Talk:The Bourne Identity (2002 film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article The Bourne Identity (2002 film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
March 16, 2007 WikiProject peer review Reviewed
March 25, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
May 16, 2009 Good article reassessment Kept
Current status: Good article
WikiProject Film (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the German cinema task force.
Note icon
This article has had a peer review which is now archived.

Nicky Parsons[edit]

I think there should be a page for the Nicky Parsons character, so could that particular redirect be removed? I tried to create a Nicky page a while ago, but since a search for Nicky Parsons redirects to this movie, I was unable to do so. Thanks. ~Tori

Plot clean up[edit]

The plot section needs a big clean up. I do not wish to read every. single. move. he makes during actions scenes, i simply want to know the things relevant to the plot. The plot summary is waaaaaayy to large, filled with tons of unnecesarry information. 21:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I second that. I often come to Wikipedia for a plot review after some less-straightforward flicks. This was just painful. What could have been "Bourne incapacitates two guards" spans seven or eight full lines. 09:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I third that. The plot is lost in the excess of details. The complete play-by-play is unnecessary.Creativitylack 04:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes! A clean up here is essential. I've seen this film 10 times and will try to help edit. When discussing film plot, think of a viewpoint--Jason Bourne sets out to find out who he is--and write to that viewpoint only. Show how the film lays out journey both technically and scenically. Good section on Bourne's quirky characteristics--cleaning, children. Missed the one about maps, schedules. Bourne doesn't have schizophrenia--he has kinetic memory resulting from training. He relies on intuition, gut instincts. mctan 09:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I re-wrote the plot at The Bourne Supremacy because it had the same problem as this so I did this one while I was at it. I agree with the criticisms that there is too much plot speculation and spoilers on both articles. When the new one comes out this Summer there will probably be a revival of interest so I am hoping to clean them up by then (but don't wait for me to do it...).Jezzerk 21:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I re-wrote the plot to remove unnecessary details (i.e., no need to mention the names of all three of the assets sent to kill Bourne) and make it more concise. There may be additional details that can be removed, but at the moment I believe I have made the plot as concise as I can. Wxkat (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Plot hole? No (see Below).[edit]

In the movie, Bourne puts a red bank bag in a train station locker. He never goes back for it, but has an identical looking red bank bag later in the movie. If the bag were gray, I'd assume it was the bag he took off the agent who tried to kill him at his apartment. But it's red, just like the one he is carrying all his cash and passports in. What was in that bag? Was there a detail I missed somewhere? Frecklefoot | Talk 19:04, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

No. Bourne goes to train station after the encounter with the assassin in his apartment. From the time he's at the bank (where he gets the red bag) to the time he's at his apartment he always has the red bag. By the way because of the major difference between the book and movie the movie page is here: The Bourne Identity (movie). K1Bond007 02:51, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, but I just saw the movie twice and that scene is very distinct. He drops off some bag at the train station and never retreives it. Any idea what's in it and why he never goes back for it? Frecklefoot | Talk 05:27, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

Ahhh I see what you're saying. You confused me when you mentioned the apartment. You mean Marie's friends house where Clive Owen (assassin #2) attempts to kill Jason. Yeah. That would be a plot hole. The only thing I can think of is the time between when he leaves Paris to go south to when he arrives at the "farm". It is possible, however unlikely, that he went to the train station to retrieve the bag. Theres a part in the film almost immediately after when Jason leaves Paris where Conklin specifically states that going to the train station is "too risky" and Jason wouldn't do that. K1Bond007 07:33, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
1) The bag dropped of at the Paris train station is the red bank bag Bourne carries throughout the first half of the movie. 2) If you watch The Bourne Supremacy you will see that Bourne stashes bags with passports, weapons, money, and other useful items in train stations throughout Europe so wherever he is his trade-tools are available. Placing his red bank bag in the train station was likely to begin this habit. Additionally it prevents him from loosing valuable items while in the field, particularly items that might identify him should he be caught (as occured in Italy in The Bourne Supremacy). 3) Alexander Conklin says "[the] train's too risky", not the train station. 4) From the point he places the bag in the train station locker we never see it again throughout the movie. The bag I believe you are referring to is a tan-olive bag Bourne takes off The Professor assasin. It is this bag we see Bourne holding when Maria departs him, when he sifts through its contents for the cell phone to call Treadstone, and when he is observing Conklin at Pont Neuf. There is no plot hole in this brilliant movie (one of my top 5).
Actually if you watch the film closely enough (and I have) it can clearly be seen that when Bourne sends Marie away with Eamon, after he kills The Professor, he gives the red bag (which is in fact a bin bag from the Zurich bank) to her because is contains a great amount of money. Thus we are expected to assume that at some point between Bourne putting the bag in the locker and the time Marie leaves he retrieves it from the train station. Confirmation that this event occurred is provided at the end of the film when Bourne finds Marie at the scooter shop and the bag can be seen hanging in her shop with purple flowers growing out of it. (talk) 20:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Spoilers for Bourne Supremacy[edit]

I saw this film last night and i was looking for some information on a small plot hole i spotted which is meantioned above (red bag), but i was rather annoyed to be told of some of the plot details of the Bourne Supremacy, i was fully expecting plot details of the bourne identity to be here but not the newer film, which i've not seen yet, maybe some advanced warning can be given of this? as it is not clear that the plot of the second film is going to be talked about here. DanielT 14:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Polish passport[edit]

Where exactly in the movie is it shown that Bourne has a Polish Passport? I went thru the entire Swiss bank scene, frame by frame, and did not see anything that would identify him having a Polish passport.

Brazillian Passport[edit]

Why does it mention a Brazillian passport possibly named after João do Carmo, and a João do Carmo's passport possible Brazillian? I've seen the movie in quite a while, but it seems to be a mistake.

Wombosi's Nationality[edit]

  • Although Wombosi's nationality is not explicitly stated in the movie, the newspaper Bourne reads outside Wombosi's home states he's Nigerian. It reads:
    • In French: "L'ex-dictateur Nykwanna Wombosi assassine dans residence parisienne. L'ancien homme fort du nigeria avait pris le pouvoir en 1997. Apres une grave crise pétrole en november 1998, Il devait quitter le pays a la suite de manefestations populaires."
    • English translation: "The ex-dictator Nykwanna Wombosi assassinated in Parisian residence. The former strong man of Nigeria had seized power in 1997. After a serious oil crisis in november 1998, he was forced to leave the country following popular manefestations."

User:Ogayellow 13:18, 08 August 2006 (EST)

Disingenuous use of the word 'streamlines'[edit]

The movie does not 'streamline' the plot as the original page text would have the casual viewer believe. The plot in the movie bears almost zero actual resemblance to the plot of the books. Names, places, and vague adaptations of events are kept, but the entire point of the novel (the amnesia, Carlos, the big news at the end) is missed. I feel it does a great diservice to the Ludlum novels to imply that the movie 'streamlines' the plot rather than 'deviates heavily from'. You cannot read the book and know what would happen in the movie, nor could you have seen the movie and known what would happen in the book. You reach two logically different conclusions about who Jason Bourne actually is at the end of the book versus at the end of the movie. TunkeyMicket 05:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Multiple Personalities[edit]

In the article, the author suggests that Jason Bourne may have multiple personalities and cites the early scene in the park as possible evidence. Personally, I believe the look of bewilderment on his face comes from the fact that he did these things as an instant reaction, and didn't know where they came from. Much like him tying that knot on the boat, or talking to Marie in the diner about how he knows he can run flat out for 2 miles and all of the other details about the diner. These are all things that he knows, but doesn't know how he knows.

I'm fairly certain that the self-defense scene in the park is the same type of thing. He reacted when the cop went to tap him with the night stick, and his years of training took over when he disarmed them. He was put into an 'automatic' mode at that point, and when it was all done a few seconds later and he was holding the gun, his look of bewilderment was him thinking 'How did I do that?', not necessarily 'Uh, how did I get here and why am I holding this gun with two disarmed cops on the ground?' User:avidal 21:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Edits to Plot[edit]

I edited this article and I'd like to know why only the 'American' English spelling of words is acceptable when this version of Wikipedia is only mentioned as being English. I'm talking about words such as realise, alternatively spelt realize. Algebra Man 22:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

There is some deviation from the American English rule, but this article is about an American movie. Wikipedia is based in Florida, in America. All in all, there is no distinct reason for any one rule to be used as all over, but for this article, unless some other desicion is made, the spelling used is American. I won't get into the derivation of some words that are supports for an American spelling, such as color coming from the Latin color, not colour. ɱўɭĩєWhat did I dowrong 00:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hypothetical Theories[edit]

There are many inclusions in this page which appear to merely be theories. For example, the explanations for the Treadstone operatives headaches as well as the reason for multiple passports. This is not the locale for inputing personal opinion and these theories should not be included without stronger support derived from the movie.Creativitylack 04:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree and I've removed the most blatant of these (e.g. any sentence that used language such as "it may be that", "we can assume that", "it is possible that", etc) as those are more obviously original research than the remainder, which could theoretically be a summary of some sort of critical analysis of the film that's been done in a reputable secondary source. However, I have to say that seems unlikely, which means the entire "Jason Bourne" section needs citations quickly...or else a complete removal. It's questionable how much the speculation in that section helps this article anyway. -Markeer 02:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


I have re-wrote, or at least expanded, most of this article. I have added notes on the production, in particular details on its difficult development, as well as adding a reception section. I have expunged the trivia section (if its trivia it isn't worth mentioning in an encyclopaedia) and original research regarding events in the film and the Bourne character - while probably accurate, they can't be cited or referenced in any manner and thus should be removed. The plot section still needs to be trimmed down however. Qjuad 21:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Many (if not most) film articles on Wikipedia have Trivia sections, and this one contains genuinely informative items about the film's production, such as filming locations, etc. However, I have not re-instated some of the more dubious ones, such as the goofs, which are probably best left to the IMDb. Chris 42 22:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if many of the film articles on Wikipedia have one; none of the featured articles do. The information contained in the trivia section that can be moved into other areas should, like information regarding Kali and such. Information that serves no purpose (Wombosi's nationality, Brad Pitt not doing the film, its appearance in the 40 year old virgin for a start) is not information that needs to be here. Plus all the information should be cited from decent sources and none of it is. Qjuad 23:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Information regarding Kali already appears in the production section, while information about filming locations has been moved into development. All the other pieces of information are pointless and crufty, with the exception of details regarding the test audiences initial reaction - if a source can be found that would make a good addition. Qjuad 23:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

--Going in order from the top of the page--

  1. The plot should be trimmed some. Plot should generally be between 600-700 words.
  2. Try and find specific sources from the studio heads or the director that state what the budget is. BoxOfficeMojo generally doesn't list its sources anywhere, so it's sometimes hard to just "take their word for it". It's like IMDb, because people don't always update the truth after the fact. It's ok for the box office take and all, because that's information that generally doesn't get kept a secret.
  3. I don't know what references #4 is, but it doesn't look reliable. Can we find the actual Wall Street Journal article this was stated in. Don't they provide online articles?
  4. Cast section-I think Jason Bourne's information needs to be filled in. He's the main character and he has no extended information.
  5. The reception section is a little biased to the positive. It's one thing to say the film received mostly positive reviews, but you should make sure that you use equal pos/neg review in the section to keep a NPOV. Even if a film received 98 pos and 2 neg, you'd include equal pos/neg reviews. Also, for future nominations to FAC, you'll probably need to expand the section.
  6. It would be better if the Awards section was turned into prose.

--  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll get to these fixes soon. Thankyou for the feedback. Qjuad 17:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Remember, this is just how I see it, and that's more from a "what can be done to get it on its way to FA".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
In regards to reference 4, I'm afraid that is the only online copy I can find of the article; the Wall street Journal website requires a paid subscription in order to access its archives. Qjuad 10:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Try this. I skimmed through and found bits talking about rewrites and the budget ballooning to 70 mill. Read through and see if it matches the information being cited here. I'm not sure exactly what is being cited with reference 4, because you have a lot of information inbetween each footnote. If it helps, awesome, if not..then just keep an eye out in case someone questions its reliability later on.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


you havnt mentioned that who is john micheal kane??? and i also wanted to ask that if conklin did not send jason bourne to kill wambosi then who did and why??????? please do answer...... you can send me an email at

  • Kane is a fake alter ego used by Jason Bourne. From what I gathered, as Kane he posed as an employee in a shipping firm in order to get close to Wombosi. He met with Wombosi, and probably arranged a whole bunch of business affairs, etc. But when it came time to carry out his mission, he resumes his identity of Jason Bourne and sets out to kill the guy on the boat. He sees the kids, hesitates, and then makes a run for it before getting shot in the back and falling into the water. Kane is reported killed in a car accident, and a fake body is planted in the morgue to convince Wombosi that the assassin is dead. Wombosi doesn't fall for it though, and eventually is assassinated by another Treadstone agent in order so that Conklin can pass it off as Bourne's actions to his superior - Masterblooregard 07:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

i really appreciate that you replied....could you explain the last part of the movie....was jason sent to kill wombosi???no...because conklin said that he could sent nicke to do what exactly was the mission about??and why was conklin hiding something from ward abbot???what was the mission all thing was for sure that he wasnt sent to kill wombosi????could you explain each dialogue of the last scene when jason bourne and conklin....please id please explain the last scene...explaining each dialogue of conklin and jason....

  • Jason was sent to kill Wombosi, but Conklin says "I don't send you to kill, I send you to be invisible". Jason's mission is not only to kill but to make sure that nobody would be able to trace the murder back to Treadstone, the CIA, or the U.S. government in general. This was something the agents excelled at until Bourne tripped up on Wombosi. Conklin wanted to hide this failure from Abbott because Abbott has to answer to the top CIA directors and let them know what happened, especially when Wombosi starts to blackmail them following the failed assassination. Conklin instead tries to pass the blame down to Jason Bourne and spends the entire movie trying to hunt him down. Jason in turn tries to hunt down Conklin, confronts him in the safehouse, learns the truth about his past, and then warns Conklin never to follow him before escaping. - Masterblooregard 20:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC) i get it....THANK YOU VERY more question....conklin says to jason "i thought we were on the same side"....and then jason asks "whose side is that"....n later conklin says "bourne you dont nkow what you are doing?you don't have a got damn clue??".......jason wasnt doin fact he was finding about his past....could you explain this also....and one more thing you must have seen the boure which hesays to the doctor that he spend three years running....n doctor albert replies "you still havent filled in the pieces" he(doctor) knew that he(jason) was an amnesiac and that he(jason) has lost his(jason's) why didnt he(doctor albert) told others that he(jason) has lost his memory????and one other thing that he(jason) was not saving american lives but he(jason) was taking american lives!!!!!!!!!could you explain this also.....

  • 1: "You don't know what you're doing..." Jason really had no clue, because he didn't remember anything. He was traveling around Europe, beating people up, killing people, following all his spy instincts, but he had no idea where those instincts came from. When Bourne asked Conklin, "Are you Treadstone?" Conklin realized that Bourne had suffered some sort of mental breakdown, and that he wasn't playing games. Until then, Conklin had thought that Bourne consciously turned traitorous. 2: Bourne Ultimatum took place three years after Bourne Identity. By then, everybody in the Agency (above a certain paygrade, of course) knew about Bourne's amnesia. ~Tori


  • The last line by Jason Bourne in The Bourne Ultimatum, See what they make us give, is a variation on the last line the Professor says, See what they make you give.
  • Project Blackbriar that Ward Abbott presents to the finance committee when he says that Project Treadstone was shutdown at the end of the film is used as the name of the new project in The Bourne Ultimatum.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 17:48, August 8, 2007 (CDT)

  • The last scene in Ultimatum also happens to be a mirror image of the first one in Identity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 07:47, August 20, 2007 (UTC)


could anyone explain the last part of the movie....was jason sent to kill wombosi???no...because conklin said that he could sent nicke to do what exactly was the mission about??and why was conklin hiding something from ward abbot???what was the mission all thing was for sure that he wasnt sent to kill wombosi????could you explain each dialogue of the last scene when jason bourne and conklin meet face to face....please id please explain the last scene...explaining each dialogue of conklin and jason at the end of the movie(the last part).... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not a forum for idle talk about the film. And please, don't use caps like that. If you want attention, caps is not the way to do it. For your query, the The Bourne Identity (2002 film) addresses all your questions - Bourne was sent to assassin Wombosi, but he failed. The comment about Nicky meant that Conklin couldn't understand why Bourne failed; even Nicky could have suceeded the mission. *Hippi ippi 12:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, just a quick note - I think Conklin's comment about Nicky was meant to say that killing Wombosi is not hard to do, rather killing him in a covert way without anyone implicating the USA is the hard part. Conklin says something about using Bourne not just because he's an assassin, but because he's "invisible." MFNickster (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved.

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was - no support for move to The Bourne Identity (film) so retained at current title. Miniseries applies to greater than 2 episodes so move The Bourne Identity (TV miniseries) to The Bourne Identity (1988 film). Keith D (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there another Bourne Identity film? Per naming conventions, you should only put the year in the title of the article if it shares its name with another article. (i.e. if there were two Bourne Identity films, one in 1995 and one in 2002, then you would have one say "1995 film" and one say "2002 film". If this is the only film, then it should simply be "film" in the title. The same goes for the TV miniseries. That shouldn't have a year in the title either.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Isn't The Bourne Identity (TV miniseries) more of a TV movie than a miniseries? –Pomte 20:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know anything about the miniseries (or TV movie if that is what it is). If it was a made-for-tv movie then it needs "film" as the subtitle, then the yearly separaters would make since. If it was a mini-series that ran, then the year from this title needs to be removed.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

1988 version of The Bourne Identity[edit]


Also, check this please (and see if you can mention it in your article): [3]

The Bourne Identity (1988) (TV)
Director:Roger Young

Cast (Cast overview, first billed only)

Richard Chamberlain ...  Jason Bourne 
Jaclyn Smith ...  Marie St. Jacques 
Anthony Quayle ...  Gen. François Villiers 
Donald Moffat ...  David Abbott 
Yorgo Voyagis ...  Carlos 
Peter Vaughan ...  Fritz Koenig 
Denholm Elliott ...  Geoffrey Washburn 

Plot Summary: A man is washed ashore the beach of a small French village during a heavy storm. A retired doctor takes care of the unconscious stranger. When the mysterious man recovers, he cannot remember anything - He does not know his name, he does not know where flashback memories of violence come from, and he sure does not know why the access code of an anonymous Swiss bank account is implanted in his thigh. As he searches for his identity, things soon become dangerous. There are attempts to kill him, he is well known in first class hotels all around Europe, and, worst of all, there are strange similarities between his memories and reported actions of a high class terrorist, Carlos.

1988 Won Emmy Award Outstanding Achievement in Music Composition for a Miniseries or a Special (Dramatic Underscore) Laurence Rosenthal (composer) For part I.

1988 Nominated Emmy Outstanding Editing for a Miniseries or a Special - Single Camera Production Benjamin A. Weissman (editor) Ellen Ring Jacobson (editor)

1989 Nominated Golden Globe Best Performance by an Actor in a Mini-Series or Motion Picture Made for TV Richard Chamberlain

--MirceaD (talk) 22:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


The text of the article says that Bourne was first found by Italian fishermen, but I was under they impression they were Greek. Can anyone confirm? —Wrathchild (talk) 19:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Why no talk about how far the plot in the movie deviates from the book?[edit]

I was shocked at the extent that the movie deviated from the book!

The movie shared little with the book aside from the name, the basic premise and some of the names.

It is truly a shame because IMHO this was the greatest spy novel ever written by the greatest spy novel author who ever lived. I have this theory that a contributing factor in his death was the broken heart after seeing what they had done with his greatest creation.

Genepilot (talk) 21:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:The Bourne Identity (2002 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA Sweeps: Pass[edit]

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I went through the article and made various changes (including cutting down the plot), added some sources, and merged the soundtrack back into the article. Please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2007. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It may be beneficial to look for any updates, or see if there were any more recent stories in the news. I would also recommend updating the access dates of the sources. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 00:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

hello —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The Bourne Legacy[edit]

It has long since been confirmed that neither Matt Damon nor previous director Paul Greengrass will have any involvement in the next Bourne film. Can somebody please update the final paragraph of the article to reflect this, along with a suitable reference? Thanks. For the time being, I have removed the contradictory statement saying that they WILL return, along with its reference (which dates back to 2009) Nmb882003 (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


Can I get some thoughts on whether we should say that this film is a remake of the 1988 film? My opinion is that we shouldn't do so without a reliable source, but I thought I should check with others. Thanks. DonIago (talk) 16:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)