187 replies to this topic

[tdalton]

[quote name='Judo chop' post='837107' date='12 February 2008 - 13:01'][quote name='tdalton' post='837089' date='12 February 2008 - 11:30']I'd have to agree with those who are saying that CASINO ROYALE is not a very faithful adaptation of the novel. Looking back at it, the film really does have much to do with the novel at all, outside of the characters and some plot elements.[/quote]
Other than the characters and plot devices would you expect to see in a faithful adaptation? I would think those two elements comprise nearly the entire basis of any story.

There

[00Twelve]

I'd have to agree with those who are saying that CASINO ROYALE is not a very faithful adaptation of the novel. Looking back at it, the film really does have much to do with the novel at all, outside of the characters and some plot elements.

Other than the characters and plot devices would you expect to see in a faithful adaptation? I would think those two elements comprise nearly the entire basis of any story.

There's no doubt that the film added events that didn't exist in Fleming's story, but I don't think that hurts it's faithfulness to the novel. The pertinent question to me is: what from the novel didn't make it into the film? That's the measuring stick, IMO. If you broke down the novel into outline form, I think you'd find that every major section made it to film. All of the major events are accounted for, even if they are colored differently.

The changes to the ending of the novel are, for me, what really separates it from being a faithful adaptation of the novel. Keeping something even resembling the original ending of the novel would have made it a more faithful adaptation of the novel, but it felt as though the character motives at the end of the film were changed considerably. As it stood in the film, I think that had Bond not showed up at the money exchange, that Vesper would have lived, but perhaps just run away and not faced Bond for what she had done. (bolding mine)

But surely she would know that this relentless man would pursue her to the ends of the earth? She'd had plenty of proof of his resolve already, and his devotion as well. She surely wasn't thinking she would just leave, and that he'd not find her. As M said, "She must have known she was going to her death."

Her demise at the end of the film felt like it was done more because she was backed into a corner rather than that she felt guilty for what she had done. In the novel, she meets her demise because she becomes very afraid (because of Gettler) and feels very guilty for what she had done. (bolding mine)

Not to split hairs, but that's exactly why she commits suicide in the film. Not because of specifically Gettler, but of the rest of the organization. She could have just let Bond save her and tried to work out the betrayal, but exactly as you said, she was 1) guilty over betraying this man with whom she'd fallen in love, and 2) very afraid of what would be done to her and/or her French-Algerian boyfriend (admittedly, a small addition) for staying with Bond. The motivations are just the same. She betrayed Bond and was afraid of the organization, and her guilt and fear was what drove her to lock Bond out of the elevator and drown herself. I see no difference in motivation whatsoever. Just setting and details in circumstance.

As for the rest, it really did "flesh out" the backstory that was only given in an MI6 dossier on Le Chiffre in the novel. The novel, as it was, didn't have a chance of sustaining the piqued interest of a modern audience as it was. It's just too short and slow-moving. But show the villain attempting to gain profit through a terrorist act that Bond thwarts (rather than -yawn- Le Chiffre investing in brothels soon being shut down by French authorities), and you've got a film that appeals to fans who want action as well as the fans who want character. Then when we did get to the actual Casino Royale, it was remarkably more faithful to the original material (and tone, which it equally important in an adaptation, IMO) than any film has been since OHMSS. CR succeeded in both the action-adventure and character-drven drama arenas, and did it with brilliance.

[tdalton]

But show the villain attempting to gain profit through a terrorist act that Bond thwarts (rather than -yawn- Le Chiffre investing in brothels soon being shut down by French authorities), and you've got a film that appeals to fans who want action as well as the fans who want character. Then when we did get to the actual Casino Royale, it was remarkably more faithful to the original material (and tone, which it equally important in an adaptation, IMO) than any film has been since OHMSS. CR succeeded in both the action-adventure and character-drven drama arenas, and did it with brilliance.

I know that this has been discussed before in another thread, but I always thought (even before I saw the film), that the best way to faithfully adapt Fleming's CR for the modern screen would have been to depict Le Chiffre's brothels as an end destination for a human trafficking operation that he was carrying out, without much success, which causes him to lose a great deal of money and, thus, be on bad operating terms with Mr. White, which would have been similar to the novel. That would have accomplished not only keeping the film more faithful to the novel, but it would have also been something we hadn't seen before in a Bond film as well as it would have served to bring an issue to the forefront that is of great importance to the world as it would have shown just how awful a crime human trafficking is and perhaps raised more attention to the topic and on ways to put an end to it, something that clearly needs to happen as it is one of the worst crimes occurring in the world today, and the more attention that could be brought to it in an attempt to relieve the suffering of those who are victims of it, the better.

As for the changes to the end of the novel, you make some very good points, which I agree with for the most part. I don't think, though, that the film did a particularly good job of clearly depicting things at the end. I just don't think that, had Bond been at the money exchange, that Vesper would have been forced to meet her demise so soon, and there would have been an opportunity for her to survive for some period of time, where as in the novel she make the decision completely on her own. I felt as though in the film that the decision wasn't entirely hers in that she was backed into a corner where she had to face Bond, while he was clearly enraged, without a chance to explain things to him.

[Dr.Mirakle32]

Thank you for your support tdalton! I still can't understand why people keep saying CR was a truly faithful adaptation. Faithful in story and narrative? Hell, no. Faithful in tone? Sure! Especially after DAD. But let's face it, just about any completely new and original Bond movie with a Fleming title made after DAD, would probably be considered a faithful Fleming adaptation, even if it was Fleming in name and tone only.

[00Twelve]

Guys, come on. Really. More faithful to the original material than DN, FRWL, GF, TB, or OHMSS? No. More faithful than any of the others? Absolutely.

[tdalton]

Guys, come on. Really. More faithful to the original material than DN, FRWL, GF, TB, or OHMSS? No. More faithful than any of the others? Absolutely.

I'd go along with you on the idea that CR is a more faithful adaptation than a lot of the other films, namely DAF, MR, or any of the films based on short stories, etc. But I can't say that, on its own merit that's it's a truly faithful adaptation of the book. That is not, of course, to say that CASINO ROYALE isn't a good movie, which it is, but I wouldn't call it a truly faithful adaptation of the novel.

[MicroGlobeOne]

I'd go along with you on the idea that CR is a more faithful adaptation than a lot of the other films, namely DAF, MR, or any of the films based on short stories, etc. But I can't say that, on its own merit that's it's a truly faithful adaptation of the book. That is not, of course, to say that CASINO ROYALE isn't a good movie, which it is, but I wouldn't call it a truly faithful adaptation of the novel.

I would call it a relatively faithful adaptation of the novel. In fact, I'm still quite impressed by the finesse with which they adapted and incorporated the various elements of Fleming's plot. But, as this thread is starting to prove, this seems to be an issue on which we're all going to have to agree to disagree.

Edited by MicroGlobeOne, 13 February 2008 - 12:28 AM.

[00Twelve]

I'd go along with you on the idea that CR is a more faithful adaptation than a lot of the other films, namely DAF, MR, or any of the films based on short stories, etc. But I can't say that, on its own merit that's it's a truly faithful adaptation of the book. That is not, of course, to say that CASINO ROYALE isn't a good movie, which it is, but I wouldn't call it a truly faithful adaptation of the novel.

I would call it a relatively faithful adaptation of the novel. In fact, I'm still quite impressed by the finesse with which they adapted and incorporated the various elements of Fleming's plot. But, as this thread is starting to prove, this seems to be an issue on which we're all going to have to agree to disagree.

Agreed. It's a subjective question. Some of us believe CR is a faithful (and regardless, damn good) adaptation, some do not believe it's so faithful. Obviously our criteria and parameters for "faithfulness" are different. Who'd a thunk it.