Talk:Diamonds Are Forever (film)

	Diamonds Are Forever (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.
	Diamonds Are Forever (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 March 7, 2008 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

Plenty O'Toole was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 17 September 2012 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Diamonds Are Forever (film). The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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 Film: British / American 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.

Can someone track down a more appropriate photograph of a Mustang to illustrate this article? The 1972 Mach 1 in the image is fairly different from the 1971 one in the movie in terms of various styling details. There are a variety of pictures on the net of the actual car from the movie, or cars that people have worked on to make them appear the same as this one.

Are we sure Sean Connery bought that moon buggy? I heard that rumor but I also recall a denial from Connery. --feitclub 16:20, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

He didn't. I thought I reverted that. I'll take care of it. K1Bond007 16:24, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

What about Blofeld's cat? It meowed before the opening credits and was in avid part in mentioned opening credits. What do you have to say about that? [Note: I am a cat lover.]

Do split the article, I think it benifets because when I click Diamonds Are Forever (or any Bond film) It normally starts up the top and the picture is novel and the film is halfway down. {Broncopaul 10:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

Don't split the article. I like the fact that the differences between the books and the story are on the same page. Wswaine 17:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was originally proposed for the previous film, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, to end before it does in its book form. The film would end with Bond and Tracy driving off after their wedding, and then the already-filmed sequence of Bond and Tracy pulling over, only to be shot at by Blofeld and Irma Bunt, would provide the pre-title sequence for Diamonds Are Forever. The idea was dropped prior to the theatrical release of On Her Majesty's Secret Service because George Lazenby had already announced he would not be returning to the role for the next film.

I've seen this one do the rounds but I was under the impression it was considered a myth. OHMSS (the article for which doesn't seem to mention this) is so faithful to the book it would be surprising if they left out the dramatic ending, whilst I though the final break between Lazenby and EON (or whichever) came at the US premiere, by which time the final cut would have been assembled. I've removed this from the article for now. Timrollpickering 19:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the documentary on the OHMSS DVD Peter Hunt had the idea of holding over Tracey's death to the next film, but this seems to have only been an idea and not realised. Timrollpickering 20:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good thing they had Blofeld and Irma Bunt kill Ms. Bond at the conclusion of OHMSS, since Ilse Steppat who played Bunt died after the film was released. I think they would have had serious problems dealing with that.204.80.61.110 17:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Bennett Turk[reply]

Why would George Lazenby quit the role? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.48.160.23 (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By his own account on the OHMSS DVD, Lazenby states he didn't have the best experience making the movie, which to a large extent he attributes to his immaturity at the time, and he hadn't yet actually signed a multi-picture deal before filming began (largely due to his inexperience and his lawyer specialised in something like property, not acting contracts). During production his agent talked him out of signing on for the long haul, arguing that Bond had no real future in the 1970s - advice Lazenby has long since come to regret. There were also disputes between him and the production team that hit the media which may explain why there don't seem to be many stories of EON trying to persuade him to reconsider in 1970.

(Lazenby's agent got it wrong but he was far from the only one around the time who didn't predict the longevity of the films. The deal with McClory on Thunderball blocked a remake for only twelve years - apparently Harry Saltzman doubted the EON films would last that long so they didn't push for a longer period and the result was the various Kevin McClory court cases, Never Say Never Again and various other proposed films from the mid 1970s onwards. And of course EON spent a lot of the mid 1970s trying to ensure Bond did survive, first by getting an established TV actor in the role and then by putting a massive effort into The Spy Who Loved Me.) Timrollpickering (talk) 21:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the opening credits right when Guy Hamilton's directing credit comes up a naked women stands with a diamond in her naval but you can clearly see her right nipple although it is sort of obscured by the lighting. Didn't Cubby Broccoli say that there would never be any naughty bits shown in a James Bond movie? sorry if this doesn't quite meet standards but this is my very first post to wikipedia so please be forgiving.

Take a close look at the woman's torso in the opening precredits when her bikini top is removed. Look at Lana Wood being thrown out of the window into the swimming pool, while wearing see-through underwear. Very brief scenes of nudity are permitted. They showed the bare backside of the body double getting into bed in "From Russia With Love (film)". Also please sign name in the future with 4 ~. 204.80.61.110 18:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Bennett Turk[reply]

The scene when Case and Bond are slaying on the aquarium bed in the penthouse of The Whyte House, Jill's left nipple can be seen very, very briefly when the camera angle changes and the characters change their positions. Case is lying on her back as Bond comes up over to kiss her. 12.192.184.60 (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The text states, "The home of Kirk Douglas was used for filming in the movie. His house was used for the scene when James Bond and Tiffany Case chat whilst Plenty O'Toole is dead in the swimming pool." The photo caption states, "The characters of Bambi and Thumper -shot at the house of Kirk Douglas." But in the film, these were two different houses. Which one was Douglas's?

Where did the trivia section go?!?!?!?--Carpe Diem 02:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I have reviewed the article, and it's overall pretty good. I have concerns, which have put this GA on hold. The intro isn't worded very clearly, try starting with Diamonds Are Forever is a 1971 action adventure film. Next, the plot has grammar problems. (He fights and throw Blofeld into a pool of superheated mud.)? Fix these problems and leave a note on my talk page when you're finished, then it'll be a GA! Limetolime (talk) 17:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been fixed and is now a GA. Congratulations to all who contributed!Limetolime (talk) 00:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's a "GA?" Upsmiler (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A "Good Article" - those articles deemed to have reached a sufficiently high standard: please see Good Articles for further information. - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The release and reception section appears to mainly consist of summaries from recent online reviews, but has been written as if they were current at the time of the film's release. Unless anyone has information on reviews at the time then this needs to be changed. Not Josh (talk) 12:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This is a common problem for Wikipedia film articles. Web sites like Rotten Tomatoes or Chris Null's Filmcritic.com are used in the "Reception" section as if they were the critics that reviewed the movies when they were released, even when these movies were released decades before these websites were created. I don't think these newer reviews are appropriate. A movie is made for the audience at the time it is made. A movie might be dated by our standards, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a good movie when it was released. Here are a few reviews from 1971 that I have found. I will try to incorporate them into the article when I have more time, but anyone else is welcome to do so before then:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19710101/REVIEWS/101010306/1023 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,877586,00.html http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/diamonds_are_forever/articles/1723811/diamonds_are_forever_doesnt_carry_the_same_quality_or_flair_as_its_many_predecessors Mmyers1976 (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the section of the article that says Plenty O'Toole was killed by Wint and Kidd. The whole point of her death is that she was killed when mistaken for Tiffany Case, as part of the ongoing murders of people connected with the diamond-smuggling pipeline. Mr Kidd, if not Mr Wint, already knew Tiffany Case by sight (from travelling on the same aeroplane from the Netherlands to Los Angeles) so they can't have been the killers. It must have been either some other goons of Blofeld's, or even Bond himself - the primary result of Plenty's death is to convince Tiffany to join Bond, so he had most to gain. Opera hat (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

H'm - it seems it was Wint and Kidd after all, and they were bamboozled by a wig. Hardly plausible - but then I suppose there are more unlikely aspects of the plot! Opera hat (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image Image:Plenty O'Toole.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --20:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"After a fight, Bond kills Blofeld by throwing him into a pool of superheated mud"

not so, he later also in For Your Eyes Only —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.104.143.228 (talk) 04:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After Bond smashes Blofeld's Mini-subs to disable the control lair but how did Blofeld survives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.48.160.23 (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't confirmed in For Your Eyes Only. They lost the rights to mention him and couldn't actually say who it was then, its only speculation on there. Even though it is obvious. Charlr6 (talk) 01:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 05:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With the Bond 50 Blu-Ray release, all of the movies were reclassified (well re-checked to be to the BBFCs modern standards) and Diamonds Are Forever was re-rated up from a PG to a 12.

This website, which is dedicated to Bond (sure some of you reading it might have heard of it as well) mentions it in the article. But is it worth mentioning do any of you think?

Here is the link - [1]

Charlr6 (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Moore has cited this as his favourite James Bond film - I don't know why either, I think it's dreadful! From Russia With Love in its "Reception" section states that numerous other Bond actors said that FRWL was their favourite Bond, so perhaps this deserves a mention in here? [2] --Andrew 15:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Blinky Bill also has an episode named Diamonds Are Forever, though it doesn't share the plot with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.186.6.124 (talk) 21:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the first sentence of the Plot section reads: "James Bond—Agent 007—pursues Ernst Stavro Blofeld out of revenge for the death of his wife, hunting down SPECTRE operatives across the world."

But there is nothing in the film's dialog to support this alleged motivation. Tracy is never mentioned, let alone her death or the marriage, nor any events from the Lazenby film. Any connection is in the mind of the viewer, not inherent in the film.

On the other hand, the very first shot is of a Japanese room with paper walls, just as seen in You Only Live Twice, where we last saw ConneryBond and Blofeld prior to the intervening Lazenby film.

This is a point much debated by Bond fans. The filmmakers seem to have decided OHMSS was a mistake and were desperate to go back to what worked for them before. Thus erasing everything that happened in the Lazenby film and returning us to the end of the last Connery film. There is visual evidence within the film (the japenese room) that Connery is continuing the pursuit of Blofeld directly following his escape from the volcano, but none that the events from OHMSS even happened.

I suggest that sentence simply state that Bond is pursuing Blofeld by hunting SPECTRE agents etc, without assigning any extra motive.

J Edward Malone (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't make sense, and there's no good citation here. It would make sense if we're talking about Goldfinger, but not for Diamonds are Forever.

24.16.209.4 (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article on the original Diamonds Are Forever novel, Fleming's research for the book inspired him to write the non-fiction work, The Diamond Smugglers. In the Bond novel, the smuggling is out of Sierra Leone, but the real-life story in the later book involves smuggling from South Africa. During the 50s and 60s there were failed attempts to adapt Diamond Smugglers as a film. It's interesting to note that the smuggling location featured in the Bond film is once again South Africa. Is it know whether or not the writers took this inspiration from Fleming's Smugglers book? 70.73.90.119 (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 02:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The pool was steeped in a way that made the block move deeper with each take." Steeped? Sloped is the correct term.SamXT (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ToaneeM, I'm with Binksternet on this - "Professor Dr Metz" is unnecessary and even though it's used - once - in the film, both "Professor" and "Dr" in the same sentence is poor English. Just "Dr" is enough to get the plot across. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the goal is to summarize the plot concisely. It is not our job to include in-universe quirks. Binksternet (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Withouth checking the movie, the "Prof. Dr." title is a common usage in German and Metz is a German surname. DonQuixote (talk) 22:37, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ChaheelRiens @Binksternet, Firstly, it is not doing a service to Wikipedia or its readers to refer to the standard German honorific of "Professor Doctor" as an 'in-universe quirk'. It's an 'in-German standard' and it would make the site look pretty naive and ignorant to remove it. Being inclusive and accepting of all cultures, such as standard German titles, is a goal of our times, not what (from the comments here) appears to be making things 'more English like what I hear where I live'. Secondly, the character names themselves in that scene of the film (I checked) and they say it once because they introduce themselves once. The motive for this change does not appear to be improving the article for all, just pandering to a personal preference. The text describes the scene and succinctly, let's leave it that way. --ToaneeM (talk) 00:06, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree again. This is the English Wiki, not the German wiki - it's not naive and ignorant to adhere to local styles of address. Might as well insist that we call him "Professor Arzt Metz", being the German usage. Secondly, you're coming close to personal attacks, albeit at a low level, assuming that neither Binksternet nor I are trying to improve the project. IMDB and AllMovie credit the character as simply "Dr Metz", as does TVGuide. Finally, you've made no attempt to add "Professor" to the cast section, where he is described as "Dr. Metz", which I would expect from somebody trying to improve the project... ;-)

PS: Pings don't work like that - see Help:Notifications on how to use the various methods available to ensure other editors know you're referring to them. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, what I've written is nowhere any personal attacks. I referred to the reasons repeatedly given for the change, which at best would read as dismissive to most. This is the English Wiki and we use correct terms, which are in the English language in this instance. This Wiki refers to Chancellor Kohl of Germany as Chancellor, it's not been changed to President because that's what a changer along the line calls such a leader. The honorifics of Doctor and Professor are recognised worldwide. Changing away from the source material because, from the changer's given reason, the term wasn't known to the changer and was assumed invented, is not a valuable change. How changing that for the reasons given may well be interpreted by a wider audience is not my own pov, it's a well-examined subject and especially so of late, so stating that is not remotely personal. I've gone impartially from the film is as my factual source (which the article text is a summary of) that and justified the naming. Secondly, this is a totally unnecessary change as there is no benefit to it. Thirdly, the Cast section correctly cites the credits roll of the film so does not need changing. ToaneeM (talk) 11:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not uncommon to refer to characters by their non-English titles: Frau Farbissina, SS-Untersturmführer Amon Göth, Darth Maul, etc., especially when describing an introduction scene. DonQuixote (talk) 13:27, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To add a bit of levity, got to kick myself for not remembering this example: Don Quixote. LOL! Also, Don Diego de la Vega (aka Zorro). DonQuixote (talk) 15:32, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ToaneeM, to say that [t]he motive for this change does not appear to be improving the article for all is hardly a compliment either though, is it? By use of the term "motive" you've basically said there (possibly without realising the ramifications) that we have intentionally worsened the project. And I think you may have shot yourself in the foot somewhat by confirming that the credits describe Metz as "Dr Metz", not "Professor Dr Metz". There should be consistency in the article - it's either "Dr Metz", or "Professor Dr Metz", and this is supported by MOS:FILM: "All names should be referred to as credited". Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the character literally introduces himself as Professor Doktor Metz (just checked the film)...so not really a case of shooting one's own foot there when it's just summarising the onscreen plot. DonQuixote (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Valid point and completely agree, and with Professor Doctor being correct and on Frau/Goth earlier, @DonQuixote.

@ChaheelRiens, it's a polite and reasoned conclusion (see WP:AFG) but I'm afraid you're seeing phantoms and going off-topic again. Let's address the point I started with: "it is not doing a service to Wikipedia or its readers to refer to the standard German honorific of "Professor Doctor" as an 'in-universe quirk'. It's an 'in-German standard' and it would make the site look pretty naive and ignorant to remove it. Being inclusive and accepting of all cultures, such as standard German titles, is a goal of our times", as per WP:NPOV (editors "should seek to improve articles by removing any examples of cultural bias that they encounter"). I've not seen viable responses on that point. If the editor didn't realise 'Professor Doctor' is standard and fits the text, that's OK, the text can be left as the correct 'Professor Doctor Metz' and talk concluded. ToaneeM (talk) 23:18, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DonQuixote, I was referring to the fact that ToaneeM used the credits roll as justification for leaving the cast list as Doctor Metz, not as Professor Doctor Metz, but at the same time seemed to miss the fact that the character is credited in the cast list as Doctor Metz, not as Professor Doctor Metz.

Also - ToaneeM, you're still not pinging people correctly. As I mentioned earlier - please look up Help:Notifications, otherwise editors won't know that you're referencing them in your comments, or think that you're not paying attention to their own comments. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's acceptable to list the credits as-is per the primary source whilst basing the plot summary on the dialogue in the primary source. Although I'm on the fence on this matter, I have to say that your arguments aren't that persuasive.

Also, and being a little persnickety here, it's not necessary to ping users directly--that template's just a useful tool to directly get someone's attention. DonQuixote (talk) 12:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the situation as I see it, and it might give you a secondary perspective.

Should "Professor Doktor" be included or removed?--meh, whatever. It's based on a single line of dialogue so it's not that important in-and-of-itself (not character defining as there's not much of a character) and at the same time it's not incorrect, grammatically or otherwise.

Should it be removed based on your arguments? Because of precedents in cinema and writings about cinema (as well as other works of fiction), no, not really. As I've said, it's not incorrect, grammatically or otherwise.

Although, it should probably be changed to the German spelling if it's to be included. DonQuixote (talk) 13:03, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Professor" is the operative word in his title, since not every PhD is also a professor. As the credits only list him as "Dr", I'd use both words. It goes well with him being a mad scientist-type character, too. Daß Wölf 13:35, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Things have calmed down a bit here, so for the record the consensus seems to be to include both Professor Doctor in the plot, and just Doctor in the cast. Daß Wölf also makes a valid point not brought up so far that I certainly hadn't considered - both "Professor" and "Doctor" are independent titles, and it's possible to hold both. Fair enough - but as a final comment, I'll remind ToaneeM that AGF (presuming AFG to be a typo) goes both ways, and a lot of antagonism could have been avoided by assuming that editors with 14/36k and 16/430k years and edits were acting in good faith, and not that [t]he motive for this change does not appear to be improving the article for all - even if you don't agree with the changes. It fires up the defensive nature unnecessarily which then distracts from or dilutes the actual topic. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]