902 replies to this topic

[Orion]

Fleming's Bond is fundamentally a flawed, often-unlikeable, Bryonic hero, and nothing highlights that more today than smoking a cigarette.

I agree whole-heartedly that Bond should be attracted to social taboos, however, and i can't believe i'm being this sensible, i'd draw the line at smoking, since a lot of young people watch Bond and will inevitably conclude that smoking is cool - it's definitely not.

There're many frowned upon things i'd love to see Bond enjoy, but not one that really could lead hundreds of thousands of people to develop lung cancer.

Even just to keep the films age rating down there won't be any more smoking in Bond films, so you needn't worry there, not to mention its easier for Craig to keep doing his own stunt work if he's not got continuous smoking impeding his health.

[Odd Jobbies]

Craig, Morgan and now Mendes.... I'm very excited!

Bearing in mind, though, that he won't be officially signed 'till MGM sells up. Lets hope that happens before Mendes gets bored.

Hopefully he'll bring Mrs Mendes and Mr Spacey (as the head of Quantum) along with him. Spacey plays a great 'ruthless man in a suit' (see the film 'Swimming With Sharks).

I know Spacey is almost too cliché now to be a Bond villain, but in Mendes capable hands....

Edited by Odd Jobbies, 06 January 2010 - 11:47 AM.

[Quantumofsolace007]

and thus my favourite stage of Bond film production begins, the hiring of a director that is often followed by rampant tabloid speculation.

and title rumours


I'm with you Orion. If this turns out to be true I'm going to be uber excited.....

I agre Odd jobbies it's an exciting time

[Orion]

Spacey plays a great 'ruthless man in a suit' (see the film 'Swimming With Sharks).

Not to mention his role as Lex Luthor is Superman Returns (he was the best thing in that film) but the fact he (sort of) plays Dr Evil in Goldmember would be a bit of a turn off, way to easy for tabloids to make bad jokes out of. Coincindetly Mark Millar has said that in his perfect Superman film cast Daniel Craig would be Lex Luthor.

[Dekard77]

Tony Scott is a great choice, I don't know how Mendes can handle action and I expected Foster to give in FRWL type of movie instead the whole film was really fast with little character development. Main thing is that Bourne style action scenes must not be entertained.

I like QOS but it was surprised to see wall to wall action.

[baerrtt]

http://www.cigarafic...540,261,00.html

"Although he still enjoys the occasional cigar, he says he's thankful Casino Royale forced him to quit his pack-a-day cigarette habit. Rest assured, however, 007 hasn't gone completely politically correct. "The drinking is still there, that sort of 'Dutch courage,'" smiles Craig. "It's funny, but I remember reading Moonraker, and Bond goes out to play cards at a club with the bad guy and he orders from MI6 some Benzedrine, which is basically speed. Bond then mixes that in with Dom Pérignon and that's how he starts the night," Craig marvels. "He then talks about how, during the evening, how jagged he's getting because he didn't get the mix right." Craig laughs in disbelief. "But I absolutely love that, because it plays into the fact that the guy is flawed. He's not perfect. Sometimes he gets things wrong and there are weaknesses in him. And I think those are the kinds of interesting things to put into the movie."

Maybe we might see that flaw in Bond this time around?

Great article. I think Craig has the right approach to Bond.

The thing is Craig is pretty much the one screen Bond, and the kind of actor, that could get away with those scenes where Bond's addictions take on a more morally challenging avenue (drugs). So far he's the only Bond that we've actually seen drunk, of sorts, in QOS so, especially with a director like Mendes who would want to push things even further in all likelihood, such a scene from Fleming's MOONRAKER would be on my personal wishlist.

[Quantumofsolace007]

i'm hoping Mendes as director means we get my wish list bond 23 with a darker from russia with love styled bond film and a bit of the novel Diamonds are forever as the basis....


I'm just excited Once we get offical confirmation I'm probably gonna watch Road to perdition.

[Marquis]

The prospect of a Sam Mendes directed Bond picture excites me greatly.

[Zorin Industries]

Didn't they learn from the mistake of rushing QoS - shooting without a polished script?

Sure, the script's never really finished 'til the film's cut, but you still want to allow your prestigious, well payed writer (was Haggis, now Morgan) to be happy with it (Haggis said he wasn't, and if it's fast-tracked then Morgan won't be over the moon either).

QoS made stacks of cash, but much of that is from those who liked Casino Royale so much on DVD/Blu-ray, so they invested in QoS. If that trend continues it means much lower ticket sales on B23, since it split the audience.

Sorry, but that is speculative tosh.

Who said Haggis wasn't happy with it? And you find me a writer-auteur like Haggis who would be content with any adaptation of his work?

SOLACE did not "split" the audience. It had continued and repeat business which simply do not get when people do not like a film. And people didn't flock to SOLACE because of ROYALE. It helped, of course it did. But so did the other 20 films before too.

For Eon to land Mendes would be an incredible coup, and one that I never thought possible. The man is such an auteur as to make Marc Forster look like John Glen.

He's not a particularly prolific director, either, and Eon would need to make him an amazing offer to tempt him away from other projects he could be developing. And I'm not talking about money - I mean that they'd give him so much creative control over BOND 23 that it would cease to be a 007 outing in the normal sense. It would be A Film By Sam Mendes. And this is what worries me - once a director of Mendes' stature boards the series, the Bond series we all know and love is dead and gone.

The "Eon Brand" is stronger than any director with his name above the door. They know it and an incoming director knows it. I understand what you mean but Bond needs to develop cinematically. It started in the first half of DIE ANOTHER DAY and continued through the Craig entries. Middling directors such as Martin Campbell (and as good as ROYALE is - he is a middling director) will not ensure the cinematic future of James Bond 007. The series cannot keep plodding on with average direction.

[double o ego]

First things first. Imo, QoS wasn't a bad film. It was a clearly rushed film with a dodgy script. Additionally, Forster's decision to edit the movie the way it turned out was his decoision and of course wasn't going to sit well with some members of the audience but at the end of the day, the 2 key things to note are the lacking script and Forster's conscious decision to edit the movie the way he did.

Mendes. People here have cited Mendes' movies as declining at the BO. I don't know what their budgets were but I've seen them all apart from, away we go and I can personally say that his movies are fantastic movies that aren't out to set the BO on fire. The performances he gets out of actors is amazing. Michael Shannon's John Givings in Revolutionary Road was just amazing to watch. Imo he stole the show in that movie.

Anyway, they key thing to remember is, Mendes or whoever it is that'll direct needs a script to direct and as long as the script is good, that's essentially more than half a good movie completed. The director comes along and brings his visual style and gets his actors to perform, which he is more than capable of. Mendes also being British, English for that matter I'm sure is all too familiar with who and what Bond is all about.

Mendes is not Forster and people need to remember that. Crying for an action director doesn't excite nor impress in the slightest because the outcome maybe undetermined but there's still the element of what most fans fear and essentially what we got in QoS...balls to walls action.

Unlike Forster, Mendes can do the whole, suspensful thriller thing. He can build tension and with Morgan scripting, there's just no excuse for me not to be glad and optimistic.

Additionally, I remember reading a quote by Wilson regarding the editing style of the action in QoS, something along the lines of how it was artistic and experimental and based on the adverse reactions from audiences, it wasn't something they were going to look to again anytime soon. So, that being said with everything else, I think it's fair to say we're already looking at a Bond movie that will surpass QoS and depending on how good the script is, may just end up being better than CR.

[Zorin Industries]

Has Mendes made a thriller? Most of his films seem to be about professional couples and how hard their lives are, which is not exactly 'edge of your seat' stuff.

Really, this film shouldn't be about whether Bond can find decent organic Cupuaçu in Mashhad.

The tendency for people to dismiss a director they haven't ever seen really staggers me. Sam Mendes slapped British theatre around the face and did so with the great good will of directors, actors and writers alike. His CABARET and THE BLUE ROOM were landmark productions as was his other work at the Donmar Warehouse. He is a respected force of theatre and film - something that the likes of Barbara Broccoli will be well aware of when pinpointing any director (she is an avid theatre goer and supporter).

JARHEAD, AMERICAN BEAUTY, ROAD TO PERDITION, REVOLUTIONARY ROAD and the sublime, beautiful and lovingly crafted AWAY WE GO are great testaments to Mendes ability for ANY film. Unlike most potential Bond directors he is not tied to a genre or style, country or success rates.

First things first. Imo, QoS wasn't a bad film. It was a clearly rushed film with a dodgy script. Additionally, Forster's decision to edit the movie the way it turned out was his decoision and of course wasn't going to sit well with some members of the audience but at the end of the day, the 2 key things to note are the lacking script and Forster's conscious decision to edit the movie the way he did.

That is only opinion. And be careful quoting Micheal Wilson on his editing thoughts when most people commenting here were not privy to the context of the discussion in question.

Sam Mendes is an interesting choice to direct such a film, since he’s not really done an action film per se. But neither had Marc Forster before he did Quantum of Solace, and we know how well that turned out. Not sure why the Broccolis are insistent that the Bond pictures be directed by British filmmakers.

Because the character is British? Because Young, Hunt, Gilbert, Hamilton, Glen, Apted and (professionally) Martin Campbell are all British?

And can folk stop throwing in lazy fiction regarding SOLACE such as "course we all know how that turned out".... yes, it was one of the bravest, most progressive Bond films since 1962 and - in itself - has opened the door for rumours and speculation regarding the likes of Sam Mendes to not even appear foolhardy right now.

[Conlazmoodalbrocra]

If he does go on to direct Bond 23, I hope he can make it as good as Road To Perdition...but obviously not set in the 30s!

[Zorin Industries]

http://movies.inside...-james-bond-23/

MGM has announced (via Heat Vision) that Sam Mendes, of American Beauty, Road to Perdition, and more recently Away We Go, has been hired to direct the twenty-third installment in the James Bond franchise.

Technically MGM are not able to announce anything at all right now.

[[dark]]

Muddy MGM situation behind Sam Mendes negotiations

Nikki Fenke claims Oscar winner will initially board Bond 23 as a "consultant"

[Zorin Industries]

Wow, just...wow. Not just the news that Mendes might direct (they are currently working on a deal to bring Sam on as a consultant with an eye to direct), but the way people react on this forum.

Like someone mentioned earlier, a decade ago EON talked to directors of such classics as 'No Escape', 'Stop or My Mom Will Shoot', 'Enough' & 'xXx: The Next Level' and now they are talking to the director of the modern classic (and - in my humble opinion - one of the few films that actually deserved an Academy Award for Best Picture) 'American Beauty'. Babs and Mike are miracle workers and yet some people are still complaining.

Sure Mendes hasn't made a film as good as 'American Beauty' since, but who has? It was a perfect film and every film Mendes has made since was at the very least stellar. My least favorite 'Revolutionary Road' was still brilliantly acted and looked amazing. And look at his other films 'Jarhead', 'Away We Go' & of course 'Road to Perdition'. I still can't believe there is a chance this man will walk into the world of Bond. Here's a director who can work in every genre (drama, gangster, war, period, roadmovie) and can adopt a completely different style with every movie he makes. A director who is a genius with actors and has a perfect aesthetic eye, yet some people are still complaining.

You have an Academy Award winning director, an Academy Award winning writer, an Academy Award winning actress, Daniel Craig as Bond, all Brits... yet some people are still complaining??

Wow, seriously... wow.

Thank you for the sanity on this thread.

I do despair when I see folk saying they don't like his work when you know full well they haven't even seen anything beyond AMERICAN BEAUTY, which is indeed a classic of American cinema and has influenced television and film ever since.

Mendes started at the top and worked his way down.

The three films Mendes has directed since Road to Perdition and American Beauty have all failed at the box office and they haven't exactly excited the critics either.

Come on people.

No. Let reality "come on" instead, eh? So Mendes directed the first contemporary set Best Picture winner at the Oscars for nearly ten years, helmed a film that Spielberg hailed as "the first classic film of the new century" and you still prefer to use lazy opinion masquerading as fact to dismiss a notion such as this? (!)

[Simon]

A very interesting twist.

So Eon have to Pay MGM something when a Director is announced? Never knew that? Poor MGM, there is just no such thing as an even break when you're on your way out.

Can it be possible to have a film directed by a consultant should MGM negotiations take just a little too long to resolve?

"Bond 23 title, Produced by Brocolli, Consulted by Sam Mendes"

Splendid.

Would the move from Consultant to Director be considered as a mid term promotion. 'Probation period is up fella, how's about a spot of directing?'

[Jim]

Sounds all most interesting and novel. Not sure what the "consultant" thing means.

He is a very talented man and that he's even being mentioned (even if all it comes to is a rumour) in the same breath as the Bond series is an indication of how far the series has come on.

[marktmurphy]

Sounds all most interesting and novel. Not sure what the "consultant" thing means.

Seems to be some sort of technicality which avoids MGM having to dish out a lump of cash.

[Loomis]

The "Eon Brand" is stronger than any director with his name above the door. They know it and an incoming director knows it. I understand what you mean but Bond needs to develop cinematically. It started in the first half of DIE ANOTHER DAY and continued through the Craig entries. Middling directors such as Martin Campbell (and as good as ROYALE is - he is a middling director) will not ensure the cinematic future of James Bond 007. The series cannot keep plodding on with average direction.

But the "middling" Campbell made CASINO ROYALE, which developed Bond cinematically (and dramatically) more than any other film.

A big name or an Oscar-winning director does not guarantee quality. Sebastian Faulks is a much better and more acclaimed writer than Raymond Benson, yet ZERO MINUS TEN is a superior Bond novel to DEVIL MAY CARE. Horses for courses.

Indeed, the Bond series has always developed cinematically - had it not done so, it would not have been around for nearly fifty years. But it has developed as a producer-led series, as opposed to a director-led one.

I'm all for unusual choices of director. My top two picks for RISI----, sorry, BOND 23 would be Mira Nair and Michael Winterbottom. But my worry with someone of Mendes' stature and clout is that he would upset the balance of power to the point where every subsequent 007 outing would be seen - wrongly - to require a "star" director. It would, I dunno, fundamentally alter the character of the series.

That's why I was opposed to Eon hiring Tarantino (if indeed that was ever even a faint possibility). I love Tarantino and would be hugely excited by his take on CASINO ROYALE (part of me still wishes he could somehow get together with Brosnan and film it outside the series a la NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN). But, ultimately, it would have been A Film By Quentin Tarantino, and not an Eon affair.

Still, having said all that, these misgivings are ultimately rooted in Bond fan conservatism. I mean, so what if The Character of the Series™ is changed? Might it not be a good thing?

[Safari Suit]

While some here seem to be in despair about the idea of Mendes directing a Bond film it seems it cuts both ways

[Aris007]

Preety news here! An Oscar winner director for Bond! Some years ago this speculation would look like a complete joke! And look what's going on now! Even Rueters has this on its main site! This tells me that Bond has spread its "tentacles" to the general audience after CR and now it seems this appral is getting bigger and bigger!

Anyway, I'm not getting this for granted, cause its just speculation, but I think it's more believable than any speculation I've heard in the last 5 years or so. He's made great films, that's what the Oscar tells, and who says that a director who's made fantastic semi-drama films can't make a good acton film? And since we're on Craig's era we want a more down-to-earth, more-human image of Bond. It seems that Barbara and the other folks got that and want to show us more of what we want!

As for the confirmation, I don't think that MGM and EON will risk confirming this until Mendes signs for sure. We're talking for proffesionals!

[RivenWinner]

I wasn't saying that just because The Hollywood Reporter ran the story makes it fact, what I was insinuating, and what someone else later said, is that typically when entertainment websites run these stories, the types that include so-and-so is "in negotiations," the story is usually correct, more often than not.

The Deadline Hollywood post is certainly another interesting twist. I can see how EON bringing Mendes as a consultant can help them move forward while waiting on MGM's future.

Something that I've noticed the past few days in regards to some MGM projects--several are moving forward faster than expected, at least given their current situation.

-Bond 23 is now reportedly being 'fast-tracked.'
-The Hobbit films are going ahead and planning to start in the next few months
-Sean Penn has returned to "The Three Stooges," and that project is moving forward as well.
-Second season of Stargate: Universe is underway, although I believe financing for this was already in place for some time.

This is an addition to the few projects MGM has in post ---'Red Dawn,' 'Cabin in the Woods,' and 'Hot Tub Time Machine' (which comes out soon).

Some things are still moving forward, slowly, lol

Edited by RivenWinner, 06 January 2010 - 01:36 PM.

[Aris007]

While some here seem to be in despair about the idea of Mendes directing a Bond film it seems it cuts both ways

Do you really believe that Barbara Brocolli wants to "use" the character of Bond for the PR of Mr. Mendes? I don't!

[Zorin Industries]

The "Eon Brand" is stronger than any director with his name above the door. They know it and an incoming director knows it. I understand what you mean but Bond needs to develop cinematically. It started in the first half of DIE ANOTHER DAY and continued through the Craig entries. Middling directors such as Martin Campbell (and as good as ROYALE is - he is a middling director) will not ensure the cinematic future of James Bond 007. The series cannot keep plodding on with average direction.

But the "middling" Campbell made CASINO ROYALE, which developed Bond cinematically (and dramatically) more than any other film.

A big name or an Oscar-winning director does not guarantee quality. Sebastian Faulks is a much better and more acclaimed writer than Raymond Benson, yet ZERO MINUS TEN is a superior Bond novel to DEVIL MAY CARE. Horses for courses.

Indeed, the Bond series has always developed cinematically - had it not done so, it would not have been around for nearly fifty years. But it has developed as a producer-led series, as opposed to a director-led one.

I'm all for unusual choices of director. My top two picks for RISI----, sorry, BOND 23 would be Mira Nair and Michael Winterbottom. But my worry with someone of Mendes' stature and clout is that he would upset the balance of power to the point where every subsequent 007 outing would be seen - wrongly - to require a "star" director. It would, I dunno, fundamentally alter the character of the series.

That's why I was opposed to Eon hiring Tarantino (if indeed that was ever even a faint possibility). I love Tarantino and would be hugely excited by his take on CASINO ROYALE (part of me still wishes he could somehow get together with Brosnan and film it outside the series a la NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN). But, ultimately, it would have been A Film By Quentin Tarantino, and not an Eon affair.

Still, having said all that, these misgivings are ultimately rooted in Bond fan conservatism. I mean, so what if The Character of the Series™ is changed? Might it not be a good thing?

Let's talk this through further over a drink... soon (?!)

[Simon]

Sounds all most interesting and novel. Not sure what the "consultant" thing means.

Seems to be some sort of technicality which avoids MGM having to dish out a lump of cash.

Seems to be the other way around fella. If the below from the story blurb is to be believed.

MGM requires a first payment from Eon Productions once the company hires a director.

[Safari Suit]

While some here seem to be in despair about the idea of Mendes directing a Bond film it seems it cuts both ways

Do you really believe that Barbara Brocolli wants to "use" the character of Bond for the PR of Mr. Mendes? I don't!

I don't think anything particularly, and I certainly don't agree with that article I just posted it for perspective's sake.

[Ambler]

Mendes started at the top and worked his way down.

The three films Mendes has directed since Road to Perdition and American Beauty have all failed at the box office and they haven't exactly excited the critics either.

Come on people.

No. Let reality "come on" instead ... lazy opinion masquerading as fact

The delusion seems to be catching. Try not to cry.

[Mendes'] career has been in steep decline, both in terms of critical as well as commercial success. In fact, if you look at the grosses on his five feature films, they form a graph that goes in only one direction -- straight down.

Mendes' biggest-grossing film was "American Beauty," his splashy Hollywood debut that made $130 million domestically (it also won five Oscars, including best picture). His second film, "Road to Perdition," made $104 million. His next, "Jarhead," topped out at $62 million. "Revolutionary Road" only grossed $22 million while his most recent film, last year's road-trip comedy "Away We Go," struggled to earn $9.4 million.

007 bondage would be a bad move for Sam Mendes, Los Angeles Times.

[Odd Jobbies]

Didn't they learn from the mistake of rushing QoS - shooting without a polished script?

Sure, the script's never really finished 'til the film's cut, but you still want to allow your prestigious, well payed writer (was Haggis, now Morgan) to be happy with it (Haggis said he wasn't, and if it's fast-tracked then Morgan won't be over the moon either).

QoS made stacks of cash, but much of that is from those who liked Casino Royale so much on DVD/Blu-ray, so they invested in QoS. If that trend continues it means much lower ticket sales on B23, since it split the audience.

Sorry, but that is speculative tosh.

It's based upon plenty of viewer/critic feedback in the media. You can't deny that a great many people were disappointed with QoS. That's not tosh, or did you only read the good reviews and speak to people you knew would liked it?

Who said Haggis wasn't happy with it?

How about this....

"I just finished the second draft of the Bond movie and was doing the polish when this thing stopped”, Haggis said. “And I don’t want that movie shooting where it says “something happens here.” I’m sure they can figure it out for themselves. It sort of does that at one point. Whatever, I can’t tell you what it is, but it says “something is like that,” and I’m sure they can figure it out for themselves.
—
Haggis went on to say that he has been contacted by the production during the strike, but would not break picket lines to help out Bond 22. “I get calls from Amy (Pascal), I get calls from Michael (Wilson). They hope this thing resolves. They’re really, really good people."

http://ultimatejames...ag/paul-haggis/

He doesn't sound too satisfied with the script to me...! Or would you consider that a writer happy with what he gave Eon?

I can certainly think of a few places in QoS where the script may indeed have said "...Something happens here..."

SOLACE did not "split" the audience. It had continued and repeat business which simply do not get when people do not like a film. And people didn't flock to SOLACE because of ROYALE. It helped, of course it did. But so did the other 20 films before too.

As i've said above, it seems more than fair to suggest that Solace disappointed a lot of people (IMO most of them). I'm certainly not calling your claims tosh, but where are the 'repeat viewing figures for QoS? Are they as good as CR?

Don't get me wrong - i'm a fan QoS. Like Forster said, the film is a bullet and i love it for that (i'd put it in my top 5 -- I'd say the the opera scene/shoot out is the second best in the franchise, after Connery & Robert Shaw's confrontation in FRWL). In fact i'd love to see Forster do another, only this time with a finished script.

I see it's flaws as being symptomatic of an unfinished script - believe me, i know how that can create problems you think you've fixed 'til you're in the edit and.... Damn, can we re-shoot?!!!

I love it's balls to reinvent Bond as a dark visceral adrenalin ride with a stunning pace. I think Forster's eye for the interesting as well as the necessary in a scene is a welcome breath of fresh air in Bond.

The film simply loses it's way in a couple of poorly planned action scenes -- the 'superman' freefall in which Bond seems indestructible jars horribly with the gritty realism given the character in the rest of the movie, both emotionally and physically i.e the balcony fight, which was perfectly directed. And to often the plot seemed complicated rather than complex.

If not for writer's strike i dare say all of these issues would've been resolved, much to the chagrin of Haggis.

[Cody]

Sounds all most interesting and novel. Not sure what the "consultant" thing means.

Seems to be some sort of technicality which avoids MGM having to dish out a lump of cash.

Seems to be the other way around fella. If the below from the story blurb is to be believed.

MGM requires a first payment from Eon Productions once the company hires a director.

DeadlineHollywood has it as "once EON hires a director on their Bond films, it triggers a first payment from MGM." Which could be interpreted either way, but the money going from MGM to EON would make more sense to me. But I know nothing of this.

I do know that I like the idea of Mendes directing. I'm not an American Beauty fan and don't recall much of Jarhead, but I did like Road to Perdition, Revolutionary Road, and Away We Go quite a bit.

[Loomis]

The "Eon Brand" is stronger than any director with his name above the door. They know it and an incoming director knows it. I understand what you mean but Bond needs to develop cinematically. It started in the first half of DIE ANOTHER DAY and continued through the Craig entries. Middling directors such as Martin Campbell (and as good as ROYALE is - he is a middling director) will not ensure the cinematic future of James Bond 007. The series cannot keep plodding on with average direction.

But the "middling" Campbell made CASINO ROYALE, which developed Bond cinematically (and dramatically) more than any other film.

A big name or an Oscar-winning director does not guarantee quality. Sebastian Faulks is a much better and more acclaimed writer than Raymond Benson, yet ZERO MINUS TEN is a superior Bond novel to DEVIL MAY CARE. Horses for courses.

Indeed, the Bond series has always developed cinematically - had it not done so, it would not have been around for nearly fifty years. But it has developed as a producer-led series, as opposed to a director-led one.

I'm all for unusual choices of director. My top two picks for RISI----, sorry, BOND 23 would be Mira Nair and Michael Winterbottom. But my worry with someone of Mendes' stature and clout is that he would upset the balance of power to the point where every subsequent 007 outing would be seen - wrongly - to require a "star" director. It would, I dunno, fundamentally alter the character of the series.

That's why I was opposed to Eon hiring Tarantino (if indeed that was ever even a faint possibility). I love Tarantino and would be hugely excited by his take on CASINO ROYALE (part of me still wishes he could somehow get together with Brosnan and film it outside the series a la NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN). But, ultimately, it would have been A Film By Quentin Tarantino, and not an Eon affair.

Still, having said all that, these misgivings are ultimately rooted in Bond fan conservatism. I mean, so what if The Character of the Series™ is changed? Might it not be a good thing?

Let's talk this through further over a drink... soon (?!)

That'd be great.