Hollywood Babble On & On #1255: Can Amazing Stories Be Amazing Again?

Cult TV showrunner Bryan Fuller has been given the green light by NBC to bring back the 1980s anthology series Amazing Stories.

If you're one of those millennials with no knowledge of your pop culture heritage Amazing Stories was an anthology TV series inspired by Amazing Stories Magazine, the first science-fiction and fantasy magazine founded by Hugo Gernsback. The show was brought to television by Stephen Spielberg at a time when he could literally do no wrong on the big screen and NBC was hoping to bring some of that to the small screen.

Like most Spielberg related TV projects it had a huge beginning with lots of big names appearing in front of and behind the camera, but like so many other Spielberg TV projects it fizzled out in the second season, and was cancelled. 

This is because Spielberg has two things against him when it comes to producing a TV show. He is too busy making movies to be much more than a name in the credits after the pilot's been shot, and Spielberg has a notorious aversion to conflict, which means that unless he has a strong partner and showrunner, the network will walk over the show and grind it into the dirt. That's why the only Spielberg-branded show to have any real success after its first season was ER, because he had Michael Crichton's name on it, and they had showrunners with balls and clout.

Now, hot on the heels of cancelling Fuller's critically claim and hyper-stylish horror series Hannibal, they want him to bring it back.

Now Fuller can do Amazing Stories in one of three ways:

STORY OF THE WEEK: This is the traditional approach made famous by The Twilight Zone. The problem with this traditional approach is that tradition can very quickly become a rut. The tendency is to not exactly do what The Twilight Zone did, but a vague memory of what they thought The Twilight Zone did. They slip into a comfortable trap of stories of things that seem normal at first, then they go weird, and pow, there's a twist in the end.

That can get really boring, really quick. There is a way to avoid this, and this is to go literary. 

There is literally a couple of centuries of short fiction in the genres of science fiction, fantasy and horror. That means that they don't have to be reliant on TV writers and their vague memories of another TV show for stories. Of course that would take effort to find the stories, and money to buy the ones not in public domain, which means that plan probably won't be done.

STORY OF THE SEASON: This format is pretty popular through shows like True Detective and American Horror Story. Basically, you do each season like a novel for television where a story goes for X number of episodes of a season, it ends when the season ends, and new story runs for the next season.

This is popular, but it too has its pitfalls. If you have an incredible first season story, the odds are really good that if the second season story isn't light years better, it will be declared a total failure.

Plus, networks are tempted to take a successful story that originally had a set ending, and then say: "Hey, let's have a second season of just that" and then they flog it until it's dead and stinky.

MASTERPIECE THEATRE IT: This is a hybrid of the other two formats. Basically you set the show up as a sort-of brand that covers a range of science fiction, fantasy, and horror productions that range from stand-alone one-episode stories, to multi-episode arcs.

This can give the writers the leeway they need to experiment with long form and short form stories, but the hazard is that the audience might find the format jarring, and tune out, or that only certain stories and their sequels catch on, and come to dominate the show's run, thus killing the whole "anthology" idea.

Anyway, that's what I think, let me know what you think in the comments...

Hollywood Babble On & On #1237: NBC To Trump - "YOU'RE FIRED!!"

I'm not posting a picture of Trump so here's Ivanka instead

Donald Trump, real estate heir and TV personality, is running for President, and decided to open his campaign with a rant about illegal immigration using all kinds of inflammatory language setting back the cause of immigration reform back about a decade. 

In response, Univision, the Spanish language TV network, ended their relationship with Trump's TV endeavours. In response Trump was loud and boorish, and then NBC cut all ties to the man known as The Donald.

This makes Trump's campaign just one of the most expensive publicity stunts he's ever pulled.

And that's what I think his campaign is, it's just another publicity stunt from a man whose entire life is built on publicity and spin.

Trump's greatest successes, outside of his daughter, who beyond her aesthetic qualities, seems to have a capable head on her shoulders, is his ability to sell myths about himself.

Trump sold the myth that he was a self-made, up from nothing, entrepreneur, when he actually just walked into an already successful real estate business built by his father.

He named a casino after what was supposed to be a tomb

Trump sold the myth that he's been an unqualified success saw a business genius, even though companies in his casino empire have gone bankrupt 4 times.

Think about that, his companies have gone under 4 times in a business where people just walk in to give you money, on land he bought for pennies on the dollar from the Atlantic City government.

Which brings me to my next point, he's currently selling the myth that he's a Republican. I've been doing a little digging, and the more serious conservative outlets do more than consider him a joke, they consider him an opportunist Democrat. I even heard on pundit describe his campaign as how a liberal Democrat imagines a Republican candidate to talk and act.

Despite occasionally registering as a Republican, and endorsing GOP candidate Mitt Romney in 2012, most of Trump's political donations, endorsements, and stances are firmly in the orbit of the Democratic Party.

In the past, Trump has financially supported, endorsed, or actively campaigned very un-Republican causes like strict gun control, government run health care, and the expansion of eminent domain.

"What is eminent domain and why does Trump support its expansion?"

Eminent domain is when the government forces a property owner to sell their property to the government at a discount, sometimes at an even deeper discount if the government decides the property is considered "blighted." 

Normally, eminent domain is supposed to be only used to build projects for the public good. Things like roads, bridges, hospitals, airports, etc…

Still won't post any pictures of Donald.

However, many local and state governments have broadened the definitions of public good, and blighted. Those definitions means that they can effectively take property from taxpaying citizens and give them to private companies for their private aims. They've also expanded the definition of "blighted" to basically allow governments to use taxpayer money to take to private property and sell them to their buddies for pennies on the dollar.

The Supreme Court declared the practice legal in the Kelo V. City of New London decision, a decision that Donald Trump has publicly declared he loves. The abuse of eminent domain is how he built those Atlantic City casinos who went through four bankruptcies.

A little known fact that I gleaned from my research is that while Trump loves the Kelo decision a lot of Republicans despise it. They consider it a combo of big government abuse on behalf of their cronies. It's unlikely that they will let someone who "loves" it get the GOP nomination without a brutal fight.

It's only a matter of time before Trump's many ideological differences with the party become a campaign issue, and the 50+ other Republican candidates jump on him like a pack of ravenous dogs.

Now let's get back to Trump being dumped by NBC.

First, Trump is not being "censored" by NBC. They are a private company, they are not the government. They are also not stopping him from speaking his mind, they are simply saying that they are not going to pay him to do it.

NBC is perfectly within their rights to do that.

Donald Trump is boasting that he will sue NBC for breach of contract and win.

I doubt that.

All showbiz contracts, especially television contracts, have what is called a "moral turpitude" clause. It basically means that if The Donald does anything that might reflect badly on NBC or anything associated with NBC, they are well within their rights to can his ass.

He did, and they did.

End of story.

Now, can we please stop talking about Donald Trump?

Hollywood Babble On & On #1234: Friends, Romans, Countrymen...

Last night David Letterman broadcast his last episode as host of CBS' Late Show, paving the way for his replacement, former comedy central host/faux pundit, Stephen Colbert.

I should mourn Letterman's retirement, because I was a fan of his blend of comedy and performance art when I first stumbled upon him on a summer night in the mid-to-late 1980s. He was different, he was daring, he was edgy, he seemed sincerely interested in his guests and their work, and he wasn't afraid to tweak the noses and the expectations of not only the audience, but the elite New York corporate establishment that signed his pay checks.

Back then it was him and the audience against the stuffed shirts of the establishment, and it was exhilarating. It showed that late night talk shows, which were becoming stuffy institutions had possibilities to be something more than just a place for celebrities to plug their next product.

He made the talk show cool again.

Then it died.

Not quickly. It was a slow and painful death, but it was a death nonetheless.

The first was the severe thrashing he got at the hands of NBC in the War of the Tonight Show succession between him and Jay Leno. At first it looked like Letterman had the upper-hand, since he was the handpicked successor of the retiring Johnny Carson. However, neither he or Carson saw just how bloody this war was going to get.

Leno won the Tonight Show, through a combination of what the network thought was his more mainstream appeal and compliant personality, as well as the ruthless machinations of his then manager.

It was a bitter victory for Leno because the Tonight Show struggled in the ratings for quite some time after he took it over. It was so bad in that early period that NBC offered the job to Letterman who had been finishing off his contract with NBC. Johnny Carson advised Letterman to jump to CBS and free himself from the constant internecine warfare that dominated NBC's internal politics.

For the first while on CBS it was great. David Letterman seemed to be winning the war for late night supremacy, then came Hugh Grant.

The Tonight Show scored Hugh Grant for his post-hooker-scandal mea culpa and it caused a seismic shift in the late night audience. Suddenly Leno started getting better ratings than Letterman, and that must have burned Letterman.

Letterman's style changed, becoming harsher and more caustic, and not against his old establishment targets. Instead his eye was now aimed at the audience that he saw as failing him by preferring Leno.

He also seemed to lose interest in his guests. The main purpose of the interviews changed. On Leno's Tonight Show it was all about getting the plugs done in time to make it to the next commercial break, and on Letterman's old show it was all about having fun. But in the mid-90s Letterman's interview style went from having fun to proving himself superior to his guests.

An air of smug arrogance took over Letterman's whole milieu. It was no longer him and the audience versus the establishment, he was now a fully paid up member of that establishment versus the audience. The establishment welcomed him with open arms, because he gave them a safe veneer of rebellion without challenging any of their own pet shibboleths.

Then audiences for late night talk shows in general began to shrink. A lot of people dropped out, souring on the declining returns from the talk shows, and the wider temptations of cable television.

The days when a late night powerhouse like Johnny Carson could earn over 25% of NBC's total revenue was gone and Letterman and Leno were part in parcel of that decline.

Hollywood Babble On & On #1222: Comebacks, Questions & Shameless Self Promotion

Network television is in a bit of a pickle.

Every day they lose viewers to their rivals be they cable channels, or streaming services like Netflix and Amazon.  The key to the success of these upstarts is that they produce bold original programming that the once mainstream networks don't deliver.

So what do the networks do?

They bring back shows from the dead.

Fox is bringing back The X Files, complete with original stars David Duchovny and Gillian Anderson.

Meanwhile NBC is bringing back 90s sitcom Coach with Craig T. Nelson.

Now the reaction to the return of The X Files has mostly been a big collective "Hell yeah!" A lot of people loved that show but was terribly dissatisfied with the way it fizzled out. Dying of over-extension, creative burnout, and network meddling. 

X-Fans, and they are legion, wanted the show to have a proper ending, something they didn't get from the jumbled mess of the second X Files movie. So a return would mean a lot to them, because it gives the beloved show, and its complex mythology a second chance at a proper ending.

Which brings me to Coach, and the question why?

I never watched the show myself, but I knew that it was popular, but not exactly ground-breaking or revolutionary. When I heard it was coming back I looked it up and saw that when the show ended after a very long run, they gave the characters some happy endings and wrapped it all up nice and neat.

There was no clamour for the return of Coach, no one griping online about how unsatisfied they were by the ending. So why resurrect it like The X Files?

The only explanation I can think of is the Twenty-Eight Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, or by it's more familiar name The Nelson-Bakula Amendment which was passed in 1986.

That Amendment states that actors Craig T. Nelson and Scott Bakula cannot be off television for more than six months at any given time. They're not getting any younger, and need to bank lots of episodes to rerun into infinity, because if they ever run out, then the government must nuke every state capitol.

Not sure why they passed and ratified it, seems like a silly thing to put into the Constitution, but who am I to judge?

In other news...

My short story A CHOICE OF MONSTERS is now available for Kindle users for 99¢ US.

It's a blend of actual movie history, adventure, and fantastical horror for any fans of monsters, movies, and monster movies.

Also available around the world, including:

United Kingdom

Canada

Australia

Not into monsters?

Maybe a crime story is more your thing.

Hollywood player Carter Bennett is losing friends fast. They're dying young, in the weirdest ways, and there's a strange old man showing up at their funerals and leaving the same cryptic message.

Bennett's investigation uncovers a brutal revenge from the darkest corner of the Cold War.

Only 99¢!

Also available in the 

UK

CANADA

AUSTRALIA

Buy them, read them, leave reviews, and tell all your friends and family to do the same.

Hollywood Babble On & On #1203: Universal Just Proved Me Right.

If you're a regular reader of this blog you'll know that I'm not a big fan of the Hollywood Blockbuster as a business model.

If you're not a regular reader I will explain.

The Blockbuster Model is where studios cut back on the number of films they make and release to bet almost all of their money on a small number of big budget productions that will break all the world's box office records and leave them rolling in cash. 

Or if you want an even simpler explanation:

There's just one flaw with this program.

It doesn't work.

It reminds me of a story about 20th Century Fox in the 1960s. The company was on the verge of bankruptcy. They had to shut their doors and send their employees home because they didn't have the cash to make payroll. The reason they were in this jam was because the studio's management had spent way too much on what they hoped would be hit movies, but for every profitable hit they had, they had two mega-turkeys that nearly sucked the company dry.

That regime was ousted by the board and new one put in place. The new regime though was in for a shock when they announced their own business plan: "From now on we only make hit movies."

Oy gevalt!

No one sets out to make a flop. The previous regime at Fox didn't choose to make money-losers, they just made too big bets on too few movies. In fact, the films had become so expensive, like today's blockbusters, they had to break box office records just to break even.

The model I've suggested for studios is to offer a more diverse slate of films, made for smaller budgets, that way your risk is smaller, and the potential for profit greater.

Guess who proved me right.

UNIVERSAL PICTURES

I know, I'm shocked too.

For years they were the epitome of the Blockbuster Model. They spent hundreds of millions of dollars making and releasing dozens of movies they thought were going to be massive franchises. Some did succeed, like the later Fast & Furious films, and Despicable Me, did become successful franchises. 

But, and this is a brontosaurus sized but, for every one of them were more than one money losing turkeys like Will Ferrell's Land of the Lost rehash.

This put the company in deep dino-doo-doo. The new owners Comcast didn't like losing money, so they cleaned out some key positions and brought in new people.

Those new people brought in a new philosophy. They'd stick with the franchises that made money, like Fast & Furious, but instead of trying to make every film a home run, they went for my plan of smaller scale singles and doubles.

And guess what.

IT WORKED!

Universal Pictures had its most profitable year in like ever, without a single mega-budget tentpole blockbuster.

Even the films that tanked, and flops are inevitable, didn't do any real damage to their profit margins because they didn't cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

Now you're probably wondering why Universal did such a major about-face when the other struggling studios don't.

As I mentioned earlier the company had recently been purchased by cable giant Comcast. Comcast hadn't owned a studio before, and hadn't been completely taken in by the glamour of Hollywood. When they bought NBC-Universal, they bought it because they WANTED TO MAKE MONEY. 

They didn't care about trends, Oscars, or getting so-called "A-Listers" to remember their names at industry parties. What they cared about what making money in a fiscally responsible way. That meant more variety of movies made cheaper, so that when they have a hit like Lucy the profits are huge, and a flop like A Million Ways To Die In The West, can't erase those profits the way a Land of the Lost can.

Since I now have concrete proof that I'm right, I'm going to become incredibly huge headed.

Even more so...

Hollywood Babble On & On #1199: Trailer Trashing: Jurassic World

They released a trailer for the upcoming Jurassic World, continuing the saga of cloned dinosaurs run amok started by Stephen Spielberg in the 1990s. Let's look at the trailer:

Okay, we have Chris Pratt playing the hunky gamekeeper/dino-trainer/voice of reason, and Jessica Chastain Bryce Dallas Howard as the icy corporate chick who plays God and comes to reject the error of her ways when it unleashes chaos and death. They even have what appear to be trained raptors running alongside the cycle-riding Pratt, no doubt to save the day against the evil hybrid-dino.

Now I actually don't have a problem with the trained raptors. Much has been made about their intelligence in the Jurassic franchise, so it's not much of a stretch for someone to figure out how to train them.

What I do have a problem with is the unseen hybrid-dinosaur created by the Jurassic World scientists. Not so much with it's existence, no doubt the studio thought the franchise needed to go beyond the possibilities of nature for thrills, but I am worried about the excuse they're going to use in the film for why the lab-rats made a horrible monster.

Now there are two possible reasons for the scientists to create a new hybrid-dino. One sort of fits with the themes and concerns that were present at the franchise's creation. The other one is a tired cliche the studios love to trot out as an all purpose excuse for anyone to make a monster.

Let's deal with the cliche first.

The cliche is "We did it for the weapons division." Which means that they created a powerful, almost indestructible, and completely uncontrollable monster so that a defence contractor can sell them to the military.

This excuse first popped up in the movie Alien as the reason why the android Ash tried to force feed Ripley a back issue of People Magazine. They were allowed to get away with it because as a conceit it was new, and it fit with the dark image people had of the whole military-industrial complex.

I held that image myself for a long time, because of the creation of things like the "A-Bomb." However I came to realize something when I learned more about how defence industries operate.

Developing weapons for the military is a big business, but there's a catch. Despite the billions spent by the military the profit margins are actually pretty thin, with most being sucked up into research and development.

That means one thing: If a defence contractor wants to make serious money, then they need to find profitable civilian uses for their products.

Missile guidance systems become the circuitry in your game console, body armour becomes safety equipment, fighter and bomber technology find their way onto commercial aircraft. Even the A-Bomb heralded nuclear power.

That's why you don't see big contractors making bio-weapons, and they've become the realm of deranged dictators. Bacteria and viruses make terrible weapons, since you can't really aim them, they can backfire horribly, and any weapon you can't control is not a weapon, it's a problem. It also has no civilian commercial use that they can make money from.

Same goes with a homicidal monster-dinosaur. It's not useful, it doesn't follow orders, and is just as likely to eat its own people than the enemy. This too has no civilian use, and that's another problem.

If the typical American corporation had its druthers to create a hybrid dinosaur, it would make a harmless and cuddly pugosaurus that it can sell as a pet with accompanying animated series and multiple lines of merchandise.

That's where the money is.

So if they use the whole "we built it to sell it as a weapon" excuse, then the whole premise of the movie is bullshit.

Then there's the other excuse, the less cliche one.

And that is "shits and giggles."

What do I mean by that?

Well, I mean that the scientists created the hybrid-dino simply because they could without asking themselves if they should.

(See, I paraphrased a line from the original to show you how it fits in thematically)

Give scientists the resources, and many of them will try anything simply to see if it can be done. Many great discoveries and more than few disasters have occurred because of it and that's a historic and scientific fact.

The plan may have started out of curiosity, which then grew to obsession, and eventually resulted in something they didn't predict. Or it may have started as an attempt to create one thing, like the pugosaurus, and an unpredicted mutation turns it into something else that's nasty.

A pretty reasonable and under-utilized premise which will probably not be used. The cliche is just easier, both creatively and socially for Hollywood to go for.

I'll be interested in seeing which one they use in the movie, because it will have some influence on whether I'll spend money on seeing it or not.

Hollywood Babble On & On #1198: 13 For Constantine

NBC's supernatural mystery/horror drama Constantine was ordered to stop production after 13 episodes, but the network hasn't officially cancelled it, at least, not yet.

The show, based on the DC Comics character, is about a working class Liverpudlian sorcerer who travels around America solving mysteries involving monsters, ghosts, demons, black magic, and dark deeds in the hope of saving his own soul, which was damned when his arrogance turned an exorcism into a disaster.

The show was put in the Friday night death slot, but managed in just a few episodes, to find and grow an audience based mostly on generally positive word of mouth.

I've watched the show, and while not knowing the comics very well, I found it well made, and reminiscent of the X-Files at its peak, and I would like to see it continue since it just now seems to be finding both its sea-legs and its audience.

Right now the show is in a precarious position.

If NBC just cancelled it outright, DC/Warner Bros. could just move the show to the CW Network, where Arrow and The Flash seem to be doing very well. Or they could sell it a cable channel like AMC.

But right now, it's in a bit of limbo. By not cancelling it, NBC can block DC/WB from shopping it around because it's still, technically, NBC's show, and in television timing is everything.

If NBC doesn't order new episodes without actually giving it a formal cancellation, then the producers will have no choice but to release the actors, writers, and other staff from their contracts so they can find new jobs. The longer the wait, the harder it gets to find a slot on another channel, and any momentum the show has fizzles out, and the show dies on the vine.

I hope that NBC renews the show, since they canned Community, Constantine and Hannibal are the only shows they run that I watch. So I hope DC/WB uses it weight to tell NBC to shit or get off the pot.

Hollywood Babble On & On #1195: Monsters or Superheroes?

Universal Pictures was the studio that brought horror to Hollywood.

Back in the silent era horror films were being made, but they had an uneasy relationship with the supernatural. Either the "monster" was just a disfigured madman or if the film featured what at first looked like the supernatural, the studio would always "Scooby Doo" the movie's ending, by revealing that the ghost/vampire/werewolf was just a hoax done by criminals to further their shady schemes.

Universal Pictures changed that.

Carl Laemmle Jr. was the 20something son of the founder of Universal Pictures as well as its head of production, and had been raised on a steady diet of Central and Eastern European folklore. When the opportunity came to adapt Bram Stoker's Dracula for the screen, he took it, and made a decision that revolutionized Hollywood horror.

Instead of having the titular character being a criminal or a maniac in an elaborate disguise Dracula was just an undead creature cursed to feed upon the blood of the living. There was no Scooby-Doo style unmasking, because he wasn't wearing a mask.

That changed EVERYTHING in the field of horror. Monsters were in, and Universal was the king of the monster heap.

Eventually the classic Universal Monsters, Dracula, The Frankenstein's Monster, The Wolf-Man, and The Mummy fell out of fashion. 

Universal played no small part in this demise with their tendency to flog their franchises to death with multiple sequels, crossovers, with declining budgets, and quality. Eventually they drifted into self-parody, then total irrelevance. The monster-mantle was taken up by Britain's Hammer Films while Universal pretty well dropped the gothic and followed the other American filmmakers into more science fiction based monstrosities.

Universal has dipped its toe into its old Monster well. First by reinventing The Mummy franchise into an Indiana Jones rip-off. Then they tried to turn Van Helsing into Batman, and while their attempt to re-boot The Wolf-Man attempted horror, it was an overwrought, bloated monstrosity.

Now Universal has announced that they're rebooting their monster franchises again. But instead of being gothic horror monster movies, they're going to be modern-day action adventures in a shared universe that will eventually all come together, like Marvel's The Avengers. They've even hired a "hive" of writers to develop this new idea.

All I can say is: Oy.

Basically, they're turning their monsters into superheroes.

Why?

Because they think that's where the money is.

Well, yes and no.

Superhero movies make good bank, but they're also incredibly expensive to make. That means that unless you have a popular franchise and a brand that people associate with quality stories (like Marvel) you're looking at a razor thin profit at best.

What sort of standing does the Universal monsters have with audiences?

Well, their Mummy franchise made enough to justify some sequels and a spin-off with the prerequisite diminishing returns. Van Helsing might have broken even if you squint your eyes and ignore the fortunes they spent on P&A, and The Wolf-Man tanked badly.

Ask anyone their opinion on Universal's monster movies and you'll most likely get no higher praise than a "feh" and if they're a horror fan you'll get a lecture on how they symbolize Hollywood's neutered mindset. They had neutered their monsters, from being fearsome beasts from the darkness to wimpy CGI playthings because an executive hoped kids would buy the toys and other merchandise.

So now Universal is saying that they're not only going to repeat their plan, they're going to make it even more tepid.

The irony is that low budget horror has potential for massive profits when its marketed right. The means to make a smaller scale, really scary, monster movie exist. But Universal doesn't want to do that, because that requires work and imagination. It's much easier to sell the Board of Directors a load of hooey about imitating Marvel, and when it all sinks like a stone, just blame it on the market research firm.

Fuck that.

Hollywood Babble On & On #1192: Bourne Again?

Matt Damon is returning to the role of Jason Bourne the recovered amnesiac/super-spy-ninja guy for another edition of the Bourne Franchise.

Why?

Because he tried to have a career outside of the Bourne franchise and failed.

Failed badly.

A quick look at his box office record shows that the last movie with him in a major role that was an unqualified hit was True Grit, and in that movie he was just Jeff Bridges' sidekick. At best a handful of his recent movies have broken even, but most have tanked, and tanked badly. Without Jason Bourne his career is dangerously close to getting into Nicole Kidman and George Clooney territory where he becomes a full fledged box-office negative.*

He needs a hit to keep the roles and the fat paycheques coming in, and while Universal made money with the Damon-less Bourne Legacy, figures they'll do better with the original titular character.

Personally, I never really got into the Bourne Movie Franchise. Some may knock the Bond movies for being repetitive, but Bourne is worse. Bourne is as if the James Bond writers didn't want to waste time coming up with ANYTHING new.

The premise of the franchise is that the CIA ignores terrorism, espionage, foreign threats, and international crime because they're too busy trying and failing to kill their own people. 

Why are they trying to kill their own people?

Because the CIA did some evil illegal stuff trying to create some sort of super-spy-ninja-types that they will have to kill the moment they step outside because their existence threatens to expose the illegal stuff. Only the illegal stuff worked too well, and they're unstoppable. 

Now the CIA could just leave the guy alone, because unless there's an army of assassins blowing up large chunks of Europe and the USA there's not enough proof to get this guy's story past the far fringe of a conspiracy theory website.

But they don't, because there wouldn't be a movie, so they do all kinds of mad homicidal stuff to give the hero the evidence he needs to blow the lid off of everything.

It's a premise that's not only stupid on every level, it's a lazy hackneyed cliche and really just an excuse to have lots of shaky-cam fight scenes, another thing that bugs me.

Anyway, we'll have to see if Damon's Bourne can breathe some life into his nearly terminal career.

_________________

*Now some of you will say: "What about Gravity, that was a hit with George Clooney?" And while he was in that movie, the studio deliberately left him out of the ads for Gravity, emphasizing Sandra Bullock, who is actually a fully qualified movie star.