Would you rather a John Gavin DAF OR a James Brolin OP?

1200201202203204206»

Comments

  • Posts: 2,334
    Casino Royale is a very Tarantino-esque novel. He would certainly have made a good movie out of it, but without EON involved.
  • edited August 26 Posts: 5,843
    thedove wrote: »
    He's socially awkward for sure. I think he's a brilliant filmmaker. I don't think Tarantino has worked with large budgets all the time. I seem to recall Reservoir Dogs being made on a small budget. He definitely is a cinephile who knows film and different genres. Could he pull off a Bond film? I am not sure but I would love to see him try.

    Reservoir Dogs is one of these strange films that seems to be considered 'low budget'. Perhaps for a Hollywood film it was at the time (although I think nowadays we wouldn't quite see it like that), and I'm sure for its scale it had limitations. But it was financed by a combination of Tarantino selling his scripts, and Harvey Keitel (who also helped get a lot of the talent onboard). I think the budget was about a million, if not more. I guess that's low budget in a very specific context, but very few independent filmmakers would ever get that amount to make their debut, and few would have that level of talent behind them in terms of crew and cast. It's not nothing.

    Compare that to Christopher Nolan's first film which cost about $6,000. Self financed and very much an independent production (to the point it couldn't have been done without Nolan taking on the directing, cinematography, and editing responsibilities). Same for films like Primer, El Mariachi, Blair Witch etc. In fact, Tarantino's early efforts as an independent, low budget filmmaker ended in disaster if anyone's seen what exists of My Best Friend's Birthday. He was never a lone, independent filmmaker, but a director who, by his own admission, had a good bit of luck and the right people behind him. That's not a criticism of him, but he's not a DIY filmmaker.

    I think the biggest budget he's dealt with is in the range of 100 million. Again, not nothing.
  • Posts: 12,842
    Serious film in the 60s. I don’t want Tarantino touching Bond.
  • Posts: 12,842
    Serious film in the 60s. I don’t want Tarantino touching Bond.
  • Posts: 8,516
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Serious film in the 60s. I don’t want Tarantino touching Bond.

    +1
  • PrinceKamalKhanPrinceKamalKhan Monsoon Palace, Udaipur
    Posts: 3,289
    Definitely a faithful adaptation in the 1960s:



    Sidenote: this is allegedly Tarantino's favorite secret agent film so I wouldn't be surprised if he directed CR or any Bond film that it might have turned out similar to this one:

  • Posts: 16,066
    Escalus5 wrote: »
    Oh, I agree. He's not only a bore, he's obnoxious, and I can see Broccoli and Wilson turning him down simply because they wouldn't want to listen to his babbling for an entire year (or however long it would take to develop the movie).

    QT didn't come off very well in the interview I saw of him when he spoke of CR. I really like Pulp Fiction and Django Unchained, but as a person he seems so full of himself. He can easily adapt an Elmore Leonard novel, an Ed McBain novel, heck, maybe a George Pelecanos too. But his sensibilities are all wrong for Fleming.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,867
    I'd take a serious 60's CR, I think prime Connery with great material is too tempting to turn down.

    I think Casino is perfect as is and I wouldn't want to change a hair on it's head though
  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    Posts: 516
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Serious film in the 60s. I don’t want Tarantino touching Bond.

    +1
    Pretty easy choice, but me on this list as well.

  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 6,079
    Good stuff!

    Okay lets do a battle of the time that an American actor was almost cast as Bond.

    This is another fantasy what if with a would you rather slant.

    Would you rather a John Gavin DAF OR a James Brolin OP?

    John Gavin (1971) – After George Lazenby quit following On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, producer Cubby Broccoli signed John Gavin (Psycho, Spartacus) to play Bond in Diamonds Are Forever. Gavin even had a contract, but United Artists pushed hard for Sean Connery’s return to help the box office. Gavin graciously stepped aside—paid in full, never filming a frame. Had it gone ahead, we might have had a smoother, more debonair Bond in the Roger Moore vein two years early, with a younger American star taking over the tux.

    OR

    James Brolin (1983) – During the Octopussy pre-production, Roger Moore’s contract was up in the air. To hedge their bets, EON screen-tested James Brolin (Westworld, Hotel) as Bond—complete with fight sequences and wardrobe fittings. Moore eventually returned, but footage of Brolin shows a tougher, more physical Bond—lean, almost Dalton-esque. And yes, American again.

    So which alternate timeline would you rather see?

    Gavin as a suave 70s Bond replacing Connery?

    Or Brolin as a harder-edged 80s Bond challenging Moore’s lighter legacy?

    Would either have worked, or would making Bond American have broken the spell entirely?

  • Posts: 16,066
    Cornelian dilemma. Both would have been terrible and potentially kill the franchise. But I'll say Gavin by default. Because maybe, juuuuust maybe, DAF would not have been a complete failure, they'd be juuuust enough life in the franchise to cast Roger Moore in LALD.

    Because Brolin against Connery? Not a chance.
  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,550
    Gavin since I thought Brolin's screentest was appalling and OP is one of Moore's finest performances.
  • ArapahoeBondFanArapahoeBondFan Colorado
    Posts: 143
    Remington wrote: »
    Gavin since I thought Brolin's screentest was appalling and OP is one of Moore's finest performances.

    Agree. I can't believe Cubby liked it.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 6,079
    It might have been him bluffing to see if that would nudge Moore to return? Or maybe he was going to cast a new Bond when he didn't realize that NSNA was coming for the same year?



  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 18,934
    I don’t know if it would be a bluff as such: he had to get the films made to satisfy the deal with UA so if there was any doubt about the star then he needed to make sure they had options. Obviously Roger was the one he wanted but if they couldn’t have him he needed a backup.
    I don’t really remember Gavin in the films I’ve seen which he’s in, and I thought Brolin had a sort of easy going charm, so I’d probably go for him out of the two.
  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    Posts: 516
    I think Brolin in Octopussy would have been a more interesting.
  • edited 11:43am Posts: 2,334
    I don't want any less Connery movies.
  • Posts: 52
    I feel the sheer transatlantic smoothness of Brolin would have pushed the franchise closer to a naff '80s American TV vibe. The kind of thing we see when shows like Alfred Hitchcock Presents tried to spoof Bond (and they had a bona fide 007 in Lazenby!).
Sign In or Register to comment.