Talk:Casino Royale (2006 film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current Cinema Collaboration of the week! Help improve it to match the quality of an ideal film article as shown in the style guidelines.

Casino Royale (2006 film) (reviewed version) has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

	This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as High-Importance on the importance scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
More information about this article... This article was the Cinema Collaboration of the Week (24 March 2007). Improvements

Archives Archive 1 (January—October 2005) Archive 2 (October 2005—May 2006) Archive 3 (May—November 2006) Archive 4 (November 2006—March 2007)

Contents 1 move article to Casino Royale 2 Plot 3 Why? 4 Mr. White's Number 5 Peer review 6 Vehicles and gadgets 7 Man M? 8 Felix Liter 9 Regarding GA review 10 Behind the scenes 10.1 Parkour/free running 10.2 DVD 10.3 for the DVD release section 11 Dr. No or From Russia With Love? 12 Trivia 13 Cast 14 Missing paragraph for copy editing 14.1 Special effects 15 Peer review 16 Who passed the article? 17 Break up "Reaction" section?

[edit] move article to Casino Royale

In the interest of making articles have the simplest titles as possible, I think this article should be moved to Casino Royale and the disambiguation page should be moved to Casino Royale (disambiguation) with a link at the top of this article to the disambiguation page. Most people looking for Casino Royale will be looking for this article. ColdFusion650 23:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

So ten years from now, people are still going to be looking for only the film article? It's hardly a big deal, not to mention not in line with naming conventions. It's just one additional click to get to the film article, which is proper recognition on the same level as the other Casino Royale articles. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ten years from now? Probably. The problems come up 50 years from now, but I'm sure the current system won't be compatible with the neural link. So, everything will have to be redesigned by then anyway. ColdFusion650 23:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

LMAO. Touché. Point of matter is, though, from what I've seen, Wikipedia veers away from trying to determine that kind of thing. Should we update each article title for every remake or similar-sounding subject that's more modern than what came before? It becomes an issue of POV, and I think the objective approach of labeling each article's subject type is the most appropriate. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the current situation is fine. Mark83 18:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plot

Why are there 4 subsections for the plot? Tell me where in the MOS of film articles that it says to break down a plot by locations in the film? The only time that should happen is if there is a complicated plot and subsections make it easier to understand while reading.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  13:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

There's no real point, other than it makes it look better. ColdFusion650 13:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it looks better. I think it clutters the plot, and inserts unnecessary images. Remember, we have to prove fair use for all these images, because they aren't free. The plot looks reminescent of those anorexic paragraphs that people love to make, you know, the ones where they break into a new paragraph every 2 sentences. They were uploaded on WikiCommons and claim to be public domain, but screenshots from films are not public domain, they are copyrighted by studio.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  14:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I really don't care which way this goes. ColdFusion650 14:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If you don't care then why did you revert it, it seem more pertinant that you would have just brought it up to the talk page for a discussion.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do) 

As the putter-backer-onner, I decided to be the taker-backer-offer. ColdFusion650 16:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's kind of you, but I'm still open for discussion about the proposed change.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  16:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the images: talk about copyright violation! WikiNew 16:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] Peer review

I recently fixed some refs with citation templates and added a couple refs as well.
The article looks really good. I think that a peer review would be beneficial. Cliff smith 03:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I just checked out WP:WIAGA, and based on what is said about length, it may be better to do a peer review instead of a nomination for GA. This article is presently twice the size of the recommended maximum for GA. With the peer review, we can tackle the automated peer review suggestions (which are given by a bot) and then check each of the criteria for a GA as well as an FA. Once the peer review is complete, we would be ready for FAC. Cliff smith 16:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the length is fine now, given this article is well cited, but I'd like to expand the Production section certainly with interviews on various reasons and quotes for the film's particular style. Also, the whole intended reboot thing in the lead sounds like O.R. I believe Campbell refered to a timeline during the video blogs. WikiNew 16:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I found an interview of Campbell in which he confirms the reboot. IGN Interview: Campbell on Casino Royale Because of this, I mentioned the reboot in the lead with this interview as a reference so that it won't sound like O.R. Cliff smith 18:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

About the ratings box, this is something present in many articles, like Tomorrow Never Dies, which is a GA.
I don't see why it wouldn't belong here. Cliff smith 18:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT. WikiNew 18:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I see. Hmm, it's curious then as to why the infobox for ratings was ever created.
Well, beyond that, I think that the upcoming collaboration (hopefully we'll get it) + peer review = GA, and then FA. Things are looking good. Cliff smith 19:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Man M?

I enjoyed Judi Dench in this film. However, shouldn't M be a man in this movie? If it's Bond's first mission, then in the timeline M would still be the male M (from the older films.)

• Yes, I realize the actor is probably really old or even dead by now. But technically, shouldn't the character of M still be a dude?

Judi Dench didn't arrive as Bond's boss until Goldeneye; they make a whole deal of it, and someone even mentions 'the new M being a woman'. So from mission zero (aka Casino Royale) up until but not including Goldeneye, M is a man.

Any thoughts? JimmmyThePiep 16:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

First, please note that Wikipedia is not a forum, so please keep your conversation to enhancing the article. To answer your question though, this is a completely new series for the Bond films, it has its own continuity, so M could be a child for anyone to care in this particular point in the series. It is not connected to the previous bond films, it's a reboot of the franchise.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

ah; merci beacoup. I couldn't figure it out, but I guess that makes sense. (Note, I actually did post on a couple of forums, but got no replies.. Either nobody knew or nobody cared to answer.) JimmmyThePiep 04:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Felix Liter

Has anyone ever seen 'Liscence to Kill'? It starts off with Bond and Felix catching a criminal; on Felix' wedding day no less; but the criminal pays $1 million to escape, and then gets angry so he feeds most of Felix Liter to a shark? (Bond later, after getting kidnapped, douses the villain in gasoline and sets him on fire.)

... Anyway, that's not the point. Originally, the character of Felix Liter was very much a caucasian American CIA agent. Any idea why this switched his ethnicity for this film? JimmmyThePiep 16:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, see remark in the above section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding GA review

The article looks absolutely great. Cliff smith 20:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur; it seems to be becoming a trend to develop Wikipedia articles on recent films more fully. Though I think the focus is more on "quality" films (Dreamgirls type, but not something like Ghost Rider). Film articles often come up in the first ten results of a search engine, so that kind of placement combined with the anyone-can-edit capability really makes the setup a universal project. There are eyes on the article for this film's sequel, too, so I don't doubt that the article will develop just as strongly. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Behind the scenes

[edit] Parkour/free running

-

- Casino Royale featured the art of free running in one of the early chase scenes intended to be set in Madagascar. Sébastien Foucan, one of the sport pioneers starred in the film as a terrorist on the run from Bond. Foucan has referred to the sport as an art form where the sole aim is to make a split second decision while running to avoid physical obstacles by using the body to overcome them. A combination of extreme agility, gymnastics with physical stength the film displayed the art form by actor Foucan climbing up steel girders and squatting through holes in construction site walls reaching a climax as he springs tens of feet from crane to crane from two hundred feet in the air. (reference .Casino Royale dvd)

First of all, I don't think that the technique has to be explained in such depth. There's a parkour article as well. I'm trying to see where in the article the parkour/free running can be mentioned briefly. Production is a lot about filming locations; did the DVD say where the parkour/free running was filmed, so it could possibly be added as complementary information? Also, I would highly suggest not having the picture in the article, as it does not directly pertain to the film. Other editors' perspectives are also welcome. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe not put there should definately be a new section on the behind the scenes look at th film -detailed of how they created the big scenes and the car flipping etc, ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 15:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

THe scene was filmed at a construction site in the Bahamas which Michael Wilson had seen back in 1977 during the filming of the spy who loved me and it is still abandoned today. It had to double for Madagascar. It took an enormous aamount of effort for them to rig the cranes and to choroegraph the scenes with the parkour techniques and this is a sigificant scene which is discussed in high detail on the dvd analysis. The practise for the scene was all done in studios in Prague until filming moved to Bahamas where they had to move it 200 feet in the air ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 15:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DVD

I think the best thing to do is to summarise the documentaries on the DVD. Can you do that? Don't bother to mention "how hard" things were. WikiNew 15:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This seems like a very good idea. Hopefully we can also find some online sources to help reference it also. Trust me on this the article needs to cover production fairly well if this is going to eventually make FA. What about the car rash etc -specially prpeared car the 7 turns world record etc. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 15:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

What about how the aiport scene was filmed - does the article mention it was filmed in like 5 different airports and the thrust scene and the police car? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 16:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Do write a list of information from both Becoming Bond and For Real. WikiNew 16:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] for the DVD release section

Perhaps a brief description of the special features could be added. Cliff smith 18:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

That kind of seems like we are marketing for them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Can't we also get a picture/scan of the DVD and put it in the section? Like how boxsets are done for tv shows. El Greco 19:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, actually you're right Bignole. But as far as a picture/scan of the DVD goes, I couldn't agree more. Cliff smith 21:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Generally images of the DVD are added to the page. Information about the DVD (e.g. sales, critical response) is something to look for, as that adds to the section and keeps it from being just an image with a release date.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Well this article is not only missing such details but has anyone ever thought about a section on the script writing and cinematography? Comparisons with novel? THis isn't even covered. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 12:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I have seen FA's with "Writing" as a section, but I don't recall any for Cinematography. Every article is different, so I'm not saying that either should be or not be in the article. I think if it can be well written, it will be just fine.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Comparisons to the novel could be a subsection in Production, and that would probably be good, as long as it's prose with references, not listed. As far as writing and cinematography go, there's nothing really special to make note of. Writing, you could say (if not already said) how Purvis and Wade wrote the original draft and then Haggis was brought in to revise it. There's nothing significant about the cinematography that would warrant mention, beyond Meheux being nominated for a couple awards (which is already in Awards). Cliff smith 16:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

An article's content is derived from the information that is available. Hence if there is notable information on the screenwriting (beyond Neal Purvis and Robert Wade) then it should be detailed within the production section. However, a full section should only be added if the information is abundant. The same goes for cinematography. From what I understand there is not anything worth mentioning on the screenwriting or cinematography. The Filmaker 01:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Cliff smith 02:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps not cinemtography but some minor details on the script writing would really be appropriate. Look I am suggesting ways to improve the article, I am not a minimalist -for me as much info as possible providing it is concise and well written is better and not a downside. Surely you aren't all suggesting this article is perfect? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 11:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not (perfection is nonexistent). But I understand what you're saying. Cliff smith 16:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. No or From Russia With Love?

There seems to be some discern over where "Q" made his first appearance. Major Boothroyd is the name used in Dr. No. In From Russia With Love the character is called "Q". The both supply the same job, but are referred to as two different people. Now, before anyone goes spouting "well the Wikipedia article says this.." we don't cite wikipedia in our articles, so that goes double for discussions on the talk pagel. The "Q" article has no sources, and appears to be more original research than actually citation. Now, I haven't had the pleasure of reading the books, so I cannot say for sure if "Q" was ever identified by name in the books, but as far as films go, the name Major Boothroyd (from my recollection, which is in no way perfect, so I'd appreciate second thoughts on this) was only ever used in Dr. No, and from that point on, the gentleman handing out little gadgets was called "Q".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Major Boothroyd was used in Dr. No and From Russia with Love, and he was refered to as Q in GoldFinger. Q was called Boothroyd in The Spy Who Loved Me the film. In the Books there are two different characters who became Q in the films, Boothroyd "the armourer" who gave Bond his Walther in Doctor No and a member of Q-Branch. In Casino Royale M tells him to go to "Q" for the equipment needed, but this wasn't a specific person and it could very well have referred to Q-Branch. Hope this helps. A quick check on IMDb (which uses the film credits)[1] has Desmond Llewelyn ... Major Boothroyd. 86.138.125.156 10:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so the mystery begings to break light. I didn't realize Desmond was referred to as Boothroyd in Spy. Well, this should end all discussion about changing the film title. Thanks anonymous user.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

This should be added then

• In the film, the action scene at the construction site involving free running and the 200ft crane was intended to be Madagascar but footage was actually shot at an abandoned hotel in the Bahamas. Producer Michael G. Wilson had first seen the site back in 1977 during the filming of The Spy Who Loved Me. ^[1]

How do you reference dvd media?

♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 11:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This one Template:Cite video - X201 11:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't add trivia lists per WP:AVTRIVIA. Like I said, please glean the facts for encyclopedic use. Alientraveller 15:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cast

Why is the cast section at the bottom of the page, behind "Release"? Seems to me it should come before the plot of the film, because you are introducing characters, with descriptions, that are relevant to the plot.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• The subject of the Cast section is the actors not the so much the characters. Which is why it typically contains information on the casting of the film (however, in this case I think the abundant amount of information and controversy warrants it's own section). The descriptions of the characters are merely to remind the reader of which character we are talking about. The section is down below the Releases and Reaction sections because it is a slightly less important to understanding the entire picture. Production to Synopsis to Release than we get into the smaller details, such as who played who, the soundtrack, and in the case of the Star Wars articles, Cinematic and Literary Allusions and the novelization. The Filmaker 14:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, the dictionary refers to a synopsis as "A brief outline or general view, as of a subject or written work; an abstract or a summary." and the synopsis article on Wikipedia states that only in "many cases" does omit spoilers. This is not in all cases. I generally feel that the term "Synopsis" sounds more dignified and encyclopedic than the more blunt "Plot". The Filmaker 14:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounding more dignified doesn't make it correct. Synopsis is a term that should be used for future films, ones that don't have a full story, just a basis. Plot is something that is meant to cover beginning to end. Synopses are overviews of the whole story, they generally lack details. What is currently in Spider-Man 3 is a synopsis, because it's just a general outline of the entire film. "An abstract, or general view" is not something that has 700 words, unless you are talking about the Ten Commandments. It's a misappropriation of terms, kind of like when someone says they "cryogenically" froze someone, which is incorrect, as that is not what cryogenic means, even though society tends to use that word for that definition. As for the cast, they may be less important, but they are important on the basis that you are describing characters after the fact. It would seem more beneficial to include that before the plot, as it would give a description of characters beforehand.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missing paragraph for copy editing

[edit] Special effects

Special Effects and Miniature Effects Supervisor Chris Corbould, who made his 11th Bond outing with CASINO ROYALE, welcomed the news that the producers intended to return to a more realistic style of filmmaking and cut down on digital effects. “I am passionate about the art of special effects, and I will fight tooth and nail to do something for real,” he says. “Obviously, if there are safety concerns or budget concerns, then I can back off and admit defeat. CGI is a great tool and can be very useful, especially if blended seamlessly with reality to give a good performance, but if an effect can be done for real, it’s the best way to go.”

Corbould’s three biggest challenges on the film were each totally different and took place in vastly different locations: the sinking Venetian house, with scenes located in Venice on the Grand Canal and in Pinewood in the Paddock Tank and the 007 Stage; the Miami International Airport tarmac chase sequence, where Bond is pursuing a terrorist intent on blowing up a prototype plane; and Bond giving chase to Mollaka at a building site in Madagascar.

First on the schedule were the scenes on the Madagascar building site, shot on location in the Bahamas on the site of a derelict hotel, which the art department had dressed as a construction site. In the scene, Bond gets into an 18-ton digger and drives at about 35 miles per hour toward the building. He hits the side of a truck, destroys a hut, then slams into the concrete plinth on which Mollaka is running, the backhoe’s bucket chewing into the concrete.

“We built a model and put forward two or three ways that the digger could conceivably take out the concrete, including taking out the pillar underneath. Martin Campbell preferred the direct way, with the bucket straight into the concrete. We did a couple of tests, and during the take it was even better than I expected. The concrete curled around the bucket and it came out like a wave.”

At Dunsfold Aerodrome in Surrey, first and second units spent 10 weeks filming the sequence where Bond pursues a second terrorist through a Miami airport building and onto the tarmac. “Bond is chasing Carlos, who is driving a fuel tanker across Miami airfield during rush hour, with plenty of traffic on the ground,” explains Corbould. “Bond leaps onto the tanker and, as Carlos tries to shake him off, crashes into anything in his way, wrecking bendy buses, police cars and baggage trolleys – it’s carnage! I’ve had experience with tankers before in License to Kill, and they are beasts to work with once you have all that tonnage hurling around. And obviously we wanted to strive to do more spectacular things than last time, so we souped up the tankers to get some high-speed collisions.”

Corbould describes the massive set of the sinking Venetian house at the action climax of CASINO ROYALE as the biggest rig he’s ever built on a Bond film or any other. The scene involves Bond following Vesper and Gettler into a Venetian house undergoing renovation, so it is supported by inflatable balloons. As he pursues them, the balloons are punctured by gunshots and begin to deflate, causing the walls to collapse. Eventually, the whole building subsides into the Grand Canal.

Working in the tank of the 007 stage at Pinewood, the production built a Venetian piazza and the interior of the three-story dilapidated house. “The rig was massive — 90 tons — marrying together electronics and hydraulics. I was anxious to get really fast movement to sell the fact that the house is sinking. The hydraulic valves were controlled by computer because there was so much movement in the system — it moved up and down and tilted through two axes. It would have been easy to bottom out on the tank or hit the roof, so we needed to have a lot of safety features.”

At the same time, the rig could be immersed in 19 feet of water, some of which spewed upwards, so Corbould ended up spending a lot of time in a wetsuit. “I reckon I spent around eight hours a day in the water on that set, of which around two were spent under the water, just fixing problems. We had huge banks of compressors outside the tanks, pushing water up as the house falls down, so all of that had to be kept in working order. As shooting progressed and the house sank, debris and dust started to fall into the water, so the visibility decreased and we ended up feeling our way around.”

The effects team also created an exterior model, built to one-third scale, to shoot the building collapsing into the Venetian canal. The same computer system controlled the model’s hydraulics so Corbould and his associates could exactly replicate the motion of the interior set.

“There was definitely a learning curve,” recalls Corbould. “It was the biggest rig the crew and I have ever put together, and a complicated set as well. I remember when we started on the film and they said, ‘There will be no gadgets or gizmos,’ and then they threw this one at us. But, in the end, I think the audience likes to see someone take a risk. Rather than watch what they know is a blue screen, they appreciate the feat of bravery and the effort that goes into the real thing. I think we are heading for a revival of special effects over visual effects.”

[edit] Peer review

I think that once the collaboration week is finished, we should have a peer review. Cliff smith 16:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who passed the article?

Anyone? GA reviewers should leave a notice. WikiNew 16:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ibaranoff24 did. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)