Jeremy Renner Wasn't Really Anyone's First Pick For New Bourne Series
In a fascinating peek into the sausage factory that is the new Jason Bourne-less Bourne series, Vulture is reporting that Jeremy Renner's recent casting as the new heir apparent to Jason Bourne came about not because of some great desire for Renner but as part of a grand compromise between director Tony Gilroy and Universal. It seems like Renner wasn't so much the bowl of porridge that was just right, but the bowl of porridge that was least objectionable.
Much like Sam Raimi's recent flare-up with Disney over whether Michelle Williams or Hilary Swank would be cast as one of Oz's witches, Gilroy had wanted to cast Joel Edgerton, 36, as a new amnesiac super-spy, partly out of concern that a bigger name would "pull focus" from the movie itself. However, Universal was concerned that Edgerton was too much of an unknown and agitated for a younger and/or hotter star. How young and hot? Names like Garrett Hedlund,Taylor Kitsch, Colin Farrell, and even (god help us all) Shia LaBeouf were on Universal's wish list.
But hot, young stars -- like LaBeouf in this case -- often balk at auditioning and screen testing, a convention that Gilroy demanded. Others like Kitsch were simply unavailable. And so stuck in a stalemate, Gilroy buckled on Edgerton and he and the studio came to the compromise choice of Jeremy Renner, a respected actor who had enough marquee value for the corporate suits.
It's honestly not a bad compromise -- Renner is an awesome actor and a likable screen presence -- but it's odd that Universal didn't let the fact that he'll be headlining three other possible action franchises -- Mission: Impossible, The Avengers, and Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters. If they're not staggered out and the audience allowed a chance to breathe inbetween Renner flicks, dear ol' Jeremy could fall into the same memory hole that swallowed Jude from 2005 to 2009.
·How Jeremy Renner Landed the Bourne Franchise [Vulture]
Subscribe to the new Movieline on YouTube
Comments
Colin Farrel would have done a great job, but Garrett Hedlund? Shia F---ing LeBouef? Why not shoot for the stars and go for Rob Pattinson if you want a big name with an extremely limited acting ability?
People consistently underestimate Matt Damon. There is a reason he made the Bourne trilogy so successful. He's a nice-looking guy, but it's his likability and his ability to be intense and yet an every-man that makes you root for him again and again.
I think Jeremy Renner is extremely good-looking and an incredible actor, but I wonder if that's going to hurt the franchise more than help it. Sometimes he can come across as a little too intense. Personally, I think they should have taken the gamble and stuck with Joel Edgerton. I've never seen a movie with him in it - I went to IMDB and didn't recognize him at all. But the best way to sabotage a movie before it even starts filming is to refuse to let the director cast the main roles the way he wants to. If the movie bombs, it's not going to be Renner's fault, it's going to Universal's.
Anything Jeremy does is good so I wouldn't worry too much about it. Just sit back and enjoy what he brings to these films.
Shia LaBeou is considered young and "hot"? To who? Young and douchey maybe, but hot? Have they even seen Taylor Lautner's abs?
I don't think those other franchises matter at all right now. Like him or not, Mission Impossible is Tom Cruise's until someone takes it from him.
Nobody is going to see the Avengers to watch Hawkeye, I'm sure most people don't even know who he is.
And my hunch is there won't ever be a Hansel and Gretel: WitchHunters II, but I guess we'll see.
Maybe in the minority here, but I think Renner is an excellent choice, the best of all the options listed (including Edgerton). When the first Bourne movie came out Damon was not really someone who had shown much evidence of carrying movies alone, but he was a good actors with range as well as some familiarity/likability - that is sort of where Renner is now (plus he is rather hot, which can't be completely ignored).
I think we dodged a cinematic bullet here - LaBeouf? Hedlund? Yawn. What's next, Channing Tatum?
Jeremy Renner is, like Matt Damon, able to be a chameleon as an actor -- the range between his Hurt Locker role and the character in The Town was huge. I thought he was brilliant in The Town. So my conclusion is he will bring it to the table with this role, too. Go Jeremy.
Renner is a great choice. He's proven to be a quality and highly watchable actor over the past few years.
The other choices are too young, dumb, full of... themselves. Colin Farrell might be okay, but he's played plenty of similar roles. Plus, he's got to get his ass to Mars next.
Renner will become a great character actor but he is not a lead. He lacks the charisma too keep one sustained for a franchise. He needs to follow Joseph Gordon Levette and be content being second banana.
Mr. Renner may not have been their first choice, but he's MY first and only choice to play Jack Unterweger! If you haven't read John Leake's book, Entering Hades-The Double Life Of A Serial Killer, please do so. Now! It's one of these stories that could not be made up. I realize Renner has already played a serial killer (Dahmer) but this role is completely different. Hope someone in Hollywoodland is reading this, will read the book, and decide to make a film about Unterweger. And, of course, cast Jeremy Renner in the role of Jack.