Talk:Moonraker (novel)

untitled

Archived stale talk:Talk:Moonraker (novel)/archive01

coverage from 4-2004—2008 (fair use of image notices, ho-hum!)

What on earth...

... does this conspiracy nonsense have to do with the subject of the article?

"He also plays the stock market the day before to make a huge profit from the planned disaster--a possible "revelation of the method" from Ian Fleming in 1955 of the stock market short-selling centered around the infamous, Nazi-created Deutsche Bank days before the September 11, 2001 terror attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon in northern Virginia." 84.161.98.155 (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This is garbage. 71.184.178.110 (talk) 02:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

plot correction

No idea why a plot correction I made was undone, but I've corrected it again. Relevant text from the novel: It was a simple plan. In the evening, two of my men, one in American uniform and one in British, were to drive up in a captured scout car containing two tons of explosive. There was a car park-no sentries of course-near the mess hall and they were to run the car in as close to the mess hall as possible, time the fuse for the seven o'clock dinner hour, and then get away. All quite easy and I went off that morning on my own business and left the job to my second in command I was dressed in the uniform of your Signal Corps and I set off on a captured British motor-cycle to shoot a dispatch rider from the same unit who made a daily run along a near-by road. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.32.110.173 (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Mea cupla - my memory was playing me false: I'd forgotten this was one of Fleming's overly large coincidences! - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Upcoming GA Review

Hi, I will not have internet access next week (until Oct 2nd), but I will sort out any issues you may have from that time on. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 10:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Korda

Laurencebeck, it appears that you are trying to add material that two people have now questioned. Perhaps we should discuss this here, rather than see a continual reversion cycle? I have looked at the Fergus Fleming source, as well as the Chancellor one, and yes, one capitalises the word Metropolis and one does not: that does not appear to be a major discrepancy, although it is mildly annoying for us. What neither source refers to is Fritz Lang or the film Metropolis, so I am unsure how or why you decided that the use of a capital letter leads automatically to this conclusion. Finally, I see that you also introduced American punctuation (using 'metropolis idiom,"' is wrong here), and an inconsistent referencing style – the article appears to use the {{sfn}} system for books. - The Bounder (talk) 10:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Presently your article says this,
'Fleming told the producer that his next book was to be an expansion of an idea for a screenplay, set in London and Kent, adding that the location would allow "for some wonderful film settings in the old metropolis idiom".'
Now, isn't that rather meaningless?

What else does it mean if it does not mean the 1927 Fritz Lang film, Metropolis?

The atmospheric sets and designs of the 1927 film certainly found echo in Ken Adam's designs (they were an overwhelming part of the James Bond film signature).

If a couple of people have questioned what I have added to give some context to the meaningless statement,
'Fleming told the producer that his next book was to be an expansion of an idea for a screenplay, set in London and Kent, adding that the location would allow "for some wonderful film settings in the old metropolis idiom"'
then you, sir, you allow them to have what they want !

Wikipedia is immense. I have given some little attention to this article.  -- Laurencebeck (talk) 01:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

~>>>>>>>>>>>

In the 1979 film Moonraker Fleming's 1953 words to Korda, "wonderful film settings in the old Metropolis setting" were certainly put to practicality:

Production began on 14 August 1978. The massive sets designed by Ken Adam were the largest ever constructed in France and required more than 222,000 man-hours to construct (roughly 1000 hours by each of the crew on average). They were shot at three of France's largest film studios in Épinay and Boulogne-Billancourt.

The essence of the concept of the film-making of the Bond films lie exactly there in the 1953 letter to Korda. This would have again been put forward to the producers of the 1962 first Bond film Dr.No and to proceed with the entire series, his words again, quite surely persuasive in production discussions, "wonderful film settings in the old Metropolis idiom."

I do trust that you do believe that Fleming's thrust of the broad théâtre of life in his few words of concept would not be allowed to be let lie idle and abandoned in the 1953 letter.  -- Laurencebeck (talk) 01:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Laurencebeck, first of all, it's not The Bounder's article, any more than it's yours or mine, nor is The Bounder suggesting that. Now, to the main point, you may well be right that the letter is referring to the Fritz Lang film, but neither your opinion nor mine is a substitute for an unambiguous reference in a reliable source, and we don't seem to have that. If you're concerned that the quote is meaningless, we should be discussing removing it entirely, not investing it with meaning that's not unequivocally there. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Ian Rose . . . . . The Fleming accepted authoritative Andrem Lycett biography gives the upper case M to Metropolis on this page: click > in the old Metropolis idiom < (phrase containing *Metropolis towards end of page)

It certainly is *meaningless without the upper case M. But there to be seen is the *authority of Lycett, his authority in the use of the upper case M.

Fleming, born 28 May 1908, was 18 years and 10 months old when *Metropolis first screened at the Marble Arch Pavilion on March 21, 1927. Here is a whole *blog on it: http://www.peterharrington.co.uk/blog/metropolis/ . . . Certainly an indelible experience for the culturally alert.

The upper case M can be returned (with the authority of Lycett) by he or she among those who would want the best for the page.

Of course it is certain, but "not *unequivocally there," that the reference is to Lang's 1927 Metropolis; and it is satisfying for me, and whoever else enjoys seeing the history within culturally developing situations, to have the detail of information. -- Laurencebeck (talk) 01:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Removing the words "in the old metropolis idiom" would solve the issue, rather than the full quote. I'm not sure what the 1979 film adaptation has to do with Fleming's 1953 letter: that doesn't seem to offer any guidance on whether IF was talking about Metropolis or not? All the best, The Bounder (talk) 06:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Fleming's 1953 concept for the filming of his books, his 1953 letter to Korda, proved so successful a formula that it contributed greatly to the gross domestic product of the United Kingdom. It is hardly likely that anyone would want the successful 1953 formula anything but retained in 1979, its contribution being to a nation's healthy economy so considerable.-- Laurencebeck (talk) 01:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• My knowledge of Bond and the films is not great, but as far as I am aware he had nothing to do with the filming, or with providing any "vision" to the producers nine years after he wrote this letter. - The Bounder (talk) 07:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Given the confusion here (particularly with the tangential threads of the 1979 film and the GDP of the British economy), I will be bold and remove the final five words from the quote. I see that Lycett also makes no reference to the Lang film, so any connection is - in the absence of any other sources - wp:original research. - The Bounder (talk) 07:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• And I will return them with the upper case M (according to Lycett). --Laurencebeck (talk) 07:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Why? - The Bounder (talk) 07:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• And why, as I commented in my opening comment to this thread, have you decided to introduce an inconsistent referencing style? Ian Rose, Cassianto, do you think my suggestion of removing the confusing words ("in the old metropolis idiom") to be a step forward? If there is confusion about the meaning or capitalisation, perhaps we're better off leaving out something that does not add to understanding. (For the record I made the edit, and Laurencebeck edit warred it back in again). -The Bounder (talk) 08:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• I should probably ping SchroCat as the person who seems to have taken this through FAC and who has answered questions on the talk page previously too. - The Bounder (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• It would be great to have his input as the prime contributor to this page but he unfortunately retired several month ago and hasn't edited since. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• I do and I've deleted it. Cassianto^Talk 10:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Per my earlier comment, works for me -- at this stage anyway. Cheers Ian Rose (talk) 11:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

From Laurencebeck (talk) on published capitalization of *Metropolis :

The *capitalization of Metropolis is in Lycett, this page > ". .in the old Metropolis idiom." _ Lycett
and in the published letters, this page > ". .in the old Metropolis idiom." _ letters

Wikipedia can use the quote from the Fleming letter, 1953, "for some wonderful film settings in the old Metropolis idiom" with perfect safety as the capitalization being perfectly authoritative.

In the letter Fleming is setting a concept of production design, notably in the idiom of the 1927 Fritz Lang film "Metropolis", for a film that would be made, in the contemporary sense (1953) from his book, yet to be written, "Moonraker".

He is writing to a European film maker, based in England, who would understand immediately what was meant by "the old Metropolis idiom". But that understanding cannot be verified at present to satisfy Wikipedia's rules of publication.

It is almost a vital piece of understanding into how the formula for the Bond films evolved from a very moment of genesis.--Laurencebeck (talk) 11:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

The funny thing is that the book Moonraker has never been filmed - the Roger Moore movie used the title and the villain's name and ditched everything else - even the name of the heroine. IMHO it would make an excellent film, but the film-makers seem to disagree. RGCorris (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

From Laurencebeck (talk) on coincidence of titles in works of Fleming and Lang :
Fleming's You Only Live Twice (publication 1964) could yet be drawing a bow towards Fritz Lang. Certainly not too long a one but there is the 1937 film of Lang's You Only Live Once. While the Lang reference in 1953 was in private correspondence, here there might very well be a public nudge towards the famed filmmaking pioneer.--Laurencebeck (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

M and wealth…?

While I appreciate that Amis brought up the question of how M could afford membership of the club, is it worth noting at such length, if at all? If one drew the comparison, the Wikipedia biography of the real head of MI6 in 1952, Sir Stewart Graham Menzies, begins with the statement “Stewart Graham Menzies was born in England in 1890 into an immensely wealthy family…” Surely therefore it is implicit that M is a member of such a club or clubs not based on whether the salary of the head of MI6, but because he was otherwise a rich man, drawn from the ranks of the establishment, as many of the ruling classes would have been? Jock123 (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Amis’s point is a valid one, and as he’s a reliable one the information should be included. Parallels between the real and fictional are never likely to stack up, particularly in such an exaggerated series as Bond. - SchroCat (talk) 18:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

The book does say explicitly at one point that "M is not a particularly rich man" if they didn't change that in later editions. IvicaInsomniac (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Plot changes

@SchroCat: Why did you revert my changes? I changed things that were factually wrong. For example Brand was not captured by Krebs. She picked Drax's pocket unseen while the three of them were alone in a car and Krebs only saw her trying to put the notebook back. IvicaInsomniac (talk) 00:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I reverted some of your changes which were not improvements. Others I left in place.

Nothing you altered was factually incorrect, including Brand’s capture: “Gala’s hand reached to the left under the coat. But another hand struck like a snake. ‘Got you.’ Krebs was leaning half over the back of the driving seat. His hand was crushing hers into the slippery cover of the notebook under the folds of the coat.“ - SchroCat (talk) 04:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think "captured" is the best word, she was already stuck in a speeding car with both of them and it makes it sound like Drax didn't help or even didn't know until Krebs brought her to him. I would write instead that she was "caught" or "exposed" by Krebs while returning the notebook.

By the way, she discovered Drax's plans in "the Thomas Wyatt just outside Maidstone", and Krebs strangled and (Drax?) beat her to unconsciousness at "the sharp turning to Mereworth", this is also in Maidstone, not London, so I think this should also be fixed: "Drax takes Brand to London, where she discovers the truth about the Moonraker..."

They also weren't swimming under the cliffs when the landslide was triggered, but suntanning on the beach below an overhang and Bond specifically says this saved their lives, etc. Please recheck the book, I'm pretty sure about my changes. IvicaInsomniac (talk) 18:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

”Captured” is fine (given that’s what happens to her).

She finds out the full details while tied up in London, so it’s correct as it is, and we don’t need to bloat the plot with superfluous details.

I’m slightly bemused by the ‘swimming’ point, because you didn’t alter it. You are right about it, however, so I’ll tweak it slightly. - SchroCat (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the swimming was something I only noticed today. I did a small change to the "captured" sentence. If we're going to go into all the details of picking Drax's pocket, which was just a few sentences compared to nearly a whole page of fighting Krebs at the "turning to Mereworth", a few words more won't hurt ;-) IvicaInsomniac (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I’ve put it back to where it was: bloating out with extraneous details is not what is expected for an FA. - SchroCat (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree and I don't see why you restored the bloated parts I shortened if you insist that this part is unimportant enough. IvicaInsomniac (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)