Tarantino's Bond

[Max]

Quentin Tarantino has said publicly that he and Pierce Brosnan, the current Bond actor, would like to make a version of "Casino Royale," (the original Bond book, as opposed to Dr. No, the original movie). He has said he would like to bring the franchise back to building and growing Bond's character, and deepening the role, as opposed to the somewhat senseless action in the last Bond Movie. Pierce had previously said he would also like to replace repeated action with the sensational ambience and development that Ian Fleming, the original Bond writer, had put into the story. Quentin has also said that he would do his best to restore the classic Bond.
"I don't see that they have anything to lose at all," said the world famous director. "They've got this gigantic franchise, they can't do anything wrong with it. Pierce Brosnan's only going to do one more movie for them, if that, so if he stayed on to do one more with me, let's - just this one year - go my way and do it a little differently. I won't do anything that will ruin the series."
Tarantino's version would return to Fleming's original material, but he conceded he would be willing to update the action to the present day.

[DHCJr]

Have they gotten the rights to that book. It was the only book they did not have.

[noodle]

i'd like to see him do it.

bond franchise is like the batman franchise
each film keeps getting weirder and goofier and less awesome
but there is a new batman movie in the works by the director of memento and i expect it to be a revival of that franchise, so why can't tarantino do the same? (maybe he'll work some fencing in that doesn't look like a couple of schoolgirls slap-fighting? )

[darius]

Tarantino is one of the best filmmakers working today.

Currently, the old guard is resting on their laurels; when was the last time that Spielberg made a movie that challenged him as a filmmaker? Did anybody come out amazed by the last Ridley Scott film? James Cameron? Spike Lee? Hell, even Frank Oz's last film ("Stepford Wives") failed to be scathingly satirical.

The films that are currently blowing away film nuts are all young : Darren Aronofsky, M Night Shyamlan, Quentin T, Sofia Coppola, Spike Jonez.

I also love the fact that despite the watering-down of Bond setpieces, Brosnan is easily the most complex 007. He actually gets hurt and actually gets involved with his women. Although Connery defined the role, I'm almost (heresy!) beginning to like the Brosnan Bond best. (Oof. That'll be hard on the reputation points...)

QT and Brosnan? Sign me up!

darius

[Iwant2bafencer]

I definately think it's time to elaborate on Bond. We all know he can do action but as a few of you have said before, it gets kind of old and repetative. So my vote is yes.

[ReverseLunge]

I don't no if it would be that entertaining. If you have ever read the original Fleming Bond novels then you will know what I mean. There is very little high tech stuff in the novels. There is a Q department but no Q himself. In the novels, Bond is a guy who survives completely on his wits and training instead of high tech gismos and gadgets. He is also a cold blooded killer. The only thing that the movies and the novels have in common is the amount of sex Bond gets.

[Iwant2bafencer]

Well what's wrong with that? I mean how many movies do we have now that all the heros and what not are using high tech crap to kill people. Sure, they're cool gadgets and I wouldn't mind getting a few for my personal collection. However, what happened to skin against skin or using what you have where you are. I love it when they don't just shoot each other or throw random tech objects that shoot darts out or something. Man to man with what you have, I wouldn't mind more of it.

[darius]

Well, I wouldn't go that far. Bond flicks wouldn't be the same without the obligatory Q scene ("...and try to return it in one piece this time!"), and the eventual use and destruction of the gadgets he's given.

MGM has kept Bond pure in that sense -- they will always set up the gadgetry in MI-6, and put him in a dangerous position where it's necessary to leverage the toys, generally in a creative/funny way.

That's half the appeal!

darius

[Max]

I don't no if it would be that entertaining. If you have ever read the original Fleming Bond novels then you will know what I mean. There is very little high tech stuff in the novels. There is a Q department but no Q himself. In the novels, Bond is a guy who survives completely on his wits and training instead of high tech gismos and gadgets. He is also a cold blooded killer. The only thing that the movies and the novels have in common is the amount of sex Bond gets.

Prepare for a riposte! I looove the original Fleming Novels. Although at the very beginning of the series Bond is much colder, and much crueler, he evolves deeply as the series goes on (see "You Only Live Twice.") He is not quite the definitve cold-blooded killer either. And for the point, The books do include Q, but he's not named Q. He's Major Boothroyd. Admittedly, the Major doesn't turn out quite the same kind of gadgets. He deals more with standard armament- ie, the PPk. Touche!

[ReverseLunge]

Well what's wrong with that? I mean how many movies do we have now that all the heros and what not are using high tech crap to kill people. Sure, they're cool gadgets and I wouldn't mind getting a few for my personal collection. However, what happened to skin against skin or using what you have where you are. I love it when they don't just shoot each other or throw random tech objects that shoot darts out or something. Man to man with what you have, I wouldn't mind more of it.

Well there is no reason to argue with you or Iwant2bafencer since we are all fans of the real Bond. Iwant2bafencer, you might be dissapointed with the fight scenarios from the novel because they are very short. But they are intense. Bond is a "kill em with minimal effort and risk" type of man.

The Bond novels are psychological thrillers and they don't have that much action. There is a lot of conversation and a lot of documentary from Fleming about all sorts of historical facts and cultural facts (especially in You Only LiveTwice) so I dont know if the attention span of today's public will go for it. Tarantino, of course, could make a dumbed down version full of gimicky action but then what would be the point?

Also, if you want to be true to the novels then you can't use Brosnan since James Bond was in his early to mid 30's. FYI the bond novels we set in the mid 50's to early 60's.

[ReverseLunge]

I don't think Casino Royale would be a best choice because there is very little going on in that book. Some semi intense Banco playing and a very vivid torture scene. Thats about it. But I can't wait to see who they choose to play the part of Vesper.

[qatet]

Hunh, I had no idea that Luigi T was thinking of branching out into acting. And if he and Brosnan are both in the movie, which one would get to be Bond? I suppose that Tarantino could be the bad guy. Really Ihad no idea that he acted!

Oh, you mean that _other_ Tarantino. . .

[Artisan]

Oh, you mean that _other_ Tarantino. . .

....there's two?

[neevel]

....there's two?

The one who will almost certainly beat you in a sabre bout, and the other one.

[Inquartata]

It's always struck me as curious that they never made a serious version of Casino Royale. You'd think that with the immense revenue the Bond series has brought in they could have found Feldman's price by now...

[Marcos]

QT has done 2 great films (Pulp & R Dogs) the rest are pants

also Bond is a family show, and I don;t think QT can do a film that would pass a "General" certificate

so nice idea, but no thanks

[Artisan]

The one who will almost certainly beat you in a sabre bout, and the other one....

who could direct Uma to school me with a katana. Looks like I lose either way. Which would be more...um....fun?

[Tireur]

It's always struck me as curious that they never made a serious version of Casino Royale.

They actually tried. In 1954 they made a live TV version of it for "Climax Theater".

Barry Nelson played US Intelligence agent "Jimmy" Bond and Peter Lorre played Le Chiffre.

If I remember right, a woman played "Rene" Mathis, a departure from the book.

It had kooky lines like, "Aw Jimmy, you know I love you.". And Le Chiffre, after being killed, is seen getting up and walking off the set (live tv).

I made a dvd off my old video tape, but I think it is on the "Casino Royale" dvd.

[Gav]

QT has done 2 great films (Pulp & R Dogs) the rest are pants

also Bond is a family show, and I don;t think QT can do a film that would pass a "General" certificate

so nice idea, but no thanks

I agree with everything Marcos says.

QT is entirely overrated.

[noodle]

overrated or not, he has style and thats something the recent bond films are lacking. last few films seems like they were phoned in by a big computer filling in james bond mad libs.