Holy crap, he took the words right out of my mouth:
Basically, I would be more than happy for it to be of a length similar to Pulp Fiction. [/quote]
Also, QT did say that Inglorious Bastards would be his Everest. That after Death Proof, he knew it would be Everest climbing time again. He just needed to recoup after the whole Kill Bill thing. He also needed a bit of pushing from a third party, and that party turned out to be Eleanor Coppola, so kudos to her for that. I wonder if she will get a special thanks.
When he says it’s time to climb Everest again, he doesn’t mean that he’s going to do another two-parter. Some of you have been wrapped up in the idea that it has to be this MASSIVE set of films. Nothing says that IB has to be more than one film. You don’t need it to be split into two parts to show how epic it is. All other filmmakers have managed to create a huge epic whilst being of the highest quality at the same time. If the likes of Leone, Kubrick and Coppola don’t need more than one film to create a cinematic, epic masterpiece, well then neither does QT. You can get plenty epic within 2 and a half hours.
I hope he stays to that plan now and not release a film split into 2 parts. Don’t get me wrong, the more QT the better, but look at Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs, 2 of the greatest films ever made, both only ONE film. Let’s not get ahead of ourselves and suggest that this art form can’t cater for QT. One whole film with all the trimmings is more than enough to satisfy our cravings. Wouldn’t you agree?!