Never Say Never Again. Matt Damon has apparently done an about face regarding the “Bourne” franchise. There was a short time ago where Damon wasn’t interested. That was then. This is now. Or is it?
Worst Previews gives us this:
“I read online [that] they are doing another Jason Bourne movie with Tony Gilroy (Michael Clayton) directing that I’m not in,” Damon told Empire magazine. “No one told me, literally nobody called me. People think I have inside information, but you can get a sense of where I am in the pecking order.
Damon added that the Ludlum estate owns the rights, and Bourne 4 could set up shop at another studio, and “Universal can read it online”. But that’s where the bad blood ends. He still wants to take a rest from the character and come back later on.
So, he’s mad that he found out about the 4th film being planned without him. Nobody told him. That strikes me as a bit odd, because if he were told and said yes, we would have this film like yesterday. He wants to reprise the role. Oh wait–just not right now.
I think Damon is a great actor. I also think he is just an actor. This is going to be a tough line to walk. If you say you want to take a break from a franchise and the studio wants to continue, they don’t have to tell you jack squat. It doesn’t concern you. If it did, they’d write your part in. In fact, that’s all you have to say. They WILL re-write the script to have Bourne in it. They aren’t that dull.
And everyone is happy.
Chime in, Int’l friends. Should Damon come back as Bourne in ‘4’? Should the studio ‘let him know’ that he’s not in the film when he didn’t want to be in it?
I want another Bourne movie with Damon back in the role.
But i think they should get rid of the shaky cam in the action scenes.
This industry is based on professional relationships. What he’s talking about is professional courtesy. He wroked his ass off on that franchise and it’s not uncommon to get a call from PEOPLE he’s worked long days with in the past (whom he probably considers friends) to let him know what’s what, or that they’re going in a different direction or with a different actor, and why. I mean c’mon, this site has reported in the past on actors “giving their blessing” to a younger actor who’s taking over a role. You think the veteren just called out of the blue and said, “You have my blessing?” Hell no. The newbie called him out of proffessional courtesy. And that’s what’s missing here.
Hell yeah they should let him know! Just out of respect for the guy who made those films a success. Damon made the character his and people identify with him as Bourne. This is not the same thing as Bond because to be Bond all you need is a English accent, a Tux, gadgets and some crazy ass villian to fight. Casino Royale was the first Bond that tried to give the character some depth. Damon made Bourne believable as a human being, someone who was remorseful about his past actions. The studio can go ahead and make another Bourne without Damon in the lead but I for one aren’t going to watch it. As for Damon being just an Actor, where would these big studio’s be without the actor. No one goes to see a movie on studio name alone. When a new movie comes out,no one yells ” That’s a new Paramount Picture I gotta go see that!” The possible exception being Disney with their animation fare. Actors put asses in the seats, and studio’s should give them the respect they deserve due to this. Damon as Bourne is guaranteed box office. I’d rather wait a few years for guaranteed returns on investment than to release a movie with a new lead and have it flop.
I think what he means by “just an actor” is that he wasn’t an executive producer or director or anything other than the actor.
It does seem like the Bourne movies are attempting to expand the franchise outside of Jason Bourne’s story and get into a bigger Treadstone story anyways, so if they don’t need Bourne they dont need Damon.
If they do something that doesn’t require Bourne then that’s different. It still might be a hard sell regarding the public but it could work as a stand alone thriller giving us insight into the Treadstone project.
Where woud the studio be without the actor? Who knows.
They won’t unless they get another actor.
Actors are not top marquee value as they were ten years ago.
I don’t want Damon replaced, but that does not mean he can’t be replaced.
It’s clear Universal does not want to- but they can move on without him. They can just as easily write the character inm recast. Damon is just an actor; they don’t report to him,
Also, since Tony Gilroy directed the first film and Damon “didn’y know” whay does that tell you?
Darren a proven qualified actor like Damon is a marquee value especially when dealing with a franchise that the public identifies him with. Thanks to the economy people aren’t rushing to the theater to watch anything. How well would True Grit be doing if Bridges and Damon weren’t attached. These are actors that people trust to give great performances. The Box office is down due to the economy and the fact that there are so many other entertainment options in our day and age. Here’s a case in point even a badly reviewed Julia Roberts movie will still make money and be a hit just based on her name alone. Cruise was quaranteed box office before he went nuts on Oprah. Arnold was not even a good actor but people flocked to his movies based on his charisma alone. Although we don’t have any marquee actors left it’s all the more reason to treat remaining marquee actors like Damon with a little respect.