Skip to main content

'Bourne' Again

Apparently, Joel Edgerton isn't a big enough name draw for The Bourne Legacy so they've casted the next face of the Mission Impossible series, Jeremy Renner. The choice seems like an oddity considering his workload for the next few years - The Avengers, Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters and the aforementioned Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol.

Renner is an Oscar nominee and a proven actor, it just doesn't seem like a great idea to cast an actor with that much on his plate (was Jmes Franco unavailable?), especially when that plate includes your main spy-film competition.

I wonder when Hollywood will realize that if you don't give little-known talents like Edgerton shots, then Jeremy Renner isn't around at all.


JL said…
I heard about this yesterday (or the other day) and didn't mind the choice. However, I forgot all about him doing the Mission Impossible thing. In that light, I think it's horrible to sign him for both with the franchises being of so similar a nature. Just doesn't allow him to become either one of those characters fully.
CastorTroy said…
Yes Renner is all good. I guess he could suffer from overexposure next year but then, it's Jeremy Renner. People are still going to love him. I understand that you wanted a guy like Joel Edgerton but it simply isn't a sound business choice to cast a guy who is basically unknown as the face of your rebooting franchise.

It's not like Renner came out of nowhere, he worked his way up through the trenches, was great in a supporting role in The Town and now is getting his spot in the limelight.
Fletch said…
I'm with you, Fitz...Joel Edgerton's time is now. It's a shame that his MMA flick looks so crappy; but then again, it's with Tom Hardy, so that will likely benefit Edgerton in the long run anyway (while leaving no heat on him if it fails).

And I disagree, Castor - if this were a new franchise, perhaps, but expectations will be lowered without Damon regardless. If ever there were a time to strike and attempt to hit it with a lesser name, this is it. Hell, Thor has an untested lead and I doubt many are worried about its prospects. And need I remind you of a little known franchise called Star Trek, which was a huge movie with an untested star.
JL said…
That's a very interesting point that I think I have to agree with. I know I'm in that camp that is already beginning to be skeptical of the movie just because Damon isn't returning. Thus, if they put a nobody in there (that doesn't succeed) it won't be a crushing blow that will have me completely dismissing that guy. It will just be a "yea, I knew it. But hey, it's Damon, those are some tough shoes to fill."

Whereas, putting a nobody in there and having him actually do good would make it something of a surprise hit. With Renner, I expect him to do good, cause he is indeed good. Just don't see him filling this type of role like Damon did.

So basically, I'm going to be disappointed because it's not Damon. Nobody they put in there will be better in a "Bourne" role in my eyes. So they only "win" in this situation is allowing someone to prove themself and they capitalize on that opportunity. Renner can't capitalize on that opportunity really, for the fact that he's already proven himself to me.
Paid Critique said…
is he really the one on the AVENGER? it seems like its not him. he looks much better on the movie.

trousers and suit.

Popular posts from this blog

The Dream Is Real

For my money there is nothing cooler than the idea of a city folding in on itself.

Ant-man Finally Casted?

It looks like Nathan Fillion might be playing a superhero afterall. After being considered for roles in Green Lantern, and Captain America,Fillion (most remembered as Malcolm Reynolds in the cult-hit Firefly) is reportedly in final negotiations to play Dr. Hank Pym in the new Avengers film. It hasn't been stated whether Pym would be Ant-man in the film, or just a S.H.I.E.L.D. scientist, but we're holding out hope.

The Avengers hits theatres in 2012.