Talk:The Bourne Ultimatum (film)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

DVD Release

Amazon is listing the DVD release as 12/11/07. Is this reliable?--Marcbjr2 16:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It's been confirmed to release in the US on 12/11/07.

"Officer" vs. "Agent"

OK, let's try to settle this here before it spirals into a revert war. On one side we have one user who is "pretty sure" that CIA field employees are called agents, not officers, and another user claims that "agent" is the more commonly accepted term. On the other hand, we have a book called "Class 11" by former CIA officer T.J. Waters, in which the difference between "agents" and "officers" is spelled out early on in the book. He makes it clear that the CIA employs officers, not agents. Now, is there any reason why we should go with someone's gut feelings and use the incorrect term? — EagleOne\Talk 14:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BournePoster.jpg

Image:BournePoster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 09:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Resolved: Removed {{di-disputed fair use rationale|concern=invalid rationale per [[WP:NFCC#10c]]|date=October 27 2007}} after adding article link. – Conrad T. Pino 19:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

When Ultimatum begins

It is clear that this film begins in Moscow as Bourne is evading the police. However, I'm not sure it starts right after the car chase. The car chase took place in the afternoon. By the time Bourne was done talking to Neski's daughter, it was getting late and dark. So either it was a continuity error of time on their part, or Bourne's trail was picked up by the Moscow police after he visited Neski's daughter. It doesn't say that the latter happened, but we don't know that it was the former.
Maybe something in the DVD will shed light on this. Cliff smith 16:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The third film starts after Bourne talks to Neski's daughter. In the second film, it ends with him talking to Landy but the third film shows that scene was a future occurance. So the third one does start while he was still in Russia, running from the police. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.45.66.201 (talk) 17:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue here isn't whether it is in Russia around when he talked to the Neski daughter, it is more whether it happened right after or before talking to the Neski daughter.24.12.214.172 (talk) 22:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
The DVD commentary and supplementary features confirm that the film starts directly after Bourne is seen limping away into the distance after apologizing to Neski's daughter. — Cinemaniac (talk) 15:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Final Scene with Bourne in Water...

As it turns out, the DVD audio commentary by Director Paul Greengrass confirms that the final scene (with Bourne floating in the water) is a deliberate allusion to the opening scene of The Bourne Identity. I edited something along these lines into the plot section a long time ago; but, unfortunately, I don't know how exactly to cite a DVD commentary yet. Can anybody help me out there? — Cinemaniac (talk) 15:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOR#Sources says that videos are primary sources and so I suppose if we cite the DVD interview, then there will be no problem and you won't have to look for an online source. asyndeton talk 18:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
The DVD commentary is proving helpful for other facets as well, confirming things that had previously been discussed but have, for a variety reasons, not been included:
  • The opening chase sequence of The Bourne Ultimatum is a continuation of the Russian police attempts to capture Bourne in Moscow near the end of The Bourne Supremacy and takes place prior to Bourne's apology to Neski's daughter in the previous film. (If I remember correctly, Greengrass says it picks up directly after Bourne apologizes to the girl and limps off into the distance.)
  • During the car chase with Paz, Bourne gets t-boned similarly to what he does to Kirill in the climax of The Bourne Supremacy. The sequence also includes similar staging, as Bourne walking up to Paz with gun in hand but deciding not to shoot echoes the aformentioned scene from Supremacy. (Greengrass confirmed this by saying that both scenes showed Bourne "walking towards the light".)
  • A scene during the second half of Ultimatum has Bourne talking to Landy while spying on her from another building. This is almost an exact duplication of the final scene of The Bourne Supremacy. (Paul Greengrass stated that the first question that came in his mind after re-watching the Supremacy ending was: "'Why did Bourne go all the way to New York just to phone her?' And here, you get your answer. He was sending her a message, and she was, too." He also expressed concern whether or not audiences would except the ending of Supremacy being "re-enacted in a different way", but concedes by saying he thinked it worked out nicely.
  • In the rooftop climax, Bourne tells Paz, "Look at us. Look at what they make you give," reiterating the dying words of The Professor (Clive Owen) in The Bourne Identity. (Greengrass: "And of course Bourne's choice of words harkens back to The Professor's dying words in Identity. Except this time, the roles have been reversed.")
However, I can find no source to back up the claim that Nicky and Bourne had a romantic relationship prior to his amnesia. Greengrass helps shed no light on this except for this statement: "I wanted it to be obvious, by Nicky's words, that they had had a past together. And that that past was ambiguous but meaningful". Yes, they had a past "relationship" of some sort, but as far as "romantically" is concerned, no, we can't say that for certain.
Make all of that what you will. — Cinemaniac (talk) 03:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
This is fairly interesting and, above all else, important to the plot and its effect. Since this is all sourced on the DVD, I think a section such as 'Parallels with the preceding films' - or something better sounding - should be created. I think it would help the articles to discuss these effects.
Also, is there any mention of the scenes with Nicky being parallels of the scenes with Marie in Identity, for example the hair cutting, stopping in the café etc? asyndeton talk 18:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't recall Greengrass really mentioning any directly-obvious parallels between the Bourne/Nicky scenes and the Bourne/Marie scenes. In the hair-dyeing-and-cutting scene, he did admit that he had always thought Nicky was "an open window of opportunities" whose character had never truly been developed in the previous two installments. "That ambiguous past is left hanging there," Greengrass said of the Ultimatum cafe scene. "Explored and yet unexplored. But it provides the driving force to compel the two to go to Tangiers." He also claims that, during the explosive rooftop chase sequence, Bourne was desperately trying to redeem himself by arriving to help Nicky in time and save her from a similar fate as Marie.
Speaking of parallels, Greengrass also points out that he took inspiration from several other action films of previous years (which is something you might suspect anyway, given the influence of films like Die Hard and James Bond). For example, the director confesses that, during the scene where Bourne (having stolen the notes from the dead Ross's pockets) is frantically attempting to catch a glimpse of his nemesis (Paz), he was "winking" at one of his favorite films, The French Connection. It's all pretty interesting, I must admit. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 22:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmm... Shame about the Nicky/Marie thing. Maybe there's something on the web that we could cite. Probably also worth mentioning 'The French Connection' somewhere. asyndeton talk 22:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
While listening to the audio commentary, Greengrass pointed out something, during the scene involving Bourne and Martin, that I had suspected when I first watched that scene: "In a way, this is quite a similar scene to the final scene in The Bourne Supremacy, when Bourne meets the young girl Irina." Another parallel within the trilogy confirmed!
In addition, in a scene that occurs about 58 minutes into the film (where Desh detonates his own motorcycle in an attempt to exterminate both Daniels and Bourne), the director states: "That [scene] enables me to have a lot of fun winking back at another great film, Battle of Algiers, the famous cafe scene." Incidentally, he later states that the director of Battle of Algiers passed away during the shooting of that sequence, so the film crew held a moment of silence in his honour. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 23:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Sewell and Marbury

I don't know how relevant this is, or if its relevant or not, but at the beginning of the movie, Bourne looks up Sewell and Marbury on Goolgle. After seeing this, someone made a website, http://www.sewellmarbury.com/ . If this is significant, we could add it to the article. 68.184.125.225 (talk) 04:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

On first glance, it seems like nothing more than just another fansite and they are not normally included in an article's 'Links' section. asyndeton talk 01:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sequel

Matt Damon said he plans to do another Bourne movie, but he says the script will have to be perfect in order to do another one. Paul Greengrass will be directing again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.68.210 (talk) 17:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


Damon wasn't bad in these three flicks, but he is very short, and the direction almost induces vertigo with all the cutting back and forth. Also, the fight scenes are intrinsically preposterous and cartoonish. But Damon does a good job with the material at hand. Ludlum, after all, was never accused of having plots which would survive realistic scrutiny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.153.24 (talk) 04:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Release subsections

The first three subsections are only 1 to 2 sentences each, so I don't think that they warrant such division. Cliff smith (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Goofs

In line with the discussion at the Supremacy page, I felt that the goofs section here should be discussed as well.

First of all, while filming may well have taken place in Goa, is that where the storyline takes place? Also, I think the second plot hole is very weak. No self-respecting film-maker would change the name of an already presented character. There is nothing to suggest that Eammon and Martin are one and the same; for example, the guy in the Ultimatum doesn't appear to have kids, whereas Identity guy had two. Therefore I suggest removing it until someone finds a source saying that these two people are meant to be the same character. asyndeton talk 18:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I just realized that also the setting and house are different in Identity than the one presented in Ultimatum. I can recall Greengrass saying something about this scene in the audio commentary, so I'll check that sequence in Ultimatum again when I have the time. — Cinemaniac (talk) 22:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, since I can see absolutely no link between the two people, I am going to remove it until someone knows for certain that the two are the same person. asyndeton talk 22:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I noticed a goof - in Supremacy version of Bourne talking to Landy, her cell phone rings, while in the Ultimatum version it vibrates - I have to re-watch that scene to confirm... Also the movie clearly starts after the car chase and before he goes to see the Nesky girl. He isn't bloody when he goes to see the Nesky girl. Blacknail (talk) 06:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and listened to the audio commentary for the DVD release of Ultimatum. A little over seven minutes into the picture, Greengrass tells about the meeting between Bourne and Martin. These are his exact words:

"And now we meet another character: Martin, Marie's brother. We learned of his existence, actually, in The Bourne Identity. And I always assumed that, if Bourne didn't know him, Martin knew of Bourne, and that, maybe, Marie (his sister) had been in contact with him at some point. And it gives a platform for some emotionality for Bourne -- we can reclaim memory of Marie, and also understand the character of Bourne is made by his circumstances."

Also, Greengrass pointed out something that I had suspected when I first watched this scene: "In a way, this is quite a similar scene to the final scene in The Bourne Supremacy, when Bourne meets the young girl Irina." Another parallel within the trilogy confirmed! — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 23:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhpas the information you've provided here and in the section about the final scene should go in a section titled production? asyndeton talk 10:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Blacknail, you are correct: Landy's phone rings in Supremacy, while in Ultimatum it simply vibrates. Not sure if it's exactly notable, though.
I am planning to include the information we've all discovered in a section entitled "Continuity References", as well as "Production" and "Other Film References". Unfortunately, I have an important exam planned for the coming week, so I may not be able to get around to it. If I don't put those sections up by Sunday, please don't hesitate to do that yourselves. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 17:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Done! See here. If anyone can, however, improve that section, don't hesitate to do so. :) — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 21:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Good job! I think it looks good and doesn't waffle. The only two concerns I have are that prose is, for this kind of section, almost always preferable to bullet points and also mentioning that Greengrass himself has said all this would help prevent other editors from removing it as original research, both of which are easily fixed. Aside from that, well done! asyndeton talk 00:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It's never explained why Daniels started talking to the reporter; why would he suddenly decide to reveal everything about Blackbriar? Also, once he'd decided to talk to the reporter, why did he not have a decent plan for escaping from the expected retribution? Instead, he travelled on his own passport, waited until the last moment to wire himself money (again using his real name), and stayed in a hotel in Tangier under his own name? For a CIA station chief he apparently was a moron. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.130.42.191 (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

More for this Goof section. Actually a major one I think. At 1h10m30s in to the film, Pam Landy is looking through Bourne's file and it notes that his blood group is A+. At the end of the film where Bourne is havng flashbacks of his entering the SDR (?) and he drops his dogtag on the table, his dogtag gives his blood group as O-.

nominations

At the BAFTAs 2008 the movie (or people working on the movie) was nominated for Cinematography, Best British Film, Director, Editing, Sound and Special Visual Effects. -- JanCK (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It's won the Oscars for Best Sound Editing, Sound Mixing, and Film Editing. Cheers! Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 04:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

bourne 4

i reckon a great name for the next movie wolud be re-bourne —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.168.109.223 (talk) 03:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

That would be an interesting title, although I think they'd probably title the next film (if there is one) The Bourne Legacy, in keeping in track with the titles of the book series. Some of the plot of The Bourne Legacy, however, has already been used in The Bourne Supremacy (film), so I'm not exactly sure what the scriptwriters are going to do.
Another major concern that I have is: "Why would they make another Bourne film?" Each film of the series became much more successful (both commercially and critically) than the one that proceeded it, and Ultimatum has been lauded as one of the best films ever! If you've already reached the top, is there anywhere else to go but down? — Cinemaniac (talk) 20:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk pages are not forums. This kind of discussion does not belong here. asyndeton talk 16:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for putting the WP:NOT here. I was originally going to do that myself, but I didn't want the IP to feel like I was just slamming the door in his face. Oh, well, at least I answered his question. . .
Also, I haven't been able to find a reliable source about the development of an alleged Bourne 4. Does anybody else know of one, or is it all just speculative rumors? If there isn't, we should stop adding this sort of thing to the article. — Cinemaniac (talk) 16:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Matt Damon has reportedly said that he is not interested in returning for a 4th Bourne film. He said: "We have ridden that horse as far as we can." (Source: http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117965761.html?categoryid=13&cs=1&query=bourne) Yeldarb68 (talk) 13:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Good work on finding a source that refutes this. That's what I thought, myself. :) — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 19:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, according to the most recent, verified additions to the sequel section, a fourth Bourne film is indeed in the works. I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 03:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

British Film

The film has a Britsh director, had a largely British cast/crew and most of it was filmed in London. It was also nominated for the BAFTA for "Best British Film". So surely describing it as a US film is inaccurate?

From: http://static.bafta.org/files/entered-films-2007-58.pdf, it is a British film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trixxy (talk • contribs) 16:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Headlines

Here is some articles to improve this article.--J.D. (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

"References within the series" is incorrect

The end of The Bourne Supremacy when Bourne is talking to Landy while spying on her from another building, is where the second half of The Bourne Ultimatum picks up (the two movies overlap). However, for an unexplained reason, at the beginning of this scene at the end of The Bourne Supremacy, Pamela Landy's phone rings when Bourne calls, but in the Ultimatum version, her phone vibrates. Another issue is seen as her coworker enters the room mid-conversation in Ultimatum where she had no reaction to anyone entering in Supremacy. Also, it's winter in Ultimatum with snow all over the sidewalks, yet it's warm and sunny in Supremacy.

this whole paragraph is factually incorrect. the two movies don't overlap. they are chronologically side by side. however the phone call mentioned are two similar phone calls, not the same one. in The Bourne Supremacy, there is nikki (and a whole lot of other agents)are present with landy in a sort of workin office area and in the ultimatum, landy is alone in her personal office. i don't know who wrote this but they need to see the movies again. ~april 1st 2008 (no this is not an april fool joke, the post is serious)

Then why would Paul Greengrass, the director of the two most recent Bourne films, say that both of the scenes are the same, just "done in a different way"? (I've seen all the films, by the way, and have them on DVD. The main source for that whole section is the audio commentary, truth be told.) In fact, Greengrass admits that the basic reason he helped make Ultimatum was because of that final phone call sequence in Supremacy. "Why did Bourne go all the way to New York just to phone her, when I was only a couple hundred yards away?" he asked. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 22:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


apparantly i am mistaken then. saw the dvd. i only remenbered him walking away from neski's daughters house. seems it is correct. aplogies of any trouble caused. so should i delete this section now? i don't know how this works.~april 1st 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.190.200 (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, no! You don't need to delete this section! It was generated by a question you had concerning a section of the article. Besides, a lot of other people probably will ask the same question (in fact, I think they have, in the past) as you, so it serves to answer their question before they create another such section. I say it should stay. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 00:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Blu Ray

With blu ray winning the hd format war, will this movie ever be rerelased on blu ray. I know a lot of other movies have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.37.146 (talk) 01:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

S.O.U.R.C.E. --Soetermans (talk) 00:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

More (subtle) trilogy connections

81.105.52.142 (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

whoops, try again

Death By Stationary 

- in B.I. he fights a guy and uses a ball point pen
- in B.S. it's a rolled up magazine
- in B.U. ... a hardback novel

probably too much like "trivia" than an actual reference or connection, but kinda fun all the same

(ricster/cyclomedia) 81.105.52.142 (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it is too much like trivia. There is some commentary in the Supremacy about the scene where Bourne kills Jarda and they say that it is just a fighting technique where everyday objects become weapons. asyndeton talk 21:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, we'd need a source anyway, since some fans would try adding more and more of what they believe are allusions when they haven't been really confirmed as such. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 04:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that there were a lot of allusions to the other films of the trilogy, and I doubt that there can be sources confirming every single one. The one with Nicky in the bathroom with her hair dyed black, staring at Bourne seems like a pretty obvious allusion to Marie and Bourne in the first film, after dying her hair. But I doubt that they are going confirm all that. --71.224.87.117 (talk) 02:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Bourne 4

I added in the info box that Bourne 4 will be following The Bourne Ultimatum. Yes, it's been confirmed. --RisingSunWiki 22:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Arguable as to the reliability of the source. Looks very bloggish. Tool2Die4 (talk) 01:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Here's a more reliable source. Go to Movies.aol.com and click on picture 31 (Matt Damon) under Movie Casting News. It says he has signed on to Bourne 4. --RisingSunWiki 02:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Reassement request for B class

Thehelpfulone requested the article be reassessed as B class. I think it is very close and just needs the plot to be shortened. It needs to be reduced to a maximum word count of 900 (I clocked it at more than 1,000). Take out anything that may be excessive in detail or isn't really relevant to the main plot of the film. Once it has been reduced you can let me know and I'll change it or you can reasses it yourself. By the way, if you're interested in advancing to GA please let me know and I'll give you a more comprehensive list on what should be fixed to help you reach that level. Good work so far and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done. The Helpful One (Review) 14:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Good work, I have reassessed it at B class. Here are some suggestions on what work needs to be done before nominating at GAN:
  • Visit WP:MOSFILM and ensure that the article complies with all of the guidelines.
  • In the intro add Bourne (film series) to the wikilink for Bourne Trilogy. -  Done --The Helpful One (Review) 18:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • In the intro, "..., making it the highest August opening". Is this in the U.S. or worldwide? -  Done - In the U.S. --The Helpful One (Review) 20:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Update this sentence: "By the end of August 2007, the film was said to be on track to exceed the international box office gross of the first two films of the trilogy, The Bourne Identity and The Bourne Supremacy." -  Done - Removed. I think that this is covered in the Reception section. --The Helpful One (Review) 20:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Image:BournePoster.jpg needs the copyright holder to be included on the image's page (look to other GAs/FAs for examples) -  Done. --The Helpful One (Review) 20:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • "The movie begins immediately after Bourne apologizes to Neski's daughter." You probably want to expand on this, stating that it is from the prior film, and who Neski is (but do it briefly). -  Done --The Helpful One (Review) 18:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The largest obstacle in your way of advancing to GA is the Production section. It should cover more on the script, development, filming (consider mentioning the difficulties and techniques used in filming at the numerous countries), visual effects (if any), etc. Try to get as much information as possible from a variety of reliable sources. Look at current GAs/FAs for more ideas. Also, convert the current list to prose and consider eliminating some of the occurrences to include only the most notable ones (especially ones that may be mentioned in third party sources such as reviews).
  • Try to embellish the soundtrack section, perhaps mentioning sales charts records, critical reception, etc. Since it is a score, rename the section to "Music" or "Score".
  • Again, try to convert the list in the release section to prose, it will read better that way. Now that HD DVD is becoming a thing of the past, mention if there is anything available on Blu Ray.
  • Update this "As of March 2, 2008, the film has a 93% fresh rating (195 out of 210 positive reviews) at Rotten Tomatoes" -  Done. New figures. --The Helpful One (Review) 20:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • "At the end of its theatrical release, the film grossed $227,471,070." "the film grossed $227,471,070 domestically (or in the U.S.)" -  Done, Changed. The Helpful One (Review) 18:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Mention more reviews (I usually do three positive and three negative to give a good balance).
  • If the film won more awards at other award shows, film festivals, etc. then expand the Academy Awards section to become "Awards" and touch on each of these.

Again, good work so far, most of these should be easy to fix, while others may take a few days. Let me know on my talk page once you have addressed these (or if you have any questions on them) and I'll copyedit the article for you before you nominate. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sequel

I've seen some interviews that said that Bourne 4 would be based (loosely) on an unfinished Ludlum Bourne 4 book that Lustbader did not use for his Bourne 4 book. Any information? 70.55.89.214 (talk) 08:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

References to Bourne Supremacy

The scene with Landy telling Bourne his true identity is obviously from Supremacy. It's stupid to say it's almost identical. It's the same! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.76.103.97 (talk) 01:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

They are not the same scene, which you can easily tell if you watch both of them. Also, in future, please start new threads at the bottom of the page and sign your comments by typing ~~~~ after them. asyndeton talk 01:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Do forgive me, I tend to forget to sign my comments from time to time (I don't see why it's so necesary to sign).--Surten (talk) 04:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Surten
The scene was filmed again for Ultimatum, but it's supposed to be the same thing. Cliff smith (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
It is the same scene, just "done in a different way", according to Paul Greengrass. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 21:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
However, there are a few differences between the two scenes. For example, Landy's phone in Ultimatum vibrates, while in Supremacy it rings. Also, there's no sound of a door opening in Supremacy. Still, it's the same scene, just done in context. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 21:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


Just to make sure there is no confusion, The scene where Bourne talk to Pam Landy while she's in her office and bourne is watching her from another Building(the scene with ending line you should have some rest Ma'am, you look tired) is in Bourne Supremacy and Bourne Ultimatum, which conduct to an anachronism. The same scene happen twice at différent time. I let you guys take the decision to modify article to explain the mistake (even if this mistake is intentionnal). All right, i posted that in goof section but realised the problem is adress in this section. If it's not the same scene, it's all right then. Those two might have done this again only to add to their coded talk of his birthdates (CIA training facilities location). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.252.103 (talk) 19:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Plot summary

Per WP:FILMPLOT, film plot summary sections should generally be between 400-700 words. While attempting to bring this article's summary into compliance I have been reverted twice. I am seeking consensus as to whether the current version is preferable to the reduced-length version I had established. DonIago (talk) 16:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

FILMPLOT should be followed strictly, in my opinion. The plot section cannot be larger than 700 words. Binksternet (talk) 16:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Let's rehash the rules please. The Bourne Ultimatum is an extraordinary film and deserves proper attention. Quote from guideline: "The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as Pulp Fiction's non-linear storyline, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range. (Discuss with other editors to determine if a summary cannot be contained within the proper range.) Complicated plots may occasionally require clarifications from secondary sources, so cite these sources in the section." The storyline is definitely "non-linear" and "the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range". Please make a more reasonable suggestion. Poeticbent talk 16:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
The film is not even two hours long (115 minutes) so how "extraordinary" can it be? Pulp Fiction is 154 minutes, or 168 minutes for the special edition. Binksternet (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Doniago's version here was 754 words. It was a step in the right direction but still too large. The next version by Poeticbent was 861 words; far too large. Binksternet (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your input Binks. I'd be most curious to hear more regarding how this film qualifies as "extraordinary". DonIago (talk) 17:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I almost get the feeling that you don't particularly care for this. However: "The Bourne Ultimatum won all three of its nominations for Academy Awards, winning the Best Film Editing, the Best Sound Mixing and the Best Sound Editing at the 80th Academy Awards..." That's how it qualifies as "extraordinary". Poeticbent talk 17:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I support Doniago's revision; 750 words is still a tad overlong but it will do. It's pretty much a standard spy thriller in every conceivable way and can easily be covered by the normal plot length. I don't recall it having a non-linear narrative either: it is an "interquel" to the second film, but it's not like it has multiple narratives running through it the way Pulp Fiction did. There is also no need to have sources in the plot—if the events portrayed onscreen are ambiguous that needs to be clear in the summary, and if they are not they do not need to be sourced separately. The images look purely decorative too, in that I don't see how they service the plot. Betty Logan (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I also support the edited plot summary by Doniago. "Extraordinary" is a purely subjective term, and while I too am a big fan of this film, I see no reason why it should be an exemption to WP:FILMPLOT. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I seem to be in the minority here, kind of surprising considering the film's popularity, but please do not introduce factual errors in the process. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 17:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Poetic. I've restored my version based on this discussion. Other editors are of course welcome to correct any factual errors I may have inadvertently included. It may also be worth considering further trims and/or removing the images per Betty's comment above, but I think I'm done with it for the time-being. DonIago (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Bourne Ultimatum (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:19, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Bourne Ultimatum (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Bourne Ultimatum (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:52, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Bourne_Ultimatum_(film)/Archive_2&oldid=1091484041"