› ›

Jason Bourne (2002 - present)

1…78101213…44

Comments

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    Creasy47 wrote:
    @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7, lucky you. I might wait until I purchase the other two, and then take a weekend to have a trilogy run through. I can't wait for TDKR to release on blu-ray so I can do the same with Nolan's Batman trilogy.
    I hear that, and the Blu-ray should release sometime during Christmastime which means a long vacation from school for us to enjoy the films in!
    :-bd

    Absolutely! I can't wait. I remember receiving 'The Dark Knight' on blu-ray for Christmas around its release, and just laying down to watch it throughout the morning. Beautiful time, and I hope to recreate the same experience with the trilogy's finale.
  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    edited September 2012 Posts: 4,520
    The-Bourne-Legacy-poster-2.jpeg

    and extented one from the one of above, Dutch version.
    http://www.sum.nl/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Horizontaal-poster-IMAX.jpg

    Dutch poster:
    84782.jpg
    Bigger format http://www.film1.nl/images/portrait/original/84782.jpg
  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    The Jeremy Renner-headlined Bourne spinoff, The Bourne Legacy, has proven to be somewhat of a disappointment by comparison – with a series-low $182 million global take on a $125 million budget, as well as a more lukewarm reception than its predecessors.

    Universal, however, knows there’s still life in the Bourne name – especially if Matt Damon returns for a future installment – so the studio still plans to make Bourne 5 and beyond.

    http://screenrant.com/bourne-5-ted-2-movie-sequel/
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    $182million WW??? Wow, that really is disappointing.

  • maxcraigmaxcraig
    Posts: 229
    Only the fourth film and it's already a flop. :D
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited September 2012 Posts: 12,837
    I hope that article is true and they make Bourne 5.

    So it didn't make that much money, who cares? Neither did LTK and that's a masterpiece! I think it was decent enough and they did the best they could without Damon.

    Bring on Bourne 5. But this time, even if they have to recast him, just bring back the Bourne character. It worked for Bond, Batman, etc, why not do the same for Bourne?

    And they're making Ted 2 as well? Brilliant :D
  • maxcraigmaxcraig
    Posts: 229
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    I hope that article is true and they make Bourne 5.

    So it didn't make that much money, who cares? Neither did LTK and that's a masterpiece! I think it was decent enough and they did the best they could without Damon.

    Bring on Bourne 5. But this time, even if they have to recast him, just bring back the Bourne character. It worked for Bond, Batman, etc, why not do the same for Bourne?

    And they're making Ted 2 as well? Brilliant :D
    The two can't be compared
    It's the fourth Bourne.
    When Licence to kill was released it was the 16th James Bond. And Timothy was the fourth actor to play the role.

  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    maxcraig wrote:
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    I hope that article is true and they make Bourne 5.

    So it didn't make that much money, who cares? Neither did LTK and that's a masterpiece! I think it was decent enough and they did the best they could without Damon.

    Bring on Bourne 5. But this time, even if they have to recast him, just bring back the Bourne character. It worked for Bond, Batman, etc, why not do the same for Bourne?

    And they're making Ted 2 as well? Brilliant :D
    The two can't be compared
    It's the fourth Bourne.
    When Licence to kill was released it was the 16th James Bond. And Timothy was the fourth actor to play the role.

    So what? It still didn't make much money. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing LTK for not making that much money (I think it had good reasons not to), it's actually my favourite Bond film, I'm just using it as an example.

    Here's another example: When OHMSS was released it got lukewarm reviews and it was the least successful Bond film at the time.

    Just because a film doesn't make much money, it doesn't mean it's bad and it doesn't mean the franchise should end.

    You're not one of those "YOU CAN ONLY ENJOY ONE, CHOOSE, BOND OR BOURNE!!!" people are you?
  • GermanladyGermanlady
    edited September 2012 Posts: 6,601
    But its down on RT in audience liking to something like 54 or 59 %, which is NOT good. So obviously its just not a good film and Renner is not Damon.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited September 2012 Posts: 28,694
    doubleoego wrote:
    $182million WW??? Wow, that really is disappointing.

    That's the current figure?! Yikes. They barely broke-even.
    Germanlady wrote:
    But its down on RT in audience liking to something like 54 or 59 %, which is NOT good. So obviously its just not a good film and Renner is not Damon.

    No, it is a good film. It just isn't a good Bourne film. It didn't need to happen, shouldn't have happened, and didn't have Bourne is anything other than photos.
  • maxcraigmaxcraig
    Posts: 229
    thelivingroyale wrote:

    You're not one of those "YOU CAN ONLY ENJOY ONE, CHOOSE, BOND OR BOURNE!!!" people are you?
    Nothing against Bourne. I'm just happy because the Box office figures should silence those who said that Bond is dead and Bourne is the new king of spies
    :D
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited September 2012 Posts: 12,837
    @maxcraig Bond will never die. And from the looks of things, Bourne won't die anytime soon either. I prefer Bond because I've been a fan for over 25 years, but I also love the Bourne films and I do think that the first 3 are the best spy films of the last decade. They helped change the way Bond was made, that must mean something.
    Germanlady wrote:
    But its down on RT in audience liking to something like 54 or 59 %, which is NOT good. So obviously its just not a good film

    You're always on about not judging a film until you've seen it. Well, you're always on about not judging SF until you've seen it anyway. You can't really say it's good or bad because you haven't seen it. You can say it isn't popular because of the RT rating sure, but you can't say it's good or bad. Make your own judgements.

    Like I said, OHMSS didn't get great reviews at the time and wasn't very popular, didn't do great the box office, but it's still a very good film.

    And no, this is no where near as good as OHMSS, but one film not being up to scratch with the rest of them shouldn't (and, if you read the article bondsum posted, doesn't), mean the end of a franchise.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    I still haven't got round to seeing this but it does prove that without Damon, this time at least Bourne didn't work. I really don't seeing another film happening. Not a sequel. Maybe a reboot? ;)
  • GermanladyGermanlady
    Posts: 6,601
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    No, it is a good film. It just isn't a good Bourne film. It didn't need to happen, shouldn't have happened, and didn't have Bourne is anything other than photos.

    I suppose, the majority just didn*t feel it. They say, the bike chase is way too long, too. At this point, with some overseas markets still just opened or opening, this sequal talks is more PR machinery then the truth right now IMO.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited September 2012 Posts: 28,694
    Samuel001 wrote:
    I still haven't got round to seeing this but it does prove that without Damon, this time at least Bourne didn't work. I really don't seeing another film happening. Not a sequel. Maybe a reboot? ;)

    Of course the Bourne thing didn't work. There was no Bourne.
    Germanlady wrote:
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    No, it is a good film. It just isn't a good Bourne film. It didn't need to happen, shouldn't have happened, and didn't have Bourne is anything other than photos.

    I suppose, the majority just didn*t feel it. They say, the bike chase is way too long, too. At this point, with some overseas markets still just opened or opening, this sequal talks is more PR machinery then the truth right now IMO.

    How about what YOU say. I don't care what anyone else says, especially if you look to RT for data. The Third Man has a 100% on there, while Casablanca has a 97%. Immediately shows its unreliability. ;)
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited September 2012 Posts: 12,837
    Samuel001 wrote:
    Maybe a reboot? ;)

    Nooooooooooooooo!!!!!

    In the article @bondsum posted, Universal said Bourne would live on. I think for now, it's safe to say another film is happening at some point in the future.

    I think it should be a sequel with Damon, but if they can't get him back, just recast Bourne. I think they should've done that for Legacy instead of just making a new character.
  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    I'm sure Universal are hoping for better DVD sales (or downloads) to bolster the final gross. The estimated budget was $125,000,000 so a $182 million global take is a pretty poor return. I suppose if they can make Bourne 5 for a lot less and hopefully make a bigger profit then it might be worth a sixth entry, but I have my doubts. It looks like moviegoers were put off by the absence of Damon and the poor reviews. I think you're right @thelivingroyale about recasting Bourne and not inventing a new character. I think this was their biggest mistake. It would be like having a movie about 008 after Connery hung up his holster.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    bondsum wrote:
    I'm sure Universal are hoping for better DVD sales (or downloads) to bolster the final gross. The estimated budget was $125,000,000 so a $182 million global take is a pretty poor return. I suppose if they can make Bourne 5 for a lot less and hopefully make a bigger profit then it might be worth a sixth entry, but I have my doubts. It looks like moviegoers were put off by the absence of Damon and the poor reviews. I think you're right @thelivingroyale about recasting Bourne and not inventing a new character. I think this was their biggest mistake. It would be like having a movie about 008 after Connery hung up his holster.

    Their biggest mistake was making the damn thing! There was no conceivable reason to make this other than to get more $$$.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    There was no conceivable reason to make this other than to get more $$$.

    And? That's the same with pretty much every film made by Hollywood. Studios make films so they can make money, that's a fact.


    And me and others wanted a 4th Bourne film. The problem was how they did it. I definetly think they should've kept the Bourne character.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Bourne Legacy was just an underwhelming movie and there was nothing special about it at all IMO. It wasn't a terrible movie but it didn't come close to matching the greatness of the first 3 and the first 3 are excellent spy movies. Legacy is just so painfully forgettable.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    There was no conceivable reason to make this other than to get more $$$.

    And? That's the same with pretty much every film made by Hollywood. Studios make films so they can make money, that's a fact.


    And me and others wanted a 4th Bourne film. The problem was how they did it. I definetly think they should've kept the Bourne character.

    Don't generalize great films in with the greedy muck that is pored out of California. There are plenty of films that are made for the art and joy of it, not the money.
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    It opens today here in Germany, I guess I will be going to watch it if I can find an original session because I enjoyed the other three and I love most of the actors in it but a Bourne film without Bourne just doesn't feel right.
  • GermanladyGermanlady
    Posts: 6,601
    You love J. Renner? Normally I would go to watch Rachel being a Bourne girl, but I just can't stand him, so...no...
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Germanlady wrote:
    You love J. Renner? Normally I would go to watch Rachel being a Bourne girl, but I just can't stand him, so...no...

    Why?
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    I really like Renner! I loved him in The Town for example.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited September 2012 Posts: 12,837
    I think Renner is a great actor, brilliant in the Hurt Locker and 28 weeks later, but I think they wasted his potential a bit with this film.
    doubleoego wrote:
    Bourne Legacy was just an underwhelming movie and there was nothing special about it at all IMO. It wasn't a terrible movie but it didn't come close to matching the greatness of the first 3 and the first 3 are excellent spy movies. Legacy is just so painfully forgettable.

    I agree with you, but I still hope they make a 5th one.
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    There was no conceivable reason to make this other than to get more $$$.

    And? That's the same with pretty much every film made by Hollywood. Studios make films so they can make money, that's a fact.


    And me and others wanted a 4th Bourne film. The problem was how they did it. I definetly think they should've kept the Bourne character.

    Don't generalize great films in with the greedy muck that is pored out of California. There are plenty of films that are made for the art and joy of it, not the money.

    Sure, but those are indy films, I'm talking about Hollywood films here.

    Studios make films to make money. The directors and actors might choose projects they like and might not be in it for the money, but a studio wouldn't finance these films if they didn't think they'd do well at the box office. So yes Legacy was made to put some extra cash in the producers pockets, but so is every film made by the studios.
  • VeryBondVeryBond
    Posts: 306
    Germanlady wrote:
    You love J. Renner? Normally I would go to watch Rachel being a Bourne girl, but I just can't stand him, so...no...

    You're a Renner Hater! Hater!!

    :D

    Let me guess, he's too "handsome" for you.

    :))
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    Renner is a great actor, brilliant in the Hurt Locker and 28 weeks later, but I think they wasted his potential a bit with this film.
    doubleoego wrote:
    Bourne Legacy was just an underwhelming movie and there was nothing special about it at all IMO. It wasn't a terrible movie but it didn't come close to matching the greatness of the first 3 and the first 3 are excellent spy movies. Legacy is just so painfully forgettable.

    I agree with you, but I still hope they make a 5th one.
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    There was no conceivable reason to make this other than to get more $$$.

    And? That's the same with pretty much every film made by Hollywood. Studios make films so they can make money, that's a fact.


    And me and others wanted a 4th Bourne film. The problem was how they did it. I definetly think they should've kept the Bourne character.

    Don't generalize great films in with the greedy muck that is pored out of California. There are plenty of films that are made for the art and joy of it, not the money.

    Sure, but those are indy films, I'm talking about Hollywood films here.

    Studios make films to make money. The directors and actors might choose projects they like and might not be in it for the money, but a studio wouldn't finance these films if they didn't think they'd do well at the box office. So yes Legacy was made to put some extra cash in the producers pockets, but so is every film made by the studios.

    No, not just Indy films. Hollywood films made with care span clear back to the start of talkies in the 30s, and directors like Nolan, David Fincher, Brad Bird, Scorsese, the Coen Bros., and Kevin Smith are just a few examples of directors that make films for the love of it, and not the paycheck.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    I'm talking about the studios, not the directors.

    Like I said, some actors and directors choose projects they like and aren't in it for the money, but these projects wouldn't get funded by the studios if the studios didn't think the film would make money.
  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    edited December 2012 Posts: 4,520
    On the 10 years anniversary of Die Another Day in The Netherlands on 9 January 2013 Universal release the movie on Dvd, limited BD/DVD and BD.

    1002004012541816.jpg
    Source: Bol.com

    http://www.dvd-home.nl/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8110:universal-januari-release&catid=84:universal-pictures&Itemid=54

    DVD wil share with France and The BD wil be shared with France, Germany and Spain.

    Looking to the audio specifications there also going to be audiocommentary tracks on BD disc. Extra's from the dvd are unknown, other extra's on the BD disc going to be:

    Deleted scenes: Pennsylvania Highway, NRAG Research Room, Washington, D.C.
    Featurettes
    Re-Bourne (6:09)
    Enter Aaron Cross (7:10)
    Crossing Continents: Legacy on Location (8:20)
    Man vs.
    Wolf
    (4:34)
    Wolf
    Sequence Test (1:38)
    Moving Targets: Aaron and Marta (6:09)
    Capturing Chaos: The Motorbike Chase (7:47)

    Note: The specifications can change, it happend earlier studio's send wrong information.
Sign In or Register to comment.