Well, it seems like they're using some of the characters from the first three films to tie it in with the OT.
The narrative architect behind the Bourne film series, Tony Gilroy, takes the helm in the next chapter of the hugely popular espionage franchise that has earned almost $1 billion at the global box office: The Bourne Legacy. The writer/director expands the Bourne universe created by Robert Ludlum with an original story that introduces us to a new hero (Jeremy Renner) whose life-or-death stakes have been triggered by the events of the first three films. For The Bourne Legacy, Renner joins fellow series newcomers Rachel Weisz, Edward Norton, Stacy Keach and Oscar Isaac, while franchise veterans Albert Finney, Joan Allen, David Strathairn and Scott Glenn reprise their roles.
Very cool. Looks like it still directly ties in to the previous films, especially the third one. Now one of these days I want to watch the trilogy again to familiarize myself with all the previous characters.
The movies are completely separate from the books. I read the first 3 books by Ludlum (the only 3 he ever wrote, a ghost writer has written the new ones) and they're good, but follow along a completely different plot than the movies.
What I read about Damon was that he said he'd do it only if Paul Greengrass directed it. They started pre-production and Greengrass walked off the set so Damon followed him.
I think it's going to be a good movie... but I'm not so sure that it's going to be a Bourne. Either they're going to introduce another man with the codename "Jason Bourne," which is going to anger me, or have another assassin who goes rogue (which doesn't make a lot of sense since Treadstone was shut down and everyone was killed by either the CIA or Bourne). I think it can still be a good movie, Renner is a great actor, but I'm not sure if I'm going to give it Bourne status just yet.
It'd be interesting if a new guy is "Jason Bourne," given the article that, I think, Cracked.com posted about cool movie theories -- that being that James Bond is actually a code name, and is passed down from agent to agent over time. I could EASILY see "Jason Bourne" going that route and the producers saying "Damn, how come we never thought of that? Oh well. Let's steal it!"
I really liked it. It doesn't have Bourne in it but it's his Legacy, it's a different agent in a different program. And the story goes along the repercussions that the actions of Jason Bourne did upon other agents under similar programs.
From my understanding and viewing of the movie this film is happening at the same time as the third movie. I say this because they use part of Ultimatum and say that Bourne is in the USA hence they need to clean out all the other operations like Bourne was in. So while some people hunt Bourne in the USA, others have to wipe clean the other operatives, enter Renner.
All in all I really liked it, gives the view of another along side Bourne. I'm glad Damon wasn't in it or it wouldn't be his Legacy. And I don't think they should do a sequel of this. It should end, since that's what a Legacy should be, an ending point. Bourne is out of the game and free and so is Renner. Sure it would be sweet to see them kicking bad guys all over the place but I think it would take away from the storyline.
As for the books, I've read a few and the movies/books are completly seperate. I like the movies way better!
Long read I know but in a nutshell. Legacy = Good movie and good addition to the Bourne franchise.