Casino Royale directed by Quentin Tarantino and starring PB. How would it have turned out?

It certinly would not as good as the movie that was made because that was very well made and well actored.

bondsum

thelivingroyale said:

bondsum said:
And I bet his "new" spaghetti western homage is a complete pile of fecal matter when it comes out too.

It's called Django Unchained. And it's my most anticipated film of the year, me and lots of others are really excited for it, and there's a great cast who seem really excited. I'll be really suprised if it's crap.

Yeah, I know what it's called and it seems you've already made up your mind that Django (Not the original spaghetti western starring Franco Nero) Unchained is already going to be a great western despite his previous poor war time effort. Personally, I only think Dogs is his best movie and the rest fall some where around the C+ standard mark. But that's me, I'm a movie fan and not a geek worshipper.

BAIN123

bondsum said:

thelivingroyale said:

bondsum said:
And I bet his "new" spaghetti western homage is a complete pile of fecal matter when it comes out too.

It's called Django Unchained. And it's my most anticipated film of the year, me and lots of others are really excited for it, and there's a great cast who seem really excited. I'll be really suprised if it's crap.

Yeah, I know what it's called and it seems you've already made up your mind that Django (Not the original spaghetti western starring Franco Nero) Unchained is already going to be a great western despite his previous poor war time effort. Personally, I only think Dogs is his best movie and the rest fall some where around the C+ standard mark. But that's me, I'm a movie fan and not a geek worshipper.

Pulp Fiction is a good movie whether you are a geek or not. The rest (other than Dogs) are a mixed bag.

Getafix

BAIN123 said:

bondsum said:

thelivingroyale said:

bondsum said:
And I bet his "new" spaghetti western homage is a complete pile of fecal matter when it comes out too.

It's called Django Unchained. And it's my most anticipated film of the year, me and lots of others are really excited for it, and there's a great cast who seem really excited. I'll be really suprised if it's crap.

Yeah, I know what it's called and it seems you've already made up your mind that Django (Not the original spaghetti western starring Franco Nero) Unchained is already going to be a great western despite his previous poor war time effort. Personally, I only think Dogs is his best movie and the rest fall some where around the C+ standard mark. But that's me, I'm a movie fan and not a geek worshipper.

Pulp Fiction is a good movie whether you are a geek or not. The rest (other than Dogs) are a mixed bag.

Agreed. Pulp Fiction is his masterpiece. Reservoir Dogs is a good film, but the rest are pretty average. Inglorious B******s, with the exception of the performance by the excellent Christoph Waltz, was one of the worst films I've ever seen. Speaking of which, Waltz for a Bond baddy, any one, with Tarantino as a henchman?

NicNac

While we argue the merits of QT and his tendancy towards bad language can we remember that we take a dim view on bad language being used on these forums. We can't spot everything but please remember the T&Cs guys.

For me QT may have made an interesting Bond movie, but his love of trashy old films (and how he likes to pay tribute to them by working ideas and sequences into his own films) means that he would mess too much with the Bond formula and maybe end up with something potentially disasterous.

And he has a penchant for rescuing the careers of washed up stars - does he view PB the same way? Surely not.

MajorDSmythe

I'm a geek, fanboy (whatever you want to call us) myself, and I also don't mind a bit of sleaze or trash in films, but I shudder at the thought of Tarantino helming a Bond film. It seems that everywhere I look, I see his name. I've seen a few of his films, but I don't see what's so special about him.

And wasn't it Tarantino's intention for CR to be made as a follow up to OHMSS?

thelivingroyale

BAIN123 said:

bondsum said:

thelivingroyale said:

bondsum said:
And I bet his "new" spaghetti western homage is a complete pile of fecal matter when it comes out too.

It's called Django Unchained. And it's my most anticipated film of the year, me and lots of others are really excited for it, and there's a great cast who seem really excited. I'll be really suprised if it's crap.

Yeah, I know what it's called and it seems you've already made up your mind that Django (Not the original spaghetti western starring Franco Nero) Unchained is already going to be a great western despite his previous poor war time effort. Personally, I only think Dogs is his best movie and the rest fall some where around the C+ standard mark. But that's me, I'm a movie fan and not a geek worshipper.

Pulp Fiction is a good movie whether you are a geek or not. The rest (other than Dogs) are a mixed bag.

I love Kill Bill vol 1 and 2 as well, and IB is decent enough imo. One of the reason I think Django will be good is because Kill Bill had sort of a spaghetti western theme mixed in and that worked really well.

007RogerMoore

I´d love to see PB in a different version of CR, but I don't think Tarantino is a fitting director for Bond. Sometimes I wonder if he is mentally ill (JK). His movies are so strange, so please keep him away from Bond.

OHMSS69

The dialogue would be better than in Brosnan's final films. The violence would make LTK look like a church picnic.

Creasy47

So, do a lot of people around here hate QT, or just hate the prospect of him directing a Bond film?

Personally, I think he's extremely creative, and always gives an exciting, different twist of a film. Granted, I'm not sure if I would want him to do a Bond film - he would request to write the script, and Bond would suddenly have a foot fetish - but he's one of my favorite directors around today. Bring on Django Unchained.

TheWizardOfIce

Cant believe some of the infantile comments on here that 'it wouldve been filled with swearing or ultra violence' as if EON and the studio would just hand over the rights to him and say go and do whatever you want.

Pulp Fiction is an all time great movie and if you werent blown away the first time you saw it then you havent got a pulse.

Having said that I'm not sure QT is right for Bond, although if EON kept his self indulgence reined in then I'm sure it would be an exciting ride. Didnt like Kill Bill I have to say but Jackie Brown and IB are packed with great moments and check out the stuntwork in Death Proof to see how he can handle action.

Better to take a creative risk on QT than plod along with uninspired journeymen like Glen, Spottiswoode and Tamahori.

BAIN123

Completely agree @Wizard.

bondsum

TheWizardOfIce said:
Pulp Fiction is an all time great movie and if you werent blown away the first time you saw it then you havent got a pulse.

Hey, I've still got my Palme d'Or Pulp Fiction badge and Press Kit from a viewing an entire 2 months before the little people got to see it. Okay, that doesn't make me big or special but it sure proves that I'm not led by what others think and say... including you, Mr Wiz. b-(

Creasy47

I loved Pulp Fiction. It's random, but I was walking through my college dorm one day, and thought I saw someone's dropped driver's license. I picked it up, and sure enough, it's the license of Winnfield, with all of his information on it. Not sure how someone could have dropped something so cool and not went back for it!

BAIN123

bondsum said:

TheWizardOfIce said:
Pulp Fiction is an all time great movie and if you werent blown away the first time you saw it then you havent got a pulse.

Hey, I've still got my Palme d'Or Pulp Fiction badge and Press Kit from a viewing an entire 2 months before the little people got to see it. Okay, that doesn't make me big or special but it sure proves that I'm not led by what others think and say... including you, Mr Wiz. b-(

I've still got my BFI ticket from seeing The Artist a full two months before anyone else saw it. Like the "little people" I loved it when I first saw it. In fact I thought it would be one of those films that would do better on DVD than in the cinema (how wrong I was!). When/where you saw it doesn't effect your overall opinion of the film.

myworldisenough

QT is a great director whose films are always memorable. I would still love to see him given a chance but the producers would never allow it. To them Bond is not to be tampered with by anyone they would not consider a safe option. QT would be too radical and stylised for their liking.

JWESTBROOK

I think if QT wrote the screenplay, but kept elements of the story written by another writer, it would be an Oscar worthy screenplay. Hire QT for dialogue, someone else for story. Perfect. Oh, and he can direct, too.

TheWizardOfIce

bondsum said:

TheWizardOfIce said:
Pulp Fiction is an all time great movie and if you werent blown away the first time you saw it then you havent got a pulse.

Hey, I've still got my Palme d'Or Pulp Fiction badge and Press Kit from a viewing an entire 2 months before the little people got to see it. Okay, that doesn't make me big or special but it sure proves that I'm not led by what others think and say... including you, Mr Wiz. b-(

I fail to see precisely what point youre trying to make here.

myworldisenough said:
QT is a great director whose films are always memorable. I would still love to see him given a chance but the producers would never allow it. To them Bond is not to be tampered with by anyone they would not consider a safe option. QT would be too radical and stylised for their liking.

Very true. Mendes and Forster have probably been given more control than anyone but even they would have to be 'on message' at all times. But whos to say QT would want such total control. He may want to shake it up a bit but as long as EON made sure he did it with restraint then I wouldnt be against it. Maybe give it another 10 years and let him mature a bit more then I think he could deliver an exciting and fresh Bond film.

Goldeneye95

Of course Pierce Bronsan would have delivered an excellent performance as James Bond. Now QT is a great film director & can direct a lot of great films. He really is a visionary when comes to what he wants in his films. But I got a feeling that QT would make Casino Royale too violent & graphic. But on the other hand, he knows how to mix violent's & blood together without making too graphic. I have been thinking about it for awhile now & I do believe QT would have done a great job directing Casino Royale. QT's take on Casino Roayle would have been different than Martin Campbell's take on Casino Roayle.

ElliotCarver

Samuel L. Jackson would have played Mathis. And if it was made today, Christoph Waltz would have played Le Chiffre. That's a movie I could watch.

thelordflasheart

The criticisms that a Tarantino-directed CR would be full of shocking violence and swearing are so ludicrous that I wonder if people mentioning them are simply grasping at any straw they can. If you don't think that Tarantino would be a good director for Bond than just say so. There's no reason to go into hyperbolic fantasy. To put this in perspective, Tarantino was a huge fan of the TV show ER. He directed (and, IIRC, wrote) an episode of the show. This was at the point when his style was much more niche than it has become now. And guess what? It was pretty much like any other episode of ER. Because he was a fan, he just wanted to do a great episode of ER, not impose a "grindhouse" or "blaxploitation" vibe to it. The same goes for the two-part episode he did of CSI. It was a bit more of a thriller than CSI normally was but not so far out of its normal style that it was unrecognizable or odd.

Now, I believe that he *could* have been a good choice for a Bond film. He's shown that he can adapt his style, is masterful at building tension through dialogue and performance (a huge plus for CR's story more so than any other), and has been known to pull great performances out of actors who were, up until that time, regarded as "limited". And of course the story would have been adapted in a much more suitable way for Brosnan at that point in his tenure. I would have liked to see the more moody, tension filled, and lower-key CR (I'm assuming that it would have been more character based and less action based than the CR we got, which by the way is the #1 Bond film in my rankings) that he would have brought. And I'd love to see if he could have made Brosnan bring his A-game a deliver a great performance rather than the obvious and perfunctory ones that he gave.

HOWEVER, if it was a choice between this potential CR and the CR that we got I'll stick with Campbell's CR. As I said, it currently sits at #1 Bond film for me.

DobleCero7

wildboonjive said:
Tarantino is a fantastic director... My only point of hesitation is the fact that he wanted to make it with Brosnan, and that's a bit shocking for me because I don't consider Brosnan to be a particularly good actor, and Tarantino has always surrounded himself with top talent, and most significantly, gotten great performances...

I agree with you. I think Quentin would've have a painful job with Pierce, who seemed like been imprisoned by his ego after Goldeneye. On the other hand, Quentin's world and Bond's world walk in the same neighborhood of sex & violence, but on different streets.

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7

ElliotCarver said:
Samuel L. Jackson would have played Mathis. And if it was made today, Christoph Waltz would have played Le Chiffre. That's a movie I could watch.

Uma Thurman would probably be Vesper, and Sam a black Felix (QT would beat the 06 CR to it!).

ElliotCarver

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 said:

ElliotCarver said:
Samuel L. Jackson would have played Mathis. And if it was made today, Christoph Waltz would have played Le Chiffre. That's a movie I could watch.

Uma Thurman would probably be Vesper, and Sam a black Felix (QT would beat the 06 CR to it!).

Maybe he'd be better as Felix, yeah. Bruce Willis as Mathis then. Tim Roth as Gettler, and Steve Buscemi as Mr. White.

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7

Haha, this time Steve Buscemi gets to pick his own color! :))

But I do think Buscemi would make a better Le Chiffre, and maybe Waltz as Mathis.

ElliotCarver

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 said:
Haha, this time Steve Buscemi gets to pick his own color! :))

But I do think Buscemi would make a better Le Chiffre, and maybe Waltz as Mathis.

Steve got sick of being pink I guess. :P

I dunno, Waltz plays an amazing villain, and I think Le Chiffre would suit him to a tee. Buscemi as White works because he's a bit more behind the curtains, a bit more mysterious, and I think Buscemi's appearance suits that.

LicenceRevoked

I don't know, I really don't rate Tarantino as a director tbh. I mean narratively movies like Pulp Fiction are kind of innovative, but other than that his movies (to me) seem to have more in common with a 13 year old with loads of his moms red food coloring and a super-8 camera making movies with friends. The whole retro vibe thing doesn't really do it for me but to each their own. I don't think it would be a good fit for Bond, I really don't.

Major_Boothroyd

As I said in another thread - Casino Royale With Cheese

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7

Major_Boothroyd said:
As I said in another thread - Casino Royale With Cheese

Haha, but only if the Casino in the film is located in Amsterdam! =))

Major_Boothroyd

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 said:

Major_Boothroyd said:
As I said in another thread - Casino Royale With Cheese

Haha, but only if the Casino in the film is located in Amsterdam! =))

I could imagine Brosnan with his gun out pointed at a terrified waiter screaming "say stirred again! I dare you, I double dare you say stirred one more goddam time!"

Categories

In this Discussion

Announcements