Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to the www.Britmovie.co.uk forum

If this is your first time on the new forum since March 7th, 2017, please re-register with us once more.
Paypal contributions for the care and feeding of the forum may be made here:
PayPal Donations

The old bulletin board archive can be found here:
http://filmdope.com/forums/
See more
See less

The Bourne films

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Bourne films

    How many more films can Matt Damon star in as Jason Bourne ? Remember, James Bond. First we had actor Sean Connery star as James Bond. Eventually other actors, over the years, portraying James Bond. If the film company, making the the Bourne movies, will have to find another actor to take the role of Jason Bourne. Matt Damon is getting to old for his portrayal of Jason Bourne.

  • #2
    I would not say Matt Damon is old at 47!!

    Also Producer Frank Marshall said Universal Pictures is hoping to plan a sequel to Jason Bourne, making it the sixth Bourne film.

    Also a lot of people do not remember that Richard Chamberlain starred as Jason Bourne in 1988 in The Bourne Identity a 3hr tv movie.

    https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094791...nm_flmg_act_35
    Last edited by Metro1962; 7th August 2018, 12:53 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Matt Damon was top of a list a couple of years back as the most efficient actor in terms of cash paid to profits - overall, he delivers box office, and Bourne played a good part of that. The last one in 2016 (which I have yet to see) cost $120m to make, but grossed $415m - so yes, they can make another one and keep everyone happy. Even the so so Bourne Legacy (but it had Rachel Weiz in it, which is always a good thing..) cost $125m and took in $275m.

      Damon isn't just going to sign up for another one just for the hell of it - like Daniel Craig (Mr Weiz) it's just about The paycheck, it's about doing something decent, with a good script. Legacy proved one thing - just putting Bourne in the title isn't enough to deliver super box office, so he is in a strong position.

      As for being too old, Hollywood is a bit odd that way. Whereas an actress might be judged too old to play the hot lead in her mid thirties, a male actor in their late fifties is judged still perfectly fine as the love interest and lead (this apparently happened to Maggie Gyganhall). On the other hand, Brand Pitt was playing a WW2 tank commander at the age of 49 in Fury, whereas in reality such a commander would have been perhaps at best 15 years younger.

      And don't even start about Harrison Ford or Tom Cruise , who is 56 and has another Mission Impossible out - and he famously does a lot of his own stunts.

      Actually, I would like a film about Nicky, and what happened to her when she went underground...

      Comment


      • Eric7885
        Eric7885 commented
        Editing a comment
        As I recall, Nicky was killed in the last Bourne film.

    • #4
      Matt Damon has done well in the Bourne films, his other films, by, have not done well. The Martian, he did well in that one, Greezone, I did like, but, some of the reviews were poor, his last film, Downsizing, I though he was wasted in that film.
      ,

      Comment


      • #5
        Eric - Damn! Having not seen the last film, I was blissfully unaware of her fate...

        Damon is an A list actor, and like all A list actors, will have made some good and not so good films, and some that make serious money, and some that don't. It's the law of averages, in a business where most films don't make that much money at all.

        But overall, Damon is very bankable. The Martian took $630m worldwide. Yes, Green zone didn't even gross back it's budget (although I would highly recommend the book), neither did Downsizing, and Suburbicon was a bust (sometimes when Clooney directs it's great, like Good Night and Good Luck, while other times...), and Great Wall was tosh, although it's did $280m plus outside the US, which at did at least vaguely cover the $150m budget. However, he is a draw, and overall, he gets a fair amount of critics praise plus putting bums on seats.

        What amazes me is the number of really terrible flops an A list actor can make, and still get employed - there are a surprising number of decent actors making decent money from terrible films.

        Comment


        • #6
          Originally posted by Eric7885 View Post
          Matt Damon has done well in the Bourne films, his other films, by, have not done well. The Martian, he did well in that one, Greezone, I did like, but, some of the reviews were poor, his last film, Downsizing, I though he was wasted in that film.
          ,
          Setting aside box-office performance, he is generally a reliable performer, very watchabe even if the films have been less so, he was easily the only reason to endure Downsizing, The Wall and We Bought a Zoo. He also makes interesting cameo appearances, which I like, Thor Ragnarok and The Zero Theorem spring to mind.

          Comment


          • #7
            It would be interesting to think of the most 'bankable stars of the last 60 years or so (just post studio system) - who were the generally reliable and watchable performers then?

            I did find a wiki about Quigleys Top Ten Money Making Poll, which was pretty interesting. Tom Hanks is pretty popular for decades, Rock Hudson had a good run for close to a decade, and James Stewart could be seen in similar ways to Hanks and Damon. And perhaps Redford. And certainly Harrison Ford.

            Eastwood, John Wayne and Bing Crosby are all huge, but they are in slightly different category- none of them are quiet 'everyman.

            Comment


            • #8
              Originally posted by Bonekicker View Post
              It would be interesting to think of the most 'bankable stars of the last 60 years or so (just post studio system) - who were the generally reliable and watchable performers then?

              I did find a wiki about Quigleys Top Ten Money Making Poll, which was pretty interesting. Tom Hanks is pretty popular for decades, Rock Hudson had a good run for close to a decade, and James Stewart could be seen in similar ways to Hanks and Damon. And perhaps Redford. And certainly Harrison Ford.

              Eastwood, John Wayne and Bing Crosby are all huge, but they are in slightly different category- none of them are quiet 'everyman.
              Tom Hanks definitely is always a good leading man, not sure I would say the same for Robert Redford. A Walk on the Woods was a crashing bore and he was terrible in it, 30 years too old for the part. Truth, The Company You Keep both would have been better films without Redford.

              Comment


              • #9
                Originally posted by Paxton Milk View Post

                A Walk on the Woods was a crashing bore and he was terrible in it...
                Great book, awful film. I agree with you, Redford should have retired gracefully twenty years ago.

                Comment


                • #10
                  Originally posted by Eric7885 View Post
                  Matt Damon has done well in the Bourne films, his other films, by, have not done well
                  I watched him in The Adjustment Bureau (2011) last night. It was shown recently on ITV4

                  Very good

                  Steve

                  Comment


                  • #11
                    I was thinking about Redford in the sixties and seventies, rather than him in his sixties and seventies...

                    If your a producer, you want a solid leading cast, that's flexible enough to hit most roles (bit of drama, bit of comedy, bit of action), that people don't pigeonhole and who will give a decent performance. In short, you want reliable.

                    What that list did show clearly once again that a male actor has a vastly longer shelf life in particular roles than female actors. Rock Hudson was number 1 or certainly in the top five for about 8 years. Elizabeth Taylor went from No 1 in roughly the same period to number ten, and then totally vanished from the list. If your looking at actresses, then Meryl Streep would be a strong contender for a long term bankable star, Julia Roberts, certainly. But I am wondering who was ticking boxes in the late sixties - Streisand might have been big at that time, but being a singer as well adds a dimension which is a bit unfair.

                    Comment


                    • #12
                      Originally posted by Bonekicker View Post
                      It would be interesting to think of the most 'bankable stars of the last 60 years or so (just post studio system) - who were the generally reliable and watchable performers then?

                      I did find a wiki about Quigleys Top Ten Money Making Poll, which was pretty interesting. Tom Hanks is pretty popular for decades, Rock Hudson had a good run for close to a decade, and James Stewart could be seen in similar ways to Hanks and Damon. And perhaps Redford. And certainly Harrison Ford.

                      Eastwood, John Wayne and Bing Crosby are all huge, but they are in slightly different category- none of them are quiet 'everyman.
                      Someone told me Mark Wahlberg is the current top money-earner - am I crazy?

                      Comment


                      • #13
                        Yeah, that's not impossible. Not especially offensive, plays comedy, action type films that do fine at the box office, plus drama from Blog is Nights to All the Money in the World. Solid performer that opens movies, or at least does decent support.

                        Steady earners are fine, they are reliable, like the old Hollywood $2m picture - nothing exciting, but you'd do ok.

                        Di Caprio would be interesting go look at in terms of earnings to price.

                        Comment


                        • #14
                          Originally posted by Bonekicker View Post

                          Di Caprio would be interesting go look at in terms of earnings to price.
                          Di Caprio has done pretty well for a guy who has managed to avoid movie franchises and/or sequels. Mind you, it helps when you ally yourself with quality directors

                          Comment


                          • #15
                            Originally posted by Bonekicker View Post
                            I am wondering who was ticking boxes in the late sixties - Streisand might have been big at that time, but being a singer as well adds a dimension which is a bit unfair.
                            Jane Fonda seemed to be hot property on a solid upward trajectory prior to the Hanoi visit?

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X