Bourne now not Bond

tributeman

Having been introduced to James Bond when I was 18 back in 1962 when seeing Dr No for the first time I have to say that since Diamonds Are Forever no other Bond film has interested me.Then came The Bourne Identity film and a brilliant performance by Matt Damon who for me anyway is the modern equivilent of what I first saw back in 1962.New,exciting and with a rawness that has been missing from the Bond films in the modern era. So its Bourne not Bond for me now.

jonny-dh

Ok. Glad you found something that you like.

emtiem

Seems fair enough- they are very good. I'm very much looking forward to the new one.

7289

The Bourne films are okay, but no film series touches oo7. In the 21 films there are some stinkers.

I think Casino Royale '06 is every bit the equal of a "Bourne" film, and I find DC a better actor and more interesting protagonist than Mr. Damon.

Dan Same

I didn't love CR and I think that Craig's performance was vastky overrated, but I'll always prefer Bond over Bourne. I enjoyed the Bourne films, but the Bond films (even in the Craig era) are still among my great loves. :007)

John Drake

I would rate CR as being a better film than the very good The Bourne Identity. However I love The Bourne Supremacy and consider it to be one of the finest action films ever made. I think the success of the Bourne films forced Eon to raise their game and deliver something special with CR. I'm hoping that Bond 22 follow the success of Bourne, by delivering a follow-up that is even better than the first movie.

Loeffelholz

Tributeman, I'd advise you to just stay away from Bond in the near term; he's just not Sean Connery anymore...Best, I think, to check back when they're in pre-prod for Bourne #22 B-)

Happy trails {[]

emtiem

John Drake wrote:

I would rate CR as being a better film than the very good The Bourne Identity. However I love The Bourne Supremacy and consider it to be one of the finest action films ever made.

Yeah definitely- I think it's superb. I'd have to say it takes my trophy for best car chase ever, too- edging ahead of Ronin. I really like the soundtrack too.

Dan Same

emtiem wrote:

John Drake wrote:

I would rate CR as being a better film than the very good The Bourne Identity. However I love The Bourne Supremacy and consider it to be one of the finest action films ever made.

Yeah definitely- I think it's superb. I'd have to say it takes my trophy for best car chase ever, too- edging ahead of Ronin. I really like the soundtrack too.

I've only ever seen The Bourne Supremacy once, however what I can remember of the film is that I could hardly see what was happening during the chase. A terrific film, but Greengrass really annoys me with his hyper-realistic style.

emtiem

Well it wasn't that bad; it's certainly no trouble to see what's happening. The shaky cam stuff was a bit annoying in a few scenes (mainly ones where nothing is happening- the quiet moments don't need wobbling; it feels a bit contrived then, but it adds to the tense scenes) and is made much worse by watching in a cinema- Supremacy was much better to watch on DVD as I remember.

jonny-dh

No doubt that the best chase scene ever filmed was in "Bullitt."

Hardyboy

Apparently, it's war. Look what I found, from the AP:

Jason Bourne Versus James Bond: Matt Damon Finds His Screen Version of Bourne the Better Man

07-24-2007 12:59 PM
By DAVID GERMAIN, AP Movie Writer

LOS ANGELES (Associated Press) -- Matt Damon's amnesiac assassin Jason Bourne shares initials with another notorious screen operative. But other than that, Damon doesn't see any similarities between Bourne and James Bond.

Bond is "an imperialist and he's a misogynist. He kills people and laughs and sips martinis and wisecracks about it," Damon, 36, told The Associated Press in an interview.

Damon's new film, "The Bourne Ultimatum," opens Aug. 3.

"Bourne is this paranoid guy. He's on the run. He's not the government. The government is after him. He's a serial monogamist who's in love with his dead girlfriend and can't stop thinking about her," Damon said. "He's the opposite of James Bond."

The third movie in the series based on Robert Ludlum's books sends Damon's penitent killer back to his roots to uncover how he became such a perfect weapon and who was responsible.

Damon said he bumped into former Bond star Pierce Brosnan in London and they chatted briefly about how the British super-spy's movie handlers were trying to update the character with last fall's "Casino Royale," which introduced Daniel Craig as Bond.

Brosnan told him the aesthetics and style of Bond can be updated "but fundamentally, what the character is is something from the 1960s," Damon said.

Paul Greengrass, Damon's director on Universal's "Bourne Ultimatum" and its 2004 predecessor, "The Bourne Supremacy," agreed that Bond is a relic from a different era.

"He's an insider. He likes being a secret agent. He worships at the altar of technology. He loves his gadgets. And he embodies this whole set of misogynistic values," Greengrass said. "He likes violence. That's part of the appeal of the character. He has no guilt. He's essentially an imperial adventurer of a particularly English sort.

"Personally, I spit on those values. I think we've moved on a little bit from all that, the martini shaken, not stirred."

Bourne and Bond may be very different men, but that still leaves the big question: Which one would win in a fight?

"It's tough. I wouldn't bet against Bourne," Damon said. "Bond had all those gadgets, though."

Oh, I just love all that--Bond is an imperialist and a misogynist. He's a relic from the 1960s. Paul Greengrass "spits on" Bond's values. Fine and dandy. Let's see how long Bourne lasts. Will there be a 22nd film, with Bourne still trying to figure out his past and running from the government? That, my friends is a limited formula with virtually no flexibility. Ten years from now, while the Bond films are still rolling along, people will look back on the Bourne movies and say, "Those were cool, but they're so first-decade-of-the-twenty-first-century now!"

highhopes

Hardyboy wrote:

Apparently, it's war. Look what I found, from the AP:

Jason Bourne Versus James Bond: Matt Damon Finds His Screen Version of Bourne the Better Man

07-24-2007 12:59 PM
By DAVID GERMAIN, AP Movie Writer

LOS ANGELES (Associated Press) -- Matt Damon's amnesiac assassin Jason Bourne shares initials with another notorious screen operative. But other than that, Damon doesn't see any similarities between Bourne and James Bond.

Bond is "an imperialist and he's a misogynist. He kills people and laughs and sips martinis and wisecracks about it," Damon, 36, told The Associated Press in an interview.

Damon's new film, "The Bourne Ultimatum," opens Aug. 3.

"Bourne is this paranoid guy. He's on the run. He's not the government. The government is after him. He's a serial monogamist who's in love with his dead girlfriend and can't stop thinking about her," Damon said. "He's the opposite of James Bond."

The third movie in the series based on Robert Ludlum's books sends Damon's penitent killer back to his roots to uncover how he became such a perfect weapon and who was responsible.

Damon said he bumped into former Bond star Pierce Brosnan in London and they chatted briefly about how the British super-spy's movie handlers were trying to update the character with last fall's "Casino Royale," which introduced Daniel Craig as Bond.

Brosnan told him the aesthetics and style of Bond can be updated "but fundamentally, what the character is is something from the 1960s," Damon said.

Paul Greengrass, Damon's director on Universal's "Bourne Ultimatum" and its 2004 predecessor, "The Bourne Supremacy," agreed that Bond is a relic from a different era.

"He's an insider. He likes being a secret agent. He worships at the altar of technology. He loves his gadgets. And he embodies this whole set of misogynistic values," Greengrass said. "He likes violence. That's part of the appeal of the character. He has no guilt. He's essentially an imperial adventurer of a particularly English sort.

"Personally, I spit on those values. I think we've moved on a little bit from all that, the martini shaken, not stirred."

Bourne and Bond may be very different men, but that still leaves the big question: Which one would win in a fight?

"It's tough. I wouldn't bet against Bourne," Damon said. "Bond had all those gadgets, though."

Oh, I just love all that--Bond is an imperialist and a misogynist. He's a relic from the 1960s. Paul Greengrass "spits on" Bond's values. Fine and dandy. Let's see how long Bourne lasts. Will there be a 22nd film, with Bourne still trying to figure out his past and running from the government? That, my friends is a limited formula with virtually no flexibility. Ten years from now, while the Bond films are still rolling along, people will look back on the Bourne movies and say, "Those were cool, but they're so first-decade-of-the-twenty-first-century now!"

Greengrass is full of gas. Doesn't he realize that in this day and age, that the unredeemibly evil, mustache-twirling intelligence agency is as big a cliche as anything in film, and a pretty tired one to boot. Hardy is right -- if Bond is formulaic, so is Bourne. And with less room to maneuver since he despises the job.

Thomas Crown

Hardyboy wrote:

Oh, I just love all that--Bond is an imperialist and a misogynist. He's a relic from the 1960s. Paul Greengrass "spits on" Bond's values. Fine and dandy. Let's see how long Bourne lasts. Will there be a 22nd film, with Bourne still trying to figure out his past and running from the government? That, my friends is a limited formula with virtually no flexibility. Ten years from now, while the Bond films are still rolling along, people will look back on the Bourne movies and say, "Those were cool, but they're so first-decade-of-the-twenty-first-century now!"

Exactly my point! Don't get me wrong, I like Matt Damon as an actor, and the films have some cool locations and action scenes, but the fact is the Bourne films are the epitome of sameness. Watching the most recent trailer and listening to Damon utter something to the effect of "I'm going to find who did this to me," I'm suddenly left in awe that the super secret agent Jason Bourne has, after nearly five years and two full length feature films, still has no freaking clue who he really is and who stole his identity!!

007 does have similar conventions, and I too despise many of the films that attempt to be little more than Goldfinger remakes. But in the early films, notably the first four and OHMSS we see different sides of Bonds character develop, the series itself evolve from a detective-style thriller to one of the first ever blockbusters of the modern era. And now with Daniel Craigs 007, I feel like we are going to see that same level (and perhaps even a greater level) of character development and series evolution. The Bond series is heading back to its roots and making them relevant in the modern era. The Bourne series (no pun intended) is stuck in a memory lapse.

7289

I guess everything is political these days. What is all this "imperialist" cr*p? I must have missed the Bond films in which the UK invaded the USSR or launched attacks against Germany and France.

In the Bond movies I have seen that is usually the villain's agenda not oo7's.

Sounds to me like naked jealously and a lack of education and class on the part of Damon and his co-horts.

RobertSMiller

He has never read a Bond novel has he?

Dan Same

Hardyboy wrote:

"Personally, I spit on those values. I think we've moved on a little bit from all that, the martini shaken, not stirred."

) I know, and you, Paul, are so perfect. ) Personally, I think Greengrass's recent success has gotten to his head.

John Drake

To a certain extent I kind of agree with them. As a Scot I'm not exactly Queen and country either. But it's not the establishment elements that interest me about Bond. I honestly think Greengrass or Damon didn't see CR, and certainly haven't seen some of the other Bond films when 007 is showing as much distaste for his own side as he does the opposition. Dalton's Bond has more in common with Bourne than he does with Roger Moore's Bond. The 007 they are talking about is more like a parody of what many people think Bond is, rather than what it has actually been. It's fitting that Damon spoke to Brosnan, who much as I like him as an actor, was unfortunate enough to star in four Bond films that never got further than pastiche. There's a lot more to Bond than dry martini's and all that crap. I thought CR proved that fairly emphatically. I guess it wasn't emphatic enough. Well, they can always make up for it with Bond 22. :007) Still, I am looking forward to the new Bourne film.

Loeffelholz

Very unbecoming of the Bourne guys to be slagging Bond as they are...but it's all part of the press junket b******t. The two franchises are really quite different---that much is obvious without anybody 'spitting on' anything 8-)

The Bournes, when all is said and done, will be three entertaining pictures made using the titles of three Robert Ludlum books...and that's pretty much it. This is their time in the sun, and they should enjoy it...but that sun is already past its zenith, and will soon be moving toward the horizon...dusk...and nightfall.

James Bond, on the other hand---Imperialist, misogynist womanizer, martini-drinking, chain-smoking*, sardonic anti-hero---has no finite life span.

Which would you rather be? B-)

:007)

* Literary version only

emtiem

Thomas Crown wrote:

007 does have similar conventions, and I too despise many of the films that attempt to be little more than Goldfinger remakes. But in the early films, notably the first four and OHMSS we see different sides of Bonds character develop, the series itself evolve from a detective-style thriller to one of the first ever blockbusters of the modern era. And now with Daniel Craigs 007, I feel like we are going to see that same level (and perhaps even a greater level) of character development and series evolution. The Bond series is heading back to its roots and making them relevant in the modern era. The Bourne series (no pun intended) is stuck in a memory lapse.

I think it's a bit of a reach to say that Bond's character developed; he never really has that much of a character- he's just a cypher. That's what helped to make the films fun; it's not a bad thing. But Bourne actually has a predicament which will change him and leave him a different person after he's come through that process, which is what is supposed to happen to movie characters. Bond never has done that (which the exception of perhaps the new Craig Bond, which was influenced by Bourne)- his character never developed. What's the difference between him in Dr No and him in Thunderball or YOLT? What has he learnt?

Loeffelholz wrote:

The Bournes, when all is said and done, will be three entertaining pictures made using the titles of three Robert Ludlum books...and that's pretty much it. This is their time in the sun, and they should enjoy it...but that sun is already past its zenith, and will soon be moving toward the horizon...dusk...and nightfall.

James Bond, on the other hand---Imperialist, misogynist womanizer, martini-drinking, chain-smoking*, sardonic anti-hero---has no finite life span.

Which would you rather be? B-)

Well I don't know if just being to continue indefinitely automatically makes one better than the other; it just means there's more of it. Quality doesn't equal quantity. In fact, having a finite lifespan rather supports the idea that his character develops more- once his story is told he'll be in a different circumstance and his situation and character will have developed from where he started from.

As you say, they're pretty different approaches to the same thing, and reasonably hard to compare because they set out to do different things- it's only about 'wanting to be him' in Bond's case- you're not supposed to want to 'be' the hero in every bit of drama (are you supposed to want to 'be' Macbeth?); only in wish fufillment stuff like Bond, which isn't what Bourne is. I think they're both great.

jonny-dh wrote:

No doubt that the best chase scene ever filmed was in "Bullitt."

Ah well! I'd say there's doubt; it's fun but I always feel more excited by the Ronin and Bourne chases; actually having significance to the plot helps a lot to generate some tension- the Bullit chase just sort of happens and doesn't really have much to do with anything.

Napoleon Plural

A fine post emtiem, and about what I think. But Bourne fits into the category of most modern action films, it's a trilogy really, like Die Hard and Indiana Jones (the fourth is always pushing it...)

Now Bond's longevity is something to behold but again, it's quantity over quality.

That said, I do find the imperialistic and mysogynistic accusations quite bizarre. There's no mistaking that Bourne's centre of gravity differs to Bond's, but it's like comparing apples to oranges, or Batman and Superman.

Actually Bourne is more akin to Superman or that kind of comic book hero who suddenly has these powers ('You won't like me when I'm angry') and kicks off. when otherwise he's an everyday Joe like the rest of us. That's why we identify with him, whereas we want to identify with Bond.

emtiem

Goodness; look at these reviews:
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/33431
http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117934251.html?categoryid=31&cs=1
http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/archives/2007/07/ultimatum.php

I'm very much looking forward to this.

John Drake

emtiem wrote:

Goodness; look at these reviews:
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/33431
http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117934251.html?categoryid=31&cs=1
http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/archives/2007/07/ultimatum.php

I'm very much looking forward to this.

{[] for posting these Em. Likewise, I am seriously looking forward to this. Loved the Hollywood elsewhere piece. And the comparison to the FRWL fight sequence bodes well.

Loeffelholz

emtiem wrote:

As you say, they're pretty different approaches to the same thing, and reasonably hard to compare because they set out to do different things- it's only about 'wanting to be him' in Bond's case- you're not supposed to want to 'be' the hero in every bit of drama (are you supposed to want to 'be' Macbeth?); only in wish fufillment stuff like Bond, which isn't what Bourne is.

Which was my point exactly. I enjoy them both, but I happen to prefer Bond's wish-fulfillment to Bourne's self-absorbed angst...Still, there's room for both in my library.

Of course longevity is no guarantee of quality; IMO Bond suffered quite a prolonged dearth of quality in the middle of its run (to date). The fact is that Bond's concept lends itself to longevity---and longevity doesn't generally occur without at least the occasional instance of quality

I happen to think that the Bourne films are less important than the Bonds, film history-wise, regardless of how many or few movies either franchise ultimately produces: As Bond continues to re-invent itself and persevere, Bourne will be a character in three fairly standard old action movies...made during a time when handheld was considered 'edgy.'

The main point of this, to me, is the lack of class shown by the Bourne people to Bond: The phrase "spit on" was gratuitous and unnecessary.

That said, I'll see and ultimately own 'Ultimatum,' but IMRO Bourne is very much the poor cousin when placed side-by-side with the Imperialist Misogynist )

7289

I saw previews for the new Bourne movie and it looks to me like he has "dirty feet"!

Loeffelholz

7289 wrote:

I saw previews for the new Bourne movie and it looks to me like he has "dirty feet"!

Ha ha! Touche! )

{[]

John Drake

I think the spitting thing was Greengrass showing his Leftie credentials. He was aiming his phlegm at the Imperial values Bond is supposed to represent. That might be true of Fleming's Bond, and perhaps some of the 60's movies, but I don't think those values have had much to do with the franchise since then. Moore and Dalton's 007's operated in an era when Detente was the main political agenda. Bond was defending British interests, not furthering them as an Imperialist would. And in OHMSS and LTK, Bond proved that he was more than willing to act against his orders if he felt his conscience merited it. I always get the feeling when I watch Brosnan as Bond that he would have loved a plot like that. Something that let him off the leash a little and let him spit some venom.

And I do wish that the media would stop describing Bond as being a misogynist. He hasn't been since TMWTGG, when Roger Moore threatened to break Maud Adams arm. Moore never liked that scene and made sure he never had to do anything like that again. After that, he was the perfect gent. Ditto Dalton, and Brosnan, (although he did shoot Elektra, but then she was annoying so I'm going to overlook that). )

7289

This "imperialist" cr*p has gotten my goat! Bond has NEVER been an imperialist in either the books or the films.

Bond is a good soldier, loyal to England. None of that soldiering was in an "Imperialist" cause. Yes Britain WAS an Empire, but that was established long before Ian Fleming was born, and while Bond was being written Britain was in the process of disassembling it's "empire".

Scotland and Ireland were for centuries an important part of Great Britain, the dissolution of those realtionships has occurred POST Fleming and have never been connected with oo7 in any way. Heck, Fleming made oo7 a Scot - can there be any higher compliment from the author? You could even argue Bond's refusal of a Knighthood was something of a rebuke of the Monarchy.

So let this PC anti western BS go! Don't buy into it, and remember its the Connery/Young team who introduced gags and slapped chicks into Bond. Fleming's charecter did not "abuse" women or invade and repress the Third World!

Dan Same

John Drake wrote:

He hasn't been since TMWTGG, when Roger Moore threatened to break Maud Adams arm. Moore never liked that scene and made sure he never had to do anything like that again. After that, he was the perfect gent. Ditto Dalton, and Brosnan, (although he did shoot Elektra, but then she was annoying so I'm going to overlook that). )

Bond isn't perfect. He's ruthless and willing to do what it takes to get the job done. He's no saint. That scene in TMWTGG is an example of this. I think that Greengrass just wants a flawless hero. He should stick with Bourne.

Sir_Miles_Messervy

Ha...that's how you make a name for yourself. You find the biggest and the best and call it out. Greengrass and Damon are admitting to Bond's superiority by attacking it so vigorously.

Anyhow, they sound like they're trying to convince themselves that Bourne is something special.

My argument for the Bond Supremacy is simple and goes thusly...Call me in 45 years and let me know if Jason Bourne is still alive and kicking.

Oh, and clearly none of the Bourne camp thought it necessary to watch Casino Royale.

emtiem

Loeffelholz wrote:

Which was my point exactly. I enjoy them both, but I happen to prefer Bond's wish-fulfillment to Bourne's self-absorbed angst...Still, there's room for both in my library.

Well that's fine- it's all just personal preference, really.

Loeffelholz wrote:

Of course longevity is no guarantee of quality; IMO Bond suffered quite a prolonged dearth of quality in the middle of its run (to date). The fact is that Bond's concept lends itself to longevity---and longevity doesn't generally occur without at least the occasional instance of quality

Yeah- Bond's concept of a never-changing hero does lend itself to a never-ending series, whereas Bourne has a character who changes- this doesn't automatically make one of a higher quality than the other; just different.

Loeffelholz wrote:

I happen to think that the Bourne films are less important than the Bonds, film history-wise, regardless of how many or few movies either franchise ultimately produces: As Bond continues to re-invent itself and persevere, Bourne will be a character in three fairly standard old action movies...made during a time when handheld was considered 'edgy.'

They'll be less memorable, certainly, mainly because of the overwhelming numbers of the Bond films: would Licence To Kill really be remembered in 50 years time if it weren't starring a character called James Bond? And I think 'fairly standard' isn't really fair: they're the best out there at the moment and for quite a while; I don't see any reason for them not being remembered like all of the best thrillers of the French Connection level, and even if they aren't, I don't see why it matters. I'll still have a good time watching this one, judging by the reviews.

Loeffelholz wrote:

The main point of this, to me, is the lack of class shown by the Bourne people to Bond: The phrase "spit on" was gratuitous and unnecessary.

Maybe; I tend to ignore all that- they're promoting their movie- they're hardly going to say that Bourne is rubbish next to Bond (although Damon does appear to think that Bond might win a fight! ) and a director really should show belief in what he's doing- it doesn't mean that you as an audience member have to fully agree with his beliefs as strongly as he does. Bruce Willis said that Die Hard 4.0 is better than the first Die Hard- did anyone really believe that? Of course not, but it was still a good film and a lot of fun.
I'm still remembering people criticising the makers of Casino Royale because they said it was quite good and that was seen as somehow disrespecting all of the previous Bond movies, which just seems a bit oversensitive. This feels a bit like that, really; it's just people promoting a film, and the fact that they're saying that Bourne is better than Bond shows how they have to acknowledge how big of an icon Bond is- it's flattering that they feel they have to defend themselves, really.
And ultimately, it's hard to argue that the Bourne movies didn't inspire Casino Royale- Bourne has made Bond stronger, so if Bond is going down in history, so's Bourne now because it's become a piece of Bond, and we should be happy about that.