Every James Bond Opening Sequence, Ranked. However, by the time the second Bond film— From Russia with Love —hit the screen, the opening title sequence became a recognizable and iconic part of the James Bond series. Used in nearly every single film to date, the gun barrel sequence is an instant signifier that sh.t is about to go down.

• Making Of Opening Sequence Casino Royale Of London

• Jan 27, 2016  In depth casino royale analysis 1. CASINO ROYALE OPENING SEQUENCE IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS By: Caxie Dagupen 2. TITLES In the titles we can see that the background and the subjects (e.g patterns) are very bold with the colour schemes and complex, which contrasts with Bond’s black and white figures and plain white text.
• Nov 09, 2012  Casino Royale, 2006. But what it lacks in flash, it makes up for in film-school artsiness. The whole sequence — in which a crooked MI6 station chief arrives at his Prague office to find Bond waiting for him — is shot in hi-contrast black and white, with Hitchcockian camera angles and stark, shallow-focus closeups. It’s quite beautiful, really.

Missing characters[edit]

Woody Allen's character needs to be added since he was the main villain. We should also have sections for the Detainer, Coop, and Lady McTarry as well. 23skidoo 19:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Geraldine Chaplin as a Keystone Cop?[edit]

This one sounds a bit dubious. I think a source should be added for this one. 23skidoo (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The only source is the film itself as it was an uncredited role. If you watch the final sequence of the film you will see her in all the mayhem.

Tovojolo (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Uh, that's not really good enough. For one thing Keystone cops are usually covered in hats and moustaches. Are we basing this upon someone saying 'so and so looks like Geraldine Chaplin' or is there a source out there that actually says Chaplin was in the movie? If all we have is someone making guesswork then that violates WP:NOR and WP:BLP (although it wouldn't really qualify as libel) and would need to be removed. 23skidoo (talk) 06:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's a reference for Geraldine Chaplin in Casino Royale [1].

You can see a photo of Geraldine Chaplin with Richard Talmadge as Keystone Kops in Casino Royale here

[2]

Geraldine Chaplin does not wear a moustache and is clearly identifiable in the photo.

That's two references for Geraldine Chaplin in Casino Royale.

Tovojolo (talk) 10:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Now all you need to do is actually put these in the article and WP:CITE is satisfied. Note by the way the first source says Chaplin is actually playing an homage to the Tramp (though Charlie to my knowledge never actually played a Keystone Cop but I might be wrong). And I'm not singling out Chaplin for special treatment; under Wikipedia citation policy we should actually site sources for all the uncredited actors (and unfortunately the IMDb is not considered a good source) 23skidoo (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Page move proposal[edit]

I'd like to suggest that this article be moved to List of characters in Casino Royale (1967) for the following reasons:1. The title is incorrect and redundant, plus not every character listed is James Bond.2. There are two major films by the name Casino Royale, and this one should be disambiguated at the title level to avoid confusion with the 2006 film.I'm not listing this at Wikipedia:Requested moves on the grounds that the campaign to remove 'List of ...' articles from the project might be attracted by such a listing. I'd rather seek consensus with folks who have this on this watchlist (though I'll also mention it on the JB Wikiproject page. Thoughts? 23skidoo (talk) 15:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Giovanna Goodthighs?[edit]

What's the source for the character's first name? I thought she was only ever referred to as Miss Goodthighs in the film. 23skidoo (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

A game of 'wurseling'[edit]

Re: Agent Mimi.
This is Britain, so it would be 'wurselling', double L.
But 'wurzel' is a way of saying mangelwurzel, a vegetable mainly used as animal fodder.
So the game could be 'wurzelling', where 'wurzel' has a connotation of country bumpkin.
There is in fact a wurzel-based sport called 'mangold hurling'. See the above link.
Varlaam (talk) 06:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

David Hemmings and David McCallum[edit]

I cannot find a single reference to either actor appearing in this film in a credited or uncredited role. IMdb doesn't indicate that they are in it (not that I'm suggesting that that is an infallible source).--Stevouk (talk) 14:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Unofficial PR[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Tim riley, Brianboulton‎, Dr. Blofeld, Cassianto, As I already have something at PR at the moment, I cannot start a second one, so would you gents mind commenting on this article, which I've given a dust up and re-write recently. I think it may be there-or-thereabouts for an FA, but any and all comments would be appreciated. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Gladly. I've got two other (formal) PRs already on my to-do list but will be here as soon as I can. 21:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

Not much from me:

• Titles of newspapers: 'the Daily Express' and 'the Daily Mail' but 'The Sunday Times'. Consistency wanted.
• You've got Blanchard's advice in twice.
• 'He used well-known brand names and everyday details to support a sense of realism' – according to Rupert Hart-Davis, a close friend of Peter Fleming, it wasn't so much the sense of realism as blatant product placement: 'when Ian Fleming mentions any particular food, clothing or cigarettes in his books, the makers reward him with presents in kind … Ian's are the only modern thrillers with built-in commercials.'
  • The Waller ref is fine, but if you prefer I can substitute the original source. 22:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    • That would be great if you could, thanks! - SchroCat (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
• 'Semiotician' – blue link wanted, I think. Being semi-idiotic I can never remember what the word means.
• 'I thought by God, (James Bond) is' – square not rounded brackets wanted here, I'd say.
• 'both American singer Hoagy Carmichael' – false title, my bête noir.
• 'learns not to do his job because of principals' – I think you mean 'principles' here.

That's my lot. This is a fine article, beautifully researched. 11:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• Many thanks, Tim! It's hugely appreciated, as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Crisco

• Lead feels heavy on the adaptations, light on the creative process
• 'The bitch is dead now.' - As a direct quotation, should be referenced
• Chemin de Fer - worth a link?
• slice in two the testicles of British wartime agents - slice the testicles ... in half, perhaps?
• Is the price really necessary? Most of our FAs on literature don't include it
• 4,728 copies of Casino Royale were printed, selling out in less than a month - shouldn't start a sentence with a numeral
• a breathtaking plot - schoolboy stuff - isn't this rather inconsistent?
• Casino Royale was the first James Bond novel to be adapted as a daily comic strip which was published in The Daily Express and syndicated worldwide. - ambiguous whether or not this is 'the first James Bond novel to be adapted as a daily comic strip' or 'the first James Bond novel to be adapted as a daily comic strip published in The Daily Express and syndicated worldwide'. Suggest restructuring — Crisco 1492 (talk)

• Cheers Crisco - much appreciated. All done, bar the lead, which I'll work on shortly, per your suggestion. - SchroCat (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• (subscription needed) is generally not part of the title. We have templates like {{Subscription required}} which can be used. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Cassianto

• I figured that as the article was that good and because of Tim and Crisco's irritatingly good comments, it would be easier to give things a light copy edit instead of posting my measly nitpickings! Just one observation: What are the rules of past and present tense? Personally, I'm a fan of using the former, but I may be completeley wrong in doing so. Do we go on the fact that whoever we are talking about is dead or alive? I have also left a few hidden comments, just in case you missed them. Feel free to adopt or disregard at your leisure; you've done the article much justice in your revamp. Nice job! Cassianto^Talk 20:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• Cheers Cass - and good to see you back again (hopefully permanently!) I'll have a spin through for your comments and mull over the past/present tense - it's always a balance between common sense and consistency, but we'll see what the FAC reviewers make of things! Cheers, as always - SchroCat (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• non im timere, I'm hoping for mid-March, but even then it could be delayed until June. I'll still be about for small things though. Cassianto^Talk 09:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton

• Lead

• May I suggest that, to avoid the intrusive quote marks around 'Secret Service', you introduce your protagonist as 'the British secret agent James Bond' – which also confirms Bond's nationality among the varied cosmopolitan cast that you then introduced
• If it's possible, I'd get rid of 'in order to', which always blights good prose.
• I'd say 'reflected' rather thsn 'included' many of Fleming's personal tastes.
• Rather than 'was adapted as a comic strip' I'd say 'has appeared as...', which standardises the tenses and avoids the 'adapted' repetition

• All done. – SchroCat (talk) 09:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• Plot

• Slightly bemused by the citation – they don't normally appear in plot synopses

• That's true for the summary in general, but quotes (which should only be used sparingly) should probably carry a citation. - SchroCat (talk) 09:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• Background and writing

• Perhaps too much 'background'. The stuff about Fleming's wartime service, and his postwar employment with Kemsleys, is germane to the novel's subject matter and therefore fine, but I can't see much relevance in Ann Charteris's convoluted affairs, and I recommend you take the scissors to most of this detail.
• Instead, a few words about how Fleming acquired Goldeneye might be more appropriate, since he wrote all his books there.
• 'Describing the work as his 'dreadful oafish opus', Fleming had his manuscript re-typed in London by Joan Howe...' This is one of those sentence constructions that used to rouse the ire of Tony1. It's an elision of two unrelated events: Fleming's deprecation of his work, and Miss Howe's typing of it. Various alternatives would work – here's just one: 'Back in London, Fleming had his manuscript—which he described as his 'dreadful oafish opus'—retyped by Joan Howe...' (Note: no hyphen in 'retyped')
• 'partially based' → 'partly based'?

• All done - SchroCat (talk) 09:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• Style

• 'Benson' needs introductory info. Actually, he has a WP article so you can link him

• Yap, done (and a very nice chap he is too: I had a chat with him after he complained about my inclusion of an incorrect quote about his books) - SchroCat (talk) 09:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• Plot inspirations

• Chemin-de-fer capitalised? (Would you, for example, write Poker rather than poker, or 'Roulette'?)

• Done - SchroCat (talk) 09:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• Characters

• Again I find the quotes round 'Secret Service' distracting. I suppose the point is that there is no actual organisation that holds this title. But it is a popular nickname for the Intelligence services, and I'd be inclined to de-quote it.
• 'Lycett sees much of Bond's character as being much 'wish fulfilment' by Fleming' – rephrase to avoid 'much...much'
• '...Aleister Crowley, whose physical features are similar to Le Chiffre's' Hmm, Crowley was a real person – whose physical features were similar to those of a fictitious one? Needs turning round, e.g. '...Aleister Crowley, on whose physical features Fleming based Le Chiffre's'. I would end the overlong sentence at this point, and continue: 'Crowley's tastes, especially in sado-masochism, were also ascribed to Le Chiffre; as Fleming's biographer Henry Chancellor notes, 'when Le Chiffre goes to work on Bond's testicles with a carpet-beater and a carving knife, the sinister figure of Aleister Crowley is there lurking in the background.'

• Yes, all done - SchroCat (talk) 09:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• Britain's position in the world

• Could you check the wording of the Woolacott/Bennett quote? It's the words 'imaginary power' that make nonsense of the sentence as it stands.

• Embarrassing misquote now corrected. - SchroCat (talk) 09:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• Anglo-American relations

• 'Black' needs proper introduction
• I'm not sure which four MI6 operatives had defected at this point, but my main problem with this paragraph is again the question of fiction versus fact. The relationship between Bond and Leiter was fictional; to say it was 'not mirrored in the wider US-UK association' appears to give it factual status. I would reword: '...did not reflect the reality of the US-UK relationship'.
• The Amis quotation, despite the ellipses, ought to parse, which it does not at present.

• All tweaked. (I'll add a footnote to cover who had defected shortly) – SchroCat (talk) 09:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Making Of Opening Sequence Casino Royale Of London

• Treachery and fifth columnists

• 'Chancellor sees in Casino Royale that the defections showed the moral ambiguity of the cold war, which was reflected in the novel'. I'm not sure that this makes sense as written – I can't figure it out anyway. I think it needs rewriting, perhaps to something simpler, e.g. 'Chanceller sees the moral ambiguity of the cold war reflected in the novel'.

• Done - SchroCat (talk) 09:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• Good versus evil

• 'Benson considered' (past) and Parker 'agrees' (present). I'd use the present tense consistentlt; both writers are reasonably contemporary
• 'The subject was also dealt with the academic Beth Butterfield...' A 'by' missing?
• 'point of view' → 'viewpoint'?
• More rewriting necessary: 'In light of the Bond's conversation' should presumably be 'In the light of Bond's conversation'. Also, I think 'until he learns not to do his job because of principles...' etc would be better as 'to the point where he does his job not because of principles, but to pursue personal battles'.

• Yes, all done - SchroCat (talk) 09:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• Publication history

• 'hardcover' – isn't the Brit idiom 'hardback'? I've not seen 'hardcover' in a British publishing context. Also the clash with 'cover' in the same line could be avoided.
• 'Fleming himself' – or just 'Fleming'?

• Tweaked. – SchroCat (talk) 09:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• Critical reception

• The verb 'critique' is not normally used in the sphere of book criticism, more in the evaluation of research papers etc, so I'd reconsider this usage.

• All sorted now – SchroCat (talk) 09:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• Adaptations

• Just a couple of minor observations. Your account of the perigrinations of the film rights doesn't say how Sony came by them. And finally, if the Craig film is supposed to depict Bond in his early days, what are we to make of Dame Judi, who inherited the M role relative late in the film sequence yet assumes it here? There probably isn't any answer to that.

• There isn't to the second point, no. I suspect a lesser person in the role may have been dropped, but you can't rid yourself of La grande dame Dench lightly. As always with the Bond films, there is a great need for the willing suspension of disbelief! I'll cover the first point shortly, when I've dug up a very useful court report from the states that tracked these things. SchroCat (talk) 09:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, I hope these comments are helful. You can follow in the edit history the several minor amendemnts I've made to the article text. Brianboulton (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks, Brian: hugely helpful, as always. I'll work my way through this and try and cover all your excellent points. Many thanks once again. - SchroCat (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: for 'helful' read helpful' Brianboulton (talk) 10:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• All comments now dealt with as best I can: a huge debt of thanks to all who took part. – SchroCat (talk) 11:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

FAC[edit]

This article is now at FAC. All comments and thoughts are welcome there. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations![edit]

Congratulations to all the contributors to this featured article. You deserve a lot of applause, recognition and appreciation. What a interesting and wonderful article.

Bfpage |leave a message 11:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Reflections in a Golden Eye?[edit]

The article currently states, '...Carson McCullers' 1941 novel Reflections in a Golden Eye, which described the use of British naval bases in the Caribbean by the US Navy.' The McCullers' book actually is about goings on between officers and an enlisted man at a Army base in the southern US. It is not about naval bases in the Caribbean. Therefore I question the statement. I do not have access to the current reference to verify it. I think that statement ought to be removed unless it can be verified. --Zeamays (talk) 17:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

A recent digital reissue of the original edition[edit]

claims that the American publications of the first few novels made changes to the content (possibly more substantial than just retitling and renaming the character). Is this the case with Casino Royale, or did the 1955 American edition and later reprints otherwise mostly leave the content wholly untouched? Schissel | Sound the Note! 15:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)