Talk:No Time to Die/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Rami Malek

@Yodaanakin, could you pleaee stop adding Rami Malek to the cast unless you have a reliable and verifiable source to support his inclusion? So far all we have is reports that he is in negotiations to play a role, not that he has actually been cast. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Title

is the actual name of the film Bond 25, or is this the working name?

It's a working title. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)thanks

Ana de Armas

Ana de Armas revealed that she plays Paloma during the press junket this week, but I cannot find any reliable English-language sources reporting it—just fan sites and tabloids. It might have been reported in a Spanish-language source (like Denchik playing Waldo in Aftonbladet), but I can't speak or read Spanish. Can anyone find a source? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:58, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Screenwriters

@Mclarenfan17, Just out of curiosity, why did you remove Purvis & Wade's names from the screenplay list? They have written the bulk of the screenplay (Burns and Waller-Bridge merely provided re-writes/polishes). They are also the only writers to be confirmed by EON. Jake24-007 (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2019 (EST)

@Jake24-007 — without credits, we cannot know for sure. SGA rules about who gets credited and when are tricky; Purvis, Wade and Haggis were credited as writing Quantum of Solace even though Haggis wrote it solo. Right now, all the sources tell us is that Purvis and Wade wrote the story and that Burns and Waller-Bridge did re-writes. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 20:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17, Fair enough, thanks. Though I'd be surprised if P&W went uncredited. Jake24-007 (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2019 (EST)

I would be surprised too, but until we're members of the Screenwriters' Guild, it's just speculation. SGA rules don't always make sense—Graham Yost got full credit for Speed, even though he admitted that Joss Whedon (who never got credited) threw his script out and started afresh. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17, Now that Purvis & Wade have been officially announced for writing duties, I suggest we re-add them to the screenwriters list. Jake24-007 (talk) 13:51, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@Jake24-007 — the same problem still applies. "Story by" and "screenplay by" are specific SGA credits and that's what the infobox reflects. Michael G. Wilson said that Purvis and Wade wrote the script, but that does not mean that they will be credited for it. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 20:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17 — at the credits at the bottom of this article it specifically says "written by" Purvis & Wade, Burns, Fukunaga & Waller-Bridge, without splitting into story and screenplay. Is that enough to add them to the infobox? Jimmio78 (talk) 00:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

No, because it's not an SGA credit. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:46, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@Jimmio78 — please stop assuming that because a source says that Purvis and Wade wrote the script, they will be credited for it. It does not work that way. Eon have to submit all of the scripts (including drafts) to the SGA, who then tell them who should be credited and for what. It's why Purvis and Wade got credited for the story and script of QOS separately, even though Paul Haggis completely rewrote their script. The sources that you cite don't have the authority to declare who is credited for what. Only the SGA can do that. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17 — But can you explain why it is any less of an assumption that Purvis & Wade wrote the story and the others wrote the scripts. Explain to me what your reasoning is that we should split the credit up before we have the official SGA credits. Surely it makes more sense to give them all a broader credit until we have more details. Why are the sources for the rewrites acceptable to put into the screenplay category, while similar sources for Purvis & Wade aren't? It seems like much more of an assumption to split the credit than to just put them all together, the way an OFFICIAL SOURCE has tentatively credited them. If the sources "don't have the authority to declare who is credited for what", surely we don't have the authority to guess who will get a story credit and who will get a screenplay credit, contrary to official sources? Jimmio78 (talk) 12:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Jimmio78 — You are absolutely correct here. It's quite presumptuous to assume how they're going to be credited without knowing the SGA credits beforehand. It makes much more sense to include all writers in the "screenwriters" list until we know exactly how they will be credited on screen. Jake24-007 (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that crediting them as screenwriters presumes that their script has been used in some capacity when Burns and Waller-Bridge hired to rewrite their script. Now that may be as simple as tweaking elements of the dialogue, or completely revising it (see the aforementioned example of Speed). We cannot know for sure, so we have to go by the language used: "rewrite". Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Can any other editors chip in here? I think so far we have a majority agreeing we should all put them in the 'writers' category as has been officially announced. Jimmio78 (talk) 07:24, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

That's hardly a majority. And nor is in an official announcement—only the SGA can declare it. Studios can get in pretty serious trouble if they ignore the SGA's rules. Plus, you haven't even bothered to address the fact that the majority of sources point out that Burns and Waller-Bridge were hired to rewrite the script. Where is your proof that anything Purvis and Wade wrote is in the script? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17 — First of all, who are you referring to when you discuss the SGA? Do you mean the Writers Guild of America (WGA)? The Writers' Guild of Great Britain (WGGB)? I'm sure you're not referring to the Songwriters Guild of America. The fact that you have consistently misremembered the Guild's name doesn't exactly do wonders for your believability. Next, your whole argument that we must not ignore these rules and we must wait until we have official 'SGA' credits would only be fair if you were arguing to leave out the writing credits altogether for now: the WGA complexities don't remotely justify your arbitrary guesswork in splitting up the writers. I also don't understand why you've drawn the line at Purvis & Wade, when Waller-Bridge was also reported as "rewriting" Burns' iteration of the script. By your logic shouldn't Waller-Bridge be the only one listed in the screenplay category as she was the most recent contributor reported as having "rewritten" the script? Finally, if studios can get in serious trouble for ignoring these rules, surely the fact that the studio itself has used the wording "written by" in an official press statement would then suggest that its the official WGA credit? It is our most reliable source on the matter for now, and your insistence on splitting them up is just your personal opinion and original research. Jimmio78 (talk) 12:48, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

As of now, we have an official source crediting all of them as "writers". So, until the film is released and we know who's credited for what, we simply cannot make assumptions on behalf of the WGA. Jake24-007 (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

"By your logic shouldn't Waller-Bridge be the only one listed in the screenplay category as she was the most recent contributor reported as having 'rewritten' the script?"

And by your logic, Danny Boyle and John Hodge should be listed as screenwriters because they worked on the script. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, Twitter is never the most reliable source. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17 — No, my logic is that the officially announced writers should be credited the way they have been announced: no more, no less. I'm changing it back now. Please don't revert it to your preference without agreement or support from any other editors.

And the tweet was from the official Bond account so I think it is reliable, if superfluous; I was just trying to show that multiple official sources have credited them that way. Jimmio78 (talk) 03:14, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

"officially announced writers should be credited the way they have been announced"

But, as I have repeatedly pointed out, the source lacks authority. Please present a source that demonstrates that P&W's script is still being used (ie that Burns/Waller-Bridge did not discard it).

"I'm changing it back now."

That's edit-warring.

"And the tweet was from the official Bond account so I think it is reliable, if superfluous."

If it's superfluous, it's unnecessary. And if you're relying on unnecessary sources to make an argument, you have a poor argument. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:27, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17 — In what world does an official formal first-party announcement "lack authority"? You're being stubborn and ignoring what the source explicitly says, just because you've got a different story in your head from inferences and guesswork. You're also consistently failing to respond to my main argument, simply highlighting minor sub-arguments in an attempt to discredit me. And it takes two to edit-war; not to mention my support from Jake24-007 and an anonymous IP user.

And what's your issue with the cast now? How can you possibly use the argument "we don't know who is getting billed or how" to justify selectively placing the cast members of your personal choice in the infobox, as opposed to listing all officially announced cast members? Yet again, you're completely disregarding sources in order to make the page fit your presumed vision of the credits, and going against the exact arguments you have made while repeatedly reverting other users' edits.

If you continue editing in this detrimental way I am going to seek dispute resolution. Thanks Jimmio78 (talk) 05:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

"In what world does an official formal first-party announcement 'lack authority'?"

In the world of film-making. Production studios do not decide credits. Not just screenwriting, but almost every major cast and crew role. They hire people to fill the various roles, but the various guilds dictate who gets credited, when and how; for example, the WGA screenwriting credit system. All you have provided is a single self-published source and when I have asked you to present additional third-party sources to support your claims, you have been unable to do so.

"If you continue editing in this detrimental way I am going to seek dispute resolution."

"If you don't give up and let me have my way, I'll go to admins/DRN/etc." is usually an argument made by people who have nothing left to argue. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 05:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17 — I provided reliable third-party sources on my talk page and you disregarded them. Your request for me to demonstrate "something that [the writers] wrote must be in the final version of the script" before putitng them in the infobox is unrealistic and silly. Can you demonstrate this is the case for ANY of the writers?

Also you're absolutely right that I have nothing left to argue. At this stage I've made my argument completely clear and backed it up, to support from other users, and from my perspective you are just being stubborn, presenting a vague esoteric argument that hasn't been specifically supported by a single source. Our discussion has come to an unproductive standstill, so I'm going to request a third opinion to finally resolve this. Jimmio78 (talk) 05:31, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

"you disregarded them"

Yes, because if you look at them, they were written on 25 April—the day the press event was held. All they do is re-state the content of the press release. You need something independent of the press release. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 05:35, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17 All writers are not only listed in an official tweet, but in EON's official press release as well. With respect, your argument that film studios don't decide writing credits is highly hypocritical, as you seem to be deciding it on the WGA's behalf. What's more, you seem to be basing the "story by Purvis & Wade" argument on the Quantum of Solace credits, when these things vary greatly depending on each production. Also, why would Hodge be credited "based on our logic" when he is nowhere to be found in the press release? Again, it is not our job to make decisions on behalf of the Writers Guild. We present what we know as fact, and we don't make extrapolations based on a previous production. It doesn't work like that. Please don't revert back to your version of the credits. Jake24-007 (talk) 18:35, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The infobox should be consistent with the text of the article and the text of the article makes clear that P&W were only involved in the earliest stages of the writing process before their script was re-written at least twice. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17 Sorry, but that is not a valid argument in the slightest. Now you're saying that because the wiki article says what you made it say, the infobox has to match? This is beyond immature and downright stubborn. There are four confirmed writers for Bond 25 - Purvis, Wade, Burns, and Waller-Bridge. We have nobody remotely reliable telling us that whatever work the latter two writers have done to the script is a complete re-working of Purvis and Wade's draft. We do not know if there was a collaboration between the four writers, and we most certainly do not know how they will be credited. Therefore, it makes absolutely zero sense to split the writers into separate "screenwriters" and "story by" sections when we have no clue who contributed what. Nor does it make any sense to assume that Burns and Bridge were hired to contribute to 'an earlier draft by Purvis & Wade' when there is no indication that Purvis & Wade left the project to begin with. Stop making assumptions and predictions on behalf of the WGA. It's wildly unprofessional and goes against Wikipedia's policy. What we know - Purvis, Wade, Burns, and Waller-Bridge have written the script. What we don't know - who were the main contributors to the current story, how much the new writers contributed, and how the writers will be credited on-screen. Therefore, no assumptions can be made on the matter. Jake24-007 (talk) 22:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

"Now you're saying that because the wiki article says what you made it say, the infobox has to match?"

No, I'm saying that the article—including the infobox—has to reflect what the sources say, and the sources provided make it clear that P&W wrote the early drafts before Burns and Waller-Bridge rewrote it.

And before you go accusing me of changing the article to justify changing the infobox, check the edit history of the page. I'm not the person who rewrote the lead to say that P&W worked on the earliest version of the script. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

It seems you are incapable of having a genuine discussion about this as you're not even acknowledging my argument. Clearly you feel as if you own this article and will find any way to rationalize undoing edits that disrupt your vision of what it should look like. I believe that myself and @Jimmio78 raise a fair point but it seems to be going over your head entirely. I won't waste any more time engaging in this dead-end conversation. I'm hoping more editors chime in so that we can finally revert the article back to the proper version, one that isn't ruined by a multitude of assumptions made about the film. Jake24-007 (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17 You have two editors who are actively arguing for the inclusion of Purvis & Wade. You have another two IP users who have attempted to re-add Purvis & Wade to the page. You have FOUR users trying to keep Purvis & Wade in the infobox, and you alone arguing against it and reverting incessantly. In fact you have reverted the page back to your preference on this specific issues SIX separate times, and not a single editor (or source) has supported your opinion on this. You've also failed to justify your selectiveness in who you've included in the infobox (which again you've reverted multiple times). Your behaviour on the article is starting to just come across as dangerously possessive. I am making a request for comment now and I hope we can finally reach a viable consensus and just put this behind us. Jimmio78 (talk) 13:10, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

"You've also failed to justify your selectiveness in who you've included in the infobox"

I have repeatedly justified my edits. You have repeatedly ignored them because they were inconvenient to you. I have repeatedly asked you to provide sources to support your position and further clarify the situation. You have repeatedly failed to do so; the only sources you could provide were clearly derived from the original contested source. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I was referring to your reversions of the cast list, which you have completely failed to justify. And you are the one who has not provided a single source that supports your argument, and just chosen to turn a blind eye to our perfectly reliable sources. Jimmio78 (talk) 09:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Request for comment on inclusion of screenwriters

There is a rough consensus to remove all writers from the article's infobox, which has been done. Bond 25 is scheduled to be released 3 April 2020. Editors agreed that the film's release and final credits would help clarify matters.

Cunard (talk) 23:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There has been disagreement and extensive discussion about whether or not Neal Purvis & Robert Wade should be listed as writers in the article's infobox. Jimmio78 (talk) 13:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Please review WP:RFC and clarify what the scope and intention of this RfC is. Are you just asking for additional opinions as to whether or not they should be included? If appropriate, is there any chance of getting a brief recap of the arguments for/against? DonIago (talk) 04:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

@Doniago — the issue is what the "written by" field of the infobox is intended to convey. The argument for including Purvis and Wade is that they (along with Burns and Waller-Bridge) were named in the press release announcing the start of filming. However, the body of the article shows that this is more complex: they were hired to write the script, then replaced when Danny Boyle signed on to direct. When Boyle left the project, Purvis and Wade were re-hired. Cary Fukunaga was then hired to direct and Scott Z. Burns was brought on to rewrite the script (specifically to rewrite it, not be a script doctor, who makes minor changes to an existing script). Phoebe Waller-Bridge was also brought on to work on the film at a later date. There is simply no evidence that the script in use is actually written by Purvis and Wade anymore. I have repeatedly asked for additional sources to demonstrate their involvement and all anyone has been able to produce are articles that are just rewrites of the press release. Meanwhile there are a slew of sources that detail Burns' and Waller-Bridge's involvement as rewriting the film. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 04:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

If the issue is complicated then it probably shouldn't be inappropriately simplified in the infobox. I'm only saying that somewhat tongue-in-cheek. DonIago (talk) 04:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@Doniago How would you suggest we handle this issue? It is my opinion (and that of Jake24-007, as well as a few anonymous users on the page) that Mclarenfan17 has synthesised his/her own understanding of previous sources to predict that Purvis & Wade won't receive credit, while ignoring the more recent, official, source which directly attributes Purvis & Wade with credit (to be specific the press release states "Written by Neal Purvis & Robert Wade, Scott Z. Burns with Cary Joji Fukunaga and Phoebe Waller-Bridge"; numerous third party sources have since backed this information up). I would suggest that if Mclarenfan17 will not accept us including the writers as credited, we should not include them at all, as the synthesised list currently included in the article has not been supported with a strong source. I don't, however, think that removing the list is neccesary. The press release is pretty much as reliable a source as it gets for an official credit such as this, and there hasn't been a single source that actually disputes or offers an alternative perspective to the credits as included on the release. That is, there is no evidence that Purvis & Wade will NOT be credited, while the press release acts as strong evidence/confirmation that they will be credited. We have gone back and forth a lot on this issue, but I would love to hear how you think we should move ahead. Jimmio78 (talk) 07:21, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

"numerous third party sources have since backed this information up"

Those "numerous third-party sources" were all produced after the original press release was published and do little more than restate its content. To rely on them would be the same as relying on a syndicated newspaper column republished in three newspapers and calling it three separate sources when it is one source in three papers.

"The press release is pretty much as reliable a source as it gets for an official credit such as this"

But, as has been pointed out, the press release was published by the producers and the producers have no authority to determine credits. That power rests with the Writers' Guild if you want an "official credit", you need a source from the guild. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17 First of all, I am well aware of your perspective on this, and I was asking Doniago to weigh in. Secondly, the WGA doesn't even publicly release credits itself. They approve credits, which are then shared by the film and studio itself through materials such as one sheet posters, the film credits and...press releases. You have said yourself that studios can get in trouble for ignoring WGA rules, which suggests that these credits are already WGA-approved, and there is no source which suggests they are not. I cannot find a single major film article on Wikipedia which sources the writing credits from the Guild directly, and not through official materials such as posters or press releases. Regardless, this doesn't need to devolve into an argument again. Let's wait until Doniago responds.

Another similar issue, Doniago, which I forgot to mention, is the cast list of the infobox. Since we have no official billing order or list, I adjusted the cast list in the infobox to include ALL officially announced actors/actresses, as included in the cast section of the article, to avoid speculative selectiveness. Mclarenfan17 then removed a selection of the cast, with the argument that "we don't know who is getting billed or how", while completely neglecting to explain or justify his selective removal of certain cast members. This selectiveness completely flew in the face of his/her own argument, in my opinion. I'd also appreciate another opinion on this matter Jimmio78 (talk) 07:41, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm well aware that you were trying to inform Doniago of the situation. I also felt that you were misrepresenting things. Your claim of "numerous third-party sources" is misleading, to say the least. Likewise, you present the press release as an "official source", which is again misleading.

"They approve credits, which are then shared by the film and studio itself through materials such as one sheet posters, the film credits and...press releases."

Where is your evidence that this press release was approved by the WGA? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Is there any reason that all of these issues can't wait until the film is released, versus us trying to gaze into a crystal ball? DonIago (talk) 07:50, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@Doniago – Does that mean you would support removing the writing credits from the infobox and lede altogether for now? If so, would you suggest the same for the cast list? Jimmio78 (talk) 08:09, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

It means that we have WP:NODEADLINE, and if we're disputing the proper way to address an infobox field in a case where the film's release and final credits may help to clarify matters, then maybe that's the best course of action. In the meantime, such matters can be addressed in prose. DonIago (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I completely forgot about this discussion. I agree with @Doniago's suggestion that all writers be removed from the infobox for now. I've been looking into it and things are getting murkier, thanks in no small part to the tabloids waging war on Eon Productions again. At first they were trying to make out that Phoebe Waller-Bridge was hired to push an open feminist agenda onto the film. Now they're suggesting that she was hired to make sense of a too-complex high-concept plot. All of this is filtering down into the mainstream media, so it's unclear who is writing what. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Yep, definitely murky. They have started running stories about "filming an ILLEGAL car chase" in Norway. It looks like they're upset that Eon haven't been forthcoming with details, so they're trying to trash production—the way they did with Quantum of Solace and the "production starts a gang war!" fiasco—to force Eon to give them something to publish. Everything they're printing is a mix of a feminist agenda, production breaking the law, and now the plot being derivative of the new Fast and Furious spin-off.

@Doniago — I don't really know why the issue of the cast list was raised. Right now the list contains all of the returning actors in alphabetical order, plus Rami Malek who, as the main villain, we could reasonably assume will have high billing (probably second to Craig, or third to Craig and the female lead). Mclarenfan17 (talk) 04:41, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding snarky, this RfC is about the writers, not the cast, but I think everyone knows the consensus is that only top-billed cast members should be listed in the infobox. I don't think listing "everyone" is an appropriate 'holding pattern' approach, and I imagine you know what I'll say if I'm pressed to propose a solution. Anyway, I think we have this settled now? DonIago (talk) 23:06, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

@Doniago — I agree that we can consider it settled. Like I said, I don't know why the cast was brought into this RfC. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:36, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Synopsis

This is the synopsis given by Eon:

"Bond has left active service and is enjoying a tranquil life in Jamaica. His peace is short-lived when his old friend Felix Leiter from the CIA turns up asking for help. The mission to rescue a kidnapped scientist turns out to be far more treacherous than expected, leading Bond onto the trail of a mysterious villain armed with dangerous new technology."

Firstly, there is no indication that he has retired. For all we know, it's long service leave. Secondly, describing Malek's character as "a villain who threatens everything Bond has fought to protect" is the same way Greene, Silva and Oberhauser were described.

The most salient points from the synopsis are 1) Bond is no longer on active duty, 2) Leiter recruits him for a mission, and 3) the mission is to find a kidnapped scientist. Everything else is superfluous. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17 I would double check that, because that phrase has not been used in a single EON press release. The dangerous tech bit is equally integral to the plot as the scientist bit. Jake24-007 (talk) 13:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

It just sounds so generic. I'm sure I've read it on Wikipedia before. It could apply to any villain in a long-running film franchise—like Voldemort or Thanos or Kylo Ren or Idris Elba in that Fast and Furious movie looks like it will do more damage to your brain cells than really cheap vodka.

What's more, it's not supported by the official synopsis. All we know is that Rami Malek is "armed with dangerous new technology". We don't know what it is or how he intends to use it. How can we say in Wikipedia's voice that "threatens everything Bond has fought to protect"? It's generic to the point of cliché and feels bolted onto the synopsis to differentiate it from the press release. It's bad writing. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 06:29, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@Jake24-007 — could you please read what you are reverting before you revert it? You said here that the "previous version makes it seem like Bond and Felix were abducted", but this is the line you changed:

"When it becomes apparent that the scientist was abducted ..."

So please make sure you check first in future. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17 Fair enough, I thought it still said "they". I still don't understand why you reverted back to the original premise as it seems a bit poorly worded. Not sure if it was your's or someone else's, but I thought the version I came up with was a bit clearer. Jake24-007 (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not clearer at all. The version you came up with contained the phrase "when the mission turns deadly", but there is nothing in the synopsis to suggest this. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

"The mission to rescue a kidnapped scientist turns much more treacherous than expected"

Treacherous: Hazardous because of presenting hidden or unpredictable dangers. Jake24-007 (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Really? "Much more treacherous than expected"? You've got an (apparently) ex-MI6 agent and a CIA agent investigating the kidnapping of a scientist and it turns out to be "much more treacherous than expected"? It's not like they're on a mission to get a bottle of milk and run into a notorious terrorist at the checkout. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17 Uhh, I was literally quoting the official synopsis' wording to justify using the word "deadly." Did you not read the original? Look, you do you. I was merely attempting to improve the wording a bit to reflect the synopsis a bit more accurately. If you're as attached to this article as you seem to be, just be prepared for others like myself who change a thing or two into something that doesn't necessarily fit your vision. Wikipedia is meant to be collaborative after all.Jake24-007 (talk) 16:48, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

"I was literally quoting the official synopsis' wording"

Don't quote sources directly unless you're actually quoting them. When you write, you write in Wikipedia's voice which is not—and cannot be—the same voice as the voice of the source.

"just be prepared for others like myself who change a thing or two into something that doesn't necessarily fit your vision"

And you should be prepared for people like me who know what quality writing looks like. "Much more treacherous than expected" is an empty phrasing because, given the subject matter of the film, the audience can expect that the film involves some element of danger. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17 Stop cherry-picking my words and turning them into a whole new argument. The "treacherous" thing is EON's wording, not mine. I never once quoted anyone's words in the article. What I did was quote it in the talk page as a means for rationalizing my use of the word "deadly." And by your logic, your use of the phrase "when it becomes apparent that the scientist was abducted" is completely redundant when the previous sentence states that he was missing. A lot of what you've been doing on this article is literally the definition of edit-warring. Clearly, you're the zeitgeist of "quality writing" everywhere. As always, you win. Enjoy your article. Jake24-007 (talk) 00:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

"I never once quoted anyone's words in the article."

Paraphrasing requires more than just using a thesaurus. It still doesn't change the fact that it was bad writing because it said nothing.

"And by your logic, your use of the phrase "when it becomes apparent that the scientist was abducted" is completely redundant when the previous sentence states that he was missing."

I can think of at least three reasons why they would be missing, but not kidnapped:

1. They're already dead. The villain killed them, stole their research/invention and disposed of or hid their body.
2. They staged their own disappearance because they are the mastermind behind the entire plot.
3. They're not missing at all—rather, they vanished and then reappeared and Bond has to figure out what happened.

And that's just off the top of my head. I'm sure I could think of half a dozen more if I needed to.

"A lot of what you've been doing on this article is literally the definition of edit-warring."

Nope. Per WP:EDITWAR:

"An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts."

Disagreeing with you does not mean that I am edit-warring. A lot of what I have been doing amounts to adding reliably-sourced content rewriting prose for clarity and removing superfluous details and content supported by sources that are tabloid junk. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 06:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

"A Reason to Die"

Please note that the recent reports that the film had the working title come from MI6-HQ.com, which is a fansite and not reliable. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Christoph Waltz

Did anyone actually read The Guardian's article "confirming" Waltz's return? I'm guessing not, since if you read it, you would see some immediate red flags:

"The much-rumoured return of Christoph Waltz’s Blofeld to the James Bond series appears to have been confirmed after the actor was spotted at the studio where the latest film is being shot."

So first of all, it hasn't actually been confirmed; it "appears to have been confirmed", which is pure speculation.

Secondly:

"A visitor to Pinewood Studios tipped off the Daily Mail’s entertainment reporter Baz Bamigboye to the sighting, reporting that Waltz urged them not to spread news of his involvement, saying: 'You haven’t seen me.'

It's Baz Bamigboye and the Daily Mail. They're practically the reason WP:RS exists. Bamigboye's job is to shit all over production until production release details of the film—he's the one behind the talk of Bond 25 being "cursed", and was also responsible for the rumours of Quantum of Solace starting a gang war. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 13:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

This Variety source has the same problem as the one from The Guardian: it doesn't actually confirm anything, just repeats what The Daily Mail are "reporting". Please read sources and not just the headlines. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:50, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bartallen2 — could you please read your sources a little more carefully? The Variety source you added is the same one I pointed out above. The source offers no actual information; it claims to have had confirmation from an unnamed source who is not quoted. It's basically a recap of the Daily Mail "source" with some exposition on the film try and hide the way they are re-posting the Daily Mail's article. One of the key policies of Wikipedia is verifiability—the idea that the reader should be able to confirm for themselves the content of the source. Since we're not in a position to visit Pinewood Studios ourselves, we need the source to give us the next-best alternative: some evidence (like a quote from someone who is named) that we can have confidence in.

That might be a more-rigid interpretation of Wikipedia policy than is normally used, but it's needed and it's justified in this case. The Bond films get a lot of tabloid scrutiny, and between talk of a "cursed" production, Malek being unable to film with Craig, Fukunaga being more interested in video games than his job, and a radical feminist agenda in the script, Bond 25 is copping it worse than usual. The Daily Mail is pissed off that Eon keep a tight lid on things (and are being more secretive this time around), so their plan is to trash the production until they cough something up. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 12:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@DisneyMetalhead — can you please stop adding Waltz based on the Variety article? There is nothing in the article which actually confirms his casting. This is as close as they come to confirmation (emphasis mine):

"Another familiar face is returning to the James Bond franchise, as sources confirmed to Variety that Christoph Waltz will reprise his role of the super-villain Blofeld in Bond 25."

Who are these sources Variety claims to have? What did they say? Are their comments repeated elsewhere so we can check it out independently? The answers are no, no and no. This story fails verifiability checks because we have no way of knowing if it is true. You're effectively saying that we should trust Variety's reputation in lieu of having actual information, but we cannot do that. How do you know that a source told Variety this rather than Variety making it up to save face because the Daily Mail beat them to the punch? You don't because there is nothing in the source.

If you cannot observe critical policies such as WP:VERIFY or WP:RELIABLE, you really have no business editing Wikipedia. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:20, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17: no, you cannot simply remove a reliable source because they don't state the persons they spoke with. Variety is one of the most reliable sources out there. They also do not state that they got their intel from Daily Mail... they just state that Daily Mail broke the news first. Also, do not talk down to other editors. You cannot state "you really have no business editing Wikipedia". Wikipedia is a public online encyclopedia contributed to by all editors. Not just yourself.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 22:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

@DisneyMetalhead

"you cannot simply remove a reliable source because they don't state the persons they spoke with"

The fact that they don't name their source means that the article fails WP:VERIFY. You're asking editors to accept Variety's reputation in lieu of specific details. For that to work, they have to get it right every single time—because as soon as they get it wrong, any publication that relies on anonymous sources becomes valid. And that is especially a problem in this article because of the amount of stuff that is published with relying on confirmation, like Fukunaga blowing off filming to play Red Dead Redemption 2, or Craig being a diva because he wasn't happy about accomodations in Scotland, or Waller-Bridge having a radical feminist agenda, or any one of the dozens of nonsense stories that have been published about production. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Potential Edit to Cast Description

Per the Daily Mail story published 14/07/19, the tag "Agent 007" should be attached to Nomi rather than Bond in the cast description. However I note neither Eon nor Lynch seem to have issued any official statement confirming the story. Given that Bond seems to have followed up on his decision to retire at least from the field following the events of Spectre, and thus logically would have lost his 00 status, might I suggest the "Agent 007" descriptor be removed altogether until we have confirmation either way? Misterandersen (talk) 13:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Absent an official release perhaps the article could discuss her rumored role, citing the Daily Mail and other articles, but make it clear that currently Eon has neither confirmed nor denied it. Emperor001 (talk) 20:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Only official confirmed roles should be described here. My opinion is that Wikipedia is no place to share rumours based on nothing but speculation.

Lobo151 (talk)

"Per the Daily Mail"

And that's where I stopped reading. The Daily Mail fails WP:RS. The Daily Mail is the reason why policies like WP:RS exist in the first place.

"My opinion is that Wikipedia is no place to share rumours based on nothing but speculation."

And Wikipedia agrees with you. It's called WP:CRYSTAL (as in looking into a crystal ball). Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

"I note neither Eon nor Lynch seem to have issued any official statement confirming the story."

A lack of a denial is by no means a confirmation. If you have ever followed production of a Bond film before, you would know that Eon are notorious for keeping tight-lipped about production. They don't discuss details until they're ready to discuss them. It does not help that the Daily Mail is clearly trying to pressure Eon into speaking up because they're annoyed that they don't have anything to print. Between presenting Phoebe Waller-Bridge as having a radical feminist approach to the film and talking up Lynch as a "new 007" and replacement for Craig, they're obviously trying to stir up Ghostbusters-style discontent in the hopes that the backlash will force Eon into saying something.

For what it's worth, I suspect this story will actually pan out (Nomi probably inherits the 007 title; I doubt she is the new Bond the Daily Mail is making her out to be). Ever since their stunt during production of Quantum of Solace (claiming that production recklessly started a gang war in Panama), Eon have discreetly fed the Daily Mail details to keep them happy. But that's not enough to take this story at face value. The Daily Mail were the first to name Malek as being in contention for the villain role, but they also claimed that Lupita Nyong'o and Jodie Comer would also join the cast. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 13:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• Do believe that since July 18 it's been officially confirmed about Lynch's casting and character as I've seen it reported on major media, not just the tabloids. It has also been reported in major media that the film starts after Bond has retired, so in fact what is unconfirmed at this point is whether Bond does carry the 007 number in the film. Yes, I know the just-released logo for the film includes the 007 icon. But this is the symbol of the franchise and not easily dropped. (Plus one could argue it might as easily apply to Lynch's character.) 136.159.160.122 (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Do you have sources for any of this? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 17:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Primary topic

Looking at the "No Time to Die" disambiguation page, I have to wonder if this article should be the primary topic. There are four entries on the disambiguation page: this article, an episode of "Columbo", a 1958 film and a 2006 film. Of the four, only the 1958 and 2020 films have their own Wikipedia articles. Looking at the 1958 film article, there's not a lot to it: no information on budget or box office takings, no reception section, and very few people of note in the cast and crew. I'm willing to bet that most people would be unaware of its existence were it not for this film. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 22 August 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved (non-admin closure) ~SS49~ {talk} 13:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

---

• No Time to Die (2020 film) → No Time to Die
• No Time to Die → No Time to Die (disambiguation)

– This is almost certainly going to be the primary topic. The "No Time to Die" disambiguation page lists four entries including this film; two of these are highly unlikely to be developed into Wikipedia articles, while the remaining entry is a somewhat-obscure 1958 film that I doubt most people would be aware existed were it not for this film. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose while the Bond movie would definitely get the most pageviews, moving it to the base name would be confusing as there is no relation of one to the other. I would only support this if the 1958 film article was deleted for non-notability. Right now it seems like a case of WP:NOPRIMARY._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support. I don't care if it's premature, readers are going to be looking for this article and not the other entries. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support because the 1958 film had minimal notability in the first place (averaged 12 page views a day in 2019 up to mid-June, no Rotten Tomatoes page, very light Google Books search results), and there are no other articles called No Time to Die. By comparison, the article for the Bond film from over a decade ago, Quantum of Solace, averages 1.7K page views a day, and I'm sure other Bond film articles have similar trends. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:00, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support. May seem a little premature but we need to be realistic, the latest Bond film is the clear primary topic over an obscure 1950s film and two other dab page entries that don't even have articles. Move the dab page to No Time to Die (disambiguation), though. PC78 (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support. If we don't end up moving this now, it'll just be moved in a year or so anyway. No reason to beat around the bush. Nohomersryan (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support. I agree with the previous replies. The title will eventually become notable for only this film. Cardei012597 (talk) 00:31, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: ironically, the key crew members of the 1958 film were director Terence Young, producer Albert R. Broccoli and writer Richard Maibaum, all of whom were key figures in the early years of the Bond franchise. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:24, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support. I Agree With The Opinions Of Other Wikipedia Editors On The Previous Replies. But, I Have Other Reasons. Although The Proper Title For The Film Is "No Time To Die", And It Was Shown In British Theaters Under That Name, Today, Showings Of The Film On British Television Have Reverted To Use The American Release Title Of "Tank Force". So That Means, More People Know The Film In The Form Of The American Release Title. In Addition To That, Literally Nobody Won’t Confuse The Title With An Unknown Television Episode And A Random German-Ghanian Film. In Conclusion...You Know What? Just Change It. Sanhok (talk) 12:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Towers way above No Time to Die (1958 film) in terms of notability. Andysmith248 (talk) 20:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support - More popular than the namesake 1958 film, the latter of which should be renamed to "Tank Force (film)". Hansen Sebastian^Talk 06:37, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

I can't believe I have to explain this ...

@Lobo151: the content that you are reverting is not speculation just because it points out the existence of that speculation. The backlash to Lynch's casting and rumoured role is notable, especially considering Waller-Bridge's hiring and comments about how the franchise needs to change. Add to that the backlash against the all-female remake of Ghostbusters and the campaign to undermine Captain Marvel (Rotten Tomatoes even had to disable user reviews) and it fits into the anti-#MeToo attitude trying to push back against the role of women in major film franchises typically dominated by male roles.

But, you know, the text contained the word "rumour", so of course it had to violate WP:CRYSTAL ... Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17: "I can't believe I have to explain this .." Just this title, is it difficult for you to start discussion on a normal way? Just because someone has a different opinion?

Also the official 007 channels releases a photo with comment Daniel Craig as 007. So adding this content with the word rumour and only soures which are based on rumours and no official conformation is in my opinion incorrect. Lobo151 (talk) 10:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@Lobo151:

"Just because someone has a different opinion?"

No, because you clearly don't read what you're commenting on or reverting. Case in point:

"So adding this content with the word rumour and only soures which are based on rumours and no official conformation is in my opinion incorrect."

Except nothing that I added to the article claimed that Lynch was 007. I simply added content that stated Lynch was the subject of backlash because of unsubstantiated rumours, which was supported by a reliable source that quoted Lynch herself. All of which you would know if you had bothered to read any of it. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Writing credit

Do not add writers until official billing block, an official movie description containing the credits, or a recent credible source has been released (please cite if the latter). Does anybody object, or suggest something else? Iamnoahflores (talk) 15:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: Neal Purvis and Robert Wade might be two separate human beings, but they are credited as a duo. The article needs to reflect this. 121.223.130.206 (talk) 01:46, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

No, it is not needed, and it is also not how crediting works nor how Wikipedia's MOS works. Please see the page for any other Bond film on which they worked. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:28, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: please post a link to the appropriate policy rather than just say "the policy exists" and expect me to take your word for it. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:40, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Instalment or installment?

Please see instalment:

An instalment (or installmentin American English) usually refers to either [...] an episode in a television or radio series [...] an entry in a film series.

The proper spelling in British English only uses one 'l', but the double 'l' has slipped into popular usage. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 02:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Waltz Casting

Variety is a reliable agency. By that measure, you would have to remove the Zimmer hiring which also uses the same agency through unnamed sources; not the studio. Furthermore the Daily Mail is reported as the agency who broke this story first; not the source. Variety’s sources are separate. Waltz casting also needs clarification. --MustTryHarder (talk) 05:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@MustTryHarder:

Variety is a reliable agency. By that measure, you would have to remove the Zimmer hiring which also uses the same agency through unnamed sources; not the studio.

Okay. There is NO EXCUSE for using articles that rely on unnamed sources because those articles cannot be verified.

Furthermore the Daily Mail is reported the agency who broke this story first; not the source. Variety’s sources are separate.

Then both should be removed because they cannot be verified. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 05:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17:

Fair enough, I'm only looking for consistency here. Waltz casting still needs to be explained. Otherwise it is left open-ended. You're "kinda chucking out the baby with the bath water" to maintain a princliple. Since this edit is regarding a historic mattter (rather than Zimmer which is current), how do you resolve Waltz's casting? Here's a suggestion:

Redrafted sentence: "Waltz's casting as Blofeld was not announced at the press launch but was officially revealed in the film's trailer on December 2019."

Are you ok with this draft? --MustTryHarder (talk) 06:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@MustTryHarder: there is no deadline when it comes to writing articles. Yes, there is currently a gap whereby Waltz's casting is not really addressed. However that does not mean that we absolutely need to address it in the article right now, especially considering that there are no adequate sources out there. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17: I've redrafted the sentence (see above) removing the sources phrase and cite. Waltz's casting became official once the trailer was out. Here are BBC and Radio Times articles. [1] [2] Are you saying these are not reliable sources? --MustTryHarder (talk) 07:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@MustTryHarder: they're fine because we can verify the claims by watching the trailer. That's what verification is—our ability to go and see for ourselves. In a perfect world, we would be able to visit the set and see Waltz for ourselves. Since we cannot do that, we have to rely on evidence: trailers, set photos, quotes from those involved and so on. But an unnamed person "close to production"? We have no idea who that is and we cannot find out.

Also, we have multiple sources all reporting the same thing, so we can be confident of their accuracy. But this is problematic when the original source relies on anonymous quotes, so don't lean on it too heavily. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Hans Zimmer

Since @Lobo151: chose your keep edit warring instead of coming here, I’ll start the discussion.

Variety, a reliable source, has announced Zimmer is taking over composing the film. Nothing in the source indicates this is just a rumour, and the studio not confirming it is not indicative it is a rumour. I do not understand why Lobo is rejecting this. Rusted AutoParts 19:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

As long as the official channel haven't announce him it is a rumour. You can't add anything based on a source with no offical conformation. Lobo151 (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC Lobo151 (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

We don’t need the producers to confirm it at all. We need reliable sources, which we have. Rusted AutoParts 19:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

How reliable is this source? So it means if a news site post something that is enough for Wikipedia to add it without any official annoucment needed? Lobo151 (talk) 20:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Variety has been one of the leading media sources for a long time. And yes, that’s why it’s called WP:Reliable sources. Rusted AutoParts 20:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Then my interpretation on adding information is wrong. My apologies. But then it should be stated differently. It was added as "In January 2020, Hans Zimmer was announced to replace Romer as the film's composer" He wasn't announced. It should stated something like was reported. Lobo151 (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I mean, Variety did announce this being the case, but I wouldn’t be opposed to a different wording. It could be “In January 2020, Romer departed due to creative differences, with Hans Zimmer set to replace him”. Rusted AutoParts 20:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@Lobo151: as a general rule, look at the content of an article to gauge its appropriateness. If, for example, the source has Zimmer himself saying "I will be composing the score for No Time to Die", then it's a fair bet that the source is reliable. On the other hand, if the article refers to "unnamed sources close to production", then you should definitely think twice about it. If you're still unsure about a source, try reading the Wikipedia article on thr source or use the talk page to ask after a potential source (that's what it's here for). Don't assume that it has to be posted on an "official" site before it can be added to an article—Wikipedia would prefer that we use independent sources.

As an aside, take care to read the entire source before adding it to an article. In this day and age, media sources are often so keen to get an exclusive that they will post stories with headlines that seemingly announce something, but the body of the article makes it clear that there is nothing to it. "Publication Magazine understands that XYZ is set to be announced" is a common way of doing this. They think they have the story, but don't want someone getting the drop on them, so they rush to publication.

And Rusted AutoParts is right. You need to stop edit-warring. I warned you about this very thing four days ago. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 12:31, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17: I now fully understand this, but now I'm confussed because you deleted this information yourself with the same reasons. Lobo151 (talk) 07:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Lobo151: I've only really had the chance to closely look at the Variety article in the pasy few hours. My post was intended to be general advice about assessing sources. If the source names and quotes someone close to production (think Fukunaga, Broccoli, Wilson, etc.), then it's probably valid. If it's an unnamed, unquoted person, it's going to fail WP:VERIFY. We probably have to be more diligent here than in other articles because Bond films are tabloid fodder—especially when there are few details available. They love to try and present a troubled production as a way of pressuring the film-makers into revealing details to reassure the public (and giving the tabloids what they want). Remember those stories about Fukunaga blowing off filming to play video games? That's a prime example of this. The problem is that these stories about Zimmer replacing Romer and Fukunaga's poor work ethic both rely on anonymous sources. We can't verify either of them, even if one later proves to be true and the other false. The Daily Mail's Baz Bamigboye first ran a story about Waltz being cast here and he was ultimately right—but look at some of the other crap he has written about the Bond films (during production for Quantum of Solace, he claimed that production had inadvertently started a gang war in Panama that culminated with Craig running around with a prop gun to scare off the thugs and protect the crew). Being right once doesn't make him a valid source. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• I've added Zimmer back into the mix, with a reference from his own website. I don't like using someone's own site, but given the increasing weight of sources pushing things in this direction, I think we're on safe ground. - SchroCat (talk) 08:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17: The citation recently added to the Music section [3] appears to be an unsecure fansite pointing to other sites. For example, the biography states it is sourced from IMDb which in turn is drafted by an anonymous editor. I’ve also run the URL via the cite template. Hans Zimmer is not the author. How is this website a reliable source? MustTryHarder (talk) 10:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Don't ask me—I didn't add it. If you want a justification, ping the person who did it.

What I will say is don't hurry to add content. There is no deadline. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@SchroCat: See comments above. How is this website reliable? It also has clickbait adds. Official sites are far more professional. Appears to be a site exploiting Zimmer fans. --MustTryHarder (talk) 10:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Don't believe a word of what cite template tells you: it's only for the laziest of editors, and the presence of ads on a site means nothing (look at the BBC or ABC websites, for example). If you don't like the site, try Fukunaga's Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/DirectorCaryJojiFukunaga/photos/a.500586006640021/3088626804502582/?type=3. - SchroCat (talk) 10:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@SchroCat: Fukunaga Facebook page is unverified, unlike his Instagram which has verification, but no mention of a new composer. How about putting a "cn" on Zimmer until an official announcement? --MustTryHarder (talk) 11:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Facebook don't verify accounts, but they do remove imposter accounts. You can't put a cn tag on it: it would fail the BLP policy. - SchroCat (talk) 11:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@SchroCat:Facebook do verify accounts, just not all. There's a few more Fukunaga FB accounts with his photo. I'll leave it to you to find a solution. The current cite is unreliable. --MustTryHarder (talk) 12:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Crazy idea: we wait until we get a reliable source before we add it to the article. What we know means very little on Wikipedia—what matters is what we can prove with reliable and verifiable sources. And right now, we cannot prove it, so it should not be in the article.

You need to break this mentality of "this is being reported, so it needs to go into the article as soon as possible". Constantly drafting and re-drafting sections to make the available sources fit the article isn't going to fix the problem, especially when the available sources are next to useless. All you're going to do is compromise the article. Wait until better sources are available, even if that means omitting something that you know for the time being. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Five years later

Please note that while the source does not say that the entire film takes place five years after Blofeld's capture, neither does the article. This is (part of) the premise as it appears in the article:

Five years after the capture of Ernst Stavro Blofeld, James Bond has left active service. He is approached by Felix Leiter, his friend and a CIA officer, who enlists his help in the search for a missing scientist.

It only says that Bond has left active service some time after Spectre. It does not suggest that the entire film takes place five years later.

In future, please read the entire section before making changes. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

But the sourse says only "Much of No Time To Die takes place five years or so after the events of Spectre, with Bond"

So the "or so" it could mean also four years?

For the premise we should follow the offical source which doesn't mention this five years section. Lobo151 (talk) 06:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Lobo151 (talk) 06:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

It specifically says five years. It's okay for us to follow that.

Also, we're not beholden to "official" sources. The given source quotes Fukunaga, the director. He's in a position to know what he's talking about. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 06:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Alexblago: you have gone from "that's not in the source" to "that's not relevant". It's pretty obvious that you are removing the content because you don't like. You need to stop edit-warring and use the talk page. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17 I didn't say that wasn't in the source, it's not clear that Fukunaga means by the five years, therefor is irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexblago (talk • contribs) 23:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Alexblago:

it's not clear that Fukunaga means by the five years

He is giving the interview four years after Spectre, yet he specifically says that five years have passed.

therefor is irrelevant

It is highly relevant because some time has passed since Spectre. The trailer makes that very clear. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

It can't be highly relevant if Blofeld or Waltz was never mentioned until the trailer. Again, "note that while the source does not say that the entire film takes place five years after Blofeld's capture, neither does the article." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexblago (talk • contribs) 23:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Alexbargo:

It can't be highly relevant if Blofeld or Waltz was never mentioned until the trailer.

Firstly, that is speculation on your part. Secondly, it's a form of synthesis because you're assigning different levels of significance to different parts of the trailer. It would not be the first time that a trailer was intentionally misleading.

Thirdly—and most importantly—you're removing half a sentence. This is the full sentence:

Five years after the capture of Ernst Stavro Blofeld, James Bond has left active service.

The subject of this sentence is Bond, not Blofeld. Nothing about this sentence suggests that Blofeld has any importance to the plot; rather the clause "five years after the capture of Ernst Stavro Blofeld" is being used to give context to the phrase "James Bond has left active service". Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

The way I read the sources, it is too vague to attach a number to. "Some years after the capture of Blofeld..." is sufficient until we have more confirmation on timing (either more sourcing or when the film is released). I do think mentioning Blofeld's capture is a necessary element as this means the film is linked to Spectre to a degree, but that's all we can say at this point. --Masem (t) 00:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: I don't think it's particularly vague. Fukunaga gave an interview four years after the release of Spectre in which he says it has been five years since the last time the audience saw Bond and Swann. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Which is out-of-universe time related to the real world, not in-universe time for Bond and others. --Masem (t) 01:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: I think that relies too much on interpreting the source. Given the choice between restating what the source says and reading some deeper meaning that is not explicitly stated, we should always go for the former. Fukunaga says "it has been five years", and there is nothing in his comments to suggest that time flows differently for the characters compared to the audience. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

If the statement "it has been five years since the last time the audience saw Bond and Swann" is the exact quote, that is nearly always implied real-world time and nothing with the characters or narrative. Its interpretation to assume that line, as worded, applies to the characters. --Masem (t) 02:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: I would say that it is interpretation to say that it does not apply to the characters since there is no evidence that they experience time differently. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 04:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

The statement states nothing about the time passed for the characters, neither in the positive or negative. It strictly relates to how long movie-goers have waited to see Bond on screen again. Any passage of time for the characters cannot at all be implied from that statement. --Masem (t) 04:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

It strictly relates to how long movie-goers have waited to see Bond on screen again.

No, it doesn't because Fukunaga says that it has been five years in the interview—an interview that he gave four years after the film's release. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 06:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding the specific interview you give, but in related stories, every report uses phrasing that asserts "it will be five years between the two films for moviegoers" and speak nothing about the timeframe passage for Bond in the movie. More than likely, Fukunaga's "five years" would between between the 2015 film and the established 2020 release for this film. I think you're reading too far into this statement to assume it is talking about the plot, but I see no source that mentions the timeframe in the movie outside unreliable ones and those copying WP. --Masem (t) 06:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

every report uses phrasing that asserts "it will be five years between the two films for moviegoers" and speak nothing about the timeframe passage for Bond in the movie

And you're assuming that because it is not explicitly stated that characters experience time in the same way as the audience, they must therefore experience it differently despite having no evidence to demonstrate it. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Short answer yes. There is nothing in the statements given that I can assume time has passed for the characters in the same manner time has passed in the real world. In the same vein, there's nothing in the state to assume that time has passed differently for the characters. There's nothing in the statement that we can use to establish any time frame for the characters between Spectre and No Time to Die. Keep in mind there are cases of previous Bond films where the passage of real-world time is not reflected in the film: Quantum's events take place in the immediate time frame after Casino Royale, despite there being two years in the real world between films. You are trying to make original research based on a statement that doesn't specifically refer to what happens in-universe, which we cannot do. --Masem (t) 14:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

References

14 January

Please note that the date of Billie Eilish's confirmation as title song performer is not important. The fact that Eilish is the performer is important, but the date is not unless there is some significance to the date (in which case, the article needs to make it clear).

In other words, how would the announcement (and the article) be different if it were made on 15 January or 16 January (or any other date)? It wouldn't be, so it does not need to be mentioned. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

It does not hurt to at least include the month and year. But the exact date is not needed, and can be summarized: "Hans Zimmer was announced as the film's composer in January 2020, replacing Dan Romer; later that month, Eilish was announced to be providing the film's theme song, etc." Only reason I prefer to see the month on these announcements is that it helps at a glance to get an idea of how the film game together. Exact days make that too complicated, but months are broad enough to be well-understood. --Masem (t) 02:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: I'd prefer to wait a bit first. One of the major criticisms of the David Arnold years was that title themes were left too late to be worked into the score in some way (like the John Barry scores). I'd hesitate to pin down the month until we get some evidence of how Eilish worked with Romer and/or Zimmer lest we imply something that is not evident. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 04:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I had the same feeling when I saw this edit, so I agree with Mclarenfan17 that the date can be removed, and probably should be removed as it looks strange to have it here. Debresser (talk) 12:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Lynch backlash

Pinging @MustTryHarder, Masem, SchroCat, Debresser, and DisneyMetalhead: you have been most active in the past few days and weeks, so I thought I'd run this past you.

To what extent should we cover the speculation and backlash surrounding Lashana Lynch's casting? It feels like a pretty big omission from the article even before you take into consideration the context of other female roles in high-profile films (think Captain Marvel, the 2016 Ghostbusters film and so on) and Eon's move to have the films treat female characters appropriately. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 04:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Something short. Perhaps open a controversy section. But keep it short. Debresser (talk) 12:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

This? [4] Unsure if it belongs in this article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

If it is about "Bond can't be female", that probably goes into an article on the series or the Bond character. I can't see that being part of this (though in the parent article, pointing to this movie being a catalyst for the debate). --Masem (t) 15:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Some may belong at Lashana Lynch, she seems to have gotten some coverage out of it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I dont know the breadth of what has been involved here, but it depends. If she has been directly criticized, then maybe. But the stuff I can spot check suggests it wasn't her herself that was the issue, it was the fact that it had been rumored she may have been playing a new Bond before that was shot down by Broccoli/Wilson with the affirmation they would never have a female bond. That's nothing on Lynch directly so should not be included in her article. But again, I don't know the breadth of what's happened here. --Masem (t) 15:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

In terms of this "backlash", excluding the "Bond can't be female" stuff, I'm not finding anything in sources so I'm not sure what else this could be. Any example sources you can provide? --Masem (t) 15:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I almost feel like this is trivial information. The fact that no one wants Bond to be female, isn't exactly the most extensive topic. I would agree that some brief details regarding this topic on a character article would make more sense. I could also be briefly mentioned in the development section. It's really a non-topic as the producers have stated Bond will never be female.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

It’s an interesting one. I think Craig’s backlash was covered in the Casting section of the Casino Royale article. A couple of sentences for Lynch could be mentioned in the Casting section here if there are enough sources from news articles that show that there was a huge backlash.

Broccoli and Wilson’s comments in Variety were clear about a future Bond being from a more diverse background, though not female. I don’t think a new Bond should be covered on this page. As suggested, there could also be a “Controversy” section if this thing was much bigger. --MustTryHarder (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

@Masem and DisneyMetalhead: the backlash stemmed from the franchise becoming woke at the expense of Bond's character—that by pandering to the socio-political left, the films would present a James Bond who was James Bond in name only. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 05:19, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• Personally I wouldn't cover it here at all. It should have a very brief mention in one of the other Bond pages that cover the decisions made when replacing Craig, but it doesn't really have any impact here. - SchroCat (talk) 07:47, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: You're now stating things that are in no way confirmed. There's no evidence of the film "becoming woke". That is merely journalists' commentary. Likewise, a brief description in the production section stating what is fact -- that a female screenwriter was brought on to do the female characters 'justice' and give them more to do than to just be Bond's eye-candy. This is a much-a-do-about-nothing topic, that really is just trivial. It's also largely based off of rumors. The fact that Bond 'will never be female' can be placed on the franchise article, and/or character article. It isn't relevant enough to this article to deserve a whole section.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I never said the film was woke, or the like: I'm trying to figure out what the controversy is that is being asked to be added, and only trying to state what I can see in RSes. There is reaction to "Bond can't be a woman" but as I said, and agree, that's in the franchise or character article. I saw no such reaction on the idea of the female writers to write better female lead characters, and agree that's just a production note on this article. If there's anyone claiming this film is "woke", that's definitely not coming from RSes, and the minimal amount of noise it is creating - in contrast to something like Ghostbusters 2016 - is not worth the addition here. --Masem (t) 03:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Marketing

@Lobo151: @Mclarenfan17:

This event has nothing to do with the marketing of this film. It was designed to mark the 1,007th Formula 1 Grand Prix race, hence the “007” association. It’s a celebration of F1 and Bond; not this film. The film was in mid shoot at the time. I suggest it is moved to an F1 or bond car related article. --MustTryHarder (talk) 08:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. Bond has never had anything to do with Formula 1 before. It's also not the first time that a film in mid-shoot has used the sport for advertising. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

What film? The F1 press release mentions no film. Again, it's about F1 and Bond not this film. You need to find an article where this is a better fit. --MustTryHarder (talk) 08:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

This is not a marketing event for NTTD, but a Formula 1 and “Bond In Motion” touring exhibition with a tie-in to Aston Martin on the day. Aston Martin swapped Red Bull Racing sponsorship livery to “007” on the event day due to its association with the Bond films and also to mark the 1,007th Grand Prix race. It did not promote the current film. [5]

• I suggest the paragraph is moved to Red Bull Racing#Corporate information where it is better placed. --MustTryHarder (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

The nature of Spectre

@Alexblago: describing Spectre as a terrorist organisation is inaccurate because the film Spectre makes it clear that the organisation does a lot more than terrorism. Consider the following, given that Le Chiffre, Dominic Greene and Raoul Silva were all Spectre agents:

• Le Chiffre plots to blow up an airliner as a way of improving his client's personal fortune. While it appears to be a terror attack, it's probably better described as industrial ssbotage.
• Dominic Greene attempts to overthrow the Bolivian government to gain access to water reserves. Nothing that he does comes close to terrorism.
• Raoul Silva alludes to his various enterprises, such as rigging an election in Uganda. He bombs the MI6 building as part of his plan for revenge, but there is nothing in Skyfall to suggest he is a Spectre agent (this was probably a retcon).
• Marco Sciarra plans to blow up a stadium and Spectre later succeed in carrying out an attack in South Africa. This is probably the most obvious act of terrorism, but when Bond infiltrates the meeting in Rome, they discuss other criminal activities as well.

They are not the same organisation as the original SPECTRE—we don't know for sure that this new Spectre is the Special Executive for Counter-intelligence, Revenge and Extortion. Characterising them solely as s terrorist organisation is too narrow a definition. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Steve Mazzaro

Hans Zimmer puts out a tweet saying the Super Bowl commercial doesn’t include any of his music. He says he’s still working on the score with Steve Mazzaro. Steve scored Eon’s The Rhythm Section." For The Rhythm Section they are in the credits as : Music Score Produced by HANS ZIMMER Music by STEVE MAZZARO Ofcourse we don't know if the same will be for this movie. But Steve Mazzaro is now confirmed working on this movie. Should he also be added in the article? Lobo151 (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Lobo151: I'm not sure I understand what this means. Is "The Rhythm Section" referring to a specific song or a piece of music, or is it referring the rhythm section of the score? Or is it just referring to the music in the trailer? (If it's the latter, then he shouldn't be mentioned in the article.) Mclarenfan17 (talk) 04:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

It is about the movie The Rhythm Section which is also produced by Eon productions. In the Tweet Hans Zimmer made it clear that the trailers released so far doesn't contain his music because he still is working on it with Steve Mazzaro . Lobo151 (talk) 05:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@Lobo151: I see. Thank you for the explanation. However, I don't think Mazzaro should be mentioned in the article unless something he writes is included in the film. There is a trend in film-making at the moment where content produced for trailers is cut from the final film. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 05:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@Aria1561: it has been well-documented that Scott Z. Burns contributed to the screenplay. However, because he is not being credited for his work, he is not included in the infobox. Could you please a) provide a source that shows Johnny Marr (and/or Steve Mazzaro) is being credited alongside Zimmer or b) explain why Marr should be included in the infobox despite not being credited for his work when Burns has been omitted because he is not being credited.

The infobox should only contain the names of people who are credited. It is not (and, to the best of my knowledge, never has been) intended to list every single person who worked on the film. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@NewAccountEdits: this goes for you, too, please. So far the only evidence we have of Mazzaro's involvement is Zimmer's tweet about his composing music for the trailers. Do you have evidence that he will be credited for the film? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Link to No Time to Die (song)

@Mclarenfan17: Please stop removing the link to No Time to Die (song). Just because you nominated the song page for deletion (which editors seem to be disagreeing with), this is the current page about the theme song. If sourcing confirms a different song title, then the page can be moved, but you're removing access to the current entry. The current text in this article's text says "theme song" and does specifically suggest the song title is also "No Time to Die", so I'm not sure why this is problematic. Thanks. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

There is simply no evidence that the song is called "No Time to Die". Nobody who is quoted in any of the articles that you have provided as sources actually names the song. In your rush to create the article you didn't bother to check your sources and so the article is just repeating the usual PR hype about being excited to compose a theme and how Eilish is a fresh voice. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Mclarenfan17, You've already expressed your opinion on multiple pages, which is fine, but that's not the issue here. As long as the song article exists, I think it's appropriate to link to the page within this article. Here, the song is linked but not mentioned by name, which seems like a good compromise. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a song article, but a press release. In its original form, that's all it was—just lengthy quotes ripped from various news articles. There was nothing encyclopaedic about it. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Mclarenfan17, Yes, again, that's your opinion, but other editors seem to disagree with you. I'll let other editors weigh in here, but I think we should keep the link to the song article as long as the page is live. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Update: The single "No Time to Die" was released today, so no need to debate this further. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• MV5BYTI1OGMwMjktN2VmOS00NGY4LTk3M2UtZjMzODkwZDYxMTdhXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTAyMTcwMDY1. V1 .jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)