• themoken
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    I’m not watching an ad or a Twitter post to get a read on this but does anyone actually want this? I watched the first one many times because I was 12 and then grew out of it by the sequel. A lot of this late 90s/early 00s comedy seems cringe at best and problematic at worst and now needs to compete with infinite sophomoric YouTube videos.

    Not to mention, the Bond franchise got way serious in response to Austin Powers, and the 60s spy he was parodying doesn’t seem nearly as culturally relevant to the kids this would need to appeal to to be successful.

    … Or is this pure cash grab?

    • BrilliantantTurd4361@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yes cant wait!

      All three were fun comedies. An updated take will be fun too!

      We have capitalism. Everything is a cash grab. At least this is a fun one. Fun.

      • Zahille7@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Tbh I’m glad I saw yours and the other replies saying how much you like these movies. They’re some of my childhood favorites, and we even saw the third one in theaters when it came out because my brother and I loved them.

        I still love them.

    • makeshiftreaper@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      2 months ago

      I think there’s actually a really interesting opportunity here. The late 60s/early 70s bond that Austin Powers was parodying would mean that a new one would be parodying late 90s/early 2000s movies and culture. Plus Austin Powers has been portrayed as “woke”, he refuses to sleep with women who can’t consent, is sexually open, and advocated for women in power. It’d be a very fine line to do well but I could definitely see a modernized Austin Powers hitting millennial nostalgia while also staying true to the character and being entertaining

    • PumaStoleMyBluff@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      It’s only cringe/sophomoric because it’s highlighting those aspects of the early bond films. They were wrapped in a serious and glitzy bow, but Austin Powers just sheds that, it doesn’t add anything newly problematic.

    • RaphaelSchmitz@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      It was about a man from the 60s struggling with the societal changes of the (at that time) modern times.

      You don’t think there’s new stuff to struggle with from the last 20 years?

    • marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      The entire point of austin powers was pointing out the problematic nature of the 60s-80s bond films and the generally sexist attitudes of society at the time that allowed that level of male power fantasy to be seen as not only okay, but good enough to be an essential movie franchise.

      I’m entirely sure they’ll have plenty of material regardless of the 90s/00s trope that they pick; because Austin Powers was shockingly woke for its time it can just parody contemporary movies from the time it was released and still be just as relevant as before.

      Its jokes also mostly hold up and while some are definitely crude to attract the younger audiences of the day, the overall plot of ‘guy with good intentions but now problematic cultural habits gets brought into a time period where those things are no longer acceptable and here’s why’ holds up great.

      That or I’ve seen far too many youtube video essays doing serious critical analysis of movies that truly, truly shouldn’t have critical analysis done to them.

  • bigbangdangler@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    2 months ago

    Would it be a money grab? Probably.

    Were the other movies good? Not really.

    Do I actively love them? Yes.

    Would I watch this? 100%.

    I miss this kind of movie with really stupid humor that knows it’s really stupid. They don’t seem to make many of them anymore… probably because they think they won’t sell.

    • Wataba@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      They said the quiet part out loud about corporations taking over and removing any incnentive about taking over the world.

      When reality is even stupider than satire, what else is there to add?

    • Benaaasaaas@group.lt
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Haven’t watched but at least trailers for “The Naked Gun” seem pretty promising.

  • PumpkinSkink@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    2 months ago

    I had always wondered if we’d get one, the end of Goldmember pretty strongly implies there would be another with Scotty as the bad guy. Maybe it’ll be a riff on Thunderball.

  • "Laser" @lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Did he say: “There’ll be an Austin Powers 4. Oh yes, there will be an Austin Powers 4?”

  • pjwestin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    2 months ago

    There could be something there, if they tread new ground. Instead of Austin’s semi-misogynistic 60s free-love attitude being out of step with modern 90s sensibilities, you could have the over the top action tropes of the 90s come into conflict with gritty, realistic action sequences that have become popular in modern spy thrillers. Pair him up with a Daniel Craig/Jason Borne style spy; one of them is throat punching assassins in desperate, close combat fight scenes while the other is running casually through gunfire, judo-chopping goons. Might be fun.

  • espentan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    There are 3? I would’ve sworn there were two, and I really only remember the first one.

    • ecvanalog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      The third one did not have nearly the buzz the first two did, and didn’t really introduce anything that stuck in the collective imagination. Not as quotable or surprising as the first two. You could have SEEN it and still forgotten about it, tbh.