How will you prepare yourself for No Time To Die?

Will you watch all the Bond films in a particular order? Will you re-read the books? Will you just keeps up to date with all promotional material and spend your time here at the great and glorious BAB?

I'll rewatch all the Craig films only. Been a while since I've seen them (except Skyfall) so it might be worth re-evaluating and remind myself of some of those threads in CR that supposed need tying up four films/14 years later. Unless I'm with someone who wants to watch a classic, I'd rather not associate them with the Craig era. Last time I watched CR/SP it turned me off Bond for a while. Association is a powerful thing.

I'll prepare myself with barbiturates and corn whisky.

Touché!

Lubricant.

Also touché.

If I have the time I will watch them all again and if not just the Craig films. The only one I'm not looking forward to is Spectre as that movie just drags....me....down.....

Are you looking more forward to Spectre or Licence to Kill, Sarai?

I know it would break the order up but I should really watch those two first from now on so everything else feels like pure gold.

I did that once. Watched them from my least liked to favourite and it really is a great way to rediscover the films!

lol I do that with movies and music. The relativity game, it's fun.

It takes some discipline and serious effort to get through but worth it. like I will force myself to listen to something really bottom of the barrel like Miley or Nicki Minaj for as long as I can possibly take it...then switch to something I normally don't like say Rod Stewart and it's like angels from heaven

I don't really feel the need to embark upon marathon rewatches or rereads, to be honest. When it comes out, I'll go see it. Probably more than once.

Sarai wrote:

lol  I do that with movies and music. The relativity game, it's fun.

It takes some discipline and serious effort to get through but worth it. like I will force myself to listen to something really bottom of the barrel like Miley or Nicki Minaj for as long as I can possibly take it...then switch to something I normally don't like say Rod Stewart and it's like angels from heaven  

Boy, Miley and Minaj must truly be something awful if Rod Stewart sounds like an angel from heaven. That dude has a truly vomitous voice.

Rewatch Spectre and then on the night I go watch it: plenty of booze.

NTTD with booze seems to be the way to go, really.

Thumbscrews and hot coals...no wait that's the film.

Having a solo farewell party to end all farewell parties whilst commiserating with my emotions over the horrors to come.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

I don't really feel the need to embark upon marathon rewatches or rereads, to be honest. When it comes out, I'll go see it. Probably more than once.

you seem to be the only one showing some enthusiasm and optimism for this one
why are so many down on it or expecting the worst?

Sarai wrote:

Blunt Instrument wrote:

I don't really feel the need to embark upon marathon rewatches or rereads, to be honest. When it comes out, I'll go see it. Probably more than once.

you seem to be the only one showing some enthusiasm and optimism for this one
why are so many down on it or expecting the worst?

Yep, kudos to BI for remaining optimistic about it! Good to have diverse opinions in any capacity to keep conversations alive. The most I can say for NTTD is the action sequences do look genuinely interesting and a huge improvement on SP's...

... But everything else we know of the film feels like SP 2.0. Right from the get go I haven't been enthused. It's not secret I'm not a fan of the Craig era except for Skyfall. Spectre compounds everything wrong with Craig's run and it begins with the man himself. He needed to go after SP. The delay of NTTD came from waiting around for Craig to make up his mind. So from perspective, we've been waiting for the next movie because a hugely miscast actor who'd rather slash his wrists than come back decided to return when production of Bond 25 could have began at that point (2017).

With his return meant a return to the story that was started with Casino Royale. This meant that the direction of Bond 25 was going to begin on shaky foundations (CR) a thin sequel (QOS) and a film that tries to rework the only solid entry (SF) into something it's not, while featuring one of the blandest Bond girls who no one cared to see return, and by far the silliest iteration of Blofeld ever (SP). Even looking at the opening of the NTTD trailer, the exciting nature of the Matera chase quickly diminishes the moment we cut to Lea Seydoux and we realise the 'this time it's personal' angle is still being milked. I can't see why Bond is so willing to be in a relationship with Madeleine when there's no spark and he was so willing to let her go in London. Besides being a nice bit of ass (as PK noted in his thread)... But then so are the majority of other Bond girls. I'd rather see Camille back from the Craig era. Or have Natalya/Wai Lin return in a Brosnan Bond film. Even fucking Christmas Jones, who had more character, spirit, and a reason to be there than of Swann.

Waltz returning also gives more growth to the possible idea that his version is the definitive version of Blofeld. Waltz returning again signifies that the basis of NTTD is rooted in silliness. And this silliness is accentuated when the tone of the Craig era has been faux gritty and dark and deep. I've said this elsewhere here, but when the films take themselves this seriously, it opens them up to keener criticism while also becoming laughable, because the contrived nature of the drama, stakes and relationships is so earnest in their attempts to be something they are not. Like the becoming Bond angle in started in CR (which is still going) or his "real" relationships with women (as much of the publicity for the series has been post #MeToo).

Anyway, I hope that highlights some of where my mind is at regarding NTTD and why I'm not that enthusiastic about it. But if I was to articulate it more simply. CR and SP made me give up on Bond for a while... and Eon has been so ready to return those threads for NTTD.

I'm not as down on the Craig era as many on here seem to be, judge me if you will but his take on Bond is light years ahead of the silliness of Moore who seems to enjoy much love around here ,i also rate Craig higher than Dalton, and his two films were rather good. So yes as a serious Bond fan i am really looking forward to No time to die and i just don't understand why anybody who follows Bond would not be excited at the prospect of a new film, even if you anticipate a poor entry in the series surely you are a little bit excited about seeing it and finding out ,or Did Bond die with Brosnan?

I'm looking forward to it. I'm more positive about Craig's tenure than a lot of people here, but my major gripe is they never really found their footing. Which is odd considering he is the longest tenured Bond.

Well...maybe they did in Skyfall. But beyond that it seems like they could never figure it out. There's never been much consistency. For how goofy Roger's era was - from the silliness of voodoo to outer space and the tarzan scream, it still felt of the same mold when you got films like TSWLM and FYEO.

Maybe I'm not explaining it well, but for how varied his films were they always felt like a Roger Moore Bond film (maybe the only one that feels a little off base is AVTAK). Craig's films sometimes just feel weirdly disconnected from one another (again - despite all the multiple attempts as connecting them)

I think the biggest problem I have with the Craig tenure is that Skyfall SO perfectly laid out who James Bond is. And why we need James Bond. Ever since the Cold War ended, he has been without purpose. The series just seemed a bit aimless. Even in the post 9/11 world where they mimicked Bourne, Bond never really made it a point of going after terrorist, he just had some encounters with them.

Skyfall and that wonderful scene with M overlaid with Bond running through the street to Dench reading the Tennyson poem to me is one of the great moments in Bond history. Maybe people will laugh at that, but I think it brilliantly - in less than two minutes - screams why James Bond is relevant and what his purpose is in our world today. They should have grasped on that and ran with it in SPECTRE. Instead we got...well...SPECTRE.

I also think the one fatal flaw in SPECTRE was bringing back Blofeld. Even thought the actors who played Blofeld in the past haven't necessarily been bad, the reality is that Blofeld is most frightening and interesting when we don't see his face. We don't know who he is. Reveal his face and he's no more frightening or interesting that a run of the mill Bond villain (with the exception of killing Bond's wife which never was really milked beyond OHMSS)

I think the producers tried to use that backstory to make him more interesting/tied him closer to Bond to have a differentiator than just your every day villain, but it bombed and reads like fan fic.

I am hopeful for NTTD. I hope they really deliver after the long wait and Craig gets to go out on a high note. Another SPECTRE-type film would be disappointing.

With that said, I'm also looking forward to a fresh start with a new Bond. Craig's tenure has been long and, while I have enjoyed it, it's time for some new blood.

And - after a decade with only two Bond movies - hoping we can get at least three to four in the 2020's. With the way they move at a snail's pace these days, I wonder if we will start seeing more of these 12-15 year type tenures just to get an actor to 3-4 movies.

Good write up, Moore. I agree with your assessment of the Craig era not finding its footing. I feel its a product of pandering to the current zeitgeist however it's this group that generally wouldn't be Bond fans anyway. Babs is ashamed of all the facets of Bond's character and world and is trying to remedy them for that audience... But she's diluting Bond's character in the process, stripping him back to the point where he becomes a generic action lead. This is why Skyfall worked on so many levels. It's unsurprising that on the 50th anniversary of the series they decided to embrace its identity and the results were recording breaking.

Moore wrote:

I think the biggest problem I have with the Craig tenure is that Skyfall SO perfectly laid out who James Bond is. And why we need James Bond. Ever since the Cold War ended, he has been without purpose. The series just seemed a bit aimless. Even in the post 9/11 world where they mimicked Bourne, Bond never really made it a point of going after terrorist, he just had some encounters with them.

The bold above I can't quite agree with. The Brosnan era successfully found who the post-Cold War villains are. The shadow of that period was the ultimate villain for GE: Soviet spies and politicians entered organised crime and disillusioned agents - Western and Russian - questioned their very existence. The media/fake news continues to prove why Bond is needed, and the rise of China reiterates that. The focus on oil in the Middle East again gave reason to Bond existing in the modern world, as well as assessing the risk of the North Koreans - probably the most dated of Brosnan's tenure. As you say, SF laid out again why we need James Bond as cyberterrorism emerged as a threat and it's that sense of purpose that we had in Brosnan's era. GoldenEye and Skyfall interwove Bond's role in all of that, but there's that same sense of assuredness in TND, TWINE and DAD. That aimlessness you refer to is because Craig's era is preoccupied with dismantling the character that has endured for so long. The focus on his redundant journey takes you away from the threat of Quantum's plans for his first two films, and Spectre places Bond at the centre of their actions, which makes you wonder why MI6 doesn't just take him out to put an end to it all.

Moore wrote:

I am hopeful for NTTD. I hope they really deliver after the long wait and Craig gets to go out on a high note. Another SPECTRE-type film would be disappointing.

I'm struggling to see how it won't be Spectre II. Bringing back Madeleine and Brofeld were huge mistakes and with Fukunaga insisting on revisiting the character arc established in CR, it means the foundations won't be strong enough to support it. That idea of aimlessness will continue; we're still waiting on Bond to become Bond by the looks of it. They needed to create a standalone adventure, as they did with Skyfall, to give it a semi-fresh canvas to work from. Trying to tie everything together while James Bond finds himself again hasn't worked so continuing that is forcing them to dig themselves a deeper hole.

silvertoe wrote:

I'm not as down on the Craig era as many on here seem to be, judge me if you will but his take on Bond is light years ahead of the silliness of Moore who seems to enjoy much love around here ,i also rate Craig higher than Dalton, and his two films were rather good. So yes as a serious Bond fan i am really looking forward to No time to die and i just don't understand why anybody who follows Bond would not be excited at the prospect of a new film, even if you anticipate a poor entry in the series surely you are a little bit excited about  seeing it and finding out ,or Did Bond die with Brosnan?

The difference with Moore's era is, as (BAB member) Moore pointed out, is that there's a confidence about them. They embraced what it was to be a James Bond movie in the 70s and played to Roger's strengths with the ultimate goal of being entertaining. Nowadays there's some kind of forced PC social message and a lesson learned about Bond's character which undermines Fleming's vision of 007's world as well as what it meant to be a James Bond movie.

Further, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, is the idea of tone. Moore's movies are tongue in cheek, a wink to the audience to invite them along for a good time. If there are elements that are a little too over the top or underdeveloped, it's not as damaging to the film. With Craig, the focus on 'serious' drama makes them feel more preposterous than Bond venturing into space because they're misinformed, redundant and contrived, ultimately making them stupid. As I said in response to Sarai in a post above, once you veer into this 'gritty' or 'serious' territory in films, it opens them up to greater scrutiny. You can't get away with what one could in the lightest of Bond entries. It becomes more difficult to invest emotionally in the story and characters if it doesn't make sense.

Ordinarily I would be excited about a new James Bond movie. But a 1/4 strike rate in the Craig era, and the man himself being the weakest link in the only movie that worked in his era, doesn't inspire confidence. I redirect you to my response to Sarai as to why.

SF proved that the series didn't die when Brosnan left. The character is bigger than any one actor. But I can see why one might think that's the case.

California isn't allowing theaters to open for the time being. Unless rules change or there's a drive-in theater allowed to screen NTTD, I may not even be able to see this when it comes out. Bummer.

I haven't read the books but i'm sure Bond isn't portrayed as a bumbling oaf which is what you get with Moores films,i'm looking for espionage and intrigue in a Bond movie and as much as i find Moores films fun they don't offer any of these elements...We must agree to disagree

It's too early in the game to agree to disagree. No he's not portrayed as a bumbling oaf, and neither is Moore in his films (expect for his St John Smythe cover, which I find highly amusing anyway!). Moore is certainly lighter than Fleming's vision but his intelligence is still there, as is his sense of cool and calm. Again I reference tone. While it's more tongue in cheek for most part, Bond's character isn't compromised.

In the Craig era, Bond has become something he is not, and no matter how much maturing he's achieved over the course of his journey, he's still just as ridiculously reckless as he was in CR (as demonstrated in the NTTD trailer).

I am also looking for espionage and intrigue in the films and aside from SF (and maybe the Tosca sequence in QOS), I have yet to see it in the Craig films. Everything is so laboured and too generic to manifest a sense of intrigue. Similarly, his recklessness prevents true espionage elements to shine through. Many of his decisions is a 'see what sticks' approach.

Mmm, so you prefer to see Bond with size 18 feet and a red nose?..or perhaps doing Barbara woodhouse and luke skywalker impressions?...how about sweeping across the desert as Lawrence of arabia or even colonel klink?...as i said earlier all good fun but out of place in Bonds world, perhaps if they dressed Craig as Charlie chaplin you might give the films more kudos?...We are clearly worlds apart about how we want to see Bond portrayed,and that's fine,we all see things differently which makes for a more interesting forum IMO