Talk:Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang/Archive 1

Archive 1

Copyright

"The movie was referenced by United States Senator Orrin Hatch during the June 23, 2004 discussion of the Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act, comparing illegal file sharing on P2P networks, with stealing candy under the guise of it being free."

That sounds interesting, but I don't quite understand it. Could someone clarify, please? <KF> 17:58, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Romania

According to my wife the story is about Romania (oppressed people & castles). Anybody know?GordyB 16:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Vulgaria

Is it supposed to say Vulgaria and Vulgarian in the article?--Jcvamp 02:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

License Plate Number

I always thought GEN 11 was Gensis II (roman numeral 2) referring to the fact that this car was reborn from the remains of a wrecked racer. Phoenix could have been just as appropriate.

As a child, I always read it as a variation on 'Genie,' wholly appropriate for a magical car.

However, Wikipedia says that 'genii' is the plural of the Latin word 'genius', a word with a quite different meaning than the English word 'genius'. "In ancient Roman religion, the genius was the individual instance of a general divine nature that is present in every individual person, place or thing." That sounds like the intended origin of the plate. Can anyone confirm this?--174.70.117.125 (talk) 14:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I have a copy of the book, and it explicitly cites the "genie" source: "GEN II. Don't you realize what that spells? 'Genii' - like magical people, sort of spirits, like that story about the Bottle Imp by Robert Lois Stevenson that Mimsie read to us once.". Page 18 of a volume with LCCN 64-21282. --The Wanderer (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Chitty bang.JPG

Image:Chitty bang.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Book cover

The present photograph of the book cover is not a film tie-in issue of Fleming's novel but a separate novelisation of the film, which is totally different. It should not, therefore, be used in this article. Opera hat (talk) 13:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced material

The following is unsourced information:

• Chitty Chitty Bang Bang's number plate number was GEN 11, the closest to the word "genie" that the UK motor vehicle registration system would have allowed up to the time the novel was written. However, by the time the film was made (1968), this UK Number Plate would have been available - as GEN 1E - from January to July 1967, when cars were allotted the "E" year suffix - well before the film's launch, in December 1968. These are, incidentally, Bury (Lancashire) official registrations (both the original GEN 11, and the potential GEN 1E).The "official" website for the car (www.chittygen11.com)- only because the car has been since sold to another owner - states that the license plate was GEN11 because, "In the novel, the number plate GEN11 had significance in that if you read the number ones as " i's ", it spelled out the latin word "genii" meaning magical person or being."
• During the song and dance routine, "Toot Sweets", a dog falls off the scaffolding.
• The name of Potts is believed to come from Albert William Potts, who caddied for Ian Fleming at The Royal St George's Golf Club, Sandwich. After asking Potts' name, Fleming commented that the name Potts was unusual.

While this is interesting, we can't use it unless you provide a source. Also, none of this is really trivia, as trivia by its definition is "unimportant information" - it therefore shouldn't be in a trivia section but instead the information should be incorporated into the main article. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 10:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Novelisation of film

It might be worth mentioning that there was a novel produced based on the film. Although aimed at children it was just a shade darker than the film, it made it clear that the Baron Bomburst sequences were intended as extended fantasy scenes (which the film was confused about) and it indicated that Caractacus Potts had found it difficult coping after the death of his wife.

I need to check the film again on this, but I suspect that when Grandpa was kidnapped by the Vulgarians it was because of confusion between "laboratory" and "lavatory" (a gag they possibly pinched from another film whose name now escapes me). PatGallacher (talk) 02:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Primary meaning

Can we treat the novel as the primary meaning of "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang"? I think the film is now considerably better known, even the stage musical is better known, and Fleming's novel could even have been superseded to some extent by the later novelisation of the film (although I am not aware that either is still in print). Maybe we should turn this into a disambiguation, although I am inclined to thin the film should be the primary meaning. PatGallacher (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Musical Information

The information about the musical adaptation needs to be moved to the Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (musical) page. There's a good bit here that isn't on that page.

And really, it's a stage adaptation of the movie musical, not this novel directly, anyway. Two reasons to move it.--174.70.117.125 (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Article

You know, it really ticks me off that the article of the movie of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang is the main article of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. The book was made first, so the main article should be about the book. All the rest of the articles on this site that are about movies based on books make the novel the main article. Can somebody please change it so that the book is the main article? I don't know how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.249.103.9 (talk) 21:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang (novel)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk · contribs) 13:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello Schro, why stop now just because we've exhausted all the Bond books, eh? ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi there! My thoughts exactly - may as well polish off the only "junior Bond" book Fleming wrote! - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Toolbox checks

• No dab link issues.
• No external link issues.

Prose/content/structure

• Happy with prose following my copyedit -- let me know if I unintentionally altered any meaning.
  • No, as always, all your edits were good ones - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
• Characters: I'd have thought there should be more on the characters than a bare list. In the Bond novel articles this is a Characters and themes section; while I'd understand if there was nothing much to say on Chitty's theme, has no-one written anything about the characters? If not, then perhaps keep the list you have but briefly describe each one (a sentence or phrase each). Also any characters with WP articles should be linked, no?
  • Sadly not much has been written about the characters, but I've included a description about each of them. Let me know if this is what you have in mind, or if you want a little more on each of them. (And only Caractacus has his own article - now wlinked) - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
• Background: At the end of the first paragraph you mention Fleming suffering a heart attack during the Thunderball case, then at the beginning of the next paragraph you mention him suffering a heart attack two weeks after the case. If he did indeed suffer two heart attacks, the second should be identified as "a second" attack (or the first could be differentiated from the second as "a mild" attack). Or was it fact one heart attack and there's confusion about when it occurred?
  • Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Citations/references/spotcheck

• Need a citation for the last clause of the last sentence in Reviews.
  • Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
• Spotchecked the following:
  • FNs 02, 03, 25, 27 -- no issues.
  • FN13 -- source doesn't mention anything about the location he died, or that it was Casper's birthday.
    • Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
  • FN23 -- source doesn't actually mention Broccoli having produced 5 Bond films previously, though admittedly it's not really something that would be challenged.
    • FN24? Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Supporting materials

• FUR for the book cover is fine.
• While I can see the Zborowski car photo has been used a fair bit around WP, I'm not so sure about the licence: how can we be claiming PD status because it's 70 years after the photographer's death if we don't know who the photographer was?
  • I'm not sure either! I picked up the image from the Chitty Bang Bang page to use. Do you want me to remove it? - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, I think the image needs a different licence but not certain what, so it'd expedite things to just lose it from here for now and look into the licensing question independently. I'm happy with everything else you've done in response to the review points. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
      • OK - All done and hopefully the image can go back in once the licence has been finalised. - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
        • I've asked for a second opinion, who agreed the licensing is a problem at present (if either its original publishing date or its author could be ascertained, there might be no issue). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Summary

• Nice work as usual, let me know your thoughts/actions on the above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Cheers for this. I think I've covered everything, but let me know about the image and if you're happy with the characters section now. Thanks so much for giving this the going over—and for your copy edits, which have tightened it up nicely. - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Tks for all that, happy to pass this -- well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
      • That's fantastic—many thanks Ian. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 05:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. SchroCat (talk) 03:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

---

Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang (book) → Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang (novel) – Using "novel" rather than "book" is more appropriate, and is in line with MOS. SchroCat (talk) 19:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I support SchroCat's request. - Fanthrillers (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Why was Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang moved to Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang (book) in the first place? Moving it to Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang (novel) will still leave Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang as WP:MALPLACED disambiguation if it redirects to Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang (novel). There are two possible solutions as I see it:

1. The novel should be at Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang if the book is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this version of the title, or
2. The novel should be at Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (novel) and Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang should redirect to either Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (if the film is the PRIMARYTOPIC for Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang) or Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (disambiguation) (if there is no PRIMARYTOPIC for Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang). Betty Logan (talk) 08:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why, but all the CCBB pages seem to have been re-named (making something of a mess in the process) and some have been cleared up, while others have not. There is a minor complication in the that book, initially published as Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang, has for a number of years been published as Chitty Chitty Bang Bang - in other words sans hyphens. I'm not sure I agree with the 2010 consensus as the two shared the same current names and having the articles identified as novel and film in brackets seemed to be a pretty good way to go (although I know you are not a fan of such a mechanism!) - SchroCat (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll defer to whatever SchroCat and Betty Logan decide. - Fanthrillers (talk) 19:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• There appears to be several discussions going on at once here. There was a clear decision following a formal move request about a year ago that the film is the primary topic. I agree that "novel" rather than "book" is the correct disambiguator in keeping with naming conventions for books, "book" should be used for non-fiction. It's not clear to me that there is a malplaced disambiguation page anywhere, can anyone clarify. PatGallacher (talk) 00:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang is either the primary topic for the book or it is not. If it is not (which is what you seem to be saying), then Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang shouldn't redirect to Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (book), it should redirect to primary topic or the disambiguation page. If it is the primary topic then having a redirect at the main article to a disambiguated page is malplaced disambiguation, because you don't need to disambiguate a primary topic article. Betty Logan (talk) 00:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• On further reflection, I suggest we move this article to "Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang", hyphens, no disambiguator. PatGallacher (talk) 00:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll change my original request to fall into line with the consensus (and with the MOS on titles). As this makes it a non-controversial move I have moved the page and am closing the RM process. - SchroCat (talk) 03:23, 31 December 2012 (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.

Dates in Background section

I extract the following apparent chain of events (my bolding of dates):

The case was heard on 24 March 1961 and allowed [Thunderball] to be published, although the door was left open for McClory to pursue further action at a later date. He did so and, on 19 November 1963, the case of McClory v Fleming was heard at the Chancery Division of the High Court. The proceedings lasted three weeks, during which time Fleming was unwell, suffering a heart attack as the case progressed.

Two weeks after the case, during the weekly Tuesday staff conference at his employers, The Sunday Times, Fleming suffered a serious, second heart attack that necessitated convalescence, which he undertook at the Dudley Hotel in Hove. Whilst there, one of Fleming's friends, Duff Dunbar, gave him a copy of Beatrix Potter's The Tale of Squirrel Nutkin to read and suggested that he took the time to write up the bedtime story that Fleming used to tell to tell his son Caspar each evening. Fleming attacked the project with gusto and wrote to his publisher, Michael Howard of Jonathan Cape, joking that "There is not a moment, even on the edge of the tomb, when I am not slaving for you".

...

In May 1961, Fleming sent his publisher the manuscripts for the first two volumes of Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang.

Something is out of whack here, not to be glibly explained away as a 'delay in publication.' The simplest explanation is a typo in the last date (possibly from the source?). Alternatively, the events described might be out of order. — Pingku^dimmi 13:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

My edit summary was not "glib". However you are correct saying that something does appear to be out of whack. The article implies that Fleming's first heart attack occurred in 1963. In fact, he suffered his first heart attack - in either April or May 1961 - shortly after McClory's failed injunction. In fairness the passages quoted above should replace "Two weeks after the case" with "Two weeks after McClory's failed injunction" to avoid any confusion. I'll defer to SchroCat how to rewrite/restructure the passages. - Fantr (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Skrumshus/Scrumptious

To the IP who keeps changing this: don't. In the book the character is not known as Scrumptious, but Skrumshus. Stop changing it to the wrong version please. - SchroCat (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Authors in the navbox?

As is so well known, this tale is better known through the film than the book. Authorship is also divided between Fleming and Dahl. It's that rare thing too, a film that's better than its original book. A subjective viewpoint, but it's clear that Dahl deserves substantial credit for it, not Fleming alone.

Recent edits have removed the two authors from inside the navbox. When reverted, this was repeated with the explanation "Fleming is linked in the lead, so this is a duplicate link. Dahl only wrote the screenplay". I see this as inappropriate for several reasons:

• Dahl deserves credit and a link in the navbox. I would personally contend that he shares equal status with Fleming.
• Dahl deserves a link. Removing Fleming for reasons of duplication is no reason at all to remove Dahl as well.
• Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang, like Fleming, is linked in both titlebar and navbox content, ie duplicated. Yet no-one is suggesting removing the lead article from the navbox.
• Fleming is linked in the title bar, but who reads titlebars? As a usability aspect, readers tend to only follow links from inside the body of a navbox, thus there's a good reason to favour duplication from their headers.

I'm raising this here as higher traffic than at the template. I think both authors should be restored to the navbox. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• It is uncommon for these works templates to have the adaptation writers in them. The author of the original work belongs in the title as it is. The other works deserve equal treatment in the navbox. However the adaptations' creatives (directors/producers/writers) don't generally belong in the navbox.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

In this case it's more than an adaptation though, around half of the screenplay is additional to the novel - including several of the characters who make it to inclusion in the navbox (the family mostly don't, Dahl's Vulgarians do). After the film the screenplay novelisation was sold as a separate novel. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The recent edits are an improvement. This navbox is now correctly titled in a way to indicate it is for the original novel. With the original author's name in the navbox title, there is no need for this name elsewhere in the nav box. There is certainly no need for an adaptation author's name in the nav box (the adaptation author has a separate nav box). The popularity of an adaptation is immaterial. Prhartcom (talk) 17:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111008202613/http://www.ianfleming.com/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=112 to http://www.ianfleming.com/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=112
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131014225759/http://www.panmacmillan.com/book/frankcottrellboyce/chittychittybangbang3overthemoon to http://www.panmacmillan.com/book/frankcottrellboyce/chittychittybangbang3overthemoon

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:29, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Not a novel but a children's story?

Surely, the Ian Fleming story is not a novel. It was written as three small books each ~ 46 pages, with pictures, written for children, which I read as a child. While the book based on the film, might pass for a novel, the Ian Fleming books, do not. This is not a put-down of the books, which I seriously loved as a child, and would still recommend. Also, I am not saying that it is not possible for children's books to be novels; they very clearly can. I am just putting forward that the original trilogy is not one of them. I will leave it at this, and only change things, if there is no convincing opposition. I have read the discussion above, on whether it should be book or novel; but I think that the discussion is too narrow, the categorizations, wrong Ian Fleming's Chitty Chitty Bang Bang is a series of three books. The distinction being made does seem to be akin to calling The Very Hungry Caterpillar a novel, which it plainly is not. --Samesawed (talk) 14:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Timing of composition

As i read it currently, the two paragraphs which address the composition of the book are in contradiction with each other (and, incidentally, with the sequence as given in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang). In the first paragraph we read In May 1961 Fleming sent his publisher the manuscripts for the first two volumes of Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang...Fleming suggested the Daily Mail cartoonist Trog....After Trog was forced to withdraw from the project, Cape commissioned John Burningham, who had recently won the 1963 Kate Greenaway Medal which implies that the book was started probably in 1960, certainly by 1961. In the second we have On 19 November 1963...Fleming was unwell, suffering a heart attack...Fleming suffered a serious, second heart attack that necessitated convalescence...one of Fleming's friends, Duff Dunbar, gave him a copy of Beatrix Potter's The Tale of Squirrel Nutkin to read and suggested Fleming write up the bedtime story he used to tell his son Caspar each evening. Fleming attacked the project with gusto which implies the beginning of the writing was in 1963. Even if the project attacked was merely finishing up the book(s), the sequence is not clear to the reader. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 14:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)