IMF Agent Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) v MI6 Agent James Bond (Daniel Craig)

GWC Community Geek Deathmatch
#1

Skyfall comes out on Bluray/DVD tomorrow, so here goes another Geek Deathmatch: Ethan Hunt vs James Bond.

Could Jason Bourne kick both their asses? Would Michael Weston manage to outfox either of them? Could John And Jane Smith (Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt) destroy them with their hands tied behind their back? Would Jack Ryan out analyze them and take them down in the field? Would Harry & Helen Tasker (Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jamie Lee Curtis) hold thier own against them?

For the purposes of this Geek Deathmatch I DO NOT CARE!!! This is IMF vs MI6, tech vs tech, team vs team, and Ethan Hunt vs James 00 freaking 7 Bond.

Choose wisely and let us know your thoughts below. Let the spy-games begin!!!

#2

Ethan Hunt probably could have taken down every Bond between Connery and Craig. Roger Moore in particular would never have seen him coming.

However you specified Daniel Craig, and Craig’s Bond would obliterate Tom “Shortstack” Cruise’s Ethan Hunt before he could even pull his fake face off.

#3

Wow. Them seems like fighting words. Ethan Hunt over George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, and Pierce Brosnan? I’m sure you’ve just riled the entire United Kingdom over that one!

But as much as I loathe our favorite couch-jumping nut Christian Scientologist actor, you’re probably right. Cruise has creds beyond Hunt too. There’s also Jack Reacher, Roy Miller (Knight and Day), The Last Samurai, and Captain John Anderton (Minority Report). So much so that he very well might have a legitimate shot over Daniel Craig as Bond. At least that’s how I see it.

#4

Ethan could definitely take out Roger Moore, he should never have been cast as Bond. Moore was fine as ‘The Saint’, and that secret agent guy in Cannonball Run. But he never convinced me he could kill a man, maybe hurl an insult at him, or challenge him to a riveting game of cricket. But kill a man? NAHHHHHHH…

Connery yes, Dalton YES, Craig Frak Yeah! As for Cruise, he has come a long way. I really thought that ‘The Rock’ should have been cast as Jack reacher, but I’d be damned if the frakin little bastard didn’t pull it off. He was so good I saw the film twice.

Another thing to consider. The early Bonds were heavily into gadgets, much like the IMF. The newer Bond films are moving away from gadgets, and focus more on the man and his abilities, and less on the tools of the trade. IMF agents lean heavily on their toys, disguises, computers and wheels. Craig’s Bond is very adaptable, and can make-do with whatever is at hand. In the first film he was indeed a ‘blunt weapon’, a glorified thug and killer with skills and keen insight. He is becoming more refined and thoughtful in his approach, more proactive and less reactive. More of a precision guided weapon and less of a 2000 pound bomb, if you will.

Food for thought. Class, discuss.

#5

There’s one agent you have all forgotten.

Sterling…Mallory…Archer.

He did, after all, invent the Black Tutleneck.

Btw my vote goes to Bourne. I’d like to see a Jason Bourne / Craig 007 throwdown, but I think Bourne would win it in a ring. In the outside world Craig probably better due to MI6 resources.

#6

I have not forgotten Archer. In fact I recently posted a geekmatch between Archer and Brock from Venture Bros - a matchup that I think was much more on equal footing than a cartoon versus a live-action character. But maybe that’s just me.

I think Bourne could take just about any normal human including any 007 version or Ethan Hunt. But I do have a matchup that I think would be befitting of Bourne coming up soon.

#7

One thing to keep in mind with Cold-War era Bonds is that spies in the era where very real and Bond was being portrayed in films at that time as a real spy - the top of the world spy class - but very real. Bond wasn’t just supposed to be a kick your ass sort of guy and a well trained assassin, but more-so a spy capable of running a major operation and gaining intel in all circumstances. Spy agencies at the time had nearly unlimited budgets to run their operatives and Bond was the epitome of that. Actors like Sean Connery, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan were type cast in the roles very well. They were all individuals who could waltz into a major charity event and be able to mingle with anyone and come out with the intel that they were tasked to get. They were not “wet boys” necessarily. And, yes, they did rely heavily on gadgets. Like Stealth technology in the late 80’s and early 90’s spy gadgets were major force multipliers in the Cold War giving a tremendous amount of advantage for very little investment and risk.

Nowadays we are dealing with an abundance of mixed special forces/wet operations. The raid on Osama Bin Laden is the pinnacle of this type of operation.The “spying” is done using an intricate web of national resources and analysis which is fed near real-time to the operations commanders and teams. The type of spy involved in these activities is more of a Daniel Craig “wet” operator. The point man/operator/spy is needed less to move data and more to actually perform operations.

So my point is, you shouldn’t discount the earlier Bonds. For their time they were extremely capable and valuable.

For the current era, though, both Ethan Hunt and Daniel Craig bring a slightly different but effective skill to the trade. While their limitations of their franchises may seem to tip the scales in favor of Craig’s brute force capabilities, Hunt’s adaptation of modern subterfuge combined with his ample physical skills do make for a fair match against Bond in my opinion.

My 2 cents, anyway.