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

#61 han4bond

han4bond

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 21 posts
  • Location:Fullerton, CA

Posted 28 July 2009 - 02:22 PM

(Sorry about the repeat post, this was due to an error. Please disregard.)

Edited by han4bond, 28 July 2009 - 02:25 PM.


#62 baerrtt

baerrtt

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 467 posts

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 HildebrandRarity

HildebrandRarity

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4361 posts

Posted 28 July 2009 - 02:27 PM

It's the Loser's way of trumpeting his new movie knowing he's got another flop on his hands! B) Naturally the Tabloid folk will come and fill some seats to see Brad Pitt, QT's only saving grace this time.

#64 Safari Suit

Safari Suit

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5099 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 28 July 2009 - 02:36 PM

I wouldn't call the Kill Bill films flops. They both made around $70million at the US Box Office, which is not bad at all for R-rated (very R-rated) action movies in the 21st century, and these films were advertised in part on his name, and bare in mind most of the general public doesn't give a crap about directors.

It was an entertaining interview. He brought up Bond because Ross brought up Bond. Nothing too sinister.

#65 HildebrandRarity

HildebrandRarity

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4361 posts

Posted 28 July 2009 - 02:41 PM

I saw Kill Bill Vol I for hottie Uma (not for the director) and waited for the DVD to see Vol II.

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 B)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 MattofSteel

MattofSteel

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2482 posts
  • Location:Waterloo, ON

Posted 28 July 2009 - 02:45 PM

The ego on this guy.

#67 Safari Suit

Safari Suit

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5099 posts
  • Location:UK

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 HH007

HH007

    Lt. Commander

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

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 stromberg

stromberg

    Commander RNVR

  • The Admiralty
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6841 posts
  • Location:Saarland / Germany

Posted 28 July 2009 - 02:58 PM

Sounds like trash of the tabloid variety.

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

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.

B) Tarantino.

And that's all there is to say about it.
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 :S

#70 Safari Suit

Safari Suit

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5099 posts
  • Location:UK

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 B)

Well, mostly.

#71 HH007

HH007

    Lt. Commander

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

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 B)

Well, mostly.


Oh dear... they know who I am...

#72 pgram

pgram

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 621 posts
  • Location:Okinawa, Japan

Posted 28 July 2009 - 03:12 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.

Edited by pgram, 28 July 2009 - 03:13 PM.


#73 jaguar007

jaguar007

    Commander

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

Posted 28 July 2009 - 03:23 PM

So QT thinks EON took his idea to make CR. He is upset because they didn't hire him or thank him for his idea. Yet the movie EON made was NOTHING like QT's idea of what to make. EON had been making Bond films for 40+ years...why exactly are they ripping off his idea????

#74 danslittlefinger

danslittlefinger

    Commander

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

Posted 28 July 2009 - 03:44 PM

Sounds like trash of the tabloid variety.

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

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.

Yes I know. Thanks. :S Which is why I don't need it pointed out each time. :S Redundant.



B) Tarantino.

And that's all there is to say about it.
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 :S


Never liked QT, never will.

#75 danslittlefinger

danslittlefinger

    Commander

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

Posted 28 July 2009 - 03:44 PM

edit

#76 danslittlefinger

danslittlefinger

    Commander

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

Posted 28 July 2009 - 03:45 PM

edit posted twice

#77 Stephen Spotswood

Stephen Spotswood

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 823 posts

Posted 28 July 2009 - 04:20 PM

I woulda said Clive Owen, Jude Law or Hugh Laurie.

And as for quentin

He wouldn't be allowed on the set even to deliver a pizza.

The only real Quentin:



#78 baerrtt

baerrtt

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 467 posts

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 mtonline

mtonline

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 388 posts
  • Location:OH Canada... BC that is!

Posted 28 July 2009 - 04:51 PM

I would have loved it if it was Pierce. Casino Royale was a good STAND-ALONE picture, because QoS SUCKED!

#80 Stephen Spotswood

Stephen Spotswood

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 823 posts

Posted 28 July 2009 - 05:07 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?

#81 Stephen Spotswood

Stephen Spotswood

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 823 posts

Posted 28 July 2009 - 05:27 PM



#82 Jim

Jim

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 14266 posts
  • Location:Oxfordshire

Posted 28 July 2009 - 05:37 PM

I suppose it goes to show the relative significance of the Bond films, if he has to seek publicity on the back of them.not as if he's leaping up and down and claiming Transformers 2 as his idea. That the series has achieved such indelibility without having to hire a director of the nature and abilities of Mr Tarantino does suggest that the producers are right not to hire a director of the nature and abilities of Mr Tarantino.

#83 pgram

pgram

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 621 posts
  • Location:Okinawa, Japan

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 danslittlefinger

danslittlefinger

    Commander

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

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. B)

#85 Dekard77

Dekard77

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 653 posts
  • Location:Sri Lanka

Posted 28 July 2009 - 05:40 PM

QT would have made CR good. Not to diss the current version but it would have been nice to see how he'd approach it. If it wasn't for the Bourne films Eon would have kept at the same formula.

#86 Jim

Jim

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 14266 posts
  • Location:Oxfordshire

Posted 28 July 2009 - 05:45 PM

It could have been very embarassing. He is as much in an identifiable formula as the Bond films have been known to be; different, both entertaining in their own ways. Car crashing them together I fear could have been carnage.

#87 Dekard77

Dekard77

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 653 posts
  • Location:Sri Lanka

Posted 28 July 2009 - 05:49 PM

B)

#88 sorking

sorking

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 562 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 28 July 2009 - 06:17 PM

I think it's time to dust off this little message:

http://debrief.comma...mp;hl=Tarantino

#89 Joe Bond

Joe Bond

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 672 posts
  • Location:St. Louis, MO

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 Trident

Trident

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2658 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 28 July 2009 - 06:29 PM

I'll start missing the Tarantino option for CR after Tarantino delivers a faithful adaption of the London Yellow Pages, set (as it should be) before the re-brand as Yell. For the role of London he can cast Knoxville. But it has to be faithful.