James Bond vs Jason Bourne
- Thread starter Seraphim
- Start date
The latest Bond would definitely have a better shot then any of the previous incarnations. But in the end, Bourne is just too brutal a fighter. Those crazy camera angles they use when Bourne fights would throw Bond off and that would be it.
Bond is too much of a cartoon character/wish fulfillment fantasy for me to seriously think about his fighting ability. A fantasy figure can't win a fight.
Bourne could really exist. So he could win a fight.
Granted, now the Bond producers seem determined to shoehorn Bond into the Bourne mold. They should just stick with the old formula that's worked for so long for them instead of aping other characters.
Bourne could really exist. So he could win a fight.
Granted, now the Bond producers seem determined to shoehorn Bond into the Bourne mold. They should just stick with the old formula that's worked for so long for them instead of aping other characters.
I think in the way that they were both written, Bond would win. If I'm not mistaken, in the books, Bourne was at the tail end of his career and was doing one of his last missions. I think he was high 40s or something.
Bond was obviously younger, in his 30s at his physical peak ideally (not the Roger Moore Bond obviously).
Bond was obviously younger, in his 30s at his physical peak ideally (not the Roger Moore Bond obviously).
Prior to Casino Royale, I would have said Bourne. But the bathroom scene in CR shows that this Bond is a ferocious, violent fighter.
So Bond, then
So Bond, then
Depends on the Bond. The Connery, Dalton and Craig Bonds would kick Bourne's ass. But Bourne would kick the crap out of the Lazenby, Moore and Brosnan Bonds.
Now, if you're going by the literary versions of both characters, Bourne would win hands-down. The Bourne of the novels was very similar to the Bourne of the films - a supremely skilled and trained martial arts fighter. Fleming's Bond, meanwhile, while certainly a tough cookie, got his ass kicked quite a bit in the novels. And Fleming, for the most part, never gave him any of the magical gadets or tech of the Moore/Brosnan era to save the day.
Now, if you're going by the literary versions of both characters, Bourne would win hands-down. The Bourne of the novels was very similar to the Bourne of the films - a supremely skilled and trained martial arts fighter. Fleming's Bond, meanwhile, while certainly a tough cookie, got his ass kicked quite a bit in the novels. And Fleming, for the most part, never gave him any of the magical gadets or tech of the Moore/Brosnan era to save the day.
JASON BOURNE BEATS PEOPLE UP WITH BOOKS FFS!!!
Batman could kick both their asses. And no, he wouldn't need any time to prepare. 
Neither - they'd team up and kick the shit out of the actual bad guys.
in the Bourne trilogy, Bourne is the bad guy in the eyes of the CIA. The CIA needs to get to Specsavers.
Vesper just needed to be sniper rifled by Dr McCoy. As to who would win, the latest regeneration of Bond would win.
Against Craig Bond, I would have to say Borne. Bond isn't quote bond without the gadgets.
Some of you people are deluded.
Bond is not a trained killer, he is a field agent of Her Majesty's Secret Service with a licence to kill.
Bourne was trained by the CIA to kill ruthlessly.
Easy way to tell who would kill who, total up their individual kills. Bourne's lost count but Bond can probably remember how many.
Bond is not a trained killer, he is a field agent of Her Majesty's Secret Service with a licence to kill.
Bourne was trained by the CIA to kill ruthlessly.
Easy way to tell who would kill who, total up their individual kills. Bourne's lost count but Bond can probably remember how many.
Similar threads
