You are not logged in. Please login or register.
I think Lethal Weapon should be covered since you guys have done most of the other big action movies from the 80's and 90's that have real characters and content, and it has a great story about the writer.
Edit: I didn't look back through the thread... so if this has been brought up before I apologize.
Last edited by Jdubs (2013-04-10 21:33:32)
I wouldn't mind hearing your guys thoughts on Primer... failing that.... RVD 1 and 2
Primer keeps coming up.
We skurred.
You could talk about how overrated Primer is.
I think Brotherhood of the Wolf would be an interesting one. It's an odd duck, not sure it's entirely successful but it's lavishly produced and quite balls out. I imagine there's a lot to talk about, genre stuff, structure, style, effects and general frenchiness.
I'd love to hear commentaries on Tarantino's last two movies, especially Inglourious Basterds. I loved it, but I have some friends who I think feel the same way Teague did.
Commentaries on Jackie Brown and Death Proof would probably help get me to finally see those 
+1 for Cloverfield and Let me in, both Matt Reeves films and he hasn't done much since.
I'd also push for Brotherhood of the Wolf, again.
+1
I'd also push for Brotherhood of the Wolf, again.
+1 for this
I'd love to hear commentaries on Tarantino's last two movies, especially Inglourious Basterds. I loved it, but I have some friends who I think feel the same way Teague did.
Commentaries on Jackie Brown and Death Proof would probably help get me to finally see those
Jackie Brown needs to happen, as I think that's one that all the DIFers will like, and be able to appreciate as Tarantino's most grown-up film.
Inglourious Basterds needs to happen, but only if there's at least 1 person defending it, that commentary needs people from both sides.
Death Proof don't bother, no one really likes it that much, even defenders like me enjoy it for its commitment to what its doing more than its overall quality, not much of an interesting discussion there.
Death Proof don't bother, no one really likes it that much,
Hey! 
bullet3 wrote:Death Proof don't bother, no one really likes it that much,
Hey!
For the record, I do like it quite a bit (and prefer it to Planet Terror), but I get the impression from previous episodes that the DIF crew all hate it
Death Proof don't bother, no one really likes it that much, even defenders like me enjoy it for its commitment to what its doing
The movie is just a fan film, an homage to 70s exploitation flicks with a healthy dose of foot fetish (Quentin's trademark). It has almost no substance. I'm not sure if the DIF guys would have a lot to say about it.
Death Proof can't really be viewed in a traditional way. It's intentionally shitty, in all the ways that Quentin's favorite films from that genre were. So as an homage, it's great. As a standalone movie, it's obviously shaky.
Were the movies he was homaging intentionally shitty?
Were the movies he was homaging intentionally shitty?
Probably not. It's possible that they were self-aware of their own shittiness, however.
I think apathetic, maybe, or "what else can we do? We only have this much time and money. *shrug*"
But Tarantino brought intention to it, so the vibe distinction might lie there.
I think the movies he's homaging were for the most part shitty like that just for budget and time reasons, not on purpose. They would always have slow pacing, be overly talky, but then have some really standout set-piece where all their money went and that they were remembered for and everyone would say "you gotta see it for this!". Tons of stuff from the 70s is like this.
The premise of Grindhouse being to bring back that kind of movie, I think Tarantino 100% succeeded, to where if you didn't know the people involved and saw Death Proof on cable a decade later, you might absolutely mistake it for something trashy from the 70s. Planet Terror is a nudge nudge, wink wink fan film to that kind of movie, whereas Death Proof is that movie for real.
And just like those Grindhouse movies from the 70s, its the kinda thing where you want to fast forward through 50-75% of it.
Last edited by bullet3 (2013-04-26 20:43:24)
Now there's a classic. That's a movie that would have zero chance of being greenlit today.
That could be a good Intermission topic, Trey. Movies that would never be greenlit today and the "how did this happens."
+1
Oh Winona Ryder, the crush I had on you in my early teens was immense. You made my girlfriend at the time jealous, you little minx.
That could be a good Intermission topic, Trey. Movies that would never be greenlit today and the "how did this happens."
I support this. I know this isn't the Intermission thread but my recent foray in to "Into Darkness" and revisiting the "Star Trek: 2009" thread I really, really, want to here a Star Trek overarching series discussion, from original to Enterprise, since Abrams has been hashed out and people died and we really don't want that again...
I'd love to hear a discussion on how the green light process used to work vs. how it works now. For example, does the process go beyond the pitch meeting or is that it? It seems nowadays, that there is more involved beyond just pitching the story.
Last edited by switch (2013-04-27 03:50:17)
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 9 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.
