Because more of the masses will have a clue with what’s going on? If you have no idea how Baccarat’s played, you have no idea if what Bond is doing is badass or not.
If you just turned off PokerStars before going to the movies (IIRC, High Stakes Poker was rather popular when Casino Royale hit the theatres) you might have a clue how deep in it Bond is.
Well, in the original Casino Royale…
How is that “dumbing things down,” though? “Dumbing something down” is when you take something complex, and make it simpler under the assumption that your audience isn’t going to be smart enough to figure it out. Swapping out an esoteric card game for something more well known doesn’t strike me as “dumbing things down,” unless you’re starting from the assumption that not knowing how to play baccarat makes you stupid.
yeah, but…
they could have had one of those exchanges where say Vesper and Bond are in bed together and…
Vesper: Oh James, I am worried about tomorrow…
Bond: No need to worry Vesper, I will certainly get a string of 5-4s.
Vesper: But wouldn’t kings be better.
Bond: Oh no face cards are worth zero.
Vesper: Oh, I see. well what about two nines that surely is worth more…18.
Bond: Well two nines is very good, but it is not as good as 5-4, because you see the cards are only worth whatever the last number is, so two nines are worth 8.
Vesper: Oh James, you are so smart! Now I will totally be able to follow whats going on tomorrow. And this conversation was not at all contrived and expositional.
I don’t have a clue how to play Texas Hold Them, but I have a vague idea of baccarat from reading Casino Royale. 
Oh Dear Lord. Fine. Dumbing down = making a decision that is more likely more people will understand. M’kay? They may be friggin idiot Savants, They may be Kardashians…but if they know poker and don’t know Baccarat, it’s concievable that the powers that be might have considered changing the game to one the audience might have had a higher chance of knowing.
Sufficiently legal for ya?
But you’re on the Straight Dope…that automatically gives you an evolutionary leg up.
Ah.
Yes, well, I suppose one must allow them to cater to the Huddled Masses a bit, after all.
Sniff.
Sure. So, my next question is: why is this a bad thing?
As others have said, appealing to the popular is something different from dumbing down, which IMO necesarily goes from something complex/difficult to less complex/difficult.
You disagree with the notion that poker is more complex than Baccarat?
The “punto banco” variety - that which is played in every casino - requires only one decision. Ideal strategy is simply to bet the bank each time, you’ll lose the least. There is no complexity whatsoever.
The Chermin de Fer variety does involve a player decision as to whether or not to draw, and that’s what was featured in the novel, but even so, it’s not a very complex decision, and I’m guessing you could learn the game theory optimal decision tree in about the span of two sentences, if that much.
In comparison, I’ve played and studied poker for about 8 years, and I’m not even an expert despite being probably within the top 3 percentile or so of lifetime winning players. There’s still a whole lot I could learn.
There’s just no reasonable case that can be made for Bacarrat being more complex, it’s a silly notion.
Edit: But of course the way TV portrays poker makes it seem pretty dumb, even most actual TV poker shows. So I can understand a layman not understanding the nuance there. Certainly the scene in Casino Royale was stupid and didn’t even show Bond to be any good at poker.
Fuel Truck Fu! Easily the most intense bit of action I’ve seen in a long time, and a heckuva finish.
I really love the last two Bond movies, and while I have nothing against the best of the previous incarnations and probably could name at least six I like a lot, Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace sit very nicely on my shelf next to the Bourne movies and Ronin.
I read that they had planned to use Rock-paper-scissors if all else failed.
Saying that going from Baccarat to poker is “dumbing it down” is akin to saying that going from playing Snakes and Ladders to playing chess is “dumbing it down.”
Poker is the only game in a casino that requires a real degree of skill. Any other game can be learned to perfection in under an hour or else has no strategy at all. It took me all of thirty minutes to learn to play baccarat as well as it can possibly be played without cheating; after years of practice I still get my ass handed to me at a poker table worth more than a buck a bet.
If Bond defeats Greene in baccarat, it’s because he got lucky; it would be like beating him in a coin-flipping contest. Beating him in poker shows intelligence and savoir faire.
I recognize that Fleming had Bond playing baccarat, but it just doesn’t make as much sense as poker.
I’m thinking equal parts Austin Powers and we still may get another Bond Film…
<Connery>“Bescht Tew out of Three?”</Connery>
Well, potentially, but the film doesn’t do this. The poker shown is pretty damn lame, implying the better player is the one who flukes into the more monstery hand. Bond is so icy-cool all the time, there’s no chance we’ll get a scene of him folding if he senses Chiffre has a better hand (cowards and fags fold!) or bluffing when he holds a weak hand (cowards and fags bluff!) or pretending to “tell” a bluff when he has a strong hand (cowards and fags show fear!)
OK, it’s page 2 and no one has mentioned Maddox’s review, yet. It sums up Quantum of Solace in a very good way for me!
Bond 23 has finally got a green light. Here’s hoping it’s an improvement over QoS.
Title?
Impropriety of a Lady
There was that scene where Bond purposely lost a hand so he could find out if Le Chiffre was bluffing or not, in order to figure out if he had any tells.
But yeah, the rest of it was exaggerated. Like everything in an action movie, really. If this level of realism was translated into a car chase, nobody would care.