# Talk:Casino Royale (1967 film)

The Feud section says "Sellers ultimately walked off the film before he completed all his scenes, which is why Tremble is so abruptly captured in the film."
but a few lines later the "Missing Footage" section says "Eventually, Sellers' involvement with the film ended. Whether he was fired or simply walked off is unclear. Given that he often left for days at a time and was involved in conflicts with Welles, either explanation is plausible."  Given that the first has no citations and it's better to be ambiguous than wrong, I'm editing it to be more ambiguous and moving some of the flow around to avoid being repetitive, but the second doesn't exactly impress me with its citation either.  If anyone has a reference better than a somewhat fictional film, they should fix this up.

Fun Fact
The CBS Orchestra played the 1967 Casino Royale theme when Daniel Craig was a guest.
Dudtz 11/11/06 12:14 PM ET

Since when does Casino Royale star Sean Connery?Not Once
Then why did you ask?  CaptainMidnight287 (talk) 11:53, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

If I view the "current" page by using the history tab, I can see my additions (regarding the vinyl release of the soundtrack being held in high regard by audiophiles).  But if I view the article normally I don't see it.  What gives?
--Larry Hastings 08:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I saw this movie several times in Mexico, and I am pretty sure that it had a different cut than the one that we see in the U.S. The movie is longer, and it has some parts that connect the story better. Of course, I was a child when I saw this, and I haven't been able to find other cuts of the movie. Is there anyway to find if I am right about the existence of other cuts or not?
Hugo Estrada

Although it is almost universally panned I have always loved this movie and, back in the pre-VCR days, watched it every time it came on broadcast TV. What I saw was usually an edited version, but every so often they would show a more complete version of the film, and of course now you can rent it without cuts for commercials. As I recall, some of the most glaring edits were in the "McTavish Castle" segment. I don't recall the details, just that seeing the less-edited version made much more sense--if anything about this film can be said to make sense. Despite its flaws--or, more likely, because of them--this film is a wonderful example of psychedelic camp at its best, and it should be required viewing for all of those who take the Sixties just a little too seriously. PurpleChez (talk) 15:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be good to have a comparison of this film with the new one (unless they're too different) and the novel. Peter 01:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The article is missing a lot of the drug-culture context of the film.  The super explosive that Bond used was called "Trinitro Lysergic Acid".  Even without that obvious reference to LSD, the editing and animated elements of the film were synesthesiac and very obvious to us watching the film in the 1960s.  DonPMitchell 02:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
"It's vapourized lysergic acid; it's highly explosive!" Drsruli (talk) 03:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I've heard (not from any referencable sources unfortunately) that on the opening night of this film, a major theater in New York promised free admission to anyone who showed up for the midnight showing wearing a trenchcoat.  However, they failed to anticipate how widespread this information would go, and were unprepared for a rather large mob of trenchcoat-wearing movie-goers, most of whom had to be turned away due to lack of enough seats.  (My father was among this group, but I obviously can't use him as a source in an article.)  This resulted in a sizeable disgruntled mob of trenchcoat-wearing people wandering around New York causing some minor trouble in the middle of the night.  If anybody knows more about this incident, and can find a verifiable source for it, it'd be an interesting addition to the article. Lurlock 03:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Update - I've just been corrected on this story - it was Boston, not New York.  And the late showing of the film ended up letting out after the last subway trains from the area had left, so this mob of disgruntled people in trenchcoats was actually left stranded.  Not sure if any of this helps at all.  I still only have my father's word as source on this. Lurlock 04:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

As with any film article, only notable cast members and characters should be listed, with a little info on their character. In the list right now, it looks like the notables go from David Niven to Jacqueline Bisset. Cliff smith 00:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

While it's obvious that the article needs more refs, please don't forget to add page numbers when citing texts. Cliff smith 02:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I have removed two items from this section. First was the claim that Sellers may have quit because he "improvised scenes or re-wrote parts", as while it may be true, there's nothing linking his improvisation with his quitting.  The second was the statement that there was "never any explanation of why Vesper shoots Tremble", because there is an explanation: Vesper's line, "Never trust a rich spy." Clockster (talk) 10:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I've spent several days correcting numerous punctuation and spelling errors and cleaning up the grammar.  Not to be rude, but I can't understand how this article was given "Good Article" status in the state that it was. Clockster (talk) 11:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree...not a bad article, but the "plot" section too often quotes the script (e.g. "blazing bordello"). PurpleChez (talk) 14:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I've heard it's the only Bond film which lost money (or didn't make any). True? Add it?  Daniel Craig (006.5) 05:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Quote: "When the film was finally completed it had run twice over its original budget. The final production budget of $12 million made it one of the most expensive films that had been made to that point."
I remember hearing Woody Allen on at least one talk show saying that in order for Casino Royale to make a profit, everybody in the world has to see it twice.WHPratt (talk) 20:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

However, as the article states with a citation, it cleared $30M in profit. 104.169.28.236 (talk) 05:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Since some no doubt well-meaning deletionist saw fit to remove the entire plot summary without any replacement whatsoever (pet peeve #1: bending over backwards to assume good faith, I can sort of understand the lazy appeal of mere deletion, but is it really that hard to move text to the talk page instead of out and out deleting it?), I have made a first attempt to whittle down the plot to a manageable size. People who feel it can still use improvement (meaning anything short of complete removal) are welcome to tweak it further. Please bear in mind however that the plot of this movie is famously complex and disorganized, as well attested by Val Guest and others in interviews on the DVD documentary. I believe I pared it down to very near the limit where further condensing is likely to make the plot more incomprehensible (pet peeve #2: oh yes, and I am the one who condensed that plot summary even though the history shows only my IP address; I so hate it that they sneakily log me out while I am working) Nude Amazon (talk) 06:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

How would it be a good idea to copy that ungodly mass of text over here and extend the talk page to ridiculous lengths? The original text is still easily accessible in the edit history. The plot summary is not at all "more" incomprehensible now, it actually makes sense now. I deleted the text because that is the best way to motivate someone to rewrite it. Adding a "plot" tag accomplishes nothing. Obviously it worked since you have done a good job trimming the summary. Thanks. Some guy (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

is it attention span or trying to save the planet that drives people with little or no interest in the subject to reduce the size of wp articles & their talk pages? leave it alone, please.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.182.201 (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC) 

My copy of the DVD mentions copyright to I Famous Pictures (or something like that) and Danjaq.  Why is Danjaq listed?  Is it because they now own the rights to it?  Emperor001 (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

A cleanup page has been created for WP:FILMS' spotlight articles. One element that is being checked in ensuring the quality of the articles is the non-free images. Currently, one or more non-free images being used in this article are under discussion to determine if they should be removed from the article for not complying with non-free and fair use requirements. Please comment at the corresponding section within the image cleanup listing. Before contributing the discussion, please first read WP:FILMNFI concerning non-free images. Ideally the discussions pertaining to the spotlight articles will be concluded by the end of June, so please comment soon to ensure there is clear consensus. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It is probably too trivial for the article, but it can't be coincidental that Kerr had previously been a (gorgeous) nun in Black Narcissus (1947) and Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison (1957). Once every decade.Varlaam (talk) 04:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

They are not named in the film, or, surprisingly, in the DVD commentary.
The first might be Khrushchev, bald and stout. He is followed by Mao, Castro, and Ho Chi Minh.
But who is the final one on the right supposed to represent? Varlaam (talk) 05:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps Chou En-lai?
Also, when Sellers gets into his Lotus, he switches to a Scots accent.
Is he doing Jackie Stewart?
Varlaam (talk)
With all respect I dont think so Varlaam. Sellers is more likely trying to referrence the great Jim Clark. Clark is just before Stewart and was at the height of his fame when this film was being made. Clark is also closely associated with Lotus, whilst Jackie was with BRM. Jackie really took over in the public's eyes as the most famous Scots racing driver only after Jim Clark was tragically killed in 1968. Clark is still regarded by many as one of the greatest drivers of all time and without argument the most famous Scottish racing driver ever. I'm sure Sellers would have known this at the time and I'm sure that's why they chose the Lotus too. Regards. AMM  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.100.122 (talk) 02:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC) 

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Casino Royale (1967 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160816154900/http://www.britmovie.co.uk/forums/film-locations/115229-sixties-casino-royale-car-chase-locations-2.html to http://www.britmovie.co.uk/forums/film-locations/115229-sixties-casino-royale-car-chase-locations-2.html
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.lefilmguide.com/review/casino-royale-1967.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

In the last line of the introduction it mentions "official" James Bond films. Surely official should mean whoever has the legal rights to produce a film from whatever company that may be, otherwise it would an illegally made actionable film. "Official" seems biased to me.
Middle More Rider (talk) 00:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
This film and Never Say Never Again (1983) are unofficial James Bond movies because they were not made by EON. All of the James Bond movies are official movies because they're made by EON.  CaptainMidnight287 (talk) 11:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Original Casino Royale w Barry Nelson? Trpcham123 (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, the first James Bond on film. I saw it a few years ago on youtube. 
CBS paid Ian Fleming to write the one hour episode. After, they got him to write another 32 "so called official" Bond episodes, but the deal fell through. He had written, for CBS, "From a View to a Kill", "For Your Eyes Only", "Quantum of Solace", along with two others "Risico" and "The Hildebrand Rarity", which were, instead, all released in a compilation book.
Middle More Rider (talk) 21:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
A television episode, not a film. It has its own article: Casino Royale (Climax!). Dimadick (talk) 02:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
I said "on film", I didn't say it wasn't a tv programme. The point was about Barry Nelson being the first James Bond and how a tv series didn't happen, which would lead on to the cinema films happening with some of the stories.
Middle More Rider (talk) 13:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Article says: " Herb Alpert & the Tijuana Brass performed some of the songs with Mike Redway singing the lyrics to the title song as the end credits rolled"
No, not "some" of the songs, but just one, the title track. Mike Redway sings to the same pre-recorded Bacharach track that they had tried Johnny Rivers on before he backed out, and to which Herb Alpert added his trumpet, along with a brief bit of percussion and marimbas. 74.104.189.176 (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

This display ad for the film, playing at Seattle's Coliseum Theatre appeared in the April 27, 1967 issue of the Seattle underground paper Helix. Neither the newspaper as a whole nor the ad as such had a copyright notice. It does appear that the ad may have infringed Columbia Pictures' copyright, but since they do not appear to have objected, as I understand it under U.S. law that makes this precise image public domain (though of course any other variants of the image of the girl would not be). We might want to add this to the article; we might even want to replace the unfree image now in the infobox with this free image. I leave it to someone else to make those decisions. 
I don't currently maintain a watchlist on en-wiki, so if anyone wants to get back to me on this, please ping me. - Jmabel | Talk 02:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Does anybody know if it's considered a british or american film? Στάλιν και παραλλαγή (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 02:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC)