Talk:Jason Bourne (film)

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 2 times. The weeks in which this happened:

July 24 to 30, 2016 (20th)
July 31 to August 6, 2016 (13th)

A fact from Jason Bourne (film) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 14 October 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the fifth Bourne film will be set in "a Post-Snowden World"?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2015/October. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Untitled Bourne fifth film.

Wikipedia

Article title?

I know it's a temporary title, but what grammatical torture did this title undergo to wind up so poor. Seriously, the title should be "Untitled fifth Bourne film". Screw this, I'm moving it before we embarrass ourselves any further. oknazevad (talk) 12:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As an addendum, this isn't actually the title of the film, so not only does not need italics, any use of italics is improper altogether. oknazevad (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although, I really don't see why we should call it Jason Bourne (2016 film) instead of simply Jason Bourne (film), because there aren't any films released before that are called Jason Bourne, are there? --ZeroMinusTen (talk) 01:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Debresser (talk) 01:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Content

There's more "The Bourne Legacy (film)" coverage in this article than the actual film that this is supposed to be about. I know it's early yet - but hopefully it gets resolved sooner rather than later. 2601:547:1203:1414:C8F3:403C:50BF:105B (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Technical Accuracy

Ars Technica lambasted numerous holes in the cyber/security aspects of this movie. Given the growing significance of such matters in films such as Jason Bourne, shouldn't one citation be included to cover this matter? The problems appeared to be both numerous, and egregious; so the question should be seriously considered. A movie with a budget sufficent to destroy enough cars to supply a mid-sized town could have afforded to hire an IT expert to proof the script... for half the cost of a discounted diesel Volkswagen. JohndanR (talk) 02:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I assume the above comment was referring to the ArsTechnica review of Jason Bourne which it says features " some of the most embarrassing technological shoe-horning you'll see in a film this year" and in the headline they say it is worse than Snowden (film). The review concludes "there's just enough here to sate any series fan's appetite. But those good moments are severe reminders that this movie's producers were totally tone-deaf in trying to make this an espionage film of the times."

It would be tempting to add this to the article but it would be more notable if a Hollywood film actually got the details right, more often than not accuracy is sacrificed for expediency. I also wouldn't want to place undue emphasis on a single source, if there were a few reviews from technology publications that all complained about the inaccuracies then it might be worth a brief mention. -- 109.79.64.162 (talk) 23:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jason Bourne (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160221163107/http://www.ssninsider.com/on-the-set-for-2516-vin-diesel-nina-dobrev-start-shooting-xxx-sequel-ben-affleck-wraps-production-on-live-by-night/ to http://www.ssninsider.com/on-the-set-for-2516-vin-diesel-nina-dobrev-start-shooting-xxx-sequel-ben-affleck-wraps-production-on-live-by-night/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]