Seriously, I cant believe youre comparing Rosa Parks to a scumbag like Assange. Rosa Parks took a stand at the risk of her liberty and even her life. She represented freedom against tyranny and fought for what she believed in.

Assange believes in nothing else but self promotion and when that landed him in deep water, self preservation at the cost of everyone who sheltered him and even paid for his freedom. Assange has never taken a stand in his life, if he had been on that bus he would not have supported Rosa Parks, he would have fled at the first sign of trouble or got coerced into the lynch mob. How many chinese dissident informants, fighting much the same fight for freedom against overwhelming odds, are now in jail or worse because Assange released the unredacted cables out of nothing but another attempt to keep himself in the limelight?

Assange should face the sexual assault charges, we in the UK have a long and lengthy tradition of separation of the judiciary and the organs of state, which includes our intelligence services. As much as it pains me to say so, Assange would receive a fair extradition hearing (whose decision he fled) and a fair trial in Sweden. Hes done the damage now, whilst I wouldnt complain if he had a sudden CIA inspired cardiac arrest, thats the realm of Bond and Bourne.

Dont confuse Assange with Wikileaks. Wikileaks was started up with a reason in mind, Assange took it over as his one man puppet show.

>> ^dannym3141:

There is such a thing as taking a stand. Sometimes, when humans are pushed beyond what they think is acceptable, they are willing to risk terrible consequences.
Rosa Parks did it with racism. How many poor 'negros' got slaughtered, beaten ...god knows what the trickle down effect would be... in the aftermath of ANY bold defiance by their brethren at the time? So then should we prefer the status quo? Should Rosa Parks also take a dum dum to the nuts because of she didn't tow the government line?
I think Assange is/was doing the world a great service, though we may not know it yet and we may never if we don't come out of this dark age. At some point, someone had to make a stand against this all-pervading government corruption. If he is a rapist, then he should be brought to justice - but how can you trust law/court justice when the law/court is effectively an involved party?>> ^thumpa28:
Assange is a self obsessed rapist (believe it or not that what they call people who have sex where the other party refuses or withdraws consent) whose lust for publicity has led to lots of death. The 1300 in Kenya by his own admission and the Taleban thanking wikileaks for helping them identify those who cooperated with the americans and what about an Iranian spy to name but a few we know about. Chinese dissidents, middle eastern journalists, people fighting for democracy in dangerous places have suffered because of this self serving turd.
How many people have suffered and died so Assange could lap up the publicity, shouting about the freedom of speech whilst gagging his own staff and of course planning to stiff the morons who looked after him whilst he was fighting extradition and especially those who posted bail. Everything out of his mouth is designed to keep Assange safe, by playing on the Great Satan angle and finding those fools idiotic enough to lap it up and throw money at the cause, especially those who posted bail for him, then left looking like right twats when he did a runner to the Ecuadorians. What a bunch of muppets.
Quite frankly, after all this nonsense the US wont bother to try and extradite him. I just hope the UK grabs him when he steps outside the one place the fucker can hide, preferably using a dum dum round to the nuts, before dragging his pathetic self off and slamming him into jail where he will face trial for being self obsessed, even during sex.
>> ^Hybrid:
You think this isn't about getting him extradited to the US via Sweden? That's one thing I and nearly everyone else in this thread do agree on. Be in no doubt, if Assange ends up on Swedish soil, he will end up on US soil soon after.>> ^Babymech:
Hybrid, don't be ridiculous. It would be illegal for Sweden to extradite him to the US. It would be political suicide for any Swedish politician or authority to be anywhere near involved an extradition to a country that practices the death penalty. Barbarians.

Hopefully this technique won't be used in the future to ruin another Bourne movie...

This looks pretty good actually, I loved all the Bournes.

>> ^spoco2:

The Bourne Indentity, first in serious. An AWESOME film, where the action scenes were nail biting, fantastically staged, and you could SEE what was happening, UNDERSTAND what was going on. Great film.
Next film, Bourne Supremacy. Had a great story, but I couldn't fricken STAND the action scenes, couldn't tell what was going on.
Compare this one from the Bourne Supremacy
with this one from the Bourne Identity
To me, the first one is confusing, a jumble of fast cuts and blurry movement. The second is nicely staged, has good beats, and lets you know what's going on.


I guess it depends on the directors intention. I like both those fight scenes. The Bourne Identity lets me sit back and admire the craft of a well staged dance, but the second one feels more urgent, more real.

I haven't been in a real fight for a long time, but "a jumble of fast cuts and blurry movement" is a pretty accurate description of your perception in that kind of situation. You don't know what's going on, it's not staged and there are no good beats.

Supremacy and Ultimatum were both directed by Paul Greengrass, who has always followed a more documentary style approach to film making. Doug Liman, I guess has a more theatrical approach.
I feel there's room for both styles.

Look, Casino Royale showed up twenty years of Bond films to be the mindless derivative drivel that they were.

The film reintroduced the darkness that was at the heart of Bond that hasn't been seen, arguably, since the death of Bond's just-married wife at the end of the highly underrated "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" (which coincidentally had the best soundtrack of all Bond films). That was in 1969.

Some would contend that Timothy Dalton captured the true essence of Bond's dark moodiness in his too-short stint as Bond in The Living Daylights and Licence to Kill - but he had the advantage of actually being able to act, a skill no one could accuse Pierce Brosnan of bringing to the franchise.

I believe that the Bourne films effectively modernised Bond and the franchise was forced to follow, after years of meandering aimlessly with Brosnan whose films retained a misplaced focus on gadgets and 'witty' lines. There is a place for these, but they superseded plot, character and genuine style. Product placement became too much of a cash cow as well (although I hear an agreement has been made to replace Bond's signature martini with Heineken in Skyfall).

Casino Royale returned Bond to his rightful place. Bourne is great, but he's no Bond. Compared to CR, Quantum of Solace was indeed inferior. But Yogi is right - it was way better than every Brosnan Bond film, which were total disappointments to genuine fans.

So there.

@Yogi If I have you to blame then...'DAAAAMN YOU!'.

I don't mind a little bit of moving camera, Private Ryan got it pretty good, there was the motion of the camera as if it were IN the scene, but not so much that you couldn't place all the people and what was happening.

My prime example of this?

The Bourne Indentity, first in serious. An AWESOME film, where the action scenes were nail biting, fantastically staged, and you could SEE what was happening, UNDERSTAND what was going on. Great film.

Next film, Bourne Supremacy. Had a great story, but I couldn't fricken STAND the action scenes, couldn't tell what was going on.

Compare this one from the Bourne Supremacy
with this one from the Bourne Identity

To me, the first one is confusing, a jumble of fast cuts and blurry movement. The second is nicely staged, has good beats, and lets you know what's going on.

I have to say that just watching them again then after not watching either movie for some time, the first one didn't annoy me as much as it did at the time, which is probably due to 2 things:
1) I'm getting used to the god forsaken effect.
&
2) It's not as painful on a small screen. Blow it up so it fills your vision and it's unbearable (which may be some of the problem, as looking at the shots on monitors means they don't get the full effect).


Also, people say that the opening car chase in QOS was awesome here it is, I contend it isn't. This isn't so much to do with shaky cam as it is with insanely quick cutting, never allowing the staging of the scene to be felt, just making it feel like it was edited by a hyperactive 2 year old.

Great! Now i have to watch the Bourne Triology again...


...not that that's a bad thing, mind you.

*future : The Future
by jwray

The undiscovered country from whose bourn no traveler returns.


This is a substandard lazy ass channel description. I vote myself in for the channel owner. If that joker will give me the channel can I have two ??

I honestly do not understand why people have channels and then just fuck off and not care.

@JiggaJonson: What's funny is that that is the least-shakycam fight scene in the least-shakycam Bourne movie. That one's actually quite steady and easy to follow. It just dumps around a lot. Grab one of the fight scenes from the Bourne Supremacy. That's where it went freaking nuts.

>> ^rychan:

Oof, Matt Damon is a tough act to follow.


True, but if there's one guy who has proven he can play edgy characters, it's Jeremy Renner. In fact, considering the lazy "by the way we also have a Bourne Jr guy" intro (yes it's consistent with the Bourniverse, but it's still a lazy intro) and cliché lines, he's the only thing that got me interested here. That and the possibility to have Paul-GreenSHAKESHAKESHAKESHAKEgrass-less Bourne movie.

Re: Pounding Bwaaah Sound In Trailer. You say Inception, I raise you an Alien (1979).

Writer : Ok, I finished the last revisions on the 4th Bourne movie. Took 8 months, but I think it came out great.

Producer : Damon won't sign on. Take Bourne out. Get me a draft next Tuesday.

Writer : ...

what do you get when wolverine, macgyver, and jason bourne have a 3 way? that guy!

No bourne? No thanks.

>> ^rychan:

>> ^Deano:
"There was never just one" - lol, that's a lazy way to justify a new Bourne film. Maybe they can keep doing Bourne films in this way as the demand is there but Damon did manage to smuggle some acting into the originals and I wonder if they can create a character as well as more action.

I'm confused. Doesn't every single movie make it abundantly clear that there are lots of these agents? He spends a great deal of each movie fighting against the others who went through the same program as he did.


Yes but it's just that they've taken that banally obvious fact and present it as the initial jumping off point for the new film. It just made me laugh at how lazy that was.

Okay, this is weird. I thought Jeremy Renner was being pitched as the successor to Ethan Hunt's character in the last Mission Impossible. And now he is also the new Jason Bourne?
Will he also become the next James Bond?

Also, nice take on the Inception *Bwaaaaahh* sound in the trailer music.