Tarrintino's spin on directing a 007 movie
EDOG51
EnglandPosts: 29MI6 Agent
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?
Comments
I don't mean to lash out at you nessecarily but anytime I here this, it pissed me off.
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.
http://apbateman.com
Yeah and look how that turned out.
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.
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.
What's wrong with Ozploitation? As far as I am concerned you have not exploited enough of your female population.
You are confusing your opinion with what's popular opinion.
http://apbateman.com
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.
http://apbateman.com
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.
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.
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.
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.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
That isn't being an auteur, that's just trying to be being hip. What inventive dialogue ?
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.
(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.
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.
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 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.
Or someone who trys and fails to be one.
I have also seen the films, and I don't think he rips them off. He rearranges them and ads his own touch.
No I am sorry, an 11 year old who had help from a 13 year old.
His touch is nothing but exaggerating the violence and sex.
Sex or lewd references to it.
There is nothing wrong with it when you know how to do it.
He shouldn't be allowed near film period.