Casino Royale the film vs the novel

JimmyBond0129

Which one is better the 2006 movie or the novel? I haven't finished reading the novel yet (I'm only a few chapters away from the ending) but from what I read I'd say the novel is better.

Mister White

They're both great.

But I will say this. To me the position of Vesper as someone from the treasury makes a lot more sense than that of an assistant hoisted upon Bond.

thesecretagent

I think they did a good job with the film, bearing in mind that many films made from novels differ greatly - there is always an element of the reader's visualisation, and the director's, writers', actors' and art-director's portrail of a filming project. Not to mention Casino Royale is fifty-odd years old and if it were filmed exactly as it reads, Bond would be set in a time somewhat like Agatha Christie's Poirot is set in the 30's - filmed as a period piece.
The film may differ greatly in places, but these are merely efforts to bring it up to date - the thread of the novel runs very well throughout.

I think I personally prefer all the Bond books to the films. They are a three course meal to a bag of sweets. Both are nice, but give you something very different, depending on what suits your mood.

To my mind, I enjoy elements of all Roger Moore's films, but find his films in particular differ the most from the novels. Maybe they were of the time, with the humour, sex and effects, but many to me are in title only. I struggle to find a semblence of the books in many of his films.

(As a film and book buff - un-Bond related I know, but the closest book/film I've read/seen is Where Eagles Dare - the director must have had the novel in one hand all the way through.)

thesecretagent

Mister White wrote:

They're both great.

But I will say this. To me the position of Vesper as someone from the treasury makes a lot more sense than that of an assistant hoisted upon Bond.

I agree. She was fairly weak in terms of working with Bond in the book. And he was dominant to her in terms of position. In the film she has an element of control, being the money and all.

JimmyBond0129

You know the only thing I don't like about the Casino Royale novel is the lack of action the 2006 film was much more action packed than the book.

Barbel

thesecretagent wrote:

(As a film and book buff - un-Bond related I know, but the closest book/film I've read/seen is Where Eagles Dare - the director must have had the novel in one hand all the way through.)

Not exactly- Alistair MacLean wrote both the screenplay and novel, and kept both very close. For a really, really close book/film adaptation try Rosemary's Baby, where Roman Polanski slavishly follows Ira Levin's novel.

Napoleon Plural

The book is quite world weary and noirish in tone, whereas the film feels younger and more sprightly.

I feel they sort of shoehorned the action sequences into the movie, making it far longer than need be, and Vesper should have been introduced earlier, if only fleetingly, to give her more time to make an impression. Say, if she'd been present at the first M confrontation in her apartment or something... rejig that a bit.

I do wish they'd included Bond's speech to Mathis about good and evil, highly relevant I'd say.

JimmyBond0129

Napoleon Plural wrote:

I do wish they'd included Bond's speech to Mathis about good and evil, highly relevant I'd say.

I was listening to the audio of a scene from Quantum of Solace on XM's Cineamagic and they kind of incorporated the good and evil speech, from the Casino Royale novel but Mathis said that speech to Bond instead of the other way around.