95 replies to this topic

[Loomis]

[quote name='Tarl_Cabot' date='11 January 2005 - 03:53']Bond an imperialist? LOL This seems like an over simplification of Bond.

[Loomis]

I think if they handle it intelligently - and they have done so far - the Bourne franchise could run for several more films, with or without Matt Damon. I hope it happens.

Same here. And kudos to the filmmakers for creating such splendid movies from such dull, cliched and dated books.

[spynovelfan]

Yes, and Bond *is* the epitome of the establishment. He's white, middle class, middle-aged, was educated at Eton and Cambridge (well, we think), and works as a civil servant at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. His job is to protect the interests of the British government around the world.

As our friend Chandler Bing might say, could he *be* any more establishment?

[Roger Moore's Bad Facelift]

Damon played Tom Ripley in a massive film, only to hand over the role to John Malkovich for the sequel.

This is the first I've heard of this. I was always under the impression that "Ripley's Game" was an entirely separate, idependent production from that of the bigger budgeted mainstream "The Talented Mr. Ripley" and was not in anway an attempt by Miramax at continuing a "Ripley" franchise. Both films were based on books featuring the Ripley character, yes, but the role was never handed over to Malcovich from Damon. I thought it was a separate film made by separate people that just featured the same character. More then likely the rights to the "Ripley" books were bought individually by different studios and no one studio has a monopoly on them all. Hence the varying actors.
For example, "Talented" was a Paramount/Miramax co-effort, "Game" was distributed by Fine Line home video which is owned by New Line which is owned by Warners and the third Ripley film coming out is being distributed by Lion's Gate.

Edited by Roger_Moore's_Bad_Facelift, 11 January 2005 - 11:28 PM.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Yes, and Bond *is* the epitome of the establishment. He's white, middle class, middle-aged, was educated at Eton and Cambridge (well, we think), and works as a civil servant at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. His job is to protect the interests of the British government around the world.

As our friend Chandler Bing might say, could he *be* any more establishment?

Well I guess you have a point but I consider 'establishment' to be a white, middle to upper class capitalist god fearing family man...etc. Establishment to me was always boring. Bond is anything but boring. So, he's well groomed, well dressed for all occasions, is socially adept and enjoys the finer things in life but I don't his life's work qualifies as 'establishment'; his passion is adventure not imperialism or capitalisim, so although he is a loyal auxilerary to the state I'd say he's not an 'establishment' type-if he were he'd be a lawyer, investment banker...etc. IMHO.

[spynovelfan]

Damon played Tom Ripley in a massive film, only to hand over the role to John Malkovich for the sequel.

This is the first I've heard of this. I was always under the impression that "Ripley's Game" was an entirely separate, idependent production from that of the bigger budgeted mainstream "The Talented Mr. Ripley" and was not in anway an attempt by Miramax at continuing a "Ripley" franchise. Both films were based on books featuring the Ripley character, yes, but the role was never handed over to Malcovich from Damon. I thought it was a separate film made by separate people that just featured the same character. More then likely the rights to the "Ripley" books were bought individually by different studios and no one studio has a monopoly on them all. Hence the varying actors.
For example, "Talented" was a Paramount/Miramax co-effort, "Game" was distributed by Fine Line home video which is owned by New Line which is owned by Warners and the third Ripley film coming out is being distributed by Lion's Gate.

All true. Perhaps I shouldn't have said 'hand over'. Yes, Ripley's Game was made by different people. But why do you think they made it? Because of the success of Talented, of course. And the third? I suspect that Damon could have starred in Game if he had wanted - it would have made more sense to the backers, whoever they were. Anyway, my point is that the makers of Game and now The Return of Mr Ripley (based on Ripley Under Ground) didn't care overly that they were releasing a film with the same character played by another - very different - actor, just a couple of years later. They just reasoned that the character was interesting enough to audiences. The same applies to Jack Ryan, James Bond and, I think, Jason Bourne. It's the character people are going to see, and the kind of story that character brings - not the actor who plays the role.