Shoppegol2

Preceded By/Bond Template

To be fair this, film is not truly preceded by Die Another Day, rather it is a restart of the franchise. I also think that on the James Bond Films Template at the bottom of the page, Casino Royale should be put in a different section..... 05:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

No, because regardless of what happens within the story itself 'Casino Royale' is considered 'Bond 21' by EON. GuruAskew 06:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the 'preceded by' field is used for prequels, not for other movies about the same character. you don't see Batman & Robin stated in the 'preceded by' field of batman begins --PASSIVE (Talk|E-Mail) 16:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

In this case it's going by the films in the series. There is no set rule on how to specifically use that field and readers are more likely (within the Bond film articles) to go as it progresses (i.e., as they are released) in the EON series. K1Bond007 18:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Rating

Despite being slightly too long and containing a couple plot holes and coincidences, the plot is well-crafted and enthralling. All of these things should make CASINO ROYALE one of the most critically successful and financially successful Bond movies in recent years, if not the whole history of the franchise. Since the Bond franchise began in 1962 with Dr. No (the reason being that the producers failed to get the rights to Casino Royale) there have been five Bonds: Sean Connery, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan. Easily the best was Connery, and the two best Bond films were Dr. No and the even better From Russia With Love. Oct 26, 2015  All aspects of the film – the hits, the misses, the plot-holes, the finale – have already been chewed over and digested into pop culture lore. The story Casino Royale started is finally at.

I removed a new trivia item that stated (without source) that Campbell is going for a PG rating for this film. I find this dubious at best, particularly after seeing the teaser trailer. There are all sorts of rumors going around, including the possibility (probably is my guess) that it will be the first R-rated Bond film. It's possible, however, that there's a media story out there saying otherwise, so if that's the case, please include a source if you put it back (remember, however, how many erroneous news stories were published regarding who was going to play Bond - I'd take all such reports with a grain of salt until EON confirms them). Incidentally the count of how many PG13 Bonds there were was off - the number should be 5 not 4 as Licence to Kill also received PG13. 23skidoo 13:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It'll be PG-13. Bond thrives on that. Going R would be bad and dumbing it down to PG would not be good either. Theres no way in hell they could make Casino Royale PG anyway. If you've read the novel, then you know what I'm talking about. It's there as are other scenes that would prevent the PG rating. K1Bond007 16:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

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:

Administrator 23skidoo has removed the complete cutting-and-pasting of an article from Talk Page space as inappropriate for a Talk page. At the present time the example referred to by User:Esaborio is located at Talk:Casino Royale for a temporary time.

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

Esaborio 06:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No merge

As I indicated at Talk:Casino Royale a merge would make the article too long and complex and would have to also include Casino Royale (1967 film). While there are other Bond film/book articles, this is a special case and has to be kept separate, especially since details regarding the 2006 film are still in flux. Apologies for removing your example from this page but it was rendering this page too long and it is inappropriate to basically post an entire page in talk page space. I suggest creating a Temp page and moving the example at Talk:Casino Royale there. 23skidoo 14:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Object to merge per 23skidoo. The Filmaker 16:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Theme song performer

Just so we're clear, just because some band claims during a show that they're doing the theme song, or a tabloid reports that So-and-So Group is doing the theme, doesn't make it true. The only source that will be accepted is an official announcement from EON Productions or the studio. Everything else is heresay. Remember all the newspapers that reported that Thandie Newton had been signed to play Vesper? They were wrong because the official announcement ended up being someone else. The m16.co.uk site is citing unnamed sources that Goldfrapp has been signed, as is the Daily Mirror or Daily Record (I forget which), but none of these sources has a particularly good track record regarding this film. 23skidoo 19:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

As always, wait for confirmation. I think most people tend to forget that acts typically submit songs independently or are asked/signed to write one by EON only to be rejected. There are countless songs that were not used even by well known acts like Blondie (FYEO), Eric Clapton (LTK), Ace of Base (GE), and Alice Cooper (TMWTGG) off the top of my head. For all we know, Tina Turner, Goldfrapp, and whoever else are writing and performing a theme separately. We also don't even know what Arnold will submit yet. Traditionally, the soundtrack composer composes the theme as well, but this isn't always the case (especially with Arnold). Personally, I think the Goldfrapp rumor is bogus. It all started after a French website mistook a fan poster for a real one (it's actually well made, but clearly photoshopped). The credits on the fan poster said Goldfrapp. Then the buzz started. Of course now we have third (apparently - a friend of a friend reported by MI6) hand sources writing in saying they were at a concert where they said they were going to write it. Sames goes for Tina Turner though. Both are perhaps true. Who knows. K1Bond007 04:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

If I had to lay a wager, I think it's going to simply be a version of the James Bond Theme. Unless they pull an 'All Time High' (Octopussy) and go with a tune with no connection to the title, I can't really see anyone coming up with a viable song called 'Casino Royale', especially with Herb Alpert's tune hanging over their heads. At the end of the day I think it'll be either Arnold or someone else just doing their own version of the Theme. 23skidoo 14:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Ha! I get a gold star for the day. 'Goldfrapp For Casino Royale A Hoax, Says David Arnold'[1]. K1Bond007 16:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I love the fact that the site chose a photo of Arnold that makes him look like he's got a migraine. I don't blame him. 23skidoo 16:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Why did they hir Judi Dench agian?

I understand the whole continuity stuff in James Bod films, which hasn't been sacred. But they should have hired a new M for this film. Judi Dench is awesome as M, don't get me wrong. But how will they explain that Dench was the first M that hired Bond and yet in GoldenEye she is taking over another M and giving Bond his first mission under her. I think this is just too much. A film that is introducing a new Bond shouldn't take so much risks. I really hope Craig puts on a great performance, I am really rooting for him. Because if this film suxs, it's the end of the franchise. <<Coburn_Pharr>> 04:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's supposed to be a reboot, though it may just be as simple as a retcon, which Bond does every time a new actor shows up anyway. So the continuum that took place from Dr. No - Die Another Day doesn't really matter. Dench was re-hired because she is popular. I think that's the simple truth. I'd like Messervy back too, but whattya gonna do. I don't think it matters all that much. Bond's continuity has always been rather weird especially with actors that show up in one film then later on playing completely different characters (Gotell, Baker, Gray), or even sometimes characters in the same mold (Adams, Brown, Dawson). The script is good so it has that going for it, but even if somehow it ends up being bad, it won't be the end of the franchise. Bond has no doubt been through worse and always manages to bounce back. There's too much money in Bond anyway to just crap out after 1 film. It'd take a couple of bad films to do it and even then, you never who the next guy will be that will step up and rebound it all. K1Bond007 04:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a greater continuity problem,(as M could be poorly explained away as a different character) According to the artical Bond uses the Waltha p99. This was not developed till 1996. As many of the earlyer films rely on the cold war,(1945-1990) he cannot have this gun in a prequal.Damikye

race-obsession on wikipedia

'To a lesser extent, many other factors increased confusion in the media. Since Bond's film debut in 1962, James Bond had been portrayed as a Caucasian British male. With this search, however, there essentially wasn't any criteria as far as the media was concerned. Most notably, Colin Salmon, a black actor best known for playing Charles Robinson in three previous James Bond films was considered to be in the running and was actually endorsed by Pierce Brosnan [3]. Another actor, Goran Višnjić of ER fame, was claimed to be in 'the final four', although Višnjić was Croatian by birth.'

that must be one of the worst paragraphs i've ever seen on wikipedia. why are wikiwriters obsessed with race? it's symptomatic of the larger american pathological obsession. those remarks about salmon are utterly childish and foolish.

why should 'the media' have had established 'criteria' for ruling out actors from the rumours they would entertain? based on-- racial?!-- phenotype?

the only reasonable criteria i could imagine were that the actor was somewhat handsome and physically fit. the previous bond actors also have had different actual national origins: being croatian doesn't matter, unless maybe the guy can't do a british accent or something, just as being scottish/australian/english/welsh/irish didn't matter at all for all the previous castings of bond. aside from national origin they've also had different faces and bodies: that didn't stop the studio from hiring someone without sean connery's face when he retired.

felix leiter was a white guy a bunch of times, then a black guy in Never Say Never again. big deal.

moneypenny's hair-color and skin texture changed with the different actresses too. is that significant?

in a word: no.

brosnan even endorsed salmon-- with a citation given, notably-- so why on earth would anyone expect the media to somehow ignore him in the running? THE LAST BOND ENDORSED SOMEBODY. --that counts as a more substantial rumour than the bunch of nobodies in the long-list who happen to be white.

race-obsessed wiki-writers need to wake up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.119.236.226 (talk • contribs) .

And people who make half-cocked rants like this need to sign their statements if they want anyone to take them seriously. As a contributing author to the paragraph in question I see no problem with it. James Bond has always been white in the movies. The fact that a non-white actor was even considered for the part (whether by recommendation or otherwise) is notable and verifiable. So is the fact that EON Productions also decided to look beyond the Anglophone talent base by considering actors such as Goran Visnic (pardon the mispelling). I am particularly interested how in God's name a statement of fact -- that Colin Salmon played Charles Robinson in a few of the Bonds -- could possibly be considered childish. Or how the writer of the above rant can state anything about 'American obsession with race' when the paragraph was mostly written by -- EXCUSE ME -- a Canadian. Sheesh! 23skidoo 05:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't read all your rant. The paragraph in question is not racist or whatever - it has a very valid point. I really don't see what the problem is. It is quite notable and an exception to a once-long standing trait of James Bond. Mentioned numerous times in the media, recommended by Brosnan - this is notable information. K1Bond007 07:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Set destroyed by fire

'Fire wrecks James Bond film stage'. violet/riga(t) 13:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not a forum for debating Craig

As one of the editors whose posting was deleted by K1Bond007 on the grounds that this is not a forum -- I agree and support this. Debates over things such as 'is Daniel Craig any good' have no place in Wikipedia. 23skidoo 20:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Craignotbond, etc.

What purpose do references to these sites serve outside of free advertising for those sites? People set up hate sites for Craig as they no doubt did Brosnan. I fail to see what makes them so important as to be mentioned in an encyclopedia (especially since craignotbond was little more than a repository for editorials that leave logic at the door, photoshopped images, and the occasional ironic homophobic comment). Same for the pro-Craig sites.24.228.54.78 22:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

None. It's unencyclopedic and basically just spam to promote websites. 2005 01:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the fact that there is a fan-base that disagrees with the casting of him. It also doesn't do much harm to promote defunct websites. It shows that they lost. It is very difficult to keep an article on a movie that has yet to finish production to encyclopedic standards. this is more of a reposatory for rumors, but so is every article on 'coming soon's. --Graveenib 00:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

This is hardly promotion or unencyclopedic for this article. It was pretty significant. Craignotbond, whether you like them or not (I didn't), was notable. It was picked up in the news and publicized like crazy. You can't just throw that out and call it unencyclopedic because you didn't agree with them or because their rationale was illogical. K1Bond007 03:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing notable whatsoever about dropping the links of individual websites. You can cite a news story to justify the 'controversy', but saying 'some websites' is more than enough without enumerating them. Listing them is silly and spammy. There is policy for External links. Please leave the article encyclopedic and non-spammy, especially regarding websites that don't exist. That old news stuff adds less than nothing to the article. 2005 03:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

There was one pretty specific to this. To think otherwise is to be quite naive to what's going on. The BBC, CNN, MSNBC. How is this unencyclopedic? Because you said so? K1Bond007 03:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

What aren't you getting? Cite the news stories. Remove the link drops. 2005 03:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Why? Why are you trying to censor the name? How is it a name drop to name the source? K1Bond007 03:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I support listing links on both sides of the issue. Hell, I put up with seeing the 'Kill Enterprise' link listed on Star Trek: Enterprise for 2 years, there's no reason why a link cited by other media in opposition to the film shouldn't be noted. That said, this particular link might actually be dead, or dead soon. I haw a headline (but haven't had a chance to read the story) at the TrekBBS that Craignotbond was closing down. However if the link is still live I see no reason why it can't be included, especially with notable media coverage as cited above and elsewhere. 23skidoo 03:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It's dead and it wasn't even linked. It's even noted in the article as being shutdown. For whatever reason, '2005' wants to censor the name and called it unencyclopedic. Even 'Kill Enterprise' is still mentioned on the Enterprise article. K1Bond007 03:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Controversy is notable, and the news stories can be cited. But this article is about the movie, not the controversy and certainly not those websites. The BBC article mentions the key website. Mention the controversy and move on. The article is an encyclopedic one about a movie, not some website's opinion of casting. Leaving the one website mention is a major improvement over the spam, but still the key thing is the controversy, not any specific website. And I don't want to 'censor' the name. That's even more silly. Who cares about it. It has nothing to do with the actual movie. 2005 03:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The opposition to Craig as Bond is an important (if unfortunate) part of the franchise's production history, right alongside (for example) McClory forcing the changes to Spy Who Loved Me. The website is an important part of that, and plenty of movie articles include information about production-related events and public response. 23skidoo 03:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Which has nothing to do with the issue. The issue was a laundry list of inappropriate links to websites that should not have been there. The one non-link is unimportant and should be removed but at least it is better than the previous spammy group. 2005 03:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Why do you believe it isn't important? It's unfortunate, but it is quite notable to the production and reaction to events surrounding this movie. Removing it would be silly. I don't understand why you can be so opposed to mentioning the name. It's not even a link. K1Bond007 03:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It isn't important because it doesn't matter about the movie. Why on earth would you think it is important to mention that somebody made a website? Again, the controversay is notable to be mentioned, and cited via the BBC article, but Wikipedia is not here to promote websites that have one extreme POV or another. There is zero NEED to call out the website. Again, since it isn't linked it isn't the same as the junk removed, but it is beyond trivial, and a ludicrous precedent... make a website that hates something, get mentioned in the Wikipedia article about the something. It's conceptually absurd. Anyway, the article is improved, and you seem fanatical about keeping the text, so fine. 2005 03:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It matters to the reaction and the production of the movie - the casting and controversy of Craig which that section is about and will likely transform into once the film is released ('reaction'). To not mention it would be biased and flat out censorship. We're not promoting this site (especially since it's dead) and we're not going to link to a BBC article that talks specifically about that site because we don't want to mention it. How silly is that? There is no such precedent on Wikipedia that says we shouldn't mention a website because it would be like promoting it even though the website is notable to the actual information we're discussing. The site had a notable impact. I'm sorry, it's unfortunate, but it's true. I've shown a few articles by very reputable sources to prove that. K1Bond007 03:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Obviously you just don't get it. Websites that generate international press coverage and create a controversy that can be found in the media throughout the world have no place in Wikipedia, especially if they have an important effect on the movie and the entire film industry itself. WP:NOT easily applies here. Wikipedia is not a source of verifiable information. haha --Graveenib 21:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll say it slow: THEN. LINK. THE. ARTICLES. If articles from the BBC and whatnot mention the site, linking to the articles in the news source is more useful than linking to the site. Besides, the mention in articles in national news media creates the illusion of legitimacy for what it otherwise an extreme editorial site with no respect to facts or logic, who would rather lie about what actors said or did not say than give real information about their thoughts. 24.228.54.78 16:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I realize that the content of these boycott websites is not encyclopedic, however their presence and media coverage is. Regardless, it is not really helpful to say some websites were created in protest of casting of mickey mouse while others were created in protest of the protest sites [2]. Listing the major boycott site as an example does nothing to harm the article, especially since the site is defunct. This is not a matter of NPOV since the article lists an anti-protest site as well. Having the BBC and CNN articles referenced is needed to continue to have this information in the article, I agree. --Graveenib 18:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

On a related note, I added the word 'alleged' to the accusations against the site. It's one of those necessary weasel words journalists are trained to use when reporting accusations. 23skidoo 20:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed this sounds much better --Graveenib 20:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Now that CNB is back, under a different name and address (won't say where, as it's added advertising for them), should we edit the page to mention this, or just ignore them like they deserve? a Bond fan 18.28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Ignore. It's not the same person. It's a completely different name at a different place. The information we have on this topic is specific to CNB only. K1Bond007 19:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

it's a different name, but one of the same people - it's basically CNB under a new name, contents basically the same etc. a Bond fan 01:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't change anything I said. The owner of CNB had a change of heart apparently. This new site is the person (supposedly spokesperson for CNB) that did not. Still should ignore. K1Bond007 02:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Budget

According to Empire magazine and IMDb, the budget is $72 million. Could the $140 million sum come from marketing? Wiki-newbie 18:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it's marketing. It came from Michael G. Wilson, the producer. His exact words were: 'the budget will probably be north of $100 million. We have plenty of action in this film. We'll be lucky to keep it within the budget of the last film.' This was widely reported by various news sites when Craig was announced as Bond. I'm sure Sony will give a definite answer at some point. 72 million seems very low, IMHO. Not to say it can't be done (because apparently Bourne has done it twice), but the last film to be under 100 million for Bond was GoldenEye. Times have definitely changed since then. K1Bond007 19:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Odd, Casino Royale is more of a thriller though: the only 'actiony' stuff I expect is Madagascar and a possible car chase during the adaptation proper. Wiki-newbie 19:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

There is plenty of action. The parkour chase is one, there's another large action sequence that takes place not too long after that in Miami (this is probably the biggest), from what I've heard the car chase has been somewhat expanded (it's rather short in the script just like the novel), and there is a mild-sized sequence towards the end in Venice. Then it has other action stuff sprinkled throughout, but those are the main sequences that probably cost the big bucks. It is a thriller, at least more so than most of the previous 007 films in recent history. K1Bond007 19:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the reference and Wilson merely says north of $100 million. Could it be the $72 million comes from currency, considering Bond's UK/US status? Wiki-newbie 19:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I've seen people in the past on forums guess that the reported 72 million is a figure that was supposed to be in pounds, but it's always mentioned in dollars. 72 million pounds is about 136 million (per Google). So it's a likely scenario. K1Bond007 22:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of allegation

I have reverted an addition that states, without direct source cited, that a prior relationship was the reason Craig was cast as Bond. Never mind the source, this statement is a violation of the newly-establish WP:BLP policy and as such had to be removed immediately. Please note that under WP:BLP the Three Revert Rule does not apply to this situation. If a reputable media source quoting either Broccolli, Craig or another recognize source is cited, then this can remain, but in the meantime it has to go. 23skidoo 01:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It's unfounded BS made up by a Daniel Craig hate group (you know what I'm talking about). She's married and he has a girlfriend. Definitely a BLP violation - Wikipedia needs to keep an eye on this especially here and at Daniel Craig as comments like this slip in all the time. It's only going to get worse as the film nears release. K1Bond007 06:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Alleged theme song links

I agree with the recent edit that removed the links to the alleged 'leaked' versions of the new theme song. Until EON Productions makes an official announcement, all such 'leaks' are either preliminary recordings and as such may be changed considerably before the film is released, or possibly even just made up. In any event, such links would be considered copyvios anyway. As with everything else with this film, let's not be so quick to be the first on our block to say 'here's the theme song' or whatever ... the movie will be released soon enough, and presumably the theme song will have an official, legal release at some point prior just like Die Another Day did. 23skidoo 13:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

References

I just turned all the [] references into <> ones. Please continue to make into {{}}s too. Wiki-newbie 17:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Too Long

I thought to my self, this page is far too long for a film that hasn't even been released????

It should be cut down or sumarised. (possibly split but i dont think that would be good).

If you look at Spider-Man 3, it has been shortened because it used to be big. SpecialWindler 23:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the length is fine because it has generated a lot of speculation and attention (certainly moreso thank Spidey 3 which I didn't even know about until just now). Once the movie is released the article will undergo an overhaul at which time things can be shortened, etc. Plus there are probably pieces that can go into the main James Bond article, too. 23skidoo 14:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Reducing the controversy section

After seeing one too many POV, unsourced statements regarding the Daniel Craig situation, I have taken an axe to most of the controversy section. There is no need to go into finite detail about every little complaint people may or may not have -- most of which was unsourced anyway. Suffice to say he was cast, some people didn't like him, a website was created regarding this. It is not necessary to say how many signatures were on a petition, or to make statements of rebuttal. IF and only IF this has any long-term impact on the film's reception, then we can revisit whether the boycott/anti-Craig movement had any bearing. In the meantime, unless someone can add information using reputable media sources, remember WP:BLP and leave the POV at home. 23skidoo 14:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted a post by User:194.80.240.66 which included a personal attack against another editor, who was referred to by name. Such posts are not allowed under Wikipedia rules.

I have a warning from you on my Talk page, As this is a University ISP Address I am hoping you do not ban me, because I have been a positive contributor to the Casino Royale board. Please contact me through my talk page detailing the offense and the person the offense was meant to be against User:194.80.240.66 04:52, 18 October 2006 (BST)

Daniel Craig as Bond

There's lots of talk about Daniel Craig playing bond, but the page itself doesn't actually mention the fact that he is apparently actually it. The page says he's in the running, and I believe he isn't even in bold. Is there really a need now for a section regarding 'who the next Bond might be,' when the next Bond is already chosen? (you'll note the cover of the movie says Daniel Craig will be playing Bond. And Daniel Craig's page says he's playing Bond.) Perhaps change it to a section on who the runners up were...

Funny, everything on this article shows Craig is Bond. Wiki-newbie 16:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I am assuming the comment above Wiki-newbie's is by someone else (please sign your comments, people!). Anyway, as 'newbie' says, there are plenty of references to Craig as Bond here -- including the very first line of the article. 23skidoo 02:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

First reviews of Craig from UK Press

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6116286.stmPlenty of citable sources in here - X201 13:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Casino Royale film tie-in edition

Although the article mentions a film tie-in edition of the novel, what we got on Oct. 31 was a republication of the Penguin Books reprint from a few years ago, except shrunk down to more traditional paperback size. It didn't look like a film tie-in to me. Is there in fact a separate edition with a film-related cover? 23skidoo 02:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)-

Yes, in the UK - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Casino-Royale-Ian-Fleming/dp/0141028696/sr=1-3/qid=1162908821/ref=sr_1_3/203-8160568-1206348?ie=UTF8&s=books - (http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/0141028696.01._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_V39612296_.jpg) fanofBond 14:16, 7 November 2006 (BMT)

Series continuity

In almost all of the films series continuity doesn't come in to it. Is such a large section in the development heading really need to go on about series continuity. For most bond films the only thing that has stayed the same is some of the names. The james bond franchise isnt so much a bunch of sequels, but a lot of individual films. So when they say 'back to his roots' they don't really mean that this film is a prequel to the rest, as the others werent sequels to begin with. I think the development bit needs to be cut down and not be based upon this film being a prequel, and not constantly mention all the changes from the last film (in regards to the plot) although, of course, the changes from the last film in the physical changes (Bond = Craig, No Q etc) should be there instead. Chris_huh^talk 23:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The statement in the article that this is a 'modern day prequel to a series that began in 1962' is, I would suggest, incorrect. This is not a prequel to anything; it is a reboot. Therefore it discards the continuity established in all of the earlier films. It is factually correct that this is the 21st James Bond film made by EON productions, but the events in this film are not intended to precede Dr.No or any other Bond film. This establishes a new timeline and narrative framework; ergo it cannot be a prequel. I have altered the article accordingly - Any thoughts? Nsign 09:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I have put your 'reboot' suggestions into the Time Frame section. WikiLen 02:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Call For Updates

The film has just been released yesterday and, understandably, most articles referencing it (including this one) still treat the film as unreleased. I'm not complaining here, though, just requesting that anyone else who has seen the film or knows something about do a little udating here and there. I started today and cleaned up the plot section a little, having seen the movie last night. Anyway, I think it's a great article, Casino is a great movie and Craig a great Bond :)
Jedd the Jedi 03:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Novel Refs

Why remove them completely from the article rather than put the section in Development? Desk Jockey 16:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Cast List

Just wondering what the general consensus is. Should we follow the brief biographies as used by WikiNewbie that cover only a handful of the cast, or is the form of the cast list of the principal cast (as used in articles for the previous 20 Bond movies) preferable? I second the lattter. MrMagoo 05:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the character descriptions is more preferred amongst WP editors. Boxes are more for before the film is out. Wiki-newbie 12:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Errors in the film

Bond should not have one the poker tournament like he did. During the final hand Mathis states that Le Chiffre had more money than Bond. Le Chiffre proceeds to go in after two other players do and to call Bond must go all in which he does. Therefore when Bond wins the hand Le Chiffre should still have some money left over. However, in the film he does not and the poker game ends.169.232.127.29 15:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Helpful Movie Watcher

Le Chiffre went all in, as did Bond, so no, he wouldn't have anything left. 65.92.151.176 01:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The 1st poster is correct: the film generally portrays poker reasonably realistically, with this exception. Le Chiffre has more chips than anyone else - he is only all-in to the extent that the next man can match him, and so would have been left with some chips after this hand.

it's never said exactly how much more he actually had. He could have barely had more than Bond, and since the blinds were so high he may not have had enough to actually cover the antie, and so he would have automatically lost. Bignole 02:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget that the CIA financed his second try on the pokertable. He may easily have matched Le Chiffre's stack of chips with this helping hand. With the huge blinds there would not be enough left at Le Chiffre for another round.

Q

the article mentions it's the second film without Q, but didn't Dr. No not have Q in it as well?

Q was referred to by his real name in Dr. No, however I can't remember what his real name is. Brandon Rhea 02:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Major Boothroyd ? Wahkeenah 02:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The actor who played Q died and was replaced in one film (the last one, I guess) by 'R' played by John Cleese.Rocky143 18:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

That would be Desmond Llewelyn. He was in most of the official Bond films, though not all. He and Cleese were in one film together, as 'Q' and 'R', then Llewelyn died in an auto accident, and Cleese was in the next one as 'Q'. Wahkeenah 18:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Moneypenny Reference

Under the Self-reference and spoof section there is the following;
'Vesper Lynd's first line is 'I'm the money', to which James Bond responds 'Every penny of it'; this is a reference to Miss Moneypenny who is noticeably absent from the movie. '
Is there a source for this, or is it speculation? - OPaul 04:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• The source is the James Bond movie series. If you know the series, it jumps out at you... just like the other references listed in that section. Wahkeenah 04:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

So if ever the word 'penny' is used in a Bond movie, that's a reference to Moneypenny? - OPaul 04:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it's the quick reference to both words. But you've got a point. It's actually a double-play on words. Even if Moneypenny never existed in the series, the joke still sort-of works, except then it's not very funny, or at least certainly not in a class with Plenty O'Toole. Finding an authoritative source as to exactly what they 'meant' by mentioning 'money' and 'penny' in quick succession would require delving into the scriptwriter's mind. Wahkeenah 04:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

To me, it sounds like a very sly nod to Samantha Bond. Plus it's one of Bond's first suave trademark one-liners, except for 'Yes. Considerably.' at the beginning. —Vanderdecken∴ 11:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about 'authoritative', but if you go to Google you'll find at least some references and reviews that precede this article's comment. Look for 'casino royale' 'I'm the money' 'every penny'. Wahkeenah 12:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It also sounds like a stretch to me, but is worth noting. Since there is no pure reference to cite, why not simply change the entry to read '...this is POSSIBLY a reference to...'

This section is a mess of speculation by Wikipedians. It should mostly be removed. Beluga Caviar (Bond orders this a number of times prior to TWINE), Moneypenny (speculative & argumentative), deck of cards (contradiction), the rolex (he's worn Omega for the past number of films, how is this worthy of a mention?) -- All of this should be gone. K1Bond007 21:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, done. Mark83 21:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Bond products section

This section reads way too much like product placement. Do we really need to know the make of sunglasses etc? Monique34 12:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Casino Royale Book Summary

• That's so anyone can buy them and be 'just like James Bond'. Of course, it helps to be a millionaire with the outlook of a 15-year-old. Wahkeenah 14:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I took the part about the 'james bond theory' out because theres no need for it, and it is wrong because in the james bond books hes one person, just because theres different actors playing him doesnt mean hes a different person, and if anything a mI6 agency would want to change his name often, not keep it the same

Plot Hole

Could someone please explain how Bond came to the conclusion that Vesper was in danger when she went out to see Mathis (just after the poker game)? I can't see any apparent explanation for it in the film, so this might count as a plot hole. If so, perhaps this should be added into the body of the text? StephenBuxton 16:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe he was putting two-and-two together and concluding that Mathis had tipped off LeChiffre about his tendency to blink a certain way when he was bluffing, and assumed Mathis was a double agent. Presumably, it was actually Vesper that tipped him off. I actually found the last quarter of the film a bit confusing. I reckon I'll just have to plunk down another 10 bucks and go see it again and resolve whatever issues I have with it. Too bad I can't fast-forward through the rope torture scene. >:( Wahkeenah 17:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

In the book Vesper was told that Mathis was waiting for her outside by a porter who worked at the casino. So in the book Bond realised that something was amiss because Mathis would have just come inside, and not send a porter. In the film on the other hand, I can not work out how he would have known, since it was a text message that she received, which obviously could have been sent from anywhere, and not just outside. I think this might be a bit of modernisation that went wrong, and affected the plot slightly, although it seems that not too many people have really picked up on it. Chris_huh^talk 17:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It's because Bond knew Mathis wasn't where the text message said he was. Mathis wasn't actually a double agent, it was to put Bond off of Vesper's scent and also part of the mental torture, producing mistrust and paranoia 194.80.240.66 17:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The text message never said where Mathis was (at least you never found out). Chris_huh^talk 18:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

My take is that the way Chiffre openly taunted Bond about the misdirection concerning his 'tell' was the director's way of letting us know (and allowing Bond to figure out) that Chiffre was tipped off. This didn't occur to Bond until the moment Vesper was called away (supposedly by Mathis). Since Bond only mentioned the 'tell' to Vesper and Mathis, and since he was in love with Vesper, he presumed it was Mathis who tipped off Le Chiffre, meaning Vesper could be in danger if was Mathis was asking her to come to him.

• Yep, I think you've got it. Mathis was the red herring. He only knew Vesper was the 'villain' (also unwillingly, but he didn't know that until later) when he learned that she was taking the money... which she allowed him to learn. Speaking of money, thanks for saving me the cost of another ticket. :) Wahkeenah 19:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Just think how LeChiffre could have saved himself all this trouble, if he had simply put the money into someplace safe, like the SMERSH Credit Union. :) Wahkeenah 19:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It might have added to James suspicion that Mathis on the balcony, watching the police arresting the man with two dead bodies in the trunk, asks if the girl has melted James cold heart yet and still later on Mathis interupts their celebration date without any reason that upsets Vesper. Taking a sip, feeling the bitter aftertaste, hearing the breaks outside making him alert, it suddenly occurs to him, erroneously, why Le Chiffre could bluff him. Jaderberg 00:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Club Royale Casino

Water scene at the end?

I'm a little confused by Vesper's water death in Venice. The elevator with Vesper in it appears to be chained shut, suggesting that the bad guys had locked her in there. But then she locks it from the inside and throws away the key, obviously committing suicide. Am I mistaken that the elevator doors are chained? If so, what is the point of the key, since she's already locked in there anyway? Marc Shepherd 18:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• I'm just as confused by how Bond got her body out of there. He had already exhaled everything in his lungs. Unless he had a hand-dandy Q-issued re-breather in his pocket. Wahkeenah 18:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm also confused. What is Vesper's motivation to commit suicide? As best I can reconstruct it, she thinks James has prevented/will prevent the bad guys from getting the money, she thinks surviving bad guys will kill her boyfriend as a result, and she knows her story with James is blown, so she has no way to help her boyfriend further... and presumably she doesn't want to live sans boyfriend. The part that seems weak to me is that, in the midst of all that chaos, she's so certain the bad guys won't get the money that she becomes certain her boyfriend is dead. At the very least, she simply guessed wrong, which is a fairly lame way out for an otherwise strong-ish character. Iain McClatchie 09:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Vesper killed herself in an act of redemption for deceiving Bond. She felt she deserved to die for what she did. Bignole 15:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe she simply didn't want to face Bond's accusations and to be sent to prison/be eliminated by MI6. (Which was bound to happen now that Bond knew she betrayed him, regardless of their love) One thing is certain, though - if she'd stayed alive, she'd never see neither Bond nor her Algerian boyfriend ever again nor live a normal life. 87.69.86.43 13:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Discrepancy in Wikipedia Article

In the section 'Development', it goes into great detail about how Q is not in the film. This contradicts the Cast listing which has Peter Notley as Q. Something needs correcting... StephenBuxton 07:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Q has now been removed from cast listing. Chris_huh^talk 15:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Quick Question

Should we note that even though Happy Feet beat Casino Royale, CR actually made more money per theater than Happy Feet, while was in 400 less theaters than Happy Feet?

The second thing was about 'Q'. Did the credits actually list that guy as Q, or are we just assuming that because he implants Bond with a tracking device. I don't recall 'M' actually referring to him as Q, and the guy never spoke so I know he didn't call himself that. I didn't stay for the credits so I wasn't sure if they actually listed him as 'Q'. Bignole 15:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

He was listed as 'MI6 Technician', and one of the major things that has been said about this film all over the place is that there is no Q in it. Q was also not in the book. It is probably worthwhile noting that MI6 put a tracking device in him, but since he wasnt Q and had a tiny role mentioning the actors name may not even be necessary.

And if we are saying that Happy Feet knocked it off then i think we definitely should mention that it was shown in hundreds more cinemas, and Casino Royale made more money. Chris_huh^talk 15:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought he wasn't. It would seem that they would actually acknowledge who he was given his popular status among fans. I'm not sure of the exact number of theaters, but you can go to www.movies.go.com and look at the box office results for a quick comparison of Happy Feet and Casino. I can't do it right now cause I'm at work. Bignole 15:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Happy Feet: Opening Weekend: $41,533,432 (3,804 theaters, $10,918 average)
Casino Royale: Opening Weekend: $40,833,156 (3,434 theaters, $11,890 average)

Hope that helps. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 15:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Perfect, Good job Erik. Bignole 15:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and introduced them into the article, please feel free to update the reference tags and copy edit the wording. Bignole 15:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Casino Royale Novel