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
They took Ludlums original idea and went running with it, Doug Limans movie was still close to Ludlum, but the next two installments had nothing to do with the source material at all and went totally off on another direction that had next to nothing to do with the books. As such I find the continuation with Bourne 4 & possible 5 a logical jump of point.
And again when people complain about this franchise with viewpoints they lack to see in their favorite franchise they become a point of discussion.
But what I mostly like with A possible Bourne 5 movie is that there can never be enough competition for the 007 franchise as it will make them work harder to achieve a good product.
the Bourne movies in its first trilogy contained some excellent work that had not been bettered by the competition. In fact QoB was a poor copy in execution.
The new Bourne movie did chose a new direction but kept the basis for the Bourne movies, a super soldier out there but no longer being controlled by the government that created it, the 1st time by accident and the 2nd time because they failed to take them all out. I like it.
And yet that was the basis of movie three were he went home to the place of "bourne" were Webb was changed from an ordinary citizen.
But he was trained and tutored for it. And he became a highly trained assassin, dehumanized yes, but not a superhuman. He was not Captain America.
Not much competition if Bourne 5 goes as well as Bourne 4.
We never saw that much of his training so that is guesswork.
And Cross was no captain America either.
I think we are led to believe that program Treadstone was a training effort compiling agents with just hard training applied, whereas the program Cross is in was a newer one that experimented in the new advances of pills that enhance you physically and mentally.
Plus, when we meet Bourne in Identity he has been pulled out of the ocean and doesn't know anything about who he is. Therefore, he would not remember to take those pills he would need to enhance his abilities, and since he still retains his survival instincts, combat skills and cognitive strengths throughout the rest of the series, we can conclude that he never took any. In conclusion, Bourne never used pills, and was naturally trained to peak conditioning; Cross on the other hand is nothing more than a pill popping dumbo.
At the end Cross has been conditioned so he needs no longer to take any pills, the agent is now a free man.
Your conclusion that Bourne never took any is flimsy, I am sure that during his conditioning chemical products will have played a part. The US government has got a track record of trusting in chemicals so now they would not with such an aggressive program?
This should pretty much be stickied for anyone who hasn't seen the Bourne films and is curious as to how they are. The first trilogy is incredible and 'Legacy' was a horrid pile of trash.
The first three Bourne movies showed EON how it can be done, the 4th one was a new series and was a fairly decent action thriller but is not as good as the first three.
What do you mean Cross was conditioned by the end? The entire film he was dependent on the pills, and when he got the injection he permanently gave himself enhancements. Either way you look at it, he is surviving only because of the chemicals.
And we know almost for certain that Bourne never took pills. It's not mentioned, never shown or even slightly alluded to in any of the films. The pills Cross uses in Legacy give you enhancements that wear off if not taken regularly, and since Bourne had amnesia and wouldn't have known to take those pills, we can see his skills were all naturally built up through hard training or else they'd have worn off. As many have said, Gilroy really soiled the bed on #4 by writing in the new program Cross is involved with and their use of pills. It makes Cross a boring character that I can't care about for the life of me, and I don't see how they can make that change now, either Everything he has he cheated to get, while Bourne was all natural. #5 would have to do a lot to win me over, but since Cross is chemically enhanced for good I don't see how that's possible.
Gillroy did something to enhance the Bourne franchise so it could continue even without the Bourne character if needed. And in creating Cross in essence a person was made that did not want to lose his new identity created through the aid of chemicals. Were Bourne was looking for his real identity Cross is fighting to keep his new identity. There is still some balance in the stories. Both men are looking for the freedom they want through their identities.
And I loved the Drone attack in the Bourne legacy, could easily see Matt Damon do a similar thing.
Guess what, I liked the movie. Liked Renner and want to see where they go next and see if they become more innovative like the 2nd & 3rd movie did.
Well the books and the movie have little in common, and the movies did not go into that much detail. retcon if it makes you feel better, I do not care as it makes it more interesting and Cross more human, which I found far less in the original trilogy.
Well, I would have felt better had they stuck with the genre AND the character. Magic pills doesn't make Cross more human, it's the contrary. It is a deus ex machina that makes him less human. Not that I always found Bourne as a character always interesting: there is a danger to turn him into an addition of skills and statistics, rather than a character. But at least in the original trilogy they had plausible means to dehumanize him.
I agree, the pills give Cross enhancements he wouldn't have without them, making him much less "human." They make him into a killing machine, which you could argue makes him more cold and ruthless, while Bourne is constantly looking for a way to wrap up his problem, find out who "made him" into what he was and stop it so he can continue with his life unencumbered. A man searching for his lost identity is much more interesting than a man who needs pills to be as effective as Bourne was naturally. Cross is just dull and yawn-inducing to me. I have nothing invested in him and likely won't for a long time. Maybe I just need to give the film a re-watch sometime, though I haven't the faintest idea of when I'll get inspiration to do that.
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=119642
If Bourne wasn't dead already, Lord only knows what another four year wait will do.
Plus Avengers 2. And you're right: this film wouldn't perform up to snuff at the BO if it were released today, much less four years from now. I just don't see this ending well for those involved.
which is fine if Renner can be cast as MacGyver in the long gestating film version of the classic series which has James "I directed Saw" Wan attached to direct.
me too
I didn't know Renner had been linked with that?