MovieChat Forums > The Bourne Identity (2002) Discussion > Did anybody read the books?

Did anybody read the books?

posted 9 years ago by skelton_christine
6 replies | jump to latest

I mean the first three books by Lundlow, not the revised version. The movie strays so far from the books. In the origiginal books, Jason Bourne was a Vietnam Nam vet named David Webb who went under cover as Jason Bourne to flush out a ring of assassins that was led by "Carlos," a ruthless killer. In the books, he married Maria and she helped him come to grips with his Jason Bourne identity. The movies would have been just as good if they'd stayed with this premise. I read the first three books and they were very good because the story wasn't just about spies but it was about a man who'd lost his memory learning to come to grips with his own identity with the help of the woman he loved.

[–] clark_gillies 9 years ago

The books are good, but I always felt the problem was any time a Robert Ludlum book has tried to be adapted for a movie, they just never seem to get it right (they struggle to translate his attention for detail from the page to the screen).... Identity is the best book, Supremacy is ok, but has aged terribly and was not relevant for the time the movie came out (they kind of took a couple of elements though) and Ultimatum is the poorest of the books (its almost like it was written out of force by Ludlum, and that he just phoned it or something).

The brief for the first movie was to just read the outline plot of the book, rather than the actual full story, so they did well in that sense as it does follow the movie somewhat (its just the whole last 1/3 that seems to drift away from the book)... and by the time they got to Supremacy they actually did read the book and felt there was very little they could take from it....and Ultimatum there was no point in reading as there was nothing they could take from that as they had drifted so far away.

[–] davidtaylor-18-447027 9 years ago

I've read the trilogy at least once & identity twice but I do need to read them again although (for me) they have dated badly due to Carlos the Jackal & De Gaulle being appropriate in 75 when he wrote TBI but not really today. Although when I read any Janes Bind books I do prefer if they are based in the 50 & 60's but I digress
Just purchased all 4 Bourne films on ITunes for £12 so getting stuck into them

[–] hitking 9 years ago

Not read any of them.

Probably never will.

In this case I have a feeling that the movies are more enjoyable than the books. I did read about 10 pages of Identity and quickly figured out it was going to be very different from the movie.

[–] Cult_of_Kibner 9 years ago

They took the premise of the books and made a damn good series of movies out of it. As far as I'm concerned that's all they needed to do. There is that miniseries version from the '80s that stuck really close to the first book, but let's just say more faithful doesn't mean better.

[–] skelton_christine 9 years ago

Well, it depends on what you think is better. I thought the books were better than the movies. The books were about an undercover agent who was trying to find out who he was. The movies were about some assassin ring. They changed the whole premise in the movies. I liked the books better.

[–] Cult_of_Kibner 9 years ago

I think the better movie is 'better'. If fidelity to the book is your priority, so be it. I just think way too much importance gets placed on the notion. What's the use of a movie that sticks really close to a book but sucks on its own as a movie? In this case I don't think the miniseries version SUCKS, but it's definitely not in the same league as the Damon version.

The books were about an undercover agent who was trying to find out who he was.

So are the movies. They took that same premise and went in a new direction with it. The problem with trying to adapt the books is that they're way too sprawling to be converted into reasonably lengthed movies, so I don't blame the filmmakers for giving them the "reimagining" treatment.

Here's something to think about though: the movies may not seem quite as far removed from the books if you think of them as a loose three part adaptation of the first book rather than as counterparts to their namesake novels.

I liked the books better

I'm a bigger fan of the movies, although I did like the first two books. The third not so much.