74 replies to this topic

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

Now, all of you Bourne-is-better-than-Bond'ers etc. it's the opposite: BOND IS BETTER THAN BOURNE!

ING Ditto mate! TOTALLY AGREED! I haven't seen the Bourne movies completely, just some clips of them, so I can't talk about the quality of the film, they might be good. But I'm totally pissed of when Damon, Greengrass, etc. say things like "Bond is outdated", "Bond is an icon of the '60", and everything else.

[DLibrasnow]

Bourne ? Because the next one is called THE BOURNE LEGACY.

Excellent post stamper That's the same thing I thought when I read that previous post.


So, did Fleming rip off Buchan? Did EON rip off Hitchcock? Yes and yes.

[delfloria]

When did fast cut action sequences start with Bourne........ Just watch the fights in OHMSS.

[Leon]

When did fast cut action sequences start with Bourne........ Just watch the fights in OHMSS.

Quite, just yet another example of this false idea that Bond is taking anything from Bourne right now.

As I said in my post on the previous page, the ONLY thing EON have taken from Bourne is the realisation that the darker, grittier style was the way to go back to with Bond (again, yes Bond had already done that before the Bourne films).

Bourne was merely an indicator of trend to EON, there was no copying done or required. Copying is a completely different thing here and that's what some people don't seem to comprehend.

They aquired the rights to Casino Royale at long last, and because Fleming's novel was a darker, grittier Bond they thought the current success of this style of spy film with Bourne was a good indicator to finally make CR and do it as it should be done.

Whether or not you personally wanted an even more faithful adaptation is beside the point and not an argment I wish to start.

As a style of character and narrative Bourne (both the books and films) have borrowed heavily from 007. Bond hasn't borrowed anything from Bourne, and any illusion of this comes only from the fact they are films of the same era and genre and therefore naturally have a similar feel. Just as Licence To Kill has some very similar touches to it as Die Hard, not only with the composer. LTK did not steal from Die Hard, it was influenced by it. Without Bond we may not have even had John McClane with his one-liners/"one man against an army" style.

The same applies for Jason Bourne.

I'm not sure why people seem to be so upset over the comparison.

I can't speak for others but personally I just find it annoying that it KEEPS on cropping up, especially on Bond fan sites, and has been ever since Casino Royale was in production.

How many times can you write proper, knowledgable and researched posts which show how Bond has been there and done that long before Bourne and practically invented what Bourne is before people will stop posting ignorant comparisons.

It just gets annoying, that's all. Surely it is understandable, especially to a fellow Bond fan.

On the other hand it is (or should I say was originally) an interesting point of discussion.

[solace]

Bond comes first but I love the Bourne films and 24 as well. Of course Bourne and Bauer exist because of Bond but so what. They all have their place and there's plenty of room for everyone.

[DLibrasnow]

When did fast cut action sequences start with Bourne........ Just watch the fights in OHMSS.

Come on, fast cutting was not invented by the James Bond series or the Bourne series. Perhaps the most famous instance of the technique was Hitchcock's "Psycho" (1960)

[Leon]

Bond comes first but I love the Bourne films and 24 as well. Of course Bourne and Bauer exist because of Bond but so what. They all have their place and there's plenty of room for everyone.

Of course there is, but that's not the point to this debate.

When did fast cut action sequences start with Bourne........ Just watch the fights in OHMSS.

Come on, fast cutting was not invented by the James Bond series or the Bourne series. Perhaps the most famous instance of the technique was Hitchcock's "Psycho" (1960)

Indeed, yet another good point. It annoys me also when people think some modern film invented some specific aspect such as this and then claim another film has copied it.

[Von Hammerstein]

Something that doesn't get mentioned enough is that the first two Bond films were very realistic. In DN Bond had only his Walther and his wits to stop the baddie. In FRWL every gadget Bond was given was commercially available including the AR-7 folding sniper's rifle, it was actually a gun designed for downed USAF pilots and could be had in any US gun shop. Another thing. The quick-cutting, fast and dirty, close up fight scenes as in FRWL, GF's opening, and DAF's elevator fight for example were invented by the Bond films. Hollywood seems to think that Bourne originated it.

Edited by Von Hammerstein, 27 October 2008 - 09:29 PM.

[Leon]

Another thing. The quick-cutting, fast and dirty, close up fight scenes as in FRWL, GF's opening, and DAF's elevator fight for example were invented by the Bond films.

I would be careful with the words you use, Bond did not "invent" this, it merely took an existing cinematic craft and put it's own swing on it.

Fast editing and "high-octane" style was not really used throughout a film until Bond appeared, but it did exist, as did rough and tumble fight scenes. James Bond films did take this sort of thing and, with many other original and borrowed ideas, create an overall film style that was unique.

The spy and action-hero genres as we know today have had a massive influence from 007.

[double o ego]

Either way, it serves the point that Bond did everything long before Bourne did, which is the focal point of this thread.

[Captain Tightpants]

The way I see it, the reason why Bond is so far beyond Bourne- and anything else, for that matter - is because at its heart and soul, the Bond films offer escapism. If I want to watch a terse, gritty depiction of the spying world, I'll watch Spy Game. Jason Bourne never did most of the things Bond did, so I'm not seeing the comparison.

[DLibrasnow]

The quick-cutting, fast and dirty, close up fight scenes as in FRWL, GF's opening, and DAF's elevator fight for example were invented by the Bond films. Hollywood seems to think that Bourne originated it.

Complete BS Von Hammerstein, the Bond series didn't invent fast cutting.

[DR76]

I would say that this stupid accusation of Bond is a copy of Bourne, started also as a matter of some kind of national pride. As some (not all) americans can't accept the fact that the cultural hegemony was in England in the sixties, hence they're always comparing americans artist (even fictionals like the movie "That Thing You Do") declaring that they were as great or even better than The Beatles, well the same thing happens with the enviable success of Bond through the decades.

What's with the anti-American rhetoric mixed in with the "British is Best" propaganda? When did we suddenly decide that the Bond/Bourne rivalry is all about national pride?


By the way, there is one aspect of the new Bourne movies that seem like a rip-off the Bond movies - namely the character of Pamela Landry. She's a slighly younger version of Judi Dench's M.

[Captain Tightpants]

The quick-cutting, fast and dirty, close up fight scenes as in FRWL, GF's opening, and DAF's elevator fight for example were invented by the Bond films. Hollywood seems to think that Bourne originated it.

Complete BS Von Hammerstein, the Bond series didn't invent fast cutting.

I think his point is more than Hollywood can't seem to remember anything before 2004 or whenever it was that The Bourne Supremacy came out and started using those techniques.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

I would say that this stupid accusation of Bond is a copy of Bourne, started also as a matter of some kind of national pride. As some (not all) americans can't accept the fact that the cultural hegemony was in England in the sixties, hence they're always comparing americans artist (even fictionals like the movie "That Thing You Do") declaring that they were as great or even better than The Beatles, well the same thing happens with the enviable success of Bond through the decades.

What's with the anti-American rhetoric mixed in with the "British is Best" propaganda? When did we suddenly decide that the Bond/Bourne rivalry is all about national pride?


By the way, there is one aspect of the new Bourne movies that seem like a rip-off the Bond movies - namely the character of Pamela Landry. She's a slighly younger version of Judi Dench's M.

If you make a good reading of my ENTIRE earlier post, you will notice that I'm talking only about some americans Bourne fans (not about any american or Bourne fan), and I just put that aspect as a factor, not as whole thing behind the Bond v/s Bourne comparison.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 27 October 2008 - 11:54 PM.

[Publius]

Bourne is to Bond what Martin Luther was to the corrupt medieval Church. Or maybe what John the Baptist was to Jesu--err, nevermind.

And as an American, I agree about the advantage native son Bourne has over Bond. It's just how many Americans are. Then again, Bond is huge in Britain in a way that he isn't anywhere else, so I guess "rooting for the home team" isn't exclusive to us.

[Joey Bond]

I enjoy both of them

I only got into the Bourne films about a month ago when they showed it on TV.

It's not a case of one being better than other in my opinion. True, Bourne (speaking of the Damon films) borrows a lot from Bond in its fundimentals, but it does have its merits: mainly in that Bourne is, right from the start, surviving on his own while Bond works for a government. So when the Bond producers want to raise the stakes and have Bond on his own, they have to recycle the same plot of Bond having his license revoked (LTK, DAD, QOS). Having said that, the three Bourne films were ABOUT how he got his license revoked and all that (I haven't seen Supremacy so I'm not 100% educated on the plot).

With regards to the point of the Bourne films inspiring a more back to basics approach, I actually have to agree with this one. I can really imagine what would have happened had the Bourne films not been there: A fifth Brosnan film (not that it's a bad thing, we just wouldn't have gotten Craig and Royale), in the style of DAD/MR/YOLT.

So while Bourne didn't create Casino Royale (Fleming did, obviously, and Fleming DID inspire Bourne), the Bourne films- I'm debating whether I should use the term 'inspired' or 'reminded'- the Bond producers to make a more realistic thriller that was Casino Royale.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

And as an American, I agree about the advantage native son Bourne has over Bond. It's just how many Americans are. Then again, Bond is huge in Britain in a way that he isn't anywhere else, so I guess "rooting for the home team" isn't exclusive to us.

OK.... but the thing is that it's proved fact (starting with the box office), that James Bond it's much more known worldwide (not just in the UK) than Jason Bourne. Hence it's easier, for some Bourne fans, mess with an already consolidated series, in an attempt to make look bigger a some kind of brand new series, that coud be just the flavor of half of a decade in the action genre.

And again, I'm not even british.

[sharpshooter]

I like both series, but I do believe QoS is going to beat Ultimatum.

[stamper]

Well, it doesn't. It's a way lesser movie than Ultimatum, thoughts Bond fans will probably find solace in it as it's tagged as a Bond film.

[sharpshooter]

Thanks for your opinion. I'll be making my own.

[double o ego]

Well, it doesn't. It's a way lesser movie than Ultimatum, thoughts Bond fans will probably find solace in it as it's tagged as a Bond film.

You serious? The theatrical trailer of QoS dwarfs everything Ultimatum offered.

Identity was the only good film out of the trilogy. Supremacy and ultimatum were just a bunch of, "get Bourne, catch Bourne, find Boune, chase Bourne, we found Bourne, Bourne found us, we lost Bourne, I'm a patriot serving my country" scenes.
Bourne would have been better as a limited tv series.

[SecretAgentFan]

I must say, I prefer SUPREMACY to ULTIMATUM which basically was more of the same but without the urgency. The character of Jason Bourne is just not that interesting, certainly not as interesting as Bond.

The fact that they are doing another Bourne installment does not really excite me. Especially with Greengrass again at the helm. His directing style is kind of a one-trick-pony.

[Safari Suit]

I would say that this stupid accusation of Bond is a copy of Bourne, started also as a matter of some kind of national pride. As some (not all) americans can't accept the fact that the cultural hegemony was in England in the sixties, hence they're always comparing americans artist (even fictionals like the movie "That Thing You Do") declaring that they were as great or even better than The Beatles, well the same thing happens with the enviable success of Bond through the decades.

What's with the anti-American rhetoric mixed in with the "British is Best" propaganda? When did we suddenly decide that the Bond/Bourne rivalry is all about national pride?

I don't think it's nationalistic to say that the British dominated the popular cultural zeitgeist of the 60s (regardless of whether the poster was from the UK), such an opinion can be easily developed from simple observation. I wouldn't be offended if someone said the US have a more successful/productive film industry, because it's undeniable.

[Publius]

I can really imagine what would have happened had the Bourne films not been there: A fifth Brosnan film (not that it's a bad thing, we just wouldn't have gotten Craig and Royale), in the style of DAD/MR/YOLT.

But we can't forget that they had finally acquired the rights to CR right before they made DAD, and after DAD Brosnan's contract expired. The Broccolis have also been sympathetic to this direction for decades, going back to Dalton. Honestly, a bigger influence was probably Batman Begins, and then mostly in the "reboot" angle. But my bigger point is that the stars were aligned for the making of CR and casting of Craig.

OK.... but the thing is that it's proved fact (starting with the box office), that James Bond it's much more known worldwide (not just in the UK) than Jason Bourne.

True, and that's probably because Bond is (correctly) viewed as an international figure as opposed to being strictly British.

Well, it doesn't. It's a way lesser movie than Ultimatum, thoughts Bond fans will probably find solace in it as it's tagged as a Bond film.

Ultimatum was nothing but ACTION!ACTION!ACTION! and zero plot. Fun times, but easily topped.

[Cro Cop]

I think that it is therefore a little unfair to accuse Ludloum of being unoriginal when he wrote the novel.

I agree.

How much of the Bourne film series was influenced by Greengrass? I'm not that clued up on them enough to care.

Even more unfair is the fact that Greengrass gets all the credit for Bourne when it was Doug Liman who directed the first one and brought this character with flair to the big screen. Greengrass took over and employed his quick-cutting-documentary-style which worked very well in the second film with an amazing car chase.

So, I can see where the comparisons stem from. But actually, quick-cutting-action was already done by other directors before Greengrass, especially Michael Bay.

In the end, Greengrass is way overhyped. As is Bourne. Which I still do like. But the character lacks the elegance and depth of Bond.

He lacks the elegance(not depth)of Bond because he is his own character. One built on something more then being a man who likes to drink and shag (Which is about as much as we have gotten out of 40 years of Bond on film). What makes the Bourne films so good, especially Supremacy and Ultimatum, is that they never cheat. Bourne is who he is. They never sacrifice that for what can be called a "cool" moment. Bourne wants to know his past. Who he was, yet he doesn't want to be the monster he very well knows he probably was. His character is interesting because as he stands on that building at the end of Ultimatum all he and we have learned about his past life(kills, training, possible relationships) he is still the man who we saw get off the boat. He is truly at peace with who he was/is.

As for Greengrass, he has earned his place. The man took the Bourne series and made it something more then the simple, but effective first film. A viable franchise all its own.

CR and now QoS are all about attempting to make Bond gritty in the modern sense, something he has never really been. No not the Ian Fleming character or those novels. Those ideas are just window dressing. What they want is their own living and breathing killing machine who "feels", except he dresses nice and drinks a lot. That is fine, but it rings false when you look at a character like Bourne. When they try and make Bond "feel" something after he kills, you shouldn't have him cap 12 people in the film, most of which he doesn't think twice about.

[Shot Your Bolt]

Uh...pretty much what Cro Cop said, but he said much better than I ever could.

[double o ego]

I think that it is therefore a little unfair to accuse Ludloum of being unoriginal when he wrote the novel.

I agree.

How much of the Bourne film series was influenced by Greengrass? I'm not that clued up on them enough to care.

Even more unfair is the fact that Greengrass gets all the credit for Bourne when it was Doug Liman who directed the first one and brought this character with flair to the big screen. Greengrass took over and employed his quick-cutting-documentary-style which worked very well in the second film with an amazing car chase.

So, I can see where the comparisons stem from. But actually, quick-cutting-action was already done by other directors before Greengrass, especially Michael Bay.

In the end, Greengrass is way overhyped. As is Bourne. Which I still do like. But the character lacks the elegance and depth of Bond.

He lacks the elegance(not depth)of Bond because he is his own character. One built on something more then being a man who likes to drink and shag (Which is about as much as we have gotten out of 40 years of Bond on film). What makes the Bourne films so good, especially Supremacy and Ultimatum, is that they never cheat. Bourne is who he is. They never sacrifice that for what can be called a "cool" moment. Bourne wants to know his past. Who he was, yet he doesn't want to be the monster he very well knows he probably was. His character is interesting because as he stands on that building at the end of Ultimatum all he and we have learned about his past life(kills, training, possible relationships) he is still the man who we saw get off the boat. He is truly at peace with who he was/is.

As for Greengrass, he has earned his place. The man took the Bourne series and made it something more then the simple, but effective first film. A viable franchise all its own.

CR and now QoS are all about attempting to make Bond gritty in the modern sense, something he has never really been. No not the Ian Fleming character or those novels. Those ideas are just window dressing. What they want is their own living and breathing killing machine who "feels", except he dresses nice and drinks a lot. That is fine, but it rings false when you look at a character like Bourne. When they try and make Bond "feel" something after he kills, you shouldn't have him cap 12 people in the film, most of which he doesn't think twice about.

You lost points with that last comment. You seem to forget that, Bond feels as you put it because that's the way he is/was before his latter day adventures. Remember, CR and QoS are Bond's origin movies. Bond's behaviour and overall attitude changes after these events. I'm hoping for Bond 23 that Bond still fights the way he does in CR and QoS but is more cavalier about it. Which, reminds me. To say movie Bond has never been gritty is incorrect. Dr.No and FRWL were pretty gritty even TB. Babs has even gone on record as saying that for QoS, they used the Bond Vs Grant fight as the template of hand to hand combat for the movie. Hell, even in TB, the fight between Connery and Simmons was pretty brutal, choking and killing Simmons with a pker stick, which reminded me of Bond fighting and trying to drown the contact at the start of CR.

[Mister E]

Did EON rip off Hitchcock?

Yep. NORTH BY NORTHWEST influenced the film series alot, especially the first two films. Hell, there isn't a single James Bond film that is as good as that film.

[Judo chop]

Bourne is to Bond what Martin Luther was to the corrupt medieval Church. Or maybe what John the Baptist was to Jesu--err, nevermind.

I love analogies, and I love church history, but I don't get it.
Bond pre-dates, and was later revamped by, Bourne. Ok.
The Church pre-dates, and was later revamped by, Luther. Ok.
Jesus pre-dates, and was later revamped by, John the Baptist?

What am I missing?

And as an American, I agree about the advantage native son Bourne has over Bond.

I think any pro-American sentiment festers in the younger demographics. That is a result of Bond growing stale throughout the 80’s and 90’s, failing to accumulate new fans, and the younger generation growing up to see Bourne kicking while Bond talks dirty and rides bad CGI waves.

Maybe those younger folks who have grown up looking at Bond with a patronizing ‘you’re so old school’ eye developed an “American is better” attitude, but I don’t give the theory too much credit otherwise. It may be true in small doses, but I don't see it working as a major force.