Since we found out Tony Gilroy would be directing and writing The Bourne Legacy, were were wondering if Matt Damon would return as the hero Jason Bourne since he was quoted as saying in interviews that he would only make another Bourne film if Paul Greengrass would return to direct.
Gilroy was interviewed the other day and he said:
“It’s a completely original screenplay….This is not a reboot or a recast or a prequel. No one’s replacing Matt Damon. There will be a whole new hero, a whole new chapter…this is a stand-alone project.”
“The easiest way to think of it is an expansion or a reveal…Jason Bourne will not be in this film, but he’s very much alive. What happened in the first three films is the trigger for what happens. I’m building a legend and an environment and a wider conspiracy…the world we’re making enhances and advances and invites Jason Bourne’s return [down the road].”
So why even make a Bourne film? REALLY? Call it something different. Or are they just going to use the Bourne name to capitalize profit?
Does not make sense to me.
Your thoughts? Has anybody read the book in question?
I agree 100 percent! The only reason to make a Jason Bourne film is to have Bourne in it. Here, the filmmakers and writers are either too lazy or too unimaginative to make a good new story. Here they are trying to cabo live on a already successful franchise to give their movie additional viewership.
Interestingly, the Bourne Legacy novel is not even written by Robert Ludlum. I haven’t read it, though. I’m ok with the premise so long as it really does add to the Bourne mythos or universe. However, if the plot/story can exist on it’s own without any tie to Bourne then I think it’s just capitalizing on the brand name.
Yeah I knew that Ludlum did not write that novel, and I love the Bourne universe, just seems odd that it will be a Bourne movie without Bourne or Matt. It’s like Bond without Bond.
[…] we previously reported HERE, Matt Damon will not be returning to the Bourne franchise nor will director Paul Greengrass who […]