What are some inaccurate fan myths you wish would die?

[Deledrius]

Personally I'm not sure how any Bond movie undermines its audience. The films are so consciously blasé in backdrop. Everything is a dire circumstance but it's played out so vapid at the same time.

That brings up another fan myth, in a way: that the Bond films take themselves too seriously. Send-ups like Johnny English and Austin Powers (and dozens more) are strange beasts when you've actually seen the Bond movies they reference and realize that a good deal of the time (even the 1960s ones) are tongue-in-cheek with their own overblown action and understated world-ending threats. The original films are often parodies of other spy stories (among other pop culture of the era).

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Personally I'm not sure how any Bond movie undermines its audience. The films are so consciously blasé in backdrop. Everything is a dire circumstance but it's played out so vapid at the same time.

That brings up another fan myth, in a way: that the Bond films take themselves too seriously. Send-ups like Johnny English and Austin Powers (and dozens more) are strange beasts when you've actually seen the Bond movies they reference and realize that a good deal of the time (even the 1960s ones) are tongue-in-cheek with their own overblown action and understated world-ending threats. The original films are often parodies of other spy stories (among other pop culture of the era).

Oh wait actually I do think of that for the Moore films. Much more so than the Brosnan, and License to Kill was pretty sober.

I've heard people close to the scene talk about how Austin Powers ruined the series, though I thought they only steadily got worse, gradually after Goldeneye.

[Deledrius]

Oh wait actually I do think of that for the Moore films. Much more so than the Brosnan, and License to Kill was pretty sober.

I've heard people close to the scene talk about how Austin Powers ruined the series, though I thought they only steadily got worse, gradually after Goldeneye.

There are a lot of films, so there are definitely a few that try to be more serious spy films, and License to Kill stands out strongly in that regard. But Connery and Moore had a lot of goofy moments or even entire movies. Brosnan was a sort of mix, as it was trying to distance itself from that while at the same time embracing some of the then-modern over-the-top action too.

I've seen it said that Austin Powers made Bond impossible, but to be fair to both franchises they really are their own things. AP is more a send-up of a huge swath of 1960s cultural icons, and it shares fairly little with Bond outside of Dr. Evil being a reference to Blofeld and Number Two being a reference to Largo in Thunderball (and sundry other things, like Random Task being a joke about Oddjob, etc.). Powers himself is hardly a close stand-in for Bond in most regards; Bond was never such a public figure. Apparently he was based on a UK DJ named Simon Dee. The plots in AP are a wild mix of sci-fi tropes.

So I think the real problem is just that there were major cultural shifts around the same time in the film industry that have made the Bond franchise less... sustainable... without re-tooling. Parodying a thing that was already at least half silly doesn't kill it. The globe-trotting man alone with nothing but his wits and his Walther PPK is a difficult premise in a modern world, much as TOS to TNG changed how far out and away from Starfleet Command the crew was, and now on Discovery everyone can talk to everyone else at any time without any delay at all. The Craig Bond films have embraced this, to their credit, but the end result has been that every single one revolves around MI6 directly. This massively changes the feel and tone of the character and his relationship to his missions and the sort of peril he can be in. They aren't Bond movies as much as movies with Bond in them. The world has gotten too small.

I find myself wondering if the franchise would be better off rebooting as a perpetual period piece that takes place in the 1960s and never leaves the era. It would be oddly easier for it to take itself seriously (while still having room for a bit of winking from time to time) and still maintain the key romanticism of the Age of the Superspy.

[Fianna]

If you want Bond cutoff from MI6, all you have to do is say that the bad guys are monitoring all wireless communications in the area, so Bond can't keep in touch with headquarters without giving himself away.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Oh wait actually I do think of that for the Moore films. Much more so than the Brosnan, and License to Kill was pretty sober.

I've heard people close to the scene talk about how Austin Powers ruined the series, though I thought they only steadily got worse, gradually after Goldeneye.

There are a lot of films, so there are definitely a few that try to be more serious spy films, and License to Kill stands out strongly in that regard. But Connery and Moore had a lot of goofy moments or even entire movies. Brosnan was a sort of mix, as it was trying to distance itself from that while at the same time embracing some of the then-modern over-the-top action too.

I've seen it said that Austin Powers made Bond impossible, but to be fair to both franchises they really are their own things. AP is more a send-up of a huge swath of 1960s cultural icons, and it shares fairly little with Bond outside of Dr. Evil being a reference to Blofeld and Number Two being a reference to Largo in Thunderball (and sundry other things, like Random Task being a joke about Oddjob, etc.). Powers himself is hardly a close stand-in for Bond in most regards; Bond was never such a public figure. Apparently he was based on a UK DJ named Simon Dee. The plots in AP are a wild mix of sci-fi tropes.

So I think the real problem is just that there were major cultural shifts around the same time in the film industry that have made the Bond franchise less... sustainable... without re-tooling. Parodying a thing that was already at least half silly doesn't kill it. The globe-trotting man alone with nothing but his wits and his Walther PPK is a difficult premise in a modern world, much as TOS to TNG changed how far out and away from Starfleet Command the crew was, and now on Discovery everyone can talk to everyone else at any time without any delay at all. The Craig Bond films have embraced this, to their credit, but the end result has been that every single one revolves around MI6 directly. This massively changes the feel and tone of the character and his relationship to his missions and the sort of peril he can be in. They aren't Bond movies as much as movies with Bond in them. The world has gotten too small.

I find myself wondering if the franchise would be better off rebooting as a perpetual period piece that takes place in the 1960s and never leaves the era. It would be oddly easier for it to take itself seriously (while still having room for a bit of winking from time to time) and still maintain the key romanticism of the Age of the Superspy.

I remember someone saying that too about Austin Powers, but I agree thinking back that that doesn't seem likely. Austin Powers came out in '96 and Bond was rebooted until 10 years later. Austin Powers wasn't that renowned by the second film, it was its own little side parody thing as you're saying.

I think Bourne Identity was more that did it. The changes that took place with Bond are all stuff that's pretty familiar from Bourne in terms of action. All they really had to do was keep the panache and the sexy women, but yeah I guess it revolved around the agency and more grounded villains with believable goals and methods.

As far as a period piece that sounds pretty much like the Guy Ritchie Sherlock Holmes movies. Just that they're in the 20's.

[ProfessorDetective]

Oh wait actually I do think of that for the Moore films. Much more so than the Brosnan, and License to Kill was pretty sober.

I've heard people close to the scene talk about how Austin Powers ruined the series, though I thought they only steadily got worse, gradually after Goldeneye.

There are a lot of films, so there are definitely a few that try to be more serious spy films, and License to Kill stands out strongly in that regard. But Connery and Moore had a lot of goofy moments or even entire movies. Brosnan was a sort of mix, as it was trying to distance itself from that while at the same time embracing some of the then-modern over-the-top action too.

I've seen it said that Austin Powers made Bond impossible, but to be fair to both franchises they really are their own things. AP is more a send-up of a huge swath of 1960s cultural icons, and it shares fairly little with Bond outside of Dr. Evil being a reference to Blofeld and Number Two being a reference to Largo in Thunderball (and sundry other things, like Random Task being a joke about Oddjob, etc.). Powers himself is hardly a close stand-in for Bond in most regards; Bond was never such a public figure. Apparently he was based on a UK DJ named Simon Dee. The plots in AP are a wild mix of sci-fi tropes.

So I think the real problem is just that there were major cultural shifts around the same time in the film industry that have made the Bond franchise less... sustainable... without re-tooling. Parodying a thing that was already at least half silly doesn't kill it. The globe-trotting man alone with nothing but his wits and his Walther PPK is a difficult premise in a modern world, much as TOS to TNG changed how far out and away from Starfleet Command the crew was, and now on Discovery everyone can talk to everyone else at any time without any delay at all. The Craig Bond films have embraced this, to their credit, but the end result has been that every single one revolves around MI6 directly. This massively changes the feel and tone of the character and his relationship to his missions and the sort of peril he can be in. They aren't Bond movies as much as movies with Bond in them. The world has gotten too small.

I find myself wondering if the franchise would be better off rebooting as a perpetual period piece that takes place in the 1960s and never leaves the era. It would be oddly easier for it to take itself seriously (while still having room for a bit of winking from time to time) and still maintain the key romanticism of the Age of the Superspy.

I remember someone saying that too about Austin Powers, but I agree thinking back that that doesn't seem likely. Austin Powers came out in '96 and Bond was rebooted until 10 years later. Austin Powers wasn't that renowned by the second film, it was its own little side parody thing as you're saying.

I think Bourne Identity was more that did it. The changes that took place with Bond are all stuff that's pretty familiar from Bourne in terms of action. All they really had to do was keep the panache and the sexy women, but yeah I guess it revolved around the agency and more grounded villains with believable goals and methods.

As far as a period piece that sounds pretty much like the Guy Ritchie Sherlock Holmes movies. Just that they're in the 20's.

Um, neither of those are set in the Twenties. Holmes is 1880s-1900s and Bond would be 1960s.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Oh wait actually I do think of that for the Moore films. Much more so than the Brosnan, and License to Kill was pretty sober.

I've heard people close to the scene talk about how Austin Powers ruined the series, though I thought they only steadily got worse, gradually after Goldeneye.

There are a lot of films, so there are definitely a few that try to be more serious spy films, and License to Kill stands out strongly in that regard. But Connery and Moore had a lot of goofy moments or even entire movies. Brosnan was a sort of mix, as it was trying to distance itself from that while at the same time embracing some of the then-modern over-the-top action too.

I've seen it said that Austin Powers made Bond impossible, but to be fair to both franchises they really are their own things. AP is more a send-up of a huge swath of 1960s cultural icons, and it shares fairly little with Bond outside of Dr. Evil being a reference to Blofeld and Number Two being a reference to Largo in Thunderball (and sundry other things, like Random Task being a joke about Oddjob, etc.). Powers himself is hardly a close stand-in for Bond in most regards; Bond was never such a public figure. Apparently he was based on a UK DJ named Simon Dee. The plots in AP are a wild mix of sci-fi tropes.

So I think the real problem is just that there were major cultural shifts around the same time in the film industry that have made the Bond franchise less... sustainable... without re-tooling. Parodying a thing that was already at least half silly doesn't kill it. The globe-trotting man alone with nothing but his wits and his Walther PPK is a difficult premise in a modern world, much as TOS to TNG changed how far out and away from Starfleet Command the crew was, and now on Discovery everyone can talk to everyone else at any time without any delay at all. The Craig Bond films have embraced this, to their credit, but the end result has been that every single one revolves around MI6 directly. This massively changes the feel and tone of the character and his relationship to his missions and the sort of peril he can be in. They aren't Bond movies as much as movies with Bond in them. The world has gotten too small.

I find myself wondering if the franchise would be better off rebooting as a perpetual period piece that takes place in the 1960s and never leaves the era. It would be oddly easier for it to take itself seriously (while still having room for a bit of winking from time to time) and still maintain the key romanticism of the Age of the Superspy.

I remember someone saying that too about Austin Powers, but I agree thinking back that that doesn't seem likely. Austin Powers came out in '96 and Bond was rebooted until 10 years later. Austin Powers wasn't that renowned by the second film, it was its own little side parody thing as you're saying.

I think Bourne Identity was more that did it. The changes that took place with Bond are all stuff that's pretty familiar from Bourne in terms of action. All they really had to do was keep the panache and the sexy women, but yeah I guess it revolved around the agency and more grounded villains with believable goals and methods.

As far as a period piece that sounds pretty much like the Guy Ritchie Sherlock Holmes movies. Just that they're in the 20's.

Um, neither of those are set in the Twenties. Holmes is 1880s-1900s and Bond would be 1960s.

Detail error sorrey.

[Deledrius]

I think Bourne Identity was more that did it. The changes that took place with Bond are all stuff that's pretty familiar from Bourne in terms of action. All they really had to do was keep the panache and the sexy women, but yeah I guess it revolved around the agency and more grounded villains with believable goals and methods.

Absolutely. I think the Craig films very definitely show their lineage through the Bourne films as modern spy action thrillers, just as much if not more than the original run of the Bond franchise. Not just how the stories are told, but the kind of stories as well.

[Karha of Honor]

If you want Bond cutoff from MI6, all you have to do is say that the bad guys are monitoring all wireless communications in the area, so Bond can't keep in touch with headquarters without giving himself away.

The first TOR browser was invented for spies...

[Artabax]

Jon Snow is rightful heir of 7 Kingdoms. Bolleaux! Danny simultaneously proves both that she is the mad King's heir AND why Westeros abolished Targaryen dynasty in the first place.