Talk:The Bourne Supremacy (film)/Archive 1

POV?
I was reading through the summation (well, it goes beyond summation, but nevertheless) of the story and when I reached the part about the death of Marie, I felt like I was reading something that belonged on a fansite due to the rampant speculation as to whether the character actually died or not. If the possibility actually exists that the character didn't die (i.e. someone involved with the film explicitly stated it or otherwise) then I can see cause for a separate section but what is there just kind of clouds up the article and slows down the pace of reading, making one take the time out to realistically question something involving a work of fiction that presumably doesn't need that sort of speculation added to it (example: if the character is deposited into (and sinks) the water after an attempt at revival, what logical explanation is there that she could be revived? Are we to assume that she will be brought back as a zombie? I highly doubt it). 75.2.40.114 01:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * All of your points are completely valid. Furthermore, I don't agree that original assessment that the back pane remained unbroken.  You can clearly hear the glass breaking as the bullet passes through.  I have removed the paragraph. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 07:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Protesters
Any chance that someone who reads German could insert an entry under a new "Trivia" section about what the protesters (towards the middle of the film) were saying on their signs? I was intrigued and have spent some time scouring the internet for this information with no success. --Domenic Denicola 05:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I belive the DVD commentary makes note of it. I think it was related to university students somehow, maybe tuition fees or something?  I'll rewatch that segment when I get a chance and report back. PS2pcGAMER


 * On the DVD commentary, director Greengrass says that is is a protest against tuition fees. A bit earlier in the film, Bourne sits in a Berlin taxi and sees yellow posters announcing the protest at Alexanderplatz and that is why he chose to meet Nicky there, knowing it would be filled with people. The camera doesn't spend a lot of time on the protest signs but I can read "Friedhof bildung" (Cemetary of education) and "Bildung ist keine ware" (Education is not a commercial good). Most prominent though are the red and white logos from a leftwing organization, Attac. Thuresson 13:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure, but isn't the Treadstone operative that Bourne kills in this movie supposed to be the same operative who kills Conklin at the end of the last movie?JBPostma 22:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Inaccuracies
Was Neski really called "People's Comissar" in the film? This Soviet term has not been used since 1946. -- Ghirla -трёп-  20:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Fan Reaction
The fan reaction section states the film was not well received by fans, however rottentomatoes at least rated the film quite highly (82%) and fans rated it at 90%. This does not sound like poorly recieved to me.

Looks like it was just someone projecting their opinion.

The views are still mixed though, and shouldn't the camera work be noteworthy of the majority of the complaints given by the IMDB users?


 * Could we see some sources saying fans reacted poorly, at IMDB it has a 7.4 at 31000 votes, very similar to Identity at 7.4 and 41000. Highlandlord 18:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Paraphrasing three reviews in chronological order starting from the most-recent one


 * "1 out of 1 people found the following comment useful :-

Stop with the shaking camera, please!!!, 1 August 2006 7/10 Author: Cole Trickle from Los Angeles

I would have given this movie an 8 or perhaps a 9. I liked the story. I liked the subject matter. Guns, spies, car chases, etc. That stuff's right up my alley. Matt Damon and the cast are very capable.

'''However, the persistent shaking of the camera is just flat out annoying. It shakes so bad that you have to strain to see what's on the screen. You have to crane your neck left and right to focus on what's happening. It felt like watching a ballgame during a key moment only to have the dummy in front of you stand up and obstruct your view. Please, if a third installment is in store, please scrap this camera technique. I'm sure many will thank you for it.'''

1 out of 1 people found the following comment useful :- Camera work ruined a perfectly good movie, 5 July 2006 1/10 Author: harvster3 from Tucson, Az

'''I never saw this movie before, but nothing else was on so my wife and I decided to sit down and watch it on HBO. I first started adjusting the color on my TV because everybody seemed green, then I changed the channel and it was OK on other channels. But after a 1/2 hour, both my wife and I started complaining of headaches, then after an hour we had to change channels because of the severe pain. Both of us didn't even care about the ending after this. I thought we were going crazy until I read the bad reviews here and found out we were not the only ones suffering from this. With all the money available for filming this movie, why in the heck would a director be allowed to use a cheap cam-corder! This director should never be allowed to film again! This movie would have been great with any director, because the story is good and they had great actors. '''

1 out of 1 people found the following comment useful :- Disappointment, 5 June 2006 6/10 Author: lfjeff63 from United States

Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) is a super secret agent who has amnesia. He's living in India with his girlfriend while a crime is committed in Berlin and Bourne becomes a suspect. The bad guys need to kill Bourne and end up killing his girlfriend instead, so now Bourne is out for revenge.

'''I usually like films like this -- lots of intrigue on moles and secret identities. I'm not quite sure what this film lacked, but it lacked something. The editing, especially during the car chase scene in Moscow, began to give me a headache. Can't directors do long takes any more? The car chase really killed it for me.'''

I was disappointed by this, especially since I enjoyed Bourne Identity so much. I was hoping for a repeat performance of that, but my expectations were not met.


 * I was thinking something more like in a newspaper rather than posts from IMDB. Also, despite this it has the same rating on IMBD as the previous film. Highlandlord 21:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Found a couple reviews:

Movie Reviews: http://movie-reviews.colossus.net/movies/b/bourne2.html,

Hollywood Reporter: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/reviews/review_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000580119

Anyone has any idea what gloves Kirill is wearing in the Berlin part of the movie when he plants the explosives and the fake fingerprints? :)

Spoilers
Shouldn't there be a "spoilers warning" in the characters description, for example when it is said that the character played by Franka Potente is killed? 70.52.6.2 05:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Synopsis and "Jason Bourne" section
I felt that the plot section needed tightening up because it missed out some important bits (eg. Kirill taking the Neski files) but included trivial bits (eg. Bourne buys a bottle of water).

I also feel that the "Jason Bourne" section, interesting though it is, should be removed because it is almost all speculation and not suitable for an encyclopedia article. However, I have not amended it at this time.Jezzerk 23:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree entirely - the whole bit about Landy calling the Russians is purely speculative about a character's motives, and at points actually reads like an argument. Totally unsuitable for an encyclopedic article.  The note about Landy possibly telling Bourne about his true identity is also entirely speculative.   I shall remove both bits immediately.  --Tailkinker 17:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Opening (again)
The opening line of this article is: "The Bourne Supremacy is a 2004 film based on the Robert Ludlum novel of the same name." But the film shares nothing with the book except the name and the names of the major characters ... the only thing that even comes close is that the film is a sequel to a film that is based on a book that precedes the novel "The Bourne Supremacy". (That was a mouthful).

I'm not even sure that I agree that the film is "loosely" based on the book. I think this should be noted, somehow.Maxvip 15:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 19:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Plot Holes Section
Alright, I think that this is just a bunch of info that people came up with from watching the movies, not to mention it seems like fancruft and is unsourced. So I think that if we are going to keep the section, it'll need some serious work. ~ Bella   Swan  01:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for answering, Bella Swan. I just placed the usual "unreferenced" template at the top of that section.  I'll see if I can find references for these "goofs" (which, coincidentally, might not be a bad heading for this section), and I'll contact that IP user and see what he can do to help.  —  Cinemaniac (talk) 02:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether or not it is referenced, I still feel that the section is trivia and if you look at WP:TRIVIA, you will see that the very first line says 'Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous facts.' We should bare this in mind before we allow it to stay. asyndeton   talk  11:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think that Asyndeton is right, and if you look at another good article of a movie, such as Transformers, you don't see anything near a 'plot hole' or 'goofs' section. I really don't think that there was an article the IP got the info from, they probably just made it up. I don't oppose to asking them, but if they don't reply, or have no argument then the section should be deleted. ~ Bella   Swan  21:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In any case, I've contacted the IP editor. I hope he'll respond soon.  —  Cinemaniac (talk) 04:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure what I can say to convince someone that what they think is "trivia" is not. i've re-edited the section to x-ref to the Wiki articles on Plot Holes and Deus Ex Machina, and to make a little more clear why the first plot hole is exactly that.  It is true that the section is "based" only on watching the movie; the same thing is true of the "plot" section -- the difference is that one is positive and supportive, the other is critical.  If the goal of the Wiki article on the film is simply to describe the plot, actors, etc., and to avoid anything critical, then I suppose the plot holes section should be removed, but (and I'm trying not to be sarcastic, but serious) perhaps the Wiki articles on films should be labelled as "promotional" or the equivalent if that's the case.  But I've seen much longer and more detailed similarly sections in other film articles (e.g., the Lord of the Rings movies, in which lengthy comparisons between the film and the books are included).  I would think that the plot holes section would appeal to any reader who cares for the Bourne books, the Bourne movies or film in general; they are written succinctly and summarize facts about the plot in the same way that the more anodyne section titled "plot" does.  24.91.117.236 (talk) 04:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC) Anonymous Contributor (and fan of the movie for what that's worth)
 * Two other notes: (1) The guidance in WP: Trivia explicitly says:  "This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. - If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all."  If someone can see a way to usefully integrate the material in what is now "plot holes" elsewhere in the overall article, feel free. (2) The guidance in No Original Research specifically defines as a "primary source" a motion picture.  Anonymous Contributor  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.117.236 (talk) 05:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Despite that, I'm still not terribly comfortable with it staying. And if we do leave it in, I would feel happier about it if we had some references in there, even if they only make note of the fac tthat there are some issues within the plot . asyndeton   talk  11:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Why are you any more comfortable with a long "plot" section that has no "references"? One general point is there that the primary reason Wiki has a "no original research" policy and encourages sourcing, is to eliminate bias and make the articles verifiable.  The plot holes are just as verifiable as the plot section -- all a reader or other editor has to do is to watch the film themselves and confirm what's in the section.  And cutting the section seems to me more biased than leaving it.  Separately, someone else linked to the script last night, and a brief review suggests that the plot holes were created as a result of editing -- scenes and dialogue that would have filled in the holes were cut, presumably to make the action and pace smoother.  When I have a chance, I'll provide references to the relevant sections of the script.  Anonymous Contributor
 * If you look around Wikipedia, you will notice that no article about a film or television show or book etc. has references in the plot section and I don't think that the length of the plot is a problem. Trivia is a different matter. Maybe we could cut down the section, so that it is no longer just a list of plot holes. How about something along the lines of


 * "Due to editing of the film and subsequent removal of footage, certain issues are not fully explained to the audience, such as how Kirill knew where to find Bourne."


 * This is much shorter than the current section, but it doesn't drag anywhere near as much, it isn't a list and it explains why the issues arise (if editing of the film is the reason).
 * I'm not saying it has to be this though; by all means suggest a longer edition if you wish but please try to avoid making it into a list. asyndeton   talk  17:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have a hard time understanding why two items constitutes a "list." I also note again the Wiki guidance that "lists" of "trivia" are not to be deleted for that reason alone.  I recognize that plot sections generally don't cite sources; that's my point -- it's standard in Wiki not to provide "references" for factual statements about underlying books, films, etc., that are verifiable and viewpoint neutral.  Feel free to edit for concision; I've already done my best on that front.  I'd just note that if you came across the kind of vague statement of the kind you suggest above, would you feel comfortable with it?  Isn't it better to be specific about what the "issues" are?  And why call them (vaguely) "issues" when there is more specific and descriptive phrase ("plot holes") that is specific to films and has its own Wiki entry?


 * I honestly think it just looks unprofessional and out of place. I like to use other model articles as I try to improve other articles, and I' pretty sure that there aren't any featured articles about movies that have a heading and entire section about holes in the plot. I know this article doesn't have to be exactly formed like other FAs, but I think all of the articles not having any sort of heading like this is a sure sign that there might be something odd about these plot holes. I think it would be OK to take these plot holes and intergrate them into the article as User:Asyndeton proposed. We could add sentances, as demostrated, and put them in the plot section of the article. As for your question about what consistutes a list of trivia, having only two known plot holes only further proves that there are so few bits of 'trivia', that it can hardly count as a list. ~ Bella   Swan  21:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This may be a tad off-subject, but I strongly encourage 24.91.117.236 to sign in for an original username. From the looks of this discussion and many other edits, you'd be an asset to the encyclopedia. — Cinemaniac (talk) 21:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the suggestion re user name, and will when I have a moment -- I've got twin four month olds and do this in-between feedings! Re Bella's suggestions, they're fine with me -- I'm not wed to the "plot holes" as a separate section, but I'm not sure how to integrate them into the plot section in a way that isn't distracting.  I don't think the way User:Asyndeton suggests doing so works, for reasons given above.  Currently, some of the sentences are there to explain why the plot holes are plot holes, and were added to respond to the criticisms discussed above; they could be cut if the substance were integrated into the plot section.  I wouldn't be spending this much time on this issue if the prior edit had compressed, edited, reworked, moved, etc., rather than simply deleted the entire section.  (That said, I wonder if it might not make more sense to add plot hole sections in other film articles?  Not all films have them, but many do, and when they do, they (to me) say something at least as important about the film as descriptions of the lighting or lists of the actors -- they tell me that the filmmakers (for any of many possible reasons) were less concerned about continuity and plausibility than, for example, action or special effects; why wouldn't such a section be as legitimate and "professional" if it was kept relatively short, viewpoint neutral and descriptive?  I wonder if "professional" isn't standing in here for "needs to look like other encyclopedias" which can easily stifle innovation; the original encyclopias would never have deigned to cover a recent film (or play, in their day) as not being notable.)  On the last point, I had thought that User:Asyndeton had suggested the section be deleted because it *was* a list, not because there weren't enough examples to make a list. I'm generally against lists myself because I think they're harder to read; generally I skip them.     —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.117.236 (talk) 03:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I generally always do my best to stick to this principle: "Always err on the side of inclusion". You certainly brought up some good points; if Wikipedia devolves into constantly stifling such innovation, then it'll eventually roll straight down-hill (and underwater). If that happens, my eventualist beliefs will be shattered and I'd more than likely retire.  I'm not yet a truly experienced editor and stil have a lot to learn about wiki-guidelines (which is why I've let the other two editors basically take the floor here), but I do think that if we don't include good information like this that others truly care about (in a concise, organized way, of course), then Wikipedia is not really fulfilling its purpose.
 * In any case, I look forward to seeing you around as the new year approaches. Happy Holidays, everybody!  —  Cinemaniac (talk) 04:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is my first edit and I'm not sure I'm putting this in the right place but I wanted to comment on the plot hole that Kirill couldn't have known that Bourne was coming to Moscow. When the CIA spot him getting on the train to Moscow, Landy says "Get me the Russian Interior Ministry". Isn't that enough to cover this alleged plot hole? Colin 121.218.225.145 (talk) 05:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That is a really good point. Wouldn't that cover up that plot hole? ~ Bella   Swan  16:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, now that I look at it, the second 'plot hole' isn't really a plot hole at all. As you said it's just a 'poor plot device' not a plot hole exactaly. ~ Bella   Swan  16:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 24.91.117.236, one reason why trivia sections are to be discouraged is because you will eventually be adding things that are completely trivial and not noteworthy; for example, I have just gone through all the articles for Lost episodes removing lists of in which episode characters have their first appearance. It isn't just so that Wikipedia can look like other encyclopaedias. If we included every minor detail we can think of - what clothes the characters wear, the food and drink preferences of their pets etc - then Wikipedia would soon become nothing but a dumping ground for useless information and the trivia would soon outweigh the real article.


 * As I've said before, I don't like it being there; it feels very much like fancruft, something else very much discouraged, as well as trivia. At present, I think it is a bit bloated and so, at the very least, I am going to trim it down slightly. Also, have you had any luck with the references you said you would find? asyndeton   talk  17:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Not really. Although I did find this interesting tidbit from Roger Ebert's review of the film:
 * "I have the weakness of bringing logic to movies where it is not required. There's a chase scene where he commandeers a taxicab and leads a posse of squad cars through an urban version of Demo Derby. Although the film does not linger over the victims, we assume dozens of cars were destroyed and dozens of people killed or maimed in this crash, and we have to ask ourselves: Is this cost in innocent victims justified in the cause of saving Jason Bourne's life? At the end of the film there is a heartfelt scene where he delivers an apology. If he ever goes back to Berlin, he'll have to apologize to hundreds if not thousands of people, assuming a lynch mob doesn't get to him first."
 * Not really a plot hole, but I digress... Anyway, I'll continue to skim film reviews and see if any of them point out such things. — Cinemaniac (talk) 17:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. There was alot of unnecessary blabber and speculation, which at least doubled its length. If someone finds the appropriate refs, I could live with it now.


 * And yes, Bourne did cause quite a bit of extra devastation but it isn't a plot hole and doesn't really warrant inclusion. asyndeton   talk  17:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * On re-reading it, I think the second 'plot hole' should go since there could be any number of explanations; someone may have gone down to work there etc. and so I think it counts as original research to assume that it was on account of Abbott saying someone should find Zorn. asyndeton   talk  17:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Above, an IP made a very good point: "When the CIA spot him getting on the train to Moscow, Landy says 'Get me the Russian Interior Ministry'." I remember Landy saying that line, and if she did then Kirill would have been informed of Bourne's presence in Moscow and gone after him, and there is no plot hole. The second plot hole is also not correct because there is a chance, no matter how small, that in the few minutes they searched for Zorn they checked that basement where he died. This would prove bothe 'plot holes', to not be plot holes at all. ~ Bella   Swan  21:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * On those grounds, the section is gone. asyndeton   talk  21:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I've now got myself a Wiki name, whoo. Having spent all of one day away from the discussion, I return to see the section deleted, again, before I've had a chance to respond. I could have sworn the purpose of this discussion was to develop consensus, not to impose views. On the substance of the points "resolving" the plot holes above, what can I say? The brief reference by Landy to the Russian Interior Ministry helps connect the dots, but it really doesn't do it; never before in the plot has the CIA turned first to the local constabulary -- instead, they've connected with local "assets," why not now? The assertion that "because there is a chance, no matter how small, ... this would prove bothe [sic] 'plot holes', to not be plot holes at all" misses the point: plot holes are matters of degree, not kind; coincidences can "explain" almost anything. Finally, as noted before, a read of the film script, now linked to the web page, makes it clear that both "holes" are exactly that -- holes created by editing out portions of dialogue that originally had Abbott calling Gretkov on the phone, getting caught at that by Landy, which both alerts Gretkov to Bourne's having left for Moscow and Landy to Abbott's treachery (see script at 265-70). More generally, I also find myself wondering what value is added by deleting more than is added. Where once I found myself attracted to participating in this group effort, I now find myself wondering what the point of Wiki is (at least on film): to recite a plot summary that can only provide spoilers for those who haven't seen the film, and redundant information for those have; to list the actors and describe the opinion of film critics, when one can get that information more effectively and fully one click away on Rotten Tomatoes; to promote the films by serving as yet another marketing device? Hard for me to say. Perhaps Bella or Asyndeton can illuminate what they think the goals / value of these Wiki entries on films are, in general terms? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twins Too! (talk • contribs) 22:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Great to see you got a username. To elaborate on the current situation, Twins Too!, here's a quote from Eddie Fitzgerald:
 * "Although some editors don't seem to understand it, there is a distinct semantic difference between 'trivia' and 'miscellaneous facts' -- one implies triviality, while the other denotes factual items that either do not fit readily into existing sections, or that are interesting or important enough to be noted, without being weighty enough to justify further exposition."
 * Oh yeah, and remember to sign your postings. :) — Cinemaniac (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * For more such austere, level-headed reasoning, I recommend taking a look at Ed's "Explication" page. It certainly puts us all in our place!  — Cinemaniac (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to see you've got yourself an account Twins Too!; it will only make editing easier for you.


 * First of all, I removed the goof about Zorn because, like you said, Bella re-iterated an IP's comment that there is always the chance that they would have searched the basement. At the time, to have included that as a goof would have meant assuming that they would not have searched the basement that quickly, which would be original research, which is not allowed.


 * Secondly, Bellas said that Kirill would have been told when Landy phoned the Russian Interior ministry. On writing this however, it strikes me that it was OR to assume that he was told. My bad.


 * I removed them both in good faith and I regret making you feel like your opinion isn't viewed as important and I hope this won't discourage you from editing Wikipedia.


 * Now, since you have a reference for the plot hole, I suppose we could discuss how to appropriately integrate it into the article. Also, in response to your last question, you may want to look at WP:NOT. Yes, Wikipedia is here to offer information other websites can't, but it is not here just to hold limitless information. asyndeton   talk  00:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you've seen reason on the Kirill plot hole. It is also true that we are never told how Zorn's body is found, just that it had been found. More generally, I have a hard time understanding your view on what is and isn't trivia. For example, in the current plot summary, there this is statement:

"As he and Marie drive away, Kirill sees Bourne in the driver's seat. As Bourne and Marie drive over a bridge, they switch seats, Bourne preparing to leap from the car and ambush Kirill. Kirill does not see the seat change and fires at the driver with a sniper rifle, still thinking it is Bourne."

This could easily be rewritten as:

"Without realizing it, Kirill mistakenly kills Marie instead of Bourne."

Or, further, why note that the first scenes are in Goa, at all? Is that important to the film, to the rest of the plot, to this article?

Is it more or less trivial that the reason that Kirill kills Marie is that he didn't notice Bourne switching seats, or that Kirill starts tracking Bourne immediately in Moscow for no known reason, or, stepping back from the current format of the article, are either of those more or less trivial than the fact (objective, documented, sourced) that the film as shown in theaters doesn't track the script, and that some of the deleted dialogue would have made the plot in the film more continuous?

The point I'm trying to make is that you seem to be under the impression (or at least you've conveyed the impression to me that you think) that there is some (semi-?) objective test of what counts as "trivia". And my point about Wiki's purpose was to stress that much (nearly all, in fact) of what's currently in film sites on Wiki *is* available on other websites, leaving me wondering what you (and Bella) think the purpose of the Wiki film entries is. Twins Too! (talk) 01:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Twins Too!


 * I did not write the plot summary, I haven't even read it, so please don't accuse me of being unjust in deciding what is trivia and what isn't. I would not label the bit you pointed out as trivia though I agree that it is unnecessarily detailed, though I would say that your suggestion is under-detailed and a bit bare.

I would label it is as trivia -- who decides? Twins Too! (talk) 02:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * May I ask if you read the page on what Wikipedia is not? One that I think is particularly relevant now is 'Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information,' which you seem to be suggesting that it should be. Even if, as you say, an article only provides information that you can find somewhere else, surely an advantage is that it provides it all in one place?

I have read it. What you seem to not be able to understand is that "indiscriminate" is a characterization; you've applied to my contribution, but seem reluctant to apply it to (as above) the precise manner in which an assassin makes a mistake. You label "trivia" and "indiscriminate" what you don't find interesting, but then seem to think that you're using an objective measure to make those judgments, not accessible to others. Why can't you just admit your judgment on such issues is just that -- a judgment? Twins Too! (talk) 02:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, since the perfect article would be completely sourced, all the information in it would be found on some other site, so your argument basically leads to the statement that there is no point in WIkipedia and we should all stop wasting our time. The bit about sourcing also leads to another good point; the long and short of WP:V is we should only include things in Wikipedia that can be sourced, irrespective of whether or not those things are true. If we included what you're talking about, information that can't be found on other sites (meaning it can't be sourced) then we would be in violation of that policy.

I think you should re-read WP:NOR and WP:V and see for yourself that there is nothing implying or saying that the "perfect" article would be "completely sourced."


 * As for the trivia-test, no, I do not have some scale on which I decide whether or not information is trivial; I judge it on its own merits and how much it contributes to the article. Goofs sections in my opinion, as well as others', do not contribute significantly to an article. 01:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

For an example of a film page with material that looks to my eyes like clear unsourced original research (in the "themes" section) and a errors (or to your demeaning word "goofs") section much like the "plot holes" section here, see Wall Street (film). I, and apparently, others, disagree with you and your others. Twins Too! (talk) 02:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please, remember to sign your posts and use the proper indentation. This healthy discussion is interesting, but I can barely tell who said what now! — Cinemaniac (Drop me a line! • Admire my work!) 02:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Twins Too!, this is becoming a bit repetitive. The reason I did not apply the term 'trivia' to the excessive detail in the plot is because in the time I have been here I have not once heard someone describe an overlly long plot as being trivial or containing trivia; I have only heard it used in describing miscellaneous facts that do not enhance the article. The plot of a film is not a miscellaneous fact whereas goofs are. If it is only used in one way then I'm not going to break the mould. And you will probably think up some type of trivia that is not encompassed by the definition I just gave but I think you get the point.


 * Also, you think you can just leave out sources? Look here and pick any of the films there; if you look I'm sure you will eventually get the picture that Featured articles, which are as close to perfect as anything on Wikipedia, have plenty more sources than this article does. You'll also see the lack of Goofs/Trivia/Inconsistencies etc sections. Now I am sure you will go through them and find one that has just as many sources as this article or one that has a goofs section. The important thing is that in general they have more sources and no goofs sections.


 * On this note, if you look at Wall Street's talk page, you will see that it is a B-class article. The only reason it's not a Start or Stub is becuase there is plenty of information to pad it out.


 * BTW WP:NOT says that Wikipedia is not a battle ground, which this talk page seems to be becoming. You have had plenty of opportunities to suggest something to replace the plot holes section but you have just spent your time arguing with people about their views, Wiki policy and so forth. While I will happily discuss a proposal for the section you want, I am not going to engage in any more meaningless conversation on this page. asyndeton   talk  10:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Twins Too!, I saw you edit to try to incorperate the plot hole into the article. I thought it was great, but just a little confusing. Here, you can see that I changed it to something fairly simple. If you don't think it covers it well enough, then you can change it back, but I think it would be fine either way in the article. ~ Bella   Swan  19:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Clarifying plot points
It mentions in the article that "Bourne goes to Moscow to find Neski's daughter, where he is shot and wounded by Kirill, who has been alerted to Bourne's being alive by Gretkov -- who somehow discovered Bourne was not only alive but coming to Moscow, despite having cut communications with Abbott before Landy and her team figured out that Bourne was en route to Moscow."

This paragraph contains several inaccuracies. Gretkov is alerted to Bourne being alive by Abbott, Abbott says "Kill Jason Bourne" several times before being hung up on. He is alerted to Bourne being in Moscow because Landy figures out where Bourne is going and alerts the Russian police. (She makes a call to the Russian Interior Minister, and later the police are being shown posters with Bourne's face). I'm going to go ahead and correct this. --71.126.136.138 (talk) 04:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice work! We were so wrapped up discussing what was trivia and what was not I completely forgot to check the film itself!  Good ears!  — Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs) 20:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

"4-15-71"
I went ahead and inserted the exact alleged "birthdate" into the article. Though we know it isn't his real birthdate as much as it is a code to trigger Bourne's memory, this "birthdate" is important and the crucial point of that scene when it's reenacted in Ultimatum. — Cinemaniac (talk •  contribs) 22:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bourne supremacy ver2.jpg
Image:Bourne supremacy ver2.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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:JuliaStiles101.jpg
Image:JuliaStiles101.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 Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Production
This article would be improved by a "Production" section, similar to the sort of thing found on articles for other movies. This could address the way that the movie is drastically different from the book it is based on and use quotes from the film creators to explain why, and why the character of Marie is killed off so early in the movie when she survives all the books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.170.56.137 (talk) 14:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Kiril not necessarily dead
Anyone notice that Kiril's death is never actually verified? The movies more than once leave the viewer (or characters) believing someone is dead when not (Usually Bourne though). This was my faint hope that Kiril would find his way into Ultimatum. I imagine if he were alive he'd have been arrested anyway.--Lindsay (talk) 00:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I do think somebody has mentioned that before, I do agree though. WE might be able to keep it in though if we can find a review or such about the movie that says he's dead... ~ Bella   Swan  12:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Bourne certainly believes he's dead though in Ultimatum (when talking to Marie's brother). I doubt the director/writer would allow Bourne to say this and be wrong.  It's more about my girl-love for Kiril than belief in Kiril's existence. Lol.--Lindsay (talk) 15:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, in the Supremacy I don't think any character actually outright says that Kirill is dead, so we can't techincally say that he is dead in this article. ~ Bella   Swan  21:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's much I can add at this point, except I can tell you that there's a scene in Ultimatum with a very similar car chase to the one in Supremacy. It ends with Bourne being T-boned by his nemesis Paz; Bourne survives by wrapping the seatbelt around himself at the last moment.  Bourne manages to make his way out of his totaled vehicle (a stolen cop car) and inches towards his nemesis's wrecked van.  As Bourne aims his pistol at the front driver's seat, we see that Paz has survived, although his face is somewhat scarred and leaning atop the steering wheel.  Bourne decides not to take the shot but instead picks up his bag and departs.  As you can tell, this sequence is an obvious allusion to the climactic car chase scene in Supremacy.  Director Paul Greengrass confirms this in the audio commentary, stating that it ends with Bourne "walking towards the light"; that is, discarding his old assassin training and becoming even more humane.  —  Cinemaniac (talk) 23:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I do believe hearing that when I heard the extra stuff in the Supremacy's DVD edition. Nevertheless, I do still think that since this article is only pertaining to the Supremacy, we should only give info we got from the Supremacy movie. ~ Bella   Swan  03:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we should just avoid mentioning the state Bourne leaves him in after the chase. It's not confirmed either way in this movie, so I don't really think it is appropriate to discuss it in this page. asyndeton   talk  01:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the fact that we don't know whether he's dead in this movie is relevant and interesting (more so than most of the detail in the plot summary). It leaves open the possibility that Bourne has recognized himself in Kirill and has chosen not to kill again, in line with his comment to Abbott that "she" (Marie) wouldn't have wanted him to kill.  Twins Too! (talk) 01:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that he also killed Jarda (his former Treadstone teammate), too; even then, however, he felt an obvious regret at doing so. Also he killed (apparently) a few other agents by using the toaster and magazine.  But I see what you're getting at.  —  Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 01:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Twins too!, I have a nasty feeling that this looks as though I'm victimising you, so please don't take it that way. You say that you think it is interesting; if we included it on the grounds that someone finds it interesting, we would have a problem with maintaining a neutral point of view, which is required in all articles. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who think it is not that interesting.  asyndeton   talk  02:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't take it personally, but I do think you should take a big step back and try to explain to yourself why your views of what's interesting are NPOV but others' views are not. How is it NPOV to take it on yourself to draw the line between what is "notable" and what is "trivia"?Twins Too! (talk) 02:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * To further add to the current discussion (and help clarify things), here's something, again, from User:Ed Fitzgerald:
 * "The best and most authoritative sources of information about books, films, CDs, TV shows and other media artifacts are the artifacts themselves. It should not be necessary to find a secondary source to say something which you've just seen or heard or experienced for yourself directly from the primary source, since the artifact can always be consulted to confirm the observation. [...] Guidelines are good, dogma is bad. Dogma is absolute, guidelines are advisory.  Wikideology should never override logic, practicality and rational choice.  But even guidelines should not be followed slavishly.  It's better to help make an article  good, no matter what it takes to do so, than it is to mechanically follow guidelines trying to make a 'Good Article' or a 'Featured Article'. And be careful when following guidelines to understand what they're trying to tell you.  For instance, 'avoid' does not mean 'do not'."
 * A good occasional heads-up that I am always thankful for. —  Cinemaniac (Drop me a line! • Admire my work!) 02:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * One should also allow for ambiguity in the storytelling. It's certainly possible that in Ultimatum Bourne lied to Marie's brother about killing Kirill to put the guy's mind at ease with the belief that her death had been avenged. And in terms of the story development in Supremacy, it doesn't make sense for Bourne to kill Kirill. There's a clear progression in Bourne's attitudes towards killing over the course of the film. He's disgusted with himself for killing the German Treadstone agent, even though it was in self-defense. He then refuses to kill Abbott, saying that he won't because Marie wouldn't want him to. It only makes sense for him to walk away from Marie's actual killer after he's confirmed that the guy is no longer a threat. If he intended to kill Kirill, one would think he'd put a round through the guy's head just to make sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.43.98 (talk) 17:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

What you're suggesting about Kirill is unambiguously original research, which is not allowed in an encyclopedia. You need a source to verify your claims. As it stands, there is an indisputable source, ie The Bourne Ultimatum (film), that says Kirill is dead. It is vanishingly unlikely that you will be able to find anything that suggests something to the contrary that will take precedence over the film. As for your point about it not making sense for Bourne to kill Kirill, it is worth remembering that Bourne is in essentially the same position here as he is with Desh in Ultimatum; a 'him or me' situation and Bourne, being the survivor that he is, will always pick himself. More importantly still, films are (\life is) not always logical. asyndeton  talk  18:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a discussion page, not the article, so I don't feel any compunction about discussing ambiguities. Thematic discussion is brought up to a bolster a point, not make it. The last shot of Kirill in Supremacy shows him MOVING, i.e., he is still alive. And in any case, the scene in Ultimatum does not present Kirill's death as an indisputable fact. You don't see a news report or any other objective context stating Kirill is dead. You have a scene where Bourne tells Marie's brother what the brother WANTS TO HEAR. Now perhaps Kirill died from his injuries in the interim. The film doesn't say. Bourne's statement to the brother is ambiguous; it can be interpreted either way. What's not ambiguous is that Kirill was alive when Bourne left the crash scene in Supremacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.42.23 (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * How do you know that Bourne is telling Marie's brother what he wants to hear, as opposed to the truth? Do you have a source, or is this an original theory? Thank you for the clarification. Doniago (talk) 19:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There's not necessarily a contradiction between telling the truth and telling someone what they want to hear. I'm just saying the context makes it an unreliable statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.42.23 (talk) 19:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, claims that Bourne killed Kirill point to the scene in Ultimatum for justification. The only objective information that scene gives is that Bourne tells Marie's brother that he killed who murdered her, not that Bourne actually killed Kirill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.42.23 (talk) 19:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The first sentence of WP:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." I place particular emphasis on verifiability, not truth. We can verify that Kirill has been killed from a statement that is made in the movies; it may not be true (though, personally, I have no qualms with it) but, critically, that is not the condition for inclusion. A Wikipedia policy supports this, so please just let it be.
 * As for him being alive at the end of Supremacy, I agree with this, which is why I changed the wording to 'fatally wounded' earlier today, ie he didn't die immediately but he /did/ die eventually, as per a (verifiable) statement in Ultimatum. asyndeton   talk  20:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I changed it from "fatally" to "horribly" earlier, largely because it is not supported by what is shown in Supremacy. As a side note, the Bourne sequels revise their predecessors. For example, Supremacy shows Abbott to be far more involved with Treadstone than one would glean from Identity, there's nothing in Identity that supports Ultimatum's depiction of Marie's brother as a Paris-based bourgeois, and, of course, there's the way Ultimatum turns the epilogue of Supremacy completely upside down. Storytellers enjoy messing with people's heads. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.42.23 (talk) 20:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You have completely avoided any discussion of WP:Verifiability; I think you sense that your argument is not strong enough to withstand the requirements of the encyclopedia. Your comment about 'storytellers enjoying messing with people's heads' is a, fairly weak, attempt at continuing to defend your point and is ultimately just filler. It has no bearing on this specific argument and I think you recognise that. I am going to change the wording back to 'fatally', in order to accurately reflect what happens in the film. Please do not change it back. Thank you. asyndeton   talk  21:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely happy with the tone of the discussion at this point, but without any hard evidence that Bourne is deliberately lying to Marie's brother or why he would do so (i.e. third-party sourcing), I think we have to assume he's telling the truth.
 * However, why does this matter? Bourne doesn't talk with Marie's brother in this film, so whether K is or is not dead seems like a minor plot point. Let's just say "seriously injured" or "severely injured" and leave it at that. "Horribly" seems a bit overly-dramatic IMO. Doniago (talk) 21:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * On a personal note it's comforting to see other people as interested in this film as I am :-) Anyway to the point. I changed from fatally to seriously injured. Kirill is clearly (if barely) alive at the end of the chase scene. This has to be a deliberate choice on the part of the film-makers, otherwise Kirill would have just been shown motionless. I thought one very significant point of the scene was that Bourne had the opportunity to kill Kirill, the man responsible for the death of Marie, but instead showed him mercy.Brainfood (talk) 10:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Opening
Why was the opening part of the article deleted? Specifically "The Bourne Supremacy is a 2004 film based loosely on the Robert Ludlum novel of the same name. It is also a sequel to the 2002 film The Bourne Identity. Supremacy continues the story of the amnesiac and expert assassin, Jason Bourne and his attempt to learn more of his shadowy past." K1Bond007 20:27, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

The text was still there, but the addition of the Jason Bourne template without a space between it and the paragraph caused the paragraph not to display. That's been fixed. RickK 20:51, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)


 * That was me. Sorry about that - didn't realise that it could happen or that it had. violet/riga (t) 21:06, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There is no mention of Gretkov's arrest by the FSB in the article, I don't want to append anything, because I may not have fully comprehended that scene, but I really think it should be added. Anyone able to do this? 04:07, Jun 29, 2006 (UTC)

spoiler data about "Ultimatum"
The sentence "This ending conversation is repeated, in context, during the second half of the sequel The Bourne Ultimatum as a pivotal plot point for that movie." should not be there. It *is* a spoiler about "Ultimatum", which one should not expect here. Besides it takes away all the fun (for lack of a better word) of seeing said major revelation in context. You see it coming, that's what's great about it. Ruining this moment here for people who are looking for info about "Supremacy" but have not yet seen "Ultimatum" classifies as a spoiler in my opinion. I know I would have been very disappointed if I had come here last week and read that. Do not revert that edit please.

raph. (noryal@gmail.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.130.63.192 (talk • contribs) 14:03, August 21, 2007 (CDT)

Bridge in opening chase scene
I looked at Google maps of Goa and the main bridge is a divided highway...

So, which bridge was in the movie?

Was that bridge filming actually in Goa ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by donelson (talk • contribs) 06:44, August 25, 2007 (CDT)

Camera work
I have been in a pseudo edit war with a few users over writing the fact that the camera was problematic, which carried on in Bourne Ultimatum. Opinion or not, there is no denial that the camera was problematic and detracted a lot of audiences from the experience, which was even stated in positive reviews critic and user alike. If Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, it shouldn't be designed to censor whatever flaws the movie had and let the average user know of the problems Supremacy have. All I'm seeing here is a handful of people defending a questionably-made movie from being bad-mouthed just because it had legitimate problems.

A list of third-party reviews from Rotten Tomatoes that actually criticized the camera and stated or alluded that it was problematic

[] (Jeff Vice's review from DeseretNews.com)

[] (Frank Swietek's interview from One Guy's Opinion)

[] (Michael Atkinson's review from Village Voice)

[] (James Berardinelli's review from ReelsNews)

[] (Jeffrey Chen's review from ReelTalk Movie)

[] (Sam Bear's review from Joe Critic)

[] (Ed Blank's review from Pittsburgh Tribune-Review)

[] (Joe Lozito's review from Big Picture Big Sound website)

64.85.234.166 21:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually it does matter whether or not it is an opinion. Opinions are not allowed in an encyclopedia. The problem with opinion is that if you think all these crtics think the camera work was 'problematic' then there are equal or more critics who might have liked the camera work or didn't think there was anything wrong with the camerawork. Their veiws should be expressed too as their veiws are just as important as the other crtics veiws. So, Wikipedia states the opinions of both sides of the issue, not just the one side of the issue that the editor thinks is right. Bella   Swan (Talk!)  21:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

'''You're not citing major film critics. David Denby of the New Yorker loved the camera work. He thought it was effective. You're cherry picking the data.''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.100.237 (talk) 08:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * the camera work is not problematic (whatever that means), but it is prominent; film critics have written at length about it, and continue to discuss it today. i'm sure there is a neutral way to inform wiki readers about this.  Peterhoneyman (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It should be easy enough to say, "While some critics found the camera work effective, others felt it detracted from the film," and include a number of sourced statements supporting both views. Doniago (talk) 14:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Positions and titles of CIA leaders
I noticed that it's not entirely clear, who has which position (from the movie as well as this article). Nicky states in the movie that Pamela Landy is a Deputy Director; however does it also ever say what Abbott and Marshall really do in the CIA? The Wikipedia article lists Marshall as the Special Ops Director, however in the beginning of The Bourne Ultimatum movie (a discussion at Director Kramer's table) Pam Landy says Abbott was Director of Special Operations .... Anyone got clarification? -- Harry2o (talk) 10:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)