Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

A Message For Quentin


164 replies to this topic

#1 sorking

sorking

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 562 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 04 September 2007 - 11:39 AM

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,

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?

Really?

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.

Thank you,

Sorking

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.


#2 Qwerty

Qwerty

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 85605 posts
  • Location:New York / Pennsylvania

Posted 04 September 2007 - 02:00 PM

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

#3 stamper

stamper

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2994 posts
  • Location:Under the sea

Posted 04 September 2007 - 02:48 PM

I'm going to sue Tarantino. Once over a cocktail, we both chatted about Bond, and I was the one who suggested that making CR as a period piece might be great.

#4 danslittlefinger

danslittlefinger

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3680 posts
  • Location:“If not here . . . then elsewhere.”

Posted 27 July 2009 - 06:14 PM

http://www.showbizsp...james-bond.html

Daniel Craig wouldn’t be playing James Bond — if director Quentin Tarantino had his way.

The eccentric movie maker said he would like to have directed Casino Royale — but with Pierce Brosnan as the suave British spy.

“The reason they did Casino Royale all comes down to me,” Quentin said.

“I made it a point, I said I wanted to do Casino Royale. They were already on record as saying the movie was unfilmable but then after I said it and talked about it for a little bit — then the big thing on all the internets was that that was what all the fans wanted to see and so that’s when they said, ‘Oh, maybe it’s not so un-filmable.’


“Actually if I had done the film, I wouldn’t have done it with Daniel Craig, I would have done it with Pierce Brosnan.”

Tarantino also confessed to being a fan of romantic comedies.

“These rom-coms get a bad rap but actually I’ve been a fan of romantic comedies since the 30s — they usually work on wordplay and everything like that, so I actually think I’d be really good at it,” he said.

“It is a guilty pleasure. I used to find it hard to actually go to the movies by myself, you want to have a date with you so you have an excuse to go.”

B)

#5 DamnCoffee

DamnCoffee

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 24459 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 27 July 2009 - 06:23 PM

Urghh. I saw this fool on Friday Night With Jonathan Ross last week, it seems he has so much resentment over EON making Casino Royale, even though they owned the rights since 1999 and have been making official Bond movies for 40 years.

I really do find it a tad bit childish that he's still pissed with EON after 4 years. As well as blabbering on about how it was all his idea. B)

#6 danslittlefinger

danslittlefinger

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3680 posts
  • Location:“If not here . . . then elsewhere.”

Posted 27 July 2009 - 06:27 PM

Urghh. I saw this fool on Friday Night With Jonathan Ross last week, it seems he has so much resentment over EON making Casino Royale, even though they owned the rights since 1999 and have been making official Bond movies for 40 years.

I really do find it a tad bit childish that he's still pissed with EON after 4 years. As well as blabbering on about how it was all his idea. B)



I agree with you there.
He's so into Brosnan, bosom buddies. :tdown:

#7 Righty007

Righty007

    Discharged.

  • Veterans Reserve
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13051 posts
  • Location:Station CLE - Cleveland

Posted 27 July 2009 - 06:40 PM

Sounds like trash of the tabloid variety.

#8 danslittlefinger

danslittlefinger

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3680 posts
  • Location:“If not here . . . then elsewhere.”

Posted 27 July 2009 - 06:42 PM

:) How constructive. Thanks so much for pointing that out. What took you so long?
B) :tdown: :tdown: :)

#9 Matt_13

Matt_13

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5969 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 27 July 2009 - 06:45 PM

Actually Jim was kind enough to provide us with his script for Casino Royale. It's somewhere around here...

#10 danslittlefinger

danslittlefinger

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3680 posts
  • Location:“If not here . . . then elsewhere.”

Posted 27 July 2009 - 06:45 PM

Actually Jim was kind enough to provide us with his script for Casino Royale. It's somewhere around here...


Really? Never saw it. Where is it on the forum?

#11 Tybre

Tybre

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3057 posts
  • Location:Pennsylvania

Posted 27 July 2009 - 07:07 PM

Actually Jim was kind enough to provide us with his script for Casino Royale. It's somewhere around here...


Really? Never saw it. Where is it on the forum?


http://debrief.comma...showtopic=52232

#12 jaguar007

jaguar007

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5608 posts
  • Location:Portland OR

Posted 27 July 2009 - 07:26 PM

QT brought this up when CR came out,

LET IT GO QUENTIN! It is very egotistical to think that EON has made CR just because of him. Broccoli had tried to get his hands on the rights for years. EON finally got them in 99. To think the only reason they filmed it was because of QT, is incredibly egotestical of him.

#13 Mister Asterix

Mister Asterix

    Commodore RNVR

  • The Admiralty
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 15519 posts
  • Location:38.6902N - 89.9816W

Posted 27 July 2009 - 07:27 PM

B) Tarantino.

#14 danslittlefinger

danslittlefinger

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3680 posts
  • Location:“If not here . . . then elsewhere.”

Posted 27 July 2009 - 07:33 PM

Actually Jim was kind enough to provide us with his script for Casino Royale. It's somewhere around here...


Really? Never saw it. Where is it on the forum?


http://debrief.comma...showtopic=52232


A-ha. Thanks.

#15 Brian Flagg

Brian Flagg

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1167 posts
  • Location:The Shrublands Clinic

Posted 27 July 2009 - 07:39 PM

Tarantino also confessed to being a fan of romantic comedies.

“These rom-coms get a bad rap but actually I’ve been a fan of romantic comedies since the 30s — they usually work on wordplay and everything like that, so I actually think I’d be really good at it,” he said.

“It is a guilty pleasure. I used to find it hard to actually go to the movies by myself, you want to have a date with you so you have an excuse to go.”

B)


Hey, that's great! Though the ones from the 1930s are usually known as "Screwball Comedies" and none of the subsequent decades ever matched the greatness of movies like The Awful Truth, Bringing Up Baby, and It Happened One Night...to name but a few.

#16 HildebrandRarity

HildebrandRarity

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4361 posts

Posted 27 July 2009 - 07:52 PM

Loser!






:tdown:

B)

#17 dinovelvet

dinovelvet

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8038 posts
  • Location:Jupiter and beyond the infinite

Posted 27 July 2009 - 08:38 PM

This is all bull[censored], and Quentin knows it. He would never direct a Bond film because he is not a member of the Director's Guild of America, and as such, no major studio will work with him; his movies are made outside the mainstream with the Weinstein Brothers.

#18 Mr. Blofeld

Mr. Blofeld

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9173 posts
  • Location:North Smithfield, RI, USA

Posted 27 July 2009 - 08:42 PM

none of the subsequent decades ever matched the greatness of movies like The Awful Truth

What, the Katherine Heigel/Gerard Butler vehicle that's out now? B)

#19 HH007

HH007

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1833 posts
  • Location:U.S.A.

Posted 27 July 2009 - 08:56 PM

B) Tarantino.


My sentiments exactly.

#20 The Dove

The Dove

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16671 posts
  • Location:Colorado Springs, Colorado

Posted 27 July 2009 - 09:09 PM

Oh Jeez... what a jerk! :tdown: I hope Tarantino's film Glorious Basterds makes absolutely NO money... B)

#21 WhiteKnight2000

WhiteKnight2000

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 301 posts

Posted 27 July 2009 - 09:58 PM

This is old news. It was known as far back as 2004 that Tarantino wanted to direct the next Bond and he wanted to direct Brosnan in what would have been his fifth movie in Casino Royale. The Bond producers snubbed Tarantino telling him that CR was unfilmable. Then what do they do? Sack Brosnan and make Casino Royale without so much as a thank you.

It's the truth guys. Deal with it.

#22 dinovelvet

dinovelvet

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8038 posts
  • Location:Jupiter and beyond the infinite

Posted 27 July 2009 - 10:04 PM

This is old news. It was known as far back as 2004 that Tarantino wanted to direct the next Bond and he wanted to direct Brosnan in what would have been his fifth movie in Casino Royale. The Bond producers snubbed Tarantino telling him that CR was unfilmable. Then what do they do? Sack Brosnan and make Casino Royale without so much as a thank you.

It's the truth guys. Deal with it.


That "truth" comes entirely from one person, Quentin Tarantino. The real truth is, Tarantino wouldn't have even gotten into a meeting with MGM, Sony, or EON without DGA membership.

#23 danslittlefinger

danslittlefinger

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3680 posts
  • Location:“If not here . . . then elsewhere.”

Posted 27 July 2009 - 10:05 PM

Actually Jim was kind enough to provide us with his script for Casino Royale. It's somewhere around here...


Really? Never saw it. Where is it on the forum?


http://debrief.comma...showtopic=52232


A-ha. Thanks.


These are good, enjoyed reading them.

#24 Mr_Wint

Mr_Wint

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2406 posts
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 27 July 2009 - 10:13 PM

Bondfans talked about an official filmversion long before Tarantino mentioned it.

However, I think Tarantino's statement inspired EON and Brosnan a little bit. He's a big name after all. It is (almost) as big as Kennedy saying that FRWL is on his top 10 list... and we all know what that lead to. Maybe Tarantino's comments was that early seed. It also seems like P&W liked the novel as they used some stuff in TWINE. Then came the reboot era and gritty Bourne and everything falls into place.

Since Tarantino is not listed on the cast & crew list we can not praise or blame him for the finished film.

#25 WhiteKnight2000

WhiteKnight2000

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 301 posts

Posted 27 July 2009 - 10:14 PM

This is old news. It was known as far back as 2004 that Tarantino wanted to direct the next Bond and he wanted to direct Brosnan in what would have been his fifth movie in Casino Royale. The Bond producers snubbed Tarantino telling him that CR was unfilmable. Then what do they do? Sack Brosnan and make Casino Royale without so much as a thank you.

It's the truth guys. Deal with it.


That "truth" comes entirely from one person, Quentin Tarantino. The real truth is, Tarantino wouldn't have even gotten into a meeting with MGM, Sony, or EON without DGA membership.


The truth was public domain long before Craig was announced as the new Bond.

#26 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 27 July 2009 - 10:22 PM

This is old news. It was known as far back as 2004 that Tarantino wanted to direct the next Bond and he wanted to direct Brosnan in what would have been his fifth movie in Casino Royale. The Bond producers snubbed Tarantino telling him that CR was unfilmable. Then what do they do? Sack Brosnan and make Casino Royale without so much as a thank you.

It's the truth guys. Deal with it.


That "truth" comes entirely from one person, Quentin Tarantino. The real truth is, Tarantino wouldn't have even gotten into a meeting with MGM, Sony, or EON without DGA membership.


Agreed.

Seeing as how EON has had only a very limited window in which to actually make CASINO ROYALE, I don't believe for one second that Tarantino had any influence on them to make the film. If they had had the rights to make the film at any point during the franchise's run, they would have made it then, and not waited until 2006 to do so. They got the rights during Brosnan's run, and decided they couldn't make the film with him as the lead actor, and then proceeded to see their contract with Brosnan through to the end before moving forward with CASINO ROYALE.

There's also the fact that there would have been a public outcry that would have been even worse than the one that we ultimately got with Craig's casting had they dumped Brosnan while there were still films remaining on his contract. They couldn't make the film with Brosnan, and couldn't risk the outcry over actually firing Brosnan (as opposed to simply not renewing his contract, which is what they ultimately did), and it was those circumstances that led to DAD. Once they were no longer contractually obligated to Brosnan in any way, they were free to make CASINO ROYALE as they had wanted to make it for years.

Edited by tdalton, 27 July 2009 - 10:37 PM.


#27 Mr_Wint

Mr_Wint

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2406 posts
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 27 July 2009 - 11:12 PM

It seems like Tarantino was really serious about filming Casino Royale. It was more than just talking. Tarantino claimed that he had a script that he discussed with the producers (it would be interesting to read this one day). He even tried to buy the rights to the film during the Brosnan era. My guess is that EON aquired the rights to avoid a rival Bondfilm.

Tarantino: "Someday I'm going to get the rights to do Casino Royale, the first James Bond novel, and do it the right way. I really wanted it to be my followup to 'Pulp Fiction' and do it with Pierce Brosnan, but have it take place after the events of 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service' - after Bond's wife, Tracy, has been killed. I want Bond to be in mourning when he falls in love with Vesper Lynd, the woman in the novel. From what I know of Brosnan and read in interviews, I think he'd want to go in the direction I'd want to take Bond, though I'm not certain producers of the series would agree."

And here's what Barbara Broccoli had to say about it:

As a producer, are you hesitant to bring to the series a writer/director who has a very vivid personal style? I'm thinking of Quentin Tarantino, of course, who actually tried to buy up the rights to Casino Royale.
Barbara Broccoli: "I think the thing is that we've created a sort of genre and we have parameters. We like to have directors who are incredibly talented, obviously. Once the script and everything is agreed on, it's the director's movie. Film is a director's medium. But when you are in a series, there are certain parameters. And we set the parameters. I love Quentin Tarantino, but he has his style and it's not a style that would necessary fit into a series like ours. I just don't think that would work. The rating thing, too. He makes very specific kinds of films, and I love them."

Oh, and it is still possible to sign the Petition:
http://www.petitiono...ed.cgi?bond0408
B)

#28 Professor Dent

Professor Dent

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5326 posts
  • Location:Pennsylvania USA

Posted 27 July 2009 - 11:30 PM

He really does need to let this one go. B)

#29 Sark2.0

Sark2.0

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 332 posts
  • Location:Station C

Posted 28 July 2009 - 01:00 AM

As a producer, are you hesitant to bring to the series a writer/director who has a very vivid personal style? I'm thinking of Quentin Tarantino, of course, who actually tried to buy up the rights to Casino Royale.
Barbara Broccoli: "I think the thing is that we've created a sort of genre and we have parameters. We like to have directors who are incredibly talented, obviously. Once the script and everything is agreed on, it's the director's movie. Film is a director's medium. But when you are in a series, there are certain parameters. And we set the parameters. I love Quentin Tarantino, but he has his style and it's not a style that would necessary fit into a series like ours. I just don't think that would work. The rating thing, too. He makes very specific kinds of films, and I love them."

That makes much sense.

#30 DaveBond21

DaveBond21

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 18026 posts
  • Location:Sydney, Australia (but from the UK)

Posted 28 July 2009 - 02:04 AM

I can't imagine anyone said that Casino Royale was unfilmable. I think that it didn't make sense to film it while Pierce was Bond, as it's all about the beginning of Bond's career. Therefore they had to wait until there was a new Bond actor to make the movie.