It is currently Fri Apr 20, 2018 10:33 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 470 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 ... 19  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 12:24 am 
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 7:22 pm
Blah. And Hollywood proves that even when it manages to stumble upon something that's utterly mainstream and yet actually good, it just doesn't know how to market it. By all rights this should've done fantastic -- zombies and car chases, the pedigree of Pulp Fiction and Sin City, so much fun trailer-bait, and about a zillion possible readymade marketing gimmicks. But instead it sneaks out and bombs. Meanwhile 300 rakes it in.


Top
 Profile  
 

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 2:33 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 4:31 pm
Location: Greensboro, NC
I watched Black Sunday, Black Sabbath, and Grindhouse for Easter. I also got an easter basket.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:00 am 
~_~
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:27 pm
Location: NJ
DrewReiber wrote:
One thing I remember from Avary's site (and I think a book about him) that was not covered in the above story was how his wife was pregnant at the time and the money was really important to their impending situation. The relationship between he and Tarantino completely deteriorated when, at one of the award ceremonies (I don't remember which one), Quentin intentionally avoided giving any credit to Avary during an acceptance speech despite both of them actually being there. Sometime after the show was over, Avary's wife exploded at their table and screamed at Tarantino for backstabbing them. That was pretty much the beginning of the end of their working relationship. Avary said that over the years the bad blood had subsided and they were back on some kind of terms, but it sounds like their professional understanding is dead forever.


Yeah, wasn't the money going to cover the mortgage? I thought Avary went into all this, no? And he pointed out several of the lines/scenes that were his throughout the script, most of which I cannot remember now...

DrewReiber wrote:
I'm still curious why no single professional article has popped up chronicling the pattern of Tarantino's collaborators taking their leave. Has no one covered the disturbingly quiet distance put between he and Lawrence Bender? I mean, look at Bender, it's not like he's at a loss considering he just walked off with an Oscar. Still, he was there from the start and his departure doesn't raise an eyebrow?


I'd love to hear more about Bender. IMDb, which I know can be wrong and outdated all the time, lists him as producer for Inglorious Bastards, which Quentin has said he is doing next. Anyway, that article idea regarding "the pattern of Tarantino's collaborators taking their leave" is a great one. I'd love to read something like that. We wouldn't happen to have any high placed editors here to commission something like that, would we?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 9:19 am 
Big fan of the former president
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:54 pm
Location: Provo, Utah
I did a quick Google search and came across this 'bout the whole Tarantino/Bender split:

Quote:
Tarantino/ Bender partnership over
March 31st, 2005
Source: Page Six
Posted by: Paul Heath

News reaches us that Quentin Tarantino has split from his film-partner and producer on such films as Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill, Lawrence Bender, after over ten years of working together.

Rumours were fuelled in Hollywood after Tarantino turned up at the Sin City premiere without Bender.

A source at Pagesix.Com reports, "Kill Bill: Vol 2 was their last film together, but they remain friends."

Tarantino is listed as 'Special Guest Director' for Sin City, which opens accross America tomorrow.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 10:57 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 3:59 pm
Relying on a "word of mouth" release approach would make Death Proof D.O.A.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:10 am 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 5:43 pm
Location: The 'Go
Barmy wrote:
Relying on a "word of mouth" release approach would make Death Proof D.O.A.

Only in that fantasy world of yours where everyone agrees with Barmy...

-Toilet Dcuk


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:18 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 12:09 pm
Quote:
I watched Black Sunday, Black Sabbath, and Grindhouse for Easter. I also got an easter basket.

Can't ask for a more perfect Easter. :D What's your take on the Bavas? I'm dying to know but it'd be wiser to bring that to this.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:30 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:57 am
Writing credit quarrels and the ending of working relationships are a Hollywood staple. There is nothing unusual about Tarantino's history in this regard.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 1:19 pm 

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:27 am
exte wrote:
Yeah, wasn't the money going to cover the mortgage?

Yeah I think it was.

Quote:
I thought Avary went into all this, no? And he pointed out several of the lines/scenes that were his throughout the script, most of which I cannot remember now...

I think everything with the watch and boxer (maybe more?) were his original ideas, then he and Tarantino switched material and rewrote each others pieces. That was the process he described, as they both had a hand on every part of the script at one point or another.

Quote:
I'd love to hear more about Bender.

There's literally no documentation on what happened between them, but I heard it wasn't good. Bender has far too much on his plate to care about petty squabbles that could tarnish his professional image, so we probably won't hear anything concrete until decades from now.

Quote:
IMDb, which I know can be wrong and outdated all the time, lists him as producer for Inglorious Bastards, which Quentin has said he is doing next.

Well, regardless whether or not Bender works on Bastards (if it even happens), producing credits dictate that he developed (and originated?) the project with Tarantino long enough to deserve inclusion if only for a small piece of residuals and acknowledgement.

Quote:
Anyway, that article idea regarding "the pattern of Tarantino's collaborators taking their leave" is a great one. I'd love to read something like that. We wouldn't happen to have any high placed editors here to commission something like that, would we?

Again, you would need a lot more documentation to back up such a piece. I mentioned mainstream media because they have the credibility to call these people up for interviews or statements. I just want it to happen so I can read it.

toiletduck! wrote:
Barmy wrote:
Relying on a "word of mouth" release approach would make Death Proof D.O.A.

Only in that fantasy world of yours where everyone agrees with Barmy...

When I asked the theater manager about the performance of Grindhouse in our college town, on opening weekend, he expressed both his disappointment in the ticket figures and that word of mouth from patrons was that Death Proof was not good. Out of 22 people from my university who went that evening, only 2 people liked it. The reaction of the audience was dead silence for the first 2/3 of that feature and I think people might have left during the film. Regardless of my personal opinions, what I saw happening last weekend did not bode well for Death Proof as a single release.

GringoTex wrote:
Writing credit quarrels and the ending of working relationships are a Hollywood staple. There is nothing unusual about Tarantino's history in this regard.

I could give you so many counterexamples to that statement, of filmmakers who receive a similar level of attention, that it would be pointless to list them all here. It would be just as easy if I chose to spotlight the directors who "graduated" into the mainstream at the same time as Tarantino.

Fletch F. Fletch wrote:
I did a quick Google search and came across this 'bout the whole Tarantino/Bender split:

I couldn't find anything on it. All I know is that Bender took A Band Apart with him, and that the label now focuses mostly on smaller productions like music videos.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 1:41 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 3:59 pm
Quote:
The reaction of the audience was dead silence

So much for "death proof". The audience did perk up a bit when Rose got bashed. The QT patented dialogue got about 5 laughs total (mostly in that roundtable scene). "I resemble that remark", strangely, was not a laugh generator.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 2:15 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:57 am
DrewReiber wrote:
I could give you so many counterexamples to that statement, of filmmakers who receive a similar level of attention, that it would be pointless to list them all here. It would be just as easy if I chose to spotlight the directors who "graduated" into the mainstream at the same time as Tarantino.

By all means, list the directors who have worked exclusively with the same producer since 1992, as Tarantino has. It's a handful. As for the split with Avary, I've heard the Tarantino version of the story, and it's very much at odds with the Avary version. Regardless, I hardly see how it constitutes a pattern of dumping collaborators.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 2:44 pm 

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:27 pm
Location: London, UK
Antoine Doinel wrote:
You're only a friend of Weinstein as long as you're making money for him.

That's not entirely true - what about Weinstein bankrolling Clerks II after the debacle of Jersey Girl?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 2:47 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 5:43 pm
Location: The 'Go
Quote:
When I asked the theater manager about the performance of Grindhouse in our college town, on opening weekend, he expressed both his disappointment in the ticket figures and that word of mouth from patrons was that Death Proof was not good. Out of 22 people from my university who went that evening, only 2 people liked it. The reaction of the audience was dead silence for the first 2/3 of that feature and I think people might have left during the film. Regardless of my personal opinions, what I saw happening last weekend did not bode well for Death Proof as a single release.

And while I can't argue against that, all I can say is that, like some others before me have already stated, this is apparently not universally the case. My viewing (Monday night) was not a sold out show by any means, but it was very well attended. We had maybe two or three walk outs, all during Planet Terror (although I would chalk these up to lack of audience research rather than a mark against the film). PT no doubt got the more verbal reaction, but that's kind of expected when you have head explosions and dick erosions. The trailers provided the biggest response of the night (Thanksgiving's 'crotch shot' being the kicker), and then things settled down for Death Proof. But I gave a few cursory audience glances throughout the film and people were hooked -- and I'm talking fist-pumping edge of their seat hooked during the chase.

I'm obviously biased towards DP, but I hesitate to equate dead silence with audience disinterest, when it can just as often be a sign of full engagement. I don't have the numbers to throw up that you do, but it's obvious if only from the online response, that each of the films has a pretty healthy fan base -- the only difference being that Team Terror seems to have it out for Team DP, whereas Team DP is more or less ambivalent to Rodriguez's offering.

Will Death Proof do well as single release? I doubt it. But I also doubt that Planet Terror will make any sort of money either. To say that only DP is D.O.A. is narrow-minded. And if either of them is going to benefit from word of mouth (granted, that's a big if), it's going to be DP, which by its very nature is more of a snowball film than PT -- a Rodriguez-helmed gorefest zombie B flick isn't exactly much of a fencesitter.

-Toilet Dcuk


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 2:55 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 3:59 pm
Here is the DEFINITIVE DP review. There need be no more.

Quote:
Death Proof sucked. end of story. Russel was great, yes. but that's it. Whenever he was not on the film, the film suffered. for it commits the greatest sin of all- it is BORING!!

much of the female cast is pretty, sure, in particular, the girl Russel "gets" the lap dance from. But the film never capitalizes on it (well, unless you have a foot-fetish). Instead, the film empowers women. Well fuck that. call me a scumbag, but I want some sleaze in my exploitation, sorry.

the lead black girl is so annoy. tell me you did not want her to die! the climax is hard to get behind the girls, because she needs to die. I was cheering for Russel, at this piont!

Plus, the ending flat-out sucked. this from a film, i fought to stay awake through.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 3:17 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 7:22 pm
If by definitive you mean that the anti-DP crew are misogynistic and barely literate, well I guess I see your point. Otherwise...

I have to agree with the Duck that the audience I saw Grindhouse with seemed equally engaged by both films, although to be sure it was a very different kind of engagement for each. Planet Terror got most of the groans, chuckles, and belly laughs, and how could it not? It's basically a 90-minute gorefest with nonstop action, some real gross-out moments, and a bare minimum of characterization. And it arguably fulfills perfectly the stated goal of simultaneously parodying and homaging "grindhouse." It's great, fun, trashy.

But the whole audience seemed intensely, though more quietly, engaged by Death Proof too. I know I watched it all with a big smile on my face, and the ending earned the biggest and most satisfying laugh of the whole film -- although on the whole I certainly wasn't laughing as much as during Rodriguez's half. Death Proof is a much subtler film, which may be part of its problem considering its juxtaposition against Planet Terror and its location in a movie called Grindhouse, but I think it's admirably successful on its own terms. For me, it stands alongside Jackie Brown -- another commercial and critical flop -- as Tarantino's best work.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 3:20 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 3:59 pm
I'm not sure JB was a critical flop. It has an 85% rotten tomatometer rating.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 3:32 pm 

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:27 am
GringoTex wrote:
By all means, list the directors who have worked exclusively with the same producer since 1992, as Tarantino has.

First off, Tarantino has had no such "exclusive" relationship with Bender and has had his fair share of producers since 1992 that happen to include him. Second, we're talking about consistent collaborators who have left his side, so please try not to change the parameters of the discussion with new qualifications. Third, you want a list? Fine.

I mean, it's obvious from your statement below that it doesn't even matter and you don't care, so here's just a taste of the list of directors with steady producers that you demand. I'm not going to spend any real time looking, because you clearly don't care enough to make it worth it. I'll just point out the easiest to think of and most obvious, as it's already clear you have far less respect for the information that I post than the energy I'm willing to commit in responding to you.

The most obvious, who started at the same time and work in the same company: Kevin Smith & Robert Rodriguez. If these filmmakers don't constitute as *the* people for comparison, I don't know who would. I could name more, but those filmmakers' first productions started a little later. If I could go up a little bit, I could start throwing in Sofia Coppola, Paul Thomas Anderson and... hell... even David O. Russell. As for regulars, how about George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, Robert Zemeckis or Ron Howard? Oh wait, that's right, "regardless...".

Quote:
It's a handful. As for the split with Avary, I've heard the Tarantino version of the story, and it's very much at odds with the Avary version.

Every Tarantino story of any collaboration he's ever had with anyone differs. Hell, he personally attacked Tony Scott for destroying "his" screenplay until the popularity of True Romance outlived expectations and he retracted his statements. I pointed out at least one another example outside of Avary, being Kurtzman's From Dusk Till Dawn project, but obviously you don't want to acknowledge that either. Though as I pointed out regarding your comments below, I don't think you're going to acknowledge anything you don't want to anyway.

Quote:
Regardless, I hardly see how it constitutes a pattern of dumping collaborators.

That's exactly what I've done, I've shown you a consistent pattern. If you choose not to acknowledge this even if I can answer your rebuttals, then why are we talking?

Narshty wrote:
Antoine Doinel wrote:
You're only a friend of Weinstein as long as you're making money for him.

That's not entirely true - what about Weinstein bankrolling Clerks II after the debacle of Jersey Girl?

I'm guessing that they do so well from home video on his other features that Clerks II made fiscal sense. It was considerably cheaper.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 3:39 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 7:22 pm
Barmy wrote:
I'm not sure JB was a critical flop. It has an 85% rotten tomatometer rating.

If I remember correctly -- and I may not -- that was not necessarily true when it first came out; its reputation has improved considerably in the years since then.

Regardless, it undoubtedly was a commercial flop. People just don't seem to like it when Tarantino tries to do something more substantial.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 3:49 pm 

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:27 am
sevenarts wrote:
If by definitive you mean that the anti-DP crew are misogynistic and barely literate, well I guess I see your point. Otherwise...

Yeesh, that was one scary post. Well, I can't say I see eye to eye with that guy, and thank god for that. However, though I'm all for female empowerment, I think pushing the appropriation of male sexual aggression as a means for women to grow is sad and scary. I think the extent to which Tarantino understands women is only in and of so far that they resemble men and/or the caricatures of female aggressors with or (in the case of Death Proof) without the context of victimization and transformation that frames their resultant behavior.

I also found it disparaging that any of the females in his film that weren't show to possess stereotypically male qualities were easily manipulated, played as niave or just plain stupid. That does not show a respect or understanding of women, but rather a passing of judgement over women who do not qualify under his movie standards of what is to be a tough, badass movie girl. I know what Tarantino was trying to channel when it comes to rape revenge "exploitation" of the 1970's, but he completely missed that features like Thriller did not try and moralize the lengths to which the victims took revenge.

Much like Thriller's successor Ms. 45, the extreme response and moral ambiguity was a large part of putting the viewer in a place where they could symapathize with the main character(s) but still find it difficult to rationalize the means of execution and, especially, the deaths of innocents as a means to that end. Like Thriller, Death Proof put random people in harm's way, but instead of contextualizing the path that has been taken it's instead replaced with visceral, transparent and ultimately superficial celebration of the violence itself. Sexually motivated MALE violence. That is a disturbing denouement and something that is, unfortunately, not being addressed enough in the so-called critically-minded analysis of Tarantino's feature.

Anyway, that is by far the element of Death Proof that troubled me the most. Obviously not the only one, but definitely the biggest one.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 4:19 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:57 am
DrewReiber wrote:
First off, Tarantino has had no such "exclusive" relationship with Bender and has had his fair share of producers since 1992 that happen to include him.

No, up until Grindhouse, Bender was the only producer Tarantino ever had. "Executive Producers" and "Co-Producers" and "Associate Producers" are another role entirely.

DrewReiber wrote:
Second, we're talking about consistent collaborators who have left his side, so please try not to change the parameters of the discussion with new qualifications.

OK, consistent collaborators. There's Avary and then there's apparently Bender after a twelve year relationship. Is this what your pattern is based on? He's kept his editing and production design team along for the ride. That's a pretty tame pattern.

DrewReiber wrote:
The most obvious, who started at the same time and work in the same company: Kevin Smith & Robert Rodriguez. If these filmmakers don't constitute as *the* people for comparison, I don't know who would. I could name more, but those filmmakers' first productions started a little later. If I could go up a little bit, I could start throwing in Sofia Coppola, Paul Thomas Anderson and... hell... even David O. Russell. As for regulars, how about George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, Robert Zemeckis or Ron Howard? Oh wait, that's right, "regardless...".

Like I said, a handful. Stuicking with the same producer time and time again is not the norm.

DrewReiber wrote:
Hell, he personally attacked Tony Scott for destroying "his" screenplay until the popularity of True Romance outlived expectations and he retracted his statements.

All I know is that he was already raving about Tony Scott's directing of True Romance in 1994.

I'm not denying that he's arrogant and pops off at the mouth, or that he had falling out with Avary. But your attempt to demonize him by claiming he has wicked ways with his collaborators is off the mark.

Edit: I'm not sure how he did wrong by Kurtzman, who received a story credit.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 4:39 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 7:22 pm
DrewReiber wrote:
I also found it disparaging that any of the females in his film that weren't show to possess stereotypically male qualities were easily manipulated, played as niave or just plain stupid. That does not show a respect or understanding of women, but rather a passing of judgement over women who do not qualify under his movie standards of what is to be a tough, badass movie girl.

I assume you're referring to the first group of women here as being portrayed as "naive or just plain stupid" in comparison to the second group, but I really don't feel that's true. For me, the most interesting (and even radical) aspect of Tarantino's film was the relatively equal treatment of all the women in terms of character and depth, regardless of whether or not they die and whether or not they get revenge. The usual set-up in this kind of movie is to kill off characters who have committed morally ambiguous actions -- which there is, undoubtedly, plenty of in the first half. The "message" in so many of those old slasher/killer flicks is that if you have sex, do drugs, drink, party, you will die. Hell, even Scream parodied that moralistic aspect of horror films. But Tarantino takes an interesting route here, in that he gives us a group of party girls -- drinking, dancing, flirting, smoking pot -- who are killed, and yet he completely sides the audience with them, never moralizing, never implying that their deaths are a natural result of their decadence. Instead, the male aggression and rage that kills them is implicated -- not just the obvious Kurt Russell, but the sleazy bar guys who try to prey on the girls and the cheating boyfriend who never shows up. Tarantino is externalizing the (male) preonceptions that underpinned those old slasher flicks. He replaces the slasher moralizing with a more complicated depiction of women that focuses on them as both sexual objects (the many caressing camera movements along their bodies) and as thinking people (the reverent treatment of their sometimes funny, sometimes banal conversations). The women in the first segment all die, it's true -- but this alone hardly marks them out as stupid, especially since they didn't have the chance for survival and revenge that the second group did. And just on the level of character, I felt as though these women were every bit as complex, well-depicted, and interesting as those in the second half.

Quote:
Sexually motivated MALE violence. That is a disturbing denouement and something that is, unfortunately, not being addressed enough in the so-called critically-minded analysis of Tarantino's feature.

As for the second half, I think it's clearly true that the girls' revenge here is a co-option of specifically *male* violence. And I think it's equally clear that Tarantino is consciously calling attention to the fact that it's male violence, which is why the whole ending sequence functioned, for me, as a joyous parody of these conventions. The implications of anal rape when the girls are chasing Russell, the over-the-top cheerleader dancing in the final freeze frame -- it's so deliberately exaggerated that these scenes can only function as a simultaneous celebration and critique of the conventions of male violence. The car chase draws attention to the nature of this violence -- its sexual nature, especially -- by inverting its context, but I hardly think that Tarantino is advancing the idea that it would be healthy to simply maintain this inversion and place the violence in female hands instead.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 4:59 pm 

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:27 am
GringoTex wrote:
No, up until Grindhouse, Bender was the only producer Tarantino ever had. "Executive Producers" and "Co-Producers" and "Associate Producers" are another role entirely.

Ok, then what were the roles of all the other producers who worked on each one of his films? If you can tell me what purpose they served (or didn't), I wil gladly move away from discussing them. Otherwise, those roles can mean a hell of a lot more than you wish to let on. Many directors bring collaborators along with them who are denied full producer credit regardless of their actual contribution to the production, typically leading to executive credit. Tom DeSanto's unsung work with Bryan Singer immediately comes to mind. Co-Producers and Associate Producers are usually throwaway credits, but quite often this is where longtime producing partners for directors begin. If you want to discuss Bender's capacity that's fine, but I'm not going to disqualify the other people who have worked with Tarantino only because you don't know anything about them.

GringoTex wrote:
OK, consistent collaborators. There's Avary and then there's apparently Bender after a twelve year relationship. Is this what your pattern is based on? He's kept his editing and production design team along for the ride. That's a pretty tame pattern.

You're wrong about his production designer, David Wasco. His last project was Kill Bill. Andrzej Sekula stopped working for him after Four Rooms and whether there is a reason or not (I don't know), neither Guillermo Navarro or Richardson have come back to work with him. Until I hear otherwise though, I am more than willing to believe they are busy with other projects.

GringoTex wrote:
Like I said, a handful. Stuicking with the same producer time and time again is not the norm.

You didn't listen to a word I said. No surprise.

GringoTex wrote:
All I know is that he was already raving about Tony Scott's directing of True Romance in 1994.

Then you're arguing with Tarantino's comments on the True Romance special edition.

GringoTex wrote:
But your attempt to demonize him by claiming he has wicked ways with his collaborators is off the mark.

To demonize him? For pete's sake, you sure are melodramatic when you don't want to read something.

First off, you haven't really refuted anything I've said so much as offer a number of weak generalizations and dimissive comments while admitting you don't even care to see the other side of the argument. Second, if my statements regarding facts or history do not paint the picture you wish to believe, that's your problem. I am simply restating the public information present or highlighting consistent behavior and popular criticisms.

For a thesis project, I actually had to research a lot of material regarding recent filmmaking trends that included Quentin Tarantino and most of what I've said is present in published biographies that were meant to make him look good. For instance, I didn't invent his credit hogging, there is literally a chapter on it. I even had to read about his infamous "poster defense" over the Reservoir Dogs/City on Fire debacle, which I believe was the name of another whole chapter. Your claims of my demonizing Tarantino are nothing more than a bad reaction to information you don't want to hear or acknowledge.

GringoTex wrote:
Edit: I'm not sure how he did wrong by Kurtzman, who received a story credit.

Again, then you're obviously not paying attention to anything I said. I am officially bored and have reached the conclusion that you're not even paying attention to what I post. Don't worry about responding to my initial question, I'm no longer interested and moving on. Thanks.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 5:21 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:57 am
DrewReiber wrote:
For a thesis project, I actually had to research a lot of material regarding recent filmmaking trends that included Quentin Tarantino and most of what I've said is present in published biographies that were meant to make him look good.

I was pretty sure your "facts" and "history" were gleaned from one or two shoddy, fast-tracked gossip tracts.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 10:36 pm 
~_~
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:27 pm
Location: NJ
DrewReiber wrote:
When I asked the theater manager about the performance of Grindhouse in our college town, on opening weekend, he expressed both his disappointment in the ticket figures and that word of mouth from patrons was that Death Proof was not good. Out of 22 people from my university who went that evening, only 2 people liked it. The reaction of the audience was dead silence for the first 2/3 of that feature and I think people might have left during the film. Regardless of my personal opinions, what I saw happening last weekend did not bode well for Death Proof as a single release.

The trailers show that she gives him a lap dance, so that sequence may really help the film, in all manners of speaking... Yes, Death Proof had some serious talky scenes that went on for forever, particularly when the camera went on swivel patrol around the table. I felt like my bladder was about to explode, and the exposition wasn't helping, but there was some serious hooting and cheering going on at my theater throughout the film. Don't know if I posted this, but the first stunt Stuntman Mike did got some surprising cheers, which really stunned me since it was so graphic, but... anyway.

DrewReiber wrote:
All I know is that Bender took A Band Apart with him, and that the label now focuses mostly on smaller productions like music videos.

Yuck... All I know is that glorious image which evokes Dogs and appears in Pulp will sadly be gone. I was wondering where it was with Death Proof, and I doubt I missed it, as I stayed for all the credits... (hoping to also see what would happen to the cheerleader...)

By the way, do you think Craig Brewer is feeling good about any of the BO news for Grindhouse, perhaps feeling vindicated for his ode to a forgotten genre, despite its performance at the theaters, as well?

Narshty wrote:
Antoine Doinel wrote:
You're only a friend of Weinstein as long as you're making money for him.

That's not entirely true - what about Weinstein bankrolling Clerks II after the debacle of Jersey Girl?

Because it was Clerks II? I'm a fan, and even I had to say that...

Finally, speaking of obscure films Quentin inspires us to see, am I the only one on this thread that ordered Double Dare on their amazon prime account? For those who don't know, it's a doc featuring Zoe Bell in the stunt person business as she moves here to Hollywood. It's the film that convinced Quentin to cast her in the film. Anyone?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:33 pm 
~_~
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:27 pm
Location: NJ
DrewReiber wrote:
...I don't think you're going to acknowledge anything you don't want to anyway.

Pretty shocking coming from you, Drew. There's a lot I've posted in response to you that you've thrown out the window, like the Ratner/Tarantino bit about supportive crew, etc...


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 470 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 ... 19  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group




This site is not affiliated with The Criterion Collection