Talk:James Bond (Dynamite Entertainment)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

A few notes

Publication history

I think the part where it says VARGR will be followed with Eidolon should be included in its own section, suggestively titled "Sequel".

I'm not sure 'sequel' is the right term, "Eidolon" is just the second storyline. I'd also be wary of creating another section at the moment. It'd be better to expand the PH, then you could make separate sections for each storyline when/if there is enough content to support them. It shouldn't be too difficult as Warren Ellis has talked quite a bit about the first storyline on his mailing list. He has been a bit busy recently, but I assume when #7 is looming he will probably spring into action. I'll try and dig out what he has said about "VARGR" there as I had worked out a why of searching the old newsletters (once I remember what I did). Emperor (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Much obliged for clarifying that, mate. While I do know Eidolon has nothing to do with VARGR story-wise, I know it exists in the same continuity, which in a way is a first time for a Bond comic to see a continuation ongoing between two separate titles, unlike the ones we've had with Dark Horse Comics when they used to publish the Bond comics. I wanted to start an article regarding Eidolon as a separate title, but waited for the first issue (which is James Bond #7) to make its debut first. Once again, sir, thanks for making things clearer. --ZeroMinusTen (talk) 09:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I also posted a few of my thoughts on this over on the Comics Project talk page. I don't think we need an article on each storyline and we'd be better off renaming this to James Bond (Dynamite Entertainment) so it acts as the main article for the whole series. If this keeps going (although I suspect without Ellis, possibly after the second storyline) then there may be a need for sub-pages spun off from this one, but we'd need to play it by ear - keep adding well sourced content to this page (and Argento Surfer points out a good example of what could be aimed for in Saga (comics)) and we'll see how it develops. So keep up the good work!! Emperor (talk) 15:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don't know if that's actually a good idea since there will be no connectivity between the arcs, just like Fleming's original novels when they came out, existing in the same continuity and even making connections to one another, yet they haven't relied on their ongoing franchise as one in a whole. Alas, the Bond license isn't that of Dynamite's property hence having an article named after it would be out of place, if you ask me. It'd be just good if we have James Bond (comics) as it covers the length of publishers in their respective lines that released comics based on the James Bond character. That's just my take on it.--ZeroMinusTen (talk) 12:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The (Dynamite Entertainment) disambiguator doesn't imply the book is Dynamite's property, it just makes it easily identifiable for people searching for information on the new series. I previously proposed (2015 comic series), but I think the (DE) option would be better.
And while there may not be a strong connective thread between arcs, there is connectivity in the series through the numbering. If the article is renamed, it just means the publication history, plot summary, and reception for Eidolon will be here instead of a separate page. We could even create
James Bond 007: Eidolon as a redirect to this page. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, then, if that is the case, then there's no need for a separate thread but a whole new section created in James Bond (comics) under the name "The Dynamite Entertainment Series", which itself will expand the article and not hold it separate from the previous publications on the Bond series. We certainly didn't need to create a separate article for the new Bond films when they were rebooted in 2006 for the first time in over 40 years, did we? Or the James Bond in video games article when they had several different publishers, with most of them working on a series of their own. If they haven't been applied there, I don't think they would be applied here. Just my two cents.--ZeroMinusTen (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apples and oranges. The films are distinct entities with lots of coverage for each one. Comics are more akin to television, and we don't start by creating new articles for each season. We start with a broader parent article about the show itself, and if it grows above a certain size, an article dedicated to a single season may be split off. This article is not yet at that limit. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)As Argento Surfer says, all the disambiguation term says is that this is the publisher - there is a hierarchy in the comics which is pretty straightforward: (comics) is the first level, then the name of the publisher (DC Comics), (Marvel Comics), etc. and then it needs finessing beyond that (character name, series vol., etc.). As there are often similarly named characters and titles from different publishers (see: Category:Set indices on comics), we've thoroughly thrashed this out and it works nicely. There are some separate articles on storylines separate from the series but they are usually the biggest, best-known ones and would spin off from the relevant parent article if they looked like they could sustain their own article - as it stands I don't see this to be the case. Oh and here is another example of this type of disambiguation from DE: Jungle Girl (Dynamite Entertainment).
I don't see any need for a new section for the DE series on James Bond (comics) as this article is doing a good job of covering the new series and thanks, to the work that has already been done on it, there is no issues with notability. Emperor (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think I see where you're coming from, now. And I've come to be in agreement to it. Then yes, you've got my vote on James Bond (Dynamite Entertainment). I think I see its development heading towards XIII (comics), listing a very short (shorter than what I have in plan) analysis of a plot dedicated to each volume. However, at least I would wait for Eidolon to complete its run, so the article would be ready to go in its two volumes. The thing is, I treated it as a separate title but since existent issue numbers are put after the franchise title (i.e. James Bond #5), I see your point, so I'm on board. --ZeroMinusTen (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that kind of thing - although XIII is released as individual albums/graphic novels they are clearly grouping different ones together into storylines. Here, you'd have the plot section and then under it you'd have individual sections for the different storylines. Emperor (talk) 00:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and I'm not that a fan of the way Saga (comics) handles the storyarcs - I do like what they've done on The Multiversity. There they discuss the thinking behind each part with some of the story. The advantage of that is that you can present the plot in an out-of-universe manner. Emperor (talk) 00:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer MIND MGMT's style, but anything's better than Harrow County. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the page and fixed most of the links. Several of them are piped links from "VARGR", but once Eidolon is out, we can link it as well and pipe the links to the relevant section. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. Now, I'll reconstruct the primary description on its header. If you approve and if it meets the standards of what an article covering a comic book series would be doing, feel free to guide through. --ZeroMinusTen (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That also said, I think a mention of the Dynamite series deserves a small section in James Bond (comics) under the English Publications section. Don't you agree? I mean, it definitely shouldn't remain that separate.--ZeroMinusTen (talk) 20:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It already had a mention, but I subdivided that section a bit more and added a direct link to this page. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well done with the reconstruction of the article. Thanks for the efforts, mate.--ZeroMinusTen (talk) 20:57, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good work everyone - it looks a lot more solid and set-up for further expansion as the series rolls on. Emperor (talk) 02:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Collected edition

I corrected the first mistake of the numbered issues, which actually is six rather than five. The collected edition will have the first six issues gathered in one hardcover format.--ZeroMinusTen (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch.I was looking at the first issue of "Eidolon" with a very obvious #7 on it, but that information clearly didn't trickle down from my eyes to my fingers. Emperor (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

As for the plot expansion, I have all the released issues (five as of yet) conducted in text format, waiting for the final issue to come out on 20 April 2016 to complete the section with the finished storyline. It'll be posted by the day after it's released.--ZeroMinusTen (talk) 15:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the efforts on that front. Just keep
WP:PLOT in mind, as too much in-universe plot can hold an article back. Emperor (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
You're welcome, and thank you for the required information in return. I'm trying to make it as simple as possible without going too much deep in its descriptive manner and citing the details. Just the highlights of whatever takes place in the story. For example, there's this one scene in between Issue #4 and #5 where Bond has to escape a death trap, and I haven't written whatever he does slowly to break his way out of it, just that he does, which is all. That would be more appropriate, right? --ZeroMinusTen (talk) 09:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the plot with full summary as promised. If anyone is interested in modifying it to suit the standards of Wikipedia on better terms, be my guest. Thank you.--ZeroMinusTen (talk) 13:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I think it will have to be trimmed some, but having one that's too long is better than one that's too short. Hopefully I'll have time to go over it later today. For future summaries, you may want to read over Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary, which gives some great tips for a wiki-style plot. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That'll be great! And many thanks for the link, I'll have a read later on myself. --ZeroMinusTen (talk) 15:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed "Characters" Section

As I always do with all the articles I write, I think it would be a nice gesture to include a "Characters" section underneath the Plot. Any suggestions on that? --ZeroMinusTen (talk) 12:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saga (comic book) is a recent Good Article with a characters section. It'd make for a good model. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

A Question regarding Hammerhead

Fellas, for quite sometime now I've been keeping up with the news and updates regarding Dynamite Entertainment's monthly solicitations. And for a reason, their run of James Bond ends with the last issue of the "Eidolon" story arc, which will be #12. The new installment is being looked at as a spin-off and/or a new series/miniseries that is "Hammerhead" which doesn't go under the label of James Bond but rather James Bond: Hammerhead, and its issue is being counted from #1 and #2 instead of picking up from where James Bond #12 left off. Does that mean in the information box section we'll stop at Issue #12 and separate Hammerhead's counting in a rejuvenation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeroMinusTen (talk • contribs) 10:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question. How would you feel about listing Hammerhead the way The Avengers (comic book) shows volumes? I didn't look at the code, but since one of them is listed as "Vol 1 resumed" I think you can name the labels however you'd like. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did configure the numbers of the issue, in the infobox, see if it sits well with you, Argento Surfer. And on other notes, I did try to insert Volume 2: Eidolon's ISBN, but it just can't accept it. Perhaps I'm doing it wrong. Its IBSN-10 is 1524102725, but I couldn't submit it, which I'm assuming I was doing it wrong by placing a "< br >" sign next to Vol 1's ISBN. --ZeroMinusTen (talk) 08:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Additional trades have to be added under their own parameters. I've fixed it. When Hammerhead info is available, it'll be inserted below these two as TPB3 and ISBN3. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! --ZeroMinusTen (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Hammerhead again, rumour has it that Dynamite's announcement of Benjamin Percy being set to write a story in the series might actually be a follow up to Warren Ellis' James Bond title rather than being separate like James Bond: Hammerhead is, which brings me to this question. If the rumour is proven right, do you think Hammerhead needs a separate article? Because, if that is the case, I don't think it will be part of the James Bond chronology but contain itself in its own entry. Any thoughts? --ZeroMinusTen (talk) 20:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It may be solid enough to stand on it's own, but we should wait until we know for sure. We can track it's progress here, then split the information out if needed. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did have a talk with one of Dynamite's staff, after a long wait of confirmation, and I've been told that Hammerhead is not part of the James Bond arc. He went ahead to say that it was spun off from the original run so we can say safely that it's a standalone miniseries, unlike VARGR and Eidolon, alongside what Benjamin Percy will bring in a few months. With two solid issues released, I think Hammerhead should branch out of this article and have its own one. What do you say? --ZeroMinusTen (talk) 08:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it has enough coverage at Comic Book Roundup to sustain an article. Some of these links may help build a decent publication history. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I'll handle the plot and the infobox, and if you don't mind, could you take care of the publication history? We'll name the page James Bond 007: Hammerhead. Note, the '007' should be included in the article due to its presence on the logo.--ZeroMinusTen (talk) 14:21, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can do that, but it may be a week or two. Once it's up and running, the plot summary for it should leave this page, but I think it should still get a mention in the publication section. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely agreed. The plot summary doesn't belong here, because it's not part of the arc this article represents. As for publication history, I also agree it should get a brief mention as it's still part of the franchise, as an additional miniseries. --ZeroMinusTen (talk) 15:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Zero. Just wanted to let you know I haven't forgotten this. I've been working on a larger project that's taken more of my time than I expected. This is still on my radar. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James Bond (2017)/Black Box (and onward?)

Apparently, the new entry in the mainstream chain of installments, while being an official continuation of the VARGR/Eidolon storylines by Warren Ellis, resets the numbering issue of the ongoing James Bond series with the first issue of the Black Box story arc by Benjamin Percy. The first issue is labeled under James Bond (2017) #1, so does that mean the article needs a separate infobox for this? Suggestively under the title James Bond (2017)? --ZeroMinusTen (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the article is long enough for an additional infobox at this time, but there are other options. The current infobox can be toyed with to include information for both titles (see Captain Marvel (Marvel Comics) for an example of what I mean - it's not an ideal model to follow for this case). Alternatively, there may be enough material to turn this into a landing page for Dynamite's James Bond franchise and split out new articles for James Bond (2015 comic series), James Bond (2017 comic series), and so on. The plot and current critical reception section would need to go to the new 2015 page, and a new critical reception section would need to be written here. It would take a bit of effort, but I'm sure there are some reviews/previews that include lines like "Dynamite knows what they're doing with Bond!", or some such. Overall sales trends for the different series could also be compared here. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You may consider reaching out to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject James Bond for assistance in building/splitting/formatting the articles. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've been keeping an eye on the subject on many resources, and it appears the Ian Fleming official Facebook page classed Black Box as James Bond Vol. 3, for which I'm guessing it's better off that the installment stays within this very article. --ZeroMinusTen (talk) 19:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That works too. You can also check the indicia when it's available to verify. That's the block of small print that's usually found at the bottom of the first page, although I think Dynamite may put it in the back of the book. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_Bond_(Dynamite_Entertainment)&oldid=1201212546"