Talk:The Bourne Ultimatum (film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Final Scene

The final scene in the film is not part of the Bourne Supremacy. If you watch the film closely, Pamela and Jason are having a conversation on phone. While this is happening, a discovery is made--which is the audio file of the final conversation between Pamela and Jason. Pamela and Jason's conversation pertains to Jason getting Pamela out of the office and into an open area.

To summarize the time frame. Jason calls Pamela after he is paged in the airport and taken via taxi cab to just outside the Headquarters. There conversation consists of Jason telling Pamela to meet him in that area.

While this conversation is happening, one of the Director's staff finds the audio clip of the phone conversation between Jason and Pamela from Bourne Supremacy. The film then cuts to the clips from the movie to give you a reference point. Following this, the Director makes the call to have Pamela followed.

So, the clip showing scenes of Bourne Supremacy do not equate to being part of the same time line. It is just a flashback. rpresley 12:01, 4 Aug 2007 (Eastern)

Then why does the movie begin in Moscow? It seems to me that the Moscow to New York transition is the whole twist of the movie.

I don't remember any of the above conversations happening in the film. They say specifically that Jason is looking right at her and he is within 1000 yards/meters of the building. It started in moscow because there was a shootout at the beginning and Bourne was framed for the crime

I disagree. I think it's clear that the conversation between Landy and Bourne at the end of the Supremacy and near the end of Ultimatum are one and the same. The timeline weaves between the two movies, but it is entirely consistent. In Supremacy, the viewer has no idea what happens between the car crash in Moscow and the conversation in the final scene with Landy (other than the apology to the Russian woman). That gap is filled by almost the full length of Ultimatum. Ultimatum begins immediately following the car crash in Supremacy, with Bourne evading the Moscow police. Then the majority of Ultimatum describes the events that eventually bring Bourne back to the states, (omitting the apology, because that would give away the twist), where he has the conversation with Landy, filling the gap. Ultimatum then continues the timeline from where Supremacy left off. This is why the two conversations are identical, word for word. Also, when the CIA hears the conversation between Bourne and Landy, it's in real time, and not a recording of something that has already happened; because she is not on board with killing Bourne, they are explicitly told to "keep an eye" on her, which would include monitoring her cell usage. Basically, it's a huge, awesome mindfuck. 69.232.159.127 19:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

rpresley, you couldn't be more wrong. There was never a conversation where they talked about meeting... the meeting was setup by a text message from Bourne. Landy didn't know it was fake, and I also don't think she knew she was under surveillance - at least until she arrived. Riskbreaker927 13:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not clear in what I am saying. If you watch Bourne Supremacy, the final scene there has Pamela and Jason talking. In it, she reveals his real name and DOB.

In Bourne Ultimatum, the organization she is with discovers a file audio clip of that very same conversation. What fools many of you is that while this discovery occurs, they are showing an actual conversation between Bourne and Landy.

Two conversations. 1 is from Bourne Supremacy and the other Bourne Ultimatum.

1 is from Supremacy that is Audio File discovered by the organization: You're real name is David Webb. DOB is...

The other from Ultimatum: Bourne tells her to meet her in the square. That is why she keeps asking Jason. Why else would she go outside? She was told by Jason to go somewhere. She didn't just pick a random spot some distance away from HQ and knew that the organization would tail her so that Jason could get in. If she did, she knew more than anyone in that organization and knew Jason's moves even before Jason.

It is coincidental that the Organization discovers the old conversation at the same time Bourne calls Landy with an entirely new conversation. If anything, Bourne taped it and sent it to her. They are not the same conversations nor are they happening at the same time of events in Bourne Supremacy.

Again. Let me reiterate one more time. They interweave the conversations. There is one from Supremacy and one from Ultimatum. The one from Supremacy is discovered in an audio file. It is a replay. It is not happening at the same time as the events in Ultimatum. They discover it at the same time she gets a conversation.

She was not under surveillance until they discovered the old audio conversation.

[User:Rpresley|Rpresley]] 13:45, 5 August 2007 (EAS)

Rpresley, sorry, but I think you're mistaken. I watched Supremacy, then immediately went to see Ultimatum (for the 2nd time). The conversations are one and the same, verbatim, including the fake DOB. Landy has no idea what Bourne's plans are, and she doesn't intentionally draw the rest of the CIA away from the office. She goes outside where Jason can see her, and he then sees that she's being tailed, and he takes advantage of it by texting her to a fake meeting point, drawing the tails with her. It's clear from all three movies that Bourne is a total badass that pull everyone's strings without their knowing it, and it's ridiculous to think that she would know what Bourne was doing before he did himself. I recommend watching both Supremacy and Ultimatum again. If you still think they're different conversations, then you're completely missing out one of the coolest, most original twists in movie history. 65.173.1.36 17:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are wrong. If they are one in the same conversation (meaning the final conversation Bourne has with Pamela at the end of Supremacy is the exact same one happening in real time in sequence with the events of Ultimatum) then you have to disregard the facts that Bourne knows his real name in Ultimatum prior to that phone call. So yes. I'm wrong. But only if you forget the fact that he knows he's David Webb prior to when that scene occurs in Ultimatum. Either that was the biggest goof in the entire movie, or I'm right, and that the CIA is playing an audio clip they found of Pamela with the conversationfrom the end of the 2nd movie while Pamela is having a conversation with Bourne about her getting him to meet..[User:rpresley]

Rpresley, I've seen Ultimatum twice now, and I can't recall anything that implies that Jason Bourne knows his real name prior to the conversation with Landy. I may be mistaken, but I don't believe his real name is mentioned in any of the flashbacks of the training facility, nor in any conversation with Nicky or the reporter. What makes you think he knows he's David Webb during Ultimatum? If your answer is "Because Landy told him at the end of Supremacy," then your logic is circular. Also, all the other flashbacks in Ultimatum are clearly shot in a different style, all blurred and choppily edited with distant, echoey sounding audio, yet the conversation between Landy and Bourne is shot completely straight. Why wouldn't the director use the same flashback effect if he meant to convey that the conversation was a flashback? Also, when Bourne tells Pam "You look tired," Vosen realizes that Bourne is nearby (within a few blocks) and and immediately orders the CIA to sweep the immediate area. Why would he do that if he had heard a recording of a months-old conversation? 65.173.1.36 17:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It was my understanding that Landy re-initiated the conversation from the end of Supremacy in order to tip Bourne off that she would help him. However, if she gave the same DOB as she did in Supremacy, then it doesn't make sense. Either hypothesis has big holes. Mcr29 04:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I just went to see Ultimatum tonight and I strongly believe that the conversation at the end of Supremacy is supposed to be the exact same conversation that is in Ultimatum, at the same time. Think about it, in order for them to be separate events, he would have gone from Moscow to New York and then back to Moscow again were he was again shot in the same shoulder and on the run from the cops. When I saw the first scene of Ultimatum I thought "That's weird, he is back in Moscow with the same bullet wound and a limp again." Didn't really think about it again until I saw it on here. But the conversations are word for word (same DOB), same background images (same building and flag), same cellphone. I thought they might have slipped up with what he used to spy on her with but they didn't show that part in Supremacy. The part after that in Supremacy where he is walking on the street might different from Ultimatum, but I would have to watch it again to make sure it isn't showing him walking to the CIA office. So yes, Bourne wouldn't have known his real name in Ultimatum until that point, unless someone else (Nicky or someone in the flashbacks) said it to him. They may have even used the same film for it unless they reshot it to get better camera angles. The scene in Ultimatum showing them listening in is not an audio file as she was already under surveillance. 64.113.86.234 06:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the ending of Supremacy is the same as that scene. Ultimatum begins before the end of Supremacy. All the events before Ultimatum's conversation occur between Supremacy's Moscow car chase and the end of the second movie. Even the article's plot summary states that the story begins in medias es. Msahimi 08:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

If the conversations are one in the same, and Bourne knew nothing of his true identity prior to the conversation, how did he know the DOB she gave him was false? Mcr29 17:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, when Bourne says he has tried to apologize for the things he's done, I took that to mean/include the confession to the Neski girl. Mcr29 17:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The movie shows the 415 written on the building and the sign for 71st street in his flashbacks, before the conversation. Maybe his memory was triggered when she mentioned it explicitly. Also, he obtained the Blackbriar files, which probably contain the address. 65.173.1.36 17:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to finish this off, they are the same conversation. Supremacy jumps from Moscow to New York. Ultimatum fills in the gap between Moscow and New York. If they are two different conversations, this is what would have to happen: Bourne goes to Moscow, then New York, then Moscow, then New York, then they have the exact same conversation as before. Has anyone ever heard of Occam's razor? You would if you had been watching Eureka like you should. The simplest explanation is usually correct. ColdFusion650 20:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The clever twist is how we were all mislead at the end of supremacy with that end scene and how critical context is. I juts saw it, and there isn't even a hint that the two are the same exact scene and time frame. He probably is aware that something is wrong from the tone of her voice and the substance of the conversation. He can probably figure out the birthday isn't his. Perhaps he's seen the address before, or it just seems very familiar to him. The idea they are pulling up an old conversation and then acting on it seems to be a huge red herring. When it come out on DVD I expect people will stop voicing this mis interpretation of the scene. Just think about it. Would a writer want to construct a great twisting mind fuck, or would they want to construct some odd plot device like pulling up an old conversation which oddly is immediately useful but they just happened not think of it before etc..

I Just saw it too, an hour and a half ago (Ultimatum). And I just watched the end scene from Supremacy, and they look exactly the same. I don't have a photographic memory, but with the exception of the clips inserted into Ultimatum (where their scrambing around trying to intercept the phonecall and whatnot) it's the same footage, just slightly edited.

The whole 'discovered clip' thing is the CIA guys scrambling to tap Landy's phone as soon as they realize she is talking to Bourne... SaderBiscut 03:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not the same footage, it's reshot (if it's supposed to be the same scene that is). One thing that makes me wonder if it's the same conversation or not is that in Supremacy it's summer and sunny, but in Ultimatum it's winter and no sun... Edit: Another thing is that in Ultimatum we see, and hear someone entering while she's on the phone, which we don't in Supremacy. Probably just continuity errors though.. 85.165.216.212 03:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It probably is reshot to account for some slight aging in actors. They have aged a couple of years between movies and you don't want a scene in the middle of a movie where they suddenly appear younger for no apparent reason. Take the ending to Back to the Future. The beginning of Back to the Future II is supposed to be the same scene, but they had to reshoot to account for Michael J. Fox aging and having longer hair, the actor playing Jennifer changing, and the repainting of the house next door. So, although it was reshot, it is still intended to be the same scene. Same goes here. ColdFusion650 13:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a video clip on YouTube that plays both scenes simultaneously next to each other so that you can see they were not identical footage. However, I do think that the conversation only happened once, as Bourne was only found to have entered the U.S. that one time on his unused passport. If he had done so beforehand then Landy or someone else would have been able to pick up on it Masterblooregard 09:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Redirect

how come i can't get to the book's page o_o 71.86.66.86 11:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Still can't get to the book page... Do I need to delete the redirect? 76.20.216.51 22:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you probably should delete the redirect.Jared Meijin 02:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I edited the book page and the redirect. Now, everything is fine. Ken Bruce 04:08, June 6 2007 (UTC)

Lets hold off on the best movie ever on the page until it comes out at least.

Rating

What is the rating of The Bourne Ultimatum?? -- {{The Chronicles of Ratman|76.178.81.131}}

It wouldn't have been classified yet. -- KTC 15:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The movie is coming out in a month but it is still not rated Rush Hour 3 is coming out later and is already rated. I have a feeling The Bourne Ultimatum is going to be rated R. thechroniclesofratman

Just like the other two, it's PG13. An R rating would've seriously restricted the potential audience. Cliff smith 20:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Plot summary

It could use some cleaning up. A lot, actually. I tried my best with one of the first few paragraphs but the rest of it needs a lot more work. In fact, some parts are just plain wrong - Bourne didn't "lose his memory" at the training facility, he lost it on a boat in the Marseille sea. Riskbreaker927 13:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It needs to be shorter too. It's at about 1,600 words right now, and WP:FILMS prescribes 900 at most, but with a few exceptions. Once the hype dies down, we can really begin summarizing it. Cliff smith 21:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be a synopsis anyway? Why is it the entire, detailed plot.

I don't understand the question. In reference to the length, it's in the neighborhood of 730 last i checked. Ideal length is 600 though. ColdFusion650 01:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Same coffee shop?

My memory of it is shaky, and maybe the geography couldn't possibly work out, AND it's been a while since I've seen Identity...but wasn't the coffee shop where Bourne and Nicky stopped in Ultimatum (when Bourne asks Nicky why she's helping him) the same as the one he stopped at with Marie in Identity (where he made the "catching the sightlines and looking for an exit" speech)? If so, that should obviously go in the "References to Previous Films" section. But it's probably not. Anyone want to confirm/deny this? 70.187.178.134 11:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point, but I don't think they're the same place. I noticed that it was oddly similar looking, though. I think it was just part of them trying to hint that Bourne and Parsons used to be together. They did it in two ways - one was Parsons almost explicitly (but not quite) saying so, and the other was the parallelism in certain scenes - the restaurant, the cutting of hair. Admit it, you thought Bourne was gonna do her on the spot. I'm kind of glad they didn't though, it would've reeked of "cheap plot device" if they took it that far. Riskbreaker927 14:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You got to save a little something for The Bourne Legacy and The Bourne Betrayal. ColdFusion650 14:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Response Section

For the response section, shouldn't we use a more well-known and credible source such as Ebert and Roeper? Not that it matters much, but RottenTomatoes.com just doesn't have that official ring to it. --D 12:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Rottentomatoes is a credible summary of responses. It would be fine to have specific comments from individual reviewers, but only including that without aggregate data could easily give misperceptions of true response to a film. When it comes to aggregate data on movie reviews, there is probably nothing more official than rottentomatoes.Gwynand 14:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Gwynand since RottenTomatoes is credible. But yes, "Response" needs more variety. Publications like The NY Times, the LA Times, Chicago-Sun Times, and TIME Magazine would be good places to find critical response to the film. Cliff smith 23:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The response section needs significant cleanup. It seems that someone has a vendetta against the "shaky camera use" in the last two films. As it stands, the response section makes it seem like this cinematography style is universally disdained when film critics' opinions differ dramatically here. David Denby of the New Yorker, among others, praised it, so I think we should let everyone know that the cinematography style is at worst "controversial" and at best "unorthodox."Z-minder 06:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Images

While images can be good, the third one where Bourne closes in on Desh is a bit of a spoiler. Cliff smith 23:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers don't matter, especially in a plot section. However, there are way too many images in there. Hopefully, someone with less of a deletionist eye should do it, cause you don't me to start removing stuff. ColdFusion650 23:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

There's enough images in here for now, I believe. As I said when I was talking about the plot, the article will greatly improve once the hype dies down. Cliff smith 00:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I took some photos of the shoot at Waterloo - if you want to use any of them in the future, then just download them from http://www.flickr.com/photos/ambrose/sets/72157594473177022/ Icerve 19:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

For the production section, right? ColdFusion650 19:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Production

The official website could probably be used to add to and reference the production section. Cliff smith 03:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Marie/Franka Potente

Shouldn't Marie appear on the cast list, as she most definitely shows up prominently in the film, even if they're clips from the previous two films? I did notice that she is not credited in the film itself, or at IMDB... 132.205.44.5 22:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

If she's not credited in the film, and it's only flashback footage from the previous films, I would say she doesn't belong on the list. ColdFusion650 22:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

linkages

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

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.205.44.5 (talk • contribs) 17:46, August 8, 2007 (CDT)

• The passport used by Jason Bourne to enter the US is the same passport as the first passport visible in the safety deposit box underneath the false bottom from The Bourne Identity.

Unnecessary Plot Details

I know that everybody wants through their thing into the plot section, but the plot doesn't usually get overly long at one time. It gets that way a few sentences at a time. For example, this short plot became this juggernaut, a few sentences at a time. (Note: I did not add the overly long plot tag.) So, please be careful when extending the plot. The details should be absolutely necessary to understanding the plot. ColdFusion650 00:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The current plot is 803 words, and WP:MOSFILMS says it should be 500-700. So, if you want to work on the plot, please help trim it down some more. ColdFusion650 18:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It's fine as is. The ultimate limit is 900, so it doesn't need to be any shorter since the plot is fairly complicated. Cliff smith 00:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Great work people. We found a way to get it down around the 700 butter zone. Rest up. In the morning, the cabal moves on to the town, like a Mongol horde we go. ColdFusion650 01:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Nicky and Bourne

As far as I can remember, the only hint at a relationship between Nicky and Bourne is a look across a table that some people interpret to mean a relationship. This personal interpretation is textbook original research. What if that look is my "I need a refill on this Coke" face? Then, my personal interpretation would that Nicky wanted Bourne to flag down the waitress. They were in a restaurant after all. So you see, without something like a DVD commentary to get inside the heads of the filmmakers, we really can't know, and we can't speculate. ColdFusion650 11:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The only other clue is when Nicky said something along the lines of things being difficult with him. Joshdboz 14:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course, that's easily explained away by the multiple drownings it took to get him to kill that guy. He was strong willed and didn't break easily. ColdFusion650 14:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so you think that line was referring to Borune's initial training? I thought it was Nicky talking about her former relationship with him. Joshdboz 20:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what he/she or anybody else thinks. This isn't a forum for discussion about the movie. Speculation about Nicky and Bourn's potential love history doesn't belong in the article since it falls under the heading of original research. Wisdom89 22:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Exactly my point. ColdFusion650 23:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I never said speculation belongs in this article. But if hints at a previous relationship are deemed important in the plot,they should be included. This certainly is a forum for disucssion about the movie in how it pertains to this article. Joshdboz 10:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Nicky and Bourne have a past association, to which she refers. Association does not mean romance, it means that they knew each other and had at least a working relationship of some kind. It's part of the movie, it's in the dialogue, and this is not a matter of personal interpretation. The words "past association" do not imply romance, nor do they refer to anything that isn't in the dialogue of the film. This does not qualify as original research. ColdFusion, please remember that many people contribute to this entry. If there is a point of repeated dispute, could we discuss it and come to a compromise rather than engaging in an endless edit war. --74.121.50.59 01:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing in the dialog talks about her causes for helping him. And as you can see from the previous discussion, I do not stand alone. Original research is original research, no matter how logical. Many people believe that it is explicit in the movie. However, on repeated viewing, it is obviously not. What happens is people assume something. Then, they incorporate it into their memories of the movie. Then, they come to believe it was actually there. It is a form of self-brainwashing. They actually did a report on Dateline or 20/20 or something a few years on it. Quite fascinating. People were convinced that a certain event happened to them, when it really didn't. They implanted a false memory in their own brains. Anyway, the point is, it just isn't there. Until an interview or DVD extra makes it explicit, we can't include it. And it really isn't that important as the plot section makes sense without it. ColdFusion650 02:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Your argument is incorrect in its foundation; you are declaring that stating Bourne and Nicky had a past romance does not belong in the plot summary. The words "past association" do not imply romance at all. The question of WHY Nicky is helping Bourne is raised by Bourne, and her reply is that the answer lies in something before Bourne lost his memory. That's all the "past association" is meant to declare; there is nothing about romance. If reference to a romantic relationship between the two is something you want kept out, well, there is no such reference at all.--74.121.50.59 02:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

First, reread the first sentence. I wasn't talking solely about a romantic relationship. I said "Nothing in the dialog talks about her causes for helping him." That includes anything in their past. You say that she replies to Bourne. She doesn't. All she does is give a look. Nothing is stated, about anything. You need to see the movie again, and take notes. Now, I've already reverted this 3 times today, for now it will have to stay unless another editor comes along to fix it, but it is not permanent. ColdFusion650 02:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Why do I get the feeling that using the phrase "past association" is circumvention and just a method for integrating into the article something which a majority of moviegoers have interpreted? It still smacks of OR and doesn't belong. Wisdom89 03:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure exploring your feelings is really my responsibility here. In any case, how about an amendment with saying that Nicky hints at something that Bourne's forgotten with his amnesia?--74.121.50.59 14:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

That much is explicitly stated. ColdFusion650 14:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

My interpretation was that Nicky 1) believes Bourne was being framed in Supremacy, and 2) sympathizes with Bourne's loss of Marie. 65.173.1.36 23:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Continuity References aren't trivia

Wikipedia policy specifically states that not all lists are trivia sections. What makes a section "trivia", regardless of its name, is that it contains a disorganized and unselective list. A selectively-populated list with a narrow theme is not trivia, and can be the best way to present some information -- for example, a list of unobvious pop-culture references made by a television episode.

Obvious references to the previous films in the series, listed in full, do not count as trivia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.121.50.59 (talk • contribs) 23:16, August 11, 2007 (CDT)

"Obvious references"? Sounds like Original research to me Wisdom89 04:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Blackbriar was mentioned in the first film. Fact. Nicky and Bourne are in a cafe in Ultimatum just as Marie and Bourne were in Identity. Nicky dyes her hair black just as Marie did. Fact. Bourne is immobile in the water at the end of Ultimatum as he was at the start of Identity. Fact. This is not a disorganized and unselective list, and is certainly of value in the entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.121.50.59 (talk • contribs) 00:01, August 12, 2007 (CDT)

Blackbriar I'll let go as that was most explicit. However, there is no secondary source to verify this - not to mention that things such as camera angles and Bourn's watery silhouette without the support of reliable sources, DVD commentary or interviews from the director/producers, fall within the circle of "viewer subjectivity". That's original research. Technically, I could expunge the entire list based on that alone since nothing is cited, but I won't as I have no desire to start an edit war. I'm just pointing out some Wiki policy/guidelines.Wisdom89 05:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that the closing scene of "Ultimatum" isn't a direct reiteration of the opening of "Identity"? As for secondary sources, I suppose in a few months time we could put up stills from each film to compare the images. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.121.50.59 (talk • contribs) 09:08, August 12, 2007 (CDT)

(paragraph break) Here's how it looks right now:

• The opening chase sequence of The Bourne Ultimatum is a continuation of the Russian police attempts to capture Bourne in Moscow near the end of The Bourne Supremacy and takes place prior to Bourne's apology to Irina Neski in the previous film.
• The Blackbriar operation was first mentioned at the end of The Bourne Identity when Deputy Director Ward Abbott (Brian Cox) was before the Oversight Committee.
• When Nicky and Bourne talk in the cafe and Nicky mentions her previous association with Bourne, the framing of the shots is reminiscent of the cafe scene with Marie and Bourne in The Bourne Identity.
• After Nicky and Bourne escape Desh in Tangier, Nicky dyes her hair black and cuts her hair, as Marie did during The Bourne Identity.
• During the car chase with Paz in The Bourne Ultimatum Bourne gets t-boned similarly to what he does to Krill in the climax of The Bourne Supremacy. But of course he doesn't die because he grabs the seat belt at the last second.
• A scene during the second half The Bourne Ultimatum has Bourne talking to Landy while spying on her from another building. This is an exact duplication of the final scene of The Bourne Supremacy.
• In the rooftop climax, Bourne tells Paz, "Look at what they make you give," reiterating the dying words of the Treadstone assassin played by Clive Owen in The Bourne Identity.
• The shots of an immobile Bourne floating in the river near the end of The Bourne Ultimatum echo the opening of The Bourne Identity, which began with a similar image.

1. The first statement is presently addressed in the plot, so it can go.
2. The second statement on Blackbriar's mentioning in Identity could also be incorporated into the plot, but is something available at the page for Identity.
3. The third one about similar shot framing sounds like POV, albeit the situation is similar. But is it noteworthy?
4. Nicky cuts and dies her hair just like Marie did. The entire general story arc within the narrative of how Bourne is on the run with a woman who must change her appearance is like in Identity. Big deal; I'm not sure if that's of note either.
5. Similar car chase result, yes. Again, is that really notable?
6. Another thing about how the ending of Supremacy takes place mid-way in Ultimatum. Redundant.
7. Bourne's restatement of what The Professor (Clive Owen) said is unmistakable—maybe it could be incorporated into the plot.
8. Again, "the shots are similar". This puzzles me because there does appear to be similarity, but perhaps DVD commentary will shed light upon this. Until it does, it falls under original research.

So basically it looks like this: 1 and 6 should go; 2 could be incorporated into the plot; 3, 4, 5 have questionable noteworthiness; 7 could go into the plot; and we should wait on 8 since DVD commentary could verify this and maybe 3 and 5 as well. Cliff smith 15:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent breakdown and analysis. I am in the agreement with most of it. Some of it may be integrated into the plot that's for sure, some of it is reiterative, while a few points are blatant OR. Wisdom89 16:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It's all either trivia, non-notable, or original research. Get rid of it. ColdFusion650 17:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur with ColdFusion650. The issue is that this is a completely subjective argument about what's notable for inclusion or not. This is original research in a sense; indiscriminate factual observations are pieced together by editors to create a "notable" section in this film article. It would be far better to find independent, secondary sources that cover the most relevant cross-references, and not place it in the hands of editors to choose apparent references to their liking. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The car chase is notable. It's similarity has Bourne not kill Paz, which is important in the end. In Supremacy, Bourne T-bones Kril with his car. He gets out with his gun and sees his head on the steering wheel staring back and dead. In Ultimatum, this time Paz t-bones Bourne, however Bourne survives and gets out with his gun and stares down Paz who is in the same position as Kiril, and Bourne flees without shooting once more, this time because he no longer wants to be Bourne. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SSamdang (talk • contribs) 18:21, August 13, 2007 (CDT)

Again, what a majority of moviegoeres observe as similar/notable/obvious etc..etc..etc.. doesn't have any bearing on whether it should be included in the article. In the absence of secondary sources or citations, it is a violation of WP:V and WP:NOR, nothing more nothing lessWisdom89 02:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

SO I see there is a "reference to previous films" section now. Suck it wisdom89. suck it long and hard.

Ref accessdates

I know I've said this five times before in edit summaries, but when updating information from a source, update the accessdate on the ref tag. This indicates which date the information is up-to-date to. This is the only way it can be accurate. It seems that since the addition of the refs, no one updating information has been changing the accessdates. Please start doing so. ColdFusion650 19:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody care about accessdates? I still seem to be the only one. Please update the accessdate when updating the daily gross. ColdFusion650 23:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler tag

Could we possibly have a spoiler notice put in here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.80.9.149 (talk • contribs) 16:54, August 14, 2007 (CDT)

No. It's not needed. Spoiler tags are on the way out and should only be used in extreme cases of spoilers in articles where you would not expect them. ColdFusion650 21:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Interquel

Is this movie actually an interquel to The Bourne Supremacy rather than a true sequel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.140.50 (talk • contribs) 18:18, August 15, 2007 (CDT)

That would be a technical maybe. Here's the thing. The ending sequence of Supremacy is a few seconds long. Does that few seconds really qualify Ultimatum as an interquel? Second, Ultimatum does not take place completely during Supremacy. The first 1/2-3/4 does, but the part at the training facility does not take place during it. Third, every source I've seen calls Ultimatum a sequel. Therefore, under a very strict interpretation of the original research policy, we can't call it an interquel without a source. So, I would say sequel is fine. ColdFusion650 23:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

Information appropriately categorized cannot be called irrelevant. Many film pages contain trivia, and props usually fall into that category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.67.48.240 (talk) 06:33, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

According to the Manual of Style "[Trivia] sections should not be categorically removed..." I've noticed this keeps happening. Further suggested in the Manual of Style is the inclusion of facts into the main sections of the article. I've read the gun trivia and checked it. It's plain to see that gun is in the movie. I suggest it be integrated into the plot section rather than be removed.69.140.33.146 07:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It's not important enough to be included in the plot. It can't be in it's own trivia section. If you can find a way to include it, that's fine. ColdFusion650 15:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

What I've usually done with trivia sections in film articles is that I import them to the talk page so they can possibly be incorporated later. It depends on the entries, though -- if there is some real-world basis for an entry, it can be merged somewhere else in the article. If it's a mere observation, though, like "This is the third film done by both <actor> and <director>," then it's definitely trivial. A more appropriate entry to merge would be something like, "This movie was filmed in so-and-so." (Yes, this has appeared in trivia sections.) But no respectable film article would have a trivia section per reasons explained at WP:AVTRIV. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Correction

Is this correct "Deputy Director Pamela Landy (Joan Allen) is brought in to help capture Bourne" my understanding was that Landy was brought in so they could scapegoat her if things went wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.234.250.71 (talk) 10:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

That was later revealed too. So it's both.--Svetovid 14:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Huh, I always thought Kramer put her there to serve as a counterweight to Vosen Masterblooregard 19:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Vladmir Neski plothole

This is pretty minor, but in the scene where Landy is flipping through Bourne's files after he's been "killed" by Desh, a profile of his Neski mission comes up, the very document that Nicki claimed not to exist in Supremacy Masterblooregard 19:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2