Well, Bond has 45 years of experience going for him, taking on every henchmen, spy, terrorist, madmen, nuclear-armed madmen, eastern european secret service force, country.
He also ended the Cold War and took down the Iron Curtain all by himself, while sleeping with the most beautiful girls on the planet along the way.
So on past form, its gotta be Bond.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Now a Proper debate!!
Now a Proper debate!!Follow
Smasharoo wrote:
I always thought Bond was meant to be satirical, like a caricature of the type of archetype.
Bourne isn't???
Bourne isn't???
I assume that Bourne's clichés aren't directly intended but rather are an unfortunate artifact of the beach-reader/Hollywood spy archtype.
That said, I found the films to be entertaining enough. It's an action/spy movie. If I want depth, I'll watch some Syrian made documentry about Nepalese ghoral ranchers.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Smasharoo wrote:
I always thought Bond was meant to be satirical, like a caricature of the type of archetype.
Bourne isn't??? The brain washed killing machine who loses his memory, but regains it suddenly in surprising fashion and decides to turn the tables on his creators? Give me a @#%^ing break, the whole concept is a caricature of cheesy writing cynically aimed at the 35-50 male market. It's as hackneyed as a book about a black woman and her friends going to Barbados on vacation and meeting waiters that look like male models, love to @#%^ old women, and are secretly heirs to giant banana fortunes.
Sure the Bourne books are fantastically formulaic and predictable but at least they're gritty, unlike the posh eurotrash Bond. I mean, I take Bond about as seriously as I take Austin Powers. Of course, I laugh way more during Bond movies, which could only be improved by adding more diCk, fart and **** sex jokes.
That said, I found the films to be entertaining enough.
Me too. On the other hand I also enjoyed "How Stella Got Her Groove Back"
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Smasharoo wrote:
On the other hand I also enjoyed "How Stella Got Her Groove Back"
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Smasharoo wrote:
That said, I found the films to be entertaining enough.
Me too. On the other hand I also enjoyed "How Stella Got Her Groove Back"
You should watch "The Notebook".
Nexa
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.â€
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
Grandfather Barkingturtle wrote:
Sure the Bourne books are fantastically formulaic and predictable but at least they're gritty, unlike the posh eurotrash Bond.
Another vote for Bourne.
Atomicflea wrote:
Grandfather Barkingturtle wrote:
Sure the Bourne books are fantastically formulaic and predictable but at least they're gritty, unlike the posh eurotrash Bond.
Because I can read Ludlum, but Fleming is too diffykult.
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
Lord Nobby wrote:
I was talking about the movies
Atomicflea wrote:
Lord Nobby wrote:
I was talking about the movies
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
Lord Nobby wrote:
Atomicflea wrote:
Lord Nobby wrote:
I was talking about the movies
Bond. Hands down.
He is British after all.
(and havn't you guys seen Layer Cake? Craig's the man.)
He is British after all.
(and havn't you guys seen Layer Cake? Craig's the man.)
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
Quote:
Lancelot Link, on the other hand rules all.
QFT.
Though seriously, Bond would win against Bourne. Why? Because James Bond will always be cooler than Jason Bourne.
The Bourne character had to be a little more resourceful than bond ever did from what I've seen. Not only did bond have the support and inventions of MI6 but most of bond's objectives were planed out.
Bourne had not only assassins but the CIA after him while he had amnesia and was able to plan and execute his own objectives.
As another poster pointed out however
So it would depend on the situation.
If Bond was sent to kill Bourne I believe Bourne would have less of a chance because bond rarely makes mistakes, especially if Bourne didn't know he was coming.
If Bourne was sent to kill bond (who would probably be busy with some blonde girl) I think he might have more of a chance.
If you put both of them in an empty locked room I think Bourne would win because bond rarely kills his enemies with his bare hands, he usually uses some weapon or trick.
I probably thought about that way more than I should have.
Bourne had not only assassins but the CIA after him while he had amnesia and was able to plan and execute his own objectives.
As another poster pointed out however
Quote:
Bond would win because Bond is proactive in finding and destroying his enemies, whilst Bourne is reactive, finding and destroying those that try to hurt him first, who are inept, luckily for Bourne. If Bond and Bourne were to be opposing, Bourne would not even know it until after Bond took him out, and Bond is not inept like those others.
So it would depend on the situation.
If Bond was sent to kill Bourne I believe Bourne would have less of a chance because bond rarely makes mistakes, especially if Bourne didn't know he was coming.
If Bourne was sent to kill bond (who would probably be busy with some blonde girl) I think he might have more of a chance.
If you put both of them in an empty locked room I think Bourne would win because bond rarely kills his enemies with his bare hands, he usually uses some weapon or trick.
I probably thought about that way more than I should have.
Quote:
Has the British navy ever actually won a battle that didn't involve an iberian armada?
Quote:
If you put both of them in an empty locked room I think Bourne would win because bond rarely kills his enemies with his bare hands, he usually uses some weapon or trick.
I meant if they both had no weapons when I said empty room, my mistake. :/
1 post
Hi everyone, I tend to visit the aslyum and the other forums on this website simply to read the unusual topics you manage to come with and I can not sit quiet while you argue about Bond. Personally I own every single James Bond movie out there so I have seen a lot of James Bond in my life time. Now back to the debate who would win 1v1? Bourne would, no contest.(unless its connery just because he is just that awesome) While Bond is an amazing spy he has more experience in taking down entire orginizations. He has little experience going after a single man that can kill just about anyone with a pen.(with the exception when he had to deal with oddjob the guy with the deady hat) So I would say I like Bond better because he is a better overall spy while Bourne is an assasin note the difference. assasin vs spy, assasin wins.
I may or may not continue to post here but I thought I would give my 2 cents.
Edited, Aug 22nd 2007 11:41:25am by Rokurion
I may or may not continue to post here but I thought I would give my 2 cents.
Edited, Aug 22nd 2007 11:41:25am by Rokurion
Isn't it fascinating what subjects inspire lurkers to finally break their silence and post here?
The short answer is: no.
The short answer is: no.
IMHO:
It depends. If we were talking quality of the novels, Bond would win because frankly the Boune books blow.
If we're talking the characters - again, depends. If its the Bond from the books (killer assassin d00d) then he'd mop the floor with Bourne. If its the Bond from the earlier movies (suave spy) Bourne would probably win.
Frankly I think whoever got to watch that Thumbelyna Quick Hands/Bourne/Bond threesome would win, but then I'm a pervert.
Can we toss in a midget or two, maybe some jumper cables and moter oil?
It depends. If we were talking quality of the novels, Bond would win because frankly the Boune books blow.
If we're talking the characters - again, depends. If its the Bond from the books (killer assassin d00d) then he'd mop the floor with Bourne. If its the Bond from the earlier movies (suave spy) Bourne would probably win.
Frankly I think whoever got to watch that Thumbelyna Quick Hands/Bourne/Bond threesome would win, but then I'm a pervert.
Can we toss in a midget or two, maybe some jumper cables and moter oil?
#46REDACTED,
Posted: Aug 22 2007 at 9:11 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Isn't it fascinating which people feel the need to denigrate others for no other reason than they had the nerve to post on their precious forum?
kbradshaw wrote:
Isn't it fascinating which people feel the need to denigrate others for no other reason than they had the nerve to post on their precious forum?
The long answer is: They are ineffectual twits suffering from massive ***** envy.
I'll go back to lurking and laughing at the pictures of your little get together.
The long answer is: They are ineffectual twits suffering from massive ***** envy.
I'll go back to lurking and laughing at the pictures of your little get together.
Hooray for you. I guess?
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
kbradshaw wrote:
A post
The nerve of some people.
kbradshaw wrote:
Isn't it fascinating which people feel the need to denigrate others for no other reason than they had the nerve to post on their precious forum?
There are other reasons. I'll throw you one because I am generous.
short answer: because I think it's fUckin funny.
i will comment that it seems like the only reason, however, that you posted is no other than just to denigrate people who are doing nothing other than do what they do and what they are going to keep on doing no matter who tries to come in and attempts to point out some kind of phantom social mores that may or may not exist over these internets.
Which I also think is funny.
kbradshaw wrote:
I'll go back to lurking and laughing at the pictures of your little get together.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Recent Visitors: 256
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (256)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Now a Proper debate!!
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC