95 replies to this topic

[Tarl_Cabot]

Ok I know this may have been brought up before but...

According to Boxoffice Mojo:

The Bourne Supremacy:$175,764,955M domestically.
The worldwide take was $270,522,151.
Opening Weekend: $52,521,865 (3,165 theaters, $16,594 average)
Production Budget: $75 million.
Marketing Costs: $35 million.


Die Another day: $160,942,139 Domestically
Worldwide: $431,971,116.
Opening Weekend: $47,072,040 (3,314 theaters, $14,203 average)
Production Budget: $142 million
Marketing Costs: $38 million

So, a $75M spy genre thriller, with modest sets and action set pieces,low impact CGI,low profile cast aside from Damon, just two years removed from the previous installment, did remarkably well and out performed the original Bourne and the 40th anniversary James Bond offering of 2002(in USA).

The DVD comes out next week or two...

I hope the producers are delaying Bond 21 to cast well and take a few notes...

[Roebuck]

I hope the producers are delaying Bond 21 to cast well and take a few notes... 

There's a danger of EON looking to the Bourne films and trying to distil from them something they can use to make Bond 21 more trendy. Big mistake, because what they'll end up taking from Bourne are the obvious, superficial things like the younger lead actor and flashy camera/editing techniques. EON will never have the cojones to sign a director like Doug Liman or Paul Greengrass and give them the breathing room to do something fresh or risky with the franchise.

What I'll be interested to see is how Bond 21, with a new lead and minus the 40th anniversary hoopla, fairs in comparison to Bourne Ultimatum (assuming it's made).

[Tarl_Cabot]

Good points Roebuck. I love 'Bourne Supremacy' but I could do without the shakey camera stuff too.What I do like is the minimilist storyline with it's convincing action and grit.

I think Hugh Jackman is the best choice. He's 35. I don't want the new Bond to be so much younger than Pierce that he's no longer a veteran spy, a refined man of the world...etc. We don't need a 'Smallville-esque' take on James Bond.

[Loomis]

Numbers aside, the two Bourne films are, for me, of much higher quality than anything Eon has given us since the 1960s. I'm serious - not only do they eat the Brosnan Bonds alive, they also bury THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS and LICENCE TO KILL and, heck, everything post-OHMSS.

Needless to say, I hope THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM will be made, although a part of me would almost rather they left Bourne alone, fearing that they'd bungle things and make a disappointing sequel. If IDENTITY is STAR WARS and SUPREMACY THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK, what I don't want ULTIMATUM to be is RETURN OF THE JEDI.

[CharlieBind]

But didn't DAD make more money world wide? Bond has never really been a draw in America as it's natural audence is European (BOURNE is too American for my taste).

[Tarl_Cabot]

But the Emperor was so cool! I agree they " eat the Brosnan Bonds alive" but let's not get carried away!

Bourne 3 is on deck but it looks like Paul Greenglass (?) is going to make "The Watchman" instead so we'll have to pray the new guy gets it right. I hope it's a great film. We don't need it to be Bourne Supremacy on steroids which is the only way Hollywood knows how to make a sequel these days.

[Tarl_Cabot]

But didn't DAD make more money world wide?  Bond has never really been a draw in America as it's natural audence is European (BOURNE is too American for my taste).

Yes but the budget was more than twice that of Bourne. $75m to $162m so they diffrence isn't so spectacular considering the return on investment. Bond should out gross Bourne. It's a 40 (42 now) year old institution. Bourne did better in America which I find ironic because Die Another day reaks of pandering to Americanization.

[Loomis]

But the Emperor was so cool! I agree they " eat the Brosnan Bonds alive" but let's not get carried away!

There were only two cool things about JEDI: Harrison Ford's performance and Wicket the Ewok (yes, I know my views are unconventional). Well, I suppose Jabba and his crew were quite cool, too, but, anyway, back on topic:

I agree they " eat the Brosnan Bonds alive" but let's not get carried away!

I mean it, though: I think THE BOURNE SUPREMACY is a better film than any of the '70s or '80s Bonds, and not just superior to the Brosnan outings.

We don't need it to be Bourne Supremacy on steroids

Exactly. I hope they won't increase the budget and number/scale and elaborateness of action scenes, because that way lies, well, TOMORROW NEVER DIES, and not a Bourne film worthy of the name.

[Tarl_Cabot]

funny. I thought Harrison Ford, and Ewoks were awful in Jedi-the two things that really stick out as sucky for me! His macho grande lobo solo edginess that endeared us all was gone completely. Instead we have a winy, jokey and flabby phoned in version of Han Solo(he was too busy thinking about his other starring vehicle perhaps?). They took a pirate and turned him into a suburbanite. Luke was actually cooler than Han Solo in Jedi!

[Loomis]

They took a pirate and turned him into a suburbanite. Luke was actually cooler than Han Solo in Jedi!

Okay, I'm not a STAR WARS buff, so I probably don't know what I'm talking about here, but wasn't that the whole point? In other words, that character development across the three films called for Solo to become more domesticated (thanks to Leia) and for Luke to become a badass (by JEDI, he's this legendary warrior rather than a clueless farmboy)?

[doublenoughtspy]

While DAD had a higher budget - you can get your Aston Martin that they got an absolute ton of more money for product placement than Bourne - and those numbers we don't know.

Yes, the return on investment for Bourne was slighty better - but as others have pointed out DAD and Bond in general always does better overseas than most of the competition.

As Michael Wilson points out - the two characters and concepts are very different - Bourne doesn't know who he is and the audience doesn't know either. Bond on the other hand, knows who he is and so does the audience.

While I too get bummed when I see the hype and box office that Bourne gets as compared to Bond, I think it's like Austin Powers and XXX. The films get a lot of hype, will last a little while, do good box office - but Bourne, Powers, and XXX will peter out after 4 or so films...and Bond has 23 films and is in do danger of petering out.

What I hope the producers do learn from the Bourne series is that well scripted intrigue can put butts in seats - it doesn't have to be a machine gun and explosion fest.

[Tarl_Cabot]

They took a pirate and turned him into a suburbanite. Luke was actually cooler than Han Solo in Jedi!

Okay, I'm not a STAR WARS buff, so I probably don't know what I'm talking about here, but wasn't that the whole point? In other words, that character development across the three films called for Solo to become more domesticated (thanks to Leia) and for Luke to become a badass (by JEDI, he's this legendary warrior rather than a clueless farmboy)?

Harrison was right to ask G-Lu to kill off Han.

[Adrian Carlisle]

Bourne Identity was the best espionage film I've seen since OHMSS, and that includes all the Bonds that followed the 1969 masterpiece. They absolutely could NOT have made it better. It was tight, focused, as slick as a baby's bottom, and exuded style and substance. I wasn't expecting it to be so good, and frankly, it blew me away. Immediately after seeing it I was alarmed: it exposed so many weaknesses in the modern Bond films that I had never even considered before, and I noticed that compared to Identity, the Bond films simply paled. It's an example of how low-key can turn out to a winning film experience.

Supremacy wasn't as good as Identity, but it was still damn good. It was grittier, and had the camera work been less shaky, I think it would have surpassed its predecessor. I think that it's great that Greengrass can't do Ultimatum because he couldn't keep the camera straight. Liman showed the fight scenes and chases smartly; Greengrass was like a child making a mess at dinner. But as things stand, Bourne in my mind has pipped Bond as the King of spy flicks. At the very least, this should knock some sense into Eon and tone down the superfluous junk that's crept into 007. Make Bond 21 like TLD or GE and they might give Bourne a bloody lip. Make another stinker like DAD and Bourne will rule the roost.

I want Bond to be top again...but I've got to admit Bourne deserves his victories. Bond was beat down at the game he used to own...pure and simple.

[Roebuck]

Bourne Identity was the best espionage film I've seen since OHMSS, and that includes all the Bonds that followed the 1969 masterpiece. 

OHMSS is also the Bond movie Bourne Identity is most comparable to. Similar pacing, more focus on the female lead than normal for the thriller genre and the more adventurous editing techniques in the action sequences.

[Loomis]

[quote name='Adrian Carlisle' date='28 November 2004 - 07:14']Bourne Identity was the best espionage film I've seen since OHMSS, and that includes all the Bonds that followed the 1969 masterpiece.

[Tarl_Cabot]

I like Supremecy better.

[Harmsway]

I like Supremecy better.

Me too... I saw Identity and liked it, but it didn't leave me wowed. On the other hand, Supremacy left me breathless. Supremacy had better action (and I LIKE the shaky direction), a cooler story, and didn't have the character of Marie to bog things down. That scene with the daughter is fantastic (I love how he walks out into the snow at the end, alone), and is far better than anything in Identity.

[zencat]

I'll be impressed when "Bourne 20" beats Bond at the box-office. And seeing as this was Bourne #2...did it beat FRWL inflation adjusted? And something tells me Bourne 3 isn't going to be a Goldfinger.

And look at the difference internationally.

[Loomis]

Well, SUPREMACY is more "in your face" than IDENTITY (and I'm not just referring to the shaky camerawork, which I, too, feel works just fine). It's a simple, straightforward revenge movie, faster and more furious (and I'm not putting it down for that). IDENTITY takes its time in establishing characters and has more intrigue and suspense.

It took me a few viewings to realise just how good a film IDENTITY is. The first time I saw it, I thought "Yes, very entertaining (but nothing special)", but I didn't immediately appreciate how well-written, well-directed and well-acted, how skilfully put together it is. It's the sort of great filmmaking you don't really notice at first because it's like sleight of hand magic. With SUPREMACY, you pretty much know the first time out whether you love it or hate it (I love it, but I'd have to say that Greengrass seems a "flashier" director than Liman, and, as Billy Wilder said, "the best director is the one you don't see"), whereas IDENTITY sorta grows on you.

BTW, I'd strongly disagree that Marie bogs things down in IDENTITY. The character is terrific, and played to perfection by Franka Potente.

[Loomis]

I'll be impressed when "Bourne 20" beats Bond at the box-office. And seeing as this was Bourne #2...did it beat FRWL inflation adjusted? And something tells me Bourne 3 isn't going to be a Goldfinger.

And look at the difference internationally.

Not a fan of the Bournes? Anyway, so what if DIE ANOTHER DAY made more money than THE BOURNE SUPREMACY? Doesn't mean that DAD's the better film, any more than STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE is a better film than PULP FICTION because it outgrossed it.

[Harmsway]

Well, Loomis, that's a good point about Greengrass vs. Liman, but even so, if I had to pick, purely on preference as opposed to quality, I'll go for Supremacy every time.

And about Marie... well, she wasn't a bad character. Potente did a good job with it and she did seem fairly realistic. What I meant was, that without her in Supremacy, Bourne was free to move about on his own and work at a faster pace. It's a difference in the dynamics between the films; Marie isn't a detriment, but I prefer a Bourne film without her.

[Seannery]

I'll be impressed when "Bourne 20" beats Bond at the box-office. And seeing as this was Bourne #2...did it beat FRWL inflation adjusted? And something tells me Bourne 3 isn't going to be a Goldfinger.

And look at the difference internationally.

Not a fan of the Bournes? Anyway, so what if DIE ANOTHER DAY made more money than THE BOURNE SUPREMACY? Doesn't mean that DAD's the better film, any more than STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE is a better film than PULP FICTION because it outgrossed it.

Zencat makes great points Loomis you have to take into account that it is STUNNING that a film series is doing this well after 20 films and you take into account international grosses and it still beats a brand new series with a bigger actor.

And all this genuflecting over a couple of at best decent flicks is beyond me. Unless you love Damon I see nothing special about those films--well acted, decent action but the story is not that compelling or exciting or entertaining. They are okay time fillers. The Brosnan Bonds are better.

[Harmsway]

And all this genuflecting over a couple of at best decent flicks is beyond me.  Unless you love Damon I see nothing special about those films--well acted, decent action but the story is not that compelling or exciting or entertaining.  They are okay time fillers.  The Brosnan Bonds are better.

IMO, the Brosnan Bond films aren't well acted, have relatively uninteresting plots, and end up being "okay time fillers," moreso than the Bourne films. Even in action, there's no compare. The Brosnan Bond's don't stand a chance against the awe-inspiring sequences of Identity and Supremacy.

[Loomis]

[quote name='Seannery' date='28 November 2004 - 19:00']Zencat makes great points Loomis you have to take into account that it is STUNNING that a film series is doing this well after 20 films

[/quote]

I wouldn't dispute that the tremendous success of Bond over a period of 40 years is a stunning, unique achievement. But what I'm looking at is quality, not longevity. I believe the Bournes are of much higher quality than the recent Bond films, that's all.

[quote name='Seannery' date='28 November 2004 - 19:00']and you take into account international grosses and it still beats a brand new series with a bigger actor.

[hrabb04]

So what? Did you know Star Trek beat James Bond at the box office back in 1989? And look where it is now

[Harmsway]

The Brosnan Bonds are better? No way. IMO. I'd say that the Brosnans are the "okay time-fillers". No, I reckon the Bournes totally trash the Brosnans (and, indeed, virtually all the Bond films) from an artistic POV, but then again, that's just my opinion. All comes down to personal likes and dislikes at the end of the day - to each his own.

Looks like you and I said pretty much the same thing, Loomis!

[Seannery]

Well I can see I am on a thread surrounded by "Bourne Lovers" so I can only present an alternative view on Bond versus Bourne. Of course all just opinion in the end--you like what you like. I take it from the view of a movie nut who sees a ton of movies present and past not just from a Bond fan--In my view the Bond films in general are more entertaining than the Bournes.

[Triton]

My reaction to this entire argument is so what. The Bource Supremacy may have beaten Die Another Day by $15 million in United States box office, but I don't believe that Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli should come running with their notebooks in hand, dissect the film, and steal its elements for Bond XXI.

The Bourne Identity, and its sequel The Bourne Supremacy, may have been popular hits with today's audiences but they strike me as so flavor-of-the-month and I predict that the Bournes will have a much short shelf life than Die Another Day.

Any one remember the post-Watergate conspiracy films of the early 1970's such as the box office hits The Conversation (1974), Three Days of the Condor(1975), or The Parrallax View (1974)? Didn't think so. Thankfully, Cubby Broccoli didn't embrace the conspiracy spy thriller for The Man with the Golden Gun(1974).

I also believe that in the era of cable/satellite television syndication and home video, it's very short-sighted to measure the success of a film by its box office revenue during its run in theaters. I preduct that Die Another Day will generate revenue for the next several decades through syndication sales to television/cable and home video along with its siblings in the James Bond series?

Further, I just can't see video enthusiasts upgrading their Jason Bourne video collections when the next video standard comes along, like enthusiasts are willing to upgrade their James Bond film collections.

[Bondian]

I'll give 'The Bourne' franchise one more movie then it'll become 'old hat'!.

[hrabb04]

Is this the same Jason Bourne that was played by Richard Chamberlain in the 80s? Oh, yes...Bourne has an iceball's chance in hell of being around in the same leagues as oo7.