Casino Royale - I know I'm 18 months too late....

So Judi Dench played M with Pierce Brosnan, then played M with Daniel Craig, and yet you say just consider it as a different M - okay, plausible.

But then you say it's happened before, and mention an actress who played two totally different characters who had absolutely nothing to do with each other and were not meant to be the same character in any shape or form in two movies that were 9 years and five films apart. The fact that it was Maud Adams as opposed to anybody else who played Octopussy is totally irrelevent. Octopussy wasn't a different Miss Anders - it just so happens that Maud Adams played them both.

Michael G Wilson has played thirteen different characters in thirteen different Bond films - are we to assume that these are all the same character, just reincarnations of each other, rather than thirteen totally different characters all played by the same actor. Andy Bradford has played two different characters in two different BonRAB, so has Albert Moses. Anthony Dawson played Professor Dent in Dr No, and Blofeld in From Russia With Love and Thunderball - are these supposed to be the same character, because they were played by the same actor, even though Dent died in Dr No but Blofeld survived until For Your Eyes Only? Walter Gotell played a Spectre assassin in From Russis With Love, then played General Gogol in loaRAB of Roger Moore BonRAB.

Why not just consider Casino Royale as being a prequel to the Pierce Brosnan films? Therefore, M meets Bond in Casino Royale for the first time. In the Brosnan movies, M already knew who Bond was. The only (slight) anomaly here is the bit in Goldeneye where Bond tells M that her predecessor kept a drink in his sideboard cupboard, and she tells him that she prefers Bourbon.
 
That is really weird that the single disc version (allegedly) has a small edit to the torture scene, and the two disc version doesn't . What on earth would be the reason for that. :confused:
 
Don't forgot Joe Don Baker who played Brad Whitaker in Living Daylights and then CIA agent Jack Wade (with the "Muffy" tattoo) in Goldeneye and Tomorrow Never Dies
 
Sorry, to return to this (realise the thread has move on slightly) but confused by broadz's points from earlier. Firstly, I accept that Casino Royale is a reboot, my idea comes about as a direct result of people "wanting" it to be a prequel.



Good, you seem to understand my premise that Judi Dench is *not* playing the same M. This is the only way you can get around the fact that this is a prequel *and* Judi Dench is in the film as a female M.

To clarify:

Female M : Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace etc (Judi Dench)

Male M : Dr No - Moonraker/Licence to Kill (Bernard Lee/ Robert Brown possibly playing the same character : Sir Miles Messervy) . Note that in Dr No, Sir Miles makes it clear that he's only recently taken over the 00's.

Female M : Goldeneye - Die Another Day (Judi Dench as M #3 or #4)



Um, yeah correct. But then Judi Dench, as stated above, could be playing two "totally different characters", just "two totally different characters" who were both the head of MI6. What's the problem here?



No, and who said we should? They're all different characters played by the same actor. LIKE DENCH COULD BE.



Because I don't want to? :rolleyes: I want to preserve the continuity (as hard as that seems) within ALL of the films not just the 4 prior to Casino Royale. And, to be honest, its the Brosnan films which are actually the hardest to work into the Casino Royale continuity BECAUSE of Dench's presence.

In Casino Royale, Bond becomes 007. In Goldeneye, Bond was 007 *Nine Years Ago* but, it's very clear, that there is a NEW M on the scene (so Bond has been at MI6, and a 00 longer than she has been M). You rightly say, that Bond worked with her predecessor (there's a photo of Bernard Lee in TWINE too).

So, I'm afraid I don't really get your points broadz as it's the Brosnan films that cause the most trouble when trying to retrofit Casino Royale into continuity. My idea (Dench is playing two different characters) is perfectly feasible. It's not the intention (I don't think the writers or casting agents thought particularly hard about it) but it's just a valid way of explaining what appears to be a plothole if you "want" Casino Royale to be a prequel rather than a reboot.

The bigger plot hole as Listentome points out is that Bond meets Felix Leiter for the first time in both Dr No and Casino Royale.
 
Wow some knowledge there, you are a real Bond nut!! :D

I think there is a need to reset all the characters to some kind of status quo, and not try to interweave Casino Royale into any other films that have come previously in the franchise.

It is difficult to accept Judi Dench as the 'same M' as the one in Goldeneye because 15 years have passed, and Dench is an older 'M' in Casino Royale, which came first (chronologically in the Bond universe) than the 'M' from Goldeneye. It is like trying to explain why the newly qualified Bond is now somehow in the 2000's than the 60's...?

So, whilst not asserting it is 'a different M' in my mind it is easier to just think of the film as a complete franchise reboot, with actress Judi Dench merely happening to play M (again)
 
Good post.

I'm really not sure why people want to make it so confusing. Practically every interview with Daniel Craig during the release of CR made it clear that the film was a relaunch and starting things over. People are best to watch it without trying to tie it into the previous films. There's another simple clue to this being a fresh start, in that the gun barrel animaton is at the end of the pre-title sequence as opposed to the beginning. This was to help set CR a part.

I suppose you could argue that Bond meets Felix for the first time in both DR No and CR, but then he also met Blofeld for the first time in both You Only Live twice and OHMSS, but I think the latter can be explained in story terms.

Simple fact is Die Another Day closed the series of 007 films that began with Dr. No, and Casino Royale is the first film in a new series of Bond movies. I'm sure Quantum of Solace and subsequent films will make this clearer to the audience.

I can understand the confusion mainly because they kept Judi Dench as M and also the iconic theme tune.

People should take a look at the Commanderbond.net and see the reviews. I especially like this from the review link below:

" So, the series gets a reboot...

... The idea of a reboot coincided with Bond producers finally getting the rights to Ian Fleming’s first James Bond novel, Casino Royale. It was previously adapted as a one-shot TV episode in the fifties starring Barry Nelson as American Agent, Jimmy Bond. It was also the basis of a Bond spoof in the 1960s—at the height of 007 mania—starring David Niven as one of the “seven James BonRAB at Casino Royale” as the cheesey closing song tells us. It is truly bizarre...

... And Judi Dench, as M. This is a strange hold-over for a reboot, but she works so well in the role—and playing off Daniel Craig, it’s impossible to complain. She also makes a distinction between this film and GoldenEye—where there she rebuked Pierce Brosnan’s 007 for being a relic of the cold war, in this movie she wonders why she granted Bond his double-0 and says she misses the cold war."


So tell me if Casino Royale is a prequel to Dr. No (and the entire previous 007 series) how can M be talking about the Cold War as if it is over, when the Cold War is at the heart of the earlier films in that series?



http://commanderbond.net/article/4263
 
She did meet Bond for the first time as Casino Royale is a prequal and shows you how he became a "00" ajent which is set before Sean Connery and Dr No.
From the DVD case:
 
Agreed. I can only see more problems arising if the Daniel Craig films are considered prequels. My point was that, if it jars with people, there are ways around the Dench thing.

I have only one problem with the film being a reboot, and it's nothing to do with in-film continuity: It is, in many ways, ignoring one of the most enduring legacies in film history. I was relieved, to say the least, that Live and Let Die is not being "remade".

I can't see the reboot being a long-term thing. I can see it being integral to three films max that Bond is a new agent, but come the 4th/24th film I'm sure it will be business as usual.

As for Bond meeting Blofield in OHMSS. Yes, it doesn't make much sense. Bond not recognising Blofield could be excused by the villain using plastic surgery (revealed in the next film), but Blofield taking so long to realise he's dealing with 007... Surely that kilt is not fooling anyone?!
 
I knew there was another, just couldn't think who. I was racking my brains, as I knew it was someone during the Timothy Dalton/Pierce Brosnan crossover. I think Burt Kwouk (Kato) played two different characters in two of the Connerys (he certainly played Goldfinger's sidekick, I think he was also in You Only Live Twice) but I wasn't sure. And the guy who played the American submarine captain in The Spy Who Loved Me (Captain Carter) played one of the NASA space engineers in You Only Live Twice.
 
The way I resolve the OHMSS thing is like this. Blofeld has supposed to have changed his appearance to look like he is a member of the Count's family (cutting off earlobes etc). So when Bond goes to meet him under the guise of Sir Hilary, Bond has a suspicion it could be Blofeld, but doesn't know for sure. From Blofeld's point of view it's a simpler explanation, he knows it is Bond all along
 
There has always been a loose continuity with Bond movies (let's face it the man remained the same age for over 40 years, living through the 1960s, the cold War, and events that happened in the 1990s, when everyone else such as Q aged around him).

However, with the case of Casino Royale, it was well documented by the producers and director and Daniel Craig that CR was not a prequel to the existing movies, but rather a reboot to the franchise (in the same sense Batman Begins is not a prequel to the Tim Burton/Joel Schumacher movies). Thus, they were not honouring any exisiting continuity established in the previous 007 movies.

The fact that Judi Dench continues to play M has of course confused the issue, but it is best not to try and connect CR with the other Bond movies.

If you do connect them there are a whole host of other continuity problems. For one thing, Felix Leiter is now black and meets Bond for the first time in CR, despite Dr.NO already being their first encounter. And another would mean Judi Dench's 'M' was M for a bit, then two other M's took her place, for her to then be re-instated as M again before Goldeneye

At the end of the day it is up to each viewer how they place CR in the whole series. You can either overlook continuity and see it as a prequel, or see it as a complete restart. I think as they make follow up movies it will become more and more apparent that this is a new series of 007 movies. Thus making Dr No. to Die Another Day one series, and CR onwarRAB another separate series.

Believe me it saves a lot of headaches if you disassociate CR from the other films
 
Are you really naive enough to think that the BBFC website stating that "No cuts were made" means a film is unedited- all it means is that the BBFC have not made cuts to the version they are given - but that may be cut already
Are you not aware that labels often precut films to avoid having to pay more and return the film to the BBFC after edits?

The recent Murder Set Pieces was sent to the BBFC in a version cut by about 12 minutes rather than the unedited Directors Cut that I have on dvd- yet had the BBFC not banned it they would have still listed it as "No cuts were made"

How modest of you to feel that you know more than a dvd retailer.
The uncut version was widely touted and available on R3 only from many websites at the time.



As already reported the UK version was cut on the advice of the BBFC who were asked about the 12A rating.

The necessary edits were made before it went in for classification.

I have both versions so I can assure you the UK version IS cut on both single and 2 disc editions

The R3 version and the Bluray disc that is only available in Oz and Holland (that I also have) contains the unedited version


http://www.mi6.co.uk/news/index.php?itemid=4289


But this is old news and was widely reported upon the films release as the cinema version was also cut.

What version Sky are showing I dont know.
 
There was some hoo haa about this at the time of DVD release.

As far as I know Casino Royale wasn't cut by the BBFC for either cinema or DVD release. However the BBFC website page for Casino Royale states an early cut of the film which was given to them for guidance would've received a 15 certificate due to certain shots in the torture scene. These shots were removed by the studio before the final version of the film was given over for classification.

The film was quite heavily edited in the US for cinema release and I believe edited further for DVD release. I don't think there are any extra bits on the Asian R3 DVD copies as the BBFC submitted version was the same one distributed globally.

If memory serves, Martin Campbell's DVD commentary has a bit to say about the US editing.
 
Back
Top