Continuity Issues

[Count_Lippe]

I agree, the series certainly doesn't need the cold war. Besides the early films in the 60s were never that much into politics.

The cold war was merlely hinted at a few times, but apart from that it was Spectre who was the main enemy.

Fleming's books were much more about the cold war than the films ever were. In many of the stories the filmmakers replaced Soviet Smersh with Spectre.

And it should stay this way, I don't think Bond should fight moslem terrorists for example or be placed in a fictional cold war.

The Bond films should be glamorous and not mirror the real world more than to a lesser degree.

Surprisingly the Bonds of the 80s were actually more about the cold war than those of the 60s, however the morals in the films were always about detente. Bond and Gogol almost shook hands at the end of each film, and this was how it should be, the world didn't have to face a nuclear war between east and west in the 80s

[Kristatos]

And it should stay this way, I don't think Bond should fight moslem terrorists

I will say this for Craig, I'm grateful that he dug his heels in over this issue. Apparently, the terrorists in CR were supposed to be Islamists, but Craig objected. Being the good, Guardian-reading liberal that he is, he didn't want the Bond films turned into neocon propaganda, and I believe he was right.

[Dr. No]

And it should stay this way, I don't think Bond should fight moslem terrorists

I will say this for Craig, I'm grateful that he dug his heels in over this issue. Apparently, the terrorists in CR were supposed to be Islamists, but Craig objected. Being the good, Guardian-reading liberal that he is, he didn't want the Bond films turned into neocon propaganda, and I believe he was right.

I don't disagree per say, but I think the financing terrorist was a weak plot with out adding real menace to it. I don't think 9/11 matter as much as some people want to believe it does,(i mean the movie industry, and yes 9/11 was tragic)
Films like the Pirates of the Caribbean, Bourne, Batman, night at the museum, Spider-man, (insert block buster here) all action adventures that don't delve in to 9/11 or terrorist.
24 is nice for what it is, but I don't enjoy it as much as some of these movies.

In the cold war Bond never delved in to the true ugliness of the USSR (or the US). It was generalized, because it couldn't be ignored as a spy story.
The generalization of the terrorist in CR was stupid, since they were not going to show the real thing. The meance was lacking and the importance we automaticly associat with them is gone.
I mean if these terrorist are doing it for cash, who cares, its the one who don't care about money that are deadly to our familes.

d**n, I've strayed a bit form my main point.......
I don't think it was as important to try to interject a "post" 9/11 in to Bond. To me it just wasn't necessary. If it were United 93 and World Trade Center would have been the biggest movies of the last 6 years.

instead the fantastic adventures are the movie every one wants to go to. we don't need to think about the out side world when we are escaping reality in the (relative) safety of the movies

[Captain Nash]

9/11 was mentioned only once or twice in the film, and terrorists have been around long before the 9/11 attacks.
The Orginisation that Mr.White works for hasn't been revealed yet, and there's even some specultion it could be S.P.E.C.T.R.E.
As we find out in the film, they need LeChiffre alive because he knows 'the big picture', something well presumably find out in Bond 22.

[Dr. No]

But they tried to play on the 9/11 fears. If you lose you'll be funding terrorist and on 9/11 someone shorted some stocks, dialogs.
And the pay off wasn't even real terrorist. Someone who does a act of violence for money is not a terrorist they are a mercenary.
Using the "war on terror" as a back drop was totally unnecessary, Bond works just fine without it. They didnt use the IRA or Iran Contra.

I think CR would work better as a story without trying to force the terror issue. The bad guy was a much more subtle idea as a book that worked good without unnecessary action. The Bulgarians blowing them selves up to stop Bond, they werent terrorist only idiots.

But how realistic was Fleming's story to begin with anyway
"Expert baccarat player James Bond (British secret agent 007) is assigned the job of beating Le Chiffre, in the hope that the Russian agent's gambling debts will provoke SMERSH into killing him."

[paco chaos]

I have no issue with 9-11 being a focal point for CR. it's no different than having Bond deal with the Cold War, or the fall of Communism and it's aftermath, such as Goldeneye. or even having Bond deal with North Korea in DAD. Bond is a government agent, and terrorism is a valid concern for him to deal with.

[Captain Nash]

I'd say all the Bond films except maybe LTK have been in the bounds of Bonds profession. Both Fleming and Eon have always made Bond larger than life, (sometimes too large) but he's not supposed to be taken for real. Some artistic licence is required too. But we all get our jollies one way or another.
Surely not all opposed to Craig or CR hate/dislike everything about him or the film?

[Blowfeld]

I think Eon intentions were to do a more Jack Bauer take on James. Trying to make it more pertinent.
However I do take you point about terrorist not being essential for the story.

Fleming had a wonderful imagination, the Eon producers almost went nuts scouting locations for YOLT. For some unknown reason they couldn't find all those Japanese castles Flemming so vividly described.

[stockslivevan]

Let me clear it up.

There are no continuity issues because Casino Royale has neither a past nor a future (for the moment). So whatever Casino Royale does won't contradict anything in the original timeline because it has nothing to do with it.

I glady accept that. It's quite easy to. Trust me.