45 replies to this topic

[Peter Franks]

In the novel Le Chiffre lost millions of francs that belonged to a commie group. Millions of francs was a lot of money in those days to Russians.

So what's the figure going to be now? Poker Tournaments go up to a million dollars. That's a pitance to organised criminals and terrorists today who have multi billion dollar black markets. Are Bond and Le Chiffre or whatever the new villains name is going to be play baccarat or poker for a billion dollars? That is about as realistic or gritty whatever as Bond flying in an invisible plane like Wonder Woman.

If it a modern terrorist story it doesnt make sense either. Muslim fundamentalists aren't allowed to gamble.

Why don't they just get the casino to ban Le Chiffre as a commie or terrorist sympathizer or get some guys to mug Le Chiffre end of story? The story is not believable in the modern world without the the eastern bloc.

[tdalton]

There are so many problems with this film right now that I am honestly to the point where I think that it might end up being delayed so that they can sort out the mess. They've got a director who hasn't read the novel (or at least he sounds as though he hasn't read it), they don't have any of the roles cast yet, even though filming starts in a month, and they have a storyline that isn't going to work unless it's done as a period piece that is set at some point during the Cold War. Throw in the re-boot idea and all the other problems, the general audience (and maybe even some hard core Bond fans) are going to be quickly turned off by this film and we may see Bond go into another long hiatus only to re-emerge with yet another new actor in the role, because basically what is happening is that EON is setting Daniel Craig up to fail, and no matter how good a performance he delivers, it's probably not going to be enough to save this film.

[Dunph]

Calm yourself, mate. Splash your face in cold water or something and then re-assess everything. It'll be fine. It'll all be fine.

[K1Bond007]

In the novel Le Chiffre lost millions of francs that belonged to a commie group. Millions of francs was a lot of money in those days to Russians.

So what's the figure going to be now? Poker Tournaments go up to a million dollars. That's a pitance to organised criminals and terrorists today who have multi billion dollar black markets. Are Bond and Le Chiffre or whatever the new villains name is going to be play baccarat or poker for a billion dollars? That is about as realistic or gritty whatever as Bond flying in an invisible plane like Wonder Woman.

If it a modern terrorist story it doesnt make sense either. Muslim fundamentalists aren't allowed to gamble.

Why don't they just get the casino to ban Le Chiffre as a commie or terrorist sympathizer or get some guys to mug Le Chiffre end of story? The story is not believable in the modern world without the the eastern bloc.

1. You can only bet what you can afford. Le Chiffre is nearly bankrupt. He gets what money he has left together and plays for a few hundred million to pay back his employer.
2. Not all terorists are Muslim. You're jumping to conclusions that you know nothing about. No actor has been announced so you can't even guess at Le Chiffre's nationality.
3. You've got it all wrong. If you wanted to really accomplish the mission, all Bond would have to do is show up and blast him with the Walther PPK. Mission over. But that's not the point. The point comes from the line in the novel by M: "It would be greatly in the interests of this country and of the other nations of the North American Treaty Organization that this powerful Soviet agent should be ridiculed and destroyed, that his communist trade union should be bankrupted and brought into disrepute. (Assasination is pointless. Leningrad would quickly cover up his defalcations and make him into a martyr.) We therefore recommend that the finest gambler available to the Service should be given the necessary funds and endeavour to outgamble this man." See http://www.007foreve...ngsbond001.html

Edited by K1Bond007, 19 December 2005 - 03:03 AM.

[medrecess]

What you say is a valid point in today's context but from what PB said in his Playboy interview and what Grover said ,it is going to be a period film.

[dunmall]

i'd say that they would up the ante a little, (from 1 millions to tens or even hundreds of millions) that just goes without saying...

[Harmsway]

What you say is a valid point in today's context but from what PB said in his Playboy interview and what Grover said ,it is going to be a period film.

Neither were in a position to know anything.

[Harmsway]

There are so many problems with this film right now that I am honestly to the point where I think that it might end up being delayed so that they can sort out the mess.

One would think that a delay is certainly on the horizon, unless the casting has all been done and we've heard absolutely nothing about it.

They've got a director who hasn't read the novel (or at least he sounds as though he hasn't read it), they don't have any of the roles cast yet, even though filming starts in a month, and they have a storyline that isn't going to work unless it's done as a period piece that is set at some point during the Cold War.

Campbell we do know HAS read the novel. He's said he liked the book and made plenty of reference to things in it. That said, I think fans are expecting more faithfulness from this adaptation than EON will actually be giving.

I personally think the storyline can work fine in a modern setting. They just have to rework it (and it seems they have, since it has to do with arms smuggling, terrorism, and all that jazz).

Throw in the re-boot idea and all the other problems, the general audience (and maybe even some hard core Bond fans) are going to be quickly turned off by this film and we may see Bond go into another long hiatus only to re-emerge with yet another new actor in the role, because basically what is happening is that EON is setting Daniel Craig up to fail, and no matter how good a performance he delivers, it's probably not going to be enough to save this film.

I don't think the general audience gives a damn about the reboot idea. In fact, most people I've mentioned it to found it intriguing and really liked it.

Also, I don't think the general public will give a damn about most of these problems. If there's an iffy factor that could affect the general public, it's the casting of Daniel Craig.

[Peter Franks]

"It would be greatly in the interests of this country and of the other nations of the North American Treaty Organization that this powerful Soviet agent should be ridiculed and destroyed, that his communist trade union should be bankrupted and brought into disrepute.

This isn't relevant today. Communist trade unions had very little money in the eastern bloc. 32 million francs was huge to them. 1 million dollars was huge to them. These days just about any amount you can gamble for at a casino is piss for any terrorist organisation or modern enemy because the black market is worth billions upon billions. Don't tell me they are going to play cards for a billion dollars or even a tenth of that because that would be the most insanely unrealistic plot in the world. Such an event would inevitably draw the media and Bond's face would be on tv. Why send Bond then and not a pro card player who has won a lot more than Bond? Casino Royale only makes sense in the days of the eastern bloc and when the best card players were upper class establishment type twits.

[ChandlerBing]

Well, Peter, I happen to agree with you. I think this movie should have been adapted properly in either the 50s or 60s. It just does not work with what they are doing with it now. I really feel that the time has come and long passed for them to have done a proper job adapting Casino Royale.

[Loomis]

There are so many problems with this film right now that I am honestly to the point where I think that it might end up being delayed so that they can sort out the mess.

One would think that a delay is certainly on the horizon, unless the casting has all been done and we've heard absolutely nothing about it.

Is it really unthinkable that the casting is done but no one outside the production knows about it? I don't think it is.

Why would there be a delay? If they can cast Bond, they can cast any other role.

A delay would be tremendously embarrassing for Sony and Eon. Craig was announced a couple of months ago, and the film's official site is up and running. It's at the stage where they've got to do it according to schedule, or be prepared to look very stupid (I know that films get delayed/scrapped all the time, but there's a point where you commit yourself publicly, and they've passed it).

And given that - apparently - 75% of people already think they are stupid, for hiring Craig, it's unlikely that they'll want to invite further ridicule.

CASINO ROYALE - November 2006. Unless anyone has any convincing evidence that that isn't going to happen.

[Auric64]

I don`t know if anyone has realised, but the main plot element of Casino Royale the novel, has been used (albeit slightly differently) in the film The Living Daylights.

Like Le Chiffre, Koskov has spent Russian funds, ($50 million to buy arms for the Russians) and, like Le Chiffre, (who used fifty million francs of Russian money to buy his brothels) he has to get that money back to the Russians before anything unpleasant happens to him. For Le Chiffre its playing baccarat to win the money back. With Koskov it`s making a half billion dollars profit from opium, which he can then remove $50 million from, to pay back the Russians.

Perhaps the film makers of CR can get around the plot problem, (of how much Bond has to win off of Le Chiffre) by using a similar ploy that was used by Koskov, but then Bond (and MI6) delve deeper into Le Chiffre`s background and dealings, and realise that something bigger than just winning money back, is on the horizon, (ie the new terrorist organisation).

Alternatively, maybe Le Chiffre only has to win a few hundred million at Poker, to use that money to set up the new terrorist organisation because that is all they need, having just started up and not having a wealthy benifactor (like Bin Laden) to continually fund them.

I do agree with many of the above posters that all of what we have heard does seem like the film is in a bit of a mess, story wise and production wise. However, like Tomorrow Never Dies, (which also had its fair share of story/production problems) all we can hope is that somehow, the film makers do pull everything together, and we end up with a fine film.

Auric64

[marktmurphy]

[quote name='Auric64' date='19 December 2005 - 10:55']I don`t know if anyone has realised, but the main plot element of Casino Royale the novel, has been used (albeit slightly differently) in the film The Living Daylights.

Like Le Chiffre, Koskov has spent Russian funds, ($50 million to buy arms for the Russians) and, like Le Chiffre, (who used fifty million francs of Russian money to buy his brothels) he has to get that money back to the Russians before anything unpleasant happens to him.

[ChandlerBing]

Ahhh, I wish I could be an optimist, Auric, but, alas, I cannot. This is just not a good fit for a Bond movie now. They should have ponied up the money back in the 60s and did it right. Now, I feel it's too late to do it. It's too dated, and will not fit comfortably into where the Bond series is at now.

[marktmurphy]

Ahhh, I wish I could be an optimist, Auric, but, alas, I cannot.  This is just not a good fit for a Bond movie now.  They should have ponied up the money back in the 60s and did it right.  Now, I feel it's too late to do it.  It's too dated, and will not fit comfortably into where the Bond series is at now.

You might as well say that about Moonraker- and DAD was an (admittedly very loose) adaptation of that.

Besides- 'where they're at right now' isn't relevant as they're trying to change where they are right now.

[ChandlerBing]

Well, Mark, I wish I had your hindsight, but I don't have it. Casino played best as a product of the early 50s. The 60s was its make or break. Doing it now, dressed up as modern day won't fit at all.

[marktmurphy]

That's all of the Bond books you're talking about. Of course you have my hindsight- you are living today aren't you? DAD was a Moonraker adaptation. It worked in a modern day setting. No difference.

[spynovelfan]

'Really big plot problem'?

This is a James Bond film - that's never been a problem before! The plot of Fleming's CASINO ROYALE is pretty daft anyway - sending 'the best gambler' in MI6 to ridicule a SMERSH agent who unaccountably thinks he'll be the only one to win big in the casino and therefore survive. There's about nine plot problems right there.

[ChandlerBing]

Sorry, fellas, to be blunt now, I still think this is gonna blow.

[Peter Franks]

[quote name='marktmurphy' date='19 December 2005 - 12:02'][quote name='Auric64' date='19 December 2005 - 10:55']I don`t know if anyone has realised, but the main plot element of Casino Royale the novel, has been used (albeit slightly differently) in the film The Living Daylights.

Like Le Chiffre, Koskov has spent Russian funds, ($50 million to buy arms for the Russians) and, like Le Chiffre, (who used fifty million francs of Russian money to buy his brothels) he has to get that money back to the Russians before anything unpleasant happens to him.

[belvedere]

Why can't they use the Casino Royale plot thread as the introduction of Bond to the character Le Chiffre from many years ago, and then set a new story in the present day? The book isn't enough for a whole film anyway. The novel can set up the second and third acts. What's wrong with that?

[marktmurphy]

[quote name='Peter Franks' date='19 December 2005 - 12:32'][quote name='marktmurphy' date='19 December 2005 - 12:02'][quote name='Auric64' date='19 December 2005 - 10:55']I don`t know if anyone has realised, but the main plot element of Casino Royale the novel, has been used (albeit slightly differently) in the film The Living Daylights.

Like Le Chiffre, Koskov has spent Russian funds, ($50 million to buy arms for the Russians) and, like Le Chiffre, (who used fifty million francs of Russian money to buy his brothels) he has to get that money back to the Russians before anything unpleasant happens to him.

[Peter Franks]

[quote name='marktmurphy' date='19 December 2005 - 13:53']


Laughable plot. Even Le Chiffre's brothels are laughable in the modern world. All he would have to do today is sell arms in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan if he was part of that. He would help Afghans move heroin across Central Asia to Europe. He would smuggle people from Africa and Asia promising them a new life if they paid him and his group 20 grand each. No matter how much he lost in bad business it would be piss in the ocean for people who do all that and no gambling game would make a difference to the vast amount of money made by international drugs, terrorism and smuggling.

[/quote]

Not much of a quick return on those things though, is there? I thought the idea was that Le Chiffre needed the money immediately. I'm sure they'll lose the brothels and probably build his money making scheme into the plot more.

[/quote]

It still makes no sense. If they villain in this new Casino Royale has even got 20 million to win back it is piss in the ocean compared to the billions any real villain is part of today. If he has to win back something more meaningful like 100 million then he would be going to the casino with quite a lot of money in the first place right? So why doesn't he just take the money he has and run away, change his name, get plastic surgery, etc like the original Le Chiffre should have done. It's just such an illogical story. A guy with millions doesn't run with the money to retire somewhere in secret and then a non professional gambler who is a highly exposed secret service agent plays against him at a big casino in a high profile gambling game involving an untold amount of money. That's a laugh. I thought Bond looking like an playing poker in a tuxedo was bad. Even more funny when it includes a big black henchman soul singer called Solari.

[SecretAgentFan]

There

[spynovelfan]

So why doesn't he just take the money he has and run away, change his name, get plastic surgery, etc like the original Le Chiffre should have done.

Well, as you say - the original novel is fairly illogical and implausible, too.

A guy with millions doesn't run with the money to retire somewhere in secret and then a non professional gambler who is a highly exposed secret service agent plays against him at a big casino in a high profile gambling game involving an untold amount of money.

Neither do Chinese-German scientists try to topple missiles from their island fortresses because they didn't get a job. Neither do British agents give out their real names to enemy agents. And so on ad infinitum. You seem to have missed something fundamental about Bond films: their plots are not plausible.

So I'm not sure what the purpose of this thread is.

It's a Bond film.

[marktmurphy]

Exactly- as long as it all makes sense while you're watching it it doesn't matter if it's actually plausible or if it even makes sense. GoldenEye is perfectly entertaining, but if you try and think about just the pre-credit sequence it makes no sense whatsoever.

I love the way that those that have it in for CR (because it threatens to be slightly different, apparently) choose reasons that have never destroyed the series before. Lack of continuity? Yup, seen that a fair few times. Implausible plot? Yup; it is, as Spynovelfan says, a Bond film.

[spynovelfan]

Exactly- as long as it all makes sense while you're watching it it doesn't matter if it's actually plausible or if it even makes sense. GoldenEye is perfectly entertaining, but if you try and think about just the pre-credit sequence it makes no sense whatsoever.

Most of the pre-titles make no sense, because they're designed primarily to wow you. The opening of FRWL wows - Bond dies, oh it's not Bond! It's a great little idea, and appeals to the 15-year-old boy in all of us. It makes absolutely no sense, though - why on earth would SPECTRE need to create a completely realistic mask of Bond for that exercise?

Because it's a Bond film.

Terence Young once said in an interview that the idea was always to make sure the action was plausible for the duration of the film. Once you were in the car on the way home you might start picking holes in the plot, but it had already worked its magic on you.

[Peter Franks]

I'm glad we got the hype out the way that it is going to be gritty and realistic. If it's just another cool Bond movie we can gets thrills and laughs out of then cool.

I was watching the documentary on the Diamonds Are Forever DVD and this is the same hype they gave out then. "We're taking it in a new direction it never went before. But first we need a new actor."

They had John Gavin and made Bond American. Then an earthquake hit California so they went all English again. Both new directions were bull and they went back to tried and tested formula.

[Shrublands]

So I'm not sure what the purpose of this thread is.

It's a Bond film.

I could not agree more.

It

Edited by Shrublands, 19 December 2005 - 03:53 PM.

[Mister Asterix]

In the novel Le Chiffre lost millions of francs that belonged to a commie group. Millions of francs was a lot of money in those days to Russians.

So what's the figure going to be now? Poker Tournaments go up to a million dollars. That's a pitance to organised criminals and terrorists today who have multi billion dollar black markets. Are Bond and Le Chiffre or whatever the new villains name is going to be play baccarat or poker for a billion dollars? That is about as realistic or gritty whatever as Bond flying in an invisible plane like Wonder Woman.

If it a modern terrorist story it doesnt make sense either. Muslim fundamentalists aren't allowed to gamble.

Why don't they just get the casino to ban Le Chiffre as a commie or terrorist sympathizer or get some guys to mug Le Chiffre end of story? The story is not believable in the modern world without the the eastern bloc.

[mra]Isn