Talk:Casino Royale (2006 film)

Number of rollovers

Sorry to quibble, but seven rollovers seems a little tame compared to the one shown in this video from 2002 of Kansas racer Gerry Yeoman going haywire on a Wichita dragstrip. I count 10. Comments? Verne Equinox (talk) 01:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Whoever suggested otherwise should roll over, IMHO. – AndyFielding (talk) 05:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Supporting characters

These are not in the opening title cards

• Malcolm Sinclair as Dryden: A corrupt MI6 section chief, and Bond's second official target
• Richard Sammel as Gettler: An assassin who works for an unnamed criminal organization and contacts Vesper in Venice
• Ludger Pistor as Mendel: A Swiss banker responsible for all monetary transactions during and after the poker tournament
• Joseph Millson as Carter: An MI6 agent, he accompanies Bond in Madagascar.
• Darwin Shaw as Fisher: Dryden's underground contact, M sends Bond to kill him, his first official target. Bond tracks him down (to a cricket match in Lahore, Pakistan, in deleted scenes), nearly drowns him, and then shoots him dead.
• Clemens Schick as Kratt: Le Chiffre's bodyguard, he often accompanies his boss wherever he travels.
• Emmanuel Avena as Leo
• Tom Chadbon as Stockbroker, is briefly seen having a telephone conversation with Le Chiffre.

Casino Royale Players:

• Ade as Infante
• Urbano Barberini as Tomelli
• Tsai Chin as Madame Wu: A professional veteran poker player, Tsai Chin also played Ling in You Only Live Twice.
• Charlie Levi Leroy as Gallardo
• Lazar Ristovski as Kaminofsky
• Tom So as Fukutu
• Veruschka as Gräfin von Wallenstein: a countess participating in the poker tournament
• Daniel Andreas as Dealer
• Carlos Leal as Tournament Director

There's a number of minor characters listed afterwards, about 38 of them. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 02:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Cameo missing

The list of cameos is missing Gunther von Hagens, creator of Body Worlds, who can be glimpsed (mostly just his hat) at the exhibit Bond visits in Miami. 70.73.90.119 (talk) 20:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

They could've at least credited the hat, eh? Unbilled headgear is so annoying. – AndyFielding (talk) 06:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Killing to kill?

MI6 operative James Bond gains his license to kill and promotion to 00 agent status by assassinating the traitorous Dryden and his contact at the British Embassy in Prague.

Can that be right? Does one kill to obtain a license to, erm, kill? Why bother with the license then? Maybe it just reduces the paperwork? – AndyFielding (talk) 06:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Issues with the lead

The current formation of the lead is awkwardly worded (e.g., "21st film in the Eon Productions James Bond series" implies they are canonically the same; Eon just produce, the films are not part of one larger universe) contains unnecessary fluff and partial spoilers (e.g., Bond falling in love with Vesper is not part of the premise of the film, thus spoiling a key part of the plot) and is missing information (e.g., nothing regarding the film's theatrical release or who plays who to delineate the cast). These are only a handful of the issues with the lead.

The edit I proposed (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Casino_Royale_(2006_film)&oldid=1108689965) provides a clearer, easier way to navigate reading the lead. In it, the film is described, the cast is outlined, a concise premise is given, relevant off-screen information is contained in one paragraph, and release information is added. MrloniBoo (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't see this as an improvement. Starting with the intro. Distribed by. Why must this mentioned? None other Bond have this. Also "21st film in the Eon Productions James Bond series" because there are also non Eon Bonds made. Your edit doesn't make that clear.Lobo151 (talk) 04:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@Lobo151, "21st film in the Eon Production James Bond series" indicates they are part of one shared film collection, which they are not; writing it as "the 21st Eon-produced James Bond film" keeps what you want to say (i.e., that there are non-Eon produced films), but makes it clearer. Per WP:FILM, it is standard to include distributors in the lead, as it is relevant information (and is already included in the edit revision of Skyfall you preferred). My edit just makes these things (and other issues with the lead that I outlined above) much clearer. MrloniBoo (talk) 16:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Not agreed, the intro how it is written now is nothing wrong."indicates they are part of one shared film collection" that is your interpretation. The intro as it is now the twenty-first in the Eon Productions James Bond series, is factical correct and I see no reason for a change. Also I see no need to mentioned the distributors in the first part of the lead, it is out of place there. Should at least be mentioned it the part where the release is described. Lobo151 (talk) 17:28, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@Lobo151, the films being produced by the same studio does not make them part of one series. For example, Warner have produced several Batman films over the years but they are not part of one series. The way it is framed at present reads to say they are part of one film series, which is not true. I believe the way in which I framed the intro (i.e., the 21st Eon-produced James Bond film) makes that much more clearer (and also retains what you want to include). Distributors are consistently mentioned in the first part of the lead per WP: FILM (see any MCU or DCEU article as an example) MrloniBoo (talk) 16:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

The way the distributor is mentioned in for example The Bourne Supremacy (film) is way better and more clear. And the 25 Eon Bond movie are indeed part of one film series. So I don't see an issue there.Lobo151 (talk) 14:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Lobo151, in my edit, the way the distribution information was written is supported by WP: FILM; I didn't include my own personal bias when editing. Again, just because they have made several films about one character, nothing ties those films together except the production studio and the overarching character (just like in the example I provided regarding Warner and Batman, or even Sony and Spider-Man, to cite another example). I don't think we'll agree so it may be best to take this to a third opinion for clarity. MrloniBoo (talk) 03:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree with the third opinion. But your statement "nothing ties those films together except the production studio and the overarching character " that is completely nonsense, you really should not compare this to Warner and Batman or Sony and Spider-Man. As those film series are indeed completely different then the James Bond series. There are enough things inside those films that ties them together.Lobo151 (talk) 05:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@Lobo151, it is factually true that "nothing ties those films together except the production studio and the overarching character"; the character has been used in various media, akin to some of the properties owned by Sony and Warner. What ties the films together aside from the aspects I described? If you suggest casting, casting someone in the same role (like Judi Dench as M) does not immediately make it part of one series (see J. K. Simmons' portrayal of J. Jonah Jameson in both Raimi's trilogy and the MCU).

Please do not describe me as "nonsense" as I have not been rude to you and could result in you violating WP: PA. MrloniBoo (talk) 20:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of what reliable sources write about Casino Royale? Do they call this film the 21st one or not? Do they mention Eon or not? Wikipedia should follow the real world in how it writes about a topic. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Is the sticking point whether the set of 21 films constitutes a series? I think this is actually an interesting point of discussion that could be expanded upon later in the article (possible source). In my view continuity has been loose but non-zero, so it's not quite right to say that "nothing ties those films together except the production studio and the overarching character". As a point of comparison, Britannica does use the word "series", describing Dr No as being the "first installment in the James Bond series". Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 18:37, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The character's death at the end of No Time to Die, in addition to the likelihood of the series' reboot, displays continuity in the series being related to the actor portraying the character, as opposed to the series itself; it would be disingenuous to suggest they are all related. But the sticking point over the changes is not solely this, but several other issues regarding the general presentation of the lead. Have you seen my proposed changes? (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Casino_Royale_(2006_film)&oldid=1108689965) MrloniBoo (talk) 14:59, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Your edit is a clear improvement, and is neutral as to whether the films constitute a series or not. I'm not here to argue that the Bond franchise has a great deal of continuity across its entire run, but I don't agree there is any disingenuity in describing them as a series. Here's another essay on the subject. Are there any sources that insist on the films not being a series? I think your edit should stand, but with the first sentence using the phrasing "the nth in the James Bond series produced by Eon Productions.", which is consistent with the articles for all the other Craig films (indeed maybe consistent with all of them; I have only checked the Craig ones). Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 22:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

@Barnards.tar.gz, I don't want us to delve heavily into the minutiae of whether it consists a series or not; the page has larger issues that I would like to rectify (which you have shown support for with regards to my edit). However, I would propose adding "the nth in the James Bond series produced by Eon Productions" after the intro detailing Eon as producers and Sony as distributors. But, again, this is splitting hairs. Can I take it your third opinion is in support for me to return my edit to the lead? I would also propose similar changes to the pages of other Craig Bond films. MrloniBoo (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I still don't understand why you want to change the intro. All previous 20 Eon Bond films have the intro like this one. Why change it for the Daniel Craig ones? Also see my previous comment and suggestion about distributors, It can be mentioned at a different place also.Lobo151 (talk) 19:47, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

@Lobo151, as I've explained previously, the writing of other Eon films should not be in opposition to WP: FILM (in fact, it implies those film's leads need change too). As you previously described the importance of producers and distributors regarding the James Bond series, it makes sense to include it in the opening sentence. MrloniBoo (talk) 20:40, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, 100%, I like your edit and the series/not-a-series point is minor, and shouldn't hold back the other improvements (I think the spoiler issue that your edit addresses is particularly important). Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:59, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll return my edit now. I appreciate your help. MrloniBoo (talk) 23:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

The original intro was "the twenty-first instalment in the Eon Productions James Bond series," But instalment was keep being changed to installment. Someome then removed it from the intro. But I think it should be put back for clarity.Lobo151 (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Plot line discussion

This line "Horrified upon seeing him, Vesper locks herself in to prevent Bond from saving her, drowning." doesn't make any sense, she isn't horrified, she's guilt ridden and knows the organisation will likely keep trying to kill her. I would recommend changing it to guilt ridden over her betrayal or something, but "horrified" isn't accurate and without further elaboration it's just random. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Neither "horrified" nor "guilt-ridden" are appropriate because these are interpretations, the film does not explicitly say either. The plot summary's purpose is not to describe or explain the story, but to give a broad overview of what actually happens. Captainllama (talk) 02:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC)