Latest / This Film is Lit / Prequel to Casino Royale - Perfect Blue Fan Reaction, Casino Royale Preview

Transcript

Prequel to Casino Royale - Perfect Blue Fan Reaction, Casino Royale Preview · This Film is Lit

• 0:10
  Speaker A: In this week's prequel episode, we follow up on our perfect blue listener polls and preview Casino Royale. Hello and welcome back to another prequel episode of this film is lit, the podcast where we talk about movies that are based on books. We do not have a learning things segment this week, but we got I have a I went too hard on the movie notes. We have so many movie notes. So we're gonna jump right in to our patron shoutouts.
• 0:42
  Speaker B: I put up with you because your father and mother were our finest patrons. That's why.
• 0:47
  Speaker A: One new patron this week returning joining us at the $5 Hugo award winning level, Lynn Flakasinski. Thank you, Lynn. Welcome back. Appreciate you continuing to support us. We appreciate it. Make sure you check out that bonus content. Go listen to that episode on the Hobbit, maybe. I assume that's why you jumped back in at the $5 level. But who knows? And we will have our bonus episode out on the last duel here before too long. Planning to watch that this week, so that will be coming before too long. And as always, we wanted to thank our Academy award winning patrons. And they are. Nicole Goebbel, Eric Harpo Rat, Nathan Vic, Apocalypse, Mathilde Steve from Arizona, Ent draft, Teresa Schwartz ian from wine Country, Winchester's forever, Kelly Napier Gratch. Just gratch. Shelby says if Batman and Catwoman can be endgame in the comics, so can spidey and Deadpool, you cowards. That darn Skag v. Frank and Alina Starkov, thank you all very much for your continued support. Really appreciated. Katie, it's time to see what the people had to say about perfect blue.
• 2:01
  Speaker B: Yeah, well, you know, that's just like, your opinion. Man on Patreon, we had three votes for the book, zero for the movie. This will not be a continuing trend.
• 2:16
  Speaker A: Yeah, that's an outlier.
• 2:18
  Speaker B: That was an outlier. We did have a couple comments. Kelly Napier said I agreed with a lot of the points Katie made about why she chose the movie to the book. But I ended up voting for the book over the movie because I preferred the ending sequence of the book to how the movie handled the climax. It was completely terrifying as he pursued them through the locker room. And I found myself truly fearing for both Mima and Rumi's lives since the sky was so unhinged you couldn't predict what he would do next.
• 2:48
  Speaker A: Fair enough. I didn't read it, so I can't comment on that ending.
• 2:52
  Speaker B: I mean, the locker room scene was pretty scary. I thought it did. Like it verged into, like a slasher movie. That's what you did kind of mention that. But like, at one point, like he's chasing them through this abandoned building and they go into like this locker room and they're like, oh, I know, we can hide in the lockers. And I was like, you fools.
• 3:13
  Speaker A: You fools. Have you never seen any horror film? Yeah.
• 3:19
  Speaker B: Our next comment was from Nathan who said, I liked both the film and book, but I would put disappointing ending that kind of spoils the rest of the narrative in the movie. Nailed it. Oh, the book just becomes Halloween. I will add some movie so that the slasher could. The slasher movie? Yeah, I believe. I don't think. I assume that's what meant the holiday. I'm pretty sure he meant the movie.
• 3:44
  Speaker A: And the thing specifically about the movie just being like a slasher film and not. Yeah.
• 3:50
  Speaker B: I will add some points back for the meta decision to have the killer be aware that he is somehow invincible and comment on it. As far as the film, I have a theory about the end. Are we certain Rami is actually the final villain in this film? I don't. I mean, maybe certain?
• 4:09
  Speaker A: No, I'm not certain about anything in the film, but I'm pretty sure that. Yes, I think that's what the movie's doing. I think. But. But I guess, I mean, it's. It's a movie where lots of interpretations and lots of interpretations I think are know, probably valid in certain ways.
• 4:27
  Speaker B: Nathan went on to say to my eye, she didn't actually kill anyone. I think Mamania killed the writer, photographer and Mima's agent. The authorship of the website is an open enough question that I don't think this has to involve Rumi at all. Then Mima killed Mimania when she hit him with the hammer. That's certainly what I thought when it happened. I don't think we can trust the final roomie reveal any more than the other surreal parts told from Mima's perspective. Outside of that, Rumi is right in her behavior and attempts to protect Mima. The acting gig leads to the rape scene and the photoshoot exploits her, both of which Rumi strongly opposed. So I posit that Rumi finds Mima in the same area as the bodies of Mimania and Mima's agent, and panics. She sloppily tries to clean up the scene, which leaves the bodies sitting around in her apartment because she can't have them be around and doesn't know what else to do with them.
• 5:24
  Speaker A: Do they end up in her apartment?
• 5:27
  Speaker B: I don't remember that happening.
• 5:29
  Speaker A: Not that that matters, necessarily for this hypothesis. I don't think they do.
• 5:35
  Speaker B: The bloody clothes covered in Mamania's blood are quickly stashed to be dealt with later. Unfortunately, Mima finds the clothes and snaps into another of her dissociative states.
• 5:46
  Speaker A: This is a question I had during the episode. I can't remember when she finds those clothes. If it's when she's at Mima's, like in her own apartment, or when she's in the fake room.
• 5:54
  Speaker B: I really think that was in her own apartment.
• 5:55
  Speaker A: I thought it was.
• 5:56
  Speaker B: I really think it was.
• 5:58
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 5:59
  Speaker B: I would have to go back and watch it again to be sure. But I really think it was in her apartment.
• 6:04
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 6:04
  Speaker B: Because I think that was before the final, whole climax with Mamania.
• 6:10
  Speaker A: Although I think in order for this to work, you would have to assume that in order for this hypothesis or this reading of it to work, you would have to assume that the room she's in at the end is her room, actually. But that she just thinks it's not. Because otherwise it doesn't make any sense. Because if so, under the hypothesis that Rumi is just, like, trying to help her is her friend isn't. And that all of this other stuff was other people killing people. When Mima ends up in the room at the end and realizes it's not her room, but a replica of her room.
• 6:47
  Speaker B: Right.
• 6:48
  Speaker A: You would have to assume in order. Obviously, Rumi, in this instance, in order.
• 6:55
  Speaker B: For roomie to just be like, a normal person who happened to be pulled into this. It wouldn't make any sense for her to have a copy of Mima's room.
• 7:05
  Speaker A: It would have to be Mima's room.
• 7:06
  Speaker B: It would have to be Mima's room.
• 7:07
  Speaker A: But she thinks it's wrong or off or something. And thinks it's not her room, which is not impossible. But that's. I think you're doing a lot of kind of like. I don't know if guessing is the right word, but, like.
• 7:22
  Speaker B: Yeah, you have to make a lot.
• 7:23
  Speaker A: Of leaps in kind of like the.
• 7:25
  Speaker B: Yeah, to me, that's. And I'm, you know, not like, dogging on.
• 7:30
  Speaker A: No, no. I think it's totally fun to.
• 7:32
  Speaker B: It's very interesting.
• 7:33
  Speaker A: Yeah, it's interesting. And it's fun to do stuff like this. So I'm not dogging on it, but I'm just trying to, like, think about it.
• 7:38
  Speaker B: For me, like, personally, I would consider that, like, a layer of meta. That there's not really textual evidence.
• 7:45
  Speaker A: I think that's where I get to is when you get to that point. I'm like, I'm not sure that the film supports that necessarily. But I would. To be fair, I would really have to rewatch it with that in mind to see if it works. Yeah, so anyway. Sorry.
• 7:59
  Speaker B: Unfortunately, Mima finds the clothes and snaps into another of her dissociative states. She runs away towards the street and Rumi has to chase her to save her, leading to the struggle and roomie stumbling in front of the truck. I think the stage hallucination is actually in Mima's head. Like basically everything else in the film. And it causes her to remember her singing career when Rumi was always in her corner. She snaps back to reality. But unfortunately, the near accident causes lasting damage to Rumi's brain, which is why she's in the facility. And Mima, lacking any viable alternative solution to her fractured memories of what really happened, chooses to take the easy scapegoat. That's my theory. And as much as it probably doesn't hang together, at least it doesn't make a woman the villain the whole time.
• 8:46
  Speaker A: Well, it does. It just makes a different woman the villain. Well, no, I guess not a villain. Cause, yeah, Mima in this instance isn't the villain.
• 8:53
  Speaker B: Right?
• 8:53
  Speaker A: But she.
• 8:54
  Speaker B: Yeah, she is her own worst enemy. In a sense.
• 8:58
  Speaker A: Yeah, in a sense. And that's fair. But I do. I agree with you as much as it probably doesn't hang together. Cause. Yeah, I don't think. I guess the other option would be that Mima is at Roomie's apartment, but that she just hallucinates it looking like her room would be another version of that. That maybe would. I don't know. Again, all of that to me feels a little and like the. I think another big kind of leap there is the which again, you acknowledge here, but is the like. And then Rumi gets a brain injury that during the thing with the truck that makes her. I don't know. I just think that takes a lot of finagling to kind of make it work. But it is interesting to think about. For sure. It's always fun to kind of view movies through that and be like. Especially a movie like this, which is very open to what is actually going on here.
• 9:48
  Speaker B: Yeah, I know. Absolutely. Nathan's final comment here was final thought. What does the title mean?
• 9:55
  Speaker A: That's a good question.
• 9:55
  Speaker B: That is a really good question. I meant to bring that up during the episode. And I completely forgot about it because there was so much other stuff to talk about. But I have no idea. And I'm wondering if maybe it's like a translation.
• 10:08
  Speaker A: Yeah, maybe thing that.
• 10:09
  Speaker B: Like some. It could be like an idiom, maybe in Japanese that doesn't make any. That got maybe translated literally. That doesn't make any sense to us. But I, like, I didn't see anything about. Oh, did you Google? I did not, actually. But, like, when I was trying to do research for the book, I didn't see anything about it.
• 10:28
  Speaker A: Like, it just didn't come up.
• 10:29
  Speaker B: Yeah. Like, here's what the title means or anything like that.
• 10:33
  Speaker A: So this is the. Take this with the giant grain of salt because it's the Google AI overview. The title perfect blue is multiple layers of significance, including the color blue and the fantasy and reality themes in the film. Color blue. The color blue. And these are, like, sub headings. The color blue. The color blue in the title can refer to Mima's psychological state or the japanese cultural meaning of purity and female energy. So that could be a cultural.
• 10:57
  Speaker B: Yeah, that could be.
• 10:58
  Speaker A: I don't really understand how that relates to the psychological state.
• 11:00
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 11:00
  Speaker A: Unless it means in relation to the female energy purity thing or something.
• 11:05
  Speaker B: Right. Yeah. Because blue is not a color that I would associate with that concept of, like, a mental state.
• 11:11
  Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah. Cause she's not depressed or, you know, she's like, manic and I don't know, Manic's probably not even the right term, but she's, like, dissociating and. Yeah. So second one, fantasy and reality. Perfect Lou is a fantasy about conflicting perceived realities where no reality seems quite right. The film explores the line between fantasy and reality and how collective obsession with a fantasy can disturb that line. That literally has nothing to do with the term. The words perfect blue.
• 11:37
  Speaker B: The other problem with that is that perfect blue is also the title of the book and the book, and that doesn't really do that.
• 11:45
  Speaker A: Yeah, well, and also that literally, this is the AI thing. Just spitting out nonsense.
• 11:50
  Speaker B: Yeah. Just scraping the Internet and coming up with a summary.
• 11:53
  Speaker A: Third category, color red. The color red is also important in the film and is used to denote danger and to measure Mima's declining mental health. What? I mean, maybe I would have to think about it, but how does that relate to perfect blue? Like, what? And then finally, color contrast. The film uses color contrast to differentiate between scenes with warm colors used in the concert scenes and cold colors used in personal life scenes.
• 12:16
  Speaker B: I don't know.
• 12:18
  Speaker A: So the number one result, that isn't AI. That's like the Google's chosen thing that it pulled from says, this is from the Universidad de Mercia. So like a Spanish. It's like an article on a spanish college website or something. The use of color in perfect blue in the title of the movie, blue can refer either to the psychological state Mima falls into or to the meaning that the color has in japanese culture, which stands for purity and the female energy that any japanese idol tries to achieve that makes the most sense. Like, perfect blue being, like, the perfect, like, perfect woman or something. Like, would be the, like, equivalent or whatever. I. Which. That totally would make sense.
• 12:56
  Speaker B: Yeah, I think that tracks. And our last comment on Patreon was from Harpo Rat, who said, thanks for doing my suggestion.
• 13:05
  Speaker A: You're welcome. Thanks for suggesting it.
• 13:07
  Speaker B: I chose the book over the movie, although I enjoy both. I mostly picked the book because of Rumi and Mima's friendship and how terrifying the stalker is.
• 13:15
  Speaker A: Mm hmm. So kind of similar to Kelly's? A little bit, yeah. Cool. All right.
• 13:23
  Speaker B: Over on Facebook, we had zero votes for the book and one for the movie. We have one very long comment on Facebook.
• 13:34
  Speaker A: Very good. Let's go.
• 13:36
  Speaker B: And it's from Jenna, who is my sister. Full disclosure.
• 13:39
  Speaker A: Yes.
• 13:41
  Speaker B: Although I think she might be taking us to task on some things. All right. And Jenna said, I think she disagreed with those lots of stuff. So Jenna said, okay, now it is my turn to be obnoxious and parasocial. Just to kick it off, I don't think you guys mentioned the full book title in the episode, which is perfect blue. Kansan Hentai.
• 14:07
  Speaker A: I assume that means complete metamorphosis.
• 14:09
  Speaker B: The subtitle can translate to either complete metamorphosis, which is what you'll typically see in the english versions, but it can also translate to total pervert.
• 14:19
  Speaker A: Mmm. Yeah, those are very different.
• 14:21
  Speaker B: Yes. With the book, this can reflect both the role of Mima and the role of the stalker. But across both, and especially in the movie, this just continues to play into the themes of perception and identity. Depending on your perception of the translation, you can see two very different messages from the same phrase. Mima saw her change from idol to actress as a metamorphosis, while Rumi in the movie perceived it as a complete perversion of the idol. Mima, on the topic of idols, you sort of touched on the differences between eastern and western idols or stars. But it might make some things more clear if you realize that J pop idols are not necessarily equivalent to western pop stars. There are over 10,000 young girls currently working as idols in Japan and over 3000 idol groups. And here she cited her sources from the japanese idol Wikipedia. So with that context, being an idol is more an average job than how we might perceive it as Americans. What really separates people who are working as idols from your average worker is the restrictions placed on them. And in particular the female idols, which you guys talked about a bit at the end.
• 15:33
  Speaker A: Yeah, I touched on this, but I didn't want to go into it because I wasn't.
• 15:36
  Speaker B: We were both kind of talking out of our butts.
• 15:38
  Speaker A: Yeah, we were talking out of our butts in a way that I was like, uncomfortable with. So I was like, I, you know, I like. I think there's some added layers of weirdness with all this, but I don't know enough to really go into it.
• 15:50
  Speaker B: I've been trying to figure out how to word my thoughts on Rumi and your guys take on the character because I never interpreted the depiction of her at the end as, haha, crazy fat lady can't fit in suit. But I saw it as a visual way to show that Rumi is not who she thinks she is. She is a real person trying to fit herself into a perfect avatar. That's interesting.
• 16:11
  Speaker A: I mean, I agree with that, but I. Yeah, no, I agree.
• 16:15
  Speaker B: I can agree with that. Like, I like that symbolism and I could get on board with that. But I also will kind of still stick to my original assessment that I don't think that's what most people are gonna get from that.
• 16:29
  Speaker A: Yeah, and I think that can be true. But also that it's maybe not. The depiction of it still comes across as like, mean spirited. Mean spirited. A little bit. A little bit at least.
• 16:43
  Speaker B: I think it's the same thing as during the chase, how we cut between the perfect graceful floating of idle mima to roomie panting and gagging and sweating while running. I always interpreted that as something of an the ideal versus the reality. And further driving home how idol Mima and how Rumi views idols in general is not real. This, in my mind, ties in so well with the whole thing about skinning and wearing someone's skin that we see more in the book. I'll be honest, I was also a little confused when you talked about the movie having a jealous woman who hates the young hot girl for no reason, when that's also in the book with the other idol who tries digging up old shit on Mima. Old shit to make Mima look bad. Yeah, that's fair. It comes across a little differently to me in the book. I think also because there's not as much. There is like a little bit of an age thing in the book. But Mima is arguably the one who's older. Maybe the other woman is at least saying that she's younger than Mima in the book.
• 17:50
  Speaker A: I also want to say, I don't think I could be wrong, but maybe we came across this way. But I don't think we were trying to express that. The movie has a quote, jealous woman hates the young hot girl for no reason. It's more so jealous woman, corrupted by society, hates, is jealous of the youth and beauty and popularity of the young pop star. But also that she is jealous that. Or not jealous, but that she's angry that she's not making the decisions she thinks she should be making and is, like, basically giving up her idol stardom, a thing that Rumi craved desperately and wishes she still had. Mima just gave that up to go pursue acting. And Rumi is like, how? Why would you do that? That's a thing I so desperately wish I could be. And you, like, kind of feels like. Anyway, I don't know. I don't think it's for no reason, I guess is what I would say. I don't think I would describe for no reason either her jealousy or her anger at Mima. I don't think it's for no reason.
• 18:56
  Speaker B: Yeah. No, in the movie, definitely not. And maybe this didn't come across or maybe you got a little confused, Jenna. Cause I think I did say that in the book, it felt like the other pop star, Irie, just decided. Yeah, you said for, like, reasons unknown that Mima was. That she hated Mima and that Mima was her rival. Like, to me, reading the book, it felt like very much like, okay, but what is the reason that you feel this way was not coming across? I did not feel that way.
• 19:30
  Speaker A: I thought Rumi has tons of very layered and interesting motivations for why she becomes the villain at the end. I would not describe it as for no reason at all.
• 19:40
  Speaker B: So Jenna went on to say, I think it's two sides of the same coin. Women who suffer from purity culture can also be the ones to perpetuate it. And I think women perpetuating it or feeling the need to is a symptom of it in itself. I hope that makes sense.
• 19:54
  Speaker A: No, I agree entirely. And I thought we expressed that a little bit in the like, we kind of bounced back and forth during that whole discussion about Rumi at the end and everything. But that was like, something I tried to make very clear is that she has become the villain because of the purity culture, because of society. It has turned her into the villain. But that our criticism was that the movie still feels a little overly judgmental of her. And not just of the system, I guess, is kind of where we landed. But I absolutely agree with that rating that it is. Yeah. That women who suffer from that culture become the ones who perpetuate. It can become the ones perpetuating. I think that's a very powerful message. And.
• 20:36
  Speaker B: And a very true message.
• 20:38
  Speaker A: And a very true message. Absolutely.
• 20:39
  Speaker B: As we sit here in Missouri.
• 20:42
  Speaker A: Yes.
• 20:45
  Speaker B: I have to talk about maybe my favorite scene from the movie, which is the photographer's murder.
• 20:50
  Speaker A: It's also my favorite scene.
• 20:51
  Speaker B: There's a lot to unpack, so I will try to keep it brief. Question mark. But the main points are the photographer who has a career that is perception. And viewing people through a lens. Has his eyes stabbed first. Which, side note, it is an ice pick. Which is actually one of the elements that makes this movie a.
• 21:10
  Speaker A: It is a giallo.
• 21:11
  Speaker B: So Giallo film, which is so fun.
• 21:13
  Speaker A: I didn't think about that. But yeah.
• 21:15
  Speaker B: Branching off that he and the writer of the rape scene weren't just murdered, but had some sort of eye trauma.
• 21:21
  Speaker A: Yes.
• 21:21
  Speaker B: The writer is found in the elevator with his eyes gouged out. So there's something to be said about the male gaze here, for sure.
• 21:27
  Speaker A: That's a good point. That is totally obvious. And upon saying that, I just. Yeah, we didn't even think to mention it.
• 21:34
  Speaker B: And additionally, assuming Rumi killed them both. Which I think she did. And will elaborate on in the next chapter of this fucking comment. I am so sorry. Compounds on the idea of perception and the male gaze. Rumi blinded, murdered and mutilated the men that sexualized mima. Idol Mima. In what could be interpreted in an almost poetic way. They corrupted the perception of this innocent idol through lewd shoots and sexually violent scripts. Both mediums that rely on their visuals.
• 22:04
  Speaker A: Absolutely.
• 22:05
  Speaker B: All right. So like Brian said, the cinematography or framing visuals of the photographer's murderer are stunning. But there's also so much meaning here. While, quote unquote, mima is brutally stabbing him. They are in front of a projector that is casting a still close up shot of Mima. This is one of the reasons, in addition to the eye thing, why I think Rumi is the killer. If this is accurate, then Mima is literally being projected onto Rumi. Since this part is where people seem to get to really get confused on who killed him. Thinking the real Mima killed him because of her reaction in the next scene, I'll throw in my interpretation. The scene immediately after the murder is Mima waking up panicked and looking at her hands. So there's this assumption that either she did it or had a very vivid dream of killing him. And is not sure what's real. But she's looking at her hands here the same way she did when she crushed the teacup and hurt her hand earlier. So I think when she says, was that real? Did I really hurt my hands yesterday? She's referring to the teacup, not the murderous.
• 23:14
  Speaker A: Yeah. I think it's very likely that it was Rumi. And that would be my interpretation. I think it's interesting to think that it may have been Mima. I wasn't so much confused at like, was it or wasn't it? I think this one is one where it's fun to speculate that maybe it was Mima in a way where if everything else stays exactly the same about the movie and everything else about Rumi killed everybody else. Rumi is the one pretending to be her, writing Mima's room, doing all that stuff. But Mima is the one who killed the photographer. I think the story still works perfectly fine as is. But then adds this interesting wrinkle of justified female rage. And I don't know, I think there's this interesting kind of like having that one be a little more nebulous and unsure than the other ones works. Because it's the one where as an audience, we can go. Okay. You know what I mean?
• 24:19
  Speaker B: Yeah. Where we can go, like, good for her.
• 24:22
  Speaker A: Yeah, exactly. And I think that's what's really interesting about the ambiguity about that scene. But I agree that if I were like, if you were gonna. If I was on a quiz show and they're like, in the movie Perfect Blue, who murdered the photographer, I'd be like, it was roomy. Like, I would say it was roomy. But I just think it's. It's. I think it's the most fun interesting. Like, if you kind of think about, like, well, maybe it was Mimo.
• 24:45
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 24:45
  Speaker A: I think that one has an interesting thematic layer to it that, like, kind of doing it with some of the other ones.
• 24:51
  Speaker B: Maybe it's not as interesting with some of the other ones. I think.
• 24:55
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 24:56
  Speaker B: A few more things about the end. I agree with Brian on the photo shoot thing. And I was laughing at that whole bit because I also never second guessed that. I always thought it was played into the gross trope of young girl wants to be an actress and is coerced, taken advantage of because she's told this is normal and what she has to do. Maybe that's more of a Hollywood trope, but in my mind, I think of the photoshoot thing being equivalent to a casting couch situation. Yeah.
• 25:22
  Speaker A: Essentially the idea.
• 25:24
  Speaker B: He also nailed it with the lights and requiem for a dream. I know that's been discussed a ton, and I honestly don't know a ton about those parallels specifically. But the bright white lights is a motif throughout. Perfect blue and seems to be during either the performance scenes or when the character or the viewer is questioning what is real. Which you could say both of those are the same.
• 25:45
  Speaker A: Yeah, they are. I think that's accurate.
• 25:47
  Speaker B: Yeah. Also interesting how the movie intentionally is trying to trick the audience and make them question what is real. So we are, in a way, put in the same position as Mima.
• 25:57
  Speaker A: Yeah, I think we kind of talked about that a little bit. Yeah.
• 26:00
  Speaker B: Further goes into the ideas of projection and parasocialism. Is that a word? I might have just made a terrifying communist hybrid on accident. It's not your content. It's our content.
• 26:11
  Speaker A: Parasocialism is probably a word.
• 26:13
  Speaker B: It's coming up as a spelling error, but I think we're gonna. We're gonna call it a word. It should be a word.
• 26:19
  Speaker A: Parasocial relationships.
• 26:20
  Speaker B: Yeah, I think so.
• 26:22
  Speaker A: Parasocialism. There's probably a different word, right? Parasocial relationship. So what would. Hold on. No. Yeah. I can't think of another word that. Like a. Yeah, no, I think that works. If it's not a word, it should be.
• 26:36
  Speaker B: I really like, it's not your content, it's our content. And finally because there's layers to that. Yes, there is. And finally because, oh, my God, I'm not. Okay. There is a difference between the sub ending and the dubending. In the dub ending, the last line is, no, I'm the real thing. And feels kind of like a wink at the camera moment for the audience, in my opinion. But what's important is that it is spoken by Mima's voice actress in the original sub ending. The final line is, I'm the real one and is spoken by the voice actress for Roomie.
• 27:15
  Speaker A: Oh.
• 27:16
  Speaker B: So it feels even more open ended. Like, wait, what's real? Who is who?
• 27:20
  Speaker A: That's really interesting. That is kind of a big, like.
• 27:23
  Speaker B: Yeah, that is a big change.
• 27:25
  Speaker A: Yeah, that's really different. It's kind of like the kiki's delivery service where at the end of the original dubbed version, what's his name, Gigi, starts talking again, whereas in the later dubbed version, he doesn't.
• 27:39
  Speaker B: Yeah. And Jenna's last comment was, okay, I am logging out of Mima's room now.
• 27:44
  Speaker A: Fantastic. Thank you, Jenna. That was a lot of fun. Really appreciate you logging in to Mima's room to type up that screed. We always appreciate, always appreciate it. Fantastic.
• 27:57
  Speaker B: On Twitter, we also had zero votes for the book and one for the movie. On Instagram, we had zero votes for the book and four for the movie. Mladin Kulik said, my vote goes to the movie. I never read the book since it's not available in my corner of the world. But I did rewatch the movie for this episode. Definitely a much better experience watching it the second time.
• 28:23
  Speaker A: I can actually.
• 28:24
  Speaker B: I could see that.
• 28:25
  Speaker A: Yeah, it's actually funny because I thought I said something like, oh, this is one of those, sounds like one of those movies that you would never want to watch again. And I actually totally could see myself watching this again. Even though it's, like, disturbing and stuff, it's so interesting. And the layers and the way, and especially as an editor and somebody who works on stories and stuff, some of the scene transitions and the way they weave, like, the different, like, realities together is so fascinating that I could totally see. Watching this again. I actually stumbled upon a review from a YouTube reviewer named Chris Stuckman, who I generally like a lot of his reviews. I think he's a good. A fairly good reviewer. He can be somewhat controversial to some people, but mainly assholes don't like him. But because he dared to not criticize. It's a whole thing. It's a whole thing. When Madame Webb came out, he didn't review it.
• 29:13
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 29:14
  Speaker A: And he's actually stopped doing, like, reviews in the sense of, like, he doesn't go out and, like, dump on movies anymore. Mainly because he is a filmmaker now. He's literally directing stuff. And, like. And so a bunch of people are like, you, oh, you just, oh, you sucking up to all the Hollywood people. You don't care. It's a whole thing. I would love to discuss it some other time because I think it's fascinating and I think. But anyways, it's a fairly good reviewer. He was talk. He did a review on this movie like, 15 years ago, like, one of his first videos, and he said literally one of the only times he's ever done this, he finished the movie and immediately started it over and watched it again because the, like, he was so enamored with the way that, like, all the.
• 29:48
  Speaker B: Well. And it is. It's very layered.
• 29:50
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 29:51
  Speaker B: So there's a lot to dig into.
• 29:53
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 29:54
  Speaker B: Continuing with her comment, I don't think toxic fan did all those crimes. Once Rumi was revealed, we have kind of another one different version of it. Let me try to explain. First time we see him at the concert, he worships Mima and is looking at her through his hand like he's holding her in a crystal ball. When Mima announces she's leaving the band, he's heartbroken. Is he completely innocent? No. He is still an obsessed fan that will do anything to protect Mima. Which brings us to the stand where he buys a huge portion of magazines to protect her image. Even though there are probably still copies in other cities.
• 30:32
  Speaker A: I don't remember that part.
• 30:35
  Speaker B: When her naked photo shoot is published, he goes in and.
• 30:38
  Speaker A: That's right. Yeah.
• 30:39
  Speaker B: Snatches up all the copies of it and buys them.
• 30:41
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 30:43
  Speaker B: Also, where did he get the money to buy all those magazines? We don't know anything about him.
• 30:47
  Speaker A: We know nothing about him.
• 30:48
  Speaker B: Maybe he has generational wealth.
• 30:49
  Speaker A: I mean, also, he doesn't. I mean, he seems like the kind of guy so obsessed that he spends money on literally nothing other than this thing that he is obsessed with. So who knows?
• 31:00
  Speaker B: Movie magic, I guess was the continuation of Emily dins comment. Now let's discuss blurring the lines. Toxic fan is real and not at the same time. Hes real to Mima in her mind and to the audience thats watching the movie. No one else sees him. This is the most obvious. When they were shooting the scene for double bind on the docks. If he was real, anyone besides Mima would have spotted him. Either that or the crew on the set have bad security. Now, the scene where he almost rapes her until she hits him with a hammer. I think for the most part it's all in her head. Since she is at the point where we can't tell what's real and what's not. When she hits him with a hammer, we never see the blood dripping from his face. Nor do we see the hammer she used after that scene. However, we do see the toxic fan dead alongside another body. But his eye was stabbed, very likely by Rumi. Which leads me to believe that Rumi did all the killings, including the explosive letter and creating Mima's fan site. Anyway, I might be going crazy like Mima, but now I'm going to listen to the Thunderball fan response episode so I can remember exactly what I said. That might be important for the upcoming episode of Casino Royale.
• 32:16
  Speaker A: Okay, so I mean, I agree that Rumi did at least most of the killings. Yeah, including probably the letter and definitely created the fan site. I don't. I guess my biggest issue with him not potentially not being real is that I don't know what that would mean in a way that's super interesting, like. Like, what that would be doing if he was, like, only existed in Mima's head.
• 32:46
  Speaker B: I could get on board with some of the instances where he shows up being her hallucinator.
• 32:52
  Speaker A: I agree with that. I think there are moments where she sees him.
• 32:55
  Speaker B: Yeah. Or where we're supposed to, like, nothing, know for sure if he's really there or not. And I think that the. Some of the movie ones, the film set is one of those examples.
• 33:05
  Speaker A: I agree.
• 33:06
  Speaker B: Where we're not supposed to know for sure if he's actually there or if she's imagining that he's there.
• 33:11
  Speaker A: Absolutely. But beyond that, I don't know what if it was, like, if he was purely a creation of herself, I don't know what that would mean for the story. Like, I'm trying to parse, like, thematically what that would be doing and what we would supposed to be getting out of it, because as it is, he is a representation of toxic fandom and entitlement to women's bodies and entitlements to women's lives. And again, an early representation of sort of an inceldom and that sort of thing. And if he's just a part of her imagination, what does that say? Like, what does that mean? I don't know. And I guess that's my point. Like, I'm trying to figure out what. And there may be a good. Like, there may be an interesting angle to that that I'm just not finding, but I would be interested to wonder what that would be. Cause that that would be, I think my biggest pushback to say that he is real is that if he's not real, I don't know what you get out of it, necessarily. You know what I mean? I guess. Yeah. So. But it is interesting, again, and I agree with you, that there are definitely moments where I think you're supposed to not be sure if he's actually there or not.
• 34:27
  Speaker B: Yeah, for sure. On threads, we had zero votes for the book and one for the movie, and on Goodreads, we had zero votes for the book and one for the movie. And Miko said, after reading the book, I knew I'd give this to the movie even before seeing it, simply due to it being the work of the same guy who directed paprika.
• 34:47
  Speaker A: I would have to watch Paprika now.
• 34:49
  Speaker B: Because, yeah, if not good. It would at least be interesting. The book is neither. Woof. I would disagree with that, but you're entitled to your opinion. Miko.
• 34:58
  Speaker A: You definitely had some criticisms of it, but you thought it was interesting.
• 35:02
  Speaker B: I did. It suffers from the generic horror movie stupidity. Not checking who's at the door, not involving the police, not checking if the killer is really dead, et cetera. But most importantly, I also think it doesn't examine the subject very deeply. Could there be something wrong in a system that pushes even 16 year olds to be idolized by a largely male audience? It felt like the author just wanted to write a creepy story and all the larger commentary was more incidental than planned. Maybe it was the writing style, but I didn't find the book disturbing even when I knew I should. In the final battle, the stalker is worse than Michael Myers. Another Halloween reference, shrugging off blow after blow. But even before that I felt him trying to graft a patch skin to himself. Wasnt creepy, just weird. This might have been a more novel idea when the book came out, but after who knows how many seasons of criminal minds and similar shows, he just felt like the creep of the week. And the ending is so abrupt, like give even a short epilogue about how Mima processes the events. The movies choice to deal with Mimas mental struggle is way more interesting than the books angle. I liked the movie a lot so its an easy winner for me. Despite some of its problems. There is an early victim in the movie who's easy to gloss over that Brian might have been thinking about the rowdy guy from the concert. Mima sees a newspaper clipping of a hit and run involving him in the elevator.
• 36:29
  Speaker A: I don't think that's who I was thinking of because I thought I remember. I don't remember it being like a story. I remember it being like seeing a body. So I just may have been making that up. But thanks for trying to figure out what I was thinking of. Appreciate it.
• 36:43
  Speaker B: I was also surprised Katie didn't mention the fun coincidence of Keiki's delivery service being in Mima's laserdisc collection in the book.
• 36:51
  Speaker A: Oh, it's in the book?
• 36:52
  Speaker B: Yeah, she has an extensive anime laserdisc collection including Keiki's delivery service mentioned by name. It is in my book notes.
• 37:02
  Speaker A: Oh, okay, so it's in the book notes.
• 37:04
  Speaker B: You just didn't come up in the episode. You didn't make it into the episode.
• 37:06
  Speaker A: Fair enough.
• 37:09
  Speaker B: So our winner this week was the movie with eight votes to the books. Three.
• 37:14
  Speaker A: Yeah. Less lesser turnout this week. I think a lot to do with the fact that there's a pretty lesser known.
• 37:20
  Speaker B: Yeah, it's a little niche.
• 37:21
  Speaker A: It's niche. But I think the people that were, you know, the comments we did get were very interested in it, I think. Yeah, I have a feeling. It seems like everybody who watched it enjoyed it this week or thought it was at least, you know, a compelling enough movie, which I, again, I was kind of blown away by it. I. I thought it was great. So very good stuff. Thank you all for all of that feedback. We always love to hear what you have to say and to discuss it. Katie, as I said earlier, we do not have a learning things segment this week because, boy, do I have movie notes. But before we get to those movie notes, we got to learn a little bit about the book we're doing, which is Casino Royale.
• 37:58
  Speaker C: Your file shows no kills Bond, but to become a double odd, it takes two. How did you die? Your contact? Not well. You needn't worry. Second is. Yes, considerably. The man was le chiffre, private banker to the world's terrorists, which would explain how he got set up a high stakes poker game at Casino Royale in Montenegro. If he loses this game, he'll have nowhere to run. You're the best player in the service. The treasury has agreed to stake you in the game. But if you lose, our government will have directly financed terrorism. I will be keeping my eye on our government's money and off your perfectly formed house. You noticed.
• 38:55
  Speaker B: Casino Royale is the first novel by the british author Ian Fleming. Published in 1953, it is the first James Bond book. So Fleming wrote Casino Royale in early 1952 in order to distract himself from his upcoming wedding, according to Wikipedia.
• 39:16
  Speaker A: Distract himself? That fits.
• 39:18
  Speaker B: Yeah, the Wikipedia page. If you have a minute and you're bored. The Wikipedia page for this book I found so funny, you kept sending me screenshots of online. It was so, like, I feel like whoever wrote it does not like Ian Fleming. It was so, like, weirdly catty for, like, no reason. Yeah, I have a couple things in here. You'll see.
• 39:46
  Speaker A: Yeah, I.
• 39:48
  Speaker B: So Fleming described the manuscript as his, quote, dreadful, oafish opus. Okay. Yeah. Once it was done, he had his secretary, Joan Howe, retype it for him. And she was purportedly the inspiration for moneypenny. Yes. And then a former girlfriend of his, Claire Blanchard, advised him not to publish it or to at least use a.
• 40:16
  Speaker A: Pen name, I guess because he had connections in intelligence or whatever. Yeah, maybe because I believe that is.
• 40:24
  Speaker B: Although in the context of where that sentence was on the Wikipedia page, it felt like they were saying because it was bad. But you're probably right.
• 40:34
  Speaker A: I assume it's related to. Because I think we talked about in the Thunderball episode prequel, during the book notes for that, I think we mentioned that Fleming had a background in intelligence.
• 40:46
  Speaker B: Or something and that's going to come up again here in a minute. Another of Fleming's friends, and later on his editor, William Plomer, thought that the manuscript had promise and he sent it to the publishing house. Jonathan Cape. Jonathan Cape is the name of the publishing house and not a person I assume.
• 41:04
  Speaker A: It's named after a person, I would assume.
• 41:07
  Speaker B: And at first they didn't want it, but they were persuaded to publish on the recommendation of Fleming's older brother Peter, who was an established travel writer whose books they managed.
• 41:21
  Speaker A: Nice.
• 41:22
  Speaker B: So the Nepo sibling.
• 41:24
  Speaker A: Yeah, look at that.
• 41:26
  Speaker B: Casino Royale was inspired by certain incidents that took place during Fleming's World War two career in the naval intelligence division or by events of which he was aware of happening. Not necessarily that happened to him. These included an instance in which Fleming claimed to have been cleaned out by a chief german agent while playing cards, as well as the attempted assassination of Franz von Papen, a vice chancellor of Germany and an ambassador under Hitler. So a real life event and a purported real life event, among other things.
• 42:04
  Speaker A: Yeah. It's clear from having read, I'm only a couple chapters in on Casino Royale, but having read Thunderball, which he didn't write, technically, I think, I can't remember the whole.
• 42:16
  Speaker B: Oh, that was a whole nonsense.
• 42:18
  Speaker A: Yeah. But between that and then this, especially this, in the first four or five chapters or whatever I'm in, you can tell, at least it seems. And obviously I have no real frame of reference, but it seems like the person writing this book knows the kind of lingo and stuff to write a convincing spy book. Like, it feels correct, at least in a lot of different ways. But yeah. Again, I have no frame of reference for that.
• 42:47
  Speaker B: Journalist William Cook observed that with the decline in power of the British Empire following the Second World War, Bond pandered to Britain's inflated and increasingly insecure self image, flattering us with the fantasy that Britannia could still punch above her weight. This is the kind of catty stuff that I was talking about.
• 43:07
  Speaker A: Like, interesting.
• 43:08
  Speaker B: Yeah, like, it's interesting, but also, like, why include that?
• 43:12
  Speaker A: Yeah, I don't know.
• 43:14
  Speaker B: Fleming's biographer, Andrew Lysette, posits that casino Royale could be read, as Fleming's, quote, attempt to deflect the disturbing moral ambiguity of a post war world that could produce traitors like Burgess and McLean, who are two mi six operatives who defected to the Soviet Union in 1951, which we discussed in our Tinker tailor Soldier spy episode. It's all coming together. We're connecting the red yarn.
• 43:46
  Speaker A: I do not remember that at all.
• 43:49
  Speaker B: I did once I started reading about.
• 43:51
  Speaker A: It in the Wikipedia bits of that movie, and I remember enjoying it for the most part, but I remember none of the specifics.
• 43:59
  Speaker B: Casino Royale did well immediately upon publication. Its first run sold out within a month, and its second and third runs sold out quickly as well. And the novel did well enough that Jonathan Cape offered Fleming a three book deal, and the rest is history. We just kept cranking them out.
• 44:16
  Speaker A: Indeed, indeed. Including after he.
• 44:20
  Speaker B: Yes, including after other people. Keep it going, keep it going. A couple review poll quotes that I believe these are from their contemporary Hugh Lanceon Fossette, maybe pretty good writing in the Manchester Guardian thought that Casino real was, quote, a first rate thriller with a breathtaking plot. Although he considered the book to be schoolboy stuff, he felt that the novel was, quote, galvanized into life by the hard brilliance of the telling.
• 44:54
  Speaker A: That's fair. That seems fair from my reading of Thunderball again, being a little bit into.
• 44:59
  Speaker B: This one, and then reviewing for the listener. Simon Raven enjoyed the novel but was somewhat dismissive of the plot, calling it a brilliant but improbable notion that includes a deal of champagne drinking, bomb throwing, relentless pitting of wits, etcetera, with a cretinous love affair.
• 45:20
  Speaker A: Okay.
• 45:23
  Speaker B: I really just love reading the review quotes.
• 45:26
  Speaker A: They're always great. That's actually why my movie facts are so long. I included so many reviews because I just love reading critics write. It's so funny to me.
• 45:35
  Speaker B: Aside from the 2006 film that we will be discussing shortly, Casino Royale has also been adapted as a television special in 1954, a comic strip in 1958, a satirical film adaptation in 1967, and a graphic novel in 2018. And my last thing here, I just copy pasted this directly from wikipedia because this was so funny to me.
• 46:03
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 46:04
  Speaker B: The semiotician and essayist Umberto Eco. Eco, in his 1979 examination of the.
• 46:12
  Speaker A: Bond books, making it appear Mister fascism himself.
• 46:16
  Speaker B: The narrative structure of Ian Fleming, he's.
• 46:18
  Speaker A: Not a fascist, just for people who don't know, he wrote the book, literally wrote the book on fascism that, like everybody references anyways.
• 46:25
  Speaker B: Consider that Fleming has a rhythm, a polish, a certain sensuous feeling for words. That is not to say that Fleming is an artist, yet he writes with art. When examining the passage relating to the death of Le Chiffre le Chiffre.
• 46:44
  Speaker A: Le Chiffre.
• 46:45
  Speaker B: Eco wrote that there is a baroque feeling for the image, a total adaptation of the image without emotional comment and a use of words that designate things with accuracy. And he went on to conclude that, quote, fleming is more literate than he gives one to understand.
• 47:05
  Speaker A: That's fascinating.
• 47:06
  Speaker B: I love that so much.
• 47:08
  Speaker A: I don't think, I've never actually read anything echo is written, but I might have to because again, he's cited by every leftist on the Internet ever. Ur fascism is the book he wrote on fa. I think that just means on fascism, maybe. I can't remember. Very prolific thinker of the 20th century. And that's a great. Fleming is more literate than he gives one to understand.
• 47:29
  Speaker B: Is an incredible burn, an incredible chef's kiss. I love that his ultimate conclusion was like, this guy's actually okay.
• 47:41
  Speaker A: Yeah. And that's actually kind of.
• 47:43
  Speaker B: It doesn't seem like it, but like he's all right.
• 47:45
  Speaker A: That echoes kind of my feelings from reading the first book and just written in a much more eloquent and educated way than I ever could. But yeah. All right, that is it for the book. Facts. Now learn a little bit more about Casino Royale, the film.
• 48:04
  Speaker C: I hope our little game isn't causing you to perspire. It doesn't bother you, killing those people? Well, I wouldn't be very good at my job if it did. How's our girl? Melted your cold heart yet?
• 48:21
  Speaker B: James?
• 48:21
  Speaker A: Get the girl out.
• 48:22
  Speaker C: You're not going to let me in there. You've got your armor back on. I have no armor left. You've stripped it from me. Whatever is left of me, whatever I am, I'm yours. The only question remains, will you yield in time?
• 49:07
  Speaker A: Casino Royale is a 2006 film directed by Martin Campbell, which this actually surprised me. I did not realize this directed by Martin Campbell. I thought it was the guy who did the later ones, but Martin Campbell directed vertical limit, one of my favorite childhood movies. Have you ever seen vertical limit?
• 49:22
  Speaker B: No.
• 49:22
  Speaker A: It's a climbing movie.
• 49:23
  Speaker B: I don't know.
• 49:24
  Speaker A: I love a good movie.
• 49:24
  Speaker B: I've never heard you talk. I didn't even know that. Who are you? I don't know you.
• 49:30
  Speaker A: Didn't we go see Everest?
• 49:32
  Speaker B: Cud maybe?
• 49:33
  Speaker A: Yeah, I think we went. I love a good climate. Like Mountain climbing is one of my weird obsessions that I get into of rabbit hole on every now and then. And vertical limit is a ridiculous movie, but as a kid I really loved it. Directed GoldenEye, so he's done a Bond movie before. Directed both of the Zorro movies, the Mask and the Legend of Zorro with Antonio Banderas, which we watched not that long. Like, last year, we watched the mask of Zoro, the first one. I don't think we watched the sequel. And he also directed Green Lantern the Terrible. Just an insane film filmography, because the legend of Zoro films are popcorn y blockbusters, but they're really good and really fun. Green Lantern's supposed to be terrible vertical limit garbage, but, like, really fun. Goldeneye is a pretty good James Bond movie, and then this movie's just, like, a legitimately very good film. So it's like, all over the map. It was written by Neil Purvis and Robert Wade. They're a writing combo, like, writing duo. They're literally. Their Wikipedia article is literally together. I don't think they're in a. I didn't check. I don't think they're in a relationship. I think they're just a writing.
• 50:39
  Speaker B: Maybe they're roommates.
• 50:40
  Speaker A: Yeah, but they've written a bunch of Bond movies, including no time to die, Spectre, Skyfall, which are the three of the Daniel Craig ones, and Quantum of Solace, including this. So they wrote on all of the Daniel Craig Bond films. They also wrote die another day, which was the final Pierce Brosnan one, Johnny English, which is the mister bean spoof of James Bond, like spy movies. And they wrote the world is not enough, among other things, which is another Pierce Brosnan Bond movie and also written by cult Paul Haggis, who wrote Crash, million Dollar Baby, Quantum of Solace, flags of our fathers, letters from Iwo Jima and was the show creator and showrunner of Walker, Texas Range, which is fascinating to me. Fascinating stuff. But he works with Clint Eastwood quite a bit because million dollar baby and flags of our fathers and letters from Iwo Jim are on. Both are all the guy I just said Clint Eastwood. Clint Eastwood movies. I've never actually watched. Flags of our father's letters from Yojima is such an interesting. Do you know anything about that?
• 51:53
  Speaker B: I do not.
• 51:53
  Speaker A: Those are my understanding, and I have never seen them. There are two movies about the Pacific theater in World War Two from both sides of the war.
• 52:04
  Speaker B: Interesting.
• 52:04
  Speaker A: Letters from Iwo Jima is like, about the japanese soldiers, I think. And flags of our fathers is about the american soldiers. Something like that. It's like a pair of movies about the same thing from opposite perspectives. I think. I think that's what it is. Something like that. The film stars Daniel Craig, Eva Green, Mads Mikkelsen, Giancarlo, Giannini Jeffrey Wright and the Dame Judi Dench. It has a 94% on Rotten Tomatoes, an 80% on Metacritic, and an eight out of ten on IMDb. It made $616 million against a budget of 150 million. And it won the BAFTA for sound and the Saturn Award for best action adventure thriller. The Saturns are the Academy Awards for the science fiction, fantasy, and horror films. It's like the genre Academy Awards, which now that's. The Academy actually does recognize some of those films now. But this is back. These started back when the Academy, like, just didn't give a shit about genre films. So as you mentioned, Casino Royale was previously adapted both as a tv episode as well as the 1967 satirical film that starred Peter Sellers and Woody Allen. And the reason we're not doing that, people have asked about this, but this was a request. Yes, this was a patron, patron request, specifically the 2006 one. And thank you, because I did not want to watch the 1967 version. I love the 2006, and I don't care to watch the satirical one with Woody Allen. I'm good.
• 53:31
  Speaker B: I have no horse in this race.
• 53:34
  Speaker A: So in 1999, MGM got the rights to Casino Royale from Sony, who actually was holding the rights for Casino Royale. And MGM had the rights for all the other Bond stuff, but they got the rights in exchange for the rights to Spider man. So that's when Sony got Spider man, apparently was in exchange for the rights to Casino Royale, which is very fascinating. Yeah. Then in 2004, Purvis and Wade began working on a script for the film. And at that time, the plan was for Pierce Brosnan to return as James Bond because he was the Bond for previous four films at this point. At that time, apparently Quentin Tarantino wanted to direct this film. Not like was rumored to like. He wanted to do it like he was, like, petitioning to direct the film. But Aon films, the. The sub company or whatever that owned the rights, was not interested in Quentin Tarantino directing a James Bond film. According to Tarantino, his version would have been set in the sixties and he would have had it star Pierce Brosnan. He liked Pierce Brosnan as Bond, apparently, because the book takes place in the sixties, I think. But this film takes place in modern day. It takes place in the two thousands. Then in 2005, Martin Campbell, who had directed Golden Eyes, I mentioned earlier, was announced as the director, and he decided that he did not like the script and wanted a rewrite of it. And that's when brought, I say didn't like the script. He just wanted a rewrite version of it. He brought Paul Haggis on. And he primarily rewrote the climax of the film. So the goal of this film was to kind of reground Bond as a character because the studio and the director and the writers all kind of thought that the recent Bond films had gotten a little out there, a little bit fantastical, which is kind of a cycle bond goes through where, like, they get. They get weirder and wackier, and then they, like, kind of come back down and they get weirder and, you know, kind of just the cycle that Bond goes through. So they wanted to reground Bond, but they also wanted to bring the film back to practical stunts and effects after some of the more recent films, specifically die another day, had used, like, a lot of CGI. And there's some pretty bad CGI shots in die another day. It's a very famous, infamous, I should say, scene of Pierce Brosnan, like, surfing on a wave in, like a. With, like a. He's like, got a parachute on and he's, like, surfing down a giant tsunami wave and it's, like, all CGI and looks terrible. They just really kind of got out there towards the end of the Pierce Brosnan films. But at this time, there were still legal issues over the rights to Thunderball. So we talked about this during the Thunderball episode that obviously there's a bunch of issues with thunderball rights. So the organization in this film that one of the villains works for Mister White is not Spectre. It's not referred to as Spectre because Spectre was an invention of Thunderball and they couldn't use Spectre. But later films would go on to establish later films in the Daniel Craig series would go on to establish Spectre after they resolved the rights issues. Specifically, the 2015 Bond film is called Spectre. So let's talk about recasting James Bond. So, as I mentioned, Pierce Brosnan had just fulfilled his four film contract when he wrapped on die another day.
• 56:48
  Speaker B: And he was like, was he, like, over it or did he want to continue?
• 56:51
  Speaker A: I don't know. I didn't look into that. I don't know if he wanted to or not. But he announced his departure in 2004 and the search for the new Bond was started in earnest. But, yeah, I don't know for sure how much of that was, like, them wanting to move on versus him wanting to. I don't know. But he had a four film contract. He finished it and then he was out. Whether that was his choosing or their choosing, I don't know. So let's talk about some other fun people that were considered for the role of James Bond before they landed on Daniel Craig. Goran Viznik. Viznik. I don't know how to pronounce this. He's croatian, but he might be most recognized. I didn't recognize the name, but then I looked him up and it was a guy we just saw because I was like, I had just looked him up like a couple weeks ago. He plays Nikolai Tesla in the new Doctor who episode. One of the recent episodes, I say recent, during the end of Jodie Whittaker's run, I think. Right? Yeah, he plays Nikola Tesla in an episode. He was also in the show Doll Face, which we watched. He's also, I think, a recurring character in ER for a long time, I believe. Apparently he did not get the role because he couldn't master an english accent at the time, such as life as he is Croatian. Another actor that was considered Carl Urban.
• 58:04
  Speaker B: That would have been interesting.
• 58:06
  Speaker A: Henry Cavill was reportedly like the main contender other than Daniel Craig. But he was 22 at the time and the studio thought he was too young for the role.
• 58:15
  Speaker B: Well, that extra sucks because at this time he was also considered too old to play Edward Cullen.
• 58:23
  Speaker A: Oh, yeah. He was right in that window.
• 58:26
  Speaker B: I mean, he got right in that window.
• 58:27
  Speaker A: It got to be Superman eventually. It worked out, but. Well, depends on what you mean by worked out. But you know. Yeah, but yeah, he was, apparently he was like the choice. He was just too young, which was not the first time that it happened. I read a thing that at one point, way back in the day, they had considered giving the role to Timothy Dalton before he became Bond. They wanted him to become bond, but he was also like 22 when they first considered him for it. And both he and the studio thought he was too young for the role. So that's happened several times. Another guy I considered, Sam Worthington, Mister Jake Sully himself from the Avatar films. That's like the worst one on this list, in my opinion. I don't even think he's like a bad actor. I just don't see him as Bond at all. Doug Ray Scott was considered. I titled him here as ever after guy. He's the male love interest in ever after. He's been in a bunch of stuff. But Steve Heughan, who I had never heard of, but he's the main actor in Outlander, a series that we've never watched any of. But he's like the main guy in Outlander. Matthew Rise was considered. He was. He's in the Americans. He was Perry Mason in the Perry Mason reboot. David Tennant apparently was considered, but he was unaware of this until late, like, years later. He found out he was in the running for Bond. I say in the running. He was. He was on, like, a list of.
• 59:47
  Speaker B: Actors that they were considering.
• 59:49
  Speaker A: He clearly never, like, read for it.
• 59:50
  Speaker B: Honestly. Incredible. I would have been there for that.
• 59:54
  Speaker A: Yeah. Very different bond than what we got with Daniel Craig, that's for sure. Ewan McGregor was another one on the list. Rupert friend was apparently on the list a year after he played Wickham in Pride and Prejudice. I didn't really know who that was, but then I was like, oh, it's Wickham from Pride and Prejudice. Look at that. And this one's really interesting. Anthony Starr, homelander from the boys.
• 1:00:16
  Speaker B: Is he british?
• 1:00:17
  Speaker A: I think so. I think he is, yeah. Or if he's not, then he's. He can do an accent, I guess, but I'm pretty sure he is british and that he. Oh, he's New Zealand. He's New Zealander. So he could. You can tweak his kiwi accent to british, I think, without too much trouble. So getting to Daniel Craig. Daniel Craig had apparently rejected the idea of playing Bond merely a year before getting the part because he thought the films, specifically the Pierce Brosnan films, had become formulaic and ridiculous. And he wasn't into it until he read the script for Casino Royale. And that's what made him interested in taking the part of Bond. Supposedly, after he got the part, he then read every single one of Ian Fleming's novels to prep for the role.
• 1:01:03
  Speaker B: Wow.
• 1:01:04
  Speaker A: I mean, they're pretty short, to be fair. But he was also apparently inspired by Mossad and british secret service agents who had been advisors on the film Munich that he was in. He said of this quote, bond just has just. Bond has just come out of the service and he's a killer. You can see it in their eyes, you know, immediately, oh, hello, he's a killer. There's a look. These guys walk into a room and very subtly, they check the perimeters for an exit. That's the sort of thing I wanted, end quote. So he had studied up on other secret agent, like, actual secret agent, people that he met in. In real life, working on a film. Munich's about like, the Munich massacre during the Olympics back in the. It's a whole thing. It's a Spielberg film. Daniel Craig was finally announced as the new James Bond on October 14, 2005. And, boy, this was not an uncontroversial choice. This is fascinating. And I remember this. I like, vividly remember I, like, vaguely.
• 1:02:07
  Speaker B: Remember people being upset about this.
• 1:02:09
  Speaker A: Throughout the entire production of the film, there were Internet campaigns such as. And this is the one listed here, Daniel Craig is not. Bond.com was like, a URL that was registered.
• 1:02:20
  Speaker B: URL still works.
• 1:02:21
  Speaker A: I don't know. I surely not find out. But tons of Internet campaigns expressed their dissatisfaction and threatened to boycott because they did not like Daniel Craig as Bond. And the kind of chorus about him and why he was nothing.
• 1:02:39
  Speaker B: Oh, my God, it does.
• 1:02:40
  Speaker A: Is it still up? Is it like a. Is it like a website? Is it like the space Jam website from, like.
• 1:02:46
  Speaker B: No, there's a post on it from this year.
• 1:02:49
  Speaker A: But does it look like a modern website or does it look like an old.
• 1:02:52
  Speaker B: I mean, it looks like an older website.
• 1:02:53
  Speaker A: That's what I mean. Yeah. Yeah, it looks like a website. Well, not.
• 1:02:57
  Speaker B: Yeah, it's not like.
• 1:02:58
  Speaker A: It's not like an old site for. Well, 2005, to be fair. It looks like a website from 2005. Yeah, looks like a web 2.0. Yeah, it's great. So the common complaint, the course of complaints about Craig was that one was specifically that he was, quote, not tall, dark, or handsome enough for the role, because that's, you know, that's James Bond. And Daniel Craig is blonde, has blonde hair. Pretty famously, apparently, the Daily Mirror ran a story critical of the casting of Daniel Craig entitled the story, the name's bland, James Bland. And supposedly the studio or somebody involved in production asked Daniel Craig to dye his hair dark for the role, and he just refused and said, no, I'm gonna be blonde. Screw you. Which I think is great. Let's move on and talk about casting Vesper Lind a little bit. So she's the primary bond girl of this film. And this was also a star studded endeavor. Angelina Jolie and Charlize Theron were both strongly considered for the role. Amelie herself, Audrey Tateau, was considered, but she was busy filming the da Vinci code at the time, so she couldn't be in it. Rachel McAdams reportedly turned down the role, and that left the. The two finalists for the role as Olivia Wilde and Eva Green. Ava Green. Eva Green. I actually don't know. I should learn that. But on February 16, 2006, Green was announced in the role. And in my opinion, there was much rejoice. She may be my number one celebrity crush, like, she may very well maybe. And she's fantastic in this movie, in my opinion. So the film shot from January 2006 to July of 2006, which is crazy because the film came out in 2006. The post production was very quick. Well, and to be fair, there's almost no CGI in this movie. It's almost all practical effects. There was a quote that I don't think I included where Daniel Craig, in an interview or something said that the only CGI in the movie, and he's probably wrong about this because who knows? But he said essentially the only CGI in the movie is removing, like, wires and stuff from stunts, removing some of the stunt stuff and touching up shots. But there's no fully cg shots or anything like that in the movie, which from my memory sounds accurate. A body worlds exhibit makes an appearance in this film. Have you ever been to a body Worlds exhibit?
• 1:05:24
  Speaker B: I think they weren't. They. Wasn't that at the science center once?
• 1:05:27
  Speaker A: Yeah, I've been to it at least.
• 1:05:29
  Speaker B: Once, if not twice.
• 1:05:30
  Speaker A: That's why I was wondering. I just wondered, I didn't know if you had been or not. Very fascinating if you haven't been to a body Worlds exhibit. Controversial in certain ways, specifically because of the creator, Gunther von Hagens. Gunther von Hagens, I think is how you pronounce it. He's german. He's the creator of body worlds. He's a german anatomist. I think he's german. He might be like, he might be from one of those other german speaking countries in that area. I don't know for sure, but he actually has a cameo in this film. You can't see him, but you can supposedly see his trademark hat. He wears that weird giant hat. If you've seen any of the body world stuff and seen this guy, he always has that hat on. There are a bunch of controversies with where they get the bodies from in body worlds sometimes. And just look at the controversy section on Wikipedia, if you. I remember thinking. So I saw that my parents took me. I don't know, I was in high school or something. My parents just thought it was super fascinating. And we went and I remember thinking it was super cool and interesting and, like, creepy and weird and cool, like, just super interesting. But at the time, I had no idea of any controversy about any of the stuff in it other than. Other than it just being kind of people thinking it was kind of weird. I didn't know any of the backstory about, like, maybe getting bodies from China of, like, homeless people and stuff, like. Like, basically getting bodies where the people did not consent to be in this thing and basically just using bodies that they were able to get. So I don't want to get into the specifics here because of spoilers, but. But the effects in this film are fantastic. Particularly the climax of this film involves a bunch of water and other things. And the rig they built for this was the largest stunt rig ever built for a Bond film. And I've seen some of the behind the scenes video of this and it's truly wild, like this thing they built for the end. The climax of this movie, which takes place in Italy. I'll just say, that is amazing. Chris Carnell, the lead singer of Soundgarden and audio Slave wrote and performs the title song. The title screen song. It's not the title song cause it's not called Casino Royale, but the title screen song, you know, my name. It's actually used as the motif that plays throughout the film instead of the traditional Bond score. It actually uses the motif that plays throughout the film instead of the traditional Bond score. For reasons that we'll talk about in the main episode. If I remember to do the reasons.
• 1:08:02
  Speaker B: Have to do with IP law?
• 1:08:03
  Speaker A: No, it's like creative reasons. It's like thematic reasons. In the famous shower scene, Vesper, played by Eva Green. Oh, and these are all IMDb trivia facts. Now we're into the IMDb trivia. Vesper was originally scripted to be wearing nothing but her underwear in the shower scene. But Daniel Craig apparently argued that she would not have stopped to take time to take all of her clothes off. And so they changed the scene so that she's in her dress in the shower in that scene. It's a great scene and it totally makes more sense and works better that she's not undressed for Daniel Craig's iconic scene where he rises out of the sea in his speedos. You posted a picture of this picture.
• 1:08:45
  Speaker B: I posted that today.
• 1:08:46
  Speaker A: I mean, it's like maybe one of the most famous things from this. Many of the crew apparently were out of, like just out of the shot in boats fending off paparazzi who were like trying to get shots of the, of the film filming. And I read another thing that said that that was actually kind of almost him coming up. And I don't know how much I believe this because a lot of times these kind of facts are nonsense. But there was a, like a fun fact that said, like, that was like a happy coincidence and that he only stood up and walked out of the water like that because like the water was too shallow or something. And I don't think that's true. That sounds like bullshit to me. A lot of those kind of things like, whoa, this shot from this famous movie was unintended. A lot of times it's like, no, that's not really like they meant to do that. But supposedly that, who knows? This was fascinating to me and I did not know this. This is the first James Bond movie to be based on a full length Ian Fleming novel since Moonraker in 1979, which I guess makes sense because Ian Fleming only wrote like eight or nine of them or something like that.
• 1:09:49
  Speaker B: Yeah, he didn't write all of them. Yeah.
• 1:09:51
  Speaker A: And then a bunch of the other ones were Nani and Fleming one.
• 1:09:53
  Speaker B: So I guess that kind of writers.
• 1:09:54
  Speaker A: And stuff, that kind of makes sense, I guess. But it's just kind of crazy that it was that long ago that an actual Eden Fleming Bond. Yeah.
• 1:10:02
  Speaker B: There could also be ones that are based on short stories.
• 1:10:04
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 1:10:05
  Speaker B: I don't know for sure.
• 1:10:06
  Speaker A: Yeah. That is also true. Well, and that is true because there are other, like, I think even parts of this film were. I had a note somewhere, like the opening of this film was at some point during the scripting process was based on one of the short stories or something. I think it got changed and it might not be in the final film, I don't know. But Daniel Craig lost two of his two front teeth filming a fight scene in Prague, which is supposedly the first action scene that they shot. And his dentist had to fly to London or from London to replace his front teeth. Oh, he did like, all of his stunts in this. There's. He talked about constantly in all the interviews about this movie that he was, like, just in immense pain and, like, it was a nightmare filming this movie. I think in later ones he probably did fewer of his own stunts because he just, like, almost died on this movie. There's a location that they use in the Bahamas that is like a construction site that is in the opening of this film. And it was actually an abandoned hotel at Coral harbor that was under construction 30 years ago and they used it in thunderball for the hotel rooms. And that's. I thought that was fascinating. So apparently some of the hotel rooms in Thunderball that we saw that hotel building is in this movie, but it's like a rundown under construction.
• 1:11:21
  Speaker B: Oh, yeah, that's all coming together.
• 1:11:24
  Speaker A: First movie since Doctor? No. Which is the first James Bond movie where there are no nude women dancing during the opening title sequence. Turning over a new leaf, baby. It's a new, more serious Bond. Yep. So getting into some reviews, and by some I mean a lot. The Daily Telegraph compared the quality of Craig's characterization of Bond to Sean Connery and praised the smartly written script, noting that the film departed from the series conventions. Again, that was kind of their goal. The times compared Craig's portrayal of the character to that of Timothy Dalton and praised the action as, quote, edgy.
• 1:12:07
  Speaker B: Hang on. Is Timothy Dalton the one that people don't like or. No.
• 1:12:12
  Speaker A: Timothy Dalton. He's, like, lower on the list, but he only did like two or three of them in the eighties. I don't think people dislike him, but he's not like, people's favorite. Like. So Sean Connery is, like, generally considered the best, right? Roger Moore. People like. He's, like, up there. And I would say Timothy Dalton's probably the lowest on the list. Yes, because people like Pierce Brosnan and people like Sean Connery, people like Roger Moore, a lot of people like Daniel Craig, Timothy Dalton and George Lazenby are the two that are, like, the lowest. But even that, I don't know how much. I think mainly it's just people don't like the Timothy Dalton movies. I don't know how much of it is him necessarily.
• 1:12:50
  Speaker B: Are those the ones that are really silly?
• 1:12:54
  Speaker A: I don't know. I've never actually seen one. Or actually, I think I've seen one of them. I think I've seen a view to a kill I think is Timothy Dalton. But. But some of the sillier ones are the end of the Roger Moore era. Like, Moonraker is a Roger Moore film and it's super goofy. And I wasn't a fan of it when I was a kid, but I don't know. People have. I don't know who likes what of James Bond. It's impossible. I have no idea. Paul Arendt for BBC films and Kim Newman of Empire and Todd McCarthy of Variety all described Daniel Craig as the first actor to truly embody Ian Fleming's James Bond from the original novel. Describing him as ironic, brutal and cold, Arendt commented, Craig is the first actor to really nail zero zero seven's defining characteristic. He's an absolute swine.
• 1:13:43
  Speaker B: Nice.
• 1:13:43
  Speaker A: Yep.
• 1:13:45
  Speaker B: Reading all the books paid off.
• 1:13:46
  Speaker A: Yes. Vicky Allen of the Sunday Herald noted that Bond himself, and not his love interests, was sexually objectified in this film, a moment where he rises from the sea as reminiscent of Ursula Andresses seen in Doctor. No. He ends up feeling skewered by Vesperland's criticisms of him and quote, and though it would be almost unthinkable now to have a female character in a mainstream film stripped naked and threatened with genital mutilation, that is exactly what happens to Bond in this film. End quote. So although the film backed off from past criticism of Bond girls being sect objects, the quote the once invincible James Bond becomes just another joint at the meat market. End quote.
• 1:14:27
  Speaker B: Equality baby.
• 1:14:29
  Speaker A: Yep. This sentiment was also shared by the University of Leicester's James Chapman, author of license to thrill, also noted that Craig Daniel Craig's Bond is, quote, not yet the polished article saying that his incarnation of Bond is close to Fleming's because he is humorless. But it is also different because, quote, Fleming's bond did not enjoy killing. Craig's Bond seems almost to relish it. Writing for the New York Observer, Andrew Sarris wrote that this particular Bond film is, quote, the very first that I would seriously consider placing on my own yearly ten best list. Furthermore, I consider Daniel Craig to be the most effective and appealing of the six actors who have played zero zero seven, and that includes even Sean Connery. Roger Moore himself wrote, I believe in his book about James Bond called like Bond on Bond or something like that. Daniel Craig impressed me so greatly in his debut outing, Casino Royale by introducing a more gritty, unrefined edge to the character that I thought Sean Connery might just have to move over. Craigs interpretation was like nothing wed seen on screen before. Jimmy Bond was earning his stripes and making mistakes. It was intriguing to see him being castigated by em, just like a naughty schoolboy would be by his headmaster. The script showed him as a vulnerable, troubled and flawed character, quite the opposite to my bond. Craig was and is very much the bond Ian Fleming had described in the books, a ruthless killing machine. It was Bond that the public wanted. He also quipped that his praise was, quote, not heaped lightly because he had actually bought the dvd of the film for himself. Raymond Benson, who wrote nine of the Bond novels called Casino Royale, a perfect Bond film.
• 1:16:12
  Speaker B: Wow.
• 1:16:13
  Speaker A: But it was met with some mixed reactions from other critics. Writing for the commercial Appeal, John Byfuss said, quote, bond learn a lesson about ego as if he were Greg Brady in his Johnny Bravo phase, end quote. American radio personality Michael Medved gave the film three stars out of four, describing it as intriguing, audacious and very original, more believable and less cartoonish than previous zero zero seven extravaganzas. He went on to say, quote, its sometimes sluggish pacing will frustrate some Bond fanatics, which I disagree with entirely, but I guess it depends on what you mean by Bond fanatics. But Emmanuel Levy concurred, saying that the ending was too long and that the film's terrorist villains lacked depth. But he did praise Daniel Craig's performance and gave the film a b overall. Other review responded even more negatively, including Tim Adams of the observer, who felt that the film came off uncomfortably in an attempt to make the series grittier. So basically he said, like, it's trying too hard. And finally, Roger Ebert, towards the end of his life, gave the film a four out of four star rating and wrote, quote, craig makes a superb Bond who gives the sense of a hard man, wounded by life and his job, who nevertheless cares about people and right and wrong, and, quote, has the answers to all my complaints about the 45 year old James Bond series, specifically why nobody in a Bond movie ever seems to have any real emotions. End quote. So Roger Eberta a big fan, and said, hey, this is, like, by far the best Bond movie. As always, you can do us a favor by heading over to Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Goodreads or threads, any of those places. We would love to hear what you have to say about. Well, when we finish, you know, Casino Royale, we'd love to get your feedback on Casino Royale. You can head over to Apple podcasts, Spotify any of those places, write us a nice little review. You can also support us on Patreon and get access to different stuff at different levels, including at the $15 and up level patron requests. And this one is a patron request from Vic Apocalypse. Thank you very much, Vic apocalypse. Katie, where can people watch Casino Royale?
• 1:18:24
  Speaker B: Well, as always, you can check your local library or a local video rental store if you still have one. If not, you can stream this with a subscription to Fubo, Paramount plus, or Showtime. Or you can rent it for around $4 from Amazon, YouTube, Apple TV, or Fandango at home.
• 1:18:46
  Speaker A: Fantastic, Katie. I can't wait to watch this. I'm really interested to see what you think. Because compared to Thunderball, it's gonna be, it's. It's nothing like thunderball. Like, it could not be more detailed.
• 1:18:57
  Speaker B: I'm imagining that it is not.
• 1:18:59
  Speaker A: But I'm actually like, I'm actually really intrigued to see if you like it. Cause I actually don't know if you're going to like, I think it's a really, really good movie, and I like it a lot, but I I'm not sure how much you're gonna like it.
• 1:19:12
  Speaker B: I think I am mysterious and enigmatic like that.
• 1:19:15
  Speaker A: I think you'll like it, but I don't know. We'll see. So come back in one week's time, and we find out if Katie liked casino real until that time, guys, godlined by pals and everybody else, keep reading books. Keep watching movies and keep being.