[quote]If we take the first half of DEATH PROOF as a twist on THE YOUNG CYCLE GIRLS, then the second half is the backstory that explains the villain. In other words, the second segment of DEATH PROOF, with the four young women from the movie crew, takes place 14 months before the first part and not after, as the title card in the 114-minute cut suggests (there is no such card in the GRINDHOUSE version). Stuntman Mike was killed in Tennessee by the gals he had been harassing. He then returns from the dead when Jungle Julia reads the final verse of Robert Frost’s “Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Eveningâ€
I dont go for that theory at all. QT wrote the film in linear order. There is no skipping around in time. Plus they killed Mike at the end. Theres no way he walked away from that beating and crushed skull and came back. Hes not a ghost or whatever that guy said. Hes just using his imagination to think of some clever way to make it something its not. That always happens with QTs films.
I never knew about that Cycle Girls movie he referenced, gotta try to check that out sometime.
again?
The fangoria reviewer just talked about “What if…” In the Grindhouse version, there appearently is no title card that shows that the second half of DP does indeed take place AFTER the incidents of the first half, so one can insert this stupid theory in there, but The extended cut made absolutely clear that this is BULL.
Does Mike have that scar in the second part?
i think a lot of persons are frustrated with death proof having such a simple and straight storytelling
[quote=“Bleach”]
Does Mike have that scar in the second part?
[/quote]
Nope, no scar in the second part. I think, QT doesn’t put it in only for the “Is it my scar? - No, it’s your car” line. There should be a deeper meaning. Sure, Stuntman Mike is so cool and evil in the first part, so Tarantino can deconstruct his image in the second. But I personally need a kick, because DEATH PROOF is my favorite movie of the year, although it’s right now not in a league with KILL BILL, JACKIE BROWN and PULP FICTION. I probably need a year or so to know where the movie really stands, to shake off the geeky fandom.
He has a scar in the second half. Thats why that theory doesnt hold up.
[quote=“PutneySwope”]
He has a scar in the second half. Thats why that theory doesnt hold up.
[/quote]
Ok, ok, there is a scar. The theory is bullshit. But I still need a theory for the next quality level. 
I dont think QT would write a script one way and not mean it. He does do non linear stories but this film isnt one of them.
Yeah it just isn’t right. Besides, if he can recover from an imploded skull, why’d he need to spend his days in a goddamn hospital after crashing into the first girls? A suicidal ghost that returns after killings wouldn’t sip Virgin Pina Coladas for hours either, just so the accident isn’t his fault later on
right. you have to be a mad psycho killer with problem with your penis to sip virgin pina coladas
The pina colada thing was just part of his act to make it seem like he didnt drink. Therefore helping Pam to trust him to get a ride home and so he could crash into the girls and not be faulted for it afterwards.
[quote=“PutneySwope”]
The pina colada thing was just part of his act to make it seem like he didnt drink. Therefore helping Pam to trust him to get a ride home and so he could crash into the girls and not be faulted for it afterwards.
[/quote]
I think there’s also another reason why he drinks virgin pina coladas, while the girls drink alcoholic drinks.
he’s planning on smashing into them at that point, and he knows if he gets into an "accident’ with alcohol in his blood he will be charged by the authorities. But as it was… the girls were drinking and the “accident” is deemed their fault, therefore Stuntman Mike gets off scott free.
right, and during the second part, when he loses control and gets hit he drinks
[quote=“jeffkantoku”]
I think there’s also another reason why he drinks virgin pina coladas, while the girls drink alcoholic drinks.
he’s planning on smashing into them at that point, and he knows if he gets into an "accident’ with alcohol in his blood he will be charged by the authorities. But as it was… the girls were drinking and the “accident” is deemed their fault, therefore Stuntman Mike gets off scott free.
[/quote]
Thats actually what I meant by that. Sorry if it didnt seem clear enough.
I think in the long run, the movie is much better when you think of it in chronological order without theories like that.
Yea, that’s an interesting theory but I don’t buy it.
It’s strange I never really though about DP as being in chronological order. I’m surprised it didn’t capture my attention.
I wonder if DP would have had better reviews if the story were told out of sequence. It’s a technique he is often praised for. Does any one think DP would have gotten better reviews if it were told in the usual QT style out of sequence? How would it have changed the film?
I actually wish the second half was about mike before he did what he did in the first half. It makes the whole thing fit with a bow on it. But its not like that and it sorta sucks. I like the movie but it doesnt make sense for Mike to leave the witnesses alive after he was a suspect in a CSI just a few months earlier. He thinks he just killed Zoe and almost killed the other 2 girls but he gets out, gives them a good look at his (scar) face and says so long. I guess Mike was slightly retarded as well.
Maybe the second half was actually his twin brother stuntman Bob or the first half was Bob pretending to be Mike to take revenge on young girls because of the death of his brother by some showbiz bitches. LOL I dont buy into Mike being kiiled. He may die from the kick to the head but many people have been kicked in the head by much bigger people than these girls and lived so its not a closed subject.
[quote]I dont think QT would write a script one way and not mean it. He does do non linear stories but this film isnt one of them. [/quote]
Every movie he has directed has been non linear except (perhaps) this one. Most people want there to be more to the story because it doesnt make sense in the context that we were shown it in.
Perhaps? It says in the movie: 14 MONTHS LATER. I dont see where the big gap in logic is.
it is funny how a lot of viewers (that includes me a little bit) were a little bit frustrated by how simple the story telling of DP seems to be at first. QT always wrote some very elaborate structures and we got used to it. it is like, he wrote symphonies and all of a sudden he comes up with a 3 minutes folk song.