654 replies to this topic

[WhiteKnight2000]

Where did I say that Tarantino wanted to be credited?

I was explaining the timeline of events that led to Casino Royale.

Edited by WhiteKnight2000, 20 October 2008 - 12:13 AM.

[Kristian]

Lest we forget that Brosnan and Tarantino were saying the franchise needed to go back to basics and suggested making Casino Royale. The producers took the idea, without thanking Tarantino and sacked Brosnan at the same time, over the phone. Nice.

So Brosnan and Tarantino should be credited for saying they needed to go back to basics?

Yes, he was quite vocal in his displeasure of the script quality of his movies.

Don't you remember all the press about Tarantino saying he wanted to make Casino Royale with Brosnan. This was long before the producers decided to make CR.

When it comes to Bond, I have a photographic memory for remembering facts.

My own uncle said way back in the '80s CR should be remade as a serious film. He's not complaining they stole his idea.

What's your uncle got to do with the Bond franchise?

Tarantino says a lot of things. That doesn't make it a FACT that his suggesting remaking CR meant he should be credited for Eon acquiring the rights to CR and doing it with Craig. From what I've heard, Eon had been trying to acquire the rights to it for years.

I'm a huge fan of QT's, but everybody knows that if the guy did as much writing and directing as he did running his mouth then we'd have a lot more work of his to enjoy. He's said he was going to make a Vega brothers movie for years. He said for years he was going to make Inglorious Bastards and is just now getting around to it. He talks more than does.

As for the comment on my uncle, I was making a comparison that he deserves as much credit as QT does for saying CR should have been remade.

Seriously. If it weren't for his occassional flashes of genius, Tarantino would be a joke. However, I would have to chalk up his idea to do CR as yet another flash of said genius. Whether or not EON cribbed it will never be known. Let's just be glad it happened.

[Double-Oh Agent]

EON had wanted Casino Royale for years but didn't have the rights to it. In 1999, thanks to the settlement of the Columbia/Kevin McClory lawsuit, they finally got it. By that time, they were already well under way with The World Is Not Enough and the next film in 2002 would be a celebratory 40th anniversary one. Another reason they waited to film Casino Royale was so that they could do a Bond begins story to introduce a brand new Bond actor based on the first Ian Fleming story--a scenario that wasn't possible with Pierce Brosnan because he was too old to do it.

Quentin Tarrantino had nothing to do with EON deciding to film Casino Royale. Virtually everyone knew Casino Royale would be filmed in the near future--most likely circa 2007/08. What no one expected was Brosnan's premature departure, which opened the door for Daniel Craig to do the coveted film in 2006. Tarrantino just spoke out in the press in a futile attempt to land the director's gig. That's all it was, plain and simple.

[DaveBond21]

EON had wanted Casino Royale for years but didn't have the rights to it. In 1999, thanks to the settlement of the Columbia/Kevin McClory lawsuit, they finally got it. By that time, they were already well under way with The World Is Not Enough and the next film in 2002 would be a celebratory 40th anniversary one. Another reason they waited to film Casino Royale was so that they could do a Bond begins story to introduce a brand new Bond actor based on the first Ian Fleming story--a scenario that wasn't possible with Pierce Brosnan because he was too old to do it.

Quentin Tarrantino had nothing to do with EON deciding to film Casino Royale. Virtually everyone knew Casino Royale would be filmed in the near future--most likely circa 2007/08. What no one expected was Brosnan's premature departure, which opened the door for Daniel Craig to do the coveted film in 2006. Tarrantino just spoke out in the press in a futile attempt to land the director's gig. That's all it was, plain and simple.

That's the way I see it.

[Roebuck]

Six years and a new DVD format, but the hate hasn’t gone away…

http://chud.com/arti...-DAY/Page1.html

The bit that confuses me though is…
''It fails itself by not being true to its original vision, while attempting to ape its more successful competitors. Bond didn't become a worldwide phenom by aping what was going on at other studios. It became huge by making others come to it. That power has been lost and it's not to late for EON Productions and the Broccoli estate to get it back.''

What do they think DAD was trying to ape (other than a train wreck)?

[ForMathis]

I love this thread the first post is beautiful and very well written.

Also this serves as proof that it takes the majority of Bond fans 4 or 5 years AFTER the release of a Bond film to know if it was good or even if they truly liked it or not. Quantum of Solace here we come.

Edited by ForMathis, 25 October 2008 - 09:41 PM.

[PrinceKamalKhan]

I love this thread the first post is beautiful and very well written.

Also this serves as proof that it takes the majority of Bond fans 4 or 5 years AFTER the release of a Bond film to know if it was good or even if they truly liked it or not. Quantum of Solace here we come.

Time, as they say, is the ultimate test. It will be interesting to see how Casino Royale is viewed in 2012.

[_JW_]

Time, as they say, is the ultimate test. It will be interesting to see how Casino Royale is viewed in 2012.

I see it remaining a fairly divisive film among the big 007 buffs. Maybe not as divisive as a OHMSS, but you'll still have a fair share of CR lovers and CR haters in a few years, whereas DAD seems to have dropped down into the turkey pile for the most part.

[SecretAgentFan]

Last time I saw DAD was directly after my second viewing of QOS. The change of tone and style was very clear to see. Yet, I do think that DAD is a very entertaining movie. But it is a fantasy Bond film. It is also an Anniversary Bond with all the obvious winks at the previous Bonds. It´s a Greatest Hits package. Brosnan delivers a fine performance. But it really seems as if the whole film shows: This is how far we can go with the formula if we don´t shake it up completely. So, to me, it was a nice and entertaining way to end an era. All the hatred against it a bit pointless IMO because then you would hate basic elements of the former films as well.

DAD often gets compared to MR since both films leave reality (even more obviously than every Bond film does). To me, MR is the more entertaining film, maybe because its even bigger silliness gels more with the tongue-in-cheek Moore era.

Basically I think all the James Bond films go through the cycle of starting in reality, trying to top themselves, relaxing within their more and more unrealistic settings and finally going over the top.

Connery: From "Dr.No" to "You only live twice" or "Diamonds are forever" (which in its way is just as over the top)

The Lazenby/Connery interlude: "On her Majesty´s Secret Service" to "Diamonds are forever" (a much faster concluding of the circle)

Moore 1: "Live and let die" to "Moonraker"
Moore 2: "For your eyes only" to "A View to a kill"

Brosnan: "Goldeneye" to "Die another day"

Dalton, of course, only had two films. But judging from the material planned for Dalton´s third outing it would have followed the same circle.

Now we have Craig saying that Bond 23 will be much more traditional. When the Craig era has ended I am sure people will hate his last film because it will me too much like "DAD".

And still, I´m sure, it will be very entertaining.

[Double-Oh Agent]

EON had wanted Casino Royale for years but didn't have the rights to it. In 1999, thanks to the settlement of the Columbia/Kevin McClory lawsuit, they finally got it. By that time, they were already well under way with The World Is Not Enough and the next film in 2002 would be a celebratory 40th anniversary one. Another reason they waited to film Casino Royale was so that they could do a Bond begins story to introduce a brand new Bond actor based on the first Ian Fleming story--a scenario that wasn't possible with Pierce Brosnan because he was too old to do it.

Quentin Tarrantino had nothing to do with EON deciding to film Casino Royale. Virtually everyone knew Casino Royale would be filmed in the near future--most likely circa 2007/08. What no one expected was Brosnan's premature departure, which opened the door for Daniel Craig to do the coveted film in 2006. Tarrantino just spoke out in the press in a futile attempt to land the director's gig. That's all it was, plain and simple.

I just realized something reading my old post. Had Pierce Brosnan returned for a fifth Bond film in 2004 or 2005, we would have gotten the new Bond film Casino Royale in 2007!!!

That almost breaks my heart. One last Brosnan go around to go out with a bang followed by Ian Fleming's classic Casino Royale finally making it to the big screen in a faithful adaptation while starring a new James Bond. (Still Daniel Craig perhaps? If the Brosnan film came out in 2004, it would have still been very possible.) That would have been incredible! Think of the buzz generated around the film then. It certainly would have been a fun, magical, Bondian year in 2007--and a truly special time to be a Bond fan. The mind boggles at the possibilites. Oh, what could have been.

[spynovelfan]

I think discussing Tarantino in this way is absurd. EON hold the rights to James Bond, and obtained, finally, the rights, to Casino Royale. For someone completely unconnected to say 'Film Casino Royale!' and take the credit for the idea is absurd. Why did they buy the rights?

It would have been nice to have had an extra Bond film from Brosnan - it would have been nice to have had several more Bond films. I don't think the 2-007 thing would have made that much difference, though.

I think the thread certainly shows that initial impressions of a new Bond film tend to be exaggerations of what we feel a few years later.

[dee-bee-five]

Lest we forget that Brosnan and Tarantino were saying the franchise needed to go back to basics and suggested making Casino Royale. The producers took the idea, without thanking Tarantino and sacked Brosnan at the same time, over the phone. Nice.

And, lest we forget, the series was not Brosnan or Tarantino's to play around with, nor was that idea unique to them. I was saying much the same thing around 2002/2003; so, presumably, were a lot of people on this site. Does that mean we should all share in the credit of Casino Royale, too?

[Zorin Industries]

Lest we forget that Brosnan and Tarantino were saying the franchise needed to go back to basics and suggested making Casino Royale. The producers took the idea, without thanking Tarantino and sacked Brosnan at the same time, over the phone. Nice.

And, lest we forget, the series was not Brosnan or Tarantino's to play around with, nor was that idea unique to them. I was saying much the same thing around 2002/2003; so, presumably, were a lot of people on this site. Does that mean we should all share in the credit of Casino Royale, too?

And the rights to the novel came into Eon's hands long before Tarantino's little notion so Eon had a plan for the first novel a long time ago.

[dee-bee-five]

Lest we forget that Brosnan and Tarantino were saying the franchise needed to go back to basics and suggested making Casino Royale. The producers took the idea, without thanking Tarantino and sacked Brosnan at the same time, over the phone. Nice.

And, lest we forget, the series was not Brosnan or Tarantino's to play around with, nor was that idea unique to them. I was saying much the same thing around 2002/2003; so, presumably, were a lot of people on this site. Does that mean we should all share in the credit of Casino Royale, too?

And the rights to the novel came into Eon's hands long before Tarantino's little notion so Eon had a plan for the first novel a long time ago.

And Michael Wilson had wanted to go back to basics with an origin story as far back as 1987, at least.

[SecretAgentFan]

And Tarantino is a shameless self-promoter thinking that he knows better than everybody else while he basically is a one-trick-writer whose biggest success actually was a film he only co-wrote.

[HildebrandRarity]

Quentintino is a has-been bum who thought he could throw his hat into the director's ring 5 years AFTER Eon acquired the rights to film CR. The work was in the pipeline for years. Quontentarantio had all to do with Eon Productions acquiring those rights and wanting to film the property.

Anyone who thinks otherwise, needs to go back as far as 1998/1999 and do their research before coming here and appearing like a complete numbskull.

[[dark]]

Time, as they say, is the ultimate test. It will be interesting to see how Casino Royale is viewed in 2012.

I see it remaining a fairly divisive film among the big 007 buffs. Maybe not as divisive as a OHMSS, but you'll still have a fair share of CR lovers and CR haters in a few years, whereas DAD seems to have dropped down into the turkey pile for the most part.

Does Casino Royale polarise fans, though? With the exception of those few remaining CraigNotBonders, I'm under the impression the film is pretty much universally praised by fans. I'd put Casino Royale firmly in From Russia With Love/Goldfinger territory - a solid, gold hit.

Quantum of Solace, on the other hand, I think will be perpetually polarising.

[DLibrasnow]

And Tarantino is a shameless self-promoter thinking that he knows better than everybody else while he basically is a one-trick-writer whose biggest success actually was a film he only co-wrote.

Agree 100 percent. I've never understood what people like about QT. I personally don't like any of the garbage he has unloaded on us over the years (with one exception).

EON had the rights to Casino Royale long before the overrated has-been Tarantino discussed making the movie with another overrated has-been Pierce Brosnan. Cubby Broccoli had always wanted to make a serious version of Casino Royale but the rights eluded him and Wilson had discussed doing an Bond origin story in the mid-1980s (when The Living Daylights was being planned).

But, do we ever hear Tarantino and Brosnan apologising to Wilson and Broccoli for passing their ideas off as their own?

[Daddy Bond]

Time, as they say, is the ultimate test. It will be interesting to see how Casino Royale is viewed in 2012.

I see it remaining a fairly divisive film among the big 007 buffs. Maybe not as divisive as a OHMSS, but you'll still have a fair share of CR lovers and CR haters in a few years, whereas DAD seems to have dropped down into the turkey pile for the most part.

Does Casino Royale polarise fans, though? With the exception of those few remaining CraigNotBonders, I'm under the impression the film is pretty much universally praised by fans. I'd put Casino Royale firmly in From Russia With Love/Goldfinger territory - a solid, gold hit.

Quantum of Solace, on the other hand, I think will be perpetually polarising.

Absolutely. Quantum raises the bar so high and is so highly nuanced that a certain portion of viewers will always be confused or get lost. Such is the case with great things. At a certain point, those on the fringe drop off because it has stretched their minds too far.

[DLibrasnow]

Absolutely. Quantum raises the bar so high and is so highly nuanced that a certain portion of viewers will always be confused or get lost. Such is the case with great things. At a certain point, those on the fringe drop off because it has stretched their minds too far.

I suppose you are stating that CBN staffer Doublenoughtspy (one of the members I hold in highest regard on this site) didn't have the mental capacity to appreciate the movie?

[Matt_13]

Always happy to see this thread resurrected, it is a very enjoyable read.

[Daddy Bond]

Absolutely. Quantum raises the bar so high and is so highly nuanced that a certain portion of viewers will always be confused or get lost. Such is the case with great things. At a certain point, those on the fringe drop off because it has stretched their minds too far.

I suppose you are stating that CBN staffer Doublenoughtspy (one of the members I hold in highest regard on this site) didn't have the mental capacity to appreciate the movie?

Exactly.

No, I was having a bit of sarcastic fun. A bit of tongue in cheek, which is why I added the smiley face.

[DLibrasnow]

Exactly.

No, I was having a bit of sarcastic fun. A bit of tongue in cheek, which is why I added the smiley face.

I think the thread certainly shows that initial impressions of a new Bond film tend to be exaggerations of what we feel a few years later.

Makes one wonder if all those vigorously defending Quantum of Solace now will still be as adamant about their beliefs in 10 years from now?! Who knows.

[HildebrandRarity]

Absolutely. Quantum raises the bar so high and is so highly nuanced that a certain portion of viewers will always be confused or get lost. Such is the case with great things. At a certain point, those on the fringe drop off because it has stretched their minds too far.

I suppose you are stating that CBN staffer Doublenoughtspy (one of the members I hold in highest regard on this site) didn't have the mental capacity to appreciate the movie?

What a bizzare post.

I debated the flaws of OHMSS with him in his Quantum review thread.

Just because X Bond fan says 'yea' or 'nay' doesn't mean they're the Bible on all matters Bond.

No one Bond fan is the be all and end all final say on a body of work as diverse as the 22 movies that comprises that body.

No fan speaks for me. Each speaks for themselves.

Only a weak-minded individual would have someone else think and speak for them.

Wasn't it you who said Quantum was (paraphrasing) "the worst Bond film ever and deserved it's bad press"...and then immediately went out and saw it again and now you actually "enjoy" it?

Did you perhaps miss something at first? Not paying attention? Brain off first time? Which one is it?

Doublenoughtspy is an expert on OHMSS. Let's leave it at that, with no disrespect to him.

[[dark]]

Always happy to see this thread resurrected, it is a very enjoyable read.

zencat might beg to differ.

I love this thread too - purely because of the context in which it was started. In an age of Daniel Craig and Paul Haggis and Marc Forster, it's easy to look at 2002 through puke-coloured glasses, but it, too, was a great time to be a Bond fan. Back then, Pierce was the man - and the 40th anniversary was to the film series what the Ian Fleming Centenary has been to the literary Bond.

I still find more in Die Another Day to enjoy than to revile.

[Daddy Bond]

Anyway, did I mention how much I LOVED the ice sled and invisible Aston? Oh, and my favorite line in DAD? - "YO Momma!" Oh, so funny!

[DLibrasnow]

Did you perhaps miss something at first? Not paying attention? Brain off first time? Which one is it?

Never changed your mind on anything HR?

I think Zencat has!

[Daddy Bond]

Oh, by the way, totally off subject, but has anyone noticed a significant change in my signature line? Hint, look at the number!

[dee-bee-five]

I still find more in Die Another Day to enjoy than to revile.

Actually, I do, too. I also do in Thunderball, which is easily my least favourite Eon Bond (naturally, NSNA is simply beyond the pale...)

[Jim]

Oh, by the way, totally off subject, but has anyone noticed a significant change in my signature line? Hint, look at the number!

Congratulations!