Well, Kubrick did make his mark on a Bond film--he showed Ken Adam how to light the massive set in TSWLM. That said, I agree with Dan--Kubrick was a great director, but not a BOND director. Besides, he'd have taken YEARS just to get one 007 film in the can!
I think YOLT would have tickled his fancy because of the grand atmosphere, a loyal adaptation is something that would definetly attract a director of his caliber. I think if the producers were willing, they would have given in some leeway.
If Kubrick directed any of the Bond movies, it would be considered by film snobs to be the best in the series and a complete failure to any of the usual fans because it's purposeful continuuity errors, unexplained random imagery and long pointless takes. I hate Kubrick's work. Hate hate hate it! I've nothing against those who appreciate his contribtion to cinema, but I personally find no value in it.
You're not alone there agent wade, I hate Kubrik's work too. I just don't get most of it and I'd hate to see it with a Bond film. I always think there is an element who like to appear to be in the know with certain things, a snobbery towards intelligence and understanding. These are the same people who look at all manner of obscure art and "get" what others don't. I just bet they are saying, "What the f**k is that?" like everybody else.
Amazon #1 Bestselling Author. If you enjoy crime, espionage, action and fast-moving thrillers follow this link:
As much as I love the guy, I'm very happy that Tarantino didn't get a chance to make "Casino Royale". Three reasons:
1) It wouldn't have been a re-boot
2) Uma Thurman as Vesper Lynd
3) A chubby Pierce Brosnan as Bond
I've grown to love "Casino Royale" so much over time that I can't even imagine it being any different. But I would certainly love seeing Tarantino directing the first movie with the new Bond actor after Craig's run ends.
He may be a collage artist but I think his talent is undeniable.
While I wouldn't want Tarantino directing a Bond film, I do love the idea that CR wouldn't have been a reboot and that Brosnan would have been Bond.
"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
i really would like to see Quentin as a director in a Bond movie...
Cool photo.
"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
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
edited January 2010
I loved Inglourious Basterds, which was definately made for guys who enjoyed watching Cinema Retro staple action movies on TV, by a guy who did so himself. There were so many layers of nods to the genre and maybe I'm in the minority among audiences but I'm one that he particularly touched with this movie, inappropriately or not.
As far as CR or any other Bond film, I think Tarantino has more than average film-making skills, taste and style (even when discounting his eccentricities), but as said in this tread the challenge for him would be the restraint against overindulgence. His strength though, as displayed in IB, in reinterpreting worthy elements in both iconic and obscure films may not work in a Bond movie, since the series itself has become institutional since the 60's and has been paid homage cinematically in countless ways.
Perhaps an interesting challenge for Tarintino (on top of restraining self indulgence), is to give careful treatment to the most basic Bond mythos, avoiding the EON staples and going back to the Fleming elements and their nuances that were richly evocative in the narrative, just as the early producers (Terrence Young, Cubby and Harry) did in translating Bond to the movie screen for the first time. Therefore, going retro IMO would be the best approach. It's important to consider the nature of the subject matter despite its period setting and doing a David Lean style interpretation would not automatically be comparible to Fleming; this is where Tarantino's edgy "vision" fits best with Fleming's, which we must admit was pretty eccentric for its time. But without said discipline, the danger would be making a period Bond movie too much like Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes that despite it's huge entertainment value, is sorely missing any traces of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
I just saw "Inglorius Basterds" on disc this weekend and was blown away by how good it was. The expierence has me reconsidering Tarentino as a possible Bond director.
While my imput will never be sought by EON, If DC was to do three films, then Tarentino would be a very compelling choice to direct the last entry. Then we would have the "traditional" film directed by Campbell, the arthouse film by Forster and the .... well Tarentino version.
If Tarentino respects the original material, and want to make a "thriller"- he could be a great choice. After seeing "IB", it's odvious he can do dialog, tension, action and humor. As others have said, Tarentino would have to hold back on the sex and violence, but who knows, maybe he is ready to "grow" as a filmaker and embrace the god of tasteful restraint.
I just saw "Inglorius Basterds" on disc this weekend and was blown away by how good it was. The expierence has me reconsidering Tarentino as a possible Bond director.
While my imput will never be sought by EON, If DC was to do three films, then Tarentino would be a very compelling choice to direct the last entry. Then we would have the "traditional" film directed by Campbell, the arthouse film by Forster and the .... well Tarentino version.
If Tarentino respects the original material, and want to make a "thriller"- he could be a great choice. After seeing "IB", it's odvious he can do dialog, tension, action and humor. As others have said, Tarentino would have to hold back on the sex and violence, but who knows, maybe he is ready to "grow" as a filmaker and embrace the god of tasteful restraint.
I agree and posted something about this recently too - he could film three movies back-to-back in about ten years using Henry Cavill?
Things I hate:
1. People who hate things.
2. Irony.
3. Lists.
I just think the ship has sailed. Tarantino has been snippy about Craig and that stuff just doesn't get forgiven by the Broccoli clan, it's not their style. And at the risk of bringing gender politics into it, I sense that La Broccoli does not approve of Quentin's unPC, macho style without the brakes on, it's too much like a kid left alone with his crayons for her liking. She seems, to my mind, to have a woman's slightly patronising indulgence towards the Bond character that does not sit well with Quentin's 'anything goes' attitude to movies.
It's odd, it's as if Babs is showing how brutal and cool men can be through Craig, but from a woman's point of view, while Quentin can show how capable and cool women can be (Uma in Kill Bill) from a man's point of view, both are laudable in a way but with a patina of sexism on boths ides that doesn't go together.
I think Tarrintino would have made a very good Bond movie. He's a fan of cinema in general and knows what Bond movie is all about through the years. Had he got a chance to direct one, I think it would have been a more traditional offering of Bond for the most part with his own unique style peppered here and there through the movie. He would not stray too far away. It's actually the producers of CR and QOS that had strayed way too far to the point of where Bond became unrecognizable, action flick with Craig and no charm. But someone should oversee his direction because it can very easily becomes a parody if overdone with charm and humor.
I know one thing for sure, he would bring back the smart and intelligent script to the Bond movie. It's been lacking for so long.
I just think the ship has sailed. Tarantino has been snippy about Craig and that stuff just doesn't get forgiven by the Broccoli clan, it's not their style. And at the risk of bringing gender politics into it, I sense that La Broccoli does not approve of Quentin's unPC, macho style without the brakes on, it's too much like a kid left alone with his crayons for her liking. She seems, to my mind, to have a woman's slightly patronising indulgence towards the Bond character that does not sit well with Quentin's 'anything goes' attitude to movies.
It's odd, it's as if Babs is showing how brutal and cool men can be through Craig, but from a woman's point of view, while Quentin can show how capable and cool women can be (Uma in Kill Bill) from a man's point of view, both are laudable in a way but with a patina of sexism on boths ides that doesn't go together.
Yeah I get that, and it makes sense to a point: cuz then I remember Robert Forster's character in "Jackie Brown." Which would seem to inform me, while QT does indeed like to wallow in genre, he understands genre can be different things, just depends on the specific genre he's working in. Pretty sure he would make a true Bond-type Bond film and really punch up the Bondian things, make somebody like Campbell look the glorified TV director he is. IMHO. But agree it'll never happen.
I am inclined to agree that Tarrantino wouldn't make bad Bond film. Outside of his recognised style, he will obviously appreciates different genres and probably knows more about other director's styles and methods - certainly more than most of us here. I think he would probably want to show he can do it so much, he would do a pretty good job. There's always something very very memorable about every film of his, whether you like them or not, he always leaves an impression. And there has been plenty to dislike in the past three films - who knows, maybe he could just do it...
Amazon #1 Bestselling Author. If you enjoy crime, espionage, action and fast-moving thrillers follow this link:
Tarantino would direct a great Bond film. He mentioned a few of his ideas for a Brosnan Bond film before. I can't remember who he was talking to about it. It might be on youtube...
I'd of loved to see Tarrintino's take on a Bond Film, in the 80's I also thought J Carpenter would of been a good choice,But that might just be my love of horror movies. )
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
I'd of loved to see Tarrintino's take on a Bond Film, in the 80's I also thought J Carpenter would of been a good choice,But that might just be my love of horror movies. )
That's not a far-out thought. I loved Escape From New York and there is no reason not to picture John Carpenter making a fun Bond film.
I would love to see established directors like Tarantino take on Bond films. Bond films have become too light and stuck in tradition to past films or Fleming novels. Tarantino would definitely bring something fresh to our hero. As the Craig films exist in their own world, I hope future films will also have their own alternate continuity. I rather watch odd stuff like Teen Bond or an aged Bond in NSNA than another sequel. Bond at this point is a character free to many interpretations like Dracula or Sherlock Holmes.
I would love to see established directors like Tarantino take on Bond films. Bond films have become too light and stuck in tradition to past films or Fleming novels. Tarantino would definitely bring something fresh to our hero. As the Craig films exist in their own world, I hope future films will also have their own alternate continuity. I rather watch odd stuff like Teen Bond or an aged Bond in NSNA than another sequel. Bond at this point is a character free to many interpretations like Dracula or Sherlock Holmes.
The solution is not to further drive away from the original source material. What they should be doing is finally getting closer to the atmosphere of Fleming's novels and finally put an end to the "rebel" Bond.
I would love to see established directors like Tarantino take on Bond films. Bond films have become too light and stuck in tradition to past films or Fleming novels. Tarantino would definitely bring something fresh to our hero. As the Craig films exist in their own world, I hope future films will also have their own alternate continuity. I rather watch odd stuff like Teen Bond or an aged Bond in NSNA than another sequel. Bond at this point is a character free to many interpretations like Dracula or Sherlock Holmes.
The solution is not to further drive away from the original source material. What they should be doing is finally getting closer to the atmosphere of Fleming's novels and finally put an end to the "rebel" Bond.
I have to disagree. The series has lost its unique appeal and innovation. Returning Bond to Fleming's vision was interesting in Casino Royale, but I do not think its a permanent fix. Most fans that I talk to complain that this "new" Bond is too similar to modern action heroes like Rambo and Jason Bourne. Most people will always have the idea that the cinematic James Bond is closest to Roger Moore, Pierce Brosnan or Sean Connery. The general public knows little of the novel characterization. Whether this is good or bad is anyone's opinion, its just a fact.
Personally, I enjoy Fleming's novels. They are excellent source material, but are too dry, long-winded and dated to really satisfy today's audience. This is just speaking from a producer's perspective. Each story has been translated to screen, some better than others. Its time to stop retreading and start building upon Fleming's work.
I don't care what anyone says. The original film series is really what cemented the character as extraordinary. It was Fleming's novels tuned up with invigorating action sequences, wittier dialogue, boosted sexuality and more escapist plots. This is the James Bond that I miss.
An example, the 1931 film version of Frankenstein is only loosely based on Mary Shelley's novel. But it is a masterpiece and all of the more faithful adaptations are unmemorable.
I have to disagree. The series has lost its unique appeal and innovation. Returning Bond to Fleming's vision was interesting in Casino Royale, but I do not think its a permanent fix. Most fans that I talk to complain that this "new" Bond is too similar to modern action heroes like Rambo and Jason Bourne. Most people will always have the idea that the cinematic James Bond is closest to Roger Moore, Pierce Brosnan or Sean Connery. The general public knows little of the novel characterization. Whether this is good or bad is anyone's opinion, its just a fact.
The 2006 Casino Royale was very much it's own entity that took very little from the book . All they did was borrow the mission and one or two key elements. Also I never said the series still has had it's touch, it's been long lost since the 1960's. Personally, I wish they stopped making the films years ago.
Personally, I enjoy Fleming's novels. They are excellent source material, but are too dry, long-winded and dated to really satisfy today's audience. This is just speaking from a producer's perspective. Each story has been translated to screen, some better than others. Its time to stop retreading and start building upon Fleming's work.
With a little imagination, you can stick the old source material without bastardizing it. No one at EON has the vision to do so. At the very least, they make these films thrillers again instead of just generic action flicks.
I don't care what anyone says. The original film series is really what cemented the character as extraordinary. It was Fleming's novels tuned up with invigorating action sequences, wittier dialogue, boosted sexuality and more escapist plots. This is the James Bond that I miss.
The movies cemented Bond's legendary status but I find the books superior. Bonds character was stronger than in the movies. I think the only time Bond's character was great in movies was Doctor No.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
In my humble opinion, the spirit and intent of Ian Fleming's novel Casino Royale effectively made the transition to the big screen: a pivotal relationship earlier in Bond's career with tragic underpinnings, a high-stakes card game, mistakes made by Bond in the course of the mission, Bond's capture and very specific torture by the villain, the message behind the villain's demise, Bond's resolve to continue at the end. That Eon finally returned to the source material is reason to be happy, as far as I'm concerned, rather than fret over the empty portion of the glass.
Personally, after 50 years and endless adaptational liberties with the original source material, I'd much rather celebrate what Fleming has survived (and continues to do so) than bemoan the rest. I'm reminded of Fleming's own remarks on the Doctor No film after its release (paraphrasing): "Those who haven't read the book will probaby think it's a good film, but those who have will probably be disappointed." Truly a typical novelist's perspective, I should think
Ninety-eight percent of films adapted from novels are inferior to their source material, IMO, and such a thing is largely unavoidable due to the differences in the media. My first screenplay, The Disappearance of Wiley Hood (still unproduced, damn the movie gods), was an adaptation of one of my own short stories---and things had to change in order to make it work. In Eon's case, having committed to making Bond forever a man of the modern era, all we can hope for are peeks into the character's spirit and intent as the world moves ever beyond the era of his birth.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
In my humble opinion, the spirit and intent of Ian Fleming's novel Casino Royale effectively made the transition to the big screen: a pivotal relationship earlier in Bond's career with tragic underpinnings, a high-stakes card game, mistakes made by Bond in the course of the mission, Bond's capture and very specific torture by the villain, the message behind the villain's demise, Bond's resolve to continue at the end. That Eon finally returned to the source material is reason to be happy, as far as I'm concerned, rather than fret over the empty portion of the glass.
That's what I meant by hardly using the novel. They simplified or changed everything. The tragedy of Vesper was not fully exploited in film. In the novel Vesper, for Bond, became the beacon of black and white in a world that was udderly gray. When she died, he was thrown into a devistating psychological loop that he shoved him right back into Mi6. The torture sequence was played for laughs in the movie. In Fleming's novel, it was dark. Bond barely talked back to Le Chiffre because he was in so much pain and he slipped in and out of consciousness, he was totally at his mercy. Then were was the Casino itself in the film which served as little more than just a backdrop. In Fleming's novel, you felt the ectasy of gambling, the thrill. Also of course the wretched change of baccarat to poker and Royale-les-Eaux became the barely exploited Montenegro. Nope, Casino Royale 2006 was not paying homage to the book like Doctor No or From Russia With Love; They just turned into a good action film. I like action films but it's not Fleming's work.
Also as a last note, I don't hate all film adaptations that aren't 100% close to the source material. Howards Hawks rarely stuck to the literary source in his films but they were still great like To Have and Have Not; It was a pleasing alternative. Casino Royale was not a pleasing alternative, they gave us neither the book nor something fresh in return.
Comments
I think YOLT would have tickled his fancy because of the grand atmosphere, a loyal adaptation is something that would definetly attract a director of his caliber. I think if the producers were willing, they would have given in some leeway.
http://apbateman.com
1) It wouldn't have been a re-boot
2) Uma Thurman as Vesper Lynd
3) A chubby Pierce Brosnan as Bond
I've grown to love "Casino Royale" so much over time that I can't even imagine it being any different. But I would certainly love seeing Tarantino directing the first movie with the new Bond actor after Craig's run ends.
He may be a collage artist but I think his talent is undeniable.
I heard that he wanted it to follow the events of OHMSS, thus being something like a more revenge-oriented Diamonds Are Forever. Which is a cool idea.
1) The Spy Who Loved Me 2) On Her Majesty's Secret Service 3) GoldenEye 4) Casino Royale 5) Goldfinger
As far as CR or any other Bond film, I think Tarantino has more than average film-making skills, taste and style (even when discounting his eccentricities), but as said in this tread the challenge for him would be the restraint against overindulgence. His strength though, as displayed in IB, in reinterpreting worthy elements in both iconic and obscure films may not work in a Bond movie, since the series itself has become institutional since the 60's and has been paid homage cinematically in countless ways.
Perhaps an interesting challenge for Tarintino (on top of restraining self indulgence), is to give careful treatment to the most basic Bond mythos, avoiding the EON staples and going back to the Fleming elements and their nuances that were richly evocative in the narrative, just as the early producers (Terrence Young, Cubby and Harry) did in translating Bond to the movie screen for the first time. Therefore, going retro IMO would be the best approach. It's important to consider the nature of the subject matter despite its period setting and doing a David Lean style interpretation would not automatically be comparible to Fleming; this is where Tarantino's edgy "vision" fits best with Fleming's, which we must admit was pretty eccentric for its time. But without said discipline, the danger would be making a period Bond movie too much like Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes that despite it's huge entertainment value, is sorely missing any traces of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
While my imput will never be sought by EON, If DC was to do three films, then Tarentino would be a very compelling choice to direct the last entry. Then we would have the "traditional" film directed by Campbell, the arthouse film by Forster and the .... well Tarentino version.
If Tarentino respects the original material, and want to make a "thriller"- he could be a great choice. After seeing "IB", it's odvious he can do dialog, tension, action and humor. As others have said, Tarentino would have to hold back on the sex and violence, but who knows, maybe he is ready to "grow" as a filmaker and embrace the god of tasteful restraint.
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
"It's not difficult to get a double 0 number if your prepared to kill people"
I agree and posted something about this recently too - he could film three movies back-to-back in about ten years using Henry Cavill?
1. People who hate things.
2. Irony.
3. Lists.
It's odd, it's as if Babs is showing how brutal and cool men can be through Craig, but from a woman's point of view, while Quentin can show how capable and cool women can be (Uma in Kill Bill) from a man's point of view, both are laudable in a way but with a patina of sexism on boths ides that doesn't go together.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I know one thing for sure, he would bring back the smart and intelligent script to the Bond movie. It's been lacking for so long.
http://apbateman.com
That's not a far-out thought. I loved Escape From New York and there is no reason not to picture John Carpenter making a fun Bond film.
The solution is not to further drive away from the original source material. What they should be doing is finally getting closer to the atmosphere of Fleming's novels and finally put an end to the "rebel" Bond.
I have to disagree. The series has lost its unique appeal and innovation. Returning Bond to Fleming's vision was interesting in Casino Royale, but I do not think its a permanent fix. Most fans that I talk to complain that this "new" Bond is too similar to modern action heroes like Rambo and Jason Bourne. Most people will always have the idea that the cinematic James Bond is closest to Roger Moore, Pierce Brosnan or Sean Connery. The general public knows little of the novel characterization. Whether this is good or bad is anyone's opinion, its just a fact.
Personally, I enjoy Fleming's novels. They are excellent source material, but are too dry, long-winded and dated to really satisfy today's audience. This is just speaking from a producer's perspective. Each story has been translated to screen, some better than others. Its time to stop retreading and start building upon Fleming's work.
I don't care what anyone says. The original film series is really what cemented the character as extraordinary. It was Fleming's novels tuned up with invigorating action sequences, wittier dialogue, boosted sexuality and more escapist plots. This is the James Bond that I miss.
An example, the 1931 film version of Frankenstein is only loosely based on Mary Shelley's novel. But it is a masterpiece and all of the more faithful adaptations are unmemorable.
The 2006 Casino Royale was very much it's own entity that took very little from the book . All they did was borrow the mission and one or two key elements. Also I never said the series still has had it's touch, it's been long lost since the 1960's. Personally, I wish they stopped making the films years ago.
With a little imagination, you can stick the old source material without bastardizing it. No one at EON has the vision to do so. At the very least, they make these films thrillers again instead of just generic action flicks.
The movies cemented Bond's legendary status but I find the books superior. Bonds character was stronger than in the movies. I think the only time Bond's character was great in movies was Doctor No.
http://apbateman.com
Personally, after 50 years and endless adaptational liberties with the original source material, I'd much rather celebrate what Fleming has survived (and continues to do so) than bemoan the rest. I'm reminded of Fleming's own remarks on the Doctor No film after its release (paraphrasing): "Those who haven't read the book will probaby think it's a good film, but those who have will probably be disappointed." Truly a typical novelist's perspective, I should think
Ninety-eight percent of films adapted from novels are inferior to their source material, IMO, and such a thing is largely unavoidable due to the differences in the media. My first screenplay, The Disappearance of Wiley Hood (still unproduced, damn the movie gods), was an adaptation of one of my own short stories---and things had to change in order to make it work. In Eon's case, having committed to making Bond forever a man of the modern era, all we can hope for are peeks into the character's spirit and intent as the world moves ever beyond the era of his birth.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
That's what I meant by hardly using the novel. They simplified or changed everything. The tragedy of Vesper was not fully exploited in film. In the novel Vesper, for Bond, became the beacon of black and white in a world that was udderly gray. When she died, he was thrown into a devistating psychological loop that he shoved him right back into Mi6. The torture sequence was played for laughs in the movie. In Fleming's novel, it was dark. Bond barely talked back to Le Chiffre because he was in so much pain and he slipped in and out of consciousness, he was totally at his mercy. Then were was the Casino itself in the film which served as little more than just a backdrop. In Fleming's novel, you felt the ectasy of gambling, the thrill. Also of course the wretched change of baccarat to poker and Royale-les-Eaux became the barely exploited Montenegro. Nope, Casino Royale 2006 was not paying homage to the book like Doctor No or From Russia With Love; They just turned into a good action film. I like action films but it's not Fleming's work.
Also as a last note, I don't hate all film adaptations that aren't 100% close to the source material. Howards Hawks rarely stuck to the literary source in his films but they were still great like To Have and Have Not; It was a pleasing alternative. Casino Royale was not a pleasing alternative, they gave us neither the book nor something fresh in return.
I never said the films suck after that but it's just that the character was strongest in that film.