:o
Okay, Ive never thought about this at all till today, maybe this has been brought up in another topic (sorry if it has) but I had to know what you guys think.
Could the second half of Death Proof happened before the first? I want to go back and see if Mike had his scar on his face but I’ll have to wait for the DVD. Could this be why Mike starts killing girls? He didnt actually seem to be dead set on killing the second set of girls in the film. He was fucking with them hard but he starts to leave (witnesses!) with only one girl possible dead.
What do ya think?
In the international version Mike definetly was dead!
Interesting thought :laugh:
But I don’t really think so…
For me it’s obvious that Mike has been killed with the last kick (a few Seconds after the credits began; for those who leave so early rolleyes)
it would have been cool, mainly because I don’t like how the character evolves during the course of the film, but I don’t think it is. Beside, at the begining of the second part there is a card saying: “14 MONTHS LATER”
[quote=“tonyanthony”]
it would have been cool, mainly because I don’t like how the character evolves during the course of the film, but I don’t think it is. Beside, at the begining of the second part there is a card saying: “14 MONTHS LATER”
[/quote]
Ahh, my short term is getting shorter.
Oh well, it would have been nice.
woah woah slowly people.
he kills the girls, eh ends up in hospital, and mcgraw talks about how he’ll observe the bastard. then it sais “months later”… not exactly ANY indication that it should not be months LATER…
I was thinking exactly the same because I missed the scar.But through watching it again I think I saw the scar in another scene of that part.Have to watch the US version again and tomorrow´s time for the German edition.
[quote=“Knoxville Kingpin”]
Could the second half of Death Proof happened before the first? [/quote]
NO. the movie is linear, no jumping around bullshit like in Pulp Fiction. he had the scar before. end of story.
The proof is printed right in the script. It was written in linear order.
[quote=“Crazy_Hattori”]
NO. the movie is linear, no jumping around bullshit like in Pulp Fiction. he had the scar before. end of story.
[/quote]
Pulp fiction bullshit!!!??? You really are crazy!
I think the film would have been just a wee bit better if the second part really happened first. It would have gave Mike a little bit of a background, not much, but a little.
I think QT uses the non linear storylines when he feels its right or makes the story more resonant. Death Proof didnt really need the non linear stuff IMO. I mean, its not a really long film and it was possible to tell the story straight forward. Its an exploitation film too, so its nice to tell it like a reg film story. It worked great for me.
Im pretty sure Inglorious Bastards is going to be non linear. I remember him saying that its going to be split into parts like: “1 month before D-Day”, “2 days before D-Day”. type thing.
[quote=“Pete”]
I think QT uses the non linear storylines when he feels its right or makes the story more resonant. Death Proof didnt really need the non linear stuff IMO. I mean, its not a really long film and it was possible to tell the story straight forward. Its an exploitation film too, so its nice to tell it like a reg film story. It worked great for me.
Im pretty sure Inglorious Bastards is going to be non linear. I remember him saying that its going to be split into parts like: “1 month before D-Day”, “2 days before D-Day”. type thing.
[/quote]
when did he say that? If it it like that though, it will be amazing. I hope that he uses the non linear technique for IB.
this would be amazing
[quote=“Knoxville Kingpin”]
Pulp fiction bullshit!!!??? You really are crazy!
[/quote]
hei i didnt say that. 
[quote=“KILL BILL vol.3”]
when did he say that? If it it like that though, it will be amazing. I hope that he uses the non linear technique for IB.
[/quote]
In one of his interviews for KB.
[quote=“Pete”]
In one of his interviews for KB.
[/quote]
I don’t know if this is the same interview you’re talking about, but here is part of an interview with Quentin Tarantino I posted back in October 2004. It was from a magazine I purchased at the time…
Q. You’ve got the script written for Inglorious Bastards - what’s your take on WWII? Obviously it will be different from anything we’ve seen before.
It’ll have a very epic feel. It’ll be my take on the sociological battlefield at that time with the racism and barbarism - on both sides. On the Nazi side and the American side and the black soldiers and Jewish soldiers and Nazis and the French, because it all takes place in France.
Q. Is it just after D-Day?
Yeah, depending on exactly how I end up finally struturing it but there are sequences that happen before D-Day - I’ll have little things like ‘One Year After Occupation’, and 'Four Months After Occupation. ‘Two years Before Occupation’ - that kind of thing, but the thrust of the story will happen after D-Day.
Q. Are you shooting it in Spain?
I don’t know where I’m going to shoot it. We’ll figure out where I’m going to shoot it when I’m 100 per cent go on it. The other thing about it is, again, it’ll kind of be my spaghetti western too. It’s the one time in the 20th Century where that almost kind of spaghetti western, barren no man’s land, landscape happened with the Nazis taking over countries.
Q. It sounds like Kelly’s Heroes…
Kelly’s Heroes is a real lark. I never felt like it was that much of a spaghetti western, it was more of a caper film. I want it to be more like what The Good, The Bad And The Ugly was to the civil war.
Yep thats the one! 