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.
ยทHow Jeremy Renner Landed the Bourne Franchise [Vulture]