Official v Unofficial

Film location guide for 2006 James Bond film Casino Royale, with Daniel Craig; in the Czech Republic, including Prague and Karlovy Vary; Nassau in the Bahamas; Italy, including Venice and Villa Balbianello on Lake Como. The pre-credits scene, filmed in black-and-white when the traitor Dryden says 'Don't worry, the second is.' Bond puts one silenced round in his chest killing him instantly; and then finishes his sentence for him, 'Yes.

This film marks the third screen-adaptation of Ian Fleming's novel Casino Royale, which was previously a 1954 television episode and a 1967 film spoof; however, the 2006 release will be the only official adaptation of Fleming's novel.

Who exactly is it that is declaring this to be the official version? EON Productions itself? --Kwekubo 20:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

EON Productions is the official film series because they own the film rights to Fleming's novels (at the time with the only exception being Casino Royale). It's always been referred to as the official series vs the 1967 and 1983 unofficial films. Never Say Never Again was made due to legal wranglings over Thunderball and Casino Royale wasn't acquired by United Artists/MGM until 1999 (Fleming sold the rights well before EON got to it). See Casino Royale, Thunderball, and James Bond. This Casino Royale being the only official adaptation is undisputed. K1Bond007 21:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

It is, however, problematic usage, because 'unofficial' in this context would usually refer to unlicenced hence illegal adaptions, which none of these 'unofficial' adaptions were. Morwen - Talk 12:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I've never seen 'unofficial' used in that context. Unauthorized, yes, but not unofficial. In any event, EON itself uses the term unofficial in referring to the 1954 and 1967 Casino Royales and NSNA. 23skidoo 14:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

It's disputed by me. If the TV version and the '67 film were unofficial, they'd have been sued out of existence by the Fleming estate and Eon. But they weren't, because the producers of both had paid for the film rights and were legally entitled to make their respective productions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.134.115.57 (talk • contribs) .

Please sign your comments. As clearly indicated in the article, Casino Royale was authorized because the studios held the rights to the book; but they were never considered 'official' parts of the James Bond movie series. 23skidoo 17:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This is pretty much the explanation. Unofficial != Unauthorized in this case. This is a very widely used term by the fans, by the authors of James Bond books (non-fiction), and even by producers of the films. Theres the official series and then the unofficial stuff. That's just how it goes. K1Bond007 19:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Jolie rumor

I debated whether or not to add the rumor about Angelina Jolie being up for the role of Vesper Lynd. The Sun, by itself, isn't necessarily the best source, however I have seen the report on several other shows such as eTalk Daily and at least one local news show but I wasn't paying attention which broadcaster it was. The Sun link isn't great because to read the whole story one needs to subscribe -- can anyone find a better link that either offers the complete Sun story or, perhaps, provides a corroborating report? The fact the rumor has been reported worldwide makes it notable enough to be included here. IMO Jolie would be a great choice for the role to make up for Craig's relative lack of street cred in the US, but this could end up being just another rumor such as the DAD rumor about Connery filming a cameo that was also reported on TV and elsewhere. I've also seen a single online-based news report suggesting Jessica Alba is also a contender, but I haven't included it in the article as I've yet to see this rumor mentioned anywhere else. 23skidoo 14:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Jolie would overshadow Bond and that's not good. It didn't work for OHMSS. By the time CR is released Craig will have a number of films under his belt that the public may be aware of (Spielberg's Munich and The Visiting with Nicole Kidman). I'm not going to argue this out, but I don't think we need to mention every girl that pops up in the media. Most of it's BS anyway and the search for the next Bond girl is way more low-key than the search for Bond. I'm sure an official announcement will be made next month along with casting for Le Chiffre. K1Bond007 17:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The only reason I listed Jolie is because there's been fairly widespread coverage of her (and to be honest if we didn't recognize it as a rumor pretty soon someone would post that it's fact). Personally I think it'll be a British actress since we've already had two Bond films in a row with American leading ladies (Denise Richards and Halle Berry), plus Jolie just did a very similar part in Mr. and Mrs. Smith. I agree that casting Jolie might overshadow the film, though I don't think Diana Rigg really overshadowed OHMSS that much since most of the ads I've seen for it in Cork's book and elsewhere show the promotion focused on the new Bond. As one who hated Berry's performance in DAD with a passion I don't know if the series needs to have a Bond girl with equal billing. I think a lot will depend upon MGM/Sony's attitude. If the reports are true that they wanted Brosnan one more time it's just possible that they caved in to the request for a relatively unknown (in America) Bond, perhaps with the understanding that a 'name' actor will pick things up either as Vesper or LeChiffre, or maybe in a supporting role such as Michael Madsen appearing in DAD. In any event, the film will not live or die based upon the Bond girl (again look at DAD, AVTAK, MWTGG and other entries with IMO poor lead Bond girls), it'll live or die based upon who plays Bond and that hurdle has been jumped, for better or for worse. 23skidoo 19:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Rigg was specifically hired to offset Lazenby being a relative-unknown an inexperienced actor. Most of the promotional material didn't help either as it showed Bond 'out of focus' and never mentioned Lazenby's name. In fact, to my recollection (maybe Dr. No is like this), OHMSS is the only Bond film that does not have '___ presents ____ as James Bond in Ian Fleming's..' (or a variation of this <as Ian Fleming's James Bond in..>). K1Bond007 19:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I don't think that sort of credit was established until FRWL, but I'd have to check my DVD of Dr. No to be sure. 23skidoo 20:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I just checked, Dr. No isn't like that, but later promotional material (such as the VHS and the DVD cover) is. OHMSS is not. It's listed as 'Broccoli and Saltzman present James Bond in OHMSS'. I don't have the DVD so I can't confirm if it's still like that, but given the covers weren't changed, I would bet this is still the case. -- Tangent over :) K1Bond007 20:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Plot details

Just as we did with the Bond actor search, I think we need to establish some sort of criteria regarding plot details. I'm already seeing some rumors swirling about (CommanderBond just had one), and I can just imagine that some pretty outlandish ideas might be reported and/or just made up by some sources between now and the film's release. I think we should require that a link to a reputable source be included with future additions, just as we did with the actors and with the Poker report. 23skidoo 21:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Well obviously anything that we add to this article until the film is released should be cited. The two plot revelations from CBn, I'm pretty certain are real. K1Bond007 02:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Continuity

Which continuity is this supposed to fit into? See as it's a reboot, is it to be set in the 50's and be the actual Casino Royale (ie. the real canon, the Fleming novels)? Is it to be in some comic or novel universe? Or an entirely new continuity altogether?--Codenamecuckoo 12:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

From what I've heard the film will take place in the 2000s. Bond films have never been strong on continuity -- even within the particular Bond actor eras (count how many different actors played Leiter during Connery's time). Judi Dench is reportedly going to play M so that means it won't be part of the original novels continuity. I'd say that it'll be the same sort of reboot we saw when, say, Brosnan or Dalton took over the role, except that this version of Bond will not have encountered any of the previous adventures, been married, etc. as established in the earlier films. See the film version of The Sum of All Fears for a previous precedent to this. 23skidoo 15:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Cecile de France

Reportedly, this article states that Cecile de France tested for the role of Vesper but was turned down. I don't read French so I'm afraid I cannot verify this myself. 23skidoo 19:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I removed her from the article. Her agent said she won't be Vesper. 'Cecile does not play [a role] in the next James Bond film. She took part in a casting for Casino Royale but was not retained for the role.' [1] — I'm sure the official announcement will be made soon anyway. K1Bond007 02:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

It might be worth remembering her name for the inevitable trivia item i.e. 'Actress considered for the role of Vesper included...' which would also include Angelina Jolie presuming she also gets debunked. (Though technically de France hasn't been debunked as her management confirmed she tried out for the role ... what is debunked is that she has been chosen for a part - so much for IMDb being a reliable source, huh? Too bad, though, I actually think she might have made a good Vesper. My gut still tells me they'll choose a 'name' actress to beef up the relatively unknown (in America) lead, maybe not Jolie (though that would be cool in my book) but someone. As long as it isn't a total miscast like Halle Berry I'll be happy. 23skidoo 04:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Nah, people who almost became Bond is one thing, a Bond girl though? Not really notable. It won't be Jolie, that'd be horrible casting anyway considering they were in Tomb Raider together. I hate to play the card, but they should pick someone who is British considering her role. I don't think they'll pick a big name. Someone who is known, but not that famous. That's my bet. K1Bond007 05:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I haven't read CR in years so I can't remember if Vesper is supposed to be British. If she isn't then they could go with a European actress. I agree listing every actress who tries out would be a bit much, but notable actresses who have been confirmed as trying out is another matter. For example, Brosnan reveals in his Playboy interview that Monica Bellucci tried out for the role of Paris Carver in Tomorrow Never Dies; she's notable enough that I felt it was worth adding a trivia item. If Cecile de France pulls a Keira Knightley and becomes an overnight household name, or if someone can confirm Jolie was in the running, I think it would be an interesting piece of trivia. I personally love playing 'what if' with these kinds of roles. 23skidoo 13:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

M isn't male in this?

So... are we supposed to believe that they are taking creative license with the character then?

No more so than past Bond films have by making Leiter a young man, then an old man, then a young man, then a chubby man, then a young man, then a black man, then a young man, then a middle-aged man ... 23skidoo 12:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Charlize Theron

My source for the Charlize Theron is the online version of The Scotsman, however the article isn't accessible without subscription so I couldn't provide a working link. There is a mention at IMDb but that link, too, will be no good once the news cycles through. Has anyone found a more permanent link with this report? 23skidoo 01:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Pretty sure the original source was the Mirror. K1Bond007 02:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I considered whether to include this, but whether it turns out to be true or not it is getting some media play, as did the Jolie rumor. 23skidoo 02:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Bond candidates image

The newly-added image showing pictures of a number of the actors who were considered for Bond is rather cool, but it has been marked for deletion as it wasn't uploaded with licensing information. The original uploader has been notified by another administrator, but if anyone can jump in and add the missing info, it might save this interesting image from going bye-bye in a few days. 23skidoo 04:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Possible release delay?

The Calgary Sun, in its end-of-2005 look ahead to 2006's film releases, speculates that since filming has yet to begin on Casino Royale and it isn't even fully cast yet, it's release will likely be pushed back into 2007. This is the only media I've seen make reference to such a delay although there was some talk awhile ago that 2007 would provide the film with a once-in-a-millennium advertising opportunity. Anyway, I don't want to add the speculation to the article unless other media have made similar reports. Has anyone else seen any film writers suggest CR may be delayed? 23skidoo 22:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Complete speculation with no real basis. It might come true, but it's been known since the film was announced that filming wouldn't begin till the end of January or early February. Judi Dench has made several comments to back that up. Daniel Craig, Martin Campbell, and Michael G. Wilson also. Theres no reason to even come to this conclusion right now besides that they haven't announced who will play Le Chiffre or Vesper. That'll come soon, I'm sure. K1Bond007 22:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I am concerned that with production only days away neither the villain nor leading lady has been cast. I suppose they could go ahead with Craig on his own and add the others later (wouldn't be the first time). I guess if such a delay is going to happen, we'll hear about it soon. 23skidoo 20:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, look at the other news. Supposedly Sony is gearing up to release a teaser poster later this month. They wouldn't do that if the film was being delayed or had a chance to be delayed. I figure, if that's true, they'll probably announce the actors concurrently with the teaser poster. K1Bond007 20:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Latest reports

Assuming the latest reports are correct, so much for the film being a faithful adaptation of the novel, huh. 23skidoo 22:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Demetrius is the villain

Should we link to Demetrius (and move that page to a Disambiguation or what) or should we link to Demetrius (James Bond Villain)? - SGCommand

• Let's hold off until more details emerge. I wouldn't want to encourage anyone to create an article on the character yet since it would probably get AFD'd at this point. And to my knowledge EON has yet to officially announce any of the casting or certainly the characters. Maybe such an announcement has been made and I missed it, but at this point I still categorize these reports with similar 'confirmed' reports that had Gorjan Vijnic (or whatever his name is) being signed for Bond, and before him a dozen other actors. Once official details emerge about the character, or the movie release gets closer, then I'd say go ahead with the link. But at this stage, I don't even feel comfortable enough listing him on the disambiguation page yet. 23skidoo 17:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Details will supposedly be released this Friday. So I think we should wait - also we know nothing about the character so any creation will be deleted by AFD per Crystal ball. Also, if any article were to ever exist, it should follow the same format as all the others; thus Demetrius (James Bond). However, his name might not be simply Demetrius and it's not yet known if he -is- the villain. I've seen speculation that he's an Emilio Largo type, I've heard he is Le Chiffre, etc. We don't know. K1Bond007 22:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, since Le Chiffre is a nickname anyway, there's probably a good chance that Demetrius is Le Chiffre. Cyclone49 03:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Except I've also seen a report on Commanderbond.net suggesting Le Chiffre is a separate character who might (or might not) be set up as a Blofeld-like character. It's this sort of uncertainty which leads me to be very hesitant to include anything about the villains, or Vesper for that matter, until some official announcement is made. 23skidoo 04:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
    • But you don't know. It's mentioned in the article that it's all speculation and rumour. Technically, so is the casting news on who's playing him. There's been no confirmation there. It'll all be announced this week so, I' think it's best to just wait. K1Bond007 04:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Rumors about Vesper Lynd casting

Need I remind people that sources such as the Daily Mail had names like Gorjan Vijnic being shoo-ins for Bond right up to the announcement of Craig? There are reports that an actress has been signed for the role of Vesper, but until EON confims it, it's just a rumor and the name should not be added to the cast list. The same actually goes for the other roles, too. As I recall, Craig didn't officially become Bond until the day before the announcement (or darn close). Until EON makes the announcement, all names being reported (I'm still seeing Theron being talked about) should be treated as unconfirmed. 23skidoo 01:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Kudos to K1Bond007 for his 'renovation' of the Vesper Lynd section. 23skidoo 05:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Tarantino

Casino Royale 2006 Caly Film Lektor

There's a statement in this article that has been bugging me for awhile -- and that's the statement Tarantino cannot work with Sony or MGM because he is not a member of the DGA. I think this needs to be sourced, if it is even true. I have not heard of him being blacklisted because of a lack of affiliation. Certainly George Lucas hasn't been forbidden from working because he doesn't belong. And strictly speaking Sony/MGM are not making this film anyway -- EON Productions is. If this can't be backed up by some verifiable source, I suggest the speculation as to why he wasn't chosen for Casino Royale be deleted. Thoughts? 23skidoo 02:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

No, it's true. Tarantino is not a member of the DGA. This is why Tarantino was able to be given 'Special director credit' on Sin City (the director wanted to give credit to Frank Miller too, but the DGA forbade it forcing that director to resign his membership - that's why Miller got credit). See Directors Guild of America and Sin City (film). Sony/MGM are still financing the film so Tarantino would have to be member, I believe. Totally different than George Lucas who finances his films on his own - and guild members cannot direct his films (such is the case with Spielberg and Star Wars). Pretty sure that's how it is. K1Bond007 07:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't so much disputing the fact Tarantino wasn't a member of the DGA (in fact I think you're going to find the DGA fast losing influence as more Robert Rodriguiezes and Tarantinos (and Lucases for that matter) emerge and are successful). I'm just not certain that Sony/MGM as a company requires it. The fact Lucas couldn't use Spielberg I believe was due to Spielberg choosing between keeping his DGA and losing it for working with Lucas; and Lucas' standing certainly never impacted Fox's involvement. Many companies have no qualms about using 'non-unionized' workers, so I just can't see it being an issue with Sony/MGM since they (like Fox and the Star Wars films) only distribute it. It MIGHT be an issue with EON, and that's where I think things need to be specified. That's assuming the speculation is even correct. Not everyone likes Tarantino's style; I personally don't think he's right for Bond, and perhaps EON feels the same way. 23skidoo 16:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

As I stated, Sony/MGM finance the film. Star Wars is fully paid for by Lucas only. Theres a difference.

When will it end?

It's January 25 and they still haven't cast the villain? (see [2]). And still no official announcement of the official cast members. Maybe they'll be doing what they did with Sin City and just have Craig act to a green screen and add in the other actors later? 23skidoo 18:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Now we have The Sun (not the most reputable of sources, mind you) saying it's Thandie Newton, not Rose Byrne who has been cast as Vesper... 23skidoo 18:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Considering filming starts, I beleive, tommorow, they must have cast the roles by now, unless the movie is going to have a large amount of scenes with no one but Bond and M. I think it's very likely that all the major roles have been cast, and they simply haven't announced them yet. At least, I hope so... Cyclone49 07:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Starts Monday at 9am. Supposedly, Martin Campbell and Daniel Craig were filming something last week. It might be promotional stuff or something, I don't know. A couple sites said a teaser poster would be released soon too - like end of January or the beginning of February. I figure if that's true, they'll announce it then, with something to show instead of just a list of names. Even if they haven't cast a Vesper or whatever yet, it is possible that they might not need the actress at the start of filming. I don't believe all hands have to be on deck for the first day. Also I think it was The Living Daylights that started production before Dalton was even announced to the press (I do believe he was signed, however). I think Judi Dench said she doesn't start till February, however, she might not have known the specific days/times when she was interviewed - she certainly knew the places, though. K1Bond007 07:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

One good example is You Only Live Twice which didn't have a Blofeld cast until well into production because the original choice dropped out. Considering this film is being shot in several well-separated places it's possible Vesper and LeChiffre might not be needed until filming starts in Eastern Europe. I do find it odd that no official announcment of the casting has been made beyond Craig. (I have yet to see any official word about Dench, even). Maybe they're just being super-careful about who they pick since this is being seen as a relaunch/reboot that could end the franchise or keep it going for another 40 years. 23skidoo 16:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Q

It's probably too soon to add this since we don't know the script yet, but if there is no reference made to Q/Q Branch/Boothroyd in the new film (whether the character himself appears or not) that will make Casino Royale the first Bond film (official or unofficial) to not include some reference to Q (he's at least mentioned in LALD, appears as Boothroyd in Dr No and FRWR, and a parody version appears in the 1967 CR; I'm not counting the TV show). 23skidoo 19:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Casino Royale 2006 Caly Film Cz

Deleting minor characters

I see no need to list minor roles like the 'Swiss Banker' or 'Croupier' at this stage, and it's hard to confirm that the names connected with them are in fact official. What say we delete those and just stick to the main/notable cast members for now until an official cast list is released (which should be made available after the film wraps)? 23skidoo 01:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree until this is ironed out. No offense to these actors, but we can't exactly take them on their word (one coming from a guy's father who is a taxi driver ??) considering the Gulshan Grovers and Rikki Lee Travoltas of the world. Alternatively mention them in unconfirmed reports - so at least it's there and we're not ignoring it completely. K1Bond007 04:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The danger is that, in recent weeks, this site (the best on the web, incidently, for Bond 21) is in danger of becoming one HUGE spoiler. As for minor characters, look at imdb's Mission: Impossible III site; one mention of “Torture Guy” and they're all off - this is going to be R-rated!, etc. Anyway, it can spoil the plot. I don't want to know what Czech bodybuilder has been cast as “SMERSH assassin no. 1” or whatever. Anyone who's read the book knows how it ends. I wonder how long it will before THAT becomes common knowledge. Scott197827 16/2/2006

Related to the above discussion, I have reverted an anonymous user's edit which deleted several characters such as Villiers without explanation. The characters that were deleted didn't seem to be particularly minor (like those discussed above). If by chance the edit was due to some new information that these characters have indeed been cut from the film, please revert me -- though it should be mentioned in the edit summary as we've become conditioned around here to automatically treat as suspicious any substantial deletions made by unregistered users. 23skidoo 16:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It would appear they were deleted because they are listed in the cast and characters section of the confirmed reports part. The list you're talking about, is kind of a unconfirmed bio though. It should probably be cleaned up and retitled for clarity. K1Bond007 18:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Irony

I think it's quite fair to use the term 'ironic' when referring to the fact that, due to mergers, Columbia Pictures will be distributing the official version of Casino Royale, seeing as previously they were only able to get the rights to the one Bond book, and chose to produce a critically lambasted spoof which is considered one of the more infamous films of the 1960s. Now, ironically, they find themselves involved in a proper, serious adaptation (though the jury remains out on what the critical response will be, of course). 23skidoo 19:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Continuity

I added to this article and gave the continuity issues their own section and addressed them further and they were removed without merit. I didn't write the whole thing, I expanded and clarified an existing portion of the article. For the record, this is what the continuity section states:

'Confirmed elements of Casino Royale suggest the reboot will take liberties with established continuity from earlier films. Aside from the obvious impossibility of the timeline, there was an obvious thread of continuity throughout the previous twenty films, and references to past events such as Bond's marriage and gadgets from previous films were frequently included, regardless of the actor portraying Bond. Prior to 'Casino Royale', it was always suggested that the same Bond character had gone on all the previous cinematic adventures. 'Casino Royale' shows Bond earning his 00 status early in his career, though certain plot points rule out the possibility that it is a prequel. Most notable is the fact that the female M seen in the Pierce Brosnan era will be in charge, contradicting GoldenEye which clearly establishes Judi Dench's M as a successor to an earlier M (and the films of the 1960s through the 1980s which had a male M) later in Bond's career. Also, although Felix Leiter has been portayed by a wide variety of Caucasian actors throughout the series, this is the first official Bond film in which he will be played by an African-American (Bernie Casey previously played Leiter in the unofficial film, Never Say Never Again). While the movie reboots Bond's continuity, it was known as 'Bond 21' by EON productions during pre-production and as such is considered the 21st entry in the established Bond series as opposed to the beginning of a new one.'

K1Bond007 reverted, saying 'rv - previous rendition was apt Continuity is incredibly loose. Gadgets don't always turn up and Tracy is rarely mentioned. Most of the films could be seen out of order and the viewer would never know'

The continuity is not 'incredibly loose'. Before 'Casino Royale', EON went to great lengths to make it obvious that the Bond in, say, 'Die Another Day' was the Bond that had gone on every previous mission. The death of his wife Tracy occurs in 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service' and the event has been referred to by all 5 pre-Craig Bond actors: Connery was apparantly searching for Blofeld to get revenge in 'Diamonds Are Forever', Moore gets his revenge on Blofeld in 'For Your Eyes Only', Leiter tells his wife about Bond's marriage in Dalton's 'License to Kill' and Bond's failure to protect Tracy is alluded to in 'Tomorrow Never Dies'. Add to that the scenes in 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service' and 'Die Another Day' where Bond shows familiarity with gadgets from previous adventures and I'd say that the continuity is not 'incredibly loose'.

The only major continuity issue is the obvious fact that the Bond from 'Dr. No' would be in his 70's or 80's by the time 'Die Another Day' took place but constantly setting a character in the present day without aging said character is common in literature and that is obviously the route EON took pre-'Casino Royale'. As a matter of fact, the gadget scene in 'OHMSS' and the graveyard scene in 'FYEO' were actually included to shoot down speculation that the Bond character was a title held by rotating agents. There's absolutely no denying that EON made efforts to maintain continuity up until only recently.

As for his statement that 'Most of the films could be seen out of order and the viewer would never know', that is the nature of the way the film series was designed, but the fact that the series has never RELIED on continuity doesn't invalidate what continuity is there. Like several other series in different media, the Bond series was designed to be episodic yet the continuity serves to reward those that can recognize it.GuruAskew 03:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you ever seen On Her Majesty's Secret Service? Why is that that Blofeld didn't recognize Bond after confronting him in You Only Live Twice? Why is it that Bond doesn't seem to understand Chinese in the slightest in Tomorrow Never Dies, when clearly he states to Moneypenny in You Only Live Twice that he has a degree in Oriental Languages? Tracy is never mentioned in Diamonds Are Forever, that's merely implied because it follows OHMSS - hell he was looking for Blofeld just as much in OHMSS. Your Tomorrow Never Dies reference is reaching. Yes. There are references to Tracy, but they're rare. Beyond the time difference, whos to say that The Living Daylights didn't take place before Live and Let Die or if you want something where time isn't as noticable, how about For Your Eyes Only before Moonraker? What about even Diamonds Are Forever before OHMSS. Would the viewer know? I doubt it. I'm not trying to say that Brosnan's Bond isn't Connery's Bond or whatever, I believe they are (I don't accept that 'James Bond' codename theory), but the contiuity is very loose. I stand by my revert and will continue to do so because it is not without merit. K1Bond007 06:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Heres a good read (although I merely skimmed). 'But the movies are another story. Believe it or not, for a series that's been around close to forty years, and which inspires trivia tests and in-depth studies by the score, there's very few tidbits out there to connect one Bond adventure with another.' -- loose. Not my POV as has been stated by GuruAskew. (Note the source as the Ian Fleming Foundation) K1Bond007 07:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Note the source is David Morefield, who represents the James Bond film series in no official capacity whatsoever.GuruAskew 07:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Because a man representing IFF with his own 2 eyes (or maybe he doesn't have 2 eyes, who's to say) can't be trusted. GG. You really prove a point there. K1Bond007 07:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The Ian Fleming Foundation has absolutely NOTHING to do with the production of the film series. If this debate was in reference to the literary series that would be one thing but since we're dealing with the films the opinion of David Morefield is no more valid than yours or mine.GuruAskew 07:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Casino Royale Movie 2006

'Daniel Craig will mark the first time that 007 is portrayed by an actor under the age of 40 since 1969's On Her Majesty's Secret Service.' This is incorrect. Sean Connery was in his thirties when the Bond franchise began.

• Christ, look at the quote in question. It says 'since 1969's On Her Majesty's Secret Service' which came 7 years after Connery's debut as Bond in 1962's Dr. No.GuruAskew 19:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Please sign your comments. George Lazenby came after Sean Connery. And Connery was well over the age of 30 when he next played the role in Diamonds Are Forever. 23skidoo 18:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Casino Royale 2006 Caly Film Cda

Aston DB5

Casino Royale 2006 Caly Film

The article suggests the DB5 is the same car as the 'one' featured in Goldfinger, Thunderball, GoldenEye and Tomorrow Never Dies (though the car featured in GoldenEye and Tomorrow Never Dies is different to the one from the Connery era, the registration number is out by two digits). But the DB5 shown in Casino Royale set pictures is a left hand drive, Bahamas-registered model rather than the right hand drive, British-registered models featured in the other films. --Ayrshire--77 13:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You can change the wording. It was only meant to be that 'Bond drives an Aston Martin DB5 in those movies'. It's not to suggest that they're all one and the same, although by the time of GE it's Bond's 'personal car', not the service's so the registration being different isn't exactly conclusive evidence (of course I say this without any knowledge of how this works in the UK - in the states you can get that changed whenever especially when ownership changes). As for CR, from the the set photos I saw, I can understand why someone would think it's on the left (kinda looks like it), but in the trailer, it's on the right. Doesn't make a difference either way since it is impossible to be the same exact car from Goldfinger. K1Bond007 17:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Though you can buy personalised registrations in the UK, the plate generally goes with the car. I noticed the wheel being on the right in the trailer though, oddly, because I'm sure I've seen on set pictures of Solange getting in the passenger side on the right (and the registration being readable, so it wasn't a mirror image). But then the Bahamas drives on the left, like the UK, being a former British colony... Something's not adding up somewhere, anyway! Though in trying to separate out the three cars, I can't think of any wording appropriate without it sounding convoluted and messy, so in hindsight it's probably best left as is! --Ayrshire--77 07:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)