Craig is Bond

[Darklord Dave]

I was under the impression that QT's involvement never went beyond him saying "that'd be cool, I'd do that with Brosnan!" The EONers don't seem to want a director with vision, they'd rather control everything completely.

 

[MiskatonicNick]

Quentin I think was goin to but was let go because of the direction he wanted it to go in.

Phew, that was a near-miss then after seeing the absolutely abysmal mess that over-rated hack (purely IMO of course) made of CSI

Nick

 

[chamildav]

That was my understanding also concerning QT and Bond, Dave. Tarentino was never in serious negotiations. Or any negotiations I don't think. Just more junk thrown out by fans and flacks looking for something to generate interest while they weren't working on a movie. What I read was QT's statement suggesting he'd like to do an R-Rated Bond film with Brosnan who also wanted to do an R-Rated film.
I don't think either will be making a Bond film in the future unless it's "Thunderball 3000". Just remember to "Never say Never".
I think Tarentino is a pretty clever director and writer. In my opinion he had the same misfortune that Orson Welles did though. He made his best film first. "Reservoir Dogs" really was brilliant. He followed it up with another comparable but at this point less original effort, "Pulp Fiction" and whats followed isn't really all that interesting. But he made two very important and influential films which puts him two ahead of me and most of the rest of the worlds population.

 

[Darklord Dave]

We can argue QT all day long - I believe Pulp Fiction was his best film followed closely by Kill Bill, don't have much use for Reservoir Dogs. He does seem to have a Wellsian quality - he can be a bright candle that burns brilliantly or just a flicker throwing dim shadows on the wall. Either way he seems a bit wacky and I doubt he'll be around as long as Welles was.

 

[BDboystoys]

Lol going off topic I'd say Kill Bill vol 1&2 are his best followed my Pulp Fiction. I liked Jackie brown and Resevoir dogs too. Hes a fav director of mine definately

 

[Mark Hazard]

Bond on the brain lately, starting poking around.

I'd agree that Martin Campbell directing is more disappointing than Craig being cast. If they REALLY wanted to reinvent the character they'd have taken a chance with a young Turk ala Bryan Singer...

Man, old threads can be hysterical!

 

[sirrobert]

Personally I think Jackie Brown is underrated. It came off the heels of Pulp Fiction and wasn't as out there thematically as its predesessor and might have suffered because of that. But it struck a chord in me. Plus you did't see many Heroines (or actors for that matter) whowere past 45 in leading roles in '97. Sadly the same holds true a decade later.

 

[Darklord Dave]

I'll stick by that statement - Royale had a great script and Craig was a great Bond. Who's to say if the movie would have been better with a different director?

 

[Mark Hazard]

I'll stick by that statement - Royale had a great script and Craig was a great Bond. Who's to say if the movie would have been better with a different director?

Well, you mentioned Bryan Singer, which would have been a disaster, IMO. But you WERE one of the least harsh on Craig in the thread.

 

[Darklord Dave]

No, I said take a chance on a young turk like Fox did with Bryan Singer on X-Men and WB with Chris Nolan on Batman.

 

[Mark Hazard]

No, I said take a chance on a young turk like Fox did with Bryan Singer on X-Men and WB with Chris Nolan on Batman.

OH! My apologies.

 

[sirrobert]

I think that Casino Royale was extremely faithful to the original novel by Ian Fleming. I think that in of itself gave the screenplay a leg up on previous Bond films in recent years. Personally I would love to see a good adaptation of Live and Let Die, my favorite Bond Novel. I think Forrest Whitaker would make a great Mr. Big.

 

[Dr.Mirakle32]

Did we read the same book? Now I agree that CR was faithful to the spirit of the Fleming novel (especially after DIE ANOTHER DAY,) however it's a bit absurd to say it is any more faithful than LIVE AND LET DIE, THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS, OHMSS or the early Connery films (I'm not saying you specifically said that, but many current Bond fans tend to.)

CR was originally a spy-thriller, and a cold war mystery novel set in the 1950's, whereas the movie is a big budget, action packed extravaganza set in 2006. Obviously the filmmakers couldn't be that faithful to the novel and keep the modern setting. Sure, the very basic plot of the novel is kept intact, but pretty much everything else is changed.

I would say CR is about as faithful to it's original book as the 1943 PHANTOM OF THE OPERA and the 1931 FRANKENSTEIN were to theirs: the spirit of the novel and the basic plot are the same, but that's about it.

 

[piccolodaimaoh]

I believe that within the past 10 to 15 years the only other Bond film to really bring it like Casino Royale is GoldenEye.
One reason Casino Royale gets a leg up on the other Bond films from the 90's to today is that it is based on an Ian Fleming story unlike Tomorrow Never Dies to Die Another Day.
I enjoyed all of the Bond films and hope that they are not going to start re-doing films from the 60's and 70's with Daniel Craig.
If they want to stay with the Fleming theme there are other Fleming stories they can use. How about an accurate version of the 2 worst Bond films, in my opinion, Moonraker and A View To A Kill.
But in defense of the remakes, I thought Never Say Never Again was a great remake of Thunderball. It also helped that Sean Connery played Bond in both films.
But either way I look forward to future Bond films.

 

[sirrobert]

I wasn't saying that the film was slavishly faithful to the novel. True the setting has changed. It doesn't happen during the Post WWII era like the novel does. SMERSH is not in the mix in the film. There isn't a goon shooting a .45 slug into Bond's back with a cane at the Baccarat table.

But I think in terms of theme and story structure the film is very faithful to the Novel. The plot is there but in addition there are scenes in the film which mirror episodes in the novel. From the subtle machinations between Bond and Vesper Lynd to the brutal torture of Bond at the hands of Le Chiffre CR as a film is very faithful in both spirit and content.

And no I don't think that it is absurd to say that CR was more faithful to the Fleming originals than Live and Let Die was. Sure Le Chiffre didn't look like Sidney Greenstreet or Peter Lorrie but could you imagine Moore deigning to act like he had a finger broken by Tee Hee as what occurred in the novel?

And the Hayes Code was in still in effect when Connery was doing his thing back in the sixties. So no naked Honey Ryder coming out of the sea or Red Grant being shot in the neck aboard the Orient Express.

Finally the Livng Daylights was only 30 to 40 pages long so you are right in saying the film does differ some from the original.