Casino Royale (1962)

There are scenarios fans always speculate on how things might have turned out if different decisions were made. Questions like "how would ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE would have been with a more engaged Connery?". One that I really think is interesting to discuss is if EON had had the rights to Fleming's first novel. DR. NO is said to have been picked because it was the most budget friendly of novels, giant squid aside. Given how low key CASINO ROYALE is on the page, I think it's reasonable to assume that would have been picked. It's a natural way to go, as it's the novel that established Fleming's character and the world he inhabits. But how would that have shaped the Bond films?

To this day, the series still owes so much to DN. Not just the film, but the novel as well. It really laid the template on what would become known as the Bond formula, with GF taking that further. You replace that with an adaptation of CR in 1962, how would they have adapted the novel and what would be the repercussions for the series?

Let's just take the introduction of the Bond character. In the film DN, a whole scene was made up for the film introducing him playing baccarat. None of this was in the novel, but it was needed for the film to strike an impression about the Bond character. It was also the film's way of paying tribute to the novel EON didn't own, so it was a more than perfect way to introduce him to audiences. That said, how would an adaptation of CR have handled the introduction of Bond? The way Bond is introduced in the CR novel is a flashforward and a perfect way to dive into his world. Would that have worked on film? We wouldn't get the famous line "Bond, James Bond" until later in the story as that was first delivered in a moment where Bond met Leiter for the first time at the roulette table. I still think the scene with Trench would have worked well for a CR adaptation, as it could have been not only used to set up Bond's character but how good he is at the game and why M would select him as the man for the casino job.

Another big thing is the Boothroyd scene. Like the book, the film introduces this character to give Bond his new weapon and they would repeat this idea for FRWL, which would evolve into the famous Q scenes. CR does not have anything like that, so there never would have been a Boothroyd, thus no Q. Had CR been the first film, there might have never been a strong emphasis on gadgets, radically taking a big part of what has made Bond appealing.

Putting the torture scene in a film in 1962 would've taken a lot of balls.

Hairier as well.

Interesting topic. While CR probably would have been much closer to the novel had it been the first Bond film, I'm thinking it would have evolved similarly anyway. Lots of the things created specifically for the film version of DN were added to spice up the film cinematically - even the Moneypenny/Bond dynamic - so these things probably would have been added to the 1962 CR.

FieldsMan wrote:

Interesting topic. While CR probably would have been much closer to the novel had it been the first Bond film, I'm thinking it would have evolved similarly anyway. Lots of the things created specifically for the film version of DN were added to spice up the film cinematically - even the Moneypenny/Bond dynamic - so these things probably would have been added to the 1962 CR.

Certainly. Moneypenny in the film was really a melding of her novel counterpart and Loelia Ponsonby, so that was inevitable.

As for the evolution of the series, you'd have to consider what major differences there would have been going this route. It's one thing to have CR be the start of the series, but if they were to film these in book order, that would mean Connery would never have GOLDFINGER in 1964, it would instead be MOONRAKER, and that adaptation would have taken further whatever CASINO ROYALE and LIVE AND LET DIE would have established rather than what DR. NO and FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE uniquely established in the formula.

But would LALD still be the second Bond film? The only reason why they picked FRWL is because John F. Kennedy said FRWL was one of his favourite novels and Eon wanted to capitalise on that.

They could, if they thought breaking away from the book order after CR was necessary. FRWL would probably have turned out the same with a few changes (no Desmond Llewllyn for example). But think of how LALD being in place of FRWL would change things. First we'd have to step back to CR...

EON has taken an apolitical approach to their films, which resulted in altering villains' associations with real life powers into SPECTRE. Le Chiffre would have likely been made an agent of that organization, therefore in LALD Mr. Big would be the next SPECTRE agent for Bond to take on. That would mean Blofeld would never appear in any capacity in LALD, probably not until the fifth film FRWL. The reason Blofeld did appear in the film adaptation of FRWL was because he served as a replacement for the original boss of Klebb and Kronsteen: General Grubozaboyschikov (General G). We never had to have Dr. No answering to Blofeld, therefore we probably would have never seen either Le Chiffre or Mr. Big do that.

Makeshift Python wrote:

DR. NO is said to have been picked because it was the most budget friendly of novels

I thought Dr No was chosen because Thunderball was tied-up in the High Court?

For bringing Bond onto the big screen, you're right that Thunderball would be the first choice as it was what Fleming intended to be as the first cinematic Bond story. Because of the legal issues, EON would have to pick another title and Dr. No was chosen partly because it was budget friendly. Had Casino Royale been an available title, I believe it would have been selected instead.

I am curious how they would have pulled off Thunderball if there were no legal troubles. No way it would have turned out the way the actual film did as that had nine times the budget that Dr. No had. Would have been a much more low key Thunderball.

Wonder what LALD would've been like in 1963 as opposed to 1973. I'm guessing crude stereotypes but without the whimsical charm of 70's Blaxploitation.

That's another line of interesting speculation - how the films might have turned out with smaller/bigger budgets or made in different times. I think Spectre would be immeasurably improved by less set-pieces and more plot.

BTW, has anyone found the script to Rank's never-made 1950s adaptation of Moonraker yet? There was a fine spoof on the internet a few years ago that dragged in Orson Welles.

CJB wrote:

Wonder what LALD would've been like in 1963 as opposed to 1973. I'm guessing crude stereotypes but without the whimsical charm of 70's Blaxploitation.

Mankiewicz spoke of how there was an effort to do away with the racial politics of the novel, as always make the Bond films appeal as much as possible to all audiences. I imagine they would have tried the same in '63, but without Mankiewicz's sensibilities it would have been different. Maibaum and Harwood certainly wouldn't have come up with Sheriff Pepper.

Makeshift Python wrote:

Maibaum and Harwood certainly wouldn't have come up with Sheriff Pepper.

It's unclear to me what Johanna Harwood's contribution was to any of the Bond films.

Erica Ambler wrote:

Makeshift Python wrote:

Maibaum and Harwood certainly wouldn't have come up with Sheriff Pepper.

It's unclear to me what Johanna Harwood's contribution was to any of the Bond films.

Cubby's fluffer.

Careful, Vesper. As a law student (?), you should know Ms. Harwood's still alive.

I find these counterfactuals pretty futile, but I doubt Casino Royale would've been picked even were it available. Dr No likely was picked as much because it resembled Thunderball than because it was budget friendly.

As to how it would've impacted the film series, who's to say it even would have been a success? A low-key film with one action scene that ends on a suicide wouldn't have set the world on fire the way an exotic adventure film with a sardonic and decidedly adult sense of humour would have.

And the 'formula' inadvertently owes a lot to the structure of Dr No the novel, which the film follows pretty closely if I recall correctly.

But odds are it would've been very different and less successful. When you look at the formula for success in the entertainment industry, which is very much 'throw stuff at a wall and see what sticks', it's difficult to imagine anything but the unique combination of script, text, timing and tone working.

Erica Ambler wrote:

Careful, Vesper. As a law student (?), you should know Ms. Harwood's still alive.

When anything on this forum reaches a wide enough audience to be actionable I'll be worried.

Vesper wrote:

As to how it would've impacted the film series, who's to say it even would have been a success? A low-key film with one action scene that ends on a suicide wouldn't have set the world on fire the way an exotic adventure film with a sardonic and decidedly adult sense of humour would have.

Which makes it fun to speculate on how they would have adapted it for 1962 in the same manner as they did with Dr. No. I can see the sequences that Fleming had that would work and be expanded on. I do feel the ending would have been altered into something more upbeat, and Vesper would just be another ass slapping for Bond.

Quote :

And the 'formula' inadvertently owes a lot to the structure of Dr No the novel, which the film follows pretty closely if I recall correctly.

But odds are it would've been very different and less successful. When you look at the formula for success in the entertainment industry, which is very much 'throw stuff at a wall and see what sticks', it's difficult to imagine anything but the unique combination of script, text, timing and tone working.

The books were very popular at the time, so I don't doubt it would have attracted many to theaters. It's also how the series would have grown having this adaptation be the starter.