The BJMDDS General Discussion Thread......

[Omega]

Now I'm totally lost. Thought I was starting to understand all of this then this twist! It's giving me a headache .

[Blowfeld]

Aarrgghh! The Sun strikes again!

JAMIE BELL could be swapping his ballet pumps for a Walther PPK - to rival DANIEL CRAIG as a double-0 agent in the new Bond movie.

Producers of the next spy blockbuster want to pit 007 against a young secret service recruit - and have Jamie firmly in their sights.

In the plot the young rookie is seen by MI6 boss M as the natural successor to Bond.

The new boy is given one of 007's assignments in a deliberate bid to create rivalry between the pair.

The screenwriters have several actors in mind to play the cocky young spy - but Daniel has told film bosses he is keen for them to cast 24-year-old Jamie.

He made his name as a would-be young ballet dancer in 2000's Billy Elliot and he and Daniel starred together in last year's Second World War flick Defiance.

A source said: "The idea behind the character of a new double-0 agent is that he would be like a younger version of Bond.

"The scriptwriters hope a bit of competition between Bond and a new, sexy young spy who is keen to impress his bosses would be a great sub-plot in the movie.

"For the first time, Bond's position as golden boy of the double-0 agents is in danger, and this threat to his ego will bring out his ruthless streak.

"It would definitely be a great place to take the character.

"But the film is still in the early stages of development."

It's about time Bond got a run for his money from a younger model.

But I reckon he will come out on top in the end.

Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sh ... z0kfEgI2dr

[katied]

"Early stages of development?" It hasn't even been freakin' written yet.

[Captain Nash]

It's okay Katie, it's just The Sun getting out there fortnightly Bond story.
The tabloids are well known for these fabricated ideas.
Not sure how the young Bond element would go down in certain circles.

A question I had was what everyone thought of Sam Mendes as a director of Bond?
Putting aside the fact that you don't want Craig, but do you think Mendes is right for the job?
What do you think he could bring?

[katied]

LOL @Bond getting younger- They could really reboot it-"Bond,the toddler years"

[Captain Nash]

LOL @Bond getting younger- They could really reboot it-"Bond,the toddler years"

Baby Bond?
Bond the twinkle in his fathers eye?

[katied]

James Bond-the fetal years(well, not years, but you get the picture!)

I was watching Jonathan Ross' show on BBC America tonight and he alluded to Kate Winslet and Sam Mendes' marriage woes and then Ross was like "That wasn't very nice, was it?"

[Kristatos]

A question I had was what everyone thought of Sam Mendes as a director of Bond?
Putting aside the fact that you don't want Craig, but do you think Mendes is right for the job?
What do you think he could bring?

I fear another Marc Forster - a director hired for his Oscar-winning credentials rather than any track record in the action or spy genres. Then again, I haven't seen Jarhead, Maybe I'd change my opinion if I did. Anyone seen it?

[bjmdds]

This it utter nonsense. Bond is the star of the film. His nemesis is evil, not a kid out of spy school. If these are the original plans that Eon is coming up with, take FBF's advice and end this series or sell it to another outfit. This is a joke.

[Captain Nash]

Just a heads up.
The Jamie Bell rumour is a hoax. Created by spynovelfan of CB.n.

[katied]

Spynovelfan was trying to test how gullible news outlets are, and a lot of them were taking the bait.But apparently someone on one of the websites he emailed with his "insider info" called him out.

[Blowfeld]

It gets more ridiculous every down year. These rumours were joke and thankfully most treat it as such.

Ever wondered where tabloids like The Sun
get their crazy, often wildly incorrect rumors? Then here’s your answer: random emails which they don’t research at all before publishing as absolute fact.

Right now The Sun is pedaling a rumor in which they claim Jamie Bell is set to star in the next Bond movie opposite Daniel Craig. This is a lie, but not one of their invention.

Earlier this week a new member appeared on our message board claiming to have inside information about the next Bond movie. The post remained up just long enough for it to be noticed before the poster self-deleted it. A few hours later I received an email from this same new message board member, claiming she deleted the message because she was afraid it might be traced back to her. This same person, who now called herself “Lilly” went on to tell me that she knew from her contacts that Jamie Bell would be in the next James Bond movie. I didn’t buy it.

So I responded by asking her to provide some means of corroboration for her story. We’re not opposed to running rumors here on Cinema Blend, but not just any rumor. Information from sources we know, it makes sense to publish, as long as it’s clearly labeled as a rumor. If we get random emails from strange women though, we get suspicious. So I asked Lilly for proof that she knew what she was talking about and she sent me this:

I have my own business as a make-up artist in the film industry, and spend a lot of time on projects filmed in Pinewood and around. I have a friend who is on the casting team at EON, and have heard from him and several others over the last few months that they are batting around the idea of having a younger agent in the next film to fill out the regular MI6 cast. Apparently, the plan is that the character could stick around for at least two films, perhaps more. I don't think the part is scripted or anything, but it's an idea that they've had and if they get the right actor for it will incorporate it into the script. Daniel Craig has lobbied for Jamie Bell, and they are very keen on him, but nothing is definite - he is just one of several in the frame, thoguh he's the fave right now. That's what I understand. I thought it was fun, and of course nobody knows who you are on the net! To be perfectly honest, I've heard this so much from people in the know recently that it wouldn't surprise me if it's leaked to the press very soon. If you're interested in writing about it that's okay, but please please please don't mention me or Cullen Make-Up because then I'll obviously be in a lot of trouble!

Very convincing sounding, but also completely unverifiable. I smelled a rat and it didn’t seem worth wasting any more of my time trying to confirm something so suspicious. Lilly’s email went in my trash folder and I forgot about it.

A few hours later I received a different kind of tip. A tip which led me to a discussion happening here. There, a group had gotten together in an attempt to spread a fake Jamie Bell for James Bond rumor, all as part of proving a point about the way blogs handle their news. They started by trying to spread it to us, mistakenly believing that our Rachel Weisz rumor from a few weeks ago happened in the same manner (It didn’t, as we disclosed in our original post, it came from a proven source.). When we didn’t bite, they moved on to spreading it elsewhere. It’s been done before and while it may be an effective way to spread falsehoods, I’m not sure it really proves anything other than that people lie on the internet. No newsflash there, except that in this case it’s a lie which bloggers are now falling for.

The Sun has republished their fake Jamie Bell for James Bond rumor as have a growing number of other sources. It’s spreading like wildfire and now there’s no stopping it. Suddenly everyone believes Jamie Bell is set to appear in the next 007. Why did so many reporters buy in?

It’s a complex question. Most I’m sure will be quick to dismiss this all as a cynical grab for traffic by publishing carefully crafted fake stories, but if anything this proves that it isn’t. The Sun for instance, didn’t themselves invent a fake story to grab attention, they were simply fooled. There’s a big difference between fabricating a story of thin air and publishing something from an unreliable source. The Sun’s biggest mistake, beyond buying into something that was obviously a hoax, is in failing to disclose how shaky and unconfirmed the rumor was. The Sun, as they always do, published it as if it were fact.

I have no problem with rumors when the person publishing them is honest about where they got them and what they are. This particular rumor should have been filtered out as garbage, but the reality is that this isn’t always easy. A reporter can, for instance, check with studio sources or talent agents, but that’s always a dead end road. Even if a rumor’s true, publicists are trained to deny it (assuming you can even get them to answer their phone). A denial from an agent doesn’t mean a rumor is false, all it really means is that they’re not willing to talk about it. The fact is that a lot of these “denied” rumors end up being true. So as a reporter, where do you go for confirmation? You have two choices really: Sit and wait for the studio or an agent to issue a press release two years from now (which they’ll give exclusively to Variety) or do everything you can to verify your rumor and then run it, hoping for the best.

Where bloggers so often run into trouble is in their failure to disclose information as a rumor. For instance when the scrupulously honest reporters at Screen Rant picked up this same bogus Bond gossip they repeatedly reiterated “this is far from confirmed in any way”. The Sun on the other hand failed to mention at any point in their article that this is a rumor, let alone a rumor received from an extremely suspicious source.

[katied]

The Sun buys into the fake stories because they need to sell papers(stating the obvious,perhaps but it's true).

One of these time, the stunts of people like Spynovelfan, and The Sun(and others'), is going to backfire on them.What with all of the obviously fake rumors surrounding Bond 23 already, I'm amazed it hasn't already.

[Blowfeld]

I agree. The new buzz from the Telegraph has it as Peter Morgan is suppsoed to be out, I was curious about what he would do, and Barbara is supposedly confirming Mendes. I thought nothing could be official until the MGM ordeal was sorted so that makes that part questionable and if it is true that would also mean all the rumours generated around Peter Morgan's involvement are blatantly false.

[JackWade CIA]

The apparent choice of Sam Mended leaves me uncertain. So far what we know is he wants to reinvent the genre. A warning sign if there ever was one . The history of people with egos big enough to say similar things demonstrate those type of attempts never end well.

A few random thoughts about Mendes; he more prestige than actual success, a relative noob to action movies and the genre, a complete virgin to big action movies, made 5 movies in 10 years and only 2 of those are films people might recognize.

He doesn't seem like good choice to me, they expect him to be Bond's Greengrass, looks at Paul Greengrass before Bourne he has a similar resume however I don't think Mendes is a Greengrass in the rough. If Daniel Craig wants a director he has worked with before I'd say Matthew Vaughn or Roger Michell are more qualified.

[Mazer Rackham]

Babs can't confirm Mendes (likes to call himself Midas Mendes) beyond saying this is who they want. MGM has a say in the hiring too and to be fair may have capitulated the point of director however nothing will be signed before they have the funding ready to go. By the time the funding is ready who knows what deals will have been made and who will have a sway over MGM's share of Bond. Maybe they'll feel Babs overstepped herself announcing this, which I am not sure she did. The way it will be announced is via official press release.

[oscartheman]

The Sun buys into the fake stories because they need to sell papers(stating the obvious,perhaps but it's true).

One of these time, the stunts of people like Spynovelfan, and The Sun(and others'), is going to backfire on them.What with all of the obviously fake rumors surrounding Bond 23 already, I'm amazed it hasn't already.

Why does anyone take them seriously?They were headlining Elvis was alive not that long ago!

[James]

Check out the cover of this forthcoming new Bond book. Do they have to put DC's ghastly mug on everything 007 related now? Talk about ruin the series.

[carl stromberg]

Check out the cover of this forthcoming new Bond book. Do they have to put DC's ghastly mug on everything 007 related now? Talk about ruin the series.

Ridiculous. When will this charade end?

[katied]

I'd be less inclined to buy that book with that picture on the cover. Just.Not.Flattering.