Quentin Tarantino tells us what Casino Royale could have been.

ckc1ne

Hi all,

It's been awhile. Recently I got to chat with Quentin Tarantino about The Hateful Eight and managed to broach the subject of Casino Royale. I was hoping to find out a little more about the larger "pitch process" and how far along he was but he was surprisingly open about his approach to it.

As usual any comments or thoughts appreciated.

Veering slightly from Hateful, is there any chance you could tell us a little bit about your experience with Quentin Tarantino's version of Ian Fleming's Casino Royale?

Quentin Tarantino: Well you know, if I could have done it in the way I truly wanted to do it. I was open to do it in two different ways, because I really likes Pierce Brosnan. I though he did a really good job I didn't think any of the movies were that great, but I though he was a really good James Bond.

So it wouldn't have had all the action scenes that the James Bond movies keep fitting in and the action scenes that would have been there would have been directed by me not a series of other guys you hire, I'm not talking about Sam Mendes - he does his own action scenes. Full post here...url]http://www.theestablishingshot.com/2016/01/i-chat-with-quentin-tarantino-about-his.html[/url

Best

Loeffelholz

Tantalizing stuff...but the 'read more' click in the link just takes me back to the first page

Gassy Man

Thank goodness he didn't have anything to do with it. We wouldn't have gotten a Bond movie. We would have gotten a Tarantino movie with Pierce Brosnan playing a guy named James Bond we don't recognize. What would that have meant? A narratively creaky film with over-the-top violence and language, self-referential humor, a horrific "surprise" send off to a major character in the third act, music cribbed from everything from Mannix to Captain Apache to The Brady Bunch, and a lot of B actors from TV we haven't seen in years. It would have been more like an Italian rip off of Bond than Bond. He would have driven a two-tone Monte Carlo with fuzzy dice, M's code name would have been "pimp daddy," Moneypenny would have sported go-go boots and big hair, and Samuel L. Jackson would have been in the movie just because. The fact that Tarantino uses the name "Vespa" and insists it's Bond who kills her at the end of the novel shows he has no idea what he's talking about.

By the way, I'm reading My Gun is Quick by Mickey Spillane, who clearly must have influenced Fleming. Though the book is full of typos and Spillane writes in a minimalist way, there are distinct conceptual similarities between the plot and characters -- even some of the dialogue seems reminiscent.

Loeffelholz

Love Spillane. Certainly an influence on my work!

Barbel

It's even possible that the 50s movies based on Spillane's books had some slight influence on the Bond films, too- eg, a short pre-credit sequence, secretary yearning for the protagonist, the first few credits (Producer presents... Author's title... Actor as main character)... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZt3k6h15h8

broadshoulder

Gassy Man wrote:

Thank goodness he didn't have anything to do with it. We wouldn't have gotten a Bond movie. We would have gotten a Tarantino movie with Pierce Brosnan playing a guy named James Bond we don't recognize. nt.

Too true. I am sick of Tarantino popping up and boasting about this. We got the excellent Martin Campbell directing this...

What worries me is whether the Broccolis lose control of Bond, there will be plenty of comebacks like this. Thats why they are in safe hands with the Broccolis

Golrush007

I roll my eyes every time the Tarantino-CR subject comes up. When he talks about it he usually does so in an arrogant way which suggests "If I was given the chance to do it, Casino Royale would have been so much better." Then again, I'd be quite curious to see a standalone-Tarantino adaptation of CR just for the hell of it, provided he managed to reign in his excesses and exercise some self discipline in the adaptation (fat chance!)

I can't imagine CR making a better transition to the screen that what occurred under Martin Campbell's direction, so it all worked out very well in the end.

ckc1ne

Loeffelholz wrote:

Tantalizing stuff...but the 'read more' click in the link just takes me back to the first page

Hi Loeffelholz, Thanks for taking the time to comment. May I ask - which read more link, is it the one on the homepage? What type of device are you are using and which browser? I had a similar report from someone else and this is quite concerning.

Thanks again

Napoleon Plural

Here is the short interview:

Quentin Tarantino: Well you know, if I could have done it in the way I truly wanted to do it. I was open to do it in two different ways, because I really likes Pierce Brosnan. I though he did a really good job I didn't think any of the movies were that great, but I though he was a really good James Bond.

So it wouldn't have had all the action scenes that the James Bond movies keep fitting in and the action scenes that would have been there would have been directed by me not a series of other guys you hire, I'm not talking about Sam Mendes - he does his own action scenes.

It would have been much closer to the novel and it would have been darker and you know he kills the girl at the end, I would have had him kill Vespa at the end, which was a big thing and it would have ended with the last line of the book when he calls M and says 'The bitch is dead'.

It was very Mickey Spillane. I liked that aspect of it. I would have done it that way.

However I was also prepared to say; look I understand - if you are doing this whole franchise and you don't want to F with it , I could do it as a completely stand alone, so it didn't have to have Pierce, I could have cast somebody else it would have been a one off and that would have taken place in the 60s.

My drivers would have been to do a 60s version not with or without Pierce. But you know that was the deal.

Ends

Er... Bond doesn't kill the girl at the end. She tops herself. Maybe he's getting confused with Pierce and Elektra in TWINE?

Reverting it to the 60s doesn't really fit with what the producers wanted, nor did Brozzer really fit in with all that era, esp being too old to be a 'novice'.

Finally, and not the least of it, directors like QT usually want a slice of the box office, that's why Spielberg never did one. A big stumbling block for the producers.

Matt S

Napoleon Plural wrote:

Reverting it to the 60s doesn't really fit with what the producers wanted, nor did Brozzer really fit in with all that era, esp being too old to be a 'novice'.

If the film was closer to the novel (as Tarantino intended), Brosnan would be okay since Bond is not a 'novice' in the novel. But he would still be too old for Bond since in Fleming's novels 00 agents retire at 45. If not for that, there's nothing that could have prevented Brosnan from being in CR, apart from someone not liking him.

DB6

CR is possibly my favourite Bond movie - Tarantino not needed!

Gala Brand

Gassy Man wrote:

Thank goodness he didn't have anything to do with it. We wouldn't have gotten a Bond movie. We would have gotten a Tarantino movie with Pierce Brosnan playing a guy named James Bond we don't recognize. What would that have meant? A narratively creaky film with over-the-top violence and language, self-referential humor, a horrific "surprise" send off to a major character in the third act, music cribbed from everything from Mannix to Captain Apache to The Brady Bunch, and a lot of B actors from TV we haven't seen in years. It would have been more like an Italian rip off of Bond than Bond. He would have driven a two-tone Monte Carlo with fuzzy dice, M's code name would have been "pimp daddy," Moneypenny would have sported go-go boots and big hair, and Samuel L. Jackson would have been in the movie just because. The fact that Tarantino uses the name "Vespa" and insists it's Bond who kills her at the end of the novel shows he has no idea what he's talking about.

By the way, I'm reading My Gun is Quick by Mickey Spillane, who clearly must have influenced Fleming. Though the book is full of typos and Spillane writes in a minimalist way, there are distinct conceptual similarities between the plot and characters -- even some of the dialogue seems reminiscent.

I thought it was Raymond Chandler's Phillip Marlowe who was supposed to be the inspiration for Bond.

I always found Mike Hammer to be a charmless oaf, quite different than Bond.

Have you ever seen the movie "Kiss Me Deadly" (terrific movie)? In it, Hammer is the biggest jerk to ever wander onto a movie screen (the director's intent as he hated the Hammer character).

Gassy Man

I think a lot of fictional characters have been put forth as an inspiration. I'm struck by how much the literary Mike Hammer behaves like the film James Bond. So far, he's slept with two women, would have a third if she hadn't been rubbed out, has a sexy secretary who would do anything for him, has his preference for a sidearm, and operates with both the legal permission of being a private investigator and without the conventional restrictions of the law. I wouldn't say he's a charmless oaf so much as an American blue collar guy, ex-military and with a penchant for doing things his own way -- again, very much like Bond.

I have seen Kiss Me Deadly! It's a fine film, and Ralph Meeker's insolent performance as Mike Hammer, while not quite the character in the book, is definitely interesting. Harry Palmer seems to borrow some of that cynicism and disrespect. I'm actually a fan, too, of Armand Assante's performance in I, the Jury, a lurid B-move adaptation of the novel that is not without its charm.

Gassy Man

Loeffelholz wrote:

Love Spillane. Certainly an influence on my work!

He's great -- I'm enjoying the book very, very much so far.

Gassy Man

Barbel wrote:

It's even possible that the 50s movies based on Spillane's books had some slight influence on the Bond films, too- eg, a short pre-credit sequence, secretary yearning for the protagonist, the first few credits (Producer presents... Author's title... Actor as main character)... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZt3k6h15h8

I think this is entirely possible -- Hammer sleeps with no fewer than two of the three women he meets, and he would have the third if she wasn't the victim. Very much a Bond movie.

ToTheRight

I'm a huge Spillane/Mike Hammer fan. I like the film version of My Gun Is Quick with Robert Bray quite a bit. Although it deviates a bit from the book, Bray is solid as Mike Hammer. We haven't seen Hammer filmed since Stacy Keach revived him in the late 90s briefly. I imagine had Tarentino done his CR, it would have been somewhat Spillane-ish in feel.

Firemass

Gassy Man wrote:

Thank goodness he didn't have anything to do with it. 

Agreed! That would have been a disaster. Tarantino should not be allowed anywhere near 007.

Jag

Gassy Man wrote:

Thank goodness he didn't have anything to do with it. We wouldn't have gotten a Bond movie. We would have gotten a Tarantino movie with Pierce Brosnan playing a guy named James Bond we don't recognize. What would that have meant? A narratively creaky film with over-the-top violence and language, self-referential humor, a horrific "surprise" send off to a major character in the third act, music cribbed from everything from Mannix to Captain Apache to The Brady Bunch, and a lot of B actors from TV we haven't seen in years. It would have been more like an Italian rip off of Bond than Bond. He would have driven a two-tone Monte Carlo with fuzzy dice, M's code name would have been "pimp daddy," Moneypenny would have sported go-go boots and big hair, and Samuel L. Jackson would have been in the movie just because. The fact that Tarantino uses the name "Vespa" and insists it's Bond who kills her at the end of the novel shows he has no idea what he's talking about.

By the way, I'm reading My Gun is Quick by Mickey Spillane, who clearly must have influenced Fleming. Though the book is full of typos and Spillane writes in a minimalist way, there are distinct conceptual similarities between the plot and characters -- even some of the dialogue seems reminiscent.

I disagree. Tarantino actually mentions being closer to the novel than the actual movie was - even setting it in the 60's! That would have been something. As for the spelling of Vesper's name, I doubt Tarantino was allowed to spell-check the article, which by the way has quite a few other mistakes and a rather terrible layout. He pays attention to details, something that has been missing from the recent 007 movies. So we would have great actors, great music, great script, great cinematography, and probably the best Bond movie ever.

Revelator

Gala Brand wrote:

I thought it was Raymond Chandler's Phillip Marlowe who was supposed to be the inspiration for Bond.
I always found Mike Hammer to be a charmless oaf, quite different than Bond..

From what I've read elsewhere, Fleming wasn't especially fond of Spillane either. Aside from Chandler, Fleming was probably influenced some of the now-forgotten writers in of the English hard-boiled school, such as Peter Cheyney, who Fleming was compared to on several occasions. The spy novels of Dennis Wheatley also seem to have influenced Fleming, as Jeremy Duns has clearly demonstrated (http://www.spywise.net/pdf/March_10/wheatley_declassified.pdf).

broadshoulder

Revelator wrote:

I thought it was Raymond Chandler's Phillip Marlowe who was supposed to be the inspiration for Bond.
I always found Mike Hammer to be a charmless oaf, quite different than Bond..

From what I've read elsewhere, Fleming wasn't especially fond of Spillane either. Aside from Chandler, Fleming was probably influenced some of the now-forgotten writers in of the English hard-boiled school, such as Peter Cheyney, who Fleming was compared to on several occasions. The spy novels of Dennis Wheatley also seem to have influenced Fleming, as Jeremy Duns has clearly demonstrated (http://www.spywise.net/pdf/March_10/wheatley_declassified.pdf).

I do remember Fleming not being interested in Mickey Spillane. I remember Chandler, but he was probably influenced by English authors..

superado

I shuddered a little when I read the interview. I’d give Quentin the benefit of the doubt when he said “Vespa,” that it’s possible it’s what the interviewer thought he heard, but I took exception with Quentin saying that Bond killed Vespa (what Vespa and Vesper have in common is that you can ride both ) ) in the end and that he would have set CR in the 60’s and not in its original setting of the 50’s.

However, mistakes aside since these kinds of errors aren’t too uncommon with people who aren’t die-hard fans like us folks in AJB, I believe Tarantino has a sincere respect for film genres such as Bondmania. Yes, his films do bear his stylistic stamp, but in it there is just this adoration for cinema, especially the kind dismissed by critics and genteel moviegoers. I can also see why he likes PB so much, because as I see it, PB to Tarantino has transcended over from being an actor playing Bond, to becoming the genre persona of Bond the superspy, larger-than-life.

Though CR was the introductory film of EON’s reboot, in the end it was still an EON-engineered film with all that implies, so that the difference of a Tarantino CR is that it had potential of better channeling look, feel and vibe of the world of Fleming’s Bond than any of the EON films after OHMSS. It would have been interesting to see how he could have combined this re-imagined, retro world of espionage, which is the movie that the recent Man from UNCLE truly tried to become (but missed).

Gassy Man

Jag wrote:

Gassy Man wrote:

Thank goodness he didn't have anything to do with it. We wouldn't have gotten a Bond movie. We would have gotten a Tarantino movie with Pierce Brosnan playing a guy named James Bond we don't recognize. What would that have meant? A narratively creaky film with over-the-top violence and language, self-referential humor, a horrific "surprise" send off to a major character in the third act, music cribbed from everything from Mannix to Captain Apache to The Brady Bunch, and a lot of B actors from TV we haven't seen in years. It would have been more like an Italian rip off of Bond than Bond. He would have driven a two-tone Monte Carlo with fuzzy dice, M's code name would have been "pimp daddy," Moneypenny would have sported go-go boots and big hair, and Samuel L. Jackson would have been in the movie just because. The fact that Tarantino uses the name "Vespa" and insists it's Bond who kills her at the end of the novel shows he has no idea what he's talking about.

By the way, I'm reading My Gun is Quick by Mickey Spillane, who clearly must have influenced Fleming. Though the book is full of typos and Spillane writes in a minimalist way, there are distinct conceptual similarities between the plot and characters -- even some of the dialogue seems reminiscent.

I disagree. Tarantino actually mentions being closer to the novel than the actual movie was - even setting it in the 60's! That would have been something. As for the spelling of Vesper's name, I doubt Tarantino was allowed to spell-check the article, which by the way has quite a few other mistakes and a rather terrible layout. He pays attention to details, something that has been missing from the recent 007 movies. So we would have great actors, great music, great script, great cinematography, and probably the best Bond movie ever.

Well, the novel is set in the 1950s. Bond is a World War Two veteran. The problem isn't that Tarantino doesn't pay attention to details, per se, but that the details he pays attention to would mostly be the ones that don't really make a Bond film. He would retcon Bond to fit his idea of the character rather than faithfully adapt. I suspect this is why his proposal -- beyond the fact that he probably wanted total authorial control -- was rejected.

Gassy Man

ToTheRight wrote:

I'm a huge Spillane/Mike Hammer fan. I like the film version of My Gun Is Quick with Robert Bray quite a bit. Although it deviates a bit from the book, Bray is solid as Mike Hammer. We haven't seen Hammer filmed since Stacy Keach revived him in the late 90s briefly. I imagine had Tarentino done his CR, it would have been somewhat Spillane-ish in feel.

Just finished the novel, and it has yet more touches that remind me of Fleming, including the doomed girl and love affair, and the bullet to the head of the victim.

Conceptually, I don't find Hammer and Bond entirely different other than superficially. He's blue collar while Bond is white collar; he's American while Bond is British; he's independent (while still relying on the resources of a vast police organization) while Bond is part of a vast organization (while still acting mostly independently). It's almost as if Fleming read Spillane and said how can I produce the same guy but with the opposite demographics. If I'd done so, I'm not sure I would admit it later, especially since Spillane would have been a contemporary.

Matt S

I would probably like Tarantino's Casino Royale better than the one we got, but at the same time I might not accept it as a Bond film.

Agent Purple

It's nothing on Tarantino, I think he's a great director and screenwriter, but his style just doesn't fit Bond.

Napoleon Plural

Brosnan said he had chats with Tarantino about his doing CR or simply directing the next one, not sure which, but that may have been what did it for him, because really you don't go behind Babs Broccoli's back and try to set up the next movie. It may have been a case of 'Right, you're ditched, I'm the boss here.'. Though I can well understand why he felt he ought to, because there was a lack of leadership there, and a power vacuum, and DAD was yet another Bond film that was substandard.

Loeffelholz

Napoleon Plural wrote:

Brosnan said he had chats with Tarantino about his doing CR or simply directing the next one, not sure which, but that may have been what did it for him, because really you don't go behind Babs Broccoli's back and try to set up the next movie. It may have been a case of 'Right, you're ditched, I'm the boss here.'. Though I can well understand why he felt he ought to, because there was a lack of leadership there, and a power vacuum, and DAD was yet another Bond film that was substandard.

Interesting, especially since Craigger did much the same thing with Mendes, pitching Bond to him during a cocktail party or some such. Of course, Babs loves Danny, and probably said: "You crazy boy! Okay, Sam can do #23" )

Shady Tree

Uber geek that Tarantino is, I'm surprised that he got it wrong about Vesper's death, saying that Bond kills her in the book, and also that he was thinking 60s not 50s... these aren't minor details. If the project had had his full attention, I'd have liked to have seen him do it all the same, as a standalone period piece... but then if that had happened we wouldn't have got what we actually have, i.e. Campbell's CR as a springboard for the whole new in-franchise era that's become the great success that it has!

Jag

Shady Tree wrote:

Uber geek that Tarantino is, I'm surprised that that he got it wrong about Vesper's death, saying that Bond kills her in the book, and also that he was thinking 60s not 50s... these aren't minor details. If the project had had his full attention, I'd have liked to have seen him do it all the same, as a standalone period piece... but then if that had happened we wouldn't have got what we actually have, i.e. Campbell's CR as a springboard for the whole new in-franchise era that's become the great success that it has!

Actually, this is only an impression a reader may get from the interview. Tarantino does NOT say that Bond kills Vesper in the book, but specifically states that he would have Bond kill her... Makes sense, this is not a director you would expect to follow the literary material blindly...

HowardB

Gotta get this off my chest. I like all of QT's films, some more than others. He's a talented writer/director but not particularly original as he "cribs" a lot from other films. "Reservoir Dogs" was basically an uncredited remake of the Hong Kong film "City On Fire". Generally he is considered to be an "original" who pays homage to other genre films but so much of what he does is taken from obscure Asian and European films that the full extent is hard to determine. That being said, IMO he has made some hugely entertaining films. With regard to QT making CS, what he wanted to do (Brosnan continuing as Bond, etc) was completely opposite of EON's plans to completely re-boot the series with a new Bond. There was no reason for EON to even consider dealing with a Tarantino...they had fabulous material and the perfect vehicle for a re-boot by finally securing the rights to Fleming's first Bond novel, which would not be a challenge to adapt for a contemporary Bond film. With some help from Paul Haggis, even Purvis and Wade couldn't "**** it up". With a real Fleming classic and a decent script, a professional who understood Bond films and knew his way around action/adventure like Martin Campbell was a great choice. With where the series stands now, given that Craig will be back for at least one more and with the likelyhood that Mendes will not be back (IMO could be a good thing at this juncture) it might not be a bad thing to bring Tarantino in, not so much to direct but to do a screenplay treatment for the next Bond film. If not Tarantino, at least another well regarded writer who can move beyond some of the weaknesses of SPECTRE and build upon the good stuff (the return of Mr. Hinx, getting more out of Christoph Waltz, the good performance of Craig as fully formed Bond, etc).

broadshoulder

HowardB wrote:

G it might not be a bad thing to bring Tarantino in, not so much to direct but to do a screenplay treatment for the next Bond film. If not Tarantino, at least another well regarded writer who can move beyond some of the weaknesses of SPECTRE and build upon the good stuff (the return of Mr. Hinx, getting more out of Christoph Waltz, the good performance of Craig as fully formed Bond, etc).

Do you honestly think Tarantino can come in for screenplay treatment? Really?

How long till he tries to override people to what he thinks Bond should be? Just because he's a fan it doesn't make him an expert? We have CR67, NSNA and DAD as examples of Bond going horribly horribly wrong.

Bring in a seasoned screenwriter to buck things up as Purvis and Wade are retiring. But Tarantino? Noo..... X-( X-(