A drunk doing a double take is good though. Some light relief whilst people get their gin from the foyer.Be careful with this train stuff though, don't let it get too far in the foreground; we don't want audiences fleeing the screenings in terror.
Danny Boyle to direct Bond 23?
#151
Posted 05 March 2009 - 11:57 AM
#152
Posted 05 March 2009 - 02:27 PM
#153
Posted 05 March 2009 - 09:24 PM
'I enjoy the Bond movies, always have and always will, but I have no plans to direct one.'
#154
Posted 05 March 2009 - 09:28 PM
#155
Posted 05 March 2009 - 10:10 PM
#156
Posted 05 March 2009 - 10:20 PM
Wasn't this rumoir shot down yesterday by this?
http://www.imdb.com/news/ni0696687/
Yes. That is included in the above article. The statement to WENN was referrenced in that IMDb link.
#157
Posted 05 March 2009 - 10:46 PM
Wasn't this rumoir shot down yesterday by this?
http://www.imdb.com/news/ni0696687/
Yep, I posted that link in this thread two days ago but it was still something to give people something to talk about.
#158
Posted 05 March 2009 - 11:51 PM
#159
Posted 06 March 2009 - 01:34 AM
(yes,I've seenTrainspotting a few times. )
I like Boyle, but I think it was a slow rumor day at the Sun for them to publish such an article.
#160
Posted 06 March 2009 - 02:10 AM
Shouldn't whoever is doing the next theme rumors be making the rounds about now?
#161
Posted 06 March 2009 - 02:53 AM
#162
Posted 06 March 2009 - 04:18 AM
#163
Posted 06 March 2009 - 04:26 AM
Trainspotting was OK.
28 Days Later was great.
Slumdog was overrated, but clever in the updating of Dickensian story telling.
I'd personally like to see a character study, much more along the lines of the Moonraker book (I like the little details of Bond's daily life and noir-ish detective story). MF could have pulled that off if he had been chosen further into the reboot films, but definitely having to come right on the heels of CR.
Perhaps Boyle could pull this off, but if he opts for all action, shaky camera work and quick cuts it will only further the Bourne comparisons. But then again, that type of story wouldn't support that style, so...
#164
Posted 06 March 2009 - 04:46 AM
#165
Posted 06 March 2009 - 04:58 AM
Does it matter? CBn's not allowed to post an article a day after the story was posted on IMDb?Wasn't this rumoir shot down yesterday by this?
http://www.imdb.com/news/ni0696687/
The people who comprise the CBn Team have lives outside this site. Give them a break.
#166
Posted 06 March 2009 - 11:02 AM
#167
Posted 06 March 2009 - 11:10 AM
And they won't even get my details right, the swines!!
#168
Posted 06 March 2009 - 11:22 AM
Actually, I'm more concerned about the origin of it: The Sun, a newspaper we all know to be slanderous when it isn't outright lying. But people still took it seriously because hey, we'd like to see Danny Boyle do a Bond film! That'd be great! So let's ignore the history of the paper reporting it and its habit of inventing news to sell copies because it's telling us what we want to hear!Quite. And since when did IMDb become some Biblical archive of all that is correct and current about film? It's a joke. It's only current because people put things on there from other sites and news services. It is far from being used or even perceived as some industry standard.
#169
Posted 06 March 2009 - 11:28 AM
It happens every time a baseless rumour comes out that is actually something Bond would do well to see happen for real. But when it's rubbishy actresses saying they are the next 007 girl none of us take any notice of a story that is as unfounded as this Boyle one. Papers print what they want.Actually, I'm more concerned about the origin of it: The Sun, a newspaper we all know to be slanderous when it isn't outright lying. But people still took it seriously because hey, we'd like to see Danny Boyle do a Bond film! That'd be great! So let's ignore the history of the paper reporting it and its habit of inventing news to sell copies because it's telling us what we want to hear!Quite. And since when did IMDb become some Biblical archive of all that is correct and current about film? It's a joke. It's only current because people put things on there from other sites and news services. It is far from being used or even perceived as some industry standard.
I'm waiting for Frido Pinto being the next actress rumour....I'd put money on that one...(but again - it would not be a bad move for Bond, so hence it will get airtime and oxygen on sites such as this - true or not).
#170
Posted 06 March 2009 - 03:18 PM
#171
Posted 06 March 2009 - 03:26 PM
Even bad moves get discusionIt happens every time a baseless rumour comes out that is actually something Bond would do well to see happen for real. But when it's rubbishy actresses saying they are the next 007 girl none of us take any notice of a story that is as unfounded as this Boyle one. Papers print what they want.Actually, I'm more concerned about the origin of it: The Sun, a newspaper we all know to be slanderous when it isn't outright lying. But people still took it seriously because hey, we'd like to see Danny Boyle do a Bond film! That'd be great! So let's ignore the history of the paper reporting it and its habit of inventing news to sell copies because it's telling us what we want to hear!Quite. And since when did IMDb become some Biblical archive of all that is correct and current about film? It's a joke. It's only current because people put things on there from other sites and news services. It is far from being used or even perceived as some industry standard.
I'm waiting for Frido Pinto being the next actress rumour....I'd put money on that one...(but again - it would not be a bad move for Bond, so hence it will get airtime and oxygen on sites such as this - true or not).
Search On the Quantum of Solace board for the olsen twins. 2 pages on that Obviously untrue and frankly stupid rumour!
#172
Posted 06 March 2009 - 03:42 PM
#173
Posted 06 March 2009 - 03:49 PM
#174
Posted 06 March 2009 - 06:53 PM
Which is why I treat Jennifer Aniston's comment with an open mind as is it Possible yes probable we'll see.
Jennifer Aniston as a Bond girl.... No, please. (Tabloid rumor, thank god!)
#175
Posted 06 March 2009 - 06:59 PM
#176
Posted 06 March 2009 - 07:24 PM
I disagree with the statement that Jennifer Aniston is better than Al Pacino.Anniston is better then the usualy tabloid fair associated to 007 (olsen twins Al Pachino etc)
#177
Posted 06 March 2009 - 07:44 PM
In which event are they competing?I disagree with the statement that Jennifer Aniston is better than Al Pacino.Anniston is better then the usualy tabloid fair associated to 007 (olsen twins Al Pachino etc)
#178
Posted 06 March 2009 - 07:47 PM
and i hear they are both in Celebrity gladiators
#179
Posted 06 March 2009 - 07:53 PM
It was a contest to see which one of them would look better in Princess Leia's slave girl bikini.In which event are they competing?I disagree with the statement that Jennifer Aniston is better than Al Pacino.Anniston is better then the usualy tabloid fair associated to 007 (olsen twins Al Pachino etc)
Aniston was declared the eventual winner. But Big Al ran her a close second.
#180
Posted 06 March 2009 - 07:57 PM
And Judo Chop was not even in the top 10. Too hairy.It was a contest to see which one of them would look better in Princess Leia's slave girl bikini.In which event are they competing?I disagree with the statement that Jennifer Aniston is better than Al Pacino.Anniston is better then the usualy tabloid fair associated to 007 (olsen twins Al Pachino etc)
Aniston was declared the eventual winner. But Big Al ran her a close second.