It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
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. 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.
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’.
(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?
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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?! 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.
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.
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.
http://jackchristian.deviantart.com/art/The-Bourne-Legacy-213726965
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 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.
@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.
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.
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.