MovieChat Forums > Casino Royale (2006) Discussion > I'm reading the book but the movie (so f...

I'm reading the book but the movie (so far) has nothing in common


I'm wondering..should I just finish the book first, or can I consume them in tandem.

reply

You realize the book was written in the 50s, right?

reply

Yes. But what difference does that make?

I've watched the first 15 minutes or so of the movie which was essentially one long chase scene (not in the book).

The intro to the movie showed a lot of playing cards so possibly it will fall more in line with the book.

I'm not against changing things (Bourne movies), I'm just wondering if there is ANY similarity in this one.

reply

If I am not mistaken the first 45 minutes are made up for the movie, because of the Reboot aspect. The rest should be very faithful though.

reply

If I am not mistaken the first 45 minutes are made up for the movie, because of the Reboot aspect. The rest should be very faithful though.


Thanks.

Neither the book or movie are a very high priority with me. Just a curiosity. I'm in no hurry to finish either one.

I think I'll try to finish the book first.

Bond sure knows the details of the finer aspects of 'high living' in the book.

reply

You're supposed to watch a movie in one sitting.

reply

The book was written in the 50's, and compared to other books, is a relatively short story (only 200 odd pages?) hardly enough material to make a block buster movie out of.

The start of the movie is totally new, but it does start to resemble to book roughly half way through.

reply

The film sort of captures the spirit of the novel rather than being 100% faithful.

Here's a few things which are faithful to the book in the film :-

the whole card game at the casino. Yes - it's poker rather than baccarat. The "Vesper Cocktail Recipe". In the book, Bond is threatened with a gun hidden in a cane from behind him whilst at the card game - in the film it's a poisoning scene - to make it more dramatic. The car chase is slightly altered as in the book Bond and Vesper are both in the car trying to get away from their enemies. The torture scene, has Bond strapped to some bamboo scaffolding and Le Chiffre uses a carpet beater on him, Le Chiffre is killed by a SMERSH agent and gives Bond a scar on his face. It's similar but with a few elements changed in the film.

reply

The car chase is slightly altered as in the book Bond and Vesper are both in the car trying to get away from their enemies.

No, Vesper is not riding with Bond in the book. As in the movie, she is kidnapped and Bond pursues.

Book: a SMERSH agent ... gives Bond a scar on his face.

No, the SMERSH assassin carves an "M" on Bond's hand (not his face) -- "M" for "M.G.B.", what the K.G.B. was called before changing its name in the early 1960s. Bond already has the facial scar when the novel begins.


Send her to the snakes!

reply

I would recommend seeing the movie first. The novels (any movie) are always better than the movie. I've found that if I read a book first, then the movie is always disappointing. The only exception might be The Godfather. The films were as good as the novel IMO.

reply

I would say this film, Blade Runner and Fight Club are better then the novels they are based on. There are more but those would be the three obvious candidates imho.


Film Reverie: http://filmreverie.blogspot.com.au/
My film diary: http://letterboxd.com/filmreverie/

reply

Blade Runner is my go-to example for a movie that is not only better, but in a while different class

I think it's actually true of most of PKD's books. Another, more... sober writer is able to take his best ideas and layer coherency on top of them and improve them.

I think you're right about Fight Club too.

reply

So is Jaws the movie much better than Jaws the novel, except that, in the novel, the shark eats Richard Dreyfuss’s character. I abhor Richard Dreyfuss.

reply

I've seen plenty of movies that were better than the book.

reply

I disagree about it capturing the 'spirit' of the novel. It hits the same plot points, sure, but the plot points are reached due to a contrived personal journey that Bond needn't explore (as opposed to a professional agent on a mission).

The Bond films that truly capture the spirit of Fleming are:

DN
FRWL
OHMSS
FYEO
TLD
GE
SF

and honourable mentions go to GF and TND, TWINE.

www.bondandbeyond.forummotion.com

reply

[deleted]

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep
229 pages.

reply

The plot of the book makes up maybe 2/3 of the movie, and that's modernized.

reply

The book and film are a lot more similar than say Moonraker, You Only Live Twice or Octopussy.

reply

is it a good book?


🎄Season's Greetings!🎄

reply

It was just OK on the whole. Parts of it were pretty interesting where Fleming got into describing Bond's epicurean lifestyle.

Moonraker was good, probably the best Fleming I've read. Not at all cheesy like the movie.

reply

All of the scenes prior to the casino has been created for the movie

In the book, everything takes places in France (changed to Montenego in the film)

So if you start watching the movie from the arrival at Casino Royale onwards, it's relatively faithful to the book, with small deviations

as an example, in the book Vesper commits suicide in bed, she doesn't die in a collapsing building.






reply

That's kind of a spoiler.

reply

And you’re kind of an asshole; but you knew that.

reply

After years of being a fan of the movies I finally decided to read the books, so far I've read Casino Royale, Live And Let Die, Moonraker, Diamonds Are Forever and am currently a few chapters into From Russia With Love. So far the films have had very little in common with the books, it varies though. Casino Royale, so far, has been followed the most closely where others either seem to borrow the title or perhaps just a VERY rough premise though everything else is changed.

I was under the impression that Casino Royale was a very faithful adaption of the book. It might be pretty faithful for a James Bond adaption but there are quite a few changes. The book picks up with Bond already at the casino and getting ready for the big game (which is changed from baccarat in the book to poker in the film), this doesn't take place until 45 minutes or so into the movie as somebody said. They show Bond getting his first kills, show him working on an assignment and following the clues until after various chases, fights and explosions Bond finally arrives at the casino. Le Chiffre's backstory has also been changed, and part of the film is devoted to setting up his character and scheme. Like many of the films, instead of the villain working for the Soviet Union he works for a non-allied criminal organization. So all the stuff about him working for the Russians and the SMERSH agent is rewritten. Also the ending is very different, there's no big action scene at the end like there is in the film, instead they go stay at a B&B.

There are some scenes and lines which are pretty faithful, but basically they were only really faithful to the premise. Which is more than can be said for most of the books I've read. Movies like Moonraker and The Spy Who Loved Me don't even attempt to adapt the book and instead just borrow the title and maybe a character name or two.

"Dan Marino should die of gonorrhea and rot in hell. Would you like a cookie son?"

reply

If you're on From Russia with Love you've entered the string of books that for the most part resemble the movies based on them. You'll still find significant changes here and there though.

And yeah, when people say Casino Royale is a really faithful adaptation they're speaking relatively. By non-Bond standards it's pretty loose.

reply

Yeah, with the exception of adding SPECTRE into the mix (which I think is actually better) the movie was really faithful to the FRWL novel. But Dr. No seems pretty different though I'm only about halfway through. A lot of the scenes from the book are there in the movie, but structurally it's very different and they movie added a lot of stuff. In the book they head off to Crab Key about 70 pages in, the movie takes that first 1/3 or so of the book and stretches it out to almost 2/3 of the movie. Dr. No is more of an adventure novel than a spy novel, and I'm guessing they wanted to kind of do the opposite since this was the first Bond movie. The character was known for his womanizing, drinking and luxurious lifestyle and the first book they adapted had him either crawling through a smelly swamp or being held prisoner for the majority of it.

I'm enjoying them though. I wasn't expecting, nor really looking for, books that were exactly like the movies. In fact the more different they are from the movie the more I've enjoyed them. Like Moonraker, since it has nothing to do with the movie it was a completely new story to me and I didn't know what would happen.

"Dan Marino should die of gonorrhea and rot in hell. Would you like a cookie son?"

reply

Yeah, the Dr. No movie adds various characters and subplots to the pre-Crab Key section of the plot, but if I recall there are also substantial chunks that are almost dead on the same as the book. I also think it's one of those nexus points in the series where the cinematic Bond and the literary Bond seem like the same guy.

..adding SPECTRE into the mix (which I think is actually better)..


I can't decide which organization I like better as the antagonists. On the one hand I think SMERSH gives the book a more realistic Cold War espionage feel. On the other hand using SPECTRE as the enemy gives the plot a little more spice since it involves them messing with both sides.

reply

Yeah, the movie and book are similar enough that you can at least recognize the source material. Unlike Moonraker or TSWLM. The film's shift in focus from the Crab Key adventure to the preliminary investigation does make it pretty different. But as far as Bond adaptations go it's pretty faithful. Definitely more so than Moonraker or TSWLM (which have no connection to the source material) or even LALD or DAF which are somewhat recognizable but at the same time very different. From what I can tell so far Dr. No follows the novel it just spreads out the early chapters and condenses the rest of the book. I haven't really met Dr. No yet though, I'm at the point where Bond and Honey have passed out in their "mink lined prison" from the drugs and Dr. No creepily watched over them as they slept. And since, unlike the movie, the novel keeps his motives/plot a mystery I'm not sure yet if he's working the same missile toppling scheme.

As for FRWL, I think the "spice" SPECTRE brings to it is cool. To me it makes more sense for a criminal organization like SPECTRE to launch such an operation, it seems like an odd state sponsored scheme. And having Grant alternating between hunting and protecting Bond is great too. Its missing from the book. And as I was saying in another comment (on the FRWL board) some of the things the Russians do seem kind of dumb to me in the book, but makes sense in the movie. Like the attempts to kill Kerim. Given that the Russians don't know about the plot and the dead bodies Grant/Klebb pinned on the British, the attacks make sense in the movie. Openly declaring war on Bond's ally seems a little heavy-handed and none too subtle for such an operation.

"Dan Marino should die of gonorrhea and rot in hell. Would you like a cookie son?"

reply

Here is a brief, not extremely detailed recap of how faithful the first 16 Bond films are to the novels / source material:


DR. NO. The film adds several characters, like Prof. Dent, Miss Taro, Sylvia Trench and some scenes in the film are not in the book. Felix Leiter is not in the novel. Dr. No's death is different.

FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE. As noted, SPECTRE was added in the film.

GOLDFINGER. In the book, GF wanted to steal the gold not set off a nuke. Also, in the novel, Tilly does not die early on but is there until the end.

THUNDERBALL. The characters of Angelo and Fiona are new in the movie. In the book, the highjacker was Domino's brother not a double. Also, in the movie Domino's last name is Derval not Petacchi. The scenes where Bond first meets Domino and Largo's death are different from the book.

YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE. The movie is all new, aside from the Japanese locations, the characters of Tiger, Kissy and Blofeld. The plot is totally different.

OHMSS. Follows the book closely, but with a few new action scenes.

DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER. Uses the Vegas locations and the same basic plot, aside from Blofeld and the laser. The novel was just about smuggling diamonds from the UK (not Holland) to NYC and Las Vegas, and SPECTRE was not in the book. Most of the characters in the movie are from the novel.

LIVE AND LET DIE. Uses the characters and the NYC location, but New Orleans and San Monique are new. In the book, it was Florida and Jamaica. Some of the scenes from the movie were in the novel. Also, the book was about retrieving valuable gold coins from a sunken pirate ship for Russia, not drugs.

THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN. Scaramanga and Goodnight are taken from the book, but the locations and plot are all new

THE SPY WHO LOVED ME. All new

MOONRAKER. Uses only the name of the villain, Drax. In the book, the whole thing took place in England and was about a missile

FOR YOUR EYES ONLY. Uses the characters of Columbo, Kristatos and the Havelocks, and makes a new plot around the 2 short stories from the book

OCTOPUSSY. All new, but makes a brief reference to the story of the same name and the Berlin Wall scene is sort of taken from "The Living Daylights". The faberge egg auction is from the story "The Property of a Lady"

A VIEW TO A KILL. All new, aside from the Paris location

THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS. The opening sniper scene is taken from the story

LICENCE TO KILL. The attack on Leiter is from the novel "Live and Let Die", while the Krest character, with his boat, is from the story "The Hildebrand Rarity"

























reply

Exactly, it's simply the premise that's been lifted from CR. The plot points are mostly the same, but the writers injected the film with a silly, contrived, personal angle with leftist overtones to "help" Bond meet those plot points. Unfortunately, it doesn't work - and it certainly doesn't feel like James Bond.

DN, FRWL, GF and OHMSS are the closest we get to a faithful adaptation. Scenes in FYEO, OP, TLD and LTK have been lifted from Fleming's work and intertwined into an original story with roaring success.


May as well visit the forum in my signature to discuss Bond since IMDB boards are closing down. Though it is more adult orientated, so thick skinned people advised only. They don't ban people for petty reasons like other Bond forums.

www.bondandbeyond.forummotion.com

reply

I don't give a crap about IMDb's "left vs right" arguments, I watch/read James Bond for pleasure not to get involved in politics and internet bickering. I may check out the forum you mentioned, but I already belong to another one and haven't had any problems with them.

I don't know if CR feels like James Bond. But I think that was kind of the point, the franchise had been on a formulaic auto-pilot for years and I'm guessing they felt it was time to do something different to keep things fresh. FRWL doesn't feel like a Bond film either, but that's part of what makes it work. It's an interesting departure. And that's the way I've seen the Craig era, an interesting (although not as enjoyable) departure from the standard Bond movies we've been getting over the years. Having grown up on the movies rather than the books (which I've just finished), even the Bond in the books "doesn't feel like James Bond" to me. However it was still enjoyable as I didn't pick the books up with the intention of just experiencing the films in book form. I was glad when they were different, it was the ones that followed the books so closely (however much I enjoyed the film) that I found boring. There were some exceptions of course, like YOLT which had little to do with the movie (which I thought would be cool as its not one of my favorites) and also not very good.

"Dan Marino should die of gonorrhea and rot in hell. Would you like a cookie son?"

reply

I'm not arguing anything political - it is what it is.

I don't think CR was successful in rebooting the series when it strips everything away that makes it James Bond - it put the series in an identity crisis, and it only felt truly itself again in Skyfall. Then in SPECTRE, we revisit the identity crisis again. I don't agree that FRWL doesn't feel like Bond - it's the very essence of James Bond. Both the novel and the film.

www.bondandbeyond.forummotion.com

reply

Movies like Moonraker and The Spy Who Loved Me don't even attempt to adapt the book and instead just borrow the title and maybe a character name or two.

And ironically they are two of the best James Bond films, which just goes to show the books and films are very different animals.

As for Casino Royale, as I recall the book was pretty dry and mostly based around the plot of Bond defeating one of SMERSH's main financial operations via playing cards. It was interesting as a cold war era book but obviously wouldn't translate to anything too exciting cinematically which was probably one of the reasons (campy version aside) that it was left last for an adaptation, which, when it did come, was vastly tarted up.

reply

Casino Royale was not adapted because the producers (EON Productions) of the Bond films could not get the adaption rights to Casino Royale because Fleming sold the rights to Gregory Ratoff in 1955. At the time Dr. No was being made the rights were owned by Charles K. Feldman. EON tried to purchase the rights from Feldman but Feldman declined.

By 1999 the rights were owned by SONY and EON Productions was able to purchase the rights to the book for about $10,000,000.


reply

Interesting. Thanks 👍.

reply