It has a very cool title and a badass dvd cover though, so much so that I might even buy the poster. ;D
I should say that I Spit is not a film I like to rewatch often. I have a tough time watching movies with rape in them (like Casualties of War). BUT for the kind of film it is, its one of the best. Great trailer/poster campaign too.
I’ll say the rape scene in Pulp turned me into a homophobe. If Marsellus can get ass raped it can happen to everyone. Scary…
Im not homophobic or racist. I just treat people like people. Theres good and bad people of every color and I really dont care what gay people do in private. Im not scared of being ass raped by Zed!!
To force your way of life on other people is wrong. Its just like if you dig certain kinds of movies and someone gives you shit for it and harasses you over it. Thats not cool either. Lifes too short to hate on people. Just be an open minded cool person. Dont be like those scumbags in American History X!!! 
Don’t you hate mormons? They’re always riding on bikes. Like they’re too good to be driving cars. Those bastards!
I hate everyone equally 
I dont pick on any one kind of person. I think white people are often conditioned to hate minorities and gay people. But its really not good to be that way. You’ll be alot happier if you just live and let live. Im as white, middle class as American people can get but Ive learned not to be a racist/homophobe. I just dont want to be that way at all. I like to be friendly with everyone.
Thats why the USA is so great, we can just live how we want and noone is going to mess with us. Freedom rules!
[quote=“PutneySwope”]
To force your way of life on other people is wrong. Its just like if you dig certain kinds of movies and someone gives you shit for it and harasses you over it. Thats not cool either. Lifes too short to hate on people. Just be an open minded cool person. Dont be like those scumbags in American History X!!!
[/quote]
I hope you dont feel that way about me. I do love a debate but I wanted to point out that CGI could be a good tool to use. I was mostly joking though, thats my humor. I hope one day it will be such a user friedly tool that the average joe can make a great pic for almost no money. I also hope no one will trash them for their style or choice in production. Ahhh, but to dream.
DP did need some CGI boxes to crash through though.
No prob KK. Maybe IB will have some CGI explosions! Ya never, never know!
DP, and Grindhouse as a whole, was one big joke that no one got. I mean, Kill Bill was referencing films like the Lone Wolf and Cub series and Lady Snowblood that the vast majority of the audience hadn’t seen and probably wouldn’t ever end up seeing. But it repackaged it into this modern day action film which wasn’t too alien. I mean, asian cinema has influenced Hollywood so much that people were able to kind of understand Kill Bill even if they didn’t know shit about the more obscure references. DP on the other hand was all exploitation. And frankly, barely anyone fucking gets it. I go to film school and I’d still bet that none of my fellow classmates have ever seen a women-in-prison film or even know there’s such thing as nazisploitation. That to me is why it wasn’t really working with the audience.
Plus, it’s got a whole lot more character development and dialogue than your usual exploitation film. So people who just want to see action and killing the whole film are going to get disappointed. Friends of mine absolutely hated it, saying that it was boring and then there was a car crash and then more boring. The same friends thought that PT was “glorious” (one of them using that exact word).
[quote=“Angel”]
That to me is why it wasn’t really working with the audience.
Plus, it’s got a whole lot more character development and dialogue than your usual exploitation film.
[/quote]
You have got to be joking, yes? It has VERY little character development at all. We have no idea why Stuntman Mike does what he does and almost no backstory other than some shows he says he worked on. We know the girls like smoking pot and going to bars. We know where Jungle J works. All this stuff is not character dev. We learn just enough about JJ to think she is a bitch but still, thats very, very little info other than knowing she has a bad attitude, we know nothing else. Please point out the character development of any characters in the film, pretty please with sugar on top.
Come on, if you can’t be honest about the film at all there is no use even talking about it.
I myself love the first half but the second part seemed to fall apart to me.
I looked at the first group of girls as the typical throwaway 70s-80s slasher film cast. Watch Halloween or Friday The 13th, all those kids do is fuck, get stoned and talk about sex basically. They make some jokes and then they get killed off.
The second group of girls were more like real world women and more developed character wise to me. I mean really how much development is enough? QT fit in alot of background stuff on all of them in that short time span. If you cant watch the movie once and know exactly who each girl is, you need to rewatch it a few more times.
Also, QT never really gives you the entire picture on his characters, he gives you some basic info and lets you work out the rest. Hes done that from the beginning. Its really not any one genre, its a mix of diff kinds which makes it almost undefinable.
The main reason I liked DP more than PT was because it wasnt just the standard slasher film. It had more to it. It was more psychological, not just non stop scenes of people being offed.
Ive seen PT before when it was called Assault on Precinct 13 and Dawn of The Dead (and every other “Group of People Fighting Against Outside Forces” type films). I cant say Ive seen one single film like DP before.
First of all Quentin’s movies never consist of character development. I think he dosen’t really like that in movies since he dosen’t do it for any of his characters. His characters create the action in his films. If you look at Kill Bill , Pulp Fiction, etc you see the character evolve through action. Like when Beatrix is fighting with Oren, despite their circumstances they still abide to the code of honor and Beatrix shows resilience by suppressing all her emotions. He’s a unique filmmaker in that perspective.
QT can fit character development and history into a sentence or a reaction. We could see so much of their (Beatrix/O-Rens) past together from just some exchanges and looks on their faces. They may have even been the closest friends in the DiVAS. You can see/hear that The Bride still has alot of respect for O-Ren but is disgusted/enraged at how she turned on her.
Well he implies he never really establishes their relationship. Charlie Kaufman on the other hand is a master of character development
Its impossible to establish relationships in such a deep way when youre doing a revenge film like that. Theres just not enough time. QT did an amazing job though. Dont forget he usually has a whole bunch of main characters running around in his films as opposed to other directors who focus on one or two main characters.
I think O-Ren may be the closest and most loved by The Bride because she got her own biographical chapter. I could be wrong, but thats just my idea about it.
There is alot of character development for Abby in Death Proof. She goes from being the timid outsider who gets shit on by men to becoming a killing machine. Basically, shes The Final Girl of the second half. One of my fave shots in the entire movie is what I call the “clouds parting” shot where Abby’s reaction goes from being unsure/scared to excited with the Ships Mast stunt.
Character development for Stuntman Mike: The creepy/charming rebel who goes from crazy psycho killer to crying bitch.
[quote=“Knoxville Kingpin”]
You have got to be joking, yes? It has VERY little character development at all.
[/quote]
Firstly, I said “a whole lot more than you usual exploitation film”. But no, I’m not joking. I will maintain that the characters are developed much better than you think. You’ve got to realise that character development has never really meant backstory (although there is sufficient backstory that can be gathered from the dialogue exchanges). Just things like Mike’s reaction when the tables are turned and those moments we spend with Mike as he’s being pursued by the girls. And Zoe and Kim talking, revealing aspects about their relationship and their history together. This is similar to that moment between Jungle Julia and Arlene when she asks Arlene if now she wants any guys at the lake house or just them. Most of the character development lies there in the establishing of their relationships. You just aren’t looking hard enough into Tarantino’s dialogue and the exchanges between the characters.
As far as Mike goes, between Earl McGraw’s words, Stuntman Mike himself and from the girls, I could tell that Mike was, being a stuntman, genuinely excited by these stunts (which is one motivation) and by his voyeurism that it was a sexual thing also. I could tell, from the transition in character, that he was vulnerable character who was fine playing the macho male from the comfort of his death proof automobile preying on “helpless” girls, but weak once all that was stripped away.
These are just some things that I noticed, but bear in mind that I think Tarantino does an excellent job in conveying characters and relationships in the way that you get a feel for the character but without just telling you what kind of person they are.
uhh i wouldnt really call that character development, i mean his character hasnt changed you just get to see what his character is like under those circumstances… the characters ARE developed thou… so i suppose you could say mikes well rounded… as for the girls… well it was alot of girl talk really… but frankly i have to agree the characters are better developed then your usual exploitation film pritty much everything you pointed out was spot on…
[quote=“Angel”]
Firstly, I said “a whole lot more than you usual exploitation film”. But no, I’m not joking. I will maintain that the characters are developed much better than you think. You’ve got to realise that character development has never really meant backstory (although there is sufficient backstory that can be gathered from the dialogue exchanges). Just things like Mike’s reaction when the tables are turned and those moments we spend with Mike as he’s being pursued by the girls. And Zoe and Kim talking, revealing aspects about their relationship and their history together. This is similar to that moment between Jungle Julia and Arlene when she asks Arlene if now she wants any guys at the lake house or just them. Most of the character development lies there in the establishing of their relationships. You just aren’t looking hard enough into Tarantino’s dialogue and the exchanges between the characters.
As far as Mike goes, between Earl McGraw’s words, Stuntman Mike himself and from the girls, I could tell that Mike was, being a stuntman, genuinely excited by these stunts (which is one motivation) and by his voyeurism that it was a sexual thing also. I could tell, from the transition in character, that he was vulnerable character who was fine playing the macho male from the comfort of his death proof automobile preying on “helpless” girls, but weak once all that was stripped away.
These are just some things that I noticed, but bear in mind that I think Tarantino does an excellent job in conveying characters and relationships in the way that you get a feel for the character but without just telling you what kind of person they are.
[/quote]
Yeah, youre right in some respects. There is enough character dev to make me care about Stuntman Mike, not so much for the girls though (especially the second crue). I still say its very, very little as most of the dialogue is about mundane everyday bullshit and not so personal as to get a feeling for who these people really are or were as it may be.
I like that QT doesnt do biographies of his characters. He gives you hints, flashes of who they are and lets you kind of fill in the rest with your own ideas. It makes it more interesting/resonant. Hes done that from the very begginning. The closest hes got to a character study film was Jackie Brown.
This is kind of a funny complaint because slasher films arent usually that heavy on character development. Its more about the action/gore moments. So in that respect QT gave his characters ALOT of screen time to express who they are/their place in the scheme of their lives. I can tell you exactly who each of those people are (IMO).
Arlene: The displaced visiting Brooklyn native who has always been a bit of an outsider when she was in Austin going to school. She puts on a good front like shes a tough New Yawker, but shes probably closer to how Stuntman Mike saw her.
Shanna: Austin party girl. Shes a follower, someone who goes with the crowd. Doesnt care about much. Has an average crappy job.
JJ: A star in Austin. A very ambitious girl who also puts on a tough uncaring front, but when she cares about someone, she really cares about them. A tough nut with a jelly center.
Zoe: A fun loving Kiwi stuntwoman with lots of ambition and sense of herself. Shes also very daring. Shes always been that way.
Kim: A loud, badass babe with an attitude from QTs hometown of LA. She takes no shit, but shes a loving, caring person at heart.
Lee: The airheadish actress whos trying to make it in Hollywood (QTs probably seen 100s of them).
Abby: Also From LA. She and Kim have known each other since they were kids. The unwed mother of the group whos been crapped on by men forever. Her attack on Mike is her catharsis.
[quote=“PutneySwope”]
Slasher films arent usually that heavy on character development usually. Its more about the action/gore moments.
[/quote]
Yeh its not really the point… i find theres not really any character development in slashers, cept some of the good ones… you could probably make a “good” one without it to i guess…
I dont trust Roger Ebert, if i remember right in his review for godzilla he called it the Fahrenheit 9/11 of its time… that just doesnt sit right… there are about three film critics that i respect David Stratton, Margaret Pomeranz and that other guy whos name i cant remember…