164 replies to this topic

[Jim]

All I think I could say about this notion I have already said.

There, that wasn't too hard, was it?

[sorking]

Further to sorking's astute observations, how can any film or movie fan respect a director who sanctions the cutting of a film into two short releases, where one is massively over-loaded w action whilst the other has little to virtually none, purely for prospective monetary gain!?!?

It would have been fine if the two halves of the 'story' were in one 2.5 hour 'movie'...but nooooooo!

Abysmal!

Thing is, I have sympathies when filmmakers have to bow to certain financial/studio pressures. You deal with the devil to get your film made - especially when you deal with the Weinsteins! - and I get how you bow to that pressure.

The real problem is the ego that decided such a ho-hum story required soooo long to tell in the first place (nearly four hours!), and shot it that way. To do that you either have to believe that the vengeance action genre has been cursed to-date by its brevity, or else that your indulgent dialogue is endlessly fascinating. Sadly for all involved, neither is the case.

[jaguar007]

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

I'm sure QT was the only person who ever suggested to Barbara or Michael that they film CR once they acquired the rights to it

[JimmyBond]

I just have one question for everyone who's suggesting it.

When did Inglorious Basterd's turn out to be a flop waiting to happen? I think the trailer looks great and everyone who's seen it agrees with me, sure when I say everyone I just mean my friends. But it's also gotten some favorable responses when the trailer was shown at the theater.

[HildebrandRarity]

It's just me railing on the bastard for trying to pick my pocket on the Kill Bill thingy. I'm wishing it to be a flop because I don't like the hole.

Bastids may be just average at the box office but I, for one, won't be buying any tickets to see it.

I'm sure a few James Bond fans aren't exactly enamoured with him right now either.

him!

[Conlazmoodalbrocra]

I agree with HildebrandRarity. The only time you'll find me watching Inglorious Basterds is when I'm unemployed, unattached and un-interested in life in general!

[O.H.M.S.S.]

Quentin Tarantino is pretty overrared in my opinion. Pulp Fiction was a masterpiece and Reservoir Dogs came close too. But the Kill Bill movies aren't all that great and Death Proof is, well, awful. Tarantino doesn't have much original ideas, he only recycles some B-movie material and makes a movie around it. Many people don't know he even got most of his Pulp Fiction ideas from C'est arrivé près de chez vous (which is a superb Belgian cult movie). I can't understand how many people mention him in the same breath with Akira Kurosawa, Ingmar Bergman, Fritz Lang, Federico Fellini and other masters of cinema.

Edited by O.H.M.S.S., 30 July 2009 - 01:37 PM.

[baerrtt]

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...).

How did it exactly harm the film? Aside from wanting some sense of continuity which has always been irrelevant to Bond films this complaint doesn't make one lick of sense.

[Loomis]

his idea of doing CR as a period piece did seem interesting. MGW has mentioned that was a notion in many of the documentarires at one time or another.

Really?

This surprises me.

I was under the impression that the idea of a period piece was never seriously considered (i.e. for more than two minutes) by Eon.

Anyone know any different?

[HildebrandRarity]

Being seriously considered is a tad different than kicking-around and mulling over ideas.

In business we often have "brain dump" (or what I would term intellectual masturbation-type) ideas where colleagues throw out left-field ideas no matter how unlikely their implementation.

Serious consideration would be entirely different to that. It would be at a point where you have a lot of "buy-in" to the idea and are on the verge of running with it and possibly implementing it.

Perhaps one day this 'Eon Period Piece For Royale' notion will have a thread of its own?

[Judo chop]

I don't care what QT thinks.

If he is being serious with his comments, then he's an , and the fact that he didn't get to direct CR must be a big, red boil on the . And that's funny.

If nothing else, he's still a big name and he's a big name bringing positive attention to Bond. (Don't think for a second that because his comments are negative, the attention isn't positive.)

[Trident]

Being seriously considered is a tad different than kicking-around and mulling over ideas.

In business we often have "brain dump" (or what I would term intellectual masturbation-type) ideas where colleagues throw out left-field ideas no matter how unlikely their implementation.

Serious consideration would be entirely different to that. It would be at a point where you have a lot of "buy-in" to the idea and are on the verge of running with it and possibly implementing it.

Perhaps one day this 'Eon Period Piece For Royale' notion will have a thread of its own?

Hm, apart from this rubbish about a period CR being Tarantino's original and exclusive idea, I really have to concede that I for one wouldn't have considered it any more outlandish than the reboot idea. I wouldn't have believed that one got any more serious consideration by EON than the period setting. Yet they've done just that and succeeded. I still find that most remarkable, considering the boldness it must have taken on EON's part to dare this move. Perhaps there really have been similar drastic ideas pondered pre CR, who knows?

[HildebrandRarity]

Well, in my opinion, the Eon mantra has been akin to "two minutes into the future" on all 22 outings begining, of course, with Dr No and the same applying to Bond 21.

Bond has to keep it's "cool" cachet with the important demographics and "period Bond" is, imo, not cool to those important, repeat viewer demographics.

I correlate Period Bond to a tv venture, not the Big Screen.

If the BBC wanted to do Period Bond i'd be happy as a pig in and buy the dvds but I doubt Eon will want any dilution within their sacred chalice.

[Trident]

But that mantra also included a lot of other ballast they got rid of with CR. While I don't think 'period' was a serious option I still can't help but wonder what other options were considered in that apparently most adventurous mood the officials were in back then.

[Trident]

sorry, double (post, not agent).

[HildebrandRarity]

In the "mood" they were in I bet you the "officials" were also considering dumping Pierce Brosnan's $19-21 Million salary demands for Bond 21. That was the biggest "ballast", my friend!

With each progressive Brosnan Bond getting more costly - and less profitable - the officials needed to ditch his large retainer and get someone for $2-3 Million...which is what they did!

Nothwithstanding Tarantino not being Guild (and the consequences thereof as mentioned by other CBn-ers), there is NO ing way the officials were going to gamble on Period Bond while simultaneously paying Brosnan about $16 - $17 Million more than what they were targeting for Daniel Craig.

You can get a lot of behind the scenes talant and production value for $16-17 Million on a movie with a $150 Million budget.

[Trident]

At any rate I think there has been, obviously, a point from which anything was on disposal, anything possible, nothing a given.

The period idea I think would have been discarded sooner or later because of the vast difficulties that come with it. Doing a period piece calls for tremendous effort to pull it and is also likely to burn loads of money. It's not impossible (see 'Munich') but it also leaves little room for further films. You can only so much dress up Budapest as Rome, Paris, Madrid, Athens. So the period would effectively closed perspectives instead of opened them.

Nothwithstanding Tarantino not being Guild (and the consequences thereof as mentioned by other CBn-ers), there is NO [censored]ing way the officials were going to gamble on Period Bond while simultaneously paying Brosnan about $16 - $17 Million more than what they were targeting for Daniel Craig.

Very good point, would seem most unlikely to burn money on two fronts.

[HildebrandRarity]

Yes. And it wasn't only Period Bond but one with Brosnan in it!

People simply fail to remember that by trading Pierce Brosnan for Daniel Craig, they saved about $16 to $17 Million in salary...i.e. about eleven percent of the production budget.

It's a significant consideration and one which Tarantino (and his fans on this subject) does(/do) not seem equipped to understand. The other being him not being Guild.

[Trident]

This not being Guild, I'm not sure if Tarantino wouldn't have sorted that out for the chance. After all, he's really, really dedicated to his dreams, one can't deny that. But this now really gets too far into speculation country.

[HildebrandRarity]

What about Pierce Brosnan's $20 million retainer?

He signed for about $17.5 Million for Die Another Day in Q3, 2001.

Pierce felt he was worth $20 Million for Bond 3 to 4 years later.

???

How would Quentin get around the $16.5 Million more they would have had to pay Brosnan than what they paid Criag?

Would he have done it for free to realize his 'dreams'? Perhaps he would have PAID Eon to have him helm the gamble in order to make up for the rather massive difference in PB and DC's salaries?

Let's get real!

[Trident]

What about Pierce Brosnan's $20 million retainer?

He signed for about $17.5 Million for Die Another Day in Q3, 2001.

Pierce felt he was worth $20 Million for Bond 3 to 4 years later.

???

How would Quentin get around the $16.5 Million more they would have had to pay Brosnan than what they paid Criag?

Would he have done it for free? Perhaps he would have PAID Eon to have him helm it in order to make up for the rather massive difference in PB and DC's salaries?

Let's get real!

I honestly don't know any better than you. The only thing I feel sure about this The-Bond-That-Never-Happened ™ is that QT would have blown a similar campaign to Kill Bill, kicking off a giant happening with his entry. That's perhaps no big deal given that Bond is a major event whenever a new film reaches the cinemas.

I'm not sold on that Brosnan-CR proposal anyway. I think Tarantino would have been the first one to grab the publicity changing the lead role and casting Craig has brought. If nothing else, Tarantino likes having a shocking impact on the public and this would have been just what he would be looking for. Whatever he may say now, I don't really see him doing CR with Brosnan. Just MHO.

[HildebrandRarity]

...But look at what the front page on CBn is saying!!!

He continues to rant about Brosnan, knowing full well that Craig is now at near Jesus levels in Bond-land!


Here, from the main page:



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



What a ing idiot!

I mean his head is totally up his and without a clue as to how much money Pierce was wanting to play Bond back in 2003/4/5!!!

How can you take this guy seriously???

[Trident]

But that is nothing so remarkable. It's a headline and headlines are always good. There is no bad publicity, not in showbizz.

[HildebrandRarity]

Yes. Good for Bond.

Can't wait for some more juicy news on Bond 23.

Here's hoping we get a director announcement before the summer ends to get us out of the doldrums on here.

[jaguar007]

In regards to Brosnan's $20million salary demands for a 5th Bond. In all fairness, by Craig's 5th film, he most likely will be looking at a similar salary. The difference imho, is that Craig is worth it.

[HildebrandRarity]

Smart people would balance their salary demands for James Bond with what they would be pulling for the next best alternative.

If no one's buying you as anything else but Bond, then the best thing to do would be to go along for the cushy ride on the gravy train instead of being a greedy pig and pricing yourself out of the market.

If Craig won't be pulling them in in anything other than Bond, then he'd best be advised not to get too greedy...not that he'd need telling.

But most definitely, Craig is value for money and Eon trading Pierce for DC (or someone new) was an absolute and relative no brainer price wise.

...But Quentin doesn't still seem to be able to grasp the economics of said event, even in retrospect - and inspite of trying to be a greedy pig himself for chopping Kill Bill into two.

[jaguar007]

Eon trading Pierce for DC was a no brainer.

I would not call it a no -brainer. I would call it a gamble that paid off in spades.

[HildebrandRarity]

True. I went back and modified and qualified it.

[Loomis]

How can you take this guy seriously???

Well, here are six good reasons:

RESERVOIR DOGS

PULP FICTION

JACKIE BROWN

KILL BILL VOL. 1

KILL BILL VOL. 2

INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS (yes, I know none of us has seen it, but advance word is that it's terrific)

Tarantino is a genius of cinema. That said, though, I'm glad we had Eon's and Martin Campbell's CASINO ROYALE instead of Tarantino's CASINO ROYALE. Even if it had been an amazing film (as I'm sure would have been the case), I value the Eon series too much to see it stopped in its tracks by any one director's Personal Vision™. I love me my Bond and I love me my Quentin, but not together.

[JimmyBond]

Well said Loomis I was beginning to think everyone here hated Tarantino. With the exception of Death Proof and Reservior Dogs, I've seen all his work, and there's not one film of his I've seen that I didnt enjoy.

And everytime I here Brad Pitt utter the line (We're in the killing Nazi business...and cousin, buisiness is a boomin!) I get a smile across my face. I just can't wait to see this film.