Talk:The Bourne Legacy (film)

Operation Outcome

Operation Outcome is the successor of Operation Treadstone? I thought that Operation Blackbriar was the successor of Operation Treadstone. The successor of Operation Treadstone is Operation Outcome or Operation Blackbriar? Anyone can confirm this? Thank you. Yofan Pratama P (talk) 12:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. I'll try to find a source. 76.1.79.235 (talk) 01:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Blackbriar is successor to Treadstone. Outcome isn't a CIA project, it's a US black government program, related to both Blackbriar and Treadstone. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 12:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Is everyone sure about the project name? It's said several times. Not once have I heard "OUTCOME". I've always heard "ALCOM". I think it reasonable to suppose that once they started genetic manipulation of agents - new territory scientifically - they began naming projects using made-up words, like LARX. (New science often involves the creation of new words.) Has anyone seen the script? Stellar-TO (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Plot

the section contained no refs and was simply speculation. Removed until a reliable source is available 108.172.114.141 (talk) 02:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Sound track

seems a bit like shameless promotion to have the whole sound track listed in the article. What does everyone else think?108.172.114.141 (talk) 02:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• I would actually hope that every single WP article about a film include a section with the entire OST listings (even for films that have not been released yet). I routinely find music in films that I like and want to know who composed/produced it and what was the title of the song so I can purchase it from iTunes or Google Play. --Thorwald (talk) 02:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Soundtrack listings on wiki are standard they do it for some video ga,Ed it's hard to find this info years latter and is a good point of archive 75.65.20.204 (talk) 05:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Count back language

What language was he using when he was asked to count back from 100? --Jondel (talk) 11:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

This was Russian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.132.201 (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Plot question

I found the movie to be unclear on various points. One example: "Shearing reveals that Cross was genetically modified to retain the benefits of the chems without continuous consumption, a process called "viralling off". Cross and Shearing travel to Manila, where the chems are manufactured, to viral them off into Cross' body." What? Enigma^msg 21:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

That's one point. An anon removed the descriptors, which clarified which chems he had been "viralled off" of, though I'm not sure why. I'm in the process of re-clarifying that sentence. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that was the easiest point to isolate. I didn't think the film was very clear on this, or the Bourne storyline. Enigma^msg 01:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Opening dates?

I think a citation would be good for the opening dates. Also, they contradict the date for opening in the USA on Google search and IMDB. Thanks. 69.86.147.94 (talk) 20:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Plot Question #2

In the beginning of the film, Aaron Cross (main character) is shown completing his Alaskan training course and he hides his dog tag meds/chems container in his boot. Cross lies to the cabin caretaker (Number Three/exiled outcome operative) and says he dropped his chems and lost them. Why did Cross do this? Did he want a stockpile of chems to safeguard against reverting to a low IQ retard? Secondly, at first the cabin caretaker exhibits a hostile attitude towards Cross and refuses to give Cross chems. The cabin caretaker's attitude suddenly changes and he offers Cross more chems and shows Cross a lot more hospitality. Should it be assumed the cabin caretaker received orders to hold Cross in the cabin so the drone could assassinate both of these agents? No such communication was ever shown or even hinted at in the film. Thanks.

Proposed removal of redundant publisher information

A number of citations in this article unnecessarily include the publisher for periodicals and websites that have their own Wikipedia article. This information has no value to anyone wanting to check or track down references. For example, publisher=Washington Post Company for references to The Washington Post, or publisher=IMDB for references to Box Office Mojo, only make the article longer - significantly longer when repeated many times - without adding anything useful. Therefore I plan to upgrade the article's citations to remove all such redundant publisher info, bringing them into line with the recommended use of the cite template (see Template:Citation#Publisher). Please raise any questions here or on my talk page. Colonies Chris (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

... added by someone at the IP address 70.52.212.244 last night ...

This ... "(character Charlie Gordon in book Flowers for Algernon, by Daniel Keyes and the Academy Award winning movie Charly by Stirling Silliphant)" ... was added by someone at the IP address 70.52.212.244 last night, 01:41, January 14, 2013‎ (UTC)
Clearly it has no place in the Plot summary, therefore I reverted the edit. Does it have any value elsewhere in this article?
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones – The WelshBuzzard – 11:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It might be appropriate for Production if someone involved with the film drew the comparison, or Reception if a critic noted it. Neither one without a reliable source though. Doniago (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Doniago. Pretty much as I had thought. Well it's here for someone else to follow up on –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 16:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Plot: Leave/Live together

User:Gareth Griffith-Jones I see you reverted my correction live together and went back to "leave together". Live makes sense to me, after having watched the movie; leave doesn't. Theoretically both verbs could work. However, if you perform the logical analysis of the sentence, only live works.

The fact that in the English language we have an and conjunction, means that we are adding an additional thought to the sentence: they pay him to take them out of the country, but they do not pay him leave together nor do they pay him to live together. Therefore the action to live/leave together is independent of the action of paying him. Thus to live/leave together is a sequential action after being taken out of the country. If this is the case it could not possibly be that leave the country is sequential to being taken out of the country. Could you please justify your revert?--Gciriani (talk) 03:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Good morning Gciriani,
I recall we last "spoke" on Rhotacism in The Life of Brian in September 2012.
Your argument above is sound. I have no disagreement with it.
Perhaps the fault rests with the original copy-editing: how do we know? You have watched the film. You know that they leave together, but ...
.... how can you know that they will live together?
Our job is to report on what the film shows, not add our perception.
I will have another look at it now.
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones – The WelshBuzzard – 09:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Blackbriar not Blackfriar

Why does this article refer to Blackfriar (twice) - surely it's Blackbriar isn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.250.98 (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Boeing 747

All the stuff about Boeing 747s is very interesting... but, it's 100% original research. There are no references that discuss these planes in connection with their use in this movie. 31.54.38.199 (talk) 22:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)