Do titles for film franchises really hold so much currency that it's strategic to keep producing the same series with different people? If James Bond is any indicator, then... maybe?
Now granted, in the Bond example, it is actors rotating through to play the same role (cue the "X" was the BEST Bond ever argument), and the Bourne films went in a different direction. I'm sure producers knew that replacing Matt Damon wasn't really an option for audience goers (we'll see how that goes for you Andrew Garfield), but the question is, did this movie get made under the umbrella of the franchise just so they had an excuse to recycle the same plot again? And the next question is, can we all acknowledge that a Matt Damon cameo could be pretty rad?
Feels like any minute we should cue Jimmy Kimmel to end the trailer with "sorry we didn't have time for Matt Damon." But maybe... maybe they will pull this off...
Okay fine. It looks awesome and the Bourne series lives on.
I guess they got me.
Jeremy Renner is a great actor. Though Matt Damon MADE the franchise.
That looks a lot more promising than I thought it would. Not to mention Edward Norton, that's a pleasant surprise.
"There was never just one" was a great way to deal with the change in actor. I was so skeptical of missing Damon and still 100% not over that, but I'm think I'm excited for this now as well.
As long as they keep the brutal, no-nonsense fights I want to see it. It is not as if the others were a faithful adaptation of the books so I am happy to just go with where it wants to go.
I believe Jeremy Renner can pick up where Mr. Damon left off :).
EDWARD NORTON!!!
Umm i could've swore the old Screened crew put this up when it FIRST came out a few months ago?
Well they do have the easy out of the "there was never just one line. Matt Damons Bourne story ended with the third one so no reason to drag him back in.
I like Jermey Renner he is sellable as a bad ass mofo which was the opposite of Damon at the time. When Bourne 1 came out he was still that smart kid from Good Will Hunting seeing him play master assassin was kind of novel. Renner lacks that which could hurt the movie. Hopefully they keep the action the same.
I respect that you're trying to make the articles a little meatier in terms of writing, but this trailer came out several months ago.
http://www.screened.com/news/heres-a-first-look-at-jeremy-renner-in-the-bourne-legacy/3423/
Try again.
@Scott757 said:
The international trailer came out today... I wanted to open up the discussion again as it's all over the internet
@Mackwahl said:
Sounds good Mack, but this one actually is the trailer from February. Could you post the new one too?
I still think that Renner is a better fit for the role in general. He has a blank, cold stare that Damon never really has 'cause he's just too damn sweet. And from this footage, all of those punches feel like they fucking hurt, which is exactly what a good Bourne film needs. Count me excited!
If you're re-igniting the discussion, great! But the new trailer would help. Finding the same trailer I saw months ago was...well, not really what I expected =/
Damon was amazing in his role. But Renner is kind of awesome in general, as well.
Very stoked.
@Mackwahl: So... we're still waiting for the new trailer that came out. And the embedded one hasn't changed. And you're stalling your own "discussion".
Ugh I came up with the idea to play a game and now you want me to pick the game and actually play it... I opened the discussion and now you want me to actually discuss? Jeez I have to do everything! Haha. Ok, I'm putting up the international trailer... it's not different (just with awesome subtitles... prepare to be amazed)!
And did I mention Edward NORTON!
No they can't do it without Damon