Talk:The Bourne Identity (1988 film)

message: :Image:Bourne identity 1988 dvd cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 18:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Bourne identity 1988 dvd cover.jpg

message: The first paragraph says that the film follows the plot of the book. The second tells you all the ways in which it diverges from the book. Either the first needs to be expanded to say how it is felt that the film and the book coincide, or would it be better to say that it adds little to the information, and remove the notion of fidelity, or at least to temper it somehow (“The film follows the book closely, apart from these following chnages…”). Otherwise it just seems to be contradictory. Jock123 (talk) 11:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really have a problem with this; any movie adaptation (erm... ok, almost any- any movie hopefully) will be an adaptation, an arrangement, not a transcription, and will differ- hopefully in ways that make it a better movie than a wholly, ideally perfect transcription of the original would be (which I expect would be of interest mostly to fans or even fanatics.) That said, this movie may be closer to the novel in plot than the later film is in plot and characterization in many ways (may be anyway?), whatever else may be true about it. So a list of differences would be longer for the 2002 film, not briefer. Schissel | Sound the Note! 03:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory information in the article. 

message: In the novel, Carlos is shown to be responsible for killing Webb's wife and child, which is not the case in the film.
Haven't read the novel, not sure, but just have been watching the 1988 film and a flashback definitely suggests Carlos' responsibility (... aka taking already existing suspension of disbelief (mentioned re this book & movie) and "owning" it, running with it..., being proud of it... Carlos being responsible for Vietnam war bombings that in RL we-the-US were most likely responsible for? Oh-kay...) - but anyhow, to main point I did want to ask - are you positive that sentence wasn't accidentally reversed ("In the film... in the novel", rather than "In the novel... in the film") Schissel | Sound the Note! 03:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carlos, Vietnam, Responsibility