Talk:Casino Royale (2006 film)/Archive 1

A 15-year-old Bond?

I removed the edit by an anonymous user from 2 Jan. because it simply sounded too strange and needs attribution. The edit stated that the new Bond will "probably" be 15-39 years old. At first I thought it was a typo and the contributor meant 25, but then there was a statement that teen actress Emma Watson of the Harry Potter films was being considered for the Bond girl role. It just sounded too fishy. Unless EON is planning to make a movie of SilverFin, this rumor is just too strange. Can anyone provide a source? 23skidoo 14:49, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well I usually stay up on Bond news and yet I've never heard this. I've heard the rumor that EON wants to go young with the next Bond, but young as in Orlando Bloom who's in his upper 20's. Nothing this young.

Also: FYI, it's been rumored that Brosnan is back in talks. For now, I think we should leave this off the article until something a little more concrete comes out. For the past few months Brosnan has been saying he's done. In addition to this, I think the rumors listed here should have some sort of source and not just be listed. This is something I wish I did earlier towards the start of the article. (Good sources that is) Remember this is Wikipedia, not a fan site where we can speculate about everything like this 15-year-old Bond stuff. K1Bond007 20:07, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be fair to mention that Brosnan is back in talks if there are in fact media reports circulating about this, rather than "I heard this from a friend" kinda stuff. Personally I'm not surprised Brosnan might be back in the running seeing as EON has been remarkably unable to find a replacement (I don't remember them having this much trouble on previous occasions, even when Connery left both times). That said, the latest Phantom of the Opera movie has a lot of people talking about Gerard Butler again... 23skidoo 20:38, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bond girls

Any objection to me removing the entire paragraph about "Bond girls"? I'm sorry, but I'm beginning to have problems with this page. Numerous parts of the entire article are just straight speculation and gossip and I feel this paragraph is the worst of the bunch. Theres absolutely no truth to any of whats written there besides the Kylie rumor which after the delay and quite possibly another delay (see the news), you can almost throw this out as well. I mean theres not even a director yet or an actor signed to play Bond.

This article is borderline "fan-cruft". I'm thinking I might seriously remove a lot on this page and only leave the stuff about the plot, the director, Bond, and whats confirmed.

Actually a few of the whats confirmed I'm thinking of taking out and moving -- specifically:

• The bets
• The part on Brosnan - which apparently isn't that true anymore
• The part obout the Aston Martin. This was a statement confirmed almost over 2 years ago now. Will the next car be an Aston Martin? Most likely. Will it be that specific one? Looking doubtful.

K1Bond007 03:44, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there needs to be much removed at the moment, personally. True, a lot of it is speculation but that's what makes it interesting for any Bond film in development. I remember seeing the TV news report that Sean Connery had filmed (not been signed, not been rumored, but had actually filmed) a cameo in Die Another Day. It turned out to be untrue, but the fact it got publicized was an interesting sidelight. My feeling is we should include published reports and speculation, and note that they are speculation, otherwise we might end up with someone posting information here or elsewhere as fact. I think the rule of thumb should be to include information that has been reported in the media and/or through a reputable source such as the major Bond websites (provided they give attribution as well). Keeping the bit about the bets is a good idea because even CNN reported that Colin Salmon, at one point, was considered a front runner, and it's an interesting piece of information. I can believe that the James Bond Int'l Fan Club has a source at MGM/EON through which they got information that Brosnan isn't out of the running. I think the article can be condensed, but I see no reason for it to be wholesale edited. I don't think it fits the definition of fancruft, but that's just me. Certainly what exists here now is the basis for the Trivia/Long road to production chapter that will certainly be included in the future article that is written about the movie once it is made. That said, your point about some of the fine details such as the brand of Aston Martin is well put, and this information should be reclassified as speculation. In all truth, there is nothing confirmed about any aspect of the film, including the writers (who could change), and the casting of Dench. So if anything should be changed, it should be the confirmed reports section until there actually are some up-to-date ones. 23skidoo 04:11, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Followup: I condensed the Bond girls paragraph to make it a bit more straightforward. 23skidoo 04:15, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

First off the part on the bets, I said I'd move. It's not really a confirmation of anything. That part should be included with the "Who will be Bond" section. You make a valid point for some of this, but a lot of what some people are adding is just flat out gossip. The Bond girl section, specifically (untill you changed it). All I'm really saying is that a lot of this speculation should be re-evaluated. I was more disgusted with the Bond girl section than anything. K1Bond007 05:11, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion on my part! ;-) I agree that this shouldn't be the place for gossip -- unless it is published somewhere, in which case it becomes a media report (assuming it comes from a reputable source, of course. Maybe not Weekly World News!) I think it's a good idea to request people include sources from here on in, because IMO the bubble burst when that guy put down the Emma Watson rumor (which he probably created himself) and that whole thing about Bond being as young as 15. Perhaps some sort of statement at the beginning of the article - visible in the clear, not just on the Edit page - could be added to indicate the rationale behind the article, and the "ground rules" for adding information (sources, etc.). 23skidoo 05:59, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Done. As of right now, the article feels a lot better. I'm thinking the Donald Sutherland rumor might have to be axed or merged into a paragraph about the villain (possibly just rewritten). I can't find any source for that rumor except for one on a post at CBN's forum. K1Bond007 06:32, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Rory McCann

The Rory McCann story is BS IMO. It deserves to be mentioned, but MI6's source is a guy at the AJB forums and there are plenty of things wrong with his story, in which he talks about the casting company 20/20 looking to cast him. 20/20 casts extras and a role like Bond would be cast by the Producers (Wilson, Broccoli) and the director (most likely Campbell). If anything this guy is being looked at for a possible role as a henchmen. Thats what I first thought anyway. I could obviously be wrong, but I'd file this story under "unlikely" K1Bond007 05:54, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Interesting, although if you look at the photo on that link he looks a heck of a lot like Connery, which makes sense if the talk of "rebooting" Bond is true. If there's a rebuttal link available, it might be worth noting. In any event, if they want to make their 2005 production start date, a new Bond (or an old one if Brosnan comes back) needs to be announced pretty soon I'd imagine. 23skidoo 06:20, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I see the resemblance, but additionally, Rory is also 6'6 and he's balding. You can't tell from that picture, but other pictures on the internet show this. The CBN forum has a picture of that. As much as I would like EON to take on a virtual unknown (I think it would be better to reboot the series anyway), I wouldn't choose him and I doubt they will too. MGM might concede to making the next Bond film more Fleming, but I doubt highly they'll let an unknown helm a sequel to a series that's worth about 150 million a pop. K1Bond007 06:36, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Scorpio?

Referring to the now-reverted anonymous edit, where did this thing about the next Bond being a Scorpio turn up? Has British TV resorted to using psychics and astrologers to pick the next Bond? ;-) 23skidoo 05:55, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is why I reverted it. I guess I didn't get the relation between the "scorpio" and Samantha Bond returning either. ?? Past few days theres been numerous reports that no Bond has been chosen (even today with Brosnan saying once again that he's done with Bond). There are rumors about front-runners and possible contenders all the time, but nothing even remotely close to being official. In all honesty, I don't expect an announcement until this Summer. I'd say May or June at the earliest, realistically, I'm thinking August. I could be horribly wrong. I expect an announcement for the director sometime in February, March at the latest. K1Bond007 06:04, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

I'm expecting an announcement for Bond a bit earlier - maybe as early as April. They have to get the ball rolling if they want a 2006 release, especially if they do choose an unknown/little known actor for the part. Even someone like Clive Owen isn't as well known as, say, Colin Farrell or Ewen McGregor so the publicity machine needs time to work. 23skidoo 18:54, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The novel article

Eventually, I feel that this article should be melded into the Casino Royale book article which also covers the 1954 TV and 1967 spoof versions. For now, I think the 2006 movie article stands on its own until the movie comes out. 23skidoo 22:35, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Daniel Craig

On April 6, 2005, news sources are reporting that Daniel Craig has been picked by EON productions to be the next James Bond. But this is still unofficial. Therefore, until further notice, all references to Craig should only be made in the unconfirmed reports section. Zzyzx11 21:27, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since the hunt for a new Bond has reached Scarlett O'Hara proportions, I think it's fair to note in this article when notable news sources report that someone is in the running (as opposed to website rumors which could be just BS), but until EON makes the official announcement (which guaranteed will be accompanied by much fanfare), I agree everything on this issue needs to be kept in unconfirmed reports. EON will not sign a new Bond and then keep it quiet. Heck, I seem to recall the media being invited to cover Brosnan signing his contract. When a new Bond is announced, we'll know it, and we won't have to rely on a website to let us know, either. 23skidoo 17:24, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is anyone else reminded of how, in the original Casino Royale, everyone was James Bond? Life imitates art. --Robotech_Master 03:49, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Pierce Brosnan to stay on as Bond

So says Judi Dench:

'Despite the fact that everyone on the face of the Earth has been tested as his possible replacement, Pierce will be doing it again,' added Dench, who plays M in the movies.

The source of this quote is thisislondon.com (http://www.thisislondon.com/showbiz/articles/18193208?source=Metro), the article dated April 27. Trau

She doesn't know one way or the other and has nothing to do with the selection process. Heres the Chairman of Sony saying Dench has no idea what shes talking about. http://filmforce.ign.com/bond/articles/608/608639p1.html dated April 29.

""Sony chairman Michael Lynton told Daily Variety that he doesn't know who'll star in the next James Bond film. He emphatically denied an item posted Wednesday on the Drudge Report – and sourced to Judi Dench, who plays M – claiming Pierce Brosnan's still the man."

This along with Brosnan's official message on his website + EON Productions "It definitely won't be Brosnan" remark (sourced in the article). K1Bond007 00:41, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Update on Judi Dench [1] "all I know is that I'm going to be in it." "I don't know if it's Pierce [Brosnan], or someone else," Dench said. "Every young actor around has been mentioned." K1Bond007 06:11, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

What recent settlement?

I'm concerned about this bit:

"The recent settlement between EON Productions and Kevin McClory over the rights to Thunderball does open the door for a possible return of the character Ernst Stavro Blofeld"

What recent settlement? I haven't been able to find any indication that there has been such a settlement; even though the studios that hold the rights are now both owned by Sony, as far as I know they are still separate entities and cannot cross over. Unless someone can link in some proof/be more informative about this, I think this bit should be redacted.--Robotech_Master 16:16, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't know where that line came from. There was no settlement. McClory lost the rights to make another James Bond movie. He still owns the film rights to Thunderball. Never Say Never Again is now owned by MGM/Sony. I think thats where the confusion came from. K1Bond007 16:20, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

No one ever settled with McClory, but if you read his court case [2], you'll see that he lost his rights due to his own inaction. The court says "We are called upon to determine whether McClory waited too long to claim his piece of the pie -- whatever that share might have been." (p. 7, my emphasis) It concludes that he did wait too long, therefore he has no enforceable rights to anything. That said, I've never heard that anyone actually involved with the production has any intent to use Blofeld, so that line would still remain total speculation. Dcarrano 19:57, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Contenders

My addition of Jack Davenport to the "contenders" list was reverted. I'm okay with this as long as the policy is consistent. Shall we pare this list down to those for whom we can find a specific cite? I'm not sure we could find such for Butler (at least on this go-around; last I heard him mentioned as a contender in the media was several years ago), Bale or Paul either. Dcarrano 19:29, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Actually there are quite a few media stories about Butler and I recall seeing one for Bale. Adrian Paul is a longtime contender for the role but I don't have a source handy. The reason why we're becoming sticklers for recent additions is because it's too easy to just add a name. I'm not accusing you of doing this in the case of Davenport, but as you say one has to apply a rule consistently. A consensus was reached a few months back that any new additions needed to have sources cited. In many respects Butler, Bale and Paul are grandfathered since they predate this decision. 23skidoo 19:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I can assure you that all the names currently listed have been mentioned at one point or another. Butler was last mentioned around the release of The Phantom of the Opera. He, along with some others haven't been in the news lately so therefore haven't been mentioned. I didn't bother linking others like Daniel Craig and Clive Owen because they've been mentioned so many times. Call it lazyness on my part. Anyone is free to add a random link to any of these. K1Bond007 20:18, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

This list looks like nothing but a list of every British male actor between the ages of 25 and 40 (and one or two non-Brits, to boot). You'd be hard pressed to find a young British actor who isn't on that list. Maybe we should throw Cillian Murphy on there, too, just to be sure we didn't miss anyone. This whole list is worthless. -Kafziel 20:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how it's worthless. All the names listed have been mentioned in the media and most are supported by actual inline references. Yes, most of actors listed are British, but that's largely.. because.. I dunno.. Bond is British. I'll give you a 95% assurance they won't pick an American. K1Bond007 20:54, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

I concur with K1Bond. We only list names that have been mentioned in the media in one way or the other. Ideally it would be great to list the 70+ names allegedly contained on a list kept by EON, but that's not going to happen. Rather have this list than have people adding "I think so-and-so might be a good Bond" willy-nilly. 23skidoo 21:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

You think 9/10 of the names on that list come from reliable sources? They're all "willy-nilly." Just because a gossip writer at Star Magazine hinted at it, doesn't mean it belongs on Wikipedia. I'm not saying there should be more Americans on the list. I'm saying that a list that contains every actor anyone can think of (like this one) is completely pointless. They are no more considering Colin Farrell for the role of Bond than they are Cameron Diaz. What in his acting history would even hint that he would be offered the role, or that he would want it? I doubt the man has ever so much as worn a tuxedo in his entire life. So why is he on this list? Because he's Irish and he's young. The article doesn't narrow things down - and is therefore uninformative - if it lists every British actor the writers for the tabloids could think of. Think of it this way: if someone asked you, "Hey, do you know who the next Bond is going to be?" (which they are, when they come to Wikipedia) and you said, "Well, I've got a pretty good idea - it's either going to be Christian Bale or Eric Bana or Orlando Bloom or Gerard Butler or Daniel Craig or Colin Farrell or Ioan Gruffudd or Hugh Jackman or Jude Law or Heath Ledger or Ewan McGregor or Julian McMahon or Alex O'Lachlan or Clive Owen or Adrian Paul or James Purefoy or Jonathan Rhys-Meyers or Colin Salmon or Dougray Scott or Gary Stretch or Goran Visnjic or Dominic West or possibly some other guy I haven't heard about..." you wouldn't sound particularly "in the know". In fact, the person who asked you probably would have walked away after about the sixth or seventh name. Because a list that long is completely... worthless. Kafziel 03:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

?? There have been reports that EON had a list of 70+ people, given that I don't think we're doing that bad at all. I'm sorry that you find the list worthless, but these are the names that have been mentioned by major news outlets - we're not speculating here. All of them except for maybe a couple are constantly in the news about being the next Bond. The list isn't worthless and frankly no one can answer the question "who will be the next Bond". Nobody. So what, we ignore it altogether even though day in and day out these people are in the news as contenders, frontrunners etc? That's not smart. The answer to you question is "Nobody knows, but heres some names that have been floating in the media". -- Hey look it even has a pargraph stating this... Throughout 2004 and 2005, an endless stream of potential new Bonds were rumored and even announced by some media. These names consist of collection of both unknowns and established Hollywood actors. Some of the popular names mentioned at one time or another as possible Bonds are: K1Bond007 04:15, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

You can't compare this list with EON's list, because even though theirs is longer, it's actually better because it's right. There's no guessing involved there. If someone is on the list, they're being considered. But I don't know who's on that list, and neither do you.

There are 22 names on the list here. I think we can agree that, in the end, 22 actors will not be chosen to play the role. It will be one person. Which means that this list is 95.45% empty conjecture. Possibly 100% conjecture, since it could be given to a nobody.

Why is it "not smart" to wait until the decision is made? This is an encyclopedia, not a gossip column. We're supposed to be putting facts here. I guess it can be argued that it's a fact that all those guys were mentioned by someone in the press - but how is that useful information?

If people are looking for endless speculation about every possible Bond, and want to tell the world that they heard it's going to be Jason Statham or something, then there are plenty of Bond bulletin boards and chat rooms out there.

As an encyclopedia, we should be waiting for the relevant facts to come in, rather than just re-hashing every theory the wire vomits up. Kafziel 13:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC) By the way - I agree with you about Roger Moore: Worst. Bond. Ever.

I have to correct you on a point of fact here. The EON list is not a list of official contenders. It is a list EON has compiled of names that have been reported in the media as being contenders. So their list is no different than ours, except EON might will be including rumors that may not have made it to mainstream media. And Wikipedia really needs to no longer be compared to an encyclopedia. IT IS NOT an encyclopedia in the traditional sense in that is designed to be updated constantly. If we were to wait and do nothing until EON makes up its mind 6 months or a year from now, that would be doing a disservice to the concept of Wikipedia. There is an onus on us, the editors, to be correct in what is put online. But there is no indication that the list is in any way incorrect, and this article manages to avoid the whole issue of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball because all it includes are reported facts and speculation. Once something is in print, it becomes notable and fair game for inclusion in Wikipedia. 23skidoo 14:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Um... EON is the company that makes the films. I can assure you, they have a list of the people they're actually considering.

As for your reference to Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, let me direct your attention to the section right before that one: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. "That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." (Note that it's not just me who considers Wikipedia an encyclopedia - Wikimedia does.)

The purpose of Wikipedia is to be informative. Now, of the people who visit the Bond page for information, which of the following do you think they are asking themselves:

• "I wonder who the next James Bond is going to be?"
• "I wonder who Liz Smith thinks the next James Bond is going to be?
• "I wonder how many under-40 British actors there are in the world?"

While this list answers the second two questions, I'm thinking the first question is the one people actually have. And it would be most informative to simply admit that nobody knows yet.

Just because it's true that these guys were mentioned by the press at one time or another, doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia. Kafziel 14:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I like your double standards. "The purpose of Wikipedia is to be informative". Very true, but you're saying lets be informative without being actually informing anybody of anything. You know.. I don't think this is a big deal so I'm just going to lay it out.

1. This article is tagged as future and gives proper notice that "it is likely to contain information of a speculative nature and the content may change dramatically as the event approaches and more information becomes available."
2. It's listed under a section called "unconfirmed reports."
3. It's stating that these are names in the media.
4. These names are backed up with references, sometimes even multiple references.

Theres nothing wrong with the information here. Sure it's got some speculation from the media, but most are cited and it is informative to those wishing to know the latest on the casting of James Bond. If you have a problem with this, perhaps you should attempt to get support for your view elsewhere; you most likely won't win here. K1Bond007 18:25, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

You'll notice that in my first entry I didn't say you needed to change it; I just said it's worthless... which it is. Like you just said, it's speculative and unconfirmed.

It's not a double standard to expect an informative source to admit when they don't know something. During a presidential election, would you rather have CNN say "we don't know who won yet," or would you rather them just guess and make stuff up? It's okay to say you just don't know. It's more informative than 22 different guesses with two or three caveats surrounding them.

This really isn't a big deal to me; I'm not a huge Bond fan (aside from Goldeneye for Nintendo 64). I just came in here to see if there was any info yet, and there wasn't, so I just wanted to let whoever is working on this part of the article that it falls a bit short of being worthwhile. It's not like I'm some kind of jackass who started vandalizing your article by just editing out the stupid parts I didn't like without discussing it. I came in here and talked about it, which is what this page is for.

Now, obviously you can see my point to a certain extent, because your earlier edits reflect the same thing I'm saying: too many names makes for a crappy list. I guess we just disagree on what the definition of a valid source is, and how many names is "too many". You think 70 is too many. I think 20 is still too many.

But I've wasted enough of my life talking about this. Keep your conjecture and speculation if it makes you happy. I'll wait for an actual news source to find out which actor gets the part... and so will you. Kafziel 18:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Ahh the beauty of Wikipedia. Today it says one thing. Tomorrow - another. No one is saying we're keeping it all for all of time. Read the tag "it is likely to contain information of a speculative nature and the content may change dramatically as the event approaches and more information becomes available." K1Bond007 19:09, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Jack Davenport and Sarah Michelle Geller

I reverted the addition of Jack Davenport to the contenders list as his name was added without attribution or citation. If somone can find a URL to an article that mentions him as a contender, please feel free to revert me. PS. Wikipedia is acting up again; I only put in one edit but for some reason it's listed in the history 3 times. 23skidoo 04:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

And including Sarah Michelle Geller to the list is just plain silly, although I have heard this story. Why don't we list Sharon Stone too? She's also said she'd love to play "Jane Bond". Let's not get too carried away here. 23skidoo 12:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreed with that. Eminem and P. Diddy have also said they would like to play Bond. I don't think anyone who merely expresses their own desire to play the role needs to be mentioned in the article. Wanting to play Bond is very different from being considered to play Bond. Literally millions of people would want to play Bond, but it's not really relevant. Dcarrano 20:18, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. I think Alexei Sayle also threw his hat into the ring and it's well-known that singer Robbie Williams wants to play Bond but I'd say the odds are slim. Personally I hope they pick a complete unknown first-timer for the part and frost everybody! ;-) 23skidoo 21:17, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I also tried adding Davenport to the list, as it denotes "rumored" contenders, not confirmed ones. I'll see if I can find an online report.Bjones

Rumored contenders are fine. But having a source cited just helps to track where these stories are coming from. Cheers! 23skidoo 18:14, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

PS. I found a Daily Record article that mentions Davenport as a contender so I put his name back. The article also mentioned Ralph Fiennes so I added him, too. 23skidoo 19:37, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

20+ Days Later...

Hey, it's been several days since Alex O'Lachlan said the final four would be officially named. Well? Could someone change that? I've got a form of writer's block, don't know what to say. --WizardOfTheCDrive 19:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I think he meant he would find out if he got the role in 20 days or so. Being named Bond is a big ordeal as seen from Brosnan in 94. They'll hold a big press conference and etc and give the media days notice etc. So if O'Lachlan can be believed, it's more likely they'll announce it in 2 weeks or so time. September is probably the month anyway. Could be October I suppose. If they don't announce in one of those two months, you can bet they're in trouble. K1Bond007 19:59, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Apparently Timothy Dalton was confirmed for Living Daylights only a week or so before filming actually began. We could be playing this game till Christmas. 23skidoo 14:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Brosnan

Y'know, I'm getting the feeling that if Campbell, Haggis and the producers don't choose a Bond actor soon, and if they don't choose someone considered "bankable" that Sony could well put out the edict that it be Brosnan or no one. It wouldn't be the first time a Bond film had to be rewritten from scratch just prior to production -- I recall GoldenEye had to be revamped at the 11th hour when True Lies used the same basic plotline. As with all rumors, including the one involving Craig, I put no stock in any of these reports until EON makes the announcement, but they have to make the call soon, otherwise I think Sony could end up giving Brosnan an offer he can't refuse and say to heck with this prequel stuff. (Actually I wouldn't be surprised if Sony doesn't already have misgivings as prequels for Star Trek and Jack Ryan tanked, Paramount is balking at a proposal for a prequel Trek film, and even the Star Wars "prequels" - though still massively successful - didn't set the world on fire as expected.) 23skidoo 21:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe Brosnan will happen. It's possible, but I just don't see EON giving in. I'd go so far as to say that if Brosnan returns, Campbell will walk and the film will be delayed yet again to 2007. I really don't know anymore, I stopped really caring since like May. I just hope they sign someone soon. Getting real tired of all this crap. K1Bond007 01:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Huh???

"If chosen, Visnjic would become the first non-Anglophone actor to play Bond."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Sean is Scottish, George is a Kiwi, Timothy is Welsh and Pierce is Irish. Only Roger Moore could be described as 'Anglo'. Fergananim 09:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I looked it up in the dictionary before using the word. Anglophone means a native English speaker which applies to all the previous actors. Visnjic is not a native English speaker so therefore he cannot be described as an Anglophone though he no doubt is fluent otherwise he wouldn't have been cast in ER yet alone be a finalist for Bond. 23skidoo 14:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Bond search future

With the decision on the next Bond imminent (one tabloid thus far recently cofirming), we should think about what to do with the timeline and replacement Bond search stuff. Obviously a lot of it is garbage, but I don't think all of it needs to be removed. I'm thinking we should make a fairly sized section on it (obviously smaller than what it is) and mention some of the bigger names that were actually screentested and considered for the role. Anybody have any thoughts on this? K1Bond007 16:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it might be worth keeping the list of the more reputable actors considered for the role, but I agree the section will need to be sliced. There's no need to include any of the "will he or won't he" still about Brosnan beyond maybe one since reference. I think a section on the search is worth keeping since this thing rivaled the search for Scarlet O'Hara. 23skidoo 20:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Just FYI for anyone wishing to know. I have condensed and rewritten the section on my temp page. It's written under the assumption that Craig will be announced as Bond (if he's not then... well I'll just have to rewrite it again heh). Please feel free to copyedit etc. K1Bond007 16:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)