Tarrintino's spin on directing a 007 movie

EDOG51EDOG51 EnglandPosts: 29MI6 Agent
in Quantum of Solace - Bond 22 (2008)
Hi guys, Quentin Tarrantino was on jonathan Ross the other week and i was fascinated to hear that he was one of the driving factors behind CR actually going into production. Sadly he didnt elabourate on how exactly but he did go on to mention that he would one day love to direct a Bond film, he described that the 007 franchise are in effect 'a massive re-make' meaning that they are a series of films which have stood the test of time and the characters and storylines have constantly been re-made, and he feels they need to keep in mind that they are infact thrillers. I for one would love to see a Tarrantino 007 movie but at the same time appreciate it would be a massive gamble by the producers to go with him, as he is no doubt one of the best yet contoversial directors of our time, any thoughts?
«1345

Comments

  • Rick RobertsRick Roberts Posts: 536MI6 Agent
    edited August 2009
    Oh Jesus "Tap Dancing" Christ, I have heard this a billion times. Yes the producers deemed CR unfilmable back then but QT wanted a totally different story to make, nothing about a reboot. His idea was Casino Royale taking place after On Her Majesty's Secret Service (bad idea) and he wanted Pierce Brosnan to star (worse idea). Tarantino bitches and moans about this every once in a while and I am tired of hearing about that egotistical jackass. He is hack "director" who just makes noise, that's it. IMO, his films never leave a lasting impression. I could imagine his Bond film now. A corn ball 70's exploitation style film with over the top reactions from actors in every scene, Samuel L. Jackson as the villian who yells every five secounds, Uma Thurman as the obnoxious over-the-top Bond girl, and of course, blood, a 13 year old's perspective of sex, and alot of cursing. Yeah that would be a great migrane.


    I don't mean to lash out at you nessecarily but anytime I here this, it pissed me off.
  • SeanConnery007SeanConnery007 The Bond Archive - London, EngPosts: 169MI6 Agent
    I agree. The day Tarantino hacks his 'directorial style' onto a Bond film is the day I disown the Bond franchise and probably film altogether. Tarantino is a (self) over-hyped, over-praised director of nothing more than mindless drivell, over-acting and shallow films that really have no lasting impact or cultural relevance and almost all in the style of some sort of 'over-cool' 70s dirty magazine comic.
    I would never like to see Tarantino direct a Bond film and he seems intent on yabbing on and on about how amazing his Bond film would be and now he's on about directing a rival franchise. Good luck to him really because I certainly dont want to see his films (though I know lots of people do and fair enough) but as long as he stays away from the official Bond franchise then fine.
    Nobody Writes Threads Better.
  • thesecretagentthesecretagent CornwallPosts: 2,151MI6 Agent
    Although I don't want to see Tarrantino do a Bond film, I think he deserves a little more credit. Not only is he a hugely successful director, he is a massive Bond fan, and I would imagine that he would take a step back and direct accordingly. As in the same way Faulks stepped back and wrote Devil May Care.
    Amazon #1 Bestselling Author. If you enjoy crime, espionage, action and fast-moving thrillers follow this link:

    http://apbateman.com
  • Rick RobertsRick Roberts Posts: 536MI6 Agent
    thesecretagent wrote:
    As in the same way Faulks stepped back and wrote Devil May Care.

    Yeah and look how that turned out. :p
  • Dan SameDan Same Victoria, AustraliaPosts: 6,054MI6 Agent
    I'll try to keep this post short as I've already written about Tarantino multiple times. ;)

    I have a love/hate relationship with him. I love Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill Vol. 1, and to a lesser extent, Reservoir Dogs. I think he is a superb writer/director whose Pulp Fiction remains one of the greatest films ever made and whose Kill Bill Vol. 1 was a cinematic masterpiece. I also loved the 'Superman' speech in Kill Bill Vol. 2 and I think that a Casino Royale with Brosnan would have been awesome. :D

    However I hate that he's so egotistical, I hate that he's a *film snob of the most horrible degree and I think that his love of style destroyed Kill Bill Vol. 2. I don't really want Tarantino to direct a Bond film, mostly because I don't want any star director to direct Bond (the Bond films are a producer's vehicle, not a director's vehicle), but also because, for all my annoyances with him, I would prefer him to make a film that he is in control of, rather than be subordinate to the Bond producers.

    *He's a film snob in not that he looks down upon those who haven't seen Bergman; on the contrary, he looks down on those who haven't seen the obscure and B-grade films that he prefers. He's seen more films than most people, but most of the films he likes are 70's Asian martial arts flicks, exploiation Aussie films and other obscure films that the audience would not have seen, and he knows it.
    "He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
  • PPK 7.65mmPPK 7.65mm Saratoga Springs NY USAPosts: 1,253MI6 Agent
    I agree with Rick Roberts and Dan Same, this egomaniac needs to shut his mouth. He was never in the running to direct CR in the first place and given how all his films are I highly doubt he would ever be asked to direct either.
  • John DrakeJohn Drake On assignmentPosts: 2,564MI6 Agent
    Dan Same wrote:
    exploitation Aussie films

    What's wrong with Ozploitation? As far as I am concerned you have not exploited enough of your female population. ;)
  • Dan SameDan Same Victoria, AustraliaPosts: 6,054MI6 Agent
    John Drake wrote:
    Dan Same wrote:
    exploitation Aussie films

    What's wrong with Ozploitation? As far as I am concerned you have not exploited enough of your female population. ;)
    :)) Nothing is wrong with it at all. It's jusb that Tarantino measures his fandom by the number of obscure films that he's seen, and you (the audience) haven't, and many of these obscure films include Ozploitation films. He's an aggressive snob, except he's not snobbish about Bergman or Fellini.
    "He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
  • thesecretagentthesecretagent CornwallPosts: 2,151MI6 Agent
    Rick Roberts wrote:
    thesecretagent wrote:
    As in the same way Faulks stepped back and wrote Devil May Care.

    Yeah and look how that turned out. :p

    You are confusing your opinion with what's popular opinion. :))
    Amazon #1 Bestselling Author. If you enjoy crime, espionage, action and fast-moving thrillers follow this link:

    http://apbateman.com
  • Rick RobertsRick Roberts Posts: 536MI6 Agent
    edited August 2009
    thesecretagent wrote:
    Rick Roberts wrote:
    thesecretagent wrote:
    As in the same way Faulks stepped back and wrote Devil May Care.

    Yeah and look how that turned out. :p

    You are confusing your opinion with what's popular opinion. :))

    Seriously though, DEVIL MAY CARE did got alot of mixed reviews from fans and critics and understandably so. This was the DAD of the novels, not saying it's that bad but the need to shoe horn past references in every chapter.
  • thesecretagentthesecretagent CornwallPosts: 2,151MI6 Agent
    Rick Roberts wrote:
    thesecretagent wrote:
    Rick Roberts wrote:

    Yeah and look how that turned out. :p

    You are confusing your opinion with what's popular opinion. :))

    Seriously though, DEVIL MAY CARE did got alot of mixed reviews from fans and critics and understandably so. This was the DAD of the novels, not saying it's that bad but the need to shoe horn past references in every chapter.

    No argument from me - I didn't even have the inclination to finish it. I was just using it as an example of someone working outside their normal genre.
    Amazon #1 Bestselling Author. If you enjoy crime, espionage, action and fast-moving thrillers follow this link:

    http://apbateman.com
  • zebondzebond DolletPosts: 103MI6 Agent
    This thread reminds me much of my thoughts on Peter Jackson's LOTR trilogy. I used to dislike Peter Jackson (and still do to a degree) but the more I thought about it, the happier I was that he was chosen to direct the trilogy (I have a point I promise) I was happy because he would not try to leave his 'directorial style stamp' on the trilogy, but instead make a definitive cinematic capturing. This is in part to me why I hated Watchmen so much, Snyder was much more interested in letting the world know this was a Zack Snyder film than he was making the definitive adaptation of a spectacular graphic novel.

    That being said I love auteurs, my favorite directors are auteurs, Tarantino at the top of them, but when it comes to the Bond movies I feel a director who won't feel the overwhelming need to leave his stamp is more appropriate than a director who wants to make a movie in his vein. To me Tarantino making a Bond movie is as much a thought as Burton making a Bond movie - both directors I love, but neither would I chose to make a Bond film. If they would I would without question love the movie as a Tarantino movie, or a Tim Burton movie, but I love watching Bond movies that feel like Bond movies.
    "Guns make me nervous!"
  • Rick RobertsRick Roberts Posts: 536MI6 Agent
    edited August 2009
    zebond wrote:
    This thread reminds me much of my thoughts on Peter Jackson's LOTR trilogy. I used to dislike Peter Jackson (and still do to a degree) but the more I thought about it, the happier I was that he was chosen to direct the trilogy (I have a point I promise) I was happy because he would not try to leave his 'directorial style stamp' on the trilogy, but instead make a definitive cinematic capturing.

    Jackson let you know it was a Jackson film. The long, bloated, exposition with sweeping camera angles and waves of CGI imagery is Jackson all over.
    That being said I love auteurs, my favorite directors are auteurs, Tarantino at the top of them, but when it comes to the Bond movies I feel a director who won't feel the overwhelming need to leave his stamp is more appropriate than a director who wants to make a movie in his vein. To me Tarantino making a Bond movie is as much a thought as Burton making a Bond movie - both directors I love, but neither would I chose to make a Bond film. If they would I would without question love the movie as a Tarantino movie, or a Tim Burton movie, but I love watching Bond movies that feel like Bond movies.

    Hitchcock was an auteur, Clampett was an auteur, Lumet is an auteur, Scorsese is an auteur, Tarantino is just noise. I don't think Tarantino should be in that camp just because he just adds alot of booms and bangs and dose just more compitently compared to weaker directors of today. Sure if you dig if you can find some substance in Tarantino's work but it's too much to be done. Auteur, and I mean in it's strongest possible terms, is a word that belongs to a few a elite in Hollywood in it's entire history. Tarantino does not deserve that discription.
  • Dan SameDan Same Victoria, AustraliaPosts: 6,054MI6 Agent
    edited August 2009
    Rick Roberts wrote:
    Hitchcock was an auteur, Clampett was an auteur, Lumet is an auteur, Scorsese is an auteur, Tarantino is just noise. I don't think Tarantino should be in that camp just because he just adds alot of booms and bangs and dose just more compitently compared to weaker directors of today. Sure if you dig if you can find some substance in Tarantino's work but it's too much to be done. Auteur, and I mean in it's strongest possible terms, is a word that belongs to a few a elite in Hollywood in it's entire history. Tarantino does not deserve that discription.
    I don't agree at all. While I have my problems with Tarantino, as I stated in my first post on this thread, his use of and interest in fantastic and inventive dialogue, his sense of style, his use of violence and his coolness make him IMO just as much of an auteur as anyone else. Pulp Fiction was IMO one of the truly greatest films ever made, Kill Bill Vol. 1 was a masterpiece and I thought that Reservoir Dogs was a highly impressive work. Furthremore, Tarantinto films are unique and completely identifiable (which is really the definition of an auteur. I don't like Godard, but he was an auteur.)

    Do I want Tarantino to direct Bond? No, partly because I don't want star directors directing Bond (or even auteurs), but also because I prefer Tarantino directing his own films rather than being a work for hire. For all of his flaws, I do think that Tarantino is an auteur, as well as one of the greatest writer-directors of all time.
    "He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
  • sambwoysambwoy Berkshire, EnglandPosts: 90MI6 Agent
    Forgive me, but what's an auteur?
  • Dan SameDan Same Victoria, AustraliaPosts: 6,054MI6 Agent
    sambwoy wrote:
    Forgive me, but what's an auteur?
    It's French for author, and it essentially refers to a director whose style is identifiable and whose films generally feature thematic and/or stylistic similarities. So, for example, Hitchcock's films often featured a person falling from a high distance, and he also dealt alot with people accused of crimes they did not commit; a Hitchcock film is therefore instantly recognisable as a Hitchcock film. This isn't the case with all directors, as some directors may solely work as directors-for hire (although if a director-for hire's films utilise thematic/stylistic similarities then he may be regarded as an auteur), while other directors (including great directors) may simply not have a common thematic/stylistic thread that runs through their work. Auteur theory can actually get quite complicated, but that is just a quick summary of what it means. Oh, and that's a perfectly reasonable question. :)
    "He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
  • HigginsHiggins GermanyPosts: 16,619MI6 Agent
    :D so Marc Foster can be counted to the auteurs club as the audience of his movies have a tendency to vomit because of a shaky cam :o
    President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
    Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
  • EDOG51EDOG51 EnglandPosts: 29MI6 Agent
    Wow, clearly my post has got a few heckles and emotions up as sopme people have been venting thier opinions quite strongly. Can i first say that out of all 22 bond movies, there have been few which have actually been recieved well and classed as good movies. Yes tarantino has a very unique and controversial style of direction and yes its not everybodies cup of tea, but a man who has won the Palme D'Or Award, best screenplay & Best picture to name a few, has quite a valid say on cinema. I merely mentioned the tarantino interview as i thought it was a good topic of discussion and it seems to have unearthed some of the serious ego's in this forum, Let me say that i have seen 3 seperate interviews that he has said he was a huge Bond fan and then said how he would do a bond movie,thats it! yes he may not be right for a bond movie but when people stast slating movies which are classed as some of the greats of our modern time i think they need to get real and stop being so bloody arrogant. I feel that some egotistical idiots should have a bit more respect for certain people.
  • Dan SameDan Same Victoria, AustraliaPosts: 6,054MI6 Agent
    Bondtoys wrote:
    :D so Marc Foster can be counted to the auteurs club as the audience of his movies have a tendency to vomit because of a shaky cam :o
    I think it depends on whether it happens in most of his films, in which case yes, or just in QOs, in which case no. :))
    "He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
  • Rick RobertsRick Roberts Posts: 536MI6 Agent
    Dan Same wrote:
    I don't agree at all. While I have my problems with Tarantino, as I stated in my first post on this thread, his use of and interest in fantastic and inventive dialogue, his sense of style, his use of violence and his coolness make him IMO just as much of an auteur as anyone else. Pulp Fiction was IMO one of the truly greatest films ever made, Kill Bill Vol. 1 was a masterpiece and I thought that Reservoir Dogs was a highly impressive work.

    That isn't being an auteur, that's just trying to be being hip. What inventive dialogue ? :)) Childish sexual inneudo and cursing ? I am sorry but I am just sick and tired of people placing this man on some pedestal just because they think he is cool and trendy.
    Furthremore, Tarantinto films are unique and completely identifiable (which is really the definition of an auteur. I don't like Godard, but he was an auteur.)

    His films aren't unique. He copies the style of corn ball 70's martial arts films and black explotation. Just because he's doing it these days dosen't make him unique.
  • Dan SameDan Same Victoria, AustraliaPosts: 6,054MI6 Agent
    edited August 2009
    Rick Roberts wrote:
    Dan Same wrote:
    I don't agree at all. While I have my problems with Tarantino, as I stated in my first post on this thread, his use of and interest in fantastic and inventive dialogue, his sense of style, his use of violence and his coolness make him IMO just as much of an auteur as anyone else. Pulp Fiction was IMO one of the truly greatest films ever made, Kill Bill Vol. 1 was a masterpiece and I thought that Reservoir Dogs was a highly impressive work.
    That isn't being an auteur, that's just being hip. What inventive dialogue ? :)) Childish sexual inneudo and cursing ?
    It is being an auteur if it's identifiable. As for it being 'Childish sexual inneudo and cursing', I disagree. (After shooting someone) "Oh, I'm sorry, did I break your concentration? Please, continue. You were saying something about best intentions? Oh, then please allow me to retort..." "What? Is what a country?' "Say what one more time, I dare you, I double dare you ****, say what one more **** time." In fact just about everything from Pulp Fiction. Also the Superman speech from Kill Bill Vol. 2 and some of the dialogue from Reservoir Dogs and Jackie Brown.

    (BTW, the dialoge I quoted, I quoted from memory. When I was younger, I was quite proud that I memorised entire speeches from films like Dirty Harry and Pulp Fiction. :D :)))
    Rick Roberts wrote:
    Furthremore, Tarantinto films are unique and completely identifiable (which is really the definition of an auteur. I don't like Godard, but he was an auteur.)
    His films aren't unique. He copies the style of corn ball 70's martial arts films and black explotation. Just because he's doing it these days dosen't make him unique.
    I disagree. Although he works in traditional genres, and even references classic films in a post-modern way, at his best (Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill Volume. 1) he does so in a style that is entirely his own. Three examples; the conversations between Vincent and Jules, before they confronted the guys at the apartment in PF was pure Tarantino. Most directors would rush straight into the confrontation. He didn't. Also, Kill Bill Vol. 1 featured Tarantino touches such as Uma Thurman and Vivica A. Fox stopping the fighting to welcome Vivica A. Fox's daughter. In fact, much of Tarantino's violence pays homage to the violence in previus films but still adds his own touch (such as the killing of the guy in the car in PF.)

    However it's more than that. The look, the feel of his films is IMO, completely and totally recognisable. That doesn't mean that I like all of his films (I don't particularly like Kill Bill Vol. 2) but even my least favourite QT films bear IMO the mark of an auteur.
    "He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
  • Rick RobertsRick Roberts Posts: 536MI6 Agent
    Dan Same wrote:
    As for it being 'Childish sexual inneudo and cursing', I disagree. (After shooting someone) "Oh, I'm sorry, did I break your concentration? Please, continue. You were saying something about best intentions? Oh, then please allow me to retort..." "What? Is what a country?' "Say what one more time, I dare you, I double dare you ****, say what one more **** time."

    Wow, thank you for proving my point. That is just god awful, truly wretched. Sometimes you need an actor to express how really bad the dialogue is and here it is, just as bad on paper.
    This is something a 13 year old would write to impress his equally stupid friends.
    I disagree. Although he works in traditional genres, and even references classic films in a post-modern way, at his best (Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill Volume. 1) he does so in a style that is entirely his own. Three examples; the conversations between Vincent and Jules, before they confronted the guys at the apartment in PF was pure Tarantino. Most directors would rush straight into the confrontation. He didn't. Also, Kill Bill Vol. 1 featured Tarantino touches such as Uma Thurman and Vivica A. Fox stopping the fighting to welcome Vivica A. Fox's daughter. In fact, much of Tarantino's violence, pays a homage to the violence in previus films but still adds his own touch (such as the killing of the guy in the car in PF.)

    I have seen the films and you really just pointing out to what I just said he rips off. Watch any black exploitation film on IFC sometime and you can see how "unique" Tarantino is.
  • Rick RobertsRick Roberts Posts: 536MI6 Agent
    Dan Same wrote:
    but even my least favourite QT films bear IMO the mark of an auteur.

    Or someone who trys and fails to be one.
  • Dan SameDan Same Victoria, AustraliaPosts: 6,054MI6 Agent
    Rick Roberts wrote:
    Dan Same wrote:
    As for it being 'Childish sexual inneudo and cursing', I disagree. (After shooting someone) "Oh, I'm sorry, did I break your concentration? Please, continue. You were saying something about best intentions? Oh, then please allow me to retort..." "What? Is what a country?' "Say what one more time, I dare you, I double dare you ****, say what one more **** time."
    Wow, thank you for proving my point. That is just god awful, truly wretched. Sometimes you need an actor to express how really bad the dialogue is and here it is, just as bad on paper.
    This is something a 13 year old would write to impress his equally stupid friends.
    How could I have proved your point since I consider it to be great dialogue? I love it and I don't think it's stupid. You think a 13 year old could have written it, well I disagree.
    Rick Roberts wrote:
    I disagree. Although he works in traditional genres, and even references classic films in a post-modern way, at his best (Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill Volume. 1) he does so in a style that is entirely his own. Three examples; the conversations between Vincent and Jules, before they confronted the guys at the apartment in PF was pure Tarantino. Most directors would rush straight into the confrontation. He didn't. Also, Kill Bill Vol. 1 featured Tarantino touches such as Uma Thurman and Vivica A. Fox stopping the fighting to welcome Vivica A. Fox's daughter. In fact, much of Tarantino's violence, pays a homage to the violence in previus films but still adds his own touch (such as the killing of the guy in the car in PF.)
    I have seen the films and you really just pointing out to what I just said he rips off. Watch any black exploitation film on IFC sometime and you can see how "unique" Tarantino is.
    I have also seen the films, and I don't think he rips them off. He rearranges them and ads his own touch.
    "He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
  • Dan SameDan Same Victoria, AustraliaPosts: 6,054MI6 Agent
    Rick Roberts wrote:
    Dan Same wrote:
    but even my least favourite QT films bear IMO the mark of an auteur.
    Or someone who trys and fails to be one.
    You're entitled to that view, however I disagree. I think he's completely successful.
    "He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
  • Rick RobertsRick Roberts Posts: 536MI6 Agent
    Dan Same wrote:
    How could I have proved your point since I consider it to be great dialogue? I love it and I don't think it's stupid. You think a 13 year old could have written it, well I disagree.

    No I am sorry, an 11 year old who had help from a 13 year old. :))
    I have also seen the films, and I don't think he rips them off. He rearranges them and ads his own touch.

    His touch is nothing but exaggerating the violence and sex.
  • Dan SameDan Same Victoria, AustraliaPosts: 6,054MI6 Agent
    Rick Roberts wrote:
    I have also seen the films, and I don't think he rips them off. He rearranges them and ads his own touch.
    His touch is nothing but exaggerating the violence and sex.
    Three things. One, what sex are you referring to? I don't think there has been a single sex scene in any of his films, certainly that I can remember (there may have been one in Jackie Brown.) Two, what's wrong with exaggeration? Three, his touch involves the interraction of IMO creative dialogue with graphic violence which is altered depending on the context (the violence in the car scene in PF was different to the attempted rape scene in Kill Bill Vol. 1 etc...)
    "He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
  • Rick RobertsRick Roberts Posts: 536MI6 Agent
    Dan Same wrote:
    Three things. One, what sex are you referring to? I don't think there has been a single sex scene in any of his films, certainly that I can remember (there may have been one in Jackie Brown.)

    Sex or lewd references to it.
    Two, what's wrong with exaggeration? Three, his touch involves the interraction of IMO creative dialogue with graphic violence which is altered depending on the context (the violence in the car scene in PF was different to the attempted rape scene in Kill Bill Vol. 1 etc...)

    There is nothing wrong with it when you know how to do it.
  • Dan SameDan Same Victoria, AustraliaPosts: 6,054MI6 Agent
    Rick Roberts wrote:
    Two, what's wrong with exaggeration? Three, his touch involves the interraction of IMO creative dialogue with graphic violence which is altered depending on the context (the violence in the car scene in PF was different to the attempted rape scene in Kill Bill Vol. 1 etc...)
    There is nothing wrong with it when you know how to do it.
    Well, I think he does know how to do it. Look, we're going around in circles. So why I just summarise our points of view since we seem to be going over the same territory. I regard QT as a great auteur and one of the greatest writer-directors of all time, but who still shouldn't be hired to direct Bond. You regard him as a talentless hack who shouldn't be allowed near Bond. Am I right? :v
    "He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
  • Rick RobertsRick Roberts Posts: 536MI6 Agent
    Dan Same wrote:
    You regard him as a talentless hack who shouldn't be allowed near Bond. Am I right? :v

    He shouldn't be allowed near film period. :))
Sign In or Register to comment.

Copyright ajb007.co.uk 1998 - 2024

James Bond TM 007 and related James Bond Trademarks © 1962-2024

Danjaq LLC and United Artists Corporation. All Rights Reserved.

This website is a fan site and is in no way related to the official production companies.

All users are responsible for the content of their posts, by using this website you agree to the terms of use.