Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:11, 8 April 2007

{{FAC}} should be substituted at the top of the article talk page

Casino Royale (2006 film) has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{GA|insert date in any format here}}. (Reviewed version).

Film GA‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Template:Current Cinema COTW

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

mistakes section?

How about making one of those sections which goes through little mistakes in the movie eg. bond wins a hand of no limit texas hold em with a straight of the same suit when suits usually are irrelevant

• Typically, these sections are frowned upon because their information is usually very trivial. The Filmaker 03:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

move article to Casino Royale

In the interest of making articles have the simplest titles as possible, I think this article should be moved to Casino Royale and the disambiguation page should be moved to Casino Royale (disambiguation) with a link at the top of this article to the disambiguation page. Most people looking for Casino Royale will be looking for this article. ColdFusion650 23:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

So ten years from now, people are still going to be looking for only the film article? It's hardly a big deal, not to mention not in line with naming conventions. It's just one additional click to get to the film article, which is proper recognition on the same level as the other Casino Royale articles. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ten years from now? Probably. The problems come up 50 years from now, but I'm sure the current system won't be compatible with the neural link. So, everything will have to be redesigned by then anyway. ColdFusion650 23:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

LMAO. Touché. Point of matter is, though, from what I've seen, Misplaced Pages veers away from trying to determine that kind of thing. Should we update each article title for every remake or similar-sounding subject that's more modern than what came before? It becomes an issue of POV, and I think the objective approach of labeling each article's subject type is the most appropriate. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the current situation is fine. Mark83 18:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Plot

Why are there 4 subsections for the plot? Tell me where in the MOS of film articles that it says to break down a plot by locations in the film? The only time that should happen is if there is a complicated plot and subsections make it easier to understand while reading.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  13:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

There's no real point, other than it makes it look better. ColdFusion650 13:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it looks better. I think it clutters the plot, and inserts unnecessary images. Remember, we have to prove fair use for all these images, because they aren't free. The plot looks reminescent of those anorexic paragraphs that people love to make, you know, the ones where they break into a new paragraph every 2 sentences. They were uploaded on WikiCommons and claim to be public domain, but screenshots from films are not public domain, they are copyrighted by studio.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  14:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I really don't care which way this goes. ColdFusion650 14:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If you don't care then why did you revert it, it seem more pertinant that you would have just brought it up to the talk page for a discussion.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do) 

As the putter-backer-onner, I decided to be the taker-backer-offer. ColdFusion650 16:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's kind of you, but I'm still open for discussion about the proposed change.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  16:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the images: talk about copyright violation! WikiNew 16:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Why?

Is a new film that flies in the face of the ideas of the central character's creator really worthy of a major article in the repository of all the world's knowledge within weeks of its release?Purrny gotobed 14:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to it having an article period, or it being nominated for a "cinema collaboration of the week"?  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  14:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

We have a troll. WikiNew 16:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hardly, WikiNew and your comment and user name are certainly an odd match. Perhaps a discussion page is called a discussion page because it should be a site for discussion? For Bignole, I mean notability, why does a major movie instantly become a "cinema collaboration of the week" and why does it warrant so much effort? The article is huge, but the film may well be looked at very differently in a year or so. I haven't seen it yet, but have stayed away partly because I have read and enjoyed every one of the Ian Fleming novels (and Chitty Chitty Bang Bang etc. at an earlier stage) and was irritated (re. the movie) to read reviews claiming that it upturns the whole Bond idea--we do speak of artistic rights these days. Perhaps I should try to expand on how the movie opposes the canon, but guess I have to see it first.Purrny gotobed 13:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a forum. Discussion pages are for improving the new article. WikiNew 13:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I would save opinion until I saw it, but as for "collaboration of the week", I'm not really up-n-up on that project, but I thought it was just a nomination that says "hey, let's work on this article for the next week or so and get it into great shape". I don't know what happens after that, because it has nothing to do with FA status, or going on the front page for that matter. If you are wonding why the film has an article, well, just about every film has an article, even those horrid Roger Moore Bond films.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  13:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the film was released in November 2006. While the phrase "within weeks" can technically refer to any amount of time, it implies a shorter amount of time than four months.—Kbolino

Kbolino and Bignole, thanks for the replies, I was simply curious, ... as for that other bloke ... what? By the way, the release in most territories outside the US (and UK?) was a good deal later, so I had a bit of a misperception re. the timing, even a lot of the US commentary was a fair bit later than the release. Yeah, the Moore films weren't the best, but as has often been said, he fit the mold intended by Fleming in some important ways. He's also the only one I've had very slight interaction with in real life, and he *was* a gent.Purrny gotobed 14:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Mr. White's Number

The plot summary currently says the following:

Bond, who has Vesper's mobile phone, discovers that she left Mr. White's name and number for him to find.

The message begins "For James:" which seems to me to indicate that it was sent by someone else to Vesper (in order that she might give it to James). If she had intended for him to find it, she would have more likely addressed it "James:" or omitted the form of address entirely (and just given the number). There don't appear to be any more details about the message (that would clarify whether it was a note written by Vesper or a message sent to her).—Kbolino 20:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Not if she didn't know he would look at it or not. With the chance that he follows some protocol (yeah right), he may turn the phone over to MI6, who would say "hey this is for you". Also, I'm not that familiar on British etiquette, but maybe it's just polite when you address a note. Who knows, but it's not a probably to send yourself a text message or leave a note in some sort of "dayplanner" on a phone. The point is, it's based on what we see and not what we don't, and since no one questions it in the film (like when Bond clarifies that Mathis isn't innocent or guilty, yet) we just have to go with what they do. You could, if you want to be more ambiguous just say "Bond, who has Vesper's mobile phone, discovers Mr. Whites name and number". The rest can be left up to the viewer how he finds it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

I recently fixed some refs with citation templates and added a couple refs as well.
The article looks really good. I think that a peer review would be beneficial. Cliff smith 03:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I just checked out WP:WIAGA, and based on what is said about length, it may be better to do a peer review instead of a nomination for GA. This article is presently twice the size of the recommended maximum for GA. With the peer review, we can tackle the automated peer review suggestions (which are given by a bot) and then check each of the criteria for a GA as well as an FA. Once the peer review is complete, we would be ready for FAC. Cliff smith 16:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the length is fine now, given this article is well cited, but I'd like to expand the Production section certainly with interviews on various reasons and quotes for the film's particular style. Also, the whole intended reboot thing in the lead sounds like O.R. I believe Campbell refered to a timeline during the video blogs. WikiNew 16:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I found an interview of Campbell in which he confirms the reboot. IGN Interview: Campbell on Casino Royale Because of this, I mentioned the reboot in the lead with this interview as a reference so that it won't sound like O.R. Cliff smith 18:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

About the ratings box, this is something present in many articles, like Tomorrow Never Dies, which is a GA.
I don't see why it wouldn't belong here. Cliff smith 18:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT. WikiNew 18:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I see. Hmm, it's curious then as to why the infobox for ratings was ever created.
Well, beyond that, I think that the upcoming collaboration (hopefully we'll get it) + peer review = GA, and then FA. Things are looking good. Cliff smith 19:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but could someone explain to me which area of WP:NOT applies to the ratings infobox? The Filmaker 14:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Alientraveller 15:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I second the notion. A list of the film's ratings in various countries is just an indiscriminate collection of information. Most films do not have major issues with ratings; if such issues exist, they are better written as useful prose (so-and-so studio appealed to the MPAA or whomever regarding the rating). There is no encyclopedic value otherwise. It's like listing all the release dates of the film or how it performed at the box office for each weekend during its theatrical run. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Vehicles and gadgets

When I was checking out GoldenEye and Tomorrow Never Dies, which are GAs, I noticed that their vehicles and gadgets sections also included the weapons that were used in the movie. Perhaps we should do the same thing. Cliff smith 16:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It's unnecessary, and GA and FA criteria has been changed since a lot of articles first received it. Also, it depends on the article. The previous Bond films relied heavily on these things, where as this one didn't.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That's true. I was thinking about it, and I just thought they might have to be in this article since they were in the other two. But yes, I better understand now. Cliff smith 16:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, you can almost guarantee that "listing" vehicles and gadgets won't get you through a FAC as lists are generally frowned upon (unless that is the nature of the article .. i.e. List of Bond gadgets). If those other articles want to be FA, I think they are going to need a lot of work.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Totally. Yeah. TYVM. Well then it's a really good thing I took care of the Awards section cause it was a straight list before.
But the article's shaping up nicely. Cliff smith 16:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It's my opinion that this article is in better shape than those other two, we just have never put it up for any nominations. Which, I think it could use a bit more tweaking before we do. I think you brought up a good point about the gadgets, because I think it would be best if we turned that information into prose and included some reliabley sourced information about the departure from the previous films to include less "gadgets".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. That could work. Interesting idea. And I agree that this looks much better than some of the others. Cliff smith 16:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

We just have to find the information that says it was their intention to NOT include that stuff, which shouldn't be hard. I think some of the sources we already have in that section may have that information. I think it would be neater to turn it into prose, because it would help with limiting people from expanding the list if they have to write it out and include reliable sourcing for its use. I'm thinking that finding a "reason" as to why they chose this and that for the vehicles and such would help to expand the section as a whole.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. Cliff smith 16:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to look for some sources this weekend, because I can't access certain sites at work. I did find a Latino Review interview with Campbell where he says that none of those other actors were ever in the running for Bond, let alone signed anything.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Well, I'll look for some more references this weekend too, when I have more time. Cliff smith 17:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Man M?

I enjoyed Judi Dench in this film. However, shouldn't M be a man in this movie? If it's Bond's first mission, then in the timeline M would still be the male M (from the older films.)

• Yes, I realize the actor is probably really old or even dead by now. But technically, shouldn't the character of M still be a dude?

Judi Dench didn't arrive as Bond's boss until Goldeneye; they make a whole deal of it, and someone even mentions 'the new M being a woman'. So from mission zero (aka Casino Royale) up until but not including Goldeneye, M is a man.

Any thoughts? JimmmyThePiep 16:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

First, please note that Misplaced Pages is not a forum, so please keep your conversation to enhancing the article. To answer your question though, this is a completely new series for the Bond films, it has its own continuity, so M could be a child for anyone to care in this particular point in the series. It is not connected to the previous bond films, it's a reboot of the franchise.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

ah; merci beacoup. I couldn't figure it out, but I guess that makes sense. (Note, I actually did post on a couple of forums, but got no replies.. Either nobody knew or nobody cared to answer.) JimmmyThePiep 04:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Felix Liter

Has anyone ever seen 'Liscence to Kill'? It starts off with Bond and Felix catching a criminal; on Felix' wedding day no less; but the criminal pays $1 million to escape, and then gets angry so he feeds most of Felix Liter to a shark? (Bond later, after getting kidnapped, douses the villain in gasoline and sets him on fire.)

... Anyway, that's not the point. Originally, the character of Felix Liter was very much a caucasian American CIA agent. Any idea why this switched his ethnicity for this film? JimmmyThePiep 16:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, see remark in the above section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding GA review

The article looks absolutely great. Cliff smith 20:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur; it seems to be becoming a trend to develop Misplaced Pages articles on recent films more fully. Though I think the focus is more on "quality" films (Dreamgirls type, but not something like Ghost Rider). Film articles often come up in the first ten results of a search engine, so that kind of placement combined with the anyone-can-edit capability really makes the setup a universal project. There are eyes on the article for this film's sequel, too, so I don't doubt that the article will develop just as strongly. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Behind the scenes

DVD

I think the best thing to do is to summarise the documentaries on the DVD. Can you do that? Don't bother to mention "how hard" things were. WikiNew 15:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This seems like a very good idea. Hopefully we can also find some online sources to help reference it also. Trust me on this the article needs to cover production fairly well if this is going to eventually make FA. What about the car rash etc -specially prpeared car the 7 turns world record etc. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 15:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

What about how the aiport scene was filmed - does the article mention it was filmed in like 5 different airports and the thrust scene and the police car? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 16:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Do write a list of information from both Becoming Bond and For Real. WikiNew 16:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

for the DVD release section

Perhaps a brief description of the special features could be added. Cliff smith 18:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

That kind of seems like we are marketing for them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Can't we also get a picture/scan of the DVD and put it in the section? Like how boxsets are done for tv shows. El Greco 19:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, actually you're right Bignole. But as far as a picture/scan of the DVD goes, I couldn't agree more. Cliff smith 21:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Generally images of the DVD are added to the page. Information about the DVD (e.g. sales, critical response) is something to look for, as that adds to the section and keeps it from being just an image with a release date.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Well this article is not only missing such details but has anyone ever thought about a section on the script writing and cinematography? Comparisons with novel? THis isn't even covered. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 12:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I have seen FA's with "Writing" as a section, but I don't recall any for Cinematography. Every article is different, so I'm not saying that either should be or not be in the article. I think if it can be well written, it will be just fine.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Comparisons to the novel could be a subsection in Production, and that would probably be good, as long as it's prose with references, not listed. As far as writing and cinematography go, there's nothing really special to make note of. Writing, you could say (if not already said) how Purvis and Wade wrote the original draft and then Haggis was brought in to revise it. There's nothing significant about the cinematography that would warrant mention, beyond Meheux being nominated for a couple awards (which is already in Awards). Cliff smith 16:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

An article's content is derived from the information that is available. Hence if there is notable information on the screenwriting (beyond Neal Purvis and Robert Wade) then it should be detailed within the production section. However, a full section should only be added if the information is abundant. The same goes for cinematography. From what I understand there is not anything worth mentioning on the screenwriting or cinematography. The Filmaker 01:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Cliff smith 02:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps not cinemtography but some minor details on the script writing would really be appropriate. Look I am suggesting ways to improve the article, I am not a minimalist -for me as much info as possible providing it is concise and well written is better and not a downside. Surely you aren't all suggesting this article is perfect? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 11:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not (perfection is nonexistent). But I understand what you're saying. Cliff smith 16:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Dr. No or From Russia With Love?

There seems to be some discern over where "Q" made his first appearance. Major Boothroyd is the name used in Dr. No. In From Russia With Love the character is called "Q". The both supply the same job, but are referred to as two different people. Now, before anyone goes spouting "well the Misplaced Pages article says this.." we don't cite wikipedia in our articles, so that goes double for discussions on the talk pagel. The "Q" article has no sources, and appears to be more original research than actually citation. Now, I haven't had the pleasure of reading the books, so I cannot say for sure if "Q" was ever identified by name in the books, but as far as films go, the name Major Boothroyd (from my recollection, which is in no way perfect, so I'd appreciate second thoughts on this) was only ever used in Dr. No, and from that point on, the gentleman handing out little gadgets was called "Q".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Major Boothroyd was used in Dr. No and From Russia with Love, and he was refered to as Q in GoldFinger. Q was called Boothroyd in The Spy Who Loved Me the film. In the Books there are two different characters who became Q in the films, Boothroyd "the armourer" who gave Bond his Walther in Doctor No and a member of Q-Branch. In Casino Royale M tells him to go to "Q" for the equipment needed, but this wasn't a specific person and it could very well have referred to Q-Branch. Hope this helps. A quick check on IMDb (which uses the film credits) has Desmond Llewelyn ... Major Boothroyd. 86.138.125.156 10:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so the mystery begings to break light. I didn't realize Desmond was referred to as Boothroyd in Spy. Well, this should end all discussion about changing the film title. Thanks anonymous user.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

This should be added then

• In the film, the action scene at the construction site involving free running and the 200ft crane was intended to be Madagascar but footage was actually shot at an abandoned hotel in the Bahamas. Producer Michael G. Wilson had first seen the site back in 1977 during the filming of The Spy Who Loved Me.

How do you reference dvd media?

♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 11:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This one Template:Cite video - X201 11:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't add trivia lists per WP:AVTRIVIA. Like I said, please glean the facts for encyclopedic use. Alientraveller 15:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Cast

Why is the cast section at the bottom of the page, behind "Release"? Seems to me it should come before the plot of the film, because you are introducing characters, with descriptions, that are relevant to the plot.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• The subject of the Cast section is the actors not the so much the characters. Which is why it typically contains information on the casting of the film (however, in this case I think the abundant amount of information and controversy warrants it's own section). The descriptions of the characters are merely to remind the reader of which character we are talking about. The section is down below the Releases and Reaction sections because it is a slightly less important to understanding the entire picture. Production to Synopsis to Release than we get into the smaller details, such as who played who, the soundtrack, and in the case of the Star Wars articles, Cinematic and Literary Allusions and the novelization. The Filmaker 14:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, the dictionary refers to a synopsis as "A brief outline or general view, as of a subject or written work; an abstract or a summary." and the synopsis article on Misplaced Pages states that only in "many cases" does omit spoilers. This is not in all cases. I generally feel that the term "Synopsis" sounds more dignified and encyclopedic than the more blunt "Plot". The Filmaker 14:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounding more dignified doesn't make it correct. Synopsis is a term that should be used for future films, ones that don't have a full story, just a basis. Plot is something that is meant to cover beginning to end. Synopses are overviews of the whole story, they generally lack details. What is currently in Spider-Man 3 is a synopsis, because it's just a general outline of the entire film. "An abstract, or general view" is not something that has 700 words, unless you are talking about the Ten Commandments. It's a misappropriation of terms, kind of like when someone says they "cryogenically" froze someone, which is incorrect, as that is not what cryogenic means, even though society tends to use that word for that definition. As for the cast, they may be less important, but they are important on the basis that you are describing characters after the fact. It would seem more beneficial to include that before the plot, as it would give a description of characters beforehand.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Missing paragraph for copy editing

Special effects

Special Effects and Miniature Effects Supervisor Chris Corbould, was keen to return to a more realistic style of filmmaking and cut down on digital effects in Casino Royale. “I am passionate about the art of special effects, and I will fight tooth and nail to do something for real,” he says. “Obviously, if there are safety concerns or budget concerns, then I can back off and admit defeat. CGI is a great tool and can be very useful, especially if blended seamlessly with reality to give a good performance, but if an effect can be done for real, it’s the best way to go.”

The three biggest scenes involving special effects in the films were those involving Bond giving chase to Mollaka at a building site in Madagascar, the Miami International Airport tarmac chase sequence, where Bond is pursuing the terrorist Carlos intent on blowing up the prototype Skyfleet plane and the sinking Venetian house, with scenes located in Venice on the Grand Canal and in Pinewood in the Paddock Tank and the 007 Stage.

First on the schedule were the scenes on the Madagascar building site, shot on location in the Bahamas on the site of a derelict hotel which producer Michael G. Wilson had actually first seen back in 1977 during the filming of The Spy Who Loved Me. In the scene, Bond gets into an 18-ton digger and drives well over 30 miles per hour toward the building. hitting the side of a truck of a truck, destroying a hut, then slamming into the concrete plinth on which Mollaka is running. As Coubold said about the scene;

“We built a model and put forward two or three ways that the digger could conceivably take out the concrete, including taking out the pillar underneath. Martin Campbell preferred the direct way, with the bucket straight into the concrete. We did a couple of tests, and the concrete curled around the bucket and it came out like a wave.”

The Miami Airport Scene was shot at the Dunsfold Aerodrome in Surrey, and the first and second units of the film spent 10 weeks filming the sequence. In the Special DVD documentary on the film Coubold stated;

"I’ve had experience with tankers before in License to Kill, and they are beasts to work with once you have all that tonnage hurling around; we souped up the tankers to get some high-speed collisions."

Corbould also describes the substantially large set of the sinking Venetian house at the action climax of of the film as the biggest rig he’s ever built on any Bond film or any other. For the scene involving Bond following Vesper and Gettler into a Venetian house undergoing renovation, supported by inflatable balloons, a tank was constructed at the 007 stage at Pinewood, consisting of a Venetian piazza and the interior of the three-story dilapidated house. The rig weighed some 90 tons combining together electronics and hydraulic valves, closely controlled by computer because of such dynamic movement within the system on its two axes. The same computer system also controlled the exterior model which the effects team also had built, built to one-third scale, to film the building eventually collapsing into the Venetian canal.

The rig itself could be immersed in 19 feet of water, and utilized banks of compressors to regulate movement, used in the scene of Vesper's death.

Source:http://www.cinemareview.com/production.asp?prodid=3743

Technical specifications

Casino Royale was shot using a Arricam LT hand-held Steadicamera, a Arricam ST, and Arriflex 435/235 cameras with Cooke S4 and Angenieux Imagon Zoom Lenses. The skyline scenes were filmed using a Panavision Genesis HD Camera.

The film was shot on 35 mm using an Eastman Double-X 5222, Kodak Vision 200T 5274, and Vision 500T 5279. The aspect ratio is 2.35 : 1. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ernst Stavro Blofeld (talk • contribs) 12:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Too trivial in my view. Alientraveller 15:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

I think that once the collaboration week is finished, we should have a peer review. Cliff smith 16:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Who passed the article?

Anyone? GA reviewers should leave a notice. WikiNew 16:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ibaranoff24 did. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Break up "Reaction" section?

To me the "Reaction" section seems too crowded and disconnected. The last paragraph is basically a (very crowded, difficult to read) section on some awards or nominations Casino Royale has garnered. That should go into another section. "Awards" would make more sense. Ealgian 01:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it could possibly be a subsection within Reacton, however that "very crowded" paragraph is more appropriate than a listy section on each and every award the film won or was nominated for, which is basically what it was before I turned it into prose. Some of the stuff that was there before wasn't really necessary per WP:NOT. Also, there are many other film articles that organize their Reaction section as seen here, like the articles for Star Wars episodes I, II, III, IV, and V — and those are all Featured Articles.
Cliff smith 16:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest a subsection as, again, it's quite lengthy (list or no list). In addition, various featured film articles include an Awards and Noms (sub)section which are not in paragraph form; I'm fine with paragraphs, though, it just seems to me that a subsection would be more appropriate.Ealgian 01:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The information on the awards is not particularly abundant enough to warrant a subsection. The prose should actually be copyedited. But the section does appear lengthy to me at all. The Filmaker 02:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The peer review will help with things like copyediting, but if necessary we could go to the WP:LoCE for further refinement. Cliff smith 15:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I have actually done this already and plan to intergate the reminader of the award list into the writing. The bottom paragraph kind of does this but a few more details need to be asserted first into the text before removing the list. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 20:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The special effects subsection is good, nice work. But I'd like to note that the lists of wins and nominations that have been added are redundant with the prose.
Cliff smith 23:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

We need a better picture of the DVD. Cliff smith 16:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This might or might not help mi6.co.uk CR DVD. And this one: dvdactive CR. El Greco 18:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The second link, first picture (widescreen edition) is the best one I've seen yet. Cliff smith 18:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

A ha well done all. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 20:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, basically I think that the added lists of wins and nominations are too redundant to be kept. Something alot like that was converted into prose because prose is recommended according to WP:WIAFA and a similar page, User:AndyZ/Suggestions. Cliff smith 01:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Didn't I tell you this list should be written into he propose first then removed? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 11:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Improvements to make before FA nomination

I'd like to see these following improvements until it is ready for FA nomination:

• Intergrate award list fully into written text and avoid redundant repetition.
• Copy edit the article fully -most notably in the reaction and release section where some wording is not quite polished enough -too many short sentences and some phrasing is still quite clumsy.
• Try to intergrate a bit of basic summary of the screenplay into an existing section basic differences from original novel -the similarity to Flemings and original charcter and plot also needs at the very least mentioning. No quoting but some mention of the dialogue in places might help -Judi Dench's character is even more hostile this time and she uses stonger language than ever before in fitting with the "darker Bond".
• Mentioning the dates of casting - it was actually done in September 2005 and the final decsion for Craig for made in only a few weeks announced in October although the production team had had their eye on Craig since 2003.
• One final image please. of the actual DVD COVER from than the poster. I'll forget about the award and Mr White.

What do you think amigo? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 12:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds real good. We'll get them in before FAC. Cliff smith 18:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Controversy over casting

A point was brought up on the film article's FAC page about the lack of mention of any controversy over casting Daniel Craig as the new 007. The information existed in the article a while ago, but seems to have been phased out since. Also, there was discussion about this matter, which can be found at Talk:Casino Royale (2006 film)/Archive 4#Cast Section/Search for..... Is it possible to re-evaluate the possibility of mentioning the media's initial reaction to Craig as Bond? I know that there were online petitions contesting the casting decision, but is there anything authoritative that addresses this? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It's briefly mentioned with the Reaction section with The Daily Mirror's slam, but I'd oppose mention of the anti-Craig site. A blog is not a reliable source. Alientraveller 14:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources that mention sites like these, though? I believe it's generally acceptable to mention online petitions and blogs when they enter the public scope (newspapers, TV media, etc). —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Mentioned this in intro whilst avoiding website reference ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 10:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Reaction section

According to the WP:FILM Style guide the section ought to be entitled "Reception". It could be further broken up by such subheadings as "Critical reception" or "Critical reaction" and "Awards". The subheadings in the section could even call to the specifics of the criticism, with such subheadings as "Positive reviews" or "Negative reviews". I should also mention, Daily Mirror "Bland, James Bland" article link leads to a blank page, which is a bummer. — WiseKwai 18:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Style guidelines it is not a policy page or any other example to be taken as set in stone. "Reaction" is perfectly fine title for the section. Also, subheadings are only to be used when the information is extremely abundant. Subsectioning is not need in this case. The Filmaker 18:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. Just offering what I hoped were helpful suggestions. Best of luck. — WiseKwai 03:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

New section:Title sequence

Another section summarizing details of how the credits were designed and the reasons behind it

• http://www.mi6.co.uk/news/index.php?itemid=4511

♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 10:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I brief mention in the lead for the production section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

That subsection is too small to be a subsection.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

You were also better with the other image or no image as the gunbarrel sequence is just one sentence in the entire section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree -look at the vehicles seciton now that is short. It looks fine ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 12:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Still, compare the other subsections to the new one, it is far too small to be a subsection. It's something that is minor in the process of filmaking and should be in the Production sections lead paragraph.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Bignole on this one—the info about the credit sequence belongs in the Production lead, not a separate subsection. Cliff smith 00:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, the quote is unnecessary and the bits about "only Bond to do this" or whatever are trivial and fall under WP:NOT#IINFO. Cliff smith 00:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

MONEY PENNY refrence

did anyone else catch the "money penny" refrence when Lynd and Bond first meet on the plane. Clever i thought, left her demise open to interpritations and some speculation if you ask me. When1eight=2zeros

1. This has been discussed before and from memory the consensus was this was original research.
2. They met on a train, not a plane.
3. This isn't really the place to discuss interpretation or speculation. It's to discuss the article. Mark83 19:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

You're seriously reaching dude. There is nothing there. ColdFusion650 19:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

If you have seen the film properly 2 zeros you will release that it is not a plane but a train. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 20:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Things I don't understand after reading the synopsis

• Who is Mr. White? -- The first mention of this character comes out of nowhere, and he is unexplained, so that when he reappears at the end of the synopsis, my reaction was "Huh? Who's that?

It's unclear who Mr. White is in the movie. We know he works for this organization that is unnamed.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• There's a reference near the end to "Le Chiffre and the organization, who does this refer to? One terrorist organization? Le Chiffre's organization?

It's some organization that LeChiffre is working for, kind of like a consultant"contractor" (i.e. hired by the organization, not a true member of them). The organization is left unclear, just like Mr. White. We assume these questions will be answered in the next film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Is Mathis a double-agent as Le Chiffre suggested? It's unclear whether Bond is making a mistkae in having him arrested. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 02:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Ambiguous in the film. LeChiffre says he is, but it wasn't for sure. When M makes the comment about him being innocent, Bond replies that they have not proven his guilt or his innocence yet, and that he must be interrogated further. I think the next film shows him as being a double agent, but working with Bond. But, we can't use that information, as the film isn't out, and that's a different film anyway. You cannot retcon information in an article that is retconned, or expanded upon in later films. You can try to better explain their ambiguousness in the article, but there wasn't a lot of detail about them. It's just known that they are the ones pulling the strings behind the curtains.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it's good to know that the ambiguity is in the film, and not in the synopsis. Thanks for the info. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 10:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Plot section fixes

As discussed previously, the plot, whilst concise, misses some key points and ioncludes some unnecessary side-details. I have edited it. Summary as follows:

1. Added explanation of Mr White, and Le Chiffre's role, up front. This is crucial for the plot, explaining Mr White's role, why Le Chiffre is killed, why he is trying to sabotage the airport. (This much is clearly explained in the film, unlike Mr White's organization)
2. Add brief note that Bahamas is linked via mobile phone. Otherwise "Bond then visits the bahamas" is a WTF... where did that suddenly come out of?
3. Describe Dimitrios as a contact and the man making the calls (no excess detail added), so it's clear how the plot links.
4. Remove winning the car - this is a side plot, not central to the main storyline, and doesn't go anywhere.
5. "Blow up" -> "Destroy" for the plane, seems a better word, the precision of how it will be destroyed seems irrelevant.
6. Add short phrase "...and plunge Skyfleet into crisis..." which explains the airliner relevance.
7. "he" -> "Bond" (ambiguous "when he wins")
8. Minor rewording to the CIA deal / kidnap / car chase sentence, to clarify that Vesper is kidnapped specifically to lure Bond.
9. Add "for untrustworhiness" to the killing of Le Chiffre, which (given above edits) explains it all.

Added:

1. Brief addition: Le Chiffre is threatened by his clients (this sets the scene for his killing)
2. Link two sentences for brevity and flow, and note Vesper and Bond are both tortured (since her screams can be heard in the background, though not seen).

FT2 00:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with most of it. I've reworded some things and removed some words that bordered on peacock. Those two were "unscrulptuous" (sp) and "shadowy". As per those guidelines, don't say, explain, which you did. Saying an organization is "vaguely alluded to" kind of explains "shadowy", and Le Chiffre's actions speak for themselves. Oh, I also removed the part (first thing removed) pluralizing bankers and guerrila groups. What he does outside of LeChiffre isn't important, and M didn't say it was HIS groupd that does, she didn't have proof of it, just that its groups like his.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

1. For Real. Universal. 2007. {{cite AV media}}: |format= requires |url= (help)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Undated GA templates
• Good articles without topic parameter
• GA-Class film articles
• WikiProject Film articles