165 replies to this topic

[Agent Spriggan Ominae]

Don't despair yet, Double-Oh. I think you're overreacting. I only said that my source didn't refer to the character as Le Chiffre. Like I said a few posts back that doesn't mean he won't be called that.

I hope so, but I don't know, what I read doesn't thrill me. I will admit, however, that aside from the examples I gave, the rest of it sounds okay. But the Demetrius character sounds a lot like Le Chiffre with just a different name. I suppose they may have changed the name because us Americans wouldn't know what Le Chiffre means a la Licence Revoked.

I think I figured it out. Stax is saying that the main villian is most likly Le Chiffre but his sources never stated his name. Now this character of Demetrius sounds alot like the Le Chiffre from the novel. What if they made Le Chiffre into two different characters. This could explain the rumors that Le Chiffre is actually the owner of Casino Royale hence why it would be unlikly that Le Chiffre himself would be gambling in his own Casino. Demetrius will take the place of Le Chiffre from the novel in the film while the character of Le Chiffre has become a casion owner in the film.

[Tinfinger]

Yeah, adapting Casino would be a real bitch to do. I have always thought this movie adaptation should have been done right in the 60s or early 70s. The movie would have fit in there perfectly, downbeat ending, the good guy losing the girl and getting whooped. Nowadays, I don't think it will work so well. But, what the hell, that is why they get paid the big bucks!

[Shrublands]

DEAR GOD, PEOPLE! READING COMPREHENSION SKILLS! For the third time, I never said the villain would not be called Le Chiffre. I just thought it odd that my sources only referred to him as the villain and not by name! Stop overreacting. He might still be called Le Chiffre.

Well you see your article does read:-

The villain, oddly enough not called Le Chiffre by our sources.

And that staitment is seriously open to the interpretation that many people here have given it. I.e. the villain is NOT called Le Chiffre.

[Stax]

I have gone back and clarified it to read:

"The film's heavy (who was not referred to as 'Le Chiffre' by our sources but merely as the villain) will be in his late twenties to mid-thirties."

I am not saying he will be called Le Chiffre or that he won't be. He was only referred to as the villain. That's all I know, guys.

Edited by Stax, 11 January 2006 - 11:17 AM.

[Tinfinger]

Stax, who is gonna play in the Super Bowl?

Just kidding. My goodness, now I know how those people who claim to be psychic feel!

[Shrublands]

I understand concerns about making Le Chiffre/the villain too young. I really liked the book but it is too thin and too dated to be literally adapted to the screen as a contemporary feature-length film. It is not My Dinner With Le Chiffre. It needs enough sequences (both action and dramatic) to sustain audience's interest. A 45 minute card game won't cut it. Hence, new or additional characters. As long as the torture scene and Bond's relationship with Vesper is faithful I can live with it. Oh, yeah, and no Texas Hold 'Em!

Yes, agreed but the atmosphere of the torture sequence and Bond

Edited by Shrublands, 11 January 2006 - 11:22 AM.

[Stax]

Agreed. Le Chiffre needs to be older. That "my dear boy" line is all his!

Super Bowl? I can only foresee the Patriots right now ...

Edited by Stax, 11 January 2006 - 11:23 AM.

[Hitchcock Bond]

[quote name='marktmurphy' date='11 January 2006 - 10:45']
The looks like another overloaded Bond in the same mannner of TMD or DAD.

[Shrublands]

Agreed. Le Chiffre needs to be older. That "my dear boy" line is all his!

Do you think there is a possibility, with your source saying just

[Blue07]

A very interesting read and some exciting possibilities there. I have to say I don't understand this stunt casting that is always rumoured - 'pop star' babe and all that. That is a worrying rumour. Why the need? If the casting rumours are anywhere near the truth then it seems CR is taking a different direction in that the are looking at relative unkowns for the key roles. I like that idea. So why the need to balance that out with totally out of place casting choices like pop singers and glamour models? I know this is only rumours at this stage and we can take them with a pinch of salt but there has been a trend in recent films of putting in 'faces' for no apparent reason - Madonna, Goldie, Oliver Skeet!? Why?! Even in TWINE's pre-title they had a blink and you will miss em shot of two reality TV 'stars' from some show about wheel clampers!!? Most British people didn't even know who they were so I would guess the rest of the world wouldn't - so why bother? If they are going natural and gritty with CR then don't populate it with cheesy self-knowing 'faces' that serve no purpose to the story. And as for Jordan...well there is the only person who would make Jessica Simpson seem like casting gold.

Edited by Lappaman, 11 January 2006 - 11:36 AM.

[spynovelfan]

I'm sorry I don't understand the reference, maths was never my strong point, but I understand  3 villains(possible unamed villain, Solari & Demetrius) plus 3 love interests (possible unamed villain's girlfriend, Vesper & Solange) make 6, plus another 2 possible agents (American & maybe French) make the total 8.  To have too many major characters may possibly harm character and plot development.  I am not advocating they should do a straight translation of the book.  I just believe that the recent Bond films would have been better if they were simplified a little: take out some characters, explosions etc and develop the basic characters a little more.

The book had *10* villains:

Le Chiffre
Basil
The Corsican
Mr and Mrs Muntz
Three Bulgarian assassins
The monocled SMERSH agent posing as a watchmaker
The SMERSH assassin

Two allies:
Rene Mathis
Felix Leiter

One girl:
Vesper Lynd

We have no idea how major any of the characters will be.

[Hitchcock Bond]

I was referring to the article not the novel.

[marktmurphy]

A very interesting read and some exciting possibilities there. I have to say I don't understand this stunt casting that is always rumoured - 'pop star' babe and all that. That is a worrying rumour. Why the need? ..... Even in TWINE's pre-title they had a blink and you will miss em shot of two reality TV 'stars' from some show about wheel clampers!!? Most British people didn't even know who they were so I would guess the rest of the world wouldn't - so why bother?

Well, you know; it's a bit of fun, isn't it? Why not? They didn't damage my experience (indeed I enjoyed the Oliver Skeet thing as it so wonderfully surreal and unexpected!).

[Shrublands]

3 villains(possible unamed villain, Solari & Demetrius) plus 3 love interests (possible unamed villain's girlfriend, Vesper & Solange) make 6, plus another 2 possible agents (American & maybe French) make the total 8.  To have too many major characters may possibly harm character and plot development.  I am not advocating they should do a straight translation of the book.  I just believe that the recent Bond films would have been better if they were simplified a little: take out some characters, explosions etc and develop the basic characters a little more.

Well, in the 60s, 3 girls was very much the formula.

And how many villains are there in FRWL for example?

Didn

[spynovelfan]

I was referring to the article not the novel.

I know. But you're complaining it looks like they have too many characters.

'To have too many major characters may possibly harm character and plot development.'

We have no idea how major these characters are until we see the film. Your conclusion that they have too many villains isn't based on anything - and could well be a *reduction* from the novel. Ten villains in the book - three villains in the article. Do you think the book was harmed by so many villains?

Why does everyone feel the need to decide that this film will be rubbish on the basis of pre-shooting rumour?

[marktmurphy]

[I just believe that the recent Bond films would have been better if they were simplified a little: take out some characters, explosions etc and develop the basic characters a little more.

DAD only had five characters of any importance. I'm not sure what you mean. I thought it felt too small scale, myself.

[marktmurphy]

Why does everyone feel the need to decide that this film will be rubbish on the basis of pre-shooting rumour?

Because, sadly, anything slightly different scares fans. Understandable, as they are fans of what a thing was and change in that means they may not like it anymore. But I do find the lack of imagination disturbing.

[David Schofield]

Anybody in their right mind knows you cannot make the book - probably any book -straight into a movie.

However, its seems rather silly (if indeed it is being considered) to: 1) not use the name Le Chiffre for the CENTRAL villain and keep that character as the one opposite Bond in the gambling duel 2) dilute the implict father/son issue by making "Le Chiffre" younger (potentially only considering the age Craig is supposed to be playing) than Bond: haven't we have a suffeit of villains younger than Bond lately?

Otherwise, fair enough.

Edited by David Schofield, 11 January 2006 - 12:09 PM.

[Hitchcock Bond]

We have no idea how major these characters are until we see the film. Your conclusion that they have too many villains isn't based on anything - and could well be a *reduction* from the novel. Ten villains in the book - three villains in the article. Do you think the book was harmed by so many villains?

Why does everyone feel the need to decide that this film will be rubbish on the basis of pre-shooting rumour?

My conclusion was only based on the article posted. Of course the article could be inaccurate. Naturally I do not expect an exact translation of the book. I just feel that aspects such as the Sudanese army and possible having three major villains, if true, sound a little overblown. I would argue that there was one major villain, Le Chiffre, in the book with the others as minor villains, henchmen etc. I have not decided anything about the film yet. Of course there have been examples of multiple villains that worked well, someone quoted FRWL for example. The film could end up working really well. I am only concerned if they do not make a good version of Casino Royale the filmmakers would have wasted a unique opportunity.

[Loomis]

Anybody in their right mind knows you cannot make the book - probably any book -straight into a movie.

While I'd agree with your statement if I took it literally (no, you can't make a book straight into a movie), I think it's one of those Great Myths of Bond Fandom that "Casino Royale" is a book that's "unfilmable" without major changes.

It seems to me that there's a general view that "Casino Royale" is some kind of desperately dated and dull (and exceptionally short) novel that would need to be altered radically and padded out in order to work as a film (although, strangely enough, there seems simultaneously to be a heck of a lot of whining about Eon's apparent plan to alter the book and pad it out and add lots of "new stuff" ).

Having re-read "Casino Royale" recently, I was struck by just how much it isn't dated or dull, and by how "filmic" it is. It remains gripping, violent, sexy stuff - a heady brew that still packs a punch, with a lot of edge-of-seat and shocking moments that could make for great cinema in - so to speak - raw form. And I don't think that's true of all the Flemings, by any means. Moving on to "Live and Let Die" and "Moonraker", I found them silly, old-fashioned and boring in places. Okay, we've all got our own individual likes and dislikes when it comes to the novels (and anything, come to that) - one man's "You Only Live Twice" (the all-time solid gold classic, IMO) is another man's "Moonraker" (the total snooze of the bunch, as far as I'm concerned*), but the point I'm ambling towards is that it's not that I'm so in awe of Fleming that I think any of his works would make for absolutely riveting cinema if adapted faithfully. It's just that I think CR still works, still holds up, and that it isn't the unfilmable (without colossal changes) antique it's often made out to be.

Still, I'm definitely not calling for a faithful adaptation of CR. Why not? Well, basically because I think Broccoli, Wilson and co. should do their own thing, as Eon has nearly always done. Bring on the creativity, the fresh take! YOLT is by far my favourite of the novels, yet the fact that the movie is nothing remotely like it (well, it isn't, actually - there's a lot more fidelity to the book than meets the eye, but that's another post) doesn't prevent my considering it one of the finest Bond flicks ever. And why should it? The books are the books, and the films are the films.

I'm perfectly happy with the way next year's big screen 007 outing seems to be shaping up. Craig, Dench, a nonsmoking Bond, a first mission reboot, the Bahamas or wherever instead of France, poker.... hey, whatever. All that matters is: will it be a good, entertaining film? Forget Fleming (and also Brosnan or Connery or whatever else), and judge it on its own merits.

Mind you, changing Mathis to Massus (is that actually a real surname?) does almost seem like a calculated insult towards the pasty and wifeless. Next they'll be deliberately spelling the "Casino Royale" author's name as "Flemming" on the posters, just to get a rise out of Bond buffs.

*Although the Blades stuff is superb. Not the card game, so much as the descriptions of the club and its history and culture - a wonderful glimpse into an exclusive world beyond the reach of the average Joe reader.

[Ace Roberts]

Stax, I realize this question is more appropriate on another thread, but what is your take on not having the main characters nailed down weeks before filming? Do you think Principal photography has been delayed until February and we just haven't heard it yet?? Seems odd to have these many questions still unanswered 2 weeks before filming.

[Loomis]

A couple of interesting parallels with DIE ANOTHER DAY:

- An unusually young (indeed, younger than Bond) villain.

- The Sudan connection echoes the use of North Korea in DAD.

Also, it looks as though there will be at least one Bond girl other than Vesper (in other words, a woman Bond "has", not just someone like, say, Jenny Flex or the Cigar Girl), and possibly two: the "villain's girlfriend" (if they're looking at pop stars, then I'm guessing Bjork, Pink, Gwen Stefani....), and Solonge, who is shockingly enough a "thirtysomething".

All well and good, but might this not be in danger of taking the focus off and diluting the Bond/Vesper romance (arguably what the whole thing should be "about")?

Also, it's curious that an American CIA agent is in the film but that there's no confirmation that the character will be Leiter. This is a bit of a long shot, but, given that Campbell is directing and may wish to make use of his "own" Bond universe, might it be that we'll be treated to the return of (a younger and suitably rebooted) Jack Wade?

[marktmurphy]

A couple of interesting parallels with DIE ANOTHER DAY:

- An unusually young (indeed, younger than Bond) villain.

Plus he has an identity crisis (if they stick to the reasoning behind the Le Chiffre name); just like Hugo Drax and Gustav Graves.

[Royal Dalton]

I can't really say I'm enthused by this news.

Dire Another Day?

[Loomis]

A couple of interesting parallels with DIE ANOTHER DAY:

- An unusually young (indeed, younger than Bond) villain.

Plus he has an identity crisis (if they stick to the reasoning behind the Le Chiffre name); just like Hugo Drax and Gustav Graves.

Yes, and also there's:

- Bond being tortured.

- Bond betrayed by one of the Bond girls.

Which were also elements in THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH, of course. Hey, I guess that's what you get if you keep getting Purvis and Wade to write these things.

[tdalton]

[quote name='Double-Oh Agent' date='11 January 2006 - 05:42']I, for one, don't like this news. The villain is not named Le Chiffre? And he's young? Leiter may not be Leiter? Mathis isn't Mathis? And he's old? No Basil or The Corsican? This is not my (nor Fleming's) Casino Royale. Granted, some updating of the plot needs to be done, but surely it's not that hard to keep these great characters much like they were in the novel while at the same time updating the plot. This news is not soothing my worries for the film--it's only making them worse. First the reboot and now this. (Shudder) I'm afraid to think of what might come next. (Maybe those Jessica Simpson rumors ARE true.)

Edited by tdalton, 11 January 2006 - 04:18 PM.

[Judo chop]

[quote name='spynovelfan' date='11 January 2006 - 05:57'][quote name='Tinfinger' date='11 January 2006 - 10:44']This all sounds a bit on the top heavy side.

[Loomis]

NOTE TO SONY:  Scrap this film before EON continues to ruin a perfectly good story.

Nah, however they chop and change the story, it could still, of course, be a good film. We'll just have to see how they handle it. I mean, TWINE could have been a good film had a few things been done a little differently.

Still, it does seem odd that, on the one hand, they seem to be shouting from the rooftops "LOOK! THIS ONE WILL BE VERY DIFFERENT TO ANYTHING ELSE! WE'RE REBOOTING THE FRANCHISE!", but, on the other hand, they seem to be sticking remarkably closely to the formula of the last two Brosnans, with Dench returning as M for good measure.

But, anyway, however they'll end up doing it, we'll just have to wait and see whether it'll be a decent movie (obviously).

[Andrew]

I really could care less about the names, as long as we get a good Bond film. Come on, we all knew this isn't going to be an adaption like From Russia With Love so don't be disappointed.

Would I have liked them to use the original names? Yes. Does it break the movie for me? Hell no.

I'm just glad were getting some news. I like the tidbit that Bond thinks that someone else is the double.

[tdalton]

[quote name='Loomis' date='11 January 2006 - 11:27'][quote name='tdalton' date='11 January 2006 - 16:11']NOTE TO SONY: