Quentin Tarantino Talks His Casino Royale

[Broccoli]

http://commanderbond.net/6801/quent...e-done-casino-royale-with-pierce-brosnan.html

It may not have been intended, but I think he comes off as an ass.

 

[JacksonArcher]

Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson have been trying to do Casino Royale for ages. They just managed to secure the rights after Die Another Day and made it their next film. Tarantino needs to get his head out of his ass. And furthermore, Royale just wouldn't have worked as a movie with Pierce Brosnan as an established Bond, so I'm really glad the producers kept Tarantino far away from the director's chair.

 

[Broccoli]

Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson have been trying to do Casino Royale for ages. They just managed to secure the rights after Die Another Day and made it their next film. Tarantino needs to get his head out of his ass. And furthermore, Royale just wouldn't have worked as a movie with Pierce Brosnan as an established Bond, so I'm really glad the producers kept Tarantino far away from the director's chair.

Yeah, that was my biggest thing too...the rights were not available for W&B until just before they announced doing the movie. If he made the "unfilmable" claim on a BBS, we would all say for him to provide a link!

Also, I don't think that Tarantino really has any idea on how the Bond movies work. Or at least, I think he would be a terrible fit. Tarantino is very use to writing, directing, producing, doing everything with his films. And that is his thing; it works for him. The Bond movies are such a different creature. His creative control, while still there, as he would be the director, would be considerably limited compared to his earlier movies.

However, I would argue that CR could work as a Bronson picture. Granted, some things would have to be altered. I've just always thought the idea of it being Bond's first mission seemed to be very inconsequential to the actual story.

 

[Captaindemotion]

^ Charles Bronson would have made an awful James Bond.

I think a Tarantino Bond would be interesting but it would have to be a one-off, outside of the official Bond 'canon.' He's not a director for hire, so it would be a Tarantino movie first and a Bond movie (distant) second. QT has more talent in his little finger than the vast majority of Bond directors or writers but I'm not sure I want to see a Bond movie where he discussed pop culture references, hamburgers and foot massages. Talking about listening to the Beatles without headphones is as close as fusty old James gets!

Still, I'd imagine QT would have made the ball-bashing scene in CR even more eye-watering than it already was, if RD's ear-slicing scene is anything to go by!

I don't see why an adaptation of CR had to feature a new Bond - sure, the script and movie we saw onscreen did but the novel could well have been tailored to deal with an older Bond a la Brosnan. Hell, the spoof version featured a retired Bond! I think CR could have been done as Brosnan's swansong, perhaps even hinting that this was Bond's last mission.

For some reason, I've always thought that if QT ever did a Bond movie, he would do it as a period piece in the 1960s. Don't know why.

Remember some years ago he was supposed to be making a movie of The Man From UNCLE? Perhaps it's time for him to reconsider that - it's likely to be as close as he gets to a Bond movie. Clooney as Solo and Paul Bettany as Kuryakin, anyone?

 

[Brikar99]

http://commanderbond.net/6801/quent...e-done-casino-royale-with-pierce-brosnan.html

It may not have been intended, but I think he comes off as an ass.

That's how he ALWAYS comes of as.

 

[Level 2 Diagnostic]

Tarantino's version of Casino Royale would have been three hours of people standing around talking.

 

[FordSVT]

^I know it's the "in" thing to do these days to bash Tarantino, and he is a bit of a weirdo, but damn he's made some great movies over the years. He loves movies, I honestly don't think everyone who works in film, even successful people, can say the same thing. The guy wrote True Romance, seals the deal in my book.

It's funny.... half the audience says "I'm bored with non-stop action, I want good direction and a good story with unique dialogue!" and then the other half complains about too much dialogue.... lose-lose. And for the most part Tarantino can write GREAT dialogue.

Which Tarantino movie is three hours of people standing around talking?

 

[miraclefan]

^I know it's the "in" thing to do these days to bash Tarantino, and he is a bit of a weirdo, but damn he's made some great movies over the years. He loves movies, I honestly don't think everyone who works in film, even successful people, can say the same thing. The guy wrote True Romance, seals the deal in my book.

It's funny.... half the audience says "I'm bored with non-stop action, I want good direction and a good story with unique dialogue!" and then the other half complains about too much dialogue.... lose-lose. And for the most part Tarantino can write GREAT dialogue.

Which Tarantino movie is three hours of people standing around talking?

I think he means ''Jackie Brown''. And most of pulp fiction.

 

[Level 2 Diagnostic]

Which Tarantino movie is three hours of people standing around talking?

I think he means ''Jackie Brown''. And most of pulp fiction.

I was actually thinking of Death Proof. But Jackie Brown fits that description too.

 

[Faldor]

There is nothing in the novel that says it's Bond first mission, infact he's quite an established agent and described as the best card player in the service, at one point.

EON simply decided it had to be an origin story simply because it was an adaptation of the first book.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Daniel Craig rules as Bond.

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

Tarantino often comes across as an ass, but he's a great writer/director. I think highly of all the full-length features he's made to date (Four Rooms, which he directed a segment of, being his one creative misfire). But, as others have already said, I'm not sure that his style would meld successfully with that of a Bond film, especially a Pierce Brosnan Bond film. Anyway, I'm glad they brought in Daniel Craig and Martin Campbell for Casino Royale.

As for Casino Royale being an origin story, the novel and film are quite similar in that Bond has quite a bit of prior field experience, but is a newly-minted 00 agent. In the novel he's killed two men in the line of duty, which has earned him 00 status. The storyline could be re-engineered for an existing Bond, but it served as the perfect introduction for a new Bond continuity.

 

[Harvey]

Quentin Tarantino is an arrogant ass, more adept at failure than his fans would like you to believe (Four Rooms, Death Proof) and totally wrong for Casino Royale.

But he's also proved himself to be an incredible talent with Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown, and Kill Bill. And since when did a three hour movie that mostly consists of people talking become a disparaging remark?

 

[Level 2 Diagnostic]

And since when did a three hour movie that mostly consists of people talking become a disparaging remark?

I don't know, ask some of the people who reviewed Inglourious Basterds at Cannes...


http://www.ifc.com/blogs/indie-eye/2009/05/cannes-2009-inglourious-baster.php

Quentin Tarantino's a great writer of dialogue, and no one's more convinced of the fact than Quentin Tarantino. The ratio of talk to action -- not gun fights or explosions, but just people doing stuff -- in "Inglourious Basterds" is, generously, nine to one. Again and again, characters sit down over drinks (whiskey, champagne, milk), and the stakes may be high, but the conversations are meandering and lengthy, and no matter how clever they may get, they end up defeated by their own pace and their writer's inability to let anything go.

http://www.indiewire.com/article/falling_short_of_tarantinos_own_high_bar_inglorious_goes_bubblegum/

“Basterds” isn’t really a jokefest; it’s a talk-fest. Anyone familiar with the Tarantino touch will testify that the director likes to make his characters talk, and talk, and talk - and sometimes so that it ends up absorbing the spotlight. In “Basterds,” we see the worst side-effects of this tendency, as much of the movie relies on chatter to propel it along the basic trajectory of a spy movie.

I honestly can't think of a Bond movie that "relies on chatter to propel it along the basic trajectory of a spy movie". Something tells me that would be a bit of a disappointment to Bond fans.

 

[DarthPipes]

Tarantino's version of Casino Royale would have been three hours of people standing around talking.

With a bunch of over-the-top violence. Tarantino is an overrated filmmaker still living off the one good film he ever made.

 

[rafterman1701]

Tarantino has done some good work, but I'm not a fan of cocky comments like this.

 

[Harvey]

I honestly can't think of a Bond movie that "relies on chatter to propel it along the basic trajectory of a spy movie". Something tells me that would be a bit of a disappointment to Bond fans.

True. But James Bond is notable for the action. Although, ironically, the closest thing to a Bond film driven by talk was Casino Royale.

 

[Captaindemotion]

You know what I think would be cool? Remember the recent novel Devil May Care, by Sebastian Foulkes, 'writing as Ian Fleming.' It's a 60s-set adventure and Eon have made it clear that they have no interest in filming it as a Daniel Craig movie. However, I think they ought to call Tarantino's bluff and let him go ahead and make a movie of DMC. He could set it in the 1960s and put Brosnan or whoever he likes in it.

There have been unofficial Bond movies before (Never Say Never Again, Casino Royale) and viewers have had no difficulty in understanding that these are separate from the regular Bond movies. With a different actor, period setting and a Tarantino twist, there would be no confusing this movie with the follow up to Quantum of Solace. And since they've said they don't want to make DMC, Eon aren't losing anything - just gaining a bonus Bond!

Sadly, Eon are much too possessive of their franchise to ever let this become a reality, but one may live in hope ...

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

While I don't think Casino Royale necessarily had to be 007's first mission, I do think the style of the movie was unsuited to Pierce Brosnan's version of James Bond. I don't see Brosnan's Bond as having that self-loathing side, which is a big part of why I like him better than Craig.

Still, I'd imagine QT would have made the ball-bashing scene in CR even more eye-watering than it already was, if RD's ear-slicing scene is anything to go by!

For this reason alone, I'm damn glad Tarantino didn't do Casino Royale.

Tarantino's version of Casino Royale would have been three hours of people standing around talking.

As opposed to 90 minutes of people sitting around playing poker?

 

[Checkmate]

I, for one, think Tarantino would have made a fantastic Bond movie.

He knows how to look at source material and find what works in it. Just because all of his movies, which are largely his creation, are based on a certain type of flick, that doesn't mean that's all the man can do. I'm sure he would have gone back and focused on all the Sean Connery films, picking them apart at their core, and then emphasize all the best aspects of them if he was given the chance.

He knows how to make fights interesting. He knows how to make an action scene thrilling. He knows how to write awesome dialogue. He knows how to ooze out every ounce of charisma his actors have.

What the fuck more could you ask for in a Bond film?