Yeah and he was gonna do his “big WW2 men on a mission film” too. WTF? After this current news I think hes an even bigger idiot. I mean if he killed this guy (and almost killed his wife) from drunk driving he IS a fuckin loser.
[quote=“PutneySwope”]
RD and PF are drastically different than KB and DP because they were crime/gangster films. KB and DP arent. So that would make a difference. Kill Bill is an awesome film. I think its even better than Pulp Fiction actually.
[/quote]
I’m not talking about genre. I’m talking about the general aesthetic. I mean RD and PF seem to have more depth to them, more substance than KB or DP. I am talking about differences in complexities and substance of the stories. KB was pretty simple, and any other hints of complex story telling ended with DP, which didn’t have intertwining stories and was very linear in structure. I’m not saying it HAS to be non-linear, but I’m pointing out that with every film he makes, it’s less about the story now and more about the visuals and homages. DP was QT at his most self-indulgent. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, but when he’s like that he has no reason to complain about people not going to watch DP. Sure us QT-fans loved it, but with ever film now, he seems to be making his general fan base smaller and smaller. RD, PF and even JB attracted the masses. KB less so and DP was drastically less so. What I’m trying to get at is; I’d prefer it if he went back to caring about the actual story telling than the visual aesthetic. I mean I love Kill Bill more than any other film, and DP was inferior to his other work, you could feel it. It was smaller in almost every sense of the word. Everything he did in DP (bar the action sequences) was done better in his previous films. Also, it annoys me just a bit how he got these almost no-name actresses in DP who don’t represent that QT vibe at all like all those other characters before them. It’s almost like QT is losing his way a little in terms of directing people, where before everyone gave great performances. Can you honestly say that about Vanessa Ferlito? Rosario Dawson? Mary Elizabeth Winstead? Marcy Harriell? They didn’t seem like genuine, totally-QT characters to me. Non of them were great in the way say Uma Thurman was, or Pam Grier or even Lisa Gay Hamilton!!
It’s like when he wants to do one thing (great visuals, great homages, great style) he loses other things (great dialogue, great stories, great characters). That’s why, in my mind anyway, All his films are superior to DP. There is more to be taken from his other films. DP seemed to be very, very thin compared to his other relatively “bulky” films.
If you look at QTs career like a long highway, DP was QT going down a different little side road away from his known style I think. It may not be as good as his previous films, but I think it was QT experimenting and trying something new.
Also when youre focusing on ONE character (Pam Grier, Uma Thurman) its probably easier to get more depth out of a film as opposed to focusing on groups of women like in DP. And how much depth can you get out of a psycho killer flick anyways? What did you really want from it other than some fun and thrills?
[quote=“PutneySwope”]
If you look at QTs career like a long highway, DP was QT going down a different little side road away from his known style I think. It may not be as good as his previous films, but I think it was QT experimenting and trying something new.
Also when youre focusing on ONE character (Pam Grier, Uma Thurman) its probably easier to get more depth out of a film as opposed to focusing on groups of women like in DP. And how much depth can you get out of a psycho killer flick anyways? What did you really want from it other than some fun and thrills?
[/quote]
It’s great that he has experimented, hopefully he can take what he has learnt into his next “proper” film (IB).
Well the reason I have those lead characters as examples (Sheronda wasn’t a lead!) was because they’re female. When you take into account say RD and PF, they have groups of guys yet QT managed to get great performances from them. The Girls of Death Proof aren’t Tarantino-esque in the same way any other character that came before them are.
The “how much depth can you get out of [insert genre film here] anyway?” argument just doesn’t work for me. It was used for Kill Bill too. It’s not so much depth as bigger essence to the actual story and plot. There being more actual functions within in them. DP was relatively simple even compared to KB which was very simple.
What I wanted was for there to be more going on. More coincidences, more intertwining, more action, more movement. Jackie Brown is hang out movie, yet even that had more going on, albeit in a subtle way. How QT says “When you see one of my films, you are seeing a hundred different films” well that wasn’t the case with DP. You didn’t get more bang for your buck. It’s hard to explain. But like you can get much more out of RD, PF, JB and KB than you can in DP. It’s like the difference between a vanilla dvd and a 2 disc special edition. Sure the basic essence is there, and it’s great in the vanilla edition, but you lack all the extras that make the actual experience more fun and satisfying.
I thought Kill Bill both combined all the diff subgenres QT loves and packed alot of emotional depth and shades of gray in the characters. It was beautifully done. Esp for what was supposed to be a Grindhouse revenge film.
Death Proof, for as much as you think it lacks depth, does also combine several subgenres and does have characters that are not all just simple black and white genre film characters (Mike isnt your typical villain). You may not enjoy it as much as the other films, but its def there. Death Proof isnt really a film that is wrapped up in a nice neat package like QTs other films. I know that noone expected an ending like the one on DP. That shit still is pretty crazy to me and I read the script before i saw the film. Death Proof is def a weird little movie thats a bit harder to digest than QTs other flicks.
[quote=“PutneySwope”]
Death Proof, for as much as you think it lacks depth, does also combine several subgenres and does have characters that are not all just simple black and white genre film characters (Mike isnt your typical villain). You may not enjoy it as much as the other films, but its def there. Death Proof isnt really a film that is wrapped up in a nice neat package like QTs other films. I know that noone expected an ending like the one on DP. That shit still is pretty crazy to me and I read the script before i saw the film. Death Proof is def a weird little movie thats a bit harder to digest than QTs other flicks.
[/quote]
I couldn’t have said it better. I’ve got people who have seen the DVD of DP and say it was crap. I’m like, it’s no KB. But it’s not meant to be either. I saw the whole GH experience, I have more appreciation for the film than just a DVD version. I feel for them. :’(
Its just different. Its not for everyone. No big deal.
It kinda pisses me off on how someone who has commited manslaughter gets to walk out of jail hours/days later…i dont care how much bail is he should spend a good amount of time in jail were he could work on some screenplays that are actually worth while. (Silent Hill, Beowolf hint…hint)
So if his wife was ejected from the vehicle that meant she wasn’t wearing her seat belt, right?
Ah, who gives a fuck!
[quote="KÅ
[quote=“Biohazard”]
So if his wife was ejected from the vehicle that meant she wasn’t wearing her seat belt, right?
Ah, who gives a fuck!
[/quote]
Hahahaha yeah no shit, snooze ya loose.
[quote=“Angel”]
Bail is just so they can spend the time before their trial out of jail. Paying the bail doesn’t mean they’re free to go.
[/quote]
Hahahaha whoops! I guess i sholda done my research.
I thought they said he was released on 50,000 bail.
Why would the guy get in the car with a drunk Avery? It seems like the dead guy should be arrested too, for being a tard.
Maybe he was too drunk to think rationally.