# Please explain the plot of Casino Royal and Quantum of Solace **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [January 10, 2011, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-plot-of-casino-royal-and-quantum-of-solace/567140 "2011-01-10T21:20:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-plot-of-casino-royal-and-quantum-of-solace/567140/61 "2011-01-11T18:44:10Z")
> [@Gordon\_Urquhart](#): > > It’s not just me: _Casino Royale_ has a Rotten Tomatoes critics’ rating of 94%; _GoldenEye_ has an 80% rating (and the abominable _Die Another Day_ clocks in at 59%). I think the critics are being amazingly kind to GoldenEye and Die Another Day, both of which I thought were atrocious movies. All of this is IMHO: Until Casino Royale, all James Bond movies - all of them - were absolute shit. Every single one. The only one I have even the slightest admiration for would be Goldfinger. I might be being a tiny bit unfair to the early Connery films in terms of my assessment of their production values, but every Bond film was formulaic, stupid, predictable, and time after time seemed shockingly cheap. The direction was amateurish, the acting shit, the editing half-assed, and the production values varied wildly from pretty good to sub-professional levels (up until the Dalton/Brosnan films, which had high production values but were just idiotic.) Of course, this is a pretty big thing for me to say, even IMHO, when it comes to a series of two dozen films long beloved by so many fans, so I feel obliged to try to explain why I’m saying a series of unbelievably awful movies keep making money, and thankfully, a Mormon half-wit with a love of vampires has given me the perfect analogy: **James Bond is the man’s answer to “Twilight.”** James Bond movies are just Twilight for men. If you want a different analogy, James Bond is the cinematic equivalent of Playboy magazine; it’s stupid and appeals to men’s most base interests, but it does it well. James Bond is the superstud of all time. He goes around the world gambling at casinos, humping beautiful women, and killing people. He has an unlimited supply of money, chicks, and gadgets. He’s everything a man wants to be. When people, usually guys, pay to see a James Bond film, they know they’re going to get that. If you culd take a time machine and go back and reshoot any James Bond movie - Diamonds Are Forever, The Spy Who Loved Me, it doesn’t matter - and did it exactly the same except you cast a different but equally talented actor in the lead role and branded it as a generic spy thriller instead of James Bond, so people just thought it was some new action movie and not attached to the Bond franchise in any way, it would have been booed off the screen. “Thunderball” was on the other night and I was just flabbergasted at how bad a movie it was. Even by the standards of its time, it was just excruciating. Even “GoldenEye,” were it not a James Bond film, would have been regarded as an absolute shitpile - not as bad as a real turkey like Ecks vs. Sever, but no way it would have gotten 80% on the Tomatometer. Critics would have said “Meh, its got some action, but it’s pretty bad all in all.” (Again, I make an exception for Goldfinger, which has many of the weaknesses of other Bond films but is generally better acted and seems more clever and original in some ways.) Okay, so now along comes Casino Royale. Here’s why I like it; again, totally IMHO, Casino Royale is the first-ever attempt to make a James Bond movie that is actually a well-written spy thriller irrespective of the fact that it’s a James Bond movie. It’s got its up and downs, but it’s not stupid like the previous ones. That, in part, is why Daniel Craig’s Bond is so different; he has to be. Previous Bonds were just cartoon characters (conceding that occasionally they showed some humanity, especially Brosnan’s Bond. But not often.) Daniel Craig/Bond actually looks, sounds and acts like a hired killer. They worked in the Bond basics - M, his skill with the chicks, and even gambling, but still, Craig/Bond is not a silly playboy. He’s an assassin in the employ of a regional superpower that does not fuck around when it comes to killing people that need killing. The movie flows logically from that starting point - and for all its weaknesses, that’s what makes it interesting and, in total, a much better movie than its predecessors. ---
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-plot-of-casino-royal-and-quantum-of-solace/567140/62 "2011-01-11T18:44:19Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > And note that everyone had a ridiculously good hand - IIRC a full house was one of the worst hands held. Most amazing round of poker ever. You apparently never saw Maverick (Mel Gibson). He winds the climactic poker game because he draws the ace of spades, completing his royal flush. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-plot-of-casino-royal-and-quantum-of-solace/567140/63 "2011-01-11T18:58:45Z")
I don’t understand why folks care about baccarat versus poker. The choice of game does nothing to advance the plot, and while agree that the poker hands that were played was ridiculous, changing the game would have added nothing but probably confusion for the viewer. ---
**Author:** ![KneadToKnow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kneadtoknow/32/3999_2.png) [@KneadToKnow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KneadToKnow)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-plot-of-casino-royal-and-quantum-of-solace/567140/64 "2011-01-11T19:31:24Z")
> [@si\_blakely](#): > > Bond and Vespa are allowed to survive because they each hold part of the code to release the money. Nitpick: _Vesper_. I wouldn’t point it out, but he spells her name out at one point in _Casino_. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-plot-of-casino-royal-and-quantum-of-solace/567140/65 "2011-01-11T19:34:39Z")
> [@si\_blakely](#): > > Bond and Vespa are allowed to survive because they each hold part of the code to release the money. > [@KneadToKnow](#): > > Nitpick: _Vesper_. I wouldn’t point it out, but he spells her name out at one point in _Casino_. I think we can safely assume either way that she hums while he rides her. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-plot-of-casino-royal-and-quantum-of-solace/567140/66 "2011-01-11T19:49:22Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > **James Bond is the man’s answer to “Twilight.”** You, sir, are a genius. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-plot-of-casino-royal-and-quantum-of-solace/567140/67 "2011-01-11T19:53:42Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > You, sir, are a genius. Meh. I am not desirous of killing folks. But jet-setting about the world with an unlimited bank account and having top quality models sit on my knee sounds kinda fun… ---
**Author:** ![Anaamika](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Anaamika](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anaamika)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-plot-of-casino-royal-and-quantum-of-solace/567140/68 "2011-01-11T21:35:50Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > How in the world could you dumb down baccarat? You choose player or bank and then cards are dealt. There are no strategy decisions, it’s not any more involved or comple than pushing the go button on a slot machine. > > Poker, on the other hand, is an incredibly complex game with dozens of decision options in every hand. Now - that doesn’t mean they portrayed it well - it was downright comical and retarded. TV and movies always do a bad job of displaying poker - they imply that the skill in poker is somehow ending up with a royal flush when your opponent has quads - and the scene in Casino Royale is one of the worst I’ve ever seen. But by no means is going from Bacarrat to poker “dumbing it down” - the very idea is absurd. It’s like saying that going from, uh… I can’t even come up with an analogy because bacarrat literally features no meaningful decisions. You can’t be good at it, because there’s no way for skill to work. So it’s like going from playing instant lotto scratchoff tickets to chess and complaining how they dumbed it down. They “dumbed it down” by choosing _poker_, which is widely known, over _baccarat_, which is not known. And Bond should/would play Baccarat. As for the rest, I happen to disagree with your opinion. That doesn’t make the idea absurd. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-plot-of-casino-royal-and-quantum-of-solace/567140/69 "2011-01-11T21:58:49Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > Le Chiffre: “You sank my battleship!” “You expect me to King you?” “No, Mister Bond, I expect you to DIE!” ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-plot-of-casino-royal-and-quantum-of-solace/567140/70 "2011-01-11T22:12:16Z")
> [@Anaamika](#): > > They “dumbed it down” by choosing _poker_, which is widely known, over _baccarat_, which is not known. And Bond should/would play Baccarat. > > As for the rest, I happen to disagree with your opinion. That doesn’t make the idea absurd. This is a strange definition of “dumbing down”, and why would/should James Bond be playing Bacarrat, in the movie he didn’t have a choice of game like he would in a casino. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-plot-of-casino-royal-and-quantum-of-solace/567140/71 "2011-01-11T22:24:32Z")
> [@Gangster\_Octopus](#): > > This is a strange definition of “dumbing down”, and why would/should James Bond be playing Bacarrat, in the movie he didn’t have a choice of game like he would in a casino. Because that’s the wealthy play at Casino Royale according to the novel. In the 1950’s, anyway. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-plot-of-casino-royal-and-quantum-of-solace/567140/72 "2011-01-11T22:55:15Z")
> [@Anaamika](#): > > They “dumbed it down” by choosing _poker_, which is widely known, over _baccarat_, which is not known. And Bond should/would play Baccarat. But poker makes far more sense. It is, in fact, a logical change, given the plot. Baccarat is a game of luck, more or less. There’s an ideal strategy, but like blackjack (or, for that matter, tic-tac-toe) but it doesn’t makes sense as a game testing people’s skill against each other over a prolonged period of time. Poker does make sense. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-plot-of-casino-royal-and-quantum-of-solace/567140/73 "2011-01-11T23:02:48Z")
Iam Fleming seems to have thought Bacarrat made sense. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Unintentionally\_Blank](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/unintentionally_blank/32/5418_2.png) [@Unintentionally\_Blank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Unintentionally_Blank)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-plot-of-casino-royal-and-quantum-of-solace/567140/74 "2011-01-11T23:15:39Z")
You guys are WAAAAAAY over analyzing this. How many people in Amurica can spell BACKARAH? How many people in Amurica have played Penny Poker? The markedroids have spoken. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-plot-of-casino-royal-and-quantum-of-solace/567140/75 "2011-01-11T23:18:01Z")
> [@Unintentionally\_Blank](#): > > You guys are WAAAAAAY over analyzing this. > > How many people in Amurica can spell BACKARAH? > > How many people in Amurica have played Penny Poker? > > The markedroids have spoken. By that argument, Bond should be working for the CIA instead of MI6. ---
**Author:** ![Unintentionally\_Blank](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/unintentionally_blank/32/5418_2.png) [@Unintentionally\_Blank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Unintentionally_Blank)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-plot-of-casino-royal-and-quantum-of-solace/567140/76 "2011-01-11T23:21:03Z")
My argument does not have to have referential integrity, it merely has to describe the dumbing down of a single aspect of the movie. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-plot-of-casino-royal-and-quantum-of-solace/567140/77 "2011-01-11T23:26:49Z")
Unfortunately, you’ve failed to describe why poker is dumber than baccarat. You’ve described a potential motive for the change, and you’ve used comical misspellings to make the change appear dumb, but you haven’t described why the use of baccarat would have improved the scene in the movie. How would the movie be “smarter” for the inclusion of this particular card game? ---
**Author:** ![Unintentionally\_Blank](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/unintentionally_blank/32/5418_2.png) [@Unintentionally\_Blank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Unintentionally_Blank)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-plot-of-casino-royal-and-quantum-of-solace/567140/78 "2011-01-11T23:30:15Z")
It is not dumber, it is _more well known_. and has the phrase “the river” Which is ‘exciting’. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-plot-of-casino-royal-and-quantum-of-solace/567140/79 "2011-01-11T23:32:20Z")
> [@Unintentionally\_Blank](#): > > It is not dumber, it is _more well known_. Then how does changing it constitute “dumbing down” the movie? ---
**Author:** ![teela\_brown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/d9b06d/32.png) [@teela\_brown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/teela_brown)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-plot-of-casino-royal-and-quantum-of-solace/567140/80 "2011-01-11T23:48:34Z")
Another vote for Baccarat over poker. I’ve not seen _Quantum of Solace_, but I do know what _Casino Royale_ is all about: Daniel Craig in a speedo. Wet. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-plot-of-casino-royal-and-quantum-of-solace/567140.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-plot-of-casino-royal-and-quantum-of-solace/567140.md?page=5)