164 replies to this topic

[danslittlefinger]

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.

Yes that would be the logical thinking but maybe Eon would have used a younger actor then brought it upto date with Pierce? I mean that would have sounded like something old Quentin would have suggessted.

Never would have worked.

[jaguar007]

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.

I remember reading somewhere (back in the 90s before they had the film rights if I recall correctly) MGW did at some point say he thought CR as a novel was unfilmable. It was because it was too small of a story for a Bond film (and the time period). I think they did a brilliant job of updating it.

[Qwerty]

Now on the CBn main page...

Quentin Tarantino: I would have done Casino Royale with Pierce Brosnan

'The reason they did Casino Royale all comes down to me...'

[RazorBlade]

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

I am in the middle here. Yes, it is possible that he talked to EON and pitched his ideas. I'm also sure Babs didn't want him for the reason stated above. I love QT's films too but he is NOT a bond directer. In fact, it seems to me if he really wanted to make a bond style film he could have made MODESTY BLAISE. Kindly note that he didn't. And yes, he should really let this go. It's a matter of business and you win some and you lose some. Next:

[danslittlefinger]

edit

[Mike00spy]

Tarantino: [i]"Someday I'm going to get the rights to do Casino Royale, the first James Bond novel, and do it the right way. . .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.

How is a dramatic retinkering of that timeline doing things "the right way?" His idea is quite horrible.

[killkenny kid]

Tarantino.

Nuff' said!!!!

[tdalton]

Tarantino: [i]"Someday I'm going to get the rights to do Casino Royale, the first James Bond novel, and do it the right way. . .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.

How is a dramatic retinkering of that timeline doing things "the right way?" His idea is quite horrible.

Completely agreed. I just don't see that working at all. I mean, how would that work? He's in mourning for his wife, and then falls in love (a stretch I'm not willing to make, but let's run with it for the sake of discussion), and then loses her in a comparably tragic and heartbreaking fashion?

Setting aside for a moment that this is clearly not "the right way" of adapting the novel (this idea couldn't be further from the spirit of the novel, or it's actual contents), it's just a horrible idea in general and one that I doubt many in the audience would find realistic or believable in any way.

[Jim]

Isn't this "news" a smidge dusty?

Terrible, that news about The Titanic, isn't it?

[jrcjohnny99]

Tarantino: [i]"Someday I'm going to get the rights to do Casino Royale, the first James Bond novel, and do it the right way. . .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.

How is a dramatic retinkering of that timeline doing things "the right way?" His idea is quite horrible.

Completely agreed. I just don't see that working at all. I mean, how would that work? He's in mourning for his wife, and then falls in love (a stretch I'm not willing to make, but let's run with it for the sake of discussion), and then loses her in a comparably tragic and heartbreaking fashion?

Setting aside for a moment that this is clearly not "the right way" of adapting the novel (this idea couldn't be further from the spirit of the novel, or it's actual contents), it's just a horrible idea in general and one that I doubt many in the audience would find realistic or believable in any way.

Of course, moving around teh timelines of OHMSS and CR is surely no worse than moving the timeslines of YOLT and OHMSS right?

[Blofeld's Cat]

Isn't this "news" a smidge dusty?

Terrible, that news about The Titanic, isn't it?

Don't give it away, I want to see the movie.

[Trident]

I'm far from convinced we've actually missed out on anything much by Tarantino staying at bay from Bond. Would his version really looked so much different from DAD (perhaps with an added dose of Matrix and Bill)? I doubt it. And his comments on setting CR immediately after OHMSS don't sound that promising.

I think Tarantino was always more attracted by the surface of stories; it's mostly looks, style and effects over content with him. I'm sure he has had the images of a thousand fantastic scenes in mind when he pondered CR. But I'm also sure the actual story would have been buried under all those stylish eye candy. It's what the EON series has had enough of over the decades, a zillion iconic images with too little real story and content connecting them. The end of this road was DAD, from which point there was only the option to go and sample a series of teasers for two years, cut them with a score and sell the product as new Bond film. Or to break out of the concept and tell a story once more. Tarantino would have been the guy to go to for the sample plan. For EON's way, building up the series from scratch, I'm afraid he wouldn't have had enough patience, not enough explosions and saving-the-world stuff to keep him interested in the project.

And by the way, I also don't buy Tarantino wouldn't have grabbed the chance to get guaranteed headlines by dropping Brosnan and casting Craig ('Sorry, Pierce, nothing personal!'). I bet he'd reveled in the scandal and public outcry. I'm just not sure he would have known how to use Craig's abilities once the headline potential has had worn off.

No, in the end I'm quite happy with the CR we've got.

[Dekard77]

Tarintino has a way of bringing out a good performance from an actor. Sometimes he is liked for exploring motives and colourful dialogue. It would have been interesting to see what he could have done with a Bond movie. I also think PB wanted to return to something more serious and centred especially after making DAD. He reported in one interview how the film starts out well and ends up having wall to wall action.

[Aris007]

Glad he didn't do it! Cause if he did, we'd see Brosnan sniffing white powder(that's not talk) from Vesper's butt!

[DominicGreene]

You guys aren't thinking right, ya? Pierce would have came back from that awful Die Another Day and would have, at least left with a good reputation because everyone always talks crap about him. Pierce Brosnan would have been fantastic in Casino Royale. Yes Craig was good, he would have been better then Pierce, that's not the point. It would have been good, still, but it would be the ultimate chance to bring what we love about Brosnan in Goldeneye, you know, the good old days!

Edited by DominicGreene, 28 July 2009 - 10:46 AM.

[Quantumofsolace007]

I'm wating for Tarantino to say he also was going to do a sequel to Casino Royale and call it Quantum of Solace but still have brosnan.



Oh and white knight Tarantino had NOTHING to do with casino Royale bond 21 was gonna be Casino Royale long before Tarantiino blabbed about his ideas.

[hcmv007]

IMO-Tarantino has done a couple of good films (Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs) but lately has not been so great. Kill Bill was great for stunts and action but ehh on the plot. Inglorious Basterds looks to be the same. I thought at one time it might be interesting to give him a Bond film, but not now. There wouldn't be enough room on the set for his ego.

[bond 16.05.72]

I did actually enjoy Ross's interview with QT but had to cringe when he said this, that been said Ross disagreed with him and said so.

He also gave QT a hard time over using existing scores to soundtrack his films, QT's answer was quite interesting, he said he never wanted to surrender that much control over to a composer of one of his films.

That being said QT scoring his films like this on the whole has been most successful.

[Trident]

You guys aren't thinking right, ya? Pierce would have came back from that awful Die Another Day and would have, at least left with a good reputation because everyone always talks crap about him. Pierce Brosnan would have been fantastic in Casino Royale. Yes Craig was good, he would have been better then Pierce, that's not the point. It would have been good, still, but it would be the ultimate chance to bring what we love about Brosnan in Goldeneye, you know, the good old days!

I don't think it would have been a particularly good idea to have Brosnan in CR just so he could leave with a 'good reputation'. Brosnan doesn't need a fifth Bond film just for charity's sake nor did EON owe him another outing. What would either of them have achieved? Just so Brosnan wouldn't have had to do 'The Matador' or 'Mamma Mia' and EON would have been spared the craignotbond-? No, it was time to move on and that's what happened. Brosnan's reputation in my view isn't worse than it would have been past a Brosnan-Tarantino-CR. It would certainly have been a completely different film than the one we've got.

[baerrtt]

I'm far from convinced we've actually missed out on anything much by Tarantino staying at bay from Bond. Would his version really looked so much different from DAD (perhaps with an added dose of Matrix and Bill)? I doubt it. And his comments on setting CR immediately after OHMSS don't sound that promising.

I think Tarantino was always more attracted by the surface of stories; it's mostly looks, style and effects over content with him. I'm sure he has had the images of a thousand fantastic scenes in mind when he pondered CR. But I'm also sure the actual story would have been buried under all those stylish eye candy. It's what the EON series has had enough of over the decades, a zillion iconic images with too little real story and content connecting them. The end of this road was DAD, from which point there was only the option to go and sample a series of teasers for two years, cut them with a score and sell the product as new Bond film. Or to break out of the concept and tell a story once more. Tarantino would have been the guy to go to for the sample plan. For EON's way, building up the series from scratch, I'm afraid he wouldn't have had enough patience, not enough explosions and saving-the-world stuff to keep him interested in the project.

And by the way, I also don't buy Tarantino wouldn't have grabbed the chance to get guaranteed headlines by dropping Brosnan and casting Craig ('Sorry, Pierce, nothing personal!'). I bet he'd reveled in the scandal and public outcry. I'm just not sure he would have known how to use Craig's abilities once the headline potential has worn off.

No, in the end I'm quite happy with the CR we've got.

I respect Quentin's films and will say that the last thing he does is 'pander' to an audience in the way the worst Bond films (DAD) have.

The issue however is that he, judging by how he'd do CR the 'right way'(when it isn't), has increasingly become more self-indulgent over the years. KILL BILL worked largely because amongst the OTT homaging of 1970s kung fu films and anime he actually turned out an effective character piece in the end. However the man who has given us DEATH PROOF and INGLORIOUS BASTERDS is a filmmaker whose love of style overwhelms anything a mass audience can emotionally involve themselves in. And that is EON's remit now with the Craig era plus for ppl who think that the Craig era has changed too much about Bond films you think Tarantino wouldn't go further?

Edited by baerrtt, 28 July 2009 - 11:56 AM.

[dee-bee-five]

I'm not sure about anyone else, but I think I can die a happy man not having seen Tarantino's Casino Royale...

[Trident]

The issue however is that he, judging by how he'd do CR the 'right way'(when it isn't), has increasingly become more self-indulgent over the years. KILL BILL worked largely because amongst the OTT homaging of 1970s kung fu films and anime he actually turned out an effective character piece in the end. However the man who has given us DEATH PROOF and INGLORIOUS BASTERDS is a filmmaker whose love of style overwhelms anything a mass audience can emotionally involve themselves in. And that is EON's remit now with the Craig era plus for ppl who think that the Craig era has changed too much about Bond films you think Tarantino wouldn't go further?

He'd easily go further but I doubt he'd go nearly as deep as CR/QOS did. To me, Tarantino is a master of surface and citation and I think that's what would have been his CR. Perhaps he came too late and should have done DAD instead.

[HildebrandRarity]

LOL!

This is how you drum up business...

Quentin Tarantino: I would have done Casino Royale with Pierce Brosnan

'The reason they did Casino Royale all comes down to me...'

...for Inglorious Bastids!



You talk about James Bond on your press junkets for Inglorios Basteds!

Utterly fantastic!


Seriously...What does it say when you go around chatting about James Bond during your industry interviews for your upcoming movie? What does it say about the movie, let alone yourself?

Priceless!

[Conlazmoodalbrocra]

I'm just thanking my lucky stars we got the Bond 21 that we did! I don't think Tarantino could have made that film any better, and it does piss me off that he will not let it drop. However, I enjoy quite a few of his movies, so I'm reluctant to slag him off!

[HildebrandRarity]

Him doing CR w PB would have 100 percent guaranteed Quantum Of Solace's premier position atop the Bond film canon!

[Mr.Stamper]

Saw this news story yesterday through Google Alerts , Yes Daniel is Bond and that's how its gonna stay SO SHUT YOUR MOUTH!

[Doctor Shatterhand]

Tarantino would have done to CR what Madonna did to the song of DAD.

Tarantino thought he had a great idea when he approached Eon Productions, however, the fans ruled when we wanted CR to be a faithful adaptation. Eon knew that and knew they had to start over with a new actor and say goodbye to the stale series that began with Diamonds Are Forever.

Personally, I feel Tarantino would be great at adapting the Matt Helm book series. Those books are tailor-made for his style.

[SecretAgentFan]

Tarantino has the biggest ego in show business.

If his new film flops I somehow won´t pity him. Maybe it will do him good to rethink his position as a one-hit wonder and one-trick pony.

[HildebrandRarity]

But his last one was a flop. His movies don't do well. Pulp Fiction is the only one that made any reasonable money and that was 15 years ago!

He's fed off Pulp Fiction and then cut Kill Bill into two movies so he could double dip and pick his fans' pockets when a 2.25-2.5 hr movie would have sufficed.

[han4bond]

Just to be clear, what was or wasn't said between Tarantino and the producers is irrelevant. They never had a business meeting. Tarantino approached them at an event to pitch his ideas, and the Broccolis listened politely. At that point, they may have said that they thought the novel might be unfilmable, which may have been true at that point, but that doesn't amount to "turning him down." Then, when they dropped Brosnan, Tarantino publicly retracted his "offer," even though there's no evidence he was ever being considered. In fact, given Barbara Broccoli's comments above, it would seem that his proposal was dismissed outright.

Frankly, this is much ado about nothing. It's highly unlikely a non-Guild director could ever be considered for a Bond film; Tarantino must know that. It would appear that he just wanted to attach his name to a Bond film and get some press, which he did.

Edited by han4bond, 28 July 2009 - 02:26 PM.