95 replies to this topic

[Seannery]

Thank you guys for getting my back on this one!

[Antiriad]

Both Bourne films are great but can you see it as a 20+ film franchise? I think not.

I pray the Broccolis dont go down this "kid Bond" route that so many people are speculating over. Bond is a mans man - and a seasoned experienced vet whos seen it all before. Not some kid learning the ropes.

[Double-Oh-Zero]

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.

I hope you're not including such films like DN and FRWL when you say "virtually all the Bond films," Loomer. It's my belief that if it weren't for these films, or indeed, the first six Bond films, the Bourne films wouldn't be as good as they are. Then again, I haven't actually seen Supremacy to make a fair judgement on this, so feel free to ignore this post altogether.

I did enjoy Identity immensely, however, and I can agree with you on it being better than the Brosnan outings. However, I think it's only marginally better than GE and TND (whereas you think it's way better than all of them - fair enough).

I do think it beats the pants off of TWINE and DAD, though.

[Blofeld's Cat]

I an amused that people want to compare Bond to Bourne, or Bourne to Bond, if you will.

Bond is heightened reality set five minutes into the future, whereas Bourne is here-n-now and very gritty.

Apples and oranges to me.

[Loomis]

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.

I hope you're not including such films like DN and FRWL when you say "virtually all the Bond films," Loomer.

I'm afraid I am. As I've stated: IDENTITY is a better film than any of the Bonds, while SUPREMACY is merely superior to any of the '70s or '80s Bonds.

But, still, how to define "the best"? As Blofeld's Cat points out, it's apples and oranges. What's the best film out of, say, THE BOURNE IDENTITY, GOLDFINGER and PULP FICTION? I don't know - they're all absolutely terrific. I mean, it's hard enough to decide what the best film is out of DR. NO, FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE and GOLDFINGER, so it's no surprise that it's difficult to compare the Bonds with other films.

There we are, two totally contradictory paragraphs.

BTW, Karl Urban's character in SUPREMACY is so perfect a Bond henchman it's not even funny. I hope they've lined him up with some work on BOND 21.

[Seannery]

I an amused that people want to compare Bond to Bourne, or Bourne to Bond, if you will.

Bond is heightened reality set five minutes into the future, whereas Bourne is here-n-now and very gritty.

Apples and oranges to me.

I have to disagree. There is a standard of judgement for all films on quality. There is also personal preference which can be said to be apples and oranges. So personally I may like the heightened reality of Bond to the here and now of Bourne BUT also on the other standard of pure quality on a more objective level I judge the Bond films on the whole to be superior to the okay Bourne films. You can compare any film to any film on that objective level--that is why we KNOW the Godfather is a superior film to Friday the 13 part 4. That being said it is all opinions BUT I submit time will show which opinions are better. I say 20 years from now the Bourne films will be largely forgotten and downgraded while the Bonds will be seen on the whole as higher quality films and entertainments.

Edited by Seannery, 29 November 2004 - 12:46 PM.

[Loomis]

I say 20 years from now the Bourne films will be largely forgotten and downgraded

I doubt it. They'll be remembered as far superior to other action/adventure blockbusters of their era (XXX, THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS, CHARLIE'S ANGELS, LARA CROFT, BAD BOYS and, I'm afraid, the Brosnan Bonds). I think they'll be viewed as classics of their genre in the same way as films like MAD MAX 2 and DIE HARD.

[Seannery]

I say 20 years from now the Bourne films will be largely forgotten and downgraded

I doubt it. They'll be remembered as far superior to other action/adventure blockbusters of their era (XXX, THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS, CHARLIE'S ANGELS, LARA CROFT, BAD BOYS and, I'm afraid, the Brosnan Bonds). I think they'll be viewed as classics of their genre in the same way as films like MAD MAX 2 and DIE HARD.

Hmmmmmm........I don't see it,in fact I would put the Bourne films with those typical films you listed and no way with Mad Max 2 or Die Hard. They don't have the furious intensity and wonderful invention of those classics. Also Damon's character is way too much of a cipher with a touch of trendy nihilism added to him--a rather uninteresting blank that Damon can't quite bring to full life. I realize that is part of the character but the film misses in showing the hidden depth and humanity or for that matter much of any defined character. In fact Richard Chamberlain in the 80's did a superior job with that character's humanity and in doing so made a much more involving film. The Bond films on the contrary have a classic character defined and freshened with new actors periodically at the center enlivening every aspect of the film. And there is no need to make Bond a deep character piece, the character is defined extemely well such as Mad Max was or the Man With No Name with Clint was and little subtleties and touchstones written are more than sufficient to show that great character as opposed to the blah Bourne of Damon--Matt get some lessons from Chamberlain and pass it along to your directors!

[Loomis]

[quote name='Seannery' date='29 November 2004 - 13:15']I would put the Bourne films with those typical films you listed and no way with Mad Max 2 or Die Hard.

[Seannery]

[quote name='Loomis' date='29 November 2004 - 14:35'][quote name='Seannery' date='29 November 2004 - 13:15']I would put the Bourne films with those typical films you listed and no way with Mad Max 2 or Die Hard.

[Tarl_Cabot]

I liked the mini series alot when I saw it on TV in 1988; I always thought a streamlined, suped up version would make a great movie. In fact, I liked it so much that when I heard a big screen version was being made I decided to read the book...the film has very little in common with the book but they made an damn good film anyway. I think the mini series is very entertaining and faithful to the novel. I like the way he uses Marie and the way they come together...the film's intro "I'll give you 10K to drive me to paris" is a little flat by comparison. But the film cuts away alot of fat off the steak of the book, so to speak. It really wasn't useful source material as a 2/3 hr film.

I read Bourne in spring 2001.It was so bizzarre watching 9-11 unfold after reading this spy novel about an arch terrorist...

I think the film sequel is much better than the first.I can't wait to buy it next week.

[KMHPaladin]

I have to say I'm glad Bourne outperformed Bond at the box office. Considering that the series has been slowly spiralling out of control into one big cliche, from Fleming's rugged everyman spy to what amounts to a superhero today, it's hugely refreshing to see that a gritty and down-to-earth espionage-themed movie can make it big. And, proof that good writing (whether it be scriptwriters or a book to back them up) is essential as a foundation. Is it going to be a wakeup call? Considering the apparent tack EON has taken by cutting Brosnan, sadly I would be surprised.

By the way, good to see all the Clive Owen supporters in this thread.

[1q2w3e4r]

I remember a while back creating a thread about Bourne vs Bond and which one if you only had money for one ticket would you see on opening day. It got a little heated and I found myself having to defend myself for no real reason against some of the members here.

Bourne beat Bond at the box office. Woo Hoo, that is good news. I think Supremacy was a superior film to the last 4 Bond movies rolled into 1.

I don't apologise that I think the Bond films are in danger of loosing touch with reality in what audiences want to see. Brosnan ain't the problem, which I said he was for much of DAD. Really thinking back on it, the poor bloke looked bored out of his mind for Moonraker Part II in the second hour.

I just watched After the Sunset. Really great film, Brosnan is great in it.

As for the arguement that "Call me when Bourne 20 comes out"... Grow up, its a weak arguement at best. There's an arguement for quantity over quality... I'll take 3 Bourne films and be happy to pull them out of my DVD collection to watch over and over again. I could ignore probably half the Bond series and still be happy.

Adjusting FRWL for inflation? Works well when comparing Bond movies to Bond movies. But hey, the blockbuster died 20 years ago. Ask Spielburg or Lucas as to why they can't outgross the Episode 4 etc.

Bourne beat Bond fair, hats off to him.

Though I would like to know when Bond became set "five minutes into the future." But that might be for another topic

[urhash]

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?

Yes.

$24,800,000 in 1963 = $144,180,401

Bourne Supremacy in 2004 = $176,049,130

I think Supremacy was a superior film to the last 4 Bond movies rolled into 1.

I don't apologise that I think the Bond films are in danger of loosing touch with reality in what audiences want to see.

Edited by urhash, 30 November 2004 - 03:48 PM.

[Loomis]

[quote name='1q2w3e4r' date='30 November 2004 - 07:10']I remember a while back creating a thread about Bourne vs Bond and which one if you only had money for one ticket would you see on opening day.

[Turn]

[quote name='Loomis' date='3 December 2004 - 13:02'][quote name='1q2w3e4r' date='30 November 2004 - 07:10']I remember a while back creating a thread about Bourne vs Bond and which one if you only had money for one ticket would you see on opening day.

[Loomis]

I can't understand why the Bonds and Bournes can't exist together and each be enjoyed on its own level.

Well, they can. I mean, we don't have to make a choice between, say, owning STAR WARS DVDs and owning LOTR DVDs, do we? Bourne is much more Le Carre than Fleming, and the last time I was in a bookshop I noticed that Le Carre was on the shelves as well as Fleming, along with Clancy, Greene, etc. etc.

I hope you enjoy SUPREMACY, Turn. I've found a great review to whet your appetite (beware spoilers).

From http://www.theblurb....5/BourneSup.htm:

Supreme with the lot

Matt Damon returns for a second round as Jason Bourne, the amnesic assassin who memorably cut loose from his CIA minders in The Bourne Identity. This time though, he does so without Identity director Doug Liman (although he gets a producer credit). Bloody Sunday director Paul Greengrass steps in and has crafted a skilful, if not quite so frenetic, thriller that

[Seannery]

I love spy movies and have absolutely NOTHING against Bond competitors. I just think the Bourne films are mediocre--that simple. There just are a bunch of people who aren't impressed with the Bournes--to explain it away as territorial Bond fans is PLAIN INACCURATE. They just disagree with your judgement--shocking positively shocking!

[doublenoughtspy]

Loomis,

Can you pinpoint or give examples of why you think these films are a) better than the entire Bond series and stand side by side with action film landmarks as Mad Max 2 and Die Hard?

As the review you posted states - the Bourne films are intelligent thrillers.

Is the directing, music, stunts, editing in these films particularly ground-breaking the way early Bonds and MM2 & Die Hard were? No.

Will we see a bunch of copycats of Bourne the way we saw Bond copycats in the 60s and Die Hard copycats in the 80s? No.

I will grant that box office, copy cats, or longevity do not make one film superior to the other.

Yes, the Bournes are superior to the most of the Brosnans, a number of Moore Bond films, LTK, and the weaker Connerys - but better than FRWL, GF, OHMSS, SWLM, TLD or GE - No way!

[Loomis]

[quote name='doublenoughtspy' date='3 December 2004 - 17:46']Is the directing, music, stunts, editing in these films particularly ground-breaking the way early Bonds and MM2 & Die Hard were?

[Blofeld's Cat]

[quote name='Loomis' date='3 December 2004 - 21:02'][quote name='1q2w3e4r' date='30 November 2004 - 07:10']I remember a while back creating a thread about Bourne vs Bond and which one if you only had money for one ticket would you see on opening day.

[Loomis]

I guess some may think I'm one of those, but I really like the Bourne series a lot. I just can't compare them because they are so diferent in tone and style.

You're right, BC. Might as well compare Bond and KILL BILL. And, anyway, why compare? Bond, Bourne, DIE HARD, KILL BILL, MAD MAX 2.... heck, they're all ace.

[sidspappy]

After considering all the opinions on this thread, I am left with a few beliefs that stand out:

Indeed, the Bourne series is well made and excellent movies within the spy genre. Its longevity as a series, however, is not guaranteed. The tone of the movie and the bleak characterizations sets the series in a edgy, trendier light, which validates its present popularity. But how do you expand on a moody amnesiac who mainly wants either revenge against his makers, or to be completely left alone? I too cannot see this as a long-lived franchise.

The Bond series, in contrast, seems to be frozen in a pseudo time warp. His basic persona and plot thematics have not varied much in 40 years. This is its strength and secret to its longevity. We know Bond - we know what to expect. We want what he's delivering, with no real surprises. So to compare the two series as anything besides apples-to-oranges simply can't hold up. Basically, the only thing they have in common is the "spy genre" angle.

That said, I am actually worried for the further continuation of the Bond series. Again, because of the trend toward tougher, edgier, more realistic characterizations, Bond, at present is really showing his age.

I, for one, cringed at many of the scenes in DAD - they were simply ridiculous. The parasailing scene after falling off the glacier extracted multiple groans from me and several others in the theater. The one-liners between Bond and Jinx at the beach elicited the same groans.

Don't get me wrong - I love the derring-do and the witty quips from Bond as much as the next fan. But the extent that EON/Tamahori/Brosnan were pushing it physically pained me. In the end, I found enough there to declare it an enjoyable Bond outing - but only barely.

My point (finally) is that with Bond box office dwindling, and in light of the modern movie audience sensibilities, Wilson/Broccoli really need to do a FYEO, TLD/LTK, GE - type of "going back to basics." The next outing really needs to tone down the incredulous stunt pieces and the over-the-top groaner dialog. I think that if they can go back to TLD and how Dalton brought the serious characterization back, while still retaining excellent action and witty dialog, then I think Bond will weather any competition from the likes of Jason Bourne for a few more years!

[Bondian]

A very warm welcome to CBn sidspappy!.

I agree 100% with your post, and I'm going to print it out and hang it on my office wall.

If there were ever an honest and thought worthy post, this is the one.

All the best,

Cheers,


Ian

After considering all the opinions on this thread, I am left with a few beliefs that stand out:

Indeed, the Bourne series is well made and excellent movies within the spy genre. Its longevity as a series, however, is not guaranteed. The tone of the movie and the bleak characterizations sets the series in a edgy, trendier light, which validates its present popularity. But how do you expand on a moody amnesiac who mainly wants either revenge against his makers, or to be completely left alone? I too cannot see this as a long-lived franchise.

The Bond series, in contrast, seems to be frozen in a pseudo time warp. His basic persona and plot thematics have not varied much in 40 years. This is its strength and secret to its longevity. We know Bond - we know what to expect. We want what he's delivering, with no real surprises. So to compare the two series as anything besides apples-to-oranges simply can't hold up. Basically, the only thing they have in common is the "spy genre" angle.

That said, I am actually worried for the further continuation of the Bond series. Again, because of the trend toward tougher, edgier, more realistic characterizations, Bond, at present is really showing his age.

I, for one, cringed at many of the scenes in DAD - they were simply ridiculous. The parasailing scene after falling off the glacier extracted multiple groans from me and several others in the theater. The one-liners between Bond and Jinx at the beach elicited the same groans.

Don't get me wrong - I love the derring-do and the witty quips from Bond as much as the next fan. But the extent that EON/Tamahori/Brosnan were pushing it physically pained me. In the end, I found enough there to declare it an enjoyable Bond outing - but only barely.

My point (finally) is that with Bond box office dwindling, and in light of the modern movie audience sensibilities, Wilson/Broccoli really need to do a FYEO, TLD/LTK, GE - type of "going back to basics." The next outing really needs to tone down the incredulous stunt pieces and the over-the-top groaner dialog. I think that if they can go back to TLD and how Dalton brought the serious characterization back, while still retaining excellent action and witty dialog, then I think Bond will weather any competition from the likes of Jason Bourne for a few more years!

[sidspappy]

Thank you very much for your welcome and your kind comments, Bondian. I appreciate it, and I'm enjoying these forums immensely!

[Hitch]

I saw the first Bourne film and didn't think much of it. I saw it again a few motnhs later and was more impressed. It had a certain something - the introduction of Clive Owen's character (and for a few seconds he did have that Bond vibe about him) and the gun battle between him and Matt Damon was exciting and effective with a realistic feel to it. I'll see the second Bourne film on DVD.

I've read all of Fleming's Bond books, seen all twenty Bond films (my eyes! my eyes!), and got halfway through John Gardner's Licence Renewed. The cinematic Bond is essentially a childish concept - but we all know that anyway - that has, whether intentionally or not, attracted a handful of charismatic actors, some wonderful cinematography and better music and worse scripts than any long-running franchise has a right to.

At the moment, Bourne has the drop on Bond in terms of freshness, writing and realism. EON has to decide whether it wants a "realistic" spy who is amazingly lucky, sexy and brave, or an invincible superhero who is amazingly lucky, sexy and brave. The unique thing about the Bond franchise is that its longevity is both its strength and weakness - too much familiarity and the films become formulaic, too little and they betray the "legacy".

All the above is obvious - by now you'll have realised that I have nothing original to add to the debate - and surely there is plenty of room for both spies in the 21st century. But what the Bond films have, and (through no fault of their own) the Bourne films don't, is the ability to put my backside in a cinema seat come what may. 007 has often disappointed and saddened me in the cinema; he has made me cringe and made me angry. But there have been times, and they are admittedly getting few and far between, when the acting, script, cinematography, music, stunts and all-round glamour have made me all but levitate off my seat. That's what Bourne is up against,and it's very unfair. I'm glad he's come to the moveable feast that is cinema - but there's only one man allowed to sit at the head of the table.

*RANT ENDS....RANT ENDS...*

[Get_MOOre7]

Just to let everyone here know, one of the reasons MGM went down is because the Bond films actually netted a lot less than they said they did.


The last 3 Bonds were colossal failures financially when compared to ANY of the previous Bond movies yes even LTK or CR.

I know no one wants to believe it, but trust me if you saw the insider data from MGM you would be shocked.

Edited by Get_MOOre7, 16 December 2004 - 09:18 PM.

[Adrian Carlisle]

This is my own review of Supremacy I wrote back in August:
[quote]The Bourne Supremacy ( *** )

[DavidSomerset]

There are only 3 movies in the Bourne series. After Bourne Ultimatum, people will forget Bourne after the next decade, whereas we will be discussing who should be the next Bond in Bond 26....
So long a Barbara and Michael are eager to earn money with Jimbo there is no need to fear.

[Roger Moore's Bad Facelift]

The last 3 Bonds were colossal failures financially when compared to ANY of the previous Bond movies yes even LTK or CR.

I know no one wants to believe it, but trust me if you saw the insider data from MGM you would be shocked.

Ok. I'll bite. Now show it. Where's your data?

IF GE, TND, DAD, and TWINE can't be considered financial successes in this day and age then, what can?
YES, it IS getting increasingly harder for Bond films to break even, but take a look around- this is applicable for nearly every BIG blockbuster that rolls off the production line. Van Helsing, Blade 3, King Arthur, Alexander etc.
Bond is still a very viable franchise that any studio would love to own a part of.

DAD did very well.
It debuted at No. 1 (no small feat in itself) and then fell,and then came back up to reclaim the No.1 in it's third week.
Dying franchises aren't capable of pulling that off.