Bond 23 (2011)

[Scarlett.]

imdb (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1074638/)

I've done a little reading, apparently this film will be set in New York, and will introduce Moneypenny and Q

[Beastie]

Woo hoo. Love James Bond :D

Daniel Craig :D

[Ramsay]

james bond is really overated
it should of been stopped ages ago

[Beastie]

james bond is really overated
it should of been stopped ages ago

noooooo long live 007!

[setanta]

The last Bond film was terrible and Casino Royale is the most overrated Bond film of all but I'm still interested as to how Bourne or how Bond the next film will be. Turning him into a Jason Bourne replica was such a dumb move last time round. Hopefully they'll return some of his charm and wit but I'm still unsure about Daniel Craig in that kinda role. Great actor but not sure if he has the right charisma for the role.

[King Gizzard]

bring back classic james bond..as setanta as said its just copies of the bourne films now zZzZzZ

[Scarlett.]

What? Cause Bond isnt a machine who churns out endless gags?

I prefer a real person as Bond, also they are setting him up, he only just completed his first mission and is learning

[setanta]

What? Cause Bond isnt a machine who churns out endless gags?

I prefer a real person as Bond, also they are setting him up, he only just completed his first mission and is learning

I just hope they're setting him up to be more like Bond in future films but right now he's a dull copy of Bourne. Also worry if Craig has the right kinda humour and charisma for playing a more sophisticated and dashing Bond.

[Scarlett.]

What? Cause Bond isnt a machine who churns out endless gags?

I prefer a real person as Bond, also they are setting him up, he only just completed his first mission and is learning

I just hope they're setting him up to be more like Bond in future films but right now he's a dull copy of Bourne. Also worry if Craig has the right kinda humour and charisma for playing a more sophisticated and dashing Bond.

To be fair, I think it was more to do with QoS and CR being one story, in QoS, Bond had to appear cold after being betrayed by pretty much everyone, then by the end of Quantum of Solace, Bond moved on and was ready to start a new mission, I think we will eventually see the classic Bond seeping through, they said they wouldnt use lines like "Shaken not stirred" until they felt they set up Bond to be that sort of man

[MassiveTruck]

Bourne is rubbish. A short stumpy man trying be all hard and tough. It's a bit unbelievable for me.

I can believe Bond. Rugged man with a past.

Bourne has just been running around for ages crying oh woe is me, help me, oh no, I lost my memory, they used me.

Oh grow up you pathetic midget. I fell asleep during the 2nd and 3rd films and was wondering for days what the fuss was about the first one.

Now James Bond is far better. Granted Quantum of Solace wasn't that great but Casino Royale was outstanding. Hopefully we're back to form again.

[Scarlett.]

Bourne is rubbish. A short stumpy man trying be all hard and tough. It's a bit unbelievable for me.

I can believe Bond. Rugged man with a past.

Bourne has just been running around for ages crying oh woe is me, help me, oh no, I lost my memory, they used me.

Oh grow up you pathetic midget. I fell asleep during the 2nd and 3rd films and was wondering for days what the fuss was about the first one.

Now James Bond is far better. Granted Quantum of Solace wasn't that great but Casino Royale was outstanding. Hopefully we're back to form again.

I thought Quantum was awesome, it made up for Casino's lack of action, as part 1 and part 2, they work well together

[MassiveTruck]

Bourne is rubbish. A short stumpy man trying be all hard and tough. It's a bit unbelievable for me.

I can believe Bond. Rugged man with a past.

Bourne has just been running around for ages crying oh woe is me, help me, oh no, I lost my memory, they used me.

Oh grow up you pathetic midget. I fell asleep during the 2nd and 3rd films and was wondering for days what the fuss was about the first one.

Now James Bond is far better. Granted Quantum of Solace wasn't that great but Casino Royale was outstanding. Hopefully we're back to form again.

I thought Quantum was awesome, it made up for Casino's lack of action, as part 1 and part 2, they work well together

I didn't really see it as a part 2. I just thought they intentionally made it progressive to make it less episodic like the previous bonds and give it more a serialisation.

Still better than Bourne. That just bores me to death. It borrows from so many other different genres that it's hardly it's own film.

[setanta]

Bourne is rubbish. A short stumpy man trying be all hard and tough. It's a bit unbelievable for me.

I can believe Bond. Rugged man with a past.

Bourne has just been running around for ages crying oh woe is me, help me, oh no, I lost my memory, they used me.

Oh grow up you pathetic midget. I fell asleep during the 2nd and 3rd films and was wondering for days what the fuss was about the first one.

Now James Bond is far better. Granted Quantum of Solace wasn't that great but Casino Royale was outstanding. Hopefully we're back to form again.

I thought Quantum was awesome, it made up for Casino's lack of action, as part 1 and part 2, they work well together

I didn't really see it as a part 2. I just thought they intentionally made it progressive to make it less episodic like the previous bonds and give it more a serialisation.

Still better than Bourne. That just bores me to death. It borrows from so many other different genres that it's hardly it's own film.

Bourne are superior thrillers in every way imaginable really. Why do you think they decided to make an inferior copy of them with Quantum of Solace? It was really rubbish.

[MassiveTruck]

Bourne is rubbish. A short stumpy man trying be all hard and tough. It's a bit unbelievable for me.

I can believe Bond. Rugged man with a past.

Bourne has just been running around for ages crying oh woe is me, help me, oh no, I lost my memory, they used me.

Oh grow up you pathetic midget. I fell asleep during the 2nd and 3rd films and was wondering for days what the fuss was about the first one.

Now James Bond is far better. Granted Quantum of Solace wasn't that great but Casino Royale was outstanding. Hopefully we're back to form again.

I thought Quantum was awesome, it made up for Casino's lack of action, as part 1 and part 2, they work well together

I didn't really see it as a part 2. I just thought they intentionally made it progressive to make it less episodic like the previous bonds and give it more a serialisation.

Still better than Bourne. That just bores me to death. It borrows from so many other different genres that it's hardly it's own film.

Bourne are superior thrillers in every way imaginable really. Why do you think they decided to make an inferior copy of them with Quantum of Solace? It was really rubbish.





Bourne is just not surprising. It's like out of a comic book.

The military people are all wooden. They talk as they are wooden. It's like they were programmed on a calculator using the +, -, x and / signs.

Bourne has two levels to his personality. 1. Pondering and staring into the horizon. 2. Running around like he's high on coke.

Beyond that - you have a film. That's it.

The difference with Bond is you've got years and years of history. A legendary back story that owes to it's present state. Also the story is not as selfish and self involved as Bourne. Bourne is all about him. Who bloody cares. It's basically like watching a baby cry about his nappy being soiled. Bond has a more fundamental story relating to the premise.

On top of that, making Matt Damon the star in this is silly. He is a short stumpy man. An evolutionary reject that has as much chance of being a secret ops operative as one of the Mr.Men.

[Scarlett.]

Bond is a much better character than Bourne, especially his history (which I had to reseach once xD)

[setanta]

Bourne is rubbish. A short stumpy man trying be all hard and tough. It's a bit unbelievable for me.

I can believe Bond. Rugged man with a past.

Bourne has just been running around for ages crying oh woe is me, help me, oh no, I lost my memory, they used me.

Oh grow up you pathetic midget. I fell asleep during the 2nd and 3rd films and was wondering for days what the fuss was about the first one.

Now James Bond is far better. Granted Quantum of Solace wasn't that great but Casino Royale was outstanding. Hopefully we're back to form again.

I thought Quantum was awesome, it made up for Casino's lack of action, as part 1 and part 2, they work well together

I didn't really see it as a part 2. I just thought they intentionally made it progressive to make it less episodic like the previous bonds and give it more a serialisation.

Still better than Bourne. That just bores me to death. It borrows from so many other different genres that it's hardly it's own film.

Bourne are superior thrillers in every way imaginable really. Why do you think they decided to make an inferior copy of them with Quantum of Solace? It was really rubbish.





Bourne is just not surprising. It's like out of a comic book.

The military people are all wooden. They talk as they are wooden.

Bourne has two levels to his personality. 1. Pondering and staring into the horizon. 2. Running around like he's high on coke.

Beyond that - you have a film. That's it.

The difference with Bond is you've got years and years of history. A legendary back story that owes to it's present state. Also the story is now as selfish and self involved as Bourne. Bourne is all about him. Who bloody cares. It's basically like watching a baby cry about his nappy being soiled. Bond has a more fundamental story relating to the premise.

On top of that, making Matt Damon the star in this is silly. He is a short stumpy man. An evolutionary reject that has as much chance of being a secret ops operative as one of the Mr.Men.

That's the whole idea of having or being a spy! They have to blend in and be almost invisible.... Matt Damon is perfect for the role of a lone assassin, inconspicuous and constantly on the alert.

Bond is the stuff of fantasy really..... saving the world nonsense while shagging the odd girl or 5. He has never had a place in the real world on film. Bourne is totally superior in that he uses his enviroment and skills to get himself outta tight situations. Watch the films again; he never uses ridiculous gadgets. Relies on his wits and intuition to save himself and learn the truth.

His is a totally selfless quest for the truth. I cannot believe that you can call him self-centred. Have you even watched the films?

[Scarlett.]

Bourne is rubbish. A short stumpy man trying be all hard and tough. It's a bit unbelievable for me.

I can believe Bond. Rugged man with a past.

Bourne has just been running around for ages crying oh woe is me, help me, oh no, I lost my memory, they used me.

Oh grow up you pathetic midget. I fell asleep during the 2nd and 3rd films and was wondering for days what the fuss was about the first one.

Now James Bond is far better. Granted Quantum of Solace wasn't that great but Casino Royale was outstanding. Hopefully we're back to form again.

I thought Quantum was awesome, it made up for Casino's lack of action, as part 1 and part 2, they work well together

I didn't really see it as a part 2. I just thought they intentionally made it progressive to make it less episodic like the previous bonds and give it more a serialisation.

Still better than Bourne. That just bores me to death. It borrows from so many other different genres that it's hardly it's own film.

Bourne are superior thrillers in every way imaginable really. Why do you think they decided to make an inferior copy of them with Quantum of Solace? It was really rubbish.





Bourne is just not surprising. It's like out of a comic book.

The military people are all wooden. They talk as they are wooden.

Bourne has two levels to his personality. 1. Pondering and staring into the horizon. 2. Running around like he's high on coke.

Beyond that - you have a film. That's it.

The difference with Bond is you've got years and years of history. A legendary back story that owes to it's present state. Also the story is now as selfish and self involved as Bourne. Bourne is all about him. Who bloody cares. It's basically like watching a baby cry about his nappy being soiled. Bond has a more fundamental story relating to the premise.

On top of that, making Matt Damon the star in this is silly. He is a short stumpy man. An evolutionary reject that has as much chance of being a secret ops operative as one of the Mr.Men.

That's the whole idea of having or being a spy! They have to blend in and be almost invisible.... Matt Damon is perfect for the role of a lone assassin, inconspicuous and constantly on the alert.

Bond is the stuff of fantasy really..... saving the world nonsense while sh*****g the odd girl or 5. He has never had a place in the real world on film. Bourne is totally superior in that he uses his enviroment and skills to get himself outta tight situations. Watch the films again; he never uses ridiculous gadgets. Relies on his wits and intuition to save himself and learn the truth.

His is a totally selfless quest for the truth. I cannot believe that you can call him self-centred. Have you even watched the films?


Ummmm, the new Bond used hardly any gadgets, and he hardly slept with 5 or more girls, especially seing as he left MI7 for Vesper in Casino Royale

[setanta]

Bourne is rubbish. A short stumpy man trying be all hard and tough. It's a bit unbelievable for me.

I can believe Bond. Rugged man with a past.

Bourne has just been running around for ages crying oh woe is me, help me, oh no, I lost my memory, they used me.

Oh grow up you pathetic midget. I fell asleep during the 2nd and 3rd films and was wondering for days what the fuss was about the first one.

Now James Bond is far better. Granted Quantum of Solace wasn't that great but Casino Royale was outstanding. Hopefully we're back to form again.

I thought Quantum was awesome, it made up for Casino's lack of action, as part 1 and part 2, they work well together

I didn't really see it as a part 2. I just thought they intentionally made it progressive to make it less episodic like the previous bonds and give it more a serialisation.

Still better than Bourne. That just bores me to death. It borrows from so many other different genres that it's hardly it's own film.

Bourne are superior thrillers in every way imaginable really. Why do you think they decided to make an inferior copy of them with Quantum of Solace? It was really rubbish.





Bourne is just not surprising. It's like out of a comic book.

The military people are all wooden. They talk as they are wooden.

Bourne has two levels to his personality. 1. Pondering and staring into the horizon. 2. Running around like he's high on coke.

Beyond that - you have a film. That's it.

The difference with Bond is you've got years and years of history. A legendary back story that owes to it's present state. Also the story is now as selfish and self involved as Bourne. Bourne is all about him. Who bloody cares. It's basically like watching a baby cry about his nappy being soiled. Bond has a more fundamental story relating to the premise.

On top of that, making Matt Damon the star in this is silly. He is a short stumpy man. An evolutionary reject that has as much chance of being a secret ops operative as one of the Mr.Men.

That's the whole idea of having or being a spy! They have to blend in and be almost invisible.... Matt Damon is perfect for the role of a lone assassin, inconspicuous and constantly on the alert.

Bond is the stuff of fantasy really..... saving the world nonsense while sh*****g the odd girl or 5. He has never had a place in the real world on film. Bourne is totally superior in that he uses his enviroment and skills to get himself outta tight situations. Watch the films again; he never uses ridiculous gadgets. Relies on his wits and intuition to save himself and learn the truth.

His is a totally selfless quest for the truth. I cannot believe that you can call him self-centred. Have you even watched the films?


Ummmm, the new Bond used hardly any gadgets, and he hardly slept with 5 or more girls, especially seing as he left MI7 for Vesper in Casino Royale

Yes, because they're trying to turn him into a Bourne knockoff. Don't you see that? But still they have to have a ridiculous amount of crash bang wallop at the end with pointless explosions. With Bond you really don't care about what's going to happen cuz they've shattered your suspension of disbelief well before the final few minutes.

Compare the plight of Bourne in the Bourne Supremacy to Bond in Quantum of Solace. There's really no comparison in terms of character development or levels of emotion within the final scenes of both films.

[Scarlett.]

Bourne is rubbish. A short stumpy man trying be all hard and tough. It's a bit unbelievable for me.

I can believe Bond. Rugged man with a past.

Bourne has just been running around for ages crying oh woe is me, help me, oh no, I lost my memory, they used me.

Oh grow up you pathetic midget. I fell asleep during the 2nd and 3rd films and was wondering for days what the fuss was about the first one.

Now James Bond is far better. Granted Quantum of Solace wasn't that great but Casino Royale was outstanding. Hopefully we're back to form again.

I thought Quantum was awesome, it made up for Casino's lack of action, as part 1 and part 2, they work well together

I didn't really see it as a part 2. I just thought they intentionally made it progressive to make it less episodic like the previous bonds and give it more a serialisation.

Still better than Bourne. That just bores me to death. It borrows from so many other different genres that it's hardly it's own film.

Bourne are superior thrillers in every way imaginable really. Why do you think they decided to make an inferior copy of them with Quantum of Solace? It was really rubbish.





Bourne is just not surprising. It's like out of a comic book.

The military people are all wooden. They talk as they are wooden.

Bourne has two levels to his personality. 1. Pondering and staring into the horizon. 2. Running around like he's high on coke.

Beyond that - you have a film. That's it.

The difference with Bond is you've got years and years of history. A legendary back story that owes to it's present state. Also the story is now as selfish and self involved as Bourne. Bourne is all about him. Who bloody cares. It's basically like watching a baby cry about his nappy being soiled. Bond has a more fundamental story relating to the premise.

On top of that, making Matt Damon the star in this is silly. He is a short stumpy man. An evolutionary reject that has as much chance of being a secret ops operative as one of the Mr.Men.

That's the whole idea of having or being a spy! They have to blend in and be almost invisible.... Matt Damon is perfect for the role of a lone assassin, inconspicuous and constantly on the alert.

Bond is the stuff of fantasy really..... saving the world nonsense while sh*****g the odd girl or 5. He has never had a place in the real world on film. Bourne is totally superior in that he uses his enviroment and skills to get himself outta tight situations. Watch the films again; he never uses ridiculous gadgets. Relies on his wits and intuition to save himself and learn the truth.

His is a totally selfless quest for the truth. I cannot believe that you can call him self-centred. Have you even watched the films?


Ummmm, the new Bond used hardly any gadgets, and he hardly slept with 5 or more girls, especially seing as he left MI7 for Vesper in Casino Royale

Yes, because they're trying to turn him into a Bourne knockoff. Don't you see that? But still they have to have a ridiculous amount of crash bang wallop at the end with pointless explosions. With Bond you really don't care about what's going to happen cuz they've shattered your suspension of disbelief well before the final few minutes.

Compare the plight of Bourne in the Bourne Supremacy to Bond in Quantum of Solace. There's really no comparison in terms of character development or levels of emotion within the final scenes of both films.

Bourne: American agent(?) who has lost his memory
Bond: Newly promoted MI7 00 agent

I dont really see the comparison you are making, its like

Donald Duck: Disney duck
Tom the cat: Jerrythe mouses enemy :conf:

[setanta]

Bourne is rubbish. A short stumpy man trying be all hard and tough. It's a bit unbelievable for me.

I can believe Bond. Rugged man with a past.

Bourne has just been running around for ages crying oh woe is me, help me, oh no, I lost my memory, they used me.

Oh grow up you pathetic midget. I fell asleep during the 2nd and 3rd films and was wondering for days what the fuss was about the first one.

Now James Bond is far better. Granted Quantum of Solace wasn't that great but Casino Royale was outstanding. Hopefully we're back to form again.

I thought Quantum was awesome, it made up for Casino's lack of action, as part 1 and part 2, they work well together

I didn't really see it as a part 2. I just thought they intentionally made it progressive to make it less episodic like the previous bonds and give it more a serialisation.

Still better than Bourne. That just bores me to death. It borrows from so many other different genres that it's hardly it's own film.

Bourne are superior thrillers in every way imaginable really. Why do you think they decided to make an inferior copy of them with Quantum of Solace? It was really rubbish.





Bourne is just not surprising. It's like out of a comic book.

The military people are all wooden. They talk as they are wooden.

Bourne has two levels to his personality. 1. Pondering and staring into the horizon. 2. Running around like he's high on coke.

Beyond that - you have a film. That's it.

The difference with Bond is you've got years and years of history. A legendary back story that owes to it's present state. Also the story is now as selfish and self involved as Bourne. Bourne is all about him. Who bloody cares. It's basically like watching a baby cry about his nappy being soiled. Bond has a more fundamental story relating to the premise.

On top of that, making Matt Damon the star in this is silly. He is a short stumpy man. An evolutionary reject that has as much chance of being a secret ops operative as one of the Mr.Men.

That's the whole idea of having or being a spy! They have to blend in and be almost invisible.... Matt Damon is perfect for the role of a lone assassin, inconspicuous and constantly on the alert.

Bond is the stuff of fantasy really..... saving the world nonsense while sh*****g the odd girl or 5. He has never had a place in the real world on film. Bourne is totally superior in that he uses his enviroment and skills to get himself outta tight situations. Watch the films again; he never uses ridiculous gadgets. Relies on his wits and intuition to save himself and learn the truth.

His is a totally selfless quest for the truth. I cannot believe that you can call him self-centred. Have you even watched the films?


Ummmm, the new Bond used hardly any gadgets, and he hardly slept with 5 or more girls, especially seing as he left MI7 for Vesper in Casino Royale

Yes, because they're trying to turn him into a Bourne knockoff. Don't you see that? But still they have to have a ridiculous amount of crash bang wallop at the end with pointless explosions. With Bond you really don't care about what's going to happen cuz they've shattered your suspension of disbelief well before the final few minutes.

Compare the plight of Bourne in the Bourne Supremacy to Bond in Quantum of Solace. There's really no comparison in terms of character development or levels of emotion within the final scenes of both films.

Bourne: American agent(?) who has lost his memory
Bond: Newly promoted MI7 00 agent

I dont really see the comparison you are making, its like

Donald Duck: Disney duck
Tom the cat: Jerrythe mouses enemy :conf:

The producers made the comparison by turning him into a Bourne type assassin. Totally intentional because they've seen how successful the Bourne franchise has become. The Brocoli family are very very dull producers. Get Tarantino to a direct a Bond film with Pierce Brosnan and then we'll have some fun.

[Scarlett.]

Pierce? :yuk: he isnt even English

Craig is much better, and I prefer him, he reminds me of the early original Bond, Sean Connery

[setanta]

Pierce? :yuk: he isnt even English

Craig is much better, and I prefer him, he reminds me of the early original Bond, Sean Connery

Tarantino wanted to direct a Bond film, but only if Brosnan was in the lead role. Would have been great fun. Sure the best Bonds in my eyes weren't English- Connery and Dalton.

[Scarlett.]

Pierce? :yuk: he isnt even English

Craig is much better, and I prefer him, he reminds me of the early original Bond, Sean Connery

Tarantino wanted to direct a Bond film, but only if Brosnan was in the lead role. Would have been great fun. Sure the best Bonds in my eyes weren't English- Connery and Dalton.I dont mind Connery being Bond, cause at least he wasnt Canadian or American

I was appaled to find Burt Reynolds was once considered as Bond

[setanta]

Pierce? :yuk: he isnt even English

Craig is much better, and I prefer him, he reminds me of the early original Bond, Sean Connery

Tarantino wanted to direct a Bond film, but only if Brosnan was in the lead role. Would have been great fun. Sure the best Bonds in my eyes weren't English- Connery and Dalton.I dont mind Connery being Bond, cause at least he wasnt Canadian or American

I was appaled to find Burt Reynolds was once considered as Bond



Watch Dalton in Living Daylights. Closest thing to the Bond of the books.

[Scarlett.]

Pierce? :yuk: he isnt even English

Craig is much better, and I prefer him, he reminds me of the early original Bond, Sean Connery

Tarantino wanted to direct a Bond film, but only if Brosnan was in the lead role. Would have been great fun. Sure the best Bonds in my eyes weren't English- Connery and Dalton.I dont mind Connery being Bond, cause at least he wasnt Canadian or American

I was appaled to find Burt Reynolds was once considered as Bond



Watch Dalton in Living Daylights. Closest thing to the Bond of the books.Wasnt that Dalton's only film? I didnt mind him either, he was a good actor

Anyway, lets just say, I like Craig's Bond, he seems like a person again, unlike Pierce's rendition

[setanta]

Pierce? :yuk: he isnt even English

Craig is much better, and I prefer him, he reminds me of the early original Bond, Sean Connery

Tarantino wanted to direct a Bond film, but only if Brosnan was in the lead role. Would have been great fun. Sure the best Bonds in my eyes weren't English- Connery and Dalton.I dont mind Connery being Bond, cause at least he wasnt Canadian or American

I was appaled to find Burt Reynolds was once considered as Bond



Watch Dalton in Living Daylights. Closest thing to the Bond of the books.Wasnt that Dalton's only film? I didnt mind him either, he was a good actor

Anyway, lets just say, I like Craig's Bond, he seems like a person again, unlike Pierce's rendition

Dalton did two very good ones that were lean and proper espionage stories, rather than the bloated, set piece obsessed films that are usually the staple ingredients for any production of Bond. I personally love The Living Daylights because it reminds me the most of the novels that I'm really a big fan of, even if they're very dated at this stage.

I'm honestly not so sure about Craig yet. I want to see the suave and charming nature of Bond come to the surface as well as the steely eyes. We'll see with the next one. Last one was dreadful.

[MassiveTruck]

Bourne is rubbish. A short stumpy man trying be all hard and tough. It's a bit unbelievable for me.

I can believe Bond. Rugged man with a past.

Bourne has just been running around for ages crying oh woe is me, help me, oh no, I lost my memory, they used me.

Oh grow up you pathetic midget. I fell asleep during the 2nd and 3rd films and was wondering for days what the fuss was about the first one.

Now James Bond is far better. Granted Quantum of Solace wasn't that great but Casino Royale was outstanding. Hopefully we're back to form again.

I thought Quantum was awesome, it made up for Casino's lack of action, as part 1 and part 2, they work well together

I didn't really see it as a part 2. I just thought they intentionally made it progressive to make it less episodic like the previous bonds and give it more a serialisation.

Still better than Bourne. That just bores me to death. It borrows from so many other different genres that it's hardly it's own film.

Bourne are superior thrillers in every way imaginable really. Why do you think they decided to make an inferior copy of them with Quantum of Solace? It was really rubbish.





Bourne is just not surprising. It's like out of a comic book.

The military people are all wooden. They talk as they are wooden.

Bourne has two levels to his personality. 1. Pondering and staring into the horizon. 2. Running around like he's high on coke.

Beyond that - you have a film. That's it.

The difference with Bond is you've got years and years of history. A legendary back story that owes to it's present state. Also the story is now as selfish and self involved as Bourne. Bourne is all about him. Who bloody cares. It's basically like watching a baby cry about his nappy being soiled. Bond has a more fundamental story relating to the premise.

On top of that, making Matt Damon the star in this is silly. He is a short stumpy man. An evolutionary reject that has as much chance of being a secret ops operative as one of the Mr.Men.

That's the whole idea of having or being a spy! They have to blend in and be almost invisible.... Matt Damon is perfect for the role of a lone assassin, inconspicuous and constantly on the alert.

Bond is the stuff of fantasy really..... saving the world nonsense while sh*****g the odd girl or 5. He has never had a place in the real world on film. Bourne is totally superior in that he uses his enviroment and skills to get himself outta tight situations. Watch the films again; he never uses ridiculous gadgets. Relies on his wits and intuition to save himself and learn the truth.

His is a totally selfless quest for the truth. I cannot believe that you can call him self-centred. Have you even watched the films?


Dude, it might sound "fantasy" but you have to shag women to save the world. Seduction and sex is one of the biggest weapons in a secret service operatives arsenal.

You say Matt Damon can remain inconspiciuous? Is that because he's a midget?

They are still human, all of them. You cannot be a secret service op if you are not human because you have to interact and achieve assignment based upon human needs and human behaviour.

But how can it be a selfless quest for the truth when, it's all about him...

[Captain.Remy]

I hope it's better than Quantum of Solace which was a big and massive FAIL to what James Bond is about.

[setanta]

Bourne is rubbish. A short stumpy man trying be all hard and tough. It's a bit unbelievable for me.

I can believe Bond. Rugged man with a past.

Bourne has just been running around for ages crying oh woe is me, help me, oh no, I lost my memory, they used me.

Oh grow up you pathetic midget. I fell asleep during the 2nd and 3rd films and was wondering for days what the fuss was about the first one.

Now James Bond is far better. Granted Quantum of Solace wasn't that great but Casino Royale was outstanding. Hopefully we're back to form again.

I thought Quantum was awesome, it made up for Casino's lack of action, as part 1 and part 2, they work well together

I didn't really see it as a part 2. I just thought they intentionally made it progressive to make it less episodic like the previous bonds and give it more a serialisation.

Still better than Bourne. That just bores me to death. It borrows from so many other different genres that it's hardly it's own film.

Bourne are superior thrillers in every way imaginable really. Why do you think they decided to make an inferior copy of them with Quantum of Solace? It was really rubbish.





Bourne is just not surprising. It's like out of a comic book.

The military people are all wooden. They talk as they are wooden.

Bourne has two levels to his personality. 1. Pondering and staring into the horizon. 2. Running around like he's high on coke.

Beyond that - you have a film. That's it.

The difference with Bond is you've got years and years of history. A legendary back story that owes to it's present state. Also the story is now as selfish and self involved as Bourne. Bourne is all about him. Who bloody cares. It's basically like watching a baby cry about his nappy being soiled. Bond has a more fundamental story relating to the premise.

On top of that, making Matt Damon the star in this is silly. He is a short stumpy man. An evolutionary reject that has as much chance of being a secret ops operative as one of the Mr.Men.

That's the whole idea of having or being a spy! They have to blend in and be almost invisible.... Matt Damon is perfect for the role of a lone assassin, inconspicuous and constantly on the alert.

Bond is the stuff of fantasy really..... saving the world nonsense while sh*****g the odd girl or 5. He has never had a place in the real world on film. Bourne is totally superior in that he uses his enviroment and skills to get himself outta tight situations. Watch the films again; he never uses ridiculous gadgets. Relies on his wits and intuition to save himself and learn the truth.

His is a totally selfless quest for the truth. I cannot believe that you can call him self-centred. Have you even watched the films?


Dude, it might sound "fantasy" but you have to s**g women to save the world. Seduction and sex is one of the biggest weapons in a secret service operatives arsenal.

You say Matt Damon can remain inconspiciuous? Is that because he's a midget?

They are still human, all of them. You cannot be a secret service op if you are not human because you have to interact and achieve assignment based upon human needs and human behaviour.

But how can it be a selfless quest for the truth when, it's all about him...

Bourne is rooted in realism whereas Bond is just pure fiction. Bond was for Fleming what Dracula was for Stoker - a release of all their fantasies and repressed urges. Nothing wrong with that and it makes for an enjoyable read and diverting cinema but they have no foundation in real life.

And it is selfless because he didn't choose this path; he was pushed onto it by a government without compassion or understanding, who have forced him to go on the run and now wont allow him his freedom or identity. He also grieves for the horrors he's been involved with in the name of his country. I think his story is much more accessible and contempary then that of Bond, who is really a relic of the 60's and British imperialism. Hey, I love a good Bond flick but he's not in the same league in terms of realism and grittiness as Bourne.

There's an edge and a great narrative structure to the Bourne films which is brilliantly executed and always engaging. Bond on the other hand is really an exercise in excess and never looks like it's part of our world, with generic, save the world silliness and cheesy one liners. He's not in the same league or planet as Bourne.

[MassiveTruck]

Bourne is rubbish. A short stumpy man trying be all hard and tough. It's a bit unbelievable for me.

I can believe Bond. Rugged man with a past.

Bourne has just been running around for ages crying oh woe is me, help me, oh no, I lost my memory, they used me.

Oh grow up you pathetic midget. I fell asleep during the 2nd and 3rd films and was wondering for days what the fuss was about the first one.

Now James Bond is far better. Granted Quantum of Solace wasn't that great but Casino Royale was outstanding. Hopefully we're back to form again.

I thought Quantum was awesome, it made up for Casino's lack of action, as part 1 and part 2, they work well together

I didn't really see it as a part 2. I just thought they intentionally made it progressive to make it less episodic like the previous bonds and give it more a serialisation.

Still better than Bourne. That just bores me to death. It borrows from so many other different genres that it's hardly it's own film.

Bourne are superior thrillers in every way imaginable really. Why do you think they decided to make an inferior copy of them with Quantum of Solace? It was really rubbish.





Bourne is just not surprising. It's like out of a comic book.

The military people are all wooden. They talk as they are wooden.

Bourne has two levels to his personality. 1. Pondering and staring into the horizon. 2. Running around like he's high on coke.

Beyond that - you have a film. That's it.

The difference with Bond is you've got years and years of history. A legendary back story that owes to it's present state. Also the story is now as selfish and self involved as Bourne. Bourne is all about him. Who bloody cares. It's basically like watching a baby cry about his nappy being soiled. Bond has a more fundamental story relating to the premise.

On top of that, making Matt Damon the star in this is silly. He is a short stumpy man. An evolutionary reject that has as much chance of being a secret ops operative as one of the Mr.Men.

That's the whole idea of having or being a spy! They have to blend in and be almost invisible.... Matt Damon is perfect for the role of a lone assassin, inconspicuous and constantly on the alert.

Bond is the stuff of fantasy really..... saving the world nonsense while sh*****g the odd girl or 5. He has never had a place in the real world on film. Bourne is totally superior in that he uses his enviroment and skills to get himself outta tight situations. Watch the films again; he never uses ridiculous gadgets. Relies on his wits and intuition to save himself and learn the truth.

His is a totally selfless quest for the truth. I cannot believe that you can call him self-centred. Have you even watched the films?


Dude, it might sound "fantasy" but you have to s**g women to save the world. Seduction and sex is one of the biggest weapons in a secret service operatives arsenal.

You say Matt Damon can remain inconspiciuous? Is that because he's a midget?

They are still human, all of them. You cannot be a secret service op if you are not human because you have to interact and achieve assignment based upon human needs and human behaviour.

But how can it be a selfless quest for the truth when, it's all about him...

Bourne is rooted in realism whereas Bond is just pure fiction. Bond was for Fleming what Dracula was for Stoker - a release of all their fantasies and repressed urges. Nothing wrong with that and it makes for an enjoyable read and diverting cinema but they have no foundation in real life.

And it is selfless because he didn't choose this path; he was pushed onto it by a government without compassion or understanding, who have forced him to go on the run and now wont allow him his freedom or identity. He also grieves for the horrors he's been involved with in the name of his country. I think his story is much more accessible and contempary then that of Bond, who is really a relic of the 60's and British imperialism. Hey, I love a good Bond flick but he's not in the same league in terms of realism and grittiness as Bourne.

There's an edge and a great narrative structure to the Bourne films which is brilliantly executed and always engaging. Bond on the other hand is really an exercise in excess and never looks like it's part of our world, with generic, save the world silliness and cheesy one liners. He's not in the same league or planet as Bourne.



With the way Bourne is highly strung and all worked up about his past, I doubt he could handle being dumped by a girl he dated twice - never mind problems related to Government secrecy.

I think the narrative is far to singular to Bourne and he doesn't appear to have much strength or military training to cope with the obvious nature of working for the government. Somebody should have told him that when you work for the Government, you do crazy stuff. This is inherently a plot hole - his character has teenage delinquent issues. Maybe his Mother didn't let him date certain girls or he liked Bondage - I don't know... but Bourne appears to be the least prepared for the life of espionage ever.

While the Bond sentiment is very much close the terrorism problems of post World War 2 and the nuclear age. It makes sense relating to all the lesser known terrorist activities that were encouraged by lesser states wanting a bigger piece of the remnants of World War 2.

Therefore he is chauvinistic and at times self absorbed because government and national interests are chauvinistic and self driven.

[setanta]

Bourne is rubbish. A short stumpy man trying be all hard and tough. It's a bit unbelievable for me.

I can believe Bond. Rugged man with a past.

Bourne has just been running around for ages crying oh woe is me, help me, oh no, I lost my memory, they used me.

Oh grow up you pathetic midget. I fell asleep during the 2nd and 3rd films and was wondering for days what the fuss was about the first one.

Now James Bond is far better. Granted Quantum of Solace wasn't that great but Casino Royale was outstanding. Hopefully we're back to form again.

I thought Quantum was awesome, it made up for Casino's lack of action, as part 1 and part 2, they work well together

I didn't really see it as a part 2. I just thought they intentionally made it progressive to make it less episodic like the previous bonds and give it more a serialisation.

Still better than Bourne. That just bores me to death. It borrows from so many other different genres that it's hardly it's own film.

Bourne are superior thrillers in every way imaginable really. Why do you think they decided to make an inferior copy of them with Quantum of Solace? It was really rubbish.





Bourne is just not surprising. It's like out of a comic book.

The military people are all wooden. They talk as they are wooden.

Bourne has two levels to his personality. 1. Pondering and staring into the horizon. 2. Running around like he's high on coke.

Beyond that - you have a film. That's it.

The difference with Bond is you've got years and years of history. A legendary back story that owes to it's present state. Also the story is now as selfish and self involved as Bourne. Bourne is all about him. Who bloody cares. It's basically like watching a baby cry about his nappy being soiled. Bond has a more fundamental story relating to the premise.

On top of that, making Matt Damon the star in this is silly. He is a short stumpy man. An evolutionary reject that has as much chance of being a secret ops operative as one of the Mr.Men.

That's the whole idea of having or being a spy! They have to blend in and be almost invisible.... Matt Damon is perfect for the role of a lone assassin, inconspicuous and constantly on the alert.

Bond is the stuff of fantasy really..... saving the world nonsense while sh*****g the odd girl or 5. He has never had a place in the real world on film. Bourne is totally superior in that he uses his enviroment and skills to get himself outta tight situations. Watch the films again; he never uses ridiculous gadgets. Relies on his wits and intuition to save himself and learn the truth.

His is a totally selfless quest for the truth. I cannot believe that you can call him self-centred. Have you even watched the films?


Dude, it might sound "fantasy" but you have to s**g women to save the world. Seduction and sex is one of the biggest weapons in a secret service operatives arsenal.

You say Matt Damon can remain inconspiciuous? Is that because he's a midget?

They are still human, all of them. You cannot be a secret service op if you are not human because you have to interact and achieve assignment based upon human needs and human behaviour.

But how can it be a selfless quest for the truth when, it's all about him...

Bourne is rooted in realism whereas Bond is just pure fiction. Bond was for Fleming what Dracula was for Stoker - a release of all their fantasies and repressed urges. Nothing wrong with that and it makes for an enjoyable read and diverting cinema but they have no foundation in real life.

And it is selfless because he didn't choose this path; he was pushed onto it by a government without compassion or understanding, who have forced him to go on the run and now wont allow him his freedom or identity. He also grieves for the horrors he's been involved with in the name of his country. I think his story is much more accessible and contempary then that of Bond, who is really a relic of the 60's and British imperialism. Hey, I love a good Bond flick but he's not in the same league in terms of realism and grittiness as Bourne.

There's an edge and a great narrative structure to the Bourne films which is brilliantly executed and always engaging. Bond on the other hand is really an exercise in excess and never looks like it's part of our world, with generic, save the world silliness and cheesy one liners. He's not in the same league or planet as Bourne.



With the way Bourne is highly strung and all worked up about his past, I doubt he could handle being dumped by a girl he dated twice - never mind problems related to Government secrecy.

I think the narrative is far to singular to Bourne and he doesn't appear to have much strength or military training to cope with the obvious nature of working for the government. Somebody should have told him that when you work for the Government, you do crazy stuff. This is inherently a plot hole - his character has teenage delinquent issues. Maybe his Mother didn't let him date certain girls or he liked Bondage - I don't know... but Bourne appears to be the least prepared for the life of espionage ever.

While the Bond sentiment is very much close the terrorism problems of post World War 2 and the nuclear age. It makes sense relating to all the lesser known terrorist activities that were encouraged by lesser states wanting a bigger piece of the remnants of World War 2.

Therefore he is chauvinistic and at times self absorbed because government and national interests are chauvinistic and self driven.



I hate being abrupt here, but have you even watched the films?

[MassiveTruck]

Bourne is rubbish. A short stumpy man trying be all hard and tough. It's a bit unbelievable for me.

I can believe Bond. Rugged man with a past.

Bourne has just been running around for ages crying oh woe is me, help me, oh no, I lost my memory, they used me.

Oh grow up you pathetic midget. I fell asleep during the 2nd and 3rd films and was wondering for days what the fuss was about the first one.

Now James Bond is far better. Granted Quantum of Solace wasn't that great but Casino Royale was outstanding. Hopefully we're back to form again.

I thought Quantum was awesome, it made up for Casino's lack of action, as part 1 and part 2, they work well together

I didn't really see it as a part 2. I just thought they intentionally made it progressive to make it less episodic like the previous bonds and give it more a serialisation.

Still better than Bourne. That just bores me to death. It borrows from so many other different genres that it's hardly it's own film.

Bourne are superior thrillers in every way imaginable really. Why do you think they decided to make an inferior copy of them with Quantum of Solace? It was really rubbish.





Bourne is just not surprising. It's like out of a comic book.

The military people are all wooden. They talk as they are wooden.

Bourne has two levels to his personality. 1. Pondering and staring into the horizon. 2. Running around like he's high on coke.

Beyond that - you have a film. That's it.

The difference with Bond is you've got years and years of history. A legendary back story that owes to it's present state. Also the story is now as selfish and self involved as Bourne. Bourne is all about him. Who bloody cares. It's basically like watching a baby cry about his nappy being soiled. Bond has a more fundamental story relating to the premise.

On top of that, making Matt Damon the star in this is silly. He is a short stumpy man. An evolutionary reject that has as much chance of being a secret ops operative as one of the Mr.Men.

That's the whole idea of having or being a spy! They have to blend in and be almost invisible.... Matt Damon is perfect for the role of a lone assassin, inconspicuous and constantly on the alert.

Bond is the stuff of fantasy really..... saving the world nonsense while sh*****g the odd girl or 5. He has never had a place in the real world on film. Bourne is totally superior in that he uses his enviroment and skills to get himself outta tight situations. Watch the films again; he never uses ridiculous gadgets. Relies on his wits and intuition to save himself and learn the truth.

His is a totally selfless quest for the truth. I cannot believe that you can call him self-centred. Have you even watched the films?


Dude, it might sound "fantasy" but you have to s**g women to save the world. Seduction and sex is one of the biggest weapons in a secret service operatives arsenal.

You say Matt Damon can remain inconspiciuous? Is that because he's a midget?

They are still human, all of them. You cannot be a secret service op if you are not human because you have to interact and achieve assignment based upon human needs and human behaviour.

But how can it be a selfless quest for the truth when, it's all about him...

Bourne is rooted in realism whereas Bond is just pure fiction. Bond was for Fleming what Dracula was for Stoker - a release of all their fantasies and repressed urges. Nothing wrong with that and it makes for an enjoyable read and diverting cinema but they have no foundation in real life.

And it is selfless because he didn't choose this path; he was pushed onto it by a government without compassion or understanding, who have forced him to go on the run and now wont allow him his freedom or identity. He also grieves for the horrors he's been involved with in the name of his country. I think his story is much more accessible and contempary then that of Bond, who is really a relic of the 60's and British imperialism. Hey, I love a good Bond flick but he's not in the same league in terms of realism and grittiness as Bourne.

There's an edge and a great narrative structure to the Bourne films which is brilliantly executed and always engaging. Bond on the other hand is really an exercise in excess and never looks like it's part of our world, with generic, save the world silliness and cheesy one liners. He's not in the same league or planet as Bourne.



With the way Bourne is highly strung and all worked up about his past, I doubt he could handle being dumped by a girl he dated twice - never mind problems related to Government secrecy.

I think the narrative is far to singular to Bourne and he doesn't appear to have much strength or military training to cope with the obvious nature of working for the government. Somebody should have told him that when you work for the Government, you do crazy stuff. This is inherently a plot hole - his character has teenage delinquent issues. Maybe his Mother didn't let him date certain girls or he liked Bondage - I don't know... but Bourne appears to be the least prepared for the life of espionage ever.

While the Bond sentiment is very much close the terrorism problems of post World War 2 and the nuclear age. It makes sense relating to all the lesser known terrorist activities that were encouraged by lesser states wanting a bigger piece of the remnants of World War 2.

Therefore he is chauvinistic and at times self absorbed because government and national interests are chauvinistic and self driven.



I hate being abrupt here, but have you even watched the films?

OK...

I watched the first one - I fell asleep during the other two.

Actually... I erm fell asleep during all three and was disappointed over all.

I have realised I need to watch them again.

[setanta]

There's no plot holes and I don't think you should really compare the linear, fast paced and absorbing plot lines of the Bourne franchise to the ridiculously convulted and OTT plot lines of Bond, which are just stiched on in any casy as an excuse for large scale action set pieces. Bourne is a product of our era, with themes running through it like alienation, terrorism, mind control and manipulation of state. More prevalent to our times then Bond who never speaks on such lofty subjects.... capitalism and some wild eyed meglomaniac are all that you see in his films really.... and they're always evil foreigners. It's pure escapism.