Benjamin Walker is cast as Hank McCoy!

[BMM]

Originally Posted by Electrix

For everyone's information Roger Friedman, the guy who wrote the article above, was fired by Fox last year for reviewing the leaked copy of Wolverine.

I didn't realize Friedman is the author of the article.

[TNC9852002]

Originally Posted by JP

This is the problem I have with rumors. Instead of waiting to find out who is cast in a certain role, some site has to get "the scoop" and post something ahead of its time.

How do we know Ben Walker was ever even Beast in the first place? Because some site told us?

I'm tired of rumors. They're annoying, because then people just get worked up over nonsense, like now. I'll wait for official announcements. Until then I'm keeping my distance.

You sound like me a few years ago...

I used to hate all of the day-to-day random rumors going on with X3, with each article adding their own spin on it and then from that, the fans would interpret these differently depending on the article...Ugh.

[JP]

Also, if his story is true, then wouldn't that also mean Alice Eve is too old, being that she's the same age as Walker. .

I'm thinking Friedman jumped the gun with his original story, and is now trying to cover his ass.

[X-Maniac]

Originally Posted by Electrix

For everyone's information Roger Friedman, the guy who wrote the article above, was fired by Fox last year for reviewing the leaked copy of Wolverine.

Yes, that's true, but Friedman also revealed (on the same Showbiz 411 site) the news that Walker was cast as Beast and the news that Fassbender had accepted the Magneto role. So I don't think he has any real negative agenda, he just appears to have retained contacts who are leaking information.

That doesn't mean all this latest stuff about Walker (and the request to copy the success of Twilight) is 100 per cent true, of course.

But we were all happy to believe the more positive stuff about Walker and Fassbender being hired.

[X-Maniac]

Originally Posted by JP

This is the problem I have with rumors. Instead of waiting to find out who is cast in a certain role, some site has to get "the scoop" and post something ahead of its time.

How do we know Ben Walker was ever even Beast in the first place? Because some site told us?

I'm tired of rumors. They're annoying, because then people just get worked up over nonsense, like now. I'll wait for official announcements. Until then I'm keeping my distance.

Unfortunately, this is the way of internet 'news' sites. The need to be first, and to get attention and traffic, pushes some sites to do disreputable things. In addition, actors and agents sometimes put stories out there, and some people get a kick out of emailing sites with phoney tip-offs.

We've just had that crap about Hutcherson being Spider-Man, then the very next day Garfield was announced for the part. The site that carried that Hutcherson article (and a certain other news site who then leapt in to repeat it and say they had also heard the same thing) looked extremely foolish the next day. Both are trying to cover themselves by saying Hutcherson WAS cast for a few hours but negotiations went wrong so Garfield was chosen. Is the needle on your BS detector twitching yet?!

Studios seem unwilling to respond formally to most rumours; maybe they don't want to acknowledge them and give the rumourmongers any more attention. But studios are also notoriously slow at confirming stuff - Tommy Lee Jones' casting in Captain America was confirmed in a Marvel press release a month after Hayley Atwell mentioned he was in the film.

I think studios should take more opportunity to make public statements more rapidly to stop internet rumours, and those involved in films should also be more willing to respond unofficially (off the record) to put the record straight for those of us who have more integrity. I try to reach out to people involved where possible, but there isn't always much of a response.

[Showtime]

Originally Posted by X-Maniac

We've just had that crap about Hutcherson being Spider-Man, then the very next day Garfield was announced for the part. The site that carried that Hutcherson article (and a certain other news site who then leapt in to repeat it and say they had also heard the same thing) looked extremely foolish the next day. Both are trying to cover themselves by saying Hutcherson WAS cast for a few hours but negotiations went wrong so Garfield was chosen. Is the needle on your BS detector twitching yet?!

I assume you're talking about Latino Review. Not sure what "other site" you are pointing to, but if it were me I would just list them. If you're going to talk smack about your colleagues you should man up and call them out.

Latino Review breaks stories. As a reader I would much rather read a website that breaks movie news over one that just reports news from other websites or scours magazines and post stories that haven't yet made the web for hit counts. Latino Review broke Routh as Superman, Bale as Batman, Ledger as the Joker just to name a few.

In regards to Hutcherson, not sure if you're out of the loop on what actually happened, but Hutcherson was pretty much cast over a couple months ago. Sony loved his screen test and it was phenomenal. I've seen it and I have it. WB blocked him from taking the role due to their options they had on him for Journey To The Center of the Earth 2. They werent' keen on an actor they had options on taking on the role of Spider-Man considering the WB/DC and Sony/Marvel "rivalry". Not to mention Spider-Man is coming out close to Batman 3, WB/DC certainly isn't afraid, but why not throw a wrench Sony/Marvel's plans if they can?

[Squidboy]

He's apparently officially out of the running now

[X-Maniac]

Originally Posted by Showtime

I assume you're talking about Latino Review. Not sure what "other site" you are pointing to, but if it were me I would just list them. If you're going to talk smack about your colleagues you should man up and call them out.

Latino Review breaks stories. As a reader I would much rather read a website that breaks movie news over one that just reports news from other websites or scours magazines and post stories that haven't yet made the web for hit counts. Latino Review broke Routh as Superman, Bale as Batman, Ledger as the Joker just to name a few.

In regards to Hutcherson, not sure if you're out of the loop on what actually happened, but Hutcherson was pretty much cast over a couple months ago. Sony loved his screen test and it was phenomenal. I've seen it and I have it. WB blocked him from taking the role due to their options they had on him for Journey To The Center of the Earth 2. They werent' keen on an actor they had options on taking on the role of Spider-Man considering the WB/DC and Sony/Marvel "rivalry". Not to mention Spider-Man is coming out close to Batman 3, WB/DC certainly isn't afraid, but why not throw a wrench Sony/Marvel's plans if they can?

I'm sure any sites that reported the Hutcherson news, just hours before Garfield was announced, can fight their own battles. I'm not sure why you are acting as though personally wounded by what I said.

I am naturally wary of unconfirmed/unofficial reports online and shall remain so. For the Hutcherson report to be contradicted just hours later confirms that I am right to be cautious in what I believe and report. Just the other day a Hollywood filmmaker said to me that 'a lot of what is reported online is made-up stuff' (their exact words).

Curiously, even though you say I should 'call out' the sites whose reports I have doubted you then appear to attack my own site without naming it. For information, I (and my newspaper) get direct contact (via email, phone and mail) from all major studios and their PR firms. We got the Spider-Man casting announcement directly via email, from Sony's UK representatives, for instance. I did a check on my last 50 postings and found that one item was a review (of a Blu-ray), one was derived from a magazine article that i found interesting, 17 blogs were reports of stuff on other websites, and the majority of articles - the remaining 31 pieces - were from items sent to me directly, mostly by email. I get so much stuff sent to me I can hardly keep up with it, being a one-man show.

The bottom line is my journalistic training and instincts (and 20 years of experience in printed media) give me a healthy suspicion of rumours and claims. The internet generally gets away with far more than you could in the printed medium. I didn't want to get personal and start attacking other sites directly, and I generally want to keep it that way. At one time, my digital team discussed whether we should ever give ANY credit or weblink to unverified rumours (at the moment, I generally do name sites on my own site if i bother to report the rumour). For the same reason, most of the printed press do not give a lot of space to 'bomb scare' incidents, simply because those who create the dramas by phoney claims of a bomb are thriving on the attention.

Anyway, that's my stance on the matter. As I'm a trained newspaper journalist, I'm not a typical online blogger so my approach may seem different.

Incidentally, you may want to log and/or investigate the continual database errors that arise when trying to post a comment here. This is the third attempt I've had at posting this.

[X-Maniac]

Originally Posted by Squidboy

He's apparently officially out of the running now

He is? Where did you hear this? If so, I hope they find a decent replacement. At least we still have Vaughn directing and McAvoy and Fassbender in the cast.

[Showtime]

Originally Posted by X-Maniac

I'm sure any sites that reported the Hutcherson news, just hours before Garfield was announced, can fight their own battles. I'm not sure why you are acting as though personally wounded by what I said.

Not wounded, just puzzled. How can they fight their own battles when you're calling them out in a random thread on a forum? Last I checked, we can respond to any post of our choosing on SHH, so I am responding to yours.

I am naturally wary of unconfirmed/unofficial reports online and shall remain so. For the Hutcherson report to be contradicted just hours later confirms that I am right to be cautious in what I believe and report. Just the other day a Hollywood filmmaker said to me that 'a lot of what is reported online is made-up stuff' (their exact words).

Curiously, even though you say I should 'call out' the sites whose reports I have doubted you then appear to attack my own site without naming it. For information, I (and my newspaper) get direct contact (via email, phone and mail) from all major studios and their PR firms. We got the Spider-Man casting announcement directly via email, from Sony's UK representatives, for instance. I did a check on my last 50 postings and found that one item was a review (of a Blu-ray), one was derived from a magazine article that i found interesting, 17 blogs were reports of stuff on other websites, and the majority of articles - the remaining 31 pieces - were from items sent to me directly, mostly by email. I get so much stuff sent to me I can hardly keep up with it, being a one-man show.

The bottom line is my journalistic training and instincts (and 20 years of experience in printed media) give me a healthy suspicion of rumours and claims. The internet generally gets away with far more than you could in the printed medium. I didn't want to get personal and start attacking other sites directly, and I generally want to keep it that way. At one time, my digital team discussed whether we should ever give ANY credit or weblink to unverified rumours (at the moment, I generally do name sites on my own site if i bother to report the rumour). For the same reason, most of the printed press do not give a lot of space to 'bomb scare' incidents, simply because those who create the dramas by phoney claims of a bomb are thriving on the attention.

Anyway, that's my stance on the matter. As I'm a trained newspaper journalist, I'm not a typical online blogger so my approach may seem different.

Incidentally, you may want to log and/or investigate the continual database errors that arise when trying to post a comment here. This is the third attempt I've had at posting this.

That filmmaker you are referring to, must be a little bit out of touch with Hollywood if he is going around telling others that.

See what I did there? I showed you what you're doing it by actually doing it. Brilliant. Getting press releases and breaking news are two different things, heck I get press releases on TMT from studios and PR Firms.
Latino Review breaks news and has been for years, big news. You being a trained journalist straight out of the journalistic version of Juilliard for eleventeen years hasn't given you exclusives.

I just find it interesting that a trained journalist would resort to calling a site foolish on a forum, especially a site that has and continues to carry exclusives and break news.

In regards to the slowness of the forum, that me and you agree on. It is a nightmare and I wish I could fix it.

[X-Maniac]

weird double post of something I posted hours ago....!

[X-Maniac]

Originally Posted by Showtime

Not wounded, just puzzled. How can they fight their own battles when you're calling them out in a random thread on a forum? Last I checked, we can respond to any post of our choosing on SHH, so I am responding to yours.

Well, hopefully they will be able to respond/justify their reports on their own sites, I didn't expect them to leap in on here.

Originally Posted by Showtime

Getting press releases and breaking news are two different things, heck I get press releases on TMT from studios and PR Firms.
Latino Review breaks news and has been for years, big news. You being a trained journalist straight out of the journalistic version of Juilliard for eleventeen years hasn't given you exclusives.

I've had the occasional exclusive interview (nothing groundbreaking, admittedly), but the blog is a one-man show and something done in free time and occasionally in free moments at work, so it's not like I'm devoting myself to sniffing out exclusives. (Plus I'm not based in LA, so I'm not schmoozing at events to get the latest gossip!). The purpose of my site is a window into the online world, especially (but not only) geeky stuff, and an online outlet for all the material we receive that can't be used elsewhere (although, having been running for two years, i now get stuff sent specifically for the blog).

Even those sites that are 'breaking news' sites aren't always reliable, and aren't always believed by everyone. Recently, AICN criticised the reporting at Deadline for straying into speculation, for instance. And Latino Review's exclusive breaking news of David Slade directing The Shadow was dismissed by Slade as "Lies. Not true. Total internet rumor." (that was on MTV Splashpage here). In addition, Latino Review doesn't only cover 'breaking news', it covers stuff from elsewhere on the net too, so it (like me and other sites) does report on other sites' claims and announcements.

I still intend to maintain a healthy caution over material that comes from unconfirmed sources. And I'm sure some stuff on the interwebs is made up, are you trying to say it's mostly or entirely true or with some basis to it?

[Squidboy]

Originally Posted by X-Maniac

He is? Where did you hear this? If so, I hope they find a decent replacement. At least we still have Vaughn directing and McAvoy and Fassbender in the cast.

http://www.spinoffonline.com/2010/07...ver-the-beast/

I think it's a link that's already been spread around, but Comicbookresources reporting about it made it seem kinda legitimate to me.