103 replies to this topic

[Rolex]

There is absolutely NO reason why Le Chiffre's name shouldn't be included. Can you imagine if they didn't use the names Goldfinger, Dr. No, or Blofeld? One of the great pleasures of the original films was seeing these great characters leap from the page to the screen. These are iconic names and iconic characters and die hard fans have been waiting 40 years for Le Chiffre to join their ranks. To deny the fans this would be a slap in the face.

Most of the fan base of the early Bond movies hadn't read the books. The pleasure of seeing those villains on screen for most is that they were just done so well - not seeing them transferred from book to screen.

Casino Royale on the other hand is a literary classic and deserve enough respect to retain the original character names for the big screen adaptation.

CASINO ROYALE is certainly a spy-thriller classic, but let's not fool ourselves. This isn't adapting one of the most beloved books of all time. Bond's success lay primarily outside of the novels and in the EON films.

On aicn site they have a scoop regarding spiderman 3 using a character called Gwen Stacy . Most of the people who go and see this will not know about this character history but the director wants to use it.
It seems to me that our producers ,director , script writers dont have the conviction to use CR characters names

[Harmsway]

On aicn site they have a scoop regarding spiderman 3 using a character called Gwen Stacy . Most of the people who go and see this will not know about this character history but the director wants to use it.
It seems to me that our producers ,director , script writers dont have the conviction to use CR characters names

That's because Spider-man is still predominately a comic-book character, and they're adapting the source material. Spider-man is not predominately a film series.

Bond isn't predominately a novel character - he's predominately a film character. It's very different. The priorities are very different, and since they've deviated from the source material for so long, faithfulness hardly matters. The film Bond is successful on its own merits.

[Streetworker]

Just seems a shame, though. Le Chiffre is a Fleming name. Why not use it? What disadvantage does it have? Alternatively, what benefit doe "Demetrious" bring?

EXACTLY.

Demetrius sounds like a villain from a third-rate, discount Bond knock-off from 1966.

Dare I say that Tybalt never has his name changed!

Ah but Bon-san--Bond isn't quite Shakespeare.

Perhaps not. But my respect for Ian Fleming is not exceeded by my respect for Willy Shakespeare.

I take it you are not an English professor then.

No, although I did take a minor in English in college. Read lots and lots of Willy. Wonderful, brilliant stuff. So is Fleming's.

Well we agree on Willy--Ian is good but not nearly that good IMO.

Oh, I don't know... I've got both on my shelves, but I know whose work I reach for most...

Well it's not knocking anyone to say they aren't as good as Shakespeare. And what one enjoys, well that is subjective--to each their own.

I wasn't there at the time, but I understand Mr. Shakespeare's plays were regarded by his contemporaries as entertaining-for-the-masses stuff, rather than instantly classic, timelessly brilliant, top-shelf masterworks.

Absolutely right. In Shakespeare In Love, he's called a "penny-a-page" writer. Shakespeare was, first and foremost, a populist entertainer. Alas, the academics got hold of him (never a good thing) with the result that generations of schoolkids have been forced to read him ever since. Forcing someone to read always breeds contempt, which is why so many people are turned off from the plays at a young age. And what's usually forgotten is that the plays were meant to be seen, not read. Reading Shakespeare can be a bit of a drag, even if, like me, you are familiar with them. But seeing the plays, when done properly, can be a joy.

[SecretAgentFan]

Right. Coming back to Bond and the "Le Chiffre"/"Demetrius" question... well, unless this is not confirmed by EON I don

[Streetworker]

On aicn site they have a scoop regarding spiderman 3 using a character called Gwen Stacy . Most of the people who go and see this will not know about this character history but the director wants to use it.
It seems to me that our producers ,director , script writers dont have the conviction to use CR characters names

That's because Spider-man is still predominately a comic-book character, and they're adapting the source material. Spider-man is not predominately a film series.

Bond isn't predominately a novel character - he's predominately a film character. It's very different. The priorities are very different, and since they've deviated from the source material for so long, faithfulness hardly matters. The film Bond is successful on its own merits.

You are undoubtedly right; although the film series couldn't exist without the books. But if the original Casino Royale book is so unimportant to the filmmakers, why make a big production number out of making it? Why not just come up with a new title and use whatever plot elements they want from Fleming's work (as they did with DAD)?

It seems perverse to make extravagant claims that they're going back to basics by filming Casino Royale with Daniel Craig only to then discard one of the three most important characters from the book (although I remain to be convinced that's what they're actually doing).

[Harmsway]

You are undoubtedly right; although the film series couldn't exist without the books. But if the original Casino Royale book is so unimportant to the filmmakers, why make a big production number out of making it? Why not just come up with a new title and use whatever plot elements they want from Fleming's work (as they did with DAD)?

Well, that's a good case. I guess it's because they wanted to use the title and play off of the Ian Fleming connection. Also, if they're going with the reboot, it is THE book to use (even if it's not necessarily Bond's first Double-O mission in CASINO ROYALE, it is the first book of the series, so hence the connection). I mean, it's just like them using the title of MOONRAKER or YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE and I have no complaints with doing that (in fact, MOONRAKER and YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE are among my favorite entries in the series).

It seems perverse to make extravagant claims that they're going back to basics by filming Casino Royale with Daniel Craig only to then discard one of the three most important characters from the book (although I remain to be convinced that's what they're actually doing).

True, but the idea wasn't necessarily to be so faithful (though apparently the second half of the book is intact, at least in events), but to get to the Fleming spirit. And even if Le Chiffre is renamed - we know it will be Le Chiffre. It's just the character with another name and nationality slapped on top of him.

I'd prefer faithfulness to story structure and important moments like that than preserving characters (and I never found Le Chiffre all that interesting when compared to the rest of the villain's in the Bond books, anyway).

[spynovelfan]

I don't buy that Demetrius is a replacement for Le Chiffre on the grounds of the latter being too tricky a name for Americans or anyone else to understand. Mainly because Demetrius is trickier!

I suspect Demetrius might *appear* to be the main villain for much of the film, but at some point Bond discovers that he is or was working for a mysterious figure known only as Le Chiffre. And that Le Chiffre is the villain in the next film, too. If they did that, they would bridge the gap between Fleming's only unfilmed novel and going back to films not strictly based on Fleming - but they would have a Fleming villain to bolster it. They could then use a few other unused Fleming elements and names in Bond 22.

[Double-Oh Agent]

I don't buy that Demetrius is a replacement for Le Chiffre on the grounds of the latter being too tricky a name for Americans or anyone else to understand. Mainly because Demetrius is trickier!

I suspect Demetrius might *appear* to be the main villain for much of the film, but at some point Bond discovers that he is or was working for a mysterious figure known only as Le Chiffre. And that Le Chiffre is the villain in the next film, too. If they did that, they would bridge the gap between Fleming's only unfilmed novel and going back to films not strictly based on Fleming - but they would have a Fleming villain to bolster it. They could then use a few other unused Fleming elements and names in Bond 22.

From all that we know now, I think that idea is the most realistic and interesting--and one I could live with.

Here's another idea I just thought up along those lines. If Demetrius is indeed also known as Le Chiffre, might the main villain escape and use the alias Dr. Guntram Shatterhand in Bond 22 including his creation of a garden of death?

Edited by Double-Oh Agent, 19 January 2006 - 10:38 AM.

[mkkbb]

Maybe Le Chiffre is in CR but it isn't a very big role, or even only appears in the pre title sequence.

He doesn't need to be the main villain, and really would only need to be shown in a few hands of the card game they play, then he can be killed by his loan shark, Demetrius (I'm guessing that's how the story could go).

[spynovelfan]

Of course, it *could* be a lovely little nod to Dimitrios, the mysterious drug-dealer, pimp and spy at the centre of Eric Ambler's seminal 1939 thriller A COFFIN FOR DIMITRIOS, which shares a number of similarities with Ian Fleming's CASINO ROYALE.

[Rolex]

I don't buy that Demetrius is a replacement for Le Chiffre on the grounds of the latter being too tricky a name for Americans or anyone else to understand. Mainly because Demetrius is trickier!

I suspect Demetrius might *appear* to be the main villain for much of the film, but at some point Bond discovers that he is or was working for a mysterious figure known only as Le Chiffre. And that Le Chiffre is the villain in the next film, too. If they did that, they would bridge the gap between Fleming's only unfilmed novel and going back to films not strictly based on Fleming - but they would have a Fleming villain to bolster it. They could then use a few other unused Fleming elements and names in Bond 22.

Would not surprise me if this is the case , especially topical at the moment is where is Bin Laden and the producer thinking about terrorism etc.

[tdalton]

I hope that they at least have Le Chiffre as that "main" villain that has yet to be named. With as much respect as Michael Wilson obviously has for Fleming's work, I really can't see him throwing the Le Chiffre character completely out of the equation. Or at least they could mention that Le Chiffre is one of Demetrius' aliases when he is working in and/or around France.

[Royal Dalton]

Of course, it *could* be a lovely little nod to Dimitrios, the mysterious drug-dealer, pimp and spy at the centre of Eric Ambler's seminal 1939 thriller A COFFIN FOR DIMITRIOS, which shares a number of similarities with Ian Fleming's CASINO ROYALE.

Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised. There's a Peter Lorre connection there, too.

[Hawkeye]

I don't buy that Demetrius is a replacement for Le Chiffre on the grounds of the latter being too tricky a name for Americans or anyone else to understand. Mainly because Demetrius is trickier!

I suspect Demetrius might *appear* to be the main villain for much of the film, but at some point Bond discovers that he is or was working for a mysterious figure known only as Le Chiffre. And that Le Chiffre is the villain in the next film, too. If they did that, they would bridge the gap between Fleming's only unfilmed novel and going back to films not strictly based on Fleming - but they would have a Fleming villain to bolster it. They could then use a few other unused Fleming elements and names in Bond 22.

Not a bad idea that - i could probably let the whole Le Chiffre thing slide if this were the case.

[Gobi-1]

Is it possible that EON is going to bring in the Union as the SPETCRE type orginazation and Le Chiffre has replace Le Gerant as it's head. I could go for that.

[Jim]

Is it possible that EON is going to bring in the Union as the SPETCRE type orginazation and Le Chiffre has replace Le Gerant as it's head. I could go for that.

What if Le Chiffre is the name of the organisation, rather than a specific person?

[Gabe Vieira]

Loomis almost all Bond films go the low key route with the supporting roles and villians....

Excluding, of course, the most recent couple of Bond films.

Well, that was one of the many reasons why "the most recent couple of Bond films" stunk like none other. Too much star quality took away from the quality of the film itself.

[Harmsway]

Loomis almost all Bond films go the low key route with the supporting roles and villians....

Excluding, of course, the most recent couple of Bond films.

Well, that was one of the many reasons why "the most recent couple of Bond films" stunk like none other. Too much star quality took away from the quality of the film itself.

Disagree entirely. The Bond series could totally be successful with a star-studded cast. Aside from poor performance, the fact that stars were cast in DAD had no direct result on the quality of the film.

[EyesOnly]

Agreed, A star-studded cast would only enhance the film. Berry stuck out like a sore thumb. Not only was she written horribly for the film, but her acting is far from great. If you are going to go down the "Star" route, you need someone who is worth givin' up the bucks for.

[K1Bond007]

Let me just add that the character of Jaws became a huge icon despite the fact his Fleming name was Horror. However TSWLM was considered a disappointment by Fleming and fans so not using the original story and character names for the film was met with no complaints.

I wouldn't even make this comparison. Theres a world of difference between teeth caps and having your entire jaw reconstructed using steel components. Inspired, perhaps, but not based on - no fact.

[Mr. Somerset]

I sincerely hope that Le Chiffre is the name of the main villain in CR. I would think it foolish otherwise. Why blow an opportunity to use one of Fleming's classic villains for the cheesy forgetable Brosnan-villain sounding Demetrius?

[Harmsway]

I sincerely hope that Le Chiffre is the name of the main villain in CR. I would think it foolish otherwise. Why blow an opportunity to use one of Fleming's classic villains for the cheesy forgetable Brosnan-villain sounding Demetrius?

True, but I think it's a minor point. It's just a point of name more than the character himself. I'd love to see Le Chiffre used, but if it's not, I'll hardly throw a tantrum.

[Mr. Somerset]

I sincerely hope that Le Chiffre is the name of the main villain in CR. I would think it foolish otherwise. Why blow an opportunity to use one of Fleming's classic villains for the cheesy forgetable Brosnan-villain sounding Demetrius?

True, but I think it's a minor point. It's just a point of name more than the character himself. I'd love to see Le Chiffre used, but if it's not, I'll hardly throw a tantrum.

I must say I am quite pleased with the casting. This guy looks like he has potential to be a memorable villain. In fact, I'm thrilled with all the casting for CR so far.

[David Schofield]

I sincerely hope that Le Chiffre is the name of the main villain in CR. I would think it foolish otherwise. Why blow an opportunity to use one of Fleming's classic villains for the cheesy forgetable Brosnan-villain sounding Demetrius?

True, but I think it's a minor point. It's just a point of name more than the character himself. I'd love to see Le Chiffre used, but if it's not, I'll hardly throw a tantrum.

Oh, it really is such a minor point - but from both angles: why the NEED to ditch the name Le Chiffre at all? There is none.

Then again, IMO, my money at present is on Thandie Newton as "The Cypher" following on into the next movie.

[Harmsway]

I sincerely hope that Le Chiffre is the name of the main villain in CR. I would think it foolish otherwise. Why blow an opportunity to use one of Fleming's classic villains for the cheesy forgetable Brosnan-villain sounding Demetrius?

True, but I think it's a minor point. It's just a point of name more than the character himself. I'd love to see Le Chiffre used, but if it's not, I'll hardly throw a tantrum.

I must say I am quite pleased with the casting. This guy looks like he has potential to be a memorable villain. In fact, I'm thrilled with all the casting for CR so far.

The casting is wonderful - I'm very happy with it thus far.

[Double-Oh Agent]

I sincerely hope that Le Chiffre is the name of the main villain in CR. I would think it foolish otherwise. Why blow an opportunity to use one of Fleming's classic villains for the cheesy forgetable Brosnan-villain sounding Demetrius?

True, but I think it's a minor point. It's just a point of name more than the character himself. I'd love to see Le Chiffre used, but if it's not, I'll hardly throw a tantrum.

I must say I am quite pleased with the casting. This guy looks like he has potential to be a memorable villain. In fact, I'm thrilled with all the casting for CR so far.

The casting is wonderful - I'm very happy with it thus far.

I concur about the casting except for one person--Judi Dench. For Bond Begins we need Miles Messervy not Barbara Mawdsley. And if the need for a familiar face is so great, EON could always bring back Michael Kitchen as Bill Tanner to serve as Messervy's right-hand man (providing of course that they still omit both Moneypenny and Boothroyd from the script).

[DavidSomerset]

Demetrius will undergo genetic restructuring in Cuba and become Le Chiffre. Thandie Newton plays the sister of Jinx who was killed by Demetrius( to repeat plot point from Goldfinger and Masterton sister logic) and hopes to avenge Jinx's death. Then she meets Bond and gets killed too and gets covered by Casino chips. Enter VESPER who takes the chips and doublecrosses James. She is killed by Le Chiffre who plants biochemical weapons in the casino chips. Bond destroys the chips and has a martini. Then he finds Moneypenny in a bar ....

Edited by DavidSomerset, 20 January 2006 - 09:46 AM.

[Harmsway]

I concur about the casting except for one person--Judi Dench. For Bond Begins we need Miles Messervy not Barbara Mawdsley. And if the need for a familiar face is so great, EON could always bring back Michael Kitchen as Bill Tanner to serve as Messervy's right-hand man (providing of course that they still omit both Moneypenny and Boothroyd from the script).

Well, the audience knows Judi Dench. They wouldn't remember Michael Kitchen. I think the rationale was to give somebody to them for comfort, and Dench is it.

But I agree, I wanted a male M this time around. Bernard Hill was my ideal pick.

[DavidSomerset]

Maybe they should get Sharon Stone as M. She can put on a British accent and it can be a good running gag. Also we can have a shag scene between M and 007.

[Agent Spriggan Ominae]

Well I looked over the AICN article again and I think it's all just a fan who submitted a rehash of the genuine scoops from Stax and the report about Byrne from the daily mail and threw in the whole "no Le Chiffre" thing as a way to stir up contraversy in the fan community. This person acts like he has the inside scoop and knows more than most. I think the way we will no for certain is if it this person does know more than the daily mail and Stax is if we do get and official confirmation today that Byrne is indeed Vesper which is what this "scooper" claims to confirm. If this does indeed happen I'll buy it for now, if not, than no use getting worked up over "no Le Chiffre" until we hear otherwise from EON/Sony.