Should Matt Damon Return or be Recast for 'Bourne 4'?
What's left for Jason Bourne to explore?
With yesterday's news that Tony Gilroy has been brought back to the Bourne franchise to write The Bourne Legacy, the question in the air was whether or not Matt Damon would return to the role. Last we heard from Damon he was saying he wouldn't return unless Supremacy and Ultimatum director Paul Greengrass also returned, and with Greengrass already saying he's out we have our conundrum. However, could it be for the best?
One super-spy that's never shied from being recast is James Bond and he seems to be doing just fine (it's MGM that's having the problems) and wasn't everyone talking about Bourne early on and how this character could be the next Bond? Now's the chance.
When we last left Jason Bourne he was flying off a building and swimming for safety. He's fully aware of his roots and with those that would cause him harm, for the most part, out of the way, it would seem a series of new adventures could begin. The question is, what kind of new adventures?
I agree with the few commenters on the Gilroy article saying Bond and Bourne aren't exactly comparable. Bond movies are mission movies, while Bourne is all about the chase, but let's face it, the chase is over. To make another Jason Bourne movie and have him being chased or chasing down the truth behind his past would be tiresome at best. I love The Bourne Ultimatum, but like "Winchester" said in the comments "there was – even by it's turn in 2007 – some serious repetition of action moments and styles from Bourne Supremacy" in Bourne Ultimatum. To do it all again in 2012 would be more than just repetition, it would be forgotten and dismissed.
Just as the Bourne movies to this point virtually dismissed everything that went on in Robert Ludlum's source novels, it would be best if the action and elements of the first three Bourne films were also left behind. As producer Frank Marshall has expressed in the past, it would be best to begin culling elements from other stories written by Robert Ludlum now that Universal has acquired the entire library.
Photo: Universal Pictures
Already Universal has put into motion an adaptation of Ludlum's "The Parsifal Mosiac," which was once thought to be a project for Ron Howard, but I'm no longer sure if that's the plan. That 1982 story centered on an intelligence agent in the United States, who believes his lover and partner is assumed to be a KGB double agent. I'm not sure how interesting it would be to have Nicky Parsons (Julia Stiles) chasing Bourne down after they shared something of a "moment" in Ultimatum, or what they would do with that story, but I think you get my drift.
 Loading ... |
As for Damon, why not recast? Hasn't the Jason Bourne character Damon portrayed satisfied his story arc with little room left to go other than an apartment complex with five other friends and coffee shop below? Isn't this the best time to bring in a new actor if Universal wants the franchise to continue? Otherwise, if you are going to bring Damon back shouldn't Bourne basically burn down the entire U.S. government or end up dead in the end? There is only so much exposing of government dirty laundry one character can do. Isn't there?
I won't even begin to speculate as to who could or should replace Damon, much of that depends on the direction they take the story. I could imagine them picking up The Bourne Legacy 10-15 years after Ultimatum at a point where Bourne has entirely dropped his alter-ego and is living by the name David Webb or something else and has become a hired assassin or perhaps runs a curio shop in Manhattan's Chinatown where he sells mogwai to unsuspecting inventors. Who knows? There are plenty of possibilities, but I think Jason Bourne as we know him has run his course, and unless the writers plan on killing him this fourth film will need to some kind of major turnaround.
Bourne isn't like Bond, or even Tom Cruise's Ethan Hunt who will be returning in Mission: Impossible 4. It's never been about the mission for Bourne, it's been about reaction and I'm not sure there is enough left to provoke the character that hasn't already been explored. Of course, I am just spit-balling here and trying to come up with editorial content and am in no way a screenwriter, but I know watching another movie with Jason Bourne running through the streets of a foreign city while engaging in hand-to-hand combat with an unnamed assassin has pretty much been done… Aren't we going to need a little more this time around, and perhaps a new actor to add an additional freshness to it all?
Links from Other Sites You May Like
Showing 20 Comments
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Add a New Comment |
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
they should recast, as amazing as the Bourne franchise is, which is epic, i cant imagine the projects that Damon turned down to develope the previous 3, and he made an even bigger name for himself none the less but I want to see him go in more directions
He should come back for two reasons. One, he is awesome in the role and I don't think the Bourne character is like Bond where you can change the actor every two or three movies. Two, Since the last Bourne film Damon has had two outright flops and one film that underwhelmed both critically and commercially. Sadly, I think "The Adjustment Bureau" will also tank and "Hereafter" sounds like a risk that may not work. Damon is way too talented to suddenly be considered box office poison. He should return to the Bourne well from time to time and make kick ass films that keep the studios in his corner. One every 5-10 years would be cool, and can you imagine a Bourne film when Damon is in his 50's? Think "Taken" with better talent BEHIND the camera.
Well, first – thanks for quoting me in your article! I've never had that before!!
On a broad level I personally would prefer that the Bourne trilogy remained just that. That trilogy was well-regarded by critics and audiences, hugely financially successful but it also pretty much finished it's main reason for existing by the end of Ultimatum.
Which is why Universal wants to see how much more!
I think they could use the Ludlum books and create a new character – make him younger, set him up for a franchise and then maybe get talented writers like Gilroy to kind of cannabalise the books (which shouldn't be a problem because the films ended up deviating from the books anyway) for the best ideas to create a new series of adventures that could be within the same kind of 'Bourne-verse' but not relate directly to Bourne himself or need Damon's presence.
Yep, Damon could possibly use a true box-office hit again but I think that even though they haven't been financial hits the films he's made of late are actually more varied and interesting. He's gone back a little bit to the variety of output of his earlier days before the Ocean's and Bourne franchises kind of swept him away from those projects.
I don't think Matt Damon will come back and I seriously doubt a 4th movie gets made without Damon's participation. As said in the original story about Tony Gilroy's return Greengrass has said he's done and Damon would follow his lead. I never thought the Bourne series to be as good as some of my friends so maybe I'm in the wrong state of mind already, but seeing a prequel (as is also mentioned) just doesn't interest me in the slightest. The whole point of the trilogy was to find out about Jason's past and now that we do… It just seems empty to me.
No. This franchise needs to rest in peace. End of story. I'm an enormous fan of the trilogy, but you gotta know when to stop. The story has run its course, each movie was better than previous one, and Ultimatum's ending was quite simply perfect. If there's a fourth movie, with or without Damon, personally I will boycott it. Bourne 4 is arguably the most unneeded sequel ever. Let it go.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Any other sequel should be avoided, even if Damon is on board. Even the books sequels have gone too far (4 more since Ultimatum for a total of 7 in the series…so far).
Leave this awesome trilogy alone.
If they make a Bourne where he ended up together with Julia Stiles, I think that would be worthwhile.
I for one hope that the script is different and good enough to entince Damon for a fourth go-round. Why don't provide the amnesiatic spy with a foe he can barely handle. Age him a bit, take him out of his element…maybe where he is forced to reach back out to the CIA for help. There is still some great stories to be told.
One more and that's it.
I would be willing to give Bourne a final shot. But end of story. He's not James Bond. He can't keep coming back forever.
I mean, after "Legacy", what are they going to do with the titles?
"The Bourne Heritage"
"The Bourne Return"
"The Bourne Goes Forever"
"The Bourne Reboot"
"The Super Bourne Galaxy"
?
One more. And let it go.
All this report demonstrates is that Universal needs money and Tony Gilroy can be bought.
I doubt that Matt can.
The Bourne trilogy should be left just that… a TRILOGY. The Bourne Ultimatum was an excellent wrap-up to Bourne's adventures and the character Jason Bourne should rest in peace. The next film should be called The Bourne Redundancy, b/c like Brad said, there's only so much hand-to-hand combat and running through foreign cities that a viewer can take. The ONLY way I can see this franchise going any further is either with one big "Bourne finale" (a final and 4th film obviously) or with a new actor and a completely different direction. The only actor I can see playing an older Jason Bourne would be….. No one. So here's the moral to this story: End the Bourne movies before you ruin this wonderful trilogy.
Don't really mind if Matt stays or goes (although I am big fan of both him and the franchise)
I will keep seeing Jason Bourne films until they make a bad one, if number 4 is bad I won't bother with 5. But if you have Gilroy I am sure it will be fine – I think Duplicity is underated and State of Play was good and a mammoth effort considering how great (and dense) the BBC series was.
See I don't think they should be trying to make a fourth because up until now the first 3 were all about Bourne discovering who he was and as you put it the chase. Now if they try to manufacture some other story such as a prequel then it won't feel the same, it won't be what most seem to want and expect from a Bourne movie. But if they do go with another then the best thing they can do is recast and bring someone new in to take the story off on a new angle and try and make it completely different to before.
I just hope the plug gets pulled on this before it really does get going because the first 3 films worked and an additional one could possibly spoil things.
Do a prequel and get Preston from desperate housewives to play damon!
If they do recast who should it be?
I'm thinking Jim Caviezel.
He played a gov't agent in HBO's the Prisoner last year and was also in Deja Vu.
Plus, he just LOOKS like Jason Bourne…..lol
The Bourne movies were the best written and acted movies in a long time. Very intelligent and the story made sense yet surprises were everywhere. If the fourth movie was to keep the same standards it would definitely be looked forward to. No one but Matt Damon could play the part of Jason due to that sense of intelligence which requires the story line to make sense. A new actor would destroy that. I hope you make a movie that supports and exceeds the other 3 well enough for Matt Damon to accept the role again. I respect and enjoy his work in recent movies, especially Syrianna, Invictus, The Good Shepherd, and also his sponsorship of One to One in Africa for relief of the poor there. A great example of giving back.
If there is no where for the character to go, why does it matter if Matt Damon or someone else plays the part? I think Damon is as much Bourne as Harrison Ford is Indiana Jones. If you can't come up with a good story for Matt Damon's Jason Bourne, then write an entirely different movie with different characters and call it something else.
I don't know. Was it just me, or does the 3rd movie imply that there was something between Bourne and Nikki (which he forgot, of course)? Maybe the 4th movie can do something with that.
If it were up to me I would drop Bourne as a central charachter altogether.
Ludlum has plenty of other stories and charachters that could all be said to inhabit "the same world" as Bourne did. What is wrong exactly with picking up the story from the point of view of another agent?
If they absolutely desperately want Bourne involved then why not make him a secondary charachter, perhaps have the main guy studying him or helping him with something or trying to track him down (failing to aprehend him but in the process foiling a bigger problem so he doesnt get crapped on for it). That way they can let Bourne trundle off into the sunset (or get killed) at some point and still have a franchise charachter to continue on with.