74 replies to this topic

[stamper]

Wait until you see QOS of course, I just offer my opinion, and I'm afraid it will sadly be shared by many once they see the film.

Trust me, I wish this was 11/10 to Casino Royale, rather than as Graham Rhye note, 1/10.

[Judo chop]

Wait until you see QOS of course, I just offer my opinion, and I'm afraid it will sadly be shared by many once they see the film.

NOW what are you saying? That Bond has hijacked the Paul Greengrass style of direction? Just a second ago you were comparing the mistakes of QOS to the mistakes of DAD!

I can see that you're upset and I don't doubt that, but I'm not sure you've really collected your thoughts as to why.

[NVT]

Bond is not a copy, borrowed qualities maybe like anyone, but anyway Bond get laid more often than Jason. Now thats a big difference.

[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.

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.

Uh how do I lose points when that all happens in CR? He "feels" and doesn't from kill to kill. It is like a lottery. Also those films aren't gritty. The Wild Bunch and Sword of Doom are gritty. Insane, but gritty. Bond vs. Grant is laughable in comparison. It is like watching a bunch of kids at their local judo class.

Edited by Cro Cop, 29 October 2008 - 12:38 AM.

[Harmsway]

Uh how do I lose points when that all happens in CR? He "feels" and doesn't from kill to kill.

Is that particularly inconsistent? Why would every kill be exactly the same experience for him? One can still find a job distasteful on the whole, but find that one's actual experience with it varies from job to job because of context. Nevermind that his sense of duty frequently will override his distaste for killing, so in plenty of sequences we see him kill and then quickly move on to the task at hand. It doesn't mean he enjoyed what he did.

So no, I don't have any problem at all believing that the same guy who seems disgusted in the bathroom fight would be the same guy who could kill a man in cold blood with a clip, or shoot a terrorist bomber in anger, or crack a dark smile when a would-be terrorist accidentally blows himself to bits. Context is key.

[Cro Cop]

That isn't context, that is whether he likes his kills or not. Bond the professional killer judges whether he feels bad or not on whether the person made him cranky. I like the idea that using his gun leaves him detached but they sort of lose that with the stabbing.

[Syndicate]

The one thing that really pisses me of, is people who say that James Bond is copying Jason Bourne... Hmm? No. It's actually quite the opposite.

The first official James Bond film came out in 1962, it was Dr. No, starring Sean Connery as 007. 40 years later a rather dull action flick hit the screens, it was called The Bourne Identity. The director of the film, Doug Liman, wanted to create something similar to Bond, sort of a new generation of spy thrillers. The Bourne Identity took many ideas from previous James Bond films.

A year later, in 2002, the 20th James Bond film, Die Another Day, came out. This film was a catastrofe, with bad CGI, lots of silly gadgets, a bad story etc. The opposite of what Ian Fleming, the creator of James Bond, wrote about in his books (from 1953 - 1966). The Bond producers had to do something about this. They desided that they wanted to go back to what they had started with, and make a Bond film as Ian Fleming would have done. They hired the British actor, Daniel Craig, to play the role of James Bond in the 21st Bond adventure, Casino Royale. In Casino Royale, we see Bond as a cold and rough-edged man, just as Ian Fleming had described in his books, instead of a sleek person that doesn't seem to bleed(refering to Pierce Brosnan, and some of the Roger Moore films). Casino Royale became the most successful Bond film ever.

But then, some people (including the Jason Bourne actor Matt Damon), comes of saying that Casino Royale is a copy of the Jason Bourne films. The reason: Because the movie was realistic... That's excactly my point, Ian Fleming's James Bond is realistic!

The 3rd Jason Bourne film, The Bourne Ultimatum, came out in 2007. Parts of this film was stolen from the 007 film, The Living Daylights (1987). In The Living Daylights we see Bond escaping from the egyptian police through the narrow streets of Tangier, and later running across the rooftops. In The Bourne Ultimatum, the excact same thing happens, in the excact same city; Jason Bourne escaping from the egyptian police through the streets and rooftops of Tangier. Hmm... Is James Bond a copy of Jason Bourne, or is it the other way?

Now, just days before the premiere of Quantum Of Solace, some people are still comparing Bond with Bourne. They say the editing is a bit similar. Did they sleep through the movie? I saw the 20 minutes-screening, and it is edited in the same way as Casino Royale. Quantum Of Solace used the same stunt coordinator as The Bourne Supremacy and The Bourne Ultimatum, but what the hell, Marc Forster directed Finding Neverland. Some people also say that the QoS-car chase is inspired by the Bourne car chases. No, a car chase is a car chase.

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

I still don't know why people are comparing Bourne to Bond, when the film makers of Bourne can not even decide is Bourne a superspy or close to real world type spy. If Jason Bourne is a superspy all he would be like The Man From Uncle and Mission Impossible in my view not the kind of superspy James Bond is. From what I heard from my little brother the movie The Bourne Ultimatum is different from the novel. He said there is something in novel about the Jackal and going after him. I don't what did Robert Ludlum wanted Jason Bourne to be a superspy or a close to the real world type spy, since I'm not a Robert Ludlum fan. I'm a big Tom Clancy and John Le Carre fan and some what of Vince Flynn fan. Since the film makers can decide don't even compare it to Jame Bond, Jack Ryan, John Clark or George Smiley. Until they can and Robert Ludlum's people can then start comping him what he is.

Edited by Syndicate, 29 October 2008 - 01:02 AM.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

That isn't context, that is whether he likes his kills or not. Bond the professional killer judges whether he feels bad or not on whether the person made him cranky. I like the idea that using his gun leaves him detached but they sort of lose that with the stabbing.

Well, that's Fleming Bond!! In the novels he doesn't 'feel' for any kill, just for some particularly crude ones.

At the begining of the novel Goldfinger he's affected for a kill (and it's context, like other poster mentioned), not for all the kills that he had made previously.

[Mister E]

Trust me, I wish this was 11/10 to Casino Royale, rather than as Graham Rhye note, 1/10.

I think both scores are silly.

[Publius]

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?

John the Baptist "paved the way" (and rebuffed attempts to follow him) for the arrival of Our Savior, although that was really just the return of the Almighty. Bourne and Craig plug in obviously, and the other is Connery. It was meant as a different, more extreme analogy. I didn't mean to imply Bond is in any way bigger or more important than Jesus Christ.

[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.

Uh how do I lose points when that all happens in CR? He "feels" and doesn't from kill to kill. It is like a lottery. Also those films aren't gritty. The Wild Bunch and Sword of Doom are gritty. Insane, but gritty. Bond vs. Grant is laughable in comparison. It is like watching a bunch of kids at their local judo class.

You lose points because you don't seem to understand that Bond is a human being, with CR and QoS being the movies to emphasise this moreso than any other Bond movie thus far. Bond is supposed to be fickle right now, he's supposed to rely more on instinct than intelligence. As for the movies I mentioned, they were gritty. They may not be hardcore gritty but they're still gritty and please, trying to diminish the value and intensity of the Bond vs Grant fight works against you. These are fantasy spy thrillers. Whereas the likes of the wildbunch here in the UK is an 18 and rated R in america. Just because Bond doesn't have wild west massacres in it doesn't mean the likes of Dr.No and FRWL aren't gritty.

[Mister E]

I didn't mean to imply Bond is in any way bigger or more important than Jesus Christ.

He is in my book 'cause they're both fictional characters.

[double o ego]

Jesus was very very real.

[Judo chop]

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?

John the Baptist "paved the way" (and rebuffed attempts to follow him) for the arrival of Our Savior, although that was really just the return of the Almighty. Bourne and Craig plug in obviously, and the other is Connery. It was meant as a different, more extreme analogy. I didn't mean to imply Bond is in any way bigger or more important than Jesus Christ.

No, no... I didn't read it that way. I just didn't get the analogy since you shifted patterns on me so suddenly. Too much of that low hanging fruit in the system has obviously dulled my wits.

But I get it now. Thank you.

Now... how to take this back OT? Um... how about a quote from Apollo Creed?

Jason Bourne fights great, but James Bond is a great fighter.

[killkenny kid]

Bond is not a copy, borrowed qualities maybe like anyone, but anyway Bond get laid more often than Jason. Now thats a big difference.

Lol, I guess you are right about that. Now take that Matt.