Casino Royale 2006 Plot

Casino Royale Summary. Thanks for exploring this SuperSummary Plot Summary of 'Casino Royale' by Ian Fleming. A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality study guides that feature detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, quotes, and essay topics. The Baccarat game, which despite being 25+ pages long never seems to drag. Le Chiffre gets his about halfway through for simply beating Bond at Baccarat. In one fell swoop, he's moments away from winning the tournament and achieving his goals - Bond failing his mission is just icing on the cake.

1. Casino Royale Summary. Thanks for exploring this SuperSummary Plot Summary of 'Casino Royale' by Ian Fleming. A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality study guides that feature detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, quotes, and essay topics.
2. ‘Casino Royale' Movie Summary The summary below contains spoilers. Casino Royale begins with a young James Bond in Prague discussing his first kill with a traitorous MI6 station chief, just before Bond kills the station chief as well. Next, in Madagascar, Bond chases a bomb-wielding suspect into an embassy and shoots him on camera.
3. 'Casino Royale' introduced Bond to the world in 1953. A year later it was made into a television drama with the American actor Barry Nelson as Jimmy Bond; the following decade, it was a ham.

'To thine own self be true' babbles the courtier Polonius to his son Laertes in Act I, Scene iii of Hamlet. It's a welcome bit of sagely advice, except that it's offered by a windbag who, we gather, keeps a one-hitter stashed in his robe, the only credible explanation for his delusion to subvert the royal court of Elsinore. Still, the line harks back to the ancient Greek aphorism 'Know thyself,' two words etched in stone at the Temple of Apollo in Delphi and uttered by the likes of Heraclitus and Socrates, most likely during potted musings of non-material abstract forms. Hollywood, too, has offered the same wisdom in countless coming-of-age films—for example, films such as Hannah Montana: The Movie (based on a Joseph Conrad novella), where a young girl struggles to come to terms with her pop star alter ego, and Peter Jackson's King Kong, where a giant ape reaches that moment of self-recognition when he realizes he's too heavy to ice skate; and, of course, the recent trend of superhero-origin stories, which depict the main character coming to terms with his true identity as he reaches full superhero statehood.

Casino Royale 2006 Plot

The theme also returned in Casino Royale, the 2006 classic adventure featuring a bulldozer demolishing an embassy in Madagascar and exquisite cinematography of poker tables in a casino in Montenegro. It's all, however, mere surface gloss to the underlying character development of the hero: a young fledgling James Bond—portrayed by the prematurely aged Daniel Craig—transforms, by film's end, into full 007 superspy stature. As director Martin Campbell explains in early 2005, during preproduction:

'In the new film, Bond is essentially starting out in his career, and has just recently become part of the double-0 section,' says the man who last reinvented Bond in Goldeneye . 'The idea is to put a bit of the dash back in Bond. By the end of the movie, the character will have been forged into the wiser, harder Bond we know.' ('Bond To The Beginning')

I personally had thought that CR (as known to its fans) was a film about a geriatric bodybuilder who goes hunting for caribou with a high-powered rifle in the vicinity of Lake Como—a place of deep solitude and primal forces in nature. Man versus nature, man versus his own alienation in a hostile universe—these were the themes that I thought were unfolding on screen. I am deeply guilty of such unpardonable error. Indeed, when I denounced the movie in my lengthy review, I received a number of emails from fans admonishing me for misreading the film and for neglecting to note the character transformation that occurs at the finale. For example, somebody claiming to be a journalist in beautiful bankrupt Greece wrote to gloat that my lack of refinement is the reason why I don't understand Casino Royale:

You are unable to appreciate a fine work of art because you belong to the lowest order of moviegoers. Casino Royale is the exemplar of fine filmmaking in modern times. It easily belongs to the category of greatest films such as those from Eisenstein, from D.W. Griffith, from Welles, from Godard. This is art film. Can you comprehend what that means? I'll give you a hint: This film traces the biography of a man until he reaches his true identity to complete himself. No where has such a biography of a character been expressed as it has been in Casino Royale in recent times. This movie is not just an action film. It's a character study. The movie speaks to me and to so many others. It expresses the eternal quest for oneself. It conveys the human spirit, and its intelligence fills the void in our hearts. Now we have something worthy to carry with us. You know, I find myself dedicating most of my free time to this movie. I find myself roaming the Internet, joining forums and blogs to defend this movie against your ilk.

In a similar theme, a chap in beautiful bankrupt California expressed, rather eloquently, that Bond's character development in Casino Royale is a dramatic masterpiece:

Dude, you got it all wrong. CR is just too awesome. It's like, you know, a masterpiece, you know, like a painting hanging in an art museum. It's like light years away from all that crap like invisible cars in Die Another Day, so you got it all wrong. CR is just way too awesome, dude, you gotta wake up to that fact. Daniel Craig is just this badass and he, like, changes, you know, at the end. It's like, dude, he becomes this awesome badass like never before, and he's got an attitude, like you don't want to mess with this guy. I'm telling you, dude, that's just too awesome.

It's like, I get it this chap is a communications consultant. Nevertheless, the alleged character development is quite scant in Casino Royale: the film gives the impression that the action sequences consumed the filmmakers, requiring so much concentration, that they forgot about the Bond-Begins angle. Fortunately, they do cram something at the end to address their original intention, which we can only assume reflects the wretched efforts of screenwriter Paul Haggis—a full 5-minute contribution to the production for which he probably received $40 million, or whatever it was he got paid, and for which the film receives an awkward finale that struggles to bring the story back to the origin-reboot premise.

Let us recall the finale of Casino Royale to underscore the praise of the fans: somehow, after surviving torture and a bunch of explosions, and after witnessing the collapse of a building into the canals of Venice, the Craig-Bond—at almost age 40—undergoes a remarkable metamorphosis in the space of an instant. It is a metamorphosis that involves an existential makeover, completing his transformation into the statehood of 'Bond,' which is reflected in his new but ugly suit. In this state of enlightenment, he visits Mr. White (a middleman of a terrorist organization) at a villa near Lake Como and starts the conversation with rational discourse by shooting the elderly man in the leg with a high-powered rifle. When Mr. White looks up to see the shooter, he's stunned to see that the Craig-Bond looks older than him, has a bowl haircut, and is wearing an ugly suit. The Craig-Bond strides with confidence and proudly tells Mr. White that his name is 'Bond, James Bond,' implying that he has moved beyond common humanity, that in the very depths of his being he holds all the Bondian superspy powers, and that he looks forward to joining The Fantastic Four. The circle is complete. The aged, craggy but young novice secret agent has grown to be the aged, craggy, mature, experienced secret agent. We have, before our eyes, another bildungsroman in the spirit of Nicholas Nickleby. Or it's simply a movie that causes mild nausea.

In Search: The Contemporary Interpretations

So the film's finale, with all its farrago of nonsense, might bear some scrutiny. As my humble contribution to Craig-Bond studies, I contacted Professor Avenarius Basescu, a literary expert renowned for cataloging the imagery of horse flies in post-modern Romanian literature. Unfortunately, our brief phone conversation revealed that the great man was too avant-garde in his interpretation of Casino Royale, leaving me even more befuddled. 'In the casino scenes,' he explained, 'the poker cards represent the horse fly fauna of Montenegro.' He offered to recite the 62 species belonging to ten genera, but I had a plane to catch.

Casino Royale Ending Explained

At Basel University, Switzerland—where Nietzsche served as Chair of Classical Philology at age 24—I consulted Professor Otfried Götz. A senior lecturer of Dialectic Over-Inflated Linguistic Analysis, Professor Götz is highly respected in his field, considering that he was appointed Lucasian Facility Operations Chairman in 2008, the post originated by the janitor who occupied the office next to Nietzsche's in 1877. The professor's office was decorated with Bob Marley posters, and a collection of colorful glass bongs graced his desk. He leaned back in his chair and explained the ending of CR:

'James Bond shoots Mr. White, and their conflict symbolizes the breakdown of communication in modern life. We can conclude, from an ontological perspective, that their conversation is based on violence, suggesting the alienation of man in a violent society. Also, the conversation suggests a deeper mystery, the enigma of the individual's concrete presence in the world. Mr. White attempts to discern The Other, asking him to clarify his identity--to which the man in the suit, clutching the rifle, responds by declaring his presence in the world: ‘Bond, James Bond,' says The Other.'

The professor was about to reinforce his thesis from the perspective of logical positivism, but he spilled some bong water on his notes and spent the next 15 minutes questioning whether the spill was accidental or something preordained yet detectable only in patterns of fractals in nature. Of course, I had a plane to catch and left the venerated intellectual with his bongs.

Undeterred by the frazzled style of Professor Götz, I traced the next expert who could offer elucidation on the ending of CR. She was none other than Madame Aurélie Tussaud-Leveque at the University of Jena, yet another professor—nevertheless, a professor noted for her groundbreaking work on something about international relations, but even more renowned for remaining on campus since Napoleon's invasion of Jena in October 1806. Now preserved as a wax figure (she had inspired her sister, Madame Toussaud, proprietor of the famous wax museums) and mechanized by built-in animatronics, Madame Aurélie, ever political, gave a succinct interpretation of the film's ending in relation to the war on terror: 'Mr. White represents Santa Claus, and Daniel Craig's Bond is analogous to Homeland Security, which shoots down Santa from the sky.' She closed her eyes, reminiscing the night Napoleon marched into the city, and offered to read her account of that glorious event in history, but I had a plane to catch.

Upon arriving at the Charlotte-Douglas International Airport, I received a text message from alert Bond fan Wendell Fahrkenour, which suggested that an inquiry into the finale's location would clarify Casino Royale's ending—in particular, a hotel in the Lake Como area, the Grand Hotel di Red Barchetta, and that its doorman, a certain Licio Lucchesi, would be an ideal source. This most fortunate of men had the privilege of seeing the Casino Royale shooting script, complete with director Martin Campbell's handwritten notes scribbled along the margins. It all happened when, late one night in early 2006, director Campbell got drunk in the hotel's bar and made paper airplanes from pages of the script. Fortunately, Mr. Lucchesi had the foresight to donate the paper airplanes to the aviation museum in Dimock, South Dakota. Pressed for time and faced with logistical matters, I was unable to visit the glorious museum, so the next best thing was to track down the elusive doorman. In a striking coincidence, he now resides in Lake Como, New Jersey and happily works as a snowplough operator.

During a snowstorm earlier this month, I caught up with Mr. Lucchesi on Route 71, and he offered some insights into the finale of CR:

It took three weeks to film. From what I saw on the director's notes in the script, the idea was to capture the change in Bond at this stage in his life—that is, to show him as the Bond we've all come to know. The problem was, they couldn't come up with a way to do this. So they had a life-size animatronic puppet of Roger Moore, molded in the way Sir Roger looked in Moonraker, roughly in the late seventies, I would think. It had an opening at the back so Daniel Craig could stand inside and operate the controls. For some reason, Daniel thought he was in the Aston Martin and panicked at having to drive stick-shift. He lost control of the figure and got it to run into the lake.

Mr. Lucchesi mentioned that Martin Campbell's notes were quite detailed. He recalled that on page 78, the director jotted hardware specifications for adding special effects to Daniel Craig's voice. As the former doorman explained:

The other tactic involved a small voice device inserted in Daniel's shirt collar, which played back the sound of Sean Connery's voice—and all Daniel had to do was lip-sync the dialogue. The idea was to give the illusion that Daniel sounded like Connery when he said, 'Bond, James Bond' at the very end. But somebody at the lab mistakenly sampled Julie Andrews' voice singing 'The Lonely Goatherd' from The Sound of Music. At first, Daniel was perplexed when the device played the song; but he got into the part quickly, skipping along the shores of Lake Como and waving his arms to the rhythm of the song.

Feeling dejected and still lacking a solid understanding of Casino Royale's ending, I returned to my hotel room, fell on the bed, and had a bizarre dream: I was at the temple of Apollo in Delphi, under the guise of Polonius, the great windbag; and Professor Otfried Götz, who was now convinced he was Plato, confronted me at the entrance and demanded that we discuss the ending of Casino Royale in a series of dialogues. Let this part, then, be apropos of a winter dream.

A Winter Dream: The Dialogues at Delphi

[SCENE: The courtyard of the Temple of Apollo]

Plato: Dawn is breaking, like the birth of a new identity. It was probably on such a moment that the
filmmakers of Casino Royale were inspired to dramatize the life of a secret agent and his growth
into his true self.

Polonius: Do you really have an answer to the ending of Casino Royale?

Plato: More than an answer. I bring Truth. The film must be looked upon as a work-in-progress,
the shaping of a man—his sensibilities, his personality traits—into the wholeness of the Bondian essence.
Note, for example, how Mr. Bond doesn't care about fine winemanship—what are his words
when the waiter asks him if the famed vodka martini should be shaken or stirred? He simply disregards
the waiter, saying 'Do I look like I give a damn?' In subtle ways, the filmmakers are showing the minutiae
of characteristics, the coming of the personality traits of this man—he is growing, maturing,
like the way a caterpillar transforms into a butterfly. As the rebooted series unfolds, we will come to see
him care about the intricacies of the vodka martini.

Polonius: If that truly were the intention of the filmmakers—to show a work-in-progress for Bond's
personality—then I'd say this is a big problem that they face. The big question for them is, Why bother?

Plato: In Quantum Of Solace, we see more subtle character developments. I say, the two films of Daniel Craig
must be viewed in series to see such small details, to see the development of the famous Bondian traits.
His films, above all, are epic portrayals of the un-Bond who is changing, transforming, and bringing us
the Bond we have all come to know. His films depict the coming of Bond, if you will.

[At that moment, the voice of Daniel Craig's James Bond thundered from the clouds.]

The Voice of The Craig-Bond: Whatever is left of me, whatever I am—I'll always be half-monk, half-hitman.

Polonius: Again, why is it important for audiences to see this Bond develop the traits that we have come
to know? Is it even realistic for Craig's Bond, a 40-something guy (who looks about 60, by the way), to
have a complete overhaul in personality traits at this age? I can see this approach working if the
filmmakers had cast a very young actor, a 20-something fledgling agent just starting to develop
professionally and growing existentially—then we'd have a true character arc about the age-old quest for
identity. That would make it interesting for audiences to see.

Plato: Are you suggesting that the origin-story motif was not fully developed?

Polonius: No, I'm saying the filmmakers botched the overall approach.

Plato: Give me an example. How should the filmmakers have approached this angle?

Polonius: John Favreau's Iron Man (2008) is a fine example of how the Bond makers should have approached
the Bond-Begins angle with Craig's maturity. Robert Downey, Jr. is a 40-something guy, but notice how
the change in his Anthony Stark is not about developing new personality traits. Instead, the change in his
character has to do with his outlook on life. This is far more dramatic and interesting. We first see him
as a wealthy munitions manufacturer, arrogant and hedonistic. Yet the ordeal he has in Afghanistan
changes him. He returns to America, realizing the horror behind the weapons he's been making. He's still
wealthy, he's still immersed in his extravagant lifestyle, but his outlook is different. Again, it's not his
character traits that have developed; instead, the change occurred within him—he has a different
view of himself, and with that knowledge, he moves into a new phase in his life. And director
Jon Favreau was able to do all that in just one film! For a superhero movie, Iron Man has a credible
character development.

Plato: But doesn't Craig's Bond undergo torture, which changes him? He also falls in love with Vesper Lynd,
which changes him. He tells her, 'I have no armour left. You've stripped it from me. Whatever is left
of me—whatever I am—I'm yours.' That is the mark of a man who has changed.

Polonius: Mr. Plato, somebody has got to take your bong away. The sequence you are praising is poorly
adapted from Fleming's novel. The key to the literary character lies in his description of how heroes and
villains are interchangeable in the world. Sadly, the filmmakers dropped the line from the film. But in the
book, Bond tells Rene Mathis (his contact at the Deuxième Bureau) that he is unable to see his role
clearly, because it's difficult to distinguish the difference between heroes and villains: 'When the hero Le
Chiffre starts to kill the villain Bond and the villain Bond knows he isn't a villain at all, you see the other
side of the medal. The villains and heroes all get mixed up' (134).

Plato: So, in other words, the absolute values have collapsed. Nothing is concrete, or real, for Mr. Bond.

Polonius: Yes, and Fleming's Bond is disturbed by that lack of meaning, substance, in the world (or at least, in
his world). So he no longer finds value in what he does and he tells Mathis that he wants to resign and,
secretly, he wants to marry Vesper. He's in love with her, or he thinks he's in love with her, thinking that
that is what will provide some kind of foundation in his life.

Plato: So he turns to love. In a sense, he retreats inwards, to his own self, the only thing he can rely on.

Polonius: Previously, all that mattered was his job: 'It's a confusing business,' he tells Vesper over dinner,
'but if it's one's profession one does what one's told' (59). Call it stoicism, but clearly this is not the
inexperienced view of an agent at the start of his Double-O career; rather, it's the credo devised by a
mature individual in order to make the grim reality of his profession bearable. But when the 'absolutes'
collapse, he retreats inward, as you say, to the self. Love is the only certainty left for him—of course,
that turns out to be an illusion, too, considering how the romance with Vesper leads to devastating
consequences. Then he's forced to go back to his profession: he vows to fight against the spies of
SMERSH and to hunt down the 'threat behind the spies, the threat that made them spy' (179). So again,
Bond clings to something that serves as a foundation to his life, he has something to act upon and seek a
meaning to his life, to struggle for a cause. It's precisely when a person's interior world changes shape
that he makes himself different, makes himself more of an individual. Fleming, then, is not concerned
about the development of Bond's personality traits, the minutiae of attributes that constitute the
Bondian persona; rather, it's the change within the character that interests him.

Plato: The dialogue about the confusion of good and evil appears in Quantum Of Solace, but it's Mathis
(played by Giancarlo Giannini) who recites the line. By doing so, the filmmakers omit any inner change
that we would have seen in Craig's Bond. In this way, the filmmakers never touch upon the character's
realization of things. I now see your point. Had the filmmakers read Fleming's novel correctly. . .

Polonius: We'd have a much better film.

Plato: Suffice it to say, the film Casino Royale—with the rushed transformation of Craig's Bond,
at the finale, into the 007 we all know—is very stupid indeed.

'Temple of Apollo.' Online Photograph. Ancient-Greece.org. 21 Dec. 2010
.

'Daniel Craig with Rifle.' Online Photograph. The Hindu. 10 Dec. 2010
.

'Snowplough.' Online Photograph. The Charlotte Observer. 21 Dec. 2010
.

Casino Royale. Dir. MartinCampbell. Perf. Daniel Craig, Eva Green, Mads Mikkelsen, Judi
Dench. 2006. Blu-ray DVD. Sony Pictures, 2007.

Fleming, Ian. Casino Royale. 1953. New York: Berkley, 1986.

Nunziata, Nick. 'Bond To The Beginning.' Chud.com. 24 Feb. 2005 10 Dec. 2010
.

Shakesepeare. Hamlet. Penguin Books, 1980.

more detailed plot section?

I know that wikipedia strongly discourages long and detailed plot sections, but the plot of this film is so complicated and confusing, that I would appreciate more detail. I think about twice as long would be good!--24.86.252.26 01:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

So confusing? Um let's see if we can summarize it for you. Bond kills double agent, Bond gets Double 0 license. Bond's first mission is to capture a bomb maker for interrogation; he kills the bomb maker but gets said individual's cell phone with a text message on it. Big publicized fiasco results over Bond's reckless killing. Bond snoops through M's computer, goes on 'holiday' to the Bahamas where he finds the guy who hired the bombmaker. He foils his plans to destroy a prototype airliner, which would have resulted in a crash of stocks and a lot of money for our villain, Le Chiffre. Because Le Chiffre was using someone else's money for his schemes, Le Chiffre is forced to hold a high stakes poker tournament to get it back. Unfortunately, Bond wins that as well. Le Chiffre kidnaps Bond, and Vesper Lind, and tries to interrogate him to get the passcode for the money he won in the tournament. Mr. White, who hired Le Chiffre shows up and kills him and his men, and leaves Vesper and Bond to live. Vesper and Bond go on holiday, where Bond learns that Vesper made a deal with Mr. White to give him the money. Bond chases after them, kills Mr. White's men, Vesper commits suicide and that about sums up the movie as a whole. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I actually really like the current plot section, and not just because I contributed heavily to it. I think the writing is very crisp and concise, and it shows the logic of the story clearly while omitting unnecessary detail. I see no reason to expand it. Croctotheface 06:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I must second what Croctotheface said: the plot needs no expansion. Cliff smith 04:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Inaccuracy

If this was a reboot to show James Bond fist mission shouldn't have been set in a more older time. No cell phones or whatever else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.135.75 (talk) 05:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC) This reboot shows his first mission, and then the following few months. Although, in Casino Royale, Bond's first mission was years before. I have no idea. This reboot is not being faithful to the Bond universe.

A reboot doesn't have to follow the original series. It merely restarts it. This could be done for a number of reasons. A few of the reasons would probably because of all the backstory Bond had in the movies. I mean there were around 20 or so movies at the time, as well as updating it. To keep it in the present and such, Bond would have been getting up in age, being around 70 if in real time.

By rebooting it, they moved the time forward, showed a new Bond, and got rid of the backstory by having subtle nods to the Bond universe, but doing their own thing.96.233.240.245 (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

cast list

The cast list on the main page is currently missing the following people:A few MI6 agents, most surprisingly Villiers, M's new Moneypenny, but also Dryden and Carter. Also various henchman are missing, most notably Mr White's henchman with the eyepatch, Gettler, but also Le Chiffre's henchmen, Kratt & Leo.The film's credits show 31 members of the main cast; 22 main Bond characters (which I would recommend are listed), and an additional 9 cast listed under Casino Royale Players (including the tournament director who I would say is a main member of the cast.)Then there are an additional 38 minor cast members listed, which I would propose are not listed unless there is specific reason to do so.Earlier today I updated the page to include all of the main cast members, but this was immediately removed by somebody implying that the additions had been indiscriminate. So I'll throw it open to discussion as to whether there's any reason why the main cast members should not be listed?Voomby 19:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not 100% on the relevant guidelines, but I think it's tough for me to say that the tournament director is a major cast member. Croctotheface 19:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Most of them aren't important. Alientraveller 19:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok you two, stop conflicting me. lol. As I was trying to say, which is what you said, far too many minor characters to list. IMDb can do a much better job of listing every Bob, Dick and Sally that was in the film. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Just checked back, and I'm still surprised that Villiers is not thought of as a major player in the film. Tobias Menzies who plays him is listed in the main credits at the START of the film, which surely indicates that the film makers think he is fairly important to the film. The end credits show Villiers listed ABOVE Carlos, Mollaka and Mendel. Moneypenny used to have less screentime in a film than Villiers does in this one. I'm still leaving it open to discussion, but so far I do not see any solid arguments against including Villiers.Voomby (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

On the subject of Carter can anyone confirm/deny this is a nod to a character of the same name from BBC's Spooks? Actual 15:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.86.65 (talk)

Daniel Craig Is Not Bond as a valid source

I hate to dredge this up again, but while blogs are technically not valid resources, third-party publications that discuss them are, and this particular site was referenced in many Wiki-sourceable publications, such as The Daily Mirror, where Daniel Craig actually directly addressed the site[1]. We need to put some mention of it in the article because it feels very incomplete with the casting controversy stripped out. We don't have to link the site, but we can't ignore its influence in the early production and the controversy over the casting just because it's a blog. If nothing else, we can link only to reliable publications that referenced the site. Rebochan 13:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

FA status

A pat on the back for everyone involved. Youtube winstar casino winners. Nice work. - X201 18:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC) Casino cups reader insert wattpad.

More information about Le Chiffre's financial transactions?

When Le Chiffre takes the African guerilla group's money and claims to put it in a portfolio with no risk, he in fact uses the money to place bets that the stock price of a major airplane manufacturer will go down. He plans a terror attack on the company's prototype jet to cause the stock price to fall. However, it is not clear from the movie how he does this. First he tells his broker to 'short another million shares', which would indicate that he is shorting the company's stock. However his broker later calls him to say that his put options have expired worthless. M also says that a massive amount of put options were bought on the company's shares right before the attack was to have happened.

Did he short the stock, or buy put options? Did he do both? Should options be mentioned in the plot summary as well as short selling? Bignole and Diablo1024 have discussed this topic on their user talk pages, and you can see changes we have made using the history page. My opinion is that both options and short selling should be mentioned since they are both mentioned in the movie; Bignole claims that it's not worth going into any more detail in the plot section since it's a fine point that is not central to the larger plot. Please post if you have an opinion on this! --Diablo1024 21:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• WP is not a Crystal Ball such opinion based things can'tt be put here. Vikrant Phadkay 14:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by opinion based? The fact that he told the broker to sell short shares, and then the broker said that his put options expired worthless, is a contradiction. That is not an opinion, it is a fact from the movie. Diablo1024 05:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not exactly important either. If it's not possible to be accurate because there is a contradiction, but we are as accurate as we can be without spending a lot of space engaging in original research about apparent contradictions in the film, then we should just leave well enough alone. Croctotheface 06:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Craig Casino Royale

Even at the cost of not displaying some pertinent information? I think it's possible that people will come to the site wanting info about the financial transactions and not finding it. Is there any place on Wikipedia for such info, or should people just turn to another source for that kind of thing? 216.112.127.34 20:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, if they are coming to Wiki for financial transaction information, they are probably not the best researchers. Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source for anything. There are far better places that provide the answers to real-life topics. I'd go to a website devoted to economics. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No offense but that is really a terrible argument. The rest of Wikipedia is inaccurate, so this page might as well be inaccurate too? The whole point of editing Wikipedia is to make it clearer and MORE accurate! According to your line of reasoning, Wikipedia is a lost cause an no one should ever bother editing it at all? In my experience, Wikipedia is often an excellent reference for many topics, 'real-life' or otherwise. Diablo1024 04:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

No, no, you missed what I said. I said Wikipedia is not 'reliable'. I did not say it was 'inaccurate'. Well, many articles are, but many others are not for that matter. But, because Wikipedia is 'open to the public' to edit, everything on its pages should be taken with a grain of salt. If you read something on Wikipedia, and believe it 100% without actually doing any research to find out if the information was reliably sourced, then that is poor researching. I don't know about where you are, but I have yet to find a professor that would allow Wikipedia to be cited as a source, not that I would ever cite Wiki anyway. Regardless, this is a film page, not an economics page. If you want to explain the terms, do so on those pages, that's why we have links. If the film said that one could survive a 200 ft fall onto concrete, we wouldn't explain why the film was wrong. That isn't what film articles are for. When you read the plot, it is not misleading, so there isn't a problem. Le Chiffre and his nefarious plans were not the plot of the movie, they were a sidebar that lead to the real conflict. We know what Le Chiffre said to do, and we know what M and Mr. White stated he did after. It's a terminology flub by the writers, who cares? Obviously you, but not really anyone else. It's a goof..trivia, nothing more. If we presume to say that he had to have done one over the other, based on his actions, then we are committing original research. We cannot say 'oh, he did this, which contradicts what he said earlier, so he must have really have been doing this.' That's original research. The man says 'short another .. shares', and that's all we need to report in regards to the plot. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 05:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I gotta say this is pretty laughable, Bignole. Diablo1024 makes a strong point. The article currently contradicts itself. At the very least, the article should say that it's unclear exactly how Le Chiffre bet against the stock. But the current state of the article makes no sense, even to a someone who doesn't know anything about finance. Ceresly (talk) 03:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Q in Dr. No?

I just changed the statement 'Two major exclusions from the film are the characters of Q and Miss Moneypenny. Their exclusion makes Casino Royale the third film in the series without Q (Dr. No being the first and Live and Let Die the second), and the first film without Moneypenny' since Q WAS in Dr. No, albeit under the name Major Boothroyd. This version of the character is listed in the Wikipedia article on Q as being the same person, so this unless that article is also wrong then my statement was clearly correct. However, within seconds of the change being made it was changed back again. Far too quickly for whoever was responsible to have actually checked whether or not the information was faulty or not. Q IS Major Boothroyd - he is referred to by that name in The Spy Who Loved Me. So although he does not at that time go by the name 'Q' the character is, unquestionably, in Dr. No.

However, since someone clearly objects to blatantly incorrect information being corrected I will not waste my time changing it again. Craig Charlesworth (not a member), 12.10, 28 December 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.42.225 (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a hoax and is now reverted. Vikrant 16:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikrant Phadkay (talk • contribs)

Continuity Errors

When James Bond is asked to enter a password of six characters or more, he enters the following set of numbers: 836547. Later in the film he reveals that the password is V-E-S-P-E-R, which numerically translates to 837737. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.159.247 (talk) 22:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

We know that already. _{El Greco}^(talk) 22:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not for an encyclopedia. Vikrant 13:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Add it to the imdb list of goofs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.244.120 (talk) 23:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• He is always acting on a six, not only counting in this code case. So there is no eight in neither a twelve and somehow the bank connection isn'treal but suggestiv. Ask a banker for a credit without a fifteen dot and three zeros.--Danaide (talk) 20:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Macbeth Reference

In the shower scene, when Eva Green says that there's blood on her hands that won't come off, I saw a similarity to Lady Macbeth near the end of the play Macbeth. Dunno if this warrants a mention in the article or not, just thought I'd bring it up.Hypershadow647 (talk) 02:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Trivia and pointless. Vikrant 12:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Quantum of Solace

After re-reading this article, I notice no reference that Quantum of Solace (Bond 22) is a sequel or the film's plot will be resolved in it. I have added a sentence to this at the bottom of the 'Plot' section. I'm not sure that this is the right place for it, so please do put it elsewhere, But Don't remove it. It has relevence to this article, even if just the one sentence.

Shifted to intro. Vikrant 12:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

PS. It probably needs a reference. SpecialWindlertalk 05:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Music section - Soundtrack listing error

In the 'Music' section, the phrase 'It is the fifth title theme after Dr. No, From Russia With Love, On Her Majesty's Secret Service and Octopussy, that does not make any reference to the title of the film.' seems inaccurate. Matthew Munro singing 'From Russia with Love' seems a pretty clear reference to the film's title.

I propose changing this sentence to:'It is the forth title theme after Dr. No, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, and Octopussy, that does not make any reference to the title of the film.'

Or is there something that I'm missing? It seems surprising that no one has mentioned this previously . . .Mhambster (talk) 12:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone added it because the source itself has that listing. Though, looking at the source that's kind of hard to show since it just goes to David Arnold's webpage and not a specific citation. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Link 8 (Sky Is Falling)?

What's this reference link about? Links to a page of adverts. 80.6.181.245 (talk) 12:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Dimitrios' car

What Aston Martin car did Bond win against Dimitrios? Cburnett (talk) 18:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The infamous Aston Martin DB5. _{El Greco}^(talk) 01:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

marketing

This article makes no mention to the marketing of the film. It dosen't mention trailers, posters, tie-in novel, toys that went with the film. This is a featured article and is supposed to be comprehensive. Yet it has no information at all on such things. The Windlertalk 08:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

And it doesn't have to. Comprehensive does not mean that the article needs to mirror other articles, it means that it 'does not neglect major facts and details'. Trailers and posters are not 'major facts and details' to begin with, they're side dishes. You'd only mention them if there was some kind of media coverage on them, which would mean that they were worth noting. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 11:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, I don't even know if there is a 'real' tie-novel. Many times when you adapt a book into a film, the 'tie-in novel' is nothig more than the original novel with a new cover. Which wouldn't constitute inclusion in the article. We don't report on new clothes the novels wear each year when they go on sale. I'm not aware of toys either, but that doesn't mean there weren't any toys. It's all about whether or not another media source reports on these things. We cannot give undue weight to things just because we want to. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 11:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

There was a racing set. However, most Casino Royale merchandise was held back, and it seems most of it will be released to promote Quantum of Solace (such as a Le Chiffre figure, and a bust of Vesper). Alientraveller (talk) 18:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Bond as psychopath

I find it interesting that there is no discussion in the article of Bond's psychopathic tendencies. This is a major plot element, referenced repeatedly by M, as well as by Vesper when she and Bond are sizing each other up on the train. If one is familiar with psychopathy, it is difficult to watch the film and not see a classic psychopath. As Vesper states on the train, these are characteristics MI6 seeks in its agents, as it enables them to accomplish goals with ruthless efficiency. 98.163.231.130 (talk) 16:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not there because no outside source identified such traits. We cannot make the observations ourselves, someone more reliable has to. Personally, I wouldn't necessarily call him a psychopath, because that's a personality disorder and for all we know MI6 trains their agents to show a lack of remorse for killing the enemy, and to achieve the objective by whatever means necessary. Also, many of the traits of psychopathy are present in 'normal' people (if you pardon my use of the word 'normal') Anyway, this isn't the place to discuss Bond's possible disorders beyond saying that unless an outside, reliable source discusses it then we cannot in the article. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Bond Timeline and 'm'

I thought Casino Royale was supposed to be set at a time BEFORE all the other Bond movies. But then how come their's the new 'm', the girl one? Shouldn't it be some other m, because this is way before she was the m. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.254.84 (talk) 22:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a reboot; it's restarting the series. Another example of a reboot would be Batman Begins. LonelyPker (talk) 00:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Have their been any other reboots, because I've noticed some inconsistencies with the ongoing plots.

Oscar buzz

Casino Royale Summary

There was legitimate Oscar buzz surrounding Craig's performance. I found three references in a Google search (and know of at least 4 more I saw in print). 'Hollywood Wiretap' source can probably be replaced by a print one as its author, Pete Hammond, is a published film critic whose work appears in numerous publications; the website I cited was just an archive of his column. The other two are notable newspapers. I also recall a quieter buzz surrounding Casino Royale as a possible best picture candidate, too, but I haven't been able to find a 'reliable source' for that yet. 68.146.41.232 (talk) 15:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Casino Royale 2006 Ending Explained

No, most likely the plots of earlier movies were disregarded for entertainment. I mean there were around 20 movies before CR rebooted the series, there's bound to be some mistakes and continuity errors. Plus, would you want to be bound by things that occurred in the 60's with a character when writing in the 80's, 90's, and 00's?96.233.240.245 (talk) 22:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Body Worlds created an exhibit for 007?

I read a (critical) article on the Body Worlds exhibit that claimed Gunther von Hagens created the poker players display specifically for Casino Royale. I can't find a source to back this up - can anyone confirm this? It's worth adding if true. 23skidoo (talk) 02:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I saw that scene at the Bodyworld exhibition in Manchester, but I don't know for sure that it was based on Casino Royale. It just looked like a poker scene to me. There's a picture of it here http://travel.ciao.co.uk/Body_Worlds_4_Manchester__Review_575313980.7.186.169 (talk) 02:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggested Plot Edits

I have read the article and I suggest the following edits:

• In the scene where Bond obtains Mollaka's phone, he doesn't initially know who the text came from. He breaks in and uses M's personal home computer to hack into the cell phone and determines that the SMS was sent from a signal originating in the Bahamas from the Ocean Club. It isn't until Bond sneaks into the Ocean Club's security office and uses the playback devices to capture Dimitrios sending a SMS at the same time one was received on Mollaka's phone.
• In the scene where Felix Leiter stops bond from assassinating Le Chiffre, Leiter offers Bond his own buy back money so that Bond can reenter the tournament. This means that if Leiter were to lose his current money, he would not be able to buy back in himself.
• In the scene where Bond is dying from the poison, it is fairly vague as to what happens.

These are just suggestions, and I did not want to make the changes myself in case someone was 'over' this page. I do not mean to upset, only assist : ) RayneShock (talk) 00:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• nice! may be somebody wants to sell him the bahamas. this guy out of the chinese hotel, you saw. motivating bond stuff is a real problem, because it#s fiction and not realistic film. To drive the action this sms is nescessary, but nobody asks for real dimitrov!

otherwise the whole public will get touthake...--Danaide (talk) 20:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Colin Salmon

Colin Salmon was NEVER considered as Bond. Any media speculation as to whether he would be Bond was stirred by Salmon himself - not Eon or anyone else involved in the making of the film. [[User:|User:]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.84.52 (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I checked the source and he was just a popular bet. Nowhere near a fascinating alternate reality like Henry Cavill would have been. Alientraveller (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I also suggest which their is no mention of as it looks like a casino royal fanboy wrote this, that Quinton Tarantino originaly had the idea for the reboot and wanted to use Brosnan, you may wish to elaborate why fans were wanting to boycott this. Tarantino 'I'm annoyed that theJames Bond producers never called me to talk about it because I cantell you that they would not be making Casino Royale if I hadn't talkedabout it first. They should have called me. Especially sincethey are taking my idea and they are taking the publicity I gave themtowards that idea. They should have at least had the courtesy to havecoffee with me.'

http://www.hecklerspray.com/tarantino-james-bond-was-my-idea/20061955.php source

Craig was not the first choice toplay bond after Brosnan, Clive Owen was who repeatedly turned down the role, whos comment at playing Bond in the future is 'Right now Im really busy' with a smile hinting he may still play the role after Craig.Craig was the fourth choice as Sean Bean who played 006 in Goldeneye also was considered. sources at:

Its also the first bond movie to portray bond as an adulterer, when bond rolls on the floor and sleeps with Demetrius'swife, who ends up dead, 27 minutes into Casino Royale. You can feel free to google Owen as first choice for Royale other than Brosnan and fans boycotting that idea as well. Tarantino is still nothappy with bond producers for 'stealing his idea' and refusing him as a director. The scene where Bond confirms himself as an adulterer is 27 min into the movie with Demetrius's wife saying 'You like married women dont you James' and bond saying 'Yes, It certainly makes things easier'. Dont give opinions about bond, quote sources.

For the love of god if a producer sees this can we return to the great music and spy vs. spy characters of Connery and Moores Bond instead of The Patriot Games Tom Clancy Bond that was adopted after Moore with Dalton. 5 min of great original Bond music at the end of Royal doesnt count. Music+actors make a movie. Ive generaly only liked Connery (1st choice) and Moore and Goldeneye as they watered down the great bond music starting with Goldeneye. (Minus liking A View To A Kill and Never Say Never and all of Daltons Bonds).Watching a Bond movie now is like eating a stale Dorito, just a reminder of something that was once really great. Stop having dark heroes no one cares about, a womanizing adulterer terminator James Bond is not heroic, heroes are people we care about who are suppose to act better than other people and better than the villans they fight, this Bond is not much different from his villans. Movies today are all visual effects with cold hearted main characters (like the main 'hero' in The Watchmen movie who dies in the beginning) and no heart which is why franchises tank. I doubt the Queen would be giving knighthood to the Bond of Casino. Multiple cliffhanger the bond movies (all great bond films had multiple cliffhangers) and bring back great music and have heroes act in a responsible manner and youll rekindle the love for this franchise.Stop making disposable movies, worth one watch, a hero is someone you care about, not someone voilent and 'cool'. Thats the mark of a great bond (and bring back Q and Moneypenny).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.230.129 (talk) 01:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Casino Royale (2006 film)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Casino Royale (2006 film)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named 'BOM':

• From Spider-Man (2002 film): 'Spider-Man (2002)'. Box Office Mojo. Retrieved 2009-02-05.
• From Quantum of Solace: 'Quantum of Solace (2008)'. Box Office Mojo. Retrieved 2009-04-06.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Casting - McAdams as Vesper?

I saw just now in the Rachel McAdams article that she had been in contention for the role of Vesper, but turned it down. Can anyone produce a source for this? I am very sceptical of the claim, since when you look at the other actresses considered (Jolie, Tautou, etc) McAdams seems like a bit of a non sequitor. Sheavsey33 (talk) 04:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)