Go Back   Movie Fan Central Discussion Forums > Movie Talk! > Upcoming Movie Talk
MOVIE FAN CENTRAL FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-30-2011, 05:23 PM
Official DJANGO UNCHAINED Thread (December 25, 2012)



http://www.slashfilm.com/is-this-the...os-next-movie/
Quote:
Is This The Title To Quentin Tarantino’s Next Movie?

by

Germain Lussier


Is that the title? It certainly looks like it. We know from Inglourious Basterds that Tarantino likes to hand write the titles on the first page of his script. Plus, there’s the classic 1966 spaghetti western called Django that starred Franco Nero. The same Franco Nero who was rumored to be in this movie. Here’s the plot description of that original film from the IMDB:

A coffin-dragging gunslinger enters a town caught between two feuding factions, the KKK and a gang of Mexican Bandits, and is caught up in a struggle against them.

Is Tarantino’s film some sort of homage to that, much like the original Inglorious Basterds? With the Nero connection, I’d bank on it.

So, what do you think of this title?

Thanks to Twitter user @FuMikeChu for the heads up.

UPDATE: Anne Thompson has confirmed with Tarantino’s agency that Django Unchained is, indeed, the title of the new film. She also points us to Tarantino.info which says the film is inspired not only by Django, but Takashi Miike’s Sukiyaki Western Django as well. Indiewire also claims to have read the script and provide the following description. Beware of minor spoilers:

Django is a freed slave, who, under the tutelage of a German bounty hunter (played by Christopher Waltz the evil Nazi officer in Inglorious Basterds) becomes a bad-ass bounty hunter himself, and after assisting Waltz in taking down some bad guys for profit, is helped by Waltz in tracking down his slave wife and liberating her from an evil plantation owner. And that doesn’t even half begin to cover it! This film deals with racism as I’ve rarely seen it handled in a Hollywood film. While it’s 100 percent pure popcorn and revenge flick, it is pure genius in the way it takes on the evil slave owning south. Think of what he did with the Nazis in Inglorious and you’ll get a sense of what he’s doing with slave owners and slave overseers in this one.

Sounds amazing. Do you agree?

Last edited by SkyNet; 09-29-2012 at 10:53 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-30-2011, 05:29 PM
I'd truly love to see a Tarantino western....
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-30-2011, 05:31 PM

I'm all about this shit
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-30-2011, 05:34 PM
Oh yes, bring it on Tarantino. He could do no wrong in my eyes.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-30-2011, 05:37 PM
He's done a WW2 movie, he may do a Western....makes me wonder what a QT sci-fi movie would be like.....
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-30-2011, 07:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quentin Tarantino
"I'd like to do a Western. But rather than set it in Texas, have it in slavery times. With that subject that everybody is afraid to deal with. Let's shine that light on ourselves. You could do a ponderous history lesson of slaves escaping on the Underground Railroad. Or, you could make a movie that would be exciting. Do it as an adventure.
That's what bothers me about it. He has the pretense that he's making a movie about a controversial subject others are afraid to deal with and shining a light on American history...but he just wants to use slavery times as a backdrop for a bloody action movie. In other words, he wants to make an exploitation movie where it's slavery being exploited. I'm sure it'll be as much about exploring the injustice of slavery and American racism as Inglourious Basterds was about the evils of Nazism and fascism...which means, you know, not at all. If he wants to keep making 70's-style exploitation movies, okay (he's a big fan of Mandingo, 'nuff said), but I wish he copped to it more rather than also making the rather spurious claim with this and IB that it's about something greater than getting his rocks off and having fun and that he supposedly takes the subject matter seriously and has something to say about it. There's also the fact that now 4 of his last 5 movies (or 3 of his last 4 if you count KB as one) are revenge films which feels repetitive.

Personally, I liked him best when he wasn't making genre exploitation pics but character-driven dramas that made me care about the people onscreen. Even at their most technically accomplished (which QT surely is) I think exploitation flicks are pretty cheap and lazy, below his level of talent though they're seemingly his only interest nowadays. I'll surely see it, but it's a predictably disappointing development as I think Tarantino slips further away from what made me such a fan of his work and embraces all the superficial aspects that have almost turned his work into self-parody.

Last edited by QUENTIN; 04-30-2011 at 08:32 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-30-2011, 08:27 PM
You make some great points, and I do hope that he eventually does go back to character driven stuff like Jackie Brown and Pulp Fiction. However, the thing I like so much about his last couple of films (Kill Bill and Inglourious Basterds) is that they combine entertainment value, wit and craftsmanship on a much greater level than most films released over the past several years. They provide a form of epic entertainment that just isn't found in cinema anymore. It seems like nowadays (with some exceptions) movies are divided into dumb as bricks and Oscar bait. Tarantino films don't fall into either of those categories. When his films come out they bring us back to a time when the best action/adventure film of the year wasn't Pirates of the Caribbean 9.

He also generates suspense unlike any other working in the business today. This is very advantageous in the kinds of films that he has been making lately.

Last edited by Bourne101; 04-30-2011 at 08:52 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-30-2011, 08:35 PM
I'm as exited about QT's next project as anybody, but really? Django Unchained? Another obnoxious meta exercise? I know Django is thrown into dozens of spaghetti westerns since Franco Nero's film but the title crosses the line into jerk-off fanboy waxing. He just made a movie with a title incorporating another cult film, and even Jackie Brown as a title was a little too much of a wink at Pam Grier's Foxy Brown... what's next? QT presents: "Strike of a Rolling Thunder"? "Behind the Yellow Door"?, "My Name is Nobady" (misspelled for quirky aesthetic flair). This title gets a huge thumbs down from me.

I'm pretty much on QUENTIN's (our insightful schmoe, not... uh, the filmmaker we are talking about) side of the fence with this project. Although I do confess my love for Inglourious Basterds, despite many annoying grindhouse moments in it.

It's not enough for Tarantino to say his next film will be great, it's always, like QUENTIN mentioned, superficially motivated. "my next film is my exploitation revenge movie", "my next movie is my homage to grindhouse, a slasher on wheels", "my next movie is my southern", "my next movie is my exploitation guys on a mission movie". Can you imagine how he would have described Pulp Fiction in these simple terms? He couldn't.

Like I said, I still love Tarantino, I just wish he'd grow as a filmmaker... Movies like Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown seem like the kind of thing the guy who made Death Proof would mature into, instead of the other way around.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-30-2011, 08:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne101 View Post
You make some great points, and I do hope that he eventually does go back to character driven stuff like Jackie Brown and Pulp Fiction. However, the thing I like so much about his last couple of films (Kill Bill and Inglourious Basterds) is that they combine entertainment value, wit and craftsmanship on a much greater level than most films released over the past several years. They provide a form of epic entertainment that just isn't found in cinema anymore. It seems like nowadays (with some exceptions) movies are divided into dumb as bricks and Oscar bait. Tarantino films don't fall into either of those categories. When his films come out they bring us back to a time when the best action/adventure film of the year wasn't Pirates of the Caribbean 9.
I do agree with this. Maybe not with IB so much which I didn't think was that consistently entertaining and had a lot of fat mixed in, but Kill Bill is the best action movie of the 2000s and some of the most fun I've had in a theater. When he's on, he can do genre work as well as anyone (though Death Proof was a misstep even in that regard). It's not high art, but it's relatively smart and it's astonishingly well put together with virtuoso style that makes for a great time at the movies.

While I think they're a different beast, there's nothing wrong with action/adventure flicks. Raiders of The Lost Ark is fucking awesome and it also just uses Nazis as a backdrop for a fun ride (though critically, Spielberg would not pretend he was doing something daring or revealing or important with it - he saved that for Schindler - so it's not as pretentious). However I think I'd get sick of Spielberg movies if all he ever did was variations on Raiders given his talent (and I don't even think he's as talented as Tarantino) especially if his career had demonstrated all his talent for greater things up front (if Schindler and Munich were his second and third movies) and then stayed mired in throwbacks to 30's serials for the next 15 years. If Tarantino wanted to make something like Kill Bill, Basterds, Death Proof, or this Django every now and then for fun I wouldn't begrudge him so much if he also branched out more, pushed himself, and made challenging fare dealing with real characters and relationships interspersed. It's that all Tarantino seems interested in or willing to do now is basically what directors with a tenth of his skills did 40 years ago that strikes me as a shameful waste.

Last edited by QUENTIN; 04-30-2011 at 09:59 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-30-2011, 09:35 PM
I think if Tarantino branched out we'd get just get a violent and more talkative version of Jersey Girl
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-30-2011, 09:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by someguy View Post
I think if Tarantino branched out we'd get just get a violent and more talkative version of Jersey Girl
He doesn't have to make studio-friendly sappy flicks about parenting to branch out. I also think there's more to him than there is to Smith.

Jackie Brown is a crime drama, same as Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, but it's a departure from those films because it's about middle age as much as an important bag everyone wants, a genuinely complex and adult romantic relationship anchors it, and its tone and pace are more relaxed. I think superficially it's very similar to what came before, but it feels different. Whereas lately his films are superficially different but feel the same. Tarantino can stick to what interests him without getting so repetitive.

It's also of note that Jackie Brown is an homage to blaxploitation pictures without being a blaxploitation picture, which sets it apart from and above his work since.

Quote:
Originally Posted by APZombie
I just wish he'd grow as a filmmaker... Movies like Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown seem like the kind of thing the guy who made Death Proof would mature into, instead of the other way around.
Precisely.

Last edited by QUENTIN; 01-09-2013 at 02:58 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-30-2011, 09:51 PM
I won't believe QT is making a movie until his actually filming it. This is what, project #8 on his "I wanna make this movie" list.

That said, I'll watch anything he actually makes.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-30-2011, 10:53 PM
Casting News

Other Directors Working on Tarantino's Next?

Quote:
It's been an exciting day for fans of Quentin Tarantino as details of his next project continue to emerge. His latest film, an antebellum Western about an escaped slave titled "Django Unleashed," is being fast-tracked by The Weinstein Company and is planning to start production within the year.

So far Christoph Waltz, recent Academy Award winner for his work in Tarantino's "Inglourious Basterds," has been confirmed to play the bounty hunting mentor to the film's as-yet-uncast lead. The latest word is that other supporting roles may be filling up from an unlikely source.

Following the casting of Eli Roth ("Hostel") in pivotal roles in Tarantino's "Grindhouse" and "Basterds," horror directors Rob Zombie ("House of 1000 Corpses," "Halloween") and Zack Snyder ("Dawn of The Dead," "Sucker Punch") are the latest fellow filmmakers Tarantino has signed to work in front of the camera.

Zombie will play a vicious, one-legged plantation overseer while Snyder has been cast as a dimwitted deputy to the Southern town's crooked sheriff. Both directors will have to balance their acting work with upcoming directorial projects, the witches pic "Lords of Salem" and reboot of the Superman franchise "Man of Steel" respectively.

Roth is also reportedly in talks for a part but any attachment has yet to be confirmed. He had this to say about his friend and collaborator's recent affinity for casting film directors, "The great thing about directing a director is they know firsthand where you're coming from and what you want. I think the appeal for Quentin is that it allows you to speak in shorthand because you're already on the same page. It's easier to work with someone who you know shares your vision."

Last edited by QUENTIN; 05-01-2011 at 01:34 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-01-2011, 01:13 AM
The fuck...

I know Eli is like the shadow to Tarantino these days (i see the two together all the time at the new bev.) but fuck me in the goat ass this casting took the sails out of the ol' excitement boat.

Zach Snyder? Are you fucking kidding me? The blue collar cop who rinses out all the tax dollars for a rolls royce when he couldn't direct traffic?

Rob Zombie? The self proclaimed horror aficionado who wouldn't know what makes for good horror if it stabbed him in the throat?

Tarantino has become that hot girl in high school who hangs out with less attractive girls because she knows they'll shower her with praise.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-01-2011, 06:06 AM
I want to know the exact combination of coke and mescalin QT was on the past few days because this is the strangest news I've ever seen on this site.

In regards to Tarantino's recent output, I think it's exactly where he always planned to go. I can't fathom what else he was meant to do as a filmmaker. He's never been a thinking man's filmmaker, nor a dramatic director. He's always been about entertaining the audience, and by God, he's a master at that. I don't think he's become immature, it's just that he really does look up to kung-fu flicks, slasher movies and blaxploitation pictures. I think people underestimated just how much he loved those films whenever he'd talk about them in interviews circa 1994.

Another thing I have noticed is that when people talk about his first three films, they forget that they were all influenced by outside voices:

Reservoir Dogs was pretty much his adaptation of City on Fire. The drama was already there for him to take and reshape into his own movie. I've always thought it was considerably heavier than any of his other films.

Pulp Fiction was written with Roger Avary. No matter what the stories are that Tarantino wrote 70%, you have to take into account that they still collaborated on the film. It's the result of two people hashing out ideas together. I'm not arguing that Avary is responsible for why it's great, but I'm sure him being the same room really influenced what made it on the page.

Jackie Brown's adult themes of middle age originated with Elmore Leonard. The maturity people keep attributing to Tarantino was already there in the material. He was smart enough to realize just how important it was to the story.

I'm not making an argument that QT is terrible on his own. I've enjoyed his later movies. I just believe that the reason his films feel so different to some people is because they are all coming solely from him. Every film past Jackie Brown is probably the purest Tarantino film we're ever going to get. If people want the Tarantino who made Pulp Fiction back, they better make a donation to Roger Avary's attorney.

As for me, I'm going to be there for Django Unchained on opening night. I haven't once missed out on any of his films in the theater since Jackie Brown. That being said, I do agree with you Quentin that Tarantino should just be honest about his film and say that it's a popcorn movie. I think he's past the point of adding window dressing to make his films seem more thoughtful than they actually are. It would be like seeing Sergio Leone saying that The Good, The Bad & The Ugly was a social commentary on the Civil War.

Last edited by Cop No. 633; 05-01-2011 at 05:06 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-01-2011, 10:33 AM

Im already drooling at thinking of how many times hes gonna have the "N" word used with wicked southern drawls... LOL
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-01-2011, 02:55 PM
I don't dislike the guy. He is an emulation machine, and he does what he does well. But the company he keeps is telling. He is surrounding himself with the worst filmmakers in pop cinema and his decision to discontinue any attempts to make anything but genre pictures is troubling. And in this case.. let's just say I'm preemptively concurring with Spike Lee on the socially retarded monstrosity this film is destined to be.

Last edited by Dutchman; 05-01-2011 at 03:04 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-01-2011, 07:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flickman View Post
Im already drooling at thinking of how many times hes gonna have the "N" word used with wicked southern drawls... LOL
There's a blaxploitation western called The Legend of Nigger Charlie starring Fred Williamson. Imagine that. A Tarantino western i'm in. I wish they cast Franco Nero, Fred Williamson, Terrence Hill, Bud Spencer and how about cameos by Clint Eastwood and Jeff Bridges and of course...Samuel the man Jackson.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-01-2011, 07:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicPuppet View Post
I want to know the exact combination of coke and mescalin QT was on the past few days because this is the strangest news I've ever seen on this site.

In regards to Tarantino's recent output, I think it's exactly where he always planned to go. I can't fathom what else he was meant to do as a filmmaker. He's never been a thinking man's filmmaker, nor a dramatic director. He's always been about entertaining the audience, and by God, he's a master at that. I don't think he's become immature, it's just that he really does look up to kung-fu flicks, slasher movies and blaxploitation pictures. I think people underestimated just how much he loved those films whenever he'd talk about them in interviews circa 1994.

Another thing I have noticed is that when people talk about his first three films, they forget that they were all influenced by outside voices:

Reservoir Dogs was pretty much his adaptation of City on Fire. The drama was already there for him to take and reshape into his own movie. I've always thought it was considerably heavier than any of his other films.

Pulp Fiction was written with Roger Avary. No matter what the stories are that Tarantino wrote 70%, you have to take into account that they still collaborated on the film. It's the result of two people hashing out ideas together. I'm not arguing that Avary is responsible for why it's great, but I'm sure him being the same room really influenced what made it on the page.

Jackie Brown's adult themes of middle age originated with Elmore Leonard. The maturity people keep attributing to Tarantino was already there in the material. He was smart enough to realize just how important it was to the story.

I'm not making an argument that QT is terrible on his own. I've enjoyed his later movies. I just believe that the reason his films feel so different to some people is because they are all coming solely from him. Every film past Jackie Brown is probably the purest Tarantino film we're ever going to get. If people want the Tarantino who made Pulp Fiction back, they better make a donation to Roger Avary's attorney.

As for me, I'm going to be there for Django Unchained on opening night. I haven't once missed out on a feature by Tarantino in the theater.
I'm not sure I totally agree with your reasoning. It's a totally fair and good point in regards to JB and while I'm not sure you're right about PF (don't think we can be) it's certainly a possibility. But if Reservoir Dogs is "pretty much his adaptation of City on Fire" by being a much expanded (it's the whole story) and focused (it's the only story) version of that film's final reel, then surely Kill Bill, Death Proof, and Inglourious Basterds are QT's adaptations of Lady Snowblood (and The Bride Wore Black and They Call Her One Eye and Lone Wolf and Cub and etc.), The Man From Hong Kong (and Race with The Devil and Vanishing Point and etc), and The Dirty Dozen (and Inglourious Bastards and The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, and etc.)

To whatever extent the drama in the premise of City on Fire was there for Tarantino to take and reshape into Reservoir Dogs, the drama in the premise of Lady Snowblood and The Dirty Dozen were there for him to take and reshape into Kill Bill and Basterds. So I don't think the latter films are any purer or more solely Tarantino than his first film was.

As for not being a dramatic director, I just disagree. My favorite scene in Pulp Fiction, and notably the climax, is a loong steady take of a loooong conversation about how an epiphany has led to a reinterpretation of scripture and life that has transformed and redeemed a character. Sure there's guns around but that's not Tarantino's focus there, his interest as a director is on the emotional growth and arc of a character rather than exciting action-oriented stuff. That movie's really built around presenting characters with ethical dilemmas, which I think is more the stuff of drama than superficial genre exercise and is in fact what sets that movie apart from his clones who took the style and the quirky dialogue but forgot the dramatic weight and thematic, moral resonance that made Fiction such a masterpiece. I think JB as a whole is a character-driven drama not just in plot but execution, including some wonderful direction focused almost entirely on relationship dynamics and character's complex, conflicted emotions. I'd also argue the heart of Dogs is the bond formed between White and Orange and the troubling, competing senses of duty and betrayal that arise from that rather than how cool it is when Madsen dances around with a straight razor.

I agree he's always been a showman and puts a high premium on entertainment value, but I reject the notion that entertainment and substance are in opposition. I'm actually much more entertained when I have someone and something onscreen to care about. Tarantino's more than capable of doing that, he's just been doing it less and less this past decade.

I know he totally digs exploitation flicks and always has, I think that's evident in his first three films too, but the critical difference for me is that those films contained homages and references to exploitation movies without themselves becoming exploitation movies. It crosses that line you complained about in regards to Kick-Ass and The Other Guys where a movie stops being a clever play on what's come before and just becomes another iteration of what's come before. I know in that case it's parody and in QT's it's more loving homage, but it's a similar problem.

Yeah though, all that said and as disappointed in his career trajectory as I am (he's every bit as talented as P.T. Anderson and look what his future holds compared to QT's), I'll still certainly see this in theaters. He's yet to make an outright bad movie and there's always much for me to appreciate, he's just capable of a lot better.

You edited, so I must:

Quote:
That being said, I do agree with you Quentin that Tarantino should just be honest about his film and say that it's a popcorn movie. I think he's past the point of adding window dressing to make his films seem more thoughtful than they actually are. It would be like seeing Sergio Leone saying that The Good, The Bad & The Ugly was a social commentary on the Civil War.
Yeah, beyond my go-to argument about Tarantino movies and how much this new film reinforces it, that was my main complaint. If you've decided to become a skillfully schlocky popcorn director, that's your choice to make and people will still enjoy your output, but drop the pretentious stance that your exploitation movies are also socially or historically relevant, have some kind of message to teach us, or are controversial for anything beyond shock content and a gleeful lack of regard for substance and implications.

Last edited by QUENTIN; 05-01-2011 at 08:10 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-01-2011, 07:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by APzombie View Post
The fuck...

I know Eli is like the shadow to Tarantino these days (i see the two together all the time at the new bev.) but fuck me in the goat ass this casting took the sails out of the ol' excitement boat.

Zach Snyder? Are you fucking kidding me? The blue collar cop who rinses out all the tax dollars for a rolls royce when he couldn't direct traffic?

Rob Zombie? The self proclaimed horror aficionado who wouldn't know what makes for good horror if it stabbed him in the throat?

Tarantino has become that hot girl in high school who hangs out with less attractive girls because she knows they'll shower her with praise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutchman View Post
the company he keeps is telling. He is surrounding himself with the worst filmmakers in pop cinema and his decision to discontinue any attempts to make anything but genre pictures is troubling.
Yeah, the Zombie/Snyder thing was a joke about that. That despite his greater talent Quentin (lowercase) shares the interests and sensibilities of shitty big-budget exploitation directors like Roth, Snyder, and Zombie. That their passion for bad old movies and embrace of style over substance was of the same sort, the same kind of vision and Quent's is just more accomplished.

I didn't want to make it seem totally absurd like an April Fool's article, but I also didn't intend it to be taken seriously since it's so over-the-top bad. Those awful directors aren't cast and those stereotypical characters aren't in the script. At least as far as I know, but my point was I could see that shit happening given what he's doing now and how it fits into the realm of what those other guys do. Not a real news story though.

also
Quote:
Originally Posted by APZombie
fuck me in the goat ass
Nice.

Quote:
And in this case.. let's just say I'm preemptively concurring with Spike Lee on the socially retarded monstrosity this film is destined to be.
Heh, I had the same thought.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flickman View Post
Im already drooling at thinking of how many times hes gonna have the "N" word used with wicked southern drawls... LOL
We get it, you hate black people and nigger is your favorite word. Do you have anything else to contribute to this site? If not, you may be more welcome elsewhere.

Last edited by QUENTIN; 05-01-2011 at 08:19 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 05-01-2011, 09:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by QUENTIN View Post
I'm not sure I totally agree with your reasoning. It's a totally fair and good point in regards to JB and while I'm not sure you're right about PF (don't think we can be) it's certainly a possibility. But if Reservoir Dogs is "pretty much [his] adaptation of City on Fire" by being a much expanded (it's the whole story) and focused (it's the only story) version of that film's final reel, then surely Kill Bill, Death Proof, and Inglourious Basterds are QT's adaptations of Lady Snowblood (and The Bride Wore Black and They Call Her One Eye and Lone Wolf and Cub and etc.), The Man From Hong Kong (and Race with The Devil and Vanishing Point and etc), and The Dirty Dozen (and Inglourious Bastards and The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, and etc.)

To whatever extent the drama in the premise of City on Fire was there for Tarantino to take and reshape into Reservoir Dogs, the drama in the premise of Lady Snowblood and The Dirty Dozen were there for him to take and reshape into Kill Bill and Basterds. So I don't think the latter films are any purer or more solely Tarantino than his first film was.
I think when you take from one direct influence instead of the many he had with Kill Bill, it leaves a greater impression on the work. It goes beyond simply taking a line of dialogue or a visual motif as he did with Kill Bill, and instead is about adapting an entire concept, its theme and tone. Now the latter is harder to pull off than the former, so I give a lot of kudos to Tarantino for pulling it off. If he hadn't done it well, we'd be talking about how RD is a rip-off which it clearly isn't. But for me the influence is pretty great. Even the dramatic bond you mentioned between White and Orange was a key theme in Lam's film. Tarantino did it better, but his film wouldn't have existed without the City on Fire blueprint. You could say that it's the same for Kill Bill or Inglourious Basterds and its many sources, but I don't think you can say that RD was more original. It's a matter of what influence you prefer to see in his work.

I guess when I said his later works were more purer, it is based on the fact that Tarantino can do whatever he wants. He was trying to prove himself as a director with Dogs and Pulp, and now he doesn't have to. I think this is the time when we really see what a director is all about. Early works swing for the fences because they have to. I think of Kubrick as being a good counter point to Tarantino. After Spartacus, he had the same carte blanche, so he went off and kept pushing the envelope because that is who he really was as a director. I think all the films post-Jackie Brown as being that stage in his career.

Quote:
As for not being a dramatic director, I just disagree. My favorite scene in Pulp Fiction, and notably the climax, is a loong steady take of a loooong conversation about how an epiphany has led to a reinterpretation of scripture and life that has transformed and redeemed a character. Sure there's guns around but that's not Tarantino's focus there, his interest as a director is on the emotional growth and arc of a character rather than exciting action-oriented stuff. That movie's really built around presenting characters with ethical dilemmas, which I think is more the stuff of drama than superficial genre exercise and is in fact what sets that movie apart from his clones who took the style and the quirky dialogue but forgot the dramatic weight and thematic, moral resonance that made Fiction such a masterpiece. I think JB as a whole is a character-driven drama not just in plot but execution, including some wonderful direction focused almost entirely on relationship dynamics and character's complex, conflicted emotions. I'd also argue the heart of Dogs is the bond formed between White and Orange and the troubling, competing senses of duty and betrayal that arise from that rather than how cool it is when Madsen dances around with a straight razor.
I was wrong to say he isn't a dramatic director, since his films clearly have drama, but I believe that it's secondary to his interest in entertainment. I love Pulp Fiction, but I've always felt the thematic weight found in it wasn't its strongest feature. But that's how I feel about his other films, including Jackie Brown. I've never found myself emotionally involved to the degree where I really thought about the moral and ethical dilemmas in the same way I thought about them in films like Mean Streets or Taxi Driver. They're in his films, but they were never a great importance to me.

I can see why you think the quality of his films have dropped though. I guess I haven't because I always saw him as a showman above all else. When I think of Pulp Fiction, I always think about the accidental shooting or the adrenaline needle before I think about Jules' spiritual awakening. I think of it as a popcorn movie. For me, the drama was always the icing on the cake in his films, and the cake was his skillful craftsmanship to make worthwhile popcorn films.

Quote:
I agree he's always been a showman and puts a high premium on entertainment value, but I reject the notion that entertainment and substance are in opposition. I'm actually much more entertained when I have someone and something onscreen to care about.
I don't think they're in opposition, but I've always felt the entertainment factor was always stronger in his films than his need for substance. He always took me as the kind of guy where the style was just as important, if not more, than the substance.

[quote]I know he totally digs exploitation flicks and always has, I think that's evident in his first three films too, but the critical difference for me is that those films contained homages and references to exploitation movies without themselves becoming exploitation movies. It crosses that line you complained about in regards to Kick-Ass and The Other Guys where a movie stops being a clever play on what's come before and just becomes another iteration of what's come before. I know in that case it's parody and in QT's it's more loving homage, but it's a similar problem.[quote]

I get what you're saying, but I guess I'm fine with them because they're well made and entertaining, which is all I ever wanted from QT's movies.

Quote:
Yeah, beyond my go-to argument about Tarantino movies and how much this new film reinforces it, that was my main complaint. If you've decided to become a skillfully schlocky popcorn director, that's your choice to make and people will still enjoy your output, but drop the pretentious stance that your exploitation movies are also socially or historically relevant, have some kind of message to teach us, or are controversial for anything beyond shock content and a gleeful lack of regard for substance and implications.
Yeah, he shouldn't have to hide behind anything. Just let the film speak for itself.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 05-01-2011, 09:38 PM
I don't know what's more depressing, the fact that I believed QUENTIN'S casting news, or the fact that it even was possible to believe it in the first place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicPuppet View Post
I guess when I said his later works were more purer, it is based on the fact that Tarantino can do whatever he wants. He was trying to prove himself as a director with Dogs and Pulp, and now he doesn't have to. I think this is the time when we really see what a director is all about. Early works swing for the fences because they have to. I think of Kubrick as being a good counter point to Tarantino. After Spartacus, he had the same carte blanche, so he went off and kept pushing the envelope because that is who he really was as a director. I think all the films post-Jackie Brown as being that stage in his career.
Don't you think it's kind of backwards though? Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown seem like the kind of film a director would be allowed to do after making the studio happy with a commercial success like Inglourious Basterds, Death Proof and Kill Bill. Instead it took his clout from Pulp Fiction to secure stuff like Death Proof, which was a financial failure (even though it seemed to be for a broader audience). I hope since Basterds was a success commercially, he might feel secure to take even more risks this time around.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-01-2011, 09:43 PM
Im so glad this is Tarantino's next movie and not Kill Bill Vol 3. I was so excited when he first talked about it and even more so now that it's a reality and that Christoph Waltz is going to be in it. I just wish he'd get away from ptting Eli Roth in his movies, he's not a god awful actor but he's not that good of one either. And I don't know how Rob Zombie and Zach Snyder will be in it, I just wish he'd get away from just hiring his buddies. Hopefully though he'll get better actors that will take the attention away from those guys which he always does fill his movies with great actors so I'm not really worried about that.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05-02-2011, 12:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by APzombie View Post
Don't you think it's kind of backwards though? Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown seem like the kind of film a director would be allowed to do after making the studio happy with a commercial success like Inglourious Basterds, Death Proof and Kill Bill. Instead it took his clout from Pulp Fiction to secure stuff like Death Proof, which was a financial failure (even though it seemed to be for a broader audience). I hope since Basterds was a success commercially, he might feel secure to take even more risks this time around.
It might be backwards if you look at Tarantino like he was meant to be the next Scorsese, but if you think of him as more of a successor to Brian De Palma, then his career makes perfect sense.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 05-02-2011, 02:05 AM
I guess so, but aside from Blow Up and The Untouchables, I always thought De Palma to be a pretty terrible filmmaker. In fact, if you read Easy Riders, Raging Bulls De Palma gave terrible advice to his filmmaking friends. He told Scorsese to cut out the scene of De Niro and Keitel bickering about De Niro's late payments in Mean Streets (the best scene in the movie), he also told Lucas that Star Wars was terrible and he wouldn't get a cent for it. He isn't exactly the autuer to aim for.

I think Tarantino has the ability to be as good as Scorsese.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 05-02-2011, 06:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by APzombie View Post
I think Tarantino has the ability to be as good as Scorsese.
As Pulp Fiction is better than every Scorsese film so far, and the rest of QT's filmography has the least variation in quality of any major filmmaker, that is a strange statement.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 05-02-2011, 07:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trilljoy View Post
As Pulp Fiction is better than every Scorsese film so far, and the rest of QT's filmography has the least variation in quality of any major filmmaker, that is a strange statement.
Whoa whoa whoa whoa......

Ok, I fucking love Pulp Fiction, but there is no way it completely shits all over Scorsese's filmography. No way in Hell.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 05-02-2011, 09:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trilljoy View Post
As Pulp Fiction is better than every Scorsese film so far, and the rest of QT's filmography has the least variation in quality of any major filmmaker, that is a strange statement.
Have you seen Goodfellas? I think Tarantino himself would laugh at that statement, no offense.

Last edited by AspectRatio1986; 05-02-2011 at 09:33 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 05-02-2011, 11:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by QUENTIN View Post
Yeah, the Zombie/Snyder thing was a joke about that. That despite his greater talent Quentin (lowercase) shares the interests and sensibilities of shitty big-budget exploitation directors like Roth, Snyder, and Zombie. That their passion for bad old movies and embrace of style over substance was of the same sort, the same kind of vision and Quent's is just more accomplished.

I didn't want to make it seem totally absurd like an April Fool's article, but I also didn't intend it to be taken seriously since it's so over-the-top bad. Those awful directors aren't cast and those stereotypical characters aren't in the script. At least as far as I know, but my point was I could see that shit happening given what he's doing now and how it fits into the realm of what those other guys do. Not a real news story though.

also

Nice.



Heh, I had the same thought.



We get it, you hate black people and nigger is your favorite word. Do you have anything else to contribute to this site? If not, you may be more welcome elsewhere.
When u can figure out I dont hate black people why the hell dont U hang out there with those assholes
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 05-02-2011, 12:06 PM

the soundtrack for this should be fuckin awesome. Say what you want about QT but the man has great taste in music
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 05-02-2011, 01:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MidnightAngel View Post
I wish they cast Franco Nero, Fred Williamson, Terrence Hill, Bud Spencer and how about cameos by Clint Eastwood and Jeff Bridges and of course...Samuel the man Jackson.
Rumor has it that Franco Nero is indeed going to be in it (there was an AICN article a while back, I'm too lazy right now to find the link).
And yeah, if Fred Williamson and Samuel L. Jackson aren't in this, we're gonna have big problems!
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 05-02-2011, 01:36 PM
Hell, what am I saying? Pam Grier better be in there as well!
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 05-02-2011, 02:30 PM
Really curious to see who gets cast as the lead in this....
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 05-02-2011, 04:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by APzombie View Post
I guess so, but aside from Blow Up and The Untouchables, I always thought De Palma to be a pretty terrible filmmaker.
Woah, woah, WOAH...easy tiger and wash your mouth out! Sisters, The Fury, Carrie and Body Double are all great flicks IMO...I also love Phantom of the Paradise and Raising Cain but I can totally see why cats wouldn't concur on those ones.

I agree with much of what Q and Cosmic are saying here. I thought Death Proof was a derivative abomination and I actually ended up turning it off at around the 55 minute mark...thoroughly disappointed as QT's apparent 'regression'.
Inglourious Basterds was, I think, a semi return to form...but it lacked the emotional backbone of say, Pulp Fiction or Jackie Brown (his last truly good and promising movie).

I do prefer QT when he focuses on being character driven, as opposed to action driven...and I'm not talking conversational pieces littered with pop culture references here. He's a good director, but around 10 years ago I honestly thought he could be destined to be one of the greatest.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 05-02-2011, 05:26 PM
Tarantino's revenge films are simple cat and mouse games decorated with his incessant desire to prove he's a film buff.

Mouse (an evil male, white mouse ;P) pisses off cat. Homage. Cat gets closer to mouse. Homage. Cat gets even closer to mouse. Homage. Mouse traps cat, almost killing cat. Homage. Cat fights back, killing mouse. The end.

In a nutshell, that's the plot for Kill Bill 1&2, Death Proof, Inglourious Basterds, and (from the sound of it) Django Unchained.

Are they better than the usual pop corn trash from Michael Bay et al? sure. But from someone who made Pulp Fiction, and even Jackie Brown and Reservoir Dogs, they're rather disappointing in their simplicity and lazy screenwriting.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 05-02-2011, 07:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smiert Spionam View Post
Whoa whoa whoa whoa......

Ok, I fucking love Pulp Fiction, but there is no way it completely shits all over Scorsese's filmography. No way in Hell.
I didn't say it shits on Scorsese's filmography. No film does. I said it's better than any single Scorsese film, and I stand by that statement, as much as I admire Goodfellas and Shutter Island.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 05-02-2011, 09:06 PM
Getting a little tired of him doing revenge themed movies, might be nice to see something else from him.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 05-02-2011, 11:05 PM
Every single Tarantino movie > Shutter Island


And that includes Death Proof.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 05-03-2011, 01:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadCoverVersion View Post
Woah, woah, WOAH...easy tiger and wash your mouth out! Sisters, The Fury, Carrie and Body Double are all great flicks IMO...I also love Phantom of the Paradise and Raising Cain but I can totally see why cats wouldn't concur on those ones.
haha. I guess he's one of the boys I've never understood the love for. I found Sisters to be overrated, Margot's performance was pretty bad. Same with Carrie, which has maybe twenty minutes worth of interesting scenes mixed with 80 minutes of poorly edited nonsense. The Fury is a laughably silly "horror-thriller", if he swung it just a little more to the right, it could have been a decent horror-comedy. Scarface, Carlito's Way and the rest of em' are also pretty weak.

I did however fail to mention Femme Fetal, which like Carrie has twenty minutes of interesting stuff (the beginning) and then falls on its face.

I also want to reiterate my dislike of what I've read of him, he was friends with better filmmakers back in the day (who were all younger- Milius, Scorsese, Schrader, Spielberg) and he continually gave them terrible advice. I will say this about him- the best thing he ever did in his career was give Scorsese Schrader's script of Taxi Driver.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 05-03-2011, 02:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicPuppet View Post
I think when you take from one direct influence instead of the many he had with Kill Bill, it leaves a greater impression on the work. It goes beyond simply taking a line of dialogue or a visual motif as he did with Kill Bill, and instead is about adapting an entire concept, its theme and tone. Now the latter is harder to pull off than the former, so I give a lot of kudos to Tarantino for pulling it off. If he hadn't done it well, we'd be talking about how RD is a rip-off which it clearly isn't. But for me the influence is pretty great. Even the dramatic bond you mentioned between White and Orange was a key theme in Lam's film. Tarantino did it better, but his film wouldn't have existed without the City on Fire blueprint. You could say that it's the same for Kill Bill or Inglourious Basterds and its many sources, but I don't think you can say that RD was more original. It's a matter of what influence you prefer to see in his work.
I see what you're saying and agree RD wouldn't exist without City of Fire, but I'd say at the least with Kill Bill, he did basically the same thing. Including some lines of dialogue or bits of the soundtrack or visual motifs like that isn't what I was talking about so much. Kill Bill woudn't exist without Lady Snowblood and the plot (a woman seeks revenge by working her way down a list of badass killers who did her wrong) is Tarantino's adaptation of that film, even if it also includes references to a lot of other movies (as does Reservoir Dogs). The major influences on IB are more diffuse and varied, but I think that wouldn't exist without The Dirty Dozen and its many ripoffs which form the basis of the Basterd's storyline.

I don't think RD was more original, I just think it was a better, deeper, more character-driven and less exploitative film than its influence which is also frankly true for his other work (save Death Proof maybe) but to a considerably lesser extent in my opinion.

Quote:
I guess when I said his later works were more purer, it is based on the fact that Tarantino can do whatever he wants. He was trying to prove himself as a director with Dogs and Pulp, and now he doesn't have to. I think this is the time when we really see what a director is all about. Early works swing for the fences because they have to. I think of Kubrick as being a good counter point to Tarantino. After Spartacus, he had the same carte blanche, so he went off and kept pushing the envelope because that is who he really was as a director. I think all the films post-Jackie Brown as being that stage in his career.
I can see where you're coming from, I just don't think Tarantino is pushing the envelope like Kubrick (as I'd love to see him do). I feel he's taken his carte blanche to do films that are less interesting and challenging, safer, more familiar and crowd-pleasing genre films. In that sense I'd say he's more like William Friedkin than Stanley Kubrick in his career trajectory.

Quote:
I was wrong to say he isn't a dramatic director, since his films clearly have drama, but I believe that it's secondary to his interest in entertainment. I love Pulp Fiction, but I've always felt the thematic weight found in it wasn't its strongest feature. But that's how I feel about his other films, including Jackie Brown. I've never found myself emotionally involved to the degree where I really thought about the moral and ethical dilemmas in the same way I thought about them in films like Mean Streets or Taxi Driver. They're in his films, but they were never a great importance to me.
Yeah, just a difference of what appeals to you in his work. I find myself quite emotionally invested in Jules, Butch, Jackie, and Max and since that era have only felt that way about a handful of supporting characters like Budd, LaPadite, and Sgt. Wilhelm since they're the only ones who felt like real people in real situations to me. To be fair, the ingredients were there for Shoshanna too and QT tried to make her more grounded, human, and empathetic, for whatever reason I just didn't connect. Otherwise most of his characters feel more like caricatures or stock types to me than people, so I can only care so much.

I agree that, aside from Jackie Brown at least, he's never put the level of emphasis on ethical dilemma and character arc that Driver or Streets do, but I think that's in part because he's never made a straight drama - which is something I'd love to see him try.

Quote:
I can see why you think the quality of his films have dropped though. I guess I haven't because I always saw him as a showman above all else. When I think of Pulp Fiction, I always think about the accidental shooting or the adrenaline needle before I think about Jules' spiritual awakening. I think of it as a popcorn movie. For me, the drama was always the icing on the cake in his films, and the cake was his skillful craftsmanship to make worthwhile popcorn films.
Fair enough, I can understand that viewpoint and it's probably the more popular/common one.

Quote:
I don't think they're in opposition, but I've always felt the entertainment factor was always stronger in his films than his need for substance. He always took me as the kind of guy where the style was just as important, if not more, than the substance.
I'd agree, with the exception of Jackie Brown which I think is probably his most accomplished and perfect film, although of course that was considered a disappointment by most. Taking the path he has is probably giving his fanbase what they want more than the direction I'd appreciate him taking. C'est la vie.

[quote]I know he totally digs exploitation flicks and always has, I think that's evident in his first three films too, but the critical difference for me is that those films contained homages and references to exploitation movies without themselves becoming exploitation movies. It crosses that line you complained about in regards to Kick-Ass and The Other Guys where a movie stops being a clever play on what's come before and just becomes another iteration of what's come before. I know in that case it's parody and in QT's it's more loving homage, but it's a similar problem.
Quote:

I get what you're saying, but I guess I'm fine with them because they're well made and entertaining, which is all I ever wanted from QT's movies.
Can't argue with that, they're certainly, for the most part, well-made and entertaining.

Quote:
Yeah, he shouldn't have to hide behind anything. Just let the film speak for itself.
My impression, particularly having listened to him speak about Basterds for two hours and based on his comments re: Django is that he thinks he's making more substantial, less slight movies than I think he is. If he recognized them as superficial genre exercises, I wonder if it wouldn't encourage him to do something a little deeper.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump