65 replies to this topic

[Loomis]

Yeah, they've definitely milked those European locations. But maybe a prequel could show Bourne's military beginnings in somewhere like South Korea.

In any case, if 24 can be spun out for, what? Six seasons (with footage totalling six days!), it's safe to say that Bourne can be flogged a while longer. Especially as Bourne doesn't even deal in doomsday scenarios or DIE HARDish accidental heroics where after a while you just can't believe that the same---- er, stuff has happened to the same guy four times or whatever.

And, yes, who cares if Bond has run to 32 films and made a hundred squillion? Is anyone trying to claim that Bourne has been around as long or has made as much? What am I missing here? Isn't it pretty much established that all of us are Bond fans anyway?

[Harmsway]

In any case, if 24 can be spun out for, what? Six seasons (with footage totalling six days!), it's safe to say that Bourne can be flogged a while longer.

I agree with the argument, but I have to say that season 6 of 24 has really been so-so. The series has really descended to the depths of formula, and thus it's just not as exciting anymore. I wish they'd taken my idea for season 6 and had it set overseas or something like that - it's getting rather boring to just have it set in the USA, and have the standard "there's a CTU traitor, and someone in the White House is in a power struggle with the President" material thrown out the window.

[Emma]

I found the comparisons superficial. The lady underwater scene occured in the 'Bourne Supremacy' which came out before Casino Royale. And Bourne has fought people in stairwells before.

Personally while I love the Bourne films (I watch them all the time). I'm not too enamoured of the director Paul Greengrass (?) comments about Bond being an 'Imperial f/uck face'. What a jerk.

[Roebuck]

Personally while I love the Bourne films (I watch them all the time). I'm not too enamoured of the director Paul Greengrass (?) comments about Bond being an 'Imperial f/uck face'. What a jerk.

It's an opinion and he's entitled to it. Doesn't necessarily mark him out as a jerk.
I think Greengrass was just trying to explain why the character of Bond holds no appeal for him. He has got a point. Fleming's Bond was employed to prop up a crumbling Empire, so that it could continue to do whatever it liked to whomever it liked. There was nothing noble in the job and Bond never spares much thought for the ethics of what he does. The books are about a largely unpleasant, bigoted snob in a dirty line of work. That moral ambiguity is part of what's kept the literary 007 interesting down the years, while the pre-CR movie 007 became increasingly anodyne.

[supernova]

I rather enjoyed part one of the trilogy but thought part two already seemed a bit tired and just more of the same. I don't know what the demographic break down is for Bourne movies but somehow I reckon they are more popular with men then women. In a way one could say that the Bond movies have a more U.S. addressed sensitivity and the Bourne movies seem more European. Interesting switch. Well, whatever happens with Bourne 3, I'm on the Bond team - I like the GLAMOUR.

[Roebuck]

I rather enjoyed part one of the trilogy but thought part two already seemed a bit tired and just more of the same. I don't know what the demographic break down is for Bourne movies but somehow I reckon they are more popular with men then women. In a way one could say that the Bond movies have a more U.S. addressed sensitivity and the Bourne movies seem more European. Interesting switch. Well, whatever happens with Bourne 3, I'm on the Bond team - I like the GLAMOUR.

Both the Bourne and Bond demographics are largely the same broken down by age and gender. Bond tends to do better in the European market.

[Emma]

Personally while I love the Bourne films (I watch them all the time). I'm not too enamoured of the director Paul Greengrass (?) comments about Bond being an 'Imperial f/uck face'. What a jerk.

It's an opinion and he's entitled to it. Doesn't necessarily mark him out as a jerk.
I think Greengrass was just trying to explain why the character of Bond holds no appeal for him. He has got a point. Fleming's Bond was employed to prop up a crumbling Empire, so that it could continue to do whatever it liked to whomever it liked. There was nothing noble in the job and Bond never spares much thought for the ethics of what he does. The books are about a largely unpleasant, bigoted snob in a dirty line of work. That moral ambiguity is part of what's kept the literary 007 interesting down the years, while the pre-CR movie 007 became increasingly anodyne.

I have no problem if he doesn't like James Bond. I found his manner and expression extreemly crude and vulgar and ignorant.

But that's me.

[Harmsway]

I have no problem if he doesn't like James Bond. I found his manner and expression extreemly crude and vulgar and ignorant.

I would care if he were talking about an actual person, but since James Bond is a fictional character, I don't care if he calls him something crude, and it was probably more for comedic effect than anything.

[Lazenby880]

There was nothing noble in the job and Bond never spares much thought for the ethics of what he does. The books are about a largely unpleasant, bigoted snob in a dirty line of work.

I'm sorry but I cannot agree with this *at all*.

What about Casino Royale when Bond has a great debate with Mathis about the morality of his work? Bond even reckons that Le Chiffre should not have beein killed as he provides an example of real evil to act as an opposing norm of good. Consider the beginning of Goldfinger when Bond ponders over the killing of the Mexican in self defence: "Couldn

Edited by Lazenby880, 09 April 2007 - 12:32 AM.

[Roebuck]

There was nothing noble in the job and Bond never spares much thought for the ethics of what he does. The books are about a largely unpleasant, bigoted snob in a dirty line of work.

I'm sorry but I cannot agree with this *at all*.

If the sniper had been an old hag, instead of a pretty girl, in TLD do you think Bond wouldn't have happily shot her between the eyes? When Fleming uses phrases like ''Bond

[Fro]

http://movies.yahoo....eultimatum.html

US trailer with actual new footage:

(from old films)
- Opening shot of snowy street, almost noir-looking (opening of CR)
- Marie drowning in the water.

(new stuff)
- Bourne seemingly doing some freerunning (!)
- Fight in hallway near a stairwell
- Female doing her makeup in the mirror as Bourne looks on (ala Vesper)
- CIA lady (Pamela Landy) says "Bourne", while at her desk on the phone, in an almost identical shot to M in Casino Royale.

Edited by Fro, 20 April 2007 - 12:09 PM.

[JLaidlaw]

Can I just point out that stairwell fights were done before the Bourne Identity in various films, usually in Spy comedy/dramas.

If you begin to look at things and think that copied that and this copied this then you end up seeing connections when there weren't any there before. It's like saying that if you go back far enough CSI is a copy of Poe's Dupin.

[Zorin Industries]

Just checked out the official trailer of the Bourne Ultimatum So far this looks like a rip off from Casino Royale. Just in 1 min and 20 seconds there are at least three similarities - snow lined deserted city street, big stairwell fight and dramatic scene with drowned lady underwater! The Bond franchise must definitely be number one again as everyone is busy ripping off ideas. Get your own storyline Bourne!

To be fair, the drowned lady motif was from THE BOURNE SUPREMACY which was produced way before CASINO ROYALE. Added to that, THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM was shot last Autumn pre-ROYALE's release. And the BOURNE films heavily influenced Craig's debut so it's not strictly a rip-off. Just a sharing of like-minded minds....(!).

Having seen the trailer for THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM, I'm more concerned that my cameo didn't feature in it. Though time will tell...!

Edited by Zorin Industries, 20 April 2007 - 12:34 PM.

[Loomis]

A better trailer than the last one, although I still don't see the need for so much BOURNE 1 and 2 footage (or indeed the need for any at all), or what's so marvellous about that jump through the window. Seems a pretty big spoiler is given away at the end as well. Why do trailers so often give the game away on things that you're better off not knowing about till you watch the film?

[Zorin Industries]

what's so marvellous about that jump through the window. Seems a pretty big spoiler is given away at the end as well

Re the window jump - the cameraman jumped with him on a cable when they filmed it. That's special enough for me. Though you weren't to know that from a 2 second clip.

It's been no secret since the trilogy started that Bourne pieces everything together in THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM. The trailer didn't reveal WHAT he's remembered or why....

Edited by Zorin Industries, 20 April 2007 - 02:34 PM.

[dodge]

"And I, for one, can't w-wait to s-see what happens next!"

And a gold star to any member who can tell me where that quote comes from.

[Trident]

Will there be films of Eric Van Lustbader's Bourne Legacy and the soon to be released Bourne Betrayal?

That's the billion dollar question: if the Bourne trilogy will evolve from a series of films to a franchise. Damon probably won't continue. And the amnesia theme will have to be resolved in Ultimatum. Enough already about that. So, as a franchise the team will face many of the demons that Eon's had to wrestle with: new directions, new actors, new directors, etc. Bond had one major advantage: a complex, compelling character who could survive all of that. Bourne has one big disadvantage, so far: Bourne himself is a cipher, a man without memory or even, to be honest, a memorable personality. I love the pix, don't get me wrong, but that could be a BIG problem.

On the other hand, Bourne also has a potentially whalloping asset: the element of surprise. Who/what will this Bourne dude be when he finally gets it together?

I, for one, can hardly wait to see how they handle that.

There exists a Belgian comic book series called "XIII" (some people here will know it already) which was (for the first two or three books) a shameless Bourne-ripoff: a man washed somewhere on the eastern US-coast. A head injury has erased his whole memory. The only distictive sign is a tatoo below his left clavicle: the roman number XIII. As the story develops he finds out that he's wanted for the assasination of the US-President and that killers are on his trail, eliminating everybody who helps him. The storys evolve largely around the adventures he has to survive while searching his true identity. The series began in 1988 an as of today has seen 17 books. Every new clue, every new confirmed name turns out to be false sooner or later for almost twenty years now. An eternal case of box in a box in a box ad infinitum. It seems that particular plotline could be drawn out with almost no limits whatsoever and still keep its fans happy.

I think the problem with the present Bourne series is something different. Ludlum's invention Jason Bourne was originally planned as a counterterrorist deception: a secret agent who poses as Asia's most efficient contract killer wanting to expand his business towards Europe. The plan was to lure the (back then almost mythical) terrorist and killer Carlos the Jackal from his lair and expose him. The kills that were accounted to Jason Bourne were either done by others or plain hoaxes to give the name Bourne a similar standing as Carlos the Jackal. His head injury makes Bourne temporarily believe in that scenario while his superiors suspect he stole the missionfunds and turned rogue. Of course in the end Bourne and CIA learn the truth and Bourne tries to finish the mission.

This whole concept of the books has been discarded. Movie Bourne really is a CIA assasin. He really turned rogue and really captured the secret funds. His enemys are his own former employers, not an infamous elite terrorist with his army of killers. That storyline digresses entirely from the one of the books and I see no easy way to turn it back on track to adapt Lustbader's continuations (or even the up to now unused plot of the first two books).

On the other hand, while the Bourne movies bear only a minor resemblance to Ludlum's books I find them far more convincing. The plotline is straight and effective while not lacking room for mystery and surprises. And I'm sure there is far more potential left in the Bourne series to keep it going for a considerable time.

Edited by Trident, 20 April 2007 - 03:33 PM.

[The Dove]

Updated Bourne Ultimatum trailer now available on Yahoo! movies page!! Check it out!

http://movies.yahoo....eultimatum.html

[Agent Carter]

I believe CR borrowed from what was successful about the Bourne films. The harder edged action. But nothing can come close to CR and Bond in general.
Tho I am excited about the new Bourne film. Loved the last two.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Drool!!!

looks awesome.Can't wait!!

[spynovelfan]

There exists a Belgian comic book series called "XIII" (some people here will know it already) which was (for the first two or three books) a shameless Bourne-ripoff: a man washed somewhere on the eastern US-coast. A head injury has erased his whole memory.

I interviewed Jean Van Hamme, the creator of XIII, about five years ago. He has a very nice house. I nearly got kicked out of the interview after about five minutes, because I asked him if he'd been inspired by Bourne for XIII. If you've seen MAGNOLIA, it was a little like the scene where the interviewer asks Tom Cruise about his father. He just stared at me very very coldly for a while, and then was very rude. I managed to get it back on track and it turned out okay, but it's probably the biggest mess I've been in professionally.

Agree with all your points about Bourne, by the way. I don't see how they can match it back up with Ludlum. But maybe. The way Ludlum did it was pretty bizarre, too.

[RogueSpy007]

I can't wait for this one. I enjoyed the other two.

[Trident]

There exists a Belgian comic book series called "XIII" (some people here will know it already) which was (for the first two or three books) a shameless Bourne-ripoff: a man washed somewhere on the eastern US-coast. A head injury has erased his whole memory.

I interviewed Jean Van Hamme, the creator of XIII, about five years ago. He has a very nice house. I nearly got kicked out of the interview after about five minutes, because I asked him if he'd been inspired by Bourne for XIII. If you've seen MAGNOLIA, it was a little like the scene where the interviewer asks Tom Cruise about his father. He just stared at me very very coldly for a while, and then was very rude. I managed to get it back on track and it turned out okay, but it's probably the biggest mess I've been in professionally.

What? He really got angry? But it's so obvious that Bourne and XIII started from the same point. Not only exploit both characters the basically same idea (i.e. covert operative loses memory because of head shot) but whole scenes and events are almost identical. To name but a few:

Bourne lost his memory because of a head shot he got on deck of a trawler in the Mediterranian Sea and went overboard.
XIII lost his memory because of a head shot he got on deck of the private yacht of Manguste and went overboard.


Bourne (of the books that is) is treated by an alcoholic male M.D. who lost his licence to practice because of a case of drunkeness while operating a patient.
XIII is treated by an alcoholic female M.D. who lost her licence to practice because of her alcoholism.


Bourne's contact Conklin (a cripple using a crouch) meets Bourne at a cemetary. Bourne is to be shot by a sniper hiding behind a mausoleum. Another killer unconnected to Bourne and Conklin appears to the end of the scene.
XIII's contact Colonel Amos (a cripple using a crouch) meets his client Judge Allenby at a cemetary. Both are to be executed by a sniper hiding behind a headstone. Another killer unconnected to Amos and Allenby appears to the end of the scene and saves Amos.


And so on. There are so many similarities that XIII at times looks like the graphic novel version of a mixture between Ludlum's Bourne and the movies. I'm surprised that XIII (to the best of my knowledge) has never been suited by Ludlum or his heirs. Or maybe they have and Van Hamme was therefore touchy about the matter?

Agree with all your points about Bourne, by the way. I don't see how they can match it back up with Ludlum. But maybe. The way Ludlum did it was pretty bizarre, too.

Frankly, while I quite liked the first Bourne novel, I was considerably disappointed with the second and can hardly remember the third. It all was a bit of anticlimax and my impression was that Ludlum himself wasn't so sure about where to go with his character. Maybe it's all for the better if the scriptwriters don't try to include his plotlines and only use a few of his better ideas and characters. IMHO that's entirely enough for the movies and I think the success the films have up to now proves the producers are on the right track. Not every faithful adaption of a novel is a truely good idea.

Edited by Trident, 23 April 2007 - 07:42 AM.

[spynovelfan]

Yes, Trident, he was angry! Perhaps because my question had yours lurking behind it: 'How the hell have you not been sued by Ludlum's estate yet, mate?' But I somehow managed to rescue the situation, and he was a charming, articulate and thought-provoking interviewee.

Ludlum was a dreadful prose stylist with non-existent characterisation and laughably implausible and impromptu plots. But a lot of his ideas were brilliant and he was a master at cliff-hangers. He didn't sell over 200 million books for nothing. And while XIII clearly took Bourne as its starting point to spin off into an elaborate commentary on the US via a JFK-style conspiracy, Bourne clearly took the end of Fleming's YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE as its starting point, asking what would happen if a super-spy lost his memory. Bourne's Swiss bank account number - the one that leads him to his identity - starts 'Zero Seven...' And when he discovers his identity, his first words are 'My name's Bourne. Jason Bourne.'

[RazorBlade]

Since I'm not a Matt Damon fan, I will be sure and miss this one the way I've missed the first two.

[Mike00spy]

"And I, for one, can't w-wait to s-see what happens next!"

And a gold star to any member who can tell me where that quote comes from.

Dead Again

[dodge]

"And I, for one, can't w-wait to s-see what happens next!"

And a gold star to any member who can tell me where that quote comes from.

Dead Again

Bravo, Mike. Gold star. My all-time fave suspense film.

[RogueSpy007]

Since I'm not a Matt Damon fan, I will be sure and miss this one the way I've missed the first two.

I'm not personally that much of a Matt Damon fan. He's alright I guess, but I do think he's surprised me with the role. So who would you have liked to have seen play Jason Bourne? That goes for everyone else here too. If you were casting the movie, who would you have hired to play Bourne instead of Damon?

[Mike00spy]

"And I, for one, can't w-wait to s-see what happens next!"

And a gold star to any member who can tell me where that quote comes from.

Dead Again

Bravo, Mike. Gold star. My all-time fave suspense film.

And one that many people have missed. I always enjoy showing it to friends and family who have no idea what it is about.

[killkenny kid]

Since I'm not a Matt Damon fan, I will be sure and miss this one the way I've missed the first two.

I think you should join in, as many members can tell you. I wasn't a big Damon fan. But after seeing them ,I was hooked. Give them a try, you like it. ........ I know Tarl, you can't believe I said that.