shot its gone". It needs to be sourced by reliable sources per WP:SOURCES.
5. And its seems to me you have gone and fund these mistakes yourself, which violates WP:OR.

I could probably find some more, but please be civil and perhaps look at this (from top to bottom - we are at step 1) rather than edit waring. But I hope it dosen't come to either of those. Hope that explains it better.  The Windler talk  10:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I found this thread the note at the Village Pump, and I highly endorse SpecialWindler's reasons for removing that section. We must be especially careful when pointing out "mistakes" or "gaffes" because we have no way of knowing if the director did that on purpose or not to make a statement. It is OR to say it is a mistake.

After taking a look at the contents of the deleted section, I have to say that I am surprised anyone would even argue to keep that in the article. If an event in the movie is not important enough to be included in the synopsis, then a mention of what was wrong with the way the event was filmed has no place in the article. It is going undue emphasis to unimportant details. Karanacs (talk) 19:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Felix is Black

in Live and Let Die —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.174.83.232 (talk) 07:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Umm... nope!--174.114.108.211 (talk) 02:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Warhead, etc

This page claims that "Warhead (film) redirects here", which indeed it does, but the article currently contains no mention of "Warhead" or "Warhead 8" or "Warhead 2000" or any of the other related projects. Indeed, this article currently contains little mention of the controversy and circumstances leading to a non-EON remake of Thunderball. Which is fine, but it's a bit odd that "Warhead (film)" redirects here with no subsequent explanation. If I wanted to know about "Warhead (film)", I'd be decidedly puzzled as to why I'd been brought to this article!

There is mention of the "Warhead" project both in Kevin_McClory#1970s_and_1980s and in Thunderball_(novel)#Controversy. So:

• perhaps "Warhead (film)" should redirect to one of those articles;
• or perhaps it should become a small page rather than a redirect, with appropriate mentions of Kevin McClory, the controversy, and this article;
• or perhaps this article should contain some explanation of the "Warhead" project in order to explain why "Warhead (film)" redirects here.

My own inclination would be to reinstate "Warhead (film)" as a short article with links to the relevant related articles, but I don't want to re-open a divisive issue! What do others think? Mooncow (talk) 03:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Either redirect it to Warhead (1977 film) or delete it and move the 1977 one over. An unused proposed title hardly merits its own page. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion -- yes, an unused proposed title should not be holding onto a title slot when there's an actual film with that title in existence. I'll delete it and move the 1977 one over. Mooncow (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Re-vamp of article for GA Status

We're starting to look at NSNA as part of a move to get all the Bond films up to GA status: NSNA is the last film to be considered partly as it is the most messy. There aer a number of concerns this film raises, including the lack of sold citations, the lack of adherence to the MOS etc. One point of concern to me is the use of the three non-free images which appear to be more window-dressing than anything more fundamentally important. If anyone would like to help putting this article into a more structured format, please feel free to help out. - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I've made a start, but still much to do. The main bits I've covered / still to cover are as below. Most sources sort of seem to check out at the moment, but I've not gone over them thoroughly, apart from the sections I've done. In summary:

Done so far (but needs typo & source checking etc)

• Plot
• Cast
• Production (first two paragraphs only – and there might be too much of an overlap as the info in):
• Cast and crew
• Release and reception

Still to do:

• Filming
• Music
• Differences between NSNA and the Eon-Bond films (still a bit of a mess)
• Lead

I haven't forgotten I said I'd look over this. I got roped into building a collapsible table which has held me up. However I plan to look over this later in the evening and tomorrow. Betty Logan (talk) 20:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

LOL - I hope it's meant to collapse... Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Everything that is there is OK now from the point of view of being sourced. (Whether I've got the formatting correct is another matter altogether! Still the lead to do, but I'll sort that shortly. As it's a non-Eon, there is a lot less info on this one than the others (it's not included in any of the Eon-licensed books, for example) so it may be that it ends up being a bit shorter than any of the others. Can you see any areas that would need more work or detail? Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I checked it for neutrality and there are no issues on that score. There is a comment by Raymond Benson appraising the casting in the cast section, which might be better in the reflective views section. Coverage might be a problem for GA if we get a tough reviewer, I think it's borderline in terms of coverage, but like you said it's limited to what has been published. I recall reading something about Lazenby being connected to this film in the late 70s/early 80s, so maybe something can be found about that. Also, McClory was trying to get yet another remake off the ground at some point (post NSNA), so maybe the article can be beefed up by covering some of those attempts. I will check through the sourcing tomorrow, although at first glance it looks ok. Betty Logan (talk) 01:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I've added more to the twisted production tale (including about McClory's attempts at Warhead 2000 AD with Dalton as a potential Bond). I couldn't find anything about possible Lazenby involvement, but I'll check at home this evening. I may have a bit more info on the filming schedule / locations too and I'll try and go over the DVD commentary over the next day or so. I think what's in there is pretty good at the moment (copy-editing etc aside), but it still looks a little 'thin' around:

• Filming
• The first paragraph of Release and reception

Part of the problem is that I can't find any of the 'usual' info that we nornally use: I don't think there were any spin-off toys / games / books / comics etc because they weren't geared up for that - (McClory & Schwartzman weren't even geared up for making the film itself really!) I'll go back to digging around to see what else I can uncover... - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

There were only a few issues with the sourcing. The main one is we're missing MacIntyre 2008 which is cited a couple of times but isn't in the bib. I tagged the the Johnny English "parody" claim as well, which probably doesn't need to be sourced but since my job on these articles is to be nitpicky I figured it does border on analysis so it would be better if it were. The main issue was some WP:SYNTHESIS in which several RT references were combined to confer a ranking for NSNA in the Bond canon. It's fairly trivial to verify the claim and I don't fault the logic, and while the policy on synthesis probably wasn't designed for this type of trivial situation it still technically violates it, so I removed it since I didn't think a bang up to date placement was absolutely necessary. The article is in pretty good shape, and I think there is just about enough coverage for a GA (40KB seems to be the threshold on film articles and we're there just about), so hopefully it will pass. Betty Logan (talk) 19:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The MacInyre was my fault – I tidied up the bib a little too soon and deleted it, subsequently adding references – it's back now. I've added a JE cite too – you're right, it's borderline as to whether we need it or not, but better safe than sorry. I've added in what I can and re-done the lead. On the basis there's not much more we can add, I've gone for the GAN and we'll see if there are any major issues. I think we should be OK – we cover everything in MOS:FILM well, and I've gone over the GA criteria and think we look good from that point of view too. I'll do a final copyedit in the next day or so, just to tidy any more loose ends. I agree on RT references (which I think was something we avoided for the FYEO GA review as there is an element of WP:OR involved too. - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Never Say Never Again/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: DeadlyAssassin (talk • contribs • count) 04:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	There are a number of quite long run-on sentences, especially in the lead, which are and a bit confusing to read. e.g. Connery had been the first actor to portray Bond in a motion picture, in 1962's Dr. No, but he left the franchise in 1971 after his participation in the string of commercially successful films, interrupted by George Lazenby's brief portrayal of Bond in On Her Majesty's Secret Service. You've got embedded quotes going on in this piece here which is somewhat confusing: with "Title "Never Say Never Again" By: Micheline Connery". This is a personal thing, the MoS doesn't have anything to say about it but I'm not a big fan of asides in brackets, e.g. (When Fleming left the Court in 1963 he said: "I feel Bond would have done something to liven it up...like shooting the judge.") in production, or (and getting) in cast and crew. I believe this makes reading the article harder. The article is consistent in the US of UK spelling, except that there is one instance of US-style spelling in the text "realize" in the quote in reflective reviews. Maybe that is because the reviewer or source for the quote was American though.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead section is a little too long and too detailed (e.g. using the example sentence above, we don't need to know about GL in the lead section) I checked online references and there is no copyvio content included
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	The article is well referenced, quite a number aren't readily verifiable as they refer to books, those that are online sources are reliable and appropriate. Reference #42, the IGN.COM link redirects to another site according to Checklinks, although this isn't a major issue
	2c. it contains no original research.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I know that you mention DVD's in the legacy, but I noticed that information about when things were released on VHS/DVD/Bluray was absent, as is anything about television broadcasts.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All are appropriate, and tagged appropriately. If anything, the article could do with a few more images.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Overall, I think this article is definitely of at least GA quality - well done to all editors, especially Schrodinger's cat is alive and Betty Logan who seem to have done the heavy lifting.

I would have to say that the edits made over the last few days have certainly improved the article; particulalry the led. I do however note that none of the pictures seem to have Alt Text, this isn't a GA requirement but is encouraged. I would also add that some sections could possibly do with being shortened; the contempory reviews could probably lose a paragraph and the second paragraph in the reflective reviews could afford to lose a sentence or two. Other than those few minor things I think the article is very well written, flows smoothly and should meet GA standards. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 19:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Release and reception

Whoever wrote that section of the article, it is terrible. As a reader I was struck with several very negative points, why the mention of EVERY single box office figure including the opening must be translated to inflated 2012 dollars. I mean who cares, if you want to do something like that just give the TOTAL box office of the film and it's updated inflated dollars, not EVERY single figure. Also wording like "which was a solid return on the budget" is in the tone of giving praise and almost defending the movies profitability. It isnt needed, I can clearly see when I look on the right the film had a budget of 36 million and made a worldwide gross of 160 million. I dont need to read that it's a SOLID return on the budget. That sounds like a fan page, not an unbiased article. ALSO, more wording like the film was "broadly welcomed and praised by the critics", again a tone of praise BROADLY.... All that needs to be said it was praised by the critics. These articles should be written in FACTS, not adding or taking away anything! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.240.210.66 (talk) 22:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Seconded. It is several paragraphs of lavish praise. I have not seen the movie but Rotten Tomatoes has it at 65% which is fine but nothing as incredible as this article makes it seem. --184.94.136.62 (talk) 02:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Does a soundtrack LP or CD exist?

Was this film the only JB related without a soundtrack LP, or what? Has there been a 7" single release from it or even promo records? Has it ever been relesed onto CD? Sarabande and all those record companies release lots of rare old stuff, you know.

Stein S., Oslo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.209.88.240 (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

No, there was a soundtrack LP - I think it's available as a download from Amazon or iTunes. - SchroCat (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The version on iTunes and Amazon is not the original 1983 soundtrack, but a 1993 re-recording by Silva Screen Records. Apparently, the 1983 OST was never given a general release, but was released on vinyl in Japan.[1]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Never Say Never Again. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120331161856/http://www.cardozoaelj.net/issues/00/Poliakoff.pdf to http://www.cardozoaelj.net/issues/00/Poliakoff.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:01, 30 April 2017 (UTC)