criterionforum.org

Posted: **Tue Apr 10, 2007 12:22 am**

QT's presence is INTENDED to be jaw-droppingly talentless!

Posted: **Tue Apr 10, 2007 1:24 am**

Regardless of quality, this is the best film-going experience I've had in years, and considering my young age, maybe ever. Also, I wouldn't have enjoyed the experience nearly as much had it not been a double feature. It's discouraging to hear that the Weinsteins are thinking of splitting this up. Seeing either of these on their own would have considerably lessened my overall enjoyment. The trailers were fantastic fun. Maybe genre parody and self-parody (as in Cabin Fever and the beginning of Hostel) are the only things left that the mainstream can do effectively. This is in a sense sad, maybe decadent, but at least it's makes for good entertainment. I'd like to think of this transition from seriousness to playfulness in a promising Nietzschean way, but I don't even think it's that grand. Oh well, more laughs for me.

Good grief, I just looked up the earnings for 300 to compare them to Grindhouse's. I don't want to claim any brilliance for Grindhouse but I can say that it was a lot better than 300 in every way. That's just a shame.

Posted: **Tue Apr 10, 2007 2:41 am**

blindside8zao wrote:Regardless of quality, this is the best film-going experience I've had in years, and considering my young age, maybe ever.

Don't go to the movies too often, I bet.

Posted: **Tue Apr 10, 2007 4:15 am**

Hmmm. Actually for me this was one of my best commercial cinema experiences in recent years. Too many R horror flix these days are very tame. PT wasn't tame (comparatively speaking). I love pumped audiences and mine was one of the most pumped I've ever been with. Sadly, Quentin and his ego depumped everyone until the last 10 minutes of his piece.

Posted: **Tue Apr 10, 2007 4:38 am**

DrewReiber wrote:
exte wrote:You have to be the most disillusioned member on here.
I don't think you understand the meaning of the word disillusion.

You seem to have given Rodriguez a free ride, yet I spotted many references to Jim Cameron's work in Planet Terror.
Because there is a big difference between reference and tracework, further compounded by doing the work yourself versus taking credit for someone else's.

I am curious to know where you see Cameron, if only because I didn't see any influence from that particular director. All up for catching something I missed, though.

Drew, you arrogant prick, I'm surprised you didn't. The bomb going off between the two guys: Aliens. The truck crashing through the building/glass: T1 & T2. The hanging from the helicopter. True Lies. There's a lot more, but I'm tired and can't remember. I will see it again, though. Trust me, Rodriguez has a hard on for Cameron's work, and that's cool, but it's not as if the man is unlike Tarantino. You just love to slaughter Quentin, calling him a hack and this and that, claiming he's propped up by the best, most expensive crew in the world as if he's Brett Ratner or something, which is utter bullshit.

Could I be anymore different than the pack of you on this thread in terms of Tarantino's best film? Pulp Fiction, far and away. I honestly think it's the Citizen Kane of our generation. It's a landmark and high water mark in so many resepcts. Of course Drew will say, "I don't think you understand the meaning of landmark or high watermark or the importance of Citizen Kane..."

I'm telling you, I won't be surprised if it's in the top five of the next Sight & Sound poll.

Posted: **Tue Apr 10, 2007 4:49 am**

tavernier wrote:
blindside8zao wrote:Regardless of quality, this is the best film-going experience I've had in years, and considering my young age, maybe ever.
Don't go to the movies too often, I bet.

I don't, but it's only because when I have for the past several years, I have the movie ruined (if it's a drama) by overly-cynical or just plain strange reactions (for instance, History of Violence, in which the crowd laughed hysterically when people were shot in the head or whenever the married couple went for oral or the staircase love scene). Being 20 years old has severely limited my movie theater experiences and I am very envious whenever I hear about people reminiscing about the 60's or 70's and their art house theater or the feeling of experiencing a serious film with a room full of other humans. Instead of this communal experience, my emotions tend to clash with the reactions of the majority of the audience, ultimately disrupting the effect of the movie on myself. The advantage of a comedy or parody is that it caters to the over-riding attitude and disposition of my generation: cynicism. Biting satire, sexual innuendo, and parody are the most successful at really connecting with todays audience. Somehow Crash snuck in there, too.

Posted: **Tue Apr 10, 2007 6:46 am**

exte wrote:Could I be anymore different than the pack of you on this thread in terms of Tarantino's best film? Pulp Fiction, far and away. I honestly think it's the Citizen Kane of our generation. It's a landmark and high water mark in so many resepcts. Of course Drew will say, "I don't think you understand the meaning of landmark or high watermark or the importance of Citizen Kane..."

I'm telling you, I won't be surprised if it's in the top five of the next Sight & Sound poll.

Aside from the fact that you're clearly insane to think the above, Pulp Fiction was neither in the Critics or the Directors Top 50 in the 2002 Sight and Sound poll. Considering that was already eight years after the movie had come out and that its reputation has subsequently fallen off even further, I doubt it will ever make an appearance on the list. And rightfully so.

Posted: **Tue Apr 10, 2007 6:51 am**

Don't forget, Sight and Sound's follow-up poll conducted that same year, the best films of the last 25 years, didn't even include Pulp Fiction or any other Tarantino film.

Posted: **Tue Apr 10, 2007 7:09 am**

blindside8zao wrote:
tavernier wrote:
blindside8zao wrote:Regardless of quality, this is the best film-going experience I've had in years, and considering my young age, maybe ever.
Don't go to the movies too often, I bet.
I don't, but it's only because [...]

You just handled that with a lot more grace than I would have =D>

Posted: **Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:22 am**

exte wrote:The bomb going off between the two guys: Aliens. The truck crashing through the building/glass: T1 & T2. The hanging from the helicopter. True Lies. There's a lot more, but I'm tired and can't remember.

That's some serious reaching if I've ever seen it. I assume that the relationship between El Wray and Cherry Darling is a reference to the Star Wars prequels.

Trust me, Rodriguez has a hard on for Cameron's work, and that's cool, but it's not as if the man is unlike Tarantino.

Then backup your statements with actual arguments. Your aimless rhetoric and accompanying expletives, while pretty standard for you, don't serve any discussion. Honestly, I'm surprised you still expect people to take you seriously when your posts degenerate like this.

Posted: **Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:25 am**

It is interesting that Tarantino's best film to date, Jackie Brown, was based on a novel and not an original Tarantino script and I think he resents that a bit. Although, having said that, I loved the way Tarantino adapted the Elmore Leonard novel and made it his own. He should do that more often than these "homages" to trash films that he is so determined to do all the time.

Posted: **Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:52 am**

marty wrote:It is interesting that Tarantino's best film to date, Jackie Brown, was based on a novel and not an original Tarantino script and I think he resents that a bit.

I would agree that is his best film. It's definitely possible that the adaptation has something to do with his resentment, as it may be about the media's perception of his authorship that he takes issue with combined with the relative failure of the film during it's initial release. I have noticed he hates sharing credit, a problem that is noticibly present in interviews regarding his collaborations with Roger Avary. The words describing his writing of Pulp Fiction in the first Entertainment Weekly interview for Kill Bill was noticibly careful, striving to avoid mention of Roger Avary or even the implication there was a shared credit whatsoever.

He also downplays or avoids giving backstory to many of the screenplays he developed throughout the 90's. Natural Born Killers and True Romance were both the result of adapting Avary's original "Open Road" screenplay from 1985, and both individual screenplays saw revisions from Avary long after they were sold and Tarantino disowned them (however long that lasted). When Tarantino did his audio commentary for the original ending of True Romance, he never once mentioned Avary's involvement in the origin of the story or the rewrites that he claims changed ownership of vision to Tony Scott.

By far, the most shocking variation of backstory was his claim that the original treatment for From Dusk Till Dawn by Robert Kurtzman was only a few pages, far lower than the 27+ pages that Kurtzman himself had confirmed over the years. There was also no mention of the screenwriter(s) who contributed to the script between Tarantino's original draft and his production screenplay. I would be curious to see how he would react if most of this information was common knowledge, at least in terms of mainstream media. I can definitely say out of all the QT fans I've met in college (which is more than I can count), only one had any knowledge about all of this and it definitely tainted his perception of Tarantino's claims and authorship.

Posted: **Tue Apr 10, 2007 10:15 am**

Avary went into some detail on his site a few years ago about what was really his material in several of the movies, and how the negotiations went down for Pulp Fiction's credit, etc. It's no longer up, unfortunately. I tried archive.org, and they seem to have nothing, which is very odd. Perhaps he requested they remove it? His reasoning in taking it down is pretty silly: that since other directors started having their own blog, why bother, especially when he was 'blogging' before it was called as such...

Posted: **Tue Apr 10, 2007 3:23 pm**

exte wrote:Avary went into some detail on his site a few years ago about what was really his material in several of the movies, and how the negotiations went down for Pulp Fiction's credit, etc. It's no longer up, unfortunately. I tried archive.org, and they seem to have nothing, which is very odd. Perhaps he requested they remove it? His reasoning in taking it down is pretty silly: that since other directors started having their own blog, why bother, especially when he was 'blogging' before it was called as such...

I think this is what you're looking for. From Down And Dirty Pictures by Peter Biskind:

When [Tarantino] was going into production on Pulp Fiction, just into 1994, Avary was at the lab, CFI, supervising the color timing on his own film, Killing Zoe, when he was called to the phone. It was Tarantino's attorney, "frantic", according to Avary. He was faxing over a rider to Avary's Pulp Fiction contract according to which Avary gave up his co-screenwriting credit in exchange for a "story by" credit. He wanted Avary to sign it and fax it back immediately. Avary called his friend with a note of disbelief in his voice, said, "Hold on a moment here, Quentin. You want me to sign a paper that essentially says I'm forfeiting my writing credit on the film, and take a 'story by' credit?" According to him, Tarantino replied, "Well, yeah, I want the credits to end with a title that says, 'Written and directed by Quentin Tarantino.'" The reason for that, says Avary now, was that "when you're positioning yourself to become a media star, you don't want people to be confused as to who the star is."

According to Avary, Tarantino tried to persuade him that this was a good deal, saying, "Yeah, but look, you'll get 'story by,' you and me, and the writing's for me, but the fact of the matter is, that middle story is yours, but this one attributes the whole story to you. That sounds really good." Avary thought to himself, He's very convincing....But there are all sorts of things peppered throughout Pulp Fiction that are mine. Avary replied, "No, I'm not going to sign it." At that, Avary claims, "Quentin flew into a rage." He yelled, "Okay, fine, I'm gonna rewrite the script, and write all of your contributions out of the screenplay, and you're going to get nothing." Avary was not a member of the Writers Guild, and Tarantino promised him the equivalent of Writers Guild residuals, and an adjustment of the back end participation in his favor. Avary had just put everything he had into Killing Zoe, was facing credit card debts totaling $10,000, and was behind on rent. He thought it over, said okay. He signed the document, faxed it back, and took the money."

Posted: **Tue Apr 10, 2007 5:24 pm**

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.

Posted: **Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:51 pm**

DrewReiber wrote: 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.

Damn, what a loss.

Posted: **Tue Apr 10, 2007 10:11 pm**

rs98762001 wrote:Damn, what a loss.

No offense, but I have no idea if that is sarcasm or not. I'm not really familiar with your posts, so I'm just curious.

I guess for Tarantino fans, anyone who valued Pulp Fiction or True Romance might be disappointed regarding the fallout. 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?

Posted: **Wed Apr 11, 2007 12:06 am**

DrewReiber wrote:
rs98762001 wrote:Damn, what a loss.
No offense, but I have no idea if that is sarcasm or not. I'm not really familiar with your posts, so I'm just curious.

I guess for Tarantino fans, anyone who valued Pulp Fiction or True Romance might be disappointed regarding the fallout. 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?

It was indeed some cheap sarcasm. I personally couldn't care less whether Tarantino or Avary ever make another film, together or separately. It's pretty clear fifteen years into their careers where their interests and preoccupations lie, and it's hard to get excited about unless you're in a perpetual state of arrested adolescence.

Posted: **Wed Apr 11, 2007 1:02 am**

Getting back to Grindhouse for a moment, see it while you can as a double feature as Harvey Weinstein may end up releasing the films seperately within in a matter of weeks.

Posted: **Wed Apr 11, 2007 1:33 am**

Antoine Doinel wrote:Getting back to Grindhouse for a moment, see it while you can as a double feature as Harvey Weinstein may end up releasing the films seperately within in a matter of weeks.

I think that's a terrible Idea since they are definitely going to make back their money with the multiple DVD releases, and I think that seperate film releases could divide tarantino and rodriguez' working relationship if one does significantly better than the other.

Posted: **Wed Apr 11, 2007 2:53 am**

I'm not so concerned about Tarantino/Rodriguez relationship. After Tarantino pretty much pushed every other director around during the making of Four Rooms, Rodriguez knows what kind of ego he is dealing with. If one plays better than the other, it just means Weinstein will bank his future money with one director and dump the other. You're only a friend of Weinstein as long as you're making money for him.

The problem I have with Weinstein splitting the films is that it goes completely against what the intention of the film was supposed to be in the first place. I think too much has been made regarding the box office "failure" of the film. Firstly, it's a three hour plus film that greatly diminishes the amount of screenings it can have in one day. Secondly, launching it on a long weekend that is usually geared toward family films was a huge mistake. Had they gone with a regular weekend, I'm sure it would've pulled in something closer to $20 million. Thirdly, as my girlfriend pointed out, Grindhouse is the kind of film that almost demands to be seen at late night and midnight screenings. I actually wonder what the matinee ticket sales for this film were versus screenings after six.

Grindhouse should've been rolled out slowly, starting with a month of midnight screenings in selected cities to build up a strong word of mouth, before the national rollout. Now, the entire project is going to be chopped up and whole idea of bringing back the Grindhouse is moot.

I actually wonder what Tarantino things of Weinstein's plan to split the film in North America. It's curious that he's been quiet on this while everyone else is trying to figure out why the film didn't do well. Or maybe he's just happy so that he can get his longer cut into theaters instead of waiting until DVD.

Posted: **Wed Apr 11, 2007 3:00 am**

Antoine Doinel wrote:Thirdly, as my girlfriend pointed out, Grindhouse is the kind of film that almost demands to be seen at late night and midnight screenings. I actually wonder what the matinee ticket sales for this film were versus screenings after six.

I saw it at noon on Monday at a popular multiplex in Manhattan's Union Square area, and there were 10 people in the theater. Now, the movie was on 4 screens every hour, but still...

Posted: **Wed Apr 11, 2007 3:02 am**

SncDthMnky wrote:seperate film releases could divide tarantino and rodriguez' working relationship if one does significantly better than the other.

PLEASE. PLEASE DO IT.

Posted: **Wed Apr 11, 2007 3:07 am**

I know America's dumb, but surely they're not dumb enough to pay twice in the theatres for a movie they already have shown didn't want to see to begin with, right?

Posted: **Wed Apr 11, 2007 4:18 am**

I'd pay to see Death Proof in its entirety, Planet Terror I would not. I completely agree with the month of midnight screenings in select cities Idea, and the other things you said. the timing just wasn't right for the release.

criterionforum.org

Grindhouse (Tarantino/Rodriguez, 2007)