BOURNE-LESS LEGACY

It's nice when the studios make smart decisions for a change.

This news and the non-3D HP 7 (for part 1 at least) couldn't of made me happier.

Well, I gotta admit, *now* I'm interested.

So this will be like the Halloween 3 of the series? A film that might kind of work on its own but might piss people off because it's seen as a ruse of some sort.

Well it looks like I'm in for this now. I like Gilroy, but this angle actually has me intrigued.

Seriously, guys? This sounds like a terrible idea. Why not just go and make an original action film, rather than desperately (and tenuously) clinging to a franchise that had its natural ending?

Oh, yeah, that's right: $$$.

Of all the ways to extend this franchise, this seems like the best way to potentially do it. Keep the world the same but add new players, conflict, etc. Don't lose any of what made the originals great. When it fits, throw in a Jason Bourne cameo to tie things back to the original and add scope.

Yeah but if we accept that there's no way they weren't going to make more Bourne movies, letting the smart writer and director who's been with the series from the start try something vaguely ambitious with it is a much more interesting option than just recasting or rebooting, and probably more interesting than a pointless return from Greengrass and Damon. That's no guarantee it'll work, but for now I've gone from wishing they'd leave well enough alone to being curious to see how it works out.

I'm completely done with Jason Bourne stories. There was a great beginning, setting up an interesting mystery which was solved in the final installment. I don't see any need to drag things out.

We need more movies like Moon, District 9, Observe and Report, etc., and I'll be casting my vote with my wallet.

Color me intrigued. Gilroy's proven that he can tell smart, compelling stories for grown ups. I have no problems using the "world" established in the Bourne movies for telling new stories. I assume this probably means some supporting characters will reappear, and references to Treadstone, Blackbriar, etc.

Incidentally, this is what I think should have happened to the X-Files: once Duchovny was gone, have Scully leave and let Doggett and Reyes find what they find in the same "world."

I'm really glad they're doing this instead of a reboot or prequel. Granting that it's not as "good" as an original story, it at least shows more artistic integrity than recasting or telling the exact same story again.

I don't think "artistic integrity" is why they're going this route. I think it was market research showing that nobody was going to give a shit about a Bourne movie that featured a different actor playing Bourne.

I get the trepidation but I keep coming back to the fact it's Tony Gilroy with his finger on the trigger. I've liked him as both writer and director so far and I'm 98% sure he at least won't fuck it up.

I like Gilroy too. But I can't help but feel the masses are going to be pissed off when they head into the film, only to find out the movie with the title 'Bourne' in it, doesn't even feature Bourne! This seems like the height of a cynical attempt at milking a cash cow.

Oh yeah, that's true. I often forget about the masses.

What if he gets a significant name into the lead role though? Maybe that would get the masses into a more forgiving mood.

Like, what if it's Michael Cera? Or Joaquin Phoenix?

Lol, that would be awesome if either got the lead role. Although, I doubt either would happen, I especially don't see Cera being given the lead in an important action franchise like Bourne. Joaquin is too strange and esoteric to be given the lead either, but it'd be a bold and potentially awesome choice if they ever went this route.

Yeah, those were jokes, but what if it's a genuinely significant name? Like Robert Pattinson?

No, but to be at least semi-serious for a minute, can we think of anyone of Damon's generation who's as big a draw as he is for the masses and would want to be in a Bourne sequel. Ben Affleck's undergoing something of a renaissance but ... I don't think he'd be in for it. DiCaprio is probably the only one on Damon's level in terms of both skill and star power and he's not going to choose to do it. Gyllenhall seems too soft. I'd be curious to see what Gilroy could do with Mark Wahlberg but on the other hand I wouldn't want the Bourne franchise risked on him. He seems to have an inherent goofiness that I don't think really fits. Gerard Butler and Ryan Reynolds aren't Damon level, but they are a couple of guys who have earned a certain amount of appeal for boys and girls alike. Could Gilroy steer them to a great Bourne-world performance?

Of the younger generation LeBoef is the biggest name, but like Gyllenahaal is too soft for this. Channing Tatum? Ehhhhhh ... he's ok, but you might as well go for Wahlberg. Bradley Cooper? Cool, has shown some action chops but seems more of a comic presence from what I've seen so far. I'm certain Tom Hardy would be brilliant but I don't think he's a recognised "safe" name for the masses yet. Joseph Gordon Levitt could be awesome.

Getting a name may go a long way to making the film work, but I still question the whole concept of creating a Bourne film without Bourne in it.

R. Patt, that would be really funny. Not really, just painful probably. I don't get the appeal at all with this guy, he looks like a junkie, and acts like a perverted loser.

I personally think Channing Tatum seriously sucks, I'd hate to be forced to watch him in a cool action film. And forced I would be, cuz I'm a nerd and can't help myself. Also, I don't really like Wahlberg in such a role, he's a better supporting actor. Even Gerard Butler is kinda shitty, I know ppl will not agree with me on this.

Tom Hardy would be awesome. Chiwetel Ejiofor would be brilliant, love the guy. Ice Cube probably needs a comeback film too, its been too long since he has delighted the public.

Great, great news! I'm now on board for this!

I'll add my endorsement for Joseph Gordon Levitt or Chiwetel Ejiofor. No Laboeuf please.

Is there any point to casting 'against type' for one of these Treadstone/Blackbriar assets anymore? Not that I'm immediately assuming that the movie will be about another one of these guys reacting to the events involving Jason Bourne... but I am of limited imagination.

Part of the fun of Matt Damon being cast as Bourne as that time in his career was that people were shocked when he came across as such a badass.

It would be very cool to have that feeling again, but I don't know how viable that is considering that the name 'Bourne' creates a certain set of expectations now.

It's funny how we're basically doing a wholesale transfer of a Bond casting wishlist onto Bourne.

I thought of Ejiofor too, because he's great, but for The Masses he has even less of a name than Tom Hardy.

And yeah, Tatum's no good for this, I was just really scratching for decent manly leading men under 40. We had a thread about that some time ago and not much has changed. In fact it seems even worse now than then because Ledger has gone in the meantime.

So far, since my dumb Clive Owen/Karl Urban prequel idea has been shot down, Ryan Reynolds would be my first choice. I have to be missing someone though. Is Christian Bale too franchised out for this? Yeah, I think so.

You got me with Ice Cube.


It's not quite casting Bourne himself, but it is casting for that world. And it's definitely fun.

Why do any of you care what the masses will think or why it's being made? Let's worry about whether it will be any good. Job one is picking a good filmmaker. Done and done.

Well this is the first piece of news regarding a fourth film that actually has me intrigued. I'd actually kinda love to see what Gilroy could do with this. It's a really interesting alternative to the constant recasting and rebooting of Bond.

...and I reckon you cast the lead as a very good actor that may not have massive box office pull yet (like say a Joel Edgerton) and surround them with drawcard names in supporting roles to get the punters onboard.

It's not so much about caring what The Masses think, it's about being interested in the machinations of the blockbuster business, which The Masses play a major part in. Because this film is part of a mass-appeal franchise and The Masses decide if the franchise has legs.

Once everyone's decided they're happy, or not, with the initial move of putting Gilroy in the driver's seat there are other intriguing angles to look at, like the fact that this is the series which took on Bond and won, and now that they're pressing Go on carrying on after Damon they're saying, "This thing has the legs to outlast our main actor just like Bond did, except we're not even going to use our main character."

To me that's quite the compelling proposition. Especially because I'm jealous that I can't get all het up about the superhero franchises like everyone else does, so I'm clinging to this sucker for dear life. I'm determined to make this my Black Spiderman.

My guess is that we'll be getting a young Blackfrair Operative as the lead with Bourne in a Mentor role. Pamela Landy playing back up.

You pretty much said what I was going to post. It was inevitable the franchise was gonna go on with or without Greengrass and Damon, and this scenario feels like the best alternative that could be played out. Having Gilroy writing and directing gives me hope.

Greengrass took the core BOURNE elements as far as they could possibly go with SUPREMACY and ULTIMATUM. It'll be nice to have a fresh perspective with a new entry.

I think it was pretty clear that Damon wasn't going to do it, and that they're not going to recast his character. So how would that work?

Off screen cryptic messages maybe?

Screw it, the whole movie is about Julia Stiles. She's the only character beside Bourne that has been in all three movies, right?

THE BOURNE LEGACY: Julia Stiles is Nicky Parsons

Except for the small detail that Stiles has as much film star potential as a wet fart.

My statement used the comparative "more" not the superlative "most" or an absolute word. Of course they want to make money from it. All studios want to make money from all of their films. That doesn't automatically negate artistic integrity. I still give Universal props for not going the reboot/prequel route that's so popular (and easy) these days. A Damon-less Bourne-related movie isn't a sure thing, and carries a large potential for failing, box-office-wise.

One off-hand comment hardly translates into care.

It was mentioned, once, because we were questioning the wisdom of making a Bourneless Bourne film. Your comment might be justified, if my comment was a topic of continued discussion and not one unobstrusive comment. And why exactly is one not allowed to be interested in what the masses may think, or why it's being made? No one is saying you must share another persons interest. And saying let's be worried about whether it will be any good is a straw man tactic, because absolutely no one is saying otherwise.

Heck, lets keep chucking stuff in the bin. Action movie - gone. Espionage - gone. Car chases - gone. Fight scenes - gone.

Lets keep the name but reduce it to an Eddie Murphy movie about talking animal ghosts that open a day care center! The legacy Bourne left us with is FUN!!!

Mind if I throw some sand on your slippery slope?

Joseph Gordon-Levitt would be the best choice.

Because when the masses don't respond, you get Let Me In. Gone after a week.

On the quality front, Gilroy is a great writer, and I loved Michael Clayton, but my problem with this is that it has Bourne in the title, without having Jason Bourne in the movie.

You don't think people will be confused by this? It would need ONE HELL of a marketing campaign to educate the potential audience about what Gilroy is attempting.

So what? I can enjoy it whether it turns a profit or not. Honestly, this modern film geek obsession with profitability and box office is mind-boggling to me.

The masses are pretty stupid as it is. Who gives a shit if they "get" what Gilroy's attempting with this new entry? Also, it's not like this new film is totally unrelated to Jason Bourne. Gilroy himself said there's a connection with the first three films. The film isn't called THE JASON BOURNE LEGACY.

Eh, whatever. If this film doesn't pan out in a good way I still got the trilogy to keep me going.

mmm well at least there won't be anymore shakey cam.

Nah.

It's just another point of interest, to go along with an interest in cool and talented writers, directors and actors.

I've always also been kind of a business-news geek as well as being a movie (and PoliSci/English Lit) nerd; got into the habit of reading the FT and/or Wall St. Journal in college.

BTW, I know that Gilroy was generally unhappy with how Greengrass shot his Bourne scripts, but what specifically were his points of contention? As far as modern big studio action flicks go, the Bourne flicks were creme de la creme---- both smart and action packed.

This kind of cracks me up.

This definatley opens possibilities. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, Bourne style? A female operative? More of the same? Who knows?

Wow, it took 38 posts for somebody to complain about shakey cam. I think that's a long-distance record for this subject.

Yeah, I get pretty severe motion sickness from movies like Cloverfield or Blair Witch, but the Bourne films were fine for me. It did strike me as slightly annoying in Supremacy, though.

You know, I might be a naive optimist but, if the end result is well made then even releasing a Bourne film without Bourne in it could work. The gambit itself will generate enough press attention that you could always end up with reviews along the lines of "Matt Damon is absent but this is still a must-see".

Thing is, 'Bourne' wasn't even the character's real name, it was just a codename. It wouldn't be hard or even that unreasonable for them to keep the name prominent either as some kind of umbrella term for the program that created him, e.g. referring to "The Bourne Project", or by having the new protagonist be another agent in the same system given a related codename like, errr, Billy Bob Bourne or something.

I remember an interview someone here posted with Gilroy where he went into some detail about it. Basically it seems that Greengrass treated his scripts more like loose blueprints and just did what he wanted. That worked out pretty well for for the movies, but I can see why Gilroy would find it frustrating. The fact that Gilroy seemed to feel strongly about his own ideas for the series is part of why I'm interested to see how he'll handle being put in the driver's seat.

Isn't this a series where at least one movie was marketed with a tagline that said "Matt Damon is Jason Bourne?"

I dare say that the makers of the film thought that both elements would be sellers for the franchise.

I don't understand that though. Isn't the *nature* of screen writing that you're essentially creating a blue print for the production and the director? Only a dialogue-heavy writer like Aaron Sorkin doesn't have his words changed. It's a collaborative process, and a screen writer has to let the script baton go at some point and let the director run with it.

Not to say that a writer like Gilroy who gets enough clout at some point to hop into a director's chair to realize his own vision isn't also interesting...

But we're talking about Paul Greengrass here, a talented director, not Brett Ratner or McG.

IMHO, this is the best and most exciting news I've heard about the new "BOURNE" film yet. If you'll recall, I was against the idea of additional BOURNE sequels because as I stated 'Bourne is no Bond', meaning that he has no identifiable personality and now that the "mystery" surrounding him has been resolved, there is little about the character left to explore

Well it seems Mr Gilroy agrees, and since I've enjoyed the tone and style of the series previously, I'm intrigued to see what direction he takes it next. I am not entirely confident that he'll be able to match the relentless pace of the Greengrass pictures, but I have to assume that UNIVERSAL will pair him with a good second unit director to handle the action. My understanding is that Greengrass played fast and loose with Gilroy's scrips, so now that the writer himself is in charge perhaps the plot will be more story driven. Not that I didn't enjoy the other films, but some more thoughtful espionage intrigue (slathered in the patented Bourne brand of action) sounds pretty good to me

As far as I'm concerned, at this point the only remaining x factor is the lead. Hope they cast well.

of course there is no Jason Bourne... he is now David Webb.

This is about money and Universal trying to milk this supposed franchise. Getting Gilroy builds goodwill but this better have a mean hook to get me to buy in.