James Franco Rumoured for The Bourne Legacy

[dnwilliams]

To recap: the fourth Bourne movie is going ahead. Matt Damon is not in it. Bourne is not in it. These are both good things. Rather than ruin what is essentially a perfect trilogy by unnaturally stretching out the story, writer of the previous Bourne movies and director of the upcoming Bourne Legacy Tony Gilroy has wisely decided to focus on the ramifications of Jason Bourne's actions in the previous films and explore the world of intrigue those films created.

These developments mean that there will be an entirely new lead rather than a recast Jason Bourne taking centre stage. Enter James Franco rumours. The star of 127 Hours was allegedly approached at a part by Tony Gilroy, who may or may not have floated the topic of his upcoming feature. It certainly fits - Matt Damon was an unlikely action star upon his casting. Whatever the case Tony Gilroy, director of Duplicity and Michael Clayton, certainly seems like a safe pair of hands for the franchise.



How would you feel about seeing Franco in a Bourne-like role? Who else do you think could nicely fit the vacant unlikely action star role? Ryan Gosling? Jesse Eisenberg? Jaden Smith?

Source: MovieFone

[Sheridan Passell]

Woh he really is becoming a star. He's lead role in half the movies these days. 10 big parts since Spider-Man 3. Contrast that to Tobey Maguire who's literally been in nothing since then, except Brothers.

[dnwilliams]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: if I were Sam Raimi and James Franco auditioned to play Peter Parker I would have hired him to play Peter Parker. And that's not hindsight talking, I said that the moment I found out he was up for the part. He much more how I see the character.

[AristotleP]

F this shit.

[dnwilliams]

You really need to start expanding on your thought a little more dude. 

[AristotleP]

Not interested in a Bourne movie without Matt Damon.

[Sheridan Passell]

Are you interested in Matt Damon without a Bourne movie?

[AristotleP]

Are you interested in Matt Damon without a Bourne movie?

lol

I loved all three movies. Wish they'd leave it alone if they don't bring back Damon and the other actors.

[dalmatianjaws]

Essentially a perfect trilogy?

A. It's not a trilogy, it's a movie with a sequel, and that has an appendix where more folks get shot

B. The second film is shit, third movie isn't a movie

C. The movies already left the books at the wayside so how can they unnaturally stretch out a story that they are making up as they go along anyway

[dnwilliams]

Essentially a perfect trilogy?

A. It's not a trilogy, it's a movie with a sequel, and that has an appendix where more folks get shot

B. The second film is shit, third movie isn't a movie

C. The movies already left the books at the wayside so how can they unnaturally stretch out a story that they are making up as they go along anyway

A. You're splitting hairs, don't be a jackass.

B. This opinion isn't any more valid than your first non-point. Most people (myself included) prefer Greengrass's installments.

C. I couldn't care less about the books.

D. Bite me.

lol

I loved all three movies. Wish they'd leave it alone if they don't bring back Damon and the other actors.

Thing is, his story is totally wrapped up. They ARE going to continue to make films set in this universe no matter what, at least this way there's virtually no chance of them ruining the story that's already been told because they're not even dealing with the same central character.

[dalmatianjaws]

The third film couldn't be bothered with an inciting incident, so it borrowed the one from the previous film. Absolutely abysmal storytelling and a shameful display of laziness. Also, Greengrass has proven himself as a shitty director if for nothing else the lack of style changes based on subject matter. The man hires Michael J. Fox as a camera man for every flick and folks call it "style." He's a fucking no-talent moron who got lucky with United 93 and has no idea what made that movie work.  These Bourne movies died two installments ago and the fact there is enough of an audience to demand pseudo-sequels is a testament to collective audience idiocy and sick studio fanboy pandering for an easy buck.

James Franco is the man.

[Sheridan Passell]

So much anger on the boards these days.


How about if the opening sequence had a Matt Damon impersonator saying off-screen. "I need to go deep undercover, change my face." Then you have the credits showing bits of the surgery. Then at the end of the credits, James Franco sits up and says "That's better. Time to go to work."

[dnwilliams]

How bout I rearrange DJaws' face and he needs surgery. Meta.

[AristotleP]

Man, I mean if they're going use the same title as the last novel...

Bourne Legacy

Jason Bourne was notorious in the clandestine world of covert-ops as one of the CIA's most expert international killers for hire. Out of the ashes of his violent past he's emerged today as a Georgetown professor, living a quiet life, retired from danger-until he narrowly escapes the bullet of a faceless assassin. And when two of Bourne's closest associates are murdered, Bourne knows that his legacy has followed him-and set him up as prime suspect for the brutal crimes.

[dnwilliams]

None of the books are like the novels though. It's just fortuitous that the title fits - the film is literally about the legacy of the man, not the man himself.