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
I am not talking about breaking the formula or not, we are talking here about a specific approach to casting, which has been constant since CR, at least when it comes to Bond girls, and which has had been fairly consistent in the franchise. And we don't know, if they will keep on with the "formula", whatever you mean by this, or not in Bond 24.
And I am not sure about Ejiofor and I do not think anybody should be, neither am I enthusiastic about his potential casting, knowing very little about the actor. That said, there is some amount of evidence regarding his candidacy as a Bond villain: 1)the rumour has not been officially denied, 2)the actor himself refuses to answer questions about it and 3)his casting, should it be true, would be consistent with the casting of Javier Bardem and to a lesser extend Ralph Fiennes. Added to this that unlike Penelope Cruz, Ejiofor was never the subject of a rumor about a role in a Bond movie (as the villain, Bond himself, what have you) that has been proven false. It may be false still, nothing has been confirmed and even if he was being considered things may not work for many reasons (creative differences, conflicting schedules, even clash of personalities). But the rumor as it stands, with the glimpses of information we can get, does have more ground.
Now if anyone says, as some did, that he may play Blofeld, I would again reply with skepticism. And on another side note, had Penelope Cruz been rumored during the Brosnan era, I would have given it a bit more credibility, because then famous actresses were often cast (although how famous she was then I am not certain). Her casting would have been consistent with the approach at the time.
Why would I add 'speculation' to the title? I don't have 'news' in the title. If you assumed this thread would only detail news, you were sadly mistaken, but it was as a result of your own thinking and nothing on my part.
We can not safely say anything. Shooting begins in 7 months. We are simply discussing possibilities and rumors.
You insinuated, multiple times, that I was indeed willingly misleading. But it is you that allowed yourself to be mislead. Nowhere in this thread have I ever stated we will be discussing strictly facts. It's a timeline, not a 'what we know' list. My timeline will include every piece of information and every topic related to the production of the film. I never mislead anyone into thinking otherwise. You lead yourself to the conclusion that this thread would only detail facts, and you were unfortunately mistaken.
One of the previous titles included "MGM Lawsuit..." and you complained that it was scary. Again, you used your own reaction to attempt to change the title, distracting the discussion. There was a lawsuit concerning MGM's rights on the Bond franchise and it's similarity to another project. That is a fact. The title was not misleading. Titles are meant to be short and to the point, and to pull you in to read the full explanation of the topic in the title. The previous title did exactly that. Claims that I was acting as a 'tabloid' above the standard of other users on this forum are unfounded and insulting. This thread is my creation. The topics we discuss are often brought to peoples attention when I change the title. It keeps people interested and prevents the thread from going stale. @RC7 As I have stated multiple times, and only to make myself clear once again, this thread is a timeline of events, not facts. We will be discussing rumors and speculation, as they are topics and events discussed in the timeline of the film's production. (I do appreciate your honestly and communication; I am not trying to stir conflict and 'call you out', I am simply responding.)
Your reasoning for why Cruz is not cast is far more speculative, desperate, and unfounded than other users' reasoning for believing she is cast. An official company document. A reputable news site. Your argument is a typo and the fact that she had been rumored previously. In fact, her being reported earlier could be argued as more evidence for her being cast. It is indeed all speculation, but that is why we have this thread. The announcement of the rumor that Cruz is cast is part of the timeline of the film from our perspective. If it is part of the discussion, it is part of the timeline.
Indirect complaint.
An accusation. When did I directly label the Brand/Ponsonby speculation as news? I didn't.
Complaint. And other members didn't seem to mind discussing the topic in the absence of any major headlines. I was merely trying to keep the thread alive, and there was actually an interesting conversation spawned out of my topic:
Me, being mature.
This is why I created this thread. To debate facts and rumors, and to discuss speculation. It's a timeline, which means it will feature every news story and topic discussed related to Bond 24, whether by my creation, your creation, or some other source. This way, when the film is out and we look back at the months of events, we can see the contrast from what was fact and what was rumor, and when we actually knew something accurate, perhaps without even knowing we knew it.
Moving forward, so my message is clear, this thread will discuss all topics related to the production of Bond 24. News INCLUDING rumors, speculation, and facts, user created speculation and rumors based on what we know, and any topic that we manage to come up with in conversation. It will not be strictly facts, for we will only have "just the facts" after the film is released. Perhaps then some users can go back and use my thread as a guide to piece together a strict timeline of when we knew what.
Until then, happy chatting. Feel free to message me with any concerns, but I will be ignoring any unfounded requests for changes in the title, or shifts in the discussion unless directly addressed in a message. If it becomes apparent I have made a mistake, of course I will abide by the requests of the many, but those many should not be hindered in discussion by the few.
1)About the very title of this thread: a production timeline implies news, whether they are very documented or merely rumors reported I don't care, don't mind: we basically discuss what is being reported, whether it is factual or at least credible or not. Then we discuss this and assess it.
2)Yes I complained about the Loelia Ponsonby and Gala Brand addition to the title... because it was misleading: nothing more than wishful thinking added to a thread about production timeline, aka news, rumors, what have you... started here. I am far from the only one who did, by the way. You DID changed the title of this thread to make it misleading.
3)The Penelope Cruz argument. Given the very slim amount of evidence, one single source that has been then denied, one can safely assume, until and if evidence to the contrary shows up eventually, that Cruz is not being cast or seriously considered at this point. I don't have to repeat what I said before, because of course ultimately, until casting is announced officially, one cannot prove a negative. One does not have to prove a negative, because the burden of proof reside in the person making the assertion. In this case, whoever thinks there may be more to it then, well, a rumor. And I can't help that you pinpoint a throwaway line about a typo, while I and others extensively said why this should be received with skepticism.
4)I am all for debate, but @JWESTBROOK you don't seem to care much about them as much as about fantasizing about Bond 24, as you become defensive and aggressive the moment we treat any piece of news or rumor with skepticism. I am all for speculation, heck I love to speculate, as long as everyone has enough lucidity to admit that it is indeed speculation. I speculate plenty about Blofeld coming back eventually, but I fully admit that right now there is not much evidence, if any, that he will ever come back.
I understand this is your sand square, your thread, your toy, but this is a debate forum opened to everyone. Nobody here, as far as I can see, tried to derail it, on the contrary they contributed to it and to its quality. But then again, maybe you don't care so much about debates.
I am fine with the past and current thread's titles - this is a discuss the rumors site as well as keeping track of all production on Bond 24. No problem.
This.
I suppose, those, who go on complaining about the way, rumors are discussed should maybe sit back, till all we have are facts. But then again - this discussion arouses EVERY time a new film is in development. Such an old and unnecessary hat.
Jestbrook is doing just fine.
@Germanlady-I do not complain about adding rumors, when a movie is made they cannot be ignored, so may turn out to be true. I am all for discussing about them as well. But that means also assessing their worth with the information we have. And when new elements come, adjusting our assessment accordingly.
Rumors will be discussed on threads whether we like it or not - no matter the source or viability - and this thread allows us to discuss rumors as well as production news. Thanks for getting rather back on track, Ludovico.
Personally I love the build up to production. It means the cogs are in motion and the next 18 months will soon fly by.
I think this weekend I am gonna dust off either bloodstone or goldeneye reloaded to get my Craig bond fix...
I will sadly agree Cruz is seeming less likely which is a dam shame as 39 or not she is still quite ... Well hot!
I absolutely agree with this opinion.
Keep up the good work @JWESTBROOK
Problem here always has been, that people open a new thread for every tidbit, that gets lost immediately instead of having it all together.
But I would differ between facts and rumors, so we don't have to explain every time we comment on a rumor, that we are indeed AWARE of the fact, its a rumor.
For example, yes. Its always been a negative on this side, that its not compressed, but all over the place. Like this, you have a hard time keeping track, because those threads are gone fast and you don't have time to search for everything. Maybe think that policy over, before it REALLY starts.
I can very much agree. So long as this Penelope Cruz thing isn't made official, I doubt we should bring it to this thread.
When and if any statements concerning her are made - emphasis on 'if' - we have plenty of time to mention it here. But it gets really hard to keep track of things when A) we have, as @Germanlady pointed out, several threads dealing with the same rumours and when B) the production timeline starts worrying about rumours too.
A little effort from all of us, can go a long way.
Thank you.
Exactly.
Exactly. This thread has been posting rumours from the very beginning so why have we now decided that it's only for facts?
I'd also like to say that I think @JWESTBROOK is doing a great job with this thread.
Or we could just continue posting rumours and facts in this thread. I don't see the problem, it's worked fine for over a year so far. I think the Gala Brand title was misleading but @JWESTBROOK has apologised and we've moved on from that now.
So would you please PM JWESTBROOK, @DarthDimi about this? Or @GermanLady. Or he can just read it when he comes back on here; but a PM would be nice.
I know, @thelivingroyale, so we are like deciding his thread for him. I am not comfortable with that feeling. I think it may get overwhelming soon with rumors, though; that is really the only reason why I am considering it. And yes, JWESTBROOK has been doing a great job.
This is not and will not be a fact only thread. I've stated it multiple times. It will not change unless a moderator would like to take over the entire thread and manage it themselves. Do that, and my days here are numbered.
The current role and direction of this thread has worked almost flawlessly for over 120 pages and a year's time. I'm not changing it.
I created this thread so that after production is over, in the months and years after the film has been released, we'll all be able to look back and say "remember when we thought this.." or "This is when we learned that..." without having to look too far. I've also gone through the trouble of linking articles with their event, so that we have an ultimate guide to the information of Bond 24's production. I will be going back and adding it for all of the current entries, while continuing to do it for future events.
If you want a fact only thread, make one. If you want a rumors only thread, make one
But this will be both because that's how I intended it. I don't think I'm being too stubborn, especially with how well its worked out so far.
If a moderator has any concerns or would indeed like to take over, message me.
Until then, thank you to all who have made supportive comments over the past few days, and hopefully some great news pops up soon so we can all move on.
Thanks
What started it were the complaints about not being "explicit" enough about what is a "bit" rumor, which one is a "possibility" and which one is "total bullocks" etc. IMO making differences in what is "allowed" to be talked about and which is not, is nonsense. Everybody knows, they are discussing rumors and should be allowed to give them their personal stamp of importance without having to defend themselves all the time. If THAT can be done, this will work. If not, NOT.
I think this has gone on too long. Back to normal, everybody.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYNUg5j7tr0&feature=share
If there ever was a non-Bond song that screamed Bond that is definitely this one.
Are there any rumours about Caro Emerald and B24 ?