Jason Bourne (2002 - present)

13738404243

Comments

  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    vzok wrote: »
    Well, Renner wasn't playing Bourne. ;)

    I still liked him a lot as Aaron Cross.

    I enjoyed that one too, but it was a financial disappointment at the box office.
    Sadly.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,509
    Well, Renner wasn't playing Bourne. ;)

    I still liked him a lot as Aaron Cross.

    Renner was playing Renner like he always does. I know he wasn't playing Bourne, but that was most certainly seen as them trying to keep the series going by putting someone else in the leading role.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Well, Renner wasn't playing Bourne. ;)

    I still liked him a lot as Aaron Cross.

    Renner was playing Renner like he always does. I know he wasn't playing Bourne, but that was most certainly seen as them trying to keep the series going by putting someone else in the leading role.
    Yes, they have. It was a hard choice but something had to keep the franchise active for something. They pulled a strategy like that to make the fans demand the return of Matt Damon to "fix it". That's a strategic act and a rather controversial one. They knew what they were doing.
  • Posts: 9,779
    I like Renner as an actor and always wanted him in the big budget Macgyver film that is now going to be a tv show (and staring Lucas till)
  • RC7RC7
    edited August 2016 Posts: 10,512
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Well, Renner wasn't playing Bourne. ;)

    I still liked him a lot as Aaron Cross.

    Renner was playing Renner like he always does. I know he wasn't playing Bourne, but that was most certainly seen as them trying to keep the series going by putting someone else in the leading role.
    Yes, they have. It was a hard choice but something had to keep the franchise active for something. They pulled a strategy like that to make the fans demand the return of Matt Damon to "fix it". That's a strategic act and a rather controversial one. They knew what they were doing.

    What are you smoking today, dude? You've just made two statements that are both total nonsense.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    RC7 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Well, Renner wasn't playing Bourne. ;)

    I still liked him a lot as Aaron Cross.

    Renner was playing Renner like he always does. I know he wasn't playing Bourne, but that was most certainly seen as them trying to keep the series going by putting someone else in the leading role.
    Yes, they have. It was a hard choice but something had to keep the franchise active for something. They pulled a strategy like that to make the fans demand the return of Matt Damon to "fix it". That's a strategic act and a rather controversial one. They knew what they were doing.

    What are you smoking today, dude? You've just made two statements that are both total nonsense.
    Care to clarify, please?
  • RC7RC7
    edited August 2016 Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Well, Renner wasn't playing Bourne. ;)

    I still liked him a lot as Aaron Cross.

    Renner was playing Renner like he always does. I know he wasn't playing Bourne, but that was most certainly seen as them trying to keep the series going by putting someone else in the leading role.
    Yes, they have. It was a hard choice but something had to keep the franchise active for something. They pulled a strategy like that to make the fans demand the return of Matt Damon to "fix it". That's a strategic act and a rather controversial one. They knew what they were doing.

    What are you smoking today, dude? You've just made two statements that are both total nonsense.
    Care to clarify, please?

    You said, "If a recasting worked for a franchise, it will work for every other franchise". - which, as I said before, is patently untrue.

    Plus you say above that the casting of Renner was a strategic movie implemented to encourage 'demand' for a Damon return, which again is nonsense.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    And how are those nonsensical to you?
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    And how are those nonsensical to you?

    Because neither are true.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    RC7 wrote: »
    And how are those nonsensical to you?

    Because neither are true.
    If you say so.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    And how are those nonsensical to you?

    Because neither are true.
    If you say so.

    Truth says so.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    And how are those nonsensical to you?

    Because neither are true.
    If you say so.

    Truth says so.
    Sure it does.
  • RC7RC7
    edited August 2016 Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    And how are those nonsensical to you?

    Because neither are true.
    If you say so.

    Truth says so.
    Sure it does.

    Perhaps you could provide us all with the evidence that Legacy was a deliberate balls up to facilitate Damon's return?
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    And how are those nonsensical to you?

    Because neither are true.
    If you say so.

    Truth says so.
    Sure it does.

    Perhaps you could provide us all with the evidence that Legacy was a deliberate balls up to facilitate Damon's return?
    Well, since you asked...

    The way I see it, George Nolfi has been writing The Bourne Legacy since 2009 with Damon in the lead as Bourne. It has been reported by producer Frank Marshall. But, Damon as well as Greengrass expressed their disinterest in returning to the franchise, with the latter more so than the former. But, a script, regardless was being written by Nolfi and a parallel one was written by Joshua Zetumer. Nolfi opted not to contribute for further development, apparently, since he was directing The Adjustment Bureau (with Damon in the lead, nonetheless), and Damon himself hinted at a prequel with another actor and another director (nonsensical, right?), but stated he would not come back to reprirse his role unless Greengrass directs the film. But, Marshall was insistent (as well as the studios) to produce another installment in the Bourne series, and a recasting, obviously, of the actor was too risky.

    So, Gilroy came along and put his spin on it in a way it doesn't affect the franchise but at least keeps it alive for the time being, introducing a "a whole new hero in the Bourne mould". I do remember reading comments from everyone (the fans, that is) that a Bourne movie can't be done without Bourne, and some of them have been very biased about it (much like how the DanielCraigIsNotBond people think). Many have said they won't watch it. And frankly that's what happened. The film came out with a different hero in the lead and it merely grossed double the budget. After that kind of backlash even when the film was newly in production, someone must have kept an eye on the comments from the fans who attacked it (don't tell me that's not true), I am sure everyone involved in the film knew it was not going to be embraced, and that's what happened. Starting a sub-franchise in a series that's about Bourne has always been nonsensical, and I am sure, which they have not reported it (who'd do such thing?) after the backlash they knew they had to bring Matt Damon back to "undo the damage". See where I'm coming from?

    Damon said himself that the character's arc was completed in Ultimatum and doing another one wouldn't have worked. I remember reading that. But, hey, he returned. Along with Greengrass, nonetheless, saying "Never Say Never".
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    And how are those nonsensical to you?

    Because neither are true.
    If you say so.

    Truth says so.
    Sure it does.

    Perhaps you could provide us all with the evidence that Legacy was a deliberate balls up to facilitate Damon's return?

    Well, since you asked...

    The way I see it, George Nolfi has been writing The Bourne Legacy since 2009 with Damon in the lead as Bourne. It has been reported by producer Frank Marshall. But, Damon as well as Greengrass expressed their disinterest in returning to the franchise, with the latter more so than the former. But, a script, regardless was being written by Nolfi and a parallel one was written by Joshua Zetumer. Nolfi opted not to contribute for further development, apparently, since he was directing The Adjustment Bureau (with Damon in the lead, nonetheless), and Damon himself hinted at a prequel with another actor and another director (nonsensical, right?), but stated he would not come back to reprirse his role unless Greengrass directs the film. But, Marshall was insistent (as well as the studios) to produce another installment in the Bourne series, and a recasting, obviously, of the actor was too risky.

    So, Gilroy came along and put his spin on it in a way it doesn't affect the franchise but at least keeps it alive for the time being, introducing a "a whole new hero in the Bourne mould". I do remember reading comments from everyone (the fans, that is) that a Bourne movie can't be done without Bourne, and some of them have been very biased about it (much like how the DanielCraigIsNotBond people think). Many have said they won't watch it. And frankly that's what happened. The film came out with a different hero in the lead and it merely grossed double the budget. After that kind of backlash even when the film was newly in production, someone must have kept an eye on the comments from the fans who attacked it (don't tell me that's not true), I am sure everyone involved in the film knew it was not going to be embraced, and that's what happened. Starting a sub-franchise in a series that's about Bourne has always been nonsensical, and I am sure, which they have not reported it (who'd do such thing?) after the backlash they knew they had to bring Matt Damon back to "undo the damage". See where I'm coming from?

    Damon said himself that the character's arc was completed in Ultimatum and doing another one wouldn't have worked. I remember reading that. But, hey, he returned. Along with Greengrass, nonetheless, saying "Never Say Never".

    Yeah, so as I was trying to say, it wasn't a deliberate cock-up to facilitate Damon's return. They genuinely thought they could board the expanded universe train (as everyone is attempting to) and it turned out the audience weren't game. To suggest they deliberately turned out a sub-par film is total rubbish.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    And how are those nonsensical to you?

    Because neither are true.
    If you say so.

    Truth says so.
    Sure it does.

    Perhaps you could provide us all with the evidence that Legacy was a deliberate balls up to facilitate Damon's return?

    Well, since you asked...

    The way I see it, George Nolfi has been writing The Bourne Legacy since 2009 with Damon in the lead as Bourne. It has been reported by producer Frank Marshall. But, Damon as well as Greengrass expressed their disinterest in returning to the franchise, with the latter more so than the former. But, a script, regardless was being written by Nolfi and a parallel one was written by Joshua Zetumer. Nolfi opted not to contribute for further development, apparently, since he was directing The Adjustment Bureau (with Damon in the lead, nonetheless), and Damon himself hinted at a prequel with another actor and another director (nonsensical, right?), but stated he would not come back to reprirse his role unless Greengrass directs the film. But, Marshall was insistent (as well as the studios) to produce another installment in the Bourne series, and a recasting, obviously, of the actor was too risky.

    So, Gilroy came along and put his spin on it in a way it doesn't affect the franchise but at least keeps it alive for the time being, introducing a "a whole new hero in the Bourne mould". I do remember reading comments from everyone (the fans, that is) that a Bourne movie can't be done without Bourne, and some of them have been very biased about it (much like how the DanielCraigIsNotBond people think). Many have said they won't watch it. And frankly that's what happened. The film came out with a different hero in the lead and it merely grossed double the budget. After that kind of backlash even when the film was newly in production, someone must have kept an eye on the comments from the fans who attacked it (don't tell me that's not true), I am sure everyone involved in the film knew it was not going to be embraced, and that's what happened. Starting a sub-franchise in a series that's about Bourne has always been nonsensical, and I am sure, which they have not reported it (who'd do such thing?) after the backlash they knew they had to bring Matt Damon back to "undo the damage". See where I'm coming from?

    Damon said himself that the character's arc was completed in Ultimatum and doing another one wouldn't have worked. I remember reading that. But, hey, he returned. Along with Greengrass, nonetheless, saying "Never Say Never".

    Yeah, so as I was trying to say, it wasn't a deliberate cock-up to facilitate Damon's return. They genuinely thought they could board the expanded universe train (as everyone is attempting to) and it turned out the audience weren't game. To suggest they deliberately turned out a sub-par film is total rubbish.
    Deliberately? No. The way I see it, they threw the coin at a 40/60 chance. It could have worked but it didn't. Mainly because it was a Bourne film without Bourne in it. I am sure we the Bond fans would act like it, too, if they made a Bond film without Bond in it. However, Damon's return had something to do with Legacy's failure.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    And how are those nonsensical to you?

    Because neither are true.
    If you say so.

    Truth says so.
    Sure it does.

    Perhaps you could provide us all with the evidence that Legacy was a deliberate balls up to facilitate Damon's return?

    Well, since you asked...

    The way I see it, George Nolfi has been writing The Bourne Legacy since 2009 with Damon in the lead as Bourne. It has been reported by producer Frank Marshall. But, Damon as well as Greengrass expressed their disinterest in returning to the franchise, with the latter more so than the former. But, a script, regardless was being written by Nolfi and a parallel one was written by Joshua Zetumer. Nolfi opted not to contribute for further development, apparently, since he was directing The Adjustment Bureau (with Damon in the lead, nonetheless), and Damon himself hinted at a prequel with another actor and another director (nonsensical, right?), but stated he would not come back to reprirse his role unless Greengrass directs the film. But, Marshall was insistent (as well as the studios) to produce another installment in the Bourne series, and a recasting, obviously, of the actor was too risky.

    So, Gilroy came along and put his spin on it in a way it doesn't affect the franchise but at least keeps it alive for the time being, introducing a "a whole new hero in the Bourne mould". I do remember reading comments from everyone (the fans, that is) that a Bourne movie can't be done without Bourne, and some of them have been very biased about it (much like how the DanielCraigIsNotBond people think). Many have said they won't watch it. And frankly that's what happened. The film came out with a different hero in the lead and it merely grossed double the budget. After that kind of backlash even when the film was newly in production, someone must have kept an eye on the comments from the fans who attacked it (don't tell me that's not true), I am sure everyone involved in the film knew it was not going to be embraced, and that's what happened. Starting a sub-franchise in a series that's about Bourne has always been nonsensical, and I am sure, which they have not reported it (who'd do such thing?) after the backlash they knew they had to bring Matt Damon back to "undo the damage". See where I'm coming from?

    Damon said himself that the character's arc was completed in Ultimatum and doing another one wouldn't have worked. I remember reading that. But, hey, he returned. Along with Greengrass, nonetheless, saying "Never Say Never".

    Yeah, so as I was trying to say, it wasn't a deliberate cock-up to facilitate Damon's return. They genuinely thought they could board the expanded universe train (as everyone is attempting to) and it turned out the audience weren't game. To suggest they deliberately turned out a sub-par film is total rubbish.
    Deliberately? No. The way I see it, they threw the coin at a 40/60 chance. It could have worked but it didn't. Mainly because it was a Bourne film without Bourne in it. I am sure we the Bond fans would act like it, too, if they made a Bond film without Bond in it. However, Damon's return had something to do with Legacy's failure.

    Of course it did, no one would deny that. All I was saying is that your assertion below is incorrect.
    They pulled a strategy like that to make the fans demand the return of Matt Damon to "fix it". That's a strategic act and a rather controversial one. They knew what they were doing.

    They didn't do anything to 'make' the fans demand the return of Damon. Their intention was to have a parallel timeline in the same universe. Its relative failure was the catalyst for talks about a further Damon led installment, but there was no prior 'strategy'. Legacy was made with the intention of being successful.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    But, when fans were reacting with negativity towards Legacy when it was announced Bourne wasn't going to be in it, and instead they'd have another hero in the lead, I doubt they didn't really have a strategy or have thought it was going to be an instant success. Some wanted to even boycott it, if I remember correctly. I mean sure they wanted to end up creating a successful sub-I.P., but it won't make sense if they really think about what would be the franchise's future when a negative reaction was to be what the film was going to get. And it did. That's when it was made obvious to me that way Matt Damon's return and convincing him to come back was in their strategy. Even if they pretended they were going to make an Aaron Cross sequel, which I suspect has been flushed down the toilet, as soon as Damon and Greengrass announced their return. I took Legacy and its proposed sequel as some sort of a bluff.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    Is he any relation to Alex Cross ? ;)
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Is he any relation to Alex Cross ? ;)
    Brudda from anudda motha! ;)
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    :))
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    But, when fans were reacting with negativity towards Legacy when it was announced Bourne wasn't going to be in it, and instead they'd have another hero in the lead, I doubt they didn't really have a strategy or have thought it was going to be an instant success. Some wanted to even boycott it, if I remember correctly. I mean sure they wanted to end up creating a successful sub-I.P., but it won't make sense if they really think about what would be the franchise's future when a negative reaction was to be what the film was going to get. And it did. That's when it was made obvious to me that way Matt Damon's return and convincing him to come back was in their strategy. Even if they pretended they were going to make an Aaron Cross sequel, which I suspect has been flushed down the toilet, as soon as Damon and Greengrass announced their return. I took Legacy and its proposed sequel as some sort of a bluff.

    I'm sorry, but you're way off here. The studio aren't beholden to the fans, whether they boycott, threaten to boycott, troll the studio... It certainly doesn't go unnoticed, but it was never going to stop them pushing forward into a post-Damon world. That's not to say Damon was 'out' - as far as I recall they were very candid about this running parallel with Damon's narrative, but while he was on hiatus they had a vision to expand the world and build on the 'legacy' they'd created - with Cross being the first foray.

    Using the same logic you're suggesting, EON should've caved to fan pressure and accepted that by all accounts Craig was going to be terrible, focussing on a back up for when it all goes tits up. They didn't and no production team would.

    This was not a 'bluff', as you bizarrely call it and people do not set out to, or become resigned to making duds, as you seem to keep implying. Nobody associated with that movie wanted it to fail.

    The point being, this 'strategy' you talk of never existed.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,127
    that tactic does work. They finally managed to wrangle back Jamie Lee Curtis back to the Halloween franchise with H20 because she felt like the series had run its course. of course they have rebooted it twice since then.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    that tactic does work. They finally managed to wrangle back Jamie Lee Curtis back to the Halloween franchise with H20 because she felt like the series had run its course. of course they have rebooted it twice since then.

    What 'tactic'? Deliberately making a shit film?
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    I'm with you, @RC7. There's no other way to look at it, at all. No studio would ever float that much cash for a film with the intent for it to underperform and signal negotiations to tantalize the original team back to the squad. The film industry is one of the most dangerous financial games to play in the world, where people and their careers sink or swim on the basis of ever-changing audience demand and the complex maze that is film distribution and theater screening deals, in addition to critic response, marketing and the whole nine. You don't go into any film project with anything less than some considerable confidence in it, because you're playing with a lot of peoples' money and they want a return on their investment, or your head is topped off.

    Legacy was meant to be a way to have that sweet Bourne cash without Matt in the role, who at that time was against doing another, saying he would only return if Greengrass came along with a good story on hand. The studio leaned on and used Gilroy, the writer of the original three to try and recreate the magic of the originals, but failed.

    There was never any bluffing or a methodical plan to entice Damon back from jump though, and that only happened when the film soured critically and financially and they knew they were in trouble down the line financially. If the film had been successful, netting box office cash close, equal or beyond the original trilogy, we'd have gotten more of Cross, with maybe a set up for Bourne to come back later, if Matt cared to in the future. But Legacy was never designed to restarted negotiations with Matt and co. With Legacy's failure the studio reached a point of desperation, with the realization that Damon and Greengrass were their golden boys and the only ones they could rely on to bring a winner, so they shelled out loads of cash to make it possible for them to return, taking a gamble that they had much more faith in than continuing with a Legacy sequel.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,588
    Currently rewatcing Ultimatum, specifically the fight with Desh (such a brilliant setpiece). Did anyone notice the weird grunt Nicky does when she tries to get in the action? It gives me a chuckle every time.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,042
    jake24 wrote: »
    Currently rewatcing Ultimatum, specifically the fight with Desh (such a brilliant setpiece). Did anyone notice the weird grunt Nicky does when she tries to get in the action? It gives me a chuckle every time.

    You mean the "Errrrrrrrwoooooouuuugh"?

    It's majestic. I knew a girl who made a similar noise once. It wasn't as good as Julia, though.
    :-?
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    So, I finally saw this tonight. It was like going back in time. They stuck to the formula, for better or worse. Any good Bond fan can certainly understand that conundrum. I was entertained but also disappointed that they didn't take any chances. The performances, stunts and locations were all great... but I've seen this movie before, and by now it's all a bit too predictable. There was also something that (without spoilers) felt very tacked on. Still, Damon owns the role and makes the whole thing work. Just don't expect anything groundbreaking and you won't be disappointed.
  • CASINOROYALECASINOROYALE Somewhere hot
    Posts: 1,003
    I'm watching it later today, how is it? Compared to the other films ?
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,509
    @CASINOROYALE, if you enjoy the original trilogy, just go into this expecting pretty much the same (and curb your expectations when it comes to a multitude of lengthy fist fights) and you should enjoy yourself. The set pieces and car chase were the highlights of the film for me.
Sign In or Register to comment.