Bond 2#, 2# and 2#
007
ClassifiedPosts: 372MI6 Agent
As unlikely as it probably is, I'd love to see the producers take a really big step/risk with Bond.
I was chatting away with a mate of mine yesterday about the idea of Tarantino being commissioned to write a trilogy of Bond movies that could then be filmed back-to-back. Tarantino could hide himself away to concentrate on getting the scripts right while Craig and the producers continue to make more Bond movies and when the writing is done and filming is ready to begin, a new Bond can be chosen (if necessary) and off he goes...and if it didn't work, the producers can simply go back to the tried and trusted formula.
After watching everything Tarantino's done, and particularly Inglourious Basterds, it got me thinking that he really doesn't adhere to any rules at all...when he can be bothered his films are just incredible.
I suspect though that Tarantino will never get near a Bond film but I think it'd be great.
I was chatting away with a mate of mine yesterday about the idea of Tarantino being commissioned to write a trilogy of Bond movies that could then be filmed back-to-back. Tarantino could hide himself away to concentrate on getting the scripts right while Craig and the producers continue to make more Bond movies and when the writing is done and filming is ready to begin, a new Bond can be chosen (if necessary) and off he goes...and if it didn't work, the producers can simply go back to the tried and trusted formula.
After watching everything Tarantino's done, and particularly Inglourious Basterds, it got me thinking that he really doesn't adhere to any rules at all...when he can be bothered his films are just incredible.
I suspect though that Tarantino will never get near a Bond film but I think it'd be great.
Things I hate:
1. People who hate things.
2. Irony.
3. Lists.
1. People who hate things.
2. Irony.
3. Lists.
Comments
I am not opposed to it, but I can understand if he never makes a Bond film. I am definitely curious about what the details of the version he proposed to EON before were.
Guess most of us know Tarantino lobbied hard for it, in particular CR, before EON had snapped up the rights. And if you really want to do a Bond film, Mickey and Babs won't touch you. It happened with Stephen Frears, it happened with the guy who did Layer Cake and now X-Men (name escapes me, Matthew Vaughan that's it) and ditto Quentin. Go figure.
Anyhow Quentin wanted Brosnan and sort of blotted his copybook by sniping at Craig, odd as Craig seems more in keeping with a Tarantino film but there you go.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Still I think Tarantino would of filmed it very differently.
And agree that DC would seem more fitting for a Tarantino Bond.
I'd love to see Samuel L Jackson as M
Should be better than Inglorious Bastards, which was basically a western set during the war.
Anyway, I'd hate to see him do 007. He is too flashy, too egotistical and too operatic. It wouldn't be a Bond movie, it'd be a Tarantino movie, and I think that's the basic problem as far as Eon goes: no one is actually bigger than Bond. Connery wasn't allowed to be, so why would they bring in a writer/director who would skew the production process in his favour. That simply isn't and hasn't been how Eon makes movies.
I was cautious about Sam Mendes being taken on for Bond23 (is he still on that gig?) as he also has a reputation for controlling his projects. But I think Mendes is a terrific and clever director who understands people, while Tarantino is visually a genius, but is starting to lack clarity in his storytelling. Anything post Jackie Brown has been flabby and often yawn inducing.