Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

INGLORIOUS BASTARDS to be broken up into two volumes KILL BILL style'

YES! by john*wayne	Mar 23rd, 2005 01:03:53 PM

i'd prefer it if it was just one 3 hour film by mansep	Mar 23rd, 2005 01:16:02 PM
that's the way WW2 films are meant to be in my opinion. glad he's doing this and not F13.
When's the last time anyone used the word "inglorious" in actual by oceansized	Mar 23rd, 2005 01:17:11 PM
Although technically an actual word, I'd say it's pretty much extinct within our modern venacular. "Glorious Bastards" by itself would be a much better title(safe to assume the characters eventually do something "glorious" in the story). Hopefully that change'll be made somewhere along the line.
Or how 'bout... NO! by MeekayD	Mar 23rd, 2005 01:18:26 PM
The unintended side-effect of Miramax
The more the better by Hoke Mosley	Mar 23rd, 2005 01:22:49 PM
Bring it on!! But do it, already! Write the sucker down and nail it, godammit.
and also... by oceansized	Mar 23rd, 2005 01:24:09 PM
Does anyone know if this flick (or flicks)is going to be a highly stylized "movie movie" a la Kill Bill, or more cinema verite in the vein of Reservoir Dogs?
make it lotr syle... by blackstormy	Mar 23rd, 2005 01:24:20 PM
with 3 three hour films. As long as it gots good dialoug and brutal action Im down. Tarantino hasn't done wrong yet. I cannot wait till Sin City.
Length isn't the question by Lazarus Long	Mar 23rd, 2005 01:27:16 PM
If the guy has a long story to tell, so be it. I don't know what 30 minutes should have been removed from Kill Bill. But I will say splitting Bastards into two parts is a bad idea because he'll just be accused of repeating himself. As QT has had that charge thrown at him so much in the past, why welcome it yet again? Kill Bill was largely able to hold people's attentions over two films because of the change in locales/tones and uniqueness of the characters. I doubt a WW2 film with a bunch of soldiers, regardless of who's playing them, will be able to do the same thing. But again, I wouldn't criticize the guy if ONE FILM is 3 hours or more.
this movie I believe will be realer then real by blackstormy	Mar 23rd, 2005 01:28:35 PM
I think I recall from some article tarantino breaking his films down into three universes. Kill Bill is in the movieland universe, along with true romance and his script for NBK. Then resevoir dogs and pulp fiction are in the realer then real universe and I think that he said Inglourious bastards will be in that universe too. Oh yeah, and Jackie Brown is in the Elmore Lenord universe.
I hope he got an all cool cast! by Judge Doom	Mar 23rd, 2005 01:29:07 PM
What
Oh for fuck's sake Vol. 1 by Blue_Demon	Mar 23rd, 2005 01:32:06 PM
Jesus
Everytime Tarantino gets a new film by Gheorghe Zamfir	Mar 23rd, 2005 01:32:56 PM
It sounds like he's getting too muc leeway and is being allowed to indulge himself more than anything else. That's exactly what it felt like before Kill Bill came out, then Kill Bill came out and I loved it, just completely loved it. So I've given up on questioning Tarantino, so long as he's not acting I'll look forward to it.
Oh for fuck's sake Vol. 2 by Blue_Demon	Mar 23rd, 2005 01:33:26 PM
Christ!
Quentin Tarantino's "The Guns of Navarone" by JAGUART	Mar 23rd, 2005 01:40:37 PM
First, you've got that fucking old fortress on top of that fucking cliff. Then you've got the fucking fortress inside the cliff. You can't even see the fucking cave, let alone the fucking guns. And even if we could, we haven't got a fucking bomb big enough to smash that fucking rock. And that's the fucking truth. If I'm curt with you, it's because time is a factor here. I think fast, I talk fast, and I need you guys to act fast if you want to get out of this. So, pretty please, with sugar on top, climb the fucking rope.
This is... by MeekayD	Mar 23rd, 2005 01:40:41 PM
...exactly what I'm talking about. If Blue_Demon had had an editor forcing him to release his post in one shot, he might have made the hard choice and cut down his prose. Maybe he would've dropped the exclamation point, or gone with an abbreviation. J. Christ anyone? J.C.? Or even just "Christ!" :-)
THE VEGA BROTHERS! by kilerb	Mar 23rd, 2005 01:50:46 PM
If those 2 looked a little younger and didn't gain so much weight they could've made that Vega Brothers movie that Tarantino has talked about. Vic from Reservoir Dogs, and Vince from Pulp Fiction! That woulda been cool!
KB would have been waaay better as a single film by Wee Willie	Mar 23rd, 2005 01:53:26 PM
Especially with some of the fat trimmed out. As it stands it looks and feels like along movie sliced arbitrarily into two parts. Two delicious parts, but parts nonetheless. Just make a freakin' movie Q!
Great by DannyOcean01	Mar 23rd, 2005 01:54:41 PM
A truly epic film or another way for Miramax to milk the BO. Can't wait for the bare bones DVDs then the SEs and then the SSEEEEssss.
Heh, MeekayD. :) by Blue_Demon	Mar 23rd, 2005 02:10:36 PM
Jesus Christ: recut.
Waste of time and money by MaryTylerMorbid	Mar 23rd, 2005 02:17:47 PM
I'll forever remain utterly clueless about how ANYONE could possibly give this man money to make a movie after the absolute disastor that was 'Kill Bill.'
2 parts...again? by BigTuna	Mar 23rd, 2005 02:21:05 PM
Uh.
What! No Tarantino is a hack posts? by Mr Brownstone	Mar 23rd, 2005 02:21:22 PM
You guys are getting soft. Or maybe the mouth breathers haven't been woken by their mom's yet.
Huh? by SuperFinn	Mar 23rd, 2005 02:43:11 PM
I thought I read somewhere that QT liked shooting Kill Bill so much he had decided to do a mandarinlanguage (?) kung fu movie before Bastards... Intentional out-of-sync dubbing and all. I prefer my Tarantino-lingo in english though, so I guess this is good news.
Is it even possible to read that Madsen quote without hearing hi by LoopyDAVE76	Mar 23rd, 2005 02:49:24 PM
Seriously.
New Tarantino Flick by Barron34	Mar 23rd, 2005 02:55:13 PM
I have no problems with Tarantino making another two volume film. It worked fine with Kill Bill, as far as I am concerned. Kill Bill was great. Let Tarantino make his movies however he wants. He's the god-damned director. This new flick sounds like The Dirty Dozen, or some such thing. I'm looking forward to it.
Casting ideas... by JAGUART	Mar 23rd, 2005 02:56:02 PM
Ok, We've got Michael Madsen. Who's gonna be our Lee Marvin? Our Charles Bronson? Our John Cassavetes? Is QT gonna have some stunt casting that comes out of left field? I'd love to see Clive Owen and Benicio Del Toro in this with Donald Sutherland as Army brass. Hell, I wouldn't be suprised of he jump started Stallone's career with a choice role.
He by Judge Doom	Mar 23rd, 2005 03:01:04 PM
Then release one each year. Then release special editions until the end of mankind
QT has lost his touch by AlwaysThere	Mar 23rd, 2005 03:20:46 PM
Using the same gimmick again? He must've fried his brain because of all the coke he snorts.
re: MaryTylerMorbid "I'll forever remain utterly clueless..." by Mr_ant	Mar 23rd, 2005 03:29:34 PM
Got that right.
Oh, good. Let's turn that "breaking into two parts" thing into by MyNameDoesn'tFit	Mar 23rd, 2005 03:45:37 PM
In other news, I like the Harry animation.
Out of his mind if he thinks another 2 part movie will fly. by riskebiz	Mar 23rd, 2005 03:46:28 PM
Such a bad idea.
Kill Bill worked as a unique two parter. Don't do it again. by Tall_Boy	Mar 23rd, 2005 04:02:52 PM
Seriously, that'd just be lame.
This Talkback "two volumes" focus is shitty, but reminds of a jo by JAGUART	Mar 23rd, 2005 04:03:56 PM
About the dumb guy who orders his favorite pizza, and the maker asks him, "Do you want that cut in six pieces, or eight?" and the dumb guy replies "better make it six, I don't think I can eat eight."
THIS WILL RULE!! by Malebolgia	Mar 23rd, 2005 04:04:53 PM
yeah right!!!, MORE CRAP!! from Tiredtino, next flavor , please!
I'll cut you a deal Harvey, release in two parts, I'll pay for o by Flipao	Mar 23rd, 2005 04:19:55 PM
Because if you think I'm paying twice to watch a single film again you're out of your fucking mind you deep fried bastard.
I'll cut you a deal Harvey, release in two parts, I'll pay for o by Flipao	Mar 23rd, 2005 04:20:41 PM
Because if you think I'm paying twice to watch a single film again you're out of your fucking mind you deep fried bastard. Great way to deal with internet piracy.... squeeze the paying customers a little more :)
inglorius != glorious by the Grobe	Mar 23rd, 2005 04:41:55 PM
Oceansized... unlike "flammable" and "inflammable", inglorious is actually closer to the opposite of glorious. It means "not famous", "obscure", or even "disgraceful". And since this is a WWII flick I think it's ok to use an outdated word to sell it. And about splitting the movie up, get over it, people. I suppose Star Wars is just a "gimmick" because it took 6 movies to track the character arc of Anakin? Some people just love to bitch, I guess.
Kill Bill Vol.2 Is Plain Great. Vol. 1--- mhhh. by awrobert	Mar 23rd, 2005 04:46:30 PM

For mr. brownstone: by Childe Roland	Mar 23rd, 2005 04:52:09 PM
Calling QT a hack in a thread where he's got one of his staple actors talking about his ingenious plan to split yet another long-ass movie into two parts to make some extra money would be a trifle redundant, don't you think? And what's wrong with mouth breathing? There are days when that's all QT can manage after shoving so much junk up his nose that even a bad idea once tried sounds like the smart play. And speaking of smart plays, somebody lock Qt in a padded fucking room with a monitor playing True Romance, Crimson Tide and Reservoir Dogs on a loop until all the drugs are out of his system so he can remember what it's like to infuse someone else's well-thought-out story with genuine character through creative dialogue. Then let him out of the room on a probationary basis to doctor a few scripts for other directors before you trust him to write and direct anything on his own again.
I know it has the opposite meaning of glorious, Grobe. The titl by oceansized	Mar 23rd, 2005 05:13:57 PM
After all, it goes to figure if they're considered bastards, they must be pretty disgraceful. Change it to "Glorious Bastards" and you have a cool oxymoron. Again I assume the characters end up redeeming themselves through some act that can be considered "glorious" so it would end up making sense.
This will be the best thing to happen to Travolta's career since by DoctorWho?	Mar 23rd, 2005 05:36:33 PM
That guy can't choose a script to save his life!
Childe Roland by coop	Mar 23rd, 2005 05:43:58 PM
Just to be clear, you DO know that True Romance and Reservoir Dogs weren't "other people's well thought out stories" right? He wrote both of them, sold one, and the other he made himself. If that wasn't what you were saying, then maybe you should try again.
Nice try, coop... by Childe Roland	Mar 23rd, 2005 05:52:31 PM
...but if you've seen City on Fire, you know Reservoir Dogs was hardly QT's original story. And where a film is concerned, there's a reason the Director gets so much credit. It's because he interprets what was written and winds up composing the audio-visual experience that becomes the story (especially if he or she sticks around for the editing). What became True Romance was half a story by Tarantino, heavily altered and adapted so it would work on the screen (something some of his other projects could have definitely used). There are definitely moments of Tarantino's writing brilliance preserved in True Romance. It's in the dialogue. But there's a reason why it's a better film than anything QT has received complete writer/director credit for, and you can thank Tony Scott for that.
Hey, know what? by user id indeed!	Mar 23rd, 2005 05:55:41 PM
If Travolta's in this, I'm not seeing it. I don't care if Kubrick's frozen brain is a "special guest director," I will not see this movie if John Travolta's in it. Unless he's playing a Nazi.
I think he should remake The Dirty Dozen with Hulk Hogan as Fran by Lord Shatner	Mar 23rd, 2005 06:20:21 PM
"We're not shaving in cold water, brother, I mean sir"
Fuck no Quentin, don't do it! by Avon	Mar 23rd, 2005 06:23:38 PM
This has to be the epic. Make people sit on there asses for 4 hours if that's what it takes, not in 2 parts.
F*&% these two parters! by The GentleMan	Mar 23rd, 2005 06:25:47 PM
I'm still waiting for Kill Bill on one dvd set because I refuse to pay for two dvds. Make a 3 hour film, christ, make a four hour film with an intermission but dont make me pay twice to see one film. its just money making bs. I still feel ripped off from the lack of ending in Matrix Reloaded. "To Be Continued." Bite me. Give me an ending.
yea but inglorious doesn't mean glorious by Dented Helmet	Mar 23rd, 2005 06:32:15 PM
it's the opposite
Oceansized... gotcha. by the Grobe	Mar 23rd, 2005 06:38:59 PM
I wasn't sure by your first post if you were assuming it was the same. But I don't think "bastards" necessarily has a negative connotation. Like you stated, paired with the right word it can be an almost affectionate term. "Inglorious Bastards" to me suggests the unsung heroes, the ugly, hard-drinking soldiers whose story you almost don't want to hear. Which again would probably fit the kind of story QT might write for a WWII movie. By the way- cool name, Ocean Sized is one of my favorite Jane's Addiction songs of all time.
I hope its not just an "update" of The Dirty Dozen by Bong	Mar 23rd, 2005 06:48:03 PM
or a rip-off
QT Can Suck My Balls, If He Thinks I'm Going To Wait 6 Months Fo by CHEWBLACCA	Mar 23rd, 2005 06:55:08 PM
I dig his movies, but THAT is bullshit.
Swizz by Mr Chuff	Mar 23rd, 2005 07:08:00 PM
2 parts my ass.... its a fucking con. Followed by 8 different versions on dvd all 5 months apart no doubt.
No matter how this pans out, Garth Ennis should by NUXX	Mar 23rd, 2005 07:30:09 PM
Ennis
Here's the cast! by OswaldWasAPussy	Mar 23rd, 2005 07:30:26 PM
You take all the veterans from QT's other movies and give them some iconic roles to chew on. Uma is french resitance, Travolta and Willis are your cptns, Sam and Madsen are your sgts, the grunts are some of the other regulars and new finds. This could be one of the coolest movies ever, with QT's excellent scripting and obvious talent with action scenes, and the actors who respond best to his directorially style.......the mind boggles! Oh, and of course the General would be the Sheriff from Kill Bill vol. 1. Cool, huh.
BTW by OswaldWasAPussy	Mar 23rd, 2005 07:32:44 PM
Whom among us wouldn't willingly sit through a 6 hour Tarantino movie?
Isnt Adam Sandler supposed to be in this? by NUXX	Mar 23rd, 2005 07:37:04 PM
Huh?
Bad title... by Deagle2	Mar 23rd, 2005 07:55:35 PM
and if its not an epic movie with grand, sweeping storylines then don't split the damn thing up. Kill Bill 1 & 2 were great, but certainly would have worked as a single film.
2-part marketing ploy by ScreamingPenis	Mar 23rd, 2005 08:22:02 PM
so the secret to making money with niche films is releasing them in two parts? it seems like critically acclaimed films are having a harder time breaking even these days, thus two movies for the price of one will ensure a profit. the only person that loses is Joe Consumer. booo
I've seen City on Fire... by JTylor	Mar 23rd, 2005 09:02:01 PM
Even own it, and except for the stand-off at the end, they're incredibly different movies. Ringo Lam's film gets dangerously close to screwball comedy, while Tarantino takes the "undercover cop slowly, painfully, gets his cover blown" gimmick and takes almost all the fat out of it. No fianc
City on Fire - It's not just the standoff by Dagan	Mar 23rd, 2005 09:25:33 PM
Tarantino basically took the third act of this film and expanded it into an entire feature, lifting wholesale and not crediting the source material, which is wrong. It's got the jewel theives under the tutelage of a balding leader, it's got the undercover cop and the standoff at the end(EXACTLY the same), it's got the cop having to watch his new "friend" in the gang whip around a corner and kill two cops by doing some two-fisted shooting into a police car windshield, etc. etc. etc. City on Fire is not a "reasonably fun" gangster flick - at least not if you know Cantonese. It's got great dialogue and it's a very human take on the subject matter and a very interesting "undercover film". Reservoir Dogs is a great film, and a much different spin on the material overall, but Tarantino should've credited Ringo Lam with a "story by" credit at least, or a "based on" credit, as is usual when you remake a movie(which is what he did). He didn't do it because he's a glory hound who likes to rip other people off without giving them credit, like he did to Roger Avary on Pulp and True Romance, and Ringo Lam on City On Fire/Reservoir Dogs.
Roger Avery was credited in Pulp Fiction by Monkey Butler	Mar 23rd, 2005 10:01:31 PM
And I can't believe that people are still bitching about KB being split into two parts. Sure it could've been a single movie, but as it stands now it works really well, and we would've lost alot if it was edited down to a single movie. Think about it, you'd have to cut around an hour to fit it all in (no, dumbfuck, a 3.5 hour movie wouldn't take - there was enough of a backlash against the 3rd lord of the rings, and that was the biggest movie of the year) and that just wouldn't be possible. What's the problem with cutting it in half if it's a very long story. As long as both movies feel like full movies (KB Vol. 2 certainly did, although KB Vol. 1 is a little dicey about that, especially the kinda arbitrary ending) then there's no reason to complain. And as for the Glorious/Inglorious thing - inglorious sounds cooler, although "glorious bastards" is actually a common expression. It doesn't really matter anyway.
TRAVOLTA SUCKS!!! by jimmy_009	Mar 23rd, 2005 10:22:34 PM
Keep him away from ALL Tarantino movies
Maybe it's time for QT to scale back a bit. by Osmosis Jones	Mar 23rd, 2005 10:31:15 PM
Coming off the truly epic Kill Bill saga (which worked splendidly in two halves), it might be better if Tarantino pulled a P.T. Anderson and followed a gloriously overstuffed dream project (Magnolia, 3+ hours) with a deliberately intimate, "small" film (Punch Drunk Love, 95 minutes). I'll see Inglorious Bastards no matter how many pieces he cuts it into (although this time, it'd be nice if the wait wasn't 7 months. Thre months would do), but perhaps it's time for Quentin to exercise some restraint, just to see if he can still pull a movie in under 2 hours (like Reservoir Dogs).
Inglorious Bastards by underscore_only	Mar 23rd, 2005 11:23:58 PM
Anyone who doesn't think the title's badass and oddly poetic's a jackass. God, this better star Sam Jackson, Madsen, Willis, Keitel, Uma and . . . fuck, too many people to name. OOHH! Bring back BUSCEMI!
No More Damnable Two Parters! by Duck of Death	Mar 24th, 2005 01:09:55 AM
Just make a fucking five hour film and charge me double, I don't care, just stop with this splitting movies into two pieces shit. Kill Bill would have been so much better had it been released as one film.
Oceansized, you're an idiot. by I saved Latin	Mar 24th, 2005 01:29:39 AM
Saying that Glorious Bastards is a better title is absurd. It sounds like the movie he's making is about INGLORIOUS bastards. What are you missing here? Are you saying it would be better if the characters were in fact glorious? Because that's NOT THE MOVIE HE'S MAKING. You keep saying you're assuming they redeem themselves by doing something glorious. ??????????? is all I can say to that. Ridiculous.
Quints a jackass by Bronzewood	Mar 24th, 2005 02:18:28 AM
So because Tarantino already said that this movie was written more as a series instantly it becomes his "Kill Bill Formula" what a jack ass. Here's a thought you don't have to compare every directors next movie with their last.
The title has been used before by JWBlack67	Mar 24th, 2005 02:47:57 AM
I thought it was common knowledge that he is ripping the title from this previous flick: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt00 76584
I heard he is doing a Starcraft/Warcraft type movie.. by Jon E Cin	Mar 24th, 2005 03:40:34 AM
Apparantly asking Blizzard for some rights to do something....
nooooooooooo not again, one movie, please by CuervoJones	Mar 24th, 2005 04:59:58 AM

Now you say he will be using his Kill Bill formula, but didn't h by trouserpress	Mar 24th, 2005 05:29:30 AM
And cut it in two to keep Miramax happy? They made twice as much money as if it was one movie!
THATS OLD NEWS by TarantinoWebsite	Mar 24th, 2005 06:29:30 AM
tarantino.info featured this story days ago... AICN really lost much of its up-to-date-nes
What happened to the Western "Papillon" by BarrelRider	Mar 24th, 2005 07:54:13 AM
Anybody remember that one?
"the Sheriff from Kill Bill vol. 1" by BarrelRider	Mar 24th, 2005 07:57:39 AM
Show some respect and call him by his proper name: Michael Parks, the most consistently good actor in the Kill Bill movies.
"the Sheriff from Kill Bill vol. 1" by oh_riginal	Mar 24th, 2005 08:52:49 AM
This actor played the VERY SAME CHARACTER in the first From Dusk Til Dawn, making his scene in Kill Bill Vol. 1 actually a prequel scene to his moment in FDTD, since he died in that flick. Cool huh? Now I heard somewhere that he wanted Adam Sandler, Sly Stallone, Michael Madsen (only one confirmed so far, it seems), and Ah-nuld, Da Governator, to star in this. Now who doesn't think that would be an awesome movie!!! Sly and Arnold said somewhere that they've always wanted to do a movie together, but never found the right script, etc. If anyone can squeeze these two into a movie, its Quentin, since he has a way of making every role feel like its a big part, even if the screen time is small. I hope he gets those on his wishlist, and comes up with a few more cool actors to add to that list. Some people hear his thoughts on casting Sandler and think "what the fuck is that shit????" But I think he knows what hes doing when it comes to casting, and if he wants Sandler to play in the movie, then I'll just trust his instinct, and hope its not a mistake.
Yeah yeah yeah, everything's "the next project" by LoneChicken	Mar 24th, 2005 09:15:20 AM
I'll believe it when I see a trailer. Every other movie idea seems to be Tarantino's so-called next project.
Okay, I know the difference between Inglorious and Glorious ... by riskebiz	Mar 24th, 2005 11:03:05 AM
... But "Glorius Bastards" is a far far better movie title than the clunker "Inglorious Bastards". It's harder to swallow than liver.
Anatomy of a rumour by numberface	Mar 24th, 2005 11:34:16 AM
IN A BAR SOMEWHERE: QT (drunk off his ass): "Gee ya know man, I'd really like to -- you know what I'd really like to do man? A Zombie musical. Except cast porn stars as all the zombies. That would be cool. I'm kidding of course..." THE NEXT DAY IN THE MEDIA: "Tarantino announces Zombie Porn Musical!!!"
IsavedLatin, you sad, sad little person. by oceansized	Mar 24th, 2005 02:24:37 PM
Did you happen to notice what Grobe and I did? We disagreed and had an actual exchange of ideas about why we disagreed. But apparently your little brain can't handle someone having a different opinion. This country is overrun with simpletons just like you whose reaction to any opposing point of view is YOU DISAGREE WITH ME?! WELL THEN YOUR'RE AN IDIOT! So what's your deal IsavedLatin? (Great name by the way) Are you just venting frusteration because life's been really unfair to you? Or do you literally lack the mental capacity to maturely deal with a viewpoint that isn't yours? Well if the latter's the case, then I apologize for making fun of your disability.
mrfantasto, that last post of yours is just brilliant!!! by oceansized	Mar 24th, 2005 02:42:06 PM
Your're basically saying "you people who don't accept a movie exactly as is are ruining great cinema" and then go on to express that you thought True Romance was too slick and would've been better as a smaller film. Well fantasto, by your own hairbrained logic, that means you would've ruined TR if you shared your opinion at a test screening for it. So long have you been with Mensa, mrfantasto? Hey maybe you and IsavedLatin can hook up sometime to split atoms together. Now for all I know you may have had a massive head injury earlier in life. If that's the case, I do apologize for ridiculing you.
You can't have it both ways, mrfantasto... by Childe Roland	Mar 24th, 2005 03:39:20 PM
...if you are going to try and credit Tarantino with the story for Reservoir Dogs, then you have to give True Romance wholly to Scott. What Tarantino did to City on Fire to get Dogs is very much like what Scott did to QT's original story to get True Romance (Dogs was one act of Fire, TR was about half of the story QT wrote). Each kept what worked from the source material and altered it according to his own sensibilities. The difference is, Tarantino was given screen credit on True Romance and didn't see fit to do the same on Dogs. Endorse that kind of "idea borrowing" if you like, but the bottom line is QT can really only take partial credit for either film and both are far better than anything he's done wholly on his own (especially the highly overrated Pulp Fiction).
The whole of True Romance was written by Tarantino by Gheorghe Zamfir	Mar 24th, 2005 05:12:25 PM
The original screenplay was much longer, and it was cut into half (the other half was turned into Natural Born Killers), but I don't know how this is a slight against Tarantino, its still his screenplay.
Do your homework, mrfantasto... by Childe Roland	Mar 24th, 2005 05:13:29 PM
...and you'll discover that the story for True Romance was actually part of a larger story... the first feature length script ever written by Tarantino with considerable help from Roger Avary, his video store buddy, (who, by the way, Tarantino never credited). It was broken into two parts and sold off to fund Reservoir Dogs. The part of the story that became True Romance may well have been shot as Tarantino (and Avary) scripted it, but it was edited into a more cohesive, linear form that, in many people's opinions, made it a superior film to your beloved Pulp. The other half of that original story QT cowrote, FYI, eventually became Natural Born Killers (look for the familiar character names if you don't believe me). And the similarities between the plot, character dynamics and even visual set pieces in City on Fire and Reservoir Dogs have been well documented, so you can apologize for your hero QT all you want but he's a plagiaristic, credit-taking hack with a serious ego problem. And I could have told you this conversation was pointless when you started prattling on about how Pulp blew your mind or rocked your world or whatever it did gfor you the first fifty times you watched it. Must be nice to have such shallowly anchored cinematic sensibilities.
Fuck, I'm STILL waiting for the DVD that edits KB back into one by minderbinder	Mar 24th, 2005 05:13:39 PM
In the meantime, the downloads were fairly amusing.
Gheorghe gets... by Childe Roland	Mar 24th, 2005 05:16:12 PM
...partial credit for digging a bit, but not deep enough to find the whole truth. Nice effort, though. If I'm right about True Romance being part of a story, who wants to be me I'm wrong about Avary co-writing it and not getting credited?
mrfantasto, no response to my post about you! by oceansized	Mar 24th, 2005 05:16:48 PM
To recap: Because I questioned the title of the movie, you said that I'm an example of someone ruining great cinema. From there, I picked apart your unbelievably dimwitted argument and basically left you looking like a sorry fool. And after all this you repost and have nothing to say to me back?! Well, sometimes silence is just as good as admission of guilt. But knowing your type you'll come back with "I won't dignify you with a response" or some other bullshit answer.
Avary was already mentioned by a previous poster by Gheorghe Zamfir	Mar 24th, 2005 05:22:14 PM
A couple of em actually, didn't see any need to be repetitive about it.
And don't say "Tarantino never credited" by Gheorghe Zamfir	Mar 24th, 2005 05:24:50 PM
The writing credits on movies are arbitrated by the WGA, Tarantino, Scott, nor Avary have no say in it (often times writers will go uncredited even when the other writers and directors fight for them to get credit), you think if he just ripped him off they'd have kept working together?
And while I'm catching up on the TB by Gheorghe Zamfir	Mar 24th, 2005 05:41:47 PM
it was Tarantino's decision to split the screenplay into two, not Scott's (both NBK and True Romanec had been sold Scott even signed on to direct True Romance).
edit by Gheorghe Zamfir	Mar 24th, 2005 05:43:39 PM
(both NBK and True Romance had been sold before Scott even signed on to direct), and try to ignore the double negative in the post up above that one.
It's convenient, Gheorghe, that you... by Childe Roland	Mar 24th, 2005 05:45:03 PM
...omit a detail that negates your oh-so-definitive statement: "The whole of True Romance was written by Tarantino" and then try to pass it off as your not wanting to be repetitive. Hear that sound? It's your credibility leaking out through your squeak hole. And you tell me: if your buddy fails to credit you on an early collaboration but is clearly riding a gravy train to success, wouldn't you stick with him regardless ijn the hopes of getting some on you? Do you have any idea how many people's ideas are taken and passed off as someone else's on a daily basis simply because the individual being ripped off is too tired or dependent on the person shafting them to object? It happens. Just like being wrong... so you ought to be able to relate.
Nobody ever said Scott... by Childe Roland	Mar 24th, 2005 05:49:40 PM
...broke up the origianl Tarantino/Avary script. But he did change what he got from Tarantino and Avary (both the ending and the order of the scenes at the very least). Try to keep up, Gheorghe.
And I'll... by Childe Roland	Mar 24th, 2005 05:55:24 PM
...try to slow down a bit. In looking back, I noticed my need for speed is costing me an average of one typo per post. In my defense, I'm going at this with two broken fingers on my right hand, so I apologize for the mess.
Well Childe Roland and Gheorghe Zamfir, at least you two have th by oceansized	Mar 24th, 2005 06:18:52 PM
Where are you fellas? You know I wouldn't of outed you both as imbeciles if you hadn't gotten nasty with me first. When you give shit to people you don't know, you might be playing out of your league. Try to remember that. Of course, if either of your little noodles come up with some snappy comeback, I'd still love to hear them.
Childe by Gheorghe Zamfir	Mar 24th, 2005 07:49:29 PM
You said: "What Tarantino did to City on Fire to get Dogs is very much like what Scott did to QT's original story to get True Romance (Dogs was one act of Fire, TR was about half of the story QT wrote)." Either you're suggesting Scott rewrote half the screenplay, or you're assuming it was Scott's decision to use the half of the story that ended up being True Romance. And maybe I'm simply misunderstanding you. And that Avary wrote True Romance was not only mentioned by previous posters, it was mentioned by the very poster I was responding too, so yes, I had no need to point it out again. Especially since I wasn't suggesting that QT wrote TR alone anyways, I was clearing up confusion that there seemed to be from saying TR was half of QT's screenplay, I was simply making sure it was understand that that did not mean that QT's screenplay was rewritten by Scott, and that only half of his original writing remained, but that it was his whole screenplay. And yes, I realize you never said this, I was simply clearing the statement up. And I'll say again, the WGA arbitrates screen credit, not Quentin Tarantino.
Cast John Goodman and Ed O'Neill in this. by Wild At Heart	Mar 24th, 2005 09:52:46 PM
I'd be interested to see what Tarantino would do with them there fellers.
Look, fantasto and Zamfir... by Childe Roland	Mar 24th, 2005 11:30:20 PM
...I've done all I needed to do here, which was to prove my point that Tarantino's fans (which both of you clearly are) give him way too much credit. Both of you insisted that Tarantino wrote True Romance alone, both of you were proven wrong. Fantasto insists Reservoir Dogs isn't a rip off of City on Fire? If you can't see it for what it is, that's a you issue. You're also pimping box office as the measure of how good a film is? How does that make sense? You need to see a film at least once (sometimes more) to decide if it's any good. Miramax hyped the shit out of Pulp and fanboys like you bought it hook line and sinker. I was a film critic when it came out and it was certainly NOT universally praised. You think because some press clipping for a Bruce Willis film mentions Tarantino's name in the same breath as Hitchcock that's proof of his genius? You'll have to explain the physics of that. And Zamfir, you're just pathetic. My statements in previous posts were clear as bells and you've gone and contradicted yourself from the get go with your big bold "The whole of True Romance was written by Tarantino" headline, which you have admitted in subsequent posts is untrue. And you were trying to clear what statement up, precisely? Learn to form and follow a coherent train of thought before you try to argue that it's the right one, m'kay?
am i the only one who thinks its too soon for Quentin to be doin by Harrierthanthee	Mar 25th, 2005 12:25:24 AM
just saying cause than we might have to wait even longer for him to make another. As for actors, I was kinda thinking it might be cool if less famous actors who haven't worked with him were in this movie
Even Tarantino's manager says he can't do anything original by Dagan	Mar 25th, 2005 11:27:01 AM
I love Tarantino's films. But he's a synthesizer, not someone who can do original work. Even his manager admits this - he's had to baild QT out of TV episodes he was supposed to write for shows like The Practice because Tarantino decided he "just couldn't do it", almost in tears, begging the guy to get him out of it. Reservoir Dogs is not just "another undercover story" - it is City on Fire's third act expanded into a feature film, period. Things are exactly the same, even shots, characters, scenes, etc. City on Fire is a great film(especially if you know Cantonese), but regardless of what you think of it versus Reservoir Dogs, there's no question that Tarantino ADAPTED his screenplay using that as a source material - yet he declined to give credit, which is just assholish and misleading. True Romance - heavily co-written by Roger Avary. Pulp Fiction - heavily co-written by Roger Avary - Avary had a contractual "Screenplay by" on the story just like Tarantino, but after shooting Tarantino called and asked Avary if he would take a story by credit instead. Avary refused, and Tarantino flew off the handle, saying he wanted it to say "Written and Directed by Quentin Tarantino", and that "When you're trying to make a media star you can't confuse people about who did what." Avary finally relented when Tarantino offered him more money and more percentage of the backend, which Avary had to take because he'd just finished Killing Zoe and had just maxed out all his Credit Cards making it - he desperately needed the money. But the entire boxer story with the Gimp, the Watch up his ass, etc. was Avary's, and he had other big contributions as well. Pulp also has a bunch of other thefts - even Ezekiel 25:17, which isn't the real Bible verse, of course, comes from another movie. When Tarantino was acting in that film, what was it? Talk to Me, or something, he stole an anectode about Top Gun from Avary and passed it off as his own ad-lib. Jackie Brown - adapted from a book(but at least he gave the guy credit this time). Kill Bill? Wonderful, but nothing more than a pastiche of thousands of films thrown together - there's hardly an original thing in it, just a bunch of cool scenes from other movies put together. A friend was recently watching an old Tobe Hooper movie - in it, a guy comes in and says "My name is Buck, and I'm here to fuck!". He steals just about EVERYTHING. The guy's a genius, certainly, and I'm glad he's making films. But he should credit from the films he steals from and stop trying to act like what he's doing is so original. Though in a way, I guess it is original - steal a bunch of stuff from other sources, paste them altogether in a way that really works, and pass it all off as your own. Pretty original way to make movies, Quentin.
Anytime, fantasto... by Childe Roland	Mar 25th, 2005 01:03:16 PM
...I'd be happy to debate the relative merits of QT as a film maker. At least with someone who doesn't have his name tatooed on his scrotum. You've clearly been brainwashed. For your education, though, since you seem to think you're the only one who should be able to make unprovable statements (you have yet to prove in any way shape or form that Pulp is better than True Romance except by spewing hyperbole), I'll go ahead and toss you one example just from this very limited talkback of someone who agrees with my assessment. Check out voicebox's opinion on True Romance. And he (I assume he's a he) and I disagree on plenty when it comes to movies. That's just one person within easy reach. Virtually every rational and objective person I've spoken with on the subject (and it comes up more frequently than you might think) has agreed with me that TrueRomance is a more cohesive, better acted, more compelling and ultimately more functional film than Pulp. These aren't all friends, either (in fact many were as resentful as you that I'd knocked their favorite filmmaker off the pedestal for them and downgraded him to just a very talented screenwriter, but they didn't deny it once the evidence was before them). I was a film critic because I was able to retain a certain amount of objectivity when it came to watching movies (at least until the new Star Wars movies came out). I'm able to admit that QT has done some good (his dialogue in True Romance and Crimson Tide are genius, his adaptation of the third act of City on Fire into Reservoir Dogs made for a fantastic film, regardless of the fact that it wasn't his original idea) but I also know he's layed his share of stinky turd trails (Kill Bill vol. 1, Four Rooms and From Dusk 'til Dawn) and mediocre movies (Kill Bill 2, Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown). That kind of complex appreciation for and evaluation of an artist's wider body of work something you're clearly incapable of (as it jeopardizes your image of your cinematic hero) so, yes, continuing a conversation with you is pointless. You enjoy the next steamy cup of #3 Miramax dumps over your head under QT's name, regardless of who really wrote it. Until people start telling this hack that not everything he touches turns to gold, he'll just keep on squeezing out self-indulgent shit.
Dagan, that's a pretty good argument but... by Avon	Mar 25th, 2005 02:59:59 PM
Quentin is still a kick ass writer and Director, whatever the 'source'.
please no by berserk	Mar 25th, 2005 04:37:37 PM
i'd rather pay $11 for one 3 hour film than $22 for two 1:30 to 1:45 hour films.
Avon - I agree by Dagan	Mar 25th, 2005 05:47:37 PM
I agree with you about that. Quentin IS a great writer and a very good director, too - he pulls very good performances out of his actors, for the most part(though I thought Uma and especially Daryl Hannah weren't all that great in the Kill Bill movies). However, I was just pointing out that he has a very negative trait - stealing other people's ideas and passing them off as his own, not able to willing to give credit where it is due. The examples I gave above are literally just the tip of the iceberg - there's simply hardly an original idea in any of Quentin Tarantino's movies - everything in them that filmgoers think is so "cool" and uniquely Quentin is something he almost certainly lifted from some other, more obscure film. Quentin Tarantino's genius is with dialogue, and with taking all these "cool" elements and making them work together as a whole in a very cool way. But it is still pretty crappy of him to take credit for all these ideas when he took them from somebody else.
Wow, fantasto... by Childe Roland	Mar 26th, 2005 08:58:03 AM
...you sure put me in my place. I mean, the way you latched onto the ONE unprovable statement in my argument... that I and many other people (not even "most" people, mind you, I just said "many") consider True Romance a superior film to Pulp... makes you the king of limited scope and quarter-assed debating capability. When did I ever say I hated Pulp, as you assert in your last post? Never. I enjoy the film every so often as a diversion. It's a cool little collection of shorts all shuffled together in an unusual way. But I (and others) consider True Romance a better film. How DARE we? Deal with it. You also said in your last post that I have nothing to show anyone else agrees with me on that point, but in the same post you admit that at least one other person on this board agreed with me and that does nothing for you. Again... BAD debating, kid. I say kid because you debate like a ten year old and because the first thing you asked for in questioning my film critic cred was a link. I was reviewing movies well before every little thing printed was put on the Internet and in a town that was slow to archive its older stuff, so I'm afraid you're out of luck. You'll just have to accept that, with the exception of the one point you latched onto because of the nature of its unprovability, I've backed up every other assertion I've made about Tarantino in this talkback... and others have helped. He DID NOT write all of True Romance himself. He did "borrow" more than just universally recognizable crime drama conventions from a movie called City on Fire to make Reservoir Dogs. He has been involved in both good and bad films. And I'm even going to go ahead and say that the one unprovable point I made - a very small side note in my overall argument that QT is overrated - has also been proven to an acceptable degree in that at least one other person in this talkback has come forward as saying they believe Romance is superior to Pulp. That, if nothing else, completely knocks your idea that Pulp is universally revered off it's ridiculous fanboy high horse. You have NOTHING to show for yourself this or the wider argument except some AFI list. There's a lot of stuff on there that folks question (there are lots of people who believe Empire is a better film than Star Wars, but the list doesn't reflect that... hell, most sci-fi adventure fans will admit that Raiders is an objectively better film overall in terms of story, acting and special effects than the original Star Wars, but the list doesn't show that either). So you cling to your list and the credit QT has received for things he didn't do (or at least didn't do alone), if that helps you sleep better at night. I'll stick with the facts. But I'll leave you with one last does of objectivity: I can understand why a guy like you (and there are plenty like you) would think Pulp and Kill Bill are "great" movies. They're probably just like the movie you would make if you fell into a budget and some credibility. "We can take this fight scene from this movie and this character from this movie and he can say this line from this movie and drive this car from this movie... wouldn't that be cool?" And I agree that much of what QT cobbles together is "cool" in a very cocktail lounge singer medly sort of way. But that doesn't make it all "good," much less "great" or even "original." TV reality shows get high ratings for the same reason QT's movies do big box office... they don't ask much of the viewer. They just present a largely disconnected series of moments that folks will hopefully relate to enough not to change the channel (and QT's dialogue feels pretty "real," doesn't it?). Apparently storytelling is a dying art. Maybe that's why so many folks are willing to settle for Star Wars prequels that are cool looking but short on substance and Keanu Reeves movies where he looks bad ass in a trench coat and sunglasses. In that sense, maybe Tarantino is the cream of the new crop... but it's pretty shitty pickings, for the most part. Anyway, take a logic course, kid. Then come back and debate me when you're not so deluded by your man love for a guy you're obviously not ready to take a close look at.
Sure he steals... by Wee Willie	Mar 26th, 2005 09:07:42 PM
But he steals well. Kubrick NEVEr made an original screenplay. Always adaptations. How is he different?
WWII - why? by WayOutWest	Mar 27th, 2005 07:20:55 PM
Oh, I know. Because QT wants to. I have no desire to see another WWII movie - one part, two parts, five parts. And especially if the usual pretty boy sodomites - Clooney, Damon, etc - are in it. I like QT's stuff, even if as this debate has uncovered, he occasionally (or often) 'borrows' from other sources - doesn't bother me I because I probably would have never seen them.

Talkbacks

INGLORIOUS BASTARDS to be broken up into two volumes KILL BILL style'

User login

Quick Talkback

Talkbacks