EA, I don't know where it was reported, but there's nothing official about that. Deadline Hollywood and Variety, the go-to places, had absolutely nothing on it, and Deadline Hollywood was the first place announcing he had been contacted for a possible Bond role. Still as of the latest Dark Tower (film in which Bardem is instead officially announced to star) news, deadline has nothing on Bardem being officially hired for Bond. So that too remains just rumor. (doesn't mean it won't be made official at some point, but as of now, still a rumor).English Agent wrote:One point regarding your last post 'Ale'.........the villian for Bond 23 has been cast.....Javier Bardem accepted the role, it was announced in the film trade a few weeks ago.
I'm very well aware how it works, in fact I said I DO understand the needs of publicity, I certainly don't expect him to trash the movie while it's being released, but while there are needs for publicity, there's way and way of handling it. Craig handled it the wrong way. Actually, Cavill would NEVER say his Superman film will be as good as Reeve's films, and he has avoided saying it. Because he's smart and because publicity or not, he doesn't want to look like an ass. He's been repeatedly asked about Reeve and he's been (and rightly so) completely avoiding comparisons AND forecasts. He said he's thrilled about being on board and about the role/script and when asked (by a friend of mine at Comic Con during the table interviews with the press) what he was going to bring to the role, he said (I'm quoting exactly here) "I think it would be presumptuous of me to say what I'm going to bring to the role. I think the fans will be the ones who have to see and judge what I bring to the role." That's called being humble and sensible. Publicity is not about lies, it's about spinning things the appropriate way. Craig could and should have been a lot more vague (like I said in the previous post, just be vague so people don't feel like their intelligence is being insulted) about QoS. He of course could not say "the movie stinks" which was the truth. But he could and should have avoided making triumphant comments. Keep it low-key "I gave my best and we all work really hard on the movie, let's see what the fans will have to say about it." Positive comment also complementing the hard work of others and you don't flat out lie by saying the movie is great and the director is brilliant to then say that it was a crammed together thing that wasn't up to par. There are many ways of commenting while staying positive without lying.That's the way it is in movie business. They're contracted to promote the flicks in a positive manner, it's unrealistic to expect them to say anything less than good. Pierce Brosnan did exactly the same thing with his flicks and years later he admitted he wasn't fond of them at all. Don't forget Roger Moore who later admitted his feelings about AVTAK. Studios wouldn't exactly be happy to see the stars of their tentpole films promoting them by saying something along the lines "I thought it was okay". You think Cavill would come out and say his Superman film is not as good as the original Christopher Reeve film? No way. That's not what these studios are paying them to do.
About Bond: yeah. You omitted what I said right after the lines you quoted. I said that they DO have a habit of filming later for Bond films, and cited the fact they were filming for QoS in my backyard in April. I also added that EON seems to have a habit of filming so late, except then we get stuff like QoS. So yeah, I'm aware in general they film later for Bond. It just doesn't always work well, and it sure didn't for QoS (and they were ridiculously late filming for that. Action movies typically film a year before release). In this case they should be filming way earlier because of the importance this particular one has and because of how poorly put together QoS was.IIRC all the Bond films since GE typically start filming in December or January (in fact main unit didn't even start filming until April for TND!) . Having 23 start on October is much earlier than usual for a Fall release Bond film. Plus comparing a Bond film's production with a movie like Superman is way off. Superman is supposed to film a lot earlier than a Bond film would because of the extensive use of special effects that have to be worked on.
About Superman. Superman does have special effects but that doesn't justify filming SO much earlier. They'd have been in perfectly good shape for a December 2012 release (and they started filming two weeks ahead of schedule, they were supposed to start mid-August and they started on July 26 instead) but given now the release is June 2013 they're definitely way ahead of schedule. That's because good productions plan way ahead, especially when they need to launch a movie that's a reboot of a franchise. Bond 23 is a fundamental movie for our franchise at this point because if it tanks, we SERIOUSLY risk the entire franchise. That's because these monkeys have waited so long, only to re-call the same actor who was already looking barely age-appropriate for the part when he last filmed. They should have all casting completed at this point not to mention a finished and revised script. Instead we have "the bones" of a script, everyone still to be officially cast for the main roles and filming to start in October (and I want to see whether that'll actually happen by the way. We're in August and there's still just Bond and M. Unless they plan to have an affair with Bond and M in Bond 23, which after all wouldn't even surprise me given the crazy decisions these people have been making
).About Cowboys & Aliens: this is what deadline says... and if they are saying C&A is really close to tanking, it means the situation is really bad. They also reference the fact that them and Smurfs being so close on Saturday is good for Smurfs, seen as they're expected to perform better tonight (Sunday night) than C&A.
http://www.deadline.com/2011/07/first-b ... -love-18m/
You should be doing the happy dance! 
