Alternative007 Articles Reviewed

[skywalker]

Following on from a suggestion for ideas on the forum, I have set up this thread to review some of the great articles from this site.

Chosen purely at random, the first article up for debate is www.alternative007.co.uk/11.htm by Michael Cooper.

[harrypalmer]

A rather interesting and prophetic article, considering it was written before Casino Royale came out.

Interesting that the author is suggesting that Casino Royale would be a pale imitation because of the weaker cast and production team and that turned out to be true.

[poirot]

It pains me to admit it, but Jason Bourne is a case of someone finally doing it better. Unlike Bond's previous contenders, Bourne did not come across as a pale imitation of James Bond. He also did not go away after just one film, but actually went on to reinvent the genre in a suprisingly solid trilogy. When people reflect back on this decade, it will be Bourne- not Bond- that is viewed as the dominant spy.

Ironically, even his debut was carried out in a clandestine manner. When everyone was looking to the flashy "xXx" to be the next contender for Bond's title, Bourne quietly appeared on the scene and took everyone out.

But the truth of it is, Bourne really wasn't the threat everyone made him out to be. As the article points out, the characters are essentially apples and oranges. Bourne overshadowed Bond only because EON allowed him to- even going so far as to toss out 40+ years in favor of a complete reboot.

As I pointed out elsewhere, Bond has been surviving "anti-Bonds" since his literary days. Connery wasn't grounded because Harry Palmer showed up. Meanwhile, the political paranoia of the 1970's had a huge influence on spy films- save for Bond, who went on to his most over-the-top period yet. When terrorists were hijacking planes, Bond's enemies were hijacking space shuttles and hanging out in outer space.

Ludlum's own Bourne Identity did little to influence the direction of a new series of James Bond novels, as Gardner's work stayed very true to the cinematic tradition. And most telling of all, the first post-9/11 Bond film would be the most over-the-top since the 1970's. It would also end up being billed as the most successful. So much for the theory that audiences look to Bond for realism. Perhaps, as Ian Fleming himself always suggested, the real point of Bond is escapism at its finest?

Pity that EON, by their own admission, no longer knew what to do with their own franchise. So, if they couldn't top Bourne, they decided they might as well imitate him...and let someone else do it better for a change.

[Greg Haugen]

Have you seen The Bourne Ultimatum yet poirot? It doesn't reach my local cinema for a few weeks yet.

[Nick]

I hope to see The Bourne Ultimatum this week. From what I've been led to believe it will wax Casino Royale's ass into the floor.

[Kadov]

poirot said:

It pains me to admit it, but Jason Bourne is a case of someone finally doing it better.

Pity that EON, by their own admission, no longer knew what to do with their own franchise. So, if they couldn't top Bourne, they decided they might as well imitate him...and let someone else do it better for a change.

Very insightful post, Poirot. And like you, it's hard for me to say that the Bourne franchise has eclipsed Bond. But I've just seen The Bourne Ultimatum and it is good. Two hours went by quickly because the film is so engaging. In terms of box office numbers, the film is disturbing for the Bond franchise, raking in about $70 million for its opening weekend--versus the $30 million or so that CR pulled in for its opening weekend, but landing behind a mediocre CGI penguin film and during a time when there were no other high-profile action/adventure films for CR to compete against. Yeah, CR was a box office hit, but you'd think it would do better, considering the circumstances. This latest Bourne film, on the other hand, is still basically in competition with the other summer blockbusters that's still playing in theaters.

Friends of mine say that the Bourne films are refreshing, that they're something different for a spy/action film. Are the Bourne films, then, doing a better job connecting with audiences than the recent Bond films?

The fact that Eon has admitted that they didn't know what to do with the Bond films and therefore had to reboot the series speaks volumes. In my view, they had the right actor in Brosnan, the public easily accepted him in the role, and something of a spy craze burst after GE. Suddenly other espionage/action films came out. But over the years, I sensed from people that the mood of society was different and that, maybe, after 40 or so years of Bond films, people now have a sense of burn-out with the franchise. Eon did tweak things (Bond captured in North Korea in DAD comes to mind), but the scripts lacked a sense of freshness--and they lacked something that is readily identifiable in the eyes of today's audiences. For example, when Alec Trevelyan mentions that his parents were Lienz Cossacks who were betrayed by the British, most of today's audiences probably couldn't connect with that idea; it's a remote event in history and probably too abstract for the experiences of today's audience.

The Bourne films, on the other hand, depict something raw. These films (via the Ludlum books) turn to the Bourne character itself and use the formula of the chase to focus on the character. There is always urgency to stay alive for Bourne, which is a simple concept to grasp and a very identifiable thing for movie-goers. The Bourne films retreat to the character itself and, in this age where the notion of the underdog seems to appeal to the masses, the idea of a rogue agent--a lone person--chased by a powerful entity is something that people can identify with.

Eon, in my view, just carried on with spectacular set pieces but lost sight of the Bond character and lost sight of putting him in deeply compelling, understandable situations that modern audiences can relate to. (Bond encountering North Korean generals who undergo facial transformations is a life experience not shared by at least 99.9% of the public. Neither is playing Texas Hold 'Em in Montenegro with an evil poker player who sheds bloody tears.)

Unfortunately with CR, Eon tossed in shades of a superhero/origin-story motif to join that other Hollywood trend. So Eon basically threw its hat into the "Me-Too" mentality pool instead of being an innovator. What they needed to do was create a fresh, dramatically engaging story for Fleming's characterization of Bond. The character in the book didn't need to be reinvented into Craig's version--an uncouth and, frankly Eurotrash, Bond.

Yet you've got to hand it to Eon's marketing for pulling it off. Then again, maybe it was an easy sell. Call me a pessimist, but 50 years after the publication of the Casino Royale novel, the world has grown stupid, less critical, perhaps even more crude; and the hero sought by the masses is one who is no longer debonair--a quality no longer admired.

[poirot]

drax said:

Have you seen The Bourne Ultimatum yet poirot?

Yes...and I was honestly expecting them to drop the ball, as that usually happens with a third film. But they pulled off the hat-trick and made an action-packed sequel that is also a satisfying finale.

kadov said:

The fact that Eon has admitted that they didn't know what to do with the Bond films and therefore had to reboot the series speaks volumes.

It's astonishing- especially considering how much liberty audiences are willing to give a James Bond film. This is a series where a single line of dialogue about a dead wife can inject a tremendous amount of poignancy. Why then, does EON always feel the need to go from one extreme to the next?

It will be interesting to see what happens in the future. EON seems intent on distancing itself from the traditional Bond, yet they've signed an actor who doesn't seem interested in the long term. If they suddenly want to be known for gritty realism, what happens when they have to start relying on the Bond formula again?

I wonder if EON noticed how many times CR was compared to Bourne during its media coverage? And if they also noticed how Ultimatum was not compared to CR (unless it was to point out how even Bond had been forced to imitate Bourne)?

[Nick]

I think they wanted a younger demographic for Bond. Each new generation seems to be scruffier and more violent than the last so perhaps Daniel Craig is the end result of some studio research. He's more Bourne than Bond so latches onto current trends. Sadly, I think the traditional Bond is seen as old-fashioned by Broccoli. I never got the impression that she liked Brosnan much.

[oddjob]

I think I'm in the wrong thread here but there was an interesting Jason Bourne bit on the BBC website with Matt Damon.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6948445.stm

[skywalker]

Next article for review is this controversial one. www.alternative007.co.uk/4.htm

[poirot]

Good article and very true. It's become quite popular to regard the film as a Batman and Robin-sized failure. Unfortunately, it's a comparison that isn't supported by any hard facts.

Actually, Die Another Day makes a strong case for why Brosnan was such a successful Bond. Even when the series veered towards camp, his performances continued to receive positive reviews. He essentially could sell anything that EON asked of him- from killing an unarmed Bond girl to driving an invisible car. Are we really supposed to believe audiences would've rejected him in a serious film based on Fleming?

The film also illustrates just how weak EON's vision for the series has become. This was the milestone 20th Bond film, and the 40th anniversary of the series itself. It was supposed to be a cause for celebration, and instead became a punchline among fans. And who can forget EON's brilliant idea to follow it up with a Jinx spinoff film?!

No, the elements that are so hated can hardly be laid at Brosnan's feet. After all, they were the same things he had complained about for years. If there is any saving grace to the film, it's in the harsher qualities Brosnan had pushed for all along.

One early rumour was that the film (and Bond's capture) would have consequences that would be felt in the next film. Of course, EON would ultimately prevent the capture from even affecting the end of the film itself! It's not unlike their original vision of CR, with a young Bond's transformation into a 00. It too would become little more than an afterthought by the time it made it to the screen.

If nothing else, the film- and Brosnan's tenure- ends with a nice little parallel. In the final scene, having averted a threat from an orbiting laser, we see Bond and his lover pondering the fate of stolen diamonds.

Hey, if you've gotta go out, go out like Connery.

[harrypalmer]

I liked it when it came out. So did most people. I believe it was a surprise hit, and was waiting for the next Brosnan film in 2004.

The production values were lacking, and it needed soemone (i.e a professional ) to come in and clean the film up. But the formula was there, as well as Brosnan, so therefore it was simply a piece of enjoyable nonsense.

CR was also muddled. The young Bond idea was Ok, but it had to be done right. In the end they did not do it all, but fans of the film still obsess about how great it was to see Bond early on his career.

[skywalker]

I think Robert's interpretation of DAD is as close to my own opinion as I could get it. Without question the strongest element of the film was Brosnan who for me gave his best performance as Bond. I don't consider DAD to be Brosnan's best film, far from it, but his performance showed the diversity and class people associate James Bond with.

The CGI was probably the weakest part of the film and IMO should only be used as a supplementary background aid. In years to come I feel the CGI scenes in DAD will only look worse.

[harrypalmer]

skywalker said:

I

The CGI was probably the weakest part of the film and IMO should only be used as a supplementary background aid. In years to come I feel the CGI scenes in DAD will only look worse.

I think some Brosnan critics actually believe that Brosnan was behind the CGI scenes.

[James]

harrypalmer said:

skywalker said:

I

The CGI was probably the weakest part of the film and IMO should only be used as a supplementary background aid. In years to come I feel the CGI scenes in DAD will only look worse.

I think some Brosnan critics actually believe that Brosnan was behind the CGI scenes.

He was I think. His company got the contract to do the effects and in order to save money he did it all on his own computer. I think it was a Spectrum from the mid eighties.