Jump to content

Talk:James Bond (literary character)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vatr5 (talk | contribs) at 22:15, 1 November 2011 (→No other actor pictures?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

There doesn't seem to be any reason for the last link. It leads to an unanswered question on wikiask. And the answer is the name of the link??? Could someone speak up? Vatr5 Do I have to write another signature? But why? 22:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

No other actor pictures?

How come we don't have pictures of the other actors playing Bond? KFan II 22:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Craig is the current Bond, which is the only reason why we have him here. The others aren't really discussed yet. Most of that is at James Bond. It has to probably be sorted out with a section here that would justify all the images (technically again). I'll get around to something like this soon. See Doctor - that's kinda what I'm talking about here. K1Bond007 04:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since no-ones seen him in a bond film yet I think a picture of Connery or Moore would be better since they were bond for 7 movies each --Astrokey44 12:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But he is Bond and people have seen him as Bond. Eventually we'll get images (perhaps a collage) of all the Bonds in the article in the same vein as the Doctor. It's on my to-do list. K1Bond007 17:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
collage was a good idea, made one from the promotional photos --Astrokey44 16:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Just as a note, I don't think the image can be counted as promotional, although it may be comprised of promo shots. Photoshopped together, it would be simply fairuse. I corrected this and gave it a little more detailed description. K1Bond007 20:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the one above me. ~Chektt 12:32 November 18 , 2006 (not UTC)

About the Modern Bond

So, if I understand, the modern Bond is a German-born British, more precisely English, right? Leader Vladimir

Not English, Scottish. Emperor001 (talk) 21:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sexist?

Is he really deserving of this title and thus being placed in the catagory? He has sex with a lot of women, which may make him a womanizer, but does he at any time express his belief in the superiority of men over women? (If he has, then I immediatly drop the argument). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Madhackrviper (talk • contribs) .

Yeah, he's pretty sexist in most, if not all, media. Fleming's Bond is pretty bad, though perhaps more in tune with the times. M in GoldenEye flat out called him a sexist - other than that Brosnan's Bond was pretty lax in that department. Connery on the other hand had numerous sexist scenes. Example in Goldfinger he meets Felix while he's with a girl in Miami. He smacks her on bottom and tells her to say goodbye, following that up with "man talk." :P
Alrighty then, argument excepted! --Madhackrviper 00:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General criticism of article

This whole affair smacks of fanwankery. It has clearly been put together by individuals who are far too serious about this very fictional character. Chris 02:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MI6 and SIS

MI 6 IS known as the Secret Intelligence Service, see the MI6 page for reference!

In one film M says they work for MI7. I think it's From Russia With Love but I can't remember for certain. It later becomes MI6 in another film. If anyone knows which film this was then I think it should be mentioned. Richard75 20:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In no film did any character mention that Bond worked for MI7. This statement is wrong therefore not worth mentioning

Bernard Lee says it in his scene as M in Dr No. --Straw Cat (talk) 00:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But the subtitles say MI6. Emperor001 (talk) 22:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fan wankery indeed

I would have to say that this entire article is one huge glaring error. There should be two different interpretations of the Bond character. The character from the book is very much different from the one in the movies. Its like night and day. Mashing them all up together like this isn’t giving anyone a clear picture of Bond.

I would prepose that there should be a distinction between the literary description of the Bond character, and a cinematic one.

80.229.220.14 (talk) 07:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC) Agreed! The mix of the two is unsalvageably confusing.[reply]

It's worse than that. The original Ian Fleming Bond is conflated with subsequent work by other (lesser) authors. It's like including fan fiction in the description. For my money, Fleming's Bond is the original, the movie Bond is an important theme in modern pop culture, and the derivitave works are perhaps worth mentioning if they've had any success. But don't mix them all up. Steve Graham (talk) 00:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOR and the League of Extraordinary Gentleman

Just to be clear, WP:NOR prevents "unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material" from being included in articles. It is certainly possible that this interpretation is not novel, but merely sourcing some of the facts to the comics would not address that issue. The opinions and analyses would also need to be sourced to reliable publications (i.e. not fan boards or the like) and represent enough of a consensus that they are worthy of standing alone in the article. Croctotheface 11:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gin or Vodka Martinis?

I was looking an answer to wether Bond drinks traditional gin martinis, or does he prefer vodka martinis, but the article goes both ways without saying if the source is from the novels or the movies.

See: Bond is famous for ordering his vodka martinis "shaken, not stirred." ... He also drinks and enjoys gin martinis, champagne, and bourbon. According to www.atomicmartinis.com Bond consumes 317 drinks of which 101 are whisky, 35 sakes, 30 glasses of champagne and a mere 19 vodka martinis.

So, which it is, or what was Fleming's version? The Merciful 12:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Date of joining 00 section

In Chapter 5 of Goldfinger, Bond is described as having been in the Double-O section for six years. Goldfinger was published in March 1959, and various cultural references, such as the introduction of the Series B £5 note (Chapter 7) and the expansions to Idlewild Airport (Chapter 22) place the action of the novel in the late 1950s. The exact year can be calculated more accurately from Goldfinger's age. In Chapter 6 he is described as having arrived in England in 1937, age twenty. This would put his birth year at around 1917. In Chapter 17 Goldfinger describes how he has made "a large sum of money in twenty years", presumably meaning since 1937; this would suggest a date of 1957. However, in Chapter 23 Bond remembers an aeroplane crash that took place over Persia, "back in '57", implying a later date. In Chapter 2 Mr du Pont mentions how he has seen Goldfinger's passport, which gives his age as forty-two. If Goldfinger was born in 1917, he would be forty-two in 1959. M speculates in Chapter 7 and Goldfinger confirms in Chapter 22 that the latter is an agent of SMERSH. According to Chapter 5 of Thunderball, SMERSH was disbanded in 1958. With 1957 and 1959 both ruled out, the only possible remaining date for the action of the novel is thus 1958. If Bond had been in the 00 section for six years in 1958, he joined it in 1952. This doesn't sit very comfortably with Bond's own description, in Chapter 20 of Casino Royale, of the two assassinations he carried out to achieve 00 status, and which appear to have taken place during the Second World War. The first killing was of a Japanese cipher clerk in New York, and in Chapter 1 of Live and Let Die Bond's arrival at Idlewild is described as "his first sight of America since the war", suggesting that the death of the Japanese took place during that conflict - and before December 1941 at that. The second killing was of "a Norwegian who was doubling against us for the Germans", though of course the Germans referred to could be the forces of the German Democratic Republic rather than the Third Reich. However, these points, though worth mentioning, do not contradict the 1952 date. Opera hat 18:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing Assertion

This statement is confusing:

He has been portrayed on film by Sean Connery, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, Pierce Brosnan, and Daniel Craig, the last interpretation being the only one with an official fictional biography of the character.

Anybody have any idea what the bold section means? James Bond had an official backstory (revealed through dialogue) before the Daniel Craig film, even if we didn't see his first case. Any reason why this line should be retained? --Chancemichaels 21:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels[reply]

Actors

"The first actor to portray James Bond was Sean Connery in Dr. No, released in 1962." This is true of the EON Pictures Bond, but famously not true overall. Barry Nelson played Bond in a television production earlier [1]. I would change this, but the whole article is slanted toward the EON Pictures Bond and needs adjusting. --Tysto 23:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Popov declared to a group of Italian journalists in 1981, shortly after his death at his residence outside Cannes"

Surely that should be 'shortly before his death'?

Or did Popov only live twice...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.203.84.34 (talk) 11:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretations

i feel that the james bond character should be split into different artcles depending on the actor who portrayed him each actor gave something different to the character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helicopter tours (talk • contribs) 16:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have an idea... don't know what others think of it... that James Bond, Agent 007, is a transferable identity given by the agency to elite agents. Whatever name they were before, it is their name for the duration. When they "retire" or feel justified in transferring (perhaps their face is too well known), they return to their protected previous identity, and immediately, or after a suitable interval, the name and number is assigned to another qualifying elite agent. Thus, James Bond can remain relatively young, compared to the progression of years (as the genre of movies shows). In addition, it is conceivable that a previous holder of the designation could be reactivated to it in order to accomplish a necessary goal - as in actor Sean Connery's brief return to service with the same apparent name as another active agent. GBC (talk) 00:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That theory's completely bogus. See James Bond (character) under alternate theories. It lists why this is impossible. Emperor001 (talk) 22:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? Tiny Beretta

"In the novels preceding Dr. No, Bond uses a 0.25mm Beretta automatic pistol carried in a light-weight chamois leather holster, however, in From Russia with Love, in the draw, the gun snags in Bond's jacket, and, because of this incident, M and Major Boothroyd order Bond re-equipped with a Walther PPK and a Berns-martin triple-draw holster made of stiff saddle leather. "

Considering that the smallest bullet ever invented was 2mm, I find this difficult to believe. 0.25mm would be so small as to be completely ineffective. Is this what's actually stated in the novels? Agharo (talk) 04:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't .25mm, it was .25 caliber. There's a difference between caliber and mm measurement of bullets. Emperor001 (talk) 22:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Difference

What's the difference between this article and James Bond 007? Jimblack (talk) 22:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Jimblack[reply]

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leiter

Felix Leiter is alive at the end of License to Kill, so how can Bond avenge Leiter's and Dellas's deaths? Legostarwarsfreak (talk) 17:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Small additions and general criticism of article

Firstly, I have to agree with the comments above regarding the divergence of the literary and film character. It makes the article confusing and inaccurate to blend the two together. At the risk of engaging in "fan wankery" myself, I am going to make two small edits for now:

Since the article goes into detail about his use of intoxicants, I'm going to add a line about his drug use, which occurs in several of the novels. For instance, in Moonraker he consumes the amphetamine Benzedrine (mixed with Champagne) to give him extra confidence in his bridge game against Drax, and in On Her Majesty's Secret Service he recreationally consumes the barbituate seconal in order to induce a "cosy self-anaesthesia."

Also, I'm going to add a line about his taste/habits in food. Davidkleinfeld (talk) 12:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, but if possible in the paragraph, "Although Fleming states in the novel On Her Majesty's Secret Service that "James Bond was not a gourmet," he clearly appreciates food and has a sophisticated (if perhaps idiosyncratic) palate....". Could you add a few inline citations like page number etc., just so the Verifiability of that section is not brought into question. El Greco(talk) 22:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal?

Should this not be merged with James Bond? It only seems rational. TheFamousPeter (talk) 21:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this article is about the character, while James Bond is about all that encompasses James Bond's influence. El Greco(talk) 23:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excepting Fettes Bond's education mirrors Fleming's

The article then goes on to speak of Bond's Oxbridge education. Fleming, to the best of my knowing, never attended Cambridge or Oxford meaning that this is another deviation from Fleming's education.--Zoso Jade (talk) 20:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

format or genre?

The page doesn't meantiones the specific format Bond is built upon. This mixture of fantasy-, politicthriller and love-storys is a format itself. A so called Bond! Technical perfection in a nearly science -fiction way is added. So there are main characteristics and real political bondages. A cold war lasting 49 years is something amusing in the boarders of eastern and western world. This agent or commander acts on prejudices and fat strategies.For example, do you want to be invited in an uran cellar without any security clothes on? Do you? Touristic and sexy shapes sell more. How two enjoy such missunderstandings is real acting in our wealth. [ A world is not enough] Soldiers, agents, commanders and an enemy who disguises or not, are well known male fancies.The plots aren't validid. Let him go in his cellar!--Hum-ri (talk) 18:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Books/films

I first posted this on the Bond WikiProject talk page, but this may get more exposure here: This is a rough rearranging of the James Bond (character) page which aims to separate the book and film character more. If one looks at The Lord of the Rings character articles, their style (books first), if not format, is what I'm trying to emulate. It could use polishing, since I'm not that familiar with the books at least. Put any comments here, please. Uthanc (talk) 19:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

pointless paragraph

In the description and personal life section there is a paragraph near the end about woman that Craig's Bond has slept with and that they have died and that their first names are all odd. But since only makes out with Solange in the movie and three woman would hardly qualify for a significant relationship. Plus nearly all bond girls have uncommon names i.e. Pussy Jinx and this is only a matter of opinion. So I'm going to remove it.149.159.68.187 (talk) 06:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless paragraph

{{editsemiprotected}}

In the description and personal life section there is a paragraph near the end about woman that Craig's Bond has slept with and that they have died and that their first names are all odd. But since only makes out with Solange in the movie and three woman would hardly qualify for a significant relationship. Plus nearly all bond girls have uncommon names i.e. Pussy Jinx and this is only a matter of opinion. It should be removed.

 Done NuclearWarfare (Talk) 21:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

C-Class rated for Comics Project

As this B-Class article has yet to receive a review, it has been rated as C-Class. If you disagree and would like to request an assesment, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment and list the article. Hiding T 14:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bond's age and his drug use

First, his age: Bond worked for SIS/MI6 before WWII. In Moonraker, M reminds Bond that he is the best card player in the Service, due to some casino jobs he performed before the war. Bond then reminisces about his training by Steffi Esposito, who was modeled after John Scarne. WWII started in September 1939,so Bond had to be born before 1921. The obit published by M in On Her Majesty's Secret Service was falsified for security reasons.

Second, his drug use: Bond took two Tuinals to help him sleep in the short story The Living Daylights.

In general, I agree that the original novels and short stories are more authoritative than the cinemas or later tales. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gchuven (talk • contribs) 17:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indian/Asian James Bond

Is it true that serious consideration has been given to choosing an Indian/Asian (British English) actor to portray Bond?--71.111.194.50 (talk) 01:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Year in which the Novels are based on

Does anyone know what the date is (fictionally) in Ian Flemings James Bond series? Its after WW2, but what date precisely? I need to know preciley or at least a rough estimate as to what Date it was in Ian Flemings last chronological time line of James Bond. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Unbeholden (talk • contribs) 10:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way to know this because, like many one-offs that turn into a series, Fleming didn't set out or manage to create a biographically consistent Bond.
In Casino Royale he was driving a Bentley in 1933, was an expert gambler by 1939, killed a Japanese agent in New York before December 1941 and killed a Norwegian thereafter - presumably during WW2 - to gain a 00 number. By Goldfinger, he's been in the Navy and joined in 1941 aged 17, which is irreconcilable to the dates and events of the first book.
Later books mention his having been to university, which is also difficult to reconcile to what has come before.
Neither is it possible for all the stories to have occurred during one or two action-packed years, because in Moonraker (in which the enemy is a vengeful Nazi), Bond reflects that assignments come up one to three times a year.
All one can say, I think, is that he's in his early 40s throughout the series, even though it was written over twelve years. Fleming also altered the backstory after the films went into production, making one of Bond's parents Scottish apparently so as to explain Sean Connery. Tirailleur (talk) 00:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

based on a real spy

Could the character of James Bond be based off of a real-life spy that has yet to be named. A spy during the Cold War or either of the world wars, perhaps?

Damn, you've learned the secret. Now, you must be mindwiped. There are three lights. FNORD. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Tamahori

Just so we don't end up with an edit war over the Lee Tamahori interview, the citation does exist and it can be found here. The germane section is as below.

What was the idea? My idea was basically that there have been several Bonds. It's just a prefix and a code name Even James Bond is not the guy's name. That's the way I've always been able to view these things from when Connery left and Lazenby and Moore took over, right up to Brosnan. How could this guy be so young still? Of course to me, it is just a prefix and a code name. That means that Connery either died or retired, Moore died or retired and so on. Following that, that allows you to have possibly two James Bonds in a movie. What happened to the others? Were they retired from active service or were they killed? That's where I came from. I thought what if there was a scene where Bond meets one of the originals, an older 007 who got out of the service and acted as a mentor to him, taught him some stuff about what was about to happen to him because he was being left behind and he was out of the secret service and people were trying to come and kill him. It was a different script at that stage, but I thought it was an interesting idea and I thought an audience may love it.

Awesome idea, but I have to bring up a fanboy point. Why are the other James Bonds mourning the same dead wife? Well, they don't.

Moore visits her grave in For Your Eyes Only. Oh, he does, does he. I didn't know that.

What would your answer have been had I not brought that up? I was not aware that he visited it. I thought if you sprung that on an audience, it may open up a whole new avenue or way of viewing Bond movies. Another reason I was proposing that as an idea was for future movies, when Pierce leaves and someone else comes on board, you may actually be able to do that as an introduction. You might be able to introduce the new guy as a new guy and look, there have been several before you, you're a new one. Don't rock the boat and don't do this and don't do that

Can you guys thrash out an agreement here before you do any more page edits on this? Thanks - Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk) 14:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for initiating this discussion, Schrodinger's Cat; I meant to do so after my revert, but was distracted by a telephone call. I agree that the citation you thoughtfully added does indeed point to a source where a single director of a Bond film seems to think that 007 is a code name. Odd, idiosyncratic and not at all the majority opinion, but citable.
That brings up the larger concern here: why are we presenting a fringe theory as the predominant one? Different actors portray the same person, and the characters (and stories) alter to reflect the social mores of the times. Bond isn't as much of a womanizer, drinker and chain smoker. Sure, some nuttier could claim that 007 is just a code number for a succession of agents, but I would challenge anyone to present citable references that suggest that Fleming (or Gardner) ever presented that theory as even possible. They wrote their books for the same person - James Bond. Not a succession of people who are simply called Bond. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair comment, I would agree its odd that a character created by a writer should be represented as the writer intended. The only caveat is that if there is sufficient (and notable) commentary then it has a place. I seem to recall that (in connection with the films) there has been much commentary on the idea that Bond is more then one person. For example in the first Casino Royal film it’s in fact a major part of the plot. Perhaps a seperate section is needed for film and novel charactisations.Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a fringe theory, and initiating the subsection with it offers undue weight to the theory. Even Tamahori suggests it as such; the idea was eventually nixed before the final script was written, noting that noting that "some caution and some wisdom prevailed on that one".
Towards that end, I've edited the section in question to offer proper weight to the theory. Let me know if there remain any concerns. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Goldfinger

Having seen what a few helpful souls can do with regards to getting GA status for Dr. No, I'm trying to spark some interest in doing the same for the next non-GA film, Goldfinger. Is anyone able to help with this? Many thanks for anything you can do - pointing out problem links, dodgy sources, where citations are needed, adding in extra info or any form of help you can give: it's all most welcome! I want to see Goldfinger back at GA status in less than a month and as we managed it with Dr. No, so we can do it with this one too! Thanks for all your help! - Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk) 08:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daughter?

What evidence is there that Bond and Tracy (aka Teresa) ever had a daughter named Camille, as the box suggests? In OHMSS it is revealed that Tracy had a daughter by her former husband before meeting Bond, but the girl died of meningitis. In both the book and film, she marries Bond and then is assassinated after their wedding. Not exactly enough time to have a kid. Any reason why I shouldn't delete this?Saturnalia9 (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)saturnalia9[reply]

Is it in the books by Fleming? If so, it should remain in. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not in any Fleming book, so take it out and let someone else argue the point with sources, if they want. - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, it is your contention that it is in neither book nor film. Is that correct? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I am aware yes that's correct (although I'm open to correction)! I've done a text search on the books (great to have a Kindle) and the name Camille doesn't come up at all. It's been a month or so since I saw the film, but they didn't havea child together (they were killed a few hours after the wedding ceremony). - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I remember that from the film, but hadn't read the book. I guess keep it out for now, and if some bight sould is able to source it, we talk about putting it back in. Thanks for the talking, SchroCat. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hoagy Carmichael Photo

Can I pretty please change it back to the studio head shot (Hoagy_carmichael.jpg), rather than the early photo of young Hoagy, which was probably not what Fleming had in mind when he compared Bond to him? I tried, but somebody changed it back because they said it what vandalism :( Saturnalia9 (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)saturnalia9[reply]

What are the dates of the two photos were originally taken? - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the answer, I've self-reverted; your edit appeared to be vandalism, but that was only because I had not checked it more carefully. My most sincere apologies, Saturnalia9. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 12:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bonkers

This article is nuts. The bio swings around madly between stories by different writers. There's no continuity, it doesn't make any bloody sense. There are loads of random 'facts' that come from a variety of sources, sometime half from one and half from another, and are just jumbled in together as if they're all one.

What will any one learn from this? If someone came here to get information about the Fleming character, it would be too hard to pick out the bits that were Fleming and the bits that weren't. Same goes for the film character. Same goes for Young Bond and all the post-Fleming additional writing. The articles really need to be separated in to 'Fleming's literary Bond', 'Film Bond', 'other stuff', otherwise the article is pretty much useless for any encyclopaedic purposes and is just a fanzine. BearAllen (talk) 09:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay BearAllen, apart from splitting this article into several smaller ones (which would likely not survive as such), how would you craft this article to clean it up. I am open to restructuring. Recall that Bond is historically a jumble, as his personal biography tends to morph in each new era a Bond film is made in, or treatments by different authors. I think that what some editors were doing was to merge all of that data together in a chronological dateline - perhaps not the right approach, but an understandable one. Maybe different sections; first the literary Bond (with subsections for Fleming's and then Gardner's Bond), then one for the film Bond, and finally one for other versions of Bond? This also follows a chronological format, but the chronology of character usage, and not the in-universe life of a fictional character. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest keeping certain boundaries. Certain biographical points made in the article begin with something from Fleming but by the end of the sentence are sourced from, say, Higson. It's confusing, a bit deceptive, and doesn't really help anyone.
I would largely go along the lines you just suggested. If it's to be one big article for the character of Bond, start with the Fleming literary character and keep the section strictly to Fleming - the origin, similarities to Fleming, bio, description, and career as described by Fleming, reception of the books and the impact the character had, etc, all the normal stuff you'd expect, but keep it strictly within the boundaries of the original character.
Personally, I would then go on to the film character of Bond - it makes most sense in terms of chronology, progression of the character, and significance. Then, as a follow up, I would move on to the additional works which use Bond as a character - Higson, Gardner, Amiss, Foulks, and so on, and then the various computer games, cartoon series, etc.
This would be consistent with other major literary characters, such as Sherlock Holmes. The work of the original writer needs to be disambiguated from what followed. Thought? BearAllen (talk) 19:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are on the same wavelength here, BearAllen. Why not work the article out in accordance with that idea? I'll join in, time permitting. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, sounds good. It looks like a big project and, as I doubt any one person has all the source material to hand and has read/watched absolutely all of it, will naturally require a lot of input from a lot of editors. I'll start a new section on this page where we can propose a re-write. Good place to start would seem to be getting a cleaner and more conventional lede. Regards. BearAllen (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed re-write - Outline

As discussed above (and flicking through the talk page(s) it seems this has been proposed several times before) it looks as if this page needs a re-write/overhaul. I suggest the following outline:

Conventional lede - a brief overview, leaving out some of the factoids which should really be in the body

Literary Bond - A bio of the literary character of Bond, in line with the format of other literary bios, and sticking strictly to the Fleming canon.

Film Bond - a bio of the film character, how he differed from the literary character, how he changed with each new actor/era

Other works with Bond - Young Bond, novelizations, etc

Other stuff - TBC

I'll try to write a new lede in the next few days. Suggestions for material welcome. BearAllen (talk) 20:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_Bond_(literary_character)&oldid=458537740"