>But here is the thing. Thats fine if it works. If it doesn't
>work, then what? And in Death Proof, it was a hindrance.

i don't think it was.

in talking about this movie (and himself, obviously) QT has alluded a lot to the fact that he feels like he is jerking the audience off and he wants to make the audience cum, but first he wants to tease them... delay the pleasure... play with them.

while i do think that the talky sequences went on too long, i understand what he was *trying* to do there.

he knows we've all seen these kinds of movies... we know what's gonna happen next and we're waiting for it... but he's gonna fuck with us a bit first.

see... to me, that is trying to do something new with an old format, and it's much more creative than doing an A = A parody with all the jokes surrounded by big blinking neon lights.

there's lots of playing with the audience expectations in the movie... like at the very beginning where Vanessa Ferlito is running up the stairs screaming that she's gotta take a massive piss... because QT knows that *we* in the audience have probably got to piss too, after sitting through Death Proof....

(mind you, i'm not saying that small, subtle touches like this should make Death Proof a great movie if you already hate it, but i'm just pointing out the pattern of deliberately manipulating the audience.)

>How
>many foot shots did we have to see over and over again? How
>many old movies did they have to mention every single time? It
>didn't work.

and how many times does Spike Lee have to use that dolly shot to make characters look like they're gliding?

(i'm sorry to keep bringing up Spike, but he's just a good candidate to illustrate the way directors have certain tropes and trademarks that they return to again and again, for better or worse)

>Quentin falls in this category with Death Proof.
>
>Not Rodriguez. These films are right up Rob's alley. He can do
>these in his sleep. Desperado, Dusk till Dawn, Sin City,

exactly... he *can* make these movies in his sleep, and that's part of the problem.

apart from El Mariachi, the only Rodriguez film that does not fall apart narratively before the end is Sin City... and that is based on someone else's script.

Rodriguez obviously has a problem with storytelling... he's even admitted it himself. what Planet Terror does is give him an opportunity to engage in some poor storytelling with the caveat that he's "being bad on purpose" because he's spoofing bad movies.

i personally think that's really cheap. i know some people like that kind of thing, though.

but it's suspect to me when your "bad on purpose" shit is really the same as your "regaular" shit.

and make no mistake: i LOVE Rodriguez... but let's be real about his shortcomings.

>>so when you watch Planet Terror and it makes no narrative
>>sense, and Marley Shelton's character breaks her hand when
>>she's trynna open the car door, if you ask why her hand is
>>perfectly unharmed 5 seconds later, you're a loser because
>>you're "taking it too seriously."
>>
>
>no, it was funny.
>
>mofos busted out laughing when she broke her hand in the
>theatre.

yeah, it was funny when she broke her hand.

but the thing about storytelling is that it requires *commitment.*

when you decide to break a character's hand because you think it's funny, you are *stuck* with the broken hand and you have got to make it work from there on out for the rest of the story.

if you need the character to drive a car 5 seconds later, you are stuck with that broken hand (and actually, if you are smart... you should actually be able to use that broken hand as an opportunity to milk further laughs and suspense)

but breaking the hand to get a big laugh and then immediately fixing the hand because you need the character to use it again... it's just cheap pandering and bad storytelling. and it's worse when you try to pass it off as "bad on purpose."

>>with Death Proof... QT did something different: he tried to
>>pay tribute to bad movies by making a GOOD movie. did he
>>succeed? not all the way... but he tried.
>
>QT didn't do anything but revere himself.

so the car chase was not thrilling to you?


>Rob will move on do his Sin City's and Machete's, keep making
>the movies he tends to make.
>
>But Tarantino? Its kind of murky of what his future holds.

Tarantino will most likely keep on making the kinds of movies he wants to make, too... and as you guys have stated, he DOES tend to get a pass, so they will most likely be well-accepted even if they are not that great.

i don't think he's worried at all.