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.
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.
No, I don't think that means anything. Just because Lawrence of Arabia hasn't had a sequel in 40-odd years doesn't make it any less of a classic film, does it?
Bond and Bourne get compared because they're both spy/action films (although Bond goes more action/adventure whereas Bourne is more spy thriller/action, I'd say) and as such, I can't think of a better rival for the crown that Bond has ever had. A better match for Bond would be Indiana Jones, I'd say- they're much closer in style than Bourne is to Bond. And the fact that there's only been 3 Indy films so far doesn't make them worse than Bond, does it? I still see the DVDs in the shops; the films get big ratings when they're on telly... in 45 years I think Indy will still be very well remembered, despite they're not being many more being made. Better remembered than Octopussy, I'd wager.
Hey all,Only just revisited the site today and my post has at least got everybodys point of view on this.First let me put one thing straight,in my opinion the Bourne films which I love (though I much preferred "Identity" to "Supremecy" will never be as popular as the Bond films.As some of you have said Bond has been around for over 40 years and has proved his draw. But I believe the Bourne films are much more gritty than the last lot of Bond films even CR.Yeah! I may live in the past when I say Sean Connery is the one and only Bond for me but Im ALWAYS hopeful of seeing another one like him come along but sorry Craig isnt the one to fill his shoes so I will just have to keep on waiting.:007)
Paul Greengrass is a dreadful director when it comes to action, and very lazy. 'Shakeycam' really is the easy way out and let's hope he never gets to spoil the Bond series.
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.
Alright... it's at least one of the better chase scenes. To be honest, I just don't like Matt Damon. I get bad vibes from him. And if I don't like the actor, how can I like the movie that they star in?
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.
Alright... it's at least one of the better chase scenes. To be honest, I just don't like Matt Damon. I get bad vibes from him. And if I don't like the actor, how can I like the movie that they star in?
Fair enough; if you don't like him you don't like him. Good car chase, though, no?
I actually find Bourne, as personified by Damon, to be about as compelling as, say, Dalton (or Brosnan...;)) doing Bond: interesting, but hardly archetypal. I like the two Bourne films so far, but they stray from the mind too quickly I've found. Whereas CR (and other great Bond films, and just great films) still haunts. Bruce Willis in the Die Hard films is more compelling IMHO (at least nos. 1 and 3, haven't seen the new one yet and the second one was pretty forgettable IMO).
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
edited July 2007
The Bourne movies are fine; good standard action fare. I enjoy them, as they do a good job of building story around the obligatory car chase. I believe the French Connection was a better film, by a better director---a classic, IMO. I think the jury's out on any of the Bournes (or the series as a whole) being a classic along the lines of the cited 'French Connection' or 'Lawrence of Arabia.'
IMO, it's not at all oversensitive to frown upon a lack of decorum, and it certainly doesn't mean that real and sincere 'offence' has been engendered by anyone.* Of course, this simply goes to whether or not one actually places any value upon such a thing as 'decorum' in the ever-coarsening modern era Simple civility is far more endangered these days than the Spotted Owl---still, somehow I doubt Eon will 'spit on' the Bournes when they're in the midst of their junket for #22...there are far classier ways to promote one's project (and point out differences between films).
* I was similarly dismissive, BTW, of the notion that praise for CR somehow diminished prior Bonds. Rather silly, in my view.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
The Bourne movies are fine; good standard action fare. I enjoy them, as they do a good job of building story around the obligatory car chase. I believe the French Connection was a better film, by a better director---a classic, IMO. I think the jury's out on any of the Bournes (or the series as a whole) being a classic along the lines of the cited 'French Connection' or 'Lawrence of Arabia.'
Well, I wasn't really saying that they were similarly 'classic' movies, just that not being followed by twenty sequels doesn't make those films any worse.
I'd say the Bourne films were higher up the classic scale than Octopussy, though.
IMO, it's not at all oversensitive to frown upon a lack of decorum, and it certainly doesn't mean that real and sincere 'offence' has been engendered by anyone.* Of course, this simply goes to whether or not one actually places any value upon such a thing as 'decorum' in the ever-coarsening modern era Simple civility is far more endangered these days than the Spotted Owl---still, somehow I doubt Eon will 'spit on' the Bournes when they're in the midst of their junket for #22...there are far classier ways to promote one's project (and point out differences between films).
Fair enough; I just think that Greengrass is a passionate man (just look at his CV) and for him to take an aggressive stance on the politics of his films is pretty much in character. I'd rather hear him saying that than some sort of indifferent 'yeah, everything's okay' bland world view. He knows what he likes; I can respect that. I think it is a little short-sighted to be so devisive between the two spies as they obviously share a big crossover audience, but it's all just a storm in a teacup, really. I can't imagine it'll stop anyone going to see this film if they'd planned to.
* I was similarly dismissive, BTW, of the notion that praise for CR somehow diminished prior Bonds. Rather silly, in my view.
Yes, that all got very silly, didn't it? Sorry to wrap this up in that; but it's hard to see where some reactions end sometimes!
Harry Palmer Somewhere in the past ...Posts: 325MI6 Agent
edited July 2007
There is plenty of truth in the claim that Bond is a relic, an imperialist, a man from another age... but, as I see it, therein lies his charm.
In my opinion, there is something fundamentally nostalgic about
a). The spy-movie genre,
and
b). The semiotics of cinema (the allure of the silver-screen)
That's why I believe that, even disregarding the merits of the individual films, Bourne could never in a million years hope to compete with the Bond of the 60s.
As for trying to compete with the contemporary-Bond films (Brosnan to Craig): my opinion is that the first Bourne was a good action movie (superior to DAD, TND and GE) but it lacked the style and instant-classic status of *Casino Royale*. The second Bourne was just a sequel and will be soon forgotten.
One last word to complicate the debate. My name makes it amply clear where my loyalties (and preferences) lie in the spy-movie genre. Much as I love the Bond-myth, even he cannot claim ultimate supremacy in my world.
The second Bourne was just a sequel and will be soon forgotten.
I'd dispute that. I thought The Bourne Supremacy was far superior to Identity
My name makes it amply clear where my loyalties (and preferences) lie in the spy-movie genre. Much as I love the Bond-myth, even he cannot claim ultimate supremacy in my world.
I love Billion Dollar Brain. It's a wonderful film. I'm a fan of the genre so anything that comes along and adds something to it has to be welcomed. There's always room in my world for other secret agents. Be it Palmer, or Drake, or Bourne, or Bauer. The more stuff like this there is about the better for me. Damon and Greengrass's comments really didn't bother me at all.
Maybe someday, in the grand tradition of Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man and Alien Vs Predator, we'll see Bourne Vs. Bond. Or at least a really fun episode of Hollywood Death Match
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
edited July 2007
My wife, the lovely and long-suffering Mrs. Loeffelholz, has announced that she wants to go see 'Bourne Ultimatum' at the cinema when it comes out. She's excited by the trailer...and she hasn't even seen the first two Bourne films! I've convinced her to prep by watching the first two with me on DVD B-)
She's interested in seeing very few movies on the big screen; in fact, the last one she saw might well have been CR...
She's full of surprises, that Mrs. Loeffelholz...
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
I'd say the Bourne films were higher up the classic scale than Octopussy, though.
Yes...I'd have to agree
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I guess I don't get the whole point of choosing one over the other. Why can't you like them both? Since this isn't Absolutely Jason Bourne, we obviously prefer Bond, or at least that is why I hope people are members here. It just seems odd that if you are a fan of the Bourne series, suddenly you lose your taste for Bond.
I like the Bourne films, and I will go see the new one, but they don't compare to Bond for me. They are exciting and suspenseful, but pretty one dimensional on the whole. Bond films just offer so much more to the whole experience which is the key to it lasting so long.
I have to agree with spectre7 about Greengrass and his "shaky" camera angles. They tend to drive me crazy too...it's very dizzying and distracting. It may be innovative, but for me it takes me out of the moment, and sometimes has me reaching for the Dramamine! )
I'd say the Bourne films were higher up the classic scale than Octopussy, though.
Yes...I'd have to agree
I'll leave that alone. I like both Bourne films, although I prefer the second. However I don't think that either film will ever be considered to be classics (the second one was terrific IMO but I remember being annoyed by the shaky camerawork which IMO ruined the action scenes.) I'm looking forward to the third Bourne film, however for me, the big film of the year is the fourth Die Hard film.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
I have to agree with spectre7 about Greengrass and his "shaky" camera angles. They tend to drive me crazy too...it's very dizzying and distracting. It may be innovative, but for me it takes me out of the moment, and sometimes has me reaching for the Dramamine! )
) I have to say, though, I don't think it's innovative. I think it's unoriginal and very lazy. I think that Greengrass is a talented director but I don't think he can handle action scenes and I don't think he has brought anything new to cinema.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
I guess I don't get the whole point of choosing one over the other. Why can't you like them both? Since this isn't Absolutely Jason Bourne, we obviously prefer Bond, or at least that is why I hope people are members here. It just seems odd that if you are a fan of the Bourne series, suddenly you lose your taste for Bond.
I like the Bourne films, and I will go see the new one, but they don't compare to Bond for me. They are exciting and suspenseful, but pretty one dimensional on the whole. Bond films just offer so much more to the whole experience which is the key to it lasting so long.
Well said, Mo; much better than I did over two or three days' posting {[]
As I said earlier, Bourne is certainly a good time at the movies, but he's very much flying in Bond's prop-wash...to use an old aviation term...
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
I like both Bourne films, although I prefer the second. However I don't think that either film will ever be considered to be classics (the second one was terrific IMO but I remember being annoyed by the shaky camerawork which IMO ruined the action scenes.) I'm looking forward to the third Bourne film, however for me, the big film of the year is the fourth Die Hard film.
I think I preferred the first Bourne---the car chase in 'Supremacy' was excellent, but the film as a whole seemed somehow rushed and/or disjointed to me; perhaps that's simply a tribute to its pacing Still, both of the first two were a blast, and as I said Mrs. Loeffelholz and myself will be in attendance when 'Ultimatum' hits the cinemas.
Anything to kill time before Bond #22 cameras begin to roll... :007)
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Tributes out of the way, I'll say that I'm sort of torn about the Bourne movies. I read the original Bourne Identity several years ago and I loved it (not so much the turgid sequels, though); and I even thought the Richard Chamberlain miniseries was decent, if watered down. The two Matt Damon movies, though, left me a little cold. Fine action films, but all the complexity of Ludlum's novels went out the window. Bourne in the books is also a very compelling character--really an everyman whose greatest skill is perhaps his ability to disappear into the background--but Damon's Bourne is essentially a tortured killing machine. I don't really compare the Bourne movies to Bond movies--I compare them to the Bourne novels and, as such, I feel they come up short.
Maybe someday, in the grand tradition of Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man and Alien Vs Predator, we'll see Bourne Vs. Bond. Or at least a really fun episode of Hollywood Death Match
Make it Bourne vs Bond vs Godzilla and I'm so there. In fact there are a few films that could be improved by the presence of Godzilla. Pride and Prejudice for one would have been a lot more fun.
An appearance of Godzilla would do alot to lighten the mood of Bond 22 and would probably be encouraged by Sony as a way to increase market share in the Japanese Cinema.
If Godzilla had appeared in a "Bourne" film I would make a point to see it. At least then they would have to hold te camera steady to get tha big lizard in a shot!
Why did Jason Bourne steal Bonds initials? Isn't that some kind of homage?
Thanks for the nice feedback and support guys. :x Especially to blueman who I don't think has ever agreed with me!
You are right as regards Bourne/Bond in my view: personally I enjoy both, although for very different reasons. The governmental conspiracy angle in Bourne is absent in Bond, and the former is an altogether more paranoid and nervy character (with reason). Both endeavours work, and I too do not understand why one should have to choose one or the other.
Incidentally I really look forward to seeing the new Bourne: the trailers look fantastic.
The two Matt Damon movies, though, left me a little cold. Fine action films, but all the complexity of Ludlum's novels went out the window. Bourne in the books is also a very compelling character--really an everyman whose greatest skill is perhaps his ability to disappear into the background--but Damon's Bourne is essentially a tortured killing machine. I don't really compare the Bourne movies to Bond movies--I compare them to the Bourne novels and, as such, I feel they come up short.
You see I disagree completely to be honest. I am very glad that the film-makers pretty much ignored the Ludlum novels as I loathe them. I don't think they are well written at all; indeed I struggled to get through the first couple I read and did not bother finishing another one (I normally make a point of finishing a novel I have started). I actually think the films are far more complex and deep than Ludlum's novels.
That said, I do know someone who likes them and thinks Fleming is a hack, so it is all down to taste I suppose!
Thanks for the nice feedback and support guys. :x Especially to blueman who I don't think has ever agreed with me!
Oh, once or twice before. You do that voodoo you do very well, chiming in with concise and intelligent takes on things as in this thread. Refreshing and appreciated. {[]
Comments
Yeah, exactly.
No, I don't think that means anything. Just because Lawrence of Arabia hasn't had a sequel in 40-odd years doesn't make it any less of a classic film, does it?
Bond and Bourne get compared because they're both spy/action films (although Bond goes more action/adventure whereas Bourne is more spy thriller/action, I'd say) and as such, I can't think of a better rival for the crown that Bond has ever had. A better match for Bond would be Indiana Jones, I'd say- they're much closer in style than Bourne is to Bond. And the fact that there's only been 3 Indy films so far doesn't make them worse than Bond, does it? I still see the DVDs in the shops; the films get big ratings when they're on telly... in 45 years I think Indy will still be very well remembered, despite they're not being many more being made. Better remembered than Octopussy, I'd wager.
I can't see where you're coming from at all with that- they're superb action sequences. Is it just because his camera shakes? What's wrong with them?
Alright... it's at least one of the better chase scenes. To be honest, I just don't like Matt Damon. I get bad vibes from him. And if I don't like the actor, how can I like the movie that they star in?
Fair enough; if you don't like him you don't like him. Good car chase, though, no?
{[] {[] {[] {[]
Good one, 7289
IMO, it's not at all oversensitive to frown upon a lack of decorum, and it certainly doesn't mean that real and sincere 'offence' has been engendered by anyone.* Of course, this simply goes to whether or not one actually places any value upon such a thing as 'decorum' in the ever-coarsening modern era
* I was similarly dismissive, BTW, of the notion that praise for CR somehow diminished prior Bonds. Rather silly, in my view.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Amen!
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
I'd say the Bourne films were higher up the classic scale than Octopussy, though.
Fair enough; I just think that Greengrass is a passionate man (just look at his CV) and for him to take an aggressive stance on the politics of his films is pretty much in character. I'd rather hear him saying that than some sort of indifferent 'yeah, everything's okay' bland world view. He knows what he likes; I can respect that. I think it is a little short-sighted to be so devisive between the two spies as they obviously share a big crossover audience, but it's all just a storm in a teacup, really. I can't imagine it'll stop anyone going to see this film if they'd planned to.
Yes, that all got very silly, didn't it?
In my opinion, there is something fundamentally nostalgic about
a). The spy-movie genre,
and
b). The semiotics of cinema (the allure of the silver-screen)
That's why I believe that, even disregarding the merits of the individual films, Bourne could never in a million years hope to compete with the Bond of the 60s.
As for trying to compete with the contemporary-Bond films (Brosnan to Craig): my opinion is that the first Bourne was a good action movie (superior to DAD, TND and GE) but it lacked the style and instant-classic status of *Casino Royale*. The second Bourne was just a sequel and will be soon forgotten.
One last word to complicate the debate. My name makes it amply clear where my loyalties (and preferences) lie in the spy-movie genre. Much as I love the Bond-myth, even he cannot claim ultimate supremacy in my world.
I'd dispute that. I thought The Bourne Supremacy was far superior to Identity
I love Billion Dollar Brain. It's a wonderful film. I'm a fan of the genre so anything that comes along and adds something to it has to be welcomed. There's always room in my world for other secret agents. Be it Palmer, or Drake, or Bourne, or Bauer. The more stuff like this there is about the better for me. Damon and Greengrass's comments really didn't bother me at all.
She's interested in seeing very few movies on the big screen; in fact, the last one she saw might well have been CR...
She's full of surprises, that Mrs. Loeffelholz...
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Yes...I'd have to agree
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Talk about damning with faint praise
I like the Bourne films, although the first one sticks in my head more than the second.
I like the Bourne films, and I will go see the new one, but they don't compare to Bond for me. They are exciting and suspenseful, but pretty one dimensional on the whole. Bond films just offer so much more to the whole experience which is the key to it lasting so long.
I have to agree with spectre7 about Greengrass and his "shaky" camera angles. They tend to drive me crazy too...it's very dizzying and distracting. It may be innovative, but for me it takes me out of the moment, and sometimes has me reaching for the Dramamine!
I agree. In the Bond films there is something for everything really. {[] :007)
Well said, Mo; much better than I did over two or three days' posting
As I said earlier, Bourne is certainly a good time at the movies, but he's very much flying in Bond's prop-wash...to use an old aviation term...
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Ha-HA!
I think I preferred the first Bourne---the car chase in 'Supremacy' was excellent, but the film as a whole seemed somehow rushed and/or disjointed to me; perhaps that's simply a tribute to its pacing
Anything to kill time before Bond #22 cameras begin to roll... :007)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Tributes out of the way, I'll say that I'm sort of torn about the Bourne movies. I read the original Bourne Identity several years ago and I loved it (not so much the turgid sequels, though); and I even thought the Richard Chamberlain miniseries was decent, if watered down. The two Matt Damon movies, though, left me a little cold. Fine action films, but all the complexity of Ludlum's novels went out the window. Bourne in the books is also a very compelling character--really an everyman whose greatest skill is perhaps his ability to disappear into the background--but Damon's Bourne is essentially a tortured killing machine. I don't really compare the Bourne movies to Bond movies--I compare them to the Bourne novels and, as such, I feel they come up short.
Make it Bourne vs Bond vs Godzilla and I'm so there. In fact there are a few films that could be improved by the presence of Godzilla. Pride and Prejudice for one would have been a lot more fun.
If Godzilla had appeared in a "Bourne" film I would make a point to see it. At least then they would have to hold te camera steady to get tha big lizard in a shot!
Why did Jason Bourne steal Bonds initials? Isn't that some kind of homage?
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
Incidentally I really look forward to seeing the new Bourne: the trailers look fantastic.
You see I disagree completely to be honest. I am very glad that the film-makers pretty much ignored the Ludlum novels as I loathe them. I don't think they are well written at all; indeed I struggled to get through the first couple I read and did not bother finishing another one (I normally make a point of finishing a novel I have started). I actually think the films are far more complex and deep than Ludlum's novels.
That said, I do know someone who likes them and thinks Fleming is a hack, so it is all down to taste I suppose!
Oh, once or twice before.