Judge John Hodgman - Subpoena Royale

Episode Date: September 3, 2025

Phaea brings the case against her husband, Justin. Phaea says the 2006 James Bond movie CASINO ROYALE is a remake of the CASINO ROYALE from 1967. But Justin says Phaea is wrong! Both CASINOS ROYALE are adaptations of the Ian Fleming novel from 1953. Justin says that aside from the source material, the two movies are completely unrelated. Phaea is not just shaken. Phaea’s stirred… to prove her husband wrong in internet court!With Expert Witness Matt Gourley (Conan O'Brien Needs a Friend, With Gourley and Rust, James Bonding) Who's right? Who's wrong?Unrelated to CASINO ROYALE, Phaea is a kid lit author with a new book out NOW! Get PRINCESS BATTLE ROYALE wherever you get your books!Please consider donating to Al Otro Lado. Al Otro Lado provides legal assistance and humanitarian aid to refugees, deportees, and other migrants trapped at the US-MX border. Donate at alotrolado.org/letsdosomething.We are on TikTok and YouTube! Follow us on both @judgejohnhodgmanpod! Follow us on Instagram @judgejohnhodgman!Thanks to reddit user u/Ok_Constant946 for naming this week’s case! To suggest a title for a future episode, keep an eye on the Maximum Fun subreddit at reddit.com/r/maximumfun! Judge John Hodgman is member-supported! Join at $5 a month at maximumfun.org/join!

Welcome to the Judge John Hodgman podcast. I'm Bayliff, Jesse Thorne. This week, subpoena Royale, Faya brings the case against her husband, Justin. Faya says the 2006 James Bond movie Casino Royale is a remake of Casino Royale from 1967. Justin says Faya is wrong. Both Casinos Royale are adaptations of the Ian Fleming novel from 1953. Justin says that aside from the source material, the two movies are completely unrelated. Paya isn't just shaken. Paya's stirred to prove her husband wrong in Internet court. Who's right, who's wrong? Only one can decide.

Please rise as Judge John Hodgman enters the courtroom and presents an obscure cultural reference. Hodgman takes immense pride in the numerous accolades and awards our products have garnered over the decade. for their innovative designs, premium quality, and unmatched durability in the field. Our dedicated customer service team is committed to providing knowledgeable, friendly assistance to ensure every Hodgman customer has an exceptional experience. We offer fast, reliable shipping options to get your Hodgman gear to you quickly, as well as easy returns or exchanges should you need a different size or podcast. Bailiff, Jesse Thorne, please swear the litigant's in.

Faya and Justin, please rise and raise your right hands. You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help you, God, or whatever. I do. I do. Do you swear to abide by Judge John Hodgman's ruling, despite the fact that his favorite bond is George Lassenby? I do. Absolutely.

Judge Hodgman, you may proceed. I love me some Lazzinbee. Fayia and Just you may be seated for an immediate summary judgment in one of yours favors. can either of you name the piece of culture that I referenced as I entered the courtroom hint that has nothing to do with James Bond. Justin, might we start with you? Well, that threw me for a loop.

I was expecting a Bond connection. Sure. I have no idea, certainly some kind of adventure product. I'll tell you what. I'll give you a further hint. Okay. Because I don't want to throw you for a loop, Justin.

I'm not a loop thrower. it has nothing with James Bond but it has something to do with both of you it has something to do with one of the words that came out of

my mouth before we started officially recording do you remember our little pre-show conversation so yes now I feel like

I have a pretty solid guess uh oh should I should be like too much hinting I gave you overhinted all right what's your guess then

some sort of uh LLB advertisement. An L.L. Bean advertisement. Let me write that down here on my pad of paper. Anyone who was looking at the YouTube can see that I really wrote that down. Judge John Hodgman Pod over there at YouTube. That is your turn to guess.

L.L.B. Advertisement or something else? So before we were talking about towns in Massachusetts. Were we? I think we were. So I'm going to guess that Brazilian bakery by the Framingham train station had a TV commercial. And this was the text from that commercial. The Brazilian bakery by the Framingham, let me write that down. Yeah.

By the what town? Framingham. Framingham. Jol, you ever been to Framingham, Massachusetts? Yes, I used to live. Weston. Oh, really? Yeah.

I've been to Framing him, huh? Yeah. All right. I didn't expect that. In any case, I've barely been to Framingham myself, but I believe, and I'm not going to docks you nice people, but you live somewhere near Framingham. That's true. Yes.

In Massachusetts, my home Commonwealth. Here's the thing. I really thought you were about to get this, Justin. You were on the right track because you were thinking, oh, Hodgman's up in Maine and the summer chambers up there at W-E-R-U.org, don't forget to donate. But L.L. Bean is in, what, in Kittery? Freeport. Okay, okay.

I'm not on trial here. You are. But I was not talking about the outdoor outfitters, L.L. Bean. I was talking about the outdoor outfitters called Hodgman Rubber Company, inventor of the fishing waiter, founded 1848, and headquartered for more than 100 years in Framingham, Massachusetts. That's right. Hodgman waiters. Many a listener and fan has very graciously send me copies of Hodgman's secrets for the steady sportsman or whatever it is. Sorry, it's Hodgman's handybook of sportsmen's secrets. I presume to bully me because I don't know anything about sports. But even though they and I, Hodgman and me, Hodgman, were all based in Massachusetts one time. Like me, they have moved on, sadly, and they're now based somewhere in Illinois or something.

And I do not, even though we share a name and the spelling, HODGM-A-N, and I own a pair of Hodgman waiters, which I have never used. Simply got them for the novelty of it. Even though I share a name and a correct spelling of H-O-D-G-M-A-N with this company, I have no connection to the Hodgman Rubber Company, the Hodgman waiters, or whatsoever anymore, than I am the secret heir to a cornflake fortune simply because my middle name is Kellogg. So, who seeks justice in my fake court of internet law? I believe I do, Your Honor. Says here in my notebook that your name is Fayette.

Yes. This is about two movies, one named Casino Royale. the other name Casino Royale. And you would maintain that one is a remake of the other. Is that right? That is correct. Right. And Justin, you disagree.

I disagree. Yeah. And now, Justin, I presume you care more about James Bond than your spouse? I would call myself a Bond recovering Bond person. Maybe not so much these days, but certainly grew up watching mostly Roger Moore movies. Right. Had them on VHS, wore them out. You used to be into bondage and no longer.

Not so much. Right. I mean, I still watched. I didn't watch the most recent one, so I guess I've kind of checked out. So correct me where, you know about this stuff. So correct me where I go wrong in this. This is my understanding of it. Sure.

There are two movies called Casino Royale. There's the recent one from 2006, which now that I realize, when I say recent, I mean 19 years old. Yeah. Which introduced Daniel Craig as James Bond. co-starred Jeffrey Wright as Felix Leiter and Madd Mickleson, Mads, Mickelson, excuse me, I didn't mean to de-pluralize him as Leshief and, of course, Ava Green as Vesperlind. Now, Jesse, did you know that I'm married to Ava Green?

I had no idea. I thought you were married to your wife, who, of course, is a whole human being in her own right. It's not just your wife. That's correct. I don't think that Ava Green knows that. I did not know that you were also married to Bond Girl, Ava Green. I don't know that Ava Green knows either, but yes.

and before that there was a 1967 Casino Royale now how and I ask you this Justin how is that Casino Royale different from the 2006 version it's a comedy and as I understand

like ensemble comedy it does share certain plot elements but it's not part of the main Bond series it sounds as though you've never seen it I have not and I never will Unless, of course, you so judge it.

It stars many, many people, including a number of people pretending to be James Bond. But it's like, it's Peter Sellers, David Niven, Ursula Andres, who I believe was also in some of the official Bond movies. She was the first Bond girl. Charles Boy A, William Holden, Orson Wells. It's a star-studded cast, but it was a wacky ensemble comedy. I believe made, and we're going to check with our expert witness later. by a person who had the rights to the book but couldn't get the

the producers of the Bond franchise to release it as an official James Bond so they turned it into a satire in order to do something with it. But we'll hear more about that later when we talk to our mystery guest. So you've not seen this one at all, Justin. Is that correct?

That's correct. Because you have contempt for it? I think the contempt has built through this debate. Oh. But no. I have never seen it. I didn't have plans to see it.

I think perhaps, honestly, if I had grown up more watching 60s Bond movies, I'd be more interested in it. But it's not my Bond generation. So I don't. Yeah. And to be fair, it is an obscurity. And I've also never seen it. And most people don't like it particularly. And Fay, have you seen it?

I have. I've seen it several times. The 1967 Casino Royale? Yes. I paid a small fee recently to rent it for 24 hours to watch it again. In preparation for this podcast? Yeah, and also for pleasure, because I do enjoy it. Oh, you like it.

I do. Maybe you're the expert. Tell me about this movie and why you like it. So Casino Royale from the original 1967 version. Yeah. Is very eclectic and madcap, and it's like a series of, I don't know, sketches rather than having a real plot. But there are plot elements that I think are funny

that remind me more of like the early James Bond's that I enjoyed. It's also just really silly. It's got like a wacky soundtrack. It's got a billion characters, some of which is just disappear. Peter Sellers seems to be doing a whole different movie than David Niven is doing.

I think it's chaotic. I really like the chaos. I think it's maybe a little inaccessible It's very long. It's two and a half hours long. What? But it speaks to me in a way with sort of like just bizarre character goofy. Let's just make a movie.

It might not make sense. And then everyone will blow up at the end. And there's like, you know, silly songs. And it has the look of love, Dusty Springfield, singing like a proper Bert Brackereck song, which is a lovely song. And that was introduced in that film? Yes. Yeah. Can you sing it?

You brought it up? The look of love is in. That's about all I would be able to remember, too. In your eyes. In your eyes tonight. Joel, you want to sing it? No. Okay.

So have you, and you've seen the new one. I did see the new one. I think in 2006 when it came out. You did not revisit that one as homework for this podcast. No, I don't like it. But I respect it. Oh. I respect it.

I just don't. It's just not for me. And have you read the, you haven't read the book? I just want to determine, is there a common plot line between the two movies? There is a common plot line between the two movies. It's a slim slice, but it is there, which is that they have the, they both have the same villain, which is Le Schiff. Le Schiff, Le Schiff, who is like, le Chif, with an art. Repet, Repet, Le, Schif.

Schiff Brough Traybien That's a tough name But he's like a money man For bad organizations Right And James Bond

His mission is to like Beat that guy In a card game And he does Les Chifera Repete Bakara Bahra

Well it's only Bakara in the book And Casino Royale In 1967 They switched it to Texas Hold'em in 2006 which just sounds like, but...

Repet. Texas hold Zem. Texas Hold Zem. Zem. Zem. Zem. Okay. And then there's the same love interest

slash spy companion who's Vespa Linde. And then the twist is the same, which is that Vespa is a double agent. So there's actually the core of the movie is the same. It's just how they get theirs is different. They just surround it with a bunch of wacky laughing sketches in the 1967. It's like it's a mad, mad, mad, mad, mad bond or whatever. Exactly.

Got it. Yeah. Like, the Casino Royale from 2006 is surrounded with, like, boring dramatic stuff. And then 2019 and 67, and then the 1967 version is surrounded by, like, maybe boring comedic stuff. So it depends on your taste. Some people consider Casino Royale 2006 to be their favorite James Bond movie. Did you know that? I think that's wonderful.

Some people. Justin, is it your? favorite Bond movie? It's a very good Bond movie. What's your favorite one? I think it's very good. Repet. Moon, Raquel. I very much like Golden Eye. I very much like Casino Royale. I very much like the corniest one I like, I think, is octopusy. But those are all very different vibes. Faya, how was it that you came to experience Casino Real, the old one, the first time? I was in college, and I think I was on an obscure comedy kick, and I came across this film and really enjoyed it. I was also maybe on a James Bond kick for some reason, but this movie is so, it was just so bizarre that it really spoke to me, and I just remembered it.

It was like, oh, that's the movie. it's an important movie. And it's sort of, I never really thought about it again until we got into this fight about it. Right. So how did this fight start? You're married. We're not married at that point.

We are married now. Okay. Congratulations. Thank you. It's lovely. Great. We were walking down Avenue A. And I believe what happened is we were just discussing films,

which we both enjoy. And I casually said that Casino Real was a remake of the 1967 version of Casino Real. the original version of Casino Royale, I probably said. And my wonderful partner, future spouse, whole person in his own right, got very mad at me in a comical way. But he was very, he was affronted that I would suggest something like that. And I would not back down. He got more and more frustrated.

He would not back down. And it was our first, like, real fight. It was our first real fight. So the guy you were dating slash living with and you were on Avenue A on the way to Houston Street, I don't know that neighborhood of Framingham, but you were living together. And he says, no, no, no, no, no. I'm so sorry. You know nothing about James Bond films. And yet, you married him anyway.

Even though he tried to gate keep James Bond to you, you didn't see that red flag? I just thought he was confused, you know, and I thought I could change him. I thought you could fix him. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But it's worked out fine. you're married, you're happily married now.

Absolutely. All right, let me poke this bear. Justin, my opinion is Casino Royale is a remake of Casino Royale. Change my mind. I mean, you're wrong. That's not what a remake is. Go on, change my mind. Tell me all about it.

Okay. So I do think there's a lot of different words that we use around movies to say like, oh, we're doing this again, basically. So there's remake, there's reboot, right? I don't think the Casino Royale from 2006 is either a remake or a reboot, although I've seen it called a reboot because of its tone, but I think it's a separate thing. For something to be a remake, it needs to share direct source material with the prior generation, right? So the implication would be that if it's a remake for the 2006 Casino Royale is a remake, then if it's a remake, then it's, It is inspired and driven wholly by the artistic endeavor of the 1967 Casino Royale, which it's not. And in fact, shares nothing with it.

The film shares the source material of the novel. So if you could argue it's a remake of the novel or what I would say, I'm looking for a new word here, honestly, re-adaptation, re-imagination, a new version. A new take, a new take or a new version. A new take on an old tale, right? So I would say this is the new version of Casino Royale. Why don't you sort of give me some examples? And through the examples, maybe define what a remake means to you versus a reboot. Sure.

So, I mean, reboot, I think, is generally something where you're kind of like refreshing a cinematic world or environment, basically redoing an IP. So we see a lot of comic book movies do constant kind of. reboots. I think a lot about the Spider-Man movies. Yeah, me too. I think a lot about them. But which ones? The Sam Ramey ones, which are very solid, right? The Amazing Spider-Man series, which is some people like, and then now we have the new, right? But they keep rebooting the same general. I would say the reboots. Godzilla, new Godzilla versus old Godzilla, rebooting kind of universes. So how is that different from a remake? Remakes, I would say, are you have a second film based directly on the creation of a prior film right so for example um what's my list for

these uh seven samurai becomes magnificent seven right um legette the short film becomes 12 monkeys uh what else do i have here i'm not helping you wait let me produce my list oh boy oh boy psycho 1960 Psycho, 1998. Well, that's a shot-by-shot remake. Remake, correct, because it's based on that prior iteration, right? Robocop 87, Robocop 2014, right? That second movie doesn't exist. You made that up.

I would agree with that as well, but it is unfortunately. The Lime Check podcast doesn't exist. It did happen. Infernal Affairs, Hong Kong action movie, really awesome, becomes the Departed. right, 2002, 2006. So you have Scorsese remaking a film from another cinema, essentially. It's interesting because I would have, I never would have occurred to me to call Magnificent Seven, a remake of Seven Samurai.

I guess I would have called it an adaptation. Sure. And resetting to American culture and obviously English language, but an English language remake to me feels, of a foreign film feels different to me than. say when Tony Scott makes the Manchurian candidate again. Obviously, the Manchurian candidate with Denzel Washington is in conversation with the original Frankenheimer Manchurian candidate. But they're both in the English language and they're both set in the United States

and they both reflect different time periods but different sort of cultural obsessions that are common. I do think that there is a subcategory of remake that is reinterpretation. which I would put that in. The cultural crossover, I would put that in. Now, let me ask you a question real quick. Sure. Listening to your guy, talk about his subcategories of movie lists.

Is this the sexiest thing of all time or what? How horny are you right now? I really, I love his little list. I think it's really sweet. I think it's really nice. I really appreciate the effort he put into making that little list. It shows that he cares. It shows love.

But I don't think it shows that. Casino Royale, 2006, is not a remake of Casino Royale, 1967. His argument is that it's another take on an old favorite, a tale as old as time, a song as old as wine, Casino Royale, why is it a remake? It's a very different movie. I haven't even seen the other one, and I know that it's good. It's worth seeing.

I think it's very, it's fun. You don't even have to pay attention, really. You can just sort of sit back and enjoy it. but it's a remake to me. I think what Justin is saying in a very professional way makes sense. But James Bond is a totally different animal.

James Bond is a series of books that were all made into movies until they ran out and started making up their own scripts. They were, like, it's like a cultural phenomenon. Yeah. Like we different generations are waiting for the next James Bond film

or waiting for the next James Bond film. Cina Royal in 1967 came out in the piece, of like the original round of James Bond movies. So it was like right in the middle. It did a really nice satire that was sort of still honored what the In Fleming book was about. And then they never... Hard for me to evaluate because having not read it or seen it, but okay.

I think I haven't read this. I haven't read the book either, but I have read Cliff Notes and it seems pretty similar. Thank you for doing work. And they even did, I guess, the old version of, What's the bad guys? Well, that's sheep. No, no, no, no.

The bad guy organization. Smirsch. Smirsch was the old one. And so they, in Casino Royale in 1967, they say smirsch, which is what they were saying at the time in the movies. Before Spector, I think. Yeah. I'm not an expert. But I also want to note that they never re- this is the first Ian Fleming novel that came out.

This was like the original James Bond story. Right. So the fact that they never touched it, even though this was like the peak of, you know, this was like the peak of making James Bond movies all through the 60s, all through the 70s, all through the 80s, all through the 90s, until finally they were like, let's reboot the series. And they start with this film. It just says to me that, like, there was a general understanding that Casino Royale had already been taken. Like, there was a James Bond movie that was Casino Royale that was in the Bond verse lightly. It was related. It was a cousin. And then they decided to remake it to reboot the series in this sort of dark. version that so many people enjoy and some of us don't. So that is why I consider this to be a remake because of the sort of cultural phenomenon

and the evidence that it just wasn't remade again. Well, before we dig into this any further, I've already acknowledged that I've didn't do my homework. I did not see the original casino royale if it is indeed the original or the other casino royale if I were to find in Justin's favor. I didn't

see it probably because I'm not married to anyone in it and that's usually a condition upon which I see a movie. Because I didn't do this homework, I thought it would be wise if we turned to an expert witness, someone who knows a lot about James Bond and has seen all the James Bond movies, if you even consider this one of them. And to bring us all up to speed on Casino Royale and why it was not adapted into a serious James Bond movie, and whether it even is considered part of the mainstream James Bond canon,

we're going to get into all of it. And I will also ask this expert if he believes, The Casino Real is a remake of Casino Real. But Jesse Thorne, do you want to introduce our expert witness? Indeed. Our expert witness is the host of James Bonding alongside Matt Myra, the past editor of the Judge John Hodgman podcast. You might recognize him from Conan O'Brien Needs a Friend or from Gorely and Rust,

our old friend, Matt Goreley. Hello. nice to see you, Jesse. John, it's really nice to be in front of the computer this time instead of behind the computer. Is that how you were editing it from behind the computer? Yeah, that's going to be a problem. Did you turn the monitor around at least? No, I had an assistant that I would bark orders to, but I refused to look at the screen. Oh, yeah, like Tom Hulse yelling at F. Murray Abraham and Amadeus. Do you have it, signor? Too many cuts. Too many cuts. Matt, welcome back to Judge John Hodgman. sorry that your career has taken such a downturn since you left us.

I am too. Oh, man. Just to reach my former glory today is enough. Yeah, but no, we're so, we're so pleased and, frankly, privileged to have you here. And now, James Bonding is your podcast all about James Bond movies with Matt Myra. What does James Bond mean to you? A lot, John. And I wish I could fully explain why it's, you know, you can't really, the heart wants what the heart wants, because on the surface. James Bond is a storied history of just as many problematic things as good things. But at the end of the day, you've just got a rollicking good time in a series that basically

invented the action blockbuster and became a travel log at a time when people weren't going around the world. Now, I came into the series later through my dad, and I think travel was a lot more accessible for middle class people. But at the same time, it was still a step above what you would see day to day and was so exciting. So it's had to reinvent itself throughout the years because people can easily travel now, but there's still a sense of exotic, wonder, thrills, and action that just is the escapist entertainment of the highest order. In the 60s and the 70s, like, James Bond was

taking people to places that they couldn't necessarily go, to Venice, to New Orleans, all around the world, to the, to the moon raker, even. To the moon, to the depths of a volcano layer. Yeah, but now anyone can, now anyone can travel to the depths of a volcano later. I'm living in one now. I'm so glad. I'm so glad everything's worked out for you, Matt. So, Matt, as you may know, our litigant Fayette believes that Casino Royale is a remake of the movie Casino Royale, if you understand what I'm saying. And her husband, Justin, disagrees.

Before you weigh in on that, do you consider the 1967 comedy movie Casino Royale to be part of, of the official James Bond canon. No, I don't. And this isn't in any way me being some kind of canon snob or anything. But I think that there's a kind of almost legal precedent for this, not a precedent, but an example of the fact that Charles Feldman, who had the rights to Casino Royale, directly approached Eon Productions, which was Broccoli and Saltsman at the time, who were making all the official James Bond films.

And they tried to work out a deal to do Casino Royale together, but it didn't happen. So only then did he go off and do his own version, which was kind of like almost a parody, legal, royalty-free version that is so different in such a satire and has very little to do with casino royal except for character names as a way of not being canon, almost, you know. It had to avoid being canon because Eon Productions and Albert Cubby Broccoli and later his daughter Barbara Broccoli controlled the whole franchise. with the exception of this and also like the script a thunderball or something, right? Wasn't there a little carve out there? Yeah, that's right.

Yeah. And I think they had made a TV version of Casino Royale even before this. Yes, there was a climax CBS theater production in the 1950s starring Barry Nelson, who some might know as the boss of the Overlook Hotel in The Shining. And he played an American James Bond

called Jimmy Bond with Peter Lorry playing The Sheaf. And that's the bad guy. the movie. Yeah, yeah. And played by Orson Wells in the 67 version. So, uh, so that's part of why they, Eon Productions didn't control those rights because this other guy, Feldman had already bought the rights. That's right. Matt, you say you're not a cannon snob. Is there any artillery about which you are a snob? Um, mortars. Mortars. He's a real gatekeeper when it comes to mortars. Mortars, uh, yeah, I suppose, just artillery, just artillery. Just artillery. Just artillery.

That's the only thing I'm a real snobbing. Those big siege machines that shoot like 100 arrows at a time. All of it, traeus chas, catapults, you go back through time. Just a caveman throwing as big a rock as he can hold. Glad to hear it. To prove I'm not a canon snob. I love Never Say Never Again, which is not a canon film. It was the one that because Kevin McClory owned the characters of Thunderball in a legal dispute,

he got to remake it in the 80s under the name Never Say Never Again with Sean. Connery. I wouldn't say I love it as an oddity. But I love to watch it. It just doesn't have all the music and the same actors in the roles that you would know from most of the Bond films. Do you love the 1967 Casino Royale as an oddity? I've tried. I've tried to love it in the same way. I've tried to love, say, the holiday Star Wars special where you watch it and on paper the oddness of it is going to be so much fun, but you get about an hour in and you realize I just can't do this much longer. If you're giving an hour to the Star Wars holiday special, I mean, you're much more patient person than I am.

But I'm talking clockwork orange style or my eyes are pinned open. Yeah, yeah, right. Oh, I remember those parties you used to host. So have you ever read the book, Casino Rao? There is a book, right? Or a story? There is. It's the first James Bond novel I've read it multiple times.

Yeah. And do you like it? I love it. I really do. Do you like the 2006 movie with Daniel Craig? Here's how much I like it. It's my favorite James Bond film. Wow.

Zowie, you heard it here first folks. Well, it's been said other places probably too many times, but yeah. Do you think that most people, that a lot of people find Casino Royale, 2006 edition to be their favorite James Bond movie? Come on, Matt. No, actually within, you know, the

bond community, for lack of a better term, people regard it as one of the better, if not the best James Bond films. I'm with you, Matt. I think that's my favorite James Bond movie. I also like the most recent one because of how sad it was but um my taste in this particular form of uh action film tends towards just as boring and

sad as it could possibly be and possibly at some point like a pool of blood spreads out over a field of snow you're talking my the older i get the more i transition from the kind of black and white world of bond to the grays of le carre and so you just put on that 2011 tinker taylor soldier spy that's just steeped in 70s smog and fog and gray, but with orange egg crate foam background, it's the best. Matt, I'm watching the 1970s BBC version with Alex. I've seen it multiple times and smile with Aligh Guinness. Yeah.

Yeah. Oh, my God. And a young Patrick Stewart as Carla. Yeah, a wordless Patrick Stewart. Oh, really? Yeah, he doesn't say a word. He doesn't even say make it so, his favorite line? He doesn't.

Matt, just for funds, Albert Cubby Broccoli, I don't think is alive, right? No, he died. And Barbara Broccoli who's been controlling it, controlling the James Bond franchise for some time, recently made a deal with Amazon Studios and MGM to turn over the rights and development of the new James Bond films to them. So things are up in the air, just for fun. If you were hired to cast the new James Bond movie, who are, let's say three of the people that you would consider being a great new James Bond. You can think of one serious one, one funny one, one wildcard one, or whatever you like.

Well, it's funny you should mention that because I actually think what I would want to do, and this is controversial to some people who love Bond, is cast at least three bond actors and not in the way that they do in the 67 Casino Royale, but to release. Right, because they're a bunch of different people playing James, quote unquote, James Bond in that one. Right. to release a series maybe year after year of unrelated episodic bond adventures that take place in different eras so you have like a 50s bond with michael fastbender and it's a period piece maybe a 2000s bond with idris elba a 90s one with erin pierre i don't know if you saw that new

movie rebel ridge on net i have not seen it kind of like a uh throwback 70s revenge thriller he's a really kind of charismatic good looking tough bond and I would love to just see a few one-offs of those and let the whole series reset a bit and then maybe go back to a kind of continuing series with the same actor because you also have to sign an actor now for a decade at least

and you never know how many films you're going to get in and I don't know you could do different tones and styles you could do almost different genre like almost an anthology series exactly yeah yeah all right you know what you're in charge

okay great oh my god congratulations you got I better get to work oh but Matt each episode will have to have Jeff Bezos's wife in it. Yeah, she will be the main bond girl regardless. That's the one carryover. Yeah. Right.

The one carryover of everyone. Yeah. So, Matt, here's the big question. I'm going to have to take off my headphones in order to let you speak your piece because I have not yet formed my verdict. Okay. And I want to see if your verdict matches up with mine later. I haven't heard all the evidence yet.

I haven't figured it out yet for myself. But I'm going to pose the question to you, because you've had a moment to think about it. Is 2006's Casino Royale a remake of 1967's Casino Royale? Yes or no? And why or why not? I'm very sympathetic to the plight of Fayette, but my answer is a definitive no, and here's why. Because both movies are making the book. It's not just that Casino Royale 67 is so outlandish and crazy and really has nothing to do with the book.

If you match the two up, you would be hard-pressed to say one was a remake in anything else but tied up. If anything, 2006 Casino Royale is a remake of the 50s CBS Climax thing because at least those stories are the same. But they're both based on the 1954 novel. So it's not a remake. No, I'm sorry. I really don't see any way it is. And I am now done. I'm finished.

Matthew, thank you so much for taking the time to join us on the program. I'm sure Judge John Hodgman listeners will follow you to your various wonderful podcasts. It's always nice to see you, old friend. You're number one. You too. Very good to see you, and thanks for having me. Matt, what's going on? What are you working on now?

Are there new episodes of James Bonding, or is that complete? Where can people hear it and all the other stuff that you're into? We kind of follow the dormancy of the franchise itself. So right now, it's pretty dead except for the announcement of Denny Villeneuve as the director. But we'll be back in the future, just like James Bond will return. James Bonding will return when there's more stuff to talk about. But other than that, I do a film podcast with Paul Russ called With Gourley and Rust where we handle thrillers and horror movies. But we call it an easy listening podcast, kind of cozy horror, snuggle up with your favorite, you know, horror movie and listen along.

One last question for you, Matt, before we let you go. And thank you so much for being here. You mentioned that Casino Royale 2006 is your favorite bond. Were you aware that Ava Green, who plays Vesper Lind in that movie, is my wife? I was aware she's my wife because she's my favorite bond girl. So this is going to cause a real problem. Oh, my gosh. Well, we'll have to settle this off, Mike, sometime because I know you've got to run and record 35 other podcasts.

Thanks so much for editing our podcast. And can we get you to do this one just for fun, for free? Yeah, if you want to hand over Ava Green, that'd be great. Although I love her so much, I'd be willing to just be in a polyamorous relationship with the three of us. Well, in any case, thank you so much. Matthew Gourley, my favorite husband, I'm so glad to be married to you. Thank you, guys. We're back.

Matt's verdict is locked in. You have not heard it, Faya. You have not heard it, Justin, correct? Correct. All right. I'm still figuring out my verdict. But one of the things that Matt talked about is that he does not consider Casino Royale to be part of the James Bond canon because the original, that is.

Because both the original Casino Royale and later Never Say Never Again, which was an adaptation of Thunderball, both exist in this weird liminal rights space that Albert Broccoli didn't control. And therefore, it's not part of the official canon slash timeline. of the James Bond universe. How do you respond to this idea, Faya? So, never say never again. I think it's kind of a sad story.

I don't know why it kind of makes me sad that they made it with Sean Connery after. So it makes me sad to begin with. So just because of that, I wouldn't consider it to be part of the canon. Because it's sad. But it is a remake, essentially, of the earlier James Bond movie, Thunderball, which Sean Connery had been in.

It's very strange. to me. This whole multi-universe James Bond thing, I think, upsets me. But I guess it is a remake of Thunderball. I also agree it's not part of the canon, whereas Casino Royale in 1967 is. Let me ask you

this, Justin is Never Say Never Again, a remake of Thunderball. I would say it's either a remake of the film or it's a remake of the pre-existing novel. I don't know where they hold the

second film from i don't so dune right the villanueva dunes i would not call a remake of david lynch's dune film i would call those a new version of frank herbert's novels repete villa neuve villeneuve good villeneuve new cities so you were saying that that is a new version not a remake of the david lynch film that's what i would argue yes i would say the same for you know we get the philip k dick like sci-fi stuff total recall right like there's a fairhoven total recall

there's also a new total recall that falls into that same category as the Robocop right that doesn't exist but it does sadly exist but I would say again that that's a new version it's a new version of right this old

this source material Fea is Denis video news Dune and Dune Part 2 a remake of David Lynch's Dune It is to me because I understand what Justin's saying about the novel being the source material. But I think this is a moment where you have to look at this movie as the pop culture phenomenon it is that most of us know that the dune that David Lynch made was like this huge catastrophic failure that everyone thought was terrible. So it's like this thing that exists in pop culture.

Everyone. And every single person from big. baby to elder, they know that it's a very, everybody, everybody. Everyone. Every country. Okay, maybe not everyone. But a lot of, uh, no, I thought it was doomed. Nerds.

Yeah. I mean, I love it so much. But even David Lynch is like, no, I don't ever want to talk about that again. Right. And, and it is, maybe it's because we're like film school kids and like we, like, we're nerds like that. I'm not on this level, you know. I like it.

I appreciate it. But Dune, because it was such a failure, the fact that they remade it into like a better two-part, whatever, I haven't seen it either. I would consider that a remake. It's like it's a remake for the pop culture, denizens of fantasy novels or something like that. Justin, you are a screenwriter. Is that so? Yeah, I'm a writer and a teacher. A writer and a teacher.

He teaches screenwriting. I do teach screenwriting. Yeah. If you were to write a remake of a movie, what movie would you love to remake by your definition? Just out of curiosity. Anything in mind? You can come back to it.

Let me come back to that. I don't have one off the top of my head. Great. Faya, you told our producer that you're passionate about, and this is a quote from my notes here, things being linear. What does that mean? and how does that affect your view of the case?

I think that that just means, like, once something has happened, we can't pretend it didn't happen. We have to, like, acknowledge that it exists, especially when it comes to sequential films in a series. Like, it makes me crazy, I think, when they do remake, I mean, apologies to the room, but the fact that they've remade Spider-Man so many times,

like, makes me crazy. Because I just feel like we've done it. it? Like, what other stories could we tell? That could be fun. None. So I get very... The answer is none. That's fine. And I respect that. I just hard disagree. It's just Spider-Man's and Batman's all the way down. Justin, what do you want me to rule here? That it's not a remake. What would it mean if I were to rule that Fea is right? How would you feel? I would feel okay. I believe it's completely possible that the way that I think about remakes and reboots and reimaginations is

different from perhaps a larger understanding of these things that I'm not right so I'd feel okay I like to learn I make a lot of mistakes so if Judge John Hodgman said no this is a remake dude I would be like well the judge said so you're telling me what I want to hear here is that what I'm doing well I mean you've been having this dispute

for more than a decade it feels like roughly Well, I'll secretly inside still feel like everyone else is wrong except for me. Yeah, there we go. That's more like it. Thank you for being honest. I know everything I need to. In order to make my decision, I'm going to go into my chambers. I'll be back in my verdict. Please rise as Judge John Hodgman exits the court route.

Faya, how are you feeling about your chances right now? Not good, honestly. Why is that? Because I think my opinion is based a lot. lot on like emotional value of films and properties. And I do believe that I'm, that I have a point that I, that I am correct. But I don't know if I necessarily have the evidence behind, this is just how I feel to back that up. So I do feel like I was heard, which is appreciated. But I don't know. I feel like, so-so. Justin, how do you feel? A pretty,

pretty mid as well. I think I made an okay point, but I don't think I was totally there with all of my assertions about reboots and reimaginations and reimaginations and new versions in those things. So we'll see.

We will indeed see when we come back with Judge John Hodgman's ruling in just a moment. Judge John Hodgman, we're taking a quick break. What have you got going on? I just recently saw someone was watching Dicktown on Hulu, and they posted a little something

about it to their Instagram stories. What a delight. That totally tickled me. They're filming their Hulu and put it on their stories. While it's still there, please, before it gets vaulted, go to Hulu.com. If you're over 13, we have some swear words in Diketown. And why don't you, why don't you, if you enjoy it, film it and put it on TikTok or your reels or whatever. Let people know that it's out there. Maybe you should start your own TikTok account, just featuring clips from Dicktown, call it TikTok. I got Joel Mandelap with that one.

What's going on with you in your life, Jesse? We have so much new stuff in my store to put this on shop. You probably know that I have an antique and vintage store. It's online at put this on shop.com. We have a few of our New York and California baseball caps, which are hands. handmade here in the United States one at a time. They're very beautiful. You can find them on the home page.

We've also been adding a lot of new ladies things to the shop, including a bunch of jewelry, among many other things. You can find it all at put this on shop.com. That's put this on shop.com. I'm also, I've been uploading weird board games lately. There we go. They've just been coming home from the, from the flea market with weird board games. People love weird and people love board games.

Get yourself over to Put This Onshop.com. You know, it's not too, it's not too, like, talking about getting ready for Halloween. It's not too soon to start thinking about the holidays, honestly. Once you lock in some presents for the folks in your life from the Put This Onshop.com, think of the brain cells that you'll free up later in the season. Go go over there right now. A lot of fine jewelry lately. beautiful silver and gold rings for men and women

all online at put this on shop.com, so go check that out. Let's get back to the case. All right. Please rise as Judge John Hodgman re-enters the courtroom and presents his verdict. Roughly 1,000 years ago in Game of Thrones times, I used to be involved in Hollywood. And you're not going to mention Dune

and the making and the remaking of Dune without hearing this story. And I apologize to all Judge John Hodgman listeners who've heard some version of this before. But a long time ago, I was seated on an airplane and seated next to me was the actor-turned director turned Peter Berg. He was always Peter Berg.

He didn't turn into Peter Berg. He was an actor-turned director. He directed Friday Night Lights and battleship. And Hancock, but he also starred as Billy Cronk and Chicago Hope and other things. Anyway, I knew who this guy was because I used to work in a video store. And I didn't want to say anything to him because that would be weird. But we were stuck on the tarmac for 90 minutes or so due to a weather delay or something. It was getting really boring.

And finally, with a heavy side, Peterberg went and opened his leather satchel and brought out a copy of the novel, Dune by Frank Herbert. And I was really excited about this because, you know, I'm a Dunehead from far back. and though I had promised myself I was not going to interrupt Peter Berg's blessed solitude, I couldn't help myself, but boy, wow, that's amazing. I wish I had a copy of Dune to read right now. And Peter Berg, without missing a beat, said,

oh yeah, you want one? I've got two copies. I was astonished. Why do you have two copies of Dune, Peter Berg? I asked, out loud. And he said, well, I'm thinking about making it into a movie. and he goes on and on about how he's going to adapt this book into a movie

and it seems like he's doing it for the very first time. I was like, am I going to be the one who has to tell Peter Berg that there has already been not one but two versions of Dune made the David Lynch one and the sci-fi channel miniseries?

Eventually it was revealed that Peter Berg knew that there was a David Lynch movie, but his idea was to take all the weirdness out of it, which was not my idea at all. I will say that he never really answered the question why he had two copies of Dune. If you're making a movie, you only need one.

You only need one. Years later, Peter Berg ended up not remaking Dune. See, I used that term remaking. Interesting there. That might have been a slip of a tongue or a tell. But years later, I met a guy who had been approached about making a new version of Dune again. And I was like, I don't know if it's worth it. I think that this book is unfilmable.

It makes a lot of sense when Frank Herbert is writing about giant worms that eat sand and poop hallucinogenic drugs. That's a wonderful thing to read about. But based on my knowledge from when I saw David Lynch's Dune, no matter how good the effects are,

when you see giant mushroom, you know, like giant hallucinogenic poop, Swooping worms coming out of the sand. It's dumb looking. Maybe there's no way to film it. And I started to think about it. And that night I went and I had some, went to the Hollywood hotel where I would stay. And I was having dinner with some other friends, some of whom are professional writers, screenwriters and other kinds of writers.

And I said, you know what? I told this guy that he shouldn't make Dune, but I take it back. You should make Dune again. And we should all get him to hire us as the. screenwriters. We'll take over a whole floor of this hotel. It'll be stupid and pointless because he can't film this movie. But why should I turn down months of free lodging in this hotel with my friends trying to crack some new version of Dune getting paid handsomely to do so and then walking away with a payday and a memory forever? And I said to one of these friends,

what do you think? And this guy is an accomplished genre author, just a brilliant person. I'm not I'm going to name, because it's a little bit, you know, it's whatever. It's privacy. But he said something to me that I remember ever since. It was Tom Clancy. I'll say it. It was Tom Clancy. And the rest of the dinner table were all of his ghost traitors.

So I say this and he goes, I'm not in. I'm like, why not? Easy money. Live in a hotel. I mean, there was no offer to do this, but I was like, a man. And he said, no, because here's the thing. I write in the genre of science fiction and fantasy and speculative fiction. I write in the genre that Frank Herbert was writing when he wrote this novel Dune,

which was such a strange new amalgam of interior novel writing and sort of ecological proselytizing. And it was, you know, the beauty of Dune is that it's so strange and it was so new. and we're living in this time when the only things that ever get made are remakes and reboots and reimaginations and so forth and I feel like it's my job working within this genre to make new things and I think that's something that's really worth thinking about this was more than a decade ago right

and the problem has only ever gotten worse or you know more I don't want to use a value judgment there necessarily, although I do think it's worse, but it's like, it is now almost impossible to make new content within a mainstream studio or TV system. Like, people just want familiar IP. And to this guy's credit, he went on to make a new thing, which is beautiful and wonderful and terrific. And it is completely new. And then he also ended up being an uncredited screenwriter. on Denis Villeneuve's tune.

He did it after all. The little sucker guy, and did he invite me to work on it with him in the top floor of the Chateau Marmont? No, he did it by himself. You know who you are, you selfish bastard. But I love you. We see you, classy. Not a selfish guy at all, one of truly nicest, most creative people.

And, you know, I would plug his work, but I don't want to say his name in the context of the story. some other time, some other time. Or go back to when I told this story five other times and I said his name. Yeah, figure it out. The point is, part of me doesn't want to rule on this at all because it's like, who cares?

No offense. But I mean, it's like, you know, to, there's very much a part of me, Justin, that does want to look through your Linnaean classification system of remakes versus reboots versus new reimaginations or whatever it is right but then there's part of me it's like we shouldn't be having this conversation all we should be making new things but with that said you don't come to me

with a you don't you come to me with a with an issue within your marriage that needs to be resolved and i and i am pledged to resolve it so let's break it down since we were talking about it is never say never again a remake of Thunderball. I would say that it is not. It's weirder because it is making the same movie again, but it's not acknowledging that it is a remake. The Manchurian candidate is a remake of the Manchurian candidate because it is obviously in interrogation with the previous movie.

Whether you like these movies or not, it is a remake of it, right? Spider-Man Homecoming is not a remake of Spider-Man. Sam Ramey's Spider-Man any more than Spider-Man is a remake of Sam Ramey's Spider-Man. They're different stories. They are, I guess you would say, a reboot drawing from the same source material

but not a specific story, but all of the source material of Spider-Man. Dune, parts one and two by Denny Villeneuve with uncredited screenwriting helped by my friend. I don't think he did a lot, but he did enough for me to make the story, I would say that that's a do-over insofar as the book Dune is so, is so difficult to film that even David Lynch, which, and by the way, David Lynch's Dune is a magnificent,

folly and incredible film in the ways that it succeeds and fails, it is absolutely fascinating. And the sci-fi channel one is fine, too. It has some good performances. But everyone who approaches Dune approaches Dune in the same way that I do, which is like there's some fundamental thing that is broken that I'm going to try to fix with the previous version or with the sheer unfilmability of the book. So it's like a do-over, if you will. The Hunger Games is a, not a remake of Battle Royale.

It is what we call a rip-off. A highly potent. concept that is done again with its own, I mean, with its own skill and quality to it. Do you know what I mean? Yeah. But as far as Casino Royale, I'm going to say this, not a remake. Hey, I'm sorry, but it is exactly like your prosnickety cinemophile husband and life partner says. it is a re-adaptation or a new adaptation of an existing property.

The reason the Casino Royale has been living in exile has somewhat to do, I suppose, with its tonal difference from the rest of the James Bond franchise, right? And I haven't seen it, so I don't know why I'm out here saying it's not good and nobody likes it. It's good enough for you to like it and you obviously have good taste. And maybe I should look at it, right? But it is an anomaly within the James Bond world, not merely because it is a different tone, just like there's a different tone between Moon Raker and Quantum of Solace. No one touched it until 2006 because they couldn't get the rights to it, which is a boring definition, but a meaningful one.

Like, it's not as though they were saying, like, oh, we got to remake Casino Royale, that great movie in the James Bond franchise, but we're going to make it serious this time. No, they were like, we can't get the rights to that book. and we sure would like to because we're out of material. And then they got the rights to it and they made it. And I think that they adapted the novel. They did not adapt. They did not remake Casino Royale the movie in this specific case. And as far as whether it is cool to remake things or reboot things,

you never know when a remake or a reboot is actually going to create something new or exciting. And as much as I agree with my friend that we really do have an imperative to make new culture and I really urge people who are, and I, as I trust you, are urging your students, Justin, to like think of new ideas,

present new material. For a while, there was no The Matrix. I mean, we're going back 26 years now, right? It was like, The Matrix was a new screenplay that created an IP. Like, I'm not, not just saying this out of cultural necessity, but for financial avarice. If you can make an IP that you own, ooh! The old literary agent is back at it. It's much better to work within

a world of your own ideas than to adapt someone else's ideas. But that said, I'm sorry, Justin, I liked all your ideas for remakes and reboots, but everyone's wrong. It's the sound of a gavel. Judge John Hodgman rules that is all. Please rise as Judge John Hodgman. exits the courtroom. Faya, how are you feeling about this verdict? I'm devastated, but I think it's right. I think that I realized halfway through my argument that this really was more about, as the judge said,

my anger that the original Casino Royale, I do like that movie, and I do like things being linear. And I think I realized halfway through my fiery speech that that might be what is making this such a passionate argument. I do respect the judge's verdict and Justin's little lists. I think it's all good. And I am, I'll be fine.

Justin, how are you feeling? I feel satisfied. I hope to now watch the original Casino Royale with my wife. Faya, Justin, thank you for joining us on the Judge John Hodgman podcast. Thank you, Bob. It was a pleasure. Another Judge John Hodgman case is in the, books. We're going to have swift justice in just a second. First, our thanks to Redator. Okay,

constantly 946 for naming this week's episode, Subpoena Royale. You can join the conversation on the Maximumfund Reddit, maximum fun.reddit.com. We're also asking for title suggestions there, so keep an eye out for those. Evidence and photos from the show are posted on our Instagram account at Instagram.com slash Judge John Hodgman. We're also on TikTok and YouTube at Judge John Hodgman pod follow and subscribe to see our episodes and our video only content speaking of youtube this week's youtube comment of the week comes to us from at mother nature run xx i in a recent episode uh... aaron complained about the menu that her husband bill had set out for their child's birthday party featuring it was a dragon themed birthday party and he put out a lot of

things that were themed to dragons so he had like bugles that they called dragon claw and lemonade that he called Dragon Pea. Too many foods were named after dragon excretions for Aaron. We posted a clip from the episode called Where's the Dragon Puk Bill? And Mother Nature on the run, XXI said in their comment, a question asked for the first time in human history. Where's the dragon puke bill? Question asked for the first time in human history, but perhaps not the first time in Hobbit history. Middle Earth I'm talking about. I think they were probably tripping over a lot of dragon puk over there. Mount Doom. Anyway, if you think there are no more original experiences left in the world,

we at the Judge John Hodgman podcast are happy to prove otherwise. Thank you so much Mother Nature Run XXI for giving our producer a chuckle. That's Jennifer Marmer, our producer, and for leaving a comment. Won't you leave a comment on our YouTube channel at Judge John Hodgman Pod if you're over there? And while you're over there, won't you share, like, and subscribe those videos? It really is the best way to help people discover them to show for the very first time. And if you are just listening in your old ears in the old-fashioned way. We welcome you to. Please consider leaving a review and a comment over at Apple Podcasts or Spotify or wherever you comment on your podcast. It really does help people discover the show. Thank you. The Judge John Hodgman

podcast created by Jesse Thorne and John Hodgman. This episode engineered by Chris Kalafarski, a PRX podcast garage in Boston, Massachusetts, and by Joel Mann at W-E-R-U and Orland, Maine. I engineered myself this week, John. I'm recording from home. People who are watching on video may notice I'm not wearing my little outfit. I'm sorry. What can I say? But what a trooper you are. Thank you for joining us anyway, even though you're a little under the weather there, Jesse. I was looking forward to it and enjoyed it. Our social media manager, Dan Telford, the podcast edited by A.J. McKeon, our video editor is Daniel Spear. Our producer is Jennifer Marmer. You ready for swift justice, John? I am ready. Never underscore robot on

MaxFund subreddit says, my husband always uses the same three words at the beginning of a wordal game. If he gets the answer on the next move, he says that he got it on his first try. It is his fourth try. Wordal statistics back me up. Wait a minute. If he puts down, he has three words that he chooses from to start his wordal puzzle. No, he says all three. Every time he says all three of the same word. No, the same words. he has three words that he always guesses with his first three guesses. Oh, so it's his got it, got it. So, all right.

So he'll guess word one, then guess word two, guess word three. And then if he gets it with word four, he claims he got it on his first try. Yeah, no, that's your fourth try. I don't need wordal statistics to back me up. That's common sense. First try is the first word. Second try is the second line. By the way, best first word, audio.

A-U-D-I-O. Come at me. By the way, we're releasing this episode in September, but where I am here in our summertime chambers at w-E-R-U.org, it is still August. It is still August, Jesse. And guess what they have at the Walgreens? Halloween decorations.

Skeletons galore. They were, Joel, they were hiding those skeletons up on a shelf last time I was here. Yep. Now they're out. There'll be Christmas decorations next. Nope, Halloween is here apparently already. It's time to start thinking about your spooky disputes. Spute, sputes.

That was a gross echo. Do you have a beef with a g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-ghost? Do you want to put up scary decorations, but your partner says it's too early? Are you compiling a list of scary movies that you want to watch, but your roommate is a scaredy cat? Send us all of your Halloween-related disputes, horror movie disputes, things that go bump in the night disputes, cryptid citing disputes, ghost story disputes, anything you got within that realm

should be sent to us mystically at maximum fund.org slash JJHO. It's not mystical, it's just science. Or you can even email me at maximum fun.org that's Hodgeman, I should say, at maximum fund.org. And indeed, we want all your disputes, right, Jesse?

No case is too small, no subject to obscure. Submit those cases at maximum Maximumfund.org slash J.J.H.O. That's maximum fun.org slash J.J.H.O. And we'll talk to you next time on the Judge John Hottman podcast.