I was reading through the "Pros and Cons" thread for The Man with the Golden Gun, and am thinking about adding it to my list, but can't decide for sure.
Apparently, AVtaK wasn't included in the 2-volume Moore DVD collection, so it looks like I'm going to have to pick either Moonraker or Octopussy as the 'companion' to FYEO, so which one fits my criteria better?
Sorry man, but I'm getting a bit impatient here. Get the damn movies & watch them. WE can't tell you which ones you will love or dislike. The difference between watching half & all isn't all that great, monetarily speaking (especially on DVD).
I agree. DigificWriter, if you're going to watch this many, you should really just watch all of them. If you want some background to be prepared for homages in Spectre, watch all of Connery's (Goldfinger doesn't feature SPECTRE, but it's a must-watch, and it has the Aston Martin from Craig's films) and OHMSS. Then to understand more homages, watch the next film, LALD. Then watch the rest (in order) when you have time. Seriously, there's no point in picking out so many Bond films and not watching all of them. Especially when you seem this serious about it.
Apparently, AVtaK wasn't included in the 2-volume Moore DVD collection, so it looks like I'm going to have to pick either Moonraker or Octopussy as the 'companion' to FYEO, so which one fits my criteria better?
Sorry man, but I'm getting a bit impatient here. Get the damn movies & watch them. WE can't tell you which ones you will love or dislike. The difference between watching half & all isn't all that great, monetarily speaking (especially on DVD).
I agree. DigificWriter, if you're going to watch this many, you should really just watch all of them. If you want some background to be prepared for homages in Spectre, watch all of Connery's (Goldfinger doesn't feature SPECTRE, but it's a must-watch, and it has the Aston Martin from Craig's films) and OHMSS. Then to understand more homages, watch the next film, LALD. Then watch the rest (in order) when you have time. Seriously, there's no point in picking out so many Bond films and not watching all of them. Especially when you seem this serious about it.
The main reason I don't want to just "watch them all" is that I'm looking for some very specific things to drive the way I approach the series for what is essentially the first time, as I outlined in the OP: character development and evolution, story progression and interconnectivity, and in-universe world-building.
It's not just a "what is the best way to experience the series" question; it's a question of "what is the best way to experience the series that will result in the maximum and most coherent exploration of the series from a story perspective", and I think, thanks to the adive I've received, that I've mapped out the best path for achieving that objective.
Sorry man, but I'm getting a bit impatient here. Get the damn movies & watch them. WE can't tell you which ones you will love or dislike. The difference between watching half & all isn't all that great, monetarily speaking (especially on DVD).
I agree. DigificWriter, if you're going to watch this many, you should really just watch all of them. If you want some background to be prepared for homages in Spectre, watch all of Connery's (Goldfinger doesn't feature SPECTRE, but it's a must-watch, and it has the Aston Martin from Craig's films) and OHMSS. Then to understand more homages, watch the next film, LALD. Then watch the rest (in order) when you have time. Seriously, there's no point in picking out so many Bond films and not watching all of them. Especially when you seem this serious about it.
The main reason I don't want to just "watch them all" is that I'm looking for some very specific things to drive the way I approach the series for what is essentially the first time, as I outlined in the OP: character development and evolution, story progression and interconnectivity, and in-universe world-building.
It's not just a "what is the best way to experience the series" question; it's a question of "what is the best way to experience the series that will result in the maximum and most coherent exploration of the series from a story perspective", and I think, thanks to the adive I've received, that I've mapped out the best path for achieving that objective.
Then just go with chrisisall's original suggestions. The best way to experience the "maximum and most coherent exploration of the series from a story perspective" is to watch them them all. Watching so many as to leave out only a few doesn't make sense in that regard.
And you can't leave out Goldfinger. That's a key film because it introduces the most famous of Bond cars and provides context to the apperance of that car in subsequent films. And it basically creates the world of the film Bond that will help understand future Bond films.
If you are looking to leave a few out, The Man with the Golden Gun is definitely one that you can leave out.
I don't see how adding 3 standalone movies (TMwtGG, MR, and OP) and a movie that you can't watch sequentially without having to change DVD sets (DaF) contributes anything to a watch-through driven by story, but that's just me. I do thank you for the clarification on GF, though, and will add it to my list. I also found out that I need to go back to my original plan of watching all four of Brosnan's movies since TWiNE features the death of one Q and the introduction of a second (the one from DAD).
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
As I said, I envy your journey of discovery, DigificWriter. There is only one first time -{ Cheers...and enjoy! {[]
A good "rejuvenation" surgeon would disagree!
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
Apparently, AVtaK wasn't included in the 2-volume Moore DVD collection, so it looks like I'm going to have to pick either Moonraker or Octopussy as the 'companion' to FYEO, so which one fits my criteria better?
Based on the criteria of the characterization of Bond, I would lean toward OP because it still managed to retain traces of the "gritty" Moore Bond from FYEO, despite the comedic elements that might have marred it for some viewers :v However, MR in my opinion ranks among the more visually exotic Bonds, considering the locales used and the excellent execution of frugal visual effects that earned it an Oscar nomination.
But as some others have said, I encourage watching all the movies through whatever means possible (borrow from your public library), including NSNA, which span and complete the artistic and historical epic of the world of Bond on film.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
As I said, I envy your journey of discovery, DigificWriter. There is only one first time -{ Cheers...and enjoy! {[]
A good "rejuvenation" surgeon would disagree!
Touche...but there's rarely one around when you need one...especially in the Midwest.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
My newly revised and finalized plan:
DN
FRwL
GF
TB
YOLT
OHMSS
FYEO
TSWLM
LaLD
TLD
LtK
GE
TND
TWiNE
DAD
I dropped AVtaK, MR, OP, and DaF, and inverted the viewing order of the Moore collection (Vol. 2 before Vol. 1) so as to take advantage of the connecting elements between OHMSS and FYEO that were mentioned earlier.
My newly revised and finalized plan:
DN
FRwL
GF
TB
YOLT
OHMSS
FYEO
TSWLM
LaLD
TLD
LtK
GE
TND
TWiNE
DAD
I dropped AVtaK, MR, OP, and DaF, and inverted the viewing order of the Moore collection (Vol. 2 before Vol. 1) so as to take advantage of the connecting elements between OHMSS and FYEO that were mentioned earlier.
You should stick with the chronological order of the films. There are recurring characters introduced in TSWLM that would make better sense if you watched it before FYEO. It's also important to understand the time passed between OHMSS and FYEO. Plus, there's still a mention to an OHMSS event in TSWLM. TSWLM, FYEO and TLD all have strong cold war themes, and watching them together would be a much better experience.
My advice DigificWriter is the same as Chrisisall and Matt S - and that is to watch them all in chronological order - especially when watching the films for the first time. Don't leave any out. Like others have said here, I envy you for what you have got to look forward to watching. Enjoy. I will look forward to reading your thoughts on the films. -{
FRwL
GF
TB
YOLT
OHMSS
FYEO
TSWLM
LaLD
TLD
LtK
GE
TND
TWiNE
DAD
If you're dead set against watching them all, then from this list I'd suggest dropping YOLT & LALD as they add little to your initially stated criteria IMO. YOLT even complicates the Bond/Blofeld meeting in OHMSS if you look at it that way.
Based on your criteria I would definitely go for watching them all in order.
I think if you do it any other way you will miss things that link the films together (however small they may be, they are there). As a quick example, if you dive right into OHMSS you would probably be left wondering why Bond is looking whistfully at the items in his desk drawer...
Watching them out of order could essentially rob you of some story arc and little nods to character development that would not make sense to you because you have not followed the series.
The Bond character evolves over the course of the films (not just within a film). Some story arcs link with each other from film to film. There is a definite thread that runs through the entire Bond series and spans the last 50-odd years, if you do not watch them in order you will miss out on that evolution. I really would recommend that you don't scupper that for yourself, because it is just such a rich history. You have a pretty unique opportunity here, I would say don't waste it, forget what you have already watched and start again -{
Watching Bond's first introduction in Dr. No will set you up nicely -{ I still get goose-bumps every time I watch it.
^ The 15-movie list I posted earlier is the path I've decided to take, and I put it together based on the advice and suggestions I've received in this thread.
I've already started Dr. No, and while there's not as much expository setup as one might expect there to be given that it IS the first film in the series, I am very much enjoying it, and can actually see some echoes of the Craig films in it [or I guess I should say I see some echoes of it in the Craig films, since it came first ]
Yes over the years the " Cold killer" aspect of Bond was toned down, only to
Be brought back ( in your face back) with Daniel. The fight on the staircase
Being one of the most brutal fights to feature in a Bond, showing the dark and
disturbing side of Bond's career. -{
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
The biggest echoes I'm seeing right now when it comes to this movie and the Craig Era are actually between Honey Ryder and Vesper Lynd and Dr. No and Le Chifre in terms of the way the four characters are presented and the way they interact with Bond, and between Felix Leiter's role in this movie and Rene Mathis' role in QoS.
^ The 15-movie list I posted earlier is the path I've decided to take, and I put it together based on the advice and suggestions I've received in this thread.
I've already started Dr. No, and while there's not as much expository setup as one might expect there to be given that it IS the first film in the series, I am very much enjoying it, and can actually see some echoes of the Craig films in it [or I guess I should say I see some echoes of it in the Craig films, since it came first ]
Cool, whichever way you have decided I am sure you will enjoy them -{
Dr. No is excellent, and probably the most stripped-back of the lot, it's just a great investigation/ spy story.
If I may ask, what has made you pick all the Brosnan ones? In my opinion at least two of those are not very good, which probably does not really affect what you want to get out of this, but I was just curious?
Tomorrow Never Dies is on the list because it's the first Bond movie I ever saw and because I think it's a pretty good movie, while The World is Not Enough and Die Another Day are on the list because they fit the criteria I outlined in my OP.
BTW, I've finished Dr. No now, so here's a full review:
It's an interesting experience watching a movie like this - the first in a long-running series - when you're doing so for the first time but it's not actually your first exposure to the characters and the world it's introducing.
As an introduction to the world of James Bond pre-Craig, Dr. No isn't as expository as one might expect it to be, but it doesn't really suffer from that.
As I was watching, I started noticing a number of things that I'd desctibe as echoes between it and the Craig Era, specifically in terms of the characters. The way in which Honey Ryder interacts with James reminded me very much of the way that James and Vesper interact and play off of one another, even though we get to see far more of Vesper and learn more about her.
I also noticed echoes between Dr. No and the first two adversaries of the Craig Era, Le Chifre and Dominic Greene. Conceptually, all 3 villains are fairly over-the-top, but aren't written in such a way as to come off as caricatures. I was also struck by a sense of echoing in the way that both No and Le Chifre interact with Bond one-on-one, even though the circumstances under which they do so are vastly different.
The third and final instance of echoing that I noticed between this movie and the Craig Era manifested itself in the role that Felix Leiter plays in it and the role that Rene Mathis plays in Quantum of Solace. Leiter has more of a presence in the movie than Mathis does in QoS, but both characters felt very similar in terms of the ways in which they interact with James and the support they offer him.
I also have to say that I rather liked the brutal nature of Dr. No's demise, which really helped give the sense of just how formidable this version of the Bond character is without having to go as visceral and gritty as they did in Casino Royale, QoS, and Skyfall, and made up for what I was starting to feel like we're too many instances of the bad guys unnecessarily and unbelievably getting the better of James when they shouldn't have.
All in all, I really liked Dr. No, both as a self-contained entity and as the introductory installment in the pre-Craig version of the James Bond franchise, and was pleasantly surprised by all of the echoes I noticed between it and the Craig Era given how different in tone and overall approach they decidedly are.
This isn't really related to the topic at hand, but I was wondering something:
how many people here picked up on the clues present in Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace, and Skyfall that truly establish those movies as a 'clean slate' reboot (rather than just a 'resetting') of the franchise (because it caught me off-guard when some other Bond fans with whom I'm interacting on Facebook - and who are vastly more familiar with the franchise than I am - hadn't realized that CR didn't just 'reset' the character and make him grittier and more 'stripped down', but also 'reset' the entire in-universe world in which he and the characters he interacts with operate)?
I went into Casino Royale knowing it was a clean slate because that's what the filmmakers said it was in interviews. But they clearly state in the film how Bond is a new 00 agent, so it's not only a big stylistic change like FYEO or GE were. I think in Spectre, when Bond discovers SPECTRE for the first time, it will prove how it exists separately from when Bond hears about SPECTRE for the first time in Dr. No.
Most of the people I'm talking with about Bond on Facebook apparently see the series as an Anthology, so I guess it shouldn't have surprised me that they hadn't realized that there are two different continuities at play between the pre-Craig Era and the Craig Era, but it did (surprise me, that is).
As an aside, the fact that we're dealing with two distinctly different continuities is what made me want to approach the pre-Craig Era in the fashion that I am, and it'll be interesting to see how similar and dissimilar the two continuities end up being as a whole as far as 'echoes' and motifs are concerned.
Most of the people I'm talking with about Bond on Facebook apparently see the series as an Anthology, so I guess it shouldn't have surprised me that they hadn't realized that there are two different continuities at play between the pre-Craig Era and the Craig Era, but it did (surprise me, that is).
As an aside, the fact that we're dealing with two distinctly different continuities is what made me want to approach the pre-Craig Era in the fashion that I am, and it'll be interesting to see how similar and dissimilar the two continuities end up being as a whole as far as 'echoes' and motifs are concerned.
Because there is a loose continuity to the pre-Craig films, I hope you've reconsidered your choice to watch the Moore films out of order. TSWLM sets up a KGB saga that lasts through TLD. General Gogol's introduction in TSWLM is more important to FYEO than the OHMSS references in FYEO that have nothing to do with the overall story. LALD can fit anywhere since it doesn't relate to any film other than TMWTGG, so you would need to watch it before TMWTGG (if you ever choose to watch that one).
This isn't really related to the topic at hand, but I was wondering something:
how many people here picked up on the clues present in Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace, and Skyfall that truly establish those movies as a 'clean slate' reboot (rather than just a 'resetting') of the franchise (because it caught me off-guard when some other Bond fans with whom I'm interacting on Facebook - and who are vastly more familiar with the franchise than I am - hadn't realized that CR didn't just 'reset' the character and make him grittier and more 'stripped down', but also 'reset' the entire in-universe world in which he and the characters he interacts with operate)?
Yes & given the fact that the series & Bond had effectively been reborn I had given a little thought to the fact that the producers may revisit the pre Craig films to start everything over again. Craig in Dr No for example.
They could very well do that, but I wonder if the audience could accept an obvious remake in the series. YOLT, TSWLM and TND are all basically the same story, but they aren't straight-up remakes. What I hope they do is make films of the unused Fleming stories, like MR, YOLT and FAVTAK. They would just have to rework them for modern times and change the name Drax so MR doesn't seem like a remake. I think people will have less respect for a film that is too obviously a remake.
Because there is a loose continuity to the pre-Craig films, I hope you've reconsidered your choice to watch the Moore films out of order.
I have.
As far as eventually watching The Man with the Golden Gun goes, I'll probably end up watching it and the films I've chosen to skip this first go-round at some point, but, for now, I'm sticking with the list that I made thanks to the advice, suggestions, and opinions I received in this thread.
Apparently, AVtaK wasn't included in the 2-volume Moore DVD collection, so it looks like I'm going to have to pick either Moonraker or Octopussy as the 'companion' to FYEO, so which one fits my criteria better?
Between the two, I'd say OP is the better choice. Not one of the best bond films but it definitely has it's own charm and makes for a better '80's Bond film than AVTAK IMO.
Also, looking at your list, I would at least consider replacing DAD with another Connery film, perhaps DN, as it has been a previous contender for inclusion. I see your point about getting closure to the pre-Craig era, and it might be worthwhile to watch DAD just to see why it was necessary to reboot the series, so this is only a soft suggestion.
Tomorrow Never Dies is on the list because it's the first Bond movie I ever saw and because I think it's a pretty good movie, while The World is Not Enough and Die Another Day are on the list because they fit the criteria I outlined in my OP.
BTW, I've finished Dr. No now, so here's a full review:
It's an interesting experience watching a movie like this - the first in a long-running series - when you're doing so for the first time but it's not actually your first exposure to the characters and the world it's introducing.
As an introduction to the world of James Bond pre-Craig, Dr. No isn't as expository as one might expect it to be, but it doesn't really suffer from that.
As I was watching, I started noticing a number of things that I'd desctibe as echoes between it and the Craig Era, specifically in terms of the characters. The way in which Honey Ryder interacts with James reminded me very much of the way that James and Vesper interact and play off of one another, even though we get to see far more of Vesper and learn more about her.
I also noticed echoes between Dr. No and the first two adversaries of the Craig Era, Le Chifre and Dominic Greene. Conceptually, all 3 villains are fairly over-the-top, but aren't written in such a way as to come off as caricatures. I was also struck by a sense of echoing in the way that both No and Le Chifre interact with Bond one-on-one, even though the circumstances under which they do so are vastly different.
The third and final instance of echoing that I noticed between this movie and the Craig Era manifested itself in the role that Felix Leiter plays in it and the role that Rene Mathis plays in Quantum of Solace. Leiter has more of a presence in the movie than Mathis does in QoS, but both characters felt very similar in terms of the ways in which they interact with James and the support they offer him.
I also have to say that I rather liked the brutal nature of Dr. No's demise, which really helped give the sense of just how formidable this version of the Bond character is without having to go as visceral and gritty as they did in Casino Royale, QoS, and Skyfall, and made up for what I was starting to feel like we're too many instances of the bad guys unnecessarily and unbelievably getting the better of James when they shouldn't have.
All in all, I really liked Dr. No, both as a self-contained entity and as the introductory installment in the pre-Craig version of the James Bond franchise, and was pleasantly surprised by all of the echoes I noticed between it and the Craig Era given how different in tone and overall approach they decidedly are.
That was a great review! the echoes you mention are probably related to both DN and CR being based in novels fairly closely, so Ian Fleming is very present. It's great to hear comments from someone with such a fresh perspective, please keep them coming.
My review of From Russia with Love:
I had known going in - thanks mainly to this thread - that From Russia with Love furthered both the character development, story progression, and world-building of the Old!Bond Continuity, but something I hadn't known going in - and which completely changed the way I was thinking about the movie - is that it's a direct sequel to Dr. No, making explicit references to that movie and taking place about 6 months after it.
Once I was hit with this realization, I started subconsciously thinking about the movie in relation to the first direct sequel of the New!Bond Continuity - Quantum of Solace - and found that there are a number of parallels between the two movies:
1) Both films reference the events of their predecessor frequently and openly
2) Both films feature the return of a minor supporting character from their predecessor (Mr. White in QoS and Sylvia Trench in FRwL)
3) Both films expand on a story idea introduced in their predecessor (Quantum and SPECTRE, respectively, which is interesting in light of what is expected to happen in the upcoming New!Bond film SPECTRE)
For all of the ways that FRwL being a direct sequel to Dr. No makes the film better, though, it does present some challenges in it being able to stand on its own and be someone's first 'gateway' into the Bond franchise (which is also true of Quantum of Solace), but I think the film ultimately handled that challenge very adroitly and does very much work as a standalone entry.
It was also interesting to me, as essentially a first-time viewer of the Old!Bond Continuity, to track the ways in which the film built on and expanded the 'formula' of the franchise and the motifs that have come to define it across both of its continuities (the old and the new), such as the "cold open" sequence and a "title song" that isn't the James Bond orchestral theme.
I really enjoyed the film's storyline, although I was somewhat confused by the stuff in the middle of the movie where James and his Turkish 'contact' Kerim Bey (who, incidentally, reminds me of Rene Mathis as he's portrayed in Casino Royale) end up involved in a shootout at a Gypsy camp, and thought that the chemistry between James and Tania Romanova was great. I also liked that we got to know a lot more about her - through virtue of spending more time with her - than we did Honey Ryder in Dr. No, which in and of itself gives her some parallels with Vesper Lynd.
Something else that I liked about the movie is that there was a significant increase in the amount of 'personal violence' that shows up in it versus what was in Dr. No, and it really helped sell the character as somebody you don't want to mess with in an unarmed fight. I particularly enjoyed the fight between him and Red Grant on the Orient Express, which I thought had a number of parallels to the fight between Craig!Bond and Dominic Greene in QoS in both its staging and the level of violence involved.
I already mentioned my confusion as to the relevancy of the whole Gypsy Camp through-line of the story, but it's not the only thing that I'd cite as a negative about the movie. Something else that started to bug me (and that had also been bothering me about Dr. No up until the final few minutes of the film when the writers were able to redeem themselves through the fight between Bond and No) is that Bond seems to fall victim to the machinations of the bad guys a little more easily than he ought to. I also found myself bothered by the scene on the Orient Express where Red Grant pretty much explains his and SPECTRE's agenda in the simplest terms possible. I get that it's a standard trope of the spy genre and recognize that there was a similar sequence present in Dr. No, but whereas I felt it worked organically in DN, it felt contrived and unnecessary here because it was essentially repeating information that we, as an audience, already knew and that the character of Bond himself really didn't NEED to know.
I also don't know if I would've introduced Blofeld at this juncture, as his inclusion seemed to be somewhat superfluous in the grander scheme of the storyline, but that's really neither here nor there.
All in all, I thought From Russia with Love was a very strong movie, both as a standalone entity and as a 'thread' in the grander tapestry of the franchise, both on the whole and specifically in terms of the Old!Bond Continuity.
Comments
Thoughts?
I agree. DigificWriter, if you're going to watch this many, you should really just watch all of them. If you want some background to be prepared for homages in Spectre, watch all of Connery's (Goldfinger doesn't feature SPECTRE, but it's a must-watch, and it has the Aston Martin from Craig's films) and OHMSS. Then to understand more homages, watch the next film, LALD. Then watch the rest (in order) when you have time. Seriously, there's no point in picking out so many Bond films and not watching all of them. Especially when you seem this serious about it.
The main reason I don't want to just "watch them all" is that I'm looking for some very specific things to drive the way I approach the series for what is essentially the first time, as I outlined in the OP: character development and evolution, story progression and interconnectivity, and in-universe world-building.
It's not just a "what is the best way to experience the series" question; it's a question of "what is the best way to experience the series that will result in the maximum and most coherent exploration of the series from a story perspective", and I think, thanks to the adive I've received, that I've mapped out the best path for achieving that objective.
Then just go with chrisisall's original suggestions. The best way to experience the "maximum and most coherent exploration of the series from a story perspective" is to watch them them all. Watching so many as to leave out only a few doesn't make sense in that regard.
And you can't leave out Goldfinger. That's a key film because it introduces the most famous of Bond cars and provides context to the apperance of that car in subsequent films. And it basically creates the world of the film Bond that will help understand future Bond films.
If you are looking to leave a few out, The Man with the Golden Gun is definitely one that you can leave out.
Based on the criteria of the characterization of Bond, I would lean toward OP because it still managed to retain traces of the "gritty" Moore Bond from FYEO, despite the comedic elements that might have marred it for some viewers :v However, MR in my opinion ranks among the more visually exotic Bonds, considering the locales used and the excellent execution of frugal visual effects that earned it an Oscar nomination.
But as some others have said, I encourage watching all the movies through whatever means possible (borrow from your public library), including NSNA, which span and complete the artistic and historical epic of the world of Bond on film.
Touche...but there's rarely one around when you need one...especially in the Midwest.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
DN
FRwL
GF
TB
YOLT
OHMSS
FYEO
TSWLM
LaLD
TLD
LtK
GE
TND
TWiNE
DAD
I dropped AVtaK, MR, OP, and DaF, and inverted the viewing order of the Moore collection (Vol. 2 before Vol. 1) so as to take advantage of the connecting elements between OHMSS and FYEO that were mentioned earlier.
You should stick with the chronological order of the films. There are recurring characters introduced in TSWLM that would make better sense if you watched it before FYEO. It's also important to understand the time passed between OHMSS and FYEO. Plus, there's still a mention to an OHMSS event in TSWLM. TSWLM, FYEO and TLD all have strong cold war themes, and watching them together would be a much better experience.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
I think if you do it any other way you will miss things that link the films together (however small they may be, they are there). As a quick example, if you dive right into OHMSS you would probably be left wondering why Bond is looking whistfully at the items in his desk drawer...
Watching them out of order could essentially rob you of some story arc and little nods to character development that would not make sense to you because you have not followed the series.
The Bond character evolves over the course of the films (not just within a film). Some story arcs link with each other from film to film. There is a definite thread that runs through the entire Bond series and spans the last 50-odd years, if you do not watch them in order you will miss out on that evolution. I really would recommend that you don't scupper that for yourself, because it is just such a rich history. You have a pretty unique opportunity here, I would say don't waste it, forget what you have already watched and start again -{
Watching Bond's first introduction in Dr. No will set you up nicely -{ I still get goose-bumps every time I watch it.
I've already started Dr. No, and while there's not as much expository setup as one might expect there to be given that it IS the first film in the series, I am very much enjoying it, and can actually see some echoes of the Craig films in it [or I guess I should say I see some echoes of it in the Craig films, since it came first
Be brought back ( in your face back)
Being one of the most brutal fights to feature in a Bond, showing the dark and
disturbing side of Bond's career. -{
Cool, whichever way you have decided I am sure you will enjoy them -{
Dr. No is excellent, and probably the most stripped-back of the lot, it's just a great investigation/ spy story.
If I may ask, what has made you pick all the Brosnan ones? In my opinion at least two of those are not very good, which probably does not really affect what you want to get out of this, but I was just curious?
BTW, I've finished Dr. No now, so here's a full review:
It's an interesting experience watching a movie like this - the first in a long-running series - when you're doing so for the first time but it's not actually your first exposure to the characters and the world it's introducing.
As an introduction to the world of James Bond pre-Craig, Dr. No isn't as expository as one might expect it to be, but it doesn't really suffer from that.
As I was watching, I started noticing a number of things that I'd desctibe as echoes between it and the Craig Era, specifically in terms of the characters. The way in which Honey Ryder interacts with James reminded me very much of the way that James and Vesper interact and play off of one another, even though we get to see far more of Vesper and learn more about her.
I also noticed echoes between Dr. No and the first two adversaries of the Craig Era, Le Chifre and Dominic Greene. Conceptually, all 3 villains are fairly over-the-top, but aren't written in such a way as to come off as caricatures. I was also struck by a sense of echoing in the way that both No and Le Chifre interact with Bond one-on-one, even though the circumstances under which they do so are vastly different.
The third and final instance of echoing that I noticed between this movie and the Craig Era manifested itself in the role that Felix Leiter plays in it and the role that Rene Mathis plays in Quantum of Solace. Leiter has more of a presence in the movie than Mathis does in QoS, but both characters felt very similar in terms of the ways in which they interact with James and the support they offer him.
I also have to say that I rather liked the brutal nature of Dr. No's demise, which really helped give the sense of just how formidable this version of the Bond character is without having to go as visceral and gritty as they did in Casino Royale, QoS, and Skyfall, and made up for what I was starting to feel like we're too many instances of the bad guys unnecessarily and unbelievably getting the better of James when they shouldn't have.
All in all, I really liked Dr. No, both as a self-contained entity and as the introductory installment in the pre-Craig version of the James Bond franchise, and was pleasantly surprised by all of the echoes I noticed between it and the Craig Era given how different in tone and overall approach they decidedly are.
FRWL is just as good -{
how many people here picked up on the clues present in Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace, and Skyfall that truly establish those movies as a 'clean slate' reboot (rather than just a 'resetting') of the franchise (because it caught me off-guard when some other Bond fans with whom I'm interacting on Facebook - and who are vastly more familiar with the franchise than I am - hadn't realized that CR didn't just 'reset' the character and make him grittier and more 'stripped down', but also 'reset' the entire in-universe world in which he and the characters he interacts with operate)?
As an aside, the fact that we're dealing with two distinctly different continuities is what made me want to approach the pre-Craig Era in the fashion that I am, and it'll be interesting to see how similar and dissimilar the two continuities end up being as a whole as far as 'echoes' and motifs are concerned.
Because there is a loose continuity to the pre-Craig films, I hope you've reconsidered your choice to watch the Moore films out of order. TSWLM sets up a KGB saga that lasts through TLD. General Gogol's introduction in TSWLM is more important to FYEO than the OHMSS references in FYEO that have nothing to do with the overall story. LALD can fit anywhere since it doesn't relate to any film other than TMWTGG, so you would need to watch it before TMWTGG (if you ever choose to watch that one).
They could very well do that, but I wonder if the audience could accept an obvious remake in the series. YOLT, TSWLM and TND are all basically the same story, but they aren't straight-up remakes. What I hope they do is make films of the unused Fleming stories, like MR, YOLT and FAVTAK. They would just have to rework them for modern times and change the name Drax so MR doesn't seem like a remake. I think people will have less respect for a film that is too obviously a remake.
I have.
As far as eventually watching The Man with the Golden Gun goes, I'll probably end up watching it and the films I've chosen to skip this first go-round at some point, but, for now, I'm sticking with the list that I made thanks to the advice, suggestions, and opinions I received in this thread.
I more against reusing the titles than I am about remaking the films.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Between the two, I'd say OP is the better choice. Not one of the best bond films but it definitely has it's own charm and makes for a better '80's Bond film than AVTAK IMO.
Also, looking at your list, I would at least consider replacing DAD with another Connery film, perhaps DN, as it has been a previous contender for inclusion. I see your point about getting closure to the pre-Craig era, and it might be worthwhile to watch DAD just to see why it was necessary to reboot the series, so this is only a soft suggestion.
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/wish-i-was-at-disneyland/id1202780413?mt=2
That was a great review! the echoes you mention are probably related to both DN and CR being based in novels fairly closely, so Ian Fleming is very present. It's great to hear comments from someone with such a fresh perspective, please keep them coming.
I had known going in - thanks mainly to this thread - that From Russia with Love furthered both the character development, story progression, and world-building of the Old!Bond Continuity, but something I hadn't known going in - and which completely changed the way I was thinking about the movie - is that it's a direct sequel to Dr. No, making explicit references to that movie and taking place about 6 months after it.
Once I was hit with this realization, I started subconsciously thinking about the movie in relation to the first direct sequel of the New!Bond Continuity - Quantum of Solace - and found that there are a number of parallels between the two movies:
1) Both films reference the events of their predecessor frequently and openly
2) Both films feature the return of a minor supporting character from their predecessor (Mr. White in QoS and Sylvia Trench in FRwL)
3) Both films expand on a story idea introduced in their predecessor (Quantum and SPECTRE, respectively, which is interesting in light of what is expected to happen in the upcoming New!Bond film SPECTRE)
For all of the ways that FRwL being a direct sequel to Dr. No makes the film better, though, it does present some challenges in it being able to stand on its own and be someone's first 'gateway' into the Bond franchise (which is also true of Quantum of Solace), but I think the film ultimately handled that challenge very adroitly and does very much work as a standalone entry.
It was also interesting to me, as essentially a first-time viewer of the Old!Bond Continuity, to track the ways in which the film built on and expanded the 'formula' of the franchise and the motifs that have come to define it across both of its continuities (the old and the new), such as the "cold open" sequence and a "title song" that isn't the James Bond orchestral theme.
I really enjoyed the film's storyline, although I was somewhat confused by the stuff in the middle of the movie where James and his Turkish 'contact' Kerim Bey (who, incidentally, reminds me of Rene Mathis as he's portrayed in Casino Royale) end up involved in a shootout at a Gypsy camp, and thought that the chemistry between James and Tania Romanova was great. I also liked that we got to know a lot more about her - through virtue of spending more time with her - than we did Honey Ryder in Dr. No, which in and of itself gives her some parallels with Vesper Lynd.
Something else that I liked about the movie is that there was a significant increase in the amount of 'personal violence' that shows up in it versus what was in Dr. No, and it really helped sell the character as somebody you don't want to mess with in an unarmed fight. I particularly enjoyed the fight between him and Red Grant on the Orient Express, which I thought had a number of parallels to the fight between Craig!Bond and Dominic Greene in QoS in both its staging and the level of violence involved.
I already mentioned my confusion as to the relevancy of the whole Gypsy Camp through-line of the story, but it's not the only thing that I'd cite as a negative about the movie. Something else that started to bug me (and that had also been bothering me about Dr. No up until the final few minutes of the film when the writers were able to redeem themselves through the fight between Bond and No) is that Bond seems to fall victim to the machinations of the bad guys a little more easily than he ought to. I also found myself bothered by the scene on the Orient Express where Red Grant pretty much explains his and SPECTRE's agenda in the simplest terms possible. I get that it's a standard trope of the spy genre and recognize that there was a similar sequence present in Dr. No, but whereas I felt it worked organically in DN, it felt contrived and unnecessary here because it was essentially repeating information that we, as an audience, already knew and that the character of Bond himself really didn't NEED to know.
I also don't know if I would've introduced Blofeld at this juncture, as his inclusion seemed to be somewhat superfluous in the grander scheme of the storyline, but that's really neither here nor there.
All in all, I thought From Russia with Love was a very strong movie, both as a standalone entity and as a 'thread' in the grander tapestry of the franchise, both on the whole and specifically in terms of the Old!Bond Continuity.