User talk:SchroCat

Archives

April 2011—December 11 December 2011—May 12 May 2012—August 12 August 2012—October 12 October 2012—December 12 December 2012—

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

	Congratulations!
	Thanks for all the work you did in making Dr. No (film) a certified "Good Article"! Your work is much appreciated. In the spirit of celebration, you may wish to review one of the Good Article nominees that someone else nominated, as there is currently a backlog, and any help is appreciated. All the best, – Quadell (talk)

Hello, SchroCat. You have new messages at Winkelvi's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for the info. I never even noticed the "view history" on pages; sorry! The details about the cut footage of M being in Dr. Noah's prison is from Cinema Retro #6, September, 2006 (UK magazine). It's got "Miss Goodthighs" on the cover. The article is by Lee Pfeiffer and Dave Worrall. It is an excellent article about the movie that covers other cut scenes as well. You can still get a copy of it (I think!) from cinemaretro.com. There's even a photo of M in chains in prison with Bond and Moneypenny. Well worth buying. As for your saying real people in fictional movies don't "count" as being the real people ... I understand what you are saying ... and I half-agree. Yes, Mata Hari was real; no, of course she never had a fictional character's daughter. But how far do we apply this? It is still Mata Hari, and the scene in the spy school does have a character telling Mata Bond that no one has been in a room there since her mother in 1916. There is a dead German soldier there, and he is dressed in WW I garb (not WW II). This lines up with the 1917 death. But my point is, when we see a 'real person' in a fictional movie, aren't we to assume certain details apply? For instance, if President Kennedy is mentioned in a fictional movie, we know who he is -- the president killed in 1963. If the holocaust is mentioned in a 'fictional film', we still know the holocaust really happened. Colonel Hogan (in HOGAN'S HEROES) isn't real, but WW II certainly was real. Is it wrong to guess that WW II ended in a TV series, like HOGAN, or COMBAT, exactly like it did (and when it did) in real life? Is it normal to assume that, in HOGAN, the Germans win WW II? Of course WW II ended in '45 in HOGAN or RAT PATROL or any movie or TV series, because it did end in '45 in reality. Look at ABRAHAM LINCOLN VAMPIRE HUNTER. Obviously Abe never fought vampires, but it makes sense to apply everything else we know about him to the movie Abe, including when & how he was killed. I could list a hundred other examples, but my point is Mata Hari died in 1917, in reality and (in my opinion) in any piece of fiction (unless otherwise stated, and it isn't stated otherwise in CASINO). When Bond mentions the Beatles in GOLDFINGER, it just makes sense to think he does mean the 'real' Beatles. Even though GOLDFINGER is fantasy. Mark Cuban recently 'attended' the 'funeral' of J.R. Ewing on the latest episode of DALLAS. A 'real person' attending the funeral of a fictional character ... but he is still Mark Cuban. Likewise, real-life principles of atomic bombs would apply to fantasy stories. Ever see a Civil War movie or TV program? The main characters are fictional (NORTH AND SOUTH, BLUE AND GREY, GONE WITH THE WIND, etc) but the Civil War was real, and is real even in the work of fiction. However, I do see your point; there's no Mata Bond in real life, lke there's no J.R., or no Scarlett O'Hara, etc. So I'm not saying you are wrong; in fact, when viewed this way, you are, of course correct. But real people are real, even in fiction, to a degree, at least. If a character on a fictional TV series lives in New York, it is natural to think that NY is NY, not a 'fictional NY'. If viewers don't go into a movie or TV show with some sense of 'knowing where we are', then every production ever made would have to explain every thing about their 'fictional world'. For instance, if SPIDER MAN is in a 'fictional NY', then maybe 9/11 didn't happen in his 'world' ... and maybe NY isn't in America, or if it is, it's a fictional 'America' with a different history (perhaps founded in 1850 and having only 33 states) ... on a different earth, with an entire different history. If every production had to go explain these things, there'd be no time left to tell a story. I guess my bottom line is this: Mata Hari IS Mata Hari ... in reality or in a work of fiction ... she still IS Mata Hari. So she died in 1917, even in fiction. At least that's my opinion, but I totally see your point and I agree there is enough conflict here not to put the edits back, so I won't. You certainly have made me rethink every movie and TV show ever made! And for that, and your kindness and intelligence, I thank you. My best, Abbythecat (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)AbbythecatAbbythecat (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

As you point out somewhere in there, Mata Hari never had a daughter. Like Bond she is fictional and the "real world" timings do not apply in fiction. Additionally, to try and impose some form of logicality or sense on the madness that is Casino Royale is slightly self-defeating. There are 1,001 historical and scientific anomalies present in the film, which is why it is fictional. - SchroCat (talk) 06:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If real world timings don't apply in fiction, then the viewer can assume any movie to be set at any time, is this what you are really saying? So a WW II movie can be set in 1990, or a Civil War movie can be set in 2013, if it is fiction? Thus GONE WITH THE WIND is set in the 1100s or any time? Sorry, I don't see it that way. You say trying to impose logic to this movie is self-defeating. I mean no offense, but isn't this your "opinion"? Haven't you drawn on your own "conclusions"? Did the producers ever say what you have about it? If so, please cite references. I really mean no disrespect, but fictional works can and do blend real-events into them. I believe this to be the case here. A fictional character may be in a fictional story about the holocaust, but the holocaust really happened, and it happened when it happened. If someone made a movie about the son of Hitler, all viewers would know the kid was born before 1945, the year Hitler died. That's just a fact, in non-fiction or fiction. I won't drag this out any longer, but I respect your replies, and thank you. Abbythecat (talk) 01:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)AbbythecatAbbythecat (talk) 01:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC) PS: can I at least edit in the info about M being Noah's prisoner by referencing Cinema Retro #6? Or will it just be deleted (again!)?[reply]

Of course they can blend real life events, just as much as they can and do ignore reality for their own ends, which is why it is fiction and not a documentary. I tell you what, why don't you find a reliable source that discusses the age of Mata Hari's fictional daughter in this film and it can go in, otherwise it can't. If there is nothing in the reliable sources that discusses it in this film, then it's down to your original research and it shouldn't go in. If there is nothing about the age of the daughter in this film then the point is too minor to be included anyway. And funnily enough I read a book recently where Hitler was celebrating his 75th birthday in 1964: I took this to be fictional and not reality. And yes, of course the bit about M being a prisoner can go in, but please try and ensure a) it goes in the right section (not the plot, but production section) and b) you add the reliable source this time. If you don't cite reliable sources when adding information then things will always be removed. - SchroCat (talk) 05:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you don't mind me jumping in here, but I suggest you read WP:FILMPLOT, Abby. The point of the synopsis is to just convey the events of the film, not to commentate on the plot. It's not for us to speculate; after all, we don't point out the incongruity of Pierce Brosnan's age in his Bond films, do we? Betty Logan (talk) 06:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you -- I'll not edit the page again. Sorry. Abbythecat (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)AbbythecatAbbythecat (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC). PS - I feel like Bambi at the end of BAMBI MEETS GODZILLA! Abbythecat (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)AbbythecatAbbythecat (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Great work on the Bond stuff! I added the Walther 2000 link to Living Daylights because we have a user who keeps trying to add it to the article on the rifle, where it is out of place as well. Do you think there would be much use for an article on "Firearms used by James Bond" or something of that nature? I notice there is no info in the Walther PP article where Bond's influence could rightfully go under the PPK section. I've spent my whole adult life in the Firearms Industry and the only people who seem to want a PPK are those that do so because of Bond or those that do so because it was Hitler's pistol! --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike, Thanks very much indeed! It's been a bit of a slog, but worth all the effort to get things to where they are now. There is a List of James Bond firearms (and a slightly less relevant List of James Bond gadgets). I've not even ventured into either of those pages, so I don't know how accurate they are or not, but I suspect they will have a fair amount of unsourced (but vaguely accurate) material in there - such is the path of fancruft! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Bernard Lee award
	Where are my manners? A belated congratulations for your excellent work on "M's" filmography. A thorough and informative list on an actor we all knew very little about. Thank you...that's all 007. CassiantoTalk 17:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're very kind! And yes, he's an intereting character with too little about him in the public domain: I hope that we spur a little more research into the character with at least the DNB putting something in place for him! - SchroCat (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't hold your breath. DNB seems to be devoid of all the little known interesting character actors unfortunately. -- Cassianto^Talk 19:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know that Lansbury, on which you kindly commented on at PR, has now found his weary way to FAC, if you'd like to look. Brianboulton (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll certainly be along there shortly for another run through and further comment. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 04:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've begun a CFD here. I invite you to add any comments. - Fantr (talk) 20:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abroad at the mo with limited access, but will get round to it soon. - SchroCat (talk) 20:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to comment on a user conduct discussion regarding Niemti, which can be found here. If you comment there you may wish to review the rules for user conduct comments first. You are receiving this message because you were previously involved in dealing with this user at one of the articles described in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Niemti/Additional Evidence. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abroad at the mo with limited access, but will get round to it soon. - SchroCat (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the nudge! Now done. - SchroCat (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of the article Peter Sellers on stage, radio, screen and record know that it will be appearing as the main page featured list on April 8, 2013. You can view the TFL blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured list/April 8, 2013. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured list directors The Rambling Man (talk · contribs), Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) or Giants2008 (talk · contribs), or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured list. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. Thanks! Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Sellers's career on radio, film, television and record lasted from 1948 until his death in 1980. Sellers made his debut on the radio broadcast ShowTime in 1948, followed by appearances on a number of radio programmes, notably the BBC Radio comedy series The Goon Show. He started his film career in the 1950s, and appeared in over fifty films, including Dr. Strangelove, Lolita and the Pink Panther series; at the peak of his career he was one of the most popular stars at the British box office. Sellers's versatility enabled him to portray a wide range of comic characters using different accents and guises, and he would often assume multiple roles within the same film. While best known for his film and radio work, Sellers also made a number of television appearances, in character roles and for interviews and advertisements. His stage appearances were few, largely because he had been unhappy with the touring he had done as a child with his family. During his career he also released a number of albums containing sketches and comic songs; the songs were undertaken in a variety of comic characters.

Skyfall guy again. You clearly know what you're doing here, I clearly don't, and I'd like to say sorry for being out of line. All the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.123.80 (talk) 22:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, although I'll repeat what I said on the Skyfall page, that there really is no need for an apology. You should always raise the question if you think it's worth asking: next time it may be that you're pointing out genuine errors. Pretty much everyone gets lost when they first start on Wiki, but it really is worth while continuing to join in, as the rules are not really that cumbersome once you get used to the twisted logic behind them. I suggest you may want to consider creating an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address is used to identify you instead and, unfortunately, people are less forgiving of IP editors than registered users. - SchroCat (talk) 13:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice - I went and took it. No more preachy essays; I underestimated the discussion that goes into a Wikipedia page, and now intend to integrate myself into it a little more smoothly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zedell (talk • contribs) 15:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's great - and welcome! I should point out that if you leave a message on a talk page, you should "sign" your post by leaving four tildes (~~~~) - SchroCat (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. (Zedell (talk) 16:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]