How would Tarantino's "Casino Royale" have turned out?

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Wow, I seriously cannot take "Tarantino is overrated" people seriously in any way, shape or form

So because of one outlandish moment, you choose to ignore the fact that Fleming's Bond's personality, particularly as written in the Casino Royale novel (cold, calculating, kind of a bastard, not so much humor) but prevalent in most novels, is very much similar to Craig's Bond, without forgetting that what most, if not, all people mean when they say they're the same is because of how Bond is written as said cold killer instead of Roger Moore's one-liner machine? Got it.


Worst sentence ever?

I like Taratino and I think he's a great director. He's not my most favorite, but I will admit honestly and wholeheartedly that he hasn't made a bad film. I can understand why people hate him, but don't pretend he's a terrible director. He can create great and memorable stories, which is more than I can say for many directors.

 

[블라스]

I like Taratino and I think he's a great director. He's not my most favorite, but I will admit honestly and wholeheartedly that he hasn't made a bad film. I can understand why people hate him, but don't pretend he's a terrible director. He can create great and memorable stories, which is more than I can say for many directors.

Agreed, my friend.
But some people just like to hate to, I dunno, feel different or something.
So like you said, the hate? I understand it. But on a technical level, he's great, and filmschool snobs cannot deny it.

 

[Wolfman]

I'm a big Tarantino fan, but Death Proof was just s***. It's his worst film, terribly boring dialogue for almost the entire movie. Tarantino is great, but he has made a bad film.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

I'm a big Tarantino fan, but Death Proof was just s***. It's his worst film, terribly boring dialogue for almost the entire movie. Tarantino is great, but he has made a bad film.

It was supposed to suck.

Because it homaged films that suck.

 

[Mace Dolex]

Tarantino would've included lots of close ups of women's feet.

 

[daywalker2007]

Tarantino is a great talent, and places more emphasis on characters rather than throwaway effects.

I think Tarantino's Casino Royale would have been excellent. Fast paced, action, and plenty of dialogue.

If only the people had the courage and balls to let him do it. After all, it was Tarantino himself who suggested they make a movie based on Casino Royale, so in effect they owe him some thanks anyway.

As for Daniel Craig's two outings as Bond so far.

I felt Quantum of Solace went too far over the edge towards "Realism" and the generic "Bourne" style action.

When you go see a Bond movie, you want to see 3 main things.

Action, Women and crazy gadgets.

QOS only gave us action and thats about it.
Not that its a bad movie, it was just too self important and up its own ass, that the next outing needs to be more outlandish.

People don't go to movies for realism. If I want realism, i'll watch a documentary or watch the news.

When I go see Bond, i expect to see crazy gadgets, Q with some witty one liners, and Bond with some wry humour and crazy action moments.

Its sad to see a Matt Damon franchise dictating what the Bond movies are going to have in them, very sad.

It shows that the filmmakers have a lack of courage and balls to do what they want.

This generation of action movies has been pathetic to say the least.

Well, at least Stallone might give us some proper action later on this year, since nobody else can be bothered to do it.

Everyone else can stick with their "realism" and namby pamby weak Bourne style action.