Bond vs Bourne vs Hunt: The Golden Age Of The Super Spy

Tampering With The Formula

As if aware of the high stakes of losing his position of top spy to his rivals, James Bond has tampered the most with his own formula for success over the last ten years. Here€™s how. Firstly, both Mission Impossible and James Bond are not supposed to have storylines which bridge movies. There are exceptions, like when James Bond held the status of widow from one movie to the next or when Jaws became so popular in The Spy Who Loved Me that they let him appear again in Moonraker. Also, there is Ernst Stavro Blofeld of SPECTRE, who sometimes held a grudge from one movie to the next. However, on the whole, the exceptions only proved the rule that each movie / episode was its own self-contained story. Rather, what Mission Impossible and James Bond had was a core roll of main characters and a formula. That formula was that each secret agent had to complete a daring mission or solve of a complex conundrum which results in the saving of Britain, America or the world. If James Bond or Ethan Hunt could do this while blowing things up, shagging someone and squeezing out a gag or two, then all the better. One got his missions from €˜M€™ and the other from an exploding message. To help them achieve success each agent got gadgets and/or team mates to help. Ethan Hunt had lots of mates, but James Bond was more of a loner, hanging out from time to time with a Bond girl or his American pal, Felix. Finally, both Ethan Hunt and James Bond worked for the government, even when appearing not to or temporarily falling out with them. In the end of the day, when the job was done, they pressed the reset button and began another mission in the next movie or episode with the same bosses, colleagues and sometimes enemies, who for the most part all seemed oblivious to what had just happened in the last mission. James Bond and Ethan Hunt also had repetitive character traits, like Bond liking poker, Martinis (shaken, not stirred), Aston Martins, dry one liners, etc, etc. That was the formula. That was the key to their success and longevity. With each outing Ethan Hunt and James Bond did what it said on the tin. Well, that was the case for James Bond until Jason Bourne turned up. Jason Bourne is the antidote to the above. He was an agent who lost his memory and spooked the CIA, who then wanted him dead. He only kills in self defence or to find out more about who he is. Not because the President or the Queen told him to. Also, what happened in the Bourne Identity directly leads to the sequel and so on. Each movie is a direct continuation of the last. Indeed, this year€™s Bourne Legacy is linked directly to the events of 2009€™s Bourne Ultimatum, even though it follows a different character. Jason Bourne had no gadgets except the ones he steals off his victims and no friends other than Marie in the first two movies and Nicolette Parsons and Pamela Landy in the last. Otherwise, he was a total loner and outsider. It is noticeable that Jason Bourne hardly speaks in his movies! I suppose you could also say that Bourne did not fancy the high life much either. Not much into Aston Martins and Martinis. He is more internet cafes and Paris hostels. Finally, Bourne is a monogamist, bordering on being a monk by the end of his trilogy. Now you can tell Jason Bourne€™s critical success spooked James Bond, because with Daniel Craig€™s arrival 007 became more of a rebel, had no gadgets and even initially drove a Ford. A bungled attempt to progress the storyline from Casino Royale to Quantum of Solace was further evidence that James Bond€™s producers had lost a little faith in Bond€™s trusted formula. Why? I think because they thought Die Another Day was poor because the Bond formula had gone off, not because it just wasn€™t a very good execution of that formula. Somebody also thought that Jason Bourne€™s formula was the future of spy movies as opposed to being just different to James Bond. Whatever caused the change, Bond became more like Bourne and it appeared to pay dividends in Casino Royale, which was a stonking success. So, they repeated the trick with Quantum of Solace with mixed results. This is because Casino Royale had a rock solid Ian Fleming premise and excellent writing uninterrupted by a strike. However, Casino Royale also had a high stakes poker game, a reference (at least) to Martinis, a memorable villain, an Aston Martin and other staples of a Bond movie its audience found familiar, reassuring and pleasurable. This allowed the audience to embrace the more brash, less humorous, more physical Bond as Casino Royale was good AND had enough formulaic anchors to reassure James Bond's fans that they were, after all, still watching James Bond. Quantum of Solace's attempt to introduce SPECTRE was botched because of the writers€™ strike, but I think it also suffered because Bond went even further from his trusted formula and ended up confusing his target audience. Don€™t tell me that an appearance by Q and a last minute use of a cool gadget would not have helped Quantum of Solace's receipts and critical reception! Anyway, the damage done was not terminal, as to be quite frank, I cannot wait for Skyfall. Ethan Hunt was less affected thematically by Jason Bourne but was influenced more in terms of the physicality this young pretender brought to the screen, which I discuss in the next section. Overall, a clear win for Bourne here on the influence stakes, although not always with the best outcome for Mr Bond nor for himself. This is so as The Bourne Ultimatum finished with a large full stop, rather than a comma. It is unclear yet whether Jeremy Renner can restart the whole idea of a Spy being stalked by his own agency again. Click "next" for "Action"....