Talk:Casino Royale (2006 film)/Archive 6

more detailed plot section?
I know that wikipedia strongly discourages long and detailed plot sections, but the plot of this film is so complicated and confusing, that I would appreciate more detail. I think about twice as long would be good!--24.86.252.26 01:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * So confusing? Um let's see if we can summarize it for you. Bond kills double agent, Bond gets Double 0 license. Bond's first mission is to capture a bomb maker for interrogation; he kills the bomb maker but gets said individual's cell phone with a text message on it. Big publicized fiasco results over Bond's reckless killing. Bond snoops through M's computer, goes on "holiday" to the Bahamas where he finds the guy who hired the bombmaker. He foils his plans to destroy a prototype airliner, which would have resulted in a crash of stocks and a lot of money for our villain, Le Chiffre. Because Le Chiffre was using someone else's money for his schemes, Le Chiffre is forced to hold a high stakes poker tournament to get it back. Unfortunately, Bond wins that as well. Le Chiffre kidnaps Bond, and Vesper Lind, and tries to interrogate him to get the passcode for the money he won in the tournament. Mr. White, who hired Le Chiffre shows up and kills him and his men, and leaves Vesper and Bond to live. Vesper and Bond go on holiday, where Bond learns that Vesper made a deal with Mr. White to give him the money. Bond chases after them, kills Mr. White's men, Vesper commits suicide and that about sums up the movie as a whole.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I actually really like the current plot section, and not just because I contributed heavily to it. I think the writing is very crisp and concise, and it shows the logic of the story clearly while omitting unnecessary detail.  I see no reason to expand it. Croctotheface 06:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I must second what Croctotheface said: the plot needs no expansion. Cliff smith 04:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Inaccuracy
If this was a reboot to show James Bond fist mission shouldn't have been set in a more older time. No cell phones or whatever else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.135.75 (talk) 05:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC) This reboot shows his first mission, and then the following few months. Although, in Casino Royale, Bond's first mission was years before. I have no idea. This reboot is not being faithful to the Bond universe.

A reboot doesn't have to follow the original series. It merely restarts it. This could be done for a number of reasons. A few of the reasons would probably because of all the backstory Bond had in the movies. I mean there were around 20 or so movies at the time, as well as updating it. To keep it in the present and such, Bond would have been getting up in age, being around 70 if in real time.

By rebooting it, they moved the time forward, showed a new Bond, and got rid of the backstory by having subtle nods to the Bond universe, but doing their own thing.96.233.240.245 (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

cast list
The cast list on the main page is currently missing the following people: A few MI6 agents, most surprisingly Villiers, M's new Moneypenny, but also Dryden and Carter. Also various henchman are missing, most notably Mr White's henchman with the eyepatch, Gettler, but also Le Chiffre's henchmen, Kratt & Leo. The film’s credits show 31 members of the main cast; 22 main Bond characters (which I would recommend are listed), and an additional 9 cast listed under Casino Royale Players (including the tournament director who I would say is a main member of the cast.) Then there are an additional 38 minor cast members listed, which I would propose are not listed unless there is specific reason to do so. Earlier today I updated the page to include all of the main cast members, but this was immediately removed by somebody implying that the additions had been indiscriminate. So I'll throw it open to discussion as to whether there's any reason why the main cast members should not be listed?Voomby 19:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not 100% on the relevant guidelines, but I think it's tough for me to say that the tournament director is a major cast member. Croctotheface 19:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Most of them aren't important. Alientraveller 19:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok you two, stop conflicting me. lol. As I was trying to say, which is what you said, far too many minor characters to list. IMDb can do a much better job of listing every Bob, Dick and Sally that was in the film.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Just checked back, and I'm still surprised that Villiers is not thought of as a major player in the film. Tobias Menzies who plays him is listed in the main credits at the START of the film, which surely indicates that the film makers think he is fairly important to the film.  The end credits show Villiers listed ABOVE Carlos, Mollaka and Mendel.  Moneypenny used to have less screentime in a film than Villiers does in this one. I'm still leaving it open to discussion, but so far I do not see any solid arguments against including Villiers.Voomby (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

On the subject of Carter can anyone confirm/deny this is a nod to a character of the same name from BBC's Spooks? Actual 15:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.86.65 (talk)

Daniel Craig Is Not Bond as a valid source
I hate to dredge this up again, but while blogs are technically not valid resources, third-party publications that discuss them are, and this particular site was referenced in many Wiki-sourceable publications, such as The Daily Mirror, where Daniel Craig actually directly addressed the site. We need to put some mention of it in the article because it feels very incomplete with the casting controversy stripped out. We don't have to link the site, but we can't ignore its influence in the early production and the controversy over the casting just because it's a blog. If nothing else, we can link only to reliable publications that referenced the site. Rebochan 13:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

FA status
A pat on the back for everyone involved. Nice work. - X201 18:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

More information about Le Chiffre's financial transactions?
When Le Chiffre takes the African guerilla group's money and claims to put it in a portfolio with no risk, he in fact uses the money to place bets that the stock price of a major airplane manufacturer will go down. He plans a terror attack on the company's prototype jet to cause the stock price to fall. However, it is not clear from the movie how he does this. First he tells his broker to "short another million shares", which would indicate that he is shorting the company's stock. However his broker later calls him to say that his put options have expired worthless. M also says that a massive amount of put options were bought on the company's shares right before the attack was to have happened.

Did he short the stock, or buy put options? Did he do both? Should options be mentioned in the plot summary as well as short selling? Bignole and Diablo1024 have discussed this topic on their user talk pages, and you can see changes we have made using the history page. My opinion is that both options and short selling should be mentioned since they are both mentioned in the movie; Bignole claims that it's not worth going into any more detail in the plot section since it's a fine point that is not central to the larger plot. Please post if you have an opinion on this! --Diablo1024 21:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * WP is not a Crystal Ball such opinion based things can'tt be put here. Vikrant Phadkay 14:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by opinion based? The fact that he told the broker to sell short shares, and then the broker said that his put options expired worthless, is a contradiction. That is not an opinion, it is a fact from the movie. Diablo1024 05:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not exactly important either. If it's not possible to be accurate because there is a contradiction, but we are as accurate as we can be without spending a lot of space engaging in original research about apparent contradictions in the film, then we should just leave well enough alone.  Croctotheface 06:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Even at the cost of not displaying some pertinent information? I think it's possible that people will come to the site wanting info about the financial transactions and not finding it.  Is there any place on Wikipedia for such info, or should people just turn to another source for that kind of thing? 216.112.127.34 20:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, if they are coming to Wiki for financial transaction information, they are probably not the best researchers. Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source for anything. There are far better places that provide the answers to real-life topics. I'd go to a website devoted to economics.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  21:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No offense but that is really a terrible argument. The rest of Wikipedia is inaccurate, so this page might as well be inaccurate too?  The whole point of editing Wikipedia is to make it clearer and MORE accurate!  According to your line of reasoning, Wikipedia is a lost cause an no one should ever bother editing it at all?  In my experience, Wikipedia is often an excellent reference for many topics, "real-life" or otherwise.  Diablo1024 04:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, no, you missed what I said. I said Wikipedia is not "reliable". I did not say it was "inaccurate". Well, many articles are, but many others are not for that matter. But, because Wikipedia is "open to the public" to edit, everything on its pages should be taken with a grain of salt. If you read something on Wikipedia, and believe it 100% without actually doing any research to find out if the information was reliably sourced, then that is poor researching. I don't know about where you are, but I have yet to find a professor that would allow Wikipedia to be cited as a source, not that I would ever cite Wiki anyway. Regardless, this is a film page, not an economics page. If you want to explain the terms, do so on those pages, that's why we have links. If the film said that one could survive a 200 ft fall onto concrete, we wouldn't explain why the film was wrong. That isn't what film articles are for. When you read the plot, it is not misleading, so there isn't a problem. Le Chiffre and his nefarious plans were not the plot of the movie, they were a sidebar that lead to the real conflict. We know what Le Chiffre said to do, and we know what M and Mr. White stated he did after. It's a terminology flub by the writers, who cares? Obviously you, but not really anyone else. It's a goof...trivia, nothing more. If we presume to say that he had to have done one over the other, based on his actions, then we are committing original research. We cannot say "oh, he did this, which contradicts what he said earlier, so he must have really have been doing this." That's original research. The man says "short another ... shares", and that's all we need to report in regards to the plot.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  05:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I gotta say this is pretty laughable, Bignole. Diablo1024 makes a strong point.  The article currently contradicts itself.  At the very least, the article should say that it's unclear exactly how Le Chiffre bet against the stock.  But the current state of the article makes no sense, even to a someone who doesn't know anything about finance. Ceresly (talk) 03:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Q in Dr. No?
I just changed the statement 'Two major exclusions from the film are the characters of Q and Miss Moneypenny. Their exclusion makes Casino Royale the third film in the series without Q (Dr. No being the first and Live and Let Die the second), and the first film without Moneypenny' since Q WAS in Dr. No, albeit under the name Major Boothroyd. This version of the character is listed in the Wikipedia article on Q as being the same person, so this unless that article is also wrong then my statement was clearly correct. However, within seconds of the change being made it was changed back again. Far too quickly for whoever was responsible to have actually checked whether or not the information was faulty or not. Q IS Major Boothroyd - he is referred to by that name in The Spy Who Loved Me. So although he does not at that time go by the name 'Q' the character is, unquestionably, in Dr. No.

However, since someone clearly objects to blatantly incorrect information being corrected I will not waste my time changing it again. Craig Charlesworth (not a member), 12.10, 28 December 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.42.225 (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a hoax and is now reverted. Vikrant 16:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikrant Phadkay (talk • contribs)

Continuity Errors
When James Bond is asked to enter a password of six characters or more, he enters the following set of numbers: 836547. Later in the film he reveals that the password is V-E-S-P-E-R, which numerically translates to 837737. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.159.247 (talk) 22:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * We know that already. El Greco(talk) 22:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not for an encyclopedia. Vikrant 13:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Add it to the imdb list of goofs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.244.120 (talk) 23:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * He is always acting on a six, not only counting in this code case. So there is no eight in neither a twelve and somehow the bank connection isn'treal but suggestiv. Ask a banker for a credit without a fifteen dot and three zeros.--Danaide (talk) 20:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Macbeth Reference
In the shower scene, when Eva Green says that there's blood on her hands that won't come off, I saw a similarity to Lady Macbeth near the end of the play Macbeth. Dunno if this warrants a mention in the article or not, just thought I'd bring it up.Hypershadow647 (talk) 02:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Trivia and pointless. Vikrant 12:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Quantum of Solace
After re-reading this article, I notice no reference that Quantum of Solace (Bond 22) is a sequel or the film's plot will be resolved in it. I have added a sentence to this at the bottom of the "Plot" section. I'm not sure that this is the right place for it, so please do put it elsewhere, But Don't remove it. It has relevence to this article, even if just the one sentence.
 * Shifted to intro. Vikrant 12:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

PS. It probably needs a reference.  SpecialWindler    talk  05:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Music section - Soundtrack listing error
In the "Music" section, the phrase "It is the fifth title theme after Dr. No, From Russia With Love, On Her Majesty's Secret Service and Octopussy, that does not make any reference to the title of the film." seems inaccurate. Matthew Munro singing "From Russia with Love" seems a pretty clear reference to the film's title.

I propose changing this sentence to: "It is the forth title theme after Dr. No, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, and Octopussy, that does not make any reference to the title of the film."

Or is there something that I'm missing? It seems surprising that no one has mentioned this previously. . . Mhambster (talk) 12:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Someone added it because the source itself has that listing. Though, looking at the source that's kind of hard to show since it just goes to David Arnold's webpage and not a specific citation.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Link 8 (Sky Is Falling)?
What's this reference link about? Links to a page of adverts. 80.6.181.245 (talk) 12:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Dimitrios' car
What Aston Martin car did Bond win against Dimitrios? Cburnett (talk) 18:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The infamous Aston Martin DB5. El Greco(talk) 01:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

marketing
This article makes no mention to the marketing of the film. It dosen't mention trailers, posters, tie-in novel, toys that went with the film. This is a featured article and is supposed to be comprehensive. Yet it has no information at all on such things.  The Windler    talk  08:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * And it doesn't have to. Comprehensive does not mean that the article needs to mirror other articles, it means that it "does not neglect major facts and details". Trailers and posters are not "major facts and details" to begin with, they're side dishes. You'd only mention them if there was some kind of media coverage on them, which would mean that they were worth noting.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  11:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, I don't even know if there is a "real" tie-novel. Many times when you adapt a book into a film, the "tie-in novel" is nothig more than the original novel with a new cover. Which wouldn't constitute inclusion in the article. We don't report on new clothes the novels wear each year when they go on sale. I'm not aware of toys either, but that doesn't mean there weren't any toys. It's all about whether or not another media source reports on these things. We cannot give undue weight to things just because we want to.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  11:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There was a racing set. However, most Casino Royale merchandise was held back, and it seems most of it will be released to promote Quantum of Solace (such as a Le Chiffre figure, and a bust of Vesper). Alientraveller (talk) 18:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Bond as psychopath
I find it interesting that there is no discussion in the article of Bond's psychopathic tendencies. This is a major plot element, referenced repeatedly by M, as well as by Vesper when she and Bond are sizing each other up on the train. If one is familiar with psychopathy, it is difficult to watch the film and not see a classic psychopath. As Vesper states on the train, these are characteristics MI6 seeks in its agents, as it enables them to accomplish goals with ruthless efficiency. 98.163.231.130 (talk) 16:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not there because no outside source identified such traits. We cannot make the observations ourselves, someone more reliable has to. Personally, I wouldn't necessarily call him a psychopath, because that's a personality disorder and for all we know MI6 trains their agents to show a lack of remorse for killing the enemy, and to achieve the objective by whatever means necessary. Also, many of the traits of psychopathy are present in "normal" people (if you pardon my use of the word "normal") Anyway, this isn't the place to discuss Bond's possible disorders beyond saying that unless an outside, reliable source discusses it then we cannot in the article.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Bond Timeline and "m"
I thought Casino Royale was supposed to be set at a time BEFORE all the other Bond movies. But then how come their's the new "m", the girl one? Shouldn't it be some other m, because this is way before she was the m. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.254.84 (talk) 22:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a reboot; it's restarting the series. Another example of a reboot would be Batman Begins. LonelyPker (talk) 00:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Have their been any other reboots, because I've noticed some inconsistencies with the ongoing plots.

Oscar buzz
There was legitimate Oscar buzz surrounding Craig's performance. I found three references in a Google search (and know of at least 4 more I saw in print). "Hollywood Wiretap" source can probably be replaced by a print one as its author, Pete Hammond, is a published film critic whose work appears in numerous publications; the website I cited was just an archive of his column. The other two are notable newspapers. I also recall a quieter buzz surrounding Casino Royale as a possible best picture candidate, too, but I haven't been able to find a "reliable source" for that yet. 68.146.41.232 (talk) 15:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No, most likely the plots of earlier movies were disregarded for entertainment. I mean there were around 20 movies before CR rebooted the series, there's bound to be some mistakes and continuity errors. Plus, would you want to be bound by things that occurred in the 60's with a character when writing in the 80's, 90's, and 00's?96.233.240.245 (talk) 22:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Body Worlds created an exhibit for 007?
I read a (critical) article on the Body Worlds exhibit that claimed Gunther von Hagens created the poker players display specifically for Casino Royale. I can't find a source to back this up - can anyone confirm this? It's worth adding if true. 23skidoo (talk) 02:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I saw that scene at the Bodyworld exhibition in Manchester, but I don't know for sure that it was based on Casino Royale. It just looked like a poker scene to me. There's a picture of it here http://travel.ciao.co.uk/Body_Worlds_4_Manchester__Review_5753139 80.7.186.169 (talk) 02:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggested Plot Edits
I have read the article and I suggest the following edits:
 * In the scene where Bond obtains Mollaka’s phone, he doesn’t initially know who the text came from. He breaks in and uses M’s personal home computer to hack into the cell phone and determines that the SMS was sent from a signal originating in the Bahamas from the Ocean Club. It isn’t until Bond sneaks into the Ocean Club’s security office and uses the playback devices to capture Dimitrios sending a SMS at the same time one was received on Mollaka’s phone.
 * In the scene where Felix Leiter stops bond from assassinating Le Chiffre, Leiter offers Bond his own buy back money so that Bond can reenter the tournament. This means that if Leiter were to lose his current money, he would not be able to buy back in himself.
 * In the scene where Bond is dying from the poison, it is fairly vague as to what happens.

These are just suggestions, and I did not want to make the changes myself in case someone was "over" this page. I do not mean to upset, only assist : ) RayneShock (talk) 00:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC) otherwise the whole public will get touthake.....--Danaide (talk) 20:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * nice! may be somebody wants to sell him the bahamas. this guy out of the chinese hotel, you saw. motivating bond stuff is a real problem, because it#s fiction and not realistic film. To drive the action this sms is nescessary, but nobody asks for real dimitrov!

Colin Salmon
Colin Salmon was NEVER considered as Bond. Any media speculation as to whether he would be Bond was stirred by Salmon himself - not Eon or anyone else involved in the making of the film. User: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.84.52 (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I checked the source and he was just a popular bet. Nowhere near a fascinating alternate reality like Henry Cavill would have been. Alientraveller (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I also suggest which their is no mention of as it looks like a casino royal fanboy wrote this, that Quinton Tarantino originaly had the idea for the reboot and wanted to use Brosnan, you may wish to elaborate why fans were wanting to boycott this. Tarantino "I’m annoyed that the James Bond producers never called me to talk about it because I can tell you that they would not be making Casino Royale if I hadn’t talked about it first. They should have called me. Especially since they are taking my idea and they are taking the publicity I gave them towards that idea. They should have at least had the courtesy to have coffee with me."

http://www.hecklerspray.com/tarantino-james-bond-was-my-idea/20061955.php source

Craig was not the first choice to play bond after Brosnan, Clive Owen was who repeatedly turned down the role, whos comment at playing Bond in the future is "Right now Im really busy" with a smile hinting he may still play the role after Craig.Craig was the fourth choice as Sean Bean who played 006 in Goldeneye also was considered. sources at:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/film/article-21635882-owen-turned-down-007.do

Its also the first bond movie to portray bond as an adulterer, when bond rolls on the floor and sleeps with Demetrius's wife, who ends up dead, 27 minutes into Casino Royale. You can feel free to google Owen as first choice for Royale other than Brosnan and fans boycotting that idea as well. Tarantino is still not happy with bond producers for "stealing his idea" and refusing him as a director. The scene where Bond confirms himself as an adulterer is 27 min into the movie with Demetrius's wife saying "You like married women dont you James" and bond saying "Yes, It certainly makes things easier". Dont give opinions about bond, quote sources.

For the love of god if a producer sees this can we return to the great music and spy vs. spy characters of Connery and Moores Bond instead of The Patriot Games Tom Clancy Bond that was adopted after Moore with Dalton. 5 min of great original Bond music at the end of Royal doesnt count. Music+actors make a movie. Ive generaly only liked Connery (1st choice) and Moore and Goldeneye as they watered down the great bond music starting with Goldeneye. (Minus liking A View To A Kill and Never Say Never and all of Daltons Bonds).Watching a Bond movie now is like eating a stale Dorito, just a reminder of something that was once really great. Stop having dark heroes no one cares about, a womanizing adulterer terminator James Bond is not heroic, heroes are people we care about who are suppose to act better than other people and better than the villans they fight, this Bond is not much different from his villans. Movies today are all visual effects with cold hearted main characters (like the main "hero" in The Watchmen movie who dies in the beginning) and no heart which is why franchises tank. I doubt the Queen would be giving knighthood to the Bond of Casino. Multiple cliffhanger the bond movies (all great bond films had multiple cliffhangers) and bring back great music and have heroes act in a responsible manner and youll rekindle the love for this franchise.Stop making disposable movies, worth one watch, a hero is someone you care about, not someone voilent and "cool". Thats the mark of a great bond (and bring back Q and Moneypenny). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.230.129 (talk) 01:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Casino Royale (2006 film)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Casino Royale (2006 film)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "BOM": From Spider-Man (2002 film):  From Quantum of Solace:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Casting - McAdams as Vesper?
I saw just now in the Rachel McAdams article that she had been in contention for the role of Vesper, but turned it down. Can anyone produce a source for this? I am very sceptical of the claim, since when you look at the other actresses considered (Jolie, Tautou, etc) McAdams seems like a bit of a non sequitor. Sheavsey33 (talk) 04:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)