comment #1

corey3rd says ...

it's a 99 minute film. Why doesn't he and Peter Jackson hook up and remake Andy Warhol's Empire so it's a week long flick.

comment #2

dre says ...

Bring it. Loved the Kill Bill movies.

comment #3

UnChien says ...

I also seem to remember Tarantino saying the reason he started Kill Bill in the first place was because his Inglorious Bastards script had mushroomed into three booksized scripts and he didn't know what to do with it...I think we could have a mess on our hands.

I haven't seen IG, but Castellaris "Keoma" and "The Big Racket" are two hugely entertaining flicks.

comment #4

EOTW says ...

Jesus, who cares about anything this guy does? Ugh. You loved the KB flicks? Ugh. I'm done here.

comment #5

115thDreamer says ...

Yes, this project has been speculated about for years.....at one point I remember reading that Stallone and Schwarzenegger were both supposed to be in it. This and "The Vega Brothers" are his two big "potential future projects", dating back to the mid '90s. Naturally, waaaaaaaaaay too much time has passed to even consider the Vega project at this point w/ Travolta & Madsen. Well, unless it were to take place in the afterlife, of course.

comment #6

Movie fan09 says ...

Posted by 115thDreamer at June 20, 2008 04:32 PM
Yes, this project has been speculated about for years.....at one point I remember reading that Stallone and Schwarzenegger were both supposed to be in it. This and "The Vega Brothers" are his two big "potential future projects", dating back to the mid '90s. Naturally, waaaaaaaaaay too much time has passed to even consider the Vega project at this point w/ Travolta & Madsen. Well, unless it were to take place in the afterlife, of course.

What if 'The Vega Bros.' was done as a short lived cartoon series?

comment #7

115thDreamer says ...

Mr. Blood..., you're a genius. Vic & Vincent raising hell in the 80's and early 90's in cartoon form. You put in on 'Adult Swim', it sells itself. "Are you gonna bark all day, little doggy, or are you gonna bite?' The other option would be to do it with other, younger actors, but that would be almost sacreligious, really.

comment #8

Terry McCarty says ...

115th Dreamer wrote:
Yes, this project has been speculated about for years.....at one point I remember reading that Stallone and Schwarzenegger were both supposed to be in it.

Maybe QT should just do a THREE THE HARD WAY remake with Stallone, Seagal and Van Damme.

comment #9

dre says ...

Um, yeah I did. You know, like 85% of the critics in the nation. Not that that's the be all end all, but I don't know why it would be so surprising.

comment #10

hatchetface says ...

At least once in the past Tarantino mentioned that he had this site's own favorite Eddie Murphy in mind for a significant BASTARDS role. Who the hell knows if it could ever happen, but I think that Eddie in the right Tarantino role could be awesome.

comment #11

LexG says ...

I liked KILL BILL and GRINDHOUSE a lot when I saw them, but they've both aged like milk.

Absolutely ZERO rewatch value; Starz! shows the proper version of GRINDHOUSE almost daily (not that weak-ass TWO SEPARATE MOVIES BULLSHIT), and away from the hype and the anticipation and the experience... fuck, I get distracted just watching bits and pieces of it, never mind sitting down to all 191 minutes again.

And KILL BILL seemed like a masterpiece four years ago, but since then I've re-watched part one exactly once, and part two exactly NEVER.

Compare that to Pulp Fiction or Jackie Brown (or True Romance), which absolutely never get old and usually get watched all the way through any time one happens upon them on cable?

Anyway, what is with this guy that every movie has to be a TWO PARTER or TWO SEPARATE MOVIES? Can't this guy just make a normal 2-hour movie again?

It's not like his IDOL DePalma was delivering 5-hour cuts of DRESSED TO KILL or BLOW OUT that had to be split in two and ROADSHOWED ACROSS THE COUNTRY, or cut together with some Walter Hill movie that ran 43 minutes.

Just make a real goddamn miovie again.

comment #12

Bob Violence says ...

I also seem to remember Tarantino saying the reason he started Kill Bill in the first place was because his Inglorious Bastards script had mushroomed into three booksized scripts and he didn't know what to do with it...I think we could have a mess on our hands.

Yes, this is correct. When Tarantino says he's finished the "first draft" we should probably take that to mean "first usable draft." How a succession of WWII movie tropes/pastiches/ripoffs (is anybody really expecting anything else?) can take a decade to shape into a workable form is beyond me, but if I had Harvey Weinstein's seemingly unlimited indulgence, I probably wouldn't be in a hurry to produce anything either.

comment #13

DavidF says ...

Weren't they supposed to release a complete version of Kill Bill like two years ago? Does this guy finish anything anymore?

I imagine I'll be listening to Chinese Democracy before I'm watching Inglorious Bastards. Just shit or get off the pot already, man.

comment #14

moviemaniac2002 says ...

I know we all thought Tarantino's emergence
was a huge rush of fresh air....but now he
seems no more than a high-tech, bigger
budgeted version of the "Be Kind Rewind"
characters....making his own crappy versions
of equally crappy cult garbage. The posters
and DVD covers of Tarantino's "Inglorious
Bastards" should have the 'Sweded' banner
pasted across them.

comment #15

Redmond says ...

LexG:" I liked KILL BILL and GRINDHOUSE a lot when I saw them, but they've both aged like milk."

Exactly! Seemed pretty cool the first time, then with repeated viewings you start hating yourself. Tarantino peaked and hearing that Inglorious Bastards is going to be a two-parter frightens me even more. But not as much as QT running to Harry Knowles for an extra strength fanboy cock stroke.

comment #16

Richardson says ...

"which may be shot and released sometime before 2010"

Why not just say 2009?

comment #17

Richardson says ...

Also, this is the first time Tarantino is making an acknowledged, fully credited remake... where is DZ to gloat over this as evidence that all of his theories about Tarantino are now true all of a sudden? I know he's gonna show up sooner or later. I really can't wait until he has an argument with some Tarantino fanboy or fanboys.

comment #18

Richardson says ...

regarding 'Kill Bill' -- I think that people who would cut it down to one movie are missing the fact that all the best scenes in the movie(s) would have to be cut in order to tell the story quickly. Granted, there are single scenes that it would be worth losing, but I think most of the best stuff in both movies is in the fat which would be neccessity have to be trimmed if it were the length of one regular movie. Yeah, you only need 90 minutes to tell that plot... but is the plot really all you're interested in?

In the same spirit, I will always be interested in a Tarantino movie in the theater but I have learned not to get excited about the prospects until it actually does appear. Or at least start shooting.

comment #19

cjKennedy says ...

Aged milk. It's called cheese. Cheese rules.

My sense is this isn't a straight up remake of IG (though it won't stop DZ from gloating...nothing will stop DZ from gloating except a shovel blow to the cranium [for which I'd offer vaulable cash prizes by the way]) but more of an homage to it and Dirty Dozen etc.

But then my sense is often screwed up. I'm right about DZ though.

comment #20

Spacesheik says ...

Tarantino is boring nowadays. Did you guys really enjoy GRINDHOUSE?

Lets hope his flick is more DIRTY DOZEN and less ESCAPE TO ATHENA...

comment #21

Richardson says ...

"Did you guys really enjoy GRINDHOUSE?"

I did, but I also enjoy the types of movies it was paying homage to. I don't mean this to sound elitist, because how could it, but it's meant for the one person in a thousand (or more) who knows "'Gator Bait", y'know? (I'm citing that as just an example of the sort of movie, not a specific requirement.)

Sometimes, I see a movie by a filmmaker and something clicks with me about their overall style; after I finally saw 'Erasrhead', a lot of other Lynch plots made more sense. Seeing 'Sugarland Express' made me realize what Spielberg likes to do, that there's a certain kind of small movie he couldn't do if he tried (which means I would love to see what he would've done with 'California Split'). And Tarantino, with 'Grindhouse', it finally hit me that he's always been interested in those B-movies, in the moments between and before the plot. Usually, that stuff is the filler. And, in some cases, it's like the movie daring you to keep watching. But when a better writer handles it, that's where the most interesting scenes are. And in all of his early movies, he took those scenes and put them in a slightly artier context, and they were suddenly art scenes. Like John Waters, he shows that there's a fine line between art and trash (and both of them sometimes cross it).

So, I liked 'Grindhouse'. 'Death Proof' is definitely not my favorite QT movie, but I totally enjoyed it.

comment #22

JapAdapters says ...

There's a show on cable called Iconoclasts that, I gather, follows around two artists from different backgrounds, or something like that. I only caught it once, so I'm not really sure what it's exact deal is. Anyway, the episode I caught was Fiona Apple and QT, and I defy anyone to watch it and come away thinking Tarrantino will ever do anything ever approaching his work in the 90s. I have always liked Tarrantino's stuff, even with its clear trend towards diminishing returns (hell, I even thought DEATH PROOF was watchable enough), but I always held out hope he'd eventually deliver a movie on the level that was promised by his RD/PF/JB run. It's never gonna happen, folks. Reading here, right now, that INGLORIOUS BASTARDS is a REMAKE and a TWO PART one at that only confirms this. He needs to find the eye of the tiger, make a lean mean original (as he can be) movie before making another jerk-off flick, but he won't. The dude is just too bloated and undisciplined, a perfect example of Hollywood excess.

That said, I'll be there opening day, being part of his problem.

comment #23

D.Z. says ...

Richardson: Oh, I'm just waiting for the guy to acknowledge Ringo Lam and City on Fire. I've also noticed that the anthology he worked on, Triangle, is no longer getting released through Magnolia, thus making me suspicious that QT once again had a hand in it. Oh, and you can't have a grindhouse tribute, if you're going to have characters talking pointlessly for hours about irrelevant crap; that's really why both KB and Death Proof fail.

Also, I call bull on the argument that you have to like the movies a director's paying homage to if you want to like the movie. Look at Lost Skeleton of Cadavra or OSS. You can get the jokes in those without having to fully be aware of them. Oh, and I'm surprised it only hit you now that he's into b-movies, since they're the only reason he's lasted this long. As for the John Waters analogy, the difference is that Waters has a sense for satire, and doesn't just keep making the same effing movie every time.

cj: Who wants to eat cheese that's been sitting on the curb? Also, if it was just an homage, it wouldn't have the same title and he wouldn't be talking to the director. I know, I know. He's "independent", which is code for "low-budget hack".

comment #24

Movie fan09 says ...

115thDreamer [TypeKey Profile Page] says ...

Mr. Blood..., you're a genius. Vic & Vincent raising hell in the 80's and early 90's in cartoon form. You put in on 'Adult Swim', it sells itself. "Are you gonna bark all day, little doggy, or are you gonna bite?' The other option would be to do it with other, younger actors, but that would be almost sacreligious, really.

I was thinking using Anime style.
that would be best.

comment #25

Bob Violence says ...

I've also noticed that the anthology he worked on, Triangle, is no longer getting released through Magnolia, thus making me suspicious that QT once again had a hand in it.

Where'd you see this?

comment #26

D.Z. says ...

Bob: I saw it on their site. They had it for a while, and then took it down.

comment #27

Bob Violence says ...

It's still on Magnet's site (and still included in their promo reel). So I'm gonna need something a little more definitive than that before I buy whatever weird little Tarantino theory you're pushing here.

comment #28

D.Z. says ...

The press release was almost a year ago, and it's no longer on their front page.