thebloodbath wrote:Depends how you look at it.
If you look at the noughties films, Bourne wins it quite easily. The three Bournes make a great set and I don't have a firm favourite or dislike any of them. They are a soid piece of work. Whilst Bond has the history, numerous memorable Bonds and villans (not so much in recent times). And the last Bond was a disappointing follow-up to the excellent Casino Royale. So its a tricky one. And what's the future for the Bourne series? Because Robert Ludlum who wrote the novels only did 3, didn't he?? So does that mean the end of the films? Or will they make an original Bourne? I'd plump for Bourne just for the superb hand combat fights, yet if it wasn't for films like Bond and franchises like Bond, would it have been received in the same way?
Robert Ludlum did write other novels, but only 3 in the bourne series I think.
Personally I love both series of films, although Bond wins through the length of time its been going, and the number of different styles, plots and characters.
I have read all the books, and they are so much darker than the films. Daniel Craigs films are a lot more in keeping with the style the books are written in.
I started to read the first bourne book and enjoyed it, but time to read became less and couldn't remember what I'd read the time before the next time I picked up the book, so I gave up. What I read was great though
