377 replies to this topic

[Royal Dalton]

while they provide free (crappy) healthcare

Welcome to CBn, Mr. Giuliani.

[Safari Suit]

Why don't they turn they turn the "r" in Bourne sideways? Or rename him Lenin and have done with it?

[Trident]

Why don't they turn they turn the "r" in Bourne sideways? Or rename him Lenin and have done with it?

They probably wanted to, but Universal saw to it that these raving leftists got sent to a detention center before they could harm the series any more. To a detention center with real crappy free health care. Serves them commies right...

[Tarl_Cabot]

while they provide free (crappy) healthcare

Welcome to CBn, Mr. Giuliani.

[OmarB]

Yeah, I totally hate the lefist slant put on the movies by those 2. As an objectivist and a firm believer in capitalism I think the world they wish for is not one I want to live in.

Make a movie about a government agent just to crap on the freedoms we are afforded by such a government and it's agents work. Nice.

[Gabriel]

Greengrass co-wrote Spycatcher with Peter Wright that wreaked unnecessary havoc with British Intelligence, made Resurrected which was about showing the military in a bad light, The One That Got Away, which was about showing the military in a bad light and was Chris Ryan sticking two fingers up at Andy McNab and Bloody Sunday, which was about showing the military in a bad light and was a biased film, not helpful to the current inquiry due for publication next year.

There's no denying Greengrass has a history as a leftist commentator. And the Bourne books have little to do with the movies. Where in the movie The Bourne Ultimatum do we have Carlos, the Jackal hunting college lecturer David Webb, who used to go by the name Jason Bourne?

I'd like to see more Bourne, but Greengrass being treated as the 'auteur' of the films gets my goat: I'd like to see Doug Liman back in the director's chair!

Funny how the left get all pissy the moment their bias gets acknowledged. The always think they're 'right'!

Edited by Gabriel, 12 November 2009 - 12:29 PM.

[Zorin Industries]

Having read the last page I am not sure if people are joking of just of their blooming rocker.

The Bourne from the books was an murderer and was as such used by his goverment (US) he then while performing his duty lost his memory and got hunted by that same paranoid goverment. In the three books you learn through Bourne that he gets used and used again by that same goverment to obtain their goals. They care little for his humanity.

Greengrass and Damon somehow translated this to our times and somehow give it the same message. Goverments use and abuse and the little man is not taken into consideration. Unless the little man has the skills like JB.

The Bourne trilogy is no leftist propaganda more like a search for one man's answers while he is being blocked from doing so.

Greengrass other big movie is Bloody sunday which is about a bloodbath in Ireland which is still being felt there today. Nothing lefist about that either.

Some decent insight at last. Thanks Chimera01!

And can folk please remember that The Bourne films are not the second coming and have no other agenda other than showing the little man in the big system. They are merely THE IPCRESS FILES of their day and no-one was claiming Lewis Gilbert and Michael Caine were "lefties" (which is such an annoyingly ignorant statement when people use it as they rarely use it correctly or with any insight themselves into the politics at stake).

I'd like to see more Bourne, but Greengrass being treated as the 'auteur' of the films gets my goat: I'd like to see Doug Liman back in the director's chair!

The films would not still be getting commissioned if Doug Liman had been allowed to continue directing. IDENTITY pales when places alongside SUPREMACY and ULTIMATUM. That is not opinion. That is box office / critic led fact.

[Gabriel]

The films would not still be getting commissioned if Doug Liman had been allowed to continue directing. IDENTITY pales when places alongside SUPREMACY and ULTIMATUM. That is not opinion. That is box office / critic led fact.

Rubbish! Identity did very well, leading to Supremacy. Even the critics have got fed up of Greengrass's dramamine-necessary filming. Critically Ultimatum certainly did less well. Greengrass is simply one director and easily replaceable. I'd like someone else to take a stab at the films. More than one director on a franchise is nothing new! And anyway, Identity is still the best film: I like the other two, but killing off Franke Potente's character was a massive error!

[Zorin Industries]

killing off Franke Potente's character was a massive error!

Not when you need a motivation for Bourne for the remaining films.

[Gabriel]

Not when you need a motivation for Bourne for the remaining films.

Killing off Marie was lazy and cliched. There were plenty of other ways to get Bourne back in action. Killing her off robbed the series of its 'real world' aspect and its humanity. Once Nikki was gone, we were purely in the realm of spies. Also, Marie was the most interesting character. Bourne is deliberately something of a blank slate. Without Marie to play off, they've had to retcon Nikki into a different role! But she's still a spook herself!

[Zorin Industries]

Not when you need a motivation for Bourne for the remaining films.

Killing off Marie was lazy and cliched.

It was completely structurally necessary. There was no other option for the writers to follow with a main character who has scant recollection for his past. The very concept of the Bourne films (his not remembering) limits how you can keep a main character's motivation and emotional journey afloat. It also a death that happens in the NOW of the story, whereas the bulk of BOURNE's story is in the past. Yet that doesn't make for interesting filmmaking (as the POTTER films will one day realise) so you have to set up tangents and narrative crossroads such as killing BOURNE's love interest within the foreground of the story not the background.

[Trident]

Greengrass co-wrote Spycatcher with Peter Wright that wreaked unnecessary havoc with British Intelligence,

Havoc? In what way? I mean, in what way other than the havoc you seem to connect to it? The havoc the HM Government could easily have avoided if only it hadn't been stupid and ponderous enough to run the PR campaign for it.

made Resurrected which was about showing the military in a bad light,

What an infernally stupid hogwash. With all due respect, Sir!
'Resurrected' doesn't show the military one single iota more ugly than it is. Mainly, because the plot of the film concerns a missing soldier presumed dead, a fate that can happen to almost any soldier in any war. If you have any problem with that, you should consider at least to rearrange your personal set of prejudices from time to time. Granted, the film wasn't shot in order to perform oral acts of sexuality to 'the military' in general or specifically the British Army.

The One That Got Away, which was about showing the military in a bad light and was Chris Ryan sticking two fingers up at Andy McNab

Once more a bad light and two fingers at McNab? Naughty boy, this Greengrass. Perhaps this is really about light matters and Greengrass should consider changing his whole gaffer's crew? At least it seems McNab can live fairly undisturbed by finger gestures, probably because he couldn't care less. Wish that wisdom were more widespread on this planet.

and Bloody Sunday, which was about showing the military in a bad light

Bad light yet again? Even though a different electrician and best boy worked on this one? Phew, seems there's a deeper problem here. Maybe the object in question for the best part escapes being shown..., flatteringly? You know, when something is dirty it doesn't help all that much to 'put it in a good light', does it? You may not see the dirt so good any more, but it hasn't disappeared.

and was a biased film, not helpful to the current inquiry due for publication next year.

Biased? Of course, always provided foregoing the desired outcome of the inquiry qualifies as 'biased'. Not helpful? Actually, I wasn't living under the impression Greengrass was payed for 'being helpful'. I sincerely hope I wasn't wrong about that. Because that's what's commonly known as 'propaganda' and, thank you, I can do perfectly well without it.

There's no denying Greengrass has a history as a leftist commentator.

...

Funny how the left get all pissy the moment their bias gets acknowledged. The always think they're 'right'!

For me, there's actually hardly any doubt you perceive 'left' in a vastly different meaning I do. It may be a good idea to stay on safe ground and just use the term to indicate an object's position relatively to another object's position. That way you avoid getting into arguments about 'biased' perceptions without the proper equipment.

[Zorin Industries]

Thank you Trident.

I would like to ask Gabriel if he has read SPYCATCHER, watched BLOODY SUNDAY and seen Greengrass "leftie" leanings also in the likes of UNITED 93...?

[Trident]

Thank you Trident.

I would like to ask Gabriel if he has read SPYCATCHER, watched BLOODY SUNDAY and seen Greengrass "leftie" leanings also in the likes of UNITED 93...?

No, this really has become monstrously ludicrous; cantering through all stadia of doctrinal conviction, breaking the definition barrier from the wrong side and arriving at the very, very pointed point of absurdity. I can suffer only so much of this particular symptomatology, then I have to speak my mind.

[Gabriel]

Thank you Trident.

I would like to ask Gabriel if he has read SPYCATCHER, watched BLOODY SUNDAY and seen Greengrass "leftie" leanings also in the likes of UNITED 93...?

Actually, yes, I have. I'd like to ask you if you've pulled your head out of your big fat distended rectum!

You seem to have a problem with everything I have said since I disagreed with you about the casting of OHMSS, for which you said you had 'no inclination' to argue with me. Now you a desperately jumping on a bandwagon, effectively carbon-copying publicity materials as an 'argument'.

It's tough on you, isn't ZI: not being able to make me agree with you.

Clearly you lie there at night . . . alone . . . obsessing over how to get at that guy Gabriel because he disagreed with you over The Laz.

How does it feel to be the little guy hiding behind other people's knees shouting 'Yeah! That's right!' rather than making a cogent argument yourself?

Are you suffering? Does it cause you pain?

Analysis pal. Your doctor can refer you!

[Zorin Industries]

Thank you Trident.

I would like to ask Gabriel if he has read SPYCATCHER, watched BLOODY SUNDAY and seen Greengrass "leftie" leanings also in the likes of UNITED 93...?

Actually, yes, I have. I'd like to ask you if you've pulled your head out of your big fat distended rectum!

You seem to have a problem with everything I have said since I disagreed with you about the casting of OHMSS, for which you said you had 'no inclination' to argue with me. Now you a desperately jumping on a bandwagon, effectively carbon-copying publicity materials as an 'argument'.

It's tough on you, isn't ZI: not being able to make me agree with you.

Clearly you lie there at night . . . alone . . . obsessing over how to get at that guy Gabriel because he disagreed with you over The Laz.

How does it feel to be the little guy hiding behind other people's knees shouting 'Yeah! That's right!' rather than making a cogent argument yourself?

Are you suffering? Does it cause you pain?

Analysis pal. Your doctor can refer you!

Not at all young Gabriel. And you might want to watch your tone round these parts. Sarcasm is great. But make sure you are good at it before you use it so liberally.

There are slightly more pressing things on my mind than whatever you think I need to worry about fantasy notions of "The Laz" / George Lazenby's other films.

And what ARE you talking about - "effectively carbon-copying publicity materials"...? I have never done that in my life. My viewpoints do not need to cut and paste other people's comments when making my OWN "cogent arguments". Far from it in fact. But - in the instance of killing off Bourne's love interest - I believe I have provided a fairly solid counterpoint. I am not asking to be right. But I am at least expecting either some decent counter-thoughts or some civility in the face of a topic you haven't clearly thought through nearly enough.

I am not out to disagree with you at every turn. Just be careful using blanket statements about what's up for discussion round CBN Street as some people have different viewpoints coming from different experiences. There is no need for crude and lazy digs when someone is offering insight / alternative perspectives and they do not tally with what you want to assume is the through line on something.

And sorry to disappoint, but firstly you not agreeing with me couldn't be any less "tough" than your ego seems to imagine and secondly, I never sleep alone (!). But putting forum based tit-for-tat aside (because that is all this is, let's be honest here)... there is no call for your opening sentiment in your last post on the matter. And it does you and CBN a disservice to use such language. Better CBN contributors than I have quit over such language and sentiments - and the loss to CBN has been marked... and not in its favour either.

[s.a.s. Malko]

Not when you need a motivation for Bourne for the remaining films.

Killing off Marie was lazy and cliched.

It was completely structurally necessary. There was no other option for the writers to follow with a main character who has scant recollection for his past. The very concept of the Bourne films (his not remembering) limits how you can keep a main character's motivation and emotional journey afloat. It also a death that happens in the NOW of the story, whereas the bulk of BOURNE's story is in the past. Yet that doesn't make for interesting filmmaking (as the POTTER films will one day realise) so you have to set up tangents and narrative crossroads such as killing BOURNE's love interest within the foreground of the story not the background.

Hmmm, Ludlum himself must have had another opinion, because he wrote two!! Bestsellers after BI and did not needto kill Marie!

[Trident]

Not when you need a motivation for Bourne for the remaining films.

Killing off Marie was lazy and cliched.

It was completely structurally necessary. There was no other option for the writers to follow with a main character who has scant recollection for his past. The very concept of the Bourne films (his not remembering) limits how you can keep a main character's motivation and emotional journey afloat. It also a death that happens in the NOW of the story, whereas the bulk of BOURNE's story is in the past. Yet that doesn't make for interesting filmmaking (as the POTTER films will one day realise) so you have to set up tangents and narrative crossroads such as killing BOURNE's love interest within the foreground of the story not the background.

Hmmm, Ludlum himself must have had another opinion, because he wrote two!! Bestsellers after BI and did not needto kill Marie!

But Ludlum's story is entirely different from film Bourne. Ludlum's version is a respectable agent playing the killer to get to the killer. After his loss of memory he's afraid he's a killer, running from his own people. His own people that suspect him of having taken reptile funds and turned sides.

Film Bourne was a real killer. He loses his memory and then decides to run, with the money and his girl. Ludlum's version learns the truth about his past in the first novel and then proceeds to comply his assignment, the doubt about his past forgotten. Film Bourne is still mostly a blank sheet even three films into the series. He's found out he's been a killer for the CIA but doesn't know that much more about himself apart from that. Why he became what he became, his reasons, motives and convictions, all that's still mostly in the dark.

I actually would have liked Marie to stay in Bourne's life, but Ludlum's books aren't a particularly good argument for her, as that Marie is in no way the one we've seen on the screen. Nor is Bourne the same person. And not for reasons of ideology but because it's an entirely original plot that uses only elements of Ludlum's books.

[Trident]

Um I read the books but seem to recall that David Webb who became Jason Bourne was a soldier/killer attached to a blackop group while carrying the nom du guerre Delta. DW/JB is at no point a respectable agent, he was a blackop operator with no hestitation of killing people and knew that his Bourne identity should be able to live up to the legend. And through the 3 Ludlum books he's a pretty efficient assassin.

Long time ago, but I seem to remember Webb was mainly a member of the SOG in Vietnam, operating with a number of seedy mercenaries in so-called 'Medusa'. But the background of that operation wasn't exactly revealed until the second and thrid book IIRC. To the best of my knowledge, Webb was depicted as one of the few stable members of Medusa, at times even eliminating the most rabid elements of this outfit, namely Jason Bourne, whose identity he took.

My impression was he cared very much about whom he eliminated and I think this is even the only logical explanation for the Treadstone operation, as it would have been daring in the extreme to send out a complete outcast. Of course, Webb has killed before in the course of his duty and in the war. But I didn't see him as an outspoken killer. Mh, maybe a case of 'a bit pregnant' but I doubt Ludlum's book would have been such a success back then if Bourne/Webb had been depicted as the epitome of the cold-blooded killer. This wasn't Mack Bolan and the story's plot depends to some extent on Webb believing his own cover which paints Bourne severely more of a bastard than Webb ever was. In that sense I still think of Webb as a 'respectable' agent.

[CasinoKiller]

Um I read the books but seem to recall that David Webb who became Jason Bourne was a soldier/killer attached to a blackop group while carrying the nom du guerre Delta. DW/JB is at no point a respectable agent, he was a blackop operator with no hestitation of killing people and knew that his Bourne identity should be able to live up to the legend. And through the 3 Ludlum books he's a pretty efficient assassin.

Long time ago, but I seem to remember Webb was mainly a member of the SOG in Vietnam, operating with a number of seedy mercenaries in so-called 'Medusa'. But the background of that operation wasn't exactly revealed until the second and thrid book IIRC. To the best of my knowledge, Webb was depicted as one of the few stable members of Medusa, at times even eliminating the most rabid elements of this outfit, namely Jason Bourne, whose identity he took.

My impression was he cared very much about whom he eliminated and I think this is even the only logical explanation for the Treadstone operation, as it would have been daring in the extreme to send out a complete outcast. Of course, Webb has killed before in the course of his duty and in the war. But I didn't see him as an outspoken killer. Mh, maybe a case of 'a bit pregnant' but I doubt Ludlum's book would have been such a success back then if Bourne/Webb had been depicted as the epitome of the cold-blooded killer. This wasn't Mack Bolan and the story's plot depends to some extent on Webb believing his own cover which paints Bourne severely more of a bastard than Webb ever was. In that sense I still think of Webb as a 'respectable' agent.

Yeah, you're right.

David Webb is essentially a decent man who was mentally and emotionally shattered after the violent death of his family and from his psychological ashes, the US Government's secret Medusa project created the ruthless killer known as Delta. Delta may have killed during the war without hesitation, but he still retained his humanity to some extent (in the second book, a character who knew Delta during the war mentions how he occasionally spared some opponents life during the course of a mission). He was essentially a broken man using the lethal skills he'd been taught to hunt those who he considered responsible for the deaths of not only his family, but other innocents like them. The dangerous missions and the killing essentially became a safety valve for his sadness and rage, and was pretty much what kept him sane in the years following his family's death. Indeed, after the war, we are told that Webb had trouble adjusting to a civillian life, sinking into depression until he was recruited by the CIA for another mission (Treadstone 71) and assumed the persona of Jason Bourne. Playing the part of a cold blooded mercenary wasn't really difficult for the man who'd been a killer for so long in the jungles of Vietnam. Jason Bourne was essentially a more refined version of Delta and Webb continued to sink deeper and deeper into the Bourne identity, cuz the alternative was depression and near suicidal urges.

After the amnesia however, Webb/Bourne essentially becomes a blank slate, loosing the many layers of his identity(s). He retains Bourne's skills and cunning and even his ruthlessness and determination to an extent (cuz hes lived with it for so long) but hes still essentially David Webb who rescues and falls in love with Marie. In the end of the first book, cuz he doesnt clearly remember the deaths of his family, the memory that triggered his transformation into Delta/Bourne, he is able to return to his life peacefully as David Webb. But when Marie is kidnapped in the second book, the fragmented memories of his family's death and Jason Bourne come rushing back and result in the return of his Bourne identity. From this point on, he develops a split personality, wherein Marie helps ground him to his humanity as David Webb, but the Jason Bourne side of him, a product of training and his fragmented memories and deeply ingrained paranoia, remains.

[s.a.s. Malko]

Um I read the books but seem to recall that David Webb who became Jason Bourne was a soldier/killer attached to a blackop group while carrying the nom du guerre Delta. DW/JB is at no point a respectable agent, he was a blackop operator with no hestitation of killing people and knew that his Bourne identity should be able to live up to the legend. And through the 3 Ludlum books he's a pretty efficient assassin.

Long time ago, but I seem to remember Webb was mainly a member of the SOG in Vietnam, operating with a number of seedy mercenaries in so-called 'Medusa'. But the background of that operation wasn't exactly revealed until the second and thrid book IIRC. To the best of my knowledge, Webb was depicted as one of the few stable members of Medusa, at times even eliminating the most rabid elements of this outfit, namely Jason Bourne, whose identity he took.

My impression was he cared very much about whom he eliminated and I think this is even the only logical explanation for the Treadstone operation, as it would have been daring in the extreme to send out a complete outcast. Of course, Webb has killed before in the course of his duty and in the war. But I didn't see him as an outspoken killer. Mh, maybe a case of 'a bit pregnant' but I doubt Ludlum's book would have been such a success back then if Bourne/Webb had been depicted as the epitome of the cold-blooded killer. This wasn't Mack Bolan and the story's plot depends to some extent on Webb believing his own cover which paints Bourne severely more of a bastard than Webb ever was. In that sense I still think of Webb as a 'respectable' agent.

Yeah, you're right.

David Webb is essentially a decent man who was mentally and emotionally shattered after the violent death of his family and from his psychological ashes, the US Government's secret Medusa project created the ruthless killer known as Delta. Delta may have killed during the war without hesitation, but he still retained his humanity to some extent (in the second book, a character who knew Delta during the war mentions how he occasionally spared some opponents life during the course of a mission). He was essentially a broken man using the lethal skills he'd been taught to hunt those who he considered responsible for the deaths of not only his family, but other innocents like them. The dangerous missions and the killing essentially became a safety valve for his sadness and rage, and was pretty much what kept him sane in the years following his family's death. Indeed, after the war, we are told that Webb had trouble adjusting to a civillian life, sinking into depression until he was recruited by the CIA for another mission (Treadstone 71) and assumed the persona of Jason Bourne. Playing the part of a cold blooded mercenary wasn't really difficult for the man who'd been a killer for so long in the jungles of Vietnam. Jason Bourne was essentially a more refined version of Delta and Webb continued to sink deeper and deeper into the Bourne identity, cuz the alternative was depression and near suicidal urges.

After the amnesia however, Webb/Bourne essentially becomes a blank slate, loosing the many layers of his identity(s). He retains Bourne's skills and cunning and even his ruthlessness and determination to an extent (cuz hes lived with it for so long) but hes still essentially David Webb who rescues and falls in love with Marie. In the end of the first book, cuz he doesnt clearly remember the deaths of his family, the memory that triggered his transformation into Delta/Bourne, he is able to return to his life peacefully as David Webb. But when Marie is kidnapped in the second book, the fragmented memories of his family's death and Jason Bourne come rushing back and result in the return of his Bourne identity. From this point on, he develops a split personality, wherein Marie helps ground him to his humanity as David Webb, but the Jason Bourne side of him, a product of training and his fragmented memories and deeply ingrained paranoia, remains.

Best thing I read about Jason Bourne in thid thread. Perfect description of the character. In my opinion this is a much better story and would have been a much more interesting storyline for BS and BU.

[s.a.s. Malko]

Um I read the books but seem to recall that David Webb who became Jason Bourne was a soldier/killer attached to a blackop group while carrying the nom du guerre Delta. DW/JB is at no point a respectable agent, he was a blackop operator with no hestitation of killing people and knew that his Bourne identity should be able to live up to the legend. And through the 3 Ludlum books he's a pretty efficient assassin.

Long time ago, but I seem to remember Webb was mainly a member of the SOG in Vietnam, operating with a number of seedy mercenaries in so-called 'Medusa'. But the background of that operation wasn't exactly revealed until the second and thrid book IIRC. To the best of my knowledge, Webb was depicted as one of the few stable members of Medusa, at times even eliminating the most rabid elements of this outfit, namely Jason Bourne, whose identity he took.

My impression was he cared very much about whom he eliminated and I think this is even the only logical explanation for the Treadstone operation, as it would have been daring in the extreme to send out a complete outcast. Of course, Webb has killed before in the course of his duty and in the war. But I didn't see him as an outspoken killer. Mh, maybe a case of 'a bit pregnant' but I doubt Ludlum's book would have been such a success back then if Bourne/Webb had been depicted as the epitome of the cold-blooded killer. This wasn't Mack Bolan and the story's plot depends to some extent on Webb believing his own cover which paints Bourne severely more of a bastard than Webb ever was. In that sense I still think of Webb as a 'respectable' agent.

Yeah, you're right.

David Webb is essentially a decent man who was mentally and emotionally shattered after the violent death of his family and from his psychological ashes, the US Government's secret Medusa project created the ruthless killer known as Delta. Delta may have killed during the war without hesitation, but he still retained his humanity to some extent (in the second book, a character who knew Delta during the war mentions how he occasionally spared some opponents life during the course of a mission). He was essentially a broken man using the lethal skills he'd been taught to hunt those who he considered responsible for the deaths of not only his family, but other innocents like them. The dangerous missions and the killing essentially became a safety valve for his sadness and rage, and was pretty much what kept him sane in the years following his family's death. Indeed, after the war, we are told that Webb had trouble adjusting to a civillian life, sinking into depression until he was recruited by the CIA for another mission (Treadstone 71) and assumed the persona of Jason Bourne. Playing the part of a cold blooded mercenary wasn't really difficult for the man who'd been a killer for so long in the jungles of Vietnam. Jason Bourne was essentially a more refined version of Delta and Webb continued to sink deeper and deeper into the Bourne identity, cuz the alternative was depression and near suicidal urges.

After the amnesia however, Webb/Bourne essentially becomes a blank slate, loosing the many layers of his identity(s). He retains Bourne's skills and cunning and even his ruthlessness and determination to an extent (cuz hes lived with it for so long) but hes still essentially David Webb who rescues and falls in love with Marie. In the end of the first book, cuz he doesnt clearly remember the deaths of his family, the memory that triggered his transformation into Delta/Bourne, he is able to return to his life peacefully as David Webb. But when Marie is kidnapped in the second book, the fragmented memories of his family's death and Jason Bourne come rushing back and result in the return of his Bourne identity. From this point on, he develops a split personality, wherein Marie helps ground him to his humanity as David Webb, but the Jason Bourne side of him, a product of training and his fragmented memories and deeply ingrained paranoia, remains.

Best thing I read about Jason Bourne in this thread. Perfect description of the character. In my opinion this is a much better story and would have been a much more interesting storyline for BS and BU.

[tdalton]

Big news regarding Bourne 4.

Director Paul Greengrass Exits Fourth Bourne

[dinovelvet]

Big news regarding Bourne 4.

Director Paul Greengrass Exits Fourth Bourne

Will they be hiring Marc Forster?

[The Shark]

Big news regarding Bourne 4.

Director Paul Greengrass Exits Fourth Bourne

Will they be hiring Marc Forster?

He'd be perfect. Don't forget Haggis and Arnold too! Bourne needs them more than Bond.

Edited by The Shark, 01 December 2009 - 01:46 AM.

[sharpshooter]

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

[DR76]

When Greengrass took over Bourne, the films automatically took a strong left wing/liberal slant.

Why is that a problem? And I could have sworn that the franchise's criticism of the CIA began in the first movie, directed by Doug Liman.

[The Shark]

When Greengrass took over Bourne, the films automatically took a strong left wing/liberal slant.

Why is that a problem? And I could have sworn that the franchise's criticism of the CIA began in the first movie, directed by Doug Liman.

Mainly because some say it's partly contradictory to the message of Ludlum's novels, though far from the only divergence...

I think the "bring back Doug Liman" stance floating around here is mainly to due to Greengrass's use of shaky cam and other stylistic embellishments, rather than his message.

Edited by The Shark, 01 December 2009 - 03:53 AM.

[Matt_13]

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

[SecretAgentFan]

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.