Start with Dr. No or Casino Royale?

___0_0_7___ · July 2010

Hypothetical situation...if someone told you that they've never watched any James Bond, would you advise them to begin with Dr. No - the first made - or Casino Royale - seemingly the first sequence of events in Bond's career?

Loeffelholz · July 2010

At this point, I'd probably advise a Bond newbie to watch Craig's two films first...and then go back and watch them all in order, to see where the character's been. As ever, mileage and opinions will vary

DEFIANT 74205 · July 2010

___0_0_7___ wrote:

Hypothetical situation...if someone told you that they've never watched any James Bond, would you advise them to begin with Dr. No - the first made - or Casino Royale - seemingly the first sequence of events in Bond's career?

I think that depends a lot on whether that person has read any Bond novels. If not, then whether that person prefers all-out action movies or spy thrillers. If that person has read Bond novels before, I'd start with Dr No. Casino Royale is a lot more action packed than Dr No is, so perhaps CR is more suited to someone who might be a fan of action films such as the Bourne series.

Both are great movies, and I don't think you can go wrong with either.

thesecretagent · July 2010

We all have to face facts now. Craig's Bond has moved on so far, I see his films as a seperate entity. In fact, even as a huge fan of Connery's Bond, they are hard to watch straight afterwards. The pace, special effects - whole feel of the films are hugely dated. I'll never stop liking them, and I doubt I'll stop watching them, but it's then and now - similar to the Star Wars films. All great to watch, but sadly not back to back.
I would (hypothetically) advise watching the films in the order they were released, then view Craig's as a reboot to something new.

Thunderpussy · July 2010

I see, Craig's Bonds Good, All the others Crap. Good to know.

Loeffelholz · July 2010

Thunderpussy wrote:

I see, Craig's Bonds Good, All the others Crap. Good to know.

Wow. Didn't see that in any of the posts above... ?:)

Speaking only for my own rationale: For someone who's never seen a Bond film (and presumably, by logical default, hasn't read the classic '50s/'60s novels

), I figured Bond's origin story and its sequel would be the way to go...and then move through the classics in order...and I did predict that opinions would vary.

[Craig Wars^TM flashback ensues]

Perhaps decaffeinated next time?

thesecretagent · July 2010

Thunderpussy wrote:

I see, Craig's Bonds Good, All the others Crap. Good to know.

How did you come up with that from any of the above posts?

Thunderpussy · July 2010

I read Them.

thesecretagent · July 2010

Perhaps Leoffs and myself had better work on our writing skills. I've read and re-read the posts, and I'm lost as to how you interprepted that the remainder of all non-Craig Bond's are crap. I personally said that Connery's seem dated in comparison. I'm actually a huge Brosnan fan, Dalton fan, Lazenby fan, Moore fan and Connery fan. However, nearly fifty years have passed since Dr. No. If they aren't going to seem a little dated by now then the movie industry would cease to exist...

Thunderpussy · July 2010

I would suppose then the novels are now also slow and hard going to a modern reader,I personaly belive a good story well told either in film or written word will last the test of time,Others will disagree.they need fast editing tricks and CGI to keep them intrested. just backs up my point of the modern Bonds are being made for Bourne fans, not film Fans.
I wonder could you give an example of the slow pace of one of the earily Bonds,Goldfinger perhaps as I think this is perfectly paced with all the right highs and lows to keep any audiance intrested. Where CR had some long streches of nothing much happining, with most of the action crammed into the first Half.I don't find them hard to watch at all.

thesecretagent · July 2010

But I never said Casino Royale or Quantum of Solace were better. I largely don't think they are. I like casino Royale because it's pretty loyal to the novel, in the sense of overall story and feel. Many of the Bond films share only the title with their novel counterparts, that and maybe some character names. There are also a great many Bonds I prefer to QOS. What I said is that the Craig era films are best not watched in the same context as the previous Bond films, and certainly not as a prelude. This also is not necessarily a good thing. The Bond films now are bang up to date, maybe even chasing a younger demographic. Maybe and quite possibly younger than me. I'm 39 - I like the old films - my childhood Bonds, but I also like the new era films. I'm not a fan of the shakey camera, Bourne-esque action sequences, and you need a grand and a half worth of tv and blueray to get the QOS boat chase, but I appreciate them on a differerent level to the other films. They are not better, just different.
You are right, Goldfinger is perfect. The Bond novels, like most novels written, are as good now as they always were. 50% of the writer's description is subjection - made to realisation in the reader's head. Pace, prose and dialogue hardly date like celluloid.

Barry Nelson · July 2010

A good provocative question, I would recommend they start be watching Dr. No. IMO they will learn more about Bond than they would with CR. Loeff's point, well stated as always, that the reboot would offer someone a look into how Bond got started would make sense, except the reboot IMO does little to reveal Bond's beginning, it's a narrative mess. Some young inexperienced Bond, some Bond seemingly more experienced, the relationship with M, and other inconsistent themes, throw the whole reboot "let's see Bond get his start" out the window. I will say the flashback scenes in CR were effective. However, in Dr No, we get to see his fondness for gambling and late night activity, later his fondness for women (Sylvia Trench), his desire to keep a low profile (scene at the Jamaica Airport), his attentiveness to detail (checking the room for listening devices and intruders) his ruthlessness when he kills the professor. I could name some more, but I think you get my point, Dr. No gives a great glimpse at our hero for any new Bond fan.

Loeffelholz · July 2010

Can't really argue with watching DN first, naturally!

And my rationale for starting with the modern Bonds also has to do with the fact that they are modern films (for better or worse), and to me simply seem to be a nice jumping-in point for the Bond novice. And of course I disagree that CR is a narrative mess

I think it's a pretty well-written film...better than probably any of Brozzer's, overall---IMRO best since Maibaum's prime. But that's just me.

My most earnest advice for any Bond fan (familiar with the films or not) is this: If you haven't read Fleming's original novels, do so :007)

And of course, Craig Haters^TM hate Craig. It's their raison d'etre; it's who they are and what they do. And that's perfectly understandable and to be expected---rather like night following day---so Thunderpussy's welcome to luxuriate in his opinion {:)

Back when we could actually write articles on AJB (

), I wrote one :

http://jamesbond.ajb007.co.uk/daniel-craig-the-literary-bond/

...wherein I attempted to explain why I thought that Craig captures some of the more important aspects of the literary character. I believe most Craig Haters^TM disagreed with me at the time, and most undoubtedly still do

) All the same, to me the dark hair and the comma over the eye (or the height) aren't the most important things. Sue me

Tee Hee · July 2010

Loeffelholz wrote:

Back when we could actually write articles on AJB ( ), I wrote one :

http://jamesbond.ajb007.co.uk/daniel-craig-the-literary-bond/

...wherein I attempted to explain why I thought that Craig captures some of the more important aspects of the literary character. I believe most Craig Haters^TM disagreed with me at the time, and most undoubtedly still do ) All the same, to me the dark hair and the comma over the eye (or the height) aren't the most important things. Sue me

A formal complaint has just been filed. Expect a call from your lawyer.

)

Mister Greene · July 2010

I think starting with Dr. No to be a wise choice, to see how the character evolved and how the world evolved. when Dr. No came out it was 1962 and the Cold war was heating up with the space reace starting and things going on in the world, now we have the terrorist threat which is different and Bond has changed.

But I think starting at the begining of the movies and going in order is the best way. and shen you start on the novels read them in order as well.

DEFIANT 74205 · July 2010

Mister Greene wrote:

But I think starting at the begining of the movies and going in order is the best way. and shen you start on the novels read them in order as well.

I actually think that reading Fleming's novels first is a better idea, because that's the character Fleming intended to write, in its unadulterated form. That way, the reader gets a far better idea of who this Bond character is than simply watching the films.

hegottheboot · July 2010

Dr. No through DAD and then you're done.

Napoleon Plural · July 2010

I wouldn't personally read the books first. You see, when you read the books it just seems a bind (npi) to watch the films because you get annoyed at what's been left out or changed. So yeah, I would start with Dr No, proceed to TB or YOLT and then mix it up a bit. Then watch Casino Royale, perhaps, then LALD or QoS, then OHMSS. FYEO, TLD and GE, but the others will fall slightly into a different genre so maybe leave til later.

IMO CR spoils the older Connery films which had as their selling point that they were gritty and realistic, they now seem a bit slick and arch.

Start with Dr. No or Casino Royale?

Comments