Guardian: Making Bond funny bad idea.

Post by **carl stromberg** » Sun Jul 29, 2007 11:09 am

(Life On Mars ending spoilers included, just in case anyone is watching it for the first time!)

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/film/2007/0 ... _is_a.html

Making James Bond funnier is a bad idea

Daniel Craig has disclosed that the producers of the next Bond film want it to have more Pussy Galore-style gags, but this is an epic display of wrong-headedness.

Nobody knows anything, goes the chestnut about the film industry. After the success of Casino Royale last year, however, the cliche looked to be due a small qualifier - nobody knows anything except for how to save James Bond. Because in the wake of Daniel Craig's debut in the role, the trick seemed obvious. No jokes. That simple. Reviving the franchise came as easily as removing its once-trademark one-liners, Craig's mirthless scowl an emblematic presence in a film full of chilly brutality but with little in the way of double entendres. The result was lauded by critics, loved by audiences. The producers were geniuses.

But actually, it turns out nobody does know anything after all. For with the 22nd Bond about to go into production, Craig has disclosed that a shift in tone is in the offing. "The producers have told me that they want more gags," the actor is reported to have said. "The next one's going to be a lot funnier [with] Octopussy and Pussy Galore-style gags."

Now, when Bond 22 becomes an even bigger deal than its predecessor I'll clearly look a chump, but until then I feel confident in seeing this as an epic display of wrong-headedness. Prior to the adrenaline shot that was Casino Royale, what had long since doomed Bond to a state of comfortable irrelevance was its reluctance to disown its past - the collective memory of a thousand TV screenings after stupefying Christmas dinners, Roger Moore in a safari suit telling a starlet in a bikini something big had just come up before dispatching a villain with a gun disguised as a wristwatch. More than the theme tunes, more even than the cold war trappings, it was the creaking gags that sank Bond as a cinematic force - and their absence that rescued him.

But not only is returning Bond to the spiritual kinship of Austin Powers the only problem here. It's also that, as with any trade, certain professionals are cut out for certain tasks - and while Craig is an actor of many gifts, a delicate touch with salty comedy doesn't appear to be one of them. In fact, it seems almost cruel to expect him to prove otherwise - reminiscent of the infamous press launch for his casting, where at the producers' behest he tore under Tower Bridge on a speedboat looking as if he was about to throw up over one of the attendant Royal Marines.

And oddly, what it also brings to mind is Life on Mars; not just the free-floating nostalgia that underpinned the show's appeal throughout, but specifically the hugely depressing finale in which John Simm's DI Sam Tyler took one look at 2007 and decided a living death in the early 70s was a better bet. Because that's what the men and women behind Bond seem to have chosen for him as well - and to them I can only say that the past is the past and best left where it is, and that the jokes about pulling out of missions prematurely belong to Roger Moore.

stockslivevan · Post by **stockslivevan** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 2:35 am

Why is this even put up here? We all know that interview with Craig was taken out of context, I can't believe people actually bought into that without doing research.

Post by **007** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 7:50 pm

What an extraordinary thesis by that Guardian writer. Let me get this straight; Eon hired Daniel Craig to be James Bond and the subsequent film wasn't very funny. Could it have something to do with Daniel Craig being about as funny as a crowbar in the groin? Did they actually have any other option apart from Daniel Craig gurning his way through the film mumbling with a sour miserable expression? That's his acting style folks!

And low-marks all round for the oh so predictable Roger Moore cheap shot. I'm also getting fed-up with people like this dismissing the series as Austin Powers shite. Talk about join the herd.

Post by **The Sweeney** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 8:28 pm

007 wrote:What an extraordinary thesis by that Guardian writer. Let me get this straight; Eon hired Daniel Craig to be James Bond and the subsequent film wasn't very funny. Could it have something to do with Daniel Craig being about as funny as a crowbar in the groin? Did they actually have any other option apart from Daniel Craig gurning his way through the film mumbling with a sour miserable expression? That's his acting style folks!

And low-marks all round for the oh so predictable Roger Moore cheap shot. I'm also getting fed-up with people like this dismissing the series as Austin Powers shite. Talk about join the herd.

Abysmal piece of journalism. And taken a comment by Craig totally out of context. The film isn't even made, and yet this know-it-all tosspot is predicting in full absolute how the film is going to end up. Get a life!!

Post by **bjmdds** » Wed Aug 01, 2007 2:55 am

The Sweeney wrote:
007 wrote:What an extraordinary thesis by that Guardian writer. Let me get this straight; Eon hired Daniel Craig to be James Bond and the subsequent film wasn't very funny. Could it have something to do with Daniel Craig being about as funny as a crowbar in the groin? Did they actually have any other option apart from Daniel Craig gurning his way through the film mumbling with a sour miserable expression? That's his acting style folks!

And low-marks all round for the oh so predictable Roger Moore cheap shot. I'm also getting fed-up with people like this dismissing the series as Austin Powers shite. Talk about join the herd.
Abysmal piece of journalism. And taken a comment by Craig totally out of context. The film isn't even made, and yet this know-it-all tosspot is predicting in full absolute how the film is going to end up. Get a life!!

Calm down Willy....let's wait and see....calm down..no need to have you upset....tell your wife you need a martini, shaken, not stirred....

Post by **The Sweeney** » Wed Aug 01, 2007 6:09 am

bjmdds wrote:
The Sweeney wrote:
007 wrote:What an extraordinary thesis by that Guardian writer. Let me get this straight; Eon hired Daniel Craig to be James Bond and the subsequent film wasn't very funny. Could it have something to do with Daniel Craig being about as funny as a crowbar in the groin? Did they actually have any other option apart from Daniel Craig gurning his way through the film mumbling with a sour miserable expression? That's his acting style folks!

And low-marks all round for the oh so predictable Roger Moore cheap shot. I'm also getting fed-up with people like this dismissing the series as Austin Powers shite. Talk about join the herd.
Abysmal piece of journalism. And taken a comment by Craig totally out of context. The film isn't even made, and yet this know-it-all tosspot is predicting in full absolute how the film is going to end up. Get a life!!
Calm down Willy....let's wait and see....calm down..no need to have you upset....tell your wife you need a martini, shaken, not stirred....