The Bourne Identity
discussion
Best Spy novel and worst film adaptation ever
message 1:
by
Kenny
(last edited Jan 17, 2008 08:20AM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Jan 17, 2008 08:19AM

reply
|
flag

Try the older movie version, the one from the 80s I think it is, it's much more faithful to the book - I saw it before reading the book and it didn't ruin it for me at all, which is a nice change :)

Could you imagine people sitting still for a 10-minute explanation on what a fiche is and how it works?
Ludlom's brilliance was in creating Jason Bourne, not writing about him.
The movies were directed better than the books were written, but they stayed true to the character of Jason Bourne even as they changed the story that he's immersed in. It was a smart Hollywood move, and it yielded a very good movie that laid the foundation for a great movie trilogy.

However, if any one remembers, about 25 years ago there was an early adoption of the Bourne Identity done with the actor Richard Chamberlain. Now that was GOOD.


The second and third movie have to do nothing whatsoever with the books with the same titles. Apart from that, the books are far superior.




It's not really better only true to the book. I think it was produced as a 2 part tv movie (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094791/).
When I saw the movie with Matt Damon I was furious and sick. Furious due to the liberties the screen writer took to the subject (there was honestly no reason to call this the Bourne Identity) and sick due to the fast camera cuts. I think the fast cuts ruined the excellent fight scenes, since I couldn't follow them at all.

The Bourne movies are the loosest interpretation of the Ludlum books ever. I was mortified when they made the bad guy a Russian former FSB guy and then they killed his GF. It is sacrilege to even put the name Bourne on these movies.
Jack Silkstone

PRIMAL Origin

Tell you what though - I'm reading Ultimatum right now, and I'm sick & tired of seeing how Ludlum cannot possibly refer to Carlos without having to make some reference to "The Jackal". If the moniker appeared in Identity, then it must have only been once or twice. In Ultimatum he can't NOT use it. Sheesh!



Plus, they beat the hell out of James Bond movies ;)

The recent movies are good but they are only thinly based upon the Ludlum books. If you want a REALLY GOOD video representation of the first book, you should rent/buy the TV mini-series that came out in 1988; assuming you can find it. It's very faithful to the book and while it is more of a drama than the recent movie, there is a good deal of action in it.

And the old tv version of the movie was typical 80s cheesy, but still much truer to the book than the Matt Damon movies.


I worked in the intelligence community for a decade and saw a lot of changes in that time.
Hollywood had to either set the movie in period or change it dramatically to adapt it for a modern setting. Let's face it, Carlos (a real-life character) has been off the scene for a long time now so a new antagonist was needed.
Also, a prominent Canadian government official would have been no challenge at all for a modern collection and analysis cell to track. The movie version of Marie was an excellent substitution. She needed to be an off -the-grid kind of character.

And if they have gone so far why not give it a original title too? Honestly if I make a movie adaption of a book I want to cover the spirit and story of the book. Making a totally independent version only using a minimum of the content such as the names of the heroes, appear to me like "let's make a spy movie, and to save money on the PR let's name it after a fairly well known book".

As for the films, I can only think that Ludlum will be turning in his grave at how they have destroyed and decimated the plots and characters. The only saving grace about the films is Matt Damon who's fantastic, and not bad to look at either.

They could have done that. Many Philip K Dick adaptations have different titles. It's a producer/marketing decision.
@Claire: Ludlum's corpse should be happy his work is getting attention after the Cold War. And it's not like the studio went back and had the books rewritten, which would be a tragedy. If you want to enjoy them again, they're there.

http://youtu.be/Cl9-HtQPwQw
Jack

Pretty good movie short Jack and I would be interested in seeing a full length movie. But I have to ask what; if anything does this film have to do with the Bourne Identity book/movies?
If the answer is nothing, then you probably should have created a new discussion topic if you want to highlight your film as your comment will probably get lost in this topic.

Eric, your comments about Ludlum's corpse are a bit cold as you have no idea if he would be happy or not about his work being changed by the studio. And while I don't believe the studio published the movies in book form; they did do a massive re-write of the story line.
This is why Claire, others and myself in many ways disliked the movies. They were good but they were the Bourne Identity in name only! BTW: Your end comment to Claire was a bit sarcastic.

One thing I did not particular enjoy about the books vs. the movie was the vilification of the United States Government. Where as the books seemed to be altruistic in nature, Jason Bourne had 'stolen' the Carlos the Jackal kill credits in order to flush him out, the movie makes Jason into a cold blooded assassin. The movie version, he was a soldier who had the opportunity to become better at killing and he took it. The book version his motives in 'becoming' Bourne were based on the loss of his family and the desire to cease the operations of an assassination network.

Could you imagine people sitting still for a 10-minute explanation on what a fiche is and how it wor..."
I have to agree with Lew. I watched the movies. I love them. Good clean fun.
And if I wanted to read a 10-minute explanation on what a fiche is... I'd read Anne Rice.




Not at all. I find that as long as I hadn't read the book right before the movie came out, I can keep the book and movie separate and enjoy both for what they are. If I see the movie first and I enjoy it, I'll seek out the book to read. At this point, the book only adds to the movie experience because it can give you so much more in scenes or insight to a particular character.

Roger Weston, author of The Golden Catch

I also love the movies.
However, I have to tell myself that the movie is only LOOSELY based on the books.
SPOILER ALERT!
If you read the books, Marie doesn't die, but she does in the movies.
As long as I keep them separate, I love them both.


I enjoyed the movies.


A Very Private Gentleman to the American faithful? Hmmmm. The book is poetry, the movie is boring, the character's interactions with the villagers, a cornerstone of the book, is completely ignored in the movie. But we're all entitled to our points of view.

agreed!

agreed

Amazon.com
Though not as briskly exciting as the 2002 theatrical release, this earlier TV adaptation of Robert Ludlum's bestseller has distinct advantages over its big-screen counterpart. It's far more loyal to Ludlum's serpentine plot, boasts greater latitude of geography and character development (allowing Richard Chamberlain's fine performance in the title role), and rises above TV limitations to achieve a big-budget look and feel. Suffering from amnesia and forced to piece together his past as a world-class assassin, Jason Bourne (Chamberlain) enlists the aid of a Canadian economist (Jaclyn Smith), and this pairing of '80s miniseries mainstays remains consistently intelligent, well paced, and altogether respectable. Chamberlain and Smith have adequate chemistry (albeit somewhat shallow), and their dangerous adventure--and eventual romance--is played out against a dozen European locations. Incorporating more of Ludlum's interwoven subplots, this ambitious Bourne is a globetrotter's delight, with a spy-thriller identity all its own. --Jeff Shannon
Pricey at $50 though

I completely agree with you David and you said it much better than I did in my September 5th posting.


As to leaving stuff out - you can't tell the story of a 120,000 word novel in 100 minutes. That's what adaptation is all about - taking the best bits and fashioning something that will work in a different medium.
The Doug Liman/Tony Gilroy/Matt Damon take on The Bourne Identity is a pitch-perfect action thriller, one of the best of the last decade. The books should be considered as separate entities.

I partially agree with your comments Andrew. It's rare for a movie to take a book of this size and not leave out parts of it when adapting it into a good film. I also have no problem in updating the story into present time.
However, this isn't what happens. Yes, the character name was used but the premise/bones of the story were vastly changed. It went from a drama/thriller of one man’s battle of wits, skill and courage against a terrorist to a standard action story of a highly skilled man versus the evil CIA. The supporting characters from the book are changed so much that they are not recognizable.
Of course this sort of adaption changes happens very often in Hollywood. They keep the book title as a hook to draw in the fan base but change the story to bring in the biggest crowd possible. From a bottom line money standpoint that’s fine and movies were good action films. But the story’s true integrity was lost and therefore ends being a poor adaption.

... think "To Have and Have Not."


I completely agree. It's a little confusing and perhaps even disappointing. But they're two separate creations. The movie is a top-rate action film (which is unfortunately rare). However, the book may be the best spy thriller ever written. I read it years ago, and I'm still in awe.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
PRIMAL Origin (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
The Bourne Identity (other topics)PRIMAL Origin (other topics)