Jason Bourne | 7.29.2016 | One week IMAX release on August 26 thanks to Ben Hur flopping

[The Futurist]

4 minutes ago, Baumer loves Dory said:

Life support? Give me a f****** break.

 

I liked the Renner-Weisz iteration better which destroys Bourne N5 in every department.

[baumer]

Great. What does that have to do with life support?

[ecstasy]

8 minutes ago, FallingSlowly said:

 

My bad, that's not what I meant. When I said Greengrass wrote the script, I meant he just wrote a mediocre one in a hurry to get the movie greenlit. He's a good director but the last film he wrote was in 2006 and he didn't write the script for the original Bourne trilogy. If he cared about the Jason Bourne movie, I imagine he would've called up Burns and Nolfi or another writer - ANYONE to call him out on his lazy writing.

 

The surveillance theme was definitely shoehorned and Bourne didn't even interact with that storyline throughout the movie - why bother including it then?? It also makes no sense that Jason Bourne, the character, would care about something like that. He just wants to be left alone.

 

Definitely agree with your last point.

Well tbh he rearranged Gilroy's script in both Supremacy and Ultimatum. The pretty much threw out Gilroy's script for Ultimatum entirely. I've tried to stay out of this thread because I haven't seen the movie.

 

Another point is that there was always difficulty getting a story after the trilogy. They went through several writers including Nolfi. He was one of the first to attempt the story way before Universal settled on going in a different direction.

[ecstasy]

9 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

 

I liked the Renner-Weisz iteration better which destroys Bourne N5 in every department.

LOL that doesn't mean Jason Bourne is on life support. It just means you like it better. Legacy was weak too.

[The Futurist]

1 minute ago, Baumer loves Dory said:

Great. What does that have to do with life support?

 

The franchise has pneumonia then, curable, but still pretty serious.

 

My main problem with this movie was it did nothing new and all it did, we saw it better in the first 4 films.

 

It s still competent and well made but I was politely bored throughout.

[Jay Beezy]

14 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

 

I liked the Renner-Weisz iteration better which destroys Bourne N5 in every department.

 

I'll say this about the Renner one. Its story, while anticlimactic, was at least tighter and more intricate in focus, only sporadically going off tangent to reference Ultimatum.

Edited August 25, 2016 by Jay Beezy

[ecstasy]

2 minutes ago, Jay Beezy said:

 

I'll say this about the Renner one. Its story, while anticlimactic, was at least tighter in focus, only sporadically going off tangent to reference Ultimatum.

This was my fear about doing another Bourne. There was really nowhere to go with a story.

[The Futurist]

Just now, ecstasy said:

This was my fear about doing another Bourne. There was really nowhere to go with a story.

And it showed.

 

Also, I am fed up with Hollywood and its fascination/hate with tech giants/moguls and the horrible clichés that come with it : the keynote scene with everybody applauding  banalities ...

[Macleod]

51 minutes ago, ecstasy said:

Well tbh he rearranged Gilroy's script in both Supremacy and Ultimatum. The pretty much threw out Gilroy's script for Ultimatum entirely. I've tried to stay out of this thread because I haven't seen the movie.

 

Another point is that there was always difficulty getting a story after the trilogy. They went through several writers including Nolfi. He was one of the first to attempt the story way before Universal settled on going in a different direction.

 

Then they should have left it alone.

[Jay Beezy]

46 minutes ago, BKB LOVES HILLARY said:

 

Really??? You think the BOURNE franchise is on life support??? How so??? Did the movie flop that bad or what???

 

An exaggeration obviously, but creatively on life support.

[Jay Beezy]

8 hours ago, FallingSlowly said:

 

Funny how things work out! I still need to see The Martian. All I've heard is good buzz. Did you like it?

 

It was my favorite movie of last year.

[cookie]

I still haven't seen The Martian even though I was supposed to be seeing it opening day (I got sick that week).

[Plain Old Tele]

It's so easy to look back at choices through the lens of the finished movie. But really, nothing is ever as obvious as it appears right now, weeks after the release.

 

When Greengrass and Damon came on board, it's because they were excited about the project. When the studio greenlit the production, they did so because the creative people (including Greengrass and Damon) thought the script was great. They might've thought there were one or two potential issues that could be ironed out, but even when you're up against a release date, you don't go into production without being confident in the project. While they were shooting, I'm sure everyone thought it seemed great too. (And, btw, like every movie, the script was changing constantly throughout production, if for no other reason than to deal with production reality instead of written impossibility). Then, in post, perhaps then they could start to feel that it maybe hadn't quite come together exactly as exciting as it read on the page, all those months earlier. But even then, they massaged and finessed and maybe at that point the story wasn't perfect but they got the thing sizzling and moving forward as quickly as could be. And it turned out.... well, I didn't care for it and others thought it was only OK and some even loved it. It's not blowing up the box-office but it's got a solid little run going and it'll do well for Universal in the long run.

[Jay Beezy]

2 hours ago, NuTella Lover of Sky Beams said:

It's so easy to look back at choices through the lens of the finished movie. But really, nothing is ever as obvious as it appears right now, weeks after the release.

 

When Greengrass and Damon came on board, it's because they were excited about the project. When the studio greenlit the production, they did so because the creative people (including Greengrass and Damon) thought the script was great. They might've thought there were one or two potential issues that could be ironed out, but even when you're up against a release date, you don't go into production without being confident in the project. While they were shooting, I'm sure everyone thought it seemed great too. (And, btw, like every movie, the script was changing constantly throughout production, if for no other reason than to deal with production reality instead of written impossibility). Then, in post, perhaps then they could start to feel that it maybe hadn't quite come together exactly as exciting as it read on the page, all those months earlier. But even then, they massaged and finessed and maybe at that point the story wasn't perfect but they got the thing sizzling and moving forward as quickly as could be. And it turned out.... well, I didn't care for it and others thought it was only OK and some even loved it. It's not blowing up the box-office but it's got a solid little run going and it'll do well for Universal in the long run.

 

Greengrass would of course think the script was great considering he was credited writer this go around.

[FallingSlowly]

4 hours ago, NuTella Lover of Sky Beams said:

It's so easy to look back at choices through the lens of the finished movie. But really, nothing is ever as obvious as it appears right now, weeks after the release.

 

When Greengrass and Damon came on board, it's because they were excited about the project. When the studio greenlit the production, they did so because the creative people (including Greengrass and Damon) thought the script was great. They might've thought there were one or two potential issues that could be ironed out, but even when you're up against a release date, you don't go into production without being confident in the project. While they were shooting, I'm sure everyone thought it seemed great too. (And, btw, like every movie, the script was changing constantly throughout production, if for no other reason than to deal with production reality instead of written impossibility). Then, in post, perhaps then they could start to feel that it maybe hadn't quite come together exactly as exciting as it read on the page, all those months earlier. But even then, they massaged and finessed and maybe at that point the story wasn't perfect but they got the thing sizzling and moving forward as quickly as could be. And it turned out.... well, I didn't care for it and others thought it was only OK and some even loved it. It's not blowing up the box-office but it's got a solid little run going and it'll do well for Universal in the long run.

 

It's a nice sentiment but I have a very hard time believing that they actually thought the script was good simply because they both worked on the original trilogy and they understood that the story was integral to those movies' successes. They're smarter than that. I really don't believe that they ran this script past other people and everyone said, "Oh yeah, this is a great story."

 

Haha, your last sentence is what I'm afraid of. Universal's CEO or director or someone said that they want to keep making Bourne films until it's physically not possible. They're going to run this franchise into the ground with their greed.

[Plain Old Tele]

28 minutes ago, FallingSlowly said:

 

It's a nice sentiment but I have a very hard time believing that they actually thought the script was good simply because they both worked on the original trilogy and they understood that the story was integral to those movies' successes. They're smarter than that. I really don't believe that they ran this script past other people and everyone said, "Oh yeah, this is a great story."

 

Why would you have a hard time believing it? In terms of "this script", the movie you watched is not the same as the draft of a script (or the outline of a story) that got everyone excited in the first place. Even the final shooting script will vary from the finished movie you watch. The process is long, complicated, and the beginnings are usually very different than how things end up (either for better or worse).

 

Like I said, I didn't like the movie, but I can easily see why people would be interested in the concept: it's Bourne going back to his roots, confronting his true beginnings, the past he wasn't aware of, and doing so against the backdrop of a very current and contemporary geopolitical issue. That sounds like a great springboard for a cool Bourne movie... it just didn't turn out that way.

[FallingSlowly]

8 hours ago, NuTella Lover of Sky Beams said:

 

Why would you have a hard time believing it? In terms of "this script", the movie you watched is not the same as the draft of a script (or the outline of a story) that got everyone excited in the first place. Even the final shooting script will vary from the finished movie you watch. The process is long, complicated, and the beginnings are usually very different than how things end up (either for better or worse).

 

Like I said, I didn't like the movie, but I can easily see why people would be interested in the concept: it's Bourne going back to his roots, confronting his true beginnings, the past he wasn't aware of, and doing so against the backdrop of a very current and contemporary geopolitical issue. That sounds like a great springboard for a cool Bourne movie... it just didn't turn out that way.

 

I think if you actually watched the movie, you'll know where I'm coming from.

[Plain Old Tele]

17 minutes ago, FallingSlowly said:

 

I think if you actually watched the movie, you'll know where I'm coming from.

 

I've seen it.

[ecstasy]

1 hour ago, NuTella Lover of Sky Beams said:

 

I've seen it.

[FallingSlowly]

3 hours ago, NuTella Lover of Sky Beams said:

 

I've seen it.

 

I don't know what else to add then? You can continue to defend it and I will continue to criticize it.