The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
The Bourne Series [Why No Love?]
Tucanwarrior13
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
These three movies have got to be my favorite trilogy of all time. It saddens me that I never hear anyone talk about them, but they are such great flicks. So please. For the love of God. Tell me you like them too.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Tucanwarrior13 on
0
Posts
The camera work was way over the top in the third one. I just loved the story line of it. Every time I see the ending I get these amazing, and awe-inspiring chills that run up my back. Admit it. The ending was badass.
^this
I hear they're making more. Does anyone know much about that? I mean, they're continuing the book series, with a different author. I know the movies are VERY loosely based on the books, but maybe they'll follow the newer ones closer?
Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand
One thing I often see is the misinterpretation that these were intended as a trilogy. They weren't. In a recent interview I read with Matt Damon he talked about how they optioned the first movie in the hopes that it would do well enough to follow up with a second but they had no plans to go much further. Then the second movie was so successful they decided to finish out the Ludlum books with the final (Ultimatum).
But I guess now the rough plan is to try and turn all of the novels into movies and apparently Matt Damon is enthusiastic about the idea. Only the first three were written by Ludlum, the most recent three books were written by Eric Van Lustbader. Those books received mixed reviews so I don't know how enthusiastic I am about seeing movie adaptations.
Equal opportunity employment is one thing. Employing a severely epileptic tweeker as your cameraman and taking away his tripod is another.
Also also, the scene in Ultimatum when he's giving instructions to the reporter is the most badass thing ever.
I've never really known much about the intent, or the books. I just know that the movies were amazing. If they kept up the same ambition, and style I could definitely see Bourne becoming the new Bond.
My only plot hole that caused me ponder, when Bourne is pulled aboard in the first film he is wearing a wetsuit, a tac vest and what looks like ALOT of gear (including ammo for that gun?) yet non of it gets mentioned after or given to him, just made me curious how no one could have said "hey maybe your like in the military...?"
I don't think you'd need to worry about how the content of the books (and lack of quality thereof) would translate onto the screen, as the movies really have very little to do with them. For example, Bourne's wife is such a big part of all the books, but in the movies....well.
Yeah.
Well I think all along he knew that there was something more to him than just a "normal-civilian with amnesia". Ya know?
I agree with the phenomenally well done, but I"m not seeing the underrated and overlooked part. All 3 had positive reception, rotten tomatoes has the community in the 90s and the critics in the 80s for the first two and 90s for the third, not to mention that they all grossed more than 100 million at the box office, 120, 175 and 220 respectively.
Well, yes, because I'm the one who's supposed to be banging Julia Stiles.
I thought the second one was kinda boring, but the other two were good. I think Robert Ludlum is a hack, though, so I'm just as glad the movies have as little to do with the books as they do.
What I don't like though is how the last James Bond film was more like a fourth Bourne film. The next one looks to be the same too which is also a pity.
I don't mean at the time of their release, I mean that since they were released people seem to have forgotten about them and forgotten how well done they were. They're going to drift off into obscurity in the future. They already are- we had to have a thread to ask where the love was for them.
And yeah I was convinced when I saw Supremacy that they gave Michael J Fox a Black Eye (coffee with 2 shots of espresso) and some ritalin, gave him a camera, and said "GO!"
I know, that's mean, but still. I know the point of the camera work was to make it look like you were there but unless immeasurably intoxicated I don't sway uncontrollably while people are talking.
That said, the movies are really good. I don't have the shaky-cam problems with Supremacy that some of you do.
And this is probably the only trilogy type movie thing I can say that about.
The shaky cam gets annoying at points. Seriously, in Ultimatum, I gave up on following the fight between Bourne and that bomb-assassin guy about halfway through it. I just couldn't see what was going on.
But in spite of the epileptic camera work, I still think Ultimatum is the best of the three.
I really didn't even understand what the fuss was about.
I loved the first. The second was also pretty dang good, though the car chase made me a little sick. That was the only part where the camerawork gave me trouble.
The shakycam in the second one was the only movie (besides maybe Cloverfield) to make me feel a bit nauseous, but more than that is short-term continuity. If I can't tell what's going on, I lose interest very quickly. When Bourne fights the guy with the magazine, I really have no idea what's goign on in the fight - my brain just says "OK, I guess they're fighting." That sequence is fast enough that within a few seconds, it's over. But the car chase goes on forever, and the shots just feel disconnected to me. My brain flips off and I just wait for them to stop driving so the plot can start up again.
If nothing else, the movie Stardust (esp: fight scene on the ship) showed that you can do a kickass fight scene without resorting to derivative bullshit hack camera tricks like they did in Bourne.
I didn't even consciously realize it was a handy-cam feel until I read about it on the Internet. Doesn't really bother me. Cloverfield on the other hand made me feel kinda woozy the second time I watched it.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
The fight scenes were bad too because the camera shaking was redundant and excessive. In one fight Bourne jumps from one building to another, chases down some guy and flails all around a room with him swinging an improvised weapon all over the place. They also throw/slam each other a few times so there was no need for any camera shaking to get the impression the fight was fast paced and disorienting for the two of them.
On top of that I hated the one scene where the lead bad guy tells Bourne he's in his office and then he says "Haha, that's funny I'm already there and I don't see you" and then the old guy gets all pissed. Everyone in the crowd cheered just because he said one cheesy smartass line and stuck it to the old guy representing the establishment.
All the movies were actually good compared to other recent stuff when you don't count the camera shaking though.
Edit: And really, isn't the entire story him sticking to the old guys representing the establishment?
This thread is the first time I've ever heard of these movies not having any love. Like, everybody I know enjoys the movies.
It's implied in the third movie that they had a thang going on back when he was an assassin. So he did bang her, but only retroactively.
Well, seemed stupid to me and frustrated me throughout the movie.
http://newnations.bandcamp.com