Breaking down 007 casino scenes

Haven't watched OHMSS in a while, but if Bond had a 9, how did White Coat win with a 4?

Quote: Dieter

Haven't watched OHMSS in a while, but if Bond had a 9, how did White Coat win with a 4?

I see I made a labeling mistake in that hand. Please review the table again.

Quote: Wizard

I see I made a labeling mistake in that hand. Please review the table again.

I see the change; nothing else jumped out at me.
Thanks!

I’m not sure what the most ridiculous Bond plot is, but The Man With The Golden Gun has to be up there.

In part of the movie, bond cons his way into the bad guy’s compound by pretending to have a 3rd nipple. When attacked by a sumo wrestler, Bond defeats him by giving him a wedgie, but is ultimately taken down by a dwarf wielding a trident.

Quote: gamerfreak

I’m not sure what the most ridiculous Bond plot is, but The Man With The Golden Gun has to be up there.

In part of the movie, bond cons his way into the bad guy’s compound by pretending to have a 3rd nipple. When attacked by a sumo wrestler, Bond defeats him by giving him a wedgie, but is ultimately taken down by a dwarf wielding a trident.

link to original post

Golden Gun was my first Bond film at six years old so it holds a special place in my heart

However, I walked out of GoldenEye when James Bond jumped off a cliff on a motorcycle to catch a jet, ditched the bike in the air because his hands were faster and then "air swam" to catch the jet... And caught the jet and climbed aboard.

Perhaps DarkOz would agree. Other than maybe some interest that was piqued by Daniel Craig as Bond in Casino Royale (I didn't bother to even watch Quantum of Solace, SkyFall all the way through, watched them with my wife and let her finish watching them as I fell asleep, haven't bothered with Spectre yet at all) , I'm into only Connery, Lazenby and Moore Bond films.

Of course saying "I like only older Bond films" is as cliche as saying "I like only such and such musical band's older songs," but, it happens to be true for me.

Quote: MDawg

Perhaps DarkOz would agree. Other than maybe some interest that was piqued by Daniel Craig as Bond in Casino Royale (I didn't bother to even watch Quantum of Solace, SkyFall all the way through, watched them with my wife and let her finish watching them as I fell asleep, haven't bothered with Spectre yet at all) , I'm into only Connery, Lazenby and Moore Bond films.

Of course saying "I like only older Bond films" is as cliche as saying "I like only such and such musical band's older songs," but, it happens to be true for me.

link to original post

Yes totally agree.

Connery, Lazenby, Moore.

Then mostly unwatchable (I slogged through them each one time as a Bond fan and can't remember the plots even or even the bad guys. I remember Halle Berry doing an Ursula Andress nod in one of them but who's gonna forget Halle Berry rising from the ocean in a bikini.)

Daniel Craig was awesome in Casino Royale and while his others weren't too bad they aren't memorable either.

I also feel each Bond seems to have their unwatchable film (Lazenby escaped this by only doing one).

For me Diamonds are forever is my unwatchable Connery. Octopussy is my unwatchable Moore.

Well, as has been discussed elsewhere, I like Diamonds are Forever due to the GENRE. Vegas. However, I don't like the ending it is a bit too hackneyed, even for a James Bond movie where, of course, the villain must fail or die and Bond must win.

There are gambling and Vegas related movies that aren't that great that I will watch just because of the interest in that genre.

For me it’s:

Connery
Dalton
Craig
Moore
Lazenby
Brosnan

In how many Bond movies (and in how many ways) are the games in casinos portrayed as being fixed? Either by dialogue or by action (either overt or implied.)

For example, In Diamonds are Forever, a pit boss nods to a dealer and the dealer nods back, and then deals a card to a female that has a message on it - the message is: go play the water balloons.

The woman leaves the table goes to a a carny-style game for kids (that is in or near the casino!) and plays a game with water guns where you try to fill up and burst a water balloon. The manager of the water-balloon game clearly goes behind the machine and fixes it so the woman wins the game.
****************
Many other movies have similar elements. Bond asks a dealer/pit boss "Will I be allowed to win?" and the reply is "NO, but you won't lose much." etc.

This is a fascinating sociological aspect of the Bond casino scenes, in my opinion.

Betting Odds For New James Bond










There are several other names being bandied about as well. I should mention that just being discussed as a possible new James Bond gives an actor a career boost. Clive Owen, for example, who was in the mix during the last search, has stated that while nobody official ever contacted him, career wise it was the best thing that never happened to him.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Answers to Octopussy Trivia



Only 4 out of 7? How careless of you. I'll take care of Mr. Bond fans myself...


002) Solved



005) Solved

006) Solved

007) Solved

Quote: gordonm888

In how many Bond movies (and in how many ways) are the games in casinos portrayed as being fixed? Either by dialogue or by action (either overt or implied.)

For example, In Diamonds are Forever, a pit boss nods to a dealer and the dealer nods back, and then deals a card to a female that has a message on it - the message is: go play the water balloons.

The woman leaves the table goes to a a carny-style game for kids (that is in or near the casino!) and plays a game with water guns where you try to fill up and burst a water balloon. The manager of the water-balloon game clearly goes behind the machine and fixes it so the woman wins the game.
****************
Many other movies have similar elements. Bond asks a dealer/pit boss "Will I be allowed to win?" and the reply is "NO, but you won't lose much." etc.

This is a fascinating sociological aspect of the Bond casino scenes, in my opinion.

link to original post

Hmm...

For casino scenes I'd add the high card game in TWINE. Bond later figures out it was rigged but, at the time, seemed baffled by how they did it.

Bond out-cheats Kamal Khan at backgammon.

Vesper cheats in the CR poker game by secretly informing La Chiffre that Bond has figured out his tell. The villain then uses the info to sucker Bond into going all in and bankrupting out of the game. Then again, Bond didn't have to open his mouth.

Because of poor editing, Bond appears to cheat at baccarat in FYEO.

For non-casino scenes...

Goldfinger cheats at gin rummy. Both he and Odd Job cheat at golf, but so does Bond when he stands on Goldfinger's ball so that it can't be found and then later switches balls to win on a technicality.

Bond cheats Solitaire in LALD with a loaded Tarot deck.

Max Zorin dopes his racehorses in AVTAK.

La Chiffre uses x-ray glasses when playing baccarat in CR 1967.

There's probably a few others.

Quote: darkoz

Quote: gamerfreak

I’m not sure what the most ridiculous Bond plot is, but The Man With The Golden Gun has to be up there.

In part of the movie, bond cons his way into the bad guy’s compound by pretending to have a 3rd nipple. When attacked by a sumo wrestler, Bond defeats him by giving him a wedgie, but is ultimately taken down by a dwarf wielding a trident.

link to original post

Golden Gun was my first Bond film at six years old so it holds a special place in my heart

However, I walked out of GoldenEye when James Bond jumped off a cliff on a motorcycle to catch a jet, ditched the bike in the air because his hands were faster and then "air swam" to catch the jet... And caught the jet and climbed aboard.

link to original post

Yea, I love the funhouse gimmick.

The quirkiness of early bond films is something I don’t think could ever be recreated and done well.

Bond fans, it seems to me, often put Golden Gun near the bottom of their list of best Bond films. However, I like it and I make no apologies. Sure, its kind of silly, but what can I say, it's entertaining and doesn't take itself too seriously. I must have seen it at least 20 times growing up and never grew tired of it.

I would like to add, however, that I thought the so-called villain should have been a hero. He wanted to provide nearly free and clean energy to the world, as if that is a bad thing (hopefully I get no complaints about that being a political statement).

We have already discussed the craps scene in Diamonds are Forever, but here is another scene later in the movie where we find Q cheating at slots. Jump to the 4:15 point.


Direct: https://youtu.be/Gja9C_DHg1s?t=258

I think if Q can make an invisible car, then we have to take it on faith that this is possible too. However, I welcome the opinion of the physics experts of the forum, especially doc.

I do find it out of character for someone in law enforcement to be cheating at a casino game. Also rather stupid to be doing it so aggressively. Putting moral issues aside, if I had such a ring, I would use it about 1 spin in 100. This entire movie is among my least favorite Bond movies and certainly the worst Connery film.

I welcome other comments on this scene.

Put &start=255 at the end of the youtube code.

Quote: Wizard

...I welcome the opinion of the physics experts of the forum, especially doc.

I do find it out of character for someone in law enforcement to be cheating at a casino game. Also rather stupid to be doing it so aggressively.

Don't know that I fall into that category of "physics experts", but I view Q's little device as a not-very-real novelty point in the movie. As for his aggressive "cheating", you might note that he was playing on 10¢ machines and was leaving all the payouts in the tray. Not quite as if he were really trying to exploit his inventive skills to rob the casino.

Quote: Doc

As for his aggressive "cheating", you might note that he was playing on 10¢ machines and was leaving all the payouts in the tray. Not quite as if he were really trying to exploit his inventive skills to rob the casino.

He was still standing nearby those machines. I've seen players playing multiple slots at once lots of times. If they step away from one game to play another, it doesn't give other players the right to jump in and grab the coins/credits. Furthermore, it doesn't make it legal to steal from a casino if you abandon the money for other players to take.

Most everything Q does is illegality to the rest of the world. That's why he like the other spies work in secret.

Certainly, exploding cars, cars that throw oil slicks and explosive projectile weapons, food trays that slice off your head and poison umbrellas aren't legal in the strict sense.

That's England saying that for their purposes they are legal. Get caught in another country with those and Q is a criminal

Spying is actually criminal in every country except the initiating country.

Sorry, but as a hero, the entire at all costs scenario is basically illegal

I mean, come on, license to kill? No repercussions?

Another twist I liked about On Her Majesty's Secret Service, was that Bond didn't win, at least not entirely, at the end. His wife was killed by Blofeld.

Granted - they had to do that. Bond couldn't stay married, but still, the movie ended in tragedy rather than the typical Bond hustling off the beautiful girl in private for some R&R after killing the bad guys and foiling their plot.

Which of course led to Diamonds are Forever and Bond's hunt for Ernst Stavro Blofeld.

Quote: MDawg

Another twist I liked about On Her Majesty's Secret Service, was that Bond didn't win, at least not entirely, at the end. His wife was killed by Blofeld.

Granted - they had to do that. Bond couldn't stay married, but still, the movie ended in tragedy rather than the typical Bond hustling off the beautiful girl in private for some R&R after killing the bad guys and foiling their plot.

Which of course led to Diamonds are Forever and Bond's hunt for Ernst Stavro Blofeld.

link to original post

I always found it disappointing that they killed off Blofeld in the pre-song scene of FYEO.

Forgive me for changing the topic, but I am still on a mad quest to find the authentic rules for chemin de fer. To aid me in that quest, I purchased the book Casino Royale. As a reminder, while the Daniel Craig movie by that name was based on poker, the book is based on chemin de fer. Here are some lines from the book that address the rules.

Quote: Casino Royale

In front of him he has a shoe containing six packs of cards, well shuffled.

Other sources also indicate six decks, as opposed to eight. However, it's good to have it confirmed.

Quote: Casino Royale

'Now,' Bond continuted, 'when the banker deals me my two cards, if they add up to eight or nine, they're a "natural" and I turn them up and I win, unless he has an equal or better natural. If I haven't got a natural, I can stand on a seven or six, perhaps ask for a card or perhaps not, on a five, and certainly ask for a card if my count is lower than five. Five is the turning point of the game. According to the odds, the chances of bettering or worsening your hand if you hold a five are exactly even.

First, I was uncertain whether the one acting on the Player Hand had the option to hit on any total under seven. Other sources seem to indicate the Player Hand only has free will on a five. This seems to indicate the Player Hand may do as he wishes with anything under 8. Where there is no disagreement is that it would be foolish to stand on 4 or less or to hit with 6 or 7.

Second, Bond was wrong about the odds being exactly even on a five. I can file this as a character error as I doubt the actual odds of the game were known at the time of publication. I have written about this at length, but the decision to hit or stand on a Player Hand of 5 should be randomized, hitting most of the time.

Quote: Casino Royale

'So he has a very slight advantage over me. He has a tiny help over his decision to draw or stand. But there is always one problem card at this game -- shall one draw or stand on a five and what will your opponent do with a five? Some players always draw or always stand. I follow my intuition.

This quote is Bond talking. The 'he' is the banker, who has a positional advantage in the game. This passage doesn't tell me anything new. However, Bond is correct to mix up how to play a Player Hand of five.

Quote: Casino Royale

From each bet the Casino takes a tiny percentage, the cagnotte, but it is usual at a big game for the banker to subscribe this himself either in a prearranged lump or by contributions at the end of each hand, so that the amount of the bank's stake can always be a round figure. Le Chiffre had chosen the second course.

One of my biggest questions was and is how the casino is compensated for hosting the game. My interpreation of this passage is that the banker may either pay a fixed fee per hand or some unknown fee at the end of the hand, I assume based on the amount bet. It is still not clear to me who, if anybody, pays the house when the Player Hand wins. It would seem to be bitter if the Banker Hand had to pay a fee after losing. Never once in the Bond movies did I notice anyone paying a fee to play. This passage helps, but doesn't clear up the issue completely.

Quote: Casino Royale

It was nearly as bad as it could have been -- the king of hearts and an ace, the ace of spades, It squinted up at him like a black widow spider.

'A card.' He still kept all emotion out of his voice.

Le Chiffre faced his own two cards. He had a queen and a black five. He looked at Bond and pressed out another card with a wide forefinger. The table was absoutely silent. He faced it and flicked it away. The croupier lifted it delicately with his spatula and slipped it over to Bond. It was a good card, the five of hearts, but to Bond it was a difficult fingerprint in dried blood. He now had a count of six and Le Chiffre a count of five, but the banker, having a five and giving a five, would and must draw another card and try to improve with a one, two, three or four. Drawing any other card would be defeated.

This passage gets to the topic of whether the Banker Hand has total free will (barring either side having a natural) or if he only has free will in two limited situations (3 vs. 9 and 5 vs. 4).

This is not one of those limited situations. The odds favor drawing with a 5 vs. 5.

How should "would and must draw another card" be interpreted? Would and must are different words. I interpret it to mean there is still free will, but some situations were always played the same way, out of tradition.

Maybe a comparison to pai gow (tiles) could be drawn. Asian players seem to have a way of playing this game that is more tradition than math based. I think this why they get upset sometimes at how mathematical players play. For example, consider 5-5-2-12. The right play is 7-7, but I think if a serious Asian player saw it played that way at the table he would go off on a rant in Chinese/Vietnamesse about how white players are idiots and jinx the whole table.

That's enough for one post. I'm off to updating my chemin de fer page, once again. Meanwhile, I welcome all comments, as always.

It sure looks like it depends on where you are playing. This was posted before, but the rules for chemmy at the Association of British Casinos state...

Quote: NCF

Players are free to abide by or ignore the table shown below, known as the "Rule Table". Those who wish to abide by the Rule Table must tell the Croupier who in turn informs the other players.

The Croupier must always indicate "Rule Table" players as if there is a mistake the customer is safeguarded by the regulations, which state that any rounds that do not comply must be reconstructed by the Inspector according to the Rule Table.

So here, draw rules or free will seem to be the choice of the player who is banking.


Btw, have you seen the variation rules for Baccarat Banque?

Quote: Casino Card Game Reviews

The variation in baccarat banque is the banker role is auctioned at the beginning of the game. This is another French and/or European variation and it is sometimes known as “a deux tableaux”, which translates into English as “two tables”. Instead of the banker role rotating around the table as in Chemin de Fer, at the start of each round, that role is determined at the start of the game. In many venues, the banker is the player with the biggest wager. I should mention that in other establishments, the decision is determined traditionally, so it rotates around the table with the right of first refusal for the player whose turn it is.

Three decks of cards are combined by the shoe deck. Once the cards are shuffled, two hands are dealt to the players and one hand to the bank. One hand is dealt to the right side of the table, while a second hand is dealt to the left side. Players must bet on the hand on their side of the table, but they have the option to bet on both player hands, if they choose. When this happens, the wager goes to the center of the table. Players can bust the dealer by “going bank”. If the player’s challenge wins, they occupy the banking seat. If they fail at three challenges, they cannot try to bust the current banker again.

I kind of wonder how the banking player makes a rational choice here.


There's also this small piece to the puzzle...


Apart from the famous croupier, note the sign in the back (partially hidden by player 12's head). They're calling it chemmy, but the rules and the action on the table seem to say punto/banco.

I like the casino scene in "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" because it's so matter-of-fact. Usually bond is shown gambling in order to rattle the cage of some villain at the table. A few of the films like this one, however, show him gambling simply because he enjoys gambling. It's more of a Bond lifestyle moment (which turns into a minor plot point). So, I enjoy the way he casually sits down, buys in, lights a cigarette, and then starts sizing up the other players and their bankrolls. Pretty cool.
------------------------------

Quote: Gialmere

I like the casino scene in "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" because it's so matter-of-fact. Usually bond is shown gambling in order to rattle the cage of some villain at the table. A few of the films like this one, however, show him gambling simply because he enjoys gambling. It's more of a Bond lifestyle moment (which turns into a minor plot point). So, I enjoy the way he casually sits down, buys in, lights a cigarette, and then starts sizing up the other players and their bankrolls. Pretty cool.

I liked that too. A very patient Bond who didn't have to be saving the world every second. Too bad Lazenby didn't play more movies.

As we know Diamonds are Forever came next, which is one of my least favorite Bond movies.

Quote: Gialmere

OHMSS Trivia Quiz

001) The hunt for Ernst Stavro Blofeld by the British Secret Service is called Operation: what?

002) What word is seen reflected in the hotel swimming pool from Bond's balcony?

003) What does "Orbis non sufficit" mean?

004) How many pounds does Draco offer Bond as a dowry to marry Tracy?

005) How many francs does Bond pay to cover Tracy's loss at baccarat?

006) What is the name of Blofeld's base in the Swiss Alps?

007) How many "Angels of Death" are there?

Let's talk about a new movie -- Goldfinger. Let's skip the gin rummy scene and go right to golf.


Direct: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTBvu-fTTIk

Here are some questions and comments.

1. They play for a shilling a hole, at first. Are there not 20 shillings in a pound? This would be like betting a nickel. I've been to London, but don't recall ever hearing the word "shilling." I can't picture them betting so little. Is there maybe some slang at play? For example, in sports betting a "nickel" is $500 and a "dime" is $1,000.
2. On the 17th hole, we see Goldfinger hit his ball in the rough. He claims to find it just as time is running out (let's ignore the cheating for now) and hits it from the spot he found it, just on the edge of the rough. Isn't there a rule where he should take a shot penalty and must hit it from the fairway, near where the ball was lost, but further way, and take a stroke penalty? For two people playing "strict rules of golf," wouldn't you see this happen a lot. It sure does when you play with me.
3. As we see, Bond switches balls on Goldfinger just before the 18th hole. The switch isn't noticed and Goldfinger plays the hole with a different ball. Bond, at the end, otherwise losing, then pretends to notice the change and claims victory, quoting a rule that switching balls forfeits the hole. In this case, it was a tiebreaking hole, so Bond also claims victory to the whole game. My question is whether this is really a rule. I thought you were allowed to change balls between holes.

I also welcome any other comments the golf scene.

Quote: Wizard

1. On the 17th hole, we see Goldfinger hit his ball in the rough. He claims to find it just as time is running out (let's ignore the cheating for now) and hits it from the spot he found it, just on the edge of the rough. Isn't there a rule where he should take a shot penalty and must hit it from the fairway, near where the ball was lost, but further way, and take a stroke penalty? For two people playing "strict rules of golf," wouldn't you see this happen a lot. It sure does when you play with me.

You're saying you can't shoot out of the rough? I've certainly never heard of that rule before. As long as your ball is in bounds, that is, within the wooden markers on the outer perimeter, you play it as it lies.

2. I'm no expert on golf, but the so-called rough is not "out of bounds." You only take a penalty when the ball is hit out of bounds.

3. Bond states that Goldfinger must have hit the wrong ball (someone else's ball that was presumably lying on the fairway) at some point in the play of the 18th hole that they just completed. That would indeed be a disqualifier. Note that you are indeed allowed to switch balls between holes, and also you may switch balls during a hole, with a penalty, if you hit a shot into a water hazard.

1, At the time of the movie, I believe the value of a pound was set at $2.80, so a shilling was equivalent to 14 cents. I think the inflation factor to our current time is almost a factor of 18X, so this would be equivalent today to a bet of about $2.50/hole. I agree that that seems a little trivial for a match between Bond and Goldfinger.

Time for a golf joke.

Two golfers were waiting to tee off.

Golfer #1 says "See this golf ball. It's very special. If you hit in the water, it will float. If you hit into the woods, it has a beeper to help you find it. When you play in the evening, it glows in the dark."

Golfer #2 says "Wow, I have to get one of those golf balls. Where can I get one.?"

Golfer #1 says "I don't know, I found It!"

Quote: Deucekies

You're saying you can't shoot out of the rough? I've certainly never heard of that rule before. As long as your ball is in bounds, that is, within the wooden markers on the outer perimeter, you play it as it lies.

link to original post

Thank you. I guess I stand corrected on that one. For some reason, I assumed it was out of bounds, but now I have no idea why I thought that.

Would I be correct in saying that if Goldfinger couldn't find his ball, he should have re-hit from the tee with a one-stroke penalty? Recall the ball was lost after hitting from the tee.

In other news, does anyone have anything gambling-related to say about the gin rummy scene? It seems to speak for itself pretty well.


Direct: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kDdIL0tSeI

At the $5/point stakes, losing the required $15000 feels like it would take longer than a poolside card game usually runs for.

I figure about 3 hours if Goldfinger is trying to lose every hand.

Mr. Pigeon may wonder why Goldfinger is suddenly dumping the game to him.

Quote: Dieter

At the $5/point stakes, losing the required $15000 feels like it would take longer than a poolside card game usually runs for.

I figure about 3 hours if Goldfinger is trying to lose every hand.

Mr. Pigeon may wonder why Goldfinger is suddenly dumping the game to him.

link to original post

Maybe they played Hollywood gin scoring rules. That’s how I used to play when I played for $.

Quote: unJon

Quote: Dieter

At the $5/point stakes, losing the required $15000 feels like it would take longer than a poolside card game usually runs for.

I figure about 3 hours if Goldfinger is trying to lose every hand.

Mr. Pigeon may wonder why Goldfinger is suddenly dumping the game to him.

link to original post

Maybe they played Hollywood gin scoring rules. That’s how I used to play when I played for $.

link to original post

We didn't get a look at the tally, but Hollywood wouldn't surprise me.

That's still gonna be an hour and a half of losing hard.

Quote: Dieter

At the $5/point stakes, losing the required $15000 feels like it would take longer than a poolside card game usually runs for.

I figure about 3 hours if Goldfinger is trying to lose every hand.

Mr. Pigeon may wonder why Goldfinger is suddenly dumping the game to him.

link to original post

I wonder why Goldfinger agreed to dump the $15,000 back. He was threatened with getting the Miami Police involved, but I doubt they would get mixed up in an allegation of cheating in a private card game.

Quote: Wizard

Quote: Dieter

At the $5/point stakes, losing the required $15000 feels like it would take longer than a poolside card game usually runs for.

I figure about 3 hours if Goldfinger is trying to lose every hand.

Mr. Pigeon may wonder why Goldfinger is suddenly dumping the game to him.

link to original post

I wonder why Goldfinger agreed to dump the $15,000 back. He was threatened with getting the Miami Police involved, but I doubt they would get mixed up in an allegation of cheating in a private card game.

link to original post

Well, if you were planning a heist of Fort Knox would you take the chance?

Quote: darkoz

Well, if you were planning a heist of Fort Knox would you take the chance?

link to original post

Good point!

the next Bond may be so 'woke' we don't recognize him?

https://nypost.com/2021/09/23/james-bond-director-says-sean-connerys-007-was-a-rapist/

Quote: odiousgambit

the next Bond may be so 'woke' we don't recognize him?

https://nypost.com/2021/09/23/james-bond-director-says-sean-connerys-007-was-a-rapist/

link to original post

Bond needs to be a straight white male (the character).

Sadly at the probability (by people who do betting odds on such things) is that the next actor will almost certainly be at least not one of those things (the sexuality of the actor does not matter, as long as the character's is correct, but the other two variables can't be acted away).

Sadly even a certain former Bond actor is now saying there should be a female James Bond which is just madness. This is a fringe view (but it gains traction when former "James Bonds" say it). However, the other variables are less fringe. And, there is a massive push to change the race, in fact the current odds are the next Bond will likely be, at the least, not white (last I checked). (And in the odds "any female" is actually higher than you would think, certainly higher than I would think, I think nearing 10 1).

And, my views on purity to the books. Bond, being straight, white, and male are all central to the character, you remove these components (or any of them), its no longer James Bond. There are plenty of spy books out there with diverse characters, Bond needs to be the same. Race is the one that can maybe change, but even that is questionable, but I could see it working in some circumstances, but I have to admit I would be skeptical.

As for Bond being a rapist, he is (and that is kind of the point, not to make rape look good, but to show his dark side). In the books, he is an alcoholic, drug using (this does transfer into the movies), chain smoking (not so much in the modern movies), racist (you could even say imperialist, again does not transfer into the movies so much), and womanizer (from consensual, to adulterer, to to abusive, to manipulative, to rapist, in various encounters). Bond is supposed to be a dark character that you are half-hating. The movies (with some exceptions, again while I like Dalton and Craig, as they are both pretty close), turn this around and make him heroic and noble, but this was not the intent of the character (and people get shocked at the movies that more accurately portray him). This is based on the Fleming books, I have not read any non-Fleming books. In any case, the point of this, is to defend my claim that he needs to be a straight white male, because losing any attribute would take away key aspects of his character, to the point where it would not even be a Bond movie anymore (its not that I think straight white males are better, because I would agree they often are not, and are overrepresented, but in this case its about character attributes).

“I didn't intend for Bond to be likable. He's a blunt instrument in the hands of the government. He's got vices and few perceptible virtues.” -Ian Fleming

I forgot to mention the blackjack scene in License to Kill.


Direct: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccBqiW3rR70

Not many good comments on this one.

If you freeze the scene at 1:06 you can see Bond standing on a hard 16, 17, 18, and 19 against a 10. The fifth hand I can't see because the dealer's arm is blocking it. It should be noted Bond incorrectly stood on 16 vs. 10. It's a borderline hand and one might argue the count was positive, before the hand started. All the high cards on the table would argue this point.

At the 1:54 point, we see Bond with an 11, 8-8, 20, 19, and 20 vs. 8. He plays every hand correctly.

At the 3:42 point, against a new dealer, sent down to clean him out, we see Bond with a 19, 19, and 18 against a blackjack. His other two hands are not shown and we don't see him playing the hands, just the outcome.

In all three hands shown, it seems we never see a card lower than five. I think a chi-squared test is in order.

I can't think of any other good comments.

I will say that it was bothering me where I had seen the actress who plays Ms. Kennedy, the woman playing next to Bond. I cheated and looked it up. I'll put in the spoiler tags the answer.

The offered cut procedure strikes me as odd. Switching from a shoe to the cards in hand strikes me as odd; nevermind that Ms. Lamora is a mechanic.

I rather wish they would have used a nicer layout and plaques. Those look like they were run off the engraver down at a trophy shop.

Using a televangelist for steganography still amuses me.

Quote: Dieter

Switching from a shoe to the cards in hand strikes me as odd;

link to original post

Good catch. They do indeed use a shoe in the first two hands shown. Then when the woman in the red dress is sent down, suddenly she is shuffling a single deck. Perhaps this is the clue Bond needed that he was about to get cheated.

I am not an expert on cheating, but I think it is easier done with a single hand-held deck than a shoe. Dealing seconds comes to mind.

Here is a count of every card I could see.

Rank	Observed
2	0
3	0
4	0
5	2
6	2
7	1
8	4
9	4
10	8
J	3
Q	6
K	4
A	1
Total	35

A chi-squared test pas a p value of 0.00765434, or 1 in 131.

Assuming an infinite deck, the probability of getting 29 out of 35 cards in the range of 8 to K is 1 in 138,255. However, I recognize it is easy to comb through information after the fact and find coincidences. Still strikes me as odd. I believe Bond never once hit. He doubled once and split once, the rest of the time he stood on pat hands, plus one 16.

Quote: Wizard

I am not an expert on cheating, but I think it is easier done with a single hand-held deck than a shoe. Dealing seconds comes to mind.

link to original post

Faro boxes would suggest the possibility exists.
And yes, I think second dealing may have been involved, given the card backs. Dealing from the hand certainly makes a shiner more practical.

As I noted before, in his 15 hands played (3 rounds shown playing 5 hands at a time), Bond never hits.

Following is the probability of the initial action, assuming six decks and the dealer stands on soft 17 and basic strategy.

Action	Probability
Stand	43.46%
Hit	39.78%
Double	9.53%
Split	2.48%
Blackjack	4.75%
Total	100.00%

In case you're wondering, if surrender is allowed, the probability of that as a first action is 4.14%.

The probability of never hitting in 15 hands is 0.602162237^15 = 1 in 2015.

Never mind that Bond didn't draw to either hand after splitting eights either. A critic might say Bond should have hit the 16 vs. 10, but I contend he was counting and knew the count was high, as evidenced by all the high cards that just came out.

Quote: Gandler

Quote: odiousgambit

the next Bond may be so 'woke' we don't recognize him?

https://nypost.com/2021/09/23/james-bond-director-says-sean-connerys-007-was-a-rapist/

link to original post

Bond needs to be a straight white male (the character).

Sadly at the probability (by people who do betting odds on such things) is that the next actor will almost certainly be at least not one of those things (the sexuality of the actor does not matter, as long as the character's is correct, but the other two variables can't be acted away).

Sadly even a certain former Bond actor is now saying there should be a female James Bond which is just madness. This is a fringe view (but it gains traction when former "James Bonds" say it). However, the other variables are less fringe. And, there is a massive push to change the race, in fact the current odds are the next Bond will likely be, at the least, not white (last I checked). (And in the odds "any female" is actually higher than you would think, certainly higher than I would think, I think nearing 10 1).

And, my views on purity to the books. Bond, being straight, white, and male are all central to the character, you remove these components (or any of them), its no longer James Bond. There are plenty of spy books out there with diverse characters, Bond needs to be the same. Race is the one that can maybe change, but even that is questionable, but I could see it working in some circumstances, but I have to admit I would be skeptical.

As for Bond being a rapist, he is (and that is kind of the point, not to make rape look good, but to show his dark side). In the books, he is an alcoholic, drug using (this does transfer into the movies), chain smoking (not so much in the modern movies), racist (you could even say imperialist, again does not transfer into the movies so much), and womanizer (from consensual, to adulterer, to to abusive, to manipulative, to rapist, in various encounters). Bond is supposed to be a dark character that you are half-hating. The movies (with some exceptions, again while I like Dalton and Craig, as they are both pretty close), turn this around and make him heroic and noble, but this was not the intent of the character (and people get shocked at the movies that more accurately portray him). This is based on the Fleming books, I have not read any non-Fleming books. In any case, the point of this, is to defend my claim that he needs to be a straight white male, because losing any attribute would take away key aspects of his character, to the point where it would not even be a Bond movie anymore (its not that I think straight white males are better, because I would agree they often are not, and are overrepresented, but in this case its about character attributes).

“I didn't intend for Bond to be likable. He's a blunt instrument in the hands of the government. He's got vices and few perceptible virtues.” -Ian Fleming
link to original post

Final pertinent remark in the youtube review below, "this movie feels like what it ultimately is, the end of an era, make of that what you will" ... does this mean it has to be seen? Maybe so

I just saw No Time to Die yesterday.

I would rank it 2nd of the Daniel Craig films, behind Casino Royale.

It is very hard to discuss the movie without spoiling it. I will say that every Bond fan should see it. This is not just another Bond chapter, but is essential in the story of 007 and Bond in general. I hope this won't be a spoiler, but I think it addresses such questions as how it is that Bond has been roughly the same age from the height of the Cold War to the present. Then again, maybe I'm reading too much into it and I could see disagreement about it.

If you're interested in the topic of who the next 007 actor will be, I think the movie suggests two strong possibilities.

Are there any objections to putting movie spoiling comments in spoiler tags? I would urge you to not read mine until you've seen the movie.

Quote: Wizard

I just saw No Time to Die yesterday.

I would rank it 2nd of the Daniel Craig films, behind Casino Royale.

It is very hard to discuss the movie without spoiling it. I will say that every Bond fan should see it. This is not just another Bond chapter, but is essential in the story of 007 and Bond in general. I hope this won't be a spoiler, but I think it addresses such questions as how it is that Bond has been roughly the same age from the height of the Cold War to the present. Then again, maybe I'm reading too much into it and I could see disagreement about it.

If you're interested in the topic of who the next 007 actor will be, I think the movie suggests two strong possibilities.

Are there any objections to putting movie spoiling comments in spoiler tags? I would urge you to not read mine until you've seen the movie.
link to original post

I haven't seen the film but I assume the reason he is the same age is because James Bond and 007 are just code names and there have been different James Bonds?

That was a joke suggestion from the 1967 Casino Royale and my mom always said that would explain different actors playing the part. (Woody Allen played the younger Jimmy Bond in Casino Royale)

Quote: darkoz

I haven't seen the film but I assume the reason he is the same age is because James Bond and 007 are just code names and there have been different James Bonds?