"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
Get. Over. Yourself.
So let's be clear on this one - you'd like Eon to thank you for making Casino Royale such a success?
They hired great writers, got a smart (and previous Bond) director, found an actor who blew people away. But it's your off-hand comments to the press that really made the difference? The rights to the book had a tangled legal history going back well over 40 years, but really they were just waiting for you to make that book 'hot'?
The adaptation you spoke of - which you would direct - was discussed (sometimes, anyway) as being 'period'. Whether it had ended up being that way or not, you said it would be a direct version of the novel.
Now, let's ignore the fact that you're incapable of direct adaptation. I love Jackie Brown, but it ain't 'just the book'. And neither was the movie we saw last year a simple, direct transcription of Fleming's novel.
Let's also ignore the fact that saying 'I'd love to make a Bond film this way' is something half the filmmakers in the world say (though not usually publicly, not usually as an attempt to create self-fulfilling prophesy). It's what drove Spielberg into making Indiana Jones.
The Bonds are aspirational for many cinematic creatives. And they're aspirational because they're ALREADY big. So big, in fact, that a few loudmouth statements about chatting to Brosnan in Cannes probably won't impact the box-office too much.
Let's even ignore the fact that you're currently coming off the biggest box-office flop of your career. Reviews be damned, you're looking at a Tarantino dream project that couldn't even make its (low) budget back. Because, it turns out, the public at large - the people who pay for the tickets - don't really care about what you think is 'cool' any more. Your name attached to a project guarantees nothing - so mumbling about a daydream in an interview probably ain't making a difference either.
Let's just stick to one, simple thing.
Wilson, Brocolli, Purvis & Wade: These people are steeped in Bond lore. You think, before you mentioned it - before you tried to start a rumour that you'd take a crack at Bond, a rumour that was never anything more - that these guys had never once, ever, considered adapting Casino Royale?
"Gee Babs, we've run out of novels, the best of the short stories are gone. Now whadda we do?"
"I dunno Mike. But on a totally separate subject, the legal tussle over Casino Royale is over. MGM have picked up the old flick, and the first novel has finally become ours to utilise cinematically."
"Well that's great, I guess. But, anyway, back to this 'lack of materal to adapt' problem - any ideas?"
The movie you pitched - Quentin, old buddy - wasn't 'Bond learning his craft'. It was discussed as having Brosnan in it, for crying out loud. It would have been his fifth movie in the role. (It would also have been a stylistic disaster for the franchise, but that's another story.)
If you can't see that rights issues and a smart 'reboot' concept are the reasons CR got made the way it did - rather than the comments of a director whose ego has now far outstripped his once-considerable talent - then you have you head up your...well, let's say 'ego' again.
But if you can't appreciate that, then at least understand that the film was a success due to its qualities. Due to the script, the production, the performances, the marketing, and a tightly-managed 40-year cinematic legacy that keeps people coming back for more.
It probably wasn't due to a few comments by a director who, it turns out, can't even use interviews to get people to see his OWN films.
P.S. I have this idea for adapting the Watchmen comic book as, like, a movie. It'd have great actors in it, and be totally true to the graphic novel. (N.B. If any news editors wish to quote this, please go ahead. I'm looking to take credit for Zack Snyder's movie when it comes out thanks to my brilliant and totally original idea. Cheers.)
Edited by sorking, 04 September 2007 - 05:04 PM.