Should the Bourne movies continue?

[Bishop2]

And Conklin too. Book Conklin was Webb's ally, one of his best friends.

Yeah, and they offed him in the first one... but I still managed to enjoy the first movie overall. They deviated in quite many ways, but still retained a lot of the basic concepts and spirit...

The latter two have no similarities to the novels at all. What's worse, they're PROUD of this fact. They proudly take the titles and then take absolutely NONE of the storylines, ideas or characters from the books.

When people complain about certain movies - comic books, video games - being unfaithful to their source material, I laugh at them and point out the huge box office success of Bourne, a series that rapes its source material right through the pants and is LAUDED for it!

 

[Kritish]

No, let a good franchise die in peace.

 

[TheVileOne]

Yeah, and they offed him in the first one... but I still managed to enjoy the first movie overall. They deviated in quite many ways, but still retained a lot of the basic concepts and spirit...

The latter two have no similarities to the novels at all. What's worse, they're PROUD of this fact. They proudly take the titles and then take absolutely NONE of the storylines, ideas or characters from the books.

When people complain about certain movies - comic books, video games - being unfaithful to their source material, I laugh at them and point out the huge box office success of Bourne, a series that rapes its source material right through the pants and is LAUDED for it!

Once again, Ludlum approved ALL of the changes though.

And you really can't argue with the results.

And is the Bourne character himself basically faithful to how he is in the book?

 

[Bishop2]

Once again, Ludlum approved ALL of the changes though.

For the first movie, yes.

And then he died, and there was no one to watch over them.

As for whether Bourne himself is faithful... well, I guess he is pretty true to the first book except for two things: He's older in the novels, and the final twist of the original book is that he wasn't REALLY a Treadstone assasin, merely a CIA operative who is trained to act like one and pose as one.

Now of course, at the end of the first novel, he recovers his full memory, learns that he's David Webb - everything. And so he's a very different character in the sequels, no longer driven by concerns of his identity. He's driven by other things that push him back into the game - protecting Marie, for example (who he lives with and ultimately marries later in the series. She's still around in the current books, of course).

 

[TheVileOne]

For the first movie, yes.

And then he died, and there was no one to watch over them.

His estate did watch over them, and he was deeply involved with the development of the first movie according to the director. The movie had already been shot before he passed on.

As for whether Bourne himself is faithful... well, I guess he is pretty true to the first book except for two things: He's older in the novels, and the final twist of the original book is that he wasn't REALLY a Treadstone assasin, merely a CIA operative who is trained to act like one and pose as one.

Right:

Spoiler

David Webb who we believed was Jason Bourne killed the ACTUAL Jason Bourne, right?

Beside that, they kept the basic premise and characters faithful, did they not?

Now of course, at the end of the first novel, he recovers his full memory, learns that he's David Webb - everything. And so he's a very different character in the sequels, no longer driven by concerns of his identity. He's driven by other things that push him back into the game - protecting Marie, for example (who he lives with and ultimately marries later in the series. She's still around in the current books, of course).

I know all of this. But ultimately the movies just went in another direction. I'm not going to begrudge fans of the book who are upset by the changes, but I think they need to get over it.

Ludlum felt that his books were too dated for modern cinema, so that's why he approved the changes.

Also they didn't know going in they were going to be making a trilogy and sequels. Even after the movie came out and became a sleeper hit, Damon himself was still pretty negative to the idea that sequels would be made. So if they had that in mind, they might not have made as many changes as they did the first time around.

Just like the X-men movies created and established their own continuity, they had to run with it without being slavish to the text.

The reason the latest Harry Potter movies are so excellent is because they are REAL MOVIES that aren't worried about being slavish to the text. The first two did that and they really don't hold up. But the last 3 while aren't word for word translations of JK Rowling, do a great job of movies by themselves. And Rowling doesn't seem to be complaining (cept maybe about her paper cuts counting all that money).

 

[TheVileOne]

One more thing. I implore the Ludlum fans who didn't like the movies to check out the miniseries released on DVD as one movie.

It stars Richard Chamberlain as Jason Bourne and Jacqueline Smith as Marie.

This was a TV miniseries that was more faithful to the book than the new movies.

So you will see how bad a more faithful adaptation turned out to be, bleh .

 

[tamron]

I like the miniseries.

 

[Bishop2]

Beside that, they kept the basic premise and characters faithful, did they not?

In the first one, yes. But as I said, things went to hell rapidly in the sequels. As soon as they killed off Marie, there was really no chance of remaining true to even the central focuses anymore, and it only got worse from there.

Just like the X-men movies created and established their own continuity, they had to run with it without being slavish to the text.

The reason the latest Harry Potter movies are so excellent is because they are REAL MOVIES that aren't worried about being slavish to the text. The first two did that and they really don't hold up. But the last 3 while aren't word for word translations of JK Rowling, do a great job of movies by themselves. And Rowling doesn't seem to be complaining (cept maybe about her paper cuts counting all that money).

All of these are way closer to the books than anything in the Bourne series.

If the X-Men movies were called "X-Men" but... at the end of the first movie, Xavier was killed off, and then at the start of the second, Cyclops and Jean and Storm were killed off, and then the series was just about Wolverine fighting new, made-up villians like Fan-Man who can cause intense gusts of air that can press you against a wall... while he got increasingly more cuddly and friendly instead of staying a gruff badass... oh wait, that last part actually happened... well anyway, that would be more like what the Bourne movies have done.

Or in the case of Harry Potter, if Harry had remained a callow, innocent youth who continues to be dumbfounded by magic even in the fifth movie, and of course he's the only lead because Hermione and Ron were killed off at the start of Chamber of Secrets, and he spends most of the series fighting, say, Sirius Black? That would be more like the Bourne movies.

Really, I'm just amazed. I'm a very open and forgiving person when it comes to source material translations. Yes, I liked The Bourne Identity, it's pretty wicked. I respected how much they changed The Lost World. I actually enjoyed the first Resident Evil for keeping the same basic themes and the same universe and the same conflicts, even if everything else was changed. But I have never known a film that has diverted so intensely from its source material as the Bourne sequels do. The filmmakers are the first to boast that they just used the books' titles, then made up completely different stories with completely different characters doing completely unrelated things. That's not something to brag about. It's just madness. At that point, why are you making movies with this brand name and these characters on it? Why not just go off and do your own thing instead? It's not like you couldn't warp the novels into something more modern. You already did it once. Casino Royale did it. Instead, you wuss out and slap those familiar with the character in the face with your dick.

 

[TheVileOne]

In the first one, yes. But as I said, things went to hell rapidly in the sequels. As soon as they killed off Marie, there was really no chance of remaining true to even the central focuses anymore, and it only got worse from there.

I didn't like Marie getting killed, but her death created a strong driving force for the sequels.

And once again, the movies were not trying to stay true to anything. They were basically trying to do their own thing.

All of these are way closer to the books than anything in the Bourne series.

If the X-Men movies were called "X-Men" but... at the end of the first movie, Xavier was killed off, and then at the start of the second, Cyclops and Jean and Storm were killed off, and then the series was just about Wolverine fighting new, made-up villians like Fan-Man who can cause intense gusts of air that can press you against a wall... while he got increasingly more cuddly and friendly instead of staying a gruff badass... oh wait, that last part actually happened... well anyway, that would be more like what the Bourne movies have done.

Wasn't the second one about Bourne being framed for a crime?

Once again, I think you need to get over it, because the movies are GOOD movies. We aren't in the cold war era anymore.

Or in the case of Harry Potter, if Harry had remained a callow, innocent youth who continues to be dumbfounded by magic even in the fifth movie, and of course he's the only lead because Hermione and Ron were killed off at the start of Chamber of Secrets, and he spends most of the series fighting, say, Sirius Black? That would be more like the Bourne movies.

OK, but what about the Bond movies? The Bond movies didn't follow the order of the books, and after a while they made tons of changes as they saw fit. They went in their own direction. The movies don't follow the stricter continuity of Flemings' books (which is one of the things I like about them.

But people STILL loved the Bond movies. They were critical and commercial successes for years. They were the pioneers of many modern blockbusters.

Really, I'm just amazed. I'm a very open and forgiving person when it comes to source material translations. Yes, I liked The Bourne Identity, it's pretty wicked. I respected how much they changed The Lost World. I actually enjoyed the first Resident Evil for keeping the same basic themes and the same universe and the same conflicts, even if everything else was changed. But I have never known a film that has diverted so intensely from its source material as the Bourne sequels do. The filmmakers are the first to boast that they just used the books' titles, then made up completely different stories with completely different characters doing completely unrelated things. That's not something to brag about. It's just madness. At that point, why are you making movies with this brand name and these characters on it? Why not just go off and do your own thing instead? It's not like you couldn't warp the novels into something more modern. You already did it once. Casino Royale did it. Instead, you wuss out and slap those familiar with the character in the face with your dick.

Because that's what they wanted to do and Ludlum said they can do it. Maybe you should be more mad at Ludlum than anything else.

Casino Royale still kept the names of the title and characters and everything did it not? Despite what fans think it's not as faithful to that book as they'd want you to believe either. And the next movie isn't going to follow the books that took place after Casino Royale either and quite frankly . . . IT SHOULDN'T.

 

[Bishop2]

And once again, the movies were not trying to stay true to anything. They were basically trying to do their own thing.

Then they shouldn't be using this character. It's just that simple. No reason to claim these are Jason Bourne movies when they're not trying to be.

Or at the very least, they shouldn't be using the titles of books they're not remotely following. Maybe they should make up their own. The video game is doing it.

Because that's what they wanted to do and Ludlum said they can do it. Maybe you should be more mad at Ludlum than anything else.

Ludlum was dead before they started work on the sequels I'm referring to, as we've already discussed. I'm not mad at him because he didn't give them permission to make these sequels, unless they held a seance to discuss them from beyond the grave.

 

[Warhammer]

And the next movie isn't going to follow the books that took place after Casino Royale either and quite frankly . . . IT SHOULDN'T.

Hell no to remakes of pre-existing Bond films.

 

[Bishop2]

Hell no to remakes of pre-existing Bond films.

I wouldn't mind seeing a new version of Moonraker, since they made that crap so embarassingly off-base and stupid the first time.

Then again, GoldenEye already used some of the stuff from that story, so maybe not...

 

[Arkady Rossovich]

Let it end.