JEREMY RENNER IS THE NEW NOT-REALLY BOURNE (CONFIRMED? WAITING FOR UPDATE…)

Is it possible that Renner being set up to inhereit M:I from Tom Cruise is purposeful false reporting(kind like what Nolan is doing with DKR) so it's extra shocking when it ends up that he's the main bad guy?

Another rogue agent?!  Nooooooooooo!!!!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walker 

Is it possible that Renner being set up to inhereit M:I from Tom Cruise is purposeful false reporting(kind like what Nolan is doing with DKR) so it's extra shocking when it ends up that he's the main bad guy?

I like this theory better than "Jeremy Renner is the new face of EVERYTHING." Why is he suddenly getting all these roles? I like him, but is there some reason all the studios are saying, "This is THE GUY"?
 

"This is the guy..."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe T 

I like this theory better than "Jeremy Renner is the new face of EVERYTHING." Why is he suddenly getting all these roles? I like him, but is there some reason all the studios are saying, "This is THE GUY"?
 

 

Speaking as a guy who's in the military, his character from Hurt Locker is the kind of "go for broke, don't give a fuck" dude that a lot of soldiers fantasize being with Renner having endless charsima to burn.

So to rephrase that: Jeremy Renner isn't wimpy, and he's also American.

Sorry about the weird title.  Everyone was talking about Renner nabbing the part but I initially couldn't find the source.  I had to go walk my dog and come back,  I didn't realize I published it with my stupid note.

So is it common now for actors being offered parts to make the news so quickly? I thought it was bad form, just so that in case he turns it down and someone else gets the role this actor doesn't look like they're taking Renner's table scraps.

I think Universal is desperate for a franchise. Hope they really take a strong look at this new one though. The direction and story better be airtight and intense.

Renner will be fine but as we talked about in that other thread it'd be nice if they actually looked at more interesting choices for the lead.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pop Zeus 

So is it common now for actors being offered parts to make the news so quickly? I thought it was bad form, just so that in case he turns it down and someone else gets the role this actor doesn't look like they're taking Renner's table scraps.

It's the new norm. The trades and the various news sites are so desperate for traffic that we're hearing about things far, far before we should or before they're really official.   The studios benefit, I guess, from the early buzz and attention though it can also work against deal making.

I'm unembarrassed by the dorky amount of love I have for the Bourne trilogy.  I just watched Supremacy again a couple of days ago.

I have very strong negative feelings toward this movie.  I've read the three original books.  I'll never read the fourth.  And it's not like the character is some sacred cow.  I think it's the whole angle the book is sold with.  ROBERT LUDLUM's The Bourne Legacy, which just happened to be written by somebody else.  (Cause Ludlum was dead. I know.)

I think we're getting something of the same sell, here.  I'll gladly eat crow if this movie winds up as a worthy addition to the franchise, but Universal's going to have to work very hard to get my ticket.

Focusing on Renner specifically for the role, I'm not sure he has the same elements to his advantage that Damon brought to Bourne.  I think the audience was meant to be, and could be, just as astonished as Jason Bourne when he attacks and disarms those two policemen in Switzerland for the first time.  Damon has a face that made both aspects of the character work.  The guy who wanted to do was right, and the guy who could kill every man in the room without breaking a sweat.

Maybe it's the role's I've seen Jeremy Renner in, (though I don't think it is).  The guy just looks like an asshole.  He looks like one of the douchebags we cheered Jason Bourne for beating up.  I'm not sure the angle on the story here.  I have to hope that they're not going with another amnesia story.  Let's hope this isn't another U.S. Marshals, but that's precisely what it seems to me.

It boils down to the fact that I don't see the point of this movie, and this choice for lead isn't doing anything to change my mind.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcnooj82 

Another rogue agent?!  Nooooooooooo!!!!!!

Really, the next Mission Impossible film should deal with why such a high proportion of their agents end up being traitors or turning to crime. They seem to have more traitors than the CIA and MI5 put together.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shan 

Really, the next Mission Impossible film should deal with why such a high proportion of their agents end up being traitors or turning to crime. They seem to have more traitors than the CIA and MI5 put together.

They're just trying to keep pace with CTU.

I'll probably check iit out, I'm curious to see how it fits in. 

No.

Tony Gilroy is directing this new quasi Bourne fiilm. He's got a solid head on his shoulders, and he's probably just trying to get the Bourne movies that he had in his head when he first wrote the screenplays before Greengrass totally went against his grain. Reportedly, he brislted at Greengrass' changes.

Gilroy is definitely my main reason for being interested in this movie. He's not coming at it from the angle of wanting to repeat the success of the earlier films because he wasn't even that happy with them. He's going to be going at this with something to prove, so it can't help but turn out interesting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pop Zeus 

So is it common now for actors being offered parts to make the news so quickly? I thought it was bad form, just so that in case he turns it down and someone else gets the role this actor doesn't look like they're taking Renner's table scraps.

Seems so, along with actor 'shortlists' for movie projects that don't really tell you anything at all. I agree that there's something dodgy about it.

Wait, you're not saying Karl "Sweet Cheeks" Urban and Clive "Cutie Pie" Owen look like douchebags are you? Say it ain't so Shunderson.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walker 

Speaking as a guy who's in the military, his character from Hurt Locker is the kind of "go for broke, don't give a fuck" dude that a lot of soldiers fantasize being with Renner having endless charsima to burn.

 

So to rephrase that: Jeremy Renner isn't wimpy, and he's also American.

This is an angle that seems to come up more and more lately - that it seems like more and more the studios are looking to Australia and the UK for their next generation of masculine leading men rather than Americans. It's not that the US doesn't have great, compelling young actors like Ryan Gosling and Tobey Maguire and Adrien Brody and Joseph Gordon-Levitt around, it's that they don't radiate capability and alpha instinct.

According to The Movies, the Young American Man is vulnerable and somewhat introspective, and there's a whole section of the American Dudiverse which doesn't relate to that. They want the next Matt Damon or Brad Pitt or even Vin Diesel, a guy who can play a human being but also kick generous amounts of ass. Shit, even Renner's 40 years old, he's barely of a different generation than those established guys.

Chris Pine needs to be in more of this stuff.

What's funny is that Tobey Maguire surprisingly plays a convincing military memeber. See The Good German and Brothers.

I guess we'll see how Jason Mamoa does at playing Conan then, won't we.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walker 

What's funny is that Tobey Maguire surprisingly plays a convincing military memeber. See The Good German and Brothers.

Yeah, is he the kind of military man you're talking about? I haven't seen Brothers but I've seen The Good German and in that he's not that Renner type alpha dude.
 

To be fair, no.

He's still the same sort of actor that you're talking about in the sense of being introspective. I guess it's just lowered expectations after reading on paper that Maguire is playing a military character that's made me impressed with his performances. He's not rock and roll like Renner; who has the knack of being all rock and roll.

However, I DO think he has it in him to play badass characters. Not unsimilar to what Casey Affleck did in Gone, Baby Gone(which I guess still fits in the critera we keep discussing about American leading men).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shunderson 

It boils down to the fact that I don't see the point of this movie, and this choice for lead isn't doing anything to change my mind.

I see the point of this movie. Universal has had shit luck raking in money and feel this is the ticket to do so.

I in fact think this won't work. Gilroy and Renner are the only reasons i'm curious.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walker 

Is it possible that Renner being set up to inhereit M:I from Tom Cruise is purposeful false reporting(kind like what Nolan is doing with DKR) so it's extra shocking when it ends up that he's the main bad guy?

As much as I would love to get AT LEAST ONE installment of this franchise where the villain isn't a rogue IMF agent, you are probably dead on with that bit of speculation.  I find it hard to believe that Renner would sign on to do this AND still expect to be starring in future MI films..................not to mention any Hawkeye appearances in future Marvel flicks.  Either he is the villain or he is going to die.

Or he's a Ghost... PROTOCOL.