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
For me it was seeing how they would continue the franchise without Jason Bourne and Jeremy Renner did do an excellent job imho. And the suprting cast was very good, so overal the new Bourne movie went another direction without the mindnumbing edits but still a bloody decent amount of actionscenes and a good story ( which made more sense than the less than logical SF)
So it copied SF, where is the crime in that,except for copying bad stuff. ;)
I fully agree with you.
And a disclaimer: while I am being sarcastic here, wouldn't it still be better, in due time, than making yet another sequel?
No, it really wouldn't. If the studio is going to a money grubbing arsehat, they can just make more sequels that don't completely defecate on the greatness Liman and Greengrass were able to create with the trilogy.
The only way I would approve of a Bourne reboot would be if they added a present day adaption of Carlos the Jackal in the film with a Bourne whose arc was closer to that of the books, where he was middle aged by the third film. They would need to have a new way for Bourne and Carlos to face off over the course of the films though, as Ludlum failed horribly at that by the time he was done with the books.
I can see why they left him out though, as he is a figure of a bygone era that is now decades old. Like I said though, he could easily be updated to the current time, as terrorism is still an ever-present issue facing the world.
I would venture this is laughably untrue but...
To me, that pretty much says that without Greengrass, Damon won't end up returning, as in the past they've said they won't do another without the other person involved.
me as well
Yeah, I'll see it, as well. Might not rush to theaters to see it, but I'll watch it at some point.
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=117854
Yep it has always been in Paul Greengrsses hands rather than Matt Damon's.
How about a future Bond movie with Paul Greengrass directing?
As for the next Cross-centric Bourne film, I really don't care at this point. I wouldn't mind if another never came along. Cross just isn't that interesting to me, and completely forgettable when compared to Bourne. With Bourne you could not only relate to his crazy identity crisis, but he was also the genuine article and had natural skills of survival. With Cross, he has to take stupid pills to get the kinds of survival instincts Bourne has naturally, and that just makes him that much more of a weaker character. Without those pills, he'd be dead in seconds whereas Bourne has spent three whole films surviving by nothing but his wits. Anyway, I digress...
A scary truth about many students in the better schools around the U.S. is that they are taking ADHD drugs to give them Jason Bounre/Cross-like skills for studying.
What does that have to do with anything we are discussing?