Who Killed James Bond?

[Goldeneye]

gawker.com

The early returns on the new Bond flick Quantum of Solace before its Nov. 14 release date have been mixed, with critics describing, for better or worse, a movie that consists entirely of a never-ending sequence of exciting violence in the air, land and sea. While Daniel Craig's debut as the British agent in Casino Royale was well-regarded, the agent is now more than a musculed projectile hurting forwards through different exotic locales than a crafty secret agent. In the pages of Playboy, Craig speculates on Bond's development into an inhuman automaton.

Like most people, we have fond memories of the old James Bond. This Bond is not your mother's Bond, however, and he's probably not even your slightly older sister's Bond. Critics have described the new Bond as a more built Jason Bourne, and while that's not going to hurt box office, it certainly constitutes a different bond than the suave, charming Sean Connery and Roger Moore.

From Daniel Craig's interview in this month's Playboy we learn the blame for the new, silent Bond falls on another powerful secret agent. When Craig is asked why Ian Fleming's hilarious double entendres have disappeared, he names the villain:

Craig: Now, a pun's a bad joke. In fact, in this movie we had to be careful of them. They've been sent up in such a way that they almost ring like parody. Austin Powers did them in the extreme. So making a Bond movie, you have to keep that in mind. As soon as you go that way you're making a parody of a parody. It looks like you're doing Mike Myers.
Playboy: Were you cautious of doing Austin Powers?
Craig: Especially when I made the first movie, yes. I had an Austin Powers alarm. On set I'd say, "That's Austin Powers. We can't do it."
Playboy: What set off the Austin Powers alarm?
Craig: There is a chase sequence in the beginning of Casino Royale. I run through a room past 10 workers who are sawing planks. These guys had to look as though they were working; they couldn't just look like guys banging nails. There is an explosion, and they look up. We had to go back to the choreography and make it look real, because at first it looked like Austin Powers.

So James Bond nostalgia '99 killed James Bond nostalgia '08. Groovy.

[katied]

Heh.Even the *star* of the movie has an Austin Powers detector.That's saying a LOT right there.

[Kristatos]

Who's really to blame, though, Mike Myers or a nervous cast and crew who are so terrified of being compared to him that they end up taking themselves way too seriously? They remind me of a memory I have of myself as an adolescent, trying desperately not to laugh at a Bugs Bunny cartoon that was playing on TV for fear of appearing "childish".

[FormerBondFan]

"Stamper to bridge......Bond is dead."

[katied]

Who's really to blame, though, Mike Myers or a nervous cast and crew who are so terrified of being compared to him that they end up taking themselves way too seriously?

More the cast and crew than anything else..though what was Mike Myers thinking making the 3rd AP movie?Dreadful.

[Mazer Rackham]

The shame is instead of taking pride and building upon the heritage they were scared of their own shadow.

They should have disregard AP for what it was, a loving tribute, and continued to make movies not worried if AP looks like this or if AP will make fun of this or that. Far as I can remember Bond never embraced Time Travel and the groovy 60's

[katied]

Far as I can remember Bond never embraced Time Travel and the groovy 60's

Given how desperate EON is(or isn't),he may in Bond 23

but that would be EON for ya

[Milton Krest]

gawker.com

The early returns on the new Bond flick Quantum of Solace before its Nov. 14 release date have been mixed, with critics describing, for better or worse, a movie that consists entirely of a never-ending sequence of exciting violence in the air, land and sea. While Daniel Craig's debut as the British agent in Casino Royale was well-regarded, the agent is now more than a musculed projectile hurting forwards through different exotic locales than a crafty secret agent. In the pages of Playboy, Craig speculates on Bond's development into an inhuman automaton.

Like most people, we have fond memories of the old James Bond. This Bond is not your mother's Bond, however, and he's probably not even your slightly older sister's Bond. Critics have described the new Bond as a more built Jason Bourne, and while that's not going to hurt box office, it certainly constitutes a different bond than the suave, charming Sean Connery and Roger Moore.

From Daniel Craig's interview in this month's Playboy we learn the blame for the new, silent Bond falls on another powerful secret agent. When Craig is asked why Ian Fleming's hilarious double entendres have disappeared, he names the villain:

Craig: Now, a pun's a bad joke. In fact, in this movie we had to be careful of them. They've been sent up in such a way that they almost ring like parody. Austin Powers did them in the extreme. So making a Bond movie, you have to keep that in mind. As soon as you go that way you're making a parody of a parody. It looks like you're doing Mike Myers.
Playboy: Were you cautious of doing Austin Powers?
Craig: Especially when I made the first movie, yes. I had an Austin Powers alarm. On set I'd say, "That's Austin Powers. We can't do it."
Playboy: What set off the Austin Powers alarm?
Craig: There is a chase sequence in the beginning of Casino Royale. I run through a room past 10 workers who are sawing planks. These guys had to look as though they were working; they couldn't just look like guys banging nails. There is an explosion, and they look up. We had to go back to the choreography and make it look real, because at first it looked like Austin Powers.

So James Bond nostalgia '99 killed James Bond nostalgia '08. Groovy.

What the hell is he on about!!!?? hes turned Bond into a gurning, pouting, emtionless woodentop!!!

Seriously though he is talkin about realism you mean like? running through walls, leaping from crane to crane, falling of scaffolding and landing on your back and not breaking it???? thats realism???

[Kristatos]

Dear Mike Myers,

Please could you do a parody of the Bourne trilogy and the Daniel Craig Bond films so devastating that no-one will ever be able to take them seriously again? That way EON won't be able to use you as an excuse for chucking out Bond's heritage.

Yours sincerely,

Traditional Bond fans everywhere.

[katied]

Dear Mike Myers,

Please could you do a parody of the Bourne trilogy and the Daniel Craig Bond films so devastating that no-one will ever be able to take them seriously again? That way EON won't be able to use you as an excuse for chucking out Bond's heritage.

Yours sincerely,

Traditional Bond fans everywhere.

True that I really hope that Mike Myers does NOT do another A*s*i* P*w*r* movie but you never know.

[The Sweeney]

Whether you like Craig or not, whether you like CR and QOS or not, surely most people here would recognise DAD as a p!ss poor entry to the franchise - and the parody of Austin Powers stems from there. Don't blame Craig for that.

DAD was abysmal, far more damaging to the franchise long term than a brutal, serious Re-Bourne Bond. Anyone disagree? I don't care - it's my opinion.

[Kristatos]

DAD was abysmal, far more damaging to the franchise long term than a brutal, serious Re-Bourne Bond. Anyone disagree? I don't care - it's my opinion.

I didn't hate DAD as much as you, but even if I did, I couldn't agree about long-term damage. It would only have done any long-term damage to the franchise if it had been a reboot that closed the door to any possibility of a return to more serious, down-to-earth Bond films. Say in some alternate reality where a non-reboot Casino Royale had been Brosnan's last film, and then the franchise had been rebooted with a new actor who firmly believed that his first film, the critically acclaimed Die Another Day, was the way to go for Bond films and who was constantly vetoing script decisions on the grounds that they were "too much like Bourne".

As things stand, it was a less-than-stellar Bond film which, you could argue, actually caused EON to take a step back and decide to go the Craig/Haggis route. Which from my perspective constitutes long-term damage, but not from yours.

[Mazer Rackham]

Whether you like Craig or not, whether you like CR and QOS or not, surely most people here would recognise DAD as a p!ss poor entry to the franchise - and the parody of Austin Powers stems from there. Don't blame Craig for that.

DAD was abysmal, far more damaging to the franchise long term than a brutal, serious Re-Bourne Bond. Anyone disagree? I don't care - it's my opinion.

Talking out your ass here Sween. The last AP was months before DAD, no way any AP parodies came from DAD as a primary source.

Maybe you mean the DAD kind of Bond movie. Which is neither here nor there because there were plenty of Over The Top Bonds to chose from.

What it comes down to is the Babs Broc is ashamed of the Bond frachise becasue it wasn't respected by serious movie makers.


DAD did absolutely no damage to the franchise, if you think it did you are forgetting plenty. DAD was a top money maker and top dvd seller. People were lining up after it for the next. What damaged the franchise was a Eon's lack of direction and general dropping of the ball.

The franchise was fine. The narrative you are talking from is an erroneous one, developed after Craig was cast. "DAD was so bad we had to reboot" is absolute crap that nobody said or believed before 2006. (Same for "we had to recast becasue CR is rookie Bond story")
The new direction Bourne redundancy is staggeringly stupid and completly out of line from what Fleming wrote and a departure from what any of the movies had ever been


There are movies that almost killed the franchise but DAD is no one of them. Besides Cubby would have been proud of DAD.

[Blowfeld]

Why did Austin Powers have such influence over the producers?
It's not like it was the first time the 007 franchise was lampooned on the big and small screen.

gawker.com

The early returns on the new Bond flick Quantum of Solace before its Nov. 14 release date have been mixed, with critics describing, for better or worse, a movie that consists entirely of a never-ending sequence of exciting violence in the air, land and sea. While Daniel Craig's debut as the British agent in Casino Royale was well-regarded, the agent is now more than a musculed projectile hurting forwards through different exotic locales than a crafty secret agent. In the pages of Playboy, Craig speculates on Bond's development into an inhuman automaton.

Like most people, we have fond memories of the old James Bond. This Bond is not your mother's Bond, however, and he's probably not even your slightly older sister's Bond. Critics have described the new Bond as a more built Jason Bourne, and while that's not going to hurt box office, it certainly constitutes a different bond than the suave, charming Sean Connery and Roger Moore.

From Daniel Craig's interview in this month's Playboy we learn the blame for the new, silent Bond falls on another powerful secret agent. When Craig is asked why Ian Fleming's hilarious double entendres have disappeared, he names the villain:

Craig: Now, a pun's a bad joke. In fact, in this movie we had to be careful of them. They've been sent up in such a way that they almost ring like parody. Austin Powers did them in the extreme. So making a Bond movie, you have to keep that in mind. As soon as you go that way you're making a parody of a parody. It looks like you're doing Mike Myers.
Playboy: Were you cautious of doing Austin Powers?
Craig: Especially when I made the first movie, yes. I had an Austin Powers alarm. On set I'd say, "That's Austin Powers. We can't do it."
Playboy: What set off the Austin Powers alarm?
Craig: There is a chase sequence in the beginning of Casino Royale. I run through a room past 10 workers who are sawing planks. These guys had to look as though they were working; they couldn't just look like guys banging nails. There is an explosion, and they look up. We had to go back to the choreography and make it look real, because at first it looked like Austin Powers.

So James Bond nostalgia '99 killed James Bond nostalgia '08. Groovy.