107 replies to this topic

[SecretAgentFan]

Not true.  It takes a long time until he goes back and he is still suffering from the pain, taking painkillers, failing the stress test.

 

Bourne just gets up, for example, when he crashes in his cars as if he were the Terminator.

[saint mark]

Not true.  It takes a long time until he goes back and he is still suffering from the pain, taking painkillers, failing the stress test.

 

Bourne just gets up, for example, when he crashes in his cars as if he were the Terminator.

 

kindly take the blinders of when refering to James Terminator Bond as played by Daniel Craig. His Bond is unstoppable and has become the most boring franchise currently running. They should get somebody fresh to steer the series away from the pretentious directors and make 007 be a human for once, and not everything is personal.

 

As for SF we never get to know how long he was away, who patched him up and why only that he did survive something and came back to act like he was a flipping terminator in his actions, unstoppable for an agent which was supposed to be so dramatically hurt, his recovery time was close to bloody amazing putting this Jewish Fella at the dawn of calendar to shame. 

 

Bourne on the other hand is far more modern spy-like with his knowledge of traveling and modern media to use, he knows how to use his skills to disappear and appear. The three Bourne movies were something far more innovating than anything EON has done with 007 for quite  while. IMHO of course.

[Hockey Mask]

Not true. It takes a long time until he goes back and he is still suffering from the pain, taking painkillers, failing the stress test.

Bourne just gets up, for example, when he crashes in his cars as if he were the Terminator.

kindly take the blinders of when refering to James Terminator Bond as played by Daniel Craig. His Bond is unstoppable and has become the most boring franchise currently running. They should get somebody fresh to steer the series away from the pretentious directors and make 007 be a human for once, and not everything is personal.

As for SF we never get to know how long he was away, who patched him up and why only that he did survive something and came back to act like he was a flipping terminator in his actions, unstoppable for an agent which was supposed to be so dramatically hurt, his recovery time was close to bloody amazing putting this Jewish Fella at the dawn of calendar to shame.

Bourne on the other hand is far more modern spy-like with his knowledge of traveling and modern media to use, he knows how to use his skills to disappear and appear. The three Bourne movies were something far more innovating than anything EON has done with 007 for quite while. IMHO of course.

First, I Think there is plenty of room for fans of both Bond and Bourne and positives for both. Keep In mind there are four Bourne movies. You seemed to leave one out. Not sure if that was for convenience or not. Let's see how innovative Bourne is after 19 more sequels. Easier said than done.

-Fan of Both

Edited by Hockey Mask, 01 May 2016 - 09:41 PM.

[hoagy]

Really ?  Other than the one with Jeremy Renner -- who do you call when you think your spy movie franchise is about to lose its lead actor ?  Jeremy Renner, witness Mission: Impossible and Jason Bourne, for both of which the stars wisened up and returned, likely begged back by the producers/studios who saw the effort fail -- the Bourne movies are the witless wonders...Bourne cannot remember...then has flashbacks to what made his snap....oh, no, as we see in the NEXT film that other stuff certainly was troubling but, no, THIS was what made him snap...rinse, recycle, repeat.  Certainly, adventuresome action secret agent movies are prone to "rinse, recycle, repeat" but that is not the case for the 4 Craig Bonds by any means.

Apparently, even the Bourne folks got bored, since the next one will not get titled in the manner all the books and films to date were, which was "The Bourne [insert multi-syllabic noun here]".  Previews indicate this one simply will be entitled "Jason Bourne."  Here's hoping they break free of the repetitive pattern.  Perhaps the title is an indication they will accomplish just that.

As for the assertions that Craig's Bond does not show the effects of injuries -- physical, psychological, emotional -- that is simply and utterly inaccurate.  In fact, many fans have complained of the "broken and hurting Bond drags himself up one more time" tendencies of the Craig films.  Bond's recovery times obviously have been lengthy, and some things he never has recovered from, all through the end of Craig's 4th film.

As for Bourne being "far more modern spy-like" please consider that BOTH these characters and their stories are quite UN-spy-like.  In fact, neither ever was described as a "spy."  They are agents, as in, agents of destruction, of assassination, of disruption.  Spies are milk-toast and plain, quite unnoticeable and intentionally so.  That is what enables them to gather intelligence and send it back.

Did I really write that ?  Apologies...the correct spelling, of course, is "milquetoast"

[SecretAgentFan]

 

Not true.  It takes a long time until he goes back and he is still suffering from the pain, taking painkillers, failing the stress test.

 

Bourne just gets up, for example, when he crashes in his cars as if he were the Terminator.

 

kindly take the blinders of when refering to James Terminator Bond as played by Daniel Craig. His Bond is unstoppable and has become the most boring franchise currently running. They should get somebody fresh to steer the series away from the pretentious directors and make 007 be a human for once, and not everything is personal.

 

As for SF we never get to know how long he was away, who patched him up and why only that he did survive something and came back to act like he was a flipping terminator in his actions, unstoppable for an agent which was supposed to be so dramatically hurt, his recovery time was close to bloody amazing putting this Jewish Fella at the dawn of calendar to shame. 

 

Bourne on the other hand is far more modern spy-like with his knowledge of traveling and modern media to use, he knows how to use his skills to disappear and appear. The three Bourne movies were something far more innovating than anything EON has done with 007 for quite  while. IMHO of course.

 

 

Yay, I´m getting into a p....-match on a message board!

 

Just please be aware that you are changing the topic when I talk about the longer "healing time" and you refer to Bourne´s knowledge of "traveling and modern media".

 

You also think Bourne was "far more innovating" than the Craig era - but I have to break it to you: shakycam was done decades before Greengrass employed it to the hilt.

 

In the end: love Bourne all you want.  I love it when people are enthusiastic about something.

[AngusMcLean]

I've never understood why there is such a Bond-v-Bourne thing going on out there...both great characters, different agencies, different cultures, different backgrounds etc.

 

It's actually possible to dig both of them, I really enjoy them both for different reasons. Craig's Bond has suffered physically, emotionally and psychologically, dragged himself back into the game and kept going-just as he did in the books. Personally I hope that both series continue because they're both cool in their own right.

[hoagy]

For me it is not "Bond vs Bourne."  For example, I have enjoyed tremendously nearly each Mission: Impossible movie.  The last few just keep getting stronger and stronger.  I very much enjoyed The Man From U.N.C.L.E.  I am enjoying The Night Manager, 3 episodes aired to date on AMC in the USA.  Years ago, I enjoyed the Flint (James Coburn) and Matt Helm (Dean Martin) films.  And, I have enjoyed each Bourne film...but...starting with the second one, they really have gotten repetitive and confusing in the sense that each film supposedly shows Bourne figuring out just which event made him snap...and in the next film, a similar event is recalled and oh, yeah, sorry, THIS is what made him snap...Sure, many films basically repeat their approaches/themes, etc. but this bit does not do well in repetition.  As I've noted, the next film breaks with the author's and the prior film's manner of titling, so perhaps it will be different in other ways, too.

[S K Y F A L L]

TV spot for JASON BOURNE

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/75383

[Tarl_Cabot]

Saw Jason Bourne....it was dissapointing. No character evolution for Bourne at all. 12 years on and hes not doing anything interesting but trying to be Rambo(III). Nicky Parsons' character is living a more purposeful life off the grid. The new twist that explains why Bourne joined the CIA is interesting but it created a plothole(why does the asset who killed his father not get deployed to kill Bourne in 1,2, or 3. The CIA also hasnt changed. They are still the scum of the earth no matter who is in charge. This film should have been called the Bourne Redundancy.. The fighting was not as good as in revious outings and having loose a female companion to a sniper while in a moving vehicle AGAIN was just a head scratcher. Bourne the franchise has lost a step or two.

 

James Bond > Jason Bourne

[Dustin]

I will probably pass on it till it's shown in thin slices on the telly. I skipped a lot of absolutely 'essential' stuff recently - and I noted the world is still turning and my life has remarkably improved. Bourne can live without me following his adventures.

[sharpshooter]

Saw Jason Bourne....it was dissapointing. No character evolution for Bourne at all. 12 years on and hes not doing anything interesting but trying to be Rambo(III). Nicky Parsons' character is living a more purposeful life off the grid. The new twist that explains why Bourne joined the CIA is interesting but it created a plothole(why does the asset who killed his father not get deployed to kill Bourne in 1,2, or 3. The CIA also hasnt changed. They are still the scum of the earth no matter who is in charge. This film should have been called the Bourne Redundancy.. The fighting was not as good as in revious outings and having loose a female companion to a sniper while in a moving vehicle AGAIN was just a head scratcher. Bourne the franchise has lost a step or two.

Sadly, I agree with everything you typed here. The movie was basically an underwhelming retread which wasn't necessary. 

[SecretAgentFan]

I skipped a lot of absolutely 'essential' stuff recently - and I noted the world is still turning and my life has remarkably improved.

 

Strangely, that´s exactly what I experience this year.

 

Although, one might argue that there is just less essential stuff out there in recent years.  This year in particular. 

 

To free oneself from unusual clutter (which previously felt important) is definitely liberating, and I wonder why I only discovered this now.

[Simon]

Of course, we could all just be getting older and more world weary...

[Dustin]

That's definitely the case with me, I won't deny it. I don't begrudge the fans their fun, it's just no longer so interesting for me; the whole action-shtick is not so terribly exciting and as a character the film version of Bourne is probably more effective the less we know and see of him. For me the story was told to its natural conclusion, picking it up again without convincing development is trite. And using political pretentiousness just as excuse for the action fest undercuts the fun for me; in that case every Taken/White House Down/Olympus-whatever fodder is a more honest pastime without any aspirations to be relevant.

I would have been much more interested in Damon revisiting his Good Will Hunting character. Or - better still - Tom Ripley in a couple of films set in the 70s. I think Damon would have a lot to show about this guy and it would be endlessly more intriguing for me to follow that trace. Sadly, it's probably out of the question such projects would find a studio today.

[The Dove]

Thought I'd throw my 2 cents in.. I've seen Jason Bourne twice now and absolutely LOVED IT!!    I give it a 4 out of 5.. It's definitely the right way to take the character as older and evolved in the logical direction as someone who has been put through the hell of being a Treadstone assassin. Plus it was wonderful having John Powell (along with David Buckley) back to score the movie.. brought the classic Jason Bourne feel right back.

[Dustin]

Happy for you if you enjoyed it, Dove.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Thought I'd throw my 2 cents in.. I've seen Jason Bourne twice now and absolutely LOVED IT!!    I give it a 4 out of 5.. It's definitely the right way to take the character as older and evolved in the logical direction as someone who has been put through the hell of being a Treadstone assassin. Plus it was wonderful having John Powell (along with David Buckley) back to score the movie.. brought the classic Jason Bourne feel right back.

but he doesnt evolve! More like devolve into a thug fighter for chea money and entertainment. Get over it  Jason! Go get a PHD and become a rofessor of international relations or poly sci like your literary counterpart. start a anti CIA blog...something! get a job you moron!! so unimressed with this script that it made Nicky more interesting than Bourne(Nicky!!). I was a huge fanboy for this franchise and Im way back more looking forward to John Wick films now.

sorry for my bad grammar... my keyboard is jacked up...the p character is out of commision.

[Vauxhall]

Saw JASON BOURNE a couple of days ago. Again, pretty disappointed overall. I like Matt Damon and Alicia Vikander, and Vincent Cassel was excellent. As for the plot, it was only okay, given that it retreads familiar ideas of hacktivism and less than trustworthy agents. But my main gripe is the length of some of the action sequences - the Athens and Las Vegas sequences seemed never-ending; great stunt work, of course, but felt like they were just trying to fill their allotted space.

Edited by Vauxhall, 24 August 2016 - 12:33 AM.