MovieChat Forums > Casino Royale (1967) Discussion > was this billed originally as apart of t...

was this billed originally as apart of the 007 franchise?


just wondering on the original audience for this...
i am aware its NOT apart and never expected i to be... but i have perspective.. was this supposed to take audience by suprise?

reply

I don't even know what the Hell you're trying to ask...

reply

HA HA HA... sorry. just re-read what i posted... my brain mustve stopped working.

I MEANT TO ASK.

when originally released, was this advertised as part of the 007 franchise?

where the audience supposed to be tricked into thinking they were getting an actual bond film?

or was it always billed as a spoof?

:)

reply

Some people might have thought it was part of the series, but the advanced publicity the film got should have clued most viewers in advance that it was a comic spoof. Also the absence of Sean Connery would have made it clear since at the time he WAS James Bond. I also suspect that had the makers of this film tried to mislead viewers into believing it was tied in with DR. NO, GOLDFINGER, etc., lawsuits would have followed.

reply

Yeah, I'm sure the publicity had every intention of hipping folks to what kind of movie it was - way before the movie came out there were big picture articles in all the major magazines (which were big media way back then!) done with the filmmakers' cooperation.

reply

Growing up, the arrival of every new Bond film was cause for great excitement. I was about 14 with CR came out, and have vivid memories of being very angry and frustrated in the theatre. I could not understand all the silliness and kept hoping that eventually it would become more like a regular Bond film. The tunes were goofy and didn't sound at all like John Barry.
I remember when they finally got into Noah's facility, the music and sets seemed "Bondish" and I hoped the film would get better. Next second, Woody Allen was stumbling around. Too strange.
Now it's a weird-trip nostalgia piece, a fun reminder of the strange excesses of that decade.

reply

No. Kevin McClory had won his court case to use Bond outside the real Bomd franchise due to the copyright issues with Thunderball. So his team wanted to so Bond and had actually asked Connery who wanted a cool miilion to do it. They refused. At the time they weren't sure what to do and originally it was never meant to be a spoof. And the rest is silence.

reply

So your saying that it was meant to be an original bond movie made by another company but since Connery was asking for too much, they used another actor and turned it into a spoof instead?

reply

That and them not being able to come up with a prper concept which again has to do with not findinga proper star. The producers said that they really should have spend the money on Connery's then unheard of 1 million.

reply

The rights to Casino Royale were sold seperatly to producer Charles K.Feldman-not Kevin McClory, who owned the rights to Thunderball, because he co-wrote a screenplay which Fleming later turned into a novel. When the Bond franchise took off Feldman knew he had a valuble piece of property but didn't know how to approach it. There are stories that he asked Connery to be in the film, but I doubt they're true as Connery was under contract to Eon productions. Feldman decided to spoof the whole Bond world and started making a comedy, which grew to extravagent heights. He was a big time agent before becoming a producer, and many of the films stars were his clients-hence Woody Allens involvement. Feldman had also produced WHATS NEW PUSSYCAT?. It was never advertised as part of the Bond franchise. People knew what they were getting and, if my memory serves me right, the film did not do well upon opening. Later it got a deserved cult status among fans.

reply

Actually it did quite well in theaters and wound up being one of the most popular films that year. It made about $22 million just in the US, and $44 million worldwide, which was a pretty good profit on it's $12 million final budget (which was twice what it's original budget was supposed to be).

reply

[deleted]

Despite what others have said, it was mainly promoted as being the new "James Bond" movie. There are a number of photos of street-long advertisements touting "JAMES BOND 007: CASINO ROYALE", which no attempt to identify it as a spoof.

reply

Yes, but the advertisements themselves, in a way, told people it was a spoof. The tattooed lady with cartoons of parachuting indians on her would tell the viewer that it wasn't a "straight" 007 film. Besides it opened right before YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE -which was that years' "official" Bond film.

reply

I was 11 years old when it was released, and it was very clear to me that it was a spoof and not part of the real Bond franchise. Anyone who thought otherwise must not have been very bright.

reply

my family owns a mgm/ua official james bond encyclopedia and it has both the 1967 Casino Royale and Never Say Never Again in the contents; it mentions all of the bond women and villains and synopses in each film; these films are listed as well; die another day was the most recent film to come out when the book was released

reply

Yep - Casino Royale and Never Say Never Again are included in the official books "The James Bond Legacy" and "James Bond Movie Posters" as well.

It's also probably not a coincidence that the special edition DVD's of these films were released right after the official Bond 'Ultimate Edition' DVD's were.

reply

As I recall, "Casino Royale" was released somewhere around the time of 1967's "REAL" James Bond movie..."You Only Live Twice" with Connery.

NBC-TV even did a TV special about "You Only Live Twice" with some clips from the previous Connery Bonds.

So most of us knew the difference at the time.

I believe I read somewhere that it is believed that "Casino Royale" helped put a dent in the grosses of "You Only Live Twice"(so did the fact that Bond was already starting to run out of gas as "blockbuster movie-making"). "Casino Royale" had nothing to do with it, but the slight underperformance of "Twice" helped Connery make his decision to jump ship.

reply

[deleted]

MGM now owns the rights to distribute CR (1967) and NSNA (1983). So there isn't much reason to discount them as being part of the franchise!

reply