How come I hated Bond but loved Bourne?

[Vort]

I have hated James Bond movies for the last couple of decades; truthfully, I started losing my taste for them no later than the 1990s. I had no expectations for the Bourne movies, and I watched the first one only because my wife took me to see it. But I was hooked after one viewing. I watched the rest (the Matt Damon ones; I didn't see the non-Bourne Bourne movie starring Hawkeye until a year or so ago, because I didn't care) and really loved them.

But why? Why hate Bond and love Bourne? Well, why I hated Bond is easy, though writing a full essay explaining it would take much more time than I care to invest. Bond is hokey. He's also a repulsive character, shmoozing his way into the ladies' (if I can call them that) bedrooms and pretending to be savvy as he fornicates and murders his way to a happy ending, pun fully intended. The only Bond I could really tolerate was Timothy Dalton, and he only made like three films. (Plus no one else liked him, which is probably why he only made three films.)

But Bourne is hardly better. He is not a serial fornicator and alley-cat-style scumbag. No, he's a professional murderer. And not just of the assigned targets, but of any other innocent that might stand in his way. If James Bond is a gross scumbag, Jason Bourne is a horrific, unpredictable, terribly dangerous psychopath. This is not a guy I would expect ever to be rooting for. (And they both have the initials JB, which probably means something.)

Well, but Jason Bourne is less comic-booky than James Bond, so that must be it. Yes, Bourne is more subtle, more layered, more believable, less primary-colored and cape-wearing than James Bond. But that doesn't really hold up under examination. Tony Stark is very literally comic book, and he incorporates pretty much all of the scumbaggery of James Bond, yet my favorite superhero movie of all time (admittedly, a genre that in general I don't like) is Iron Man. So it's not the comic-bookishness, at least not that alone.

The Tony Stark comparison is useful. First of all, I like Matt Damon, and it turns out I rather like Robert Downey, Jr. On the other hand, I never cared for Roger Moore, and really not much more than lukewarm about the beloved Sean Connery. And Remington Steele never really did it for me, either; the good-looking, smooth suave thing plays better to women than it does to men, I think. Daniel Craig is fine, but I don't really have much reaction to him. So the actor portrayal is probably one big reason why.

But it's more than that. Somehow, I got so tired of the Bond look, with outrageous stunts and impossible toys. It's not that I was unwilling to suspend my disbelief, but to some extent that has to be earned. Bond just wanted me to believe he could click a pen and it would turn into an airplane. Bourne was not like that at all. The word that comes to mind is "gritty", but I think a better word might be "realistic". Not realistic in the sense that it would actually happen, but in the sense that the screen portrayal of whatever super-duper thing he was doing hit the right buttons in my brain so that my reaction was, "Yeah, I can buy that." A super chase scene in a Mini? Okay, sure. Defeating three armed guards in close-quarter hand-to-hand combat? The way it looked, yep, they were simply out of their league.

Bond never, ever did that to me. But you know who did? Tony Stark. I don't know why, but absurd as it was, I was willing to buy into the idea that some supergenius being held captive in the middle of Afghanistan, with no access to any tech higher than a welding torch, could repurpose military hardware into an armed flying suit of armor capable of defeating over a dozen armed bad guys. That element of gut-level realism cannot be overestimated, I think. Bourne had it. To a large extent, Stark had it. Bond never really had it.

Here is a video I just watched, where someone who understands what she's talking about explains it in terms I could grasp. She's talking specifically about the feel of the physics, but I think it's only a small step to generalize this to the physics plus other elements that give a gritty and realistic feel.

 

[NeuroTypical]

I'm an absolute sucker for realism, but I'm very willing to suspend quite a bit of disbelief in order to enjoy a show.   To a point, any way.  Meaning, if you can create an internally consistent universe that is totally implausible, I'll go with you.  But once you start having FBI agents exercising poor trigger discipline, or character behavior that is based on nothing, I'm out.

In the zombie genre, I found the world's only zombie musical, and enjoyed the crap out of it.  The songs and dance routines did justice to the individual characters.  Then I found a British-produced zombie show where the story happened in America, and their concept of Americans with guns was just so totally Greta Thunbergish, I couldn't finish watching it.  Even though the plot and special effects were far superior.

[Carborendum]

2 hours ago, Vort said:

The Tony Stark comparison is useful. First of all, I like Matt Damon, and it turns out I rather like Robert Downey, Jr. On the other hand, I never cared for Roger Moore, and really not much more than lukewarm about the beloved Sean Connery. And Remington Steele never really did it for me, either; the good-looking, smooth suave thing plays better to women than it does to men, I think. Daniel Craig is fine, but I don't really have much reaction to him. So the actor portrayal is probably one big reason why.

But it's more than that. Somehow, I got so tired of the Bond look, with outrageous stunts and impossible toys. It's not that I was unwilling to suspend my disbelief, but to some extent that has to be earned. Bond just wanted me to believe he could click a pen and it would turn into an airplane. Bourne was not like that at all. The word that comes to mind is "gritty", but I think a better word might be "realistic". Not realistic in the sense that it would actually happen, but in the sense that the screen portrayal of whatever super-duper thing he was doing hit the right buttons in my brain so that my reaction was, "Yeah, I can buy that." A super chase scene in a Mini? Okay, sure. Defeating three armed guards in close-quarter hand-to-hand combat? The way it looked, yep, they were simply out of their league.

Might I suggest that you gave up watching at precisely the wrong time?  The Daniel Craig films (except for the latest one) were quite a departure for James Bond.  They were a reboot of the character.  And it did change a lot of what you are complaining about.

While, yes, he has his liaisons (especially when he's not on duty) he doesn't have to jump into bed with every pretty face he sees.  And there actually seemed to be a plot-based reason (There was one notable exception in Skyfall that departs from this rule, and it was widely criticized.). why a spy would get into such a situation.  The first (with Vesper) was because he was actually in love with her.  That should say something about this reboot.

The fight scenes were well choreographed with real martial arts techniques of the systems that are more functional than others.  They also look really cool.

The gadgets aren't nearly so future-tech.  As far as I could tell, all the gadgets actually exist.

The character also goes through a lot of development throughout the films, especially since they are written as an origin story + a trilogy (Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace, Skyfall, & Spectre).  If you choose to watch them, be sure to get the 2006 version of Casino Royale.  The 1967 version was supposed to be a parody.

I have not seen No Time to Die because it seemed like it was going woke.  I don't know this because I never saw it.  But the trailers and commentaries made it seem like it.

But, whatever.  They're just movies.  If you don't go see it, I'm sure you'll be able to live a perfectly happy, healthy life.

Edited June 8, 2023 by Carborendum

[Carborendum]

18 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

In the zombie genre, I found the world's only zombie musical, and enjoyed the crap out of it.  The songs and dance routines did justice to the individual characters.

So, the singer was a zombie!   That would explain why during the entire ride throughout the desert he never bothered to give the horse a freaking name!

[Backroads]

I have seen precisely one Bond movie during my life that I can recall. I enjoyed the Bourne movies well enough and thought they managed to be consistently good. 

Oof, but I can take or leave the realism. I had an old boyfriend who was a physics nut to the point it was no fun to watch movies with him. I'm happy enough to declare the impossible as "magic". 

As for Tony Stark, I feel the movie freely admitted the sheer implausibility of it, but it also served as a nice baseline for "he was that good" which I think works fine for suspension of disbelief in films. 

 

[Vort]

20 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

So, the singer was a zombie!   That would explain why during the entire ride throughout the desert he never bothered to give the horse a freaking name!

Everyone misunderstands this verse. The horse's name was A Horse With No Name.

[Vort]

4 minutes ago, Backroads said:

I have seen precisely one Bond movie during my life that I can recall. I enjoyed the Bourne movies well enough and thought they managed to be consistently good. 

Oof, but I can take or leave the realism. I had an old boyfriend who was a physics nut to the point it was no fun to watch movies with him. I'm happy enough to declare the impossible as "magic". 

As for Tony Stark, I feel the movie freely admitted the sheer implausibility of it, but it also served as a nice baseline for "he was that good" which I think works fine for suspension of disbelief in films. 

 

Back off, Obadiah. Give Ralphie a break.

[Backroads]

17 minutes ago, Vort said:

Back off, Obadiah. Give Ralphie a break.

Nope. Ralphie had one job: make the gigantic arc reactor really small. One job.

[Vort]

I was expecting and hoping to hear @Ironhold's take on the matter.

[Ironhold]

33 minutes ago, Vort said:

I was expecting and hoping to hear @Ironhold's take on the matter.

My recommendation is that you track down the actual Ian Fleming works. 

Fleming was with the Office of Naval Intelligence during WWII, and this brought him into constant contact with folks from the Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare. He used this to inform his writing, such that the MI division Bond works for is a blend of these two organizations. For example, the original "Moonraker" novel involves Bond reading through a series of mind-numbing reports when M summons him. 

Yes, I say "original novel" as the Fleming - era movies, "Doctor No" through "License to Kill" as well as both versions of "Casino Royale" and "Quantum of Solace", take considerable liberties with the source material. How considerable? Many of the films are literally just the original work in name only.

Fleming himself regarded "The Spy Who Loved Me" as a failed experiment (sexually explicit content, told from the perspective of the Bond girl, inexcusably verbose even for a Bond novel, et cetra) and put it in the legal paperwork that the book couldn't be adapted in a direct fashion. But "Moonraker", "Diamonds Are Forever", and about a dozen others have no such excuse. 

Going back to "Moonraker", Bond is initially asked to accompany M to Blades, a popular high-class gambling house where M sits on the board of directors. There is suspicion that Sir Hugo Drax, a prominent businessman who is essentially financing the nation's space program out of his own pocket, might be cheating at cards, a mortal sin for one's standing in British high society. M wants Bond to suss out of this is indeed happening, and when Bond confirms that Drax and his partner are cheating at bridge it's the first clue that Drax literally isn't who he claims to be... so when the British official in charge of on-site security for the Moonraker project is killed, M has Bond himself take over the position so he can investigate what's really going on. 

"Diamonds Are Forever"? An American organized crime syndicate known as the Spangled Mob has created a pipeline that allows them to steal diamonds from mines in British colonies, wash them in Western Europe, and then smuggle them to the United States. Bond is to take the place of a captured courier in order to figure out where the pipeline ends so that Interpol can coordinate with the appropriate authorities. But when the Pinkertons get involved, Bond is egged on further than what his orders specified, and that means trouble. 

"From A View To A Kill"? Bond has to figure out who killed a NATO motorcycle courier and how they even knew to intercept the man. 

"Quantum of Solace"? As punishment for boorish behavior during an official government dinner, Bond is forced to sit through a long-winded morality tale as told by a government official. 

And so forth. 

Bond isn't always fighting against SPECTRE or other global-level threats. Sometimes he's being sent to take out organized crime syndicates. Sometimes he's sent to unmask a foreign spy. Sometimes he's not even the main character in his own stories. But that just made him feel *real*, like someone who existed in real life. 

[JohnsonJones]

My impression of James Bond media is that James Bond is everything that a good member of the Church should not be.  He is extremely immoral.

One could say this is hearsay on my part (and yes, it is based upon what I've heard and seen others say and talk about), but from what I've heard, he is a despicable character in every sense of the word.

What makes it even more over the top is Flemming's connection to Playboy (the magazine).  It seems Flemming and Playboy dealt with each other on numerous occasions to publish or preview his James Bond works (if that says anything about what the content of James Bond would involve).

I am not a particular fan of James Bond, so I can see why one would dislike the character.

I'm not terribly familiar with Jason Bourne either.  It is a character from Robert Ludlum (I believe).  If he is more chaste than Bond, then he is already on a higher footing than Bond in my opinion.  I was not aware he was an assassin for  hire (I thought he was a programmed government agent or something to that degree, who escapes the program and later teaches in the Caribbean or something along those lines).  An assassin for hire is probably not something to look up to, but the story I thought was his background doesn't necessarily make him a villain.

[Ironhold]

21 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

My impression of James Bond media is that James Bond is everything that a good member of the Church should not be.  He is extremely immoral.

One could say this is hearsay on my part (and yes, it is based upon what I've heard and seen others say and talk about), but from what I've heard, he is a despicable character in every sense of the word.

What makes it even more over the top is Flemming's connection to Playboy (the magazine).  It seems Flemming and Playboy dealt with each other on numerous occasions to publish or preview his James Bond works (if that says anything about what the content of James Bond would involve).

I am not a particular fan of James Bond, so I can see why one would dislike the character.

I'm not terribly familiar with Jason Bourne either.  It is a character from Robert Ludlum (I believe).  If he is more chaste than Bond, then he is already on a higher footing than Bond in my opinion.  I was not aware he was an assassin for  hire (I thought he was a programmed government agent or something to that degree, who escapes the program and later teaches in the Caribbean or something along those lines).  An assassin for hire is probably not something to look up to, but the story I thought was his background doesn't necessarily make him a villain.

It's generally agreed that Bond was, essentially, an idealized version of Fleming himself. Some of Bond's likes and personality quirks are actually direct from Fleming himself, such as Bond's love of shaken vodka martinis. 

As far as Playboy goes, there was a time where it was known for subversive humor and interviews with controversial individuals as much as it was known for girlie pictures. Even poet Shel Silverstein wrote for Playboy on occasion... yes, the same guy who wrote "Where The Sidewalk Ends" also wrote "The Smoke-Off" and other such fare. 

[EH12NG]

James bond is a cold blooded assassin born from the overheated imagination of the well known fantasist Ian Fleming. Absolute cartoon of a character. Jason Bourne is as ridiculously mind numbing. John Le Carré is all you need for a good spy session. 

[zil2]

13 hours ago, EH12NG said:

John Le Carré

Len Deighton's The Ipcress Files was also a good one.  Personally, I prefer Adam Hall's Quiller series (note that these are for adults only) - best spy novels out there (the kind with an actual spy doing spy stuff, as opposed to a techno-thriller).  To my knowledge, no one writes actual spy novels anymore.

Oh, and if you want more lighthearted and fun, go with Dorothy Gilman's Mrs. Pollifax series (starting with The Unexpected Mrs. Pollifax). ETA: Yes, these are spy stories.

Edited July 17, 2023 by zil2