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

Full 'Casino Royale' Script Review!


491 replies to this topic

Poll: If it's true...

...what do you think?

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Vote Guests cannot vote

#31 JameswpBond

JameswpBond

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 348 posts

Posted 10 February 2006 - 11:07 AM

It's going to be the greatest Bond film ever!

#32 Tim007

Tim007

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4821 posts
  • Location:Trier/Germany

Posted 10 February 2006 - 11:09 AM

I read it and I liked it. But I didn't want to read it. DAMN.

#33 FriendsFriend

FriendsFriend

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 35 posts

Posted 10 February 2006 - 11:15 AM

LOL I've read better toilet paper than that.

#34 Skudor

Skudor

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9286 posts
  • Location:Buckinghamshire

Posted 10 February 2006 - 11:22 AM

I read it and I liked it. But I didn't want to read it. DAMN.


I know the feeling. I've promised myself not to read it again. Although I kept a copy. Sigh.

#35 Niwram

Niwram

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 368 posts
  • Location:Somewhere in Europe

Posted 10 February 2006 - 11:23 AM

:tup: :D :D :D :( [censored] [censored] [censored] [censored] [censored] [censored] [censored] [censored] [censored] [censored] [censored] [censored] [censored] [censored] [censored] [censored] [censored] [censored] [censored]

#36 Skudor

Skudor

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9286 posts
  • Location:Buckinghamshire

Posted 10 February 2006 - 11:23 AM

LOL I've read better toilet paper than that.



Really? You'll have to share where you got it. It would make my toilet breaks so much more interesting.

#37 Double-Oh Agent

Double-Oh Agent

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4325 posts

Posted 10 February 2006 - 11:26 AM

God, do I want to read this!!??

Yes!....

No!....

Yes!....

No!....

Oh :D, what do I do!!??


My sentiments exactly. For the time being though, I think I will stay in suspense. Wonder how long I can take it. :tup:

#38 bleary_25

bleary_25

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 55 posts

Posted 10 February 2006 - 11:58 AM

I didn't know whether to read it or not - I started to and read the first few paragraphs about the pre-credits sequence and the opening titles. Great stuff.

Then I skimmed through the detailed description of Act I. Don't want to know too much about it!

Then, tentatively, read the vague outline of the rest of the film. The review, thankfully, doesn't give too much away. Just enough to make me realise the film is on track. Hard to say exactly how it will turn out, though. Still no real indication of the final tone or how the dialogue will play.

Yes, the torture scene is still in.

And, yes, I don't know how the film ends! I don't want to know too much. But November cannot come quick enough.

#39 Streetworker

Streetworker

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 460 posts
  • Location:Good old Manchester

Posted 10 February 2006 - 11:59 AM


Could be me being over optimistc. BUT I see nothing that TOTALLY contradicts the existence of the old films nor does Dench-M seem to stick out.

I quite like the reboot idea, and I think CASINO ROYALE as presented here works best as an origin story. Viewing it as "just another adventure" for Bond ruins all of this film's appeal. This film is about the rookie, arrogant Bond getting broken in, so to speak, and that's important.


It's also what some of us - myself included - desperately didn't want to see. I still believe origin/reboot/begins stories are so last year and I surely can't be alone in finding a 38 y/o rookie Bond faintly absurd?

That said, however, I have to admit there's not much here that will frighten the horses, too much. And if they can pull it off, it'll never be less than interesting.

#40 Auric64

Auric64

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 362 posts

Posted 10 February 2006 - 12:26 PM

I am still not so sure about the endproduct. :tup:


Same here, chimera01.

Batman Begins worked because, like the other 4 previous Batman films, (since 1989) it wasn`t set in a particular timeline. Each film, (with the exception of Batman Begins) could be placed before the others, so continuity wasn`t an issue. Also the look of each film, particularly the production and costume design, again didn`t lend itself to a particular time.

With Bond it`s different. Each Bond film, (apart from the flashback in GoldenEye) is set in the time it is made. Updating Casino Royale the book to contemporary times isn`t a problem, and it seems that the writers have managed to do that with a fair portion of the film remaining faithfull to the book. The plot itself sounds fine, and adding the terrorist element to it makes it contemporary.

What is going to be hard to explain away, is Bond getting his 00 status, and Casino Royale being his first mission. Okay, many cinema goers know Bond is called 007 and, while they might not know its significance, they already know he has a licence to kill and will do so if need be, whilst on a mission.

By showing how Bond gets his status and then weave this into the plot, is going to tell the audience that this is going to be Bond`s first mission. Yet M, as played by Judi Dench, is also integral to the plot of CR the film, but to cinema goers was seen as being Brosnan`s Bond when Dench replaced Robert Brown back in 1995. That`s okay, because the audience can believe and accept that a woman has replaced a man as head of MI6, regardless of who is playing Bond, because the continuity of that character has no bearing on the continuity of the Bond series as a whole.

I think it would have been better just to have set the book of CR in contemporary times, (as they have done) and if they wanted to show Bond getting his 00 status, show that in flashback, as Bond is talking to Vesper, (or whoever), and by doing it this way, it doesn`t make it integral to the plot. It would, however, add to the mythology of Bond and be a welcome addition of characterisation to the story. The plot and the 40 year history wouldn`t then be compromised.

It seems to me that the makers of the film have tied themselves up in knots, trying to bring to the screen a Bond Begins origin story, when a bit of plain, simple thinking between the writers and the producers could have given them (and us) what was wanted, without alienating what I think, will be a very confused cinema going audience this November.

Best

Andy





Okay, the plot itself sounds fine, but I`m still not happy with this reboot idea. Why do we have to have Bond as this cocky, know-all type agent, when he`s been that for the past 40 years! Bond has made mistakes in previous Bond films, that`s the character development we are able to get, in between the whizz bang action sequences. It would have been better had the 00 killings been told in flashback, thus keeping the film and its plot contemporarly to what is going on today.

If certain Bond fans, (like myself) are going to find it hard to accept seeing Bond getting his 00 status as part of the plot, then how will the average movie goer, (used to seeing Bond as a double 0 agent as he has been over 40 years) going to accept it?

#41 stamper

stamper

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2994 posts
  • Location:Under the sea

Posted 10 February 2006 - 12:33 PM

As easy as they accepted Moore as Bond or Brozza as Bond with a new M, I will say. It's clearly aimed at a youger audience, this script, I would also say, while trying not to loose the old.

#42 Harmsway

Harmsway

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13293 posts

Posted 10 February 2006 - 12:35 PM


I am still not so sure about the endproduct. :tup:


Same here, chimera01.

Batman Begins worked because, like the other 4 previous Batman films, (since 1989) it wasn`t set in a particular timeline. Each film, (with the exception of Batman Begins) could be placed before the others, so continuity wasn`t an issue. Also the look of each film, particularly the production and costume design, again didn`t lend itself to a particular time.

Actually, the previous four Batman films were in a timeline (BATMAN 1989 refers to his just starting with an origin of the Batsignal, BATMAN RETURNS refers to the girl of the previous film, BATMAN FOREVER refers to Batman's relationship with Catwoman, I'm unsure about any continuity references BATMAN AND ROBIN makes). They share more continuity in story than the average Bond film has with the rest of the series.

I think it would have been better just to have set the book of CR in contemporary times, (as they have done) and if they wanted to show Bond getting his 00 status, show that in flashback, as Bond is talking to Vesper, (or whoever), and by doing it this way, it doesn`t make it integral to the plot. It would, however, add to the mythology of Bond and be a welcome addition of characterisation to the story. The plot and the 40 year history wouldn`t then be compromised.

The character arc of CASINO ROYALE is dependent upon Bond being a relative rookie to the service, whether he'd just started or not. Having him be a seasoned agent in CASINO ROYALE makes little sense of the events of the novel.

#43 Streetworker

Streetworker

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 460 posts
  • Location:Good old Manchester

Posted 10 February 2006 - 12:47 PM


I am still not so sure about the endproduct. :tup:


Same here, chimera01.

Batman Begins worked because, like the other 4 previous Batman films, (since 1989) it wasn`t set in a particular timeline. Each film, (with the exception of Batman Begins) could be placed before the others, so continuity wasn`t an issue. Also the look of each film, particularly the production and costume design, again didn`t lend itself to a particular time.

With Bond it`s different. Each Bond film, (apart from the flashback in GoldenEye) is set in the time it is made. Updating Casino Royale the book to contemporary times isn`t a problem, and it seems that the writers have managed to do that with a fair portion of the film remaining faithfull to the book. The plot itself sounds fine, and adding the terrorist element to it makes it contemporary.

What is going to be hard to explain away, is Bond getting his 00 status, and Casino Royale being his first mission. Okay, many cinema goers know Bond is called 007 and, while they might not know its significance, they already know he has a licence to kill and will do so if need be, whilst on a mission.

By showing how Bond gets his status and then weave this into the plot, is going to tell the audience that this is going to be Bond`s first mission. Yet M, as played by Judi Dench, is also integral to the plot of CR the film, but to cinema goers was seen as being Brosnan`s Bond when Dench replaced Robert Brown back in 1995. That`s okay, because the audience can believe and accept that a woman has replaced a man as head of MI6, regardless of who is playing Bond, because the continuity of that character has no bearing on the continuity of the Bond series as a whole.

I think it would have been better just to have set the book of CR in contemporary times, (as they have done) and if they wanted to show Bond getting his 00 status, show that in flashback, as Bond is talking to Vesper, (or whoever), and by doing it this way, it doesn`t make it integral to the plot. It would, however, add to the mythology of Bond and be a welcome addition of characterisation to the story. The plot and the 40 year history wouldn`t then be compromised.

It seems to me that the makers of the film have tied themselves up in knots, trying to bring to the screen a Bond Begins origin story, when a bit of plain, simple thinking between the writers and the producers could have given them (and us) what was wanted, without alienating what I think, will be a very confused cinema going audience this November.

Best

Andy





Okay, the plot itself sounds fine, but I`m still not happy with this reboot idea. Why do we have to have Bond as this cocky, know-all type agent, when he`s been that for the past 40 years! Bond has made mistakes in previous Bond films, that`s the character development we are able to get, in between the whizz bang action sequences. It would have been better had the 00 killings been told in flashback, thus keeping the film and its plot contemporarly to what is going on today.

If certain Bond fans, (like myself) are going to find it hard to accept seeing Bond getting his 00 status as part of the plot, then how will the average movie goer, (used to seeing Bond as a double 0 agent as he has been over 40 years) going to accept it?


I have to say I agree. The Bond begins idea still feels horribly self-indulgent to me. I understand - and respect - why some Bond fans might like to see an origins story, but I have to say I couldn't give a flying-[censored] why he started shaking, not stirring, his martinis.



I am still not so sure about the endproduct. :D


Same here, chimera01.

The character arc of CASINO ROYALE is dependent upon Bond being a relative rookie to the service, whether he'd just started or not. Having him be a seasoned agent in CASINO ROYALE makes little sense of the events of the novel.


This is undeniably true. But the question is, do we want to see that arc? I understand why some fans do. Personally, I don't. It's not why I've loved this character and these films since the late 1960s. And I suspect it's not what the general audience wants to see either. But it's an interesting time in the franchise's history, at least.

Edited by Streetworker, 10 February 2006 - 12:41 PM.


#44 Harmsway

Harmsway

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13293 posts

Posted 10 February 2006 - 12:55 PM


The character arc of CASINO ROYALE is dependent upon Bond being a relative rookie to the service, whether he'd just started or not. Having him be a seasoned agent in CASINO ROYALE makes little sense of the events of the novel.

This is undeniably true. But the question is, do we want to see that arc? I understand why some fans do. Personally, I don't. It's not why I've loved this character and these films since the late 1960s. And I suspect it's not what the general audience wants to see either. But it's an interesting time in the franchise's history, at least.

What? How dare you not want Fleming in a Bond film!

Just kidding. It's not sacrilege to not be in love with Fleming, contrary to the general school of Bond-fan thought. However, I myself have always really wanted to see CASINO ROYALE handled properly and love the character arc of the novel. I think many here would concur. For me, Bond was never more interesting than when he was given some story arc, and it's great to be able to see that again.

Will the audience at large buy into it? We have yet to see. It's a risky gamble, but has less to say about the actual quality of the product and more about the public's open mind, IMO.

#45 Streetworker

Streetworker

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 460 posts
  • Location:Good old Manchester

Posted 10 February 2006 - 01:05 PM



The character arc of CASINO ROYALE is dependent upon Bond being a relative rookie to the service, whether he'd just started or not. Having him be a seasoned agent in CASINO ROYALE makes little sense of the events of the novel.

This is undeniably true. But the question is, do we want to see that arc? I understand why some fans do. Personally, I don't. It's not why I've loved this character and these films since the late 1960s. And I suspect it's not what the general audience wants to see either. But it's an interesting time in the franchise's history, at least.

What? How dare you not want Fleming in a Bond film!

Just kidding. It's not sacrilege to not be in love with Fleming, contrary to the general school of Bond-fan thought. However, I myself have always really wanted to see CASINO ROYALE handled properly and love the character arc of the novel. I think many here would concur. For me, Bond was never more interesting than when he was given some story arc, and it's great to be able to see that again.

Will the audience at large buy into it? We have yet to see. It's a risky gamble, but has less to say about the actual quality of the product and more about the public's open mind, IMO.


Agreed, it's a risky gamble. Which is quite appropriate for Casino Royale, don't you think?

My doubts about the reboot will remain until November, when they will either be confirmed or assuaged. Whichever way it goes, it will, as I wrote earlier, be never less than interesting.

#46 Kingdom Come

Kingdom Come

    Discharged

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3572 posts

Posted 10 February 2006 - 01:37 PM

It all sounds far too low key for me. BIG DEAL Bond shoots two men dead pre-titles. A fight at an airport! Yawn. It smacks of The Living Dalights with too much convoluted rubbish - too much narrative that adds up to nothing of great interest. Heaven knows what the kids who make these films buzz at the box office will rate such a Yawn feast!

They'll probably be playing their Die Another Day game whilst keeping an eye on the screen when all this is going on!

#47 Hitchcock Bond

Hitchcock Bond

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 152 posts

Posted 10 February 2006 - 01:48 PM

The outline for CR looks as good as we could have possibly hoped. It is faithful enough to the basic premise of Fleming's novel to keep the purists reasonably happy. The basic story looks to be as good as any previous Bond film, and may recapture the status of best spy thrillers from the Bourne franchise. (I notice that the rating for the Bourne Ultimatum on the same site is C+, whereas CR gets an A-) It also looks to have plenty of action to make the casual viewer want to see the film. All we need now is some casting news.

#48 marktmurphy

marktmurphy

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 10 February 2006 - 01:58 PM

A fight at an airport! Yawn.


I remember someone saying on one of these forums he was involved with a petrol company who were supplying a tanker to CR for an action sequence on a runway- this seems to confirm that. I'd bet that an explosion is involved.

#49 doublenoughtspy

doublenoughtspy

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4122 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 10 February 2006 - 02:01 PM

I agree with KC - it does seem like TLD's complex plot.

Bond getting his Double O from killing someone in a bathroom?

Pierce's first line as Bond was in a bathroom too.

"charming, sophisticated" not exactly.

#50 stamper

stamper

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2994 posts
  • Location:Under the sea

Posted 10 February 2006 - 02:01 PM

I only have one critic :

When I read in that review for the third time that "------ logs on the internet", I figured out it"s going to be a movie made of people watching their computer screens while trying to make their modem works.

Sounds exciting hey ? :tup:

#51 Skudor

Skudor

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9286 posts
  • Location:Buckinghamshire

Posted 10 February 2006 - 02:10 PM

I only have one critic :

When I read in that review for the third time that "------ logs on the internet", I figured out it"s going to be a movie made of people watching their computer screens while trying to make their modem works.

Sounds exciting hey ? :tup:


I had a similar reaction to that...

#52 hcmv007

hcmv007

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2310 posts
  • Location:United States, Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 10 February 2006 - 02:13 PM

I just finished reading it, and I have to say, I like the story. Can't wait to see it!

#53 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 10 February 2006 - 02:13 PM

Well, this sounds amazing, if a tad involved and overcomplicated (in a TLD/TWINE kinda way). The way it's all set down in this review, you'd think the film would have to be about three hours long in order to get it all in.

A few random thoughts from a geeking-out-into-overdrive brain:

The action scenes sound fantastic. Absolutely bloody marvellous.

The locations sound great. Pakistan? Miami? Bring it on, my friends! And even a cricket ground!

Bond is an arrogant prick in this script and full of ego. Wow. Have we ever seen this, even in Fleming? I don't think we have. (Well, we see bits and bobs of this in, funnily enough, the Moore era, especially THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, but it looks as though CR will be taking it to a whole new level). Could be really interesting.

But breaking into M's house? Erm.... right. Will she live at Quarterdeck, I wonder?

Overall, this sounds MUCH more Bourne than Bond. In fact, it might just as well be the beginning of an all-new franchise about an all-new secret agent action hero. Bond fans will freak, and the more hardcore Fleming purists will be speechless.

But, yes, I think this sounds terrific, and a real departure. Let's hope Campbell and co. don't screw up the translation from page to screen, because this really does sound very cool indeed.

Villiers? Rings a bell. Was he in FOR YOUR EYES ONLY?

#54 Streetworker

Streetworker

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 460 posts
  • Location:Good old Manchester

Posted 10 February 2006 - 02:18 PM

Well, this sounds amazing, if a tad involved and overcomplicated (in a TLD/TWINE kinda way). The way it's all set down in this review, you'd think the film would have to be about three hours long in order to get it all in.

A few random thoughts from a geeking-out-into-overdrive brain:

The action scenes sound fantastic. Absolutely bloody marvellous.

The locations sound great. Pakistan? Miami? Bring it on, my friends! And even a cricket ground!

Bond is an arrogant prick in this script and full of ego. Wow. Have we ever seen this, even in Fleming? I don't think we have. (Well, we see bits and bobs of this in, funnily enough, the Moore era, especially THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, but it looks as though CR will be taking it to a whole new level). Could be really interesting.

But breaking into M's house? Erm.... right. Will she live at Quarterdeck, I wonder?

Overall, this sounds MUCH more Bourne than Bond. In fact, it might just as well be the beginning of an all-new franchise about an all-new secret agent action hero. Bond fans will freak, and the more hardcore Fleming purists will be speechless.

But, yes, I think this sounds terrific, and a real departure. Let's hope Campbell and co. don't screw up the translation from page to screen, because this really does sound very cool indeed.

Villiers? Rings a bell. Was he in FOR YOUR EYES ONLY?


The late James Villiers played the Chief of Staff who was deputising while M was "away" (actually being buried as Bernard Lee had just passed away).

#55 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 10 February 2006 - 02:19 PM


Well, this sounds amazing, if a tad involved and overcomplicated (in a TLD/TWINE kinda way). The way it's all set down in this review, you'd think the film would have to be about three hours long in order to get it all in.

A few random thoughts from a geeking-out-into-overdrive brain:

The action scenes sound fantastic. Absolutely bloody marvellous.

The locations sound great. Pakistan? Miami? Bring it on, my friends! And even a cricket ground!

Bond is an arrogant prick in this script and full of ego. Wow. Have we ever seen this, even in Fleming? I don't think we have. (Well, we see bits and bobs of this in, funnily enough, the Moore era, especially THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, but it looks as though CR will be taking it to a whole new level). Could be really interesting.

But breaking into M's house? Erm.... right. Will she live at Quarterdeck, I wonder?

Overall, this sounds MUCH more Bourne than Bond. In fact, it might just as well be the beginning of an all-new franchise about an all-new secret agent action hero. Bond fans will freak, and the more hardcore Fleming purists will be speechless.

But, yes, I think this sounds terrific, and a real departure. Let's hope Campbell and co. don't screw up the translation from page to screen, because this really does sound very cool indeed.

Villiers? Rings a bell. Was he in FOR YOUR EYES ONLY?


The late James Villiers played the Chief of Staff who was deputising while M was "away" (actually being buried as Bernard Lee had just passed away).


Ah. Cheers, Streetworker.

#56 Jim

Jim

    Commander RNVR

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

Posted 10 February 2006 - 02:21 PM

In fact, it might just as well be the beginning of an all-new franchise about an all-new secret agent action hero.


That's the way I read it too.

If they can cram all that into 40 minutes... hmm...

#57 Gabriel

Gabriel

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 574 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 10 February 2006 - 02:22 PM

Screenplay sounds interesting from my delicate speed read, not wanting to uncover too many of the plot changes - nice have Bond in a story that doesn't involve satellites and plans to wreck the world's economy/ecology!

Interesting that Judi Dench is playing M, but not the same "Barbara Mawdsley" M (to use the Raymond Benson name) as in Brosnan's films. It'll be nice to see her playing a slightly different role from before!

Oh, and Moriarty at AICN hates the screenplay!

Edited by Gabriel, 10 February 2006 - 02:24 PM.


#58 stromberg

stromberg

    Commander RNVR

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

Posted 10 February 2006 - 02:28 PM

If they can cram all that into 40 minutes... hmm...


Yep. A lot of material to fit into a "first act".
Raises the interesting question about how long the movie will actually be.

Could it be that we're in in for at least some 150 minutes...?

#59 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 10 February 2006 - 02:29 PM

[quote name='Jim' date='10 February 2006 - 14:21' post='515886']
[quote name='Loomis' post='515881' date='10 February 2006 - 14:13']
In fact, it might just as well be the beginning of an all-new franchise about an all-new secret agent action hero.

[/quote]

Well, they might as well. After decades of pretty much the same old thing over dozens of films, I think Eon's entitled to do something new. But swipe me! It looks as though they're being far more "creative" with Bond than any of us could ever have suspected. And it's not as though the new guy even looks like Bond!

Still, I'm all for it. Sounds really brutal, dark and non-PC, and perfect Craig material. There even seems to be a bit of "the element of the bizarre". A fight to the death between a cobra and a mongoose - something Fleming might have chucked in. If Craig - as spynovelfan once memorably put it - makes Dalton look like Hugh Grant, this script has the potential to make LICENCE TO KILL look like OCTOPUSSY.

I really hope Campbell is up to this. I'm sure he is, but that's pretty much my only "fear" at this point. This could well be the Bond flick of our wildest dreams.

#60 Rolex

Rolex

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 448 posts
  • Location:Surrey UK

Posted 10 February 2006 - 02:30 PM

Well what do we have here Half a screenplay ? Without casting aspersions on the report all this seem to me at present is somebody has made up a story using known character names up to what we already know about Bond meeting Vesper on the Train then a description of the toture scene.
Is natural assumption at present that last half of the movie is going to follow the book ?