Michael Madsen thought he’d be the star of this movie. Bo Svenson thought he’d be in it too. Tim Roth, Eddie Murphy, Sly Stallone etc were rumoured to be attached to it. In fact, the only name attached to it that is going to be in it, is Julie Drefuss.
You gotta feel a little sorry for Mad Michael Madsen. Maybe that’s why he went loony in a hotel room in London last year.
Its too bad Michael Madsen wasnt in it. His career could definitely use a boost but after reading the script I have a hard time seeing him in any of the roles. Maybe the script took a different direction as Quentin wrote it
Madsen is just too old for this movie and I’m glad that he’s not in it. He can’t be in all of Tarantino’s movies, it’s good that Tarantino chosed this way.
I bet Madsen will be in Tarantino’s next movie, after IB.
I hope Madsen comes back. And Thurman. And Tim Roth. And Harvey Keitel. I always relate them to Tarantino films. They are home with Quentin.
I’d rather QT focused on finding the right actor for the right role, rather than pander to the old days of his career.
[quote=“Cyd”]
I’d rather QT focused on finding the right actor for the right role, rather than pander to the old days of his career.
[/quote]
VERY true
I know it isn’t a popular opinion but how is QT going to grow as an artist if he keeps going back to basics…
yeah, he’s not as stuck in the past as some of his fans 
He’s used Sam Jackson in more movies than he has used Madsen. He revisits his past…
[quote=“Cyd”]
I know it isn’t a popular opinion but how is QT going to grow as an artist if he keeps going back to basics…
[/quote]
I wouldn’t go so far as to say re-using actors is “going back to basics”. At the end of the day, QT chooses who he thinks fits the role. If he can’t get his first choice, he’ll get somebody else and still gets the best performance out of them. With QT, it’s a lot about “getting” his work, too. People like Sam Jackson and Madsen “get” his work, and so they’re able to satisfy QT to that extent.
Although with his previous film, his casting choices were a bit suspect. A lot of people were sceptical, and for many the scepticsm was well founded. Hence, for these people, they’d much rather see talent that knows how to do it than “talent” that don’t. The end product is quite substantial. How many people are ranting and raving about how many performances in Death Proof? Now compare that with his other films…
Personally, I couldn’t give a fuck if he chooses an actor I’ve never even heard of… AS LONG AS they give a great, if not their best performance. I hadn’t heard of Christoph Waltz before IB, but just looking at him I don’t find it difficult to believe people when they say he’s been doing an excellent job. I can make my mind up when I see his performance.
“Growing as an artist” doesn’t mean you have to use different actors with each film. See: Martin Scorsese.
Yeah sure, but Cyd is right. A director should pick their actors accordingly to the characters they have to portray, and not just because they are friends. Scorsese chose the right kind of material to be able to work with De Niro, but whenever he made something different, he picked someone else. Besides, De Niro was a fucking god and a very versatile actor, he was capable of doing a large variety of roles. I mean look at his performance in “King of Comedy” or in “Taxi Driver”, not sure Madsen can do this kind of stuff. And now that De Niro is too old, Scorsese goes with Di Caprio. If Tarantino wants to make movies a bit different from his previous work, I’m not sure he could use those old guys, except maybe Roth and Thurman.
You guys are acting like he uses the same guys all the time. He has only made 5 films for fucks sake! He hasn’t used one actor more than twice in a large role!
QT wouldnt use an actor if he wasnt right for the role. This is probably truer for QT than any other director… That being said I think he enjoys working with certain actors again and again if they are right for the role… I think they are like a family to him in a way…
[quote=“Ify”]
You guys are acting like he uses the same guys all the time. He has only made 5 films for fucks sake! He hasn’t used one actor more than twice in a large role!
[/quote]
I’m not saying that for this reason. It’s just that some folks are complaining about Madsen and all the olders regulars not being in inglourious basterds without knowing anything about the characters of the movie and the tone of it, and I think it’s stupid. There is that, and there is also the fact some people want Tarantino to stick to the RD and PF formula forever.
also there’s no proof that madsen was ever considered for anything aside a “maybe” for a “maybe script” 5 years ago
[quote=“Pinkman”]
There is that, and there is also the fact some people want Tarantino to stick to the RD and PF formula forever.
[/quote]
What exactly is that about anyway? The Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs formula? You know this,“people who just want Pulp Fiction over and over again?” etc. etc. There’s something not right about that. What are the distinguishing marks in those movies outside if their genre? The fragmented narrative. The flashbacks. The familiar faces. The hip dialogue. The cool music. The pop culture references. Junk food. Violent scenes. Extended scenes.
That’s what I don’t get. Most of those things have been present in almost all of QT’s flicks to date (including IB), so where does the Pulp and Dogs argument come into it when people say things akin to “Why can’t he make films as good as Pulp again?”
So when people say that you automatically tag them as wanting Pulp Fiction 2? I think that’s BS. Could it not be that the films which get less acclaim or a bad rap are just not as good as his first few films? Could it not be that they want the quality they saw in those films to be present in the other genres he’s exploring and not that they want another “unconventional crime movie”?
Stick to the RD and PF formula in what sense? The jumping narrative and flashbacks>real time? Although obviously most prominent in Pulp, those elements can be found in every other film save for probably Death Proof so I don’t think that’s what it is. Certainly not for me.
I’m not talking about style, but more about tone and content. Some didn’t like the over-the-top elements or the simplicity of the plot of Kill Bill for instance, and judge the movie only on those terms, no matter how well done the movie is and what was the intentions behind those things. Others didn’t enjoy Jackie Brown, because it was too slow and not enough entertaining. I mean, people who only enjoy his first two films and wants him to return to the basics may like Tarantino for the wrong reasons. Asking for the actors of his past films is a clear sign of that I think.
I notice this with a lot of things, across all media.
Someone will release something phenomenal, they’ll follow that up with something equally spectacular if not better. Subsequent releases after a prolonged period are not met with the same reaction even if objectively it’s just as good as previous work. My theory for this is that people’s mind-states change. They have an attachment to the earlier work and subconsciously want to seperate that from future work as they don’t want to admit that the future work might be better. This is because they share something personal with the earlier work, but fail to do so with the “new” work, precisely because it is new. When you’re used to something and then something new enters the equation, a lot of the time you remain distant from that new thing. You seperate the new from the old. It’s a self fulfilling prophecy. However, given time, you soon equate the (formerly) new with the old and become attached to it. So at first there is a bit of denial that the new thing is as good as the old thing, but given time, you realise that the new thing might actually be better than the old work you held so dear to you. Of course, a lot of people don’t reach this stage until very late on or not at all. The new work doesn’t get the appreciation that it deserves except from those who weren’t around when the older work was released and are seeing the new work on its own. It’s kinda sad really. You have to think outside the box, an artist can’t go on making the same stuff over and over. Even if he/she did, it won’t be recognised as something of equal quality to the earlier work if there was a prolonged period of absence before something new is released. People get it into their heads that an artist will not top the previous work, and then view it as such regardless if it is just as good.
I hope that made sense.
[quote=“Ify”]
You guys are acting like he uses the same guys all the time. He has only made 5 films for fucks sake! He hasn’t used one actor more than twice in a large role!
[/quote]
Why can’t you debate an issue without being all defensive about a man you’ve never met. You’re in danger of killing threads when you come out with lame posts like that.
[quote=“Cyd”]
Why can’t you debate an issue without being all defensive about a man you’ve never met. You’re in danger of killing threads when you come out with lame posts like that.
[/quote]
I’m defensive, but not unneccesarily defensive. Why do you have to be so negative all the time? If you actually had some nice things to say, I wouldn’t have to resort to “getting defensive”. Don’t talk to me about killing threads, thank you. You don’t know what you’re talking about.