It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Any decent spy thriller in the cinema is one more trip to the cienma for me. As I said I quite liked the last one.
And the 007 franchise can use a wee bit of stiff competition is should keep them sharp and on their toes.
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=118080
The Bourne saga continues with THE BOURNE BETRAYAL.
Jeremy Renner returns as Aaron Cross the last surviving member of Operation Outcome - a group of black ops agents with chemically enhanced physical and mental capabilities that were betrayed and terminated by a dark and powerful black ops team deep within the CIA.
But Aaron Cross survived and is still at large and their sinister activities are threatened and Operation Larx - their next generation of super assassins is in jeopardy. Larx agents are dispatched to hunt Cross down and remove his threat.
The chase moves to China and the streets of Shanghai as Cross stays one step ahead of the closing Larx agents in a desperate bid to find a second Outcome agent that could be his salvation and that could help him take the fight to the agency.
Jeremy Renner is joined by Edward Norton, Rachel Weiz, David Strathairn and Stacy Keech star in THE BOURNE BETRAYAL the next exciting instalment of the Bourne series.
thoughts?
Sounds very promising.
Is it a Blade Runner or a Terminator sequel? All that thing about chemically enhanced agents sounds far too scifi for my taste. The first three Bourne movies labeled themselves realistic, whether they were or not is debatable, but at least they were pseudo-realistic films, set in a believable, contemporary world.
I still stand by this. Now, an interesting thing to experiment with would be if Cross ran out of his pills or he couldn't find any more and he was forced to survive by nothing but his wits as Bourne has always done. Make him have a rough time and get his arse kicked at first, but slowly have him learning how to live and survive in dangerous situations without those things. Otherwise he'll continue to be a yawn inducing character that I have no stakes or interest in.
I don't remember that, because after noticing how terrible and lackluster the film was, I started to tune it all out with no plans of ever rewatching it.
Maybe there shouldn't have been pills in the first place.
Cross gets injected by Weisz's character with live virus stems (from which the pills were made), you are correct. However, that virus, once injected makes the agent no longer dependent on the pills and instead gives them the enhanced physical and mental capabilities permanently. So, once again, Cross is not a natural survivor like Bourne, he is a boring, unremarkable and forgettable man who is given these skills by these stupid super drugs. He has all that Bourne has, but he hasn't worked for it, making him pretty uninteresting and dull.
It reminds me of Metal Gear Solid IV, actually. Snake sees a world full of soldiers who have been unnaturally given the skills Snake harnessed himself in the field over years of service. That's what makes him more interesting and better than the soldiers, and why Bourne will always be more interesting than Cross.
I agree. When that was revealed it lost the tone of the Bourne films that had been released previously.
It is not the only franchise that can be blamed for those moments. :!!
And Bourne was according the movies some sort of super soldier as well. The Last Bourne movie chose to show us more of the program Bourne was actually part of. It is a bit bitchy complaining about that when the last 007 outing was not quite the example of logic.
How the hell do the Bourne films with Jason in them make him look like a super solider? He gets his arse handed to him many times and is even near collapse at the end of the second one. Did we watch the same films?
As for the Skyfall jab, I continue to be blind to all these moments in the film that are empty of logic.
whatever you think of SF is non sequitur to the current discussion. I don't fault the Bourne franchise logic but its retcon and inconsistency with what had previously been established. The chemical enhancement is deus ex machina and a retcon. It also belong to science fiction, NOT pseudo realistic spy fiction.
That said it is well known that the various armies have looked into the creation of super soldier mostly through chemicals, as such they created quite a lot of enhancing drugs and even LSD in the process. If they found a better product I am not so sure that they would acknowledge them. Chemical enhancement is not so much a scifi property but more a reality.
Just look at the perfection of the general athlete, the champions of 10 years ago would probably not qualify when competing with the champions of today. There is a upward going curve of ever improving human abilities.
And as for SF, I took that as an example of how easy people dislike competing franchises for the same faults that take place in their own favorites. It is sometimes like folks wear blinders. That is all nothing bad about SF.
With science being what it is these days I gather that these kind of pills are closer to science fact than science-fiction. However I for myself find it terribly hard to sympathize with a guy that started out as a dumb head in the first place. Also doesn't make much sense to me that they use him for the program anyway. Why not start with a higher elevated platform in the first place ( just to make sure the guy doesn't start monkeying around during a mission as soon he runs out of his pills.)?
Renners character did not feel like a doped up zombie either, I found his fight to retain his identity while being aware of his former self very sympathetic and could easily relate to it. Renners character was also a highly trained and conditioned even when he came up to a specimen of a new and more advanced project of "super soldiers".
Missing from the original trilogy does not mean anything, that was about some super soldier having lost his memories and trying to find out who he is and not liking what he is. In the end the clinic where they turned Bourne was not well used only to set up the Doctor but very little of the process through which Bourne was conditioned was shown. And the essence of the first trilogy was about finding Bournes' identity and he found out he did not like what he became.
The new Bourne movie showed some more of the process and once again it was a fight about identity, with the enhancement came the knowledge that the old character was less and so the Renner fought for his new identity to keep it. Against a goverment deciding that the program should be terminated since they had a new one in place, one that was not compromised.
I found the 4th Bourne doing something that extended the original movie series in a logic direction.
But to be honest I prefer the original trilogy by Ludlum the most, and as such found Chamberlains tv series the best version of Ludlums books (yes I have them on dvd).
necessity for some aspects is just in the eye of the beholder, I found the Bourne 4 movie an enjoyable spy thriller and I would be game for number 5.
Just like I am looking forward to the next installment of Mission Impossible.
It is the next installment of 007 by the likes of Mendes that worries me far more, he took pretentiousness to an unnecessary level to me with SF.
And yes the unused elements of Ludlums books would have been nice or even another Bourne. But I am pleased with what we got nonetheless.