It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
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.
+1
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:
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.
I think Casino is perfect as is and I wouldn't want to change a hair on it's head though
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?
Because Brolin against Connery? Not a chance.
Agree. I can't believe Cubby liked it.
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.
He needed to learn how to pronounce Tatiana Romanova. :D I thought his screentest was pretty funny. Most screentests are. He was alright, though.
I think he might've fared better than John Gavin, actually. Had Gavin actually done DAF, and the film not been a smash hit, I think it would've been the last one.
And would Dalton have been more successful as Bond, assuming he wasn't competing with the shadow of Brosnan in 1984?
Neither really but of those 2 options I'll pick a Gavin DAF.
3 years prior to DAF Gavin played a secret agent in the Eurospy film OSS 117: Double Agent with Bond veterans Luciana Paluzzi and Curt Jurgens.
Someone made a "what if?" video collage of footage from it for a Gavin Bond film:
Agree about OP featuring one Moore's finest performances and would've been an ideal finale for his tenure in the role. Perhaps the best thing about NSNA was that we got Moore in OP as a consequence of its existence.
In the early 80s they should have hired Lewis Collins.