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
Has anyone checked to see if Sony has registered risico.com or variations of it? With Rome as a location I smell something brewing... terrible title though, bottom of the barrel Fleming.
My latest theory is that Tanner will turn out to be a Quantum mole. It was he who engineered M's death. Mallory is a red herring to the viewer - in fact he saved M's life. Why cast a decorated star like Rory Kinnear in such a small roll if not to reveal him as a menace later. This is the game Mendes is playing.
Logan Purvis and Wade are just the pawns on the chess board
Actually, you aren't. But "Half the Finnish people claim that Scandinavia is in Scandinavia while the rest claim it's not!" somehow.
https://www.lonelyplanet.com/thorntree/forums/europe-scandinavia-the-nordics/topics/is-finland-in-scandinavia-or-not
Here's an explanation:
"Scandinavia[a] is a historical and cultural-linguistic region in Northern Europe characterized by a common ethno-cultural Germanic heritage and related languages, which includes the three kingdoms of Norway, Denmark and Sweden"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavia
Let it go, mate.
Kinnear's career has become decorated during his time with the Bond franchise. When he was cast he was working and great, but I wouldn't say decorated. And he's perfect in the role. He's one of the few characters I feel you could give more screentime without sacrificing their character and making them into some sort of mole or villain.
Risico.com is still unregistered but hey I hope things change a Fleming title would be kind of cool
I guess it means Hildebrandrarity.com will not be the title of Bond 24.
And I actually like the title.
Well, you do as you wish, it's your topic :) But if go into no-spoiler-at-all territory, don't you think the use of this topic in the future as a way to remember what was known at such time, and what was not known, will be a bit hindered ? I think it was one of your goals at the beginning.
Now imagine in three years : in this topic, we would remember when some instagram leak allowed us to think there might be some Aston Martin action in Roma, but we would not be able to remember when it was leaked that -insert future spoiler here, that will be discovered because of photos taken in Roma-.
Scandinavia is one of these topics where the map changes according to which Wikipedia language you refer to (for instance, Finland is part of Scandinavia in the French wikipedia, it's written on the top of the page). Even those who read the English wikipedia should read the final lines of the "Finland" chapter, which explains why some English concepts like "Fennoscandia" are not used at all in the countries it is supposed to be about.
But well, this is the Internet, what is on the English Wikipedia is more important than what someone actually living there knows ! :) But Geography is not "hard science", there are much, much politics in it. People can die because they name some part of the world in the "wrong" way. Fortunately, Finland in or not in Scandinavia is not such a case (and moreover, here, it's mostly about having a tall blond Bond girl :) ). But for other cases, switch on your TV alas...
I'm trying to get clear as to what we can post here. I thought I had it; now I am not 100% clear. Please bear with me, @JWESTBROOK: As Suivez_ce_parachute mentioned, the info on Rome: That is not promotional or official yet. May we talk about this (found on Instagram or anywhere else) with spoiler tags? May we paste photos of Rome found on Instagram or elsewhere, that are not official/promotional? I think you are saying no. If no, then at least I am clear on that. We have discussed rumors in the past here. But ... maybe you are saying use the spoiler tags and we can post that kind of thing, but it will not count on the timeline.
May we quote articles in papers and magazines? It seems like we may, given the posting of the article by Baz - that is not coming to us straight from EON; it is not official news (the script finished and given to Barbara and Michael, and the shooting to begin in late Nov./earlyDec.).
So, please tell me again, JWESTBROOK, because I can interpret your post two ways (maybe just me; please be patient and go over this again). I can read it as:
a) that you are saying we cannot post any rumors or speculation here any more. That is fine if that is your intent; I just want to be clear. If I find something on Instagram or elsewhere, then I would need to post it on a different thread and (always!) use spoiler tags. OR
b) as I highlighted from your quote above - we may post our potential spoilers using spoiler tags every time; these things would just not be listed on the timeline. Could be articles or photos.
I really do not want photos posted willy nilly on this forum (especially without spoiler tags) and in particular not on this thread. Many of us remember the "foraging photographer" who posted lots of info and photos about Skyfall, some of which were pretty big spoilers (she was almost arrested back then, apparently). I don't want that either. (You can still find her blog easily online anybody would like to revisit that time, although she had to take down some photos.)
I'm all for having a production thread, which is a great timeline, and I want this to continue. I just want to make sure I understand you correctly. Thanks.
Finally! We are discussing this. I was a bit worried at the quiet response I got when I originally tried to lay the ground work last week. I'm glad we're asking.
This isn't 100% my decision, so having your input is extremely helpful. It's not necessarily 'no-spoiler-at-all', but rather sticking to the more generic news and try to avoid the major spoilers.
Generic news examples from Skyfall would be: Finale will be in Scotland, Eve may be Moneypenny, MI6 blows up. These all are either rumors, locations, or were eventually in the trailer from the movie. Just tidbits to make us want to go and watch it.
Spoiler news examples from Skyfall would be: The images of Bond's parents' graves in Scotland, the article from Baz that M. definitely dies, etc.
I feel like there is a rather obvious difference in severity between my examples.
The way I want us to approach is sort of.. what do you expect to see in the trailers? They wont show M. dying, Bond's parents' graves, etc in anything promotional, because that's the big hook of the story, or rather the 'surprise'.
Things like locations, cast, set pieces, stunts etc. are all eventually going to pop up in official images and trailers, so I feel we can be a little more lenient with those sorts of topics.
Is it clearer now? If you wouldn't see it in a trailer for the movie, it's too heavy a spoiler for this thread.
I think we can still achieve my initial desired result detailing the when and who and how everything happened during production without ruining the story of the film.
That's really all I'm trying to avoid.
@4EverBonded , The Rome rumors, images, and social media posts are completely fine in my book. I'd file that under 'locations'. If you think your going to avoid hearing rumors about locations on this forum, think again. I think that's one of the best aspects of a new Bond film; where are we going? Locations: fine.
On the other hand, if the 'location photo' happens to be a photo of Bond's parents' graves in the backyard of a mansion in Scotland, then no. Please don't post here without spoiler tags, and really I'd prefer it if it wasn't posted at all. That sort of detail from the film is OBVIOUSLY important to the plot, and this thread isn't really focused too much on the plot, but rather the technical and physical detail of the new film. The only thing from the plot I want are basic rumors and a basic outline. Examples from Skyfall would be that Bond is upset with M. (fine in my book), Mallory is an outsider (okay in my book), the finale is in Scotland (borderline based on the assumptions we all made which turned out to be true, but it didn't really confirm anything, just led to speculation, so it's fine.)
Again, if it is not a major plot point, and you don't think the production team would promote it, or rather they want to keep it secret, it's a spoiler. Major plot details = spoiler. Rome images = location details = okay to post.
Let's be fair and agree we all would be able to distinguish a major plot twist or detail from something simple and obvious like 'Chiwetel Ejiofor's character is the bad guy' (just an example). I feel like it is always obvious who the baddie will be. That's a rather minor detail in my book.
Speculation is a fudgy area. It can be fun, but most of Baz's stuff I wouldn't declare as speculation, but rather rumors. Rumors are fine. If it's fan speculation, like "Mallory is definitely maybe Blofeld this time forreals, ya'll", this isn't the thread. If it's "Many members of the production team have recently taken up skiing lessons and Austria is rumored as a location, so perhaps we'll see some ski scenes!", then its based on evidence and actual rumors, and should be fun to discuss.
I'd love to go into more detail, and like I said.. we're sort of just winging it. If there is something you feel is spoiler-y, I apologize in advance that you saw it, and go ahead and flag the crap out of it. The best approach is to
"When in doubt, go the spoiler tag route."
I'm glad.
More on the Rome deal.. the fact that we actually have details of it being a car chase on a certain street in a certain city is clearly outlining a (small) part of the story, and so far is really the heaviest detail we've gotten as far as Bond 24's story details go.
I can see how some may see that as a spoiler, but really its just one sequence in a two hour+ film. I'm okay knowing about it, but perhaps in the future spoiler tags with a written warning of something like 'Potential Spoiler about a stunt sequence' and then the spoiler tag would be courteous to other members.
You'll notice I left 'car chase' out of the thread title and included 'Potential Spoilers'. I've amended that as it seemed to be alright. I think it weeded out all those who were apprehensive about even the minor details, but its better for them to have a fair warning. I understand if some no longer want to tune in to this thread.
Some members assumed, double emphasis on assumed, automatically that the car chase would be the PTS. That wasn't rumored or even mentioned in any of the articles. That's a perfect example of bad speculation, as some members now feel the PTS has been spoiled for them even though there is nothing to allude to that. Yet.
If someone does not even want to know where Bond 24 is filming on location, that may mean it is time for them to take a leave of absence. There will come a time when I leave for sure (for Skyfall I ducked out and had about a 2 month wait before I saw the film in the theater). Everybody needs to proceed at their own risk from now on. ;)
Spoiler tags, consistently used, help a lot.
Then again, there are alternate possibilities... One of the reasons Skyfall's dialogue was quite smooth was that Mendes had the cast "lightly redo" their lines in the script rehearsals. Perhaps Mendes will improve the dialogue as pre-production continues... Who knows.
At the very least, I still have faith in Mendes.
I think they forgot to go back and fix the "VW Beetles, I think" line. Or maybe Naomi is just that lame and nobody wanted to tell her. :P
"V W Beetles" didn't even need to be mentioned. The fact that the cars were there was enough! Appalling.
Substantial changes may be the plot. Actually, a change that is substantial in a script seems to indicate, to me at least, plot rewriting, not one liners which are cosmetic. And Logan, with all his qualities, makes rather thin plots.
Logan is a character writer and a dialogue writer. As a plot writer he is mediocre, at best. And he lacks the gift of Elmore Leonard to have plots spring from the characters. This is not pure criticism: what he does, he does very well, but he has his limits.
A) it's reasonable to assume they wanted a fair bit of money, perhaps more than usual to fix the screenplay,
B) they've got a job for 'life' writing all future Bond films.
Purvis and Wade did say they wanted to move away from Bond and do other stuff but their rewriting sounds as it's been quite significant so I wouldn't be surprised if they're back for Bond 25 and even Bond 26 which could be with a new Bond actor.
The downside to all this is... if you're not a fan of Purvis and Wade's writing you're stuck with them! =; The Broccolis love 'em so expect more invisible cars in future Bond films!
This is Sony :) Anything can happen. After a surprise $1b box office result, maybe Bond 24 will receive the Spiderman treatment, who knows ?!
The matter is that it's a bit after the fact that we know what is a minor spoiler and what is a big one.
About the trailer of Skyfall : the first 1:30 minute are simply a summary of the whole first half of the movie, shown in order ! Knowing half of the story sounds like a big spoiler, though !
Now let's consider a point like "Bardem has blond hair, he seems to play a flamboyant character".
It's shown in the trailer. And, yet, during production, they took care to hide that. Remember all the hypothesis when Marketto posted that photo of Bardem hiding his face and yet we could spot some blond stuff (was it a weird fur ?). So it was not a spoiler at all from the producers' point of view (since it's in the trailer), but for the marketing it was very important that Bardem's look was revealed only during the promo, and not months ahead.
Imagine "Tanner dies" : if it happens near the end, major spoiler. If it happens within 5 minutes and is the driving force behind the revenge story (because, you know, this time it's personal), it's a very minor one that will be in every trailer...
There's no miracle solution I'm afraid.
This is an example of precisely why P&W's contribution perpetuates a rather confusing basis from where so much disdain towards them comes from, when such comments as the above are made.
Read the below article
http://www.mi6-hq.com/news/?itemid=10807
As has already been highlighted by myself and others and what is universally agreed upon; this writing duo know Bond and know Fleming and they are aware and acknowledge the ridiculousness but as they state, and it's important to understand, it was Tamahori that elevated the concept of the invisible car to ridiculous levels of stupidity and everything else that was absurd in DAD was also coming from the "brilliant" mind of Tamahori. Seriously, I think these guys get a raw deal based on unfounded hearsay and misinformation.