Anyway, I do want to respond to a couple of statements for at least some clarification before tomorrow. I promise I'll do my best to respond in kind to each individual post, as I really do appreciate that there are people here putting their thought and passion into the discussion while being so respectful of one another. Again, I'm truly sorry but if I stare at monitor text too much more today I'm going to get nauseous.
I don't need to argue a moral highground when I see no such presence of prejudice over gender psychology present in Planet Terror. Perhaps adding some validity to people who feel they wanted more out of the film, Terror really doesn't go that much farther than attempting to recreate the aesthetics of the emptier exploitation films of Carpenter's early work or even Italian gore shows from Fulci or Lenzi. My problem with Death Proof is that it aims higher with zero consistent internal logic, the glorification of male aggression/gaze, and the passing of judgment on the opposite gender based on the preference of male qualities over female.Mr_sausage wrote:Wait a minute, so you're taking the moral highground over a serial killer being himself killed in a faux-exploitation film, yet you find nothing objectional about Planet Terror having the same kind of humour in excessive amounts?
No, thank you man. I'm sorry about the temporary dodge, but I'll definitely get to your comments soon. It's a pleasure debating with you.sevenarts wrote:Anyway, thanks for the long and obviously well thought-out reply. Sorry I didn't respond to quite everything you wrote, but I think I addressed most of your main points. I'm just glad to see that somebody's really thinking about this film, even one of its detractors -- especially since most of the other discourse about the film so far seems to be about how it's "boring," or else lame misogynist rantings.
Actually, I think we agree on everything, but you keep trying to pinpoint a defense of the Weinsteins that I'm not making.Antoine Doinel wrote:Drew, I think we agree on a lot except just how much blame the Weinsteins should take, how much they "care" about their directors and how much cache with the average filmgoer Tarantino's name has.
I think you're just confusing my comments about caring as something that is separated from monetary concerns, which was never my attention. I'm simply arguing that many of the product the Weinsteins are planning to create over the next year or so, specifically to make money, do rely on the industry confidence they need to finance them and the participation and relationships they get from the filmmakers we're discussing. Grindhouse is little more than a marketing platform to sell much of the same type of films these directors would be making with or without the Weinsteins.
Obviously there is a bottom line, but part of that keeping that line is catering to the talent and the projects they wish to pursue. There's a reason filmmakers like Smith, Tarantino and Rodriguez have stuck with The Weinstein Company, or why people like Eli Roth and Rob Zombie have begun to work with them. So long as those brothers at least attempt look out for the interests of the filmmakers, they will continue to churn out the very movies they need to turn a profit. These are not exclusive concerns.
As for Tarantino's name value, I find it pretty irrelevant when the Kill Bill films had quite respectable openings with an actress who can't open a film on her own. I've also attempted, several times, to point out that the Tarantino fans I run into at school who are “average peopleâ€
