What did the most damage to Bond: Mike Myers or 9/11?

I always assumed the grim atmosphere in recent Bond films was caused by the 9/11 attacks, which seems to have led to a oppressive gloom in the West.

However, in an interview with The Sun, Daniel Craig blames Austin Powers for the lack of humour in his first two outings: ‘I love Mike Myers but he screwed it for us on a lot of the gags — he took the best ones.’

So what do you reckon?

Say what?

The kind of (rather low-brow) humor used in Austin Powers is hardly like the darker brand that used to be employed in Bond.

I think the grim atmosphere is mostly a result of the conscious effort they made to mimic Bourne.

Sabs, you would accept that films need to be placed in context, I'm sure. For instance, the 1970s American conspiracy thrillers reflected the concerns and events of that decade - corporate power, OPEC, Vietnam, terrorism, Watergate and so on. So I believe Bourne and nuBond were a result of the 9/11 attacks. However, maybe a mod can add Bourne to the thread title and as a voting option. (Don't know why I'm not allowed to do that myself.)

If anyone else bothers to vote it might be interesting to read an explanation for their choice. The Craig interview is here: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/film/article4604211.ece

The Bourne Identity went into production long before 9/11 occurred. Had it not been for a couple of re-shot scenes and Doug Liman's ongoing struggles with the studio, the movie would have been released in late 2001 instead of June of 2002. As such, it's a stretch to view Bourne as a reaction to 9/11.

It might have contributed to its success though.

Yes, I think the audience reception to The Bourne Identity may be more relevant than its production history. Grim films don't generally do great box office, but I think 9/11 made people more accepting. The new fashion for dour films reflected their - perhaps unspoken - fears. (I also feel that it was The Bourne Supremacy that was the biggest influence on EON, not Identity.)

I think any Austin Power's effect is more a case of the producers being embarrassed by the references, an apparent lack of confidence or respect for what the series actually achieved and did.

The 9/11 impact may be greater in terms of the direct way it was felt by much of Hollywood although traditionally I believe dark times and events have been countered by lighter entertainments.

The modern approach to history does seem to be to deny its context, a resistance to afford it (imo) due credit for originality or creativity. We seem to be experiencing a period that covets pretention, that wallows in darkness and a desire to deny 'unashamed fun' any real value. It isn't just EON that is affected.

I am no great fan of The Avengers (it was just about ok) but at least it's success could be an indicator that movies don't have to wallow in self introspection and laboured emo- exposition.

lachesis wrote:

We seem to be experiencing a period that covets pretention, that wallows in darkness and a desire to deny 'unashamed fun' any real value. It isn't just EON that is affected.

That's what I was getting at when I started this thread. I'm very interested in the reasons for this.

I do seem to remember Babs once saying something similar to what Craig said, something along the lines of how Dr Evil had effectively killed off the chance of any sort of 'classic Blofeld' type villain appearing in Bond again.

I'd say the inability to clone Richard Maibaum or to get Connery to make up his own gag lines would be the damage to Bond and humor, especially since the last good Bond one-liner was probably 'salt corrosion' in TLD.

How many of you actually LAUGHED at something Brosnan said that was intended to be funny? I remember wince-laughing at the way he was hollering while running through MI6 in the TWINE PTS, but that was because it seemed like he was trying to channel Harrison Ford in the worst possible way and the wrongest possible movie.

Hmmm, but I'm more interested in the changes since Craig came onboard. BTW, I always assumed Maibaum was the plot man. He was not well regarded for dialogue so I doubt much of Bond's humour came from him.

9/11 more than anything, I'd say.

9/11 is mentioned being the biggest reason for the change in direction. It's explained in the EVERYTHING OR NOTHING documentary:

Here's the part: https://youtu.be/QVe26RAmGFg?t=1h23m31s

Cheers, Snakeman. Been wanting to see that.

It's worth it, though I think it should be much longer. It's hard to do a documentary of a 60 year old legacy under 90 mins.

Erica Ambler wrote:

Hmmm, but I'm more interested in the changes since Craig came onboard. BTW, I always assumed Maibaum was the plot man. He was not well regarded for dialogue so I doubt much of Bond's humour came from him.

The stuff I've read about him and his wife and how he drew on that relationship to create on-screen relationships suggests that the strongest characterization probably came from him, and usually that means dialog too. Would love to go dig through the archive of his at his old school, it is referenced in a book about GOLDFINGER I found a few years back.

The sort of OTT gags the Austin Powers movies parodied had pretty much been discarded by that point. Well, for the most part anyway. We didn't need Austin Powers to know Brosnan's dick jokes were terrible.

Bourne had the biggest influence on the tone of nuBond for sure.

I would say Mike Myers, solely for the fact that I think 9/11 finally gave Bond a new direction.

During the Cold War Bond always had a purpose, there was always that threat lurking around the corner. If Bond didn't save the day, there could be a nuclear holocaust. It gave Bond a purpose. Watching those films with that in mind you knew Bond was going to save the day but you still sat on the edge of your seat until he did it.

In addition, the Austin Powers films came about spoofing the series and I think it kind of showed how tired the Bond series was. The post-Cold War/pre-911 Bonds seem directionless. Goldeneye did a good job and if they had followed through with that tone for the next few I think they would have been fine. Explore the world as it was changing, but then they just went back to playing it safe with TND/TWINE/DAD.

The threat of the villains never really seemed real. Kind of seemed like it was all going through the motions: the girls, the puns, the silly plots, etc.

9/11 actually helped Bond. Gave Bond a threat that people could connect with, put them on the edge of their seat again. And most importantly, they took some risks and modernized the series. By the time the series turned 20, it was starting to get bland. The 80's films were kind of meh. I know they considered a reboot with Dalton. And with the series disappearing for 6 years, I can understand why they wanted to play it safe and not rock the boat. Bond was back and they wanted to keep it that way, so play it safe.

But I think 9/11 gave them the impetus to make some changes. Bring Bond into the 21st century. Sure, the old Q was great and so were the fancy gadgets. But the character had become a spoof of himself. Watch TND or TWINE. It's pretty damn embarrassing. Poor Desmond.

Was Moneypenny great? Sure. But Moneypenny had become a cliche and not relevant since Diamonds Are Forever/Live and Let Die. After that Maxwell hung around too long. She was only there to be there. After she left, Bliss was their just to have someone in the role and Samantha Bond's scenes were pretty cringe worthy.

I love all those things about Bond, but when characters become cliche and Bond seems almost invincible, it makes for a dull movie. So 9/11 I think helped the series. Give things a new angle, give it some life.

I think there are several other considerations that may have a bearing on the general shift in audience mood (beyond Bond really), I am unsure of their relative influence but have to believe they do bear some pressure on each phase of the cinema.

One being a natural cycle of change in the cinema when one type of film reaches saturation level there is a natural reaction to it, while no genre lies dormant entirely there are period where it disproportionately proliferates, the Horror moives of the early 30's, the Screwball comedies of the late 30's, the Noir of the 40's, the sci fi monsters of the 50's morphing into the inner paranoia of the latter part of the decade etc.

Another change is seemingly an element of generational conceit, modern films are voted with an equal footing to older productions even though they build on and employ many of the elements they did not earn. A remake or sequel can call on greater respect than the original despite the fact much of it is simply a repeat of the past, film technique and methods are established through trial and error, today films build on what other people have proven works and as time goes on there is simply less and less to add. We undervalue originality or trailblazing, because it can only be done once, so turning on that I feel some resent or actively undervalue the past.

There is also the wave of political correctness that we are experiencing, we have to a degree become ashamed of our past. I am sure this is pivotal in our willingness to rewrite and reinterpret history and is a problem even at an academic level, so surely infiltrates something as keyed to the modern consciousness as cinema.

Voted 9/11.

The post-9/11 world was the cause of updating and rebooting this character. He's no longer a Cold War relic, and I'm fine with that. But, they didn't just strip him of that. They stripped Bond of nearly everything that made him Bond--the style, the experience, the women, the indulgence, etc. From CASINO ROYALE to QUANTUM, it was as if we were looking at a brand new film character. They don't even feel like Bond films when I watch them, but ultra-violent and poor rip-offs of modern spy franchises (Bourne, mainly).

I can even recall during pre-production of QUANTUM that they wanted Bond to go head-to-head with Al-Queda. That would've been a joke.

The post-9/11 world brought on a whole new level of political correctness, too, which also damaged this character. Maybe he'll recover, one day. Maybe not.

As far as political correctness in SKYFALL goes, I'd have to say it's probably the most sexist Bond film in recent memory.

That's truly surprising.

I added "Bourne" as an option per Ambler's request. I also added Nolan's Batman trilogy as an option (since Batman Begins came out and was successful at restarting the series well before Daniel Craig was even cast). I'll take it down if Ambler wants, though.

This poll question is very good, but I think there still aren't enough options up there. One could make an argument for Barbara Broccoli, Daniel Craig, Roger Moore....and I'm a huge Roger Moore fan. I think it depends upon what you define "damage" as.

I would not say 9/11, even if EON has said so. Brosnan's films were, as had Daltons, trended towards more real-world villains and plots (more or less). Even after 9/11, DAD was still right up there in the vein of Brosnan's other movies, with only an implied reference to 9/11 even happening.

And Bourne was already filming or had wrapped up when 9/11 occurred. If you consider the Craig films as damaged goods, then I'd suggest it was a confluence of 9/11, Jason Bourne and Christopher Nolan. Heck, just the whole origin story idea, which started with Sam Raimi's SPIDER-MAN, has probably influenced the direction the Craig films have taken, because it influenced Batman as well, and we all know from Mendes' interviews that THE DARK KNIGHT had a big impact upon SKYFALL.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Heck, just the whole origin story idea, which started with Sam Raimi's SPIDER-MAN, has probably influenced the direction the Craig films have taken, because it influenced Batman as well, and we all know from Mendes' interviews that THE DARK KNIGHT had a big impact upon SKYFALL.

how's that?
Christopher Reeve's Superman and Burton's Batman both featured origin stories?
it's pretty standard practise in the superhero movie business

Moore wrote:

9/11 actually helped Bond. Gave Bond a threat that people could connect with, put them on the edge of their seat again.

how's that?
Bond has never taken on Muslim terrorists?
Quantum couldn't be less like Osama Bin Laden

Yeah, considering the first post-9/11 movie was about an Asian guy who shape-shifted into a white guy to blow stuff up with a diamond satelite death ray, I'd say 9/11 had next to no impact on the Bond series. CR & QOS could've pretty much been made pre-9/11 too.