Quentin Tarantino says a little more about what his version of Casino Royale could have been.

edited February 2016 in Bond Movies Posts: 4
Hi all,

It's been awhile. Recently I got to chat with Quentin Tarantino about The Hateful Eight and managed to broach the subject of Casino Royale. I was hoping to find out a little more about the larger "pitch process" and how far along he was but he was surprisingly open about his approach to it.

As usual any comments or thoughts appreciated.

Veering slightly from Hateful, is there any chance you could tell us a little bit about your experience with Quentin Tarantino's version of Ian Fleming's Casino Royale?

Quentin Tarantino
: Well you know, if I could have done it in the way I truly wanted to do it. I was open to do it in two different ways, because I really likes Pierce Brosnan. I though he did a really good job I didn't think any of the movies were that great, but I though he was a really good James Bond.

So it wouldn't have had all the action scenes that the James Bond movies keep fitting in and the action scenes that would have been there would have been directed by me not a series of other guys you hire, I'm not talking about Sam Mendes - he does his own action scenes. Full post here... http://www.theestablishingshot.com/2016/01/i-chat-with-quentin-tarantino-about-his.html

Best

Comments

  • edited February 2016 Posts: 709
    Haha, at first I was going to say "Is he STILL going on about this?" but since it was you and not him who brought it up that makes it better!

    Interesting to read, but glad it didn't happen his way. Casting a 50+ year old Pierce Brosnan in Casino Royale wouldn't have worked at all (I presume any reference to Bond being a new and inexperienceed agent would have been dropped!), and his idea for Bond killing Vesper seems to completely change the intent of the book.

    I think we ended up with the best possible Casino Royale.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    dinovelvet wrote: »
    I think we ended up with the best possible Casino Royale.
    Agreed. I wouldn't change a thing. Glad it turned out the way it did.
  • Posts: 12,888
    Don't we already have a thread about this?
  • I love the one we got, but I'd still be very interested in seeing what Tarantino would do with Bond.
  • SarkSark Guangdong, PRC
    Posts: 1,138
    bondjames wrote: »
    dinovelvet wrote: »
    I think we ended up with the best possible Casino Royale.
    Agreed. I wouldn't change a thing. Glad it turned out the way it did.
    I'd make it about 15 minutes shorter, but I certainly wouldn't trade what we got for a hypothetical Tarantino movie.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    Bond killing Vesper? WTF?
  • Posts: 4,272
    there is great potential for a Youtube send up of how he would have done Bond,
    3 hours of talk involving multiple hip culture references with classic 70s pop playing in the background and in the last 2 mins, everyone gets shot in a total bloodbath,
    IMHO the sign of a really great director is that they can alter their style to fit the movie (Spielberg was superb for BoS) but QT is in danger of becoming a pastiche of himself. A great shame as the guy clearly loves movies and is very talented
  • Posts: 4,325
    patb wrote: »
    there is great potential for a Youtube send up of how he would have done Bond,
    3 hours of talk involving multiple hip culture references with classic 70s pop playing in the background and in the last 2 mins, everyone gets shot in a total bloodbath,
    IMHO the sign of a really great director is that they can alter their style to fit the movie (Spielberg was superb for BoS) but QT is in danger of becoming a pastiche of himself. A great shame as the guy clearly loves movies and is very talented

    Yeah I've pretty much tuned out from Tarantino since the Kill Bill films. I love all his films up till then but just have no real desire to see any of his films thereafter. I don't know why, I guess because I've had the impression that those films are just Tarantino doing Tarantino. I really like how enthusiastic about film he is though.
  • DragonpolDragonpol The Crazy World of David Dragonpol
    edited February 2016 Posts: 13,926
    I love the one we got, but I'd still be very interested in seeing what Tarantino would do with Bond.

    I'm no Tarantino expert but I imagine that it would probably be prohibitively violent for a Bond film and end up being an 18 certification.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2016 Posts: 23,883
    Both Tarantino & Nolan are justifiable superstar directors who have been touted for Bond in the past, and who could probably generate massive publicity and box office just by being associated with it.

    They both coincidentally also have a tendency for self indulgence (probably comes with being creative geniuses).

    I have never been confident about Tarantino's possible association (despite being a huge fan of his), although I think Nolan could do something fantastic with it.

    If I was to let Tarantino go anywhere near Bond, it would be as an advisor, to write dialogue and work on character development (I have no doubt he would have got much more out of Waltz & come up with some wonderful performances from others, as the evidence has shown).
  • Posts: 4,272
    IMHO some directors let their own style get in the way of the story, I know he is a legend but I find Hitchcock to be in this catagory. Other directors are more humble and concentrate on the end result without stamping their style all over the place. This can lead them to having a lower profile, for example RoB Reiner directed When Harry Met Sally, Misery and A Few Good Men consecutively. Three cracking movies but who has heard of Rob Reiner?
  • edited February 2016 Posts: 4,272
    I think Nolan has clearly demonstrated a subtlety and range that I find hard to see in QT's work. I have no doubt that QT is a massive Bond fan and he loves the history of cinema, but that, in itself, does not make him a good choice. He has the potential to produce a Bond movie that would be loved by QT fans but hated by jo public.
    Re his dialogue, he has this habit of characters going off on tangents and dicussing the trivia of life (and referencing cultural points) but I cant see this working in a Bond movie. Bond is not the chatty type and does not have time for tittle tattle (Royale with Cheese, Mr Bond?) But he is good at portraying evil and producing terror on the screen, he could help with that perhaps
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2016 Posts: 23,883
    patb wrote: »
    Re his dialogue, he has this habit of characters going off on tangents and dicussing the trivia of life (and referencing cultural points) but I cant see this working in a Bond movie. Bond is not the chatty type and does not have time for tittle tattle (Royale with Cheese, Mr Bond?)
    Yes, you're right, he overindulges here too (but I love it in his films) and that might not be suitable for Bond. Still, given some of the tripe we've been fed lately, I wouldn't mind him as an advisor to even polish some dialogue. Of course, he likely wouldn't do something so trivial.
  • Posts: 4,564
    Still, there's something to be said for Tarentino doing a James Bond movie, and it's his digressions. Allow me to explain myself :

    One of Fleming's strengths was the fact that often in his novels, he had yis characters indulge in dialogues or monologues that had nothing to do with the main plot. For exemple, the "Players Cigarettes Sailor" story that Domino told Bond in "Thunderball". All these elements of course were cut for the movies, given that they would interfere with the action. Well, Tarentino loves to do the same. For example, in Kill Bill IIhe has Elle Driver told Budd the biology of the Black Mamba snake while he's dying. Or the SS officer who teach the Basterds how to play the game in the bar scene in "Inglouious Basterds". Or the "Royal with Cheese" from Pulp Fiction. Or... well this is a very long list. Sodoing a Flemingesque Bond story with this kind of stuff would be right his alley. And for those of us who think that Bond should be action only, remember what the most memorable scene from SF was ? The entrance of Silva, telling the story of how you can control a rat infestation. Pure Fleming.
  • edited February 2016 Posts: 4,272
    When I found out he assisted with the dialogue on Crimson Tide, I thought straight away he did the Star trek reference scene and sure enough, it was him. It stuck out from the rest of the dialogue...in contrast, Nolan has shown that he understands the power of silence and is not afraid of letting the scene speak for itself without dialogue.
  • Posts: 4,564
    Also the Silver Surfer reference (and yes, I agree : Kirby all the way !)
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I didn't know about Crimson Tide. I'm even more interested in him being involved in punching up dialogue now. That film has some of the more memorable dialogue I can remember from the 90's.
  • Posts: 4,272


    I think he did this scene also, another example of going off on a tangent (although it did have a payoff right at the end)
  • bondjames wrote: »
    Both Tarantino & Nolan are justifiable superstar directors who have been touted for Bond in the past, and who could probably generate massive publicity and box office just by being associated with it.

    They both coincidentally also have a tendency for self indulgence (probably comes with being creative geniuses).

    I have never been confident about Tarantino's possible association (despite being a huge fan of his), although I think Nolan could do something fantastic with it.

    If I was to let Tarantino go anywhere near Bond, it would be as an advisor, to write dialogue and work on character development (I have no doubt he would have got much more out of Waltz & come up with some wonderful performances from others, as the evidence has shown).

    I feel almost the opposite. I think Nolan is far too emotionally cold and detached from his movies (he's such a professional that I often wonder if he even loves what he's doing). For me, that element of heart and flavor and fun and warmth is a huge part of a Bond film. For the same reasons, I wouldn't ever want David Fincher near the series, and he's a director I rate higher than Nolan.

    Tarantino always injects that love for the project. You can feel it in every frame, like the movie or not.

  • Posts: 300
    Would Have Loved To See QT do CR but as a standalone with no relation to the Canon. I'd love to see how he'd have all these characters interact it at a Casino. It just seems his gig for films like Reservoir Dogs or Hateful 8.
  • Posts: 6,450
    If it was up to me, Tarantino could make his own version of every single Bond film! I'd watch them all. Over and over again! :)

    And Samuel Jackson would make interesting Bond ;)
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I feel almost the opposite. I think Nolan is far too emotionally cold and detached from his movies (he's such a professional that I often wonder if he even loves what he's doing). For me, that element of heart and flavor and fun and warmth is a huge part of a Bond film. For the same reasons, I wouldn't ever want David Fincher near the series, and he's a director I rate higher than Nolan.
    I agree with your assessment. Both Nolan and Fincher can be a little clinical and dark. However, I do like that aspect to their films.

    Tarantino is much warmer, and his character work is first class. His films have no deficit in the charisma dept.

    I still think dialogue (and perhaps casting) is where he's best.
  • @bondjames - Yeah I love Fincher and I like Nolan, so dont get me wrong i'm not against that type of filmmaking, just not sure it's right for Bond.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    edited February 2016 Posts: 7,064
    At that time (after two disappointing entries) I probably would have been blown away and perhaps even seen Brosnan in a whole new light. It couldn't have compared to the version we ended up getting though. Still, it certainly would have breathed new life into a franchise that was desperately gasping for air. Which is exactly what it needs now, come to think of it. Hey Quentin, are you busy?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2016 Posts: 23,883
    @ThighsOfXenia, it's interesting, but both Fincher (in TGWTDT) and Nolan (In Inception & BB) have cribbed from the Bond universe, and in both cases, I liked what they did.

    As a small example, the title sequence for TGWTDT is very Bond-like (in a way, almost a darker version of the SP sequence) and I'd love to see Trent take a crack at a Bond song. Inception had that OHMSS homage which was really well done, and BB had the Wayne/Fox scenes, which had Bond written all over them.

    So a combination of Fincher/Nolan with a bit of Tarantino warmth/wit thrown in is exactly what I'd like in a perfect Bond film I think. Oh, and maybe a little Mann as well.

    Too much to ask of course.
  • @bondjames I want all the Mann.

    But yeah, Nolan loves Bond. Inception is full of it.
  • Posts: 783
    Well I don't hardly watch any of Quentin Tarantino movies. So him doing Casino Royale with Pierce Brosnan will never work out. He would had ruin it. I glad the 2006 Casino Royale was done great with Daniel Craig. Hell with Tarantino.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2016 Posts: 23,883
    I just remembered after Samuel Jackson was mentioned above: perhaps we got something close to what Tarrantino might have brought to Bond with Kingsman.

    His main man Jackson was in it, and it had that gory church scene. Hmm...
  • The only version of Casino Royale I'd be interested in seeing aside from the near perfect Bond film we got in 2006, would have been a tight thriller no more than 90 minutes long, set in the 1950's. A true 100% adaptation of Casino Royale.
Sign In or Register to comment.