awesome thanks for looking that up.
and you are right, he is misremembering the novel, not talking about his own script. I shall try to transcribe that bit:
he's kind of a cold blooded guy at the end of it, the last line of the book is, he kills the woman he loves, and he calls up Control and says "the bitch is dead"
another panel participant says "kind of Mickey Spillane", and Tarantino affirms "yeh"
so maybe that's true, he has forgotten Vesper commits suicide while Bond is away from the room, and is confusing Fleming with Spillane.
(Spillane's first novel, I The Jury, does end precisely with...
...Mike Hammer identifying the client he has been sleeping with as the murderer he's been looking for and shooting her in cold blood at very close quarters. I think she's even undressing in an attempt to seduce him one last time when he pulls the trigger)
He also says he wants his version to take place in 1964, not after OHMSS, in the same format as the film series but with narration. He also specifically names baccarat as the game, and would rather focus on the card game than generic action sequences. He contrasts what he would like to do specifically with the motorcycle chase from Tomorrow Never Dies.
This panel discussion is 1997. The new Bond film the whole panel is trashing is TND. (Note Tarantino does like Asian action star Michelle Yeoh, but not her major action sequence).
Then they talk about Tarantino's current film, which is Jackie Brown. He defends the length of his movie because he deliberately wanted to pace the film like the experience of reading an Elmore Leonard novel, and give the feeling of hanging out with the characters and getting to know these people. They also discuss the importance of character development leading up to the lies and betrayals between the characters as the story unfolds.
That all seems very relevant to a good adaptation of Casino Royale. I like all that talk about pacing, character development, lies and betrayal, and the importance of the card game. I'm sure he could have reread the book and got the ending right, if he got the job, but he sure seems like he understands how the movie needed to be made.
Comments
and you are right, he is misremembering the novel, not talking about his own script. I shall try to transcribe that bit: another panel participant says "kind of Mickey Spillane", and Tarantino affirms "yeh"
so maybe that's true, he has forgotten Vesper commits suicide while Bond is away from the room, and is confusing Fleming with Spillane.
(Spillane's first novel, I The Jury, does end precisely with...
He also says he wants his version to take place in 1964, not after OHMSS, in the same format as the film series but with narration. He also specifically names baccarat as the game, and would rather focus on the card game than generic action sequences. He contrasts what he would like to do specifically with the motorcycle chase from Tomorrow Never Dies.
This panel discussion is 1997. The new Bond film the whole panel is trashing is TND. (Note Tarantino does like Asian action star Michelle Yeoh, but not her major action sequence).
Then they talk about Tarantino's current film, which is Jackie Brown. He defends the length of his movie because he deliberately wanted to pace the film like the experience of reading an Elmore Leonard novel, and give the feeling of hanging out with the characters and getting to know these people. They also discuss the importance of character development leading up to the lies and betrayals between the characters as the story unfolds.
That all seems very relevant to a good adaptation of Casino Royale. I like all that talk about pacing, character development, lies and betrayal, and the importance of the card game. I'm sure he could have reread the book and got the ending right, if he got the job, but he sure seems like he understands how the movie needed to be made.