Escape to the Movies: Bourne Legacy

[Griffolion]

I've always been a completely unashamed fan of the Bourne series, I'm a sucker for stuff like that. I'm really looking forward to see this.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Can not unsee (the series that is).....

 

[crimson sickle2]

The reason I never watch Bourne movies is the camera, it's like they strapped a camera to a fly to film the action scenes.

 

[Daria.Morgendorffer]

"Joss Whedon will direct Avengers 2. There was a question about this?"

No, just a sad, soft and ultimately ignored moaning from me.

I'd like to start a support group for those of us who think Whedon is a hack, because, I often feel like I'm the only one who feels this way.

That said: Jeremy Renner is cute, but he's never given me the impression that he's got a lot going on upstairs. Maybe he's just a bad actor. Who knows?

 

[Daria.Morgendorffer]

"Joss Whedon will direct Avengers 2. There was a question about this?"

No, just a sad, soft and ultimately ignored moaning from me.

I'd like to start a support group for those of us who think Whedon is a hack, because, I often feel like I'm the only one who feels this way.

Support groups are good and fine, but wouldn't they need to call it more a "how to help you overcome delusions" rather than a "Whedon is a hack" group?

No, I'm perfectly reasonable and lucid in, and entitled to, my opinion. And frankly, I find the ad hominem here entirely unnecessary

 

[Katya Topolkaraeva]

Hmm and i thought i was the only one who couldn't quite figure out what the big deal about the Bourne movies was. awesome! thanks bob!

 

[Lieju]

My opinion of the Bourne-films are pretty much the same.

I think I have seen them, at least two, or maybe the first several times, but I can't remember anything about them.

Except that there was running.

 

[RJ Dalton]

No, I'm perfectly reasonable and lucid in, and entitled to, my opinion. And frankly, I find the ad hominem here entirely unnecessary

Yes, yes you are. I was just pointing out that while all kinds of opinions can be acknowledged, you must realize the slight discrepancy in assuming that only certain "enlightened" people can realize the hackiness of a multi award winning, celebrated and generally well loved writer and director?

Might I remind you that Stephany Meyer was also a celebrated and well-loved writer in her sphere as well? Popularity is nothing more than an accident of circumstance.

And Joss Whedon is a shit writer. He has no sense of characterization. He only knows how to write two types of characters - smug, sarcastic bad-asses and bimbos - and his "wit" is nothing more than pandering to nerds who used to use sarcastic quips to feel superior to bullies. In the end, his characters all sounds the same because they all make the same kinds of statements; there's not a single line one of them might say that you can't imagine them all saying, because they're all sarcastic, smug dipshits who can't resist making a "clever" remark when there's an opportunity.
Think about how Captain America was portrayed in his first movie. He was a polite, friendly, sometimes awkward, but an extremely motivated young man who got lucky and happened to be picked for the super-soldier project because he had the right personality that the doctor was looking for.
Now tell me, what about that kind of character strikes you as responding to Tony Stark saying "Oh, somebody here speaks English" with "Oh, so that's what that was," in a smug voice, because hurr hurr, he are so clevurr! Or cock-fighting with another character with lines like "Big man in a suit! Take that away and what are you?" as if he were a high school bully trying to talk down the smart kid in class?
When it comes to character writing, Joss Whedon has no talent.

Edit: My apologies to Lieju. I accidentally clicked the quote button to the wrong person's post and then didn't realize it was still there when I posted.

 

[GrailSeeker95]

How about The Bourne Paradox?

 

[beniki]

Yeah, I'm completely apathetic towards Jason Bourne. Still can't remember much about the actual plot, except for some bits on a boat in the first movie. And now I can't remember anything about the second one... but do have this recurring image of a lady talking on her phone.

I think that happened a lot...

 

[GrailSeeker95]

It's like he hasn't seen Firefly or Serenity. That was fantastic character writing!
Of course Captain America would say those things to Tony Stark. He's not a scientist so whatever Tony says that relates to a higher science will sound like complete gibberish to him. He thinks of Tony as a coward who has to hide behind a suit in order to do the things that "real" soldiers do everyday out in the field. That having been said, Captain America DOES get his abilities from steroids, so....let's just call it a wash.
I do agree that Stephenie Meyer does deserve to be taken out in a drive-by though.

 

[Beautiful End]

Bob phrased my thoughts better than myself.

I like the Bourne movies but I also don't like them. I can admit they're good action movies but the plot never really appealed to me. It just didn't make sense! Action scene followed by spy talk followed by action followed by conspiracy followed by a sequel! And mind you, I was able to follow The Matrix plot perfectly fine. But this? It was just plain weird. The Bourne movies tried to be both an action and a spy movie but they couldn't quite reach a middle ground.

Yes, I'll admit they're actually better than some James Bond movies where the action scenes seem a bit forced and random. So why is it that the plot just seemed irrelevant for the most part? Super soldier goes awry so the government wants to kill him so he won't expose them. But he does anyway. That's the plot in a nutshell. So why did we need 3 movies?
I know, 3 movies explaining the plot just allows you to understand it better, and yet...it still seems pointless to me. Did we really need 3 movies? LotR, HP, Matrix...they all needed 3 movies, obviously. But not the Bourne ones.

 

[Aggieknight]

The reason I never watch Bourne movies is the camera, it's like they strapped a camera to a fly to film the action scenes.

You just summed up this entire movie.

Just watched it last night (more or less agree with Bob's review), and it wasn't half bad...but the shaky cam has got to be taken behind the barn and put down. I understand (and I think to quote Bob from a much earlier review), if you move the camera real fast, everyone looks like Ninja's, but jebus monkey mary, they use it so often in this movie that it goes beyond annoying to downright frustrating. They use it in non-action scenes...

Look! Cross is drinking a cup of coffee! Shake the camera so it looks "intense".

I'm a big fan of the Matt Damon trilogy, and found this one "meh". The flashbacks flashacross ( because it was happening at the same time) feel like the movie is pointing at a much better movie shouting "See! We are just like that!', while reminding you that this is a much worse movie.

 

[Strazdas]

Whedon directing a new Avengers I'm all for.

Whedon writing the new movie... not so much. He is a one note writer who never had a chance to be good because his ring of sycophantic followers won't let him be.

Yes, please tell me once again how I'm so wrong. It has not sunk in the last 300 times I've been told. Maybe the 301st time will be what convinces me. ugh!

Well, people who are proven wrong and refuse to accept it are usually called idiots, you know.
Well, that or religious.

 

[Will Lorus]

Might I remind you that Stephany Meyer was also a celebrated and well-loved writer in her sphere as well? Popularity is nothing more than an accident of circumstance.

Comparing Whedon to Meyer is an apples to oranges situation. Meyer has a small fanbase that like her works but it is generally criticised heavily by critics. Whedon, on the other hand, has consistently received acclaim and been recognised for his work by all sorts of organisations. When you?re talking about a guy who has won awards such as an Emmy, Eisner, Nebula and been nominated for an Oscar for screenwriting, you need a stronger argument than popularity.

And Joss Whedon is a shit writer. He has no sense of characterization. He only knows how to write two types of characters - smug, sarcastic bad-asses and bimbos

You do realise that ridiculous over generalised comments such as that suggest you have no sense of characterisation, not Whedon? After all, when you limit every character to two archetypes you?re using such broad strokes that you?re ignoring all characteristics and nuances that actually compose characterisation. Either that or you?re just demonstrably wrong and haven?t thought your argument through at all.

Let?s apply your theory to the Avengers, shall we? Well, there are no bimbos for a start, given the definition google offers is that of an ?attractive but empty headed young woman?. In terms of the main characters: The only characters who act smug are Tony and in one scene Natasha and both of them show completely different characteristics. It seems that you think two characters sharing a characteristic equals bad writing, which is nonsensical. Bruce, Alfred and Lucius are all sarcastic at points; they must be the same character, what a hack those Nolans are!

- and his "wit" is nothing more than pandering to nerds who used to use sarcastic quips to feel superior to bullies.

So, other than the ad hominem towards his fans, do you want to explain why his wit is poorly written?

In the end, his characters all sounds the same because they all make the same kinds of statements; there's not a single line one of them might say that you can't imagine them all saying, because they're all sarcastic, smug dipshits who can't resist making a "clever" remark when there's an opportunity.

That is an appallingly thought out complaint on a number of levels. Firstly, lines of dialogue exist within the context of scenes which means depending on the scenario some lines could be delivered by any number of characters. This obviously makes the concept of looking at individual lines in a vacuum suspect at best. Furthermore, writing different characters is not about making every individual line immediately attributable to a specific character because that doesn?t represent reality at all. When discussing the science of the Tesseract, a few characters could ask ?does Loki need any particular kind of power source?? because multiple characters fall under the umbrella of non scientists who are trying to work out Loki?s plan.

When it comes to general lines, there are plenty that would only make sense coming from specific characters: ?Love is for children, no pain will prise his need from him, no hard feelings Point Break, there?s only one god ma?am and I?m pretty sure he doesn?t dress like that, I?m not like you, I?m exposed like a nerve? etc etc. That comment doesn?t hold up to even the smallest bit of scrutiny.

Think about how Captain America was portrayed in his first movie. He was a polite, friendly, sometimes awkward, but an extremely motivated young man who got lucky and happened to be picked for the super-soldier project because he had the right personality that the doctor was looking for.
Now tell me, what about that kind of character strikes you as responding to Tony Stark saying "Oh, somebody here speaks English" with "Oh, so that's what that was," in a smug voice, because hurr hurr, he are so clevurr! Or cock-fighting with another character with lines like "Big man in a suit! Take that away and what are you?" as if he were a high school bully trying to talk down the smart kid in class?
When it comes to character writing, Joss Whedon has no talent.

Edit: My apologies to Lieju. I accidentally clicked the quote button to the wrong person's post and then didn't realize it was still there when I posted.

You?ve misremembered both the line and delivery. It?s ?is that what just happened??you added the ?oh, so that?s what? section to make it sound snarky when the delivery was obviously that of hopeless inquiry. That also makes sense because Cap is new to the time period and constantly surrounded by things which are beyond him and he feels irrelevant and out of place. You also seem to have deliberately misread the context of the ?big man? line as Cap was specifically calling out Stark for acting like an arrogant bully which is directly in line with his solo film characterisation. That?s not hugely surprising though because, as has been noted, Whedon did a re-write of that film.