Bourne Stunt Coord. Hired for BOND 22

Man, these guys are obsessed with The Bourne Identity films!!! I love the Bourne trilogy, it was amazing. Certainly better than the latest and over hyped Bond films...even the new one-- the latter film, I found boring--that and, Bond seemed like a so-so sociopath and A-Sexual who happened to be a serial killer--one with a gun, but certainly, he did not come off as a hero. However, The Transporter 2...with less of a budget, actually blew the latest Bond away...no contest!!! Something that really surpised me as a viewer. I kept on thinking, man...this should have been the new James Bond film!!!

I think this is a very good sign about the next Bond flick, as the last Bourne movie was very impressive. I think the stunts and fights in both the last Bond movie and the Bourne series have been incredibly impressive. The chase sequence with the "jumping man" as my wife and I called him in Bond was unbelievable. The fights throughout the movie had that "gritty realism" much more than Connery's "That's a Smith and Wesson, and you've had your six. Now it's time for my two." The latest Bond was definitely influenced greatly by the last Bourne movie, as the new interpretation of Bond matches Bourne. He spends much of the film trying to deal with his newfound authority to kill; even M lectures him on killing the right person at the right time. I look forward to what they will come up with for the new one.

If this is the guy responsible for the jerky - I can't tell what's happening because the camera is too close and cuts only last about a second and camera is pointed at everything but the action - fight and chase bits in Bourne Supremacy, this ain't such great news. I start to worry for Indiana Jones IV. "gritty realism" - more like a camera in an unruly mob being knocked about trying to get a shot.

I loved the way the action was shot in the Bourne Movies. It was very in your face and felt like you are right in it. Anyone who has ever been in a fight knows that things happen very quickly and everything feels shaky and jerky. I think it will be a huge asset to the movie as bond is a very gritty, brutal fighter.

Whiskey, in hand to hand combat and things are shaky and jerky (and probably in car chases too, don't know, never been in one), without a doubt, but I don't want to see that when I go to the movies. I want to be able to see what's going on in the movie, not get sick in the stomach from jerky camera shots. I had the same complaint with Zombie's version of Halloween. A little shaky cam can add a nice effect, but when it's used too much it's annoying and looks like the director is just using the effect to mask poor effects or fighting choreography (remember Val Kilmer's Batman? The quick cuts were used because he wasn't very good in the fight scenes). The Bourne series has been excellent overall, and I think it'll be a good thing to add more of the Bourne flavor into the Bond series. Although I'll always enjoy the older Bond movies with the gimmicks and special toys, I like the more grounded Bond a lot.

"However, The Transporter 2...with less of a budget, actually blew the latest Bond away...no contest!!!" - You've got to be kidding me. My wife and I laughed at Transporter 2 like we were watching Season 3 of the Simpsons. Putting Casino Royale in the same class as Transporter 2 is like saying Justin Timberlake is a better performer than Michael Jackson (pedo jokes aside).

ahhh, ''Captainjacksparibs'', you beat me to it. Transporter 2 was fun and even better then the first one. But I do admit that to compare Transporter 2 with Casino Royal makes no sense what so ever. I know everyone has their own opinion but come on, this comparaison is a bit thin no? Anyway, not too sure if this is good news for the next bond. The first Bourne I liked a lot. The second was a good story in my view but it was almost the same thing as the first one. Then the third Bourne in my view is just a copy/paste of everything that was done in the first movies. Nothing new, NOTHING came of ot the 3rd bourne except the story was a bit different but it was the same fights, the same action scene, cue the car chase at 43 minutes within the movie, cue the close fights where you hardly see anything, etc...but, that's just me.

Loved Casino Royale. Loved the Bourne trilogy. Also loved Transporter 2, but T2 was a slightly different animal than the other two. Bond and Bourne are going for the "real world" feel while T2 was meant to be over the top hyper reality. If I needed someone to watch my back, Bond and Bourne would do everything humanly possible to protect me, but Jason Statham from the Transporter would do the absolutely impossible to get the job done.

Whiskey, in response to "I think it will be a huge asset to the movie as bond is a very gritty, brutal fighter." I couldn't agree more, I love what they did with Bond, one could even say he's more Bourne than Bond. My problem is with the camera work and the over use of this particular style. This style probably looks good if you want give the audience the feel of lets say falling down a flight of stairs, but who wants deal with falliing down stairs for 20-30 minutes.

Well, I agree that it can be a little confusing, but I think it works well. I am not sure how well it will work in Indy IV, as most of the fighting in the Bourne movies was the principal actors doing the fighting themselves. I am not sure Harrison Ford can handle that at his age. And I agree, Transporter was a great movie. It was very similar to the 3 or so Bond movies before Casino Royale. Over the top, not grounded in reality and total eye candy. It worked very well for the Transporter, but was turning Bond into a living comic book. Bond should be kept more in the relm of reality. On another note, I am watching Heroes on DVD, and what an amazing show. This show is a true live action comic book.