>"I can't imagine he didn't think he was elevating the genre. >"
Kill Bill was a standard kung-fu movie but I felt like he elevated it a little bit and made it appealing to a wider audience.
Pulp Fiction was pulp fiction but I think he turned it into a great film and a film that affected directors for years to come.
With this film to bring a whole new generation of fans to Grindhouse films. I don't think anyone can really argue that he was successful in doing that. I'm sorry but there's no way that Tarantino expected this movie to be considered boring or not connect with the audience the way it did.
He has made pretty much nothing but derivative genre films. In this case, he wasn't able to make it more appealing. In fact, it was less appealing to many.
>"THE DIALOGUE SUCKED.
You claim that he wanted the dialogue to suck but I really don't believe it. I don't think he wanted it to be eloquent and there were going to be some cheesy lines but I think he expected people to go nuts for a lot of the dialogue the same way they did with Pulp Fiction.
>I'm not trying to convert anyone I just was >trying to make the simple point which by now has been made.
You were dismissing people's opinion by saying they didn't get it. You argued that people needed to appreciate the director's intent, even though the quote Longo posted seem to go against what you claim was the intent.
Hell, Uwe Boll wanted to make bad movies so they wouldn't make money and his investors would be able to write off the films and make money because of a German tax loophole. Should we all suddenly appreciate his films more since he wasn't really trying to make a good movie?