Quentin Tarantino's Casino Royale

JamesPageJamesPage Administrator, Moderator, Director
edited July 2012 in Bond Movies Posts: 1,380
Almost ten years after Pierce Brosnan's final outing as 007, the truth behind Quentin Tarantino's attempts to make a James Bond film is emerging...

http://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/cr_quentin_tarantino_timeline.php3
«13

Comments

  • oo7oo7
    Posts: 1,068
    shoddy film making, gather hype about a film you dont ever make. aronofsky has pulled this twice with robocop and wolverine. all in the nature of getting heat behind his other films, i believe he wouldnt even talk about robocop at one point wehen asked (while he was still on it).
    this film does not and never did exist so why document a non event jamespage?
  • Posts: 1,507
    QT has never impressed me much. For me his films tend to feel like those tribute albums one group of singers makes to honor another.

    There are plenty of 60s and 70s knockoff Bonds he could remake.
  • Lancaster007Lancaster007 Shrublands Health Clinic, England
    edited July 2012 Posts: 1,874
    I for one am glad he didn't win the rights to CR - and I don't think EON made it just because QT had said he would like to make it! And if I remember at the time he said that it would fail if he didn't make it! The Ego Has Landed.
    Most of his recent films have been over-hyped due to the fact he started with two brilliant movies. Kill Bill 1 was ok, but OTT and over-long, KB2 seemed to lose the plot, and IB seemed to have much of the action left on the cutting room floor, another film that's not as good as some would have you believe.
    I'll probably go see DU, but please keep this man away from Bond.
  • I can understand sour grapes on Tarantino's part, but of course Brocolli and Wilson and going to say that CR is unfilmable but then film it later. How can people not understand the way these things work?

    They didn't have the rights to CR. So let's imagine that they start talking about how much they want to make CR. What would happen then? The price that they would pay to buy the rights would skyrocket. So no matter how much that they want it - which I would imagine is a lot - they underplay CR and make it sound unimportant to them.

    Let's say that you want to buy a very specific car, say, a 1962 Mustang and I'm the only person who has one for sale in your city. Not only that, but for years I've had the only one. You want to buy it from me - are you going to tell me how desperately you want it? Of course not, because then I can jack the price up. You tell me, well, sure it's a classic, but the car is old, it doesn't have the features that new cars have, it will break down, etc.

    So I find it hard to believe that they were working on a reboot and were NOT thinking of CR. It was probably a matter of price. Of course, if they let it be known that they'd like to do CR and then they DON'T get the rights then how bad would that look? It was well-played on their part, I think.
  • Posts: 5,745
    All I took from that:

    Campbell doesn't want to come back :( WHYYYYYYYYY
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,350
    Campbell has said many times, the origin story was the only reason he did Casino Royale. Other than that and 'classic Bond', which he did with GoldenEye, there is no third way to do Bond, according to him. Hence he will not return.
  • tqbtqb
    Posts: 1,022
    Campbell also once said "never say never..."
  • MartinBondMartinBond Trying not to muck it up again
    edited July 2012 Posts: 858
    Let's say that you want to buy a very specific car, say, a 1962 Mustang and I'm the only person who has one for sale in your city.

    With a 1962 Mustang you probably are :D

    On a serious note, I do agree that it's a good move money-wise. When I went and bought my car I also told the bloke that the bumper was dented and it had a few paint chips. It was still in a great shape, but had I told him that the price would have been raised.
    For tarantino to say that it's because of him that Casino Royale was made is like saying I'm should be credited for Skyfall because I once made a story about bond having a DB5 as his personal car.
  • Posts: 1,492
    The fact that he was going on about "how CR was made because of him" just proves how wrong he would have been. Its all about him. It would have been a Tarantino film not a Bond film.

    It makes me want to crawl over broken glass to thank Eon that this never happened and the rights went to the right people. We certainly dodged a bullet on that one.
  • Posts: 1,817
    I would like to hear Wilson and Broccoli side of the story.
  • JamesPageJamesPage Administrator, Moderator, Director
    Posts: 1,380
    oo7 wrote:
    shoddy film making, gather hype about a film you dont ever make. aronofsky has pulled this twice with robocop and wolverine. all in the nature of getting heat behind his other films, i believe he wouldnt even talk about robocop at one point wehen asked (while he was still on it).
    this film does not and never did exist so why document a non event jamespage?

    Because up until now, the public didn't know that Tarantino actually bid against EON for the rights to make the film. That is quite significant in the Bond history books.

    We don't 'not' cover news because we don't like the guy. Tune in to cable news if that's your style.

  • I wish this would get locked up. How many Tarantino threads do we need?
  • DoctorKaufmannDoctorKaufmann Can shoot you from Stuttgart and still make it look like suicide.
    Posts: 1,261
    QT is so full of himself and apparently believes that he is one of the best filmmakers in the world, but then he only does hommage films about cheap 1970's B and C movies. And IMHO he is highly overrated, after Pulp Fiction things went sort of downhill. And actually I am not looking forward to his upcoming Django hommage movie... CR was a good Bond movie and hopefully we get a decent SKYFALL movie...
  • Posts: 7,653
    I wish this would get locked up. How many Tarantino threads do we need?

    As much as we need Batman threads. :D
  • Posts: 4,400
    QT makes good films, he's just an awful person. Inglourious Basterds is a great yawn, but when listening to interviews with the director he seems convinced that if his characters existed the outcome of WWII would have been entirely different to the reality today. WTF Quentin? Arrogant twat.
  • DoctorKaufmannDoctorKaufmann Can shoot you from Stuttgart and still make it look like suicide.
    Posts: 1,261
    Well, the Batman threads actually can be found in the general movies section...
  • Posts: 5,767
    JWESTBROOK wrote:
    All I took from that:

    Campbell doesn't want to come back :( WHYYYYYYYYY
    Now I´m asking myself, are those shitty films Campbell did beside Bond a sign that he should come back to Bond, or are they a sign that he should retire?



    As for Tarantino, his claim that it would have been a Tarantino movie and not a Broccoli movie says all. No sense in thinking about that story anymore.

  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 7,962
    I think it's sad that QT played it like this. How could you bid against EON and still think they'd let you make the movie? And why did Brosnan promote QT? After that stunt I'd have fired him myself as well, no matter if it were going to be a reboot or not.
  • JamesPageJamesPage Administrator, Moderator, Director
    Posts: 1,380
    He bid against them for the rights after EON made it clear they were not interested in working with him. So if he had won them, a rival Bond movie would have been in production, ala NSNA. He wouldn't have had any problem finding a studio to stump up the budget.
  • edited July 2012 Posts: 1,492
    I think it's sad that QT played it like this. How could you bid against EON and still think they'd let you make the movie? And why did Brosnan promote QT? After that stunt I'd have fired him myself as well, no matter if it were going to be a reboot or not.

    It does look like he went to the Broccolis and said he and QT wanted to do CR sometime after May 2004. He was sacked in October 2004. Be interesting to see his teaming up with QT had on the Broccolis.

  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,330
    In an Interview in 1997, he described the ending of CR and royally screwed it up by saying Bond killed Vesper. So no, sorry QT stay away from My Bond movies!
  • Posts: 5,745
    Murdock wrote:
    In an Interview in 1997, he described the ending of CR and royally screwed it up by saying Bond killed Vesper. So no, sorry QT stay away from My Bond movies!

    Sorry, but:

    1. Considering in the 2006 Bond wants to kill her, with the 'allow me' line, and..
    2. a similar storyline in TWINE was played out where he killed Elektra,

    I really don't think it would have made that much a stink :)
  • edited July 2012 Posts: 612
    JWESTBROOK wrote:
    Murdock wrote:
    In an Interview in 1997, he described the ending of CR and royally screwed it up by saying Bond killed Vesper. So no, sorry QT stay away from My Bond movies!

    Sorry, but:

    1. Considering in the 2006 Bond wants to kill her, with the 'allow me' line, and..
    2. a similar storyline in TWINE was played out where he killed Elektra,

    I really don't think it would have made that much a stink :)

    He didn't want to kill her. He just wanted answers. All because he said it, doesn't mean he meant it.

    And regarding QT, he has no place near Bond movies. Final verdict.
  • oo7oo7
    edited July 2012 Posts: 1,068
    Who exactly did he bid against? who claimed to hold the rights in the first place?
  • edited July 2012 Posts: 11,189
    I like QT but after seeing that interview in '97/'98 where he wrongly cites the book (claiming Bond killed the woman he loved before saying those final few words) I think its fair to say he doesn't have a full grasp on the original material.

    Ditto with Brosnan. As much as I enjoy him in the films his "7 books" remark is rather embarrassing.

    As I've said before I'm curious to see how a "Tarantino Bond film" would have looked but I wouldn't trade the CR we have for anything.
  • edited July 2012 Posts: 14
    I have a hard time believing QT was bidding for this book when:

    In early 1997, Thunderball producer Kevin McClory and Sony/Columbia Pictures teamed up to begin work on Warhead 2000, a James Bond film based loosely on a treatment McClory worked on with Ian Fleming in the late 1950s. Sony/Columbia was looking for a franchise movie series and McClory was the stepping stone they needed in perhaps the most outrageous lawsuit in the annals of Hollywood history.

    In short, McClory/Sony/Columbia sued MGM/UA and Eon Productions on the grounds that McClory’s story elements from Thunderball had been exploited in every James Bond film since 1962's Dr. No. A claim that could yield McClory and Sony millions, if not billions, and the control of the cinematic rights to James Bond.

    The suit was considered ‘dirty pool’ in Hollywood. The thought of undermining the series away from the Broccoli family, who has made it successful for over 35 years, was pathetic in the minds of fans all over the world. By late 1999, Sony/Columbia still had no competing Bond film. Faced with a negative ruling from a Los Angeles judge, Sony decided to drop the suit and settle out of court which in turn gave MGM the distribution rights of Casino Royale.

    Source: Dr. Shatterhand's Botanical Garden - "It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad Royale: How the First OO7 Novel Got Away - Until Now" http://shatterhand007.com/MadRoyale/ItsAMadMadRoyale.html

    IMHO I think the Broccoli family was seriously looking to get the rights to CR for many years. Michael Wilson mentions, "United Artist bought out Charlie Feldman’s rights and Columbia owns the rights in common, so they’re in a Mexican standoff." Wilson continued, "I think it's an interesting (Fleming) story - whether it's in our style, the right way to go with Bond, I don't know? It's a very heavy story in a way. To fall in love with a woman who is a double agent and be completely misled after all Bond has been through with her is tough. Then have her commit suicide and have Bond feel good about it - that's kind of a heavy film." (Bondage magazine #17 - 1989)

    Barbara Broccoli mentions, "It was always an ambition of theirs (Cubby and Harry Saltzman) to be able to make this story but, sadly, they were never able to. So, when it finally became available to us, we leapt at the chance."

    MGM had the book rights and the distribution rights to CR by 2000 and most likely after all the legal dust had cleared from that frivolous lawsuit Die Another Day was already in pre-production. CR was just sitting waiting for a decision as to how to go about it. So how in the hell did QT get into a bidding war with this novel? My own guess is that he was hoping to be offered the director's reigns for a Bond film. Whatever the real truth is, I'm glad he was shown the door by Eon since I feel he would have messed up the novel with an aging Brosnan.

    The Broccoli family does listen to its fans and they knew we wanted a faithful adaptation. Brosnan was too old for that book and a difficult decision was made to start new. Long live Daniel Craig.
  • edited July 2012 Posts: 3,494
    @ Doc Shatterhand- From the odd contact with friends of people involved in the series over the years, I've been consistently told that the Broccoli family always wanted to get the rights to and make CR the way a Bond movie should be made- by them! No American TV actors, no spoofs, just done right- which is exactly what they did.

    With all due respect, Brosnan was indeed too old looking to be Bond after 2002. They made that mistake once by keeping Sir Roger one more movie longer than necessary and I'll never agree with Cubby on that or even longer, as he originally wanted Sir Roger to also do TLD. I give Sir Roger credit for pulling the plug on that notion. We all know that despite a hit title song, AVTAK clearly exposes the need for a new and younger actor to be Bond. Giving Brosnan CR over Craig, or a 5th movie at all would have been a poor decision that Michael and Barbara were smart enough not to make, kudos to them for that.

    I shudder to think what a rival CR collaboration with Brosnan and Tarantino directing would have been like. What I do know is that I would not have paid to see it, like NSNA it would have been an inferior effort to what we got. Tarantino had no idea what the book ending was, and if he did he thought he had a better idea. Wrong. Vesper's suicide was right to do based on the source material. Now whether you support Fleming's out of touch idea with what modern moviegoers want to see (Bond simply finding her dead with a suicide note) as right or not is a matter of opinion. To me, that would have been much less dramatically effective than Bond's efforts to save her and her actually saying goodbye in person. Another time in the distant past, it may have worked but not nowadays.

    McGlory was a petty and greedy f**k and definitely played dirty pool. He did all he could and beyond to damage EON. I don't usually speak ill of the dead, but I'd dance a jig on McGlory's grave if I am ever in the neighborhood and bored enough to actually visit it. Good riddance to that poor excuse for a human being.


  • Posts: 12,837
    boldfinger wrote:
    JWESTBROOK wrote:
    All I took from that:

    Campbell doesn't want to come back :( WHYYYYYYYYY
    Now I´m asking myself, are those shitty films Campbell did beside Bond a sign that he should come back to Bond, or are they a sign that he should retire?

    I liked the Zorro film he (Campbell), made.

    Anyway, I'd like a Tarantino Bond film with Brosnan, but I like the CR we had.

    He's my favourite director, and I would like him to film a Bond flick in the future (although after all this it probably would never happen). And I do sort of feel bad for him, since it does seem like he wanted to make CR and then they made it and it was a smash hit.
  • Posts: 1,492
    [q
    He's my favourite director, and I would like him to film a Bond flick in the future (although after all this it probably would never happen). And I do sort of feel bad for him, since it does seem like he wanted to make CR and then they made it and it was a smash hit.


    Some directors don't realise they are wrong for a project until someone points it out to them. Did he really think he could muscle in on Bond? Did he really think if he obtained the rights the Broccolis would roll over and want to work with him?

    I think he did. A star director thinks he can get what he wants. The Broccolis have always ploughed their own furrow.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,350
    I have a hard time believing QT was bidding for this book when:

    In early 1997, Thunderball producer Kevin McClory and Sony/Columbia Pictures teamed up to begin work on Warhead 2000, a James Bond film based loosely on a treatment McClory worked on with Ian Fleming in the late 1950s. Sony/Columbia was looking for a franchise movie series and McClory was the stepping stone they needed in perhaps the most outrageous lawsuit in the annals of Hollywood history.

    In short, McClory/Sony/Columbia sued MGM/UA and Eon Productions on the grounds that McClory’s story elements from Thunderball had been exploited in every James Bond film since 1962's Dr. No. A claim that could yield McClory and Sony millions, if not billions, and the control of the cinematic rights to James Bond.

    The suit was considered ‘dirty pool’ in Hollywood. The thought of undermining the series away from the Broccoli family, who has made it successful for over 35 years, was pathetic in the minds of fans all over the world. By late 1999, Sony/Columbia still had no competing Bond film. Faced with a negative ruling from a Los Angeles judge, Sony decided to drop the suit and settle out of court which in turn gave MGM the distribution rights of Casino Royale.

    Source: Dr. Shatterhand's Botanical Garden - "It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad Royale: How the First OO7 Novel Got Away - Until Now" http://shatterhand007.com/MadRoyale/ItsAMadMadRoyale.html

    IMHO I think the Broccoli family was seriously looking to get the rights to CR for many years. Michael Wilson mentions, "United Artist bought out Charlie Feldman’s rights and Columbia owns the rights in common, so they’re in a Mexican standoff." Wilson continued, "I think it's an interesting (Fleming) story - whether it's in our style, the right way to go with Bond, I don't know? It's a very heavy story in a way. To fall in love with a woman who is a double agent and be completely misled after all Bond has been through with her is tough. Then have her commit suicide and have Bond feel good about it - that's kind of a heavy film." (Bondage magazine #17 - 1989)

    Barbara Broccoli mentions, "It was always an ambition of theirs (Cubby and Harry Saltzman) to be able to make this story but, sadly, they were never able to. So, when it finally became available to us, we leapt at the chance."

    MGM had the book rights and the distribution rights to CR by 2000 and most likely after all the legal dust had cleared from that frivolous lawsuit Die Another Day was already in pre-production. CR was just sitting waiting for a decision as to how to go about it. So how in the hell did QT get into a bidding war with this novel? My own guess is that he was hoping to be offered the director's reigns for a Bond film. Whatever the real truth is, I'm glad he was shown the door by Eon since I feel he would have messed up the novel with an aging Brosnan.

    The Broccoli family does listen to its fans and they knew we wanted a faithful adaptation. Brosnan was too old for that book and a difficult decision was made to start new. Long live Daniel Craig.

    I am ever so glad you have pointed this out @Doctor_Shatterhand. I too, wonder how Tarantino wanted to bid for the rights, if by 2004, they were already safe in EON's keep.
Sign In or Register to comment.