It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Maybe it's best that he didn't direct CR. I think he also likes SP more because some of the same actors (particularly Waltz), have worked for him.
Hmm, not sure I really get what his issue with SF is, at least beyond very superficial stuff. To be completely honest the impression I get from that article is he's simply not a huge Bond fan or doesn't think much about the films (he even says he didn't like the first two Bond films).
But then again I sometimes struggle to agree with/understand some of Tarantino's opinions about films. I've read interviews where he claims that the 50s and the 80s were the worst decades for cinema followed by the sort of reasoning a first year media/film student would give (ie. very simplistic). Maybe it's just a matter of personal preference though (I'm a fan of a lot of movies from those decades, and both are fascinating times for cinema in my opinion). I get the sense he's very opinionated but not always the most thoughtful person, which is a shame because I actually like a lot of his films, but I always feel his latest efforts don't quite match up.
I honestly don’t understand his disdain for films from the 50s and 80s. I’ve heard him discuss this before, but I still have no understanding of his argument.
Could it be because of a lack of foot scenes?
Yeah it's odd. I can understand pointing out that the 80s can be seen as an era where American cinema was 'commercialised' (although even that's oversimplified), and seemingly in ways Tarantino doesn't always like. He talks a lot about how he feels that after the 70s leads became more likeable/less complex in his mind to appease audiences. Well, fine, I can understand not being a fan of the likes of Indiana Jones, Top Gun or Die Hard, but he seems to maintain that there are only a handful of great movies from that decade. I'm not sure if he's even cited the likes of Raging Bull, After Hours, King of Comedy, The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, Once Upon a Time In America, Blue Velvet, Scarface, Fatal Attraction, Angel Heart, Sex Lies and Videotape, or The Lost Boys as being worthy of that honour (and even by his own logic I can't see why he wouldn't enjoy any of those films). That's just a few examples I came up with off the top of my head as well. There are many more great films from that decade - foreign, independent etc that only could have come from that time.
Same for the 50s - sure, it's a notable Hays Code decade, but there were so many films from those ten years which are interesting in themselves.
It's weird listening to Tarantino talk about films, especially compared to similar interviews with, say, Martin Scorsese. The latter seems to have a genuine love and understanding of cinema and even admits to reevaluating his opinions/discussing fond memories he has which are connected to films. Tarantino by contrast seems weirdly disdainful of entire chunks of film history. He's clearly knowledgable but not overly insightful. I just don't get that same sense of passion.
He is a 70's guy. His influences are crystal clear now and i think he is going to repeat himself if he makes more movies.
That’s the key difference between him and Scorsese. Tarantino has admitted to holding opinions about movies he hasn’t seen beyond first viewing from decades ago. Whatever he felt about a movie he saw in 1991 he’ll reiterate it as if there’s no need to revisit or reevaluate.
I do find the remark about FRWL odd because in the 90s he actually cited it as the best Bond film. He didn’t seem to care about the 90s films. He seems to be more of a fan of the books than the films at the very least.
Here he is in Dec 1997 talking about TND and how he wanted to direct CR.
https://x.com/timothynonono/status/1662168176078237696?s=46
I’ve always wondered whether he misspeaks or he genuinely believes that Bond kills Vesper at the end of that book as he says there.
I could also be very off the mark but my theory is he has read at least CR, but prior to this interview not in a while. I suspect the main reason CR was on his mind to adapt was because the rights to the book were still being negotiated and seemingly only went to EON in ‘99.
This novel suited him well.
It's strange that no one had the same idea. Other than Kevin McClory
I’m not really sure it would to be honest. The truth is I don’t think it was ever realistically going to be made. And I don’t entirely know if Tarantino understands the novel beyond a certain point just going from that interview.
Again, I think it was because the rights were up in the air around that time and Tarantino caught wind of it/had this idea. Even as a thought experiment for a director it’s not exactly out there - he wanted to set it in the past/more or less in the era the book takes place (although he seems to say the 60s rather than the early 50s, and again I’m not entirely sure if he knows or understands the difference in terms of context for this particular book), and he even wanted Brosnan who was Bond at the time and could be imagined in the part.
Yes, Tarantino needed to get the rights wherever they were. Anyway, the novel suited him more than, I don't know, Moonraker or Goldfinger. It could have worked as an indie movie like Pulp Fiction.
He should have done Modesty Blaise anyway. I guess he can still make it if he wants.
Well, the whole saga of CR’s rights is a bit messy anyway, and understandably adapting it would tread on EON’s toes. It would have been a thankless task trying to adapt it independently. This is around the same time that Kevin McClory was trying to get his Warhead film made too, and I believe was in the process of trying to sue EON for royalties. I know EON made a deal with the Fleming estate to avoid non-EON adaptations as well.
Truth is, I think CR is a difficult book to adapt for the screen. Tarantino managed to handle quiet, but tense scenes quite well in Inglorious Basterds, but even that’s an often quite bombastic film with a big finale and a healthy dose of black comedy/pastiche. It’s a similar case with Jackie Brown, albeit to a lesser extent. EON had the right idea of modernising the book and creating an original first half, as well as making certain scenes more ‘cinematic’. I think if Tarantino had, by some miracle, gotten the rights and started to write a script he would have struggled. I highly doubt it would be a Bond film or even a Fleming adaptation as we know it. And like I said, I doubt Tarantino had read the book in years - again, in that ‘97 interview he seems to think Bond kills Vesper and that it’s a book set in the 60s. I’ve read interviews later where he claimed he wanted his film to be set after OHMSS with Bond mourning Tracy (my suspicion - that idea came later in ‘03 due to Brosnan’s age and possibly after he’d gotten round to reading/re-reading Fleming and realising where he’d misremembered things. It contradicts him trying to get this film made much earlier though. But honestly, I really doubt a lot of serious thought was put into this despite how much he seems to talk this idea up. I suspect on QT’s part there’s a lot of exaggeration, and the extent to any work on this was a phone call between Miramax and the Fleming estate saying he wouldn’t be able to do it).
Never read Modesty Blaise. Seems a bit more up his street.
😂 A bit harsh, but I think he did a great job with Jackie Brown.
It’s a shame he feels that way. I think he could have made some really great films post Basterds had he adapted a couple of novels which interested him.
I searched quite deliberately, as I’d never heard of this before.
Yet time and again, I only came up with this quote (several times over):
‘“One of the things that is fun about reading books is it puts you in a complete different environment,” Tarantino once told BFI. “If you read one of Ian Rankin’s books and you think you got a good excuse to go to Edinburgh and shoot this big Scottish thing that could be really fun. But I lost my stamina in the last quarter of the last lap of Jackie Brown and part of the reason was I wasn’t taking something I created from scratch from a blank piece of paper and turning it into a full project.”
Because of this, Tarantino felt the film might have been lacking in ways his other films might not have.
“When I finished the edit and got my cut the way I wanted, I was emotionally done. I believe people could say it’s my best movie, but there’s a slight once-removed quality, located somewhere in my balls where that doesn’t live,” he added.“
It sounds like he won’t adapt another book again, not because ppl told him it was his best film, but instead, it was because he lost steam half way through, was emotionally spent after he locked the picture, and, deep down in his “balls” he felt it was one step removed from fully being his work.
He said ppl may say it’s his best, but he doesn’t feel that.
There’s nothing about being “annoyed” that ppl think it’s his best work. Not at all.
Can you provide the quote you sourced this from.
It may have been from a book of interviews or video/audio interview. The author of this blog seems to have read or heard the same thing:
https://rossonl.wordpress.com/2015/11/10/quentin-tarantino-from-best-to-worst/#:~:text=Tarantino says that those who,an absurdist alternate Tarantino-world.
If you scroll down to #6 on that list, you'll see this: "Tarantino says that those who call this his best film really don’t like his films at all." But no source, unfortunately. From what I recall of that interview (wherever it originates) Tarantino said that it irks/annoys/irritates him when people tell him that it's his best film because, to him, since JB is an adaptation it's an indication that the person doesn't like his other films.
Sorry I don't have more, but I do clearly remember him saying that! Maybe if you two ever meet you can tell him JB is his best film and see how he reacts.😉
Yup, that’s why it was decided to make the 1967 film as a parody than as a straightforward thriller, and nobody touched it again.
At least Richard Donner wasn't afraid to take risks outside of his comfort zone.
https://x.com/DiscussingFilm/status/1827845635426652209
He probably wouldn’t like Lightyear or the upcoming Toy Story 5. He’s not entirely wrong though.
As SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ said, it also sometimes feels like he enjoys the violence a bit too much, in a sadistic way. Kill Bill, Inglorious Basterds, Django Unchained and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood all have scenes of very unpleasant violence from the bad guys against the good guys, then it turns around and the good guys destroy the bad guys in an over-the-top fun way. All to make the audience feel satisfaction by the justice! It is a cheap trick.
All that being said, I still enjoy a lot from him. With all the superhero films and other big franchises, it is nice to have a big director around that just kind of does his own thing. A lot of his films are still quite good. Pulp Fiction is his only masterpiece imo, you can point to other movies that does similar things, but in Pulp Fiction it feels like everything just works so well together, from the structure, style, dialogue, music and characters. It all feels extremely fresh. I also enjoy Jackie Brown quite a bit, OUATIH is probably his most interesting film of the 21st century, it is kind of aimless, but I think it works very well as this kind of hang-out film with great character in a cool time period. The Hateful Eight, Reservoir Dogs and Death Proof are also all fine for what they are.
Interesting. At least he’s trying something different, if it’s truly original.
I totally understand why some people don’t like QT. He is full of himself, and shows off his ego too much. He does need to keep himself in check, as his behavior can go too far. This also shows when he retells of his version of history. Ego isn’t new in Hollywood, remember. I’d still like to see him write some more books.
https://www.cbr.com/quentin-tarantino-bill-maher-comic-book-movies/
At least he’s not saying the MCU isn’t cinema.
I'm also glad to see he's trying something new but he must've felt very dispirited by those rewrites on The Movie Critic that he's winging it until his final film becomes a bit more clear to him. I guess he's worried about not fully delivering with his self-made "film director retirement" after this next one.
His reasoning has never made any sense to me. Plenty of directors have made great films in their later years.
Jackie Brown is the film of his I've liked the most, and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood the one I've liked the least.
Some days, I think Tarantino likes to talk about things that won't happen.