Talk:Quantum of Solace/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Why was this page moved?

May I ask why this page was moved from Quantum of Solace to Quantum of Solace (film)?

I was going to ask yesterday, but I thought someone would have reverted it by now.

MJisnotmylover gave the reason "over redirect". What sort of reason is that.

The obvious use of this title is the film. Yes it was a short story, but it dosen't have a article on itself.

And the top of this article adequately links to the disambiguation page.

So I request an administrator re-move back to Quantum of Solace, or I will requested it on Requested Moves in a day, if no response.

 The Windler talk  07:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Why can't it just follow the same standards as the other films? Which is I believe as you're describing it, page is Quantum of Solace and there is a link to the disambiguation page. It's worked for those films, it will work for this film, and will continue to work in the future. Peppage (talk) 07:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Gee, why would we follow standard naming conventions? Some guy (talk) 08:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I understand, may I suggest you give better descriptions in the edit summary, when moving pages. Thanks.  The Windler talk  10:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I hope your ok means that you still want it moved back, to the way it should be and was. Peppage (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I have restored it back to the main name. SilkTork *^YES! 02:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

I have started a review of this article to see if it fits the criteria for a WP:Good article. The criteria and my comments can be found here. SilkTork *^YES! 23:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The article has passed. Quantum of Solace is now a Good Article. SilkTork *^YES! 12:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Most commercially successful?

When I encountered it, the last sentence of lead read:

It was, however, the most commercially successful Bond film, earning £50 million in product placement, and grossing $515,503,919 at the box office as of 14 December 2008.

I'm pretty sure this should be flatly deleted, but as the film is still technically in release I'll leave it up and ask for a citation. Neither in terms of adjusted or unadjusted gross does Quantum top the list of Bond films, as of 14 December. If it does by now, fine—but let's get that fact cited, please. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 17:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Reasonable to have a section on technical impossibilities

Folks:

Is it at all possible to have a section talking about technical impossibilities in this film?

I want to ask the question here before I go ahead and make changes in the article itself. I don't have confidence in whether or not the stuff I want to put there is encyclopedic.

Here are my qestions:

1. What are the possibilities of someone building dams to dam up a river without anyone else knowing it? I am refering to the damming up of Bolivia's water supply. Even if the rivers were underground, someone must have noticed the equipment and personnel and people talk.

2. James and the woman parachuting together and surviving. What are the odds with two people grabbing each other and being supported by one parachute, especially when their descent is slowed just before contact?

3. Why does a cement and steel building burn as if it's made out of untreated wood. The futuristic hotel burining near the end blew my mind. Sure, I understand whay the fuel cells would go, but what was there to burn. The picture showed steel staircases going up as if they were untreated plywood.

Thank you for your help.

Mark Allyn

Allyn (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not possible to have a section about the film's technical impossibilities without reliable sources. If we make observations on our own, it would be considered original research. Many films have technical impossibilities, but not all of them are thoroughly examined for them. Maybe there are some out there for this James Bond film, but I would think that there is suspension of disbelief for how all James Bond films unfold. —Erik (talk • contrib) 03:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Erik; furthermore, so many films ask the viewer to suspend disbelief. The film is a story of "what DID happen" (in that story), not "what was more LIKELY to happen" in the real world. Neverwake (talk) 00:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Tandem parachuting it quite common so as far as question 2 one parachute supporting two people is not an impossibility. http://www.skydiving-parachuting-guide.com/tandem.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.201.65 (talk) 08:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe those "steel staircases" were meant to be plywood ? -- Beardo (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually I got the impression it was just the free Hydrogen burning. The only thing I thought was clever (or even good at all) about this film was the fact that as that fight sequence went on (and on....and on....) everything got WET, which was accurate for hydrogen burning freely in air. By the way, it is actually possible for steel to literally burn, directly, without liquefying, if it is suddenly exposed to an extremely high temperature source. I don't think free-burning hydrogen is hot enough, however. -- 110.174.169.36 (talk) 06:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

DVD review

• DVD review from dvdtimes.co.uk. Cliff smith ^talk 00:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Best Bond film ever?.

This Bond film is known as one of the best Bond films ever made.

Sounds a bit dubious to me, no source, seems to be like someone's personal opinion. Delete it? Chriszwolle (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Obviously politically motivated reviews.

The reviews from Mona Charen and Juan Cole can only serve to fire up political bases. Since neither of these people are known as film critics or movie reviewers I deleted them. All the other reviews listed are from people known firstly as film reviewers. No "culture war" nonsense in any of them.

If you have to restore the links, can you make it clear that these people are _not_ film critics. You could call them political columnists/journalists or something?

thanks Japanscot (talk) 23:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

On set CGI?

the statement "No CGI was used on set by for the burning interior sequence" doesn't make much sence. CGI is always postproduction and the idea of on set CGI is silly. Does anyone know whatwas actually meant by the line? harlock_jds (talk) 04:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I think they meant all of the fire was real, all of the explosions and things. Nothing was added digitally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.212.84 (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Historical/Political Context

Should this article perhaps include something more about the historical and political context which is the background to the movie? After all, many Wikipedia articles include 'trivia' sections on otherwise serious topics. Should not the reverse also be the case? There has been an ongoing battle between privatization/enclosure and nationalization/local control of basic resources (including water) in South America over the last decade and this theme forms part of the background to the movie.

[Cochabamba]

It seems significant (or at least interesting) that this movie appears to move Bond away from confronting (more or less) comic book villains and invented terrorist organizations (working for invented countries, i.e. Nambutu in Casino Royale). Instead he comes into direct or indirect conflict with all of a) the CIA, b) the wishes of ministers (including the PM) of the U.K., c) a green-washed capitalist, and d) a dictator-in-waiting who, with the nod of (an element of) the US government, is aiming to overthrow a democratic government. The movie explicitly ditches any suggestion that 'we' (the anglo-Americans) are automatically the good guys: one of the characters, a U.K. government official, says as much in the movie. One of the American characters looks somewhat like, and sound quite like, John Bolton; it would be interesting to know if this was deliberate.

On the allies side, Bond aids and is aided by, a Bolivian secret service agent. The Bond character's actions in the movie are in support of the Bolivian people's right to water. There are few scenes showing local people that are reminiscent of scenes from 'Motorcycle Diaries'. We even have comments from Bond suggesting an American pre-occupation with Communism and the war on drugs, to the detriment of other issues.

Of course, all this could be taken as incidental to 'main' revenge plot of the movie. Without wanting to start a political flame-war on the topic, nevertheless, this seems like a significant change from the prior Bond movies.

Also interesting to know would be:

- With all the locations used, why was none of the film actually filmed in Bolivia? - Has the movie been shown in South America? How well received was it? In particular, in Bolivia? In Venezuela? - Like-wise, how well did the movie go down in the US? - Has the movie attracted any attention real politicians or pundits? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.69.166 (talk) 09:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Read this:

http://www.juancole.com/2008/11/quantum-of-anti-imperialism.html

This guy at least appears to have enjoyed the political context of this movie. It's amazing how little people have talked about the political undertones, which are quite blatant and obvious; the story itself appears to be almost completely based on the 2002 coup attempt against Chavez, and they reference the removal of Aristide in Haiti directly. (And I never noticed it before, but Gregg Beam does seem like a clone of John Bolton).

But then this isn't exactly new, the Bond movies very often have political commentary intertwined with the plot (usually hitting both sides at the same time). I.E. You Only Live Twice was based on the Cuban missile crisis and the threat inherent in the Cold War, and featured a dead ringer for Barry Goldwater delivering the ultimatum to the Soviets. 216.15.41.45 (talk) 22:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

John Bolton is a lot older than Greg Beam, but Beam is certainly portrayed as complete berk - annoying laugh, arrogant towards the Bolivians and his able subordinate Leiter, and played for a fool by Greene. The British Foreign Secretary is portrayed as decent as far as we can tell, but it would be interesting to know more about "Guy Haines", an important enough adviser to the PM to have a Special Branch bodyguard, and we know he has CIA contacts as during the opera meeting he says he is "working on" squaring them when they realise there is no oil in Bolivia.Paulturtle (talk) 22:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The necklace in the snow

The article currently states "As he leaves, he drops Vesper's necklace in the snow."

Is there a valid source for this? I haven't seen anything in the film that it is indeed her necklace; on-screen, it's a bit ambiguous. It could be hers, or it could have also been dropped in the snow by the Canadian agent (who had an identical one). The implications (and the intended meaning behind it, in terms of Bond's feelings about Vesper) might be interpreted differently, depending on who dropped the necklace.

Thoughts?

Neverwake (talk) 00:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

As I just finished watching the movie, I can positively say that one can hear how Bond drops the necklace a few seconds before the necklace is actually shown. Besides the look on Bond's face after we see the necklace and his previous conversation with M (That he doesn't have any regrets) indeed makes the viewer understand Bond's feelings about Vesper.

Chaser52

The gunbarrel sequence

What puzzles me is that the gunbarrel sequence, which is usually shown at the beginning of every James Bond movie, was shown at the end of Quantum of Solace. Could you please give me an explanation on why the gunbarrel sequence was shown at the end instead of the beginning? AdamDeanHall (talk) 21:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Nation

Why is the country not noted like it is on nearly every other film on Wikipedia.--Tukogbani (talk) 18:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Sweet silence, i know why now. It's because you Americans liked it so much but didn't want it to be from another country, never mind then --Tukogbani (talk) 17:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Camille - Olga

Was there any comment on the bizarre decision to cast a Ukranian as a Bolivian. I assume they darkened her skin tone to look more latin. -- Beardo (talk) 19:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Not bizarre at all. The reason for it is mentioned in the film. Her mother was Russian. - X201 (talk) 15:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion pertaining to non-free image(s) used in article

A cleanup page has been created for WP:FILMS' spotlight articles. One element that is being checked in ensuring the quality of the articles is the non-free images. Currently, one or more non-free images being used in this article are under discussion to determine if they should be removed from the article for not complying with non-free and fair use requirements. Please comment at the corresponding section within the image cleanup listing. Before contributing the discussion, please first read WP:FILMNFI concerning non-free images. Ideally the discussions pertaining to the spotlight articles will be concluded by the end of June, so please comment soon to ensure there is clear consensus. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

CSIS

Canada's CSIS agency does not do secret agent work abroad. It does, from time to time, send agents oversees (such as in the Omar Kahdr interrogation at Guantanamo). Bond does not say the women works for CSIS, and in the real world, CSIS would not have agents working in Russia.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 02:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

How do you know? They wouldn't be very "secret" if we knew they were there, would they?Paulturtle (talk) 22:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:CA1208cover-James Bond.jpg

The image File:CA1208cover-James Bond.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Repeated links etc

• Wikilinking a source makes no real sense. Going to the wikipedia article about a source is really less useful than going to the actual source itself. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• It may not make sense to you, but it does to a lot of people, which is why WP:REPEATLINK exists. Just so you are clear, linking the source enables readers to judge the standard of the source to differentiate between, for example, a gossip magazine and an academic journal. See the featured article Fight Club for an example of a high-level article with repeated linking in the references section.

Just for clarity, the relevant section of the policy states: "links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." We are looking at the footnotes section here and if you are unclear of the connection between references and footnotes, see WP:INCITE which will show you that they are, to all intents and purposes the same thing. So, please do not revert again: the policy says it is fine to do so and practice says it is fine to do so. - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it makes a lot of sense to me. There are many The Sun publications for instance, there is absolutely no harm at all in linking it and in fact, to some readers, it may be useful. Removing the links can only be detrimental to the article. And for the sake of clarity, the WP:REPEATLINK guideline mentions it is acceptable to repeat links in footnotes, but if you follow the link there, it takes you to "Citing sources" (i.e. talking about "references"), so I think that just about closes this argument entirely. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes—especially on an international website—it is useful to be able to get some background on a source, and not all sources are online, so it can be useful to provide some online background in those cases. In truth, the usefulness of linking a source needs to be taken on case by case basis, but REPEATLINK does apply to the reference section by virtue of the fact they use the footnote system in that they are usually accessed non sequentially. As an editor, I find wikilinking the publishers useful because it makes it easier to spotcheck RS in articles, since sources without a wiki-link are roughly 2 or 3 times as likely not to be RS. Betty Logan (talk) 12:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Does it matter how many Sun's there are? No, because when a person click to actually view the source, it will show them which Sun. Removing them the links isn't "detrimental" to the article. Further, CAT, don't tell me to go to talk before I revert when I ALREADY DID GO TO TALK! Apparently you missed that in your rush to make a smug comment. Just because a guideline says something is sometimes permitted doesn't mean it is always the correct thing to do. So just repeating "it's allowed" doesn't really cut it. However, since you clearly stopped AGF (with your uncalled for, smug edit summary) and are already positioning yourself to edit war over something stupid, have the last word. Convince yourself that the pointless links actually help someone. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• I think this issue is dealt with. WP:REPEATLINK (which you quoted as "Repeatlink doesn't apply") covers references and footnotes. No need for the bold text or SHOUTING. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'm glad you think it's "dealt with". If it is "dealt with", then why do you need to comment about using caps? Thanks for your suggestions but I will bold whatever I please. And yes, when some I take it to talk first, then someone comes along, reverts and makes an edit summary commanding me to go to talk (when I'd already done that), there is a need for bolds and caps since that editor clearly isn't paying attention and apparently needs things to be made more obvious. Hopefully making it obvious enough will prevent more dickish behavior. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Could you clarify exactly what problem you currently perceive there exists within the article? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Could you also clarify which edit summary meant one of us stopped assuming good faith and was "uncalled for" and "smug"? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

2nd part of trilogy?

Media coverage of this film indicated that it was produced as the second part of a trilogy, though this appears to have been abandoned as Skyfall has no connection to QoS. Still, I think this should be mentioned in here somewhere. 70.72.211.35 (talk) 15:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Italics

Can someone tell me why James Bond italicized in the infobox, James Bond is a character name. Typhoon966 (talk) 15:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Because James Bond is more than just a character name. It's a series/franchise as well. I'll also point out that we italicise more than just titles, where appropriate. - SchroCat (talk) 15:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)