40 replies to this topic

[Mr Malcolm]

To be honest, I would leave it as it is in the film; the SMERSH assassin kills Le Chiffre, and Vesper kills herself.
The thing is that Bond's mission originally was to discredit Le Chiffre so that he would be killed by SMERSH. And, in spite of Bond getting captured and having his voice raised a few octaves, he does succeed in that respect. Although Vesper killing Le Chiffre would be interesting from the point of view of her relationship with Bond, it would hurt the main storyline by dumping that aspect. Unless Vesper was the SMERSH assassin all along, but I just can't see that fitting with her character.
And for the ending; I agree that you can't have Bond killing Vesper straight after she confesses. Bond's hard, but he's not a psycho! I suppose what you could do is have Bond discover she's a double-agent; he confronts her, she confesses everything, then kills herself before he can react. Although that might diminish the impact of the twist.

[Scrambled Eggs]

To be honest, I would leave it as it is in the film; the SMERSH assassin kills Le Chiffre, and Vesper kills herself.
  The thing is that Bond's mission originally was to discredit Le Chiffre so that he would be killed by SMERSH.  And, in spite of Bond getting captured and having his voice raised a few octaves, he does succeed in that respect.  Although Vesper killing Le Chiffre would be interesting from the point of view of her relationship with Bond, it would hurt the main storyline by dumping that aspect.  Unless Vesper was the SMERSH assassin all along, but I just can't see that fitting with her character.
  And for the ending; I agree that you can't have Bond killing Vesper straight after she confesses.  Bond's hard, but he's not a psycho!  I suppose what you could do is have Bond discover she's a double-agent; he confronts her, she confesses everything, then kills herself before he can react.  Although that might diminish the impact of the twist.

Another possible twist, have the assassin come back and kill Vesper. A faceoff between Bond and the assassin with the assassin holding a knife to Vesper's throat, "You fool! She was working for us all along!" etc.

I think you're right though, leave it as it is, it's a good story.

[Four Aces]

How about she kills LeChiffre and then kills herself?

4A

[Gabe Vieira]

I would rather the movie stick to the book and have an un-named agent kill Le Chiffre, rather than having Vesper do it. Also, I think that Vesper should kill herself, as she did in the book. Casino Royale needs to show audiences a new kind of Bond, that not everything is pretty in the world of James Bond. This film really needs to grab the necks of the audience and shake their heads around while screaming "Forget what you know! This is the new James Bond!"

Also, that un-named assassin could be a focal point in the plot to Bond 22 if they agree to have something of a three-episode-arc. Since Le Chiffre's organization in the film will be terrorists, the next few movies could follow the formula that the Connery movies did: every film has a different villain and plot, but the same people are behind it every time. What do you think about that idea?

[Four Aces]

I would rather the movie stick to the book and have an un-named agent kill Le Chiffre, rather than having Vesper do it. Also, I think that Vesper should kill herself, as she did in the book. Casino Royale needs to show audiences a new kind of Bond, that not everything is pretty in the world of James Bond. This film really needs to grab the necks of the audience and shake their heads around while screaming "Forget what you know! This is the new James Bond!"

Also, that un-named assassin could be a focal point in the plot to Bond 22 if they agree to have something of a three-episode-arc. Since Le Chiffre's organization in the film will be terrorists, the next few movies could follow the formula that the Connery movies did: every film has a different villain and plot, but the same people are behind it every time. What do you think about that idea?

Good points. Agreed.

4A

[spynovelfan]

Also, that un-named assassin could be a focal point in the plot to Bond 22 if they agree to have something of a three-episode-arc.

Now that is a great idea. At the end of Fleming's CR, Bond is infused with rage against SMERSH, but apart from a few lines, there's no real pay-off in LALD. The idea that Mr Big could be working for SMERSH is pretty poor anyway - that really is no semblance of reality, and what works about SMERSH in CR is it seems pretty real. This would be a very cool way of spinning off CR. Instead of having that whole thing fans always clamour for -SMERSH! SPECTRE! - you could have the villain of the next film be the guy who impersonally happened to save Bond's life in CR. That is a follow-up with a lot of potential to kick around, I think.

Wouldn't it be nice to be in Purvis and Wade's shoes?

[Scrambled Eggs]

I would rather the movie stick to the book and have an un-named agent kill Le Chiffre, rather than having Vesper do it. Also, I think that Vesper should kill herself, as she did in the book. Casino Royale needs to show audiences a new kind of Bond, that not everything is pretty in the world of James Bond. This film really needs to grab the necks of the audience and shake their heads around while screaming "Forget what you know! This is the new James Bond!"

Also, that un-named assassin could be a focal point in the plot to Bond 22 if they agree to have something of a three-episode-arc. Since Le Chiffre's organization in the film will be terrorists, the next few movies could follow the formula that the Connery movies did: every film has a different villain and plot, but the same people are behind it every time. What do you think about that idea?

I think that's right. The movie Bond has to get his own back.
I reckon there's two possibilities:

1. The suicide and note will come two thirds of the way through the film (remember, it's a very short book) and the rest of the movie will be Bond avenging himself on this terrorist organisation.

2. What Gabe Vieira suggests

Unfortunately, there's a third option, which is that EON don't use the original ending at all.

I think you're also right about the nameless assassin, he or she could have a much bigger role in the film.

Edited by Scrambled Eggs, 10 November 2005 - 10:01 PM.

[Double-Oh Agent]

I would rather the movie stick to the book and have an un-named agent kill Le Chiffre, rather than having Vesper do it. Also, I think that Vesper should kill herself, as she did in the book. Casino Royale needs to show audiences a new kind of Bond, that not everything is pretty in the world of James Bond. This film really needs to grab the necks of the audience and shake their heads around while screaming "Forget what you know! This is the new James Bond!"

Also, that un-named assassin could be a focal point in the plot to Bond 22 if they agree to have something of a three-episode-arc. Since Le Chiffre's organization in the film will be terrorists, the next few movies could follow the formula that the Connery movies did: every film has a different villain and plot, but the same people are behind it every time. What do you think about that idea?

I agree with the first paragraph and as for the second, it sounds good to me too. Oborin (the SMERSH assassin who saves Bond) could then be the villain's main henchman in Bond 22 or 23, which would set up an interesting plot thread whereby 007 has to kill the man who spared his life.

[Gabe Vieira]

I would rather the movie stick to the book and have an un-named agent kill Le Chiffre, rather than having Vesper do it. Also, I think that Vesper should kill herself, as she did in the book. Casino Royale needs to show audiences a new kind of Bond, that not everything is pretty in the world of James Bond. This film really needs to grab the necks of the audience and shake their heads around while screaming "Forget what you know! This is the new James Bond!"

Also, that un-named assassin could be a focal point in the plot to Bond 22 if they agree to have something of a three-episode-arc. Since Le Chiffre's organization in the film will be terrorists, the next few movies could follow the formula that the Connery movies did: every film has a different villain and plot, but the same people are behind it every time. What do you think about that idea?

I agree with the first paragraph and as for the second, it sounds good to me too. Oborin (the SMERSH assassin who saves Bond) could then be the villain's main henchman in Bond 22 or 23, which would set up an interesting plot thread whereby 007 has to kill the man who spared his life.

I'm not so sure that Oborin should be a henchman, rather just a focal point of the plot.

Say that in Casino Royale, the United Kingdom identifies Oborin as the man who killed Le Chiffre, but they do not know who he is working for. Then in Bond 22 there could be something like, this new terrorist organization that Le Chiffre worked for decides to teach the USA/ UK a lession about how they should have not interfered with the Middle East. Somehow these terrorists attack a Middle Eastern landmark or something and make it look like the USA/ UK did so the USA/ UK would be in even deeper crap than before. But one of the men is identified during the attack - and it's Oborin.

Something like that, but that idea is kind of crap. I just made it up to show how the un-named assassin could fit into the plot. But I do like the idea of Bond having, maybe not kill, but capture the un-named assassin who saved him. Mainly because that dude would do anything to make sure that he wouldn't be captured by the SIS, like kill the man that he saved - or kill himself.

After all, Bond owes him one - and three 9mm bullets in the chest is not a very good way to your appreciation.

[morganhavoc]

You have to keep in mind that we're dealing with Stalinist Russia here where you did what you were told or else.

I think what we're dealing with more is a former English naval intelligence officer's perception of Stalinist Russia, channelled through the thriller genre. In real life, SMERSH was not nearly the kind of organisation it is painted as in Fleming. There were small groups of hunter-killer cells in the dying days of World War Two who combed through the DP camps assassinating traitors and others (ie Ukrainians, many of which were members of the SS units responsible for killing women and children). But the organisation had already disbanded by 1948, and even if you buy the story of it continuing regardless, there's no evidence they killed anyone at all. In reality, Le Chiffre would have been summoned to Paris or somewhere and put in a nasty little room and asked a lot of questions by SMERSH officers, and if found guilty, yes, packed away to Siberia. If you read the only serious memoir of anyone who worked for SMERSH - NIGHTS ARE LONGEST THERE - you'll soon revise your view of this organisation. It was feared, yes, but because they could send you to the gulag. The people who worked for it were almost to a man military desk men. It's much more similar to the work of the British in the London Cage than some kind of assasination agency.

The idea that Oborin (why not call him that?) wouldn't have countermanded his order for the reasons you state is, I'm sure, absolutely what Fleming was getting at, and in the context of the novel works. But in real life Oborin would not have been there, so would not have feared going to the gulag. SMERSH were the group who recommended sending people to the gulag, and that is what they would have done in this case with Le Chiffre.

Boy, you are a spy novel fan! Nice info. I feel like I actually learned something on the form today. Keep up the good posts.

General question for anyone...I didn't think smersh was going to be in the movie, so how would you explain not killing Bond? Do you think a terrorist wouldn't just kill him, a british agent? Britian is only second to USA on the terrorist hate list. Hell, most people would kill him for being in the room and a witness.

That's why making Vesper a more complicated character and the agent who saves Bond and then killed, creates a more dramatic scene that will haunt Bond in his later missions.

Edited by morganhavoc, 22 November 2005 - 03:38 PM.

[Mr Malcolm]

General question for anyone...I didn't think smersh was going to be in the movie, so how would you explain not killing Bond? Do you think a terrorist wouldn't just kill him, a british agent? Britian is only second to USA on the terrorist hate list. Hell, most people would kill him for being in the room and a witness.

That's why making Vesper a more complicated character and the agent who saves Bond and then killed, creates a more dramatic scene that will haunt Bond in his later missions.

That's a good point, actually. The writers are going to have to come up with a plausible reason for Oborin (or whatever he ends up being called, if anything) not killing Bond. I think the reason given in the book worked well enough in the context, but updating it may well be necessary.

If I was writing the script, I'm not sure whether I would have Vesper kill Oborin, but I understand why it might work. Either way, I'd have her kill herself at the end; if Bond does it, then people are going to go right off him, and if another terrorist agent does it, it will diminish the ending's power. When Vesper kills herself in the book, it's much more complicated than that; Bond feels betrayed, hurt, angry...you name it, and so ends up as the man we know today. If someone else kills Vesper, Bond's much more likely to be just pee-d off and wanting revenge, which won't be as an effective or satisfying an ending IMO.