Talk:Casino Royale

Was James Bond a Sir James Bond in this film? He was Commander James Bond in the books...

He's not retired in the books, either.   :)
—Paul A 06:36 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I have recently seen this film. "Sir James Bond" seems to be a different character than "Commander James Bond". He is a retired agent who was active during World War I, has an illegitimate daughter from Mata Hari, resists the temptation of women, is moraly conservative and not very pleased with the younger agent and womaniser who replaced him and carries his name. In fact he comments: "It's depressing that the words "secret agent" have become synonymous with "sex maniac"." And by the way he dies by the end of the film along with his daughter. User: Dimadick

Casino Royale was a spoof film though, not true to the book, therefore the story is obviously going to be different. Grunners 20:05, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think the film section needs to be filled out with more of a plot synopsis. I attempted to do this, but got dizzy. If anyone wants to jump in, feel free, otherwise I'll give it another try at a later date. 23skidoo 20:49, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I read somewhere recently that when the film rights were first acquired, the producers discovered that they had not purchased the complete rights to the story, but just certain plot points (like the famous baccarat game), and this is the main reason that they made it a spoof with only small resemblance to the book. Is there anyone who can confirm this? ShawnVW 17:20, 2 Feb 2005 (PT)

That's not the way I understand it. They had the rights to the whole book, but they decided that spoofing the Bond series rather than making a serious film was the way to go. 23skidoo 02:10, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not true. He had the rights to the entire book. The producer of the film actually went to Broccoli and Saltzman in an attempt to make it an official James Bond film starring Connery, but he was denied so instead of trying to compete with (even at the time) a pretty big franchise, he decided the only way to profit from the rights was to spoof it. The history of Casino Royale on the page, is correct - it goes a little more into detail for why he chose to spoof it (coming off the success of another big name Comedy etc) K1Bond007 03:15, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

IIRC Producer Feldman actually tried to get Sean Connery to do the movie anyway, but Connery's contract with EON forbade it. 23skidoo 05:47, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Bulgarian assassination scene

There is one scene in Fleming's Casino Royale that I find simply brilliant.

SMERSH almost got Bond killed with its two Bulgarian assassins. The only reason Bond escaped with his life is that both SMERSH and the assassins were trying to cheat.

SMERSH had supplied the assassins with two camera cases, a red and a blue one. The red was said to contain a high explosive, and the blue to contain a smoke bomb. The assassins were to throw the red case at Bond's feet and then use the blue one to get away without being noticed.

In reality, both cases contained high explosive. SMERSH was trying to cheat by killing the assassins, not leaving any witnesses.

The assassins were trying to cheat by making the job easier for them. They used the blue case first, blowing themselves to smithereens, while Bond was at a safe distance.

If SMERSH hadn't cheated, the assassins would have had the chance to throw the red case at Bond's feet, killing him. If the assassins hadn't cheated, they would have killed Bond first, then themselves.

And this in the very first Bond novel! 85.76.152.179 19:31, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it was quite impressive. But the scene that remains indelible in my mind is the torture sequence with the rug beater. I flinched when I read that. Fleming never approached that level of brutality again, and the only Bond book by others that I've read that comes close is John Gardner's Brokenclaw. 23skidoo 05:47, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of plot review edit

I made the reluctant decision to revert the lengthy (very lengthy) addition by 68.82.140.174 to the plot summary on the following grounds. 1. It was written as a first-person critique. Wikipedia is supposed to maintain NPOV, and to have a first-person book review just doesn't work. In addition the review was rife with POV speculation on the part of the writer. It was also clearly cut-and-pasted from another source (it had a title line), opening the possibility of a copyvio procedure being undertaken by the admins and those things are a pain to resolve. 68.82.140.174 is more than welcome to expand upon the plot summary in this article, but it should be written as NPOV as possible (no first person references) and not just cut-and-pasted here. 23skidoo 22:04, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you hadn't I would have for most of the same reasons you listed. FYI K1Bond007 22:34, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Hey. This is 68.82.140.174. Just for the record, that plot review was cut and pasted, but it was written by me (I submitted this plot review to Casino Royale a couple of months ago, and I resubmitted it just to see if this time it wouldn't be deleted. The reason there was a title was because at that time the Casino Royale page was very short. I'm quite impressed with the progress). If you want proff that I wrote the story, go to recent changes and click on my name. I'll be there somewhere. You'll see that I submitted that plot review a couple of months ago.

Yeah we know Patrick. Still it got deleted for being "point of view" (POV) and written in the first person. K1Bond007 20:34, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Ah well. I'll just submit it to a different site. I'm not good at writing encyclopedic articles.-68.82.140.174

Perhaps commanderbond.net or some similar site? There are quite a few out there who accept articles like this. 23skidoo 17:32, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I liked your article, 68.82.140.174. I will save it by re-posting it!-Jamesbondvandal07

Well unfortunately it's content not suitable for Wikipedia. I reverted. Please dont do that again. Since you were aware of the discussion and the reasons why it was removed you should know that this is bordering on vandalism. K1Bond007 02:23, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

It is 68.82.140.174. I was doing some late-night browsing on Wikipedia, and I went to the Casino Royale page to see if anything new was posted (I'm a Bond fan) and I saw my article had been put back up! Unfortunately, it was posted by a vandal. Sorry. I do not know who Jamesbondvandal107 is (I think he meant to put 007) and I am not him. I guess he just liked my article.

...Right. Know that sock puppets, especially in this sort of case, can get you banned from Wikipedia. Just FYI for future reference incase something else coincidentally happens like this. Not to be rude, but it's convienant how you checked up on this article 10 minutes after it was vandalised. K1Bond007 02:39, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

I understand. It is pretty convenient that happened, but it wasn't me. I was up doing an art report (though not really doing it) and decided to check in. I probably should have waited a while to reply. Who knows? It could be you...

Other versions

Some of these aren't "other versions of Casino Royale" they're just spoofs or parodies. The latest one from the description doesn't have anything to do with Casino Royale specifically, more like Dr. No. Should these be removed? Moved to James Bond parodies perhaps? I've never heard of the fan film and so far really see no notability about listing it here. There are thousands of these made for Star Wars, Trek and even some for Bond, what makes this one notable? K1Bond007 19:55, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

I'm going one step further. I'm removing the Star Trek episode reference altogether because I have never seen any reference anywhere to this being a parody, and homage, or anything else to Bond. I think it's fair to keep the fan film listed here, although I have been unable to confirm the existence of this production, myself. 23skidoo 17:27, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There's an argument to keep it in there. Before I fixed the text, it explicitly stated the opposite. By making it clear that it isn't connected except in a general way, it forestalls someone re-adding the incorrect informatino in the future. It could be shortened. Note that many other Wikipedia articles list cultural references, even when vague. --Dhartung | Talk 23:58, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The problem I have with this particular one is that it goes beyond vague; there really seems to be nothing to support any direct relationship to Fleming's novel. The episode uses the name The Royale (a pretty common name for a casino), and the fact the alien simulation was based upon a murder mystery of some sort, if I remember correct (I don't care for the episode so I haven't seen it in a while). As such, it could almost be just as viable to list it under Simon Templar or Ellery Queen. What's needed is some sort of link to a webpage or reference to a source that states that the episode was indeed an homage to Bond. Compare to the obvious references to Bond in the Bashir 007 episodes of DS9. No one can doubt that they reference Bond and, in fact, I personally think "Our Man Bashir" owes more to the Casino Royale movie than to Dr. No, right down to using the same name for the villain as the 1967 movie (I noticed that one got moved to the Dr. No article). Maybe the way to go about it is to post the deleted TNG trivia item here or at the main Bond article and invite comment and see what turns up? 23skidoo 00:09, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, you're essentially right. Writer Tracy Tormé says that his original drafts were based on The Prisoner. [1] (http://www.trek5.com/features/2002/torme.html) My point is more about the legitimacy of using the Wikipedia to eliminate confusion when it exists, as in disambiguation pages. --Dhartung | Talk 19:30, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)