Quentin Tarantino's Casino Royale

2

Comments

  • Posts: 5,634
    I'll just cut to the chase, and as stated before, wouldn't feel comfortable with Tarantino as a Bond director, in the past, present day or one for the future. I have nothing against the individual, he may seem a little big headed sometimes, but just not a name I would want to associate with the Bond franchise. Yes, he has been involved in other standout work such as Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs, and while good films, may not to be everyone's taste. Totally different to Bond for me, I just don't see him as a plausible name or maybe it just feels inappropriate. However you want to word it - just not for me really
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    The film would probably be like Licence to Kill on overdrive!

    Why doesn't Tarantino just make his own spy film? IB was pretty good to me, He should make an original Spy story set in the 60's like he wanted to do with Casino Royale. I have the perfect title too. KILL BOND...NOW. lol
  • Posts: 267
    Would've definitely been interesting to see. I can understand Brosnan's frustration because after a great opening film in GE, he had to deal with an era of movies that was very poorly casted and scripted. Adding an edge to the film is what he needed, and personally I would've liked to see him get a shot at that in '04 before Craig taking over in '06. With the Bond movies following absolutley no timeline at all it still would've fit to have the CR story starting of Craig's era, but that's a different discussion.

    As much as I am intrigued by a period piece Bond movie (something that sounds great as an idea, but I would be very wary if anyone actually moved forward with it), and as much as I enjoy Tarantino's films - a Tarantino Bond movie has fail written all over it. It ceases to be Bond when Tarantino is involved.
  • Posts: 5,634
    and don't forget Steve Buscemi would probably get a cameo somewhere with Tarantino in charge.... Not one of my favorite actors and usually turns up (somewhere) in a Quentin release from what I can recall. Annoying weasel...
  • bondboy007 wrote:
    As much as I am intrigued by a period piece Bond movie (something that sounds great as an idea, but I would be very wary if anyone actually moved forward with it), and as much as I enjoy Tarantino's films - a Tarantino Bond movie has fail written all over it. It ceases to be Bond when Tarantino is involved.

    I don't think that's necessarily true. I think that Tarantino would be a bit...constrained (restrained?) by the very fact that he was making a Bond film. Setting aside the fact that it would be a period film I don't think that it would be as different as some people think. A good indicator would be the episode of ER that Tarantino wrote and directed. He was a fan of the show and his episode is very much in keeping with the style of the show, just with a little bit of a different feeling to it - just a bit.

    This reminds me of a co-worker back in the 90s who was horrified at the rumours that Cubby Broccolli was courting Mel Gibson for the role of Bond. He said that Gibson would "play it all crazy" and as proof, told us to watch Lethal Weapon. Nothing we said could convince him that an actor has the ability to adjust his performance based on the role. A good director does the same...

  • Posts: 3,333
    This reminds me of a co-worker back in the 90s who was horrified at the rumours that Cubby Broccolli was courting Mel Gibson for the role of Bond. He said that Gibson would "play it all crazy" and as proof, told us to watch Lethal Weapon. Nothing we said could convince him that an actor has the ability to adjust his performance based on the role. A good director does the same...
    That's a slightly different story to the one I read, Flash.

    "At one point Mel Gibson wanted to play Bond. And Cubby was against it. Cubby first of all had a thing about tall people. Bond had to be tall. And so Mel Gibson was too short," said Bond writer Tom Mankiewicz. "Somebody at (film studio) United Artists said to me, 'Call him and tell him Mel Gibson would be great.' And Cubby said, 'I don't want to make a Mel Gibson movie, I want to make a James Bond movie.'"

    Substitute Mel Gibson for QT and you have the same response.
  • Posts: 1,492
    bondsum wrote:
    This reminds me of a co-worker back in the 90s who was horrified at the rumours that Cubby Broccolli was courting Mel Gibson for the role of Bond. He said that Gibson would "play it all crazy" and as proof, told us to watch Lethal Weapon. Nothing we said could convince him that an actor has the ability to adjust his performance based on the role. A good director does the same...
    That's a slightly different story to the one I read, Flash.

    "At one point Mel Gibson wanted to play Bond. And Cubby was against it. Cubby first of all had a thing about tall people. Bond had to be tall. And so Mel Gibson was too short," said Bond writer Tom Mankiewicz. "Somebody at (film studio) United Artists said to me, 'Call him and tell him Mel Gibson would be great.' And Cubby said, 'I don't want to make a Mel Gibson movie, I want to make a James Bond movie.'"

    Substitute Mel Gibson for QT and you have the same response.

    That was the reason Cubby never went for "star directors". Speilburg was interested in the early eighties but Cubby wasnt interested. Cubby knew what would work and what would not.

    As for QT being "constrained" the fact that he pushed for this film suggests that he wanted control. But then again Babs and MGW did allow Marc Foster and, dare I say it, Lee Tamahori off the lead.

  • Posts: 12,837
    Tarantino should make a Bond-like 60s set spy film, starring Timothy Dalton. That's sort of a dream of mine.
  • edited July 2012 Posts: 3,333
    actonsteve wrote:
    That was the reason Cubby never went for "star directors". Speilburg was interested in the early eighties but Cubby wasnt interested. Cubby knew what would work and what would not.
    Yes, actonsteve, I recall this also. But I seem to remember from Cubby's biography that he was talking about a time pre-StarWars and possibly pre-Jaws when Spielberg and Lucas were showing an interest in making a Bond movie. I don't think Cubby thought they were experienced enough for such a big production.
    actonsteve wrote:
    As for QT being "constrained" the fact that he pushed for this film suggests that he wanted control. But then again Babs and MGW did allow Marc Foster and, dare I say it, Lee Tamahori off the lead.
    I think that's probably Babs and MGW's weakness. Cubby was more of a visionary and a hands-on kind of guy, whereas the new team don't appear to have a problem allowing the director to have more of a free reign. I also don't think Cubby would have employed Spottiswood, Apted, Foster or Tamahori. I think he would have found some better talent.
  • Posts: 12,526
    Is it just me or is Taratino turning into the new Kevin Mclory? All over a specific Bond movie?
  • edited July 2012 Posts: 12,837
    RogueAgent wrote:
    Is it just me or is Taratino turning into the new Kevin Mclory? All over a specific Bond movie?

    Nah I think he's pretty much given up on it now, while Mclory kept going for ages, even after NSNA.

    That's the problem I have with Mcclory, he wouldn't stop. He got NSNA, which I think is a good, enjoyable film, even if it is a remake, that's a much better send off for Connery than DAF. But he didn't stop there, he kept going, he kept taking them to court, and eventually, the arsehole cheated us out of a 3rd Dalton film :((
    Murdock wrote:
    The film would probably be like Licence to Kill on overdrive!

    And that would make it awesome.
  • Posts: 11,189
    Here's a question, would people prefer to see QT direct a Bond film or Lee Tamahori direct another one?
  • Posts: 12,526
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Here's a question, would people prefer to see QT direct a Bond film or Lee Tamahori direct another one?

    I don't think LT would ever be given the opportunity again after DAD! And QT blew his chances when he bid against them. So for me it would be neither of them.
  • Posts: 12,837
    RogueAgent wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Here's a question, would people prefer to see QT direct a Bond film or Lee Tamahori direct another one?

    I don't think LT would ever be given the opportunity again after DAD! And QT blew his chances when he bid against them. So for me it would be neither of them.

    But what if you had to pick one?

    And I think they actually asked LT back after DAD.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited July 2012 Posts: 13,355
    And I think they actually asked LT back after DAD.

    They didn't. The only director since Wilson and Broccoli had been in charge with GoldenEye they didn't ask back for the following film.

    Maybe it had more to do with a change in direction rather than the poor film itself, mind, or perhaps it was a mix of the two.

    I'm sure I can find a link somewhere...
  • Posts: 12,837
    Ah ok, somebody on here told me they did (ask him back). Thanks.

    Anyway, I'd definetly, definetly go with Tarantino. No brainer really. LT is more focused on CGI than making a good film and DAD is one of the worst in the series imo. Tarantino though, is my favourite director ever.
  • Posts: 12,526
    RogueAgent wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Here's a question, would people prefer to see QT direct a Bond film or Lee Tamahori direct another one?

    I don't think LT would ever be given the opportunity again after DAD! And QT blew his chances when he bid against them. So for me it would be neither of them.

    But what if you had to pick one?

    And I think they actually asked LT back after DAD.

    I wouldn,t. I think the only Tarantino film i really like is Reservoir Dogs!
  • Posts: 1,146
    I think that Cubby and Babs are all about control, and for evidence I submit the steady string of mediocre directors they have gotten to take this franchise into waters that make tons of money but more often than not are full of mediocre scripts.

    I for one would love to see a James Cameron Bond, a Luc Bessom Bond, a Tarantino Bond, or a Ridley Scott Bond. I would be interested in seeing these guys take charge of these films, which is exactly what the Broccollis are NOT interested in. They make so much money producing a steady stream of mediocrity and they rely on our fervor for this character to continue to pile in the dough even thought the quality is, at least for me, not consistent.

    I'm hoping for the best on Skyfall, but what business did Mark Forster, Lee Tamahori or some of these other guys have directing such a prestigious project?

    C'mon.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,957
    I can say one thing about the CR we never received, if Tarantino was at the helm, Bond would have immediately discovered himself having a foot fetish.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Creasy47 wrote:
    I can say one thing about the CR we never received, if Tarantino was at the helm, Bond would have immediately discovered himself having a foot fetish.

    LOL the shower scene, think toes instead of fingers! =))
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,957
    Murdock wrote:
    Creasy47 wrote:
    I can say one thing about the CR we never received, if Tarantino was at the helm, Bond would have immediately discovered himself having a foot fetish.

    LOL the shower scene, think toes instead of fingers! =))

    That's a perfect example!

    Instead of Bond kissing Vesper when he goes to try out his Vesper martini, he just drops to his knees and goes for her toes.

    It's funny, but probably true. Quentin works like that, and by the Gods, he will incorporate feet in any way he can.
  • the whole Fassbender part in IB was basically his version of Bond, and it was awesome. best part of the movie. I bet he had that tavern scene in mind for a bond movie.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,957
    the whole Fassbender part in IB was basically his version of Bond, and it was awesome. best part of the movie. I bet he had that tavern scene in mind for a bond movie.

    The tavern scene was probably my favorite...but why did they put Hugo Stiglitz in the undercover role there? Apparently, 'every German' knows who he is, but a Gestapo officer and a few Nazis didn't? That bugs me.
  • sort of like Tiffany case knowing of James Bond, right?

  • Creasy47 wrote:
    the whole Fassbender part in IB was basically his version of Bond, and it was awesome. best part of the movie. I bet he had that tavern scene in mind for a bond movie.

    The tavern scene was probably my favorite...but why did they put Hugo Stiglitz in the undercover role there? Apparently, 'every German' knows who he is, but a Gestapo officer and a few Nazis didn't? That bugs me.

    I never got that either. Cracked did a whole thing about it recently.

    http://www.cracked.com/article_19920_6-movie-heroes-saved-by-gaping-plot-holes.html
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,957
    @thelivingroyale, I had read that earlier on in the day yesterday, and it just solidified my thoughts on that scene.
  • QT is a great film director & makes great film. But he would not have been the right choice to helm Casino Royale. I got a feeling QT would make Casino Royale too bloody or graphic.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,957
    QT is a great film director & makes great film. But he would not have been the right choice to helm Casino Royale. I got a feeling QT would make Casino Royale too bloody or graphic.

    And Bond would have had a sexual attraction to Vesper's feet.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Creasy47 wrote:
    QT is a great film director & makes great film. But he would not have been the right choice to helm Casino Royale. I got a feeling QT would make Casino Royale too bloody or graphic.

    And Bond would have had a sexual attraction to Vesper's feet.

    Just swap fingers with toes in the Shower scene. :))
Sign In or Register to comment.