Bond vs Bourne

edited June 2011 in News Posts: 2,486
ok as there are many debates about Bond and Bourne through this forum i found this :
http://www.criminalelement.com/blogs/2011/06/james-bond-vs-jason-bourne-peter-pan-vs-grown-up
what do you think about the text? agree,disagree?
I think it is part true about how people back than didnt knew about those exotical places or gadgets.
The original Bourne movie was great and interesting but this new Bourne movies starting Damon cant even be close to Bond.
altough this is obvious cause i am at this forum :) but Bond > Bourne
what do you think?
«134

Comments

  • LudsLuds MIA
    edited June 2011 Posts: 1,986
    In short, the Jason Bourne franchise has produced 3 solid action movies, regardless of the editing style, these movies are far superior to a portion of the Bond movies. The Connery era easily trumps Bourne, but when it comes to counting how many Bond flicks are better than Bourne, the short answer is not many. I'd personally pick about 5 to 7 Bond flicks that are superior to Identity, maybe a few others superior to the other 2 Bourne. But again, the same could be said about the MI franchise.

    The Best Bonds (TB, OHMSS, GF, TLD, LTK, FRWL) are better than Bourne, and then Bourne trumps pretty much anything else.
  • Posts: 1,492
    I have a natural animosity to Bourne due to the fact that with the release of each one Matt Damon slagged off the Bond films.

    So it could be Oscar material and the greatest thing since sliced bread but I will just naturally hate it.

    No one disses my Bond.
  • The article seems to me to be written by someone with a passing understanding of the Bond series, or the *idea* of the article was settled upon and someone told to write it. There are some points that I'd disagree with:

    "So the question is why? Why do we still fall for a format that stretches the willing suspension of disbelief to breaking point and well beyond?"

    Not to pick nits but the use of "fall for" implies that people are being suckered into liking Bond, as if the movies can't succeed on their own merits. Also, the suspension of disbelief is not stretched beyond the breaking point in all of the Bond films - only some of them.

    "...and for the women, a well fit and well-kitted-out bad-boy of a hero who obligingly sheds a good deal of that kit in the course of the following three hours."

    Setting aside the three hours fallacy would this description apply to any of the Bonds other than Connery or Craig?

    "Much as I love Bond – and I do – I confess the template is looking a mite tired these days. Even the best Bond films always descended into farce in the last reel, as our hero homed in on the latest megalomaniac bent on world domination, holed up in his hopelessly ostentatious ‘secret’ HQ (every one of them construction projects at least as large as the London Olympic stadium, and just as laughably impossible to conceal)."

    Again, this certainly doesn't apply to every Bond film, although I can see how someone who isn't familiar with the films themselves but the *idea* of Bond might thing so. Beyond the Ice Palace (which wasn't supposed to be secret) the last "big" secret HQ was in GE. And when before that?

    "...a small part of me wonders whether those much-rumoured problems might not be a symptom of a rather deeper uncertainty with the whole 007 series."

    Now that's just invention, or pushing what one would like to think onto the situation. With this the author moves from misunderstanding Bond films straight into *choosing* to not understand things.

    I would also point out that in response to the article the author says "the Bourne version is far more believable. My favourite scene? When he blows up a house using only a toaster." The "toaster" scene was just as unbelievable as any other scene in an action film (and was confirmed to be so by Mythbusters).

    I certainly agree that the author has a right to her opinion but I think that she's confusing "prefers" or "likes more" with "is better", which are two different things.
  • Posts: 11,175
    "Why do we still fall for a format that stretches the willing suspension of disbelief to breaking point and well beyond? The easy answer to the question is that it’s escapism, pure and simple. Fast cars and even faster women for the men in the audience, and for the women, a well fit and well-kitted-out bad-boy of a hero who obligingly sheds a good deal of that kit in the course of the following three hours."

    The author is correct here. The big difference between Bourne and Bond has always been romanticism. Bond has indulged in fast cars, food, drinking and women far more than Bourne has. Bond was described as being "fairytales for adults" by its creator. Whilst Bourne is great and does have some OTT action, I'm not sure Id call it a "fairytale".
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,448
    There is always a critic or two willing to publish an article whenever a new Bond is due and claim that Bond doesn't belong in the modern era, going on to argue that the series really should conclude.
    They fail to realise that Bond will most certainly end. Not when some some hack says so, but when the paying public say so. If they keep turning up then there is a place for Bond in the modern era.

    And as for suspending disbelief I guess the strength of the movies in general is that we can do just that. I never really believed that Harold Lloyd swinging from a clock was real, or that a giant ape could scale the Empire State Building. And I don't believe a secret agent would really find a mad man in a hollowed out volcano. But hey, this is the movies.
    All films have a place: until they start to lose money that is.
  • LudsLuds MIA
    edited June 2011 Posts: 1,986
    I have a natural animosity to Bourne due to the fact that with the release of each one Matt Damon slagged off the Bond films.
    No one disses my Bond.
    Considering Bourne was facing off against Brosnan, well Damon was right. Brosnan was shyte so there you have it ;)

    On a serious note, let's not forget that the slagging was certainly in large part to attract attention and therefore generate interest, it certainly succeeded. It shouldn't be a reason to dislike a highly entertaining series, this marketing strategy is common use nowadays.
  • edited June 2011 Posts: 11,175
    There you go AGAIN with ur silly Brosnan bashing X( ;)

    Bourne Ultimatum was done in 2007, long after Brosnan had left the scene. Also, his most recent comments were in 2009.
  • LudsLuds MIA
    edited June 2011 Posts: 1,986
    There you go AGAIN with ur stupid Brosnan bashing X(
    Sorry, u brozza fanz ur very cencitiv, or should I say... EMO ;)

  • On a serious note, let's not forget that the slagging was certainly in large part to attract attention and therefore generate interest, it certainly succeeded. It shouldn't be a reason to dislike a highly entertaining series, this marketing strategy is common use nowadays.
    I'm reminded that when Vin Diesel's xXx came out there was a lot of "slagging Bond" in the interviews with the xXx stars and creators. And then when you see the film it seems more like a loving tribute to Bond than a slap in the face! As Luds said, it's all about getting attention...

  • Posts: 2,486
    I watched one old version of Bourne Identity.It was in 2 parts and i really enjoyed it.i didnt knew that there was old version of Bourne.Old version of Bourne was really really really great but Damon version of Bourne is nowhere near itneresting for me.It is interesting that i saw commercial for Bourne on TV 1 min ago.Bourne Identity with Damon will be on TV tonight so i guess i will watch it.Bond is better than Bourne but i dont know maybe the books are better?Cause there are many good books from Ludlum.Bond can have more parts cause he is agent of the goverment,Bourne is somehow agent of the goverment but he cant have many parts cause of the story.The only thing that maybe is in favour for Bourne is that in Bond always survives at the end of the movie and therefore the end of the movie is somehow spoiled.Maybe that is same with Bourne but i dont know somehow it keep you in suspense.
    @Bain123 Dont worry @Luds hates Brosnan fans he thinks that all of his fans are kids :).Everyone have it own oppinion so:Brosnan FTW !!! :)
    wow this is one long post
  • LudsLuds MIA
    edited June 2011 Posts: 1,986
    I'm reminded that when Vin Diesel's xXx came out there was a lot of "slagging Bond" in the interviews with the xXx stars and creators. And then when you see the film it seems more like a loving tribute to Bond than a slap in the face! As Luds said, it's all about getting attention...

    It's something many franchises have done to attract attention, stating that Bond wasn't believable, wasn't serious, wasn't a real spy thriller, etc. xXx did it, so did MI for at least one of the flicks, there was talk about this with True Lies if I recall, and various others as well. Evidently this slagging is mainly to be taken as sign of superiority, as the other franchises are attacking the establishment to attract some attention.

    What Bourne did to Bond though, is shake its foundation. The criticism that was lashed out at Bond was quite well founded. Granted, Bond is or was to that point an exercise of Escapism. But following TWINE and DAD the producers were caught in a stalemate, knowing that the franchise was in dire need of fresh air. Bourne had already seen humongous success with a single film and a clear path to a trilogy, EON faced the decision of accepting valid criticism by a franchise that risked eclipsing it had it not changed. EON made the decision of casting a believable Bond, capable of fast paced action and intensity. Craig's tenure will forever be linked to Bourne as a source of inspiration for the directional changes made by EON. Unless one is not a fan of the current state of the Bond franchise, the Bourne series and Matt Damon's comments should be taken with a big grin and thumbs up.

    We need to remember that the MI franchise was also looking for a similar feel than Bourne, a more believable action series and succeeded. There were signs that the fans were ready for this change for a considerable period.

    Also, a point I'd like to make is that this seems to be cyclic for Bond. It started as a much more believable and tough series with the early Connery's, loosened up towards his end and most of the Moore era, became very intense again with Dalton, and mellowed out again with Brosnan. Bond flicks need to adapt to the times and the trends to ensure survival, this is crucial to its success.
  • Posts: 251
    There is always a critic or two willing to publish an article whenever a new Bond is due and claim that Bond doesn't belong in the modern era, going on to argue that the series really should conclude.
    They fail to realise that Bond will most certainly end. Not when some some hack says so, but when the paying public say so. If they keep turning up then there is a place for Bond in the modern era.

    And as for suspending disbelief I guess the strength of the movies in general is that we can do just that. I never really believed that Harold Lloyd swinging from a clock was real, or that a giant ape could scale the Empire State Building. And I don't believe a secret agent would really find a mad man in a hollowed out volcano. But hey, this is the movies.
    All films have a place: until they start to lose money that is.
    I couldn`t agree more with you NicNac. Bond maybe rooted in reality, but ultimatley, it is total fantasy, and that is not a criticism.
    The biggest and the best will always be easy targets....
    Bourne is now starting to date, it will be interesting to see where they take it, and Bond, for that matter. I1m more excited about Bond 23 than ever, as it really could be taken in any direction now.
    Talking of "Taken", how awesome is that film?!!!!!
    Adult Bond...

    =D>
  • The reason that Bond will always survive is that a) it's a winning formula and b) it's escapism and/or wish fulfilment.

    Every once in a while a concept comes along that is so well done in it's execution and set-up that it makes a big splash. But in addition to hitting something primal in the audience, there must be an ability to adapt so that it isn't forever stuck in amber - or dated, as the case may be. I would put Bond in the same category as Sherlock Holmes, Doctor Who, even Robin Hood - great ideas as a core concept that can also be tweaked to different styles and tones. I daresay that Bond will have the 100 year plus staying power of Holmes.

    A reaon for that is that in addition to the great set-up there is also the component of wish-fulfilment. Would audiences watch 50 years and 23 films of Bourne feeling depressed, hunted, and betrayed? That can be interesting for a film, or even three, but eventually there has to be something bring the audience back and negative emotions, moods, and tones really wear on people after a while no matter how well made the film. Because Bond has glamourous locations, beautiful people, interesting culture, a fun, flirty attitude, and great cars and clothes people would love to live that life and will see the films to live vicariously through them. Even in the odd *very* serious Bond films such as LTK and QoS there's enough of that glamour to make it interesting. Now, if there were three films in a row like that I could see people getting turned off...

    Bond is here to stay.
  • Posts: 251
    Great points made here....that`s why I`n excited for Bond 23, I`m looking forward to seeing Craig take Bond out of his sulk. It would be foolish to do otherwise! Well, that`s my opinion anyway. Bond has survived and adapted through many fads and styles, and this is it`s greatest strength. The blue print is exceptional. It`s a little like 3 chord blues formula, it works, it sounds cool as, it can adapt and be interpretated, it will be around forever.
  • Posts: 1,492
    I have a natural animosity to Bourne due to the fact that with the release of each one Matt Damon slagged off the Bond films.
    No one disses my Bond.
    Considering Bourne was facing off against Brosnan, well Damon was right. Brosnan was shyte so there you have it ;)

    On a serious note, let's not forget that the slagging was certainly in large part to attract attention and therefore generate interest, it certainly succeeded. It shouldn't be a reason to dislike a highly entertaining series, this marketing strategy is common use nowadays.
    I am not a great one for timelines but I seem to remember one of the Bournes overlapping with CR. Therefore it strayed into the Craig era.

    I agree with you it is there to attract attention. An actor has to publicise his product after all but the Hollywood machine does tend to stop them slagging off the opposition. When a new X-Men film comes out you dont see the cast tearing into the latest Batman. Its not cricket. Thats where I was rather shocked that Damon did it. He did it off his own back. He also was rather uninformed basing his views on one Bond he saw by mistake in the early eighties. It whipped up publicity for the Bourne franchise so he succeeded but it changed my mind about the man and gave me a dislike for his Bourne films.

    I am the Brosnans era worst critic but he didnt go around slandering Bourne. To their credit Eon rose above the shyte and didnt bite back. Thats how you play cricket.
  • edited June 2011 Posts: 11,175
    Whatever ppl think of the modern "Bourneified" version of Bond, 007 will live on far longer in the minds of the public than the rival played by Matt Damon. Personally, as Luds said, I'd take the Bourne films over several Bond entries (including the latest one) They are generally better made, more polished movies. However in terms of overall legacy you can't beat James Bond.

    Damon himself hasn't said anything we don't already know about Bond. He's chauvinistic, hes sexist and he kills people. And?? Even the Bond films themselves have acknowledged these points.
  • Posts: 1,492
    , EON faced the decision of accepting valid criticism by a franchise that risked eclipsing it had it not changed. EON made the decision of casting a believable Bond, capable of fast paced action and intensity. Craig's tenure will forever be linked to Bourne as a source of inspiration for the directional changes made by EON. Us.
    ummm...

    I always thought that Casino Royale becoming available was the major shift and change of direction. This was the chance to do Fleming properly somethng that Mick G and Babs wanted to do. Bond on a learning curve was something they could not do with the louche Brosnan characterisation so he had to go and the original table was such a good thriller it didnt need the OTT touches that his films had. They also got a powerhouse acfor who could do Flemings tale justice. I wonder if Daniel Craigs interpretation has more to do with the change of direction.

    As for actors dissing other films to big up theres. I havent noticed it that much. And, Jesus, are we meant to take XXX seriously? Its hardly Citizen Kane. Maybe we dont get Van Diesal saying those things over here. Its the kind of publicity we dont get over here. But I thought Damon crossed the line with calling Bond an "imperialist" which of course he is. But it came across as very Harvard student and PC.

    I am not convinced that Eon pay much attention to Bourne to be honest.
  • Posts: 11,175
    I think they certainly did take notice of Bourne. For one thing they hired the same 2nd unit director.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited June 2011 Posts: 15,534
    I strongly believe that without Bourne, B21 would have been with Brosnan. Possibly a CR adaptation, but evidently with Brosnan. Bourne's massive critical success made EON decide to recast and drasticly change the franchise. Without Bourne, it would have been another MR/FYEO situation, keeping the same actor. The Bond franchise continues to be relevant in the current era it is in. Without Bourne's success, and the audiences new appetite for more down-to-earth, gritty spy films, Brosnan would have been in B21. We own Craig, CR and QOS to Bourne. I'm not saying they are copycats of Bourne, but without him, EON would never have decided to make such drastic changes and not keep Brosnan.
  • LudsLuds MIA
    edited June 2011 Posts: 1,986
    I am not convinced that Eon pay much attention to Bourne to be honest.
    I honestly believe Bourne played a major role in the shift in style and the casting of Craig. Granted, Brosnan had run his course, he was old, a bit out of shape and demanding ridiculous amounts of money, all of this also played a part in EON's decision, as well as the need for a chance after Die Another Day, and also the acquiring of Casino Royale. It was a perfect time to start fresh. The MI and Bourne franchises had so much success that EON had to take notice. Hollywood works in trends, and the trend was for a more serious approach. Just think of the other ones recently the remaking of every single movie ever made and the adaptation of every single possible cartoon. I just hope that once Bond 23 is done, they can figure out where they'd like to go.
    I strongly believe that without Bourne, B21 would have been with Brosnan.
    Thank god for Bourne then! B-)
  • Posts: 1,492
    I strongly believe that without Bourne, B21 would have been with Brosnan. Possibly a CR adaptation, but evidently with Brosnan. Bourne's massive critical success made EON decide to recast and drasticly change the franchise. Without Bourne, it would have been another MR/FYEO situation, keeping the same actor. The Bond franchise continues to be relevant in the current era it is in. Without Bourne's success, and the audiences new appetite for more down-to-earth, gritty spy films, Brosnan would have been in B21. We own Craig, CR and QOS to Bourne. I'm not saying they are copycats of Bourne, but without him, EON would never have decided to make such drastic changes and not keep Brosnan.
    Disagree utterly.

    There was no intention to cast a "more serious Bond" they just went for the best man for the job and that man was Craig.

    Brosnan had to go. His Bond was too insouciant, too knowing and, too be honest, too old for the story of Bonds learning arc of CR. And as for audiences new appetite for down-to-earth gritty spy films, well, after DAD there was only one direction they could go. Or maybe they wouldnt? Maybe if CR hadnt been available they would have continued to do OTT bilge.

    But CR became available and the game changed. They had the chance to do one of Flemings masterpieces - and they ran with it.

    CRs success is nothing to with Bourne its because its a damn good story mixing espionage with romance. The current era has far more to do with Ian Fleming then Jason Bourne.


  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited June 2011 Posts: 15,534
    I'm sorry, but it's pretty evident Brosnan was going to return after DAD. B21 was going for a 2005 release with Pierce. Only when EON decided to recast due to Bourne's success, the movie was postponed one year to have time for the recast.

    And @actionsteve - you didn't understand my point. I did not say CR was more Bourne than Fleming. I am simply saying they went back to Fleming because of Bourne's success. No-one knows about Ian Fleming, so why would they go back to such down-to-earth material if there was no need? Bourne's critical success made EON go back to Bond's roots, simple.

    James Bond films aren't made for us Bond fans. Brosnan was very popular amongst the targeted audience during his tenure. If there were no need for recast, they would have continued with him.

    EON are very lazy when it comes to recast. It's years of search when it comes to recasting the role. So without Bourne, and the need to seriously go back to a more down-to-earth, gritty world, no need to recast. EON would have prefered to tone down the OTT and keep Brosnan, instead of going through a recast.

    This is simply reality - Brosnan was very popular during his tenure, so why recast him after DAD? The DAD film itself wasn't a huge critical success, but it brought tons of money, and Brosnan was a hugely popular actor. Only when Bourne had much more success than Bond, it was clear that a simple toned down Brosnan film wasn't enough, but a recast was in order.

    Without Bourne, no Craig, more Brosnan. End of.

    I am not saying that Craig's 2 films are more Bourne than Fleming. Not at all. I am merely saying that without Bourne, EON would never have returned to Fleming. The 2006 CR film is a Bourne-ified film, but it was Bourne that made EON do the film they did with Craig in 2006.
  • LudsLuds MIA
    edited June 2011 Posts: 1,986
    @DC Let's not act like Brosnan's return was a sure thing, he pretty much put himself in the doghouse by asking for so much money acting like he couldn't be replaced. EON was looking for a replacement right then. Much like MR, which itself was a great movie but way over the top, EON wanted to go in another direction after the dreaded DAD as well. The simple fact that EON managed to get the rights to CR seemed like Brosnan's end regardless of Bourne's success, why make an origin flick with an old and fat Brosnan? It was perfect timing for a new Bond actor, the direction however, could have been much different had it not been for Bourne.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,534
    @Luds As if Brosnan didn't get big raises before... :-)) Even if he got what he wanted for B21, it would have been his smallest raise in all of his tenure. C'mon : Brosnan got 7 millions more in TND than in GE, so it's not like he didn't get big raises before B21...
  • Posts: 4,619


    Without Bourne, no Craig, more Brosnan. End of.

    Still not true.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited June 2011 Posts: 15,534


    Without Bourne, no Craig, more Brosnan. End of.

    Still not true.
    Even if Brosnan didn't return, B21/CR would have been quite different had Bourne not be such a huge success. I would not have seen the need to make such a close adaptation of Fleming no one has ever read, let alone heard of...

  • LudsLuds MIA
    edited June 2011 Posts: 1,986
    @Luds As if Brosnan didn't get big raises before... :-)) Even if he got what he wanted for B21, it would have been his smallest raise in all of his tenure. C'mon : Brosnan got 7 millions more in TND than in GE, so it's not like he didn't get big raises before B21...
    That has nothing to do with it. He was asking north of 25 + % post DAD. EON must have figured that they could save an easy 15+ by pink slipping him, never mind bringing him back for one more. Anyhow, that's going a bit off topic.
  • Posts: 4,619
    The truth is, none of us can really know what would have happened had Bourne not be a success. Only Barbara Broccoli & M. G. Wilson can know that. Maybe not even them.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe Still waiting for the Jena Malone Batwoman movie that's never going to be made.Moderator
    Posts: 11,964
    I think DAD was going to be the final Brosnan film either way, and Bourne has a lot to answer for. Had there been no Bourne, I think likewise there would have been no Hulk Bond sorry, Craig Bond. The new Bond would debut in 2004, i'd still nominate Marsden (who would have been 31 at the time) or an alternative choice, James D'Arcy (29 at the time). D'Arcy being cast would be an ironic casting choice as he plays Fleming in Age Of Heroes.

    All IMO, of course.
  • Posts: 1,492

    And @actionsteve - you didn't understand my point. I did not say CR was more Bourne than Fleming. I am simply saying they went back to Fleming because of Bourne's success. No-one knows about Ian Fleming, so why would they go back to such down-to-earth material if there was no need? Bourne's critical success made EON go back to Bond's roots, simple.

    .
    No offence, but I dont think you are getting my point.

    CR was available - for the first time in decades. If it hadnt then they could have probably gone back to doing Brosnan bilge although as someone else said Brozzer was queering his pitch by asking for too much money.

    Bourne isnt the pop culture influence people think unless it is with a few fans. I think the producers plough their own field rather then follow others.

    Casino Royale changed the game. Not Bourne.
Sign In or Register to comment.