36 replies to this topic

[JimmyBond]

Hypothetically, Tarantino writes and directs the next Bond film. Hypothetically, it's a huge hit, rakes in millions upon millions of dollars, the press is calling it the return of Commander Bond. The best Bond ever, etc. etc.

After the noise dies down...what happens to Bond 22? If Tarantino does do the next Bond film, I see it as a one off, I don't see Tarantino letting himself get tied down to the Bond series. I'd imagine he'd want to go onto bigger things. So what could EON do that wouldnt make Bond 21 look like an anomoly? I mean if they went back to making cookie cutter Bond films people would complain. If they tried to emulate the succes of Bond 21 people would complain they were copying themselves. It does seem like dead end doesnt it?

Or perhaps, this could open the door for other big name directors to come in and put their stamp on the series (a tantalizing prospect, methinks), so, what do you guys think?

[SeaNNy-T.]

interesting idea. i hope tarantino does do it and pierce as bond, I hope it will be the greatest film since the Connery days. maybe win oscars as well!

[SPECTRE ASSASSIN]

Then Quentin is therefore not a social outcast from the movie industry and once again make stamp on cinema history!! Hypothetically.

[Bond Bug]

I think they can go back to the spectacular after a Tarantino Bond.


Firstly Tarantino (ideally) would be showing us new aspects to the Bond character and injecting coolness into the movie. There's no reason why that shouldn't continue in the next Bond, but it might mean that less time is spent on explosions and car chases. The action sequences could be fewer or shorter.

Octopussy was a success after For Your Eyes Only, so Bond 22 after 21 doesn't have to stay in strict Tarantino formular, which will still in essence follow much of the standard Bond structure anyway.

The main problem is that the audience and critics could say Tarantino is better than Eon and that could hurt the egos of those at Eon. That is why it seems unlikely to happen.

Eon like to be in control. They are very closely associated with the success and longevity of James Bond movies. By letting Tarantino and Brosnan start calling the shots they put their reputations on the line (from their point of view, I would imagine).

Personally I'm not a big fan of Tarantino, but I can see that he is probably the right person to direct a Bond, because invisible cars and over use of gadgets and illogical stunts make Bond look like joke to many people. The formular is tired. Tarantino would turn Bond cool and spark off media and public attention in the next Bond movie that we haven't seen for decades.

Edited by Bond Bug, 18 April 2004 - 12:47 AM.

[00-FAN008]

If Tarantino does the greatest bond film ever, I will pray he does the one after that! I have not seen any of the Kill Bill movies, but I hear they're wicked.

[Agent 76]

I hope he does the next Bond.
He really knows how to give coolness and feeling to a movie , let him do what he does best : Films!

I say let him do it.

[SeaNNy-T.]

kill bill 1 is ok and the 2nd is soppose to be better.

on the record though im in full support of Bond 21 with Tarantino directing, Pierce as Bond, and titling it 'Casino Royale'.

[JimmyBond]

kill bill 1 is ok and the 2nd is soppose to be better.

From a certain point of view. I just got back from Volume 1, and let me put it this way. Volume 1 is a balls to the wall action film, and it kicks . Volume 2 answers the questions raised by Volume 1 and develops every character and makes you care about them. So there you go, Tarantino is great at action and characterization.

The point I was trying to make with this thread though, was that if Tarantino makes the best Bond film ever, what the hell does EON do for Bond 22? I think Bond Bug answered the question spectacularly

[Tarl_Cabot]

Bond fans have absolutely nothing to lose by having a Tarantino Bond film...even if it's just one masterpiece or dud and we return to mediocredy it'll be worth it!

Imagine if Diamonds are Forever had been directed by Sergio Leone! How awesome would that have been? Tarantino is the modern Sergio Leone-the man!

[Roebuck]

Lets compare Tarantino's Bond to Frank Miller's ''Dark Knight Returns''.
In the eighties Batman was still one of the Best known and successful comic book super heroes, but he'd kind of lost his gloss.
Forty years of tweaking the character to appeal to current tastes had brought him to the position where people weren't sure who Batman was anymore. They remembered the over abundance of Bat gadgets. They remembered the overweight guy in tights from the TV series. Lord help us, they even remembered Bat Fink!! But the spirit was gone.
Then along comes Miller. His graphic novel takes a more mature approach to Batman. It's a little more violent and has a bold new visual style. He still uses gadgetry, but it's believable technology. More firmly rooted in the real world. Miller is steeped in the lore and doesn't take any liberties with the character or what we know of his history. He goes back to bat basics (apologies).

The book's a success. Miller manages to attract a whole new generation of Bat fans while at the same time keeping the old guard happy. Many fans feel ''Dark Knight Returns'' is the best graphic novel ever produced in America and it puts the comic back on course. It rejuvenates the franchise and it becomes more popular than ever.

That's what EON needs. A new benchmark. Something more recent than FRWL or Goldfinger for subsequent writers and directors to build from.

Edited by Roebuck, 18 April 2004 - 11:48 AM.

[Loomis]

Tarantino and Bond sounds like a match made in movie heaven. Shame it'll never, ever happen, though.

Why won't it ever happen? Well:

- Tarantino would never work as a director-for-hire under Broccoli and Wilson. He's far too independent, too used to getting his own way, too expensive....

- Eon doesn't actually need a big name director like Tarantino. Commercially, the Bonds are doing just fine. Granted, they might be looking at A-list directors if they were trying to relaunch the series from scratch after many years in the wilderness, but they're not trying to do that. Bluntly, Eon needs jobbing yes-men directors who'll be happy to take orders and won't want to rock the boat.

- Eon will never in a million years sell Tarantino or anyone else the rights to go off and make "Casino Royale".

And so on, and so forth.

[Harmsway]

I can certainly understand the hope that Tarantino will re-boot the Bond franchise into something cooler. And if he does make the greatest Bond film ever (which he might, though I doubt it), then wonderful, because he's made the greatest Bond film ever.

Hopefully EON would see the light and hire other name directors. I want to see a Robert Rodriguez Bond. I want to see a Tony Scott Bond. I want to see a Stephen Soderbergh Bond. I want to see Bond revitalized with big names attached every time. One-off adventures, each one different from the others. That's my one true wish for the Bond series.

[TheCheat]

if he makes the best Bond film ever he can simply add that to his wall of great accomplishments and the bond series will be changed forever

i hope

Edited by TheCheat, 18 April 2004 - 01:55 PM.

[JackChase007]

In this hypothetical situation:
Tarantino makes Bond 21: Casino Royale, starring Pierce Brosnan as Ian Fleming's legendary secret agent that we all so love. The film is a brilliant adaptation - a gritty, grizzled thriller that recalls the likes of From Russia With Love, which focus on character and plot. The film does well in the box office for several reasons:

[Bond Bug]

The Bond movies are doing just fine, but just fine isn't good enough.

Compared to budget, the movies are underperforming at the boxoffice. The last one's budget was in the top ten of all time but took less than Goldeneye in real terms.

How can they keep trying to outdo the next Bond in terms of stunts? They can only do that by creating tension and an aspect of believability and the question should really be: how do they outdo JAMES BOND the man in the next one?

That doesn't have to be an overly violent or dark movie. Instead of making James Bond fit in between the stunts, you make the stunts fit in between James Bond and stunts that are logical to the character.

It isn't really a seizmic shift that's needed, it's just remembering that Bond is a human being, not just a link from one stuntman to another. The explosions can still be as big as ever.

[SeaNNy-T.]

Tarantino and Bond sounds like a match made in movie heaven. Shame it'll never, ever happen, though.

Why won't it ever happen? Well:

- Tarantino would never work as a director-for-hire under Broccoli and Wilson. He's far too independent, too used to getting his own way, too expensive....

- Eon doesn't actually need a big name director like Tarantino. Commercially, the Bonds are doing just fine. Granted, they might be looking at A-list directors if they were trying to relaunch the series from scratch after many years in the wilderness, but they're not trying to do that. Bluntly, Eon needs jobbing yes-men directors who'll be happy to take orders and won't want to rock the boat.

- Eon will never in a million years sell Tarantino or anyone else the rights to go off and make "Casino Royale".

And so on, and so forth.

Tarantino would work for them because hes the one who said he would do a Bond film. so how can you say Tarantino wouldnt do it?

[Loomis]

Tarantino and Bond sounds like a match made in movie heaven. Shame it'll never, ever happen, though.

Why won't it ever happen? Well:

- Tarantino would never work as a director-for-hire under Broccoli and Wilson. He's far too independent, too used to getting his own way, too expensive....

- Eon doesn't actually need a big name director like Tarantino. Commercially, the Bonds are doing just fine. Granted, they might be looking at A-list directors if they were trying to relaunch the series from scratch after many years in the wilderness, but they're not trying to do that. Bluntly, Eon needs jobbing yes-men directors who'll be happy to take orders and won't want to rock the boat.

- Eon will never in a million years sell Tarantino or anyone else the rights to go off and make "Casino Royale".

And so on, and so forth.

Tarantino would work for them because hes the one who said he would do a Bond film. so how can you say Tarantino wouldnt do it?

Tarantino has said that he'd be interested in doing a Bond film, but he's never said that he'd be willing to do one for Eon. And you know what? He wouldn't. Not in a million, trillion years.

I've explained why in my previous post on this thread.

The only way Tarantino will ever get to make a Bond is if he gets the rights to do so outside the "official" MGM/Eon franchise, and it's very, very unlikely that he'll ever get those rights, and he knows it.

I think all this Bond talk from Tarantino doesn't really mean very much. He's just shooting the breeze while trying to market KILL BILL VOL 2. Talking about James Bond doesn't cost him anything, and gets him plenty of publicity. A lot of people who've never heard of Tarantino and didn't plan on seeing KILL BILL now know his name thanks to his comments on Bond.

Besides, Tarantino's followup to KILL BILL has long been announced as the World War II movie INGLORIOUS BASTARDS.

Bond fans shouldn't get their hopes up too much about Tarantino. Sure, if he had permission, and if his schedule were free, he might well do CASINO ROYALE or another Bond flick (but only on his own terms, of course). Big "if"s = big deal. If I were a multi-millionaire I'd buy an amazing, large house in the centre of London.

Seriously, don't get all jazzed about the prospect of a Tarantino Bond film, because it's very, very, very unlikely indeed, regardless of whatever words may currently be issuing from Tarantino's (big) mouth.

[Bond Bug]

I agree it is unlikely. I think Eon would have to have script approval whatever happens. Bond is their baby and they aren't going to let somebody mess with that without any control.

But I also think something is going on that is unusual. The Bond producers are in a state of paralysis as Brosnan said. I think they could well be thinking about doing something different, so although unlikely, I wouldn't rule it out.

If I was Eon, I would at least listen to Tarantino and if his ideas sound worth thinking about and he had some flexibility to incorporate certain basic fundamentals and was happy to use the Eon production team, I would say to him go away and come back with a script and storyboards, but we aren't committing to anything at this stage, but we will consider what you've got.

[JimmyBond]

Loomis, you make agreat point, but you're wrong on one point. You say:

Tarantino has said that he'd be interested in doing a Bond film, but he's never said that he'd be willing to do one for Eon. And you know what? He wouldn't. Not in a million, trillion years.

He did say he'd do one for EON, he said just that. He might not have come right out and said it, but if you read between the lines it's there. The reason he's getting this out there, is to let EON know he's interested, he'd love to make a Bond film that's part of the official series. Whether EON even talks to him long enough to say "no" is the question we should be thinking about.

[Roebuck]

The reason he's getting this out there, is to let EON know he's interested, he'd love to make a Bond film that's part of the official series. Whether EON even talks to him long enough to say "no" is the question we should be thinking about.

If Broccoli & Wilson were prepared to meet with Britney Spears as a 'courtesy', they should at least consider extending the same courtesy to Tarantino. The guy has publicly announced he'd be interested in the gig and, if the producers are genuinely unsure what approach to take for Bond 21, I don't see how talking with him could hurt. An hour of their time that may or may not lead to an exciting new direction for the franchise.

[Bond Bug]

Really Eon should consider what Tarantino is saying as a great compliment.

[Bond Bug]

I think Bond Bug answered the question spectacularly

That's very kind of you JimmyBond

[daman3755]

Tarantino and Bond sounds like a match made in movie heaven. Shame it'll never, ever happen, though.

Why won't it ever happen? Well:

- Tarantino would never work as a director-for-hire under Broccoli and Wilson. He's far too independent, too used to getting his own way, too expensive....

- Eon doesn't actually need a big name director like Tarantino. Commercially, the Bonds are doing just fine. Granted, they might be looking at A-list directors if they were trying to relaunch the series from scratch after many years in the wilderness, but they're not trying to do that. Bluntly, Eon needs jobbing yes-men directors who'll be happy to take orders and won't want to rock the boat.

- Eon will never in a million years sell Tarantino or anyone else the rights to go off and make "Casino Royale".

And so on, and so forth.

You're joking. Wait, wait, lemme read this again. Too independent, sure, but too EXPENSIVE? Oh, so Lee Tamahori was a cheap man was he? Okay, let's take a look at the numbers, US only. The film was made for $142 million dollars. Overblown, yes, this isn't a Michael Bay or Steven Spielberg film. In the US alone "Die Another Day" grossed $160 million dollars and change. THAT is not a good profit. So MGM only made $18 million in the US, but more overseas, sure. Tarantino has said the budgets are too airy (and he isn't kidding, over $100 million dollars, what the...?!) and he could do one for $40 or $60 mil. THAT's inexpensive nowadays. I mean, I saw "Kill Bill Volume 2" again on Friday and I was still blown away. (FYI the entire film was made for $60 mil and is officially only making profits back - that's right, "Kill Bill" has reaped in about $36 mil dollars in the US, twice the amount of what "Die Another Day" did in the US.) The movie is barely rated R, just remove the scattered F-words and you've got a great flick that makes you care for the characters. I'm growing ill of people badmouthing him and not giving him credit for his work. Yes, he has quite an imagination and a strange creativeness, but dammit he knows a LOT about pop culture and I wish I did at times. And as for what you say about how the newer 007 flicks are successful commercially, that is the tip of the iceberg. You can't have yes-men directing these flicks.

Okay, I'll come out with it, Lee Tamahori should have had the ****s to say no to some of that crap that happened in DAD. Mike Apted should have complained when TWINE was trimmed to a slimmer runtime. (Okay, so maybe he should have argued for a longer cut for a DVD version.) If you have a director who'll do anything to make the producers happy - then forget him. You need to have someone who'll take a look at what is supposed to happen and say, "No this is unfeasible." Tamahori should have KNOWN that whole ice surfing sequence in DAD was a total mistake. But hey, if EON wants to keep making movies that are more sci-fi than spy thriller, then fine, go go, here's your over-extravagent budget and here's everyone you wanted. We don't care about the money cos we say yes to anything! Example of a idealist who went his way - Paul Schrader on that "Exorcist" prequel. He made a movie that was more drama than action and the studio HATED it. They wanted action, thrills, so they got yes-man Renny Harlin (who, to me, hasn't been any good since "The Long Kiss Goodnight") to redo the whole damn thing. Result? While Harlin's version comes out this August, Schrader is making up a BIG storm to get his flick released too.

And before you correct me, I am aware that "Die Another Day" made $264 mill outside of the US. Loomis, I've respected your every post and agreed with you on most aspects, but not this one. I stand by QT and his stance on "Casino Royale." I heard EON wants to use the title, but NOT the story. If they do that - and I swear to God - I'll fly over to London and protest outside of Pinewood! I'm a moviephile and my stance - let QT direct and make co-write, but in the name of God NO MORE 007 FLICKS LIKE "DIE ANOTHER DAY"! End rant...I need Advil...oh and I am aware that it prolly won't happen, I'm just playing the devil's advocate!

Edited by daman3755, 19 April 2004 - 01:24 AM.

[JimmyBond]

I stand by daman3755's comments 100% except for the point on DAD, I love that film. But I don't want to see another Bond film done like it, not the next film, and hell. Maybe not ever, DAD is as far as my goodwill extends when it comes to accepting the silliness of a Bond film.

[Arrant]

In Last Friday's ( 16\04\04) Daily Telegraph the film critic mentioned (at the end of an article on Tarantino) " Rumor from Hollywood is that Tarantino & BROSNAN are having SERIOUS discussions about Casino Royale".
Granted that might just be his interpretation of what we are discussing here, but it sounds a lot more promising if Brosnan is prepared to throw his weight behind it.
In the other "Tarantino must direct thread" I compared the situation with Bond with the situation comic book producers found themselves in a couple of years back & how they solved the problem of constantly reinventing old & increasingly tired looking commercial properties "spider-man", "x-men" etc by stripping them back to the very basics, that made them popular in the first place.
They even told the same original stories again, but from a modern perspective and to nearly everyone

[Loomis]

Tarantino and Bond sounds like a match made in movie heaven. Shame it'll never, ever happen, though.

Why won't it ever happen? Well:

- Tarantino would never work as a director-for-hire under Broccoli and Wilson. He's far too independent, too used to getting his own way, too expensive....

- Eon doesn't actually need a big name director like Tarantino. Commercially, the Bonds are doing just fine. Granted, they might be looking at A-list directors if they were trying to relaunch the series from scratch after many years in the wilderness, but they're not trying to do that. Bluntly, Eon needs jobbing yes-men directors who'll be happy to take orders and won't want to rock the boat.

- Eon will never in a million years sell Tarantino or anyone else the rights to go off and make "Casino Royale".

And so on, and so forth.

You're joking. Wait, wait, lemme read this again. Too independent, sure, but too EXPENSIVE? Oh, so Lee Tamahori was a cheap man was he? Okay, let's take a look at the numbers, US only. The film was made for $142 million dollars. Overblown, yes, this isn't a Michael Bay or Steven Spielberg film. In the US alone "Die Another Day" grossed $160 million dollars and change. THAT is not a good profit. So MGM only made $18 million in the US, but more overseas, sure. Tarantino has said the budgets are too airy (and he isn't kidding, over $100 million dollars, what the...?!) and he could do one for $40 or $60 mil. THAT's inexpensive nowadays. I mean, I saw "Kill Bill Volume 2" again on Friday and I was still blown away. (FYI the entire film was made for $60 mil and is officially only making profits back - that's right, "Kill Bill" has reaped in about $36 mil dollars in the US, twice the amount of what "Die Another Day" did in the US.) The movie is barely rated R, just remove the scattered F-words and you've got a great flick that makes you care for the characters. I'm growing ill of people badmouthing him and not giving him credit for his work. Yes, he has quite an imagination and a strange creativeness, but dammit he knows a LOT about pop culture and I wish I did at times. And as for what you say about how the newer 007 flicks are successful commercially, that is the tip of the iceberg. You can't have yes-men directing these flicks.

Okay, I'll come out with it, Lee Tamahori should have had the ****s to say no to some of that crap that happened in DAD. Mike Apted should have complained when TWINE was trimmed to a slimmer runtime. (Okay, so maybe he should have argued for a longer cut for a DVD version.) If you have a director who'll do anything to make the producers happy - then forget him. You need to have someone who'll take a look at what is supposed to happen and say, "No this is unfeasible." Tamahori should have KNOWN that whole ice surfing sequence in DAD was a total mistake. But hey, if EON wants to keep making movies that are more sci-fi than spy thriller, then fine, go go, here's your over-extravagent budget and here's everyone you wanted. We don't care about the money cos we say yes to anything! Example of a idealist who went his way - Paul Schrader on that "Exorcist" prequel. He made a movie that was more drama than action and the studio HATED it. They wanted action, thrills, so they got yes-man Renny Harlin (who, to me, hasn't been any good since "The Long Kiss Goodnight") to redo the whole damn thing. Result? While Harlin's version comes out this August, Schrader is making up a BIG storm to get his flick released too.

And before you correct me, I am aware that "Die Another Day" made $264 mill outside of the US. Loomis, I've respected your every post and agreed with you on most aspects, but not this one. I stand by QT and his stance on "Casino Royale." I heard EON wants to use the title, but NOT the story. If they do that - and I swear to God - I'll fly over to London and protest outside of Pinewood! I'm a moviephile and my stance - let QT direct and make co-write, but in the name of God NO MORE 007 FLICKS LIKE "DIE ANOTHER DAY"! End rant...I need Advil...oh and I am aware that it prolly won't happen, I'm just playing the devil's advocate!

Nice post, daman3755. Very well-argued.

Still, I continue to wonder why a hugely famous, critically-acclaimed, ambitious and independent auteur director like Tarantino (who would be considerably more expensive to hire than a Lee Tamahori - LT got $2.5 million for DAD, I believe, and I reckon QT would command a heck of a lot more than that) would even consider working as Eon's hired help. A bit like the idea of one of the world's most celebrated chefs going to work at Burger King, to my mind.

[Loomis]

Here's another theory to support my don't-get-your-hopes-up-about-Quentin stance:

If you believe the rumour that Tony Scott was in discussions to direct DIE ANOTHER DAY and mentioned Tarantino as a possible screenwriter to Broccoli and Wilson (who were horrified by the suggestion), Tarantino has actually already been turned down for work on a Bond film by Eon Productions.

Perhaps Tarantino's comments on Brosnan and "Casino Royale" are, as well as an attempt to get some free publicity while KILL BILL 2 hits screens and KILL BILL 1 makes its way onto DVD, a bit of a dig at Eon designed to piss them off a little. In other words, he's having a little malicious fun by stirring the pot of "Is Brosnan in or out?" rumours and by getting thousands of people talking about how he, Tarantino, would make a much, much better Bond film than the people behind the (currently creatively bankrupt) franchise.

[Jim]

A bit like the idea of one of the world's most celebrated chefs going to work at Burger King, to my mind.

Some very passionate ideas in all posts here, but this comment pretty much encapsulates my thought. The James Bond series doesn't deserve him.

[daman3755]

Here's another theory to support my don't-get-your-hopes-up-about-Quentin stance:

If you believe the rumour that Tony Scott was in discussions to direct DIE ANOTHER DAY and mentioned Tarantino as a possible screenwriter to Broccoli and Wilson (who were horrified by the suggestion), Tarantino has actually already been turned down for work on a Bond film by Eon Productions.

Perhaps Tarantino's comments on Brosnan and "Casino Royale" are, as well as an attempt to get some free publicity while KILL BILL 2 hits screens and KILL BILL 1 makes its way onto DVD, a bit of a dig at Eon designed to piss them off a little. In other words, he's having a little malicious fun by stirring the pot of "Is Brosnan in or out?" rumours and by getting thousands of people talking about how he, Tarantino, would make a much, much better Bond film than the people behind the (currently creatively bankrupt) franchise.

I have never heard that rumor befoer. Tony Scott directing DAD instead? *snap fingers* Damn that would have been one sweet flick. I still have "Man On Fire" at least. But I mean...even if QT is just talking to make EON go apepoo, he's doing a fine job. Volume 1 sold something like 2 million copies last week and is poised to make as much on DVD as in the theaters! Bloody marvelous. My hopes aren't up, but I can dream can't I?

Oh, and thanks Loomis and Jimmy Bond!

[JimmyBond]

The James Bond series doesn't deserve him.

The Bond series doesnt, but what about us fans? Looking over at the IMDB user reviews section for DAD, it is very mixed. Half hated the film and half loved it. You know those half that loved DAD would go see the next Bond film no matter what, and the other half might not. Someone who doesnt post here very much once complained that EON was alienating the fans while making cookie cutter Bond films. At the time I disagreed with him because I was still wrapped up in the hype of DAD. But hindsight is 20/20, and while yes, I do like DAD, I feel we deserve better. There is just no reason that we can't get really great Bond films. EON has to take a chance.

The Star Trek series is incapable of trying new things, and it hit the bottom of the barrel (And I love Star Trek!) I don't want the Bond series to suffer the same fate.