I guess I don't get the whole point of choosing one over the other. Why can't you like them both? Since this isn't Absolutely Jason Bourne, we obviously prefer Bond, or at least that is why I hope people are members here. It just seems odd that if you are a fan of the Bourne series, suddenly you lose your taste for Bond.
Can't disagree; I don't know why anyone would have to feel they have to. The Bourne makers have been asked to compare their films to Bond because it's pretty natural for journos to bring up Bond (it is so big and iconic), and it's pretty natural for the Bourne people to say theirs is better- after all, what else are they supposed to say?
I have to agree with spectre7 about Greengrass and his "shaky" camera angles. They tend to drive me crazy too...it's very dizzying and distracting. It may be innovative, but for me it takes me out of the moment, and sometimes has me reaching for the Dramamine! )
Can't agree I think it works perfectly well and I just don't notice it. I can see everything that's going on and it gives it energy- it's a tricky technique to pull off, although I remember not enjoying in the cinema- I think it's the nature of projection for it to strobe slightly. Better on DVD.
Why did Jason Bourne steal Bonds initials? Isn't that some kind of homage?
As others have pointed out, Ludlum's The Bourne Identity is basically picking up the story of Fleming's You Only Live Twice from the end- what would happen if a superspy (Bond) lost his memory as Bond does in YOLT and doesn't get it back? Jason Bourne has James Bond's initials because he is James Bond!
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,991Quartermasters
edited July 2007
Well, apparently there are now stats on the Bourne vs Bond debate...
(Formerly) Poor DannyTM, as Bond, beats Matt Damon's Bourne in a theoretical throwdown---by just 1.8%...the remainder calling it a draw, or simply unable to decide...I guess this just means Greengrass and Damon have to keep talking smack, to see if they can move the needle )
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
RogueAgentSpeeding in the Tumbler...Posts: 3,676MI6 Agent
(Formerly) Poor DannyTM, as Bond, beats Matt Damon's Bourne in a theoretical throwdown---by just 1.8%...the remainder calling it a draw, or simply unable to decide...I guess this just means Greengrass and Damon have to keep talking smack, to see if they can move the needle )
Results:
Daniel Craig's Bond - 41.5%
Matt Damon's Bourne - 39.7%
They're both equally fit, call it a draw - 13.7%
I just can't decide - 5.1%
Why would anyone participate in a poll if they couldn't make a conscious decision? ?:)
That's a pretty useless slot if you ask me.
That 5% could've been a difference maker for Bourne fans. Respectively that's still a slim margin; could've gone either way.
Mrs. Man Face: "You wouldn't hit a lady? Would you?"
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice isUNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,991Quartermasters
That 5% could've been a difference maker for Bourne fans. Respectively that's still a slim margin; could've gone either way.
Obviously, the Bourne people need to hire a political consultant...organize focus groups...
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
RogueAgentSpeeding in the Tumbler...Posts: 3,676MI6 Agent
That 5% could've been a difference maker for Bourne fans. Respectively that's still a slim margin; could've gone either way.
Obviously, the Bourne people need to hire a political consultant...organize focus groups...
)
It's those darn IMDB members in Florida! )
Mrs. Man Face: "You wouldn't hit a lady? Would you?"
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice isUNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,991Quartermasters
Wait until the lawyers get involved X-(
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Obviously, the Bourne people need to hire a political consultant...organize focus groups...
I think organising a half-hearted boycott through a dreadful website may be their only hope...
)
Nah...that's already been tried elsewhere; indications are that it didn't work B-)
{[]
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Here's my take on this whole "Bourne vs. Bond" business.
First of all, I think both are great.
However, the mere fact that the Bourne fanatics feel the need to state that "Bourne is equal to or better than Bond" speaks volumes in itself. Bond is, was, and always will be the measuring stick that all other spies, secret agents are compared with.
Is Bourne better than Bond? I don't know or care. They're both fictional characters. Is this painting better than that painting? Is this glass of wine better than that glass of wine? Well, if you personally like it better than it is , but it's only better for you.
I personally, like Bond better and enjoy the fact that my favorite secret agent is the one that all the others need to compare themselves to.
Here's my take on this whole "Bourne vs. Bond" business.
First of all, I think both are great.
However, the mere fact that the Bourne fanatics feel the need to state that "Bourne is equal to or better than Bond" speaks volumes in itself. Bond is, was, and always will be the measuring stick that all other spies, secret agents are compared with.
Is Bourne better than Bond? I don't know or care. They're both fictional characters. Is this painting better than that painting? Is this glass of wine better than that glass of wine? Well, if you personally like it better than it is , but it's only better for you.
I personally, like Bond better and enjoy the fact that my favorite secret agent is the one that all the others need to compare themselves to.
Hear hear. {[] I too prefer Bond, but both characters are indeed great, and nobody should be embarassed about liking either one of them.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Okay, even the Sunday papers are at this. 8-) There's a feature entitled Bond v Bourne in The Sunday Times, though annoyingly they have yet to put it on their website. I'll see if it appears in the next few days.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,991Quartermasters
Okay, even the Sunday papers are at this. 8-) There's a feature entitled Bond v Bourne in The Sunday Times, though annoyingly they have yet to put it on their website. I'll see if it appears in the next few days.
Anything that keeps Bond in the public eye---in-between pictures---can't be a bad thing. Right now it's Bourne's moment; it should do really well, based on reviews, etc., but in the meantime he's sharing just about every sentence with 007...
My wife and I watched "Identity" and "Supremacy" last night in preparation for watching the new one (she'd never seen any of them before)...and she loved them. I'm looking forward to checking out what might very well be Mr. Bourne's swan song...unless they decide to adapt one of Eric Van Lustbader's follow-up novels, or (gasp!) borrow an idea from the franchise they're 'spitting on' ( ) ): writing original scripts with original titles, and making a serious go at a long-term enterprise...
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
i thought that identity was good,especially near the end, and supremacy was alright (maybe becuase i saw Collateral a few days later and was blown away) but this one looks good, though id much rather be james bond then jason bourne
I just saw the new Bourne film today and liked it very much. I actually thought it was the best of the three. I'm sure that there will be more Bourne films as this one apparently has set a new box office record for an August opening. Without giving away any spoilers, I am very curious to see what they will do with this charactor in subsequent films. Bourne is a compelling charactor because of the mystery that surrounds his past. One little annoying thing however, I just read somewhere that a mouthpiece from Universal in commenting on the weekend success of Bourne said "Matt Damon is the new James Bond". If I'm not mistaken, the Bond legacy is alive and well in the person of Daniel Craig and in excess of a fivehundredmillion dollar gross. The Bourne films are good enough that they can stand on their own without taking cheap shots at Bond.
Just saw the new Bourne flick today. Good -- but nothing really spectacular, in my view. Just your standard 21st century action thriller on amphetamines. The first was still by far the best in my view, because it actually took some time to present the Bourne character and at that time there was some mystery involved in that character. The mystery was largely cleared up by the end of the first film. I can't really remember the second one all that well. As for Ultimatum, the revelations of its plot are little more than details to what was already revealed in Identity And that handheld camera is annoying after a while. It's fine and dandy during action sequences, but is it really necessary when the scene is just two guys talking in a living room? But all in all, I enjoyed it, and I'm indebted to the series for shaking the Bond franchise out of its formulaic, campy dooldrums.
I'm indebted to the series for shaking the Bond franchise out of its formulaic, campy dooldrums.
Never bought into that: Bond shook itself out of it's own doldrums by going back to it's roots IMO. 60s Bonds weren't chopped liver. I see OHMSS, GF, DN, FRWL in CR, not Bourne at all. But that's just me.
I'm indebted to the series for shaking the Bond franchise out of its formulaic, campy dooldrums.
Never bought into that: Bond shook itself out of it's own doldrums by going back to it's roots IMO. 60s Bonds weren't chopped liver. I see OHMSS, GF, DN, FRWL in CR, not Bourne at all. But that's just me.
I can't really agree with that- seems pretty clear that CR borrowed some of the real, tough style of the Bourne movies to me. You don't get many super tough, pumped up foot chases in the 60s Bonds!
I don't think that's a bad thing at all, though. Bond added that style to its own mix and does a different thing with it. I think if you had to compare the two, I'd say Bourne produces a purer movie- CR seems a little muddled because of the all the baggage and expectations a Bond movie brings and all the boxes it has to tick; but I still prefer Bond. Can't wait to see the new Bourne, though. It's got the same rating as Casino Royale on Rotten Tomatoes, incidentally.
I just saw the new Bourne film today and liked it very much. I actually thought it was the best of the three. I'm sure that there will be more Bourne films as this one apparently has set a new box office record for an August opening.
I'm not too conviced- I think Damon has said pretty clearly that he won't do any more, and although I'm really looking forward to it, it does look like 'more of the same' and I'm not sure that it'll hold up to more exposure. And isn't the story finished now? (That's rhetorical, by the way; don't spoil it! )
Ha...that's how you make a name for yourself. You find the biggest and the best and call it out. Greengrass and Damon are admitting to Bond's superiority by attacking it so vigorously.
My argument for the Bond Supremacy is simple and goes thusly...Call me in 45 years and let me know if Jason Bourne is still alive and kicking.
No, I don't think that means anything. Just because Lawrence of Arabia hasn't had a sequel in 40-odd years doesn't make it any less of a classic film, does it?
Bond and Bourne get compared because they're both spy/action films (although Bond goes more action/adventure whereas Bourne is more spy thriller/action, I'd say) and as such, I can't think of a better rival for the crown that Bond has ever had. A better match for Bond would be Indiana Jones, I'd say- they're much closer in style than Bourne is to Bond. And the fact that there's only been 3 Indy films so far doesn't make them worse than Bond, does it? I still see the DVDs in the shops; the films get big ratings when they're on telly... in 45 years I think Indy will still be very well remembered, despite they're not being many more being made. Better remembered than Octopussy, I'd wager.
Ahh, but you've stumbled across my point there. Lawrence of Arabia may not have a sequel, but I wasn't really trying to use the number of sequels as a basis for quality. The fact of the matter is, 45 years later, Bond is still an icon and a legend (in addition to being a money-maker). It's a question of whether the film (or films) stand the test of time. There is no way of knowing if the Bourne films will be remembered in a half century until half of a century passes.
I'm indebted to the series for shaking the Bond franchise out of its formulaic, campy dooldrums.
Never bought into that: Bond shook itself out of it's own doldrums by going back to it's roots IMO. 60s Bonds weren't chopped liver. I see OHMSS, GF, DN, FRWL in CR, not Bourne at all. But that's just me.
No, I agree. I didn't mean that CR sought to imitate Bourne. But rather, Eon realized than it couldn't go on in the campy direction the Bond films had been moving for so many years: the outrageous gadgets, puns and general silliness. I think the producers have said so explicitly, that the success of the first Bourne film made them take a second look at Bond and spurred the decision to strip away all the bs it had acquired over the years and return to the grittier Bond of yore.
Ahh, but you've stumbled across my point there. Lawrence of Arabia may not have a sequel, but I wasn't really trying to use the number of sequels as a basis for quality. The fact of the matter is, 45 years later, Bond is still an icon and a legend (in addition to being a money-maker). It's a question of whether the film (or films) stand the test of time. There is no way of knowing if the Bourne films will be remembered in a half century until half of a century passes.
Well okay, but first of all, I'm not sure that that matters- we know they're good now; just look at the reviews and the box office. What does it prove? And you've set them a goal which we can't possibly know whether it'd achieve or not and said they won't, which is a bit easy- it's just as easy to say that they will still be remembered after all that time. In fact, I'll back it up.
My personal feeling is that they will; they're excellent examples of their genre, they're all cracking and will be remembered in just the same way that The French Connection is- as excellent thrillers.
If nothing else, they'll still be remembered because of their excellent action sequences- I think Supremacy takes the crown for best ever car chase, plus it's a good film. Look at Bullitt- a really, incredibly average film still remembered after all this time for its car chase. On that basis I'd say it was pretty much a certainty that the Bournes will be remembered. I can remember plenty of big earning classic thrillers from thirty/forty years ago; and these are a lot more deserving than Octopussy of going down in the history books.
No, I agree. I didn't mean that CR sought to imitate Bourne. But rather, Eon realized than it couldn't go on in the campy direction the Bond films had been moving for so many years: the outrageous gadgets, puns and general silliness. I think the producers have said so explicitly, that the success of the first Bourne film made them take a second look at Bond and spurred the decision to strip away all the bs it had acquired over the years and return to the grittier Bond of yore.
Yes, definitely; although I don't think they just returned to the old Bond, I think they added more than he ever had before, courtesy of Bourne. And I don't mean that they copied Bourne, just that it inspired them to add more to Bond. The influence is pretty clear to see to me.
'hopes, I was thinking of taking my mom to see BU, but she's seen the first and not the second and we don't have a DVD/widescreen facility for that... could she pick up the drift of the third without having seen the second d'ya think?
'hopes, I was thinking of taking my mom to see BU, but she's seen the first and not the second and we don't have a DVD/widescreen facility for that... could she pick up the drift of the third without having seen the second d'ya think?
NP
Sure -- I can't remember the second one very well at all, and I followed BU without a problem. The characters review everything you need to know. And the thing is, there really isn't much of a plot to follow. It's basically non-stop running around with occasional cuts to sinister CIA black-ops types intoning solemnly that Bourne is dangerous and must be "taken out." Same as the first two films. And the ending, as I mentioned earlier, just adds detail to the first film's. CR's plot was far more complicated by comparison.
Ahh, but you've stumbled across my point there. Lawrence of Arabia may not have a sequel, but I wasn't really trying to use the number of sequels as a basis for quality. The fact of the matter is, 45 years later, Bond is still an icon and a legend (in addition to being a money-maker). It's a question of whether the film (or films) stand the test of time. There is no way of knowing if the Bourne films will be remembered in a half century until half of a century passes.
Well okay, but first of all, I'm not sure that that matters- we know they're good now; just look at the reviews and the box office. What does it prove? And you've set them a goal which we can't possibly know whether it'd achieve or not and said they won't, which is a bit easy- it's just as easy to say that they will still be remembered after all that time. In fact, I'll back it up.
My personal feeling is that they will; they're excellent examples of their genre, they're all cracking and will be remembered in just the same way that The French Connection is- as excellent thrillers.
If nothing else, they'll still be remembered because of their excellent action sequences- I think Supremacy takes the crown for best ever car chase, plus it's a good film. Look at Bullitt- a really, incredibly average film still remembered after all this time for its car chase. On that basis I'd say it was pretty much a certainty that the Bournes will be remembered. I can remember plenty of big earning classic thrillers from thirty/forty years ago; and these are a lot more deserving than Octopussy of going down in the history books.
I do think longevity matters. To me, it's a question of whether the Bourne films end up becoming "classics." That is to say, whether they are looked back upon as fondly as a movie like Goldfinger. Of course, you are right to point out that not all Bond films are worthy of a classic status themselves.
There is no way to test this now, I realize that. I just don't think it's prudent for the Bourne makers to say that they've supplanted Bond in any way, shape or form. Whether their films are better or worse, it's a ridiculous presumption to make. To me, it's like a band with three really fantastic singles saying that they're better than the Beatles or The Stones.
I take no issue with the caliber of the Bourne movies, just the arrogance of those involved. Of course, I said it before, to make a name for yourself, you attack the biggest and the best. On their part, it's all PR. I know that, but it still gets under my skin a bit.
I take no issue with the caliber of the Bourne movies, just the arrogance of those involved. Of course, I said it before, to make a name for yourself, you attack the biggest and the best. On their part, it's all PR. I know that, but it still gets under my skin a bit.
I agree. It's one thing to say that Bourne is better than Bond; it's another to say that one 'spits' on Bond. People might say that it just PR, however I don't accept that. If Bourne is so good, then one should be able to publicise it on its merits. Attacking an opposition franchise in the way the Bourne people did, suggests to me that they aren't particularly confindent about their product, as they can not advertise it without bashing an opposition product.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,991Quartermasters
It's one thing to say that Bourne is better than Bond; it's another to say that one 'spits' on Bond. People might say that it just PR, however I don't accept that. If Bourne is so good, then one should be able to publicise it on its merits. Attacking an opposition franchise in the way the Bourne people did, suggests to me that they aren't particularly confindent about their product, as they can not advertise it without bashing an opposition product.
My point exactly {[]
Bourne will do just fine this summer, box office-wise, and may well enjoy some longevity in action film annals---as other action franchises likely will as well: Die Hard, Indy, etc.---but this certainly won't be because they chose to 'spit on' the values of Bond ?:)
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I take no issue with the caliber of the Bourne movies, just the arrogance of those involved. Of course, I said it before, to make a name for yourself, you attack the biggest and the best. On their part, it's all PR. I know that, but it still gets under my skin a bit.
Exactly; it's just PR- ignore it. It's not real. They believe in their own product, as well they should do.
For me this is on the same level as the fans getting all hot under the collar because Martin Campbell dared to say that Daniel Craig was the best Bond in his opinion; that somehow that meant that he thought all Sean Connery films should be burnt in a bonfire or something- it's not offensive and it's just hyperbole.
Do you really believe that though? You're a big Bourne fan, so wouldn't you be more convinced to see the new film if the producers highlighted all that was great about Bourne (the intriegue, the action sequences, the story, Matt Damon etc...) rather than say that they 'spit' on Bond?
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
When I ask that of you don't you usually go off on one about me 'disrespecting your point of view' or something?
Yes I believe it, because what the people say whilst marketing a film doesn't affect me at all- I just like watching the film and if I like it, I like it. I don't care what their opinions are on another film- that's hardly going to put me off watching their film.
I'm not some OTT fanatic who can't bear to think that not everyone in the world loves 007 as much as I do- I quite like it, and I'm quite able to take it when somebody else doesn't.
Comments
Can't disagree; I don't know why anyone would have to feel they have to. The Bourne makers have been asked to compare their films to Bond because it's pretty natural for journos to bring up Bond (it is so big and iconic), and it's pretty natural for the Bourne people to say theirs is better- after all, what else are they supposed to say?
Can't agree
As others have pointed out, Ludlum's The Bourne Identity is basically picking up the story of Fleming's You Only Live Twice from the end- what would happen if a superspy (Bond) lost his memory as Bond does in YOLT and doesn't get it back? Jason Bourne has James Bond's initials because he is James Bond!
http://www.mi6.co.uk/news/index.php?itemid=5223
(Formerly) Poor DannyTM, as Bond, beats Matt Damon's Bourne in a theoretical throwdown---by just 1.8%...the remainder calling it a draw, or simply unable to decide...I guess this just means Greengrass and Damon have to keep talking smack, to see if they can move the needle
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Results:
Daniel Craig's Bond - 41.5%
Matt Damon's Bourne - 39.7%
They're both equally fit, call it a draw - 13.7%
I just can't decide - 5.1%
Why would anyone participate in a poll if they couldn't make a conscious decision? ?:)
That's a pretty useless slot if you ask me.
That 5% could've been a difference maker for Bourne fans. Respectively that's still a slim margin; could've gone either way.
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
Obviously, the Bourne people need to hire a political consultant...organize focus groups...
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
It's those darn IMDB members in Florida!
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I think organising a half-hearted boycott through a dreadful website may be their only hope...
Nah...that's already been tried elsewhere; indications are that it didn't work B-)
{[]
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
First of all, I think both are great.
However, the mere fact that the Bourne fanatics feel the need to state that "Bourne is equal to or better than Bond" speaks volumes in itself. Bond is, was, and always will be the measuring stick that all other spies, secret agents are compared with.
Is Bourne better than Bond? I don't know or care. They're both fictional characters. Is this painting better than that painting? Is this glass of wine better than that glass of wine? Well, if you personally like it better than it is , but it's only better for you.
I personally, like Bond better and enjoy the fact that my favorite secret agent is the one that all the others need to compare themselves to.
Anything that keeps Bond in the public eye---in-between pictures---can't be a bad thing. Right now it's Bourne's moment; it should do really well, based on reviews, etc., but in the meantime he's sharing just about every sentence with 007...
My wife and I watched "Identity" and "Supremacy" last night in preparation for watching the new one (she'd never seen any of them before)...and she loved them. I'm looking forward to checking out what might very well be Mr. Bourne's swan song...unless they decide to adapt one of Eric Van Lustbader's follow-up novels, or (gasp!) borrow an idea from the franchise they're 'spitting on' (
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Never bought into that: Bond shook itself out of it's own doldrums by going back to it's roots IMO. 60s Bonds weren't chopped liver.
I can't really agree with that- seems pretty clear that CR borrowed some of the real, tough style of the Bourne movies to me. You don't get many super tough, pumped up foot chases in the 60s Bonds!
I don't think that's a bad thing at all, though. Bond added that style to its own mix and does a different thing with it. I think if you had to compare the two, I'd say Bourne produces a purer movie- CR seems a little muddled because of the all the baggage and expectations a Bond movie brings and all the boxes it has to tick; but I still prefer Bond. Can't wait to see the new Bourne, though. It's got the same rating as Casino Royale on Rotten Tomatoes, incidentally.
I'm not too conviced- I think Damon has said pretty clearly that he won't do any more, and although I'm really looking forward to it, it does look like 'more of the same' and I'm not sure that it'll hold up to more exposure. And isn't the story finished now? (That's rhetorical, by the way; don't spoil it!
Ahh, but you've stumbled across my point there. Lawrence of Arabia may not have a sequel, but I wasn't really trying to use the number of sequels as a basis for quality. The fact of the matter is, 45 years later, Bond is still an icon and a legend (in addition to being a money-maker). It's a question of whether the film (or films) stand the test of time. There is no way of knowing if the Bourne films will be remembered in a half century until half of a century passes.
No, I agree. I didn't mean that CR sought to imitate Bourne. But rather, Eon realized than it couldn't go on in the campy direction the Bond films had been moving for so many years: the outrageous gadgets, puns and general silliness. I think the producers have said so explicitly, that the success of the first Bourne film made them take a second look at Bond and spurred the decision to strip away all the bs it had acquired over the years and return to the grittier Bond of yore.
Well okay, but first of all, I'm not sure that that matters- we know they're good now; just look at the reviews and the box office. What does it prove? And you've set them a goal which we can't possibly know whether it'd achieve or not and said they won't, which is a bit easy- it's just as easy to say that they will still be remembered after all that time. In fact, I'll back it up.
My personal feeling is that they will; they're excellent examples of their genre, they're all cracking and will be remembered in just the same way that The French Connection is- as excellent thrillers.
If nothing else, they'll still be remembered because of their excellent action sequences- I think Supremacy takes the crown for best ever car chase, plus it's a good film. Look at Bullitt- a really, incredibly average film still remembered after all this time for its car chase. On that basis I'd say it was pretty much a certainty that the Bournes will be remembered. I can remember plenty of big earning classic thrillers from thirty/forty years ago; and these are a lot more deserving than Octopussy of going down in the history books.
Yes, definitely; although I don't think they just returned to the old Bond, I think they added more than he ever had before, courtesy of Bourne. And I don't mean that they copied Bourne, just that it inspired them to add more to Bond. The influence is pretty clear to see to me.
NP
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Sure -- I can't remember the second one very well at all, and I followed BU without a problem. The characters review everything you need to know. And the thing is, there really isn't much of a plot to follow. It's basically non-stop running around with occasional cuts to sinister CIA black-ops types intoning solemnly that Bourne is dangerous and must be "taken out." Same as the first two films. And the ending, as I mentioned earlier, just adds detail to the first film's. CR's plot was far more complicated by comparison.
There is no way to test this now, I realize that. I just don't think it's prudent for the Bourne makers to say that they've supplanted Bond in any way, shape or form. Whether their films are better or worse, it's a ridiculous presumption to make. To me, it's like a band with three really fantastic singles saying that they're better than the Beatles or The Stones.
I take no issue with the caliber of the Bourne movies, just the arrogance of those involved. Of course, I said it before, to make a name for yourself, you attack the biggest and the best. On their part, it's all PR. I know that, but it still gets under my skin a bit.
My point exactly {[]
Bourne will do just fine this summer, box office-wise, and may well enjoy some longevity in action film annals---as other action franchises likely will as well: Die Hard, Indy, etc.---but this certainly won't be because they chose to 'spit on' the values of Bond ?:)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Exactly; it's just PR- ignore it. It's not real. They believe in their own product, as well they should do.
For me this is on the same level as the fans getting all hot under the collar because Martin Campbell dared to say that Daniel Craig was the best Bond in his opinion; that somehow that meant that he thought all Sean Connery films should be burnt in a bonfire or something- it's not offensive and it's just hyperbole.
When I ask that of you don't you usually go off on one about me 'disrespecting your point of view' or something?
Yes I believe it, because what the people say whilst marketing a film doesn't affect me at all- I just like watching the film and if I like it, I like it. I don't care what their opinions are on another film- that's hardly going to put me off watching their film.
I'm not some OTT fanatic who can't bear to think that not everyone in the world loves 007 as much as I do- I quite like it, and I'm quite able to take it when somebody else doesn't.