Talk:The Spy Who Loved Me (film)

The Spy Who Loved Me (film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

The Spy Who Loved Me (film) is part of the James Bond films series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 5, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
January 23, 2012	Good topic candidate	Promoted
June 30, 2016	Good topic removal candidate	Demoted
July 6, 2017	Good topic candidate	Promoted
March 30, 2022	Good topic removal candidate	Demoted
September 27, 2022	Good topic candidate	Promoted
Current status: Good article

Film: British / American

	Film portal This article 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
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Cold War Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Egypt Low‑importance

	Egypt portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egypt on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject EgyptTemplate:WikiProject EgyptEgypt articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Espionage Low‑importance

	The Spy Who Loved Me (film) is within the scope of WikiProject Espionage, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of espionage, intelligence, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.EspionageWikipedia:WikiProject EspionageTemplate:WikiProject EspionageEspionage articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

James Bond (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

Untitled

No, I think it's a bad idea to split the soundtrack into another article. It just doesn't make sense! I mean, if you were to look for the soundtrack, you'd naturally go to the movie article, because naturally it would be there, as it is now.

Any else think the reference to nudity and images of "sex organs" reads peculiarly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.183.171 (talk) 22:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA comment

One of the images is missing a fair use rationale, and the some of the other ones should be better explained for their use. Some are only using one word descriptions for their inclusion in the article. Make sure to address these before somebody reviews the article. --Nehrams2020 08:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All images seem to have a proper rationale now. VanTucky ^(talk) 19:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moore gets burned

in this video at the very end, Moore stats that he got burned from fire sometime during the shoot, might be interesting for trivia? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1iZCdLVJ3I&feature=dir —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.11.88.148 (talk) 21:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Passed "good article" nomination

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
It is stable.
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
Overall:
a Pass/Fail: VanTucky ^(talk) 19:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not the first wholly original Bond film

I've removed the statement that says that this is the first wholly original Bond film, as the element in which the targeting coordinates of a nuclear missile are redirected so that the missile destroys a submarine is borrowed from the novel Moonraker.--Urban Rose 20:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ski jump?

Can we get some info on the ski jump? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.147.38.14 (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fleming's Request

Can someone explain to me how an author that died in 1964 can request that no elements of his book are used in this film, which started filming around 1975? -SleweD (talk) 21:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because Fleming sold the film rights for all of the books (bar a couple where the rights were already elsewhere) before his death. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't it be noted that that's the first Bond in surround sound?

Even better than surround, the raw material (5 channel discrete sound) was enough to create DD 5.1 english track on the DVD. Subsequent James Bond were only Dolby Surround. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.98.139.219 (talk) 18:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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) 05:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sock Puppet Critics

Am I the only one disturbed by the prominent placement given to opinions by James Berardinelli and Daniel Peary in the entries for nearly every Bond film listed in Wikipedia?

For one thing, these latter day commentators are usually listed first in the "Release and Reception" section (in this article, they are placed well before Janet Maslin, perhaps the most significant commentator writing at the time of the film's release, even though they were not writing at the time of the film's release).

But more importantly, it seems pretty clear these comments have been added systematically to these essays in a blanket (and probably self-promotional) sense, while genuine research into the actual critical reactions to the films at the time of their creation is lacking.

In my humble and solitary opinion, Wikipedia has, in a general sense, become an un-policed repository for these types of "factoids"--the critics whose opinions show up in Wiki film essays tend to be recent, relatively minor, and accompanied by Roger Ebert for balance. The great critical voices of the past--Pauline Kael, Andrew Sarris, Molly Haskell, Jay Cocks--and the secondary but notable ones like Bosley Crowther, Rex Reed and Judith Christ are shouldered aside and rarely mentioned.

It smacks of self-promotion, and the knowledgeable reader doubts the credibility of the entire entry as a result.

PS: Daniel Peary's Wikipedia bio reads like a press release by the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.72.220 (talk) 07:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(I've moved your comments to the bottom of the page - which is where they should be, rather than the top, just for future reference).

You are right about their critiques: if at all possible the contemporary references should be in place in the articles, but that takes a fair amount of effort to do all the required research and re-writing needed. Relatively recently a small group of three of us undertook a program of re-writing a number of the Bond film articles to get them up to GA status, an d that included ensuring the contemporary reviews—largely British, as they are British films—took primary place, alongside the more recent reflective reviews, which included the likes of Peary and Berardinelli, as the later assessments arealso important. (Just for refernce, the articles which were re-vamped were Dr. No, Goldfinger, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, The Man with the Golden Gun, For Your Eyes Only, Never Say Never Again, Licence to Kill). I can assure you that the process took an awful lot of time and effort—and that was for only seven of the films! To do a re-vamp for the remaining 17 films is something we may get round to at some point, when we get a spare year or so! ;) - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your hard work! I guess I should just state my biggest complaint directly: Peary and Berardinelli appear to me to have inserted themselves into all of these essays, and that seems real wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.72.220 (talk) 06:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bond working for MI6 in the Movie? - Not possible

Bond in the movie reported to the Minister of Defence in TSWLM therefore he could not have for MI6 since MI6 is under the Foreign Ministry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perdogg (talk • contribs) 15:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be that the film is in fact fiction, rather than a documentary...? - SchroCat (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IP edit warring

To the IP who wants to add bloat to the plot section, please discuss this here before you edit war any further. You are trying to add unnecessary superfluous information to the plot section. This is known as bloating, and we try and avoid it if possible. - SchroCat (talk) 10:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boring conversion question

possibly the most boring question/query ever, but...

it says the water tank was 1.2m Gallons. Which is then converts to 4.5m Litres. This would only be the case if they were American Gallons. Presumably not as it was filmed in the UK; so it should really be almost 5.5m Litres. As the tank measured 91 m by 22.5 m by 2.7 m, this equals 5528 Cu M - which implies Imperial measures, not American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.196.43.45 (talk) 10:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Classification of ship in Plot summary

@DPdH: The Plot summary is implicitly citing the primary source, so it can only summarise what's stated directly in the film. If you can't directly quote the film that it's the Fearless, then you can't state it in the plot summary. Anything else such as "HMS Fearless heads for scrapyard" (thanks for finding it, by the way) should be in more appropriate sections, such as Production. DonQuixote (talk) 13:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, that makes sense. Please give me a few hours and I'll make the required changes in both sections. Regards, DPdH (talk) 13:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can the subs used in filming be added?

Is that information available? Will (Talk - contribs) 15:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone can find the information available in a reliable secondary source, then they can add them. DonQuixote (talk) 15:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting cast

These folks were listed in the closing credits but not the opening title cards.

Robert Brown as Admiral Hargreaves, Flag Officer, Submarines of Royal Navy
Marilyn Galsworthy as Stromberg's Assistant: Treacherous secretary who steals the tracking system microfilm. In the novelisation of the film, her name is said to be Kate Chapman.^{[citation needed]}
Milton Reid as Sandor, a Stromberg's henchman
Cyril Shaps as Bechmann
Milo Sperber as Markowitz
Albert Moses as Barman
Rafiq Anwar as Cairo Club Waiter
Felicity York, Dawn Rodrigues, Anika Pavel, and Jill Goodall as Arab Beauties
The Egyptian Folklore Group

Jeremy Bulloch plays one of the members of the H.M.S. Ranger, captured British submarine.

At the very least I think Milton Reid should be added. I came here to find out who the actor was that played one of the henchmen and I was surprised to find that it was not listed. Peacetype (talk) 18:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Valerie Leon

"We'd need a source, but" Valerie Leon's little cameo as the hotel receptionist who brings Bond a message is an almost direct repeat of a similar part which she played in "The Italian Job", in which she gives Michael Caine a message at the desk as he arrives. On the other hand, a receptionist is shown gazing dreamily at Connery in, I think, "Thunderball".Paulturtle (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bathyscaphe?

Atlantis is a bathyscaphe? Why do we think that? GA-RT-22 (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Five-wheeled sidecar?

Did the motorcycle sidecar missile really have five wheels? I don't have a copy of the cited source. I suspect it actually had only one scooter wheel on each side. GA-RT-22 (talk) 23:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]