It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
You can’t fake a drowning LOL
lol, no silly. I know she is dead. But there's a strong connection in bond 25 possibly. But the director even said in an interview bond 25 GOES FULL CIRCLE, so what do you suggest that means. What links are there in casino what will tie in with bond 25 ? because vesper is the thing that comes to mind, and im sure she will be mentioned or some connection to it.
exact words below
Fukunaga did confirm one rather big point: it’ll bring things full circle for Daniel Craig by continuing the arc first presented in Casino Royale, his first outing as 007.
Quote
Plus, CR was the last Bond film so far to have completely included original Fleming material in its story. An integral part of the book is Vesper's death. It would feel cheap and wrong to resurrect her now.
Yes, but isn't he implying it goes full circle. Thats not full circle, it has to end up with a connection to his beginning to be full circle. Thats what I make of it anyway, and im hoping for.
I dont think vesper would return, NO WAY. She is dead, but some form of link to his first mission or something in Casino is going to be percent in bond 25, if going full circle means that as i think it does. I think it would be a fantastic end to daniel's era if theres some memory of casino in there somewhere. I dont want it to go back over same ground, but just a hint of something would be a nice touch, dont you agree ?
Also, SPOOKS (it's proper name) was a pretty good show in its day.
Lately stunt double for Riz Ahmed - height: 5' 8" (1,73 m) - in 'Sisters Brothers'
Riz Ahmed's very good friend is:
...Rami Malek 5' 9" (1,75 m)
Then we have Swann and her dad. "I heard so much about you from Vesper" (Mr.White). What secrets did they keep from us in CR? Did Vesper know his daughter?
In America it was MI5 lol.
Either way Skyfall and Spectre felt like an episode from Spooks/MI5 not a Bond film..
Stunt doubles do not have to be the same height. Just look similar.
I know, just teasing. ;)
I can definitely see a resemblance.
Lock the thread until Monday????
Some of you guys got MAJOR issues if you can’t stay off the forums for a week or two... Are you really that mad?
Besides, it's not like as of Monday we'll suddenly have loads of confirmed news bits to discuss, is it? And the so-called talking heads who have no idea what they're talking about will all through this production continue to talk about things they are clueless about. Locking this thread till Monday wouldn't solve that "problem".
So no, we are not locking this thread.
We certainly are in agreement about that, @PanchitoPistoles. If people cannot handle a good old-fashioned, steamy debate now, who knows what's going to happen when the film has actually been released and we're systematically voicing our thoughts and opinions on it in full. I'm sure we'll be receiving a few "that person disagrees with me so please ban him" requests again. ;-)
Sorry to the mods I promised not to engage the subject, but this is just ridiculous. Feel free to censor my response. Again.
I'll gently return to my silent position now. Have fun.
Some people make unpleasant remarks. Some people have things to say that many of us disagree with. And some people continue to say them. But as long as no rules are being broken, what do you expect us to do?
If you go back a few pages, you will notice that just a few hours ago, I passionately wrote lengthy posts defending the "known producer". From those posts, you can deduce that the member whom you are accusing of actively contributing to the bad ambience of the forum, has opinions that do not align with mine at all. If said member repeats them ad nauseam, I'll simply repeat my own arguments ad nauseam. But as long as no forum rules are broken, we do not ban a member whose opinions are, perhaps, controversial, annoying or in bad taste, since all of this remains subjective.
Now, if things turn caustic, if fights ensue, if certain lines are crossed and warnings issued by mods, privately or otherwise, are clearly being ignored, then we will step in and possibly ban.
The reason we keep at least one mod pretty active in this thread at all time--it was my "turn" today--is to avoid escalation. As long as we feel that the worst offence is eliciting "a steamy debate", we see no reason why someone must be warned or banned. Perhaps monomaniacal neuroses are being appeased. We're all playing this game from behind our keyboards; we can never be entirely sure about a member's intentions or inner psyche. You seem to be suggesting that we have a major troll in our midst and that by allowing him to participate in this thread any further, we are essentially subjecting ourselves to a conman's dangerous schemes. Again though, I must ask, what do you want us to do? Do you honestly want us to say to someone, "sorry, dude, but folks don't really like what you have to say, and since you keep saying that stuff, we're going to have to let you go." That's a level of censorship we do not wish to uphold here.
You needn't worry. We know when to step in. And I admit that several pages back, things got really ugly. We did have talks with people, in private. And since then, things have turned less restless. If they turn volatile again, and if we must jump from a polite request to a harsh warning really fast, then we shall also ban really fast. But right now, what's the worst anyone has done? Dropping silly ideas like firing Barbara Broccoli? Surely we're courageous enough to post arguments against those silly notions without having to ban the culprit. And if you feel the ambience is brought down by one person, then simply tell him you don't care about his nonsense and ignore any further posts made by him. One member alone doesn't have the power to bring the ambience down. The overall climate can only turn foggy if other members give him the power to annoy, irritate and infuriate him.
'But sometimes, ironic comments such as your own ("I'm sure we'll be receiving a few "that person disagrees with me so please ban him" requests again") can't be left unanswered.'
What do you mean by this? You are aware of this phenomenon, are you not? "Mods, it's time you ban this hater of SF." "Mods, this member has been doing nothing but bash Daniel Craig so ban him." Wait, what?
Much prefer a passionate debate rather than a boring echo-chamber. But to each their own. Anyone is free to leave.
I also think the mods are doing their job well and unless I'm wrong they're not even getting paid for it.
There have been comments made here that I intensely disagree with too, such as the trashing of the entire Brosnan or Moore tenures, amongst other things. But I usually just ignore it. However I've noticed sometimes people take it too personally.
Filming is just getting started so why lock this thread now? Just my two cents.
This thread was originally designed with the purpose of listing up all new developments regarding B25. If we don't allow such a thread, every single rumour online will soon get its own thread, and that's about the last thing we want.
But we're not robots. We tend to respond emotionally to almost every rumour. Some ideas make us happy, some make us angry, but few leave us indifferent. So debates of all kinds are inevitable. But 'asinine discussions'? Check out the comments section for any youtube video and I promise that this forum will look positively sterile regarding outbursts of joy or negativity.
I always regret people contemplating leaving. This is a discussion forum, not an encyclopedia. You come here, you know that you will meet all sorts of people who will interact with you, whether you appreciate their comments or not. No-one is forcing you to take the bait though. You don't like a comment, you ignore it, possibly flag it, and move on. It's what I do all the time. Sometimes I respond, most of the time I shrug and enter another discussion in another thread. But why would I kiss the forum goodbye?
Sometime next year, B25 will have been released. Many of us--most of us--will have seen the movie at some point. (Some claim they won't; people who "know" it's going to be a disaster. Good for them! :D I honestly don't care.) If this thread is too much for some to handle, if we should have locked it long ago, what is going to happen next year? Because there will be lovers and haters, ardent supporters and aggressive bashers, those who praise and those who spit. We will have not one but at least four threads (one for spoilers, one for zero spoilers; one for positive comments, one for harsh criticism); and despite our best intentions and efforts, we will not be able to avoid "the other fraction" invading a thread not really designed for them. And I'm merely talking about the film. What about a thread for the theme song, a thread for the score, a thread for who-knows-what-else?
What we want is for people to
- stay calm;
- know when to stay away from a thread for at least a day or two;
- drop impressions, arguments, comments without attacking someone else;
- accept that we will never universally share the same opinions.
What we don't want is for people to
- get emotional over someone else's remarks;
- demand a thread being locked or a member being banned simply because they allow others to crawl under their skin;
- assume that all contradicting opinions, especially the ones repeatedly stated, are meant to hurt, upset or infuriate them, even if that's actually the case, because then the fights begin;
- presume that the mods will automatically support the "positive" troublemakers much more than the bashers. Troublemakers are troublemakers, and even our own, individual opinions about the film, will not result in one fraction getting away with things much more than the other.