[Scarlett.]

[rquote=2596479&tid=147873&author=setanta][rquote=2596447&tid=147873&author=MassiveTruck][rquote=2596424&tid=147873&author=setanta][rquote=2596410&tid=147873&author=MassiveTruck][rquote=2596402&tid=147873&author=Mr.Corrie][rquote=2596391&tid=147873&author=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.[/rquote]

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

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.[/rquote]

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.


[/rquote]


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.[/rquote]

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?
[/rquote]

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