38 replies to this topic

[morganhavoc]

Just want to claify a point I keep seeing in a lot of these threads. Casino Royale is a remake. The 1967 film and the 2006 film are both based on the same source material , so even though they may be nothing alike , then the 2006 film is technically a remake of the 1967 film.

examples: Stedford Wives, Italian Job,Never Say Never Again/Thunderball,Psycho,House on Haunted Hill,Thirteen Ghosts, etc...

The orginal Casino Royale was also meant to be a serious adaption of the novel that went terrible wrong on the path to production. But it did have some of the best looking Bond girls ever and a couple of catchy songs. Looking back it is a shame they didn't pay Connery the million bucks to be in the film or Let Peter Sellers play it straight with the orginal serious scipt as he wanted to do.

You would have had a great actor, who the general public didn't really see as James Bond much like you have today with Daniel Craig. He might have done a very good job and changed eveyone perception of him. Perhaps Craig will do the same.

Didn't notice the typo in the title till too late!

Edited by morganhavoc, 21 October 2005 - 02:55 PM.

[Mister Asterix]

Didn't notice the typo in the title till too late!

Fixed.

[marktmurphy]

Just want to claify a point I keep seeing in a lot of these threads. Casino Royale is a remake. The 1967 film and the 2006 film are both based on the same source material , so even though they may be nothing alike , then the 2006 film is technically a remake of the 1967 film.

Not in my book- separate adaptations of the same source materials are not 'remakes'. A remake is surely when the original film is the source material- as in the movies you list (except for possibly NSNA).
This film will have no influences from the first Casino movie, so it can't possibly be that film 'remade'. It is an original adaptation.

[WC]

Just want to claify a point I keep seeing in a lot of these threads. Casino Royale is a remake. The 1967 film and the 2006 film are both based on the same source material , so even though they may be nothing alike , then the 2006 film is technically a remake of the 1967 film.

Not in my book- separate adaptations of the same source materials are not 'remakes'. A remake is surely when the original film is the source material- as in the movies you list (except for possibly NSNA).
This film will have no influences from the first Casino movie, so it can't possibly be that film 'remade'. It is an original adaptation.

I agree. Just like Spider-Man was in no way a remake of the 1970s Nicholas Hammond series, but the first faithful adaptation of the comic. It's like 2 hypothetical films about 9/11 - both would use the same source material and they could even be made years apart - but one wouldn't be a remake of the other unless the second specifically used the first one as the basis of the film.

[Mister Asterix]

...(except for possibly NSNA)...

[mra]But at least some material is taken from Thunderball or there wouldn

[marktmurphy]

I agree. Just like Spider-Man was in no way a remake of the 1970s Nicholas Hammond series, but the first faithful adaptation of the comic. It's like 2 hypothetical films about 9/11 - both would use the same source material and they could even be made years apart - but one wouldn't be a remake of the other unless the second specifically used the first one as the basis of the film.

Indeed- is 'Payback' a remake of 'Point Blank'? Is 'The Limey' a remake of 'Get Carter'? Neither of those are really true, but they are based on the same books.

[tdalton]

EON's Casino Royale is NOT a remake of Charles K. Feldman's Casino Royale. Whatever Feldman's original intentions behind his film, it turned out to be one of the worst films ever, and a terrible spoof of the Bond films. EON is going to use absolutely nothing in terms of ideas or material from that film, so it cannot be considered a remake of the 1967 fiasco.

[Kara Milovy]

Not in my book- separate adaptations of the same source materials are not 'remakes'. A remake is surely when the original film is the source material- as in the movies you list (except for possibly NSNA).
This film will have no influences from the first Casino movie, so it can't possibly be that film 'remade'. It is an original adaptation.

This is correct, this is how a film historian or professional critic would define it; a remake is a film made of another film. A book, play, short story, etc. can be adapted many times and the films are not remakes. The 1996 Baz Luhrmann Romeo + Juliet is not a remake of the 1968 Zeferelli Romeo and Juliet.

[Kara Milovy]

[quote name='Mister Asterix' date='21 October 2005 - 10:22'][quote name='marktmurphy' date='21 October 2005 - 10:16']...(except for possibly NSNA)...

[/quote]
[mra]But at least some material is taken from Thunderball or there wouldn

[ComplimentsOfSharky]

I could argue with you.

But as they say in fencing, what's the point?

[morganhavoc]

I'm glad you think a film historian or film critic would be an expert. I have a degree in film, do any of you?

It cracks me up that you guys will argue about anything just to see your words in print.

I said technically it is a remake, not a direct remake. It is considered a remake. You are "remaking" a film Called Casino Royale, based on the novel Casino Royale. The only way it wouldn't be a remake is if the two films had totally different plots, totally different characters and the only thing in common was the title.

So the question is was the 1967 version based on the same novel? yes! Same characters and some of the same plot elements? yes! = remake.

Once again I am speaking technically.

I do realize it will not be anything like the other two filmed versions (maybe a little bit of the Barry Nelson version) but it is still technically a remake. All of the versions of the Three Musketeers are technically remakes of the orginal version.

I wasn't really refering to TV shows because that opens a new can of worms and your examples of Spiderman or the Limey aren't the same thing, but if you really wanted to split hairs (and it seems like many of you do) you could argue about them as well, I won't.

The two versions of Get Carter would be a good example of the same source material, same basic plot, and characters = remake even though they aren't a lot alike.

The movie Scarface wasn't a remake of the 1940's version even though it shared the same title and was about a criminal. Two moives had same title, same very basic plot, but totally different stories, totally different characters and there for technically not a remake.

I know most of you detest the 1967 version and don't want the new version tained by it, but the new version is still technically a remake of the 1967 version and hopefully it will be a much better version.

So endith the lesson.

Thanks for the feedback , always fun reading the posts

[doublenoughtspy]

But then the 1967 is technically a remake of the 1954 TV version.

Both have Bond, Vesper, Le Chiffre and a Casino.

[tdalton]

But then the 1967 is technically a remake of the 1954 TV version.

Both have Bond, Vesper, Le Chiffre and a Casino.

That makes sense. So if we're going to consider Casino Royale a remake of anything (which I still don't believe it to be), then it should be called a remake of the 1954 Casino Royale.

[quiller]

But then the 1967 is technically a remake of the 1954 TV version.

Both have Bond, Vesper, Le Chiffre and a Casino.

and what about that warren beaty film!

[marktmurphy]

It cracks me up that you guys will argue about anything just to see your words in print.

Why start a thread if you didn't want discussion? Did you start this thread in the hope you could sneer at people? Isn't that 'trolling' or something?

I said technically it is a remake, not a direct remake. It is considered a remake. You are "remaking" a film Called Casino Royale, based on the novel Casino Royale. The only way it wouldn't be a remake is if the two films had totally different plots, totally different characters and the only thing in common was the title.

So the question is was the 1967 version based on the same novel? yes! Same characters and some of the same plot elements? yes! = remake.

Once again I am speaking technically.

Look at the English. To 'remake' indicates that they are making another version of the 67 or 54 Royale. They aren't. It isn't either of those made again- it's a book adaptation. I am speaking technically as a person who understands and uses English frequently.

I wasn't really refering to TV shows because that opens a new can of worms and your examples of Spiderman or the Limey aren't the same thing, but if you really wanted to split hairs (and it seems like many of you do) you could argue about them as well, I won't.

How convinent. You accept that The Limey isn't a remake of Get Carter, but by your criteria that Casino Royale 06 is based on Casino Royale 67 because they are sourced from the same book, somehow doesn't apply? That's rather strange as The Limey is based on 'Jack's Return Home' by Ted Lewis, as is the earlier 'Get Carter'. By your logic one must be a remake of the other. How is that 'not the same thing'? It's exactly the same thing.

The two versions of Get Carter would be a good example of the same source material, same basic plot, and characters = remake even though they aren't a lot alike.

No; the two films have different source material. One is based on a novel (as I just mentioned: 'Jack's Return Home') the other is based on the first movie adaptation. You can tell because they have the same title and have the same dialogue; both of which were original to the movie adaptation. The second Get Carter was a remake of the first movie; not the novel. Casino Royale will be an adaptation of the novel- not any previous screen version.

So endith the lesson.

It's 'endeth'. A degree, you say?

[tdalton]

It cracks me up that you guys will argue about anything just to see your words in print.

Why start a thread if you didn't want discussion? Did you start this thread in the hope you could sneer at people? Isn't that 'trolling' or something?

I said technically it is a remake, not a direct remake. It is considered a remake. You are "remaking" a film Called Casino Royale, based on the novel Casino Royale. The only way it wouldn't be a remake is if the two films had totally different plots, totally different characters and the only thing in common was the title.

So the question is was the 1967 version based on the same novel? yes! Same characters and some of the same plot elements? yes! = remake.

Once again I am speaking technically.

Look at the English. To 'remake' indicates that they are making another version of the 67 or 54 Royale. They aren't. It isn't either of those made again- it's a book adaptation. I am speaking technically as a person who understands and uses English frequently.

I wasn't really refering to TV shows because that opens a new can of worms and your examples of Spiderman or the Limey aren't the same thing, but if you really wanted to split hairs (and it seems like many of you do) you could argue about them as well, I won't.

How convinent. You accept that The Limey isn't a remake of Get Carter, but by your criteria that Casino Royale 06 is based on Casino Royale 67 because they are sourced from the same book, somehow doesn't apply? That's rather strange as The Limey is based on 'Jack's Return Home' by Ted Lewis, as is the earlier 'Get Carter'. By your logic one must be a remake of the other. How is that 'not the same thing'? It's exactly the same thing.

The two versions of Get Carter would be a good example of the same source material, same basic plot, and characters = remake even though they aren't a lot alike.

No; the two films have different source material. One is based on a novel (as I just mentioned: 'Jack's Return Home') the other is based on the first movie adaptation. You can tell because they have the same title and have the same dialogue; both of which were original to the movie adaptation. The second Get Carter was a remake of the first movie; not the novel. Casino Royale will be an adaptation of the novel- not any previous screen version.

So endith the lesson.

It's 'endeth'. A degree, you say?

Great post

I agree 100%

[zencat]

Just want to claify a point I keep seeing in a lot of these threads. Casino Royale is a remake. The 1967 film and the 2006 film are both based on the same source material , so even though they may be nothing alike , then the 2006 film is technically a remake of the 1967 film.

Not in my book- separate adaptations of the same source materials are not 'remakes'. A remake is surely when the original film is the source material- as in the movies you list (except for possibly NSNA).
This film will have no influences from the first Casino movie, so it can't possibly be that film 'remade'. It is an original adaptation.

Agreed.

Even if we apply this logic, it is still incorrect. The 1954 Casino Royale preceded the '67 film, so wouldn't this new Casino be a "remake" of the '54 vesion?

But I agree that the word "remake" does not apply to this film, although I don't think that is going to stop the press from using it.

[Kara Milovy]

Let me see if I have this right...

I'm glad you think a film historian or film critic would be an expert. I have a degree in film, do any of you?

Translation: You're the expert and the rest of us need to shut up and listen?

It cracks me up that you guys will argue about anything just to see your words in print.

Translation: Your words are worth "printing," the rest of us are laughable.

I said technically it is a remake, not a direct remake.

Okay, confused...how is splitting hairs over a 'technicality' different from 'arguing about anything'?

Edited by Kara Milovy, 21 October 2005 - 07:05 PM.

[marktmurphy]

Even if we apply this logic, it is still incorrect. The 1954 Casino Royale preceded the '67 film, so wouldn't this new Casino be a "remake" of the '54 vesion?

But I agree that the word "remake" does not apply to this film, although I don't think that is going to stop the press from using it.

Indeed. Presumably the title song to 'Casino' '06 will be a cover version of the title tune from 'Casino' '67, despite it having an entirely different tune.

[Agent 76]

The 67' Casino Royale had one Sir James Bond and one Jimmy Bond, so I think that confirms that 2006 Casino Royale is not a remake.

[Mister Asterix]

The 67' Casino Royale had one Sir James Bond and one Jimmy Bond, so I think that confirms that 2006 Casino Royale is not a remake.

But it is the third try from the same source material........

Not sure what that makes it though..........

A re-adaption.

[marktmurphy]

A re-adaption.

I prefer 'another adaptation'. Nice plain English that makes sense.

[Mister Asterix]

A re-adaption.

I prefer 'another adaptation'. Nice plain English that makes sense.

Agreed. But if you should ever need it squeezed in to one word...

[DLibrasnow]

Of course its a remake...they are remaking the same book.

[Agent 76]

We could call it:

The 3rd adaptation of the book Casino Royale.

We had the 1954 one, as the 1967 one too.

[WC]

Of curse its a remake...they are remaking the same book.

Of curse? Are you trying to jinx the production already? No wait, that was that other Halle Berry spin-off!

[Agent 76]

Of curse its a remake...they are remaking the same book.

Of curse? Are you trying to jinx the production already? No wait, that was that other Halle Berry spin-off!

who's Halle Berry?

[K1Bond007]

The term remake is only appropriate when it uses an earlier film as the -source-. I stress the last part. For instance, Brosnan's Thomas Crown uses McQueen's Thomas Crown as the source. Craig's Casino Royale, however, does not use Niven's Casino Royale as the source, but instead uses Fleming's original novel. The correct term to use here is simply 'another "adaptation"'.

[morganhavoc]

yes I do have a degree in film, didn't claim I was the best typist. So you really should keep your personal attacks to yourself. It just shows what a small spiteful jerk you are.

Yes you could say the 1967 version is a remake of the Barry Nelson version, But that isn't technically a feature motion picture.

Sorry Not an expert on the Limey as you seem to be an expert in all things. It must be so nice to know everyting about everything.

It doesn't matter how much you personally attack me or my spelling or typos ( thank god movie magic 2000 has spell check), My point is still valid and correct.

I can't really see why you are being so hateful and snotty, just because I point out a fact you don't agree with and are wrong on. It's just a movie.

It cracks me up not that I don't want others to reply, it's the way some of you reply. I post some of these things just because I know it will cause some of you to react in exactly the opposite way my point of view is. It's very funny. I meant I think some people just like to argue, doesn't matter what the post is. I always welcome replys , though the ones attacking me or my family (other thread) seem out of line to me

But life is too short to worry about what someone else may think about me. Don't hate me because I'm beautiful, Hate me because I'm right.

[Agent 76]

I'm sorry to hear that someone here attacked you family, that shouldn't happen here or anywhere.