Tony Gilroy Heads Back to Bourne Franchise for #4
But will Damon return for the lead role?
Producer Frank Marshall keeps busy on Twitter and he has today announced The Bourne Identity, Supremacy and Ultimatum screenwriter Tony Gilroy has returned to the franchise to write The Bourne Legacy, the fourth film in the action franchise that has, to this point, starred Matt Damon as the amnesia inflicted super-spy Jason Bourne. Deadline also reports the news adding Gilroy's also writing what studio insiders are calling the "Bourne Bible," which should be thought of as something keeping the franchise together should other writers come aboard and should the franchise continue beyond four films.
Gilroy co-wrote The Bourne Ultimatum with Scott Z. Burns and George Nolfi and Nolfi was originally set to pen the fourth film when Marshall told IESB.net, "I think [Bourne's] headed down south. I think he's headed to South America." However, Nolfi's script didn't make the grade and Josh Zetumer was brought in to write what was described as a "parallel script" at which time Universal told The Hollywood Reporter, "Our hope is that Nolfi, a key member of the 'Bourne' team, will return after he is done with The Adjustment Bureau." It would appear neither take excited Universal execs.
Despite having the same name as Eric Lustbader's recent book, The Bourne Legacy will not follow the book's plot. Instead Gilroy will look at both Nolfi and Zetumer's scripts, incorporate what he likes and add his own touches reports Heat Vision.
Expectation is to have The Bourne Legacy ready for a 2012 release, but who will direct and will Damon be back to star?
Paul Greengrass directed the last two Bourne films and has since said he's done with the franchise and Damon has said he'll only return if Greengrass does, which also led to speculation the fourth film would be a prequel.
Damon's slate currently involves Liberace and Contagion, both for Steven Soderbergh. Will he be interested in fitting one more Bourne feature into his schedule? Would he be stupid not to?
Links from Other Sites You May Like
Showing 12 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
This franchise definitely needs to continue. I hope Bourne 4 is the first of many in the series to follow, not as a trilogy, but a continuing standalone movie. It could be our James Bond, but obviously better.
While I agree with the standalone franchise idea a la bond, to call Jason "better" (even potentially so) is a bit of a stretch. The characters– in mannerism, demeanour and dare I say skill set, are so vastly different that "better" doesn't necessarily qualify. As long as they don't falter (see: Tim Dalton/Roger Moore/George Lazenby as bond the latter two being the most prime for my example) this franchise could survive very very many films.
P.S. Don't forget Die Another Day which was s**t at worst, and absurdly humorous at best.
Although Bourne Ultimatum was great there was – even by it's turn in 2007 – some serious repetition of action moments and styles from Bourne Supremacy rearing it's head that made it seem a little more predictable and a little less overall satisfying that Supremacy was.
It also tended to bring the three films in a rough circle with the Jason Bourne main story completed. If not in a totally satisfactory way, at least in terms of the broad strokes.
I think making more at this point is really just Universal trying to milk the cow a bit. Funnily enough, their last major studio hit was Bourne Ultimatum and everything major since has disappointed financially for them.
I also agree that Bond and Bourne are not entirely comparable – even if the Daniel Craig reboots are not actually that great or satisfying so far either.
They've had Fast and Furious, Mamma Mia and Wanted since then, at least. All were huge successes.
I had forgotten Mamma Mia was a Universal production. Thanks for the reminder.
Those films were all pretty solid domestically and did well internationally but they haven't had a major summer US release go north of $200 million US domestic since Ultimatum in 2007 and before that King Kong in 2005.
Whereas rivals like Paramount and Warner Bros have had several major releases go well past that figure the last five years.
That was more what I meant, but I should have been clearer.
Four is okay. I hope they wrap-up the story completely this time (the third one still had an opening for another sequel)
Five or more Bourne movies would be unecessary.
No, the character is not like 'an american James Bond'. He does have a storyline (Bond doesn't need to), his whole memory loss is what drives the audience interest and there's still some room left for development. But they can't stretch it forever.
While I enjoyed the Bourne trilogy, I'm not sure it needs another one as the storyline came full circle quite nicely. That said, Matt Damon's last few films – Informant, Invictus & Green Zone – have been commercial disappointments, so he'll probably jump on a guaranteed hit like this like a fat kid on candy.
I took the "Bourne Bible" to mean Gilroy is also writing some franchise guidelines. So, when other writers come on board for future films they can use it to keep in line with the Gilroy films.
Yeah, that's my best understanding of the phrase in this context as well.
You really can't keep spinning these movies out forever. As odd as it is to say so, James Bond flicks are more like procedurals… There is an international crime, James Bond is put on the case, investigates, and the case is "solved", usually by killing the guy committing the crime. The fact that James Bond is an agent of the government is all the explanation we need as to why he's involved… it's his job.
Jason Bourne hasn't been an agent of the government since the opening of the original film… it's only ever been in flashbacks. All of the "cases" he works on are really just his own, spun over and over again. You'd have to jump through hoops or change the entire premise if you want to involve him in cases that aren't directly related to his own past.
I could see them possibly getting away with one more… now that he's been outed publicly (though presumed dead), one of the people he assassinated before might have someone living who's looking for revenge. Once you've exhausted that, though, you're really out of reasons for people to chase him… and even that last one feels like something completely unnecessary.
I'd say the smart thing for Damon to do is to let his involvement end on a high note of the already completed films, unless he really needs the paycheck.
You've made a near-perfect action trilogy and one of the best ever. Now let it freaking go already, I'm sick of this fourth movie talk. Hope Greengrass and Damon don't come back and the movie, if happens, flops horribly.
I suspect Hollywood is not heeding most of these comments that say end the series. Bourne is now a lone operative. He is no longer constrained by a single government or bias, but is free to walk the world. Although Pamela Landy's character could be like a Q, leading him to the right path.
His character is not driven by memory loss anymore. He obviously has a conscience unlike Bond who isn't afraid to dish out death to anyone he thinks deserves it.
I think this series would suffer with a prequel reboot so soon. First of all, Damon doesn't look the part, and the prequels can be used at a later date.