Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

Someone I know is stating Casino Royale "67 is an official Bond.


39 replies to this topic

#1 richyawyingtmv

richyawyingtmv

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 217 posts

Posted 28 October 2014 - 11:03 PM

I can't seem to persuade him otherwise. What do you guys think?

 

He's stating that because Feldman had the rights for the film, it makes it an official Bond film regardless of anything with EON. I obviously fully disagree - it's not an official Bond film. So yeah.

 

 



#2 Call Billy Bob

Call Billy Bob

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2917 posts
  • Location:Lawrence, Kansas, USA

Posted 28 October 2014 - 11:06 PM

No Bond theme

Outright comedy

Multiple "James Bonds"

 

Yeah, that's all the proof you need



#3 Guy Haines

Guy Haines

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3075 posts
  • Location:"Special envoy" no more. As of 7/5/15 elected to office somewhere in Nottinghamshire, England.

Posted 28 October 2014 - 11:22 PM

The producer had the right to make a film of it, obviously, but is CR 1967 part of the official series?  Obviously not. The trademark elements are not there.  The shame of it is that, from what I've read, Peter Sellers wanted to do a Bond film not unlike the "official" films of the 1960s, but that's not how it turned out.

 

I remember watching it the first time on TV during the Christmas holidays, 1973 I think. I was up to my eyeballs in a heavy cold. It did nothing to help my recovery! I couldn't understand it - nothing like what I expected.



#4 AMC Hornet

AMC Hornet

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5857 posts

Posted 29 October 2014 - 02:19 AM

I knew someone who was convinced that, not only was CR '67 an official entry, but also the first, before Dr. No (never heard of Barry Nelson). She couldn't be dissuaded - she knew she was right.

 

With people like that all you can do is say "oh, I guess I've had it wrong all these years. Now I know what to say if that is the grand prize question in a Mastermind tournament' and leave them be.



#5 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 29 October 2014 - 02:47 AM

Well, as far as I'm concerned, it is an official entry.  Feldman was the only one who had the right to make Casino Royale at the time.  EON certainly didn't have the right to do so.

 

That said, it's an absolutely terrible film.  There is no question about that. 



#6 Call Billy Bob

Call Billy Bob

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2917 posts
  • Location:Lawrence, Kansas, USA

Posted 29 October 2014 - 03:00 AM

I enjoy it in a sort of quirky, stupid way - the same way I enjoy things like UHF or 1941. And while it was an official adaptation of a Fleming work, it's not an official Bond film in my eyes.



#7 Colossus

Colossus

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1490 posts
  • Location:SPECTRE Island

Posted 29 October 2014 - 03:53 AM

Btw anyone think CR 54 is actually a pretty good tv thing? 



#8 Call Billy Bob

Call Billy Bob

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2917 posts
  • Location:Lawrence, Kansas, USA

Posted 29 October 2014 - 05:52 AM

Btw anyone think CR 54 is actually a pretty good tv thing? 

For 1954, I think it's alright.



#9 Guy Haines

Guy Haines

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3075 posts
  • Location:"Special envoy" no more. As of 7/5/15 elected to office somewhere in Nottinghamshire, England.

Posted 29 October 2014 - 06:59 AM

AMC Hornet mentions CR 1967 as "the first Bond film" in the eyes of one person. I get that quite a bit as well when talking to people, and I think I know one reason why. I've spoken to friends who are convinced that the 60s CR was the first because of David Niven - they've got it in their heads that he must have been the first Bond, before Sean Connery. After all, David Niven had been around for a long time in movies, since the 1930s, so it stands to reason....... if you see what I mean.

 

As for Barry Nelson and CR 1954 - "Barry Who?" is the reply I get when I point out that a TV version of the book existed years before the films started. That said CR 1954 makes for a great pub quiz question - as does the radio version of Moonraker made in South Africa in the late 1950s and starring future UK TV quizmaster Bob Holness as 007.

 

Before Connery, before Niven there was Barry Nelson, and there was Bob "Blockbusters" Holness. (Who did play Bond on the radio but did not play the saxophone riff on Gerry Rafferty's "Baker Street"!)



#10 Call Billy Bob

Call Billy Bob

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2917 posts
  • Location:Lawrence, Kansas, USA

Posted 29 October 2014 - 02:14 PM

It is always fun to tell people that the first on-screen James Bond was the hotel manager from The Shining :laugh:



#11 The Dove

The Dove

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16671 posts
  • Location:Colorado Springs, Colorado

Posted 29 October 2014 - 02:20 PM

It is always fun to tell people that the first on-screen James Bond was the hotel manager from The Shining :laugh:

Hah! Yep!!

 

I can never watch Casino Royale '67 without at least a couple of glasses of brandy to make the viewing experience more tolerable.. :P



#12 saint mark

saint mark

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 146 posts

Posted 29 October 2014 - 02:25 PM

I agree that CR'67 is an official James Bond movie as the producers had bought the rights for CR and as such made the movie rightfully and official.

 

The same applies for CR'54 and NSNA.

 

They are not part of the EON series, but if the three are not official James Bond movies then neither are the EON's as they are as official as the other folks who had the rights for their movies.



#13 Call Billy Bob

Call Billy Bob

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2917 posts
  • Location:Lawrence, Kansas, USA

Posted 29 October 2014 - 02:33 PM

They are "official" in the sense that the rights were held by the filmmakers and are official adaptations. The reason myself and others can't take them as official is that they don't conform to EON's series - which is perfectly fine! It doesn't matter if you consider them as equals or as lesser works: They are Bond. For better or worse, they are Bond.

 

 

 

 

(But - again - for the record, I think they are not official... but whatever you like!)



#14 SAWfinger

SAWfinger

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 48 posts

Posted 29 October 2014 - 03:02 PM

I think we are going around in circles here. And I really don't understand the reasoning behind the last post. I think it's better to keep it simple: CR'67 was 'unofficial' in the sense that it was not part of the EON series, in the same way that NSNA was also 'unofficial'. Both were 'unofficial' Bond movies and are treated as such by most commentators and most of the literature on the James Bond films. I think that's the way we should continue to look at it.

 

There is some interesting evidence that Charles K. Feldman, who knew Cubby Broccoli from way back, did want to make his rights to CR 'official' and do a deal to co-produce the movie with Broccoli and Saltzman, with Connery as Bond. However, Broccoli and Saltzman were not interested (they had already been forced to do a deal a year or so earlier with Kevin McClory over co-production of Thunderball). To do the same thing again would be a bridge too far, as far as they were concerned. So, Feldman ended up with the rights to a Fleming novel which he did not quite know what to do with: although a 'serious' screenplay had been written for the project (see the research by spy author Jeremy Duns), Feldman could still only make an 'unofficial' rogue version, and (rightly or wrongly) decided to make, instead, something that was really an attempt to satirise the whole official series: hence the mess that became CR'67 (five directors, numerous 'big names', tonnes of money, incoherent plotline, etc).

 

In its own strange way, there are bits to CR'67 that are still entertaining, but I find it all depends what mood you are when you watch it. As a Bond fan, I don't mind my fandom being gently satirised: the 'Q' dept sequence still makes me laugh, 'Dr. Noah' is a nice touch, and Orson Welles gives us a great idea of (potentially) what he may have made of being Blofeld (had he so been cast in Warhead). I also find the music to the movie quirky and memorable. Appalling as it is as a movie, and even though it is clearly 'unofficial', I have a weird soft spot for CR'67.



#15 Call Billy Bob

Call Billy Bob

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2917 posts
  • Location:Lawrence, Kansas, USA

Posted 29 October 2014 - 03:04 PM

I have a weakness for it as well, especially the Herb Alpert theme - I listen to it almost daily!



#16 AMC Hornet

AMC Hornet

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5857 posts

Posted 29 October 2014 - 04:15 PM

The music was the best part of the film (and The Look of Love so memorable and successful that most people don't even remember where it came from).

 

CR and NSNA have also been described as 'rogue' productions, because they are one-offs that don't fit in the chronology of the EON series (Bond: "What'sh the shcore with Largo? I thought he died eighteen yearsh ago. You mean he'sh hijacked another pair of warheadsh?").

 

Rogue, unofficial - just semantics. What's even more painful to watch than CR '67 are the fanflicks that keep appearing on YouTube. The last one I noticed featured several pimply teenagers involved in an endless SAS exercise in a suburban park (scored by John Barry's Exercise at Gibralter, to give the scene gravitas) with obviously plastic toy guns (the orange barrel tips were plainly visible) and an equally endless bicycle chase through the same park (this time scored by George Martin's Boat Chase - including the sample from the Wedding March). That's unofficial. That's rogue. That's shite.

 

(If the fanflick mentioned above was produced by a CBn member you have my reserved apology; I'm not out to crucify anyone in particular - it was only a random selection from among too many similar entries).



#17 AMC Hornet

AMC Hornet

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5857 posts

Posted 29 October 2014 - 04:39 PM

It is always fun to tell people that the first on-screen James Bond was the hotel manager from The Shining :laugh:

 

...and Dean Martin's co-pilot in Airport.



#18 Call Billy Bob

Call Billy Bob

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2917 posts
  • Location:Lawrence, Kansas, USA

Posted 29 October 2014 - 04:43 PM

Forgot about that, good call AMC



#19 stromberg

stromberg

    Commander RNVR

  • The Admiralty
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6841 posts
  • Location:Saarland / Germany

Posted 29 October 2014 - 05:41 PM

It's more official than NSNA, because it's an adaption of Fleming material. Wheras NSNA is based on material for which Kevin McClory claimed to be the intellectual proprietor. It contains more of the original Fleming novel than TSWLM, and is more Fleming-based than most the "official" Bond movies that aren't based on any Fleming novel or story at all (TND or TWINE, for example).

 

Just because the movie is not what people expect from a Bond movie, you can't say that it's "unofficial". I prefer the term "non-Eon Bond movie".

 

I know many people hate it, because it's a terrible mess and a train wreck of a movie. Personally, I love it (even though I certainly can't watch it every day). Maybe because it's the first Bond movie I've ever seen (there you have it). It's also the perfect movie to watch at 4 a.m. on a Saturday morning, after a great night of partying, half drunk with some friends. Works great with CR67, does not work with TB or OHMSS.



#20 SAWfinger

SAWfinger

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 48 posts

Posted 29 October 2014 - 06:44 PM

I am struggling to see much that is really 'Fleming-based' in CR'67; I concede that the central theme is gambling, 'Bond' (or one version of him!) is portrayed as being a highly-skilled cardplayer, and that he beats the card-cheating Le Chiffre at cards in the casino; Vesper Lynd is also present and is kidnapped; and Le Chiffre pays for his errors by being assassinated. 'M' is also a brief presence,as is Miss Moneypenny, and Mathis. So, there's some (very) basic Fleming aspects there, but little else. The movie is more an attempt to satirise the 'official' EON series, plus lots of other 1960s spy films. Yeah, the best way to watch CR'67 is when you are pretty drunk - it makes more sense!

 

I still think it's more helpful to regard it as an 'unofficial' or 'rogue' Bond movie; otherwise, non-Bond fans out there are going to get mighty confused.

 

On the music, the 'Look of Love' is a beautiful song, and Herb Alpert's theme tune is great - I purchased the soundtrack on vinyl years ago and its a real pleasure to listen to.  

 

By the way, if you look back at old movie mags from the 60s, there were huge expectations that CR'67 was going to give the 'official' series a real run for its money, and that it was going to be a major movie, with loads of talent, etc, etc. And also that it was going to be a 'serious' movie (I think poor old Terence Cooper was led to believe it was going to make him a major star). Didn't turn out that way, did it??! The film critics, when they saw it, must have wondered what the heck is this all about? Even viewing it today, you are left thinking: what a waste of talent!

 

However, it still has some very entertaining moments. And spotting stars from the 'official' series is a great game.



#21 Call Billy Bob

Call Billy Bob

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2917 posts
  • Location:Lawrence, Kansas, USA

Posted 29 October 2014 - 06:52 PM

Burt Kwouk (Ling/SPECTRE No.3) is the one I always enjoy seeing. But I always remember him more for being Cato.



#22 Jim

Jim

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 14266 posts
  • Location:Oxfordshire

Posted 29 October 2014 - 07:00 PM

"Official" is a weird label. Casino Royale 1967 and Never Say Never Again are both legal, and no more or less the product of people exploiting an intellectual property right than anything spewed at us by Eon Productions. I'm just not sure what officialdom the Eon series represents, other than by dint of a lazy perception. They had the rights to their stuff and others had the rights to other stuff. Unless the James Bond series is an emanation of the state, although all the hoopla around the 50th anniversary might have misled on that point, granted,



#23 plankattack

plankattack

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1385 posts

Posted 29 October 2014 - 08:20 PM

EON-approved? No. James Bond film? Well, I guess it depends on what your take on James Bond is, but to be literate, it has more elements of the source material scattered and scrambled through it than many of the "official" series, so I guess you pick your poison.

 

It definitely isn't a Bond film by the standard metric, but as part of the Bond-culture, I most certainly don't begrudge its place. The back story is fascinating, a trivia game or novel all of its own; it has a commitment and unique spirit that, for better or for worse, give it some soul, for want of a better word. And the soundtrack is memorable for being fantastic, rather than some of the other things in the film that are memorable for all the wrong reasons.

 

Any discussion of Bond on-screen is incomplete without it. A film I enjoy watching? Not in the conventional sense, but it's mere existence speaks to the enormity and influence of the Bond universe. I'm glad it exists. I think of it more as part of the Bond family, rather than a Bond-film!  A crazy aunt or uncle that you love to talk about, but absolutely can't stand visiting.......



#24 AMC Hornet

AMC Hornet

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5857 posts

Posted 29 October 2014 - 11:20 PM

Since I don't know how to post a Spoiler Alert, I'll just have to phrase this carefully for those who may not have seen CR '67 yet:

 

Sir James and all the other main characters end up the same way as Bond does in Jim Hatfield's self-published 'novel' The Killing Zone, which I'll remind you is NOT a 'forgotten' entry, but a pre-internet era fanfic.

 

Even though CR 67 was based on an actual Fleming novel, how can it be 'official' with an ending like that?

 

Thank God EON finally got the rights from Columbia, and the title has finally been done justice.



#25 Simon

Simon

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5884 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 29 October 2014 - 11:39 PM

I was going to weigh in all over the screen with questions surrounding the definition, in this context, of the word 'Official'.  But it seems Jim has already covered this.

 

However, if it hasn't sunk in, I believe this may provide a starting point in this exercise of trying to assess what is and what is not Official, and that which may require a further iteration - hence this possibly redundant post.

 

To my mind;

 

'Official' infers legal ability to render a work which, on all counts, appears to be the case for both CR'67 and NSNA.

'Rogue' infers that which might not be considered a part of the otherwise wider-considered canon, in this regard all things (music, gunbarrel, 007 trademark) EON.

'Timelines' now shouldn't infer anything at all considering the longevity of the film series, the book series, and the fact that EON has 'rebooted' inceptions, for want of a better phrase.

 

There is also the fact that both these films have now been housed in the one canon, so is there, by defintion, a retrospective assignment of Officialdom?  Official from birth, or by deed?

 

For my part, they are Official, Rogue, Timeless, Newly Assigned and mildly interesting from a historical point of view.



#26 Mr_Wint

Mr_Wint

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2406 posts
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 30 October 2014 - 07:08 PM

CR'67 is a parody and not an official Bond movie, IMO. Just like Spaceballs is not an official Star Wars movie.

It is not enough that the producers had the rights to CR, because the only thing they used was the title. At the very minimum, the James Bond character must be in there. He must have at least some of the characteristics that Fleming's Bond had, and must be placed in a setting that uses at least a few typical elements from a Fleming novel (villains, girls, spying etc.).

#27 AMC Hornet

AMC Hornet

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5857 posts

Posted 30 October 2014 - 08:39 PM

CR'67 is a parody and not an official Bond movie, IMO. Just like Spaceballs is not an official Star Wars movie.
 

This.



#28 Call Billy Bob

Call Billy Bob

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2917 posts
  • Location:Lawrence, Kansas, USA

Posted 30 October 2014 - 08:44 PM

Right on, Mr_Wint. May the Schwartz be with us.



#29 Guy Haines

Guy Haines

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3075 posts
  • Location:"Special envoy" no more. As of 7/5/15 elected to office somewhere in Nottinghamshire, England.

Posted 30 October 2014 - 08:54 PM

I wonder if the word we should use is not "official" but "typical" when comparing Bonds. Styles change - QoS is a very different movie from, say, MR - but some basic elements exist in all, as is pointed out by Mr_Wint above.

 

CR 67 sends these up, but not terribly well. In fact, if you think about it, the "official" Bonds did a better job of the tongue in cheek, whilst not losing sight of the fact that they are primarily semi serious action adventures.

 

CR 67 is a Bond film only in that the producer had the rights, at the time, to make a film called "Casino Royale", having acquired the rights to Ian Fleming's novel. It has little in common with the book it is based upon, and not that much in common with the other Bond films. It's a parody of its time but I don't count it as a typical Bond film.



#30 AMC Hornet

AMC Hornet

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5857 posts

Posted 30 October 2014 - 11:05 PM

How about substituting the word 'unofficial' with 'aberration'?