James Bond Poker Play in "Casino Royale" 2006
March 9th, 2015 at 12:31:09 PM
permalink
Just watched “Casino Royale” - 2006. I’m not too much into James Bond movies anymore, but in this case I decided it was time to check out the poker scenes; somebody [BBB?] here said recently Fleming himself wanted to portray gambling accurately, and I don’t think the movies have necessarily stuck to that.
So how did the 2006 movie do with Poker as the game where Bond bests the villain? [a change from baccarat in the book] An early short poker scene, which introduces us to the villain Le Chiffre’s poker predilection, does not show the hand. That leaves five hands to see, but of those two are incompletely shown.
couldn't stand it, so redid this with the community cards actually shown - thanks to Wizard for poker analyzer enabling me to do this easily
with other edits; if the community was mixed suits, I made no attempt to be accurate on suits
edited to show community cards. If it was mixed suits, I made no attempt to be accurate.
The winner take all poker game takes place at this ‘Casino Royale’ in Montenegro [apparently there has been one built with that name since the movie came out?]. I was able to record it, thus freeze and review the action and dialogue, and I think without slowing it down like that you might miss much of the poker dynamics. The 10 players, who put up multi-millions to play, will play Texas Hold-em.
First you see Bond lose the first hand to ‘guess who’. The dealer flops the 5,8,9 of hearts; on the turn, it’s the 9 of clubs, and for the river another heart, the 2.
Thus the hand has an immediate shot, at the flop, for a straight flush, or of course the lower versions [any poker player would know someone surely has a flush], and we can see the hand later develops with chances for trips and full house. Le Chiffre was dealt 2,2 offsuit, gets into a showdown with Bond, and wins with a full house, 22299. Bond does not show his cards, nor attempt to muck them, which prompted me to look this up, see link. The dealer should have made Bond turn those cards over. This was the only thing shown in poker that the movie had wrong that I saw, however.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showdown_%28poker%29
Bond leaves the table and has a conversation with his team, which is impressed that their nemesis had such a good hand, but Bond scoffs. He notes that Le Chiffre was bluffing, he says, since he caught a 2 on the last card. But he says he has picked up a Tell; when Le C was on the come with his two pair, Bond saw a tic developing with the man’s blind eye; Le C he notes then presses against his temple, which seems to stop this involuntary twitch. Bond can just look for the finger pressing the temple and imagines beating him now.
Bond rejoins the game - we get the sense a lot of poker gets played. Soon we have a scene where there is a big showdown in which both of these players go all-in. We don’t see a check-raise scenario, but something close. The flop is JKA mixed suits, the turn a J, the river, a K, and there are three players.
Until this point the betting evidently has been small, but now Bond , with the first-to-speak player checking to him, opens with a large bet. Le C raises [driving out player X, now it’s just the two of them] and Bond reraises as the bets get larger and larger. Le C then goes all-in and Bond has to go all-in to call. It turns out Bond has been dealt AK, giving him a full house, while Le C was dealt 2 jacks, so he’s the winner with 4 OAK. See other spoiler. This time Bond caught his hand on the last card while Le C slowed-played his hand, having had it all along after the turn. Bond has lost it all.
While Bond is out, we see this player X get in a showdown with Le C, the community cards being, in mixed suits, 3577A, previous action unshown.
In the showdown, X goes all-in with AJ, while Le C shows AQ and wins with better kicker, disgusting X.
Bond buys back in [one further buy-in was allowed] with the help of player X, who turns out to be CIA. That organization wants Bond back in the game. Apparently this is in the book too.
When we see the next poker scene, it’s evident that Bond has been winning, with Le C also with a large chip pile. Not much of a next hand is shown either, but we briefly see 24862 in mixed suits as community cards.
Le C bets and Bond raises. Using slo-mo I could see Le C then toss 2J - he had trips, 222, but must have feared the possible higher trips or a straight. One feels Bond and the pressure psyched him out on that one, but we never see Bond’s hand. Not many movie-goers saw Le C’s hand either, I wouldnt think.
They of course are heading for another big showdown, this one to determine final winner of the multi-millions. It’s going to be check-raise strategy for the trap this time. The flop this is Ah 8s 6s, with 4 of spades on the turn, Ace of spades on the river [for Ah 8s 6s 4s As].
After all cards are dealt, Bond checks undramatically. The next 2 players go all-in, then Le C raises. Bond, who had checked, now goes all-in. This forces Le C to go all-in to call. The four player showdown has the first guy with an AKQ flush, the next with a Eights over Aces full house. Le C had an A6 dealt, and since 3 eights have shown, I suppose he could be thinking the chances of Bond having A8 to beat him as unlikely, and 4oak as impossible - although the die is cast. I’ve played against guys who would be all over it like that. There is only one hand that can beat him, so I will direct you to the other spoiler - everyone who’s read this far, at this site, though, will know what it is.
Bond tips the dealer with a $500,000 chip
In the hand that knocks Bond out so that he has to buy in shows Le C pressing a finger on his temple. Bond is sucked in to going all in because this is the sign Le C is bluffing. However, someone Bond trusted with this has betrayed him, and the faked Tell is a trap. The rest of the movie plays out the solution to who is betraying who and when.
In the final hand that knocks out Le C and has 007 winning it all, Bond has the 5 and 7 of spades - he wins with a straight flush. He gets it at the turn and slow plays it, then check-raises for the trap after the river. This time it is Le C who catches his hand on the last card - an unfortunate catch, the worst thing to have in Poker, a very good second place hand LOL. Whether this was all thought out, I don’t know, but Bond playing with a 5 and 7 of anything is very weak play IMO, but it is made plausible even at these stakes as everyone is ‘checking’ initially and it’s not clear if Bond was one of the blinds.
So I would say the film succeeds in showing the gambling correctly. Although, at least for me, to follow it well I needed to record it, I think since all underlying action is plausible, Fleming would approve.
So how did the 2006 movie do with Poker as the game where Bond bests the villain? [a change from baccarat in the book] An early short poker scene, which introduces us to the villain Le Chiffre’s poker predilection, does not show the hand. That leaves five hands to see, but of those two are incompletely shown.
couldn't stand it, so redid this with the community cards actually shown - thanks to Wizard for poker analyzer enabling me to do this easily
with other edits; if the community was mixed suits, I made no attempt to be accurate on suits
edited to show community cards. If it was mixed suits, I made no attempt to be accurate.
The winner take all poker game takes place at this ‘Casino Royale’ in Montenegro [apparently there has been one built with that name since the movie came out?]. I was able to record it, thus freeze and review the action and dialogue, and I think without slowing it down like that you might miss much of the poker dynamics. The 10 players, who put up multi-millions to play, will play Texas Hold-em.
First you see Bond lose the first hand to ‘guess who’. The dealer flops the 5,8,9 of hearts; on the turn, it’s the 9 of clubs, and for the river another heart, the 2.
Thus the hand has an immediate shot, at the flop, for a straight flush, or of course the lower versions [any poker player would know someone surely has a flush], and we can see the hand later develops with chances for trips and full house. Le Chiffre was dealt 2,2 offsuit, gets into a showdown with Bond, and wins with a full house, 22299. Bond does not show his cards, nor attempt to muck them, which prompted me to look this up, see link. The dealer should have made Bond turn those cards over. This was the only thing shown in poker that the movie had wrong that I saw, however.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showdown_%28poker%29
Bond leaves the table and has a conversation with his team, which is impressed that their nemesis had such a good hand, but Bond scoffs. He notes that Le Chiffre was bluffing, he says, since he caught a 2 on the last card. But he says he has picked up a Tell; when Le C was on the come with his two pair, Bond saw a tic developing with the man’s blind eye; Le C he notes then presses against his temple, which seems to stop this involuntary twitch. Bond can just look for the finger pressing the temple and imagines beating him now.
Bond rejoins the game - we get the sense a lot of poker gets played. Soon we have a scene where there is a big showdown in which both of these players go all-in. We don’t see a check-raise scenario, but something close. The flop is JKA mixed suits, the turn a J, the river, a K, and there are three players.
Until this point the betting evidently has been small, but now Bond , with the first-to-speak player checking to him, opens with a large bet. Le C raises [driving out player X, now it’s just the two of them] and Bond reraises as the bets get larger and larger. Le C then goes all-in and Bond has to go all-in to call. It turns out Bond has been dealt AK, giving him a full house, while Le C was dealt 2 jacks, so he’s the winner with 4 OAK. See other spoiler. This time Bond caught his hand on the last card while Le C slowed-played his hand, having had it all along after the turn. Bond has lost it all.
While Bond is out, we see this player X get in a showdown with Le C, the community cards being, in mixed suits, 3577A, previous action unshown.
In the showdown, X goes all-in with AJ, while Le C shows AQ and wins with better kicker, disgusting X.
Bond buys back in [one further buy-in was allowed] with the help of player X, who turns out to be CIA. That organization wants Bond back in the game. Apparently this is in the book too.
When we see the next poker scene, it’s evident that Bond has been winning, with Le C also with a large chip pile. Not much of a next hand is shown either, but we briefly see 24862 in mixed suits as community cards.
Le C bets and Bond raises. Using slo-mo I could see Le C then toss 2J - he had trips, 222, but must have feared the possible higher trips or a straight. One feels Bond and the pressure psyched him out on that one, but we never see Bond’s hand. Not many movie-goers saw Le C’s hand either, I wouldnt think.
They of course are heading for another big showdown, this one to determine final winner of the multi-millions. It’s going to be check-raise strategy for the trap this time. The flop this is Ah 8s 6s, with 4 of spades on the turn, Ace of spades on the river [for Ah 8s 6s 4s As].
After all cards are dealt, Bond checks undramatically. The next 2 players go all-in, then Le C raises. Bond, who had checked, now goes all-in. This forces Le C to go all-in to call. The four player showdown has the first guy with an AKQ flush, the next with a Eights over Aces full house. Le C had an A6 dealt, and since 3 eights have shown, I suppose he could be thinking the chances of Bond having A8 to beat him as unlikely, and 4oak as impossible - although the die is cast. I’ve played against guys who would be all over it like that. There is only one hand that can beat him, so I will direct you to the other spoiler - everyone who’s read this far, at this site, though, will know what it is.
Bond tips the dealer with a $500,000 chip
In the hand that knocks Bond out so that he has to buy in shows Le C pressing a finger on his temple. Bond is sucked in to going all in because this is the sign Le C is bluffing. However, someone Bond trusted with this has betrayed him, and the faked Tell is a trap. The rest of the movie plays out the solution to who is betraying who and when.
In the final hand that knocks out Le C and has 007 winning it all, Bond has the 5 and 7 of spades - he wins with a straight flush. He gets it at the turn and slow plays it, then check-raises for the trap after the river. This time it is Le C who catches his hand on the last card - an unfortunate catch, the worst thing to have in Poker, a very good second place hand LOL. Whether this was all thought out, I don’t know, but Bond playing with a 5 and 7 of anything is very weak play IMO, but it is made plausible even at these stakes as everyone is ‘checking’ initially and it’s not clear if Bond was one of the blinds.
So I would say the film succeeds in showing the gambling correctly. Although, at least for me, to follow it well I needed to record it, I think since all underlying action is plausible, Fleming would approve.
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
March 9th, 2015 at 1:01:13 PM
permalink
Quote: odiousgambitFleming himself wanted to portray gambling accurately, and I don’t think the movies have necessarily stuck to that.
.
I read just about all the James Bond Books. Really good Books.
Except for DR No, there is hardly any relationship between the books and movies.
Usually the movies just use the same name of the book and charachters but the story is completely different from the book.
Its just a forum. Nothing here to get obsessed about.
March 9th, 2015 at 2:38:16 PM
permalink
I thought the idea that every player had a monster hand was a huge stretch of the imagination.
It bothered me that the dealer was replacing the board cards with the player's cards to make each hand clear for the camera.
I didn't give it more thought that that, so I am intrigued by your analysis O.G. I'll have to go back and re-watch it now.
I thought the med kit in the car was pretty cool. I chuckled when it let him die. That's a bad run of luck...hehe.
It bothered me that the dealer was replacing the board cards with the player's cards to make each hand clear for the camera.
I didn't give it more thought that that, so I am intrigued by your analysis O.G. I'll have to go back and re-watch it now.
I thought the med kit in the car was pretty cool. I chuckled when it let him die. That's a bad run of luck...hehe.
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication - Leonardo da Vinci
March 9th, 2015 at 2:55:38 PM
permalink
Quote: AyecarumbaI thought the idea that every player had a monster hand was a huge stretch of the imagination.
well, you always have that.
Quote:It bothered me that the dealer was replacing the board cards with the player's cards to make each hand clear for the camera.
I think they realized that they were being more accurate about the poker than the audience was going to be able to keep up with as it was, so I think the idea of at least doing this won out. Seemed a little corny.
Quote:I didn't give it more thought that that, so I am intrigued by your analysis O.G. I'll have to go back and re-watch it now.
Thanks, it took a lot more effort than I expected - I realized over and over again I wasn't sure I had it right, and had to watch again.
Quote:I thought the med kit in the car was pretty cool. I chuckled when it let him die. That's a bad run of luck...hehe.
wow they really did make him look like hell in that scene!
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
March 9th, 2015 at 3:14:41 PM
permalink
Doubt Ian Fleming even saw a hold'em game. in GOLDFINGER the game was GIN.
March 9th, 2015 at 3:37:49 PM
permalink
Quote: AyecarumbaI thought the idea that every player had a monster hand was a huge stretch of the imagination.
It bothered me that the dealer was replacing the board cards with the player's cards to make each hand clear for the camera.
I didn't give it more thought that that, so I am intrigued by your analysis O.G. I'll have to go back and re-watch it now.
I thought the med kit in the car was pretty cool. I chuckled when it let him die. That's a bad run of luck...hehe.
Not a horrible stretch. Wasn't there a hand with some poker pros where there was AA, AA, KK, and maybe even a QQ?
Expect the worst and you will never be disappointed.
I AM NOT PART OF GWAE RADIO SHOW
March 9th, 2015 at 4:20:50 PM
permalink
Quote: GWAENot a horrible stretch. Wasn't there a hand with some poker pros where there was AA, AA, KK, and maybe even a QQ?
AA, AA, KK for sure. If QQ was in there, he folded it.
Yes, those hands happen, but it's become cliche for those to be the climactic hand of a movie. That's one thing that Rounders really got right. The winning hand of the climactic match...
A flopped straight.
Casinos are not your friends, they want your money. But so does Disneyland.
And there is no chance in hell that you will go to Disneyland and come back with more money than you went with.
- AxelWolf and Mickeycrimm
March 9th, 2015 at 4:23:40 PM
permalink
Yup, Bond was a victim of the old fake tell trick. I think he pretty much lucked out winning the thing afterward with the re-buy, as Bond is wont to do.
In the outstanding movie House of Games there was a game with a double fake tell. At least that was my interpretation.
In the outstanding movie House of Games there was a game with a double fake tell. At least that was my interpretation.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
March 9th, 2015 at 5:41:26 PM
permalink
I read the Bond books in HS, at a very
impressionable age. I loved them and
read them over and over. I started
reading them the same year Ian Fleming
died, so the original 13 books were all
in print. I sometimes wonder what effect they
had on me, I really loved them.
impressionable age. I loved them and
read them over and over. I started
reading them the same year Ian Fleming
died, so the original 13 books were all
in print. I sometimes wonder what effect they
had on me, I really loved them.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
March 9th, 2015 at 6:09:23 PM
permalink
Quote: terapinedI read just about all the James Bond Books. Really good Books.
Except for DR No, there is hardly any relationship between the books and movies.
Usually the movies just use the same name of the book and charachters but the story is completely different from the book.
I love the books. But I disagree, a lot of the early movies are fairly spot on (as much as movies can be). As is Casino Royale (the official EON version, 2006)
Casino Royale was pretty accurate minus the changes from baccarat to poker (which makes sense for the movie), and the elimination of the KGB and replacing it with a modern terror organization. But the plot and characters were almost identical other than thematically changes.
Dr. No is almost spot on minus some changes regarding recurring characters prior developments since they decided to make it the opening film.
Goldfinger is almost spot on. As is Thunderball.
Octopussy and Living Daylights are just compilations of short stories, some of them are pulled for the plot, but not much relation.
Living Daylights, is fairly accurate, but the movie went a little offcourse.
Moonraker annoyed me greatly. Absurd movie and the book was amazing. They should have modeled the plot after the book. But maybe by the late 70s (when they made it into a movie) they thought the Nazi plot to attack England would be outdated.
Spy Who Loved me was the only book I hated. I despise it, load of trash, clearly a pushed attempt at broadening the audience. It was written from the female perspective. And, had nothing to do with anything spy or espionage related. (***Spoilers*** even though you should never read it and probably never will) Basically some female was trapped into working in some cabin in rural New York where she was raped and abused by 2 thugs (I think they happened to be Russian and ex-KGB for good measure) and Bond happened to be in that random New York rural area and stopped by that cabin in time to save her... I suspect it was a publisher pushed novel to appeal to female readers, completely unlike anything else. Needless to say the movie has nothing to do with the book (even less so than Moonraker, they didn't even use the villians names). This is probably the only instance where the movie is better than the book (but that is not saying much).
Man With the Golden Gun, was a decent book. It was a bit bland, but to be fair it was published after he died in 1965 I think, and they only had a rough copy to publish. But the plot is interesting. Some people hate it, but I actually enjoyed it. To make up for his betrayal to England and attempt to kill M, Bond is given an impossible task (kill man with the Golden Gun). This is the final official Bond Novel (written by Ian Fleming). The book is fairly unrelated to the movie, except for the general backstory of the villain, and his history. I don't care for the movie, and its a shame, because Christopher Lee (who is actually Ian Flemings cousin) played the villian, and he is probably my favorite actor of all time, but it as a typical goofy Roger Moore movie, so even with his excellent villianous style, the movie was hard to take too seriously.
I think Timothy Dalton is the best Bond as far as being loyal to the books. He was the perfect balance of serious, professional, darkly sarcastic, and on the brink of losing it (well he did lose it in his last movie).
A theme with the books is the villain is almost always a cheater at cards (or some betting game). And, often Bonds first interaction involve meeting or encountering him a gambling scenario noticing his cheating.
Though Fleming was somebody who was a believer in betting systems. He even gives a couple in some of the books for roulette, that Bond routinely used to cover his dinner in the books.
March 9th, 2015 at 7:49:33 PM
permalink
"A theme with the books is the villain is almost always a cheater"
The theme was always world domination. Fleming
was a product of WWII, and most of the books
were written in the 50's. The 2nd world war was
about domination, where before most wars were
territorial. After the war it was the US against the
USSR for world dominance. So to Fleming, it made
sense that all his villains should be globally minded.
And the early movies were very accurate in following
the storyline of the books. I didn't like the Roger
Moore versions, too dopey. The newest Bond is the
best since Connery. I remember when Goldfinger
was in the theaters, we guys in the 10th grade all
wanted to be Bond. I saw it three times, there
was never a movie like it. Painting a naked girl
gold? Do you know what that does to to a 15yr
olds imagination in 1964?
The theme was always world domination. Fleming
was a product of WWII, and most of the books
were written in the 50's. The 2nd world war was
about domination, where before most wars were
territorial. After the war it was the US against the
USSR for world dominance. So to Fleming, it made
sense that all his villains should be globally minded.
And the early movies were very accurate in following
the storyline of the books. I didn't like the Roger
Moore versions, too dopey. The newest Bond is the
best since Connery. I remember when Goldfinger
was in the theaters, we guys in the 10th grade all
wanted to be Bond. I saw it three times, there
was never a movie like it. Painting a naked girl
gold? Do you know what that does to to a 15yr
olds imagination in 1964?
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
March 10th, 2015 at 12:03:53 AM
permalink
Was "Diamonds are Forever" a book too? If so, was the movie close? It is interesting that Bond bets 5,000 USD at a Craps table, impressing everyone at the high end casino. Today, it would barely get him a room comp.
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication - Leonardo da Vinci
March 10th, 2015 at 12:49:41 AM
permalink
Quote: WizardYup, Bond was a victim of the old fake tell trick. I think he pretty much lucked out winning the thing afterward with the re-buy, as Bond is wont to do.
In the outstanding movie House of Games there was a game with a double fake tell. At least that was my interpretation.
Fake tell, If you can't do that in a live poker game then you ain't jackall. Put your fake tell on in a key hand.
"Quit trying your luck and start trying your skill." Mickey Crimm
March 10th, 2015 at 5:13:13 AM
permalink
Quote: AyecarumbaWas "Diamonds are Forever" a book too? If so, was the movie close? It is interesting that Bond bets 5,000 USD at a Craps table, impressing everyone at the high end casino. Today, it would barely get him a room comp.
Yes it is.
He even wrote a nonfiction book based on the plot (which he was inspired to do after researching for the book) called the Diamond Smugglers amount the Diamond issue in Africa in the 50s.
March 10th, 2015 at 5:20:02 AM
permalink
Quote: EvenBob"A theme with the books is the villain is almost always a cheater"
The theme was always world domination. Fleming
was a product of WWII, and most of the books
were written in the 50's. The 2nd world war was
about domination, where before most wars were
territorial. After the war it was the US against the
USSR for world dominance. So to Fleming, it made
sense that all his villains should be globally minded.
And the early movies were very accurate in following
the storyline of the books. I didn't like the Roger
Moore versions, too dopey. The newest Bond is the
best since Connery. I remember when Goldfinger
was in the theaters, we guys in the 10th grade all
wanted to be Bond. I saw it three times, there
was never a movie like it. Painting a naked girl
gold? Do you know what that does to to a 15yr
olds imagination in 1964?
Yes, but the books he designed a very specific formula for most of his mainstream stories. And, it contained an early mundane encounter with the villain. Often it was in a casino (or betting scenario) , and often the villain was cheating.
Many of the books very written with KGB or Russian puppet proxy villains., the movies turned a lot of these villains into working for fictional terrorist group (SPECTRE, though this was present in some books too) probably to lessen political stress.
March 10th, 2015 at 9:37:12 AM
permalink
Quote: GandlerYes, but the books he designed a very specific formula for most of his mainstream stories. And, it contained an early mundane encounter with the villain. Often it was in a casino (or betting scenario) , and often the villain was cheating.
Many of the books very written with KGB or Russian puppet proxy villains., the movies turned a lot of these villains into working for fictional terrorist group (SPECTRE, though this was present in some books too) probably to lessen political stress.
That's correct. The story goes that President Kennedy was a huge fan of the books and personally requested Fleming stop making the Russians the bad guys since he was trying to smooth relations with them. Fleming wasn't going to deny one of his biggest fans so he created Spectre, a fictional terrorist group for Thunderball.
The movies were shot out of order from the books. By the time the first movie was made, the request for a change in bad guy organizations had already occurred.
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
March 10th, 2015 at 9:43:49 AM
permalink
Quote: GandlerYes it is.
He even wrote a nonfiction book based on the plot (which he was inspired to do after researching for the book) called the Diamond Smugglers amount the Diamond issue in Africa in the 50s.
I disagree that Diamonds Are Forever closely follows the book. It was quite different from what I remember.
The first two movies were eerily close the books(Dr. No and From Russia With Love.)
Goldfinger made some changes but the general plot was there. Thunderball as well.
With the fifth film, You Only Live Twice, the movies began to diverge from their faithfulness further and further with the exception of On Her Majesty's Secret Service which was very close.
With Man With the Golden Gun, they really started to be nothing like the novels although that was more a symptom of the novel content. Man/Golden Gun almost completely takes place with James Bond battling some local crook on a moving train and Spy Who Loved Me was told from the girls point of view of her relationship with a spy.
And Octopussy was a short story where Bond is thrown into a tank with a killer octopus so there was just diminishing material for the scriptwriters to work with.
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
March 10th, 2015 at 10:37:09 AM
permalink
Quote: darkozI disagree that Diamonds Are Forever closely follows the book. It was quite different from what I remember.
The first two movies were eerily close the books(Dr. No and From Russia With Love.)
Goldfinger made some changes but the general plot was there. Thunderball as well.
With the fifth film, You Only Live Twice, the movies began to diverge from their faithfulness further and further with the exception of On Her Majesty's Secret Service which was very close.
With Man With the Golden Gun, they really started to be nothing like the novels although that was more a symptom of the novel content. Man/Golden Gun almost completely takes place with James Bond battling some local crook on a moving train and Spy Who Loved Me was told from the girls point of view of her relationship with a spy.
And Octopussy was a short story where Bond is thrown into a tank with a killer octopus so there was just diminishing material for the scriptwriters to work with.
Yes I agree with that. Sorry, I didn't see the follow on part of his question so I was just typing "yes" to that there is a book. But yea the book is fairly different, though closer than much of the later movies.
I could be wrong (might be mixing it up with another short story in that collection). But I thought "Octopussy" was about stolen Nazi Gold. And, Bond was barely in it, other than he found the guy to arrest him (most of it was backflashes of the villian killing allies to get the gold in the German mountains) , (former agent or something and moved to the Carribean to study Octopusses) and allowed him to kill himself with his Octopuss. And, I think Octopussy was his daughters nickname or wife or something (its been a long time since I read the short stories). But I am pretty sure there is no action involving Bond in the book. A lot of short stories in that collection were more political and myseterish, and did not really contain much fights or action.
You may be getting confused with "Dr. No" in that book, bond is dumped into an Ocean Pen with a giant squid.
I actually liked the plot of the Man with the Golden Gun, but the writing style is a bit bland since they only had a rough draft (he died before final copy was finished).
March 10th, 2015 at 12:32:01 PM
permalink
Quote: GandlerYes I agree with that. Sorry, I didn't see the follow on part of his question so I was just typing "yes" to that there is a book. But yea the book is fairly different, though closer than much of the later movies.
I could be wrong (might be mixing it up with another short story in that collection). But I thought "Octopussy" was about stolen Nazi Gold. And, Bond was barely in it, other than he found the guy to arrest him (most of it was backflashes of the villian killing allies to get the gold in the German mountains) , (former agent or something and moved to the Carribean to study Octopusses) and allowed him to kill himself with his Octopuss. And, I think Octopussy was his daughters nickname or wife or something (its been a long time since I read the short stories). But I am pretty sure there is no action involving Bond in the book. A lot of short stories in that collection were more political and myseterish, and did not really contain much fights or action.
You may be getting confused with "Dr. No" in that book, bond is dumped into an Ocean Pen with a giant squid.
I actually liked the plot of the Man with the Golden Gun, but the writing style is a bit bland since they only had a rough draft (he died before final copy was finished).
You're probably right. I read Octopussy only once and that was thirty years ago.
I have read Dr. No several times so I wasn't confusing them. I remember someone getting killed by the octopus in the short story and the rest is a complete blur.
I'm sure you'll agree what they filmed of Dr. No's torture and maze was pitifully weak compared what Bond actually goes through in the book.
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
March 10th, 2015 at 12:59:38 PM
permalink
Quote: darkozYou're probably right. I read Octopussy only once and that was thirty years ago.
I have read Dr. No several times so I wasn't confusing them. I remember someone getting killed by the octopus in the short story and the rest is a complete blur.
I'm sure you'll agree what they filmed of Dr. No's torture and maze was pitifully weak compared what Bond actually goes through in the book.
Yea the movie version was completely lamed down. But to be fair their budget was tiny and with the special effects in 1962, it would be impossible to include all of that for such a small budget. Also, I think Dr. No's death in the book was more interesting.
March 10th, 2015 at 1:35:42 PM
permalink
IIRC Dr. No. was dumped into a giant, ancient pile of bird guano - I don't remember if he was already dead tho
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
March 10th, 2015 at 5:35:51 PM
permalink
Quote: odiousgambitIIRC Dr. No. was dumped into a giant, ancient pile of bird guano - I don't remember if he was already dead tho
He was hit with a crate swung by a crane, so very possibly. The guano business on the island was another aspect the movie didn't touch on.
March 10th, 2015 at 5:51:45 PM
permalink
Best thing about the Dr No movie.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
March 10th, 2015 at 6:21:31 PM
permalink
the knife and scabbard with the bikini- no real chick has been cool enough to do it since in my experience
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
March 10th, 2015 at 6:33:25 PM
permalink
couldn't stand it, so redid this with the community cards actually shown - thanks to Wizard for poker analyzer enabling me to do this easily
with other edits
if the community was mixed suits, I made no attempt to be accurate on suits
with other edits
if the community was mixed suits, I made no attempt to be accurate on suits
The winner take all poker game takes place at this ‘Casino Royale’ in Montenegro [apparently there has been one built with that name since the movie came out?]. I was able to record it, thus freeze and review the action and dialogue, and I think without slowing it down like that you might miss much of the poker dynamics. The 10 players, who put up multi-millions to play, will play Texas Hold-em.
First you see Bond lose the first hand to ‘guess who’. The dealer flops the 5,8,9 of hearts; on the turn, it’s the 9 of clubs, and for the river another heart, the 2.
Thus the hand has an immediate shot, at the flop, for a straight flush, or of course the lower versions [any poker player would know someone surely has a flush], and we can see the hand later develops with chances for trips and full house. Le Chiffre was dealt 2,2 offsuit, gets into a showdown with Bond, and wins with a full house, 22299. Bond does not show his cards, nor attempt to muck them, which prompted me to look this up, see link. The dealer should have made Bond turn those cards over. This was the only thing shown in poker that the movie had wrong that I saw, however.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showdown_%28poker%29
Bond leaves the table and has a conversation with his team, which is impressed that their nemesis had such a good hand, but Bond scoffs. He notes that Le Chiffre was bluffing, he says, since he caught a 2 on the last card. But he says he has picked up a Tell; when Le C was on the come with his two pair, Bond saw a tic developing with the man’s blind eye; Le C he notes then presses against his temple, which seems to stop this involuntary twitch. Bond can just look for the finger pressing the temple and imagines beating him now.
Bond rejoins the game - we get the sense a lot of poker gets played. Soon we have a scene where there is a big showdown in which both of these players go all-in. We don’t see a check-raise scenario, but something close. The flop is JKA mixed suits, the turn a J, the river, a K, and there are three players.
Until this point the betting evidently has been small, but now Bond , with the first-to-speak player checking to him, opens with a large bet. Le C raises [driving out player X, now it’s just the two of them] and Bond reraises as the bets get larger and larger. Le C then goes all-in and Bond has to go all-in to call. It turns out Bond has been dealt AK, giving him a full house, while Le C was dealt 2 jacks, so he’s the winner with 4 OAK. See other spoiler. This time Bond caught his hand on the last card while Le C slowed-played his hand, having had it all along after the turn. Bond has lost it all.
While Bond is out, we see this player X get in a showdown with Le C, the community cards being, in mixed suits, 3577A, previous action unshown.
In the showdown, X goes all-in with AJ, while Le C shows AQ and wins with better kicker, disgusting X.
Bond buys back in [one further buy-in was allowed] with the help of player X, who turns out to be CIA. That organization wants Bond back in the game. Apparently this is in the book too.
When we see the next poker scene, it’s evident that Bond has been winning, with Le C also with a large chip pile. Not much of a next hand is shown either, but we briefly see 24862 in mixed suits as community cards.
Le C bets and Bond raises. Using slo-mo I could see Le C then toss 2J - he had trips, 222, but must have feared the possible higher trips or a straight. One feels Bond and the pressure psyched him out on that one, but we never see Bond’s hand. Not many movie-goers saw Le C’s hand either, I wouldnt think.
They of course are heading for another big showdown, this one to determine final winner of the multi-millions. It’s going to be check-raise strategy for the trap this time. The flop this is Ah 8s 6s, with 4 of spades on the turn, Ace of spades on the river [for Ah 8s 6s 4s As].
After all cards are dealt, Bond checks undramatically. The next 2 players go all-in, then Le C raises. Bond, who had checked, now goes all-in. This forces Le C to go all-in to call. The four player showdown has the first guy with an AKQ flush, the next with a Eights over Aces full house. Le C had an A6 dealt, and since 3 eights have shown, I suppose he could be thinking the chances of Bond having A8 to beat him as unlikely, and 4oak as impossible - although the die is cast. I’ve played against guys who would be all over it like that. There is only one hand that can beat him, so I will direct you to the other spoiler - everyone who’s read this far, at this site, though, will know what it is.
Bond tips the dealer with a $500,000 chip
First you see Bond lose the first hand to ‘guess who’. The dealer flops the 5,8,9 of hearts; on the turn, it’s the 9 of clubs, and for the river another heart, the 2.
Thus the hand has an immediate shot, at the flop, for a straight flush, or of course the lower versions [any poker player would know someone surely has a flush], and we can see the hand later develops with chances for trips and full house. Le Chiffre was dealt 2,2 offsuit, gets into a showdown with Bond, and wins with a full house, 22299. Bond does not show his cards, nor attempt to muck them, which prompted me to look this up, see link. The dealer should have made Bond turn those cards over. This was the only thing shown in poker that the movie had wrong that I saw, however.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showdown_%28poker%29
Bond leaves the table and has a conversation with his team, which is impressed that their nemesis had such a good hand, but Bond scoffs. He notes that Le Chiffre was bluffing, he says, since he caught a 2 on the last card. But he says he has picked up a Tell; when Le C was on the come with his two pair, Bond saw a tic developing with the man’s blind eye; Le C he notes then presses against his temple, which seems to stop this involuntary twitch. Bond can just look for the finger pressing the temple and imagines beating him now.
Bond rejoins the game - we get the sense a lot of poker gets played. Soon we have a scene where there is a big showdown in which both of these players go all-in. We don’t see a check-raise scenario, but something close. The flop is JKA mixed suits, the turn a J, the river, a K, and there are three players.
Until this point the betting evidently has been small, but now Bond , with the first-to-speak player checking to him, opens with a large bet. Le C raises [driving out player X, now it’s just the two of them] and Bond reraises as the bets get larger and larger. Le C then goes all-in and Bond has to go all-in to call. It turns out Bond has been dealt AK, giving him a full house, while Le C was dealt 2 jacks, so he’s the winner with 4 OAK. See other spoiler. This time Bond caught his hand on the last card while Le C slowed-played his hand, having had it all along after the turn. Bond has lost it all.
While Bond is out, we see this player X get in a showdown with Le C, the community cards being, in mixed suits, 3577A, previous action unshown.
In the showdown, X goes all-in with AJ, while Le C shows AQ and wins with better kicker, disgusting X.
Bond buys back in [one further buy-in was allowed] with the help of player X, who turns out to be CIA. That organization wants Bond back in the game. Apparently this is in the book too.
When we see the next poker scene, it’s evident that Bond has been winning, with Le C also with a large chip pile. Not much of a next hand is shown either, but we briefly see 24862 in mixed suits as community cards.
Le C bets and Bond raises. Using slo-mo I could see Le C then toss 2J - he had trips, 222, but must have feared the possible higher trips or a straight. One feels Bond and the pressure psyched him out on that one, but we never see Bond’s hand. Not many movie-goers saw Le C’s hand either, I wouldnt think.
They of course are heading for another big showdown, this one to determine final winner of the multi-millions. It’s going to be check-raise strategy for the trap this time. The flop this is Ah 8s 6s, with 4 of spades on the turn, Ace of spades on the river [for Ah 8s 6s 4s As].
After all cards are dealt, Bond checks undramatically. The next 2 players go all-in, then Le C raises. Bond, who had checked, now goes all-in. This forces Le C to go all-in to call. The four player showdown has the first guy with an AKQ flush, the next with a Eights over Aces full house. Le C had an A6 dealt, and since 3 eights have shown, I suppose he could be thinking the chances of Bond having A8 to beat him as unlikely, and 4oak as impossible - although the die is cast. I’ve played against guys who would be all over it like that. There is only one hand that can beat him, so I will direct you to the other spoiler - everyone who’s read this far, at this site, though, will know what it is.
Bond tips the dealer with a $500,000 chip
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
