>QT and RR shouldn't have spent so much money on it. Clearly
>they either didn't care about the money they were spending, or
>they thought they'd recupe in DVD sales or something, or they
>were totally misguided.
>

They expected this movie to blow up, though. Rodriguez and QT. It doesn't get bigger than that. Especially after Kill Bill and Sin City. They should have put up some decent numbers.

******************************************************************

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/news/comments/?entryid=412023

Still, when Americans see "Grindhouse," both films have to deliver or the experiment fails.

"If it only works as a nostalgic blast or if you have to know everything about this, then we didn't do a very good job. Conceivably the people who probably will enjoy it the most are younger people who have never had this experience before and they watch it and it's all new to them. It makes us look even more original than we really are." -Quentin Tarantino.

******************************************************************

Death Proof didn't do a good job. Planet Terror did, and the trailers, did though.


>I'm not saying QT did nothing wrong here, nor am I copping
>pleas. If ANY filmmaker, even Spielberg, did some artsy
>experimental throwback that cost 55 mil to make, it still
>wouldn't recupe.
>

Its not experimental. A parody of movies? Nothing new here. Its not bold. Its not creative.

And I think the arrogance by Tarantino to pass it off as it is, is comical to say the least. I really don't think Rodriguez cares. He'll just keep trucking along. But the Weinsteins and Tarantino, i'm sure, are quite shocked. They thought they would make a killing on this. And half the movie is good, while the 2nd half sucks. When word of mouth goes around...i mean the numbers don't lie.

with Planet Terror, it was a good, typical Rodriguez film.

w/ Death Proof, its sucked and was a snooze fest for 90% of the film.

So, when word travels about this, folks ain't gonna be as eager to see it.

>Does that mean the experiment has no value? I dunno, but you
>damn sure don't make that type of thing to make a profit.
>If
>people expected QT's name to pull in that profit (which many
>people did), then they were sorely overrating his box office
>pull to begin with. He probably overrated his own box office
>pull as well.
>

I think you hit it right on the nail. I think most people believed that it would QT's name is attached and Rodriguez's success w/ Sin City, its gonna work wonders. And then QT's movie, Death Proof, sucked anyway. That didn't help either.

>But name me a 3 hour, R rated movie placed into an obsolete
>genre, and it fails at the box office. Shit, QT failed at the
>box office before doing this with Jackie Brown, which was only
>2 and a half hours long.

He didn't fail w/ Jackie Brown (although the movie was definitely flat). It made money. It was a safe choice for a movie (an adapted novel), small budget, and he knew it was gonna make what it was gonna make and buy him time before he really had actually do some work for a movie.