164 replies to this topic

[HildebrandRarity]

Yes. He does seem to go to the till everytime he has a movie out, hoping the Bond Blockbuster Cachet rubs off on his potential new flop.

As it was written, so it shall be done.

2007 is 2009.

He'll be saying it again in 2000-whatever when his next flop comes out...

...and the dear mods will be amalgamating all similar threads into one...and it will be called "The Tarantino Casino Royale With Brosnan Was My Idea Rants [2006 - 201?]" thread...

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

I couldn't care less what Quentin goes on about.
I like CR as it is thanks.

[dee-bee-five]

And, for what it's worth, I still don't buy the reboot thing. I 've read the book recently and there is no indication that Bond was that much of a novice or naive. And Vesper is not his first love, just because CR was the first book. All this fuss about Vesper is completely unjustified, especially in QoS. There is practically no mention of her in the LALD novel. It all removes the cool from Bond, resulting in dialogs like all the ones with Judi Dench's M involved.

Well, I would submit that Judi Dench adds cool to any movie she's in. To anyone who knows anything about acting, that is. As for your point about Vesper, I suggest you go back to Fleming. Vesper may not have been his first love but given that we learn Bond visits her grave once a year in OHMSS (written more or less 10 years after CR) it suggests that she was clearly the most significant. Unless, of course he's in the habit of visiting graves willy-nilly; a hobby Fleming doesn't tell us about.

[danslittlefinger]

http://debrief.comma...p;#entry1043254
there is a thread pertaining to this already.

[HildebrandRarity]

Believe me, there are other threads pertaining to this exact same thing too.

The subject creeps up everytime he has an upcoming release.

[dee-bee-five]

Honestly, it's probably best (and more amusing) to just let him keep bantering on about it.

And it bumps up Bond's profile in the public arena during down times everytime he feels the need to bang on about it.

[dinovelvet]

Re this: http://news.bbc.co.u...ent/6974075.stm

"The minute I said I would do Casino Royale, it's on all the websites and it is the film that people want to see. They should have said thank you." Quentin Tarantino

Dear Quentin - How do you think you "would do Casino Royale", or any other big budget film, when you have quit the Director's Guild of America, thus ensuring no major studio will work with you?

Somebody ing ask him this next time he brings it up.

[HildebrandRarity]

QUOTE(Qwerty @ 4 September 2007 - 15:00)
Honestly, it's probably best (and more amusing) to just let him keep bantering on about it.

QUOTE(Dee-Bee-five, today)

And it bumps up Bond's profile in the public arena during down times everytime he feels the need to bang on about it.

-----

...and gives the mods a chance to pad the front page of CBn just for kicks during said down time too!

[Stephen Spotswood]

I always had the impression in the book that James Bond may've had many lovers, but no one he was ever in love with until Vesper and Teresa.

It was unprofessional. But on those two occassions he allowed somebody in only to lose them.

I'd also recast M.

It makes no sense to say a series is rebooted with a younger version of Bond, and yet still have the same M in the last Pierce Brosnan and a reebooted series.

I'd bring back Sir Miles Messervy played by either:

http://www.topnews.i...ck-Stewart3.jpg

or

http://www.topnews.i...an-Rickman1.jpg



Wasn't Tarantino yapping on for awhile about doing a Man From Uncle movie?

What's it gonna be next week, Tom of T.H.U.M.B?

Let's not even bring Tom Cruise into this.

Who knows, he might be more believable in it thatn MI and Last Samurai or:

http://www.youtube.c...feature=related

[Jim]

Threads merged.

[HildebrandRarity]

It takes a Quentin to have two threads separated by two years on the same subject to be merged into one.

I'm sure one of us will find another thread or two on this very subject to amalgamate things as well.

Only Quentin!

[pgram]

And, for what it's worth, I still don't buy the reboot thing. I 've read the book recently and there is no indication that Bond was that much of a novice or naive. And Vesper is not his first love, just because CR was the first book. All this fuss about Vesper is completely unjustified, especially in QoS. There is practically no mention of her in the LALD novel. It all removes the cool from Bond, resulting in dialogs like all the ones with Judi Dench's M involved.

Well, I would submit that Judi Dench adds cool to any movie she's in. To anyone who knows anything about acting, that is. As for your point about Vesper, I suggest you go back to Fleming. Vesper may not have been his first love but given that we learn Bond visits her grave once a year in OHMSS (written more or less 10 years after CR) it suggests that she was clearly the most significant. Unless, of course he's in the habit of visiting graves willy-nilly; a hobby Fleming doesn't tell us about.

No actor, no matter how good he or she is, can make lame writing sound good. Not even dame Judi. Vesper is supposed to be important, but she 's definitely overdone in QoS. And, by the way, have you asked yourself why is it that Fleming remembers her in OHMSS?

[Mr. Blofeld]

No actor, no matter how good he or she is, can make lame writing sound good. Not even dame Judi. Vesper is supposed to be important, but she's definitely overdone in QoS.

Erm... Vesper wasn't in QOS.

[han4bond]

And, for what it's worth, I still don't buy the reboot thing. I 've read the book recently and there is no indication that Bond was that much of a novice or naive. And Vesper is not his first love, just because CR was the first book. All this fuss about Vesper is completely unjustified, especially in QoS. There is practically no mention of her in the LALD novel. It all removes the cool from Bond, resulting in dialogs like all the ones with Judi Dench's M involved.

Well, I would submit that Judi Dench adds cool to any movie she's in. To anyone who knows anything about acting, that is. As for your point about Vesper, I suggest you go back to Fleming. Vesper may not have been his first love but given that we learn Bond visits her grave once a year in OHMSS (written more or less 10 years after CR) it suggests that she was clearly the most significant. Unless, of course he's in the habit of visiting graves willy-nilly; a hobby Fleming doesn't tell us about.

No actor, no matter how good he or she is, can make lame writing sound good. Not even dame Judi. Vesper is supposed to be important, but she 's definitely overdone in QoS. And, by the way, have you asked yourself why is it that Fleming remembers her in OHMSS?

With all due respect, I don't agree with anything you are saying, pgram. Suggesting that the entire Brosnan era is useless and that CR is a bad movie makes you a very unique person here on a James Bond fan site's message boards. You are most certainly entitled to your opinions, and you are entitled to express them on this site, but you may want to list these things on a different thread. If you are going somewhere with all of this that relates to the original topic, aside from what you said in your first post, I'm interested to read it.

Edited by han4bond, 28 July 2009 - 09:42 PM.

[pgram]

And, for what it's worth, I still don't buy the reboot thing. I 've read the book recently and there is no indication that Bond was that much of a novice or naive. And Vesper is not his first love, just because CR was the first book. All this fuss about Vesper is completely unjustified, especially in QoS. There is practically no mention of her in the LALD novel. It all removes the cool from Bond, resulting in dialogs like all the ones with Judi Dench's M involved.

Well, I would submit that Judi Dench adds cool to any movie she's in. To anyone who knows anything about acting, that is. As for your point about Vesper, I suggest you go back to Fleming. Vesper may not have been his first love but given that we learn Bond visits her grave once a year in OHMSS (written more or less 10 years after CR) it suggests that she was clearly the most significant. Unless, of course he's in the habit of visiting graves willy-nilly; a hobby Fleming doesn't tell us about.

No actor, no matter how good he or she is, can make lame writing sound good. Not even dame Judi. Vesper is supposed to be important, but she 's definitely overdone in QoS. And, by the way, have you asked yourself why is it that Fleming remembers her in OHMSS?

With all due respect, I don't agree with anything you are saying, pgram. Suggesting that the entire Brosnan era is useless and that CR is a bad movie makes you a very unique person here on a James Bond fan site's message boards. You are most certainly entitled to your opinions, and you are entitled to express them on this site, but you may want to list these things on a different thread. If you are going somewhere with all of this that relates to the original topic, aside from what you said in your first post, I'm interested to read it.

I still fail to realise what you don't understand about my posts (not just you, but previous posters, too) so let me sum up:

1. The Tarantino-Brosnan project for CR was an extremely interesting opportunity.
2. The rationale behind its refusal involved the franchise reboot. Me thinks it was stupid and unnecessary and harmed CR. If you think that means I 'm saying it was a bad film, it's up to you. I 'm not, though.
3. The same rationale that led to the reboot, also led to an over-sentimental approach, which is unBondish and uncool. Typical examples of such an approach can be found in practically every single dialogue with M. In other words, I never commented on Judi Dench's acting skills (not in this thread, anyway).
4. To reply to Mr Blofeld, the omnipresent Vesper in QoS was mentioned as another example of over-sentimentalism. She was overused in QoS, in an attempt to justify the reboot in CR (Vesper very important because first love, therefore first love very important, therefore reboot essential). I think this was a bad idea, look (1) above.
5. I do think all Brosnan's tenure was dissappointing to say the least, but I 'm also aware that this is not the subject of the thread. Hence, the comment was in a parenthesis. I also think that a Tarantino-Brosnan CR would prevent Brosnan from being the single Bond who hasn't a good film in his tenure (I hope that is clear enough explanation that I did like Campbell-Craig CR). I also find that there are plenty of people here who share this opinion about Brosnan's era.
6. The main point of my first post that I 'd expect comments or questions on was which elements of Tarantino's films are trully Bondesque. Remember, this is a hypothetical discussion, on something that 's never happened, and never will happen. What is the point in such a discussion? Just to identify elements that define Bond-cool. So that, maybe, we start emphasising on the quintessential elements of Bond, instead of the superficial ones. The implicit assumption in fandom, and, hence in this forum, too, is that by discussing things, we influence the future entries in the series. Or at least, we fantasize that we do. So, as an example, I 'm asking you: wasn't the black mumba murder of Michael Madsen's character in KBII sadistically cool and deserving a place in a bond film (even though, admittedly, it was a bit too verbal, like most Tarantino)? Which leads us to my other point: the project would be good, if, and only if, some control was enforced on Tarantino, so that the film would not break any rules and formats of the franchise.

I hope everything 's clearer now.

[SecretAgentFan]

The only question remains: Will Tarantino still be doing "his" kind of movies after "Basterds" flops? I guess he´s mightily nervous right now since the Weinsteins put all their remaining money on this release. If "Basterds" flops and I think it will the Weinstein Company will be in serious danger to close shop. And who wants to do another "Tarantino" movie after his last two have tanked?

Let´s face it: The only reason he suddenly wanted "Basterds" to go in front of the cameras that fast was that he now has to prove himself after the "Grindhouse" debacle.

[HildebrandRarity]

The idea - pgram's - that Vesper is over-used in Quantum is a bit way out there. The over-sentimentalization idea is also complete rubbish.

How many different ways can you do From Russia With Love and Goldfinger before you stagnate yourself into oblivion and movie-goers en mass stop caring about the lead character?

If you have a wooden character that is just a plain assassin and womanizer and a wooden actor playing that character, you'll go the way of Die Hards, Lethal Weapons, Pick-Your-Franchise and fizzle out at 3 movies.

Quantum Of Solace was a breath of fresh air but you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

As per Tarantino...well, he's a has been and I find it ammusing that every time he has a film coming out he tries to tie his name to James Bond in Casino Royale.

[tdalton]

The idea - pgram's - that Vesper is over-used in Quantum is a bit way out there. The over-sentimentalization idea is also complete rubbish.

How many different ways can you do From Russia With Love and Goldfinger before you stagnate yourself into oblivion and movie-goers en mass stop caring about the lead character?

If you have a wooden character that is just a plain assassin and womanizer and a wooden actor playing that character, you'll go the way of Die Hards, Lethal Weapons, Pick-Your-Franchise and fizzle out at 3 movies.

Quantum Of Solace was a breath of fresh air but you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

As per Tarantino...well, he's a has been and I find it ammusing that every time he has a film coming out he tries to tie his name to James Bond in Casino Royale.

Agreed. I think that the use of Vesper in QOS is absolutely essential, since the film picks up minutes after the end of CASINO ROYALE. I think that it would cast Bond in a very bad light if in QOS he had already forgotten about Vesper since the timeframe for the film picks up almost immediately following the film in which he lost her.

The only question remains: Will Tarantino still be doing "his" kind of movies after "Basterds" flops? I guess he´s mightily nervous right now since the Weinsteins put all their remaining money on this release. If "Basterds" flops and I think it will the Weinstein Company will be in serious danger to close shop. And who wants to do another "Tarantino" movie after his last two have tanked?

Let´s face it: The only reason he suddenly wanted "Basterds" to go in front of the cameras that fast was that he now has to prove himself after the "Grindhouse" debacle.

Agreed as well. I don't see his new film doing all that well at the box office either. It certainly doesn't appear as though their marketing campaign for the film is working. I've heard several radio spots for it as well as other advertisements for it, yet nobody I've come across seems to be talking about the film at all.

[HildebrandRarity]

Here's a peek at a Tabloid headline the week after Bastids opening:

Tarantino: Inglorious Bastids Was Not My Idea!

[sorking]

Threads merged.

...thus causing a link problem in the front page's news item.

[the villain's architect]

A little bit off topic, but does anyone else think that Tarrantino looks like Jaws' jounger brother?

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

A little bit off topic, but does anyone else think that Tarrantino looks like Jaws' jounger brother?

Well he is definitely more chatty than Jaws

[pgram]

The idea - pgram's - that Vesper is over-used in Quantum is a bit way out there. The over-sentimentalization idea is also complete rubbish.

How many different ways can you do From Russia With Love and Goldfinger before you stagnate yourself into oblivion and movie-goers en mass stop caring about the lead character?

If you have a wooden character that is just a plain assassin and womanizer and a wooden actor playing that character, you'll go the way of Die Hards, Lethal Weapons, Pick-Your-Franchise and fizzle out at 3 movies.

Quantum Of Solace was a breath of fresh air but you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

As per Tarantino...well, he's a has been and I find it ammusing that every time he has a film coming out he tries to tie his name to James Bond in Casino Royale.

The idea that a man's Bond film has to be FRWL or GF over again is, to put it mildly, not clever, and obviously not mine, just like the rest nonsense about wooden actors and so on. If you prefer to watch Steel Magnolias it's up to you. I 'm starting getting tired of people thinking they 're reviewing films when they 're in fact just rephrasing interviews of the producers.

[sorking]

1. The Tarantino-Brosnan project for CR was an extremely interesting opportunity.

I agree it would be interesting, but I wouldn't go so far as one writer's daydream project getting a public mention being much of 'an opportunity'.

I think this hypothetical film would have been a disaster. The 'keep Brosnan, but go back to the period setting' idea is awfully weak - a shallow 'just for the coolness' pitch that lacks substance - and the man's writing and directing style is, for me, woefully inappropriate. (And I speak as someone who liked many of his films just fine, not one of the 'hate Quentin' crowd.)

2. The rationale behind its refusal involved the franchise reboot. Me thinks it was stupid and unnecessary and harmed CR. If you think that means I 'm saying it was a bad film, it's up to you. I 'm not, though.

The refusal wasn't because 'we're doing a reboot', though. He wasn't refused on the grounds of where they wanted to take the franchise. Hell, he wasn't even technically refused - without Guild membership, how could he even have formally approached?

CR the book isn't a Bond origin story, but it is a first chapter. The origin stuff remains a filmic invention. Whether it worked for you or not - and it sure worked for me - has no bearing on Tarantino's cack-handed pitch.

I disagree with points 3, 4, and 5, but have nothing to add to the debate there beyond reiterating that the emotional content of the rebooted series has given the series such a critically and financially successful period that only a fool discounts it, or dismissively labels it 'emo'. After twenty years of lip-service characterisation, this approach is working for enough people to suggest that Tarantino's 'all style, no depth' approach would have been exceedingly bad timing box office-wise. The zeitgeist is in taking franchise characters seriously and substantially, and it's yielding both artistic and financial rewards.

And point 6 - that QT's films have strong Bondian elements - only makes sense to me in as much as Bond belongs to (and co-created) a genre that informs Tarantino's often-derivative work. But I don't believe he shows any ability to expand or grow those particular elements, nor to utilise them in anything more than a perfunctory way.

I'd never use the 'this isn't Bond' argument since it's an idiotically narrow perspective that discourages exactly the kind of growth such an unusual directional choice would allow. 'Emotional' (and we're talking some light-touch characterisation here, not bloody Beaches) may not be Bond to one person, just as rattled-off Tarantinoisms wouldn't seem right to others - but 'not Bond'? Like Moonraker and OHMSS are so similar!

Doing CR was as bold and interesting a choice as hiring QT would have been. You can't simply dismiss the former if you want the latter. But, for me - and certainly for the box office, since Quentin can't even use the buzz he generates to get people to see his own films - the right call was made.

Edited by sorking, 29 July 2009 - 03:16 PM.

[HildebrandRarity]

I've never watched Steel Magnolias.

The notion that wanting some/any inkling of an emotional connection with the lead character in a Bond movie is akin to wanting a Merchant Ivory-type 007 outing is plain ludicrous.

[Trident]

1. The Tarantino-Brosnan project for CR was an extremely interesting opportunity.

I agree it would be interesting, but I wouldn't go so far as one writer's daydream project getting a public mention being much of 'an opportunity'.

I think this hypothetical film would have been a disaster. The 'keep Brosnan, but go back to the period setting' idea is awfully weak - a shallow 'just for the coolness' pitch that lacks substance - and the man's writing and directing style is, for me, woefully inappropriate. (And I speak as someone who liked many of his films just fine, not one of the 'hate Quentin' crowd.)

2. The rationale behind its refusal involved the franchise reboot. Me thinks it was stupid and unnecessary and harmed CR. If you think that means I 'm saying it was a bad film, it's up to you. I 'm not, though.

The refusal wasn't because 'we're doing a reboot', though. He wasn't refused on the grounds of where they wanted to take the franchise. Hell, he wasn't even technically refused - without Guild membership, how could he even have formally approached?

CR the book isn't a Bond origin story, but it is a first chapter. The origin stuff remains a filmic invention. Whether it worked for you or not - and it sure worked for me - has no bearing on Tarantino's cack-handed pitch.

I disagree with points 3, 4, and 5, but have nothing to add to the debate there beyond reiterating that the emotional content of the rebooted series has given the series such a critically and financially successful period that only a fool discounts it, or dismissively labels it 'emo'. After twenty years of lip-service characterisation, this approach is working for enough people to suggest that Tarantino's 'all style, no depth' approach would have been exceedingly bad timing box office-wise. The zeitgeist is in taking franchise characters seriously and substantially, and it's yielding both artistic and financial rewards.

And point 6 - that QT's films have strong Bondian elements - only makes sense to me in as much as Bond belongs to (and co-created) a genre that informs Tarantino's often-derivative work. But I don't believe he shows any ability to expand or grow those particular elements, nor to utilise them in anything more than a perfunctory way.

I'd never use the 'this isn't Bond' argument since it's an idiotically narrow perspective that discourages exactly the kind of growth such an unusual directional choice would allow. 'Emotional' (and we're talking some light-touch characterisation here, not bloody Beaches) may not be Bond to one person, just as rattled-off Tarantinoisms wouldn't seem right to others - but 'not Bond'? Like Moonraker and OHMSS are so similar!

Doing CR was as bold and interesting a choice as hiring QT would have been. You can't simply dismiss the former if you want the latter. But, for me - and certainly for the box office, since Quentin can't even use the buzz he generates to get people to see his own films - the right call was made.

I have to say I agree with most of the above. I honestly don't see where and how Tarantino would have added any substantial impact to the series apart from a particularly hyper-stylized entry. Heavy on the visual side, but that isn't something the series lacked, even before Tarantino, in the first place. So where's the beef? Just doing a period piece cannot sell an entire film, there's got to be a little more than that. Tarantino didn't promise to show Bond as we've never seen him before. He wanted to show him as he's seen him all along, in his director's dreams, the definite Bond film, period.

I don't think the product would have had the same dream-like quality for most of us, let alone for the general audiences.

[The Ghost Who Walks]

I think Tarantino is a wonderful director (despite the misfire that was "Death Proof"), and I would like to see him make a Bond movie one day. Nobody's ever said a Tarantino Bond would have to feature the style of dialogue he is known for or other of his trademarks. The idea of placing a CR movie starring Brosnan right after OHMSS is beyond ridicilous, but I'd still be happy to give the man a chance to show he can do Bond. I am sure it will never happen now, though.

Kill Bill also proved he can direct action far better than most of today's blockbuster helmers (such as Mr. Bay and Mr. Sommers).

[sorking]

Nobody's ever said a Tarantino Bond would have to feature the style of dialogue he is known for or other of his trademarks.

Doesn't matter. Even if he wrote it as the literal Fleming adaptation he suggested, what does he bring? 'Bond being cool' and close-ups of the leading lady's feet? This isn't a director of depth, after all, but one of style.

Regardless, the dialogue would leak through, of course it would. Without his dialogue style, Tarantino has almost no gift for character. That handicap would make the experience pretty painful. And it's a style he's incapable of setting aside - even when the material doesn't justify the indulgence, he dives into it. He can't restrain himself. For all his talents, Kill Bill and Death proof only go to show that he's incapable of adapting himself to other genres; in the end, he just can't shut himself up.

Kill Bill also proved he can direct action far better than most of today's blockbuster helmers (such as Mr. Bay and Mr. Sommers).

Sadly it also proved he doesn't have a clue how to structure an action movie - forgetting to put almost anything in the entire second half of the story is a bit of an oversight. Though not much worse than forgetting to put any significant narrative turns in there either...

Also, anyone who thinks that you edit a black and white sequence the same way as a colour one - and so can just switch between them when you hit MPAA trouble - is an idiot. Basic eye/brain recognition speeds change completely when you don't have colour there to assist.

The Bond series wouldn't especially benefit from that kind of boneheaded, 'cos it'll be cool, man' decision making. For me, a more considered intellect is required. Which is not to say that a QT Bond wouldn't ooze cool - I just think too much would be thrown out, or rendered ridiculous, in the process.

[HildebrandRarity]

Further to sorking's astute observations, how can any film or movie fan respect a director who sanctions the cutting of a film into two short releases, where one is massively over-loaded w action whilst the other has little to virtually none, purely for prospective monetary gain!?!?

It would have been fine if the two halves of the 'story' were in one 2.5 hour 'movie'...but nooooooo!

Abysmal!

[Bryce (003)]

I've got nothing against QT and I've certainly enjoyed his films and shared a few (read: dozen or so) drinks with him. He loves to talk film and his idea of doing CR as a period piece did seem interesting. MGW has mentioned that was a notion in many of the documentarires at one time or another.

But, in the "here and now", to keep re-hashing it again and again does no one any service. Himself, the Bond franchise or we fans.

QT - Let it go man. If you're aching to direct a Bond, fine, I'd personally have no problem with it or you behind the camera with the right script. You'd have a great crew and leading man to work with, but this ain't the way to go about.

It's Hollywood...Play the game.

If you don't like the hand, then just fold, pay out and walk away from the table....and for God's and the rest of our sakes...Quit bitching about it publicly.