Tarantino wants to do Casino Royale with Brosnan (1 Viewer)

[George_W_K]

Maybe going back to its roots isn't such a stretch. If Batman Begins does well, maybe MGM will take notice.

I'd love to see a Tarantino Bond film. I think it'd be great to see an R-rated Bond film.

 

[Andy Sheets]

Yeah, I was thinking about that and I think that was more of a Cubby idea than something the new group adheres to. Sorry At this point, I think it's more about having easily controlled directors instead of strong-willed types.

 

[Bill Street]

Unfortunately, what is satisfying and different isn't synonymous with success for Eon. Like all producers, they view success by revenue, and their "back to reality" phase, most recently the Dalton Bond films, were punished badly at the box office.

With Brosnan they turned back to fantasy and boom, receipts skyrocketed again.

It's not what I would prefer. I would LOVE to see a return to a more believable Bond, but the producers, I'm sure see little benefit to that, and all the benefit to keeping the status quo. :frowning:

Bill S.

 

[ToddP]

I'm more inclined to agree with this perspective. It has become very obvious that the people in control of the franchise want to be in control of the movies. They have absolutely no interest in bringing in a director who is going to be making their own decisions about what kind of movie to make.

It's a shame really. I think that Brosnan would be much better suited for an old school spy flick role. He would be much more believeable if allowed to be that understated, suave, sophisticated James Bond.

 

[Kevin Grey]

Not if Tarantino makes a back to basics Casino Royale. A *lot* of people really like the outlandish stunts, wacky villains, double entendres, and spectacle of the recent Bonds and a Bond film that eschews these elements may find the mass audience rejecting it while being coveted by critics and moviephiles. Sure it will open big, but I doubt it'll make $200 million. Hell, even Tarantino doesn't think it will be as big- why do you think he's offering to make it for only $40 million? Because its much more likely to be profitable at a lower budget.

 

[ToddP]

Because that's what he does. Those are the movies he makes, and the budgets he works with. Tarantino doesn't make big-budget blockbusters, because he doesn't need to. He can make a good movie without it, and they always make money.

 

[Kevin Grey]

Kill Bill cost $55 million and went over-budget and over-schedule. If Miramax hadn't split the movie in two Kill Bill would be only flirting with profitability with its $69 million domestic gross. Jackie Brown brought in $39 million. Tarantino is not exactly a guarantee of blockbuster grosses. He has a devoted set of fans that will surely follow him to a Bond movie. The question is, does that group offset the segment of the audience disappointed to a see a Bond movie light on the stunts and action sequences? I'm guessing no and I think Tarantino would agree- hence shooting the film fairly low budget to guarantee a profit.

Everytime these threads come up people seem to feel like there is some kind of mass feeling that the Bond movies have grown stale and need to get back to the roots. I agree but I think we're in the minority. The fact is that each of the last four Bond movies has done better than the one before. From MGM and the Bond producers' vantage point the series doesn't need to make any changes that won't bring in an even greater audience.

 

[ToddP]

I think that if a "back to the basics" Bond was ever going to be successful, it would be now. The problem they had before was that they tried to do two new things at once. They went in a slightly new direction with type of movie they were making, and they brought in a new Bond at the same time.

At this point people like and recognize Brosnan as Bond. I believe that Brosnan would excel in an old school Connery type role, and I think that audiences would recognize that. It might not have over-the-top action sequences, but it's not like QT has qualms about killing people.

And yes, Jackie Brown brought in $39mm, but it only cost $12mm.

 

[Kevin Grey]

But Todd, my question remains- why does MGM want to change the direction of the franchise? What incentive do they have? The grosses keep going up from film to film so why risk changing things now when they are going to incur a risk on the film after when Brosnan gives the role up? A fifth Brosnan Bond in the style of previous four is an almost guaranteed $400 million worldwide gross.



My point is that Tarantino's name above the film is hardly a guarantee of a $100 million gross nor is it likely to add significantly to the gross of a Bond movie.

 

[Nelson Au]

Could Tarantino have some personal agenda to cross over from his smaller film budgets and move to a venue where he could play with a little more money, $50 to $60 million, though still modest by recent Bond film standards?

From the way the article reads, it looks like QT has no intention of making a Bond film without the standard Bond ingredients from medium dry martinis to his famous quips and likely some gadgets. The next Aston Martin would be nice to see and is expected in the next Bond film.

 

[Pete-D]

I think the bigger problem for EON/MGM is the thought of an R-rated Bond film.

That could keep a lot of kids out of the theater, and I don't know if they want to take that risk.

I think they should do it, but its going to take Pierce Brosnan to really back the idea for it to work.

Maybe if they could convince MGM that it's more of a "spin-off/side-story" type of film. If Brosnan will only agree to be 007 again under his terms, then MGM might as well cash in one last time off him rather than not making this picture.

Because right now, it looks like they might be in trouble as far as getting any Bond film out by 2005 because of script troubles. So Tarintino could bail them out if he could tear out a script based on the novel fast enough.

Yeah it won't gross like a regular Bond vehicle, but give it's better than having no 007 in 2005 from the suits' point of view... I would hope anyway.

 

[Mikel_Cooperman]

This is the best move the studio could make after the last two stale Bond movies.

 

[Mark Oates]

It's more likely to be outside pressure from MGM suits than problems within EON that are scuppering Bond 21. Don't forget Teri Hatcher was forced on the team by an MGM executive when they'd already cast the role. Possibly there's a suit been chatting with Tarantino about having a go at the franchise after his recent interview where he said he'd like the opportunity.

There's absolutely no reason whatsoever why a Bond film can't still be made more "down to earth" and yet still appeal to the thud-and-blunder crowd. Having said that, since Dalton and Brosnan, the OTT elements of the Bonds have been played down. Maybe it's time to go against the accepted line and do something daft.

 

[Ernest Rister]

The Dalton films weren't flops.

1989's License to Kill total gross (foreign and domestic): $156,167,015
1988's Die Hard total gross (foreign and domestic): $138,708,852

1987's The Living Daylights domestic gross: $51,185,897
1987's The Princess Bride domestic gross: $30,857,814

License to Kill was a sharp disappointment in the US box office, grossing just over $30 million, but it was a huge hit around the world. It was the soft US gross and other internal financial difficulties that convinced the Bond producers to dump Dalton and change course.

I like all the Brosnan Bond films, with the exception of Die Another Day -- I'm not too into the over-the-top fantasy Bond films, I'm much more of a From Russia With Love, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, For Your Eyes Only Bond fan. The Brosnan Bond films seem to walk a tightrope between plausibility and wink/wink camp (as most Bond films do). Die Another Day, like Moonraker before it, just went too far in the camp direction for my taste (lairs made of ice? A North Korean fleet of Hovercraft to get over the mine fields? Yet another sun-focusing killer satellite?)

 

[Max Leung]

I really liked OHMSS and in particular "License to Kill". The latter was darker, grittier, and the "this time it's personal" story hooked me in.

A Tarantino adaption of 007 would be fantastic...

Max Payne reminds me a little of License to Kill, by the way. Max Payne - now THAT is one movie I'd love to see (directed by - who else - John Woo). (Segue to the Metroid Movie thread - cue Twilight Zone music)

 

[Rob Lutter]

IMHO, if they want to keep Bond fresh... this is something they need to do. People are going to get sick of the same ol' action forumla over and over again. Doing a cool and calm Bond film in the style of the original films would be interesting to see Tarantino do and wouldn't necessarily necessitate an R-rating by him. Jez, if Kevin Smith can make a PG-13 movie... anything is possible nowadays

 

[Kevin Leonard]

Put me in the camp that thinks this would be a bad idea.

The Bond films have always had faceless direction--they've been well-made, but nothing in the movies has made me say "Oh, that's a Guy Hamilton touch," or "That was totally a John Glen movie" (to use two Bond directors). The article hints that Tarantino has no intention of straying from the formula, but I'm not buying it--something tells me he'll try to make this a Quentin Tarantino film with the Bond name, as opposed to a Bond film directed by Tarantino (yes, there is a difference). I think Jason's post was the most accurate on why something like this won't happen.

I can't help but feel if Tarantino decides to do a Bond movie, it'll wind up sticking out like a sore thumb in the franchise. It'd be like letting Takashi Miike or Lars Von Trier take on a 007 entry--sure, it sounds like a cool, "hip" idea on paper, but anyone who's seen a Bond film and knows the director's previous work can see it'll be a disaster.

 

[Pete-D]

I just don't think MGM/EON would agree to an R-rated Bond film period.

So if Tarintino had any chance prior to that it'd probably come to a screeching halt there.

I don't think a Tarintino 007 would be a "disaster". It'd be different, sure, but in some way it probably would be truer to books since QT is a stickler for things like that.

The Bond series is already pretty diverse and different IMO, ranging from "bachelor adventure films" to campy set pieces to the more modern 1990s-era 007.

I think Tarintino would have a better chance though if the series was on "break" as it was in the early 1990s.