Talk:Casino Royale (novel)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is part of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the General Project Discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Tasks you can do:

Contents

[edit] Sir?

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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...

[edit] 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] 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)

[edit] Moves

I'd rather move this back to Casino Royale and have a {{otheruses}} link to a disambiguation page. Reasoning being that every adaptation is based on the novel in some form. All of these adaptations would be and are explained in the intro anyway.

  • Casino Royale (novel, TV, adaptation history)
    • 1967
    • 2006

Or something to this effect. I don't like how Casino Royale is a disambiguation page now, when it truly doesn't need to be. K1Bond007 22:05, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Another film version?

A friend of mine insists, along with the rest of his family, that he saw a version of Casino Royale which featured Sean Connery as James Bond (Not Jimmy Bond), and in which he played a 'lethal computer game' ie. who ever loses, dies, as well as a second, training game. Since 3D computer games weren't around during 1954 or '67, is there any possiblity of what it is, or is he mistaken? (He is also certain it is not a spoof)Smurrayinchester 15:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Your friend saw Never Say Never Again which was a remake of Thunderball. It was made in 1983. 23skidoo 16:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. Reading the article Never Say Never Again, I can see how he got confused. Smurrayinchester 16:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
The computer game is a major sequence in Never Say Never. I'm not sure what he's referring to in regards to a second game ... probably the realistic-looking training exercise that opens the film. Opinions on Never Say Never are decidedly mixed ... there are some folks who do consider it a spoof! 23skidoo 17:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Sean Connery playing a guy named James Bond in a spy movie directed by the guy who made Empire Strikes Back and previously directed Connery in the 1966 film A Fine Madness specializing in character driven films, sounds like a pretty damn good 007 flick to me! The only other Bond movie made by EON that compares with NSNA is From Russia with Love. Both garner ****½ out of 5 stars.--Mole Man 08:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "currently Thunderball and Moonraker have all been adapted twice"

Besides the obvious film, what is the other adaptation of Moonraker? Is this referring to Die Another Day, which has been compared to Moonraker? Perhaps the article could be a bit more clear - Both the Moonraker and DAD articles only make passing references to what are mostly similarities. --Maxamegalon2000 05:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It was a radio play in 1956 with Bob Holness providing the voice for Bond. It states this at Moonraker. To my knowledge the statement in question here is correct, unless there were other adaptations of other novels that I'm not aware of. Perhaps, the line should be removed or modified since it's kind of confusing. I mean, for instance, all of the novels have been adapted as a comic strip and some of them as a comic book - yet somehow this doesn't count, but Moonraker's play does. K1Bond007 05:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I think it's an optional bit of detail that can be removed without harming the article. 23skidoo 15:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Super. Thank you for doing that. --Maxamegalon2000 05:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Felix Leiter plot edit

Felix Leiter didn't win the 32 million francs he gives Bond on the 'roulette wheel' as it currently says in the article.

From the text:

Unbelieving and yet knowing it was true, he felt the broad wads of notes. He slipped them into his pockets, retaining the half-sheet of note-paper which was pinned to the topmost of them. He glanced at it in the shadow below the table. There was one line of writing in ink: 'Marshall Aid. Thirty-two million francs. With the compliments of the USA.'

It was merely the CIA's contribution to MI6's plan to bankrupt le Chiffre, hence the "Marshall Aid" crack (see Marshall Plan).

Leiter says

'He's a very serious gambler, Miss Lynd,' he said. 'And I guess he has to be. Now come with me and watch Number 17 obey my extra-sensory perceptions. You'll find it quite a painless sensation being given plenty of money for nothing.'

I think what happens is clear...ka1iban 04:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

This is actually what I recall, but it's been about a year or more since I read it so I wasn't going to get involved. K1Bond007 06:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I also stand corrected. 23skidoo 06:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
This edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Casino_Royale&oldid=14903432 was the source of the change. I've seen other Wikipedia mirrors that didn't have it though. It's not a big deal, but it's not explicity stated that Bond gave Leiter ANY money at all, and it's fairly heavily implied that Leiter was there with American funds in case Bond had to be bailed out at the table.
This article (and all the Bond articles, on the whole) is looking great. Kudos. ka1iban 14:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge suggestion

This should me merged with the article for the movie, just like the other novels which inspired James Bond films. It could look like this:

The references would have to be fixed, of course. What do you think?

Esaborio 06:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No merge

No - the articles should be separate, otherwise it becomes too damn long and complicated. Plus if we combine these two then we'll have to also merge Casino Royale (1967 film) as well. Forget it. Yes I am aware that other Bond books/films are single articles, but Casino Royale is a special case. 23skidoo 14:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It would end up fairly over-layered and confusing if they were all merged. Considering CR has been incarnated in so many different forms (unlike, say, Goldfinger), I think a regular disambiguation page to separate articles should do the trick. ka1iban 15:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • No merge - too much information. The CR2006 article is big enough as it is and it leaves out the CR67 version. What we're doing here now, the book, the 1954 TV episode, and an overview of the rest is good enough. K1Bond007 17:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] bad sentence in intro paragraph?

End of intro paragraph reads:

"Once the new film is completed, Casino Royale will become the only Ian Fleming work to be adapted for screen on more than two occasions"

What about Thunderball (film) - Never Say Never Again? Both are based on work first published on Thunderball (book)... Notwithstanding the Thunderball lawsuit controversy, said intro paragraph seems still to be wrong imho. Comments? Peter S. 08:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It's correct. Casino Royale is the only Fleming work that has been adapted for screen on more than two occasions. The 1954 TV episode, the 1967 film, the 2006 film. Thunderball only had 2 screen adaptations: Thunderball and NSNA. K1Bond007 04:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict in text

This line removed: "Some sources have suggested that this was intended as a pilot for a potential Bond TV series starring Nelson." because in the opening lines of this same section it states that a TV series was the reason for the pilot in which Barry Nelson was the star! I guess the conflict came in due to constant editing by different people adding different bits, which means that the entire article should be read again to see if more of this confusion appears in the body.

[edit] Deleted sentence needs clarification

I have deleted the following from the section on the 1967 spoof: The 'serious version' of Casino Royale as it has come to be called went missing for years upon its showing. It was not until 1981 when film collector Jim Shoenberger discovered prints within an old film can labeled Casino Royale. They were almost disposed of when it was thought it was a copy of the more widely known Casino Royale parody until he realized it contained a black & white piece.

There is no reference in this section to there ever being a "serious version" of the 1967 film made. And such a statement needs a citation. Could this be a reference to the 1954 version that has accidentally ended up in the wrong section? The 1954 Casino Royale was believed lost until the 1980s. If so, most of this sentence can be trimmed as the 1954 section already mentions most of this information. 23skidoo 16:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The short plot summary

"Bond spends the first half of the book getting his balls flayed, and the second wondering whether he still can screw. And it turns out that he can."

A friend of mine summarized it that way some decades ago. I just reread the book and I must say it pretty well captures the gist. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

And this relates to improving this article how? 23skidoo 19:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Le Chiffre and SMERSH

Multiple entries on Wikipedia currently describe Le Chiffre as having been an agent of SMERSH. I'm not sure where this misconception started, or whether it has something to do with the recent movie, but there is nothing in the original novel to suggest this. SMERSH is described as a select group within Soviet intelligence itself, acting as a secret police. Le Chiffre simply worked as a general Soviet agent, until eventually stealing funds entrusted to him and becoming a target FOR assassination by SMERSH. This can easily be realized upon reading the dossier given to M in the beginning of the book. Renfield 17:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright Status in U.S.

My Penguin Books (United States) copy does not seem to have a copyright notice. Perhaps the novel's copyright was never renewed. Has anyone looked into this? Davros666 04:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I double checked. It says the copyright date is 1953.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/a/s/Talk%7ECasino_Royale_%28novel%29_9e04.html"