The Bourne Betrayal. anyone read this?

[PlatinumGold]

i just bought it a couple of days ago at Barnes and Noble, still haven't had a chance to read it tho.

the biggest disappointment of course is to find it wasn't written by Ludlum.

anyway, I read The Bourne Identity in 5th grade, 31 yrs ago, read all the others as they came out, i couldn't just let this one sit on the shelfs at BN.

 

[dak125]

I haven't read it (or heard of it for that matter). But, I have to be honest, I'm quite disappointed that the Bourne films are not remotely close to the Bourne books. While the movies are entertaining they're not even close to the books. Ludlum has to be rolling in his grave.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: dak125
I haven't read it (or heard of it for that matter). But, I have to be honest, I'm quite disappointed that the Bourne films are not remotely close to the Bourne books. While the movies are entertaining they're not even close to the books. Ludlum has to be rolling in his grave.

ya, i actually enjoy the bourne movies but do agree they are nothing like the books.

 

[jandrews]

movable type 31 years ago, who woulda thunk

 

[caivoma]

Nope, the reason is i liked the first book the most. 2nd and 3rd books arent that good so i didnt get the 4th one since it isnt even wrote by Ludlum. I guess i will check it out from the library sometimes.

 

[SKORPI0]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
ya, i actually enjoy the bourne movies but do agree they are nothing like the books.

The Bourne Identity (1988) with Richard Chamberlain is more true to the book than the movies with Matt Damon. I just wonder why the plot/script changes in the movie versions, when the book in itself has a nice story line. Maybe because of time contraints, they can only fit whatever is happening in the book into a 3 hour or less movie?

 

[Fritzo]

Originally posted by: SKORPI0

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
ya, i actually enjoy the bourne movies but do agree they are nothing like the books.

The Bourne Identity (1988) with Richard Chamberlain is more true to the book than the movies with Matt Damon. I just wonder why the plot/script changes in the movie versions, when the book in itself has a nice story line. Maybe because of time contraints, they can only fit whatever is happening in the book into a 3 hour or less movie?

I didn't know that movie was a remake! Huh.

 

[dak125]

Originally posted by: SKORPI0

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
ya, i actually enjoy the bourne movies but do agree they are nothing like the books.

The Bourne Identity (1988) with Richard Chamberlain is more true to the book than the movies with Matt Damon. I just wonder why the plot/script changes in the movie versions, when the book in itself has a nice story line. Maybe because of time contraints, they can only fit whatever is happening in the book into a 3 hour or less movie?

I wondered that myself. Why not just create an entirely new assassin/series? The book version takes place in the cold war, Marie never dies, the differences are to the point where there aren't even many similarities. The Bourne series (books) were never THAT popular that they would have made the films popular on their own. With that being said, it simply doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[dak125]

Originally posted by: Fritzo

Originally posted by: SKORPI0

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
ya, i actually enjoy the bourne movies but do agree they are nothing like the books.

The Bourne Identity (1988) with Richard Chamberlain is more true to the book than the movies with Matt Damon. I just wonder why the plot/script changes in the movie versions, when the book in itself has a nice story line. Maybe because of time contraints, they can only fit whatever is happening in the book into a 3 hour or less movie?

I didn't know that movie was a remake! Huh.

It was a made for TV movie according to IMDB.

 

[allisolm]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
i just bought it a couple of days ago at Barnes and Noble, still haven't had a chance to read it tho.

the biggest disappointment of course is to find it wasn't written by Ludlum.

anyway, I read The Bourne Identity in 5th grade, 31 yrs ago, read all the others as they came out, i couldn't just let this one sit on the shelfs at BN.

I would read The Bourne Legacy (also not written by Ludlum) first.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: Fritzo

Originally posted by: SKORPI0

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
ya, i actually enjoy the bourne movies but do agree they are nothing like the books.

The Bourne Identity (1988) with Richard Chamberlain is more true to the book than the movies with Matt Damon. I just wonder why the plot/script changes in the movie versions, when the book in itself has a nice story line. Maybe because of time contraints, they can only fit whatever is happening in the book into a 3 hour or less movie?

I didn't know that movie was a remake! Huh.

The original is absolutely horrible though (pretty sure its made for TV, or at least had the budget of it, and was overly long), I loved the change with the "remake", made me like the movie even more after seeing the "original" movie.