19 replies to this topic

[David Schofield]

There is obviously a lot of concern about how CR/Bond Begins should be interpreted in the sequence of movies: is it Bond's first mission, does it proceed Dr No and yet is set in the present day, how does Dench fit in as the old M, etc. We've even had the dreaded code name theory raised

However, I was wondering if CBNers could learn anything from the four Jack Ryan movies. Ryan starts off as Alex Baldwin, a youngish married man with a young daughter, he ages into Harrison Ford, his daughter grows up a little, Ford ages some more, his daughter grows some more and he has a son. Then, suddenly, he is 20 years younger, not married to his wife but dating her as his girlfriend and childless - and yet a date following the previous adventures is clear shown. The Sum of All Fears takes places AFTER Red October, Patriot Games, etc.

How does this re-write sit with Ryan fans? Clearly, a present day adventure is set before others in the character timeline - just like CR appears to be. Is that a problem to Ryan fans, does it detract from the enjoyment of Sum of All Fears. The progression of the character is clear - he had the woman as girlfriend who will become his wife - but the film is dated to after the preceeding ones, again like CR seems it will: the Bond universe - Dench, MI6 - will be as established but Bond starting out.

Can any lessons be learned from the Sum of All Fears and Jack Ryan about the way to approach and accept Casino Royale (or was the the Sum of All Fears and Ben Affleck such garbage nobody cares)?

[ACE]

Well, I don't know about lessons but certainly Sum Of All Fears was the first of the Franchise Begins films.

I happen to really like SOAF but I am not a Clancy afficianado and thought it worked well as an intelligent, plot driven thriller.

Certainly, I think its predecessor, Clear And Present Danger is a superb piece of writing and storytelling - far superior to anything from Bond to Bourne. That's a real spy, realpolitik-al thriller with stellar cast.

But it all goes back to the writing.

For me, the fact that Purvis and Wade are REAL Fleming fans, that a writer of the magnitude of Paul Haggis has done a dialogue polish, the fact that Moneypenny and Q are not in it, the fact that the last half of the book, including, it would seem, the bitter ending are in the film, the fact that Eon seem to be really challenging themselves and die-hard FilmBond fans ARE all more important than the Bond begins thing. I agree, it is odd, and throws one and may take getting used to. However, continuity in Bonds has always been slipshod.

The lesson of SOAF is to make a very good film first and tell a great story with the emphasis on character.

CR seems to be leaning in that direction but in the words of it's star "Let's wait and see..."

[TheSaint]

The combination of Affleck & a reboot were enough to keep me away from SOAF. To this day I'm still not sure why Ford turned down SOAF but, I think the producers should've offered the film to Alec Baldwin first before deciding to reboot.

The casting of Ryan has an interesting history. Red October was offered to Ford first, who turned it down-he didn't think anyone would want to sit through a submarine film. Enter Alec Baldwin. THFRO is a hit! Unfortunately, Baldwin's agent prices him out of Patriot Games. They return to Ford who, after the success of the first film, decides to correct his earlier mistake.

[hcmv007]

My perspective is that I hope it is a helluva ride, and I have fun and like the film. Maybe it is time to 'reboot' Bond. Craig is a great choice for Bond, and I think it will do quite well. That being said, let's just try to enjoy it, shall we?

[dunmall]

I think Ryan is in the same boat as Batman.

Red October to Clear and Present Danger are one series while Sum is/was intended as the start of a new series rather than a prequel.

Someone on here somewhere suggested that this is what we could expect from bond:
dr no - dad are vol 1
cr onwards are vol 2
i apologise for using their words.

That being said I didnt like Sum that much, the other three are great though.

I'm not sure though how big of a reboot it will be, i still think it's mostly all talk. thats just my opinion.

[Harmsway]

The problem with SOAF was not the reboot. It was that it was just a mediocre movie in general.

[dunmall]

exactly, but what do you expect from Ben Affleck?
There was a good family guy joke that had a fantasy scene of Matt Damen and Affleck finishing up writing Good Will Hunting, Damen had done all the work while Affleck sat around smoking weed, but he still wanted to be credited first.
A news paper review of that episode questioned how much of that scene was fantasy and how much reality?

[Loomis]

Clear And Present Danger is a superb piece of writing and storytelling - far superior to anything from Bond to Bourne.

I think I agree, although I don't much care for the other Ryan films, not even THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER, which I've always found something of an overrated bore (although it does have its moments, thanks in large part to the presence in the director's chair of a peak-form John McTiernan). But, yes, CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER - a masterpiece.

THE SUM OF ALL FEARS is a dreadful film (the book is terrific, but, again, I'm not too wild about the other Clancy novels). I've no idea how the reboot aspects sat with Ryan fans, but it didn't work for me (this was probably the least of the film's problems, though). Ford in the lead, as a "seasoned pro" Ryan wearily trying to deal with a horrifying terrorist threat, would have been one - just one - very welcome improvement. Still, it wasn't just that Ford was replaced - his replacement was very, very dull indeed. If, say, Matt Damon had played Ryan in TSOAF, instead of doing Bourne, and had brought his Bourne-era excellent acting and charisma to the role, I'd probably be praising him as the best Ryan ever.

I really think the best way of reviving the Ryan franchise would be to treat TSOAF as an OHMSS-style one-off and reteam Ford (possibly as President Ryan) with PATRIOT GAMES and CAPD director Phillip Noyce. And a good, meaty script (the TSOAF screenplay is awful). A better idea for a Ford comeback than another Indiana Jones, methinks.

[Gabe Vieira]

There is obviously a lot of concern about how CR/Bond Begins should be interpreted in the sequence of movies: is it Bond's first mission, does it proceed Dr No and yet is set in the present day, how does Dench fit in as the old M, etc. We've even had the dreaded code name theory raised

However, I was wondering if CBNers could learn anything from the four Jack Ryan movies. Ryan starts off as Alex Baldwin, a youngish married man with a young daughter, he ages into Harrison Ford, his daughter grows up a little, Ford ages some more, his daughter grows some more and he has a son. Then, suddenly, he is 20 years younger, not married to his wife but dating her as his girlfriend and childless - and yet a date following the previous adventures is clear shown. The Sum of All Fears takes places AFTER Red October, Patriot Games, etc.

How does this re-write sit with Ryan fans? Clearly, a present day adventure is set before others in the character timeline - just like CR appears to be. Is that a problem to Ryan fans, does it detract from the enjoyment of Sum of All Fears. The progression of the character is clear - he had the woman as girlfriend who will become his wife - but the film is dated to after the preceeding ones, again like CR seems it will: the Bond universe - Dench, MI6 - will be as established but Bond starting out.

Can any lessons be learned from the Sum of All Fears and Jack Ryan about the way to approach and accept Casino Royale (or was the the Sum of All Fears and Ben Affleck such garbage nobody cares)?

As a massive Clancy fan, I can tell you a couple things.

1) Alec Baldwin was a much better John Patrick Ryan than Harrison Ford. now, Harrison Ford is one of the best actors ever, but Baldwin seemed more like the character in the books.

2) THfRO was clearly the best of the films, with PG and CaPD coiming in at second and third. The average Clancy book is a good 600 pages, and there is just no way that can be made into two hour movie. PG and CaPD are both solid movies, but THfRO was just adapted better.

3) The chage from Baldwin to Ford is not bad thing. The changing of actors happens a lot when adapting a literary character to the big screen. ( ) As, for the change of characterization, once again, Baldwin's was better. Followed the book more closely.

4) They made a movie version of TSoaF? And who the Hell is Ben Whofleck!? Yeah, I have nothing to say about TSoaF except it sucked.

[ACE]

How far does SOAF stray from the book?

What's wrong with Affleck? He's a talented, intelligent, self-deprecating, Oscar-winning actor who has made some great films - Good Will Hunting, Dogma, The Sum of All Fears etc.

Yes, he got a little overexposed with the Bennifer thing but I don't care for that tabloid junk and it certainly doesn't affect my view of an onscreen performance.

[Loomis]

How far does SOAF stray from the book?

Well, the major change (giving rise to accusations of political correctness) is of the villains' identity. Apart from anything else, the villains in the film are ludicrous and hurt the film's credibility (you could argue, of course, that it was only ever intended as a two-hour popcorn spy/action movie, and that it consequently didn't need all that much "credibility", but I'd prefer it if it hadn't been almost as daft as xXx: STATE OF THE UNION). Bates' neo-Nazi comes across as something from a third-rate Gardner Bond novel.

Also, the characters in the book are, well, a lot better. The more senior and battle-scarred Ryan in Clancy's "Sum of All Fears" is more interesting than the Affleck version. It's been a long time since I read the novel, but from memory Clancy does a terrific job with people like Cathy Ryan and the President, mere cardboard cutouts in the movie. And there are, of course, more subplots in the book, as well as much more suspense. Granted, it's the size of a telephone directory, as usual with Clancy, so it's hardly surprising that the filmmakers found it necessary to slim it down a little, but I hold the view that they succeeded only in squeezing all the "interesting stuff" out of the book and filming a pale (and needlessly silly) shadow of it.

What's wrong with Affleck? He's a talented, intelligent, self-deprecating, Oscar-winning actor who has made some great films

Perhaps, but I find him utterly wooden and boring in THE SUM OF ALL FEARS, one of the least charismatic leading man performances I've ever seen in a major franchise would-be blockbuster production.

[ACE]

How far does SOAF stray from the book?

Well, the major change (giving rise to accusations of political correctness) is of the villains' identity. Apart from anything else, the villains in the film are ludicrous and hurt the film's credibility (you could argue, of course, that it was only ever intended as a two-hour popcorn spy/action movie, and that it consequently didn't need all that much "credibility", but I'd prefer it if it hadn't been almost as daft as xXx: STATE OF THE UNION). Bates' neo-Nazi comes across as something from a third-rate Gardner Bond novel.

Who are the villains in the book? I take it they are not neo-Nazis?

[Loomis]

How far does SOAF stray from the book?

Well, the major change (giving rise to accusations of political correctness) is of the villains' identity. Apart from anything else, the villains in the film are ludicrous and hurt the film's credibility (you could argue, of course, that it was only ever intended as a two-hour popcorn spy/action movie, and that it consequently didn't need all that much "credibility", but I'd prefer it if it hadn't been almost as daft as xXx: STATE OF THE UNION). Bates' neo-Nazi comes across as something from a third-rate Gardner Bond novel.

Who are the villains in the book? I take it they are not neo-Nazis?

http://www.cair-net....d=71&theType=AA

[Gabe Vieira]

How far does SOAF stray from the book?

Well, the major change (giving rise to accusations of political correctness) is of the villains' identity. Apart from anything else, the villains in the film are ludicrous and hurt the film's credibility (you could argue, of course, that it was only ever intended as a two-hour popcorn spy/action movie, and that it consequently didn't need all that much "credibility", but I'd prefer it if it hadn't been almost as daft as xXx: STATE OF THE UNION). Bates' neo-Nazi comes across as something from a third-rate Gardner Bond novel.

Also, the characters in the book are, well, a lot better. The more senior and battle-scarred Ryan in Clancy's "Sum of All Fears" is more interesting than the Affleck version. It's been a long time since I read the novel, but from memory Clancy does a terrific job with people like Cathy Ryan and the President, mere cardboard cutouts in the movie. And there are, of course, more subplots in the book, as well as much more suspense. Granted, it's the size of a telephone directory, as usual with Clancy, so it's hardly surprising that the filmmakers found it necessary to slim it down a little, but I hold the view that they succeeded only in squeezing all the "interesting stuff" out of the book and filming a pale (and needlessly silly) shadow of it.

What's wrong with Affleck? He's a talented, intelligent, self-deprecating, Oscar-winning actor who has made some great films

Perhaps, but I find him utterly wooden and boring in THE SUM OF ALL FEARS, one of the least charismatic leading man performances I've ever seen in a major franchise would-be blockbuster production.

Freakin' DITTO everything you just said. I would have said the same thing but you got there before me.

Also, they changed the bad guys into Neo-Nazis becuase if they had used the same bag guys in the movie that were in the book, people would have had a [Censored]fit. No one wants to see Denver be nuked by Muslims terrorists only a year after 9/11.

That's another thing, in the book Denver, not Baltimore, was wiped off the map. And they didn't use some half@$$ atomic bomb either. In the book, the nuke is the real deal.

[Loomis]

How far does SOAF stray from the book?

Well, the major change (giving rise to accusations of political correctness) is of the villains' identity. Apart from anything else, the villains in the film are ludicrous and hurt the film's credibility (you could argue, of course, that it was only ever intended as a two-hour popcorn spy/action movie, and that it consequently didn't need all that much "credibility", but I'd prefer it if it hadn't been almost as daft as xXx: STATE OF THE UNION). Bates' neo-Nazi comes across as something from a third-rate Gardner Bond novel.

Also, the characters in the book are, well, a lot better. The more senior and battle-scarred Ryan in Clancy's "Sum of All Fears" is more interesting than the Affleck version. It's been a long time since I read the novel, but from memory Clancy does a terrific job with people like Cathy Ryan and the President, mere cardboard cutouts in the movie. And there are, of course, more subplots in the book, as well as much more suspense. Granted, it's the size of a telephone directory, as usual with Clancy, so it's hardly surprising that the filmmakers found it necessary to slim it down a little, but I hold the view that they succeeded only in squeezing all the "interesting stuff" out of the book and filming a pale (and needlessly silly) shadow of it.

What's wrong with Affleck? He's a talented, intelligent, self-deprecating, Oscar-winning actor who has made some great films

Perhaps, but I find him utterly wooden and boring in THE SUM OF ALL FEARS, one of the least charismatic leading man performances I've ever seen in a major franchise would-be blockbuster production.

Freakin' DITTO everything you just said. I would have said the same thing but you got there before me.

Also, they changed the bad guys into Neo-Nazis becuase if they had used the same bag guys in the movie that were in the book, people would have had a [Censored]fit. No one wants to see Denver be nuked by Muslims terrorists only a year after 9/11.

That's another thing, in the book Denver, not Baltimore, was wiped off the map. And they didn't use some half@$$ atomic bomb either. In the book, the nuke is the real deal.

If memory serves, after 9/11 the release date of THE SUM OF ALL FEARS was pushed back a little (same was true of Schwarzenegger's COLLATERAL, I think), but I believe the only changes made to the film involved slightly trimming the sequence in which the bomb goes off, to make it look as, erm, tasteful as possible by cutting any shots of exploding cityscapes and massacred civilians that might be perceived as "gratuitous". The filmmakers had dropped "Muslim" villains from TSOAF long before September 2001.

BTW, is it just me, or is there no real suspense or lead-in to the detonation in the film version? I may be remembering this incorrectly, but it seems to me that the movie is just chugging along, with Affleck, Freeman and co. wandering around waiting for the plot to show up, and then all of a sudden they know all about the bomb and where it's going to go off and who's behind it, and Bob's yer uncle, so cue the usual tired and boring old chase and gunfight nonsense until the ludicrous and faintly offensive ending in which everyone's simply sitting around smiling in Washington right after the unleashing of atomic hell (while their underlings are doing an absurdly elaborate and leisurely job of knocking off the perpetrators in scenes ripped off from old mob movies). There just doesn't appear to be any kind of rhyme or reason to it: now there's no terrorist plot or ticking bomb; now there is, and the good guys somehow know exactly what's happening. It's as though there's a whole reel missing. Granted, I'm probably oversimplifying things, and perhaps it doesn't play out in quite as dumb and baffling a fashion as I'm making out, but, still, that's the lingering impression I had from this dire film.

[Cody]

and yet a date following the previous adventures is clear shown. The Sum of All Fears takes places AFTER Red October, Patriot Games, etc.

How does this re-write sit with Ryan fans? Clearly, a present day adventure is set before others in the character timeline - just like CR appears to be. Is that a problem to Ryan fans, does it detract from the enjoyment of Sum of All Fears.

Doesn't bother me at all - I just ignore the onscreen dates and watch Sum first with the others as its follow-ups.

[Double-Oh Agent]

Alec Baldwin IS Jack Ryan. While I love Harrison Ford, he's not the perfect Jack Ryan--Baldwin is. When I first saw The Hunt For Red October, I thought Baldwin perfectly captured the look and essence of Jack Ryan (and Sean Connery likewise as Marko Ramius). I was so disappointed when Baldwin wasn't re-signed to the role for Patriot Games. Ford was fine, but he was too old for the part I thought.

Anyway, what can we learn from the Jack Ryan series? Well, for one thing, don't reboot when it's not necessary. Sure, the producers had to cast younger with Ford no longer doing the part but it made no sense to start all over again--Red October did that originally. There was no point to go further into Ryan's past. His CIA career--the important part anyway--essentially started with Red October before that he was just a teaching analyst. All the Ryan producers had to do was similar to what the 007 producers did when George Lazenby took over the role of James Bond--simply ignore the fact that a new Bond was in the lead. Had The Sum Of All Fears just picked up where Clear And Present Danger left off--with or without Ben Affleck in the lead--then things would have been a lot easier and there would have been fewer problems (well that and a better script).

[DavidSomerset]

SOAF was a good film and Affleck was his usual wooden "George Lazenby" self in this movie.
The tension and plot line was quite good and relevant to todays times. I found it better than the first Bourne. But anyday even George Lazenby as 007 is also better than any other spy. Except Mr. Powers.
Maybe they should make a Crossover film with 007 and Austin Powers. A buddy film to end all Buddy films.

[dunmall]

(shudders) Powers and Bond.... some of the angles of that rectangle and are to monsterous to contemplate....

[Gabe Vieira]

Alec Baldwin IS Jack Ryan. While I love Harrison Ford, he's not the perfect Jack Ryan--Baldwin is. When I first saw The Hunt For Red October, I thought Baldwin perfectly captured the look and essence of Jack Ryan (and Sean Connery likewise as Marko Ramius). I was so disappointed when Baldwin wasn't re-signed to the role for Patriot Games. Ford was fine, but he was too old for the part I thought.

My thoughts exactly.