Talk:Motifs in the James Bond film series/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Wasted Time R (talk · contribs) 11:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Generally a very good article.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   I have made a few copyedits for prose and MoS issues, discuss below if you disagree with them.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   See below for a couple of points in this area.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   These are well done.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Points:

• The long quote box at the end seems out of place and undue weight to me for this article. It doesn't even contain the famous phrase. It's already in the Shaken, not stirred article, where it is appropriate, but I think it should be taken out of here.

• Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• On the other hand, I think the "Bond ... James Bond" and "Shaken, not stirred" quotes themselves could be in centered blue boxes, to make them more visible. In particular, the first one kind of gets lost the way it is led into now.

• I've done the first and I'm just thinking over the second one - how to make it fit in well, without seeming contrived. I agree it should go in there, but just working out how! the second one too! - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• This looks better, but I think the first box should have the same format as the second, meaning it should be described as "Bond to numerous people, first heard in Dr. No." Also, is it "Bond, James Bond" or "Bond ... James Bond"? The article currently has both. Does the interval between the two parts change over time in the films? Wasted Time R (talk) 11:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Difficult to say about the spacing as it's on film, and it's transcribed in both formats by the various sources. (Additionally, the AFI have it as "Bond. James Bond.", just to add to the mix!) - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• The one motif that I think is missing from the article are the one-liners Bond says. I don't have a comprehensive list, but there are several subcategories of them, including the ones said after dispatching a villain:
  • Bond, after killing Kananga by forcing an expanding air cartridge down his throat in Live and Let Die: “He always did have an inflated opinion of himself.”
  • Bond, after killing a villain with a spear gun in Thunderball: “I think he got the point.”
  • Bond, after electrocuting Oddjob in Goldfinger: “He blew a fuse.”
• and the double entendre lines, such as:
  • “Keeping the British end up, sir.”
  • “I always enjoyed learning a new tongue.”
• And it would be useful to include the actors' reactions to doing these one-liners. Pierce Brosnan later said he hated them: "It never felt real to me. I never felt I had complete ownership over Bond. Because you'd have these stupid one-liners — which I loathed — and I always felt phony doing them."

• I'll work on this over the next few days. - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• I've made a start on this under the slightly broader heading of "Humour", but stuggling to ensure it's not just a list of one-liners! - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Now done. - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• Is the best section title really "Humour", or would "One-liners" be better? Are there other humourous motifs besides the one-liners, such as visual ones? I think an example or two is needed of Moore self-mockery, and "wink at the audience" needs to be either attributed in text or paraphrased. An example or two of Brosnan one-liners would also be helpful. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry—I missed this one before. I think "Humour" is a better title and I've added a couple of non-verbal elements which illustrate additional points. I've also added a Brosnan quote to even it out. - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• OK, this section looks good now. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, the article is well-structured and I look forward to it reaching the GA level, but putting on hold for now. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the article some more, I think it would benefit from some kind of closing section that discusses the overall effect that these motifs have had on the series. Have they helped give some thematic cohesiveness to a series that has otherwise varied greatly in style, pacing, casting, etc? Have they helped maintain the films' longstanding commercial appeal? Or have they contributed to a sense of cheesiness and self-parody that some think has set in? That kind of thing. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how much there is: the authors that identify the elements tend to do so in order to examine each film in the light of the motifs and end up looking at individual films, rather than the overall series. However, I'll have a better look and see what I can come up with. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• I've gone through the sources agin and I can't find anything that would adequately suit what you're saying. I know exactly what you mean, but nothing I have links the effect of the elements with the series as a whole, only on the individual films. - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'm going to look a bit on my own for this. The article just feels incomplete without it. Also note that there is an unresponded-to suggestion on the "Humour" section above. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• No problems. I've found that things that there are not many things that look specifically at the motifs that run through the series and I've not found anything that summarises the overall effect on the series. Hope you find something, but I suspect that most of the things that criticise the series (or praise it) will do so on a more general level and not focus on the effect of these elements. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• Just by its subtitle alone, I would think the Jütting book James Bond Over the Decades: Formula Vs. Innovation would have material along these lines. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• It doesn't, I'm afraid. It has a lot of info about each of the elements (which is why it's been used extensively over the article) but nothing that states the effect of these motifs onto the series as a whole. - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Well, I spent some time at the library. Did find one book you don't list, Laurent Bouzereau's The Art of Bond, which has lots of comments from people involved in all sorts of aspects of the films. Especially good in how they dealt with the humour and one-liner and famous quotation 'requirements'. Some grist for the section I had in mind, but not enough. No matter, guess one must leave room for FA work. Now passing this for GA, good job. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• That's fantastic news—many thanks indeed! - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)