377 replies to this topic

[dinovelvet]

Yikes, that hurts. Wonder if it'll even get made now.

Why would it not get made? It's not like they haven't already made a Bourne film without him.

[The Ghost Who Walks]

I actually applaud Greengrass for this - a fourth Bourne just doesn´t make any sense creatively. The arc is completed.

I completely agree. I don't feel there is anywhere to go with the character now, for reasons Damon has talked about in interviews.

I'm sure we'll see another one, though, possibly without Damon (?).

[Trident]

I quite agree, a fourth Bourne is most unlikely to transport the character anywhere it hasn't been already. They developed a nice twisty storyarch over three films with the basic idea and adding to that would just mean adding fat. Bourne, film Bourne that is, has been an enigma and will always remain a mystery partially unsolved. I'd much rather they would leave him alone.

[Simon]

Well, a film is not dependent only on character arcs. A good story and some trademark intelligent action would cut it.

I would Love to see a fourth.

[Trident]

Well, a film is not dependent only on character arcs.

No, not only. But I think today these are valuable assets in a franchise and should (up to a point) be honoured as such. Otherwise you just get the same-same stuff that's bound to kill off your goodies. Repetition is a double-edged sword.

A good story and some trademark intelligent action would cut it.

I would Love to see a fourth.

A fourth film concerning what? If it was only the material of Bourne 1 - 3 then they could just re-hash the vestiges of the cutting room floor. Absolutely pointless IMHO. From a certain point onwards, more is just that, more. When a story is told to the end, then it's better left alone.

If one can come up with a decent new direction Bourne could take, a direction that's also logical and believable with Bourne's given character, then I'd be happy to see it. Up to now, I don't.

[DamnCoffee]

I think the only way a 4th Bourne movie would work, would be if they treated it like a Bond movie. Ie, send him on a mission basically.

[The Ghost Who Walks]

I think the only way a 4th Bourne movie would work, would be if they treated it like a Bond movie. Ie, send him on a mission basically.

According to Damon, that is the exact that thing that would NOT work, and after thinking about it I must say I agree with him. Bourne has been fighting authority for three films now, to have him work for them again would make little sense (and it would make even less sense that they'd hire him). I suspect this is the way a Damon-free (??) Bourne 4 could go, though.

A prequel could work, but prequels are usually pretty pointless.

Bourne, film Bourne that is, has been an enigma and will always remain a mystery partially unsolved. I'd much rather they would leave him alone.

Yeah, the mystery of the character is part of his appeal. I read an article recently on CHUD.com, which concerned today's action movies' tendency to over-explain everything (i.e. Star Trek, the terrific Batman Begins, etc.), which was a fascinating read. The Bourne films mostly just got right to the point.

[Trident]

I think the only way a 4th Bourne movie would work, would be if they treated it like a Bond movie. Ie, send him on a mission basically.

According to Damon, that is the exact that thing that would NOT work, and after thinking about it I must say I agree with him. Bourne has been fighting authority for three films now, to have him work for them again would make little sense (and it would make even less sense that they'd hire him). I suspect this is the way a Damon-free (??) Bourne 4 could go, though.

Bourne working for his former outfit would in effect make the first three films a farce. You can add only ever so much absurdity before a wheel comes off.
This Bourne, Damon's Bourne, just wouldn't fit into this concept. They could just as well make up a new character...

Hey, a new character? After all, Bourne's just a codename...

[tdalton]

And so ends a great partnership. That’s a massive hit for Bourne 4.

I feel the opposite. This news actually makes me more interested in seeing Bourne 4.

[s.a.s. Malko]

From what I read there was some disagrement on about one of the script writer is which the director was informed about. He'll be back, I would not worry.

All this talk about there is no reason for Bourne anymore. Ludlum wrote two more books about Bourne after he became David Webb again. One plot was about the reason for his last black-op comes back to haunt him and everybody he holds dear. The last one was about a copycat Jason Bourne with intimate knowledge about JB and how he works. It takes Bourne to find him and stop the baddies.

Both can perfectly rewritten as a psycholical drama in which Bourne in retirement, when everybody thinks is dead, gets pulled back due to deeds that are blamed on him and therefor the hunt starts again. The CIA doesn't trust him and he can't trust them. And away we go................

That´s my opinion, too. I think this is a big chance to make 2 or 3 perfect movies following the storyline of the books. They could get rid of Damon as well and say he had facial surgery after BU. How about Jeremy Renner?

[Cody]

Word from Greengrass

"You won't find a more devoted supporter of the Bourne franchise than me. I will always be grateful to have been the caretaker to Jason Bourne over the course of The Bourne Supremacy and The Bourne Ultimatum. I'm very proud of those films and feel they express everything I most passionately believe about the possibility of making quality movies in the mainstream. My decision to not return a third time as director is simply about feeling the call for a different challenge. There's been no disagreement with Universal Pictures. The opportunity to work with the Bourne family again is a difficult thing to pass up, but we have discussed this together and they have been incredibly understanding and supportive. I've been lucky enough to have made four films for Universal, and our relationship continues. Jason Bourne existed before me and will continue, and I hope to remain involved in some capacity as the series moves on."

[dinovelvet]

That´s my opinion, too. I think this is a big chance to make 2 or 3 perfect movies following the storyline of the books. They could get rid of Damon as well and say he had facial surgery after BU. How about Jeremy Renner?

Great choice. They don't need any plastic surgery explanation though. It's like Bond, just recast and move on.

[Mr. Blofeld]

It works better for Bond, though, than it would for Bourne; it's not like anybody really remembers Richard Chamberlaine in the role, so lose Damon, and you lose most of the audience with him.

[terminus]

How about running with the codename theory - have the new Bourne being forced to investigate something related to the old Bourne, something the old Bourne did on a mission, and having to seek him out. Problem is, the 'Big Bad' of the movie is also trying to seek out the old Bourne to eliminate him - and are willing to do so even if the New Bourne gets in his way.

You could use some of the unused concepts from the novels across a new trilogy with New Bourne.

[Matt_13]

Yikes, that hurts. Wonder if it'll even get made now.

Why would it not get made? It's not like they haven't already made a Bourne film without him.

Yeah that was BEFORE Damon and Greengrass were close. Damon has said in a couple of interviews that it would largely depend on what Paul thought if he were to join a fourth film. Obviously Greengrass was not impressed with the scripts that were turned in, and I wonder if Matt will feel the same way.

[Simon]

A fourth film concerning what? If it was only the material of Bourne 1 - 3 then they could just re-hash the vestiges of the cutting room floor. Absolutely pointless IMHO. From a certain point onwards, more is just that, more. When a story is told to the end, then it's better left alone.

Once one arc is explored and covered, that is the end of a character?

Oh well then. I guess that must be it.

Have your concerns been made known to Hollywood because I'd hate for their time to be wasted on something you feel is pointless?

[CasinoKiller]

I quite like the idea of the CIA manipulating Bourne into working for them that Ludlum used in The Bourne Supremacy...maybe to hunt down another assassin who's assumed the Bourne identity.

[DamnCoffee]

Greengrass confirms Bourne Exit.

Paul Greengrass has confirmed that he is pulling out of directing the fourth Bourne movie.

Last week, it was reported that the director was considering leaving the project because of disagreements with Universal Pictures over the script and budgets.

However, in a statement about his departure, Greengrass insisted that his reasons for leaving were based on a desire to find a "different challenge".

"You won't find a more devoted supporter of the Bourne franchise than me. I will always be grateful to have been the caretaker to Jason Bourne over the course of The Bourne Supremacy and The Bourne Ultimatum," he told Variety.

"I'm very proud of those films and feel they express everything I most passionately believe about the possibility of making quality movies in the mainstream. My decision to not return a third time as director is simply about feeling the call for a different challenge. There's been no disagreement with Universal Pictures. The opportunity to work with the Bourne family again is a difficult thing to pass up, but we have discussed this together and they have been incredibly understanding and supportive.

"I've been lucky enough to have made four films for Universal, and our relationship continues. Jason Bourne existed before me and will continue and I hope to remain involved in some capacity as the series moves on."

Either Tony Gilroy (Duplicity) or George Nolfi (The Adjustment Bureau) have been tipped to take over as director.

[jaguar007]

They certainly don't need Greengrass to do another Bourne, especially as I think The BOurne Identity is by far the best of the series. The two Greengrass got progressively worse.

I also think if they do another Bourne they need to tread carefully. The storyline has been wrapped up and I am afraid they are going to make another movie just for the sake of making another movie.

[DR76]

According to Damon, that is the exact that thing that would NOT work, and after thinking about it I must say I agree with him. Bourne has been fighting authority for three films now, to have him work for them again would make little sense (and it would make even less sense that they'd hire him). I suspect this is the way a Damon-free (??) Bourne 4 could go, though.

That doesn't sit well with me. I prefer if Damon's Jason Bourne continue to defying authority.

[Tarl_Cabot]

I actually applaud Greengrass for this - a fourth Bourne just doesn´t make any sense creatively. The arc is completed.

And it also would be good for our James. No spy competition in 2011.

Competition breeds excellence. I'm a little bummed about the news but maybe they'll hire Limon(or Dan Bradley although I'd prefer to see him making 007-23) again which would be fine. I think the script and fight choreography is what made 2/3 so good.I don't dislike shaky cam but I won't pine for it.

Speaking of our James, I played and won a low stakes poker tournement in Vegas over the weekend and I won a hand that was the exact scenario as Bond vs Demtrios: I had the AA and A on the board and he hed the KK with a K to make a set. I checked the river(Like Bond) and he went all in. I knocked him out.

[The Ghost Who Walks]

It works better for Bond, though, than it would for Bourne; it's not like anybody really remembers Richard Chamberlaine in the role, so lose Damon, and you lose most of the audience with him.

The Bond series didn't lose most of the audience when that Moore fellow (or indeed, the "this never happened to the other fellow" fellow!) took over the PPK from The Man With The Golden Accent. (I guess Richard Chamberlaine is the Barry Nelson of the Bourne franchise, i.e. the one that nobody remembers)

Battlestar Galactica's Michael Trucco should be the next Bourne if they have to make another one (and they will, I'm sure), if I'm allowed to throw in my two cents. Or maybe even BSG's Jamie Bamber, who even looks kind of Damon-ish.

As for new Bond movies using ideas from Ludlum's books, didn't the previous films mostly discard the novels completely? I haven't read any of them personally.

Edited by The Ghost Who Walks, 02 December 2009 - 10:35 PM.

[s.a.s. Malko]

I think Michael Trucco is not good enough to carry a big budget movie franchise. I really would like to see Jeremy Renner, he can do action and is a very good actor, and he looks the part. Of course only if he does not get Mad Max:Fury Road

[terminus]

Can't see either Renner or Trucco to be honest.

How about Jonathan Rhys-Myers or Henry Cavill?

[dinovelvet]

Can't see either Renner or Trucco to be honest.

How about Jonathan Rhys-Myers or Henry Cavill?

Rhys-Meyers is in a spy movie next year "From Paris with love", from the director of Taken.

As for Cavill, a former Bond contender playing Bourne? The fanboy bickering will never end!

I can see Jeremy Renner doing it just fine. Have you seen The Hurt Locker, terminus? Somebody's going to sign him up to be the lead in a big action movie sooner or later.

[terminus]

Nope, not seen The Hurt Locker.

Hadn't heard about FPWL with Rhys-Meyers, will keep an eye out for it.

Heh - the fanboy bickering will be amusing if they did hire Cavill. Maybe that's a point in his favour, though?

[Trident]

As for new Bond movies using ideas from Ludlum's books, didn't the previous films mostly discard the novels completely? I haven't read any of them personally.

I assume you meant Bourne there, didn't you?

The films have dropped the Bourne novel plot right from the start. Ludlum's Treadstone operation was set up for the sole purpose of catching Carlos the Jackal. Treadstone created the fiction of a super terrorist operating chiefly in Asia, Jason Bourne. Fake assasinations, fake terrorist attacks were staged, numerous real-life events, killings, assaults were taken credit for by the Bourne legend. The idea was to exert pressure on Carlos from an unexpected direction, stage a kind of 'duel of the titans' situation between Bourne and the infamous Carlos, once he learns Bourne sets out to expand his operations to Europe. so this part was pretty much a variation of the 'man that never was' idea.

The second part is of course strongly influenced by Fleming's idea to let Bond lose his memory for a time. While Bourne worked on tracing Carlos he suffered a severe headshot. Recovering from this he's afraid of himself for he actually believes what the newspapers write about Jason Bourne. Further evidence of his abilities are numerous encounters with all kinds of dangerous situations and the enormous amount of cash in his Zuerich bank account. Bourne doesn't know he's an agent sent to track down Carlos but he immediately knows Carlos is his enemy. His own people at Treadstone fear he's turned sides for he didn't contact them and nobody anticipated the outlandish possibility their operator could lose his memory. When Treadstone is assaulted, all personnel killed and Bourne's fingerprints found among the debris, there isn't need for further investigation. When Bourne finally does make contact, the first thing they do is packing guns and ammo. Only the aquaintance between Bourne and Conklin prevents that either is killed immediately. Bourne finally confronts Carlos whithout being able to kill or arrest him.

In this plot Bourne is essentially a 'good' agent believing in his own cover story for a time. Film Bourne has inverted the concept. For one thing Carlos the Jackal has lost most of his fascination over the decades. At the end of the seventies he's held a similar status ObL does today, an infamous figurehead of terrorism. When 'The Bourne Identity' hit theaters this character would have been hard to sel to the audience as a major threat. Another problem was the 'killers fight for turf' idea. It's certainly not entirely outlandish, organised crime can attest to that every other week, just look a your newspaper. But it's much harder to integrate into a plot of roughly two hours with the kind of dynamic they had in mind for Bourne, i.e. concentrating on his character telling most of the plot pretty close to him with both him and the audience having little idea what the score is.

They could have played closer to the novel with Bourne, the 'good' bad thugs and the 'bad' bad thugs chasing him, but that would have meant a different balance. So they decided to cut down Carlos to the size of Wombosi and blow up Treadstone to a long lasting black murder operation whose members are spread strategically across major cities, an idea Ludlum mentioned in passing in Parsifal Mosaic if I recall correctly.

This change, Bourne being in effect just one of several killers shooting, choking and stabbing their path through their targets, also meant a major divergence from Ludlum's original character. His David Webb is the archetype of suburbia, middle aged, middle classed, only in it because a horrible fate bereaved him of his family. Film Bourne is a young though-as-nails guy whose reasons to join Treadstone (a step incorporating severe physical abuse if his flashbacks are anything to judge by) are still in the dark. He didn't play the killer, he actually was it. Ludlum's Bourne suffered from memories of a tragical loss and horrible war experiences, none of them actually his fault. Film Bourne suffers from memories of his own victims, of their painful struggle, all of that very much his fault. And he suffers so much that he can't take the strain any more and actually has to find the daughter of a couple he killed and confess his deed to her.

This may not sit well with some, but film Bourne is closer to the guard of a death camp suddenly getting a conscience than to his literary counterpart. And his situation is even made worse by the loss of memory, for this also robbed him of the reasons he originally had for joining the CIA and Treadstone. If he knew about them he could try to rationalise why he did what he did. Without them he's to take the full force of his guilt, an immeasurably harder task, a burden he struggles to take on.

My opinion: film Bourne is a deeper and more faceted character than Ludlum's original. One of the few examples where a film actually covered more interesting characters and situations than the original novel did.

[CasinoKiller]

As for new Bond movies using ideas from Ludlum's books, didn't the previous films mostly discard the novels completely? I haven't read any of them personally.

I assume you meant Bourne there, didn't you?

The films have dropped the Bourne novel plot right from the start. Ludlum's Treadstone operation was set up for the sole purpose of catching Carlos the Jackal. Treadstone created the fiction of a super terrorist operating chiefly in Asia, Jason Bourne. Fake assasinations, fake terrorist attacks were staged, numerous real-life events, killings, assaults were taken credit for by the Bourne legend. The idea was to exert pressure on Carlos from an unexpected direction, stage a kind of 'duel of the titans' situation between Bourne and the infamous Carlos, once he learns Bourne sets out to expand his operations to Europe. so this part was pretty much a variation of the 'man that never was' idea.

The second part is of course strongly influenced by Fleming's idea to let Bond lose his memory for a time. While Bourne worked on tracing Carlos he suffered a severe headshot. Recovering from this he's afraid of himself for he actually believes what the newspapers write about Jason Bourne. Further evidence of his abilities are numerous encounters with all kinds of dangerous situations and the enormous amount of cash in his Zuerich bank account. Bourne doesn't know he's an agent sent to track down Carlos but he immediately knows Carlos is his enemy. His own people at Treadstone fear he's turned sides for he didn't contact them and nobody anticipated the outlandish possibility their operator could lose his memory. When Treadstone is assaulted, all personnel killed and Bourne's fingerprints found among the debris, there isn't need for further investigation. When Bourne finally does make contact, the first thing they do is packing guns and ammo. Only the aquaintance between Bourne and Conklin prevents that either is killed immediately. Bourne finally confronts Carlos whithout being able to kill or arrest him.

In this plot Bourne is essentially a 'good' agent believing in his own cover story for a time. Film Bourne has inverted the concept. For one thing Carlos the Jackal has lost most of his fascination over the decades. At the end of the seventies he's held a similar status ObL does today, an infamous figurehead of terrorism. When 'The Bourne Identity' hit theaters this character would have been hard to sel to the audience as a major threat. Another problem was the 'killers fight for turf' idea. It's certainly not entirely outlandish, organised crime can attest to that every other week, just look a your newspaper. But it's much harder to integrate into a plot of roughly two hours with the kind of dynamic they had in mind for Bourne, i.e. concentrating on his character telling most of the plot pretty close to him with both him and the audience having little idea what the score is.

They could have played closer to the novel with Bourne, the 'good' bad thugs and the 'bad' bad thugs chasing him, but that would have meant a different balance. So they decided to cut down Carlos to the size of Wombosi and blow up Treadstone to a long lasting black murder operation whose members are spread strategically across major cities, an idea Ludlum mentioned in passing in Parsifal Mosaic if I recall correctly.

This change, Bourne being in effect just one of several killers shooting, choking and stabbing their path through their targets, also meant a major divergence from Ludlum's original character. His David Webb is the archetype of suburbia, middle aged, middle classed, only in it because a horrible fate bereaved him of his family. Film Bourne is a young though-as-nails guy whose reasons to join Treadstone (a step incorporating severe physical abuse if his flashbacks are anything to judge by) are still in the dark. He didn't play the killer, he actually was it. Ludlum's Bourne suffered from memories of a tragical loss and horrible war experiences, none of them actually his fault. Film Bourne suffers from memories of his own victims, of their painful struggle, all of that very much his fault. And he suffers so much that he can't take the strain any more and actually has to find the daughter of a couple he killed and confess his deed to her.

This may not sit well with some, but film Bourne is closer to the guard of a death camp suddenly getting a conscience than to his literary counterpart. And his situation is even made worse by the loss of memory, for this also robbed him of the reasons he originally had for joining the CIA and Treadstone. If he knew about them he could try to rationalise why he did what he did. Without them he's to take the full force of his guilt, an immeasurably harder task, a burden he struggles to take on.

My opinion: film Bourne is a deeper and more faceted character than Ludlum's original. One of the few examples where a film actually covered more interesting characters and situations than the original novel did.

I agree. The film Bourne is a far more morally ambiguous character than Ludlum's literary version, pretty much because the whole series is more morally ambiguous in general. In Ludlum's books, the CIA and the US Government (despite some of their more dubious and ethically questionable actions) are presented ultimately as being the 'good guys' while we always had 'bad guys' in the form of either Carlos the Jackal or Sheng Chou Yeng (the villain in the second book). While Jason Bourne in the books is presented as being far more ruthless and violent than he is ever depicted in the films, Bourne is merely an invented persona in the books which David Webb initially sought refuge in to get over the depression of his family's death. David Webb is however a fundamentally decent man and the black operations he was involved in, while morally grey, ultimately had a 'good cause'.

In contrast, in the films we have the CIA who are clearly the antagonists however they are never really truly presented as being 'bad guys' per se. (At least Conklin or Noah Vosen aren't...though Ward Abbott arguably was). While they eliminate people across the world at a whim, they supposedly do it in the name of 'national security' and to some extent the existence of the programs itself (though not the use they've been put to in eliminating 'embarassments' and security leaks) could be justified (I believe the US Military was working on a real life assassination program recently). Also, Bourne may be the 'good guy' but we learn not to take that for granted because, but for a last minute conscience attack and memory loss, he would have continued to remain a cold blooded killer. And the argument that the CIA brainwashed him to become an assassin doesn't fly because he VOLUNTEERED for it, knowing what he would have to do. Now, of course, if we learn his reasons for doing so, I guess we might be able to judge him better, but for the most part Bourne is ultimately just a terrorist (of sorts) whos 'reformed' himself. And yet, as depicted in the movies, hes definetly a 'good guy' in his actions.

That said, I'd love to see a film and/or TV adaptation faithful to the Ludlum books at some point...

[The Ghost Who Walks]

As for new Bond movies using ideas from Ludlum's books, didn't the previous films mostly discard the novels completely? I haven't read any of them personally.

I assume you meant Bourne there, didn't you?

Yes I did.

The films have dropped the Bourne novel plot right from the start. Ludlum's Treadstone operation was set up for the sole purpose of catching Carlos the Jackal. Treadstone created the fiction of a super terrorist operating chiefly in Asia, Jason Bourne. Fake assasinations, fake terrorist attacks were staged, numerous real-life events, killings, assaults were taken credit for by the Bourne legend. The idea was to exert pressure on Carlos from an unexpected direction, stage a kind of 'duel of the titans' situation between Bourne and the infamous Carlos, once he learns Bourne sets out to expand his operations to Europe. so this part was pretty much a variation of the 'man that never was' idea.

The second part is of course strongly influenced by Fleming's idea to let Bond lose his memory for a time. While Bourne worked on tracing Carlos he suffered a severe headshot. Recovering from this he's afraid of himself for he actually believes what the newspapers write about Jason Bourne. Further evidence of his abilities are numerous encounters with all kinds of dangerous situations and the enormous amount of cash in his Zuerich bank account. Bourne doesn't know he's an agent sent to track down Carlos but he immediately knows Carlos is his enemy. His own people at Treadstone fear he's turned sides for he didn't contact them and nobody anticipated the outlandish possibility their operator could lose his memory. When Treadstone is assaulted, all personnel killed and Bourne's fingerprints found among the debris, there isn't need for further investigation. When Bourne finally does make contact, the first thing they do is packing guns and ammo. Only the aquaintance between Bourne and Conklin prevents that either is killed immediately. Bourne finally confronts Carlos whithout being able to kill or arrest him.

In this plot Bourne is essentially a 'good' agent believing in his own cover story for a time. Film Bourne has inverted the concept. For one thing Carlos the Jackal has lost most of his fascination over the decades. At the end of the seventies he's held a similar status ObL does today, an infamous figurehead of terrorism. When 'The Bourne Identity' hit theaters this character would have been hard to sel to the audience as a major threat. Another problem was the 'killers fight for turf' idea. It's certainly not entirely outlandish, organised crime can attest to that every other week, just look a your newspaper. But it's much harder to integrate into a plot of roughly two hours with the kind of dynamic they had in mind for Bourne, i.e. concentrating on his character telling most of the plot pretty close to him with both him and the audience having little idea what the score is.

They could have played closer to the novel with Bourne, the 'good' bad thugs and the 'bad' bad thugs chasing him, but that would have meant a different balance. So they decided to cut down Carlos to the size of Wombosi and blow up Treadstone to a long lasting black murder operation whose members are spread strategically across major cities, an idea Ludlum mentioned in passing in Parsifal Mosaic if I recall correctly.

This change, Bourne being in effect just one of several killers shooting, choking and stabbing their path through their targets, also meant a major divergence from Ludlum's original character. His David Webb is the archetype of suburbia, middle aged, middle classed, only in it because a horrible fate bereaved him of his family. Film Bourne is a young though-as-nails guy whose reasons to join Treadstone (a step incorporating severe physical abuse if his flashbacks are anything to judge by) are still in the dark. He didn't play the killer, he actually was it. Ludlum's Bourne suffered from memories of a tragical loss and horrible war experiences, none of them actually his fault. Film Bourne suffers from memories of his own victims, of their painful struggle, all of that very much his fault. And he suffers so much that he can't take the strain any more and actually has to find the daughter of a couple he killed and confess his deed to her.

This may not sit well with some, but film Bourne is closer to the guard of a death camp suddenly getting a conscience than to his literary counterpart. And his situation is even made worse by the loss of memory, for this also robbed him of the reasons he originally had for joining the CIA and Treadstone. If he knew about them he could try to rationalise why he did what he did. Without them he's to take the full force of his guilt, an immeasurably harder task, a burden he struggles to take on.

My opinion: film Bourne is a deeper and more faceted character than Ludlum's original. One of the few examples where a film actually covered more interesting characters and situations than the original novel did.

Very interesting reading. Sounds like they've thrown away the source material to an even larger degree than the Bond filmmakers have done at times. I actually own the first two books, but I can never seem to get around to actually read them.

From your post, I must say Damon-Bourne sounds like a more original and possibly intriguing character than Ludlum-Bourne. The "scarred by war" has been done so many times so many places that it loses some of its fascination for me.

[tdalton]

I'm a little bummed about the news but maybe they'll hire Limon

That's exactly what I'm hoping for. The Bourne Identity is not only my favorite Bourne film by a mile, but it's also, IMO, one of the best spy films to come around in a while, and I'd be delighted if Liman was brought back on board.