Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

jason bourne has traveled to new york to hide out for awhile but is mistaken for a terrostist and none other than john mclane was sent to stop him
round 1 h2h
round 2 guns

H2H Mclane dies quickly and without pain

Not sure about guns.

Even though John Mclane isn't a movie character, I stll say Bourne kicks the furniture makers ass.

yeah him too.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
yeah him too.





McClane get's murdered before he can say Yippie k....

Indeed, Bourne's H2H skills are WAY superior.

Bourne takes this in H2H.

Bourne, no contest. Even if script writers make McClane win, he'd still lose. That's how good Bourne is.

Well if it was a Die Hard movie, even if Bourne had John McClane kneeling with a Beretta to the back of his head, again I have to cite McClane's superior luck.

The gun'd jam or would magically be suddenly out of bullets or something.... Allowing McClane a spilt second or two to swing round and bite off Bournes testicles, spitting them back in Bourne's horrified face... and if that wouldn't be enough, McClane being McClane: A "Matttttttt Daaaaaaaaaaaaaay-miiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiin" taunt or two'd find their way in there at the finishing move.

Or summat like that.

Taken from the James Bond Forum ... (Bond vs Bauer Topic)

Originally posted by Placidity
Bond has better gadgets, but they are of no use to him in the first two scenarios.

Scenario 1: There have been many times when Jack has engaged a group of trained trained terrorists in direct gun fights, and obviously he always wins.
Winner: Bauer

Scenario 2: I can't decide here, they are both pretty good.
Winner: Tie.

Scenario 3: Not sure what is meant by all-out? Does this mean James Bond gets all his gadgets? Then he will get the edge.
Winner: Bond

Anyway, here's my take on (I repeat: My OPINION) the two characters, and I'll try to be unbiased.

Jack Bauer, being in Delta Force, SWAT and CTU definitely has more experience in CQB seeing he is in the field pretty much his whole adult life. IMO, this means he is more efficient with small arms and definitely has more experience with CQB tactics. His unarmed combat/H2H are also top tier. Being in the CIA, he has also honed his intelligence skills and knowledge.

Small Arms Efficiency: 5
CQB Tactics: 5
Unarmed Combat: 4
Stealth: 4
Intelligence: 4
Resources: 4
Resourcefulness: 4
Physical Fitness: 4
Exfiltration/Evasion: 4

Special Expertise: Special Weapons and Tactics, Military Operations Skills (e.g Helicopter Piloting, demolitions etc ) and Counter Terrorism.


James Bond, on the other hand, while I'm sure also has a impressive military record, has spent most of his later life working in espionage. Of course, he is still an assassin, and has vast experience in this aspect. Typically, Bond's style is more that of a spy, using his charm, deception and wits to accomplish his goals, a more classy character. Of course, make no mistake, he can resort to more drastic measures when he needs to, and he is definitely just as capable in that department. Also, he has a better intelligence skills due to his line of work. In addition, he also has a load of high tech gadgets.

Small Arms Efficiency: 4
CQB Tactics: 4
Unarmed Combat: 4
Stealth: 5
Intelligence: 5
Resources: 5
Resourcefulness: 4
Physical Fitness: 5
Exfiltration/Evasion: 5

Special Expertise: Assassination, Infiltration by Stealth, Infiltration by going Undercover, efficient use of High tech gadgets and Espionage/Reconnaissance.



So IMO, they are both elite, but they also excel in different aspects. So overall, who is really better depends on the circumstances.

Also, sorry if this is irrelevant but I must include a stat profile for my favorite character:

Jason Bourne:

Small Arms Efficiency: 5
CQB Tactics: 5
Unarmed Combat: 5
Stealth: 5
Intelligence: 5
Resources: 2
Resourcefulness: 5
Physical Fitness: 5
Exfiltration/Evasion: 5

Special Expertise: Assassination, Infiltration, Exfiltration, Gathering Intelligence, Unarmed Combat, Operation of Automobiles, Survival Skills, Reconnaissance.


Key:

Small Arms Efficiency: Skill with small arms.

CQB Tactics: Knowledge and experience involving CQB Tactics

Unarmed Combat: Skill at H2H combat

Stealth: Ability to infiltrate an area undetected successfully

Intelligence: Experience and Knowledge in gathering intelligence.

Resources: Resources at his disposal. This includes gadgets, wealth and intelligence provided by external parties (e.g CTU or MI6) etc.

Resourcefulness: Ability to use objects or surrounding to one's advantage.

Physical Fitness: Level of Endurance, Strength, Speed and Agility.

Exfiltration/Evasion: Ability to evade enemies or get out of sticky situations unaided.

All categories rated out of 5.

Oh wait that was kinda silly, this is a "Vs McClane" topic.

But seriously guys, Boune headshots him while falling from at least 10 stories high.

I have a grievance with that list.

Craig-Bond is on par with Bourne in H2H, he may lack some of the fancier moves to a degree, but he makes up for it with sheer ferocity and endurance. Both were shown to be capable of taking out several well trained and armed men with little difficulty.

He's also just as good with guns.

Hmm... Bond fights trained men, but Bourne fights the most deadly assassins in the world.

With Bond, his fighting style is very rough and more "realistic" I guess. Bourne on the other hand is much more graceful and calculating, even when he takes blows he acts like its nothing. Usually Bourne and his opponent can read each other and it comes down to experience and skill. Bond seems to go with the flow and the fights are very random (or uncontrolled, for the lack of a better word).

I guess its very subjective, but for me, its very apparent Bourne is more skilled after watching the two.

I pretty much agree Bourne has more skill over-all, but what Bond lacks there, he make up in pure brutality, endurance and not much phases him.

Have you seen QOS?

Bond is also a jammy, jammy bastard like McClane renowned for his escapes against ridiculously threatening situation..

Had Bourne even had to contend with the prospect of having his goolies burned off by laser...? I think not...

I could actually see him doing Bourne, and even killing McClane.
(Assuming that McClane doesnt luck out in some spectacularly jammy way, that is.)

If 'rediculous levels of luck' is a viable aspect of the fight, McClane has a rating of 6 on the 5-scale.

Originally posted by Robtard
I pretty much agree Bourne has more skill over-all, but what Bond lacks there, he make up in pure brutality, endurance and not much phases him.

Have you seen QOS?

Yes, he's still has a very rough style though. I mean Bourne will be able to read him easily. He seems alot more tough in QoS compared to CR though. He takes more punishment jumping and falling from heights and recovers pretty quickly, but if you think about it, Bourne also beats him in this department.

Something I noticed is that Bond never really fights straight up. His fights are always kinda like running around (running for a gun, tackling the guy etc). I guess his fights are always moving around, whereas Bourne and his opponents fight in a more static manner.

It's a combo. In QOS, he had a Bourne-like fight in the Haitian apartment. Took out the four MI6 agents in the confines of the elevator. The two policemen in the street.

There is little doubt that the worse situation in the entire world would be:
























*Opens prestigious silver envelope*






















"....................Being found in bed with Bond's wife."















































































(With the runner up being "You have shagged and killed Holly Genarro, and McClane catches you, after this, drinking the last beer in his fridge"

McClane pwns. he has had glass in his feat

All the better for slicing enemy ass as he kicks it.

hoooooooooooooboy.......no objectivity here, is there? McClaine winning this=crylaugh

None whatsoever!!!!

Damon brings Affleck in FTW

^ Yea, Daredevil would smack McClane effortlessly.

I'm going with McClane.... Because his movies don't suck balls. Hate the Bourne series with a passion

It's SpoOony. That's like.... his thing.

Originally posted by Placidity
You've just admitted to being completely biased and therefore your opinion holds very little to no weight in this debate.
They're fictional characters written by two different people, they're not on the same scale, therefor opinion is all that counts... srug

Even if it's a stupid one.

If you believe my opinion to be stupid that's your prerogative, I don't enjoy the Bourne films, I feel the camera work is horrible, trying to create realism they prevent a fight scene or car chase from being viewed as it's violently shaking around all over the place.

No your opinion doesn't count because it's clear you are backing McClane because you didn't like the Bourne movies and aren't basing your view on the merits of each character.

Originally posted by Placidity
No your opinion doesn't count because it's clear you are backing McClane because you didn't like the Bourne movies and aren't basing your view on the merits of each character.
Wow, and that matters why?

Originally posted by Placidity
No troll food for you today sorry.

Edit: BTW... I hate Superman, but I love Spiderman movies. Therefore Spiderman would beat him in a fight. kThnx.
Oh please, don't give me that bullshit. I'll compare the characters the way I choose to, McClane is the better character in my eyes, therefor (as they're both fictional characters) McClane wins in a fight, because I prefer him, and as they're fictional they can be manipulated as so. If you have a problem with this then too bad. You can disagree or have a problem with it but in the end of the day my opinion and how I choose to interpret the thread are just as valid...

So Yipee Ki Yay Mother ****er.

Originally posted by Final Blaxican
They're valid, just stupid.

And no, not in my opinion. Your reasoning for why Mcclaine wins is factually moronic, no offense.
Oh yes and rattling of "facts" and pointless references which hold no basis in reality to justify why one fictional character is better than another is soooo much better. Yes.... My approach is really the moronic one...

Originally posted by Placidity
I'm glad you can see clearly now. Ha.... ha.... ha..... Witty.........

I prefer ants.

Therefore, one could beat a bear.

Stupid.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I prefer ants.

Therefore, one could beat a bear.

Stupid.

-AC
Ants and bears are not fictitious... Try again.

Originally posted by Placidity
Sure it is. Z from Antz will whoop Kenai from Brother Bear.
Then Z could beat Kenai... And vice-versa... In the world of fiction anything is possible.

Originally posted by Placidity
Exactly my point, you're a nutjob.
No, the people who take these threads seiriously are the nutjobs... You could have just let my shitty post go but you didn't.

Well, at least you admit that your posts are shitty.

http://leelanau2010.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/evil-ronald.jpg

If that's really what you think then whatever, this conversation is not worth my time, if people want to parade about thinking that characters' merits can stand up against eachother in an objective way, even though they're written by different authors or screenplay writers then go ahead and do it, but don't take offence if someone questions the idea entirely.

And please don't even hint at lecturing me about stiring up shit, pot calling kettle black much?

Originally posted by Placidity
http://leelanau2010.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/evil-ronald.jpg

I suppose you're right when you say it's worth my time because I am indeed replying, you have me there.

I do not see a set of rules of conduct for the forum, how I chose to interpret the Movie Vs idea is up to me. Whether people chose to agree or not. I never came waltzing into the forum saying the way people were comparing characters was wrong, didn't even question it until I was being attacked for the straight foreward way I did it.

Stiring up shit is what you live for in the forums, whether you like too admit it or not. You're doing it in this thread, whether you like to admit it or not. (as am I now, wasn't my initial intention.)

My way of comparing characters was shitty, but it's better in my opinion then the way most people are doing it. I HATE it when people over analyse cinema.

Would also like to nip this in the bud... Because I know I'm only going to lose to you AC in any kind of discussion/arguement. You being damn persistant and all.

Dude, don't get me wrong... I can stand you, I like you on these forums, I just think that you're out to cause trouble at times... That is not a bad thing on forums though, makes for a bit of variety.

And on the last point, I like the idea of a Movie VS forum... Just not the way it's being carried out. srug

I'm not going to admit I'm wrong though, becasue I'm not..

So you came in with a method that is even more ridiculous?

How do you propose that as a solution?

"I like A, so he'd beat B.", how is that at all relevant? It isn't Vs in the sense of who is a better character.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
So you came in with a method that is even more ridiculous?

How do you propose that as a solution?

"I like A, so he'd beat B.", how is that at all relevant? It isn't Vs in the sense of who is a better character.

-AC
My way is even more ridiculous in your eyes and most other people's it seems.... but not mine... It's subjective.

Sorry, Vs forums aren't a popularity contest of which character you like more.

Originally posted by Placidity
Sorry, Vs forums aren't a popularity contest of which character you like more. But I choose to treat them that way. srug

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Then you're wrong, objectively.

It's not subjective, stop being stupid.

You are saying fictional character A would beat B, based on preference.

The criteria isn't subjective, though. You examine the abilities both of them have, then the hypothetical discussion of: "Based on these, who would win in a fight." begins.

That is how Vs forums work, because they're not about character preference, they're about elements OF those characters that are NOT subjective.

I prefer Jason Bourne to Spider-Man, in movies. He's not actually going to beat Spider-Man, though. If the two fought, based on that which is displayed in their respective movies, it's impossible that Jason Bourne would beat the man.

Your method is stupid, and you literally have no basis for explaining why it's better, outside of "Well I like him more.", which doesn't work.

So, go for it. Why is your way better?

-AC
I'm aware of the way these threads are supposed to work, we're supposed to picture these characters running around the real world and watching them face off, and I guess this makes for a more interesting thread, blah, blah, blah.

I would like to see a Vs forum where people would talk about the merits of characters against the other in a different way, I'd like people to discuss and compare the cool things that characters have done in their films against each other, the way they've been written and performed. Not a head to head as such but more of a race (not literal of course). People talking about the merits of the films and the characters within them as opposed to a dissection of the characters and a show of fisticuffs.

You're correct, the way that I've gone about showing my opinion on the whole premise for the forum is wrong and pretty darn childish. I act before I think the large majority of the time and get myself in holes... Then I start to think.

I've never disputed what this forum was for, just put foreward what I'd prefer it to be for. I didn't actually know about that rule before now. So in the future I'll try not to take the smartarse approach when it comes to the word versus.

I would however like that rule to be modified to allow for threads which allows us to pit characters and films agaisnt eachother in other ways, which can be specified within the opening post of the thread.

(I guess this is me admiting I'm wrong, but only when it comes to the way I've conducted myself and ignorance towards the rules.)

The way you conducted yourself and your ignorance was all there was on debate.

So that's everything.

It took a second, really. I clicked the rules thread and it was there.

-AC

I knew when I made my initial post that it was not what I was supposed to do, I wasn't ignorant of that. I just thught that it was a majority enforced view as opposed to a rule made one... Which changes everything, as it means I have no basis to argue against the rule followers, but more towards the rule maker. Which I will do tomorrow I reckon. (Maybe not argue but suggest a rewrite)

Usually, when it comes to McClane i don't think that training and military experience matters very much. This is why i believe McClane would fuking rock Riggs. McClane has had no such training but he still makes shit dead like a pro. When it comes to Bourne, however, he is essentially a machine that became self aware. Most of the things he does comes without thinking but rather, by natural instincts. Bourne is programmed to kill and he follows this programming out better than anyone else and he doesn't even remember his programming.

John has a genuine shot at taking Bourne down in a gunfight. McClane has a nack for dodging bullets and he is also a good shot.

So now he can dodge bullets? Dammit, where is that cricket vid when I need it.....

hell yes he can.


491322&pagenumber=2

Yep.... He runs/moves and he shoots being elusive and hard to hit and uses cover well.

Thusly dodging bullets.

After all: He survived the sheer amount of lead launched at him during Die Hard, Die Hard 2: Die Harder, Die Hard with a vengance, and Die hard 4.0. Enough lead to melt down and rebuilt as a life size Eiffel Tower, probably.

(NOT counting the shots taken at him in decades of service in between movies..!!!)

McClane: you're telling me I can dodge bullets?
Morpheus: No, John. All I'm telling you is that when Die Hard5 comes out....you won't need to.

Originally posted by Sado22
McClane: you're telling me I can dodge bullets?
Morpheus: No, John. All I'm telling you is that when Die Hard5 comes out....you won't need to.


see, this dude gets it and he aint even on my side. CGEnKh0ocb0&feature=channel_page

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Well if it was a Die Hard movie, even if Bourne had John McClane kneeling with a Beretta to the back of his head, again I have to cite McClane's superior luck.

The gun'd jam or would magically be suddenly out of bullets or something.... Allowing McClane a spilt second or two to swing round and bite off Bournes testicles, spitting them back in Bourne's horrified face... and if that wouldn't be enough, McClane being McClane: A "Matttttttt Daaaaaaaaaaaaaay-miiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiin" taunt or two'd find their way in there at the finishing move.

Or summat like that.




You the man, dude

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

Then stay out of a place where people do it exclusively. I hate the idea of "Masturbation Log Thread", so I don't go in there.

-AC

Oh my goodness...That shit is completely

Yeah, I stopped posting in that thread ages ago. Got kinda tacky.

Jason kills McClaine and everyone in this thread while brushing his teeth.