The Bourne Legacy's impact on Skyfall

1356

Comments

  • @Samuel001 You know the general audience will feel lost when they'll see Bourne isn't in "Bourne Legacy"... They need it to be really simple and explained.
    Audiences, even general ones, have the same average IQ as the fanboys (of both JBs). Don't assume that the rest of the world won't understand, instead assume that anyone concerned enough with the lack of Damon in the movie will look up the film's premise on Google.

    Also, as a fan of both the Bond and Bourne franchises, I don't quite understand why so many Bond-fans bash the opposite series. Despite both being spy films, Bond and Bourne take two distinct routes to achieve different ends:

    Bond films highlight exotic locales, a suave and witty lead, world-changing evil plots, and generally end with a sense of completion. On the other hand, Bourne films specialize in urban locales, feature a smart yet quiet and mysterious lead, have plots fueled by political intrigue and spy-craft, and generally leave the audience with high blood pressure and a mild unsettling feeling. Bond initiates battles against exterior threats, while Bourne battles to be left alone.

    They're completely different, and don't often steal fans from the opposite franchise. The attitude about Bourne films around here is as if it is expected that someone who saw the most recent Fast and the Furious carsploitation flick couldn't possibly see the upcoming Disney/Pixar movie Cars 2. They both have car racing in them, right?

    To be honest, I feel that QoS seemed more influenced by the film Syriana than the Bourne series. The constant cuts played out a lot like Syriana's fragmented multiple parallel storyline. At least I could follow the Bourne Identity.
    Bourne has brought that crap to the filming media. He destroyed the spy genre in the films.
    Cinematographers using handheld/shaky cam movements have been criticized for poor camera skills since the 1960s. Bourne hasn't brought anything particularly new to film, and certainly hasn't destroyed the spy genre. If anything, he's cracked a window and brought the genre a new air of the realistic to replace the stale cookie-cutter formulaic approach.

    Oh, and for the record, I'm a far greater James Bond fan than I am a fan of Jason Bourne, in case anyone was wondering.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,159
    Ytterbium... Jason Bourne doesn't appear in Bourne Legacy. It's neither a reboot or prequel, but a 'spin-off' with a totally new lead character.
    I feel that this film will be to Bourne what Fast & Furious 3 had been to that series. Something of a takes-place-in-same-fictional-universe sidequel. Who knows, like they did in the F&F series, they might somehow find a way to 'connect' this film to possible later Damon/Greengrass installments. (Both do not rule out the possibility!)

    As for this film's impact on Bond, I very much doubt there will be any at all. Even over at Eon they no doubt realize that if you start taking from a spin-off to an established film series, you should abandon ship. It's like taking material from The Scorpion King, or those Ewoks films. If you start emulating the emulators, you might consider whether you still have ‘it’.



  • Also, as a fan of both the Bond and Bourne franchises, I don't quite understand why so many Bond-fans bash the opposite series. Despite both being spy films, Bond and Bourne take two distinct routes to achieve different ends:
    A lot of people have complained in the past that the internet - or at least the "fanboys" on it - have divided everything in the universe into only two categories: things that SUCK! or things that RULE!

    (people on these boards seem to have a much more nuanced view of the world, though)

    But the other thing I see a lot of is what I call the THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE! attitude - that if you like one film series, or TV show, or line of video games then you must hate and put down all the others. I was like that when I was younger - something was so much a part of my identity that people liking something better felt like they were attacking me personally. I still see adults do this today, but usually with political parties or sports teams. But as you point out, we are allowed to like both!

    I mean, it's not like the only way they can make a new Bourne film is to record it over the original master print of Dr. No. They can keep making Bourne films and Bond will still be around, making new films, and going strong. I don't see Bourne as a threat - or even a big influence - on Bond. They're two different things. I personally feel that the whole Bourne-ified Bond thing to be really over-blown, IMHO.

    Dr. No doesn't have gadgets or Q or the over-the-top tone that many later Bond films have. Is it proto-Bourne/Bond? FRWL is a pretty serious Bond film - is it somehow not a "real" Bond film?

  • edited June 2011 Posts: 11,189
    The Bond franchise is in many ways similar to Bourne, however it is also very different. I would argue that the thing that makes Bond different from Bourne is its sense of FUN!! Whilst I really enjoy the Bourne films I wouldn't exactly describe them as "fun" per-se. They are definately exciting, fast paced thrillers but don't have that "larger-than-life" element.

    Below is a paragraph from a review of QoS summarising the key differences between Bourne's world and Bond's

    "What's decidedly missing here is the fun. Both the Bond books and films, even the serious Connery ones, always had various layers of satire to them which unfortunately blossomed into pure farce a few too many times. The casual misogyny, hedonism, materialism, wit, savoir-faire, British sensibility and cold ruthlessness when called for are all key elements that define the character. Unlike the Bournes and Batmans of this world who are tortured by what they do, Bond is someone who has always reveled in it".

    Being influenced by Bourne wasn't necessarily a bad thing and, as many people have said, Bond certainly has taken influences from other characters/films numerous times in the past. Nonetheless an "Englishness" and an irony has always existed souely with Bond. This is what has made the character so unique and successful.

  • ... "Unlike the Bournes and Batmans of this world who are tortured by what they do, Bond is someone who has always reveled in it".
    Ironically, Ian Fleming's novel version of Bond was rather tortured by his duties. That is something that was left out of the film version.

  • I've always enjoyed both film franschise's, i don't compare them, they're two seperate films, i enjoy and love both, i don't hate either!
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,713
    I love both Bond and Bourne... But Bourne seems to be the same from movie to movie... One foot chase, one car chase, one huge fist fight... Some people here moan about the Bond formula, But there is also a Bourne formula !! :-))
  • edited June 2011 Posts: 11,189

    ... "Unlike the Bournes and Batmans of this world who are tortured by what they do, Bond is someone who has always reveled in it".
    Ironically, Ian Fleming's novel version of Bond was rather tortured by his duties. That is something that was left out of the film version.

    It's true that death certainly affected him but (the way I see it) he didnt "brood" about it for that long in most cases and wasn't always po-faced. He'd think about death when he was alone and then forget about it. It was more something he disliked but accepted as part of his duty.

    I think there is certainly an indulgence Bond has that Bourne doesn't. That's probably what the quote above is trying to get at. Whilst 007 didn't necessarily bed that many women IN the actual books there were hints that he was a very sexually experienced man.

    Also, within the Fleming stories, Bond normally acted in the confines of the government. Bourne, despite being a former government assassin, doesn't.
  • j7wildj7wild Suspended
    Posts: 823
    I watched CR again yesterday on Blu-Ray and Yes, Bond Movie! Love it! Love it! Then today I watched QoS again on Blu-Ray and No, This is Bond in some part and not Bond in other parts! Can't watch this! Hating It! Got to Turn It Off! So I turned it off and went and took a nap!

  • It's true that death certainly affected him but (the way I see it) he didnt "brood" about it for that long in most cases and wasn't always po-faced. He'd think about death when he was alone and then forget about it. It was more something he disliked but accepted as part of his duty.
    Oh sure, Bond definitely avoided brooding on the subject of death, but it didn't stop it from coming to mind often. His mental battles with his mortality were just as much of a staple of Fleming's Bond novels than the tongue-in-cheek, double entendre-laden names of the various girls (though he conquered both).

    The fact that Fleming included an epigraph for Bond attached to his obituary in the novel You Only Live Twice that stated, "I shall not waste my days in trying to prolong them. I shall use my time," is telling about the state of the character. He was portrayed as philosophical enough for darker thoughts to gain some grip, but practical enough to suppress them and return to duty.

  • Posts: 669
    I used to love Bourne until I saw CR was corrupted. James Bond is who he is, he is something original, not to copy a stupid assassin (who calls himself a spy) like all the rest of American espionage films are doing today, and one of them is Angelina Jolie's "Salt".
  • Posts: 7,653
    I Liked the first of the Bourne trilogy and kinda liked Salt too, they did not copy the 007 formula but had their own stick.
    I disliked the next two installments of the Bourne trilogy mostly because the sickening camerawork. This had little to do with the 007 formula. However when QoS decided to go shakycam and fast editing too, and qualitywise a lot less I might add I kind of lost hope for that movie. And I am not mentioning the other griefs I have with this particular movie.
  • I used to love Bourne until I saw CR was corrupted. James Bond is who he is, he is something original, not to copy a stupid assassin (who calls himself a spy) like all the rest of American espionage films are doing today, and one of them is Angelina Jolie's "Salt".
    JamesBond, can you elaborate? A lot of people talk about the Bourne-ification of Bond and I just don't see it. Can you please specify what about CR is Bourne and not Bond?

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,159
    A lot of people talk about the Bourne-ification of Bond and I just don't see it. Can you please specify what about CR is Bourne and not Bond?

    I'm with you on this, TLFH! I don't understand either. Okay so what if Bond has become more edgy? Had he worn a cape in the film, people would have said he was emulating Batman. There's perhaps a little camera work that could be seen as derivative of the Bourne stuff, but that would be a stretch. In QoS, it's much more obvious to me. In CR, however, neither in terms of pacing, cinematography, storytelling or whatever do I get that Bourne feeling. Seriously, Campbell didn't need to add entire layers of Bourne to his Bond. He felt secure enough to maintain his own style and trust in Meheux.

  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,713
    My problem with CR, regarding Bourne, is not pacing, cinematography, shake cam, storytelling. No, it is the timeline of the release. I always believed that had Bourne Supremacy bombed in 2004, there would have been no need to make such changes after DAD. I strongly believe that had Supremacy not be a success, Bond 21 would have been a 5th Brosnan film. Probably CR, as EON wanted to film that for a long time, but it would feature Brosnan. Only after the audience started to lean toward Bourne's gritty, darker, more realistic and down-to-earth world, EON went that way as well.

    I honestly believe that without Bourne, Craig would never have been Bond, and the current tenure would be much different. I am just saying that it is Bourne's success that made EON do all the changes and hire a much more physical actor as Bond.

    Just like FYEO would have followed TSWLM had Star Wars never existed, Brosnan would have carried on after DAD had Bourne flopped.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,159
    However, @DC, we mustn't forget that long before Craig and Babs were talking, Brosnan had ended up in something of a conflict with the producers. Money, I seem to recall, was one of the issues, at least if those reports from back then were trustworthy at all. I personally believe that despite the Bourne stuff, Eon took Brosnan's replacement under consideration. Also, Brosnan himself, I think, was more into making his own films at the time.
  • LudsLuds MIA
    Posts: 1,986
    Brosnan was under the impression that the Franchise that made him needed him at all cost and demanded a percentage of the pie plus very high salary. This evidently prompted EON to re-think their strategy and fortunately decided to show him the door. Perhaps the success of the Bourne and their desire to remodel Bond into an actual believable spy rather than an old man playing cartoon spy played some kind of role into it, but remember that Bond has always adapted to trends in order to remain relevant.
  • edited June 2011 Posts: 4,619
    Let's have a look at the situation preceding Casino Royale:

    2002: The Bourne Identity - $122M in the US. $214M worldwide.
    2002: Die Another Day - $161M in the US. $432M worldwide. Bond beats Bourne both in the States and worldwide.
    2004: The Bourne Supremacy - $176M in the US. $289M worldwide. Sure, Bourne beats DAD in the US by $15M but DAD beats Supremacy by $143M(!) worldwide.

    Looking at these numbers does anyone really believe the Bond producers felt that Bourne is more successful and they need to copy it?!

    Just like FYEO would have followed TSWLM had Star Wars never existed, Brosnan would have carried on after DAD had Bourne flopped.
    LOL! That statemant is absolutely ridiculous! Star Wars was THE movie event of the 70ies, a film that changed the whole industry. Even Bourne 3, the must successful Bourne movie was only the 7th most successful movie of 2007 in the US and the 11th worldwide. To compare the box-office impact of Bourne to Star Wars is simply insane!

    As for The Bourne Legacy: obviously it will have absolutely no impact on Bond 23, because by the time the movie comes out, Bond 23 will be already nearly finished.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,713
    @PanchitoPistoles : DAD - 56 % of positive critics ; Bourne Identity - 83 % ; Bourne Supremacy - 81%.

    You have to admit that EON has been much more critics luvvie since CR, with very reputable actors (still going on for B23 - Fiennes and Bardem ? A critic's dream concerning Bond). You can't deny that the extremely more favorable critics of Bourne than Bond's made EON go towards what Craig's tenure is now... And you also can't deny that Bond is now more critics and awards friendly than Brosnan's films... And who influenced EON ??? "Bourne". Make no mistake, without Bourne, no Craig as Bond.

    @Luds - I never understood the fuss concerning Brosnan's salary he wanted for Bond 21... 20 millions ? Not a huge deal.
  • Posts: 5,767
    Let's not kid ourselves here, the Bourne flicks were extremely popular and successful, and certainly did influence the two Craig Bond flicks to a certain extent.
    Just a thought of mine, but I find it interesting: I think the Bourne films wouldn´t have become such huge hits without Bond. Except for his initials and his license to kill, Jason Bourne is a very different character from James Bond, and the films also are basically rather different. Yet the producers very successfully stipulatet that Bourne would be the more realistic and more interesting Bond. That idea was a major point in the whole marketing of the Bourne films, even though Bourne and Bond don´t have so many things in common. And thus the Bond producers let themselves be inspired by ideas taken from the Bourne films.

  • @PanchitoPistoles : DAD - 56 % of positive critics ; Bourne Identity - 83 % ; Bourne Supremacy - 81%.

    You have to admit that EON has been much more critics luvvie since CR, with very reputable actors (still going on for B23 - Fiennes and Bardem ? A critic's dream concerning Bond). You can't deny that the extremely more favorable critics of Bourne than Bond's made EON go towards what Craig's tenure is now... And you also can't deny that Bond is now more critics and awards friendly than Brosnan's films... And who influenced EON ??? "Bourne". Make no mistake, without Bourne, no Craig as Bond.

    @Luds - I never understood the fuss concerning Brosnan's salary he wanted for Bond 21... 20 millions ? Not a huge deal.
    With all due respect, I disagree with the notion that EON went towards a "Bourne style" because of what critics said. Given the choice between critical respect or box office the money always wins out. They were risking losing box office by giving people a Bond film that *might* alienate some people because it wasn't fantastical or light-hearted enough for them but it was a calculated gamble. The main purpose for EON, or any film producer, is to make a lot of money.

    There are two things I remember reading after DAD came out. One was people feeling that they pushed the silliness too far (I'm talking audience members, not critics) and EON wondering "where could we go from here". The other thing was about Brosnan. He was already showing his age by DAD and loved being Bond so much that I fear he would have over-stayed his welcome in the role much like Moore. He was also asking for a LOT of money, and there was concern that him being in the role too long + Bond 21 not being so hyped up as the "special" 20th film was would lead to a drop in box office. A combination of increasing costs and lower box office is bad business.

    Actually, there was another thing that I remember - there was a concern about the 16-25 year old male demographic. These are the ones who are most likely to buy movie tickets and there was a fear that they were beginning to see Bond as a series of films that their fathers liked. So it was time for a retool. Now, was the retool based on Bourne? I don't think so. The only thing that I could possibly see as being "Bourne-y" is the crash-cutting in the stairwell fight in CR, and it doesn't really look anything at all like a Bourne fight.

    For all the seriousness and character moments in CR (which is a "good film" thing, not just a Bourne thing) there's also light-hearted moments. Bond telling Vesper that her cover name is "Stephanie Broadchest", the arrest of the corrupt police chief, Bond driving Solange back to the enterance of the Ocean Club, "That last hand nearly killed me..." - all these are classic Bond moments.

    As for the Bond films using respected actors now - during Brosnan's films they were using respected directors (Apted and Tamahori). And remember, Dench, Marceau, Pryce, even Toby Stephens (winner of the Gielgud prize at the Royal Shakespeare Company) were all from the Brosnan era.

  • Posts: 669
    Here's an artwork of the Bourne Legacy: I made it:

    http://jackchristian.deviantart.com/art/The-Bourne-Legacy-213726965
  • Posts: 669
    @thelordflasheart

    First of all, lacking of all gadgets: even Dr. No had gadgets.
    Second, the shaky cameras.
    Third, Bond doesn't have the suave moves of a Casanova.
    Fourth, the timeline is corrupt: extortion is very dark. I know, in Connery's era, there was extortion but at least it is lighter.
    Fifth, all the villains are pussies, unlike those previous ones: even Dr. Dent and Hugo Drax were greater than this new Le chiffre or the stupid Gettler. Dominic Greene and Elvis in QoS, ahh, the worst ones ever.
  • LudsLuds MIA
    edited June 2011 Posts: 1,986
    @Luds - I never understood the fuss concerning Brosnan's salary he wanted for Bond 21... 20 millions ? Not a huge deal.
    I don't remember it all, but his base salary demands were very high, and he wanted a percentage as well, At least in some articles I've read. It's been a while, but I seem to recall something along the lines of 22M + 5%.
    Let's not kid ourselves here, the Bourne flicks were extremely popular and successful, and certainly did influence the two Craig Bond flicks to a certain extent.
    Just a thought of mine, but I find it interesting: I think the Bourne films wouldn´t have become such huge hits without Bond. Except for his initials and his license to kill, Jason Bourne is a very different character from James Bond, and the films also are basically rather different. Yet the producers very successfully stipulatet that Bourne would be the more realistic and more interesting Bond. That idea was a major point in the whole marketing of the Bourne films, even though Bourne and Bond don´t have so many things in common. And thus the Bond producers let themselves be inspired by ideas taken from the Bourne films.
    I agree with that as well, Bond was established and with Brosnan's flicks, the movies were more of a caricature spy movies than an actual spy movie. Therefore being a fresh product with it's fast pace and believability, the Bourne series was a major hit. And the producers saw how well the worldwide crowd reacted and made a trilogy prompting EON to reconsider their position and mimic what was "in" at the time. Craig's casting certainly is due to Bourne's popularity.

    @thelordflasheart - I agree wholeheartedly with your entire post, it was time to retool. Considering how popular Bourne was, that Brosnan was old and wasn't going to continue much longer, it was time to make drastic changes. How silly would it have been to cast a new actor and make him into another Bond spoof? EON cashed in on the Bourne-style and pace, and also on the poker-boom replacing the baccarat game.
  • Posts: 4,619
    @thelordflasheart

    First of all, lacking of all gadgets: even Dr. No had gadgets.
    Second, the shaky cameras.
    Third, Bond doesn't have the suave moves of a Casanova.
    Fourth, the timeline is corrupt: extortion is very dark. I know, in Connery's era, there was extortion but at least it is lighter.
    Fifth, all the villains are pussies, unlike those previous ones: even Dr. Dent and Hugo Drax were greater than this new Le chiffre or the stupid Gettler. Dominic Greene and Elvis in QoS, ahh, the worst ones ever.
    Sixth, you don't know what you are talking about.

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,159
    @PanchitoPisteles Let's remain friendly, sir.

    @JamesBond I'd be careful treating Le Chiffre or Gettler as regular villains. There's a deeper complexity in CR regarding these characters. For instance, let's not forget that Gettler is there to collect the money from Vesper. He's not an enforcer, leading man or assassin.
  • edited June 2011 Posts: 11,189
    It was certainly wise after DAD that the producers not only decided to trim the fat but hack it off altogether. When you have Roger Moore saying that the last film went too far, you're in trouble.

    As much as I liked Brosnan as Bond, a faithful adaptation of CR wouldn't have been possible with him. They needed to start again.

    True The Bourne Identity didn't make as much £££ as DAD but its popularity did indicate that the public were ready for that "harder edge" approach. The timing seemed right for change.

    In my opinion whilst there is certainly a "harder-edge" to Royale, its not OVERLY Bourne like. As someone above said there are lighter moments (another one is when he reverses that rude bloke's car into the fence at the health club). It also has the luxurious settings, the glamorous costumes and stylish Bond-esque music from Arnold (sorry DC but I like the score).

    Quantum on the other hand went several steps further and copied the "shakey cam", "one-cut-per second" style that was in the recent Bourne films. One thing that urked me about Quantum was if you took away a few references to Bond you would have a pretty average action film with the renegade hero operating outside the authorities and running around shooting guns. It could very well have been an inferior Bourne film. Also, the villain of the piece was meant to be a more "realistic" character (i.e. similar to those in the Bourne films). However, it unfortunately backfired as he wasn't particularly menacing or memorable (although the actor did what he could).

    In short the modern success of Bourne undoubtably had an impact on Bond, however Bond was never as "gritty" as Bourne. It was more exotic and "larger-than-life" than its more contemporary counterpart.
  • @thelordflasheart

    First of all, lacking of all gadgets: even Dr. No had gadgets.
    Second, the shaky cameras.
    Third, Bond doesn't have the suave moves of a Casanova.
    Fourth, the timeline is corrupt: extortion is very dark. I know, in Connery's era, there was extortion but at least it is lighter.
    Fifth, all the villains are pussies, unlike those previous ones: even Dr. Dent and Hugo Drax were greater than this new Le chiffre or the stupid Gettler. Dominic Greene and Elvis in QoS, ahh, the worst ones ever.
    I would disagree with you - respectfully, of course - on your points. I'll concentrate on CR for the most part because that is when a lot of people say the Bourne-ification of Bond began.

    First - maybe I've had too much sun today, but what gadgets were there in Dr. No? All I remember is the geiger counter and the medi-kit in CR was far more of a gadget than that (in addition to the bug/tracking device that can show a 3D rendering of a building, and the tracking implant in Bond's arm).

    Second - I can't remember any shaky cam in CR. Can you specify time code on the DVD or Bluray? Or at least the scene?

    Third - I'd strongly disagree with that one. His charming of the desk clerk at the Ocean Club, his seduction of Solange, his flirting and byplay, and then romantic wooing of Vesper - all those show him to be a "Casanova".

    Fourth - SPECTRE uses extortion as one of it's main fund-raising tools. The basis of the plot of TB was the extortion of 100,000,000 pounds from the government or a major city would be destroyed with an atomic bomb killing hundreds of thousands. How is that light?

    Fifth - many of the classic villians are not manly men, a role usually relegated to the henchmen. Le Chiffre is not someone I would consider a "pussy" (is that phrase commonly used these days?) although I could say that that would be a more apt description for Greene.

    @Luds - I agree that the use of Texas Hold 'Em poker was due to its popularity but even without it they would need to replace baccarat. Being a game of pure luck Baccarat would be a ludicrous game to play unless everyone were cheating.

    One last note, this time about QoS. Let's not forget that the script wasn't written because EON wanted to copy Bourne. There was a pre-existing script with a different story which was thrown out at the last minute because it "wasn't the type of story" that Foster wanted to tell. Oddly enough, I think that a lot of the fault of QoS is because of the free reign that Foster was given. Which is ironic as one of the complaints about EON is that they demand creative control over the film which causes "name" directors to stay away.
  • Posts: 11,189
    Wasn't one of the problems that Foster hired his own creative team rather than the team that is usually part of the Bond crew (Vic Armstrong etc)?
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited June 2011 Posts: 13,355
    Wasn't one of the problems that Foster hired his own creative team rather than the team that is usually part of the Bond crew (Vic Armstrong etc)?
    Well, MK12 were his idea and that turned out really badly but yes he shouldn't have been allowed to bring in all those people he wanted to. Also the main story of the film was Bond's inner turmoil, so Greene and his plan were literally pushed to one side as far as the story were concerned and it showed on screen.
Sign In or Register to comment.