[quote=“Ify”]
Well I wouldn’t go so far as to say he experiments with each movie. RD, PF and JB were all crime films, therefore they can all be compared. One of the criticisms people had of him was that he stays in his ‘safety zone’ so-to-speak. He made 3 films in the same genre and they were similar, not the same, but similar. He obviously did something about that with Kill Bill. Good for him. So out of the 4 he has made, 3 of them are in the same genre, I wouldn’t say that’s experimentation. Sure he experiments in other ways, but not in the type of film he actually makes.
[/quote]
That’s exactly my point. His first three movies were all part of the crime genre. What was the time-span between these three films? 3 films in 5 years, which is quite an accomplishment. After Jackie Brown came out (which has VERY LITTLE in common with Pulp and Dogs, but it’s still a crime film), he felt he wanted to do something different. He felt he proved his worth in the crime genre, it was time to move on. Kill Bill and his next two movies seem all distinctively different from each other, which I like. If that means I have to wait longer, then so be it. I’d rather watch Inglorious Bastards in five years time then the Vega Bros. next year. And let’s be totally fair with the Q. Kill Bill, as is Inglorious Bastards, was a MASSIVE script. It takes time to write a 222 page script and go on to direct two distinct voulmes. Add to that the fact that Uma’s pregnancy delayed the project even further. Now it seems only yesterday that Vol. 2 came outand Grindhouse is coming out in 9 months time, so it’s not that bad. I know the feeling though. I used to think like you, always impatiently waiting for QT’s next project as if my life depended on it. But I come to realise now that quality should precide over quantity.
[quote] also disagree and feel you CAN compare Kill Bill to Pulp Fiction mainly because they were both made by the same guy. I can then compare them and say something like “The dialogue in PF is much better than in KB. I think it is wittier and more interesting” or “I think QT’s directorial skill during KB is way more advanced than what he showed us in PF. His use of imaginative, interesting camera angles and movements really add to the excitement of watching the film. Sadly, the camera movement and placement of the camera is pretty borring and quite repetitive, this doesn not make for exciting viewing” I could go on and on.[/quote]
Gotta disagree with that. If you’re gonna compare dialogue, compare it within the same genre. You can compare the dialogue of Pulp with that of Dogs and say it is better or worse. But Kill Bill is a different story. You can’t say the Kill Bill dialogue was worse because it felt corny. That’s what it was supposed to be in the first place. You can say something like “I prefer Pulp’s dialogue to Kill Bill because the Pulp dialogue dealt with real people in real-life situations and I’m not a big fan of campy situations and conversations like the ones found in Kill Bill”. But to say “Pulp’s dialogue is BETTER”, well that’s an objective statement which sounds quite pretentious to say the least.
I agree about the Coens though. I regard them as innovators the way Quentin is. Even though I think Intolerable Cruelty was quite average (don’t flame me for it 
) It felt quite impersonal, like someone else other than Joel had directed it. But that’s just me.