Alicia Vikander was so miscast - mid 20 year old 2nd in command of CIA?? - Jason Bourne (2016) Discussion

[–] whenforeverisnt 8 years ago

It bugged me too

reply

[–] thebricks 8 years ago

Her acting was terrible and her leadership was atrocious.

If they did make a sequel, I couldn't see her coming back.

reply

[–] mmq1 8 years ago

I like her. Who care's what the misogynists on imdb think.

reply

[–] rokoschnuckel-1 8 years ago

It's not about misogyny (although I'm sure some have a problem with her being a woman), but more about her age. She seems like a girl just out of college, so I, too, felt she wasn't up for the job. Wouldn't you need tons of experience to run an agency like that? I liked her otherwise - maybe in 15 years I could see her take over, but not at 28 years old.

reply

[–] Justice68 7 years ago

It is about misogyny..it's Hollyweird trying to ensure that another one of their franchise/films doesn't have any chance of being criticized by social justice warriors for not ticking all the group identity politics boxes. So thus they have to shoe horn a female into an unrealistic role to appease them.

If it's any consolation, Huma Abadein is not an American nationalist by birth, spent most of her life in the middle east and then after returning as a teenager, went onto have top level clearance as the right hand of Hillary Clinton after only serving seven years.

That was a real life case of affirmative action rearing it's ugly head.
Well we know how that turned out don't we?

This is precisely why I don't give these films, studios or actors any of my money or patronage. They're all leftist trash and to boot, the films are terribly written, force acted and mostly special effects.

Don't expect Hollyweird to change any time soon. We'll see more political correctness running amok for some years to come.

reply

[–] TheCharlieMonster 7 years ago

Sorry, how is shoe horning a woman into an unrealistic position "misogyny?" That would appear to be the opposite is it not, by giving an unqualified person a position they are not suited for just because they are a woman?

Again "misogyny" is the "dislike of, contempt of, or ingrained prejudice AGAINST women." Giving a woman an undeserved position is the opposite of misogyny.

Also, the criticism of AV is not that she's a woman but that she's too young.

reply

[–] Strazdamonas 7 years ago

Its the opposite. Shoehorning a woman into a movie is a safety precaution against the rampant media labeling everything as mysoginistic. Not that i agree with the other poster about the reason for her being in the movie, just though id explain.

------------------------------------------------
The spirit of abysmal despair

reply

[–] AnotherUserID 7 years ago

So you think that Julia Stiles' Nicky should have been the only major female character in the film? She was gone in the first ten minutes and then what, a film of all male characters? It's completely realistic for at least one more memorable character to be female in this storyline. The Heather Lee character felt superfluous because her character development, dialog and actions were ridiculous and unbelievable. And the actress's performance did nothing to make the character feel real. The actress was chosen to bring in a young male demographic. But bad writing and casting are atypical for the Bourne franchise. Just look to the earlier films for examples of well written and performed female characters in action films.

reply

[–] AlexMorgan13 7 years ago

Vikander is gorgeous and while not a great actress, she's good.

haters are just jealous teen girls.

reply

[–] peterquennell 7 years ago

Leftist trash?

If you had actually watched the Jason Bournes you'd know that "the government is the problem" is straight Reaganesque.

reply

[–] TheCharlieMonster 7 years ago

What's are you rambling on about? The definition of misogyny doesn't not change if someone is "leftist." If you had bothered to read the post to which mine was a response, you would see that I am arguing that putting AV in that role was NOT misogyny so people should stop throwing that argument around.

reply

[–] peterquennell 7 years ago

I DID read it. The post above yours. It was for him/her, as you can see from the insetting and the mention of leftist trash. Adding "Charlie" was done as an edit in haste, apologies, and I am with you on AV.

reply

[–] spydervein 7 years ago

Hilarious that you think a woman in a position of power is "social justice" or "ticking group identity politics boxes." Do you realize that half of the population is female, and they can be quite capable and intelligent? Or are you so far to the right that you think women are only useful in the kitchen? I guess only dudes should get good jobs these days... No, wait, that was the 1950s, and most of us have moved on since then.

The issue was her age and inexperience, not her sex/gender. The only mistake here was not casting an older actor. Get your head out of your bum, Justice68.

reply

[–] Justice68 7 years ago

"Hilarious that you think a woman in a position of power is "social justice" or "ticking group identity politics boxes." "

"Do you realize that half of the population is female, and they can be quite capable and intelligent?"

"The issue was her age and inexperience, not her sex/gender. The only mistake here was not casting an older actor."

Yes, the issue is her age and inexperience, exacerbated by the realities of affirmative action, which is exactly why it's dangerous, as it takes precedence over skill, effort, talent or experience.

None of those things are allowed to determine whom achieves what, since it detracts and unravels the narrative of 'diversity,' whether it's gender, race or religion.

In this case it is only a film fortunately. Though we get this notion from reality itself, where the facts paint a much different picture of the world than Hollyweird has deluded itself into believing exists.

Huam Abadein is a perfect example of what happens when quotas are met for the sake of meeting them.

Before you accuse others of being a part of the Ostrich brigade, maybe you should consider your own views first.

reply

[–] pdlussier1 7 years ago

I can't help but see misogyny in your gripe albeit I very much agree with your basic view in that quotas should never determine the quality of a hire... in real life.
However, it is possible to speak of a miscast role simply for what it is, and your insistence on this point, below, is indicative of a problematic attitude:

So thus they have to shoe horn a female into an unrealistic role to appease them.

What all seem to be saying is, "...an unrealistic female into a role to appease viewers" (instead of just SJWs, as you intended). Notice the diff?

You're the only one who seems to have a beef with her being a woman, and using this as an opportunity to bitch about any and all roles that "Hollyweird" dares give to a minority. Why?
Are you upset because a woman stole a job (i.e. role) from a man that deserved it more simply because, according to you, only a man can realistically act in such a position lest it becomes some sort of "Hollyweird" Liberal fantasy? Now who's being a misogynist? Does he also have to be white for you to believe in the role?
If you actually, truly believe in equality, not only would you not make an issue of this, but, surely, you'd see that such depiction of diversity can only have a positive effect as it helps broaden and shift perspectives, and this has nothing to do with some of the problems arising out of Affirmative Action. Unless you have a hard time separating films from real life...

If people say Danny DeVito would make a better Jason Bourne, do you call them sexist?

There are times when diversity-for-the-sake-of-diversity choices are goofy and annoying, as this highlights the other end of the issue--needless/misplaced fear and guilt--but I honestly don't see how you can apply that logic to her role.

Personally, I'm not sure I entirely agree with the others in thinking she's too young... I've known women like her, and, especially if they're sexy, they can be far more vicious, manipulative go-getters than any men, as we also tend to fall for their feminine wiles... Vikander certainly gives off that vibe, I felt.

Cheers.

Ignorance is bliss... 'til it posts on the Internet, then, it's annoying.

reply

[–] escadamausgaby 7 years ago

Have you prayed 5 times to your orange cookie today?

reply

[–] lockon_stratos 7 years ago

She was alright. If she was 15 year older then it would be exactly like a Pam Landy in BS. So this is sort of a new take.

---

reply

[–] gerbilstunts 7 years ago

Do you even know what a 'misogynist' is? Because it sure seems not.

reply

[–] TheCharlieMonster 7 years ago

Misogyny is the "dislike of, contempt for or ingrained prejudice against women."

Saying AV is too young to play the role effectively is not misogyny.

reply

[–] gerbilstunts 7 years ago

Exactly, it's disturbing how often people throw the word around with little to no understanding what they're actually saying.

reply

[–] AnotherUserID 7 years ago

Alicia Vikander was cast presumably because she would appeal to a young male demographic who was still salivating over her turn in Ex Machina and because she clearly didn't have a problem with how the character was written. This character was a ridiculous spin on a Mary Sue trope. Compare that to the strong female characters written for previous Bourne films and the actresses cast to play those roles. Bourne is one of the few action franchises that has a strong female following in part because of the female characters. The filmmakers made these decisions knowing full well how popular the previous Bourne female characters were, all in the hope of attracting a stronger male demographic. The lack of respect for the female audience is misogynistic.

reply

[–] gerbilstunts 7 years ago

Well, that just proved my point, and Julia Stiles was a strong character in Bourne Ultimatum? Did we watch different films? Tommy Lee Jones character was actually pathetic in this and he was male, you don't have any issue with that nor the countless men in this and other action franchises that are either cannon fodder or are there just to act stupid. Alicia was miscast, and her character was poorly written and underplayed, nothing more, and if anything the film in general lacked respect for it's audience.

reply

[–] TheCharlieMonster 7 years ago

I didn't think Julia Stiles was meant to be a strong character. She was the logistical support for the assets, never meant to be the one calling the shots. AV's character ends up trying to be the one in charge and she just was not convincing in her role. TLJ was pretty bad but he wasn't the one who was being touted in all the promos and photo calls alongside Matt Damon, no interviews in People mag calling him the best actor of his generation. When I read that statement by MD I was expecting A LOT more from AV.

reply

[–] Tyrione 7 years ago

Rarely do I agree with anyone's overall assessment in acting. Spot on across all fronts.

reply

[–] ph75006 7 years ago

YES. OMG, YESSS to all you said! As a woman, I was really surprised at how much I enjoyed the first 3 Bourne films and that was definitely in part due to the strong female leads who clearly weren't selected to just be eye candy for male viewers.

reply

[–] lindewell 7 years ago

I have the feeling that Alicia wasn't eye candy for the male audience, like you said the first 3 episodes were great and didn't need a young woman. Alicia is there for the teenage girl audience who need 'representation' and 'empowerment'. It's funny because at some point she talks about empowerment. The Bourne has mostly a male audience I would assume, Alicia was there to attract women that otherwise would never watch a Bourne movie.

reply

[–] AnotherUserID 7 years ago

If any actress in the Bourne franchise was cast to draw a female teenage demographic, it would have Stiles. She was incredibly young at the time of initial casting. She had done several films clearly geared toward that demographic at the time of Identity. I can't find a single film Vikander has done that is geared toward a teenage female demographic. The teenagers I know would not likely recognize her unless it was for her tabloid presence. There are a plenty of Swifties and squad members etc who would have been much more likely to attract that demographic. At the time of casting Vikander was known really only for Ex Machina role and that film was obviously geared toward a young male tech-interested audience. Her performance in Ex Machina was good, not saying it isn't, but anyone with half a brain could review her filmography and figure out she's never going to be a Joan Allen. Vikander may have an Oscar to legitimize her as an excuse for casting. That's the only thing I see separating her from the other Weinstein it girls that would have pulled a teenage audience. She really got her Oscar buzz for Ex Machina, but the Academy couldn't recognize a performance that was clearly a plethora of skin for a young male demographic.

reply

[–] ph75006 7 years ago

If any actress in the Bourne franchise was cast to draw a female teenage demographic, it would have Stiles.

YES! 10 Things I Hate About You remains a classic 90s teenage romcom. I'm closer to Stiles' age but I have younger cousins who are in their teens who watch a lot of 90s/early 00s movies and the former is one of their favourites too. That and Mona Lisa Smile.

I can't find a single film Vikander has done that is geared toward a teenage female demographic.

Me neither. She rose to stardom relatively recently and every film of hers that I have seen seems to be geared toward a male audience. Except Anna Karenina, but she had only a minor role in that.

reply

[–] calinpuscas 7 years ago

yeap, they always said in freaking Hollywood that they need a "bad ass kick ass girl" in the movie plus, she must have some strong connections for a non-actress like her

reply

[–] AnotherUserID 7 years ago

I haven't followed her career extensively, but I can't imagine Joan Allen being satisfied with a character written like the Heather Lee character. I'm not saying the Bourne franchise is the height of feminist film portrayals. It' just previously has been so much better than most action films. Imaginative chase scenes. Everyday objects as weapons. Hand to hand. And female characters that are portrayed with reasonable intelligence. It's one of the reasons why you watch a Bourne film. At least if you are a woman. The Nicky and Marie characters were not as strong per se as the Pamela Landy character, but there was valid reason for that, and they were at least two distinctly different characters with something to bring to the story. Nicky Parsons death reduced her to a plot device. I had a similar thought with Marie's death but her character at least remained in Bournes thoughts. It's still an action franchise so I don't expect perfectly crafted female character development but the way the Parsons death was handled just cheapened the deaths of both those female characters IMO.

reply

[–] lindewell 7 years ago

Your post doesn't make sense, Bourne serie is certainly followed mostly by male, and adding a young Mary Sue in the mix isn't appealing to men, it's catering to young women who otherwise wouldn't even watch a Bourne movie. Do you the movies like Hunger Games and Divergente and their Mary Sue lead are targeted at men too? The Mary Sue trope is for teenage girl who want to identify with an overpowered young female character. There was nothing Sexy about Vikander in this movie, she was annoying and bossy.

reply

[–] AnotherUserID 7 years ago

The classic definition of Mary Sue trope is that of a female author wish fulfillment. The creators of Hunger Games and Divergent were female and the definition works. I think you can even make an argument that those characters were more realistic than Heather Lee as both characters backgrounds were made possible by the fantasy or futuristic element to the story. Part of the popularity of the Bourne franchise is due to the realistic nature of the storyline. You get lost in the fantasy because it doesn't feel like one. I called this a spin of the trope. Variations of the Mary Sue tropes are used all the time in films aimed at male audiences. Pretty much any time you've got a size two actress with most of her body weight located in her chest kicking ass in an action film while wearing stilettos or revealing clothing, it's a female character performing unrealistic actions successfully. It's just a character aimed at the male demographic, not female audience wish fulfillment. This was a variation. I think Vikander was cast for the young male tech oriented demographic, a fan base she picked up in Ex Machina. I just don't think it was a particularly successful decision. I just don't see how she was cast for the female demographic. She doesn't have a female fan base and the character was not written to the quality of the past female Bourne characters, that female audiences expect from this series.

reply

[–] lindewell 7 years ago

You need to think like a producer. Who watches Bourne movies : men, who deosn't: women. Men don't watch Bourne movies to see pretty girls, there looking for something else. Like I said Alicia isn't sexy in this movie, she's annoying as *beep*. On the other hand, the only reason that would make females to watch this movie is that if they can relate to a major character that is some young empowered female. It's stupid but it proved to be working so far. That's why turds like Jason Bourne keep being produced despite being slammed by critics. Why do you think every movie now has to have an asian and a black guy? Same logic as Alicia in Bourne.

reply

[–] TheCharlieMonster 7 years ago

Funny I thought AV was hired for the guys watching the show. She was total eye candy. I can't see how young women would watch that and want to be like her. Pam Landy, yes. Heather Lee, no.

reply

[–] Kiyo01 8 years ago

If there is a sequel, she will be back.

reply

[–] werder_bunny 8 years ago

She was bad - didn't fit the role. Typical Oscar cliche.

Vincent Cassel was good? Mhhh it wasn't too challenging. His character has zero wit.

reply

[–] domester82 8 years ago

She was...not good.

reply

[–] thomas998 8 years ago

Now I know why millennials think they should be CEO within a year of their first job... Hollywood fills their head with that type of crap when cast a mid twenty something person making it as the number 2 in the CIA... Why didn't they just give the role to Sabrina Carpenter and really make it believable - not.

reply

[–] Tyrione 7 years ago

If they were going for realism there wouldn't be a female sympathetic antagonist in the CIA.

In reality, Bourne shouldn't have continued with the CIA. It should have evolved to the NSA and Homeland Security.

reply

[–] peterquennell 7 years ago

Agreed. And the cyberwarfare group that shares the building with the NSA.

It could be possible to have a political appointee so young in the Federal government (though in the CIA?).

But careerists like her have to make their way up the ladder, with evaluations at every point. They rarely leapfrog far ahead, and would not spend most of their day at a PC, meetings and travel would be much of what they do.

As she was a careerist, she would not have been in line for CIA director, which is a political appointee.

reply

[–] BuddyDakota 8 years ago

I agree. It also seems alot of her character development was left on the cutting room floor. She didn't make sense. To be honest all the characters were rather bland, the whole movie felt less intelligent than the rest. The whole plot and how it connected to Bourne was boring and unnecessary.

reply

[–] imaintdan 8 years ago

I didn't mind her casting that much for the age, but the performance didn't do much for me.

https://zitzelfilm.wordpress.com

reply

[–] WhoisThePrisoner1 8 years ago

Yes, terrible casting.

reply

[–] JasonRebourne 8 years ago

She didn't have a lot of meat to work with.

Plus, continuing to try to get Bourne to rejoin made no sense. There was no way he was coming back no matter what someone's notes said.

I don't give a f*@K about a troll who doesn't pay for his opinion telling me how to review movies.

reply

[–] ShelbyTMItchell 8 years ago

And I could hear traces of her Swedish accent a bit. Despite doing the best to play an American.

August is Here!

reply

[–] SHD 8 years ago

Traces? I detected bucketloads and I'm not a native English speaker. I can easily forgive things like the completely unrealistic portrayal of technology in the film on account that is it just that: a film, a work of fiction. Her voice nearly ruined the movie for me though.

reply

[–] dbious 8 years ago

Me too! I could barely understand her.

reply

[–] Van-Fro 8 years ago

I don't think she was doing an American accent. If she was, it wasn't a convincing one.

reply