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
Why doesn't Tarantino just make his own spy film? IB was pretty good to me, He should make an original Spy story set in the 60's like he wanted to do with Casino Royale. I have the perfect title too. KILL BOND...NOW. lol
As much as I am intrigued by a period piece Bond movie (something that sounds great as an idea, but I would be very wary if anyone actually moved forward with it), and as much as I enjoy Tarantino's films - a Tarantino Bond movie has fail written all over it. It ceases to be Bond when Tarantino is involved.
I don't think that's necessarily true. I think that Tarantino would be a bit...constrained (restrained?) by the very fact that he was making a Bond film. Setting aside the fact that it would be a period film I don't think that it would be as different as some people think. A good indicator would be the episode of ER that Tarantino wrote and directed. He was a fan of the show and his episode is very much in keeping with the style of the show, just with a little bit of a different feeling to it - just a bit.
This reminds me of a co-worker back in the 90s who was horrified at the rumours that Cubby Broccolli was courting Mel Gibson for the role of Bond. He said that Gibson would "play it all crazy" and as proof, told us to watch Lethal Weapon. Nothing we said could convince him that an actor has the ability to adjust his performance based on the role. A good director does the same...
"At one point Mel Gibson wanted to play Bond. And Cubby was against it. Cubby first of all had a thing about tall people. Bond had to be tall. And so Mel Gibson was too short," said Bond writer Tom Mankiewicz. "Somebody at (film studio) United Artists said to me, 'Call him and tell him Mel Gibson would be great.' And Cubby said, 'I don't want to make a Mel Gibson movie, I want to make a James Bond movie.'"
Substitute Mel Gibson for QT and you have the same response.
That was the reason Cubby never went for "star directors". Speilburg was interested in the early eighties but Cubby wasnt interested. Cubby knew what would work and what would not.
As for QT being "constrained" the fact that he pushed for this film suggests that he wanted control. But then again Babs and MGW did allow Marc Foster and, dare I say it, Lee Tamahori off the lead.
I think that's probably Babs and MGW's weakness. Cubby was more of a visionary and a hands-on kind of guy, whereas the new team don't appear to have a problem allowing the director to have more of a free reign. I also don't think Cubby would have employed Spottiswood, Apted, Foster or Tamahori. I think he would have found some better talent.
perhaps you should continue this here
Nah I think he's pretty much given up on it now, while Mclory kept going for ages, even after NSNA.
That's the problem I have with Mcclory, he wouldn't stop. He got NSNA, which I think is a good, enjoyable film, even if it is a remake, that's a much better send off for Connery than DAF. But he didn't stop there, he kept going, he kept taking them to court, and eventually, the arsehole cheated us out of a 3rd Dalton film :((
And that would make it awesome.
I don't think LT would ever be given the opportunity again after DAD! And QT blew his chances when he bid against them. So for me it would be neither of them.
But what if you had to pick one?
And I think they actually asked LT back after DAD.
They didn't. The only director since Wilson and Broccoli had been in charge with GoldenEye they didn't ask back for the following film.
Maybe it had more to do with a change in direction rather than the poor film itself, mind, or perhaps it was a mix of the two.
I'm sure I can find a link somewhere...
Anyway, I'd definetly, definetly go with Tarantino. No brainer really. LT is more focused on CGI than making a good film and DAD is one of the worst in the series imo. Tarantino though, is my favourite director ever.
I wouldn,t. I think the only Tarantino film i really like is Reservoir Dogs!
I for one would love to see a James Cameron Bond, a Luc Bessom Bond, a Tarantino Bond, or a Ridley Scott Bond. I would be interested in seeing these guys take charge of these films, which is exactly what the Broccollis are NOT interested in. They make so much money producing a steady stream of mediocrity and they rely on our fervor for this character to continue to pile in the dough even thought the quality is, at least for me, not consistent.
I'm hoping for the best on Skyfall, but what business did Mark Forster, Lee Tamahori or some of these other guys have directing such a prestigious project?
C'mon.
LOL the shower scene, think toes instead of fingers! =))
That's a perfect example!
Instead of Bond kissing Vesper when he goes to try out his Vesper martini, he just drops to his knees and goes for her toes.
It's funny, but probably true. Quentin works like that, and by the Gods, he will incorporate feet in any way he can.
The tavern scene was probably my favorite...but why did they put Hugo Stiglitz in the undercover role there? Apparently, 'every German' knows who he is, but a Gestapo officer and a few Nazis didn't? That bugs me.
I never got that either. Cracked did a whole thing about it recently.
http://www.cracked.com/article_19920_6-movie-heroes-saved-by-gaping-plot-holes.html
And Bond would have had a sexual attraction to Vesper's feet.
Just swap fingers with toes in the Shower scene. :))