Talk:No Time to Die/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

"Final outing"

There's a hidden comment on this text: "Craig himself has said it's his final film; to qualify this as "reportedly final" undermines his comments."

Has a consensus been established about this? Couldn't find any discussion in the talk archives. I don't think Wikipedia cares about "undermining" anyone's comments - if we choose to state this, it shouldn't be out of respect to Daniel Craig but because we think it's true and it's supported by reliable sources.

In this case, it's difficult to know if this is true without knowing the future - It's not impossible that Craig will return as Bond, never say never - so this is potentially a WP:CRYSTALBALL situation. I don't feel super strongly but we could keep it safe by just saying something like "Craig said it will be his last performance as Bond."

Interesting to compare this to the article about the album The Endless River, where a consensus is to avoid calling it the final Pink Floyd album despite both members stating as much. (They had been wrong before.) Popcornfud (talk) 18:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Popcornfud:

It's not impossible that Craig will return as Bond, never say never- so this is potentially a WP:CRYSTALBALL situation.

No, it's not impossible, but we have to take what he says at face value. You suggest it is speculative to include Craig's comment, but consider the alternative: that because he might change his mind at some indeterminate point in the future, his current comments - which were made to a reliable and verifiable source - are invalidated. That's even more speculative.

The most sensible thing to do here is to go with the sources. Craig says it is his last film, so the article should reflect that. If and when he changes his mind, we can update this article accordingly. 1.129.105.106 (talk) 11:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

"You suggest it is speculative to include Craig's comment, " - no, I think it would be a very good idea to include Craig's comment - just saying something like "Craig said it will be his last performance as Bond" solves the whole thing. Popcornfud (talk) 13:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. That opens up the possibility that it will not be Craig's final film, even though there is no evidence to the contrary. It's almost the opposite of WP:WEASEL; rather than vaguely attribute a claim, it's undercutting a specific one. 1.129.105.140 (talk) 11:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

If merely reporting that Craig says it will be his final film "opens up the possibility that it will not be Craig's final film" then you've undone your own argument. Craig's statement is the only thing we're basing this "final film" claim on. There is no "undercutting" or "undermining" going on here. Popcornfud (talk) 13:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

As long as it's attributed to Craig, there is no crystal ball issues, in any fashion. He says it's his last film. If he changes his mind later we can report that, but that doesn't change the facts of the present, and to weasel that would be the actual crystal balling. oknazevad (talk) 13:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

It is indeed CRYSTAL to say it is or is not his last film as fact, based on whatever source, as the only time we will know that as fact will be when filming for the next Bond film is complete (and maybe not even then; Sonic this past year was "complete" until it wasn't).

It is certainly reasonable to attribute a comment on the point to the person saying it, however (as I imagine is in the article today): "Craig has said it is his last Bond film", or some such, which can be converted at some later date to "It was Craig's last Bond film" (based on some later RS) or "Craig said it was his last Bond film, but he acted in another after" (based likely on some RS alone, but if necessary his now statement and a later RS would be fine, then). --Izno (talk) 14:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand the deep interest that some editors have in declaring things final when there's no incontrovertible proof that they are in fact final. If something is only final until it isn't, why bother to say it at all? Actors are retired until they're not. Rocky X is the last Rocky film until it isn't. This is Daniel Craig's last Bond film until it isn't. I'm fine with noting that he stated it would be his last Bond film, but we should not be making a fact-based argument that it is his last Bond film without proof. Not evidence; proof. DonIago (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand the deep interest that some editors have in declaring things final when there's no incontrovertible proof that they are in fact final.

All of the available proof says that it will be. Daniel Craig himself has said that he will not be returning for another film. You would have us disregard something that he definitely said in favour of something that may or may not happen. 1.129.105.133 (talk) 23:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I literally just said, "I'm fine with noting that he stated it would be his last Bond film". DonIago (talk) 00:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Though the IP editor seems to think that to include Craig's statement would be to undermine it... Popcornfud (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

In that event, what the IP thinks would be undermining it I would consider reporting the facts as they exist. We don't know this will be Craig's final film; we know he said it would be. DonIago (talk) 03:42, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Now you're just trying to find loopholes. The article also says that the film will release in April, and despite proof of a release date, we don't know that it will be released then. In fact, we don't know anything about the film, so by your logic, the article should be blank. 1.144.105.5 (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually, the article doesn't say it will be released in April. It says it is "scheduled for 2 April 2021" and that the current release date is "2 April 2021", both of which are verifiably true. It's good practice to avoid writing that things "will be released" exactly for WP:CRYSTALBALL reasons. Popcornfud (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I put this discussion back. Because this intro was changed again. We don't need to have the discussion all over again.Lobo151 (talk) 07:45, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, just adding a little bit to the discussion - I did see the film last week and when the missiles hit the base you didn't see Bond blown to pieces, they exploded all around him (this is Britain's greatest secret agent of course) so did he die?

The nanobots plot and him not being able to go near Madeline and their daughter has ended so that story arc is finished and also he is believed dead by MI6.

The Mrs and I at the end of the film in the cinema we waited until the end credits had rolled and then the familiar final caption came up in white letters on a red background: "James Bond Will Return".

The producers will either now switch to a younger, cheaper actor or the door is still open for Craig, but he is now getting to Roger Moore's View To A Kill age so probably that will be it.

Kind regards

Juanpumpchump (talk) 06:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

"The film could have taken place in Bond's head"

According to the article "An early unrealised idea [Fukunaga] considered was to have seen the film take place "inside Bond's head", while being tortured by Blofeld in Spectre, up until the end of act two of a three-act structure." and then a link to an interview is provided as a source. However the Wiki article implies that in this idea No Time To Die would take place until the end of act two, whereas Fukunaga's interview, when mentioning "act two", is referring to the act 2 of Spectre. As in: Spectre: act 1 Spectre: act 2 Spectre: act 3 (takes place in Bond's mind) NTTD (still takes place in Bond's mind - all of it, not just the first two acts)

Also, that bit from the interview definitely sounds like a joke, probably moking the "Spectre act three takes place in Bond's mind" fan theory that was popular after the movie's release, so I'm uncertain whether we should keep it on Wiki. --Ilrepallido (talk) 14:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)