Talk:Spectre (2015 film)

Template:Find sources notice

Poster updates

Please refer to the newly released poster (at 007.com) high res version here http://114.imagebam.com/download/Ap3qegZzyOKVMIS4ibSXgQ/43361/433605351/spectre-Spectre-Onesheet_rgb.jpg - Jez Butterworth is given a Screenplay credit, Daniel Craig is given a Co-Producer credit and Ralph Fiennes is listed as "M" - Why were my edits rejected as "rubbish" and "Not on the Poster"? 78.146.47.250 (talk) 20:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, before the poster's release we had people talk pages insisting that we don't know whether Fienne's will be credited as 'M' or 'Mallory' in SPECTRE so the Mallory credit was kept. While this poster confirms beyond any doubt that he will be credited as M in the final film, and even though we know his character's real name, the credits should be accurately reflected. (In the same way earlier articles list Desmond Llewelyn's character as 'Q', rather than Major Boothroyd in keeping with the credits of the film.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.68.24.146 (talk) 03:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Stop feckng around with the Mallory credit – as discussed previously this is one and the same person, so the order doesn't matter. Presently the article has Mallory first, which is fine. – SchroCat (talk) 07:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually the discussion previously was resolved as crediting both names, until we knew what the official credit was. Thanks to the poster we now know that he will be officially credited as 'M' in the film and cast-list- something you yourself said previously was what was required for a change. (I've attatched the relevant quote from you below.)

He is credited as M, but as Mallory too. This is something of a stopgap until the credits roll on the film and we can see how he has been credited: we will follow the cast list as soon as we know it. We don't have to follow the other lists at the moment - and certainly not for Brown, as no-one know whether his character was Hargreaves or not. - SchroCat (talk) 10:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

As you said the previous credit was a stop-gap, now that we know that he is officially credited as 'M' (thanks to the poster) the credit should be changed accordingly (and there is precedant of doing so in Bond films- Desmond Llewelyn is credited as Q from Goldfinger onwards, even though he was introduced as Major Boothroyd in From Russia With Love.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.68.24.146 (talk) 08:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

We,don't go by the poster block for the credit list - thus "credits roll on the film" - so stop edit warring just because of your own preference. - SchroCat (talk) 09:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Why would the films Official Theatrical Poster not be considered a credible enough source to justify the change? It is an official enough source to credit Jezz Butterworth as a screenwriter on the film, so why should the clear statement "and Ralph Fiennes as 'M'" be enough to tell us that he will be credited as 'M' and not Mallory in the film? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.68.24.146 (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Can we go for majority consensus with this? I vote crediting as M 78.146.47.250 (talk) 17:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

As before, we can still wait for the credits and make a final decision then. – SchroCat (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd second the call for a majority concensus, and I am still curious about why the Theatrical Poster is not considered an official enough source. 106.68.24.146 (talk) 03:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Firstly consensus is not determined through a vote- this is not a democracy, as we base things on the guidelines and strength of arguement rather than how many people can change their IP address to register their vote. Secondly the MoS bases the cast list on the film's credits, not the poster. The poster gives some basic info, which we use to order the infobox, not the cast list, as the two normally often differ. - SchroCat (talk) 04:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

There is WP:NODEADLINE. The poster may accurately reflect how the actors are credited in the film in this case, but the film itself ultimately has the "final say". It comes out in less than two months and many of these issues will be resolved naturally when it does. I understand that editors are eager to see the article develop but at the end of the day Wikipedia is about documenting facts not assumptions. Betty Logan (talk) 07:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The new TV spot again has the credit 'Ralph Fiennes as M', and given the fact that all official releases from the film have consistantly credited him as 'M' (the Sony press release, cast announcement, plot synopsis, official poster credits, trailer credits etc) it would appear logical to change his credit to acknowledge the officially released information.106.68.110.218 (talk) 07:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Lack of Listed US Release Date

Can someone explain why only the UK release date is being listed and why there's a message in Edit Mode that says not to add any others? I read the WP:FilmRelease page, but didn't find an explanation. I understand it is a UK film, but it isn't a UK exclusive. Skyfall had more than just the UK release date listed, so why isn't it the same for Spectre? Valenka (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Any reason why we should put the date in for the US, and not others? Per FILMRELEASE we don't just list places we want to because that's where we live. – SchroCat (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:FILMRELEASE seems clear enough " Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival, a world premiere, or a public release, and the release date(s) in the country or countries that produced the film,". Spectre's first release is in the UK and it was produced in the UK, so no other country dates need to be present. - X201 (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

International release

International release is on 5th October. I supported this with references from official websites of movie distributors and their associations in different European countries. Yet, this change was once again reverted. May ask for reason why? How can movie distributor be an unreliable source? --95.105.235.40 (talk) 10:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

See the discussion above this.- X201 (talk) 10:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry , thought you were talking about the infobox. - X201 (talk) 10:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't the title be capitalized?

Shouldn't the title of this page be all capitalized since the title of the film is an acronym? The official Sony sights write the title as SPECTRE as these links can show. [1] [2] OAN92 (talk) 10:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

See this previous discussion. The way Sony write the word has nothing to do with the way we do - they also capitalise Skyfall in the second link. - SchroCat (talk) 10:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Sam Smith reviews

The critical reviews of Smith's song have so far been negative. Most of the "mixed" reviews are coming from fans, not critics, and critical opinion is what should be covered. If you want to change the critical consensus, then more positive reviews from reliable sources need to be introduced. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Baron Samedi

Who is playing Baron Samedi in this movie?2602:306:3789:8B00:C437:B1BB:F635:1C71 (talk) 07:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

No-one. - SchroCat (talk) 07:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the editor in question has mistaken the costume in the backdrop of the poster is Baron Samedi. It's just a costume from the Day of the Dead sequence. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Wrong international release date

Why is article stating that international release is starting on 6th November when there is Scandinavian release on 30th October (tickets are already being sold) and release in many European countries on 4th or 5th November (tickets also in sale in many countries). 6th November is US release date, but international release starts earlier. I've noticed there were some reverted changes of international release date in past - what kind of sources should be provided to support such change? Are cinemas websites which sell tickets for earlier dates suffiecient?--77.218.253.31 (talk) 08:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Request for move to Spectre

It was moved very recently to "SPECTRE". While it should be lower case, not capitalised. I do not believe there is a single article that truly follows the rules of Wikipedia that does have it capitalised.

Request for it to be moved back to 'Spectre'. Charlr6 (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

After watching the film, the credits make it clear that the film is SPECTRE - by example, the credits for Skyfall showed that Skyfall is lowercase - hence the capitalisation JCRendle (talk) 00:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Star Wars looks capitalised on film... Charlr6 (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Star Wars doesn't reference a specific plot point in the movie JCRendle (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

You said the credits of Spectre 'make it clear' that it is capitalised. How do the credits of a film, refer to a plot point? Where did you explicitly see in either opening or closing credits, it should be capitalised? As the previous films have had capitalised titles too. Charlr6 (talk) 01:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose The capitalization in the film could just be a stylization, and per MOS:TITLE we do not emulate stylizations. For the record, Danjaq filed the the copyright on the film under the title "Spectre aka Bond 24", and that is the closest thing we have to an official statement in regards to whether the title should be regarded as an acronym or not. You can see the registration at Copyright Catalog (search on the registration number PRE000007713). Betty Logan (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• Glad to see it was put back to the correct uncapitalised version. The name Spectre is not an anagram or initials: it is a name, and therefore should not be capitalised. – SchroCat (talk) 10:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• Even if it still becomes an acronym in future films, this still has to be lower caps. Charlr6 (talk) 11:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• Any body who knows anything about the James Bond canon from the books knows that SPECTRE is an acronym and should therefore be capitalised.Pitcroft —Preceding undated comment added 20:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• This may be a staggering piece of news to you, but this isn't about a novel. Since the reboot of the series in Casino Royale, many of the original conventions and tropes have been slowly reintroduced, but in a very different format than either Fleming or the original Eon films suggested (Moneypenny as an former field agent, for example; Blofeld as the son of Hans Oberhauser for another). The name of the "new" Spectre in this film has not been described as acronym, abbreviation, anagram or any other wordplay, so we have to represent it as it stands in the film, not as it exists in some fan-based in-universe sense. – SchroCat (talk) 20:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• If it isnt about the novels and trademarks from the Fleming estate, then what is it about? Eon productions are fully aware that they have to adhere closely to the format of the novels in style. The books are the canon and not a fan based universe. I suggest you read chapter 5 of Thunderball! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pitcroft (talk • contribs) 20:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• To explain this once again, the series was re-booted with Casino Royale (2006 film) and many of the tropes were reinvented in a very different way from both Fleming and the previous Eon films. The examples of Moneypenny as a former field agent (a massive departure from novel and former Eon canon) and of Blofeld as Hans Oberhauser's son (a monumental break from Fleming and previous Eon films). In this film Spectre has been reintroduced and there was no mention of this being an acronym, abbreviation, anagram or any other piece of word play, so we don't reflect it as such. – SchroCat (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• Why are some of the paragraphs in this article marked with SPECTRE in capitals and not others? Surely we need consistency after all the arguments over accuracy? After having been blocked for trying to correct the article and adding the canonical capitals seen in the proper Fleming books, surely we can have a universally harmonious webpage? Pitcroft —Preceding undated comment added 10:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Because of the context of the paragraphs in question. When discussing the acquisition of the SPECTRE rights, it refers to the organisation in the novels. When discussing the organisation in the film, "Spectre" is used, because that's how it's referred to in the film. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Blofeld

THat comparison of Moneypenny is crap. People knew she was returning. The fact that Blofeld isn't revealed until halfway through means its plot detail, and thus its unfair to put it right there in the first section, not letting people avoid it. Rusted AutoParts 19:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

It's exactly the same thing: people knew Blofeld was returning too (there were enough reverts of IPs adding his name before the release to show the veracity of that). As a return of a long-standing and well-known character, it's justifiable that the info is included. – SchroCat (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't know that Blofeld was returning. IP's must have been speculating that he would because of it being called Spectre. But as such, I found out Blofeld was returning when he said "I Am Ernst Stavro Blofeld" in the film.  — Calvin999 19:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Case in point. Luckily for Calvin he found out the right way. American audiences have yet to see this film, and that kind of spoiler will ruin it for many of the fans. Especially since its in the first section of the article. Im ok with it being in the plot section, as well as cast, but this shouldn't be in the article introduction. It's an unexpected, unwarranted and unfair spoiler for those wanting to seek info outside of the plot. Rusted AutoParts 19:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Lots of others did (see the edit history). See also WP:SPOILER and WP:NOTCENSORED: your explanation of why you think it shouldn't be in the lede falls foul of both these. – SchroCat (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't fail WP:COMMONSENSE. It's common sense to have at least some common courtesy to those who've yet to see it and don't wish to be spoiled reading the first sentences of Spectre's article. Rusted AutoParts 20:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

It should also be common sense for people to avoid this wikipedia page then until it is released in their country and they see it. It really isn't that hard to not search something. It was announced months ago when this film would be released in the UK, so the entire world knew that on that date there would be obvious 'spoilers' for them. Charlr6 (talk) 20:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you mad because you found out on here? How about when movies and TV-shows come out in America first, and then are all spoilt for the rest of the world? Wikipedia is an online encyclopaedia that gets updated practically every few seconds 24/7. This page is reflecting that fact. As Schro mentioned, look at WP:SPOILER and WP:NOTCENSORED. Also, I didn't know Moneypenny was returned in Skyfall. We all knew Q was in there, but it wasn't until the film was released (and I saw it opening day) that our hopes were proven right and Moneypenny had returned. And her character didn't reveal her full name until over half way through film too. Charlr6 (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

That the official stance you're going with "Fuck you, don't read the article"? I couldnt care less about getting spoiled, I too have seen the movie. And I understand SPOILER AND NOTCENSORED, but considering that Waltz indeed plays Blofeld is the films twist, would it not be fair to keep that out of the first sentence of the article, before people get the chance to bypass the plot section to get to Production news. Rusted AutoParts 14:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

My two cents - the page for The Usual Suspects manages to avoid revealing the film's big who-someone-really-is twist in the opening paragraph. Granted, that's a significantly more integral part of the movie, but likewise the article on The Dark Knight Rises doesn't reveal the comparable identity twist. I don't see the harm in following suit with this film's article.--Leigh Burne (talk) 15:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

RAP, It's nothing like that at all, and your overly-emotive language isn't needed. This is an encyclopaedia, not a listings guide, and one of the notable points of interest in terms of the Eon series is the return of the Blofeld character. As we did with Moneypenny and Skyfall the return is significant enough to go in the lead. – SchroCat (talk) 15:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. So what if you did it with Moneypenny over at Skyfall? Her identity wasn't important to the plot. Blofeld's in this movie's is, and having the films twist in the lead section is a shitty thing to do to someone who hasn't seen the film. "It's not hard to not search something" is very dismissive. And you are correct, this is an encyclopedia, PEOPLE ARE GOING TO WANT TO READ IT. And if they don't want to read the plot, they can skip over it. But they can't skip over that first sentence, and that deflates their excitement to see it. Why are we heavily advertising Waltz up there anyway? The likes of Fiennes, Bautista, Seydoux and others are mentioned in passing. This isn't me saying "remove all references of Blofeld cause of spoilers, I'm just saying delete it from the introductory sentence, so people don't stumble upon it inadvertently. Then it's their own fault for reading the plot section. Rusted AutoParts 05:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

As per the consensus that was established when the decision to remove spoiler tags from articles was made, it is reasonable to assume that if someone reads the article, then they can forsee encountering spoilers. We have no obligation to conceal information form those readers.

To answer your question about why Waltz is covered in the lead, we always cover the actor playing Bond and the actor playing the primary antagonist. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

• Then why not refer to his character as Franz Oberhauser in the article lead and save the Blofeld reveal for the Plot section? It's a *seriously* shitty thing to do; not everybody follows the "abstinence" policy when it comes to upcoming films. Hiding behind WP:NOTCENSORED isn't going to cut it. (And no, before you jump to conclusions, I wasn't spoilered by this page - I saw the film first. Doesn't mean I can't stick up for all the people who will be spoiled by this asinine decision.) CNash (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• The return of the Blofeld character back to,the series is a seriously noteworthy incident. Blofeld is often seen as the archetypal Bond villain (he appeared in three of the Fleming novels, several of the Eon and non-Eon films etc), so it is entirely reasonable that we mention this major aspect up front in the lead. It's not a "shitty" thing to do: this is an encyclopaedia, not some listings guide. – SchroCat (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

"It's a *seriously* shitty thing to do; not everybody follows the "abstinence" policy when it comes to upcoming films."

If they don't follow the policy, then that's their problem.

"Hiding behind WP:NOTCENSORED isn't going to cut it."

We're not "hiding behind it". We're following the policy. We are under no obligation to hide details of the plot from people who consciously choose to read the article after its release. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The twist of Usual Suspects is hardly like a major come-back for an iconic famous character. As said before, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia that gets updated 24/7. You can moan about spoilers all you want. Skyfall lists the return of Q and Moneypenny in the lead. Everything you are saying here, could be very said about Game of Thrones for example. When it airs in America and any big events that happen in it will be edited then and there on Wikipedia. Yes, the parts of the world have to wait like a day to see the episode, but doesn't stop Wikipedia from being edited. Also, are people really going to JUST read the lead? People like to read cast list too. So what about the innocent people who scroll down wanting to see who is in it and who is playing who? They will see Blofeld mentioned there. But that will be their fault? Right? Or is it all of ours again? Blofeld says in the film he is NO LONGER Oberhauser, that he died 20 years ago, and now he is Blofeld. We can't just put in the lead who he 'used' to be. Unless you want to say in lead "as a man believed to be Franz Oberhauser". Because by Bond he is sure it is him, even though he is supposed to have been dead? Also, anyone reading this page who actually knows about the Bond films, should know that a film called Spectre, and after the company got all the rights back are very likely to use Blofeld. So in that knowledge itself, unless they know nothing of Bond at all, but then they simply can stay away from the page more. Because it is highly likely he would appear in a film with this title, and when the rights have gotten back to them, than the previous Bond film for example as some final surprise cameo. Charlr6 (talk) 10:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I saw the film yesterday and instantly knew this would be an issue on this page a la the Moneypenny issue on the Skyfall page, and lo and behold here it is. However I have to agree that there is no obligation not to include the character’s name in the introduction, as Wikipedia is not about not spoiling films for people who haven’t seen them yet. It might seem unfair and there may be an argument to be had about the fairness of that to the casual browser, but the fact is that Wikipedia policy makes no allowances for spoilers. Stay off the page if you don’t want the film spoiled.

I would object if Oberhauser was referred to in the plot summary as Blofeld prior to the narrative point in the film where he identifies himself as Blofeld, as that would misrepresent the plot. But he isn’t. Nsign (talk) 11:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Look at all other Bond pages. The villains are in the lead, first or second paragraph at latest. To say he is Oberhauser in the lead would be misinforming the audience. Yes, it can be classed as a 'twist' him turning out to be Blofeld. But in the film it is only MI6 and Bond who believe he is still Oberhauser until he actually corrects Bond and reveals himself. Skyfall even mentions the return of Q and Moneypenny. But as I said somewhere previously, a due to them getting the rights back to Spectre and Blofeld, any Bond fan with the knowledge of that existence (not some 12 year old who only saw Brosnans or Craigs) would have the assumption Blofeld would appear in some form or another, instead of just some surprise appearance. It is pretty obvious, and for anyone knowing that they should unfortunately stay of the page. If they want to be surprised, they will have to keep off the page, because of how much evidence there is towards Blofeld with return of Spectre, and even subtle hints in trailer then no one can really complain. There is more evidence than there is Darth Vader is Luke's father. Charlr6 (talk) 11:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The organisation Spectre

In this film Spectre made a re-appearance. It is the name of the organisation and it was not stated within the film at any point was an acronym, abbreviation or other shortened form of anything. Following the series re-boot in CR this is the pattern with other Bond tropes, where something with its roots in Fleming or the original Eon series has been tweaked and adapted. As it has not been stated in this film that the organisation is an acronym, we should write it as "Spectre", rather than "SPECTRE". I invite comments on this, particularly from the disruptive edit warrior who reverts to his preferred choice but does not seem to want to use the talk page. – SchroCat (talk) 09:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I haven't seen the film myself yet, but if it's not explicitly stated to be an acronym in the film, then it shouldn't be represented as an acronym in the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Moreover, the synopsis as given at the official James Bond website uses lowercase. Unless the film itself establishes that "Spectre" is an acronym then that is about as official as it gets if we are referring to an "in universe" name. Betty Logan (talk) 19:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree Charlr6 (talk) 11:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Just looked at the website and it uses upper case in the most recent articles for the film's title. Feel free to check it out: http://www.007.com/spectre/mexico-city-to-host-spectre-premiere-of-the-americas/ & http://www.007.com/spectre/the-music-of-spectre/ & http://www.007.com/spectre/the-action-of-spectre/ & http://www.007.com/spectre/writings-on-the-wall-video/ & http://www.007.com/spectre/trailers/ SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

That website also has 'Skyfall' in capital letters so.... yeah. Charlr6 (talk) 15:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

It does? Didn't see that. Can you provide a link? Thanks. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Would have been much quicker for yourself to do a search than rely on me, especially as on very same website you posted but...

http://www.007.com/adele-wins-grammy-for-skyfall/, http://www.007.com/skyfall-earns-five-oscar-nominations/, http://www.007.com/download-skyfall-today/, http://www.007.com/production-begins/

It also lists all other Bond films in caps - http://www.007.com/david-arnold-and-don-black-interviews/. Charlr6 (talk) 15:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

SoT, this one does too. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 15:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I looked myself and couldn't find anything so thanks for providing the links. SonOfThornhill (talk) 20:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

It makes no sense to have "Spectre" in mixed case as a wikilink. If everyone agrees that the article SPECTRE should be renamed "Spectre", and that article gets renamed/moved, then fine, let the organization be "Spectre" in this article too. Or if everyone agrees that the organization "Spectre" shouldn't be a wikilink, because it's different than SPECTRE, then fine, leave it as "Spectre" in this article, unwikilinked. But otherwise, when the reader clicks on "Spectre" (the organization), he/she goes to SPECTRE, and - since that's obviously a mistake - we're going to have a continual stream of editors making that change, as I did.

More to the point: The article is inconsistent in whether the organization is capitalized or not. I strongly suggest that the organization be "SPECTRE" and the film be "Spectre", and that someone edit the article to make that consistent. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The capitalization does not appear inconsistent to me. SPECTRE as a concept from the books and when discussed as an intellectual property should be capitalized, because that is how it is referred to. That is quite distinct from its "in universe" name in one particular film. Betty Logan (talk) 02:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The SPECTRE article should remain as it is. In that article, the name is still an acroynm, and clearly states in the lead. Just like NASA. But this film, in this new universe never hinted at all that Spectre was anything but a name. Charlr6 (talk) 11:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Capitalisation

Comment moved from /Talk:Spectre (2015 film) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The title of the film is SPECTRE in capital letters and the original Ian Fleming novels where SPECTRE originated are clear that it is an acronym for Special Executive for Counterintelligence, Terrorism, Revenge, and Extortion, hence the capitalisation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pitcroft (talk • contribs)

While that might be true for the novels and the original run of films, you need a reliable, verifiable source to make that change here. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Just because it is in the novel doesn't mean it should be for the movies. M was also a man in all of the novels, unless I missed one out? There was also no invisible carCharlr6 (talk) 11:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

As for the comment - 'With the acquisition of the film rights and the organisation's re-introduction to the series' continuity, the SPECTRE acronym was discarded and the organisation reimagined as "Spectre"' - there is no independent and verifiable confirmation of this. EON productions have made no such clarifications on the matter either way. Cited proof has to be given on this. Pitcroft (talk —Preceding undated comment added 18:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• Now added. From Eon. - SchroCat (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• Thankyou for your efforts. Unfortunately EON doesnt refer to the subject in the link you have referenced, and is simply an advert for the film. Pitcroft —Preceding undated comment added 18:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• No, it's not an advert: it's the main Eon website. In their own synopsis of the film the eschew the capitals of an acronym and instead use the format "Spectre". Once again, could you please sign your posts by using four tildes ~~~~. You have been asked several times. - SchroCat (talk) 18:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• Of course its an advert and provides no verification for your assertions!. Its clear that any thoughts on this matter other than your own will be unacceptable, and that you will threaten anyone who 'disrupts' your edicts. That is petty online autocracy not 'editing'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pitcroft (talk • contribs) 19:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• Not at all: I have clearly stated in one of my edit summaries that this is the place to discuss any changes to the wording. If you are not satisfied with something written by Eon about the film they made, then I don't know where you want to see information come from. As I've asked you several times before, please do not comment on other editors, particularly in disparaging terms, and please remmber to sign your posts by using four tildes (~~~~). - SchroCat (talk) 19:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• Nothing in the link you have posted to EON productions supports your assertion that SPECTRE is not an acronym or that the insertion of an acronym is not warranted. It is simply an advert, as I have had to tell you so many times before. Take your own advice and stop threatening others when they disagree with you. Pitcroft

~sigh~ if you're going to misrepresent my warnings to not disrupt articles as "threats" then there is little point in trying to discuss things, especially if you only wish to see the piece labelled "SYNOPSIS" on the Eon site as an advert. - SchroCat (talk) 19:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• Im sure this is all very wearying for you, though I am also sure you have become accustomed to people who don't like being spoken to this way as if by a self appointed online headmaster. The synopsis for the film makes no mention, one way or another, of whether SPECTRE should be an acronym or not. Therefore the Fleming novels' are the canon, regardless of what you and your friends say. Initially all I did was change a very small part of this grossly inaccurate article, had it reverted and then even when speaking about it on the talk page, was threatened by you and your pals with blocking. No wonder so many people dont trust wikipedia!

Piece of plot

Hey, SchroCat. A sentence about her saying she doesn't want to be apart of it and saying goodbye must be added. Because at the must it's jilted. One minute she is with bond and the others in chase, then all of a sudden she is wired up to a bomb without explaining how.  — Calvin999 22:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Aaron, I'm not sure it's needed. When you ignore the minor spat she had with Bond—which adds very little to the explanation of the plot—then her changing her mind isn't needed. It's not a major plot point, and we are already at the 700 word mark, so if we add this info, we need to do it in a very few words, and slim down on the work count. elsewhere. If you think this is a key point (which I think we need the input of others to judge one way or the other) can you see where else we can lose enough words for a slimmed down version of this? Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 22:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

It is a key point though, because it's not explained how she was with them then suddenly strapped up to a bomb in MI5. There's no continuity with this point. I'm in the film industry so to me, it shouts out that this point is missing. It's also misleading because as it is currently written, it implies that she joins them, and she doesn't. She says goodbye and is captured, but this is not explained.  — Calvin999 22:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)