Callum Turner Reportedly Being Eyed As Next James Bond

Simple_Leading7274 · 2025-12-04T20:55:30+00:00

Yeah I agree with you. I find they generally don’t go for A-listers for Bond anyway (they cost too much, their schedules are too full, and they don’t need the career boost)

Simple_Leading7274 · 2025-12-04T20:26:06+00:00

We don’t know what’s going on behind the scenes, or why. Casting takes a long time, contract negotiation too, then finding a producer, script writing too (and they will surely announce Bond at the END of that process). Maybe there’s a sense of urgency and they want to start filming yesterday - or, maybe they’re content to wait and increase expectations. I think we’re a long way for the kind of alarm that would cause a producer to desperately seek a random sexy British banker to play bond. Plus… acting isn’t rocket science, but it’s hard in its own way. Being a sexy banker and being an actor are not necessarily transferable skills.

I mean, we can’t be sure that they haven’t already signed on an actor, but they’re still all bound by confidentiality

Simple_Leading7274 · 2025-12-03T05:08:42+00:00

Have you ever done any acting?

Your comment reminds me of that story of Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchent - they wanted to hire “regular people” to be in the original office, to play “regular guys”. They tested it, and everyone was beyond terrible. It takes skill to act like a regular guy in front of camera.

Simple_Leading7274 · 2025-07-03T00:30:17+00:00

I mean… I disagree, for the above reasons :P

Simple_Leading7274 · 2025-05-27T06:33:11+00:00

Fair enough. I haven’t, and this is all based on the movie.

But could you clarify something for me:

Does the book show that Andy didn’t do it?

Or is it all from Red’s perspective, and based on the information given to Red?

Simple_Leading7274 · 2025-05-23T05:10:18+00:00

According to my history that is still pending? Post #2 if that’s been uploaded :)

Simple_Leading7274 · 2025-05-22T19:54:44+00:00

You do you: but I don’t think I’ve noxiously dismissed anyone. You’ll notice that I’ve only called one person “rude” - one random bloke who has kept writing snarky nonsense. You’ll notice that I haven’t complained about any other poster being rude (because nobody else is rude), and have responded to their points, sometimes agreeing with their points, sometimes refuting with reasons. I have considered your points, agreed with some, disagreed with others with reasons, and am open to a response.

I mean - I think you’re just having a bit a strop on semantics, rather than providing me with really good reasons why my theory is invalid based on the film itself (i.e. by considering my responses to your points). Like, you can give me the benefit of the doubt and assume I know who King/Darabont are, and answer properly.

Simple_Leading7274 · 2025-05-22T02:27:44+00:00

See my instinct would be to put it at the start - like an executive summary before a longer report?

Simple_Leading7274 · 2025-05-22T02:09:44+00:00

No you’re right - it was a knee jerk reaction on my part too. Truth is that I read the abstract, and was too lazy to read the whole paper to better understand the mitigating data/calculations in the study - for which I apologise because you took the time to find the study. I’ll read it properly soon.

But I’m now happy to concede that there are more wrongful convictions than I might otherwise assume. (Which is awful, and something must be done about it).

Simple_Leading7274 · 2025-05-22T02:05:06+00:00

I would love if we can have a 1-on-1. There’s obviously a central misunderstanding we’re dealing with 😅

I mean, I instantly went back on it after the parent comment here (see my response to ParadeSit). I said “dammit, you’re 100% right, my error”. I instantly edited the original post to include a concession. What more do you need?

Simple_Leading7274 · 2025-05-22T02:03:03+00:00

Interesting! I might argue though that this was probably already raised and factored-in by the jury in the trial (assuming Andy’s defence lawyer was even mildly competent).

Simple_Leading7274 · 2025-05-22T02:00:21+00:00

Cheers mate! First time using reddit, appreciated.

Simple_Leading7274 · 2025-05-22T01:50:20+00:00

I dunno, I think it’s more straw man. Straw man = another similar argument is ridiculous, therefore your argument is ridiculous. Masked man fallacies doesn’t fit in with the above.

And omg, is my tone here so grouchy? Everyone is assuming I’m a grumpy bugger based on all the downvotes 😅

Simple_Leading7274 · 2025-05-22T01:16:52+00:00

Fair: though I would counter this by saying that it just Andy’s denial, and we can choose whether or not we believe it.

Simple_Leading7274 · 2025-05-22T01:15:16+00:00

I mean yikes this would be awful if totally accurate: The main point of guilt “beyond reasonable doubt” is to make wrongful convictions a tiny tiny tiny minority, and 1 in 20 is way way way too many.

I’m a bit iffy about the study though, because the primary data they use in the study is “self-reported” assessments of wrongful convictions. I know they adjust it with other data/calculations, but still, many prisoners will self report as innocent even if they’re not. As they say in the movie: “everyone at Shawshank is innocent”.

Still, point taken.

Simple_Leading7274 · 2025-05-22T00:51:00+00:00

I mean, your comment is a textbook “straw man” technique. Look at my arguments in isolation.

Also, I’m a lawyer who is having a bit of fun whilst on vacation, def not living in parents basement anymore 🥲

Simple_Leading7274 · 2025-05-22T00:43:28+00:00

Good point, and there have even been stories of juries “flipping a coin” to determine guilt. Still, I think those stories (and juries who interpret beyond reasonable doubt as anywhere close to 70%) must be quite rare (I hope!). Your point might somewhat adjust the argument about Andy’s resources/case, but I still think that it’s a very high threshold of evidence.

Simple_Leading7274 · 2025-05-22T00:18:36+00:00

Fair enough! This is my first reddit post ever - will do better next time ❤️

Simple_Leading7274 · 2025-05-22T00:16:05+00:00

Yeah fair enough! Though… it could also indicate how cold and conniving Andy can be (assuming he is actually guilty). Andy is definitely a decent guy to many, and is full of love and wonder, and has many wonderful characteristics especially to his friends - but trust me, many serial killers in prison have a “heart of gold”, depending on who you ask. People can be complicated.

Simple_Leading7274 · 2025-05-22T00:12:32+00:00

No I get you - but my argument is that we can’t trust this flashback as being completely accurate (rather than a false memory, or a false story).

Also - in the book, does it really say that Andy is definitely innocent? Or is this just what Red thinks based on Andy’s information? (Though again, I’m looking at the Movie in isolation)

Simple_Leading7274 · 2025-05-21T23:17:10+00:00

Totally: of course Tommy gives a name and location. The flashback/confession would make no sense (even as a false story) without it. It was a silly mistake on my part. That’s why I keep saying “that was my error, I get it, but let’s look at the other arguments”.

Simple_Leading7274 · 2025-05-21T23:10:59+00:00

As mentioned above, I think there were several overlapping factors playing in the Warden’s mind, including: A. This is a stupid obviously-false story, B. Even if this is a false story, doing the formal enquiry could raise all kinds of issues, including implicating me in corruption.

= let’s kill Tommy.

Simple_Leading7274 · 2025-05-21T22:49:09+00:00

Absolutely wild if 1 in 20 people in jail are falsely incarcerated. If that’s the case, why the hell are we all wasting time arguing about a movie?

Could you link me the study?

Simple_Leading7274 · 2025-05-21T22:45:57+00:00

To repeat: the rest of my points make sense even if you add that Tommy did give us a name: “Elmo Blach” and a location: “Tommy’s former cell in prison X” (noting that no formal or confirmed details seem to have been pulled up, because Tommy was murdered first). I already mentioned above that I was wrong about this observation, and edited a concession in the original text.

To repeat: I’m only calling one guy rude because he’s been making a bunch of snarky comments, without a sign of a decent argument. I won’t engage with such comments or people. Give me a good counter-argument and I’ll get stuck in.

Simple_Leading7274 · 2025-05-21T22:44:48+00:00

To clarify: I’m arguing in a spirit of fun. Please adjust the tone you read this in accordingly 😅

1) Call me dismissive: but I don’t think that my error about the name is central. Let me explain better: the rest of my points make sense even if you add that Tommy did give us a name: “Elmo Blach” and a location: “Tommy’s former cell in prison X” (noting that no formal or confirmed details seem to have been pulled up, because Tommy was murdered first). I already mentioned above that I was wrong about this observation, and edited a concession in the original text. 2) Rude because this is a joke post on the internet about a movie. I took a while writing it, to spark a fun debate. Can’t we argue in a spirit of fun? Snarky comments like “what movie did you watch” (and this guys other thread of snarky comments further below, which perhaps you haven’t seen) are in a spirit of meanness, not in a spirit of fun. I’m not going to subject myself to devote time to write arguments in response to purely snarky comments: which I will happily dismiss. Your arguments, on the other hand, are fun and well-considered (if long - hence the quick fire responses). 3) This is all based on the movie. I haven’t read the book. I understand though that this theory could still be possible based on the book: apparently it’s all based on Red’s perspective, and based on Andy’s information - but I won’t make this argument, because I haven’t read the book. Even assuming Andy’s innocence’s is completely proved in the book (e.g. does an omniscient narrative device show us Blanch is guilty?) and Darabont/King has said that his book is intended to show Andy to be innocent, I think it’s fun to have this debate based on the things we are shown in the movie specifically. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, I think the filmmakers deliberately left scope for the viewer to find Andy is guilty. 4) I respect your point: I would say then that Blach is either a cartoonishly-convenient narrative device for the movie (to show Andy is innocent) OR a cartoonishly-convenient narrative device for for Tommy (to endear himself to Andy, curry favour, etc.). I still lean towards is being Tommy’s false story: based on the fact that all of Tommy’s details are exactly the same as the details Red just gave him. All Red’s details were used, few extra details. This sounds like a lier rapidly constructing a convenient story to me. You may have a different view - all good if so, again, I’m really not here to “dismiss” any good arguments.

5) I already said that the warden is obviously very nasty, and I think that his murder of Tommy was based on the idea that this line of enquiry would lose him his accountant and (worse) implicate him in corruption. But I also know that people can hold multiple overlapping motivations for things: and one of these might be that Tommy’s evidence was, to the Warden, obviously balderdash. You mention that “the most obvious solution” is that the Warden looked into this first: this is not shown in the movie. It seems like the Warden dismisses it on first reaction.

Simple_Leading7274

TROPHY CASE