Most tend to focus on the question of looks of Daniel Craig or Matt Damon. Some compare the revenues of the films. Others take their cue from the critics or the action in each film. But I think the real question is the thinking of the characters.
Both characters think as much as they act. So if we compare just the thinking of the latest Bond, and Bourne what do we get? Bourne wins hands down.
Bond is out of his league when it comes to number of languages. That doesn’t me he is stupid, but it does limit him in some situations and cuts down his response time. Luckily he tends to always be surrounded by only well-spoken english speaking foes and spots in the world.
Bond also loses on spontaneous thought. Neither man looks like they have a plan, if you watch them casually. But Bourne always has a plan. As Nikki says,
“They don’t do random. There’s always a target, always a plan.”He modifies it as he goes, but the plan is always there. In every movie he has a purpose and never expends more energy or makes himself more obvious than he needs.
Bond is always very visible. He tends to draw attention to himself. And his reaction time to events unfolding around him is slower than Bourne. Bond looks to figure out the big plan and then work down to the details, skipping a few points on the way.
Bourne is focused on the details, working his way up. He follows every detail and works from the shadows if at all possible. Bourne looks to misdirect and confuse to Bonds frontal attack.
Another problem for Bond, he needs gadgets. Mind you we all love the stuff he gets from Q. It’s cool stuff, perfect for the mission at hand. Sadly almost none of it survives a mission.
Bourne has never used anything more complicated than a tracking device. He is so low tech as to almost be stone age compared to Bond. Of course Bond never gets to beat down anyone with a pen, magazine, or a towel. I’m not sure Bond could if he needed to.
If they had to go up against each other Bourne wins in my opinion. Bond would likely never see Bourne coming after him, and I doubt he could keep up with him in a fight. Bond could never track Bourne down. And Bond sticks out in a crowd everywhere.
And the last thing that puts Bourne over Bond is the fact that Bond is not committed enough. Bond would die for Queen and country, but Bourne refuses to acknowledge pain or the thought of death. Once he has to act it is without regard to pain or physical consequence with everything in his surroundings adding to his arsenal of weapons. (I don't recall exactly but did Bourne ever shoot anyone besides the one guy in the field in the first movie?) Bond really hasn’t been in such a situation (yet) but he does not inspire the thought of absolute commitment that Bourne does.
In a different way of stating it, Bourne is a samurai to Bond’s cowboy. Both can be quite deadly, but your chances of surviving the cowboy is much higher.
Do you agree? Do you think Quantum of Solace will prove this wrong? Let me know if you see the movie this weekend.
No comments:
Post a Comment