Talk:Casino Royale (2006 film)/Archive 5

mistakes section?

How about making one of those sections which goes through little mistakes in the movie eg. bond wins a hand of no limit texas hold em with a straight of the same suit when suits usually are irrelevant

• Typically, these sections are frowned upon because their information is usually very trivial. The Filmaker 03:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong in the case of the triviality. It is not just a straight, but a straight flush because it IS suited, otherwise he would have lost to the full-house. One thing that bothered me is that the scene in Madagascar when the bombmaker receives the text message and the scene at the Ocean Club from where it is sent both occur at daytime, which can't be true

• If you can explain how this is useful information rather than interesting, but not important than it might be considered. The Filmaker 21:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Why?

Is a new film that flies in the face of the ideas of the central character's creator really worthy of a major article in the repository of all the world's knowledge within weeks of its release?Purrny gotobed 14:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to it having an article period, or it being nominated for a "cinema collaboration of the week"?  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  14:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

We have a troll. WikiNew 16:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hardly, WikiNew and your comment and user name are certainly an odd match. Perhaps a discussion page is called a discussion page because it should be a site for discussion? For Bignole, I mean notability, why does a major movie instantly become a "cinema collaboration of the week" and why does it warrant so much effort? The article is huge, but the film may well be looked at very differently in a year or so. I haven't seen it yet, but have stayed away partly because I have read and enjoyed every one of the Ian Fleming novels (and Chitty Chitty Bang Bang etc. at an earlier stage) and was irritated (re. the movie) to read reviews claiming that it upturns the whole Bond idea--we do speak of artistic rights these days. Perhaps I should try to expand on how the movie opposes the canon, but guess I have to see it first.Purrny gotobed 13:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. Discussion pages are for improving the new article. WikiNew 13:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I would save opinion until I saw it, but as for "collaboration of the week", I'm not really up-n-up on that project, but I thought it was just a nomination that says "hey, let's work on this article for the next week or so and get it into great shape". I don't know what happens after that, because it has nothing to do with FA status, or going on the front page for that matter. If you are wonding why the film has an article, well, just about every film has an article, even those horrid Roger Moore Bond films.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  13:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the film was released in November 2006. While the phrase "within weeks" can technically refer to any amount of time, it implies a shorter amount of time than four months.—Kbolino

Kbolino and Bignole, thanks for the replies, I was simply curious, ... as for that other bloke ... what? By the way, the release in most territories outside the US (and UK?) was a good deal later, so I had a bit of a misperception re. the timing, even a lot of the US commentary was a fair bit later than the release. Yeah, the Moore films weren't the best, but as has often been said, he fit the mold intended by Fleming in some important ways. He's also the only one I've had very slight interaction with in real life, and he *was* a gent.Purrny gotobed 14:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Mr. White's Number

The plot summary currently says the following:

Bond, who has Vesper's mobile phone, discovers that she left Mr. White's name and number for him to find.

The message begins "For James:" which seems to me to indicate that it was sent by someone else to Vesper (in order that she might give it to James). If she had intended for him to find it, she would have more likely addressed it "James:" or omitted the form of address entirely (and just given the number). There don't appear to be any more details about the message (that would clarify whether it was a note written by Vesper or a message sent to her).—Kbolino 20:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Not if she didn't know he would look at it or not. With the chance that he follows some protocol (yeah right), he may turn the phone over to MI6, who would say "hey this is for you". Also, I'm not that familiar on British etiquette, but maybe it's just polite when you address a note. Who knows, but it's not a probably to send yourself a text message or leave a note in some sort of "dayplanner" on a phone. The point is, it's based on what we see and not what we don't, and since no one questions it in the film (like when Bond clarifies that Mathis isn't innocent or guilty, yet) we just have to go with what they do. You could, if you want to be more ambiguous just say "Bond, who has Vesper's mobile phone, discovers Mr. Whites name and number". The rest can be left up to the viewer how he finds it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the message could have been referring to a secret plan?? --Matthewcl375 15:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Vehicles and gadgets

When I was checking out GoldenEye and Tomorrow Never Dies, which are GAs, I noticed that their vehicles and gadgets sections also included the weapons that were used in the movie. Perhaps we should do the same thing. Cliff smith 16:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It's unnecessary, and GA and FA criteria has been changed since a lot of articles first received it. Also, it depends on the article. The previous Bond films relied heavily on these things, where as this one didn't.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That's true. I was thinking about it, and I just thought they might have to be in this article since they were in the other two. But yes, I better understand now. Cliff smith 16:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, you can almost guarantee that "listing" vehicles and gadgets won't get you through a FAC as lists are generally frowned upon (unless that is the nature of the article .. i.e. List of Bond gadgets). If those other articles want to be FA, I think they are going to need a lot of work.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Totally. Yeah. TYVM. Well then it's a really good thing I took care of the Awards section cause it was a straight list before.
But the article's shaping up nicely. Cliff smith 16:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It's my opinion that this article is in better shape than those other two, we just have never put it up for any nominations. Which, I think it could use a bit more tweaking before we do. I think you brought up a good point about the gadgets, because I think it would be best if we turned that information into prose and included some reliabley sourced information about the departure from the previous films to include less "gadgets".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. That could work. Interesting idea. And I agree that this looks much better than some of the others. Cliff smith 16:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

We just have to find the information that says it was their intention to NOT include that stuff, which shouldn't be hard. I think some of the sources we already have in that section may have that information. I think it would be neater to turn it into prose, because it would help with limiting people from expanding the list if they have to write it out and include reliable sourcing for its use. I'm thinking that finding a "reason" as to why they chose this and that for the vehicles and such would help to expand the section as a whole.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. Cliff smith 16:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to look for some sources this weekend, because I can't access certain sites at work. I did find a Latino Review interview with Campbell where he says that none of those other actors were ever in the running for Bond, let alone signed anything.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Well, I'll look for some more references this weekend too, when I have more time. Cliff smith 17:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

A Ford Mondeo was also driven by James Bond when arrived in the Bahamas. --Joebloggsk 01:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Break up "Reaction" section?

To me the "Reaction" section seems too crowded and disconnected. The last paragraph is basically a (very crowded, difficult to read) section on some awards or nominations Casino Royale has garnered. That should go into another section. "Awards" would make more sense. Ealgian 01:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it could possibly be a subsection within Reacton, however that "very crowded" paragraph is more appropriate than a listy section on each and every award the film won or was nominated for, which is basically what it was before I turned it into prose. Some of the stuff that was there before wasn't really necessary per WP:NOT. Also, there are many other film articles that organize their Reaction section as seen here, like the articles for Star Wars episodes I, II, III, IV, and V — and those are all Featured Articles.
Cliff smith 16:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest a subsection as, again, it's quite lengthy (list or no list). In addition, various featured film articles include an Awards and Noms (sub)section which are not in paragraph form; I'm fine with paragraphs, though, it just seems to me that a subsection would be more appropriate.Ealgian 01:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The information on the awards is not particularly abundant enough to warrant a subsection. The prose should actually be copyedited. But the section does appear lengthy to me at all. The Filmaker 02:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The peer review will help with things like copyediting, but if necessary we could go to the WP:LoCE for further refinement. Cliff smith 15:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I have actually done this already and plan to intergate the reminader of the award list into the writing. The bottom paragraph kind of does this but a few more details need to be asserted first into the text before removing the list. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 20:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The special effects subsection is good, nice work. But I'd like to note that the lists of wins and nominations that have been added are redundant with the prose.
Cliff smith 23:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

We need a better picture of the DVD. Cliff smith 16:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This might or might not help mi6.co.uk CR DVD. And this one: dvdactive CR. El Greco 18:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The second link, first picture (widescreen edition) is the best one I've seen yet. Cliff smith 18:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

A ha well done all. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 20:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, basically I think that the added lists of wins and nominations are too redundant to be kept. Something alot like that was converted into prose because prose is recommended according to WP:WIAFA and a similar page, User:AndyZ/Suggestions. Cliff smith 01:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Didn't I tell you this list should be written into he propose first then removed? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 11:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Improvements to make before FA nomination

I'd like to see these following improvements until it is ready for FA nomination:

• Intergrate award list fully into written text and avoid redundant repetition.
• Copy edit the article fully -most notably in the reaction and release section where some wording is not quite polished enough -too many short sentences and some phrasing is still quite clumsy.
• Try to intergrate a bit of basic summary of the screenplay into an existing section basic differences from original novel -the similarity to Flemings and original charcter and plot also needs at the very least mentioning. No quoting but some mention of the dialogue in places might help -Judi Dench's character is even more hostile this time and she uses stonger language than ever before in fitting with the "darker Bond".
• Mentioning the dates of casting - it was actually done in September 2005 and the final decsion for Craig for made in only a few weeks announced in October although the production team had had their eye on Craig since 2003.
• One final image please. of the actual DVD COVER from than the poster. I'll forget about the award and Mr White.

What do you think amigo? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 12:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds real good. We'll get them in before FAC. Cliff smith 18:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Controversy over casting

A point was brought up on the film article's FAC page about the lack of mention of any controversy over casting Daniel Craig as the new 007. The information existed in the article a while ago, but seems to have been phased out since. Also, there was discussion about this matter, which can be found at Talk:Casino Royale (2006 film)/Archive 4#Cast Section/Search for..... Is it possible to re-evaluate the possibility of mentioning the media's initial reaction to Craig as Bond? I know that there were online petitions contesting the casting decision, but is there anything authoritative that addresses this? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It's briefly mentioned with the Reaction section with The Daily Mirror's slam, but I'd oppose mention of the anti-Craig site. A blog is not a reliable source. Alientraveller 14:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources that mention sites like these, though? I believe it's generally acceptable to mention online petitions and blogs when they enter the public scope (newspapers, TV media, etc). —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Mentioned this in intro whilst avoiding website reference ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 10:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Reaction section

According to the WP:FILM Style guide the section ought to be entitled "Reception". It could be further broken up by such subheadings as "Critical reception" or "Critical reaction" and "Awards". The subheadings in the section could even call to the specifics of the criticism, with such subheadings as "Positive reviews" or "Negative reviews". I should also mention, Daily Mirror "Bland, James Bland" article link leads to a blank page, which is a bummer. — WiseKwai 18:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Style guidelines it is not a policy page or any other example to be taken as set in stone. "Reaction" is perfectly fine title for the section. Also, subheadings are only to be used when the information is extremely abundant. Subsectioning is not need in this case. The Filmaker 18:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. Just offering what I hoped were helpful suggestions. Best of luck. — WiseKwai 03:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

New section:Title sequence

Another section summarizing details of how the credits were designed and the reasons behind it

• http://www.mi6.co.uk/news/index.php?itemid=4511

♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 10:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I brief mention in the lead for the production section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

That subsection is too small to be a subsection.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

You were also better with the other image or no image as the gunbarrel sequence is just one sentence in the entire section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree -look at the vehicles seciton now that is short. It looks fine ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 12:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Still, compare the other subsections to the new one, it is far too small to be a subsection. It's something that is minor in the process of filmaking and should be in the Production sections lead paragraph.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Bignole on this one—the info about the credit sequence belongs in the Production lead, not a separate subsection. Cliff smith 00:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, the quote is unnecessary and the bits about "only Bond to do this" or whatever are trivial and fall under WP:NOT#IINFO. Cliff smith 00:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

MONEY PENNY refrence

did anyone else catch the "money penny" refrence when Lynd and Bond first meet on the plane. Clever i thought, left her demise open to interpritations and some speculation if you ask me. When1eight=2zeros

1. This has been discussed before and from memory the consensus was this was original research.
2. They met on a train, not a plane.
3. This isn't really the place to discuss interpretation or speculation. It's to discuss the article. Mark83 19:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

You're seriously reaching dude. There is nothing there. ColdFusion650 19:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

If you have seen the film properly 2 zeros you will release that it is not a plane but a train. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 20:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Things I don't understand after reading the synopsis

• Who is Mr. White? -- The first mention of this character comes out of nowhere, and he is unexplained, so that when he reappears at the end of the synopsis, my reaction was "Huh? Who's that?

It's unclear who Mr. White is in the movie. We know he works for this organization that is unnamed.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• There's a reference near the end to "Le Chiffre and the organization, who does this refer to? One terrorist organization? Le Chiffre's organization?

It's some organization that LeChiffre is working for, kind of like a consultant"contractor" (i.e. hired by the organization, not a true member of them). The organization is left unclear, just like Mr. White. We assume these questions will be answered in the next film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Is Mathis a double-agent as Le Chiffre suggested? It's unclear whether Bond is making a mistkae in having him arrested. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 02:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Ambiguous in the film. LeChiffre says he is, but it wasn't for sure. When M makes the comment about him being innocent, Bond replies that they have not proven his guilt or his innocence yet, and that he must be interrogated further. I think the next film shows him as being a double agent, but working with Bond. But, we can't use that information, as the film isn't out, and that's a different film anyway. You cannot retcon information in an article that is retconned, or expanded upon in later films. You can try to better explain their ambiguousness in the article, but there wasn't a lot of detail about them. It's just known that they are the ones pulling the strings behind the curtains.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it's good to know that the ambiguity is in the film, and not in the synopsis. Thanks for the info. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 10:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

In the book, Mathis was not a double agent, so I doubt that he is in the movies. Emperor001 21:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Since when have the movies followed the books? Some movies stay close the novels (Casino Royale, On Her Majesty's Secret Service). Some only use the name (Moonrake, et cetera). Most fall somewhere in between. So, basically, what happens in the books has no bearing on the movies. ColdFusion650 21:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Plot section fixes

As discussed previously, the plot, whilst concise, misses some key points and ioncludes some unnecessary side-details. I have edited it. Summary as follows:

1. Added explanation of Mr White, and Le Chiffre's role, up front. This is crucial for the plot, explaining Mr White's role, why Le Chiffre is killed, why he is trying to sabotage the airport. (This much is clearly explained in the film, unlike Mr White's organization)
2. Add brief note that Bahamas is linked via mobile phone. Otherwise "Bond then visits the bahamas" is a WTF... where did that suddenly come out of?
3. Describe Dimitrios as a contact and the man making the calls (no excess detail added), so it's clear how the plot links.
4. Remove winning the car - this is a side plot, not central to the main storyline, and doesn't go anywhere.
5. "Blow up" -> "Destroy" for the plane, seems a better word, the precision of how it will be destroyed seems irrelevant.
6. Add short phrase "...and plunge Skyfleet into crisis..." which explains the airliner relevance.
7. "he" -> "Bond" (ambiguous "when he wins")
8. Minor rewording to the CIA deal / kidnap / car chase sentence, to clarify that Vesper is kidnapped specifically to lure Bond.
9. Add "for untrustworhiness" to the killing of Le Chiffre, which (given above edits) explains it all.

Added:

1. Brief addition: Le Chiffre is threatened by his clients (this sets the scene for his killing)
2. Link two sentences for brevity and flow, and note Vesper and Bond are both tortured (since her screams can be heard in the background, though not seen).

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with most of it. I've reworded some things and removed some words that bordered on peacock. Those two were "unscrulptuous" (sp) and "shadowy". As per those guidelines, don't say, explain, which you did. Saying an organization is "vaguely alluded to" kind of explains "shadowy", and Le Chiffre's actions speak for themselves. Oh, I also removed the part (first thing removed) pluralizing bankers and guerrila groups. What he does outside of LeChiffre isn't important, and M didn't say it was HIS groups that does, she didn't have proof of it, just that its groups like his.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

"Shadowy" was mine. I used it to replace "mysterious", simply because "mysterious" was used in a sentence just prior. The "vaguely alluded" is quite far away from this use of "organization", so I think it requires some kind of adjective to remind us what is being referred to. I wasn't in love with "shadowy", but couldn't come up with anything better. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 04:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the "alluded to" stuff explained it. I don't know if you were going for something like "mastermind" to characterize the organization as being in charge the whole time.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, our comments crossed in passing. I was attempting to strike out what I wrote above, since I think it's wrong in almost every particular, so please ignore it. I do think that the second occurence of "Mr. White" in the narrative requires some sort of adjective which serves to remind us of who he is, since his first appearance occured much earlier on. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 04:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Which are you referring, because I didn't remove anything about Mr.White, I don't think. The only thing I removed from him (based on memory, you'll have to show me if it's something else) is the bit from his first occurrance, about the multiple groups and bankers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to this reference to White, which occurs at the end of the third graf:

When it becomes clear that Bond will not give in, Le Chiffre advances to castrate him, but before he can, Mr. White arrives and kills Le Chiffre and his associates. Bond and Vesper are left alive.

I had added "the mysterious" to "Mr White" because I was concerned that it's been a long time since the character was mentioned (in the third sentence of the section) and that people wouldn't pick up on who was being referred to without some aid, but it was removed. As I said, I'm not in love with "the mysterious", but I do think it needs something aside from the bare "Mr. White". Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 06:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

What about something like "brings to Mr. White's organizations, which was vaguely alluded to...."  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a better construction to me. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 06:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the "mysterious" is important. Again, you would need to explain the "mysterious" part, but we're talking about an 800 word plot. If they forgot then they can just look 5 lines up. I personally didn't forget who he was when I say the movie, and that was almost 2 hours afterwards. I did have a lapse for his name, but I remembered his face. 12:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Figured I should mention this, since it's alluded to above. I deleted the line about Le Chiffre being threatened in his hotel room. My issue is that it severely disrupts the prose and does not assert its significance to the story. The sentence before and after the line in question read as though they were written with each other in mind (as they build off each other), but the line itself reads like it was thrown in as an afterthought. That is not good writing. Additionally, the scene itself is not at all essential to the film's plot, it serves mostly to illustrate the stakes for Le Chiffre. If anything, the part that follows where Bond has to kill the men in the stairwell serves more of a purpose to the storyline, as it changes the way Vesper sees Bond and sets the stage for their romantic involvement. However, a successful plot summary does not need to to mention each and every event that occurs in the movie. Not mentioning the scene should not confuse or disservice the readers at all. Croctotheface 13:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

What did Mathis do wrong?

At the end of the film when M says to 007 "well at least this clears mathis" bond says "no". What has Mathis done wrong and why is he stunned and taken away?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Matthewcl375 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

This isn't the place for this type of question, more inline with a forum. Please remember that for future reference, but to answer you, Bond believed that it was Mathis that informed LeChiffre that he knew what his "tell" was. Bond believed he was a double agent, and when M replied that Vesper giving the money to the Organization was proof that Mathis was innocent, Bond's response was that no one had proven his innocence or guilt. Thus, this is why he ordered the further interrogation.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Quote from article

When Pierce Brosnan became the fifth actor to portray the character in 1995, he had a three film contract with an option for a fourth that expired with Die Another Day in 2002. In the Die Another Day DVD documentary, Brosnan stated: "I had a blast. I wanted to go out with a high note, but I think it's time for both me and the producers to move on. I'm done with Bond".

Can anyone tell me exactly which documentary this was? I've looked through them and I can't seem to find the quote. Is it in the commentary by Brosnan? -- Britishagent 22:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It was in the commentary. Armyrifle 02:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Black Felix Leiter

The article says that this is the first "official" movie where Felix Leiter was played by a black actor. Wasn't Felix Leiter played by a black actor in Live and Let Die (film)? Rwflammang 16:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope, you can even go to the article and click on the actor that plays him. He's rather white.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Bernie Casey portrayed Felix Leiter in Never Say Never Again, which is not an "official" film (although I'd very much prefer the term "non-canonical" or maybe "non-EON").

Bernie Casey at IMDb, Google image query for "Bernie Casey". —AldeBaer 14:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, then I think the article is correct, as it only states that this is the first time in an officially released Bond film. If you think it needs to be reworded, then be bold and go for it. I can agree with "non-canonical" or the other, because the other production company obliviously had the rights to make the film, otherwise it would have been ground from the get-go with lawsuits.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You may want to read what I posted here and give me your opinion. I'm hoping for a broad consensus, as this may be a contentious issue for die-hard Bond fans, and I don't want to piss people off by being too bold. —AldeBaer 14:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

More Trivia

To add a bit more trivia to this page...

The password Bond enters in the Casino is the number 836547. Later in the film, the password is revealed to be VESPER, but the key sequence required to enter that word is 837737.

Call me picky but... SniperAngel 21:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, you're picky. :) Hey, you asked. We'd like to avoid trivia sections, though. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Product Placement

Rather than adding and removing the segment on whole, it might be a better idea if you put your heads together and typed Casino Royale product placement into Google (I have, loads of citable info there, even a direct quote from Craig) you could then add citations where appropriate and remove OR where appropriate. Just a thought seeing as "stable" is a criteria for the FA review that this article is going through at the moment. - X201 11:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Explain the importance not noting such a thing. Let's also not confuse having lots of google results as being notable to an encyclopedia. I'm not saying that is what you were suggesting when you said that, just that I see that being said now that you've mentioned finding "loads of citable info" on Google. Product Placement occurred in Fight Club, and Fincher, Pitt, and Norton discussed it on the commentary for the film, but that doesn't make it that notable. I'm curious as to what the reason behind its inclusion is.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not my info, and to be honest I'm not bothered if it's in or out of the article. I said what I said because I'm more concerned about the article being stable enough for a successful FA status than anything else. I'm pretty sure that the original contributor was trying to make the point that there seemed to be a lot of Sony devices since they've taken over from MGM. Has he got a point? Yes. Is it OR? Definitely. Is it notable? No. - X201 15:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

A better way to search on Google would be to search for the keywords "casino royale" "product placement" on Google News Archive Search. This produces 187 results instead of the extremely faulty 127,000 results with a normal Google search and no quotations. There seem to be some decent articles in the midst of these results, but your contribution wasn't backed by any of them. Especially considering that this article is undergoing FA review, I think it may be best if the contribution was made with attributable citations attached, instead of sounding like you're writing using your personal observation. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Like I said above, it wasn't my contribution, I didn't add it to the article. I was getting fed up of the revert war that I could see developing in front of me. So I made the suggestion that both sides should start citing and editing rather than wholesale removal and replacement - X201 15:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

update

Don't forget to reguarly check the statement

" the 33rd highest-grossing film of all-time,[4] and the 6th highest grossing film of all-time in the United Kingdom."

because it will reguarly change with films such as Pirates 3 and Spider-Man 3, although you shouldn't ignore the information, It's not going to get higher on the list and eventuarly it will be off the list all together, so note that it peaked at 33rd and 6th. It is still 6th at england but 34th for world wide.

SpecialWindler ^talk 09:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article Nomination

One of the things mentioned in the last Featured Article Nomination was that were a lot of citation needed tags and that the vehicles and gadgets section needed to be removed. There are no more citation needed tags. I think if we can find a way to integrate the three entries in the vehicles and gadgets section into other sections, or remove them completely, we may be ready for another nomination. I would like to get people's opinions before nominating it, to get some things out of the way first. ColdFusion650 14:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that section lacks a lot of out-of-universe information, that, if it exists, would enable the information to be merged into the production section. Bignole 15:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Why do we even discuss it? Casino Royale isn't a special effects extravaganza. Alientraveller 15:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

So would those be votes for completely removing it with a "see the full article" link to the main gadgets article? ColdFusion650 15:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

At the moment, I say "remove till it can be expanded with OOU information". It isn't going to hurt it to be removed (by removed I mean "moved to the talk page with a note attached"), and if we find the OOU information then we can put it back, possibly in a better section. Bignole 15:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Now that we have that out of the way, any more problems with FA status? ColdFusion650 16:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Let you know when I can get a chance to read it. Got a 10 page paper due tomorrow and I haven't started it. I'm sure those those two things (citations and V&G section) were the biggest. I know SandyGeorgia(or is it George?) questioned the reliability of a lot of the sources, and that's a user that needs to be persuaded as they are rather respected around the FAC community. Bignole 16:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

For reference, here is a list of the objections raised and how they have been addressed.

• unimportance of the Vehicles and Gadgets section- removed
• citation needed tags- sources found or material removed
• article is too long- suggested removing of the soundtrack section, no action taken
• reliability of refs- replacement of all imdb refs

ColdFusion650 17:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Sandy had mentioned issues with CommanderBond.net. Another thing this page maybe missing is something on the thematical element of the film. We should look for some scholarly work that talks about any themes the film presents, as I know at least one editor who will bring this issue up. Bignole 17:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Everyone has their pet issues that they look for in every article. Mine is of course an overly long plot section. I just can't stand it. But, anyway. I've removed one of the CommanderBond refs. I believe there are about four or so left. ColdFusion650 18:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Correction, there are seven left, after I removed another. ColdFusion650 18:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding another ref that says they moved production from South Africa to the Bahamas, other than MI6.co.uk which could be considered another fan site, and an IGN film aricle that cites CommanderBond as it's source. ColdFusion650 19:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

They are all gone except for the two mentioned above. ColdFusion650 19:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I came across this article and read through it. It's pretty good, but I think there should be more citations in the "Cameos" subsection. bibliomaniac15 ^{BUY NOW!} 19:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't think that's necessary. We don't have references for the main cast. The only reference would be the full ending credits, and I don't know if that's available anywhere online. ColdFusion650 20:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Vehicles and gadgets

The following is removed until it can be re-integrated in a more encyclopedic manner. Alientraveller 15:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Main articles: List of James Bond vehicles and List of James Bond gadgets

• Aston Martin DBS — Bond drives the new Aston Martin DBS in Casino Royale, fitted with hidden compartments containing a medical kit complete with an automated external defibrillator, and a Walther P99 fitted with a suppressor. Daniel Craig visited the Aston Martin headquarters in Gaydon, Warwickshire on January 13, 2006 to view and test drive the car.
• Aston Martin DB5 — Bond's famed 1964 Aston Martin DB5 which appeared in Goldfinger, Thunderball, Goldeneye, and Tomorrow Never Dies makes an appearance in the film when Bond wins the vehicle in a poker game from Dimitrios in the Bahamas (although the one he wins is left-hand-drive, unlike the DB5s driven by previous Bonds). It is the second time we see Bond take ownership of this car, after initially recieving it from Q-Branch in place of his Bentley in the third film, Goldfinger.
• Microchip implant transmitter — The human implant transmitter is injected into Bond's arm before he leaves for Montenegro. The implant not only functions as a tracking device, but also monitors the medical status of the agent back at MI6 headquarters.

I'm not sure what's so encyclopedic about it. The "test drive" sentence is the only real-world commentary that is presented, and I know that the gadgets are "important" to the Bond universe, but at the very least we can let the Gadget article take care of that. Here it has no purpose. The Filmaker 16:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking information on why Campbell opted not to have lots of gadgets/vehicles, and why he chose these things would make it relevant. But as a whole, I agree, not very encyclopedic beyond it being a staple of the franchise. Bignole 16:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

REQUESTING REMOVAL OF VESPER LYND IMAGE

I request the image of Vesper Lynd under the Cast section to be removed, firstly because it's fair use-rationale only covers the article of the character Vesper Lynd and none else. Secondly, I think the image of her on the top of the Cast section would be unnecessary or innapropriate. At least if there should be an image there, it should be an image of the main character - Daniel Craig as James Bond. (Wikiburger 18:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC))

I'm not being funny or awkward, but you can remove it yourself. Just edit the page and say why you've removed it in the edit summary or on this talk page if a longer explanation is needed. Just don't do it all in CAPITALS please. - X201 19:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Germany?

What part of the movie was shot in Germany???? It was shot in the Czech Rep., Italy, the UK and the Bahamas as far as I know.

Free running

The opening chase scene is a fantastic example of free running or parkour, and yet this article implies that its all just special effects. Is it really? There are a number of highly accomplished free runners, none of them were actually used to create this scene? I don't believe that its "just special effects". linas 22:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Where does it imply that?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

That should read physical effects, as that is what they are. There was not CGI used in the parkour, the tarmac scene of the final scene when the buidlings sank in the water. Those were physical effects, as they literally performed them on camera.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The section that talks about special effects. It cites this chase scene as one of the three parts of the movie that used special effects. Note also that the articles on parkour and free running both mention this film; there is no particular intimation there that this is a "physical effect". I'm guessing that these were live-action stunts performed by someone who must be famous in the parkour world, and this person should get credit, instead of being written off as a "physical effect". Who is this person? linas 22:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, "special effects" does not mean "CGI", it means "CGI" or "physical effects", since there were special effects in movies long before the computer was invented. linas

The runner's name is Sebastian Foucan, quickly revealed by a bit of googling. Sigh. So it seems that WP even has an article on him. This article should mention him by name. linas 22:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Feel free do add his name, I don't know how much detail is there about the free running bit. Isn't just that one statement?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Eh? There's a whole paragraph about an 18-ton digger, which is maybe a 5 or 10 second sub-scene of this rather long, extended chase scene. If one can find a whole paragraph of stuff about a digger, then surely one could write a book about the far more spectacular scene as a whole? To insert this name would require quite a major re-write of the section on "special effects". For starters, gotta figure out the name of the character he plays, and etc. linas 23:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't require a rewrite of the entire section (which labeled "Effects" for a reason), just an expansion of that scene into the section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Please note the credits refer to "free running" stunts, not Parkour. --Manboobies 22:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Cameo appearance:

Is there any room in the article for a mention that Richard Branson had a cameo appearance in the movie, or is that too trivial? Spawn Man 05:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Lol, never mind. I just saw the comments on the FAC opting for the removal of the cameo section. :) Spawn Man 05:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, it's too trivial, so removed. Vikrant Phadkay 15:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Plot section edits

Just in case there is some controversy:

1. Parkour vs. free running: although the term "parkour" may be slightly more well known, "free running" is the more accurate term, per Foucan and the credits.
2. Mentioning "the tell": without sufficient context on the way Bond set about reading Le Chiffre, referencing "the tell" in quote marks is confusing for people who do not already know the plot of the film. Since it would bloat the section and give undue weight to provide that context, we should remove the mention for the sake of better, more concise writing.
3. Vesper assigned to sabotage Bond: I don't think that this is clear enough from the film for us to say. It makes sense, but we just learn that she was beholden to Mr. White's organization, not to Le Chiffre. Without a better source, I don't think we can say what that section had said.

The rest of my edits were largely about grammar or punching up sentences. I do not claim that my edits here should be final or authoritative, but I do believe that they are improvements. Croctotheface 04:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't Tell (poker) an article? Thus, it doesn't need explaining, people can get the details from there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm....it wasn't linked before, and it certainly would've been better if it were. However, I'm not saying that mentioning it would be confusing to people unfamiliar with poker or the term, though that could be the case. I'm saying that mentioning it without explaining the context presupposes that readers are familiar with the context. If they're not, it's kind of this vaguely-alluded-to, out of place detail. To provide necessary context, we'd basically have to say that Bond discovered the tell, Le Chiffre found out that he found out, so he intentionally performed it to send Bond down the wrong path. Otherwise, it doesn't really provide more information to mention "his 'tell'", in quote marks, since "misreading" is really the same concept as that. Croctotheface 18:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read the plot in awhile, so I had to go back and read what it actually said. I thought it explained it how you just suggested, but it didn't. The way you rewrote it is fine anyway.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)