Quake3World

... actually doesn't look terrible as a straight-out action movie - although without the memory loss plot point that provided the overarching mission/quest element of the bourne trilogy, it might struggle to be anything more than that

Interested...

would have been better if Matt was in it

A Bourne movie without Bourne? Hmm...

ikr

Transient wrote:A Bourne movie without Bourne? Hmm...

Still it looks OK

Transient wrote:A Bourne movie without Bourne? Hmm...

lol , changing out the main cast is a sure way to reflect FAIL of your product, on many levels.

I mean seriously, can you see the 3rd movie of batman with out Christian Bale? what would have to go down for something like that to take place? Massive failure on various aspects of the project that's what.

Also, I'm so totally not interested in the cast replacement, even though he looks pretty good on the trailer.

Tsatziki: Political pundit, MMA grandmaster, and now film critic. The only flaw in your theory would be the MANY pre-Bale Batman movies. All of which sucked ass, and the films didn't become worth watching until Bale took over as Batman. But yeah, other than that you're spot on.

The Bourne movie looks entertaining, I just find it odd that Jeremy Renner is in EVERYTHING now.

Nightshade wrote:Tsatziki: Political pundit, MMA grandmaster, and now film critic. The only flaw in your theory would be the MANY pre-Bale Batman movies. All of which sucked ass, and the films didn't become worth watching until Bale took over as Batman. But yeah, other than that you're spot on.

The Bourne movie looks entertaining, I just find it odd that Jeremy Renner is in EVERYTHING now.

Nah, that only applies when the film's merit is based on the actor. Damon was good, but the entire production was top-shelf in all of the Bourne movies.

And yes, a Batman movie without Christian Bale would work if it was a movie about someone other than NBatman and didn't have Batman in it.

btw did any of you mards spot that this movie is called 'the bourne LEGACY'? i.e. in the sense that a legacy is not the same thing as the person who passed it on, and that contained within the concept of a legacy is the idea that said person is either dead or at least gone from the picture

like, if someone made a documentary about 'the legacy of ww2' it wouldn't consist of a reconstruction of the normandy landings, or the battle of stalingrad etc, nor would hitler have a starring on-screen role

basically, the bourne brand is now a cash cow

First we went "These days Bond is just Bourne but crappier" in the skyfall thread and now we're concluding that Bourne is turning pretty shite too. A sad state of affairs (if true).

When the Game Of Thrones movie comes out (we all know it will) it'll suck.

seremtan wrote:btw did any of you mards spot that this movie is called 'the bourne LEGACY'? i.e. in the sense that a legacy is not the same thing as the person who passed it on, and that contained within the concept of a legacy is the idea that said person is either dead or at least gone from the picture

like, if someone made a documentary about 'the legacy of ww2' it wouldn't consist of a reconstruction of the normandy landings, or the battle of stalingrad etc, nor would hitler have a starring on-screen role

basically, the bourne brand is now a cash cow

I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed.

Perhaps they should have done that with the Bond films: just introduced new franchise-centered characters every year who went to "James Bond Spy School" or some shit. Or maybe they'll do that with The Avengers...instead of writing new stories/enemies/challenges for the original group, just introduce new heroes every year as your excuse to release another Avengers movie. They can fight the same boring enemies they always do and the audience will be too dumb to notice. That's how the X-Men made their billions.

Oh I know, you could use the same logic to make a vapid, shitty first person shooters every year that require no skill or thought from the player as long as they follow your intended story/path that your franchise dictates he must complete. Since they're mindless in both gameplay and development effort, we can crank them out every few months no problem. We'll call it "Modern Warfare" or something like that. Of course we'll introduce new characters for you to play/watch, but since it'll still be tied to the Modern Warfare brand and consumers are morons who can't pass up a sequel/remake/reimagining/rehash, it can't lose.

Oh wait...

Nightshade wrote:Tsatziki: Political pundit, MMA grandmaster, and now film critic. The only flaw in your theory would be the MANY pre-Bale Batman movies. All of which sucked ass, and the films didn't become worth watching until Bale took over as Batman. But yeah, other than that you're spot on.

The Bourne movie looks entertaining, I just find it odd that Jeremy Renner is in EVERYTHING now.

Burton's 1989 Batman was good. Joker

no it wasn't

tim burton sucks a fat walrus cock

Why so serious?

jesus who are those two mutants behind him?

Captain Mazda wrote: Burton's 1989 Batman was good. Joker

Bleah! WTF? NO. The movie was horrifyingly bad. IMO the only good character from any of the pre-Bale Batman movies was Jim Carey's Riddler. Now, haters gonna hate, but I think that Carey was perfect in the role and was to the Riddler what Ledger was to the Joker.

Nightshade wrote:Tsatziki: Political pundit, MMA grandmaster, and now film critic. The only flaw in your theory would be the MANY pre-Bale Batman movies. All of which sucked ass, and the films didn't become worth watching until Bale took over as Batman. But yeah, other than that you're spot on.

The Bourne movie looks entertaining, I just find it odd that Jeremy Renner is in EVERYTHING now.

wow, you really are simple in the head aren't you?

Nightshade wrote:

Captain Mazda wrote: Burton's 1989 Batman was good. Joker

Bleah! WTF? NO. The movie was horrifyingly bad. IMO the only good character from any of the pre-Bale Batman movies was Jim Carey's Riddler. Now, haters gonna hate, but I think that Carey was perfect in the role and was to the Riddler what Ledger was to the Joker.

The movie was good because of Nicholson's Joker, don't be such a poopoohead. And yes, Carrey as Riddler was incredifuckingawesomeble.

0psys wrote:
And yes, a Batman movie without Christian Bale would work if it was a movie about someone other than NBatman and didn't have Batman in it.

Indeed sir, indeed. That's why I'm hoping that for the next Iron Man movie, assuming it's without Robert Downey, Jr., that they just re-make E.T.

What a crock of shit. I bet playing a convincing Batman is as hard as playing a tree in a kid's musical. It involves zero emotion, can't even see the face. Just make sure your mouth is a perfectly horizontal slit at all times and look like you mean it when throwing those batarangs.

Dont get me wrong, I love the Nolan Batman movies, but I don't think Bale's presence or acting talent was a huge factor in that.

yeah, they could have cast simon pegg as batman for all the difference it would have made eh

oh wait a minute, that's a steaming pile of horseshit

since i'm sure even you could play a tree in a kid's musical, why don't you put on a batman costume and show us what you've got?

Even a fat chick play Batman:

Tsakali wrote:
wow, you really are simple in the head aren't you?

Well wait a minute now, I thought you were done talking to me? Pray tell, what is it exactly about me pointing out that your "logic" is complete bollocks and that you're a moron that makes me "simple in the head"? (Just going to let the idiocy of that particular comment go...)