Talk:Casino Royale (Climax!)

Fair use rationale for Image:Casino Royale 1954 Lost Ending 2.jpg

Image:Casino Royale 1954 Lost Ending 2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Casino Royale 1954 Lost Ending.jpg

Image:Casino Royale 1954 Lost Ending.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Casino Royale VHS Cover.jpg

Image:Casino Royale VHS Cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Is Casino Royale (1954) a film?

I have proposed this question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject James Bond. Please discuss.  The Windler talk  11:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

This question was asked in 2008...Well, in case you're still wondering, no it's not. It's a TV episode. That being said, whether you include non-EON films or not, the first James Bond movie is still Dr. No. CaptainMidnight287 (talk) 11:49, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Leiter vs. Letter

The character's name is Clarence Leiter, not Clarence Letter.

Check the film's IMDB page here[[1]]. Check the coverage at the MI6 fansite [[2]]. Listen carefully to the pronunciation used in the video clip that ShakeBeforeYaBake posted here[[3]].

Lastly, take a close look at the original ending credits in this clip[[4]] (NOT the truncated one posted by ShakeBeforeYaBake, with the incorrect credit roll tacked on). When the credit "FEATURING MICHAEL PATE AS LEITER" comes up, pause the video and look closely at the spacing between the letters. If the "I" was in fact a T, there would be more space between the first "E" and the "I", much as there is between the subsequent "T" and "E".

Although the age and quality of the film makes it look fuzzy, it is definitely LEITER.

Edited to add signature to this post: Robaato (talk) 04:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Upcoming GA Review

Hi, I will not have internet access next week (until Oct 2nd), but I will sort out any issues you may have from that time on. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 10:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Casino Royale (Climax!)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Grapple X (talk · contribs · count) 03:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   MOS and prose are both fine. I see no problems here.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   Citations are grand. Nothing left uncited and the sources used seem suitable.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   Could be a little more complete, I'm thinking. I managed to find this article on the lead actress, and this review. Not sure how helpful either would be, so if they don't add anything of value then consider criterion 3 passed.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Article is neutral and presents no subjective views.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   History seems stable and uncontroversial.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Image is used appropriately, and tagged with a decent rationale. Hard to think that such a doughy face is the first one they put the Bond name to, though...

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Just going to hold this one until you guys have a look at those two links. If they don't add anything then I'll consider this one passed. GRAPPLE X 03:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah he's too much of a lard ass to be Bond!! I've at least addeda review now which mentions that he was miscast. The first link didn't really have anything on it, although the second was very useful, thanks for that. I've added the details and given it a bit of a rework. If there is anything else you want let me know! I've expanded it further, vast majority of sources only briefly mention this episode as it pales in significance to the films, I think its a pretty good coverage of it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking good, then. Ready to pass this one. GRAPPLE X 14:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Recent updates

I just wanted to take a moment to explain my recent updates.

• Nelson is specifically credited on-screen as "James Bond" in the end credits. He also calls himself James Bond. Others do call him "Jimmy", but there's no indication that it is his proper name. I've changed the references throughout the article to reflect the character as credited.
• William Lundigan merely explains what a shoe is at the start of the program. He does not explain the rules of baccarat. Bond explains them during the course of the story, just as in the novel. Only instead of talking to Vesper, he's talking to Leiter.
• The "Peter Lorre gets up after death" story is a myth. It was a different show.

Rhindle The Red (talk) 02:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

DVD Release

Digby Dalton, Firstly, as per WP:BRD, when one of your Bold edits is Reverted, please discuss, rather than just revert back to your preferred version. Secondly, DVD copies of Casino Royale have been around for years (mine certainly pre-dates 2007) so there is nothing intrinsically notable about your copy. If you can find a reliable secondary source that points to the first DVD release, then it may be worth putting in, but it's still a close call between valid information and trivia. - SchroCat (talk) 08:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

This article states that the movie has been released on VHS, without mentioning that it has been released on DVD. The article as it stands, therefore, is wrong. You fix it.DigbyDalton (talk) 12:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Not wrong, just incomplete, which is very different. Do you have a reliable independent secondary source that mentions the release onto DVD anywhere? If so, then it can be used; if not, then it's fairly pointless. - SchroCat (talk) 13:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Just a second, more minor point: it's not a film, it's a television programme. Again, there is a difference. Thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 13:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll just fix it like this. Nothing wrong with this.

DigbyDalton (talk) 15:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there is: all information needs to be sourced. This isn't and you need to find something from a reliable secondary source that doesn't breach WP:NOTADVERTISING. - SchroCat (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. The back of the DVD case is not a reliable source that the DVD exists? You say you have the DVD also, but you need a source to say the DVD exists? How about finding it listed on amazon.com but I suppose you'd revert that too. I don't get into edit wars, this has become simply preposterous. DigbyDalton (talk) 14:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

A Digiview Entertainment DVD appears as early as early as January, 2008 in the Wikipedia article at least in this edit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Casino_Royale_%28Climax!%29&diff=next&oldid=186710813

"In 2007, a discount DVD from Digiview Entertainment was released that featured the truncated version, possibly sourced off the 1967 MGM Casino Royale DVD. It is generally found in stores such as Dollar General and Wal-Mart, usually for the price of one dollar. It is a single disc with the only special feature being previews of other Digiview DVDs. The DVD does feature some high production values including motion chapter selection and an attractive menu system that also plays an isolated version of the films main theme."

This passage would have been edited out with later revisioning. --Laurencebeck (talk) 10:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, before the article was re-written it had a lot of unsourced, trivial dross like this in it - it was truly awful. - SchroCat (talk) 00:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Information on the wider implications of down-market commerce in the entertainment field I would not say was what you say. It would be no surprise to have the answer to a board game question ( in Trivial Pursuit, of course) that would make my night socially were I to have read a Wikipedia article including such Digiview DVD details.

Norman Lebrecht displayed some ignorance of the field of budget pricing of audio music discs to which the the founder of Naxos Records, Klaus Heymann responded and which matter was settled out of court. As a result of the settlement, Penguin issued a statement apologizing for "the hurt and damage which [Heymann] has suffered". The publisher also agreed to pay an undisclosed sum in legal fees to Heymann, to make a donation to charity, to refrain from repeating the disputed allegations and to seek the return of all unsold copies of Lebrecht's book. --Laurencebeck (talk) 00:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

None of which has any bearing on the fact that the now-removed information was unsourced, trivial dross! - SchroCat (talk) 09:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Combined Intelligence Agency

SchroCat in his recent edit
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Casino_Royale_%28Climax!%29&diff=prev&oldid=596524584
discredits the revision to Combined Intelligence Agency.
The phrase occurs in the establishment of contact between Bond and Leiter at 5 minutes 50 seconds [ 5:50 ](or nearabouts) after the commencement of the programme.
Google Search : https://www.google.com.au/search?q=casino+Royale+climax!+1954&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=np&source=hp&gfe_rd=cr&ei=UBMIU7nJLsiN8QeFjIF4

Leiter: . . ."I'm attached to Station S, British Secret Service. We're working in conjunction with the Deuxième Bureau
and your own chaps at Combined Intelligence Agency in Washington." --Laurencebeck (talk) 03:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Casino Royale (Climax!). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120331161856/http://www.cardozoaelj.net/issues/00/Poliakoff.pdf to http://www.cardozoaelj.net/issues/00/Poliakoff.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

James, not Jimmy

Liberty5651, Can you please stop edit warring on this and discuss instead? Firstly, it's a trivial matter that one or two characters refer to Bond as Jimmy - certainly not really worth mentioning in the article. (To give you a direct parallel, neither GoldenEye or Tomorrow Never Dies mentions the fact that Jack Wade calls Bond "Jimbo". It's trivial nonsense that isn't encyclopaedic enough for inclusion). As to your threat that "I'll probable edit it again - changing the character's name to Jimmy, not James": the end credits very very clearly show "James Bond". Not Jimmy. James. You cannot change it to something just because you want to - WP:CASTLIST says to use the credited name, so we need to keep it as the credits have it. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9 (talk) 10:13, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9, please, please I beg of you forgiveness. I meant it not as war. I hate war, despise it's existence and any talk about it. War is a fools' way to be maimed and maybe to die. War is hell's incarnation on the earth.

My statement was a result of confusion. The dialogue in the show constantly refers to the character as "Jimmy". It seemed an unfaithful production. There are more then a few strangeness in the show that are not in the novel (though less then the parody version a decade later; an obvious joke). I wondered the unfaithfulness became intentional deceit. Considering that the production was done beyond Ian Flemming's oversight I saw the difference in name as a way to remove the character's association to the novel Mr. Flemming wrote; perhaps to turn him into some other character with different traits, different morals. He has a different home land. There are certainly copyright and ownership issues surrounding this first James Bond story.

I obviously misunderstood (or it's obvious to me). Again I plead for forgiveness in this misunderstanding. Maybe Mr. Flemmings' estate will grant that small blessing to me. It should be easier then forgiving those that produced that 1967 joke. It wasn't until some other editor referenced the credits as a source for the characters' name that it was proven to me that his name was really James rather then Jimmy, and that the production was more honest then it seemed. Too, I am a forgetful man. If the credits are not referenced in the article somewhere I may forget that his name is James, not Jimmy. and in a fit of activity and forgetfulness I might go changing all the references to Jimmy, again. Not from aggression, not war. It's no intended insult. No physical harm wil be done. It's impermanence that would result in a page flooded with error.

Please, again forgive us all from the craziness that is war and its discussions. Liberty5651 (talk) 12:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

There weren't any copyright issues over this production. As the first sentence of the Production section points out "CBS paid the author Ian Fleming $1,000[2] ($9,637 in 2020 dollars)[3] to adapt his first novel, Casino Royale, into a one-hour television adventure". All the Bond films deviate from the storylines in the books, and this programme is probably closer to the novel than all but one of the films. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:8DC7:3CED:5288:CB1D (talk) 19:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

____

Interestingly, I just tried to follow the link to the source [2]. I can't find the source, there. Can you? It's all secondary. Liberty5651 (talk) 16:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC) This doesn't seem to be much like a discussion, either, but that's just me. Liberty5651 (talk) 16:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Try interlibrary loan. It's Black, Jeremy (2005). The Politics of James Bond: from Fleming's Novel to the Big Screen. University of Nebraska Press. ISBN 978-0-8032-6240-9 DonQuixote (talk) 16:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Good idea. It might take a few days. I wonder if I can find the Climax! show that way, too... That's the primary source. Liberty5651 (talk) 16:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

It’s come up for me on the IA. There’s also a copy on Google Books too. The programme can be found on the Internet Archive, but as it’s a primary source, you need to be careful how you use it. See WP:PRIMARY. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:8DC7:3CED:5288:CB1D (talk) 19:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

What care should one take? What would you suggest one be aware about in citing a primary source? Your suggestions would be useful to consider were someone to cite the credits or language or imagery used in the production (like the credits). I'm not shure why it would be much different, really, from a secondary or tertiary source. I can imagine reasons, though; and certainly academics are great at imaginative theories and ridiculous extrapolations. I would just be sure that the citations are factual and that an author's bias are recognized. Liberty5651 (talk) 11:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm having trouble following these citations. I don't see that quote on page 14, nor do I see anything titled as a "Production" section nor an implied "production" section. I don't really expect anything, though. I'm looking at https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Politics_of_James_Bond/g4-sFrU8Xw0C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22The+Politics+of+James+Bond%22&printsec=frontcover It's The Politics of James Bond: from Fleming's Novel to the Big Screen. by Black, Jeremy published in 2005 by University of Nebraska Press Liberty5651 (talk) 11:56, 27 October 2021 (UTC). I think it's time to quit this conversation or war or whatever gibberish one might find in the disparate spaces on the internet.

What care should one take? As I've said, you need to read WP:PRIMARY. If you go up that page slightly to WP:PSTS, you'll see if says "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources". If you don't get the difference between the two, or can't see why, then it's best to avoid primary sources entirely. It's bad enough doing them with historical material, but in fictional output, what one sees is often interpreted very differently by different people, which is why we go with secondary sources only. We have a production section - it's the section of the article marked "Production" (Between the Cast and Legacy sections). - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9 (talk) 12:45, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Copyright

It is understood that live 1950s TV shows are now public domain. The article keeps saying MGM has the rights to the program. No, they have the rights to the novel. Can we agree and change the article? George Slivinsky (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could cite a reliable source verifying this. DonQuixote (talk) 10:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

It is and should be common knowledge. I suppose you could research it yourself. I don't have an instant handy reference.

Anything broadcast would have an automatic 28 year copyright, but would not have a media formally filed with the government copyright office. Thus it could not be renewed and the US 1978 law would not extend it. George Slivinsky (talk) 13:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

It would still be more helpful if you would cite a reliable source verifying this. DonQuixote (talk) 14:41, 13 June 2022 (UTC)