I can't dispute that Lazenby, in OHMSS can be reasonably argued as the "Most Fleming Bond Ever," give the 'blank canvas factor' you and emtiem have articulated so well---and his final scene was dynamite---but his lack of prowess as an accomplished professional actor hurts him elsewhere in the piece.
Very true, but that is sort of what makes him the best, if you see what I mean. The best guy to ever play Bond to most people is the male model who posed for the shot on the cover of the Fleming paperback we used to read: he gives a face to Bond but leaves us with Fleming's descriptions to shape the character. And as Lazenby's lack of skills mean he can be nothing more than pretty much just a good-looking face, and doesn't add anything more, it's very easy to project the Bond of the novels onto him. So it's not really anything that he actively does, it's more about what he doesn't do- and he does nothing that the Bond of the novels doesn't do, unlike Sean and Roger etc. who are all talented enough to add their own quirks and eccentricities to give the character extra, non-Fleming, flavour.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
edited September 2007
That's certainly fair enough; Lazenby was more than adequate, and was the Bond of the moment in one of the character's finest hours. I'm a big fan of OHMSS.
But I think Craig is a better Bond---and so was Connery---with their skills and individualities adding valuable dimension to the words on the printed page.
And this concludes my take on 'Bourne now not Bond'
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
But I think Craig is a better Bond---and so was Connery---with their skills and individualities adding valuable dimension to the words on the printed page.
Oh yeah; I'd always prefer an interpretation of a novel than a slavish reproduction of the written word: otherwise what's the point of making a movie? You may as well read the book if the cinema experience isn't going to add its own advantages to the mix. Craig and Connery give you something very close to Fleming's Bond, and then a bit more of their own special sauce
Is it just me or is everyone overestimating the Bourne effect. You would think that all the latest Bond movies had been flops and Jason Bourne had cleaned up at the box office. In fact the opposite is true. Neither identity or Supremacy took more at the box office that any of Brosnan's four movies. I do not believe that Jason Bourne was a major treat to Bond at the box office, but has directly benefited the Bond series by getting the producers to move away from invisible cars and onto more character driven first class action movies.
Is it just me or is everyone overestimating the Bourne effect. You would think that all the latest Bond movies had been flops and Jason Bourne had cleaned up at the box office. In fact the opposite is true.
Ultimatum made $30 million more in its opening US weekend than Casino Royale did. It has so far made $40 million more in the US than Casino Royale ever did. It hasn't got anywhere near to CR's worldwide gross, but it also cost $40 million less to make. It's not true to claim that Bourne doesn't do well at the box office, although Bond does very well all around the globe.
I wasn't saying that the Bourne movies didn't do well at the box office - just that Bond does better. Bourne will do better than Bond in the US because he is American, but Bond will do better with the worldwide gross.
I agree with Loeffelholz - Jason Bourne is the poor cousin. I have seen Ultimatum and thoroughly enjoyed it. I will buy Ultimatum on DVD as I have done with Identity and Supremacy, but it will sit beside Ethan Hunt and Jack Ryan whereas Bond has pride of place.
I agree with Loeffelholz - Jason Bourne is the poor cousin. I have seen Ultimatum and thoroughly enjoyed it. I will buy Ultimatum on DVD as I have done with Identity and Supremacy, but it will sit beside Ethan Hunt and Jack Ryan whereas Bond has pride of place.
Sweepy the CatHalifax, West Yorkshire, EnglaPosts: 986MI6 Agent
I hate it now when everyone compares Bond to Bourne. They are 2 completely different characters. Bond is a huge drinking, womanizing, gambling superspy in films full of action, adventure, exotic locations, beautiful girls and out-of-this-world gadgets. Bourne is an ex-spy trying to find out who he is whilst travelling through Europe. Accept Bond for who he is!
SB_DiamondNorth Miami Beach, FLPosts: 126MI6 Agent
As someone who has seen both a Bourne movie and a few Bond films, I say this. I think the comparison is unmerited. Bond represents a classy (yet sometimes brash) sophisticated spy. There is a mystique to what he does and the way he does things. He hides in plain sight often confronting the enemy face to face with a smile or wisecrack. That is not at all what the Bourne films are. Bourne is not suave, not nearly as composed as Bond. Yes he is a bad@$$ in his own right, but I see him more as desperate and frustrated. He is like a child looking for his mother. Bond is far more superior a character with more versatility than Bourne. Especially now that the films are more about the character and less about the freakin' gadgets (something that kinda always bugged me about the later films with Pierce).
I missed out on the Bourne fims, but I recently decided to rent Identity because my mother recommended the trilogy. I was not completely impressed. I found the relationship between Jason and Marie to be interesting during the first half of the film, but I was disapointed when they left her out of much of the second half in favor of building up the final showdown between Jason and his boss. All the CIA stuff with Chris Cooper bored me. The Paris chase bored me too. I also thought the Julia Styles character was pointless.
I did like Clive Owen's death scene and the fight between Jason and the first assassin, but those enjoyable moments were few and far between.
Do these films get any better? Is Supremacy and Ultimatum an improvement? Does the Styles character become more developed? Or would seeing the sequels be a waste of my time?
Do these films get any better? Is Supremacy and Ultimatum an improvement? Does the Styles character become more developed? Or would seeing the sequels be a waste of my time?
Yes; yes; yes a little bit more; and no.
I think that Supremacy is the best of the bunch, and Ultimatum is the most exciting.
Under the tutelage of a suave secret agent, a Boy Scout could certainly learn about an impeccable wardrobe, fine dining and the art of seduction...but it would be altogther something else to watch said Boy Scout kill a superspy in under 4 seconds.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
Under the tutelage of a suave secret agent, a Boy Scout could certainly learn about an impeccable wardrobe, fine dining and the art of seduction...but it would be altogther something else to watch said Boy Scout kill a superspy in under 4 seconds.
Under the tutelage of a suave secret agent, a Boy Scout could certainly learn about an impeccable wardrobe, fine dining and the art of seduction...but it would be altogther something else to watch said Boy Scout kill a superspy in under 4 seconds.
bourne is certainly a killing machine.however i think daniel craigs bond would beat the crap out of him.not sure about the rest,to busy s......g and drinking vodka martinis.
Under the tutelage of a suave secret agent, a Boy Scout could certainly learn about an impeccable wardrobe, fine dining and the art of seduction...but it would be altogther something else to watch said Boy Scout kill a superspy in under 4 seconds.
bourne is certainly a killing machine.however i think daniel craigs bond would beat the crap out of him.not sure about the rest,too busy s......g and drinking vodka martinis.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
edited September 2007
Not to say that Craig's Bond is weak or anything, because he is not and I'd even say that he can kick the crap out of any of the other 5 Bonds, or even a couple or three of them at the same time, but c'mon, let's try to be just a little objective and not let fandom influence our judgement. Based on data we have so far (CR and the Bourne trilogy) does Craig's Bond clearly have the advantage in a fight? Bourne wouldn't have taken as long to kill the guy in the bathroom and he certainly being unarmed wouldn't slow down or lessen his efficiency...same with the two guys in the stairwell. Bourne is not my "favorite," but his superior fighting abilities just happen to be how they were written in the novels and depicted on screen, and I see it for what it is.
On the other hand, Bond would own Bourne if it involved scaling structures at a construction site, at a frantically high speed using fancy gymnastics.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
I agree with Superado Boune is the superior at hand to hand combat. The Bond producers need to up their game in the fighting stakes. Bond hasn't really showed what a skilled trained fighter he is since the excellent fight with 006 at the end of Goldeneye. Look at TND when he lets himslef be led into a room with Carver's men behind him and gets the crap beaten out of him before he retaliates. This would have never happened to Bourne. I prefer Bond to Bourne but Bond needs to be more trained fighter and less bar room brawler.
Not to say that Craig's Bond is weak or anything, because he is not and I'd even say that he can kick the crap out of any of the other 5 Bonds, or even a couple or three of them at the same time, but c'mon, let's try to be just a little objective and not let fandom influence our judgement. Based on data we have so far (CR and the Bourne trilogy) does Craig's Bond clearly have the advantage in a fight? Bourne wouldn't have taken as long to kill the guy in the bathroom and he certainly being unarmed wouldn't slow down or lessen his efficiency...same with the two guys in the stairwell. Bourne is not my "favorite," but his superior fighting abilities just happen to be how they were written in the novels and depicted on screen, and I see it for what it is.
Very true; and Casino Royale is fairly true to the Bond novels too in that Bond is a skilled fighter, but very often he wins only because he's incredibly lucky- just as Fleming wrote him.
On the other hand, Bond would own Bourne if it involved scaling structures at a construction site, at a frantically high speed using fancy gymnastics.
Also true- we only see Bourne do something like that in Supremacy when has to jump off the rail bridge- and he hurts himself quite badly! Stick to the fists, Jason!
Moreover , Jason Bourne + Jack Bauer together don't reach Bond's level in his worst shape !!!
You're saying that Matt Dmaon's trained-up body in Bourne, doing his sprinting-on-the-beach thing, is somehow in worse shape than the man-boobs and pot bellies Bond displayed in Diamonds Are Forever, Spy Who Loved Me and Die Another Day?
the man-boobs and pot bellies Bond displayed in Diamonds Are Forever, Spy Who Loved Me and Die Another Day?
Did Bond display a pot belly in TSWLM? I don't remember that, but you may be right, since I haven't seen that movie for a while. Hey, now there's an excuse to pop TSWLM into the DVD player tonight
Connery was overweight and under wigged in DAF. Roger Moore was a wriklie from FYEO onwards and by AVTAK he looked liked he had been embalmed. An old tired Bond actor tends to make the films tired looking as well. Prime example AVTAK. This is the fault of the producers as they have tended to keep the actors for too long knowing the problems of finding a new Bond. Contary to this they made the righ decision with Brosnan. He did not have man boobs in DAD but he probably would have if they had kept him for a few more movies. If they get to the Bourne Retiremtnt Party Matt Damon will have man boobs as well. Hopefully Craig will stay in shape and the producers will know when to replace him.
the man-boobs and pot bellies Bond displayed in Diamonds Are Forever, Spy Who Loved Me and Die Another Day?
Did Bond display a pot belly in TSWLM? I don't remember that, but you may be right, since I haven't seen that movie for a while. Hey, now there's an excuse to pop TSWLM into the DVD player tonight
Arf! Well, no; the belly wasn't bad in that one, but the moobs are certainly on display in the ski shack! Otherwise, all bellies and boobs are present in DAF and DAD
I don't want Bond to acquire superhuman fighting abilities or super-human anything for that matter. I want him to be very good, but not invincible. As far as I'm concerned, Bourne falls into the same trap Bond fell into years ago: he's so good he can't lose. Trouble is, if he can't lose, where's the suspense? You have to feel that the hero is in jeorpardy. A perfect fighting machine doesn't set my pulse racing. It's the other guy, the opponent, who needs to be the perfect fighting machine in order for there to be suspense. I think Bourne is a better fighter than Bond -- but I think Bond would find a way to win.
This is something Fleming understood. Bond in the novels was always operating just slightly beyond his actual abilities and often made mistakes, some of them nearly fatal(Rosa Klebb in the FRWL novel, for instance, gets him with her steel-bladed shoe and Bond damn near dies. He's then roundly criticized by M in the next novel, as I recall).
Someone else who understands that concept is Spielberg with his Indiana Jones movies. Jones is certainly resourceful, but he's not superman. That's the fun. The last thing I want to see is a Bond who can't lose. Craig himself has alluded to this aspect of his Bond character and has said that his Bond would continue to be a little rash and subject to an occasional error in judgment. I say good for him.
I don't want Bond to acquire superhuman fighting abilities or super-human anything for that matter. I want him to be very good, but not invincible. As far as I'm concerned, Bourne falls into the same trap Bond fell into years ago: he's so good he can't lose. Trouble is, if he can't lose, where's the suspense? You have to feel that the hero is in jeorpardy. A perfect fighting machine doesn't set my pulse racing. It's the other guy, the opponent, who needs to be the perfect fighting machine in order for there to be suspense. I think Bourne is a better fighter than Bond -- but I think Bond would find a way to win.
This is something Fleming understood. Bond in the novels was always operating just slightly beyond his actual abilities and often made mistakes, some of them nearly fatal(Rosa Klebb in the FRWL novel, for instance, gets him with her steel-bladed shoe and Bond damn near dies. He's then roundly criticized by M in the next novel, as I recall).
Someone else who understands that concept is Spielberg with his Indiana Jones movies. Jones is certainly resourceful, but he's not superman. That's the fun. The last thing I want to see is a Bond who can't lose. Craig himself has alluded to this aspect of his Bond character and has said that his Bond would continue to be a little rash and subject to an occasional error in judgment. I say good for him.
I don't want Bond to acquire superhuman fighting abilities or super-human anything for that matter. I want him to be very good, but not invincible. As far as I'm concerned, Bourne falls into the same trap Bond fell into years ago: he's so good he can't lose. Trouble is, if he can't lose, where's the suspense?
He hurts himself frequently, we see him get shot on two occasions, he fails to prevent the deaths of two people he's protecting in Ultimatum, plus Marie in Supremacy, he badly injures his leg in Supremacy... he's shown to be very faliable. He doesn't often lose a fight, but we see up against normal guys and he beats them in two seconds flat- up against other assassin guys he's clearly in trouble as it takes him so long and often hinges upon him picking up the right pen or towel. You may as well say that Bond's gadgets never go wrong; where's the tension there? He always beats the bad guy in the end too.
Bourne is shown to be falible on many occasions- there's plenty of tension. It's something that the Bond makers have finally realised is important.
Just been on YouTube and found a couple of alternate endings. I think the Identity one is quite easy to find on the DVD, but the Supremacy one is a bit harder to find and is a bit more interesting- he collapses and is taken to hospital!
Comments
Very true, but that is sort of what makes him the best, if you see what I mean. The best guy to ever play Bond to most people is the male model who posed for the shot on the cover of the Fleming paperback we used to read: he gives a face to Bond but leaves us with Fleming's descriptions to shape the character. And as Lazenby's lack of skills mean he can be nothing more than pretty much just a good-looking face, and doesn't add anything more, it's very easy to project the Bond of the novels onto him. So it's not really anything that he actively does, it's more about what he doesn't do- and he does nothing that the Bond of the novels doesn't do, unlike Sean and Roger etc. who are all talented enough to add their own quirks and eccentricities to give the character extra, non-Fleming, flavour.
But I think Craig is a better Bond---and so was Connery---with their skills and individualities adding valuable dimension to the words on the printed page.
And this concludes my take on 'Bourne now not Bond'
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Oh yeah; I'd always prefer an interpretation of a novel than a slavish reproduction of the written word: otherwise what's the point of making a movie? You may as well read the book if the cinema experience isn't going to add its own advantages to the mix. Craig and Connery give you something very close to Fleming's Bond, and then a bit more of their own special sauce
Ultimatum made $30 million more in its opening US weekend than Casino Royale did. It has so far made $40 million more in the US than Casino Royale ever did. It hasn't got anywhere near to CR's worldwide gross, but it also cost $40 million less to make. It's not true to claim that Bourne doesn't do well at the box office, although Bond does very well all around the globe.
I did like Clive Owen's death scene and the fight between Jason and the first assassin, but those enjoyable moments were few and far between.
Do these films get any better? Is Supremacy and Ultimatum an improvement? Does the Styles character become more developed? Or would seeing the sequels be a waste of my time?
'Superior'? You've said why you prefer Bond, but I don't see how you can say one character has supremacy (
Yes; yes; yes a little bit more; and no.
I think that Supremacy is the best of the bunch, and Ultimatum is the most exciting.
Under the tutelage of a suave secret agent, a Boy Scout could certainly learn about an impeccable wardrobe, fine dining and the art of seduction...but it would be altogther something else to watch said Boy Scout kill a superspy in under 4 seconds.
On the other hand, Bond would own Bourne if it involved scaling structures at a construction site, at a frantically high speed using fancy gymnastics.
Very true; and Casino Royale is fairly true to the Bond novels too in that Bond is a skilled fighter, but very often he wins only because he's incredibly lucky- just as Fleming wrote him.
Also true- we only see Bourne do something like that in Supremacy when has to jump off the rail bridge- and he hurts himself quite badly! Stick to the fists, Jason!
You're saying that Matt Dmaon's trained-up body in Bourne, doing his sprinting-on-the-beach thing, is somehow in worse shape than the man-boobs and pot bellies Bond displayed in Diamonds Are Forever, Spy Who Loved Me and Die Another Day?
Did Bond display a pot belly in TSWLM? I don't remember that, but you may be right, since I haven't seen that movie for a while. Hey, now there's an excuse to pop TSWLM into the DVD player tonight
Arf! Well, no; the belly wasn't bad in that one, but the moobs are certainly on display in the ski shack!
This is something Fleming understood. Bond in the novels was always operating just slightly beyond his actual abilities and often made mistakes, some of them nearly fatal(Rosa Klebb in the FRWL novel, for instance, gets him with her steel-bladed shoe and Bond damn near dies. He's then roundly criticized by M in the next novel, as I recall).
Someone else who understands that concept is Spielberg with his Indiana Jones movies. Jones is certainly resourceful, but he's not superman. That's the fun. The last thing I want to see is a Bond who can't lose. Craig himself has alluded to this aspect of his Bond character and has said that his Bond would continue to be a little rash and subject to an occasional error in judgment. I say good for him.
He hurts himself frequently, we see him get shot on two occasions, he fails to prevent the deaths of two people he's protecting in Ultimatum, plus Marie in Supremacy, he badly injures his leg in Supremacy... he's shown to be very faliable. He doesn't often lose a fight, but we see up against normal guys and he beats them in two seconds flat- up against other assassin guys he's clearly in trouble as it takes him so long and often hinges upon him picking up the right pen or towel. You may as well say that Bond's gadgets never go wrong; where's the tension there? He always beats the bad guy in the end too.
Bourne is shown to be falible on many occasions- there's plenty of tension. It's something that the Bond makers have finally realised is important.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=mksipzy48WM
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=6suQDPSvQgM