The OFFICIAL "Casino Royale" (2006) Thread

[gkgyver 1,645]

One word: reboot. Forget 1964- 2002.

[crocodile 7,984]

The whole point of the film is showing a Bond we don't know yet.  

Just in case you've been asleep for the past two years ...

Yeah, but it is completely different character. And that's the problem. They could as well name him Ethan Hunt.

Besides, instead of making such changes they could give him better script instead.

Either you do a real spy film true to the original source or you make a brainless and stupid stunts. But not both.

Karol

[LongTallJodie 59]

No really, since this isn't a prequel so much as a relaunch. It isn't tied into the same continuity as the other films. If you're familiar with comic books, think of it like "Ultimate Bond" - a reboot of the character into the 21st century. Personally, I thought the modernization of it was excellent.

[gkgyver 1,645]

It's a merging of Fleming's original character (for real this time, not just in bits and pieces) and some successfull elements of the past Bond films, which is excellent.

If you do such a radical reboot, you're bound to make some fans unhappy, but in the long run, 007 will tremendously benefit from this bold move.

[Vaderbait1 1]

Yeah, the people who are unhappy are in a serious minority here. This is NOT Ethan Hunt. This is not an average spy movie. It's still set up like classic Bond, the one liners are just like classic Bond, the actino sequences are like classic Bond. If you don't like this movie you basically don't like the first 8 movies or so. This was a perfect blend of Connery and Brosnan.

[crocodile 7,984]

If you don't like this movie you basically don't like the first 8 movies or so.

I'm not a big fan of ANY of the Bond movies. Not my cup of tea, I guess.

Still, Casino Royale has some pretty good moments. It's a pity that it is so incoherent.

Karol

[ChrisAfonso 186]

Am I the only one who finds it incoherent that you criticize CR for deviating from the "original source", but state that you don't like the originals much?

[crocodile 7,984]

I don't have to be a fan of these movies to appreciate them for what they are. What I meant was that I'm not terribly excited when another Bond movie comes out. Nothing less and nothing more.

The main problem I see with the Bond movies isn't the character himself, but storylines in which he is involved. The new film tries to bring more serious tone, but then again inserts some really ridiculous action sequences, like the Madagascar chase or the finale. They are (the first one in particular) fun to watch and well made, but ultimately they shouldn't have taken place in this particular picture. Am I the only one who is bothered by this?

The old movies didn't have such problem, because they were over the top from the start. For better or worse.

Karol

[Vaderbait1 1]

Sure they should have. THese "over the top action sequences" are nowhere near as "over the top" as in the last few Bond movies. They're big, but they're believable for a strong stunt man to do. It's not like he's doing triple flips four hundred feet across a chasm. He's doing (fairly) reasonable jumps from bars to bars.

But yes, you can have big action sequences in a serious movie.

[Neimoidian 14]

Besides it is still a Bond flick. Not as unrealistic as the previous, but also not that much realistic like Bourne series. None has said it would be a trully serious movie, but rather more serious than the Brosnan episodes.

[Vaderbait1 1]

Exactly.

[gkgyver 1,645]

Which wasn't that hard, really.

[pixie_twinkle 48]

I think the biggest laugh (when I saw it) was at Vesper's reaction when Bond told her what her cover name was.

Disturbingly the biggest laugh when I saw it was at Bond's "more to the right" quip during the torture scene. I think everyone was so tense during the scene that Bond's line broke the tension a little and everyone laughed twice as hard!

[King Mark 3,625]

No really, since this isn't a prequel so much as a relaunch.  It isn't tied into the same continuity as the other films.  If you're familiar with comic books, think of it like "Ultimate Bond" - a reboot of the character into the 21st century.  Personally, I thought the modernization of it was excellent.

I had a problem with the continuity issue.I just couldn't buy it,there asking us to ignore all of Bond's previous adventures,that he was just recently got 007 status,AND we have cast members from previous films who "forget" about the previous adventures(M).???

K.M.Who doesn't like pseudo parallel film timelines

[gkgyver 1,645]

I think the biggest laugh (when I saw it) was at Vesper's reaction when Bond told her what her cover name was.

By the way, what is her cover name in the original English version? It's very embarassing, but in the German dub, it's "Brustwarz" (pronounced with an English accent).

[robthehand 3]

I think the biggest laugh (when I saw it) was at Vesper's reaction when Bond told her what her cover name was.

By the way, what is her cover name in the original English version? It's very embarassing, but in the German dub, it's "Brustwarz" (pronounced with an English accent).

In the English version it's Miss Stephanie Broadchest.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

No really, since this isn't a prequel so much as a relaunch.  It isn't tied into the same continuity as the other films.  If you're familiar with comic books, think of it like "Ultimate Bond" - a reboot of the character into the 21st century.  Personally, I thought the modernization of it was excellent.

I had a problem with the continuity issue.I just couldn't buy it,there asking us to ignore all of Bond's previous adventures,that he was just recently got 007 status,AND we have cast members from previous films who "forget" about the previous adventures(M).???

K.M.Who doesn't like pseudo parallel film timelines

It's not really the first time they've done it, although never as radically as on this one.

[King Mark 3,625]

I always find it annoying when they do that type of thing,like in Superman Returns which is supposed to "kinda" takes place after Superman 2 by vague referances .Or the new Battlestar Galactica,in the pilot miniseries the "old series" was vaguely referenced to as events that happened 100 years before so they could get the old Vipers,but it really didn't make any sense that the exact same story would happen again.

K.M.

[pixie_twinkle 48]

Dr. No's probably the most easy-going of all the books, but it's still very good. Kind of weird if you know the film's plot, though, they changed quite a bit.

If they remade Dr No today they would probably have a massive CGI giant squid sequence! I'm so glad it was made back in 1962 instead. It's such a cool spy movie. The smaller budget made for a cooler film IMO.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

I agree. Although I wouldn't mind seeing more of that final challenge for Bond.

- Marc, who finished Dr. No today.

[pixie_twinkle 48]

No really, since this isn't a prequel so much as a relaunch.  It isn't tied into the same continuity as the other films.  If you're familiar with comic books, think of it like "Ultimate Bond" - a reboot of the character into the 21st century.  Personally, I thought the modernization of it was excellent.

I had a problem with the continuity issue.I just couldn't buy it,there asking us to ignore all of Bond's previous adventures,that he was just recently got 007 status,AND we have cast members from previous films who "forget" about the previous adventures(M).???

K.M.Who doesn't like pseudo parallel film timelines

BUT, that's always been a problem in Bond! Bond meets Blofeld for the first time in both You Only Live Twice, AND OHMSS. In the latter we are told that Blofeld is unrecognisable because he's had surgery on his earlobes (!), but it doesn't explain why Blofeld does't recognise Bond! (Apart from the fact that he's changed actor!). Perhaps YOLT is supposed to happen AFTER OHMSS, but that makes no sense because Diamonds ARE Forever comes immediately after OHMSS, with Bond going after Blofeld for revenge for the death of Tracy.

Then as if that weren't enough, the pre-credits sequence of For Your Eyes Only has Moore's Bond killing Blofeld (after a graveyard scene reminding viewers that Blofeld killed Tracy). Only trouble is that in FYEO Blofeld is exactly as he was at the end of OHMSS, bald and crippled (after breaking his kneck on the tree branch). That pre-credits scene basically assumes that DAF never happened!

It really doesn't bother me anymore. Bond has been going on for so long that technologies change, World crises have altered dramatically, and Bond SHOULD be 80! At this point I just take each film as it comes. Of course if the next movie is going to be a direct sequel to Casino Royale then I do expect the writers to at least honor the continuity to CR. After that it's all good.

James - Who really thinks this new direction for Bond is superb. Continuity changes were a small price to pay for the exciting new character we have. This guy is more Fleming's cold-hearted Bond than Connery was, and that's saying something.

[Ollie 1,059]

BUT, that's always been a problem in Bond! Bond meets Blofeld for the first time in both You Only Live Twice, AND OHMSS. In the latter we are told that Blofeld is unrecognisable because he's had surgery on his earlobes (!), but it doesn't explain why Blofeld does't recognise Bond! (Apart from the fact that he's changed actor!). Perhaps YOLT is supposed to happen AFTER OHMSS, but that makes no sense because Diamonds ARE Forever comes immediately after OHMSS, with Bond going after Blofeld for revenge for the death of Tracy.  

Then as if that weren't enough, the pre-credits sequence of For Your Eyes Only has Moore's Bond killing Blofeld (after a graveyard scene reminding viewers that Blofeld killed Tracy). Only trouble is that in FYEO Blofeld is exactly as he was at the end of OHMSS, bald and crippled (after breaking his kneck on the tree branch). That pre-credits scene basically assumes that DAF never happened!

It really doesn't bother me anymore. Bond has been going on for so long that technologies change, World crises have altered dramatically, and Bond SHOULD be 80! At this point I just take each film as it comes. Of course if the next movie is going to be a direct sequel to Casino Royale then I do expect the writers to at least honor the continuity to CR. After that it's all good.

James - Who really thinks this new direction for Bond is superb. Continuity changes were a small price to pay for the exciting new character we have. This guy is more Fleming's cold-hearted Bond than Connery was, and that's saying something.

The headstone at Tracey's grave in FYEO has her death listed as the actual date when OHMSS was released I believe.

[Ollie 1,059]

but it really didn't make any sense that the exact same story would happen again.

K.M.

Cough cough Jaws 2, Die Hard 2 cough cough

[robthehand 3]

The headstone at Tracey's grave in FYEO has her death listed as the actual date when OHMSS was released I believe.

Yes, it does.

Basically, if you don't count On Her Majesty's Secret Service - the Connery & Moore films have decent continuity. Bond ages almost correctly - Connery was 32 in 1962's Dr. No, Moore was 58 (!!) in 1985's A View to a Kill - so he ages 26 years over a 23 year span, that's about right. Lazenby aside, it was only when Dalton came along, and then Brosnan & Craig, that the continuity really went crazy.

[gkgyver 1,645]

One thing that really bothered me in the film is Vesper's death. Why did they change that? That action scene at the end doesn't fit at all. If there's one scene in the book that would have really fitted the mood of teh film, it's Vesper's suicide.

[robthehand 3]

You might want to put a spoiler warning there...

But I agree. That scene is a bit over-the-top in the film, and it worked perfectly the way it was in the book. Less is more.

[Ollie 1,059]

One thing that really bothered me in the film is Vesper's death. Why did they change that? That action scene at the end doesn't fit at all. If there's one scene in the book that would have really fitted the mood of teh film, it's Vesper's suicide.

AWWWWW man you ruined it!!!!!

How could you!!!!! Oh my %@*%@$%$%&@%#$%#$$%&@*%#@ god!!!!!!!!

Why......Why!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

[Luke Skywalker 1,792]

'The bitch is dead'

Isnt it alreday spoilery obvious?

[Vaderbait1 1]

Yeah, the ending seemed a bit tacked on, because during most of the battle you don't even know who Bond is fighting. Of course, with the sequel expounding on the secret organization involved in the last third of the movie, I'm sure it'll tie in the movies much better.

[SturgisPodmore 0]

Saw the movie twice, and it took that many times for me to get the plot straight. I really liked the whole idea of revamping the series, as it really needed it after Die Another Day.

The scenes between Vesper and Bond are a delight; their banter is actually witty, unlike the ridiculous puns from DAD, and they have great chemistry together, neither wanting to let their guard down though they're both falling in love. Le Chiffre is a great villain, not too extravagant like some have been in the sereis. I greatly enjoyed Judi Dench as M, with her contempt towards Bond; you can still see, however, that she likes him and knows he is a competent agent. The poker scenes, even though I don't really understand the game, were very tense and gripping, as well.

Craig fits into the role of Bond very well, though not the Bond we're all accustomed to. It's interesting to see how he's becoming a suave double-0 agent. I also felt like Vesper's death. I loved that moment in the film, and I enjoy how it sets up for the next.

Casino Royale proves that a spy movie can still be made without CGI or tons of gadgets, and I look forward to the next film in the series. A-

~Sturgis, hoping to soon see a return of Q and especially Moneypenny

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

No really, since this isn't a prequel so much as a relaunch.  It isn't tied into the same continuity as the other films.  If you're familiar with comic books, think of it like "Ultimate Bond" - a reboot of the character into the 21st century.  Personally, I thought the modernization of it was excellent.

I had a problem with the continuity issue.I just couldn't buy it,there asking us to ignore all of Bond's previous adventures,that he was just recently got 007 status,AND we have cast members from previous films who "forget" about the previous adventures(M).???

K.M.Who doesn't like pseudo parallel film timelines

BUT, that's always been a problem in Bond! Bond meets Blofeld for the first time in both You Only Live Twice, AND OHMSS. In the latter we are told that Blofeld is unrecognisable because he's had surgery on his earlobes (!), but it doesn't explain why Blofeld does't recognise Bond! (Apart from the fact that he's changed actor!). Perhaps YOLT is supposed to happen AFTER OHMSS, but that makes no sense because Diamonds ARE Forever comes immediately after OHMSS, with Bond going after Blofeld for revenge for the death of Tracy.

Then as if that weren't enough, the pre-credits sequence of For Your Eyes Only has Moore's Bond killing Blofeld (after a graveyard scene reminding viewers that Blofeld killed Tracy). Only trouble is that in FYEO Blofeld is exactly as he was at the end of OHMSS, bald and crippled (after breaking his kneck on the tree branch). That pre-credits scene basically assumes that DAF never happened!

Also, assuming GoldenEye takes place in 1995 (the film's year of release), the opening sequence of that film takes place before both The Living Daylights and License to Kill (again assuming those films took place in present time when they were released), subtly glazing over the Dalton era.

[Ollie 1,059]

It would be impossible to do the Bond movies to where the stories all match the same timeline. You would have had to churn out a movie once a year starting with Dr. No. Plus Bond would be too old.

Sometimes you have to suspend logic in long running film series.

As far as I'm concerened they should have made Casino Royale take place in the 60's.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

The book took place in 1951. From there on, you could probably figure out where the other stories take place (I can't quite recall exact dates, but there's usually a mention of how long it's been since the last assignment, I think).

[Ollie 1,059]

Technically 007 could be dead from old age.

Seriously though you can't expect the series to have a strict timeline. It's like the Hardy Boy Mystery books I used to read when I was younger. Both brothers were 17 & 18 in each book and there is no way they could have solved over 80 cases in 1 year but the series started during the 1930's and continued thru the 70's.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

I think there's something in Casino Royale about Bond probably only getting about six more big cases. Yet in total, 14 books were published (some of them made up of several short stories).

[Luke Skywalker 1,792]

I thought the movies was going to be ambienced in the 60's.

But then is thought... 2006 aston martin? mmm Not the 60's

For this particular movie i think they should have hired a one time actor (like lazenby) and make it as the 1st bond movie chronologically. And M, moneypenny... and so look alike the old ones.

[robthehand 3]

If there was a strict timeline kept from Dr. No, Bond would be 76 now.

I think there's something in Casino Royale about Bond probably only getting about six more big cases. Yet in total, 14 books were published (some of them made up of several short stories).

I guess Ian Fleming wanted more money.

[Luke Skywalker 1,792]

Is casino royale the best book and standlaone?

I would like to have an ian flemming book, but not ending with the whole series due to my compulsive collectionist in me....

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

I think there's something in Casino Royale about Bond probably only getting about six more big cases. Yet in total, 14 books were published (some of them made up of several short stories).

I guess Ian Fleming wanted more money.

Dr. No was such a cop-out!

- Marc, who thought FRWL was a great ending to a five-book series.

Is casino royale the best book and standlaone?

I would like to have an ian flemming book, but not ending with the whole series due to my compulsive collectionist in me....

They're best read in sequence, but if you're only going to get one, I suggest FRWL, although I'm only halfway through the series myself (FRWL is book 5).

[Luke Skywalker 1,792]

How many books are there? (the collectionist is surfacing, oh no!)

[robthehand 3]

How many books are there? (the collectionist is surfacing, oh no!)

35 original novels + 2 short story collections + 5 novelisations = 42 books in total.

Ian Fleming

Casino Royale

Live and Let Die

Moonraker

Diamonds are Forever

From Russia With Love

Dr. No

Goldfinger

For Your Eyes Only (short stories)

Thunderball

The Spy Who Loved Me

On Her Majesty's Secret Service

You Only Live Twice

The Man with the Golden Gun

Octopussy and the Living Daylights (short stories)

Kingsley Amis

Colonel Sun

John Gardner

Licence Renewed

For Special Services

Icebreaker

Role of Honour

Nobody Lives Forever

No Deals, Mr. Bond

Scorpius

Win, Lose or Die

Licence to Kill (novelisation)

Brokenclaw

The Man from Barbarossa

Death is Forever

Never Send Flowers

SeaFire

GoldenEye (novelisation)

Cold

Raymond Benson

Zero Minus Ten

Tomorrow Never Dies (novelisation)

The Facts of Death

High Time to Kill

The World is Not Enough (novelisation)

Doubleshot

Never Dream of Dying

The Man with the Red Tattoo

Die Another Day (novelisation)

Charlie Higson (Young Bond books)

SilverFin

BloodFever

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

I haven't bothered with the post-Fleming novels, really. Right now I have 10 of Fleming's books. I'll get the other four soon, and that'll probably be it for me.

[robthehand 3]

I enjoyed the Gardner novels, but they're not Bond-ish. They're fine detective thrillers, if you don't try and compare them with the Fleming stories or character.

Raymond Benson = 8O

I only read the first Young Bond book and thought it was boring.

[Luke Skywalker 1,792]

I just meant Flemming's. Just 14 mmmm

I'll think about it.

[Henry B 50]

Great film.

My biggest gripe was the constant use of cellphones in the first half.

[robthehand 3]

My biggest gripe was the constant use of cellphones in the first half.

But that wasn't the most blatant product placement! What about the line:

"Your watch... Rolex?"

"Omega."

I wonder how much Omega paid them for that one! 8O

[Henry B 50]

Oh, no, it wasn't a product placement, was it? I didn't see any brand names on the cell phones.

I'd say the most obvious product placement was Body Worlds, which I found amusing/realistic because I went to that exhibition (at the Boston Museum of Science) just a month ago.

[Kendal_Ozzel 36]

The phones were Sony Ericsson.

I believe there was a Nokia in there, too.

[robthehand 3]

It's not Casino Royale-related, but this was a fun read:

The 007 Lamest James Bond Scenes

I disagree with a few of them, but it's entertaining to read.

"The Man with the Golden Gun is widely regarded as the worst James Bond movie by people who have never seen A View to a Kill."

"The most outrageous “stunt” in all of the Bond films occurs in the Halle Barry film Die Another Day, which co-stars Pierce Brosnan."

"If there is any artistic justice, the ghost of Ian Fleming will haunt everyone involved in the creation of this scene. When you deviate that far from the original literary concept, you might as well just say fuck it and go all the way—throw a pirate ship and a giant ice squid in there and make that tsunami really dangerous."

[Luke Skywalker 1,792]

I've seen the movie at last. Not bad. I missed Q, but well, there were gadgets still.

My god what kind of cruel torture it is shown there

Fun thing about having the score before seeing the movie: i thought 'Mongoose vs snake' were two nicknames LOL Well now i know how the mustelid is called in english

And my good they filmed on locaction in Naboo! i have to visit lake Como.

And some Last crusade set too hehe.