What does knowledge of whether there'll be another Bourne movie have to do with sci-fi, or syfy, for that matter?

No more than the movies had to do with the plots of any of the Bourne books.

Because Scifi of Syfy handles all things that are or have ever been considered awsome, like the Bourne Movies

The only way you could consider any of the three movies "Awesome" is if you had never read anything by Robert Ludlum. The movies were "updated" to more modern topics and politics but in the process they managed to pretty much change everything in the book except his name and the fact that he can't remember who he is.

For those who have read Ludlum's books of the same names, you know that it took all three movies to reach the point in the story of David Webb/Jason Bourne that the first book finished at. The movies used the titles of all three books, but the story was nearly entirely structured around the first book. Given that fact there is plenty of Ludlum material to turn into more movies. Each of the other books could easily be turned into several movies so it could be done. So he knows who he is- Now what? Does he just forget the programming of Jason Bourne in his head? Easier said than done. Especially when you have old enemies still hunting him down, and a government agency that still doesn't trust him. Fun stuff. And don't count out the Lustbader novels either. He does a decent job of continuing the Bourne story line, staying faithful to the core of the character. I say bring it on!

Um....(slowly raises hand)

I've read all three Ludlum books, and have seen all three movies, and I must say that I loved the movies as much as I loved the books.

Sure they were a complete 180 from the books, but I can accept the fact that 99.9 percent of the time, Hollywood is going to stray as far away from the books as possible to make the movies accessible to people who have never read the books.

I still can't figure out why people to this day expect Hollywood to stick to the books they are adapting to film. It's not their style to do so, nor will it ever be.

Just accept that fact and move on with life and you will find that your blood pressure will not be as high as it probably is now. :-)

This has been a pubic service announcement from Blakopal. lol

I've read the rest of the books and they are as stunning and twisted full of action as the original three. I'd say at the direction the Bourne movies have been going, they will not fail doing another one in the same vain.

Cheers!

The URL for this page is still scifiwire.com ain't it?!

@Horrid: Let's see: They wipe the character's mind with drugs and technology, then implant an entirely new personality and turn him into a ruthless killing machine. Does that sound like science fiction to you?

Nope ... I'd call it 'SPY FI' ... you think I should copywrite that?

If you want to see a movie version of Bourne that follows the first book exactly (or almost exactly), go check out the Bourne mini-series that ran on TV in the early nineties starring Richard Chamberlain as Bourne and Jaclyn Smith as Marie. The problem inherent in translating Ludlum books to film is the same problem they have in translating Stephen King books to film (in my HUMBLE opinion-don't take my head off if you disagree!), most of Ludlum's story gets told in the narrative, not the action or dialogue. He builds his suspense through the way he describes what's happening, through the inner monologue going on in the protagonist's head and that's hard to put on film without massive changes. I love Ludlum's books, but I have yet to see one adapted faithfully that retained the excitement and intrigue of the novel. I'm sure I haven't seen them all, and there may be an exception out there, but that's my opinion. I like the Damon/Bourne movies and if they make another one, I'm there.
btw: I know everyone always bitches about the captcha on this site, but I've never had a problem with it.

I like the Bourne movies, but unless they cut out the shaky cam, quick edit crap, I don't think I'll bother with the next one. I felt like I was blind during the last movie and it wasn't worth the money to just hear it. I simply had no idea what was happening on the screen. Go back to the style of the first movie and I'm there.

Are you Guys still prattling on about this 'SPY FI' series? I'm starting to think you actually work for SYFY ...

I demand regular updates about Stallone Expendables. :D

The first film is quite a departure from the second and third films in terms of style and approach - I have to say though, that the trilogy in general lacked the charisma and sense of scope that genuinely great drama has, also the movies were too commited to realism to deliver much on the action and adventure front.

I understand that critics gave 'thumbs up' signs for pretty much the whole trilogy, but I personally felt the whole enterprise was too earnest, cold and laden with beurocratic jargon to get me involved.

I attempted to read the books, couldnt stand them, the main character was so indecisive and wishy washy its a wonder he survived as long as he did in the espionage world....yeeesh I wanted to smack that man upside his head a time or two and say "Bloody well get on with it already..."

to agilepawz... you must have read close to three or four pages if thats your honest opinion, as the entire story is practically following the decisions of Bourne and other characters. would you prefer he rushes in like a maniac everywhere and gets shot in the first chapter?

I only read the first book, some of the worst writing I've ever read in my life, almost as bad as Eragon, but that one's a hard one to top. I'll never read another Ludlum book if I can help it. Some of the silliest and stupidest coincidences that all lead to the favorable outcome of a 1% milk character. The movies created far more compelling and interesting stories and characters.

Oh dear God... NOT ANOTHER ONE!

This was -- by far -- the most overrated film trilogy I've ever seen and by far a trilogy containing the worst action flicks ever made.

What was so special about it? Was it the craptacular, non-existent plot? Or the lackluster, D- storylines? Or the unoriginal action, lacking creativity.

The films were garbage. They had ZERO plot and a storyline that insults well written stories... and you'd think after boringly setting through three films, "Jason Bourne" would've been something more than your average John Doe turned spy at the least. And do I need to mention the action sucked beyond belief? The only thing it had going for it was the choreography, but the 10 cut per second and shaking camera style, totally detracted what little it did have going for it.

There's a difference between adaptation and total decapitation, and this book-based-film was the latter...

Oh well, on the bright side:

"Oh yeah, we won't do it unless it's good," Damon added. "Promise."

At least this proves in advance that there WON'T be a fourth! Thankfully and fortunately so...

Didn't they already make The Bourne Redundancy? Except I think they made a last minute change to the title and called it Casino Royale or Quantum of something or another.

Anyway, I see the quick-cut shaky-cam style of the Bourne series get bashed pretty frequently in forums, comments, articles and whatnot, but I for one am of the pro-Bourne camp and I thought the style suited the series well. True, I didn't always know what exactly was going on during some of the more frenetic action sequences -- a fist here, a shattered window there -- but if you've ever been in a fist fight or a car accident, that's kind of how you remember it, that's kind of how it feels, and the Bourne style of filmmaking captures the essence of those kinds of moments. Sure, the slow-motion 360-degree shot of a flying bullet looks cool, and it has its proper place in some films in which such a style might suit it. Just the same, the gritty, pseudo-documentary style also finds its proper place at home in such films as the Bourne series. I found the action scenes intense and completely absorbing, and next to it, almost every other fight, foot chase, and car chase in a movie all of a sudden feels tame and bland in comparison. Not exactly, but I'm making a point here. Of course, my favorable opinion of the style is helped in no small part by the choreography and the action choices in the scenes themselves, little touches like Damon grabbing hanging clothes during a rooftop chase to wrap around his hands to protect it, or slamming into cars backwards because that's the side with all the cushion, grabbing a map blueprint off the wall to figure out how to get the hell out of the building, etc.

The series did well in the box office and critics overall gave positive reviews...now I don't know if that's because of the style or despite it. But the new Bond obviously took a cue from Bourne in some of its stylistic choices, and while at times, Supremacy and Ultimatum did veer dangerously close to coming over the top in its shakiness and quick-cuttiness, it worked for the most part. Done bad, it looks like the opening car chase in Quantum of Solace.

So I'm obviously a fan. I'm all for Redundancy as long as its Greengrass at the helm again.

I loved all the movies but they would have a really hard time finding a new direction for Bourne that would feel right.

I haven't read the books, so I'll go strictly by seeing the movies...

Sure it doesn't SEEM to have anywhere to go, plot wise, since he knows who he is and how it started... But that's how the first one left me feeling. "Now what? It's over." Then there was a second movie! Likewise, the second movie ended, and I was like "I guess it's really over now, he beat them." Low and behold, A THIRD MOVIE!

But then, after watching the third movie... I suddenly didn't feel like it was over. The main reasons being... Now that he knows who he is, what will he do? Or do differently?

Also, they built you up with the logistics girl, and she even hints at some interesting back story while she was his handler. Yet, it completely drops off there. He throws her on a bus and walks away, and she never reveals what she was referring to.

Lastly, they show her taking interest at him still being alive at the end, and they show him swim off somewhere. Sure lots of movies have open endings, but why the lead on?

I don't want it to turn into some love story, or something, but I WANT TO EFFING KNOW WHAT SHE MEANT!

Besides, there are probably 9 million ways you could go one from this. Prequals (first kills and logistics chic, or simply back to what he did before the program completely...) OR... you could make it suddenly go up to some higher chain of command, like they have been doing... OR he just gets a regular civilian job at a grocery store... and then it gets robbed, and well, hey, he's a killing machine and takes out all the baddies and realizes, "Holy shit, I'm the closest thing to a real life super hero!" and quits his day job to become a vigilante.

I mean really, who the heck knows?

I would just like to see something actually HAPPEN with making the fourth one. Don't be like Oprah (pick a diet and go with it) - either make the movie or forget it!

no one can replace damon as jason bourne. that's for sure.