Tony Gilroy will direct THE BOURNE LEGACY

[T'Baio]

For some reason, I've never had any particular attachment to the Bourne series. They're great action films, Matt Damon is great in them, but I don't think they're the end all be all of action movies or anything. Damon's good in them, but I really think it was the directors that made them what they are. Do I like the Bourne character? Yeah. Am I particularly attached to him? Not really.

I'm actually kind of excited about this. Not because they're starting fresh or anything like that. I just like Tony Gilroy, and the way I see it, a spy film that he's writing and directing? Any which way, I'm in and excited. I also think it's kind of a cool angle they're taking, which has never really been done before in major motion pictures, so I'm curious to see that. I'm not gonna' pick on Hollywood for actually trying something new. And there's three great Bourne films with Matt Damon. I really don't see how there's much to bother me here.

 

[JacksonArcher]

For some reason, I've never had any particular attachment to the Bourne series. They're great action films, Matt Damon is great in them, but I don't think they're the end all be all of action movies or anything. Damon's good in them, but I really think it was the directors that made them what they are. Do I like the Bourne character? Yeah. Am I particularly attached to him? Not really.

I'm actually kind of excited about this. Not because they're starting fresh or anything like that. I just like Tony Gilroy, and the way I see it, a spy film that he's writing and directing? Any which way, I'm in and excited. I also think it's kind of a cool angle they're taking, which has never really been done before in major motion pictures, so I'm curious to see that. I'm not gonna' pick on Hollywood for actually trying something new. And there's three great Bourne films with Matt Damon. I really don't see how there's much to bother me here.

Here's the thing: This just screams "cash grab". If Universal and the Bourne producers wanted to do a Bourne-like film- and Matt Damon was either unwilling or uninterested to reprise his role- then why not just adapt any one of Ludlum's other novels and modernize it with the Bourne spin? Why call this Bourne if we're not getting Matt Damon's Jason Bourne at all?

You say Hollywood is trying something new, but I say they are trying to bank on a franchise that has been proven successful and hope to find a new way to milk the cash cow that is the Bourne franchise. Trying something new would be to create an entirely new character with a new story without the Bourne moniker. They are just using it to entice movie-goers in, and I don't think it's going to work.

Matt Damon as Jason Bourne is a big reason why these movies are so successful- just like how Anthony Hopkins' portrayal of Hannibal Lecter made the films he was in so successful. The moment they recasted- with Hannibal Rising- it didn't work at all. Jason Bourne isn't a Batman or a Superman or even a James Bond type of character- unlike those characters, but similar to Hannibal Lecter (and I fully realize Brian Cox played him first, but Hopkins made him memorable) the Jason Bourne character was made noteworthy because of Matt Damon. I appreciate that they aren't recasting, but on the other hand I just don't understand why they're slapping the title Bourne on this when they could just either adapt another one of Ludlum's stories or just do an original story.

How about this: How about you just hire Tony Gilroy to do original material? I'm sure The Bourne Legacy will be decent, but I guarantee you it's going to have a lot of people dismissing it because when they see the trailers, and Jason Bourne is nowhere to be found, they're either going to be really confused or just flat-out not interested. I know that's a really sort of stereotypical, cliche way to think about this but Matt Damon's Jason Bourne is what made these films unique to me- without him, it's just another spy movie.

 

[PsychoPere]

[...] I guarantee you it's going to have a lot of people dismissing it because when they see the trailers, and Jason Bourne is nowhere to be found, they're either going to be really confused or just flat-out not interested.

I bet the trailers will feature Damon with footage from the previous three films combined with footage from Legacy. It'll confuse viewers even more on opening weekend, enough of whom will be annoyed that the trailers appeared to "promise" Damon that word-of-mouth will quickly kill Legacy's box office.

 

[sidious618]

I like Matt Damon a lot but I never really bought him as Bourne. I'm not sure why but he just never seemed like the right fit for me. Again, the difference between The Bourne Identity and the later films might heighten this. I like him best in Identity and didn't buy him as much in the others. I guess I don't see him as an action hero type of guy.

 

[Aragorn]

There was a straight-to-DVD sequel to Van Wilder called Van Wilder 2... only without Van Wilder even in it. They want to make a Bourne movie called Bourne but without Bourne being in it?

 

[Dream]

Looks like Damon was never going to do this movie without Paul Greengrass. They shouldn't have gone ahead with this movie without him.

Without Matt Damon as Jason Bourne, I have zero interest in this movie. Talk about false advertising.

 

[Gaith]

There was a straight-to-DVD sequel to Van Wilder called Van Wilder 2... only without Van Wilder even in it. They want to make a Bourne movie called Bourne but without Bourne being in it?

Yes, called "The Bourne LEGACY". As in, what Bourne inspires.

 

[Dream]

I bet the trailers will feature Damon with footage from the previous three films combined with footage from Legacy. It'll confuse viewers even more on opening weekend, enough of whom will be annoyed that the trailers appeared to "promise" Damon that word-of-mouth will quickly kill Legacy's box office.

The last thing they want to do is piss Damon off by doing that.

 

[Aragorn]

They'll make the movie about Webb's BROTHER, who went through the exact same training, had the exact same amnesia and also was code named Bourne.

 

[JarodRussell]

Bourne is a book character like James Bond or Jack Ryan, right? Why can't he be played by a new actor?

 

[Aragorn]

Bourne CAN be played by a different actor!

I think the complaints that it's Damon or no one come from people who complain like there's no tomorrow when movies don't follow the source material yet look the other way for Supremacy and Ultimatum.

 

[Gaith]

How about this: How about you just hire Tony Gilroy to do original material?

Sequels and spin-offs can be just as original as non-franchise movies can be derivative and pedestrian. Like T'Bortion, I'm willing to give the studios the benefit of the doubt on this one. If the results are good, great. If they're not, no harm done.

I know that's a really sort of stereotypical, cliche way to think about this but Matt Damon's Jason Bourne is what made these films unique to me- without him, it's just another spy movie.

So it'll be "just another spy movie" (a fallow genre of late, with Bond 23 still not greenlit) that happens to share a few characters and plot points with the Bourne trilogy - will that necessarily be so bad? If you don't like the idea, just pretend it's the first movie of a series that just happens to reference a greater-than-usual amount of backstory.

And who knows, maybe if the project gets rolling, they'll be able to involve Damon after all - a voice cameo on a cell phone call, say, or a ten second appearance before a smash-cut to credits. The possibilities!

 

[Aragorn]

How about this: How about you just hire Tony Gilroy to do original material?

Original material? What do you call The Bourne Supremacy and The Bourne Ultimatum movies?

 

[JacksonArcher]

I think the complaints that it's Damon or no one come from people who complain like there's no tomorrow when movies don't follow the source material yet look the other way for Supremacy and Ultimatum.

Hardly. Universal seems to think the Bourne franchise is above Matt Damon and Jason Bourne, which I don't agree with. For me, the appeal of the Bourne movies is (you guessed it!) Jason Bourne. I don't really care about the source material- I've read Ludlum's books but I have no problem with them going in a different direction. I mean, I sort of felt like the whole Carlos the Jackal plot was sort of adapted in the form of the Bourne/Kirill storyline anyway for Supremacy.

How about this: How about you just hire Tony Gilroy to do original material?

Original material? What do you call The Bourne Supremacy and The Bourne Ultimatum movies?

At least those movies had Jason Bourne.

Sequels and spin-offs can be just as original as non-franchise movies can be derivative and pedestrian. Like T'Bortion, I'm willing to give the studios the benefit of the doubt on this one. If the results are good, great. If they're not, no harm done.

I would be more willing if the studio was adapting another one of Ludlum's novels and trying to fit it into the Bourne mold. It would have been more creative than clearly just milking a franchise for all that it is worth.

So it'll be "just another spy movie" (a fallow genre of late, with Bond 23 still not greenlit) that happens to share a few characters and plot points with the Bourne trilogy - will that necessarily be so bad? If you don't like the idea, just pretend it's the first movie of a series that just happens to reference a greater-than-usual amount of backstory.

Then they should re-title the movie. I don't see a real legitimate reason for why this movie should exist. Why not just do an original story with this idea? The only reason why they are tying this into the Bourne mythology is because they believe they'll be able to make more money that way by banking on the Bourne namesake. They were going to have a difficult time selling the project even if Matt Damon were returning- many people believed Ultimatum ended the franchise perfectly. By continuing the franchise, without its main character, is not going to do the movie any favors.

 

[Gaith]

By continuing the franchise, without its main character, is not going to do the movie any favors.

I'm sorry, but that's pure speculation at this point.

 

[JacksonArcher]

By continuing the franchise, without its main character, is not going to do the movie any favors.

I'm sorry, but that's pure speculation at this point.

I'm just saying that people mostly went to the Bourne movies because of Matt Damon for the most part. Yes, they were big-budgeted action movies, but Damon was the glue that held them together, and his performance was able to elevate these movies from being just generic, mindless spy movies. At the very least, when people think "Bourne", they think Matt Damon.

When people see the trailer for The Bourne Legacy, or see posters, and Matt Damon is nowhere to be found, I have a sneaking suspicion people are going to be more annoyed and disinterested rather than excited. The film would have had a much better chance at getting audience's attention had Matt Damon been involved- heck, the fact that Jason Bourne isn't going to be in the film is going to raise a lot of eyebrows.

 

[Gaith]

If T4 can do okay without Arnold... look, it may flop, but it may not, is all I'm saying. Must we pre-judge everything?

 

[Dream]

If T4 can do okay without Arnold...

T4 didn't do well at all. It killed the franchise.

 

[JacksonArcher]

If T4 can do okay without Arnold... look, it may flop, but it may not, is all I'm saying. Must we pre-judge everything?

Terminator Salvation was a bad example. Look, I'll watch The Bourne Legacy, if anything because of Tony Gilroy's involvement as writer-director. I'm just pretty perturbed that Matt Damon or Jason Bourne aren't returning. That's all. I'm not saying Legacy will bomb; however its chances have been diminished now that Damon or Bourne won't be there.

 

[Harvey]

In concept, a Bourne sequel that doesn't have the title character in it sounds an awful lot like direct-to-DVD material to me. But Gilroy has matured as a screenwriter and director in the past few years, and I'm curious to see how he'll tackle an action picture as a director (having previously directed the excellent Michael Clayton and Duplicity, which was okay).