User talk:Diablo1024

Casino

This passage--

"I never figured out what the plane bombing had to do with the money being wagered and how the African guy lost his money after the bombing attempt was thwarted. I have to watch it again.

Sharky's all over it. The terminology was sloppy: LeChifre told the broker to "Short another million shares" (intending to buy back the shorted shares after his plot to destroy the prototype was carried out and the company would be near bankruptcy. He would thus make $ having sold the stock when it was expensive, and buy it back when it was cheap), but in the explanatory section, M tells Bond that someone bought vast numbers of puts (options which permit one to make $ if the underlying asset decreases in value) on the prototype's company which expired worthless. This is to acknowledge the post 9/11 terrorist attacks analysis, which showed that large numbers of put options had been bought on airlines, insurance companies, and leisure travel companies before the attacks were successfully carried out. The question, of course, is who bought the options, and how many were bought just because the companies involved were thought to be overvalued or to protect an investment of stock in those companies, as opposed to bought to make $ on the murder of people.

Anyway, sloppy terminology since shorting stock is not the same thing as buying put options, even though if the stock goes down, both can make $.

The poker game was therefore needed by LeChifre to make back the $ he had lost in the market on the foiled destruction of the prototype in order to pay back the people who had given him $ to invest for them (the African "Freedom Fighter", amongst others).

Sorry, I got on a roll here!"

-- Is the only passage that mentions put options. Neither of the two times does it say that "in the film" that is what is going on. The first time it is mentioned is when the commentator is talking about the actual 9/11 attacks. The second time was talking about how the film uses "shorting" instead of "put options". Also, you cannot cite a forum, it isn't considered reliable.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the movie screws up is irrelevant. What M says doesn't matter to what Le Chiffre says, and his words were "short another million shares" (probably not the exact number, but the other words are correct). Whatever the truth behind terminology is, what he said was "short shares".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Because you are tacking later dialogue onto something mentioned early. His machinations are summarized as him shorting shares and then attacking the companies he's shorting in an effort to make money. There doesn't need to be any other explaination tacked on about put options. The whole point is brevity. You're tacking "and/or bought put options on them" to something that doesn't need it. It either is or it isn't. If you have to say "and/or" then it means there isn't certainty, and everything is mere speculation. If he actually bought put options. If you look at the definition of shorting shares, that is what Le Chiffre did. He anticipated that the stock would fall--by way of engineering a terrorist attack on it--in an effort to make a profit. You can see it at Short (finance)#Concept. Now, maybe he was doing both. Who knows, it really isn't clear what he was doing, just that he used someone else's money to do it and that he lost it all. Maybe the whole sentence should reflect just the put options, I don't know because the movie itself doesn't explain it all that well--probably because what he did with the money is irrelevant to the fact that it wasn't his money to do anything with.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

How is it worth mentioning? Wikipedia does not list "goofs", they fall under trivia and Wikipedia avoids trivia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a movie site that explains inconsistencies in a film. Inconsistencies happen all the time in films, they hold no encyclopedic value unless the film is noted for being so inconsistent. Casino Royale is not noted for such things. Both ways seem like the same thing, except "put options" appears to be more of a contract thing between the seller and the broker, where "shorting shares" seems to be just one person. If you have financial background, I would assume that you would know exactly what true term should be. Regardless, we don't correct mistakes films make, or point them out (unless there was something notable about it, and whether he used put options or shorted shares, or both, isn't something that was notable for the film). You can always start a discussion on the film's talk page to see what other editors think.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)