The 2006 Casino Royale film is absolutely nothing to do with the spoof made in 1967 apart from the title.
The 1967 version, starring David Niven and Peter Sellers, was a spoof version of Fleming's first book of the same title.
The 2006 version starring Daniel Craig is based on the book to a certain extent. It is NOT a remake of the 1967 version.
To answer your question, yes it is a prequel in a fashion. Though it is not set before the timeline of the first 20 films. It is set in present time, but is a prequel in that it shows how Bond becomes a double-O and the trials and tribulations that made him the persona we saw in the prior 20.
The only connection to those films is Judi Dench as M. I presume this was due to contractual issues rather than to confuse people intentionally.
It is like Batman Begins in essence, in that they have 'reset the clock' for Bond.
2006-11-28 01:30:46
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
I agree with above, it's a remake.
It's also a dissapointment for a few reasons.
Towards the end, there is shooting between bond and the 'baddies' in a italian courtyard, watch the film and you will never see such a cheap and tacky film set that doesn't look anything like the real thing.
The buliding that collapses at the end? Again looks like the model it was, just terrible for a huge budget film like this.
There is product placement everywhere, everyone has a sony erricson phone and the question about if bond was wearing a rolex to which he replies it's an Omega was shockingly bad. It had no relavance to the film at that time or any other.
There has been lots of product placement in recent Bond films but this one took it a million miles too far.
I thought Craig was pretty good but not outstanding, the Casino took up a little too much of the film, the thing was 15 minutes too long and on the whole just didn't live up to all the hype.
2006-11-28 09:26:21
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
It's not a prequel, sequel or a remake. It's a completely new start, with no references to previous Bonds (or the spoof Casino Royale), in much the same way that Batman Begins is completely unrelated to previous Batman films. Casino Royale also follows the original novel very closely, so it has nothing to do with the David Niven spoof.
2006-11-28 09:24:31
·
answer #3
·
answered by Captain Flaps 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Remake? Not really. The original Casino Royale was made in the 60s and was not part of the Cubby Broccoli series; Brocolli considered it 'unfilmable'. When the Bond series was such a huge money-spinner, Casino was the only Fleming novel NOT bought up by Brocolli. Another company bought it but the production was fraught with problems and many many script changes eventually ending up in the semi-comic pile of crap it is today. The current film stays true to the source novel pitching James Bond as he prepares to get his 007 licence and as such is set before all the other 007 films
2006-11-28 09:41:33
·
answer #4
·
answered by The Font 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Casino Royale was the first Bond book Ian Fleming actually wrote. It wasn't exciting enough when it came to making movies (by which time the character was known) to make the story a movie then. Dr No with Sean Connery was the first movie....and you can easily find the order of movies since then. In the meantime, early on, on the back of Bond movie success, a comedy Bond movie was made with David Niven in the starring role and numerous others famous stars with leading and cameo roles. That movie also had a famous soundtrack "What's New Pussycat" sung by Tom Jones who went on to record one other serious Bond soundtrack "Thunderball".
Now that the Bond franchise has moved on and has basically run out of Fleming books to film, they've revisited the original "Casino Royale" where Bond was first introduced so it is actually not a prequel to the movies, but the first novel in which we got to know James in his younger, less experienced, just got to earn his 00 license to kill.
Just as added info extra, in case you didn't know, the Bond movie called Goldeneye, was so called because that's where Fleming wrote most of his Bond movies....at his estate in Jamaica....called "Goldeneye" which I now think is up for holiday rental to anyone who can afford it.......mostly celebs.
2006-11-30 16:46:28
·
answer #5
·
answered by nephtine 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
it is not a prequel as such and not a remake. the casino royale with david nivens and peter sellers was a spoof(comedy). casino royale is ian flemings first book where bond gets 007 status. from one point you could called it a prequel coz it shows you how bond becomes the way he is. you know ruthless and treating women like rubbish coz of what vesper did to him.
Look at it like this. They have hit the RESTART button, very much like batman begins to develop bond for a new generation where there is no cold war. mr white mentioned HIS ORGANISATION all the time. this will be a multinational set of nutters who back and finance terrorists and thats what bond will face in terms of the twenty first century.
2006-11-28 10:54:57
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Casino Royal was released as a spoof film years back, this is the first time its been released as a propepr bond film. I dont think its a prequel
2006-11-28 09:18:38
·
answer #7
·
answered by Scottish Girl 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
The first 'Bond' book by Ian Fleming was 'Casino Royale'
In that respect, you could consider this film a prequel.
Although the books can be read out of order, there is a small amount of continuity (Bond romances 'mob' boss's daughter in one book.....bond gets married, wife gets killed in next book)
so its hard to talk about sequels and prequels.
forget the crappy old film with David niven, the only thing that had in common with anything Fleming wrote was the use of the title and the name 'James Bond'
2006-11-28 09:29:04
·
answer #8
·
answered by SeabourneFerriesLtd 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
It's neither a sequel nor a prequel, it's a remake of what was considered to be a spoof Bond movie, with David Niven playing the lead
2006-11-28 09:19:57
·
answer #9
·
answered by merciasounds 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
James Bond 007 is a 'CODE NAME'
Do you honestly believe that a SPY would use his real (Birth) name!
'M' & 'Q' are 'CODE NAMES'
This why you can have the same 'M' & different BONDS
or the Same 'JAMES BOND' and DIfferent 'M's'
However the operative chosen to be JAMES BOND 007 would have to fit the profile i.e. he couldn't be Black, Chinese, Swedish, French, etc...
As such, this film is most likely a sequel - After all, the New Aston Martin DBS has only just come out!
2006-11-28 11:04:01
·
answer #10
·
answered by John Trent 5
·
0⤊
0⤋