Film Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

	James Bond NA‑class (inactive)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject James Bond, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.James BondWikipedia:WikiProject James BondTemplate:WikiProject James BondJames Bond articles NA This article has been rated as NA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Anyone wonder why User:CapitalR decided to change it to the other template. SpecialWindler talk 21:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither OK Connery nor From Hong Kong with Love were Bond films. They were neither marketed as such nor were that ever considered in any way part of the series, official or not. They should not be listed here so I have removed them. 23skidoo 20:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've no preference either way, but the article on the film series uses the header "Unofficial films" so unless it changes, it might be worth considering changing the header in the template to be consistent ... or seeking consensus at the films article to change that header to be consistent with the one used here. 23skidoo (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted an anon IP's edit that spli the EON films section into a "reboot series" section for Casino Royale. This is meaningless, as every time a new actor has been cast the series has technically rebooted, particularly with regards to Dalton and Brosnan (especially Brosnan). I see no need for such a division to be made with regards to the EON films. 23skidoo (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that indicating the Daniel Craig movies are a series reboot isn't necessary, but one could make a case stating otherwise since Casino Royale is an explicit reboot; all the other films are based on the premise that Bond is already a seasoned MI6 double-0 agent. Musashi1600 (talk) 06:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However there is an overwhelming amount of book and media references to it as the 21st film in the Bond series; likewise Quantum of Solace is being referred to as the 22nd Bond film and, of course, was known as Bond 22 until the title was announced. It may be a rebooting of continuity, but we've seen that several times before (GoldenEye, for example, which gave us an actor playing Bond who would have been a teenager at the time of Goldfinger); it's no more the start of a separate series of Bond films than, say, Star Trek 11 is the start of a new series of Star Trek films. This also differs from, say, the Batman films, as Batman Begins was explicitly referenced as more or less a "do-over" to start again after the previous films, or the Tim Burton Planet of the Apes was a reimagining, so therefore could not be listed as part of the original Apes movie series. There are simply too many strong connections between Casino Royale and Quantum to the previous EON Films series (let's start with Judi Dench as M), and they're generally considered prequels anyway, which places CR and QoS in the same boat as Star Trek 11 and Star Trek: Enterprise. 23skidoo (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you think about it, everytime a new actor comes on to play James Bond, it's almost like a reboot in its self. _{El Greco}^(talk) 21:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but a different continuity is a different series altogether, as such, old characters meet each other for the first time once again is the start of a new series and personally I'd like to have a section in the Template titled "Original Series", and "Relaunch Series". Obi-WanKenobi-2005 (talk) 03:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except EON is not referring to it as a "relaunch series". Casino Royale is a prequel to Die Another Day, as far as they're concerned, given the intentional timelessness of the movies. Daniel Craig's Bond is destined to marry Tracy and lose her to Blofeld sometime in his future. A relaunch is a brand new series, with new production people, new concepts, etc. And none of that is happening. Even Doctor Who, although it is of the same continuity between the two series, has legitimate claim to being a "relaunch" considering the BBC even started numbering the seasons anew. If EON comes out and says that Casino Royale and QoS are completely separate entities with no connection to the 20 film that came before, then yes I could see those films and those that follow being split off. But right now there is no difference between CR/QoS and the new Star Trek film which, similarly, is being described time and again as a prequel, not a reboot or reimagining. 23skidoo (talk) 06:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked new and unregistered IP useers from editing this template for the time being, since obviously the anonymous editor isn't getting the message or isn't reading the edit summaries explaining why his/her edit regarding Quantum of Solace is being reverted. I recommend leaving the block up for at least 7 days from the time-stamp of this message; after that if any admin wants to unblock, please feel free. 23skidoo (talk) 21:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional: I've been made aware that this IP has been doing the same edit to other Bond film articles, too. We can't protect them all. The IP has been blocked, however I suggest we keep this template protected for the duration I recommended above anyway, just in case he comes back. If another admin begs to differ and feels the protection is not necessary, feel free to unlock the page. 23skidoo (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)\[reply]
  • For reasons unknown it appeared that by locking this template it also locked all the articles linking to it, so I had to remove the protection. 23skidoo (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't have. Template:Infobox VG is on permanent Admin-only lock down and that hasn't shown the same problem. - X201 (talk) 19:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have no idea what happened. I know I did NOT click the box for cascading protection. But the locks on the movie articles occurred after I'd protected the template. Weird. 23skidoo (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't it be "James Bond films and actors"? The 'the' doesn't look or sound right to me. —Jonathan D. Parshall (Talk | contribs) 10:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current organization has only two groups with 22 items in a single group. I would leave the Non-EON films alone but organize the the EON films either by the actor portraying Bond (the general public groups the films by actor) or by decade (as is done with navboxes for directors, e.g. Template:Stanley Kubrick). This can either be done with subgroups (all under the current "Official films (EON Productions)" group) or with normal groups. Please respond by saying if you Agree or Disagree with reorganizing the template in general and how you feel this could best be done.--Marcus Brute (talk) 04:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As there was no response and I felt the listing by actors (not decades) aids in locating films for viewers/readers, I made the change. Pejorative.majeure (talk) 22:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to organize it by actor. J52y (talk) 10:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restored my change. Pejorative.majeure (talk) 15:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the Eon actors are broken down into their own row, should the same not also be done for the non-Eon ones, for the sake of clarity if nothing else? - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see Casino Royale (Climax!) 1954 added to the beginning of the list as the first screen appearance of James Bond. I am aware of the debate whether a 1 hour made-for-tv movie presented in a television Anthology ought to be considered a Bond film—yet consider the fact that it was the first screen appearance of the character, preceding Dr. No by eight years, and the fact that the non-Eon films (1967, 1983) were a spoof and a satire, so it should fit in. I am only proposing a complete listing. What do you think? --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 16:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a film, so it shouldn't be added. I'm also unsure as to how you classify Never Say Never Again as a satire. - SchroCat (talk) 16:50, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm certain! Consider the characters of Smallfaucet and Q with his budget-pinched "laboratory", and Edward Fox's haughty by-the-book portrayal of M, the choreographed Tango, and the line by Smallfaucet after Bond throws him in the pool as a villain at the end begging Bond to not retire: "M says that without you in the Service he fears for the safety of the civilized world!"

The WP article List of James Bond films includes:

"Casino Royale (Climax!), the first live-action adaptation of an Ian Fleming novel".

Have a good day! --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're certain? Unfortunately your WP:POV isn't backed up by any of the WP:reliable sources. If you can find something that is reliable that says it is a satire, perhaps you could share it with us all.

PMSL - it's in the "See also" section, which are links to related subjects that are not close enough to the subject to make it to the article itself. In other words, if it was a film, it would be in the article itself! You'll also notice the words "live-action adaptation". It doesn't say film, or movie, but "adaptation". - SchroCat (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"...it was located in the 1980s by film historian Jim Schroenberger with the ending (including credits) found afterward." —Casino Royale (Climax!). --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing anything that says it's a film and nothing that says NSNA is "a satire". CR is a television adaptation, a dramatisation, not a film, so putting it into a film navbox is not a terribly sensible way to go. - SchroCat (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you finally have the last word—(seems to me some time ago there was a WP:TLW article about the last word"). I wish you well. --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 20:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of "getting the last word", it's a question of trying to demonstrate to you that there is a logical way of doing things on Wiki, a set of guidelines as to how articles are constructed and developed and a structure behind the the articles in the Bond project. At present I do not think you have grasped any of those sufficiently. Trying to force your own POV onto the system against the consensus of the community and the evidence of the reliable sources will only ever end in failure. Working within the system and demonstrating what reliable, independent third party sources say may lead to success. Rather than trying to force issues, I'd advise you spend a little time reading through the guidelines about editing and familiarise yourself with how to write from a neutral point of view by using the best sources available. It will pay dividends in the long run. - SchroCat (talk) 21:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with SchroCat, per above. On the other hand, "film" does not necessarily imply theatrical film. One could argue that the programme is a made for tv film as this was an anthology series and not a true television series with recurring characters. Were it up to me I would add the 1954 tv programme to the film template (for sentimental and completist reasons), but unless there is a consensus among senior editors to include it then I support the status quo held by SchroCat. - Fantr (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I think we need to consider the options here. Currently the template appears on Casino Royale (Climax!), and technically the template should only appear on articles that are linked by the template. It seems sensible to me that we should have a mechanism for navigating from one adaptation to another, so it's worth considering whether we should have an adaptations navbox that would include everything: films, TV, radio, computer games. Betty Logan (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• We could do, as long as there is enough clear blue water between it and the eight other navboxes we have (shown below). Presently the TV adaptation (or the actor involved) sits on two, "James Bond" and "Actors who have played James Bond".

((James Bond film crew))

Is there room for a ninth navbox with only a minor variant in detail? - SchroCat (talk) 07:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. -- Cassianto^Talk 11:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Cassianto. - Fantr (talk) 20:48, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Under the non eon bond films list.....you are missing David Niven tab with Casino Royale (1954) I think that oughta be included

74.78.129.37 (talk) 02:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Casino Royale (1954) was a TV programme, not a film, and starred Barry Nelson not David Niven - Arjayay (talk) 08:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]