-

Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Grindhouse - New Tarantino/Rodriguez film announced..


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
265 replies to this topic

#21 of 266 OFFLINE   Jefferson Morris

Jefferson Morris

    Supporting Actor

  • 823 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 20 2000

Posted October 14 2006 - 02:56 AM

Quote:
He mentioned the double feature concept at Comic Con.
Cool. Let's hope he manages to push that through.

Quote:
Oh, and Rose McGowan looks HOT in that opening scene.
Amen. Nice to see her liberated from the weekly banality of Charmed.

--Jefferson Morris
"If fakes, they were masterpieces."

--The New York Times commenting on Willis O'Brien's dinosaurs in The Lost World (1925).

"From the two trailers I've seen, the movie looks like AIDS."--Recent thread post on AICN

#22 of 266 OFFLINE   DavidPla

DavidPla

    Screenwriter

  • 2,357 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 15 2004

Posted December 21 2006 - 06:16 AM

Trailer is out for "Grindhouse". Looks amazing... captured the feel of the previews from the 1970s perfectly...

http://movies.yahoo....ndhouse_hd.html

#23 of 266 OFFLINE   TravisR

TravisR

    Studio Mogul

  • 22,009 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 15 2004
  • LocationThe basement of the FBI building

Posted December 21 2006 - 06:48 AM

I'm definitely biased but that looks freaking awesome! Posted Image

Thanks for the link.

#24 of 266 OFFLINE   Ray H

Ray H

    Producer

  • 3,481 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 13 2002
  • Real Name:Ray
  • LocationNJ

Posted December 21 2006 - 07:29 AM

I wasn't alive for the 70s so may I remark that that looks really odd.
"Here's looking at you, kid."

 


#25 of 266 OFFLINE   JeremySt

JeremySt

    Screenwriter

  • 1,772 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 19 2001

Posted December 21 2006 - 03:51 PM

Egad. Pants.... getting.... tighter.....

#26 of 266 OFFLINE   rich_d

rich_d

    Screenwriter

  • 1,997 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 21 2001
  • Real Name:Rich
  • LocationConnecticut

Posted December 22 2006 - 01:35 AM

Holy crap that looks like fun.

#27 of 266 OFFLINE   Gabriel>P

Gabriel>P

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 64 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 10 2005

Posted December 22 2006 - 02:55 PM

I just don't get it. Why do OT and RR get away with just copying crap from the 70s and 80s, that a good amount of the time wasn't good in the first place?

To be honest, this looks terrible.

#28 of 266 OFFLINE   TravisR

TravisR

    Studio Mogul

  • 22,009 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 15 2004
  • LocationThe basement of the FBI building

Posted December 22 2006 - 03:15 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabriel>P
Why do OT and RR get away with just copying crap from the 70s and 80s
Based upon this trailer, exactly what movies are they are copying? I don't ever remember seeing a movie with a chick with a machine gun for a leg.

#29 of 266 OFFLINE   Don Solosan

Don Solosan

    Supporting Actor

  • 748 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 14 2003

Posted December 22 2006 - 05:57 PM

Gabriel,
I think the big difference is that a lot of exploitation movies in the past were sold based on their poster art. It didn't matter if the movies were crap (and most of them were), because distributors knew they would get an audience and by the time word of mouth kicked in, it would be gone, replaced by some other promise of illicit thrills.

Tarantino and Rodriguez take that a step further by trying to deliver on the promise. I'll be the first to admit that they're not always successful, but darned if they don't try. And it doesn't hurt that they have a decent amount of money to work with -- something those poor bastards turning out Z-grade stuff for drive-ins never had. So where they would show you a poster featuring a beautiful girl with a gun for a leg and you'd see the movie and not only was there no gun, but no beautiful girl; T and R say, "Let's have a beautiful girl with a gun for a leg," and go crazy. Bless their little hearts!

#30 of 266 OFFLINE   rich_d

rich_d

    Screenwriter

  • 1,997 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 21 2001
  • Real Name:Rich
  • LocationConnecticut

Posted December 23 2006 - 02:55 AM

Looks like the publicity photo given Yahoo has been deliberately reversed. In the trailer it's clear that the gun is attached to Rose's right leg not her left.

Perhaps that the sort of thing Grindhouse wants to do, put in those little things that happen on low budget films.

#31 of 266 OFFLINE   JonZ

JonZ

    Lead Actor

  • 7,793 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 28 1998

Posted December 23 2006 - 03:37 AM

"To be honest, this looks terrible."

The machine gun leg goes a bit overboard I think.

#32 of 266 OFFLINE   AaronMan

AaronMan

    Second Unit

  • 286 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 20 2003
  • Real Name:Aaron

Posted December 23 2006 - 07:19 PM

Ha ha ha! I love the complete opposite reactions this is getting. People are loving the idea or hating it. One thing I've always liked about Tarantino is that he doesn't compormise one bit. No gray area at all. He does what gets him hard and if anyone else likes it, then that's a bonus to him. I think Grindhouse is going to be the most kick ass movie of 2007. Looks like Kurt Russell's best work since the early 80s. Tom Savini is going to be so great.

Here's my point of view. This is like getting the best chefs in the world to make a hamburger. Yeah its just a hamburger, but goddamn, does it taste good!

#33 of 266 OFFLINE   Gabriel>P

Gabriel>P

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 64 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 10 2005

Posted December 23 2006 - 11:29 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by TravisR
Based upon this trailer, exactly what movies are they are copying? I don't ever remember seeing a movie with a chick with a machine gun for a leg.

Machine gun leg aside, Planet Terror looks like a whacky version of the Dead series. When I refer to Tarantino it has more to do with the fact that most of his films feel like Scorsese light. With storylines plucked from the other places of film.

Pulp Fiction really is After Hours mixed with The Killing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Solosan
Gabriel,
I think the big difference is that a lot of exploitation movies in the past were sold based on their poster art. It didn't matter if the movies were crap (and most of them were), because distributors knew they would get an audience and by the time word of mouth kicked in, it would be gone, replaced by some other promise of illicit thrills.

Tarantino and Rodriguez take that a step further by trying to deliver on the promise. I'll be the first to admit that they're not always successful, but darned if they don't try. And it doesn't hurt that they have a decent amount of money to work with -- something those poor bastards turning out Z-grade stuff for drive-ins never had. So where they would show you a poster featuring a beautiful girl with a gun for a leg and you'd see the movie and not only was there no gun, but no beautiful girl; T and R say, "Let's have a beautiful girl with a gun for a leg," and go crazy. Bless their little hearts!

I understand this thinking. But if anyone else was making this film, no one would care.

Tarantino I really do love but it feels like he just takes whatever style of film he wants, takes a Scorsese take on the situation, and then throws everything but the kitchen sink in.

#34 of 266 OFFLINE   Haggai

Haggai

    Producer

  • 3,883 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 03 2003

Posted December 24 2006 - 02:28 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabriel>P
I understand this thinking. But if anyone else was making this film, no one would care.

People who don't like Tarantino (though I acknowledge your saying that you do like him, Gabriel) seem to say this kind of thing a lot, which I can never understand. "Nobody would like his movies if it was someone else doing them," "it's only his name on it that gets people excited," etc. Well, YEAH, given his track record, people are going to be excited for his particular take on things. Fans of his like and appreciate his style. I really don't get why he seems to prompt so much criticism along the lines of "people don't REALLY like his movies, they just say so because they want to look cool." Um, OK, whatever.

#35 of 266 OFFLINE   rich_d

rich_d

    Screenwriter

  • 1,997 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 21 2001
  • Real Name:Rich
  • LocationConnecticut

Posted December 24 2006 - 02:36 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabriel>P
Machine gun leg aside, Planet Terror looks like a whacky version of the Dead series. When I refer to Tarantino it has more to do with the fact that most of his films feel like Scorsese light. With storylines plucked from the other places of film.

Pulp Fiction really is After Hours mixed with The Killing.

And Raging Bull was Requiem For A Heavyweight mixed with On The Waterfront meets Sonny Corleone.

Happy?

Can't we just avoid the 'Scorsese Light' kind of insults? I mean what is gained by the 'well he's not as good as John Ford' kind of comment?

To my way of thinking, Tarantino is a very honest kind of director who references other people's work so directly that many film fans get the reference. As opposed to those that just 'borrow' ideas and aren't as forthcoming.

Btw, I LOVE After Hours, but I sure don't get any strong connection to Pulp Fiction.

#36 of 266 OFFLINE   Shawn_KE

Shawn_KE

    Screenwriter

  • 1,295 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 25 2003

Posted December 24 2006 - 04:00 AM

Now with Kurt Russell added, this will be the greatest movie ever made.

#37 of 266 OFFLINE   Don Solosan

Don Solosan

    Supporting Actor

  • 748 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 14 2003

Posted December 24 2006 - 06:43 AM

"But if anyone else was making this film, no one would care."

This I also respectfully disagree with. I love these kinds of films when they deliver on the crazy thrills that they promise. I don't care who's behind the camera as long as they keep the story interesting and moving.

#38 of 266 OFFLINE   Gabriel>P

Gabriel>P

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 64 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 10 2005

Posted December 24 2006 - 08:34 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggai
People who don't like Tarantino (though I acknowledge your saying that you do like him, Gabriel) seem to say this kind of thing a lot, which I can never understand. "Nobody would like his movies if it was someone else doing them," "it's only his name on it that gets people excited," etc. Well, YEAH, given his track record, people are going to be excited for his particular take on things. Fans of his like and appreciate his style. I really don't get why he seems to prompt so much criticism along the lines of "people don't REALLY like his movies, they just say so because they want to look cool." Um, OK, whatever.

He just doesn't seem to have a style of his own though. That is the problem with the situation. His work is as good as his material. Most of which I don't feel is all that orignal.

Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown, and Kill Bill are all great films to me. How much that has to do with QT is my question. Which is why I do not see why his track record means all that much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rich_d
And Raging Bull was Requiem For A Heavyweight mixed with On The Waterfront meets Sonny Corleone.

Happy?

Haven't seen Requiem, but I really don't get the Sonny vibe. Other then boxing and the both stories revolving around brothers, don't get the On the Waterfront reference either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rich_d
Can't we just avoid the 'Scorsese Light' kind of insults? I mean what is gained by the 'well he's not as good as John Ford' kind of comment?

To my way of thinking, Tarantino is a very honest kind of director who references other people's work so directly that many film fans get the reference. As opposed to those that just 'borrow' ideas and aren't as forthcoming.


Does he? This is the man that wouldn't admit that The Killing influenced Pulp Fiction, and pretty much tells anyone off that attempts to ask him such question.

And that is what really gets me about him. A couple of years ago he really was the man to me. But perhaps the rumors that he seems to believe that he is untouchable by the likes of Kubrick and Welles bothers me.

QT is like a gateway drug. He is the best thing you ever had, until you see what is on the other side.

Or maybe it is because he gives off this aura of "I am the man and no one can say different", that really has me down on him.

Sorry though for the "Lite" comment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rich_d
Btw, I LOVE After Hours, but I sure don't get any strong connection to Pulp Fiction.

The entire date sequence for me is After Hours. Also the scene with Mr. Leather felt like a take on Horst.

Honestly though I can't explain it. I just get the exact same vibe.

#39 of 266 OFFLINE   Andy Sheets

Andy Sheets

    Screenwriter

  • 2,371 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 06 2000

Posted December 25 2006 - 01:20 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabriel>P
He just doesn't seem to have a style of his own though. That is the problem with the situation. His work is as good as his material. Most of which I don't feel is all that orignal.

If you watch his movies and you really can't perceive his style, I don't know what to say. It's pretty obvious to me.

Quote:
Or maybe it is because he gives off this aura of "I am the man and no one can say different", that really has me down on him.

Well, yeah, if I was locked in the same room with him, I'd probably want to strangle him, but I do like his movies Posted Image

#40 of 266 OFFLINE   rich_d

rich_d

    Screenwriter

  • 1,997 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 21 2001
  • Real Name:Rich
  • LocationConnecticut

Posted December 25 2006 - 02:53 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabriel>P
Haven't seen Requiem, but I really don't get the Sonny vibe. Other then boxing and the both stories revolving around brothers, don't get the On the Waterfront reference either.

Requiem For A Heavyweight is a terrrific film. Don't have anyone tell you about it just see it at some point. Terrific acting, great story.

The Sonny vibe? Short hothead that lets his emotions get the better of him and that ultimately cost him.

On The Waterfront? I was thinking of Terry Malloy's struggle under mob control of the waterfront and deciding who works and who doesn't. Admittedly that one was pretty flip and pretty loose. Posted Image

Quote:

Does he? This is the man that wouldn't admit that The Killing influenced Pulp Fiction, and pretty much tells anyone off that attempts to ask him such question.

And that is what really gets me about him. A couple of years ago he really was the man to me. But perhaps the rumors that he seems to believe that he is untouchable by the likes of Kubrick and Welles bothers me.

QT is like a gateway drug. He is the best thing you ever had, until you see what is on the other side.

Or maybe it is because he gives off this aura of "I am the man and no one can say different", that really has me down on him.

Sorry though for the "Lite" comment.

No problem. Cheers.

There is a long history of filmmakers that don't specifically talk about the meaning or specific points of their films as they believe that the work should speak for themselves. A perfect example of this is David Lynch. If anyone has a David Lynch quote truly explaining one of his films or even a segment of it, please let me know. It will be a first.

Tarantino is not in that category. Look at the 'reference notes' that are available on both Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs dvds. Point being that he is willing to give more than most.

Every director likes to keep some things to themselves. Like a good magician that should just be expected IMHO.


Back to Movies (Theatrical)



Forum Nav Content I Follow