MaterDei
Member
In the book, Bourne is 50 years old!
Bourne Ultimatum
- Thread starter Spider Pig
- Start date
- Status
Bazooka Joe71
Member
Just had a quick question. I am going to see ultimatum tonight, and I watched Identity, but I can't find my copy of supremacy...Identity was awesome and supremacy was a little better than mediocre...Do I need to watch supremacy again before I see ultimatum? Or does it even matter.
Brian Williams
Moderator Emeritus
Movies 1 and 2 sucked. I liked the books enough to have read them each 3 or 4 times. Since the movies do not follow the story line I do not watch them, like Starship Troopers
cmidkiff I feel your pain- I felt the same way about John Carpenter's "Vampire$", which only stayed remotely true to John Steakly's book for about the first five minutes, then had absolutely nothing to do with it.
Also agreed about the shakey editing- hated it in the second movie, although it was less annoying on DVD than it was on the big screen.
Might be of interest, ganked from an indie film board I'm on:
Interview with Damon
"...the script was being written on the fly (when there even was a script) while the crew was hopscotching across three continents. ''There was an aimlessness to the process,'' says Damon. ''It was miserable.'' Then, there's the fact that all of this aimless misery lasted for nearly a year, an eternity in moviemaking time nowadays. And the fact that they didn't wrap until weeks before Ultimatum was due to open."
[Damon] "There were days when we would find ourselves in the middle of a scene and realize ''This isn't in the movie!'' The great thing is, when Bourne scenes don't work, they really don't work. I did so many awful scenes that never made it into the film ... it was harder work than I've ever done because it was so unrewarding. There's a buzz you get when it's working, and we didn't really have that ... There were days of fun on Bourne, but a lot of it was gallows humor ... In any given scene I didn't know where I'd just come from or where I was going. Which, as an actor, you kind of need! And Paul's only direction was ''Butch-er and more intense!'' Finally I was like, ''If you give me the f---ing 'butch-er and more intense' note one more time, I'm gonna kick your ass!'' It's incredible that we've been able to pull the rabbit out of the hat three times."
Also agreed about the shakey editing- hated it in the second movie, although it was less annoying on DVD than it was on the big screen.
Might be of interest, ganked from an indie film board I'm on:
Interview with Damon
"...the script was being written on the fly (when there even was a script) while the crew was hopscotching across three continents. ''There was an aimlessness to the process,'' says Damon. ''It was miserable.'' Then, there's the fact that all of this aimless misery lasted for nearly a year, an eternity in moviemaking time nowadays. And the fact that they didn't wrap until weeks before Ultimatum was due to open."
[Damon] "There were days when we would find ourselves in the middle of a scene and realize ''This isn't in the movie!'' The great thing is, when Bourne scenes don't work, they really don't work. I did so many awful scenes that never made it into the film ... it was harder work than I've ever done because it was so unrewarding. There's a buzz you get when it's working, and we didn't really have that ... There were days of fun on Bourne, but a lot of it was gallows humor ... In any given scene I didn't know where I'd just come from or where I was going. Which, as an actor, you kind of need! And Paul's only direction was ''Butch-er and more intense!'' Finally I was like, ''If you give me the f---ing 'butch-er and more intense' note one more time, I'm gonna kick your ass!'' It's incredible that we've been able to pull the rabbit out of the hat three times."
LiquidTension
Member
I can live with the fact that they didn't follow the book story lines. It was a good movie regardless. The fight scenes were more coherent than in the second movie as well. And Julia Stiles is hot.
YES! That annoys the heck outta me! I thought that Transformers suffered as well (the best shots were almost all right before a fight started... once it became close quarters, it was just a CGI blur). I really wish that we'd get fewer epileptic cameramen/directors in Hollywood.
After the latest die hard (which was so awful it made Ewe Boll's House of the Dead look like Saving Private Ryan in comparison), I was so glad to see this movie. I loved the first one, thought the second was OK, and this was a good finale. It's still too soon for me to really judge it as a movie (I'll need to see it one or two more times, I suppose), but I did walk out of the theater happy. And isn't that what's most important, from the consumer angle?
10-Ring
Member
I liked the movie, but I didn't care much for the 'blair witch' camera technique 
MillerTimeLV
Member
I haven't seen it yet, but keep hearing how good it was. I have to agree on the nuisance of the new camera filming style though! It's like I want to keep pressing rewind or pausing fight scenes and what not to actually take it all in!!
jad0110
Member
Saw the first two, haven't seen the 3rd.
Was the herky/jerky camera crap in the third movie as bad as the second?
I ask because the incessant camera movement in Bourne Supremacy literally made me hurl ... and not a day earlier I was feeling proud of myself for not puking in so long. Gawd that PISSED ME OFF
!!!
Not to mention I couldn't eat Papa Johns pizza for months :banghead:.
Was the herky/jerky camera crap in the third movie as bad as the second?
I ask because the incessant camera movement in Bourne Supremacy literally made me hurl ... and not a day earlier I was feeling proud of myself for not puking in so long. Gawd that PISSED ME OFF
!!!Not to mention I couldn't eat Papa Johns pizza for months :banghead:.
I thought the movie was great, I am a big fan of the Bourne series. I too own the books, but IMO it is a very good thing that the movie doesnt follow the books that closely. The books were too wrapped up in Bournes head, the movies would have been tear-jerkers if they had stuck with that. I too like the "thinking mans" spy, the movie Bourne is very resourceful instead of depending on gadgets.
For those with an interest and background in hand-to-hand I think there was a lot more be interested in that for gun nuts. The bathroom fight scene was one of the best movie fights I have ever seen.
For those with an interest and background in hand-to-hand I think there was a lot more be interested in that for gun nuts. The bathroom fight scene was one of the best movie fights I have ever seen.
hrgrisso
Member
Haven't seen it
I liked the movies as seperate entities from the books. Liked the books too.
Now my biggest complaint about the first was his dropping every gun he came across! The excuse that he's an Assassin and not a warrior is crap. The excuse that he's got amnesia is CRAP! He got shot in the back repeatedly, and the scene in the Cafe where he talks about how he knows where to find guns etc. BUT DOESN'T ACTUALLY GET ONE?!?!
As to the killing of Marie, you don't kill Franke Potente! GRRR. But that's a hollyweird cliche of filmaking. You can't have an interesting cool killer/action dude if he's got a loving wife at home. Robert Ludlum's Bourne was conflicted but hardly the strained, melancholy of the film version.
As to those of you so upset about the movies, don't sweat it, there was already a movie version (made for TV) a few decades ago. Give it time and someone may revisit the books. In fact upgrading them to Iraq instead of Vietname without being political the way the books were would be pretty cool. But what are the odds of that happening.
I liked the movies as seperate entities from the books. Liked the books too.
Now my biggest complaint about the first was his dropping every gun he came across! The excuse that he's an Assassin and not a warrior is crap. The excuse that he's got amnesia is CRAP! He got shot in the back repeatedly, and the scene in the Cafe where he talks about how he knows where to find guns etc. BUT DOESN'T ACTUALLY GET ONE?!?!
As to the killing of Marie, you don't kill Franke Potente! GRRR. But that's a hollyweird cliche of filmaking. You can't have an interesting cool killer/action dude if he's got a loving wife at home. Robert Ludlum's Bourne was conflicted but hardly the strained, melancholy of the film version.
As to those of you so upset about the movies, don't sweat it, there was already a movie version (made for TV) a few decades ago. Give it time and someone may revisit the books. In fact upgrading them to Iraq instead of Vietname without being political the way the books were would be pretty cool. But what are the odds of that happening.
XD Fan
Member
hrgrisso, I am glad that I am not alone in the dropping-the-gun criticism.
db_tanker
Member
Back on to the book topic...
in the Bourne Supremacy, when he is I am guessing in the arms dealers warehouse in Kowloon, he gets an auto pistol with the same power as a .357 Mag but is never specific in the caliber/weapon that I know of...has anyone figured out the pistol/caliber?
I was thinking perhaps a 10mm...but it could also be a 9x25 perhaps...
(trying to keep it on guns here....)
Also, on topic with the movie....what specifically WAS the rifle used by the "asset" in the hit on the reporter-man? Anyone know?
D
in the Bourne Supremacy, when he is I am guessing in the arms dealers warehouse in Kowloon, he gets an auto pistol with the same power as a .357 Mag but is never specific in the caliber/weapon that I know of...has anyone figured out the pistol/caliber?
I was thinking perhaps a 10mm...but it could also be a 9x25 perhaps...
(trying to keep it on guns here....)
Also, on topic with the movie....what specifically WAS the rifle used by the "asset" in the hit on the reporter-man? Anyone know?
D
ConfuseUs
Member
As far as Bourne discarding guns all the time, if you look at it from the perspective that Bourne is a covert assassin who operates deep undercover it makes some sense that he doesn't routinely carry a weapon. Getting caught with a weapon by the police forces in a foreign country could establish a chain of evidence that would eventually blow his cover and then blow the cover of the operation. So I wasn't too surprised by that.
And I really do wish that the Hollywood directors would put camera tripods back in the budgets. That jerky motion doesn't scream "edgy technique" it screams "I am not a professional!"
And I really do wish that the Hollywood directors would put camera tripods back in the budgets. That jerky motion doesn't scream "edgy technique" it screams "I am not a professional!"
I may be in the minority on THR - but I really thought that the hand camera added quite a bit to the edgy intensity of the film. I liked that effect pretty much in the 2nd, and I really, really liked it in the 3rd.
Matt Damon joked about the camera on Jon Stewart,. He said, "Yeah of the critics said, 'Can someone buy Greengrass [the director] a f***ing Steady-Cam?"
Mike
Matt Damon joked about the camera on Jon Stewart,. He said, "Yeah of the critics said, 'Can someone buy Greengrass [the director] a f***ing Steady-Cam?"
Mike
redneck2
Member
I guess the jerky camera thing started big time with Hill Street Blues. Made it look realistic. In this one, the camera jerks around so bad that it's about impossible to follow the action at times. One guy trying to out do the the other, but IMO they took it too far.
In any event, my wife and I will have all three on DVD when they come out.
If you haven't seen it yet, I'd suggest sitting toward the back of the theater. During the "jerky" scenes I suspect it would lessen the effect.
In any event, my wife and I will have all three on DVD when they come out.
If you haven't seen it yet, I'd suggest sitting toward the back of the theater. During the "jerky" scenes I suspect it would lessen the effect.
I've enjoyed all three Bourne movies. However, that Shaky-cam technique made me nauseated during the second movie, didn't realize why until I got the DVD and saw how much shaking was going on. For the Bourne Ultimatum, I was on the look out for it and was mentally prepared for it, didn't get quesy and was able to enjoy the movie. Wish they would use less of that shaky cam stuff.
Geronimo45
Member
Possibly .357 Sig.
another okie
Member
I agree the third novel is the worst - I couldn't finish it. I haven't seen the third movie yet.
As far as not much shooting and Bourne discarding weapons - that's the plot. He doesn't want to kill anyone anymore. He's a different person after waking up.
As far as not much shooting and Bourne discarding weapons - that's the plot. He doesn't want to kill anyone anymore. He's a different person after waking up.
I'll assume the "jerky camera" is to make the fight scenes look more "sped up", since in real life you know this little dude can't fight his way out of a wet paper sack with a big hole in it.
Saw some Sigs--liked that!
Last decent (and that's a stretch) "gunplay" movie I recall was Collateral with Tom Cruise.
Not to go off on a tangent, but does anyone know if Matt Damon is anti-gun as are most hollywood actors?
Saw some Sigs--liked that!
Last decent (and that's a stretch) "gunplay" movie I recall was Collateral with Tom Cruise.
Not to go off on a tangent, but does anyone know if Matt Damon is anti-gun as are most hollywood actors?
ConfuseUs
Member
The Bourne series is the only instance I know of where the movie is better than the book. Even when they basically threw the book out the window (good riddance) and went off into the wild blue yonder.
silverlance
Member
you guys do know that robert ludlum is the same guy who writes all those necrospeaker vampire novels, right? he's in the same circles as (ugh) anne rice, but with (thankfully) no homoerotic cannabalistic incestous undertones.
ConfuseUs
Member
I don't read vampire novels. Keeps me safe from Anne Rice's demons.
- Status
