Edited by han4bond, 28 July 2009 - 02:25 PM.
A Message For Quentin
#61
Posted 28 July 2009 - 02:22 PM
#62
Posted 28 July 2009 - 02:26 PM
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.
I certainly won't pity Harvey Weinstein if IB flops because the Oscar Thief's new studio (imaginatively called The Weinstein Company)is riding on the film being successful as the company has had zero hits.
#63
Posted 28 July 2009 - 02:27 PM
#64
Posted 28 July 2009 - 02:36 PM
It was an entertaining interview. He brought up Bond because Ross brought up Bond. Nothing too sinister.
#65
Posted 28 July 2009 - 02:41 PM
They also had to renegotiate salaries because those involved had originally signed for one movie, if you recall...so eventhough they got revenue for two movies, their costs were also re-calibrated up accordingly. Thurman, for instance, (rightfully) needed to be paid for two movies. Mirimax was the z and Tarantino lost his balls and sold out for dollars, which wasn't much in the end anyway!
It's not like he's doing blockbusters. Not too many folk - other than the wierdo quadrant of the art-house crowd - care.
#66
Posted 28 July 2009 - 02:45 PM
#67
Posted 28 July 2009 - 02:50 PM
I saw Kill Bill Vol I for hottie Uma (not for the director) and waited for the DVD to see Vol II.
Fair enough, but I'm not sure how many people went to Kill Bill especially for Thurman seeing as the Kill Bill films and to a lesser extent Be Cool have been her only even semi-successful films since, um, Batman & Robin.
#68
Posted 28 July 2009 - 02:58 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.
Hi Quentin, welcome to the discussion.
#69
Posted 28 July 2009 - 02:58 PM
Sounds like trash of the tabloid variety.
But it is trash of the tabloid variety. For heaven's sake, don't take it so frickin' personal each time someone dares to classify something you posted as 'tabloid trash'. It's about the news item, not the guy who posted it. We've heard QT's complaints a dozen times or more. This is trash to fill up the blank space between the ads in a tabloid paper and to drum up interest for his new movie.How constructive. Thanks so much for pointing that out. What took you so long?
And that's all there is to say about it.Tarantino.
Almost.
QT was the first person to come up with the idea of doing a faithful CR adaption, just like Al Gore invented the internet
#70
Posted 28 July 2009 - 03:05 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.
Hi Quentin, welcome to the discussion.
Hi, Barbara or Micheal, welcome to the discussion.
Just kidding
Well, mostly.
#71
Posted 28 July 2009 - 03:10 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.
Hi Quentin, welcome to the discussion.
Hi, Barbara or Micheal, welcome to the discussion.
Just kidding
Well, mostly.
Oh dear... they know who I am...
#72
Posted 28 July 2009 - 03:12 PM
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.
Edited by pgram, 28 July 2009 - 03:13 PM.
#73
Posted 28 July 2009 - 03:23 PM
#74
Posted 28 July 2009 - 03:44 PM
Sounds like trash of the tabloid variety.
But it is trash of the tabloid variety. For heaven's sake, don't take it so frickin' personal each time someone dares to classify something you posted as 'tabloid trash'. It's about the news item, not the guy who posted it. We've heard QT's complaints a dozen times or more. This is trash to fill up the blank space between the ads in a tabloid paper and to drum up interest for his new movie.How constructive. Thanks so much for pointing that out. What took you so long?
Yes I know. Thanks. Which is why I don't need it pointed out each time. Redundant.And that's all there is to say about it.Tarantino.
Almost.
QT was the first person to come up with the idea of doing a faithful CR adaption, just like Al Gore invented the internet
Never liked QT, never will.
#75
Posted 28 July 2009 - 03:44 PM
#76
Posted 28 July 2009 - 03:45 PM
#77
Posted 28 July 2009 - 04:20 PM
And as for quentin
He wouldn't be allowed on the set even to deliver a pizza.
The only real Quentin:
#78
Posted 28 July 2009 - 04:50 PM
Say what you will, but I still think Tarantino would make a brilliant CR with Brosnan. He wanted to do this film and I 'm sure he 'd be willing to comply with the parameters Barbara referred to (if he wasn't, ignore this post completely, a pure-Tarntino Bond would not work). I watched Kill Bill I and II two days ago for the 10th time, and I still think there were inspired moments in the films which capture Fleming's spirit more than any Bond film we 've seen since the 60s. I 'm talking about cool, about sadism, about sexism, about brutality. Whatismore, it would end Brosnan's tenure on a high, it's sad that a potentially good Bond left without a single good film.
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.
What's there not to buy? EON have never faithfully adapted any of the books and never will, have had interpretations of the title character that are completely out of step and the continuity by and large was nonexistent so the reboot was hardly something I had a problem with.
I don't need to see a filmed novel by a director who says he'd do 'it right' by setting it after OHMSS. Think about that.
#79
Posted 28 July 2009 - 04:51 PM
#80
Posted 28 July 2009 - 05:07 PM
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?
#81
Posted 28 July 2009 - 05:27 PM
#82
Posted 28 July 2009 - 05:37 PM
#83
Posted 28 July 2009 - 05:38 PM
Say what you will, but I still think Tarantino would make a brilliant CR with Brosnan. He wanted to do this film and I 'm sure he 'd be willing to comply with the parameters Barbara referred to (if he wasn't, ignore this post completely, a pure-Tarntino Bond would not work). I watched Kill Bill I and II two days ago for the 10th time, and I still think there were inspired moments in the films which capture Fleming's spirit more than any Bond film we 've seen since the 60s. I 'm talking about cool, about sadism, about sexism, about brutality. Whatismore, it would end Brosnan's tenure on a high, it's sad that a potentially good Bond left without a single good film.
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.
What's there not to buy? EON have never faithfully adapted any of the books and never will, have had interpretations of the title character that are completely out of step and the continuity by and large was nonexistent so the reboot was hardly something I had a problem with.
I don't need to see a filmed novel by a director who says he'd do 'it right' by setting it after OHMSS. Think about that.
OK, if it's not clear to you, I 'll rephrase: I think the reboot was a stupid idea, completely unnecessary, unjustified, and mainly harmed the film than benefitted it. CR could have perfectly be the next entry in the series. In that sense, I don't particularly like the 'after OHMSS' approach either. After DAD was fine (admittedly I 'd prefer it INSTEAD of DAD, or, in fact, instead of GE, TND, TWINE and DAD put together, but that's another thread, I suppose...).
#84
Posted 28 July 2009 - 05:39 PM
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.
#85
Posted 28 July 2009 - 05:40 PM
#86
Posted 28 July 2009 - 05:45 PM
#87
Posted 28 July 2009 - 05:49 PM
#88
Posted 28 July 2009 - 06:17 PM
#89
Posted 28 July 2009 - 06:28 PM
Say what you will, but I still think Tarantino would make a brilliant CR with Brosnan. He wanted to do this film and I 'm sure he 'd be willing to comply with the parameters Barbara referred to (if he wasn't, ignore this post completely, a pure-Tarntino Bond would not work). I watched Kill Bill I and II two days ago for the 10th time, and I still think there were inspired moments in the films which capture Fleming's spirit more than any Bond film we 've seen since the 60s. I 'm talking about cool, about sadism, about sexism, about brutality. Whatismore, it would end Brosnan's tenure on a high, it's sad that a potentially good Bond left without a single good film.
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.
What's there not to buy? EON have never faithfully adapted any of the books and never will, have had interpretations of the title character that are completely out of step and the continuity by and large was nonexistent so the reboot was hardly something I had a problem with.
I don't need to see a filmed novel by a director who says he'd do 'it right' by setting it after OHMSS. Think about that.
OK, if it's not clear to you, I 'll rephrase: I think the reboot was a stupid idea, completely unnecessary, unjustified, and mainly harmed the film than benefitted it. CR could have perfectly be the next entry in the series. In that sense, I don't particularly like the 'after OHMSS' approach either. After DAD was fine (admittedly I 'd prefer it INSTEAD of DAD, or, in fact, instead of GE, TND, TWINE and DAD put together, but that's another thread, I suppose...).
I don't have a problem with the reboot and a counter argument could be that the Vesper could be his first love since it didn't say she was or wasn't his first love. The novel does reference to first couple of kills in order to get his 00 status and I believe, for me at least, that its a good adaption because it would be more interesting to have a younger Bond who makes mistakes and eventually learns from them and falls in love compared to a story with an already matured Bond who once again falls in love that ends tragically. Plus I would rather have Daniel Craig play Bond in an adaption of CR than Brosnan any day of the week. Plus the YOLT novel would have been a way better story for an older Bond because it works better as a sequel to OHMSS and Bond is old and worn out in the novel.
#90
Posted 28 July 2009 - 06:29 PM