Bourne vs Bond

[KirkSpockTOSFan]

I never cared for the James Bond movies. I seen about all of them , but I never liked them and still dont like them. However I do think all the Bourne movies are awsome! I have seen all those and like them. I hope there will be more later on. I thought Matt Damon was very good as Jason Bourne

 

[Aragorn]

The Brosnan films mostly sucked. However, I really have enjoyed Casino Royale & Quantum of Solace and I like the sort of bold creative choices they've been making, so whatever happened between Die Another Day and Casino Royale must have been somewhat radical.

Yeah, if only Brosnan could've had a Bond movie as GREAT as Quantum of Solace.

 

[JacksonArcher]

The Brosnan films mostly sucked. However, I really have enjoyed Casino Royale & Quantum of Solace and I like the sort of bold creative choices they've been making, so whatever happened between Die Another Day and Casino Royale must have been somewhat radical.

Yeah, if only Brosnan could've had a Bond movie as GREAT as Quantum of Solace.

He did. It was called Tomorrow Never Dies.

Honestly, I really enjoyed Quantum of Solace. I know others don't like it but I do.

 

[Broccoli]

Also, lets face it, the Bond movies have always emulated what was popular at the time. That is partly the reason they are still around to this day.

Actually, up until Live & Let Die, Bond movies were innovation, it was only AFTER Diamonds Are Forever that Bond became noticeably trendy-
Live & Let Die; blacksploitation
Man With The Golden Gun; kung-fu craze
Spy Who Loved Me; Marvin Hamlish & disco
Moonraker; Star Wars
*ugh, I can't go on...*

I guess that was kinda my point. Bond was it's own style during the 60s, but then, to stay relevant I suppose, started to tweak itself to whatever was mainstream popular.

I have to say, that was a smart move on their part. The Bond formula is a good formula that allows itself to be told in multiple ways. It can evolve and change with the times.

Along those same lines, I do like how the Bond producers are open to different ideas, not opposed to changing gears, and can realize their mistakes. This is opposed to other franchises which pump out sequel after sequel giving movie goers the same damn thing making the same damn mistakes all the while thinking that the movie will succeed on name brand alone.

 

[Harvey]

I chose the middle of the road option. Roger Moore was a terrible Bond, most of his films being completely unwatchable. Even Sean Connery veered off course at the end of his run. Diamonds are Forever is a dog of a film. Brosnan produced three good films, and one awful one that nearly killed the series. I've liked both of Craig's films and both of Dalton's. I'm not a fan of Lazenby.

On the Bourne front, the first film lacks Paul Greengrass' kinetic energy, but the second and third films lack the first's tight plotting. Do we really learn anything new about Bourne after the end of the first film, besides a few threads that lead to nothing? Still, unlike some, I like Damon, who makes the entire venture watchable (I'd see a fourth entry).

 

[Broccoli]

Brosnan produced three good films, and one awful one that nearly killed the series.

Wait a second. None of Bronsan's films came close to "killing the series". The thing that kills a movie franchise is when it doesn't make money. All of Bronsan's films were all very successful financially with Die Another Day (the movie I presume you are referring to) earning the most moolah.

 

[Harvey]

So the producers ended Brosnan's run as Bond with Die Another Day and went in a completely new direction because the film was a run-away success? Obviously somebody running the show wasn't happy with it, because they surely could have done one or two more Brosnan films before looking for a new actor.

 

[RobertScorpio]

So the producers ended Brosnan's run as Bond with Die Another Day and went in a completely new direction because the film was a run-away success? Obviously somebody running the show wasn't happy with it, because they surely could have done one or two more Brosnan films before looking for a new actor.

Die Another Day was the Moonraker of his run. If it made more money it must be due to the price of tickets...everyone I know hated that movie (with the exception of the bikini scene) The cloaked car was an idiotic idea...IMO..

Rob

 

[sidious618]

Bond. No contest.

 

[JacksonArcher]

So the producers ended Brosnan's run as Bond with Die Another Day and went in a completely new direction because the film was a run-away success? Obviously somebody running the show wasn't happy with it, because they surely could have done one or two more Brosnan films before looking for a new actor.

The producers claim they had been trying to get the rights for Casino Royale for years and right after Die Another Day they got them so they utilized it. Of course other factors could have been involved and likely were but there you go.

 

[Broccoli]

So the producers ended Brosnan's run as Bond with Die Another Day and went in a completely new direction because the film was a run-away success? Obviously somebody running the show wasn't happy with it, because they surely could have done one or two more Brosnan films before looking for a new actor.

The producers claim they had been trying to get the rights for Casino Royale for years and right after Die Another Day they got them so they utilized it. Of course other factors could have been involved and likely were but there you go.

Pretty much this.

Critical reviews aside, Die Another Day made a lot of money. This ensured the life of the franchise. As I mentioned above, the producers of the Bond series seem to listen to reviews and what people are saying about the series. If something didn't work out as they might have hoped, they will change it for the next movie instead of "forcing it" on moviegoers. Couple that with getting the rights to Casino Royale and the desire to not renew Bronsan's contract in order to get a new, younger Bond and you have the new direction.

It is a trend with Bond movies. When one movie goes a little OTT, the next tends to be more grounded with the following films making a slow climb back to outlandishness. I wouldn't be surprised at all that we'll see another OTT Bond flick within five to ten years.

 

[Skywalker]

Bond. I think the Bourne movies are decent enough, but there's just too much good stuff in the Bond films, even with all the not-so-good stuff.

Actually, I'm done with Bond as of now. No Clive Owen, and that's it. Connery, Lazenby & Brosnan- there are no others.

Adam Lambert!!!

What about CHRISTOPHER Lambert?

'De nem's Buhnd, Zhems Buhnd!'

With Sean Connery as (a Spanish) M, of course!

He's not Spanish, he's Egyptian.

 

[Broccoli]

"M, will I ever see you again?"
"Who knows, 007? Who knows?"

::insert nonsensical Scottish bagpipes::

 

[Starkers]

The Brosnan films mostly sucked. However, I really have enjoyed Casino Royale & Quantum of Solace and I like the sort of bold creative choices they've been making, so whatever happened between Die Another Day and Casino Royale must have been somewhat radical.

Yeah, if only Brosnan could've had a Bond movie as GREAT as Quantum of Solace.

He did. It was called Tomorrow Never Dies.

Honestly, I really enjoyed Quantum of Solace. I know others don't like it but I do.

QFT, it's weird but I don't get the hate for QoS, in many ways I find it a better Bond film than Casino Royale. Certainly its a lot better paced and edited (time wise not shaky cam wise). Casino Royale is good, but it's a trifle bloated and lumbers along at times. Quantum of Solace is short sharp and brutal.

Ideally I'm hoping Criag's third film will sit somewhere between the two, have a smidgen more humour, a little more traditional camera work, and hopefully bring back Moneypenny.

 

[Lonemagpie]

Dunno about Moneypenny, but I really do want to see James May introduced as the new Q

 

[Starkers]

I'm less fussed about Q, but James May would be kind of funny in that role!

 

[FluffyUnbound]

Well I voted for Bourne so now it's all tied up!

I'm only comparing the Bourne movies to the Bond movies it is contemporary with. I think Craig is fantastic, so maybe he will put Bond back on top with another film or two, but right now Bourne is on top.

Jason Bourne fights people with a rolled-up magazine. For that alone I add two stars to every Bourne film.

You know how I know the Bourne films are great? Because one of them uses the horrible plot device of a protagonist with amnesia, and another one uses the plot device of a protagonist who is mad because his girlfriend got killed, and I still think those movies are awesome. How good do the movies have to be to overcome those horrific plot points?

And who knew Matt Damon - Matt Damon - could be an action star? The Bourne movies have to be great, because after watching them I said, "Yup, Matt Damon is an action star."

I guess it's funny that two of my favorite action stars - Matt Damon and Bruce Willis - were guys where I would have said it was stupid to think they could be action stars, before they broke into the genre. Good Will Hunting as an action star? Pshaw. The Moonlighting guy as an action star? Put the crack pipe down. But here we are.

 

[Nardpuncher]

I don't know if it's been said already, but when you're comparing the J.Bs....don't forget Jack Bauer!

 

[Captaindemotion]

I don't know if it's been said already, but when you're comparing the J.Bs....don't forget Jack Bauer!

GIven the success of the above three JBs, Tom Clancy must wish he'd called Jack Ryan Jack Bryan or Jack Burke or some surname beginning with B. The movie series might have been more successful!

 

[Captaindemotion]

Hate to post twice in a row, but I've just seen a story saying that MGM's woes have resulted in the next Bond movie being put on hold.

Here's hoping we don't get a 6 year delay like we did between Licence to Kill and Goldeneye. I did a post a few months ago pointing out the similarities between LTK and QOS, but I wasn't expecting history to repeat itself offscreen too!

Link:

http://www.darkhorizons.com/news/16004/-bond-23-on-hold-due-to-mgm-sale