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
sorry for not being clear, what i am saying is a leak is a leak, no matter what the source is! it's unethical ... but we lapped it up before, and we will for the forseable future.
So do I.
http://www.justjared.com/2014/12/11/producer-scott-rudin-apologizes-after-leaked-emails-reveal-racially-charged-remarks-about-president-obama/
http://www.justjared.com/2014/12/11/sony-exec-amy-pascal-issues-an-apology-over-racially-charged-leaked-emails-directed-at-president-obama/
Looks like there is going to be a vacancy soon at SONY PICTURES.
It was an MGM executive who was raising concern about the budget. Sony was copied in (because Sony is distributing the movie). As a result, when Sony got hacked, all of this came out.
Both these idiots should be fired. There was a leak about comments Rudin made about Angelina Jolie yesterday. Quite incendiary.
I don't know how either of them are competitive any more within the industry after their private opinions have been aired like dirty laundry.
While not really related to the SPECTRE production timeline but to the SONY leaks (which is I suppose is related to the SPECTRE production). If I was head of SONY I think I would just dump THE INTERVIEW now and be done with it. While that would seem like giving in at this point in time it might be the best thing to do to ensure no more embarrasing emails are leaked.
Absolutely! I trust that the Mods are fully aware that's how quite alot of us on here feel about this.
Camden, London and the Tiber. Could it be...?
Thanks to @Spitzberg in twitter
Said it as much for her amusement I think, as well as a shoutout to those trying to reign in the budget.
Totally, or maybe Q showing to Bond for the first time the new skills of his Aston. ;)
You read my article! It's all speculation, but there is some merit to it.
http://oppositelock.jalopnik.com/there-is-something-fishy-going-on-with-james-bonds-ne-1667776595
http://t.co/WtqWiFevPl
A dream coming true for me.
For me too @Ludovico. I mean.....
--> http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/5596/spectre-bringing-skiing-to-new-levels-in-austria-julian-carr-halvor-angvik#latest
--> http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/4746/spectre-top-5-elements-spectre-must-have-to-tackle-all-criticism-that-surrounded-skyfall#latest
A dream coming true for me.
Sadly the hackers seriously compromised my happiness. But apart from that I still feel a little geeky kid at times :-). Can't wait to see SPECTRE! Let the mayhem begin 8-X ! I'm already a SPECTRE-fan hehe.
One last thing regarding the SonyLeaks scandal. And this is NOT really a spoiler, but a financial/casting decision. I never agreed on Chiwetel Ejiofor playing a full-blown villain. But apparently, he was really EON's choice to play the role that Andrew Scott will now be playing. It saddens me that in the end they "dumped" Ejifor, because he was too expensive for MGM/Sony, whereas EON, Barbara and Michael really wanted him. And this is also not nice news for Andrew Scott, because now it seems he has been cast for the role because he was "cheaper".
The already great stellar cast could have been greater with Ejifor. But here you can see the damage of the SonyLeaks. No one really benefits from it. It creates doubt, bad moods, it damages relationships, and the happiness that usually surrounds the production of a Bond film goes away like that.
If you ask me i replaced Waltz and ask Ejifor, if true of course.
This is the original CNN article that mentions Scott being cheaper than Ejiofor: http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/10/technology/security/bond-movie-budget/
NOWHERE in the article is it stated that the reason for them casting Scott is that he is cheaper than Ejiofor. All the article says is that Scott happens to be cheaper than Ejiofor. You might want to be more careful next time before spreading half-truths... According to the article this is how things went down:
1. they want Ejiofor
2. they can not get Ejiofor for reasons unknown to us or they simply don't want him anymore
3. Mendes wants Scott
4. an MGM executive says: no problemo, Scott is even cheaper than Ejiofor!