I Think QT defines the word Revolutionary. His films are definitely both Evolutionary and Revolutionary imo.
Revolutionary (adj) constituting or bringing about a major or fundamental change. (Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction anyone?)
Evolution: a process of change in a certain direction : UNFOLDING b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : EMISSION c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : GROWTH (2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance d : something evolved
3 : the process of working out or developing
Those 2 words fit QT PERFECTLY. Kill Bill will be another evolution of revolutionary filmmaking. [/quote]
I definitely agree that QT’s style is revolutionary, but I don’t think the stories he tells are revolutionary…if that makes any sense. I can see how you can view it as being revolutionary as well as evolutionary, but I think its more subject to p.o.v. Let me ask you: When do you think QT’s unique style ceases to be revolutionary and becomes just part of the mainstream? If you said yes - feel that QT and every bit of his work will always be revolutionary because HE came up with greats like Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, then I can’t argue with you, because you’re more than likely right…afterall, everything he touches by that definition will be revolutionary. But if you’re like me, and feel that the “revolution has already occurred” QT’s existing work has left such an impact upon the industry and been imitated so much that his name is literally an adjective now, then you might be right as well.
I think Kill Bill will be amazing, and will definitely make the Wachowski’s and their ilk look like chumps, and I’m sure it’ll definitely bring people to look at the genre in a new way, but I still view it as evolutionary at this point. In fact, I’ll go so far as to say that Reservoir Dogs was the only revolutionary movie QT’s ever made, since its the first film he ever did where he took genre conventions and turned it on its head. And unless QT has completely and utterly reinvented himself between Jackie Brown and Kill Bill, I think all of his other movies are, by my definition, evolutionary. The man himself is a revolutionary director, but only his first film can hold the title of being a revolutionary film since everything he’s done since has been an evolution of that first “genre twisting” model he developed.
I know my rant sounds wierd and incoherent, but I’m hoping that you guys at least get the gist of it.