1981 replies to this topic

[marktmurphy]

Well, I'm just not impressed that people automatically assume that M's presence means we will see Action M! once again.

It's a car chase with the DB5, and M's in the sequence, hence the stunt double.

If Bond pulled just one handbrake turn with her in the car they'd need a stunt double. Which wouldn't be a car chase. Hell, that artist is listed as an actor, so she could just be being Dench's double; the 'stunt' might have been a mistake.

[SecretAgentFan]

With all the teasers and trailers coming around right now - isn´t it strange to know that one year from now SKYFALL has already been in the theatres for a month? Can´t wait for the teaser (in May?)...

[Skudor]

It's all about the execution and the context. But in principle I'd rather have my M behind a desk somewhere in Whitehall, or briefly appearing in relevant locations, sending Bond out on missions - not participating in them. He/She should then not show their face again, except perhaps at the end of the film. Of course, like any formula it needs to be broken occasionally - but only occasionally and then for the right reasons. Not just because a national treasury happens to inhabit the role.

[Tybre]

With all the teasers and trailers coming around right now - isn´t it strange to know that one year from now SKYFALL has already been in the theatres for a month? Can´t wait for the teaser (in May?)...

I wouldn't be surprised if we get a teaser before May. Not significantly so, but yeah.

[DamnCoffee]

Well, I'm just not impressed that people automatically assume that M's presence means we will see Action M! once again.

It's a car chase with the DB5, and M's in the sequence, hence the stunt double.

If Bond pulled just one handbrake turn with her in the car they'd need a stunt double. Which wouldn't be a car chase. Hell, that artist is listed as an actor, so she could just be being Dench's double; the 'stunt' might have been a mistake.

Interesting if Bond hired a lookalike to pose as her, to throw the enemy off the tail.

[ScreenRant]

Um, why does that redirect me to an article called "69 Ways to Know You're A Douchebag"?

Because almost 2 years ago here a forum member thought it would be funny to "punk" some websites by sending very earnest, convincing emails (which included lying follow ups) pushing a made-up rumor just to see if sites would take the bait. We posted it (CLEARLY marking it as an unsubstantiated rumor), and in the thread in which the perpetrator gloated about it I joined the discussion to point out to the moderators what he had done. Not only forum members but the forum moderators completely took his side and saw nothing wrong with what he did, which I thought was pretty despicable.

So I thought that was a fitting page to be redirected to if anyone linked to us here from that point on.

Regards.

[Vauxhall]

Um, why does that redirect me to an article called "69 Ways to Know You're A Douchebag"?

Because almost 2 years ago here a forum member thought it would be funny to "punk" some websites by sending very earnest, convincing emails (which included lying follow ups) pushing a made-up rumor just to see if sites would take the bait. We posted it (CLEARLY marking it as an unsubstantiated rumor), and in the thread in which the perpetrator gloated about it I joined the discussion to point out to the moderators what he had done. Not only forum members but the forum moderators completely took his side and saw nothing wrong with what he did, which I thought was pretty despicable.

So I thought that was a fitting page to be redirected to if anyone linked to us here from that point on.

Regards.

Classy.

[killkenny kid]

Um, why does that redirect me to an article called "69 Ways to Know You're A Douchebag"?

Because almost 2 years ago here a forum member thought it would be funny to "punk" some websites by sending very earnest, convincing emails (which included lying follow ups) pushing a made-up rumor just to see if sites would take the bait. We posted it (CLEARLY marking it as an unsubstantiated rumor), and in the thread in which the perpetrator gloated about it I joined the discussion to point out to the moderators what he had done. Not only forum members but the forum moderators completely took his side and saw nothing wrong with what he did, which I thought was pretty despicable.

So I thought that was a fitting page to be redirected to if anyone linked to us here from that point on.

Regards.

Classy.

, I had no idea, sorry folks.

[The Shark]

Not only forum members but the forum moderators completely took his side and saw nothing wrong with what he did, which I thought was pretty despicable.

Just for your information, the user - "spynovelfan" (respected spy novelist Jeremy Duns) has since been banned, and all those threads have been deleted by mods under threats of litigation by the wrongly accused "danslittlefinger.". So you've won your little victory, and your pathetic excuse for a website has been by no means harmed. Carry on lurking and posting snide comments, providing the most redundant fanboy updates on Hollywood blockbusters (for a living!), and have a Merry Christmas.

69 ways to know you're a douchebag...

I take it one of them is reading and/or writing for ScreenRant?

[MattofSteel]

BURN!

And I don't even know what's really going on.

Merry Christmas everyone!

[ScreenRant]

@TheShark (and all you other charming fellows),

Fine you banned and deleted (of course there had to be threat of litigation, apparently) - I can tell you this: I created the account specifically to address that situation and came here looking for some support against someone that you ended up having to ban (guess I must have been in the wrong, huh?). I was polite and civil and was met with nothing but derision and support for the other side. That left me with a really wonderful first impression of this forum.

Your (and others') replies today only support my initial thoughts about the folks here. I never received any sort of contact or email letting me know how things unfolded, or an apology for how I was treated here considering the fact you ended up banning the perpetrator and deleting the threads.

As to "pathetic" website, yeah whatever. Go compare our stats to yours some time.

As to lurking, you're a mod, you can check for yourself - I haven't visited this forum since April 2010. I just spotted a link to my site, saw the question, and thought I'd answer it honestly.

I'm actually a big James Bond fan going back a long way and was disappointed at this forum for how the whole thing played out back then. I can see from the replies here today that it was a good call to stay away. I run a character specific forum myself on another site and we would have never treated a newcomer in a situation similar to the one that initially brought me here the way I was treated here. So yes, I was in a snarky mood and put the redirect in place. Frankly, I'd forgotten about it - not exactly high on my radar screen. I could remove it, but based on your description of our site, I guess there's nothing of use there so I may as well leave it in place.

I think it's awesome when fans of a particular film, comic book, character or whatever are passionate enough to come together on a daily basis to discuss it, but when you act like jerks to outsiders - well, not much needs to be said there.

Feel free to flame away as I won't be back to read your replies. If a mod wants to reach out via email to have a civil conversation about all this, you have access to my profile info.

Regards.

[The Shark]

ScreenRant,

First of all, don't for one second take me as a spokesperson for Cb.n, or as an accurate representation of our community's views and standards of etiquette. Simply put, I'm an easily annoyed bastard, and your snarky comment caught me off guard. Sorry.

I do vaguely remember your original post, but not enough to make any kind of judgement about it. But either way, that whole chapter of this forum's history is a pretty dodgy one, and one that all of us around here now regret. It was handled poorly poorly, and both fine users (spynovelfan and danslittlefinger) were given a pretty ty deal by the mods. It was started as a harmless online social experiment, but quickly turned into a witch-hunt.

Your post was likely another victim of that mob mentality that caught up many of us (including myself), so I can understand the dim view of this site and its contributors. But we've all moved on since then, a new Bond film's being made, and the site's revving up once again. Although I'm not a big fan of ScreenRant, Ain't It Cool News or CinemaBlend, I know for certain that others here are, and having one of these blocked greatly impedes discussion about SKYFALL.

I humbly ask you and your fellow colleagues to re-consider de-blocking Cb.n. Not for me, but for Bond fandom.

Sincerely,

- Sharky.

[MattofSteel]

I'd second Shark's request. I have zero idea what this is really about and absolutely no memory of the original incident.

I've found CBN to be one of the more welcoming and level-headed fan communities I've ever been a part of - and that's going back as far as 2001, when I started to pay attention to the boards. We've had our bad apples - like any forum does - but by and large, this is a solid group.

[ScreenRant]

OK, couldn't help myself, had to take a peek. Sharky, thank you very much, bud - I do appreciate it. Really, I'd forgotten about that silly redirect, and I just removed it.

Actually, if you guys ever come across any interesting updates that you think might be of interest to a wider audience, I'd appreciate it if you guys would shoot us an email. I would gladly link back to you as a source or at least a "via."

Speaking of updates, I received this via email today, maybe you guys can speak to its veracity - I don't know if it's someone pulling our leg or if it's legit, but without any substantiation we're not going to run it even as rumor on the basis of a random email:

I have through a good source inside EON productions news/leak about the new James Bond movie. Ralph Fiennes is going to have a small role in this movie.

But a very important one, he's going to play the new M, rumors have been going on, that Judi Dench is stepping back.

This movie will focus on M's past, and her past will force her to step down, make place for a new head of MI6, Fiennes.

In this way they will go back to the roots of James Bond, with a man as head of MI6.

I will ask not to get my name in the public, as I would like to keep getting news about Skyfall in the future.

I emailed with my point regarding my skepticism of him as a source, and he replied with this:

Neither me or him wants our name in the press. But i call tell you that my contact works as a [redacted], and also deals with the [redacted]. He got hold of the first 40 pages.

I know that the word is that Fiennes is to play a villain so this certainly flies in the face of that.

Any thoughts on this?

Best regards.

[The Shark]

It's hard to say. There's a user who chatted to a friend in a pub (IIRC) who's now working on SKYFALL, and he slipped that Fiennes is walking around in a suit playing a character with a name that sounds like "Mallory." There's two likely candidates here - he's either playing Sir Miles Messervy (the ex-Amiral M from Fleming's novels that Bernard Lee played) or James Bond's neurologist - Sir James Maloney (also from the books). My best guess is the former, since the later would only be a bit part. Why would you hire Ralph Fiennes to play a bleeding neurologist? It makes no sense.

There is the possibility the guy that fed you this rumour simply read these forums (or MI6Community) and saw the most likely candidates for Fiennes's character, and went with M. Either that or he's telling the truth.

Best to run it as unsubstantiated like you say. It's got a ring of truth to it, but I'm not sure about your source.

Cheers.

[ScreenRant]

Since I'm not once bitten and shy, I decided to compare the IP address of the person who sent this "tip" to that of the person who sent the one back in April 2010 who was out to make sites look bad.

According to IP, this guy's location:

178.157.198.251
Silkeborg, Denmark

According to IP the original prankster:

217.208.168.88
Farsta, Sweden

That is a little to close for comfort as far as I'm concerned. I wouldn't be surprised if it's the same guy trying to get us to fall for the same gag a second time.

You can go here and input the IP addresses to see how near they are to each other geographically: http://www.ipligence.com/geolocation

Vic

[Mr. Blofeld]

SNF lives in Sweden; I don't think he could've moved that far without us knowing...

[The Shark]

Vic,

I doubt it's the original prankster, who's Jeremy Duns and resides in Sweden.

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Jeremy_Duns
http://jeremyduns.blogspot.com/

Originally there was this barmy rumour circulating around about Rachel Weisz playing the head of Quantum (because she was filming DREAM HOUSE with Craig). Duns correctly guessed it was a fake (CinemaBlend was the site that originally bought it IIRC, from an "anonymous but trustworthy source") and decided to see how far his own false rumour could travel - hence the Jamie Bell as 007 sidekick hokum. As you know, things got seriously out of hand, and he got banished from Cb.n.

He's currently working on the third of part of his terrific spy trilogy - FREE WORLD, scheduled for a 2012 release. I don't think he's much time for any more pranks.

Regards,

- Shark.

[ScreenRant]

Hmm... thanks guys. I'm still not going to be "hungry" enough to break news to even risk this as a "rumor patrol" post.

Appreciate the feedback!

Vic

[MattofSteel]

There's really nothing in that email that any fan cognizant of rumours and early confirmed production info couldn't fabricate. If he'd said something like, "Fiennes becomes M by orchestrating a plot to have her shot dead," I'd be more interested.

[dirtymind]

Neither me or him wants our name in the press. But i call tell you that my contact works as a [redacted], and also deals with the [redacted]. He got hold of the first 40 pages.

If Fiennes replaces Dench as M, wouldn't that be a scene from the last 40 pages?

[marktmurphy]

From what we know of the plot M finds herself under fire; I could believe that Fiennes plays a character who temporarily takes over her position when she's suspended for whatever reason. By the end of the film I'd imagine she'll be reinstated.

Does sound quite Spooks-like, I'll admit!

[Captain Tightpants]

SKYFALL is believed to be Dench's final outing as M. If that is the case and she is suspended, then I'd say it is more likely that she will be exonerated, but "encouraged" to retire.

And the suspension could easily come in the first forty pages - especially if Fiennes is only taking over the role as M for a film.

[007jamesbond]

I guess it might make sense for Finnes to be acting M until a new pernament M comes in?

[marktmurphy]

Yeah, and that way he can be a baddie too. Or at least a very unlikable, officious guy.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Admiral Hargreaves with a new face?

[SecretAgentFan]

From what we know of the plot M finds herself under fire; I could believe that Fiennes plays a character who temporarily takes over her position when she's suspended for whatever reason. By the end of the film I'd imagine she'll be reinstated.

Does sound quite Spooks-like, I'll admit!

I like Dench as M. But I would rather prefer her killed in SKYFALL than reinstated or forced to resign. I think her story arc is played out. Give her a big finish in SKYFALL and move on.

[Captain Tightpants]

I don't think killing her off does much. It's actually pretty boring, and over-done.

[Luigi Ferrari]

An article on Skyfall shooting at Ascot Racecourse:

http://www.horseandh...397/310912.html

The never-heard-before by us CBNers news is that Dame Judy Dench was on set too.

"Filming took place at night in the last week of November with Daniel Craig playing James Bond, supported by real-life racehorse owner Dame Judi Dench as “M”.

[Captain Tightpants]

And cue moans of M's over-involvement starting ... now.