Talk:Casino Royale (2006 film)/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Talk:Casino Royale (2006 film)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

1 Pierce Brosnan Cameo?
2 Trivia
3 Did Vesper love Bond?
4 Branson appearance?
5 Plot
6 Sponsors
7 Plot: Why did Bond go to Le Chiffre's Room
8 Production Design
9 Opening credits
10 Mistake in the article. Or?
11 Vesper Lynd's jewelry
12 Cosmetic change
13 "Box office" section
14 Refs to Mr White's organisation
15 No cameo at the poker table
16 Film vs. novel plots
17 Ma'am
18 Cleaning up and renaming Bond products section
19 Location
20 Size
21 Vandalism?
22 Gunbarrel Photo
23 Torture
24 Vesper suicide?
25 Poker variant
26 Just a thought
27 Someone vandalized it...
28 Gadgets
29 Splitting off the soundtrack and music
30 Cast Section/Search for....
31 Fan resistance to Daniel Craig
32 Uganda??
33 Recent edits to Plot section
34 Shooting Locations
35 Poison diagnosis-using the microchip?
36 1138
37 Level of detail necessary in plot summary section
38 The search for James Bond...
39 'Oxford cut'?
40 Development section original research
41 Budget
42 It isn't really a gunbarrel sequence...
43 Venice
44 Plot hole?
45 Box Office
46 Fights?
47 Mathis
48 Le Chiffre

Pierce Brosnan Cameo?

During the scene were Bond was in his car after being poisoned, one of the the characters it kept flashing back to looked similar to Pierce Brosnan. Anyone think it was him?

It's doubtful. Sean Connery was going to have a cameo in Die Another Day, but it was decided no Bond film should have two Bond actors in it, since they're both supposed to have been the same person. TubularLuggage 00:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

Is there a way for us to merge those things into the rest of the article. I know for Featured Article purposes, most sections titled "Trivia" are heavily criticized and need much proof for relevance. It is usually safer to try and reword and incorporate into other sections. Plus, there are only like 2 things there, so it shouldn't be that hard. Anyone? Bignole 17:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't like trivia and it was about assumed references. Wiki-newbie 17:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

None of the items there are coming from reputable sources, so I don't see what there encyclopedic worth is. The Self-reference and spoof section was removed for a similar reason. - OPaul 18:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The "other notes" lengthy discussion of the gun barrel deal could be reduced to a single line within the plot summary, and the detail moved into the separate gun barrel article. Wahkeenah 18:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Did Vesper love Bond?

I know this doesnt really belong on wikipedia, but i was wondering if anybody had a view on whether Vesper actually loved Bond at any point in the movie or was she just playing him all along for her algerian boyfriend? this has been bugging me since i saw it. --Bucsrsafe 20:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It definitely doesn't belong in the article, because it would be pure speculation, but it's an interesting question. I think she grew to care about him at some level. As I recall, M told Bond that Vesper was "deeply in love" with her Algerian boyfriend. She had a prickly attitude toward Bond originally, and certainly warmed up to him, and I don't think it was all calculated. The moment where he just held her quietly, under that running shower, after the violent deaths of the machete-wielding men, broke the ice, as he demonstrated he was capable of being more than just a killing-and-womanizing machine. I'd have to say that was one of the very few times Bond has shown a softer side, in 45 years worth of films. Moments like that do occur. One of my favorite Bonds was For Your Eyes Only. At the very beginning, he's having a quiet moment, visiting his deceased wife's grave. He is informed that there is a message from the office, and that it's urgent. He says, in a quiet and resigned way, "It always is." (Or words to that effect). Wahkeenah 22:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Green has talked about her character re-appearing in Bond 22, in the form of a pre-taped message. This could be likened to the novel's suicide note, where Vesper professes her love to Bond. But since it's ambiguous at the moment it can't be added to the article. --Madchester 23:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point. This movie had a definite "to be continued" feel to it. They are all that way in some sense, because the character, as well as the enemy organizaton (often) were ongoing; but this is one case where the story did not end, it was "truncated". Whatever they do, hopefully they won't bring back Blofeld, since it would be hard to keep a straight face ("Why must I be surrounded by idiots?") Wahkeenah 00:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

As she was about to die, Vesper took Bond's hands, caressed her face, and kissed them. She had no reason to posture at that point. I'd say she loved him. Rocky143 00:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

In the book, she also loved him. In the book she also had a Polish boyfriend, who was captured by SMERSH, but she gave him up to be with Bond. Then when she realized that SMERSH can hunt them (her and Bond) down anyway, she committed suicide to save Bond (perhaps a bit irrationally). But then it is revealed that she was double agent all-along so she really despised herself, which is not true in film. Valters 10:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Branson appearance?

The article says Richard Branson has a cameo in the film. Playing what? I never saw him; can his appearance be confirmed, along with a note on what role he played? 23skidoo 19:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Haven't seen it myself but I've heard it's a very very quick shot of him being searched at the airport. An appearance? Yes. A cameo? stretching the definition!!! Mark83 20:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

"Cameo" is the word used to describe Hitch's equally brief appearances! --Ant 23:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

He does appear briefly, long enough for the whole cinema to notice and laugh, but it can't be more than about 5 seconds of film. Willkm 20:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Must have been a regional reaction. I never recognized him (and yes I know what he looks like) and neither apparently did anyone else in the audience. Anyway, if it's been confirmed, then no issue. 23skidoo 16:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

He appeared in the airport scene, being frisked by security after he sets off the metal detector. 03:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)194.80.240.66 03:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

When the bomber is putting his stuff in the x-ray and going through the metal detector on the left half or the screen, Branson can be seen for about one second on the right half. Rocky143 00:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

That is Correct

Plot

This plot is in excess of 1100 words, I'm placing the "plot" tag on it because it needs to be trimmed down. Bignole 20:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm kind of partial to a "sofixit" kind of reply for a situation like this. For the record, Jaws (film) is featured, and its plot section is 900+ words long. Croctotheface 03:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

So is the film Halloween and it's barely 500 words. We do not need to detail everything, and you example is still 300 less than what this one is. Also, I don't get in an "fixit" myself, because there are more frequent, "regular" editors for this page and I feel they deserve to be the ones to go in and figure out what can be dropped. The first few paragraphs are good, they are clear and concise and don't need really any work, it's the later ones. Bignole 03:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

My point in bringing up Jaws was not anything like "the ideal length for the plot section is 900 words", but rather that it's difficult, if not impossible, to use the word count as an indicator of what is too long or short. There is obviously leeway: 500 here, 900 there, both get FA status. I certainly would not be opposed to trimming, but I'd much rather have a too-long yet well-written section than messy prose. I agree with you that it's hard to pick out what to cut--I could probably write something that hit the major plot points in six or seven sentences, but I doubt that's the level of detail we want either. Croctotheface 18:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem with "too long, but well written" is that you get into Wiki's policy about not "being a substitution for watching the film". Do we need details about Felix Leiter? It seems we could trim down the "poker" aspect of the plot so that we don't give away the fact that Bond loses and has to buy in again, with help from Felix Leiter. I think we could sum the whole thing up by saying that Felix helps him, but not go into detail about Bond losing and getting the 5 mill buyback. It isn't important to the scope of the film, at least not to me. Bignole 20:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Felix Leiter is a very important character in the Bond mythos. If he's left out of the plot summary then there needs to be a Note or Trivia item about him. 23skidoo 19:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The cast section is sufficient enough for his cameo. Wiki-newbie 19:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I know he's important to the Bond mythos, but isn't there an article about him already? I'm merely saying that we could downsize the details of his character's contribution to Bond in the poker game. Bignole 20:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The plot section says Bond kills several soldiers at the embassy. From my viewing, he steamed a couple, a couple of the soldiers shot other soldiers by mistake, and Bond stunned several in the explosion at the end, but they were seen staggering to their feet and the newspaper article doesn't seem to mention them being killed. 141.157.52.131 19:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above description and will edit the plot summary accordingly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.107.0.73 (talk) 23:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

Plot: Why did Bond go to Le Chiffre's Room

During a break in the poker game, Bond goes to Le Chiffre's room with his pistol drawn and silencer attached. Before he arrives, he hears screaming and does not enter. Killing of the Africans ensues. What the heck was Bond going to do in Le Chiffre's room? He didn't know the Africans were there. What could he do to Le Chiffre? He was supposed to beat him at poker, not kill him. The article does not mention his motivation. Rocky143 05:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Does the film say why? If not, the article can't either. Meanwhile, LeChiffre shows remarkably little gratitude to Bond for having dispatched his would-be assassins. Not only is LeChiffre a thief, torturer and murderer, he's also an ingrate. Wahkeenah 15:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I assume that it makes sense and I just missed something.Rocky143 00:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, we aren't allowed to speculate. That said, I believe it's shown in the film to be a simple coincidence. Bond and Vesper were clearly headed to Bond's room, which happened to be down the hall from Le Chiffre (whether by accident or design the film does not say). They heard the ruckus and the rest is history. 23skidoo 19:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Bond's room was 378. Le Chiffre's room was on the 4th floor (remember he used the tracking bug to decide which eleveator button to press.) I don't think Le Chiffre knew the Africans were killed.Rocky143 00:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  - Of course he did, he's looking out the window when their bodies are discovered in the trunk. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 08:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    - Maybe he was going to Le Chiffre's room to offer him sanctury with MI6 if he loses, and gets his gun for protection? After all, the gun comes in a package from MI6 along with several documents. However, it would make more sense to wait until after the game was won, surely? Although there would have been the possibility he could just disappear before they contacted him...
He did know they were there thanks to the earpiece and the bug he planted on him, and wanted to save his life. (As you may remember, MI6 wanted Le Chiffre alive at the time) The african bodyguard noticed Bond's earpiece and guessed he knew what was going on. (And therefore wanted Bond eliminated) 80.178.23.7 09:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
By the way, is James Bond an ingrate for blowing Mr. White's kneecap (Making him crippled for life) although he saved him from castration and death? 80.178.60.87 16:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Good point. However, he didn't kill him. Yet. Wahkeenah 19:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Bond hear the screams on Le Chiffre's room through the microphone he planted in the thief's device to fight asthma attacks. Se goes there to save him, since his death meant his misson was failed.

Production Design

Why the quagga? Just wondering. Rocky143 05:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Hah, I noticed it too. Quite sad on my part, I suppose. 81.86.76.6 16:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Opening credits

Is it worth noting in the article that Casino Royale has opening credits? I know this is a very mundane thing to point out, but it is becoming increasingly rare for major films -- particularly those of an action-adventure bent -- to have opening credits. Although I dislike the song they chose, I still have to admire EON for maintaining the tradition. (And on an even more nitpicky note, I believe they use a different typeface for the names for the first time in possibly 40 years). 23skidoo 16:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I talked about these credits on the article for the theme song, You Know My Name. Check it out, and copy it over to this article if you feel it appropriate. Jedd the Jedi 05:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Mistake in the article. Or?

This is my frist comment on an article. Please excuse any mistakes.

In the article, under Level 2 headline: Plot, it says that Dimitrios is the recepient of a message. In the movie, when Bond kills Dimitrios and examines his cell the display shows "sent messages". Dimitrios hired the bombmaker and supplied information about accessing the Miami airport security section by sending the SMS. Bond later figures this out at Miami airport when he has called M and types the message to get access.

Jaderberg 23:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Vesper Lynd's jewelry

I would like to know the maker of the necklace Vesper wears throughout the film. It's the one Bond mentions later on that it's time for her to stop wearing it.

That is discussed in the Vesper Lynd article. Rocky143 07:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Cosmetic change

Can we change "9/11" in this article to "Sept. 11" or "September 11, 2001," even though it is a reference to the Sept. 11 attacks?
--Rabbitdude 08:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Why? It's no different then referring to June 6th as D-Day. - OPaul 21:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

But it would be more specific, to not confuse people without them having to go to the Sept. 11, 2001 article if they don't know what "9/11" is.
--Rabbitdude 08:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

"Box office" section

The "Box office" section is divided into four headings: "United States", "Foreign", "United Kingdom", and "Worldwide".

What is the difference between "foreign" and "worldwide"? This is totally unclear. (And what is the term "foreign" doing in an international encyclopedia at all? Foreign relative to where, might I ask? It certainly isn't "foreign" relative to many of our readers and editors.) — Haeleth Talk 18:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

At best it should be Domestic and Foreign, not "US" "UK" "For." Worldwide is everything, including domestic. Bignole 19:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest four sub-headings 'United States', as the primary cinema market in the world, 'United Kingdom', as it's largely a British production (I know that's debatable) and because of it's record breaking success there and 'Rest of the World' for remaining territories, maybe expanding in future e.g China for when it opens there and finally 'Worldwide' for total worldwide box office. Domestic and Foreign is meaningless for reasons Haeleth suggested. Yorkshiresky 19:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Refs to Mr White's organisation

According to the current version Bond "discovers Vesper taking the money to a mysterious organization which is hinted at throughout the film" - other than at the beginning, where Mr White arranges the meeting between Le Chiffre and the terrorists, when else is it hinted at? If it isn't this line should be changed. Willkm 20:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, Mr White himself mentions the organisation when he shoots Le Chiffre, and he is certainly watching Bond trying to revive Vesper towards the end of the film, if his appearence counts as a hint in itself...

No cameo at the poker table

I had this weird impression of a cameo at the poker table, but it was not confirmed, so it is false. At the poker table three people confirm ordering the martini drink, after them Le Chiffre says something like "for me the same, without the fruit". One of the other people ordering the drink looked (to me) like a remodeled Sean Connery cut into that scene. Did anyone else see this character appear?

Update: nobody else seems to have noticed, so this is wrong and a product of vivid imagination.

Leobard 23:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I've seen the film 5 times this week and I have to say I didn't notice that. I'm seeing it again this week so I will look out for it, but I must note that Le Chiffre does not order a drink, it is Felix Leiter who says that line:"My friend - get me one too, keep the fruit" or something like that.

I just realized that. Bond orders the drink, then there is this guy that looks a bit like Connery orders it, then that big guy, and then Felix. They are all players and the Sean Connery lookalike is sitting between Felix and Le Chiffre. You can also see him when Bond enters the room for the first time and waits at the bar before the tournament has started. But, i think, apart from the line saying 'You know, i'll have one of those' he says nothing. Not sure if that was intentional or just coincidence. C hris_huh^talk 12:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Does he look like the Connery of 1962, or of today? Wahkeenah 13:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

'62. I am trying to work out who he is, but haven't been successful. C hris_huh^talk 16:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Does it actually matter? I mean it obviously isn't Connery if he looks like a 1962 version of Connery. I'm pretty sure if there were significant cameos that there would have been some kind of coverage on it. Bignole 16:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Spotted this on IMDB Memorable Quotes page - it seems that Tomelli says that line - played by Urbano Barberini Valters 22:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Film vs. novel plots

Given the difference in time periods, is it even worth noting the differences between the film and novel? Having not read the book, I'm not qualified to do it, in any case. :) RobertM525 09:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Several deviations aside, the film is remarkably close to the book. Particularly when you consider that some of the Bond films borrowed title and character names and little else. Not suprisingly there was no Aston Martin with a medical suite in the book! Mark83 18:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it worthy of a section of its own? I know many book-to-film articles have a section discussing differences between the two versions. I know I was expecting to find one here. RobertM525 08:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Ma'am

When Bond is leaving M’s home, he addresses her as “Ma'am” (, the British pronunciation of which rhymes with “arm.” Click the link if you don’t believe me.) which is used to address female officers in the British Armed Forces. This is not a joke, and was not intended to be funny.

However, Bond states that M’s first name starts with the letter M, and because the British pronunciation of “Ma'am” sounds like “Mom,” many audience members laughed at Bond’s farewell. I guess they thought Bond was saying that M’s first name is “Mom,” or that M is actually his mother. (Had the latter been the case he would have addressed her as “Mum.”)

I saw the movie twice, and this happened both times. I would suggest adding an explanation to the main article to clear things up for American viewers like myself, especially if others can confirm that this was a common experience in American theaters. Xargon666x6 27 November 2006

Can we get another opinion on the prounciation of ma'am? I've adressed female officers of the British Army (and heard others) and "maarm" was not used, it was "maam"!! Still great point about the misunderstanding by American audiences. Mark83 19:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't saying the British pronunciation of "Ma'am" sounds like "maarm," just that the second "a" makes the "Ah" sound, while in the American pronunciation it makes the short "a" sound, (such that the American pronunciation of "Ma'am" rhymes with "ham"). The examples of "arm" and "ham" are used to explain the pronunciations for "Ma'am” in the Wikipida article on “Madam.” Xargon666x6 28 November 2006

Thank you so very much for ignoring the complement and instead leaving an agressive comment on my talk page! You said the British pronunciation of ma'am rhymes with arm (or you are at least quoting) - it does not. You are right in your last post that it's an "ah" sound (maahm) - but that is contradictory to "rhymes with arm". Mark83 22:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the "aggressive comment." That was meant for a different user. Anyway, I see what you mean about "arm." If you can think of a better rhyming word for the British pronunciation, you should add it to the article for Madam. I see you already deleted the "fact" that it rhymes with "arm" from that article. Xargon666x6 28 November 2006

Is this the long / short a thing ? I would say that RP would be pretty close to ma'arm. -- Beardo 08:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

English is not my mother tongue, so I won't put in a personal view. I just want to point out that in [The Queen (film)] a character appears explaining to the just-elected Tony Blair that he is to address the Queen "ma'am with the a as in farm, not as in ham" (I am quoting from my memory, but I am quite sure about it). Goochelaar 11:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Sore subject for me. The whole "m" thing is a plot hole. We know "M" in the guise of Judy Dench didn't sign up for her job until GoldenEye, so much so that a mention of this is even in the GoldenEye script where Pierce Brosnan says: I hear the new M is a woman." So what's she doing in a prequel eh? You might say that they couldn't use the old bloke because he's dead and that's a valid enough point. But you could have picked any old tom, dick or harry and simply passed it off as him/her being the "m" before the fellow from the "classic" films. James Random 11:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"any old tom, dick or harry" would not have given a performance like Judi Dench! Is it a minor discrepancy? Yes. Is it major? Not in my opinion. I'm guessing the producers knew they had a good thing going with Dench and didn't see any reason to change it. Mark83 11:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The movie is a "reboot". Therefore, anything that happened in any previous Bond film is unrelated. It is as if this movie is happening on a parallel universe, if you will.. - OPaul 12:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I was watching a 30 minute segment on youtube that mentioned in detail Judi Dench's reprisal of the role of M. I don't have time to find it now, but it's out there if anybody wants to view it. 154.20.187.23 07:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning up and renaming Bond products section

I am cleaning up the section "Bond Products". It has gotten entirely too long and we have fallen into the product placement trap (which of course is entirely intended by the sponsors). Essentially, this part of the Wiki has become an extended advertisement for these products. There is no need to highlight brandnames that make "cameo" appearances in the film (and of zero importance to the plot). These include laptops, sunglasses, dvd players etc. Its become very silly and is not what Wikipedia is intended for (shill for product placements). I am renaming the section "vehicles and gadgets" which better reflects the material and is consistent with the other Bond Wiki entries. I will leave in the more interesting items that has some relevance to the movie --Eqdoktor 07:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Location

Where was the film shot in the Czech Republic?--Nemissimo II 08:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Size

The current size of this article is 54 kb, that's in the range of "divide the article up into separate pages" per the MOS on article size. We need to start looking into ways to slim these sections down. Do we need a table on every actor considered for the role? Probably not, especially if the major contenders could easily be discussed in a couple of nice sentences. There are plenty of other places to cut also. If you guys want this article to be featured then we need to start cutting, because it will fail based on its large size. Bignole 13:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the article, it seems that the "Vehicles and gadgets", "Film Locations", and "Shooting Locations" subsections are too "listy" and unnecessary when they could be written more concisely as prose. In addition, the track listing could probably be forked somewhere else. Release date timetable seems unnecessary as well, as I don't think most FA-class film articles have them. Just mention the notable information from the timetable. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 13:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest, if need be, removing sections "Confusion in the media", "The search for Vesper Lynd", "Budget", "Release and response" but keeping the "Critics" section in "Release and response" WikiLen 01:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about the "budget" because that can simply be added to "Production" in like one simple sentence or two. I doesn't need it's own section. But, "Filming" and "Locales"...unless there is something special about all that..I think we can trim it down A LOT or get rid of it altogether. The fact that a movie was shot in The Bahamas would only be important if there was significance behind it. Movies film in exotic locations all the time. I'd say shrinking it down to, at best, discuss the primary shooting locales. I see easy shrinkage of that "Confusion" section and the "Search for Vesper" section into maybe two small paragraphs under one heading "Casting". Obviously there was a lot of publicity around these characters and who was hired to play them, but we could probably cut out a lot of the unnecessary stuff, and they don't need their own sections. I nice, neat section on "Casting" would be just fine. This would also allow us to remove a substantial amount from that "Search for Bond" section that was relevant when the film had not come out yet, but now that it has, it no longer really matters. Shrink that down into the more important elements, like the controversy of the casting of Craig, and all the sites and petitions that went out. Bignole 02:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Have we decided what we are going to do with the "Search for Bond" section? Bignole 20:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and can't we move the "gadgets" section to some "Bond Gadgets" page? It's unencyclopedic anyway, might as well be with the rest of that stuff if that page already exists. I think simply stating that this film didn't really have "gadgets" is fine enough. Listing what it did have isn't encyclopedic. I'm going to remove it, if someone wants to find a home for it somewhere else then they can copy it from the history and move it to the other page. Bignole 23:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?

My edit to Box Office to separate the foreign box office from domestic was reverted for "vandalism". As this was a serious edit, the suggestion was offensive 194.80.240.66 16:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I left a message on your talk page apologizing..I didn't see that you had moved the US/Canada section into the "Foreign" subsection. Either way, to be respectful to all cultures we don't separate into Domestic and Foreign, because what's "domestic" to one culture is "foreign" to another culture, and there is more than just 1 english speaking culture out there. Bignole 16:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Gunbarrel Photo

Everyone, there's a reason that gun barrel photo was placed there; it pertains to the film and it is underemphasized. Also, you seemingly forgot to include the details of the pre-credit sequence. Enjoy. George "Skrooball" Reeves 21:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Torture

In the article it says Bond's testicles were tortured. This isn't true. The hole was cut in the seat so they guy could (for lack of a better term) flog his butt with the rope not. I just saw the movie not 20 minutes ago. Bond even tells the guy that he's "got an itch" and then after the guy hits him again, he screams "no, to the left" (or something like that). Then Bond laughs at him and says (not verbatim) "After all of this is over everyone will know you were scratching my bum". I’m afraid one hit from the rope not would have turned his nuts into hamburger.

If no one objects, I would like to change the sentence pertaining to this in the article. I will wait for replies. (Ghostexorcist 01:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Bond: "The whole world's going to know you died scratching my balls!"

Did you get a copy of the film edited under the Hays Code? Because Le Chiffre is beating Bond's testicles in both film and novel --Madchester 02:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

What was going on there was implied rather than directly shown, this being a general-public film, but it is certain that it was testicle torture. Merely whipping his ass (literally) wouldn't be likely to extract a confession... nor would the chair be necessary for doing that. The chair is rigged to make his testicles hang low, which you don't actually see in the film, it being a general-public film. Maybe I said that already. If the audience hasn't figured it out by then, LeChiffre follows up with the line about "feeding [him] what he seems to value so little", as he pulls out a knife, presumably to do a castration, but gets interrupted by White's fatal gunshot. Wahkeenah 03:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

What made Casino Royale (novel) so shocking in 1953 and set it apart from the other novels in the period/genre was Ian Fleming's explicit depiction of the action. In fact, Le Chiffre is based on Aleister Crowley, a notorious occultist of the time with a penchant for sadomasochism. Hence, the usage of torture on Bond's testicles. Actually, the movie deviates only in using the knotted rope instead of a carpet beater (since carpet beaters are nearly extinct in modern 2006). The torture on his testes nearly breaks Bond, something a mere beating on his bum or simple roughing-up would not have done. Its all easily verified if you have a copy of the novel, so the torture was not a simple beating of the buttocks as you assume. Also, the portrayal of the torture (as described in the novel) in the movie serves to highlight Le Chiffre's perversity and Bond's toughness. The description of the torture is not out of place in wikipedia - its within context and and within Wikipedia policies.

PS: Take the movie depiction of the torture with a grain of salt... A mere mortal tortured like that would be dead with the first blow. But this is movie James, he leaps tall buildings with a single bound and laughs at repeated strikes to his balls! --Eqdoktor 11:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the article's comment is correct. You don't have to literally see it onscreen to know what's going on. The ability to withstand repeated body blows in any way is just another cinematic leap of fancy, as it were... like the guys in westerns who would land blow after blow on each others' jaws with little harm to either faces or hands. There's an article called Cartoon physics. There should be another one called Movie physics, pointing out that fact and also how humans can outrun or outdrive huge explosions (or outrun cars, as Bond was doing here); and that movie guns don't sound at all like real guns; and how stab wounds produce instant death, even in the abdominal region, and with little or no blood; and how gunshots produce little or no blood (some of that admittedly due to Hays Office rules); and such stuff as that. Wahkeenah 11:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

LeChiffre also makes reference to Bond not being a man anymore if he let the torture go on — that along with "The whole world's going to know you died scratching my balls" and "feed him what..." makes it pretty clear just from the film what going on. Mark83 19:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

For anyone who wonders what a carpet beater is or how it's used, Will Smith's new film, The Pursuit of Happyness has an early scene in which he is on a balcony talking to his son, while a neighbor's balcony has a man beating a carpet. That story is set in 1981. Hard telling whether a rope or a carpet beater would be the worse torture. Wahkeenah 08:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Vesper suicide?

My mother (I have yet to see the film, I plan to tomorrow), doesn't think that Vesper committed suicide, but that she died accidentally. Anyone else's views? --Danlock2 01:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you form an opinion from watching it, uninfluenced by the opinions of others here? I didn't think it was purposeful suicide, but I could be wrong. Wahkeenah 01:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

As I stated in the "Torture" section above, I just watched the film within the last 30 minutes. When the elevator was about to fall, James tried to open it, but Vesper purposely locked it and then backed away out of James' reach. She didn't even try to help him after it sunk deep into the water. Then, if I'm not mistaken, she either screamed and or blew out all of her air and drowned. (Ghostexorcist 01:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC))

So much for not "spoiling" it. Of course, the user did ask. :) Thanks for the clarification. Wahkeenah 01:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Poker variant

What type of poker were they playing at the game? They said something "Hold'em" but I wasn't paying attention. Does anybody know?--Energman 18:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Texas Hold 'em - OPaul 19:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It was previously in the article, but someone took it out. As I recall, the wording was that they called it "tenez les cartes" or some such, which would be French for, literally, "hold the cards"... or some such. Wahkeenah 23:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Could anyone confirm this? Is this a common casino poker variant? I'd like to link the poker variant to explanation of rules (if such article exists), so that folks who are not familiar with that game could read up... Valters 22:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

For all intents and purposes, the game is No Limit Texas Hold'em. Deal 5 cards in the center, two cards to each player. All the rules seem to be that of Texas Hold'em, from what I saw watching the film. But, that's original research. I thought I recalled an interview somewhere saying that they changed the game to Texas, but I could have just remembered something from this page long ago. Bignole 22:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I doubt this is original research, since it's a movie, and we can all agree what we saw :) My question was if this game is indeed Texas Hold'em (4-5 cards in the middle, 2 cards to each player) Valters 00:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, I think I did hear some character say "holdem" when game was being described in the movie (saw it today), by that's not something I remember clearly. Valters 00:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, if they don't literally say the game is Texas Hold 'em, and we assume that it is that game, then our assumption would be original research because we are using our ideas. I know the rules are the same (it's 5 in the middle), it's probably a safe bet to say so, but still. Bignole 00:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree. The benefit here is to provide link to Hold'em rules for folks who are not familiar with this type of poker (since it has only recently been popularized by movies, etc) - for example folks in Russia. Valters 00:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

They don't call it "Texas Hold 'Em" in the film, they call it Tenez Les Cartes, which is French for "Hold The Cards". That would be safe to report, along with the statement that the rules of the game appear to be similar to, and possibly the same as, Texas Hold 'Em. Wahkeenah 00:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I take it the French version doesn't have a page? Bignole 00:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Near as I can tell, looking through Google, there is no such actual game as "Tenez Les Cartes". The only references to it (beyond the simple expression, not referring to a game, but to other contexts) are blogs talking about this film. I don't know if we can report that it's a fake name, though, without some sort of testimony from the filmmakers. So it should be safe to say they are playing a game they call "Tenez Les Cartes", which appears to be the same as "Texas Hold 'Em". Wahkeenah 00:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Alrighty. Bignole 00:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know all the cards for players in the final game? It might be worth adding to trivia. I remember he won with quite low cards to make a straight flush --Astrokey44 12:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a thought

Had Le chiffre bothered to make a James bond movie instead of play cards, he'd have made much more money, and there would have been no reason to murder him. 80.178.23.7 09:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

That would create a paradox that could threaten the space-time continuum. Wahkeenah 00:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone vandalized it...

Look at the list of possible bonds, the last edit changed it to "DERKER DERKER" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.158.103.194 (talk • contribs) 16:15, December 2, 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. You can help edit any future cases of vandalism, too. If you need assistance, just let us know, and we'll give a hand. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 23:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Gadgets

Where is the notability in listing every item used in the movie? Is it special to drive a car in a film? To use a cell phone? Where is the encyclopedic value in all this, especially when it comes to properly identifying these things? The film is already noting the fact that he doesn't have any "gadgets" per say, so there is no reason to start listing cars and cell phone providers. This page is already over 50 kb, that means we need to start separating things out. Things need to be not only trimmed but moved to a separate article. Bignole 00:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you notice I linked to List of James Bond vehicles List of James Bond gadgets Bond cars seem to be a huge deal. Valters 00:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Not speaking on the actual notability of those pages, but driving a car is hardly notable itself. If you want to talk about the cars in the DEVELOPMENT section, that's one thing, but listing them in their own section is hardly necessary. The whole DEVELOPMENT section needs an overhaul anyway, and in that process one could quickly discuss the inclusion of "Bond's famed Aston Martin". Bignole 00:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The gadgets themselves are actually quite notable.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly how? Other than on some fanbase? Bignole 02:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Not notable enough to be on Wikipedia, however. I was just saying that the gadgets are what people usually talk about after the movie. I believe the gadgets should just have a short mention on this article, but not an entire section!--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I know they are an important part of "what James Bond is," but they lack a certain encyclopedic value. I think a quick sentence or two discussing the lack of gadgets, and the famous Aston Martin, in the Development section, suffices when it comes to that section. Once that section is overhauled and all the old info is taken out (i.e. "search for Bond"...don't need that anymore..just a few snippets discussing the controversy of the new Bond) we will be able to fit everything we need right in there. The article needs serious work in trimming the unnecessary information, and removing a lot of fanbased trivia. It's over 50kb, that means it's time to divy up the page. Bignole 02:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

If you examine articles about other Bond movies - see for example Tomorrow Never Dies, Die Another Day, The World Is Not Enough, Goldfinger (film) even - they all do have a proper Vehicles and Gadgets section. It seems unfair for you to delete one in this article. (In my opinition, the "development" section could easily be splitted out to another article entirely, but Vehicles & Gadgets section should stay (trimmed, of course.)) Valters 09:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Taking out the entire "Vehicles and gadgets" section to reduce article size is a very poor excuse for doing it. Vehicles and gadgets has been a staple of Bond for year and there is a notable (yes, verified with citations) presence in Casino Royale. As has been discussed above substantial trimmings can be done in the "development" and "castings" section of the article. Why hasn't that been done? Blanking out a substantial part of the Bond mythos does not make for a better article. Driving a car IS AN IMPORTANT part of the James Bond mythos - A fact that can be easily backed up with citations. I am restoring the vehicles and gadgets section - blanking the section (with proper refs and cites) is not the way to go to improve the article, it has a lot more issues elsewhere that can be better addressed before this section. --Eqdoktor 09:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

First, those films are not in the shape that this page is in. This page needs tweaks, those need major work. Those films had gadgets, this film had a microchip and a couple cars. Not seeing the importance here. Why do 3 things actually need their own section? It's called DEVELOPMENT, or add them to the plot section and link to main article for gadgets. This is an encyclopedia, not some fan website that talks about Bond's mythos. This article is about "Casino Royale" the film, not about the mythos of Bond. If you want to talk about Bond's mythos, and what gadget he uses, then do so on his page. Two cars and a microchip are hardly worthy of their own section.Bignole 14:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think they deserve a section either. 87.69.86.43 21:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

In the other Bond movies, the "gadgets" were all novel in some way; a car had a rocket launcher, a pen contained potent explosives, a watch contained a grappling hook capable of supporting the wieght of multiple people. They were unique spy devices that also proved to be uniquely important to the plot or a particular action sequence, and they were also part of the Bond movie tradition. They were worth mentioning on the pages of the other movies. However, in Casino Royale, there are no gadgets. There should not be a Gadgets section for this page. I suppose maybe the only thing worth mentioning is that Bond's car had a special secure glove compartment with various supplies. --24.16.238.35 13:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Splitting off the soundtrack and music

Since, article size is a big issue. Its time to split off the soundtrack section to its own page. Should not be a problem I would think. Its not unprecedented as The world is not enough and a few other movie articles have done just that. I just need a good soundtrack cover scan (fair use) to get it started... (time to head for the shops :) ) --Eqdoktor 11:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's a nice look at anothe soundtrack page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_Begins_%28soundtrack%29. Bignole

Soused up a soundtrack cover image (fair use/low res). Putting it here while I work on the seperate soundtrack page. --Eqdoktor 18:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The split is done! Check out Casino Royale (2006 Original Soundtrack). Of course its a direct lift from the main film article with an extra infobox. Feel free to improve on it. --Eqdoktor 20:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be at Casino Royale (soundtrack). There is no soundtrack for any other Casino Royale, so the "2006 Original" detail is unnecessary. See the soundtrack's talk page for more. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 20:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a 1967 Casino Royale soundtrack from the 1967 movie - Casino_Royale_(1967_film)#Soundtrack. THAT particular soundtrack IMHO is a better soundtrack than the 2006 entry :P :P :P Burt Bacharach with Herb Alpert and the Tijuana band. It has "The look of love" sung by Dusty Springfield. Its a classic... But I digress. Casino Royale (soundtrack) may cause confusion for people looking for the 1967 album. I think the title is okay as it is and I don't really want to mess links up moving too much. If you really think its a big problem go ahead move it, just watch for the links. Thanks --Eqdoktor 21:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Has been moved to Casino Royale (2006 soundtrack) with all links fixed to point to it. Should be fine now. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 21:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

We should probably keep at least a tidbit of information for the Casino Royale page, or find a better place for link. There's no reason to have a section for just a link. Bignole

I agree. GoldenEye, a GA-class article, has a paragraph's worth of content to briefly describe the soundtrack and links to the main article. The same should be done instead of just having a link under the section. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 21:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the most important thing to carry back over would be the part on the film's theme "You know my name". Maybe a brief snippet of that, and something about the release date for the album. Other than that I'm not sure. Bignole 21:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Cast Section/Search for....

We should probably merge the important details of the "Search for" sections into the cast section. See the featured article Casablanca (film) for details about how they expanded the cast so that the characters/actors also had details about their experiences and such. It allows for the reception of the actor (i.e. the controversy of Bond). Bignole 16:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with this. The search was one of the largest in film history and should have special mention. It's notable enough for its own section. I see no reason to merge it. K1Bond007 03:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Just like the search for the new Superman, or the new Batman, or the new Joker. It's outdated material, with a lot of it being rumors and speculation about who "might" have become Bond. Information that can easily be shortened to a paragraph and go into the cast section, just like Casablanca does it. Especially when you have such a large section with only 2 citations, both going to Craig. Currently, that makes the rest of the material unverified speculation. Considering this page is going to need the room later, when the movie hits DVD and for other merchandise, it will be good to downsize that section. Bignole 03:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

None of those films ever had a casting media frenzy like this though. We used to have all the actors cited, but those were apparently done away with when Craig was announced. I'm sure the section can be shortened with better concise wording and some of the more trivial points can probably be deleted, but I still disagree with merging/removing it purely because it's "old news" - this information is incredibly noteworthy. The Vesper section can be merged or whatever, however. That doesn't have nearly the importance or notability that James Bond does. K1Bond007 03:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You're saying that the buzz around the new Superman wasn't as big as James Bond? Playing a little favortism there aren't we? How many of those sources were reliable, and not purely cruft that was spinning around the web. There was a big thing about Liev Schrieber playing The Joker going around, but when talking to him he knew nothing about it. The contraversy surrounding Craig's hiring is more important that "who they might have hired". Directors go through casting all the time, and when it's a high profile character a lot of rumors end up going out as well. You said "we used to have all actors cited, but those were done away with when Craig was announced," if that was the case then the info would have been removed as well. We don't generally remove sources and leave information. Bignole 04:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I support merging the information. It's simply a casting decision. While the impact is prominent, there doesn't need to be so many words to explain it when there's the rest of the film to write about. The news doesn't need its own section -- a subsection at most under Cast. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 04:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe it's showing favoritism. I followed both Superman and Batman and neither was close to the scale and spectacle in the news of Bond for this film. How much of it was speculation? A lot, but who realistically knows considering the list was originally 200 names long and we're only mentioning a small portion. If you break down this section there is essentially 3 parts 1) Brosnan and some info on that - this could probably be trimmed, but it does deserve a mention for this section or somewhere, 2) The actual search, albeit abbreviated as it is just about the top names during that time - some of this could be trimmed, sure, and the box could probably be removed if the cream of that crop gets transitioned into the paragraph, specifically those that are known to have screentested (all of this can be cited). This is valuable information that readers are interested in 3) Craig's actual hiring - all of this is pretty notable (Vaughn can and probably should be cut from that paragraph). The biggest cut can probably be made to Brosnan. In fact merging that paragraph with Craig would probably be an ideal situation following by a small paragraph on the search itself. It's essentially 3 paragraphs, it can probably be cut to 2. Trimmed and improved and then possibly moved, I suppose, but it should retain a good amount of information on this. K1Bond007 05:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The Superman thing went on for 18 years, I think that kind of beats out Bond. 200 names for one spot on the cast is nothing new, or special. There may have been plenty of jibber jabber among the fans on the web, but it wasn't as grand a scale as you are saying. The most I remember is the back and forth with Brosnan (first he's there, then he's not, then he is) but even that wasn't confirmed by the Studio. The problem is separating out fact from fiction, and the fact is what the Studio/Director is quoted as saying, and the fiction is everything else. Craig replacing Brosnan is nothing special, we've had 5 Bonds before Craig. If you can find reliable sources that quote the Studio as bouncing Brosnan back and forth then I think a quick mention would be fine. If you've check the Casablanca cast section you'll see that Humphrey and Ingrid don't have two sentence bios, they are decent length. You also can't say "something the readers are interested in" because we don't really know what they are interested in. Ever read some of these other film pages, they are highly fan written and have not value in them except trivia, which isn't an encyclopedia. If you have cites for specific actors that were seriously in the running, and didn't just do a reading (but have no actual chance of being hired...that means, even if Tom Hanks wanted to play Bond, and Campbell said "no way in hell", just cause it's Tom Hanks doesn't make it notable..they just potential employees). Bignole 05:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Come on the Superman thing has a page to itself. I'm speaking strictly of Returns here. Regardless, and I'm not going to argue this to kingdom come (especially the Superman thing anymore), it all shouldn't be just thrown away because it was media speculation or whatever. I already conceded to trimming it up to two paragraphs. If you want to junk the entire section and just say Craig was hired, you're not going to get me to agree at all. What is it that you want to do? How much are we talking here? There's no way you can adequately fit something of this magnitude into 2 sentences which is what Bogart got and you keep seemingly referring to. Hell, as previously said Superman has it's own page about this (which I'm not recommending at all; just 2 paragraphs.) K1Bond007 05:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The films have their own page, which is more than just the actors. I'm saying first we trim the unimportant things. I'm sorry but 200 people vying for an acting job isn't new. It's Hollywood, that happens all the time. The table definitely has to go. And I've only mentioned Humphrey once, but Ingrid got a whole paragraph, it's all about what you have and what you can cite. The section even talks about the "rumors" that were going around. We don't need to talk about the rumors that were going around. If there was a close race between certain individuals and one won out at the last second, sure that's maybe notable, but not the fact that there were 200 people interested in the job and 1 got it. The section says "at one point so and so was confirmed, then so and so" but there is no source for it. Variety can say "Clive Owen is the new Bond", but unless someone on the project was actually quoted as saying that, it means nothing as far as verifiability. The only real important part of Craig being cast is the petitions against him that started once he was announced.Bignole 05:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the need for a tabled list for the also-rans. Getting called in for an audition itself is not really notable. The major contenders are discussed adequately in body of the article (I put in the links myself). I understand that we are loathe to lose the hard work put into making the table but its not really contributing very much to the article - apart from being crufty and illustrating the point, "lots of men applied". A big list is also prone to abuse, I notice some vandalism sneaking in unverified names (and a self reverted insertion of Chuck Norris...). Removing the tabled list does not harm the article, it reads just as well without it and is no less informative. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eqdoktor (talk • contribs) 18:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

Fan resistance to Daniel Craig

I'm a bit surprised that this aspect has not been brought up in the article. If "The search for Bond" was big news, the press coverage surrounding the fan resistance to Daniel Craig was just a notch below it. The antipathy that Daniel Craig met when we was announced for the role was unprecedented. Not even George Lazenby got the hostile reception Daniel recieved; and he replaced Sean Connery! A lot of the public anticipation to the movie was to see if he flopped as James Bond. My suggestion is this, sweep out some of the old crufty stuff in "search for Bond" and add in a paragraph or two about the hostile fan reaction (google up some ref links). I can work on that if someone don't beat me to it. --Eqdoktor 19:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this was a major story and should have some coverage. It should also be balanced with coverage of the very favorable press he's received after the release of the movie. Gwernol 19:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Eqdoktor I would suggest that "A lot of the public anticipation to the movie was to see if he flopped as James Bond" is your own opinion. You seem to be suggesting that the only reason its done well at the box office is people going to see how good or bad Craig is in it. I would suggest the overwhelmingly positive response it got from critics both before and after its release had more to do with the success than "craignotbond.com" or whatever it was called. i.e. the movie has done well in spite of the bad press Craig received when he was announced as the new Bond. Mark83 21:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The only reason Craig was seemingly more unpopular was the internet. Every new Bond has been argued against by some quarters, the internet means that these small minorities can come together to seem bigger - no point in making them seem bigger than they were.194.80.240.66 00:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The internet's been around for awhile there slick. It isn't like Al Gore "invented it" just recently. Bignole 00:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

How big was the internet when Brosnan was annouced? I'm guessing, but if it was a quarter as accessible then as it is now I'd be very, very suprised. Mark83 00:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It's been around for more quite some time, with ~~the last dozen~~ it being the point where it became pretty widely known ----about 12 years ago (give or take some)----. Obviously it wasn't as advanced as it is now, but they had fan websites back in the mid 90s, when Goldeneye first came out (though I have no clue if anyone discussed that film, or Brosnan back then...and I doubt it would be easy to find out). As a matter of fact, the current website "Kryptonsite.com", that is the Smallville based website, used to be an old Lois and Clark website when that show was running. I'm not doubting that with the advancements in the internet that it helped a bit with Craig's unpopularity initially, but there was plenty of magazine coverage as well. Bignole 01:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "the last dozen"? Are you suggesting Moonraker received widespread internet coverage!!? Mark83 02:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you've done the math correct, but a dozen is 12, and 12 years from 2006 is 1994. Moonraker was made in 1979. That's more than 2 dozen years, and BTW the internets been around for more than that. The point as that I don't believe it was the "internet" that was the reason Craig was overwhelmingly ridiculed in the public eye, that reaction was clear in news articles and entertainment guides that discussed the actor. I think that those online petitions, polls, and all around hate-sites would have been fewer without the internet, but don't under estimate fans. The internet just happens to be the fastest, easily accessible means of communication right now and that is why it appears to have favortism in the direction. I'm sure that any other means of getting their dislike across would have occurred if there was no internet. Bignole

As for the "math problem" - I thought you were talking films, not years. And I've just checked I managed to get that wrong! Twelve films before CR brings you to Man With A Golden Gun. As for the internet when Moonraker was made - we're going off topic - but the internet as it is today was not even imagined at the time. TCP/IP was just being introduced at the time! Mark83 11:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

In 1979, yeah it was pretty..."bland", but when Goldeneye was out it wasn't, but it was hardly today's standard, it was like Rubic's cube without the colors added, just a black puzzle. Anyway, as I said, my point was that I don't think that the internet is what gave Craig's unpopularity more scale, at least not in the out-cry against him; but probably in the means to get it out there. I mean, what's easier to do, write a letter or send an email? His rally of unsupport extended beyond just the internet, i think it's that the internet is so easily accessible that it just appeared to be focused there. I don't think that the movie has only done well at the box office because of the "curiosity of fans to see how good or bad Craig is", especially after 3 weeks in the #2 spot. Bignole 16:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That's being very naive. If the internet wasn't around then people would look at Craigs casting as "oh, he's had some bad press, just like the other Bonds when they were cast", Brosnan had bad press when he was cast "Is Bond dead?" etc. But the internet meant that a small group of vocal fans could make a voice heard that wasn't able to be heard before, thus making Craigs casting seem more controversial, the press picked up on this small group and it made a story, so they ran with it. The internet HAS made his casting seem more unpopular than it was, and it's stupid to think otherwise, that's why I believe this should be mentioned! 194.80.240.66 15:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I never said it shouldn't be mentioned. The media picked up on the online petitions, and the hate sites. The internet just made it easier to get the voice out, it didn't make the voice larger than it was. Regardless, we cannot site "hatecraig.com's" or similar pieces. The way to do it is to find reliable sources that are reporting on the same message. Bignole 15:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It made it SEEM larger than it was, that's where your being naive, without the internet it would have been as big as when Brosnan, Dalton or even Moore was announced. 194.80.240.66 19:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you are doing a large bit of assuming, because you cannot possibly say that it would be different. You're being naive if you think that just because people do not have the internet that they won't try and voice their opinion. Regardless, I didn't denounce incorporating the "reluctance by fans to accept Craig", I simply said you need a reliable source that can substantiate the claims. Bignole 21:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Since the Casino Royale movie article is already creaking under the strain of other stuff in the article (like development), the best place to put the "fan resistance" issues would be in the Daniel Craig's article. Its already in there right now, so theres no need to duplicate it here. --Eqdoktor 09:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Uganda??

I'm pretty sure that the mad bomber chase took place in Madagascar, not Uganda. Anyone care to back me up on this? All the pre-release stuff said the former... Tommyt 19:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It's Madagascar, Uganda is Le Chiffre making a deal with that warlord. Wiki-newbie 19:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks! I knew I wasn't hallucinating!!Tommyt 21:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits to Plot section

I'm confused by the edits that Bignole has been making. His summaries seem to indicate that he is attempting to make the Plot section adopt an "in universe" tone, but that runs directly contrary to WP:WAF. What's the deal here? Croctotheface 20:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It's in present tense, so it's not in-universe. Wiki-newbie 20:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you actually read WP:WAF? Although, yes, Wikipedia articles should write about fiction in the present tense, the point of the guideline is that articles should write about fiction in such a way that makes it clear that the events are fictional. It is certainly not the case that any passage that is written in the present tense is automatically out of universe. This article used to do that fairly effectively, and now the writing is, with one or two exceptions, indistinguishable from the way a person would write about similar events that acutally happened. My issue is that Bignole's edits seem to stem from a misunderstanding of the policy, such that he took out-of-universe writing and tweaked it so that it presents the plot in an in-universe style. The section DOES need work, or perhaps just a reversion or two. Croctotheface 20:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Most plot summaries on WP are styled in a similiar manner. Wiki-newbie 20:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Two things: first, I'm not sure you can really support this statment with data. Second, and more importantly, other articles in non-compliance is not a reason to ignore the guideline. Croctotheface 20:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Not even FA Film articles? Wiki-newbie 20:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

First, I'm confused about why you're so determined to insist that the section must remain exactly as it is. (And if you're not saying this, then I'm confused about why you're arguing with me.) Second, yes, it's possible that an FA film article could have a plot summary with a tone that needs improvement. Third, I'm not sure what criteria you're using to support the very bold claim that "a majority" of plot summaries are "similar". What characterizes "similar"? Did you conduct a study wherin you read every single plot summary and analyzed it according to a set of criteria to determine similarity? Why is it so hard to say "yeah, the plot is a little to in universe and could use some tweaks"? Croctotheface 21:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Plot summaries are the only thing that can be in a "in universe" or "present tense" tone. See featured articles for films for examples. Revenge of the Sith has a similar tone. You shouldn't write summaries like "In this scene," or "In the next scene." Bignole 21:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. We shouldn't write stuff like how Mathis' allegiance will only be disclosed in the sequel. Wiki-newbie 21:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

For an example straight from your own link Tenebrae (film) is cited on the WAF page as an article written in an out of universe tone. Please read the plot to this film. Bignole 21:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

"Please read the plot to this film"? What does that mean? Please try to remain civil here. My objection to your edits are that you explicitly said that you were changing the section so it followed an in-universe perspective. That runs entirely contrary to the way Wikipedia articles should write about fiction. You then attacked a straw man, as I never advocated using a phrase like "in the next scene". The first three words of the summary of Revenge of the Sith, the example you cited, are "the opening crawl", which I would expect you to object to. Croctotheface 21:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Be civil? What did I say that was uncivil? I said "please". Secondly, "plot summaries" fall under the exception of the Out of Universe style for fictional articles. Also, if you looked at my changes you'll see that the only thing that I removed was "in this scene" and "in the next scene" wording because it was creating a lengthier plot. I've given you examples of plot summaries that follow this plot summary, even ones provided by your precious WAF article (who even have an "exception" section). If the summary can be turned into an out of universe style than ok, but that is usually easier for game summaries than film summaries, since those tend to be quite small in length. I wouldn't object to "the opening crawl" because that is apart of the Star Wars franchise, just like "the gun barrel sequence" is for Bond. This is why I also said "leaving things that require and "out of universe" style". Bignole 21:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

"My precious" article? Again, civility is important here. The "exceptions" section says that "Even these short summaries can often be written from an out-of-universe perspective, and when this is possible, this approach should be preferred." It is clear that you believe the opposite to be the case. If there's no point to my editing this article because you've appointed yourself its guardian, then I'll leave it alone, but Wikipedia is a collaborative project. If you're only going to interpret its guidelines in such a way that lets you do whatever you want, I have to question why you want to edit here. Croctotheface 21:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, it seems to me that your edits objected to things like identifying Le Chiffre as the film's main villain. As I've said here several times, I don't think the section needs an overhaul, just minor tweaks. But the fact that you prefer an in-universe perspective does run contrary to the guideline, even the exceptions section you've cited. Croctotheface 21:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It says "when this is possible", but look at the example. It's a game summary, not a film plot summary. There is a difference between doing that for a game and doing it for a film that has hundreds of more words and is already at the 800 word length. For someone that tried say that "i'm interpreting it as I see fit" you are doing the same thing. It states that "when this is possible" try to, and then cites a game. Now, what did I remove from the article that changed it from being "out of universe" to "in universe". I'll place it up here: "He is next seen"...."Casino Royale's major villain".....and "is next seen". Three things. That's hardly changed the style. Please look at what I put in the summary and the changes I made. I removed unnecessary content to shorten this plot summary that was growing to 900 words. There is no reason to say "the film's villain is.." because just describing him and his activities, and the fact that the film revolved around him is clear enough. What the exception to the rule states is that as long as you are not violating Original Research then it is acceptible for a plot summary to contain an "in universe" style. I do not believe that I added anything that tried to assume something without verification. As for civility, you've had a problem with me since I came to this page. I believe your initial comments to me, when I first said "I'm placing a 'plot' tag on the section" were "So fix it". Kind of rude. Thank you, and have a good evening. Bignole 21:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You're saying it's not "possible" to write the plot in out-of-universe style? It was already done, and you changed it so that it would be in-universe. The relevant section of WP:WAF says "Even these short summaries can often be written from an out-of-universe perspective, and when this is possible, this approach should be preferred. For example, the following made-up paragraph is a largely in-universe plot synopsis that might draw from several different episodes of a television show or several different video games in a series:" and then it gives an in-universe example. Then it says that an out-of-universe paragraph presenting the same information is superior. Incidentally, that version is also longer. Your edits work to the opposite end: you believe that an in-universe perspective is superior, so you changed the article to fit that perspective. Also, in the previous disagreement you're referring to, my comment was in reference to the "sofixit" template (Template:Sofixit), which I had assumed you were familiar with. If you were offended by that, I apologize. Croctotheface 21:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying that three little statements did not change this plot summary to some "in universe against the rules" section. You originally provided JAWS as an example of a long plot summary for a featured article, and the only thing in the summary that is "out of universe" is the first sentence. I do believe there is that nice "gun barrel" sentence in the first paragraph that is rather out of universe. It isn't necessary to say "in the next scene". Saying that seems like you are trying to interpret what is going on in the film. Reading the current plot summary, are you finding any Original Research, because that is the reason "in universe" is largely limited. I do not believe I "added" anything to the section, only removed three things that were both unnecessary to have and unnecessarily adding length to the section. If there was a valid reason to keep any "out of universe" style I did, if there wasn't then I removed it. Saying "when you see him next" does not make anything "superior". I did not say "in universe" is superior, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't assume things for me. What is superior is not saying "you see him next". That does add out of universe context or in universe context, it just adds "poorly written". As for you "sofixit", you didn't give me a template (which no, I am not familiar with...probably because the page itself is an indirect way to be rude.) Bignole 21:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hang on a second here: one of your edit summaries said 'removing as much "out of universe" tone as can be done" and another said "trying to limit the "out-of-universe" tones in the plot, which should be the only thing in an "in-unversie". For what it's worth, my comments on this point were entirely accurate. Croctotheface 22:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Shooting Locations

Is there a "Bond locales" page or something, like the "Bond gadgets"? Lists are not good, and a nice portion of the locales are already mentioned in the filming section, so there really isn't a point to be redundant and list them after talking about them. I don't know all the Bond pages, but if there is a "locales" page than we can add that to filming, and ditch the list. Bignole 14:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Poison diagnosis-using the microchip?

If I remember rightly, Bond inserts a needle into his wrist which is attached to some sort of device plugged into the bottom of his phone. Is this not the instrument that analyses his blood and identifies the poison, rather than the microchip, which just tracks his position? Willkm 11:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I just saw the movie again and it appears to me that he takes a blood sample to give his MI6 handlers something to analyze. The microchip he already had in his arm was not used to identify the poison.--olanmills 13:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

1138

On the liscense plate of the car that Bond pretends to valet, there are two numbers i don't recall, followed by 1138(if i'm remembering correctly). I don't know why i notice these things but i thought there could be a connection to THX 1138 and 1138 (number). It might be a coincidence. if someone sees the movie again, try and look out for it.

160.7.244.86 05:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Count Dukie160.7.244.86 05:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It is 161138. C hris_huh^talk 23:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Level of detail necessary in plot summary section

I don't particularly appreciate the reversion of my edit regarding the foiled attack on the airplane. How much detail do we really want or need for the plot summary section? I'm concerned that the current version gives undue weight to one particular section of the plot because one particular editor likes what he wrote about it. If we put in this much detail about that plot, shouldn't the level of detail for other plot points be increased proportionally? Croctotheface 22:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed that as time goes by that plot section continues to grow with the excuse of "clarifying". Bignole 22:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The search for James Bond...

Some of this information is incorrect, Clive Owen stated in a GQ magazine that he wasnever offered the role nor was he interested in it. Hugh Jackman also stated that he was never approached by Eon.

Most of these names are tabloid rumors. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MrClarkWithoutRemorse (talk • contribs) 04:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

Removed the following paragraph:

By July 2005, the list of names was down to a mere four, popularly known as "the final four," according to the tabloid, The Sunday Mirror. It was claimed that the shortlist had been whittled down to Henry Cavill (22), Alex O'Lachlan (28), Ewan Stewart (47) and Goran Višnjić (32). The list was premature and by September 2005 during a press junket for The Legend of Zorro, Martin Campbell claimed the list to have consisted of 8-10 names.

In retrospect - this "final four" list turned out to be complete bollocks since the eventual Bond actor isn't listed. Publicity fluff probably fed by publicity agents to an English tabloid (not very far off from gossip mags). Its publicity cruft that can be safely removed. --Eqdoktor 07:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

'Oxford cut'?

(This is the first time I've edited a discussion page by the way, so have mercy!)

When on the train analysing each other, Vesper Lynd refers to Bond's suit as being 'Oxford cut'. What exactly does this mean? I've tried searching for it and as far as I know there is no such thing as an 'Oxford cut'.

Vesper is probably referring to type/style of shirt that Bond appears to be wearing: Oxford shirt aka dress shirt. The sort of thing men wear with expensive jackets etc. She could also be referring to a style of expensive custom tailored suits made by exclusive Oxford Street tailors. The inference of course is on Bond's expensive tastes/appearance. --Eqdoktor 07:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

She is talking about what University he went to, guessing he went to Oxford University, and his dress sense reflects that. 86.143.86.238 01:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Development section original research

The OR tag was (quite rightly) added on 2006-12-15 by User:Croctotheface. I'm finding it hard to cleanup though.

"The move towards more action, bigger special effects and CGI in recent Bond films was in part due to a need to compete at the time with big-budget action films that dominated the 1990s box office. However, the success of less grandiose action films such as The Bourne Supremacy in the last few years has suggested the time may be right for the Bond series to scale back as it did during the Roger Moore era with For Your Eyes Only, which followed special effects extravaganzas like Moonraker. Many previous "real world" Bond films such as On Her Majesty's Secret Service and Licence to Kill, although they developed notable cult followings, underperformed at the box office when compared to the more lavish series entries.

That could qualify as OR, however I think it's a pretty solid analysis. I also think the whole section could be split between "Plot" and "Production" -- is "Development" a recognised heading on film articles? I don't know to be honest. Mark83 13:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It is a solid analysis but without a source it's OR. It seems that if we could find sources to back up that interpretation then it would be a good addition. Otherwise.....Bignole 13:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

That's what I mean - but should we just put citation tags on it or remove it pending verification? Mark83 13:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, since this article is still in its own "development" phase, I think a simply tag would suffice. I think when we start getting it more to the point where we can nominate it for like GA status or something, then we should remove all unverified claims. Just my opinion. Bignole 13:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

What about my point about the need for a "development" section. The section contains many comments about the plot (e.g. characters) and details about production. Mark83 13:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I see what you are saying about it containing plot elements. It seems to focus on the "themes" instead of on filming. Hmm, I'd try and separate out "character" information and place that in the "Cast" section. As I read it, there seems to be a move into discussing "mythos" rather than discussing film production (is this what you noticed, and if not do you notice it when you read it now?). I'm not sure what to do about that, it appears to need more work than we are probably aware of. Bignole 13:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, it wasn't as hard to cleanup as I thought. All that's left is the above blockquote. The rest I have moved to more appropriate sections (plot/cast/vehicles and gadgets). Thanks for your help - good suggestions. Mark83 13:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem, you did a great job reorganizing. Do we know who first added that bit you are inquiring about? Sometimes it's easier to go to the source. Bignole 13:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Good work with the tags, much better now. Mark83 13:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Budget

The side box of this articles lists the budget of Casino Royale as $130,000,000 but the James Bond article lists it as $150,000,000. Which one is right? In the film itself, the latter figure is, as far as I remember, the total amount of money brought to the table at Le Chiffre's high-stakes poker tournament.

$130,000,000 is the most widely reported, though it's also been reported as $72,000,000 - which should read £ Pounds. The only "reliable" source that states $150,000,000 is Box Office Mojo, which is also behind in actual box office intake as reported by variety and other outlets. 86.143.86.238 00:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It isn't really a gunbarrel sequence...

All the earlier Bond films have started out with the gunbarrel sequence - white dots pass the screen, we see Bond walking across the screen, the he turns and shoots. This film doesn't start out with the gunbarrel sequence, before the title sequence we just see that he turns and shoots. I think it should say something else than "Daniel Craig as James Bond in the gunbarrel sequence". It is somewhat familiar and may be the introduction to the sequence as we know it, but it is not, as I see it, the gunbarrel sequence. Jetro 10:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Not the gunbarrel sequence as we all know it, but undeniably a gunbarrel sequence -- the audience given the view of looking down the barrel of a gun.Mark83 11:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is a gunbarrel seq, it's just been updated for the revision concept of the series. Let's not nitpick this too heavily. Tommyt 17:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I won't :). Non-hardcore Bond fans will probably not care much about it, however I was shocked to learn that this film didn't start out with the sequence as we all know it. That's me, anyways.. Jetro 17:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I know talk pages are not forums but I just have to say that I think this was a brilliant adaptation of the gunbarrel sequence. Any lazy director could have put the same old thing in Casino Royale, instead they decided to do something very different and very clever. Mark83 17:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Venice

Houses in Venice don't actually float, do they? ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 00:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

They don't float entirely, but I think they are supported by big air bags as in Casino Royale to try to reduce the rate at which Venice is sinking into the ground (see Venice - talks about the sinking). So perhaps partially floating. Willkm 08:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Plot hole?

This is a little pedantic, but apparently (according to the movie) to become a double-O, you need two kills. However, canon states that to get a 'license to kill' you need to be a double-O. I'm confused. ThirdEchelon 11:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

First, this film isn't "canon", it's a reboot of the franchise (it's starting its own canon). Second, we do not deal in "goofs" anyway. But, to answer you, a "license to kill" means you can kill when you deem necessary, but James didn't have a license to kill. His first two kills were part of assignment by M to get his double-0 status, and thus his license to kill. He didn't just pick out two people and kill them, M told him to kill them. Bignole 13:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. ThirdEchelon 21:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

being a 00 agent means you have a licence to kill, and to get that you need to kill, in cold blood, twice. This is canon Bignole, as it's from Fleming's original book 194.80.240.66 03:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

First, unregistered user, note that this is a film, not a novel. What happens in the novel does not mean it must happen in the film. Second, you should probably refrain from making comments when you don't entire understand what the other user was asking. He was confused about how Bond would need two kills to be double-0, but didn't have his "license to kill" (since you get that when you are double-0). My response was that he wasn't "killing in cold-blood", it was on orders by M, thus it isn't a "license to kill". A LTK was when he show the bomb-maker in the Embassy, it's about judgement. The first two kills in the film are not judgement (cold-blooded to you unregistered user), but direct orders from M. Bignole 03:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It is still part, as much, if not more, of the James Bond Canon. Also, Cold Blooded means killing without cause, when not threatened and, as is usually the case but not always, against a weaker opponent.. The kill in the office was in cold blood, because the man he killed was unarmed. Being a 00 agent and having a licence to kill are the same thing. You do have a licence to kill without being a 00, and your not a 00 if you don't have a licence to kill. Please don't get all high and mighty if you don't even understand the meaning of the word. 194.80.240.66 02:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

He didn't have a license to kill, he was earing his license with those two kills. Second, learn what canon means, because Bond films don't carry canon to any specifics, and since this is a reboot it means there is no previous canon to have wronged. Also, this is a film, and if the novel is different then that means nothing other than "it didn't happen that way in the novel". As for your "killing without cause", his cause was an agent who had double crossed MI6, and the guy intended to kill Bond, so he wasn't really "unarmed" in the sense that he didn't attempt to kill Bond first. The fact that Bond unloaded his gun is irrelevant to the fact that he attempted to use it on Bond first. It wasn't as if he begged for his life. Your explaination makes it seem that if someone runs out of ammo in a gun fight then if they are killed it must have been in cold blood. Regardless, to whole point of this section was about a "plto hole" which there wasn't in that case and even if there was Wikipedia doesn't deal in "goofs" or "continuity errors" anyway. Bignole 03:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we then say M gave him a learner's permit on how to kill before being a 00 Agent?J. M. 09:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Funny, but no. He didn't have his license, obviously, since they updated it right after his two kills. Since you need 2 kills to get your license, then those 2 kills are on orders from M. The "license" just means you don't need permission to do it, the first 2 kills were under orders, thus there is not plot hole. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 11:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above. For future reference, Bignole is usually right. And since he attends FSU, as I do, he almost always has the high moral ground. It's bad form to argue with him. ColdFusion650 16:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Box Office

How can a film make over $500 mil worldwide and almost $400 mil internationally. Aren't they the same thing? Mcflytrap 17:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The words need to be better clarified, like $.... in the US, and $....in the UK (seeing as it's kind of a joint production, the character and franchise is inherantly British, but Sony is not so we can't say "domestic" and not have a clear understanding of "domestic"). The rest should be listed as "foreign". Right now it's not distinguishing between what's domestic and what's not when it talks about the overall take. It just needs clarification. Bignole 18:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Fights?

Does anyone know if Bond´s techniques of hand-to-hand combat are somehow based on a certain system? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.154.98.211 (talk) 14:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

Mathis

The article is written is such a way as to make Mathis look guilty, shouldn't it be mentioned somewhere in the article that it is unclear whether Mathis is indeed a double agent, as the article as it is is misleading. 86.138.125.156 14:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I changed it. There was only one place I could think of that it said anything of that nature, and it was in the plot. It says "identified", and I just changed it to "claimed". All Le Chiffre does is claim Mathis is a double agent, while Bond clarifies at the end that he's been proven to be neither innocent or guilty. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 15:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't really like spending a sentence on Mathis's guilt or innocence. It's discussed in the Mathis article itself, which is linked from the plot summary. There's limited space in a good plot summary, and I would argue that this one is pretty good. I'd be in favor of either deleting the "it is left unclear" sentence and letting people click the wikilink if they want to know about Mathis or removing all mentions of Mathis from the plot summary, since he is not essential to the plot. Croctotheface 04:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd disagree, Mathis, if guilty, is a major part of the plot, if not guilty he is still a strong plot character. From reading the article without the "it is left unclear" sentence, it would be a bias account, which would go against Wikipedia rules. Mathis' overall role in the film is an important part of the latter end of the film and it should be left in the main article. 86.138.125.156 20:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Le Chiffre

I have removed " He is also asthmatic." from the character notes on Le Chiffre because it isn't clear whether he really is. The inhaler has been identified, by fans, as a Benzedrine inhaler (as he had in Ian Fleming's novel). The only difference being as the inhaler in the book was nasal, it is also shown in the film that he only inhales when stressed on in need of a "hit".

Yeah, inhalers are not expressly for asythma, and I don't recall him showing any signs (excluding the use of the inhaler) of asythma. It could have been for anything. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 02:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/a/s/Talk%7ECasino_Royale_%282006_film%29_Archive_4_76ad.html"

Category: Talk archives