Don't watch if you've read the books.
-
Dust_Indotex — 12 years ago(July 27, 2013 04:01 PM)
The names and the fact that he's pulled out of the Med in the beginning are the only two thing the movie shares with the book. In fact the books, especially the first one, are more psychological thrillers than spy thrillers since Bourne struggles with his identity.
-
clark_gillies — 12 years ago(July 30, 2013 04:34 AM)
Problem is Robert Ludlum was a master of detail, and most the time that is why his books are about 900+ pages.
A couple of his books have been made into movie/tv series (Bourne Identity 1988, The Osterman Weekend, The Holcroft Covenant and The Apocalypse Watch) and almost all of them have been turned into flops.
In the original Bourne Identity they they try to hard to put to much stuff into a 3 hour movie (it was shown over two parts when on tv) and have altered the 2nd half of the book greatly.
The Osterman Weekend has even less reference to the book than the Matt Damon Bourne Identity has..
The Holcroft Covenant was filmed when Micahel Caine was at his lowest and could not get any half decent work (he was a late substitute for Jame Caan whop walked off the movie).
So the problem is how do you squeeze a 900 page Ludlum book into a 2 hour movie, and keep all the detail that makes the books what they are. -
Herreken — 10 years ago(July 17, 2015 09:47 AM)
The heck
s so "1980s" about Matt Damon? I thought he did a fine job, myself.
Yeah I didn't get that comment either. He was good in the movies but he's pretty much a different character compared to the one in the book.
DISPLAY thy breasts, my Julia! -
Cult_of_Kibner — 11 years ago(July 21, 2014 08:03 PM)
You'll be disappointed if you're looking for a straight up adaptation of the book. You won't be be disappointed if you're looking for a great movie.
Really the three Damon movies are one big loose adaptation of the first novel rather than adaptations of the novels they're named after.
Movie 1: Bourne gets pulled out of the ocean with amnesia. He meets Marie and goes to Paris with her.
Movie 2: Bad guys murder a room full of people and plant Bourne's prints, framing him.
Movie 3: Bourne travels to New York City and returns to the building where he was trained for the final showdown.
If you look at it that way the movies aren't quite as unfaithful to the source material as they at first seem. -
clark_gillies — 11 years ago(July 24, 2014 01:35 AM)
You could also argue that there is a element to the Supremacy book in the Supremacy movie.
In the book Bourne is trying to get back to living a quiet life with Marie, suddenly he is framed for a murder half way around the World he didn't commit (with a element of the CIA involved behind this) and Marie is taken away from him.. granted a VERY loosely similarity. -
Cult_of_Kibner — 11 years ago(July 24, 2014 12:20 PM)
That's true. Also Ultimatum has a scene with Marie's brother who is a main character in the book if I recall, so both of the latter movies have tiny threads connecting them to their respective novels. Still, I feel like if you step back and look at the trilogy as a whole it's really a retelling of the first novel's story. But like the poster above you said, I'm not sure if that's intentional or just coincidence.
-
clark_gillies — 11 years ago(July 25, 2014 12:55 AM)
I recall a interview with one of the producers just after the release of Supremacy where they said the brief for the writer was not to read the whole book, but just the outline of the book and come up with a story around that.
That is why Identity has very little link up in terms of the book. for Supremacy he said that he did read the whole book this time, but found it so dated and because of the way Identity went, there was very little they could take from it, so basically had to start from scratch. Ultimatum I do not think they bothered reading the book. -
jpclarke2005 — 9 years ago(November 19, 2016 03:10 PM)
I agree that the books are only similar to the movies but as previous posters have commented the books are out of date with a modern film unless again like what another poster have said, you base it in the 1980's in which the books are set.
I liked the Richard Chamberlain 1988 tv movie when it came out as was a lot more identical to the book and people nowadays wouldn't know who carlos the jackal was unless they have seen the Bruce Willis film or the Day of the Jackal by Frederick Forsythe. When I first watched the movie expected more of the book to be in the movies but wasn't that disappointed as thought it was a good stand - a - lone movie from the previous 1988 tv film.
It is just like what they done with man on fire book, the first movie with Scott Glenn in 1987 I thought was close to the book and the character and then they done a more modern film a reboot if you will with Denzel Washington 2004 which even though he isn't like the character in the book (like Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher) the film had lots more action and they updated the story as making him C.I.A. instead of ex-mercenary and basing the movie in Mexico instead of Italy, just a matter of updating the story for today's audiences and even thou the girl died in the book both films had the girl being saved at the end.
P.S.
if you are interested in the Man on Fire books by A.J. Quninnell then there is five books in the series which I thought were all good read's.