The Bourne Ultimatum

[Guest froffeecoffee]

Even though there are individuals who don't live the action of the Bourne films, there's no denying their influence on action films lately. After all the Bond producers wouldn't be bringing on Bourne's stunt coordinator, if the Bourne films weren't doin' something right.

I totally get where you're coming from Running Man. The action scenes in Ultimatum left me in a daze too. So those who think it is crap, your points are valid. But what you see as crap, I see as exciting. So that makes us both right.

I took my Dad to see it and was hopin' all that shaky cam wouldn't ruin it for him. Turns out, he loved the movie and not once complained about it being too visually confusing. He's pretty hard on movies today and doesn't like a lot of what's out there, so him givin' it a positive review made the movie experience more enjoyable.

[Guest The Running Man]

Even though there are individuals who don't live the action of the Bourne films, there's no denying their influence on action films lately. After all the Bond producers wouldn't be bringing on Bourne's stunt coordinator, if the Bourne films weren't doin' something right.

A lot of people say this and I don't agree with it, for two reasons. First of all, fans were already complaining about the Bond films going to over the top with gadgets and special effects by the time Die Another Day came out. After that, the producers sat back to rethink what to do and they came up with the idea (Tarantino says they "stole" his idea) to do a proper film on the last Bond book that wasn't made into a film, at least faithfully, which was Casino Royal that was ironically enough, the first Bond book. That gave them the opportunity to restart the character.

The second reason I don't agree with it is that the director of Casino Royal, Martin Campbell, has his vision all over Casino Royal. If you look at his previous movies, that's the way he shoots action. Nothing in any of the action scenes in Casino Royal resemble anything in the Bourne films. There's no shaky cam ever and I could tell everything that was happening in all of the action scenes. That's unlike the Bourne films.

As for using the same stunt person as the Bourne films for the new Bond film, all I can say is that I certainly hope that Martin Campbell puts him in his place and prevent him from continually taking action film making in the backward direction that the Bourne films have been doing.

[Guest iron flag]

I really liked the movie but the constant "shaky camera" and filming of the fights as if you're in them instead of watching them seems like bad directing to me. Its like he was trying to make the movie seem more intense but it just gave me a headache.

[Guest froffeecoffee]

The reason they restarted the Bond franchise is because of the Bourne series. After the Bourne Identity came out, I watched and read review after review saying that this is the direction the Bond series needed to go. It's obvious that is what they went for, the realistic approach.

Many film insiders I've read have been ecstatic about the stunt coordinator taking over stunt direction for the next Bond film.

As far as shaky cam that's the decision of the director and cinematographer. Martin Campbell is a average director at best, other than the occasional hit at the box office, so the big surprise was how good Casino Royale was. I don't attribute that to him, but to the writing, the serious tone of the film, and restraint of gadgets.

[Guest Daisho2004]

I have to say I did enjoy the Bourne series this one more so, but I'm a big James Bond fan, and I like the gadgets and Q. But I did like the change it was really different, a little hard to get use to at 1st.

[Guest The Running Man]

The reason they restarted the Bond franchise is because of the Bourne series.

Do you have sources from the producers and film makers to back that up>

After the Bourne Identity came out, I watched and read review after review saying that this is the direction the Bond series needed to go. It's obvious that is what they went for, the realistic approach.

Reviewers are not the be all and end all of facts. Reviewers love to finger point who's stealing from who all the time without so much as a real insight into film making itself to realize if what they are making any sense.

It doesn't take a genius to see that the action in Casino Royal resembles nothing in the Bourne films. Nothing. Then take a look at Cambell's previous films and you'll see it's the way he shoots action.

Many film insiders I've read have been ecstatic about the stunt coordinator taking over stunt direction for the next Bond film.

Honesty, that doesn't mean anything. Those people think that the Bourne movies have the best action scenes in history.

As far as shaky cam that's the decision of the director and cinematographer. Martin Campbell is a average director at best, other than the occasional hit at the box office, so the big surprise was how good Casino Royale was. I don't attribute that to him, but to the writing, the serious tone of the film, and restraint of gadgets.

Martin Campbell is a huge reason for Casino Royal's success. His Goldeneye was the best Bond film in years and has been until he returned with Casino Royal. He is also one of the best action directors in the West and there isn't a whole lot of them.

[Guest froffeecoffee]

WOW!! You're kidding right? Outside the 2 Bond movies he's done. His other work leaves a lot to be desired. He's a capable, but a rarely inspired filmmaker.

It's my turn to disagree. This is the same director who did the Angelina Jolie fiasco "Beyond Borders," the incredibly lame, "Legend of Zorro," and "Vertical Limit." I lump him in with other pedestrian level directors like Brett Ratner, Michael Bay, Len Wiseman, Paul W.S. Anderson, and Renny Harlin. So-called action directors whose works have no depth, rely on SFX, scripts that are ideas, plots that consist of skits stringed together, and no character development whatsoever. In other words, typical Hollywood crap.

Reasoning that the producers restarted the Bond franchise because of the Bourne seriers, I admit is a overstatement, but they did hire the Bourne stunt coordinator. And as is typical of studios, producers, and filmmakers when a film does something different, everyone jumps on the bandwagon and does their version of it. That's what all filmmakers do. John Woo admitted that that's what all directors do; good and bad. I mean, how many fantasy films have come out and are coming out because of Lord of the Rings? And battle scenes in other movies seem to have that big, epic camera sweep of armies converging.

Logically, Casino Royale doesn't visually resemble anything in the Bourne films, outside of the fight scenes, in which the combat takes place in close quarters and are quick and brutal. But, its intimate scope and emotionally driven plot are influenced by Bourne's sensibilities.

[Guest Dion Brother]

The close quarter combat in CASINO ROYALE resembles fight scenes from movies alot older than the Bourne series. Old, obscure flicks like FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE and DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER. the Bourne movies didn't invent it and don't do it well at all. Matt Damon must have looked like a major league @#%$ doing his fight scenes, because they are edited all to hell. Didn't bother with the latest BOURNE because it looked identical to the other two.

[Guest froffeecoffee]

Just went over some Bond 22 news and no Martin Campbell. Instead, Marc Forster (Monster's Ball, Finding Neverland) has been givin' directing duties. Should have remembered this, since it was announced awhile ago.

So, to imply that the Bourne movies invented close quarter combat. I mean that's ridiculous, no film invented it. It's just the Bond reboot has definitely been influenced by other successful films. But it is still definitely James Bond. I leave the speculation to you.

[Guest The Running Man]

froffeecoffee,

It's my turn to disagree. This is the same director who did the Angelina Jolie fiasco "Beyond Borders," the incredibly lame, "Legend of Zorro," and "Vertical Limit." I lump him in with other pedestrian level directors like Brett Ratner, Michael Bay, Len Wiseman, Paul W.S. Anderson, and Renny Harlin. So-called action directors whose works have no depth, rely on SFX, scripts that are ideas, plots that consist of skits stringed together, and no character development whatsoever. In other words, typical Hollywood crap.

I am specifically talking about "action direction." Out of that entire group you wrote up, he possess far and away a better grasp of film action. Bret Ratner, for example, just gets by because Jackie Chan does almost all of the direction on the action on set (with Ratner's restrictions of course). You look at all of Campbell's work on action scenes, and it's easy to see he is extremely capable of handling action scenes more than the majority of action directors in Hollywood. He is one of the very few.

Now, I don't think that Martin Campbell is the greatest director ever but he is good. Goldeneye was a solid movie and I enjoyed The Mask of Zorro. I liked a bit of the Legend of Zorro, but they could have done less with the broad humor, slap stick comedy, and the lightness of the film (I don't remember Vertical Limit and never saw the film he did with Jolie). So I certainly wouldn't classify him under the list of hacks you put up. Those films, including Casino Roayl, and heads and shoulders above the films of the hacks you listed. I knew that as soon as I saw his name attached to Casino Royal we would get a solid picture and that's what he delivered.

Reasoning that the producers restarted the Bond franchise because of the Bourne seriers, I admit is a overstatement, but they did hire the Bourne stunt coordinator. And as is typical of studios, producers, and filmmakers when a film does something different, everyone jumps on the bandwagon and does their version of it. That's what all filmmakers do.

Yes, but it has to make sense. NONE of the action sequences in Casino Royal resemble anything in the Bourne movies. None. The direction and editing of the scenes are totally different from Paul Greengrass' stuff.

John Woo admitted that that's what all directors do; good and bad. I mean, how many fantasy films have come out and are coming out because of Lord of the Rings? And battle scenes in other movies seem to have that big, epic camera sweep of armies converging.

You can't make general statements for ALL cases. That's the same thing that happened with the Matrix movies. Suddenly people claimed that the Matrix invented everything despite it not being true. That specific style of Hong Kong action was never seen by a mainstream Western audience, so they thought it invented it and everything else was a direct rip off.

But, its intimate scope and emotionally driven plot are influenced by Bourne's sensibilities.

I'm sorry but you're stretching it. Are you insinuating that a Bond movie with "intimate scope and emotionally driven plot" is something taken from the Bourne movies? Perhaps you forgot that Casino Royal was based on a book. And you should watch more Bond movies.

Dion Brother,

The close quarter combat in CASINO ROYALE resembles fight scenes from movies alot older than the Bourne series. Old, obscure flicks like FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE and DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER.

I'd go a step further and say that Casino Royal, the whole film, harks directly back to On Her Majesty's Secret Service for more reasons than one.

[Guest froffeecoffee]

This is the unfortunate case as to why a general statement can be made for all cases. Studios are run by business men. And as such they when a film does well other studios jump on and make ripoffs. Hollywood lacks imagination, originality, and don't like taking chances. This is an unfortunate reality. I've done some work in the industry and have had opportunities to actually speak with major studio heads. Their not afraid to tell you that yes they look at other film ideas and trends and ripoff, apply ideals, and make their own version of a successful film. That's the nature of the industry, here and abroad. All in the name of money.

People that think a movie, such as The Matrix, invented everything are certainly in the dark about were the Wachowski Brothers influences came from. As well as a Tarantino, Scorsese, and any other successful director.

You, I, and everyone on this forum know that that's what filmmakers do. As I wrote in the the previous post, I leave the speculation to an individual to see and decide whether or not Bourne has had an influence on the Bond reboot.

Also, how similar is Casino Royale to the book? My guess is the film follows the characters and plot, but there is a big difference between literary and filmatic versions. So by that logic, there's a good chance that C.R. was inspired by other films' visual look, character depiction, and plot development.

As far as action direction, Martin Campbell has been adequate. None of his other work is distiguishable. You, yourself probably answered why his action direction is solid. Like, Ratner, his action direction can be more attributed to others.

For Goldeneye, Oscar winning editor Terry Rawlings has done some outstanding work on Alien, Chariots of Fire, and Blade Runner. The stunt coordinator, Simon Crane did Saving Private Ryan, Braveheart, Titanic, and Indiana Jones and Last Crusade.

For Mask of Zorro, he had another Oscar winning editor, Thom Noble, who won for Thelma and Louise and Witness. Stunt coordinator, Glenn Randall Jr., did Raiders of the Lost Ark, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, Return of the Jedi, and Never Say Never Again.

So with talent like that I guess any director can seem pretty solid.

As for watching more Bond films. I've probably been watching more Bond in the theaters, than before you were born. I've seen every single Bond at least 10 times and remember seeing my 1st Bond, The Spy Who Loved Me, in the theaters. So you can pretty much count me as a Bond fanatic. As well as a film fanatic overall.

[Guest The Running Man]

As far as action direction, Martin Campbell has been adequate. None of his other work is distiguishable.

His work is consistent. All the films you mentioned that had good action have all these different people on them. Yet, it's all consistent with each other. I don't believe it is a coincidence Campbell was on board for all of them. And it is certainly distinguishable compared to the majority of crap action in Hollywood movies. I've noticed it ever since Goldeneye and it was confirmed with The Mask of Zorro. And I bet Casino Royal was in solid hand and it was.

As for watching more Bond films. I've probably been watching more Bond in the theaters, than before you were born.

That's quite cheeky of you to slide the assumption that I am far younger than you. By your replies I would have have guessed that you were in your teens at the most simply because you were actually seriously suggesting that the Bourne films are a huge influence on Casino Royal, despite it resembling far more the old Bond pictures and the fact that none of the action scenes in them resemble anything in the Bourne movies at all.

The farthest I will go with this whole Bourne thing is that it probably confirmed that they should consider a different angle. But I do not believe it was anything beyond that because the many complaints that were answered in Casino Royal were started when Die Another Day came out (which by the way, I don't think was that bad).

[Guest froffeecoffee]

There is no way I intented to imply that the Bourne films had a huge influence on Casino Royale. I guess when we make statements on a forum, it's hard to distinguish if we are serious or if we are hinting at a point, or whatever the case may be. In fact, I believe the Bourne films are influenced by the earliest Bond films that focused on plot and character. It's just that when the Bourne filmmakers decided to use this tone, I think it made audiences realize how ridiculous and fomulatic the Bond series had become. For me, I hoped that Bond producers would start to rethink the approach and see that gadgets, big stunts, SFX, and silly jokes not be the story. I want a balance and not for them to make another, A View to a Kill.

Your reply that the Bourne films had producers consider a different angle is more the point I had been trying to convey. Glad we both could come to an agreement on this. So yes, this is the point I had trying to clarify at the beginning. Not that they were copying, influenced, ripping-off, or were effected by. They definitely need to go in an entirely new direction and those of us Bond fans who did like the Bronsnon, Dalton, Moore, Lazenby, and Connery eras, realized that for this series to be successful again it had to go in a different direction.

By influenced, I was indicating that the Bond people were probably seeing the success of Bourne and knew not only from audience's reactions to Bourne, but also the reaction to their series that it was time to minimze the gadgets, jokes, emphasis on Bond girls, and get back to the nitty gritty. A serious, violent, ruthless, no-nonsense Bond. Much like Jason Bourne, serious, violent, ruthless, no-nonesense. Again not suggesting that Bond producers want the series to be what the Bourne series is, but stripping down to the essentials to what makes a good Bond flick.

Like you I also loved, Die Another Day and all Bond films good and bad. But younger audiences just don't get what makes Bond so appealing for us old Bond fans. I can only guess the Bourne films helped those audiences have higher expectations for Bond 22 regardless if you hate the action scenes and if I love the action scenes.

Thanks for the challenging debate Running Man. Your responses and comments are much appreciated and gave me a more diverse view as to the why some don't like the Bourne films.

[Guest The Running Man]

Hey man no problem.

Thanks for bringing a big sense of maturity to this type of discussion that I rarely see displayed. You saw this for what it was, a debate, and that it was nothing personal.

Glad to have taken the time to discuss the issue with you and share our viewpoints.

Hope to see more of you around on the forum.