Jackie Brown
Richard
I haven't been here in over a year, but I figured I'd come on back
to share something. I just rented Jackie Brown from Blockbuster
yesterday, and I must say, I loved it every bit as much as I did in
the theatre. Maybe even more. It seems as though every time I watch
it,
it just gets better.
Richard
"Quentin Tarantino: The Master of Cinema"
http://www2.nevada.edu/~hoppes
Spam* penweaver@inxpress.net Vic
the way to London. Let me tell you, there are only sooooo many times that I
can here SLJ say "I'll kick yo' butt mo' fo" or "ohhhhhhhhh heck"
so it deffinately needs to be revisited without the created editting.
VIc
Alex Ward
Wow, what did they say instead of "nigga"? And how did they deal with the
few violent scenes?
--
Alex Ward
The Unofficial Big Lebowski/Jackie Brown Homepage
http://www.silcom.com/~riffraff
Vic <*No Spam* penw...@inxpress.net> wrote in article
<01bdc6aa$a7ccd1c0$8880430c@cube422a>...
Spam* penweaver@inxpress.net Vic
was something like "fool" or some such.
Rotonoto
.. kinda hard to miss the SOUND. (Odd cuz it's a nineties story.)
Casca
in here. Personally, I thought it was an excellent piece of film
making. The dialog was great, not to mention camera shots, i.e.
angles and tracking. Lotta "critics" with the exception of Roger
Ebert said the move was too long and had to many dead scenes such as
people being filmed driving. These shots were merely putting you
there with the actor, getting into their thoughts and feelings. I
thought the timeing was great.
Interested to see what others in this group thought. Like or dislike
and why???
Esma...@my-dejanews.com
I enjoyed the film from beginning to end, didn't think it was too long,
didn't feel there were extraneous scenes which were too tedious to watch. The
plot followed itself-- it had continuity. Compared to Pulp Fiction which was
all over the place, this film is stable. It had almost all the elements of
Pulp Fiction without the chaos and craziness. Smartly done. Pam Grier, who
I didn't know before, came off as provocative and sexy but not slutty which I
favor. I'll look for her in other films now. I also liked the fact that
Tarantino portrays her as a sensuous and vital more mature woman. She's not
in her 20's yet she's very appealing. Tarantino chose Fonda to be the slutty
woman, wouldn't be a QT film without one, and Fonda held true to her
character. DeNiro cracked me up period! Jackson was "cool," reminiscent of
PF. In all Jackie Brown is a much more down-to-earth Tarantino film which
shows he has grown alot and has mastered his craft. I give it an 8-3/4!
Thanks I'm EZ
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
webm...@film.tierranet.com
>Well, Jackie's now on video. Should start seeing more on this movie
>in here. Personally, I thought it was an excellent piece of film
>making. The dialog was great, not to mention camera shots, i.e.
>angles and tracking. Lotta "critics" with the exception of Roger
>Ebert said the move was too long and had to many dead scenes such as
>people being filmed driving. These shots were merely putting you
>there with the actor, getting into their thoughts and feelings. I
>thought the timeing was great.
>
>Interested to see what others in this group thought. Like or dislike
>and why???
I liked the film but found the use of focus to be very annoying. I was used to
the way Tarantino used deep focus in Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. I
thought this was a sloppy aspect of the film. Otherwise the story was
interesting.
By the way, was it just me or did that hairdo make Samuel Jackson look really
ugly in certain lights?
Eddie Wood
I like directors who put a lot of themselves in the movie. That's why I've
always liked Quentin. I would have liked to see more of that in JB.
It's sad that lately QT hasn't been able to write such powerful dialogue
that we had the pleasure to listen in Reservoir Dogs.
Jackie Brown certainly had it's moments. There were great scenes like the
one were Jackson's character shoots De Niro's in the van. "You used to be
great".
Arthur P
only one scene that really stuck out for me. It was the "Money Exchange"
where we witness the same scenerio from Robert Forrester's, DeNiro and
Fonda's, and Pam Grier's perspectives. Very well done.
Otherwise this film came off to me more like QT trying to be a tough
edged Woody Allen then trying to be himself.
Now there isn't necessarily anything wrong with that (i'm a Woody Allen
fan myself) but a lot of times everything seemed forced.
Now just where did i see Woody Allen (or even Joel and Ethan Cohen for
that matter) ?.
1. DeNiro and Fonda's anal-sex in the kitchen
2. The many times where the story was told using flashbacks
3. The brilliant use of multiple perspectives
And yes this film was overly long and seemed to go absolutely no where
at times and some scenes were just plain dry.
Performances i loved ?
Keaton
Grier
Jackson
sorry but DeNiro didn't do anything for me this time (he seemed more
like fancy background filler then someone that served a purpose)
P.S.
Is this the worst motion picture soundtrack ever ???
Just My Two Cents,
Arthur
Daniel J. Fienberg
: It's sad that lately QT hasn't been able to write such powerful dialogue
: that we had the pleasure to listen in Reservoir Dogs.
Personally I thought that the dialogue was much more powerful in
Jackie Brown than in QT's other film scripts. It is not, however, as
catchy, witty, cool, bright, original, or sparky. It's truer, however,
thanks to the fact that Robert Forester may be the first QT character who
feels *real* to me. That takes nothing away from any other character he
has ever written, many/most of whom are original, funky, or
nifty-neato-o. Max Cherry is real. I liked that. I like that the
relationship between Max and Jackie is human and un-cool. So figures I,
at least.
My opinion...
:-) Daniel
--
Daniel J. Fienberg
d...@sas.upenn.edu
Daniel's Lion Den -- http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~djf
"Now, a few words on looking for things. When you go looking for something
specific, your chances of finding it are very bad. Because of all the
things in the world, you're only looking for one of them. When you go
looking for anything at all, your chances of finding it are very good.
Because of all the things in the world, you're sure to find some of them."
-The Zero Effect
--
Mike Sheppard
<johnbrec...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The actors were great, but I missed that "craziness" PF and RD had.
>
> I like directors who put a lot of themselves in the movie. That's why I've
> always liked Quentin. I would have liked to see more of that in JB.
>
> It's sad that lately QT hasn't been able to write such powerful dialogue
> that we had the pleasure to listen in Reservoir Dogs.
>
> Jackie Brown certainly had it's moments. There were great scenes like the
> one were Jackson's character shoots De Niro's in the van. "You used to be
> great".
Agree totally. It was a good movie, but def. lacked the power of RD or
PF. It just might be that QT needs to go in a totally different
direction.
I liked the scene where De Niro's character shoots Fonda's, but after a
few moments. I felt it was a "cheap thrills"-type scene.
It's a 2 & 1/2 star flick being compared to four stars like PF.
Casca
scene was stamped with the Tarantino trademark camera shots. Examples
include:
1. Long takes on characters talking, i.e. not a lot of distracting
cuts.
2. The infamous camera in the trunk angle, which in my opinion was
one of the many hilarious scenes.
3. The tracking shot where Jackson puts on his gloves and makes the
block to "let go" his employee (all done in one nice shot).
4. Camera tracking all through Melanies apartment as if it were
eavsdropping in on their conversations.
These are just a few.
This movie was a great piece of film making. Many scenes were timed
so great I had to rewatch them. Can't wait for my laserdisc to arrive
to check it out again.
My2cents
On 23 Aug 1998 22:03:18 GMT, d...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Daniel J.
Fienberg) wrote:
>Eddie Wood (johnbrec...@hotmail.com) wrote:
>
>: It's sad that lately QT hasn't been able to write such powerful dialogue
>: that we had the pleasure to listen in Reservoir Dogs.
>
webm...@film.tierranet.com
I agree. DeNiro's performance was fun but lacked any real meaning. It was just
DeNiro being stupid.
>P.S.
>Is this the worst motion picture soundtrack ever ???
Sorry, but that honor goes to Wag the Dog.
Max Ryan
> the way Tarantino used deep focus in Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. I
> thought this was a sloppy aspect of the film. Otherwise the story was
> interesting.
>
> By the way, was it just me or did that hairdo make Samuel Jackson look really
> ugly in certain lights?
What was the use of focus you're talking about? What's deep focus? What about the
cinematographer?
Max Ryan
Eddie Wood wrote:
> The actors were great, but I missed that "craziness" PF and RD had.
>
> I like directors who put a lot of themselves in the movie. That's why I've
> always liked Quentin. I would have liked to see more of that in JB.
>
> It's sad that lately QT hasn't been able to write such powerful dialogue
> that we had the pleasure to listen in Reservoir Dogs.
>
> Jackie Brown certainly had it's moments. There were great scenes like the
> one were Jackson's character shoots De Niro's in the van. "You used to be
> great".
If QT is writing Killshot I think there certainly will be craziness and the
dialogue you're looking for. Thats the one I want to see QT write/direct.
It's a wild story. And I want to see him play a small part in the movie
again.
Max Ryan
>
Just because he gets her from behind doesn't mean he's going bullseye.
Kennedy
>
> > 1. DeNiro and Fonda's anal-sex in the kitchen
> >
>
> Just because he gets her from behind doesn't mean he's going bullseye.
it was intended to be normal coitus.
Arthur P
This is REALLY too fine a point to debate and has NOTHING to do with my
original post
Arthur :o)
Kennedy
Arthur P
Oh god yes !!
:o)
Arthur :o)
dwCDAXWQR
> Well, Jackie's now on video. Should start seeing more on this movie
> in here. Personally, I thought it was an excellent piece of film
> making. The dialog was great, not to mention camera shots, i.e.
> angles and tracking. Lotta "critics" with the exception of Roger
> Ebert said the move was too long and had to many dead scenes such as
> people being filmed driving. These shots were merely putting you
> there with the actor, getting into their thoughts and feelings. I
> thought the timeing was great.
>
> Interested to see what others in this group thought. Like or dislike
> and why???
It sucked because the third reel kept jumping around.
Actually, Quentin was sitting behind me when I saw it and right before it
started he raised a big fuss about how the third reel was screwy - then he
realized (and admitted) that "Well, actually, I'm probably the only person
who'll actually be bothered by it."
In truth, the film only noticably jumped maybe twice, and I enjoyed it,
largely since Q had also reminded us beforehand that he only had made two
other films so we had no business deciding what a Tarantino film "should
be". It was a trifle longish, though.
dwCDAXWQR
<wylde...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Funny, when me and my girlfriend have anal sex, we call it "What's in the
briefcase"...
Arthur P
When me and my girlfriend have anal sex it's called "when hell freezes
over" ...
Arthur :o)
WizKid
why do we care?
-=WizKid=-
Arthur P
I didn't say you cared, i wasn't the one who started the discussion of
personal sex lives
Arthur :o)
Rob Emes
he tripped, landing on a rabbit. The rabbit was rabid and bit Max Ryan on
the neck, and left him for dead. On Mon, 24 Aug 1998 10:24:43 -0700, Max
Ryan wrote with the blood pouring out of his neck and the foam emitting
from his nostrils:
I heard Monte Hellman is from a Movieline interview with Elmore Leonard,
and that QT's only directing.
--
Vandole
ICQ: 4450403
EMail: vandole@[remove]squaresoft.net
EMail2: vandole@[get_ridda]square.org
Scheduled for Death: Monday, November 18, 2058.
Revision 28.
"God stopped the bullets, he changed Coke into Pepsi."
-Jules Winfield, Pulp Fiction
"Looks like we got us a Mexican Standoff."
-Mickey Knox, Natural Born Killers
"Okay ramblers, let's get ramblin'."
-Joe Cabot, Reservoir Dogs
Rob Emes
he tripped, landing on a rabbit. The rabbit was rabid and bit Arthur P on
the neck, and left him for dead. On Sun, 23 Aug 1998 21:15:31 GMT, Arthur
P wrote with the blood pouring out of his neck and the foam emitting from
his nostrils:
<Snip!>
>P.S.
>Is this the worst motion picture soundtrack ever ???
Naw. It's good, you gotta listen to it lots, though. It grows on you.
--
Rob Emes
Casca
wrote:
The soundtrack is great. Full of soul. Tarantino can really put
together some gems for his movies. Just another one of his plethora
of talents.
webm...@film.tierranet.com
>Max Ryan was strolling through an "abandoned" trailor part one day when
>he tripped, landing on a rabbit. The rabbit was rabid and bit Max Ryan on
>the neck, and left him for dead. On Mon, 24 Aug 1998 10:24:43 -0700, Max
>from his nostrils:
>
>>
>>
>>Eddie Wood wrote:
>>
>>> The actors were great, but I missed that "craziness" PF and RD had.
>>>
>>> I like directors who put a lot of themselves in the movie. That's why I've
>>> always liked Quentin. I would have liked to see more of that in JB.
>>>
>>> It's sad that lately QT hasn't been able to write such powerful dialogue
>>> that we had the pleasure to listen in Reservoir Dogs.
>>>
>>> Jackie Brown certainly had it's moments. There were great scenes like the
>>> one were Jackson's character shoots De Niro's in the van. "You used to be
>>> great".
>>
>>If QT is writing Killshot I think there certainly will be craziness and the
>>dialogue you're looking for. Thats the one I want to see QT write/direct.
>>It's a wild story. And I want to see him play a small part in the movie
>>again.
>>
>
>I heard Monte Hellman is from a Movieline interview with Elmore Leonard,
>and that QT's only directing.
>
No director in the world would direct a film without at least rewriting some
of the script.
Brian Fitzharris
> probably had a few projects without much script input (Van Sant with Good Will Hunting and Psycho, for
> example). But I dunno....I think Quentin is the kind of director that is big on writing. I doubt he
> would direct a film that he had no script input on...although other directors have used HIS scripts
> (Tony Scott, Rodriguez) because they're just so damn good.
~Brian
Brian Fitzharris
Electr...@webtv.net
"pulp fiction" is by far, my fav movie of all time and maybe i was
expecting to much.
all i can say is, quentin should stick with writing his own stories than
adapting others for the screen.
Darcy
than Reservoir Dogs and the second best movie of last year, behind Boogie
Nights.
Wizkid
-Wiz
Daniel J. Fienberg
: not much script input on Good Will Hunting? Um
What does the um mean? Van Sant has said in interviews that the
script as it was given to him was the script he shot. Period.
-Daniel
Darcy
is killed? Ben & Matt protested this, but eluctantly wrote the scene. After
reading it Van Sant agreed it was a bad idea, but he still had input on the
script, and the last word.
dfenz
>> "pulp fiction" is by far, my fav movie of all time and maybe i was
>> expecting to much.
>> all i can say is, quentin should stick with writing his own stories than
>> adapting others for the screen.
I'm not gonna sound stupid by saying, "Jackie Brown is not better than
Reservoir Dogs." Instead, I will explain my argument.
Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction are not adaptions from books. Secondly,
Jackie Brown was made out of a diluted past. It was not made purely from
imagination - it was made from Tarantino's love of the 70s and 80s. It
featured the blaxploitation related to Foxy Brown, and was in itself a
Tarantino-remake of the aforementioned film.
webm...@film.tierranet.com
>Wizkid (wizar...@wizkid.com) wrote:
>: not much script input on Good Will Hunting? Um
>
>script as it was given to him was the script he shot. Period.
>
That's what he meant. Van Sant didn't make any changes to the script so he
didn't have any input put into it. There's nothing wrong with that.
webm...@film.tierranet.com
You haven't seen Foxy Brown have you?
Daniel J. Fienberg
: Why then did Van Sant get Damon & Affleck to write in a scene in which Chucky
: is killed? Ben & Matt protested this, but eluctantly wrote the scene. After
: reading it Van Sant agreed it was a bad idea, but he still had input on the
: script, and the last word.
Where'd you hear this? I have Gus Van Sant on tape saying he
didn't change the script. I'll take that over any source that you have.
Any day.
Darcy
it was stupid leaving them with what they had in the first place.
webm...@film.tierranet.com
>Darcy (de-l...@geocities.com) wrote:
>: Why then did Van Sant get Damon & Affleck to write in a scene in which Chucky
>: is killed? Ben & Matt protested this, but eluctantly wrote the scene. After
>: reading it Van Sant agreed it was a bad idea, but he still had input on the
>: script, and the last word.
>
>didn't change the script. I'll take that over any source that you have.
>Any day.
>
He made them write a scene where Chucky dies. He didn't write it himself. In
the end he agreed it wasn't good and dropped the idea.
Darleen D Downing
were just excpecting a mainstream version/followup of 'Pulp Fiction' .
We saw a more mature version of Tarantino, and we saw how he could use other
types of cinematic elements. Also Tarantino was not working from his own
element, and his own screenplay. Also a lot of people thought the movie
should be cut. Thats what made 'Jackie Brown' such a different, and special
cinematic event. Remember this film came out when 'Titanic' also came out
to movie-going audiences. If so-called "epics" are movies that people only
see because the 'newest, hottest pretty boy' in Hollywood is in them and
there only box-office draws because 9 year olds see it about 20 times then
I'm sorry but Hollywood has gone downhill, and we should be at Quentin
Tarantino's feet begging for more post-modern film noir and we should be
respecting and admiring his talent for all he has accomplished and all he
will accomplish then being 'picky' and 'whiny' about his work.
TB
=Screenwriting=
=Film/Video=
=Production=
=Storyboarding=
=450 term glossary=
=FAQ=
=Journal Log of script-in-progress=
=Industry Links=
=Graffiti Art=
=Comics=
=Movie Trivia=
=News from 'down under'=
=cybernetworking (coming soon)=
something for everyone.... THIRD
MILLENNIUM
entertainment
I invite you to take a moment and stop by the TMe website.
Best,
Terrence
--
THIRD MILLENNIUM entertainment
Screenwriting, Film, Video, and more!
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Studio/2561
Eddie Wood
because it wasn't cut or you can simply say that it was fuckin' boring.
mis...@my-dejanews.com
things take time. I had alot I was going to see, but, on further viewing, I
realized that the original post said everything I wanted to say. -- "That's
the way the romance goes, but every now and then, it goes the other way too."
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
mis...@my-dejanews.com
"Eddie Wood" <johnbrec...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> You can say that Jackie Brown was a "different, and special cinematic event"
> because it wasn't cut or you can simply say that it was fuckin' boring.
Just because you have the attention span of a three year-old child doesn't
mean it's that bad of a movie. lot's of good movies move slowly. Apocalypse
Now, for example, or A Clockwork Orange, or countless others...Even The usual
Suspects I thought was kinda boring. But, when you get to the end, you
appreciate the 2 hr wait. At the end of JB, I appreciated the 3 hr wait.
Eddie Wood
Space Odyssey, but this one really was stupid because unlike Stanley
Kubrick, Tarantino gives you nothing to think about during long scenes (too
much dead scenes in JB). I was given no climax at the end of Jackie.
Darcy
Brian Fitzharris
dfenz
<6tconv$918o$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>...
>See I think alot of people were disapointed with Jackie Brown because they
>were just excpecting a mainstream version/followup of 'Pulp Fiction'.
>We saw a more mature version of Tarantino, and we saw how he could use
other
>types of cinematic elements. Also Tarantino was not working from his own
>element, and his own screenplay. Also a lot of people thought the movie
special
>cinematic event. Remember this film came out when 'Titanic' also came out
>to movie-going audiences. If so-called "epics" are movies that people only
>see because the 'newest, hottest pretty boy' in Hollywood is in them and
>there only box-office draws because 9 year olds see it about 20 times then
>I'm sorry but Hollywood has gone downhill, and we should be at Quentin
>Tarantino's feet begging for more post-modern film noir and we should be
>respecting and admiring his talent for all he has accomplished and all he
>will accomplish then being 'picky' and 'whiny' about his work.
Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs ARE QT's style; Jackie Brown is neither more
mature or more conservative. It is a very good adaption, but the movie AND
the book are nowhere near QT's style, IMHO. If you think about it, where are
the hard-core hit men that are in all of QT's other movies? Nowhere. All you
got is a guy who is dissed up by his own ho (Melanie says, "He's the type of
man who whispers under his breath when he reads." What the hell kind of
awesome villain is this? No way, man. Vincent Vega and Mr. White are so much
more "familiar" and relatable than the enigmatic character of Ordell.
Tarantino seems to be going "down the hill" as well, if he will create
more Jackie Brown-ish type movies. He should change his style from his first
two films; it was near perfect. Jackie Brown didn't cause nearly half as
much contraversy, love, and hate as PF/RD... this is because the opinions
and quality of the movie are diluted by the fact that it is not out of QT's
mouth; it is out of Elmore Leonard's.
dfenz
event"
>> because it wasn't cut or you can simply say that it was fuckin' boring.
>
>Just because you have the attention span of a three year-old child doesn't
Apocalypse
>Now, for example, or A Clockwork Orange, or countless others...Even The
usual
>Suspects I thought was kinda boring. But, when you get to the end, you
>appreciate the 2 hr wait. At the end of JB, I appreciated the 3 hr wait.
No, but he's right. Apocalypse Now and A Clockwork Orange had the genres and
diversities of their respective directors; Jackie Brown is the shit of
Tarantino's pile; he has directed three movies, and it is UNQUESTIONING that
JB is the shittiest one. Please don't tell me YOU thought it was his best,
because it wasn't. Besides, True Romance, even though it wasn't directed by
Tarantino, had that flavour to it, as well as beating the shit out of Jackie
Brown. Natural Born Killers, both the Tarantino unshot version and the
Oliver Stone version are total shit--both of them.
He doesn't have the "attention span of a three year old," he appreciates
good quality instead of low-grade shit.
dfenz
<6tht65$i24$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>Amen! JB is one of Tarantino's best. Sure it moves slow, but, all good
>things take time. I had alot I was going to see, but, on further viewing,
I
>the way the romance goes, but every now and then, it goes the other way
too."
Oh yeah? Then you're saying that fast-moving The Usual Suspects, Pulp
Fiction, The Wild Bunch, and others are not as good as Jackie Brown or equal
shitte?
Darcy
dfenz wrote:
> Jackie Brown is the shit of
> Tarantino's pile; he has directed three movies, and it is UNQUESTIONING that
> JB is the shittiest one. Please don't tell me YOU thought it was his best,
> because it wasn't.
No, Pulp Fiction was his best, but IMO Jackie Brown is superior to Reservoir
Dogs.
dfenz
Reservoir
>Dogs.
In your opinion. Not in my opinion.
DJ GQ69
dfenz wrote:
>No, but he's right. Apocalypse Now and A Clockwork Orange had the genres and
>diversities of their respective directors;
Agree with you there. Apocalypse Now is my fave Coppola (yes even more than the
Godfather) and possibly my fave 'Nam movie.
My fave Kubrick however would be Full Metal Jacket, second would be A.C.O. (FMJ
would be my second fave 'Nam movie)
Res Dogs would be my fave Tarantino
Jackie Brown is the shit of
>Tarantino's pile; he has directed three movies, and it is UNQUESTIONING that
>JB is the shittiest one. Please don't tell me YOU thought it was his best,
>because it wasn't. Besides, True Romance, even though it wasn't directed by
>Tarantino, had that flavour to it, as well as beating the shit out of Jackie
>Brown. Natural Born Killers, both the Tarantino unshot version and the
>Oliver Stone version are total shit--both of them.
I didn't think it was 'total' shit. It was a 'smart' movie, not necessarily a
good one. It was supposed to make you think about it, not like it.
Deadguy...
Eddie Wood
Stiehayvon
I think a lot of "Tarantino" fans do not like Jackie Brown because Jackie Brown
is Tarantino's first film as a more mature filmmaker. It is usual for
filmmakers to mature in their work after their first few films, so if
"Tarantino" fans are expecting all of his movies to be another Pulp Fiction
there will be a lot of disappointment because QT has matured as a filmmaker and
will continue to do so.
Poof
She's gone!!!!!!!
dfenz
Wrong. The Vega Brothers will be completely Tarantino, and it literally WILL
be another Pulp Fiction (in that is is a prequel to PF and RD).Don't get
cocky if you have no evidence to back your staements up. IMHO adaptions from
books are a step down from original ideas, because they are not the
brainchild of the director/writer.
Darcy
dfenz wrote:
> Wrong. The Vega Brothers will be completely Tarantino, and it literally WILL
> be another Pulp Fiction
WILL be? Tarantino has confirmed that he'll be making this movie has he?
> (in that is is a prequel to PF and RD).Don't get
> cocky if you have no evidence to back your staements up. IMHO adaptions from
> books are a step down from original ideas, because they are not the
> brainchild of the director/writer.
Adapting a novel is a helluva lot harder than writing an original screenplay.
Adaptations may not be totally original ideas, but they *are* in a lot of ways
the brainchild of the writer/director. It's their interpretation, and they bring
it to life their way. Have you read Rum Punch? Do you think anyone but Tarantino
would have adapted it the same way? What about The Shining? So different from
the book that the 2 can't even be compared, and that's all due to Stanley
Kubrick.
Stiehayvon
IF and that is a big IF Tarantino does a Vega Bros. movie it will not be
another Pulp Fiction because QT has no intention of making another Pulp
Fiction. It will however include the same story elements but because QT has
matured as a filmmaker and therefore is a better filmmaker, the Vega Bros.
movie IF it ever gets made will be different from PF and it will be better.
It is common for filmmakers to continue making the same type of movies, for
example Scorsese , Spielberg, De Palma, but at the same make better films
because of experience and maturity with the increase in the number of films.
I am not being cocky just making a observation based on experience and of
watching other film directors continue to make the same style of film while at
the same the films become better because of maturity as a filmmaker.
Brian Fitzharris
Brothers will never happen....it's just totally not the kind of movie Quentin
would do (contrived and blantantly pre-quelish). IMHO, Jackie Brown was a great
change of pace for Tarantino, and I loved it. If I had to rank his movies, I
would say Pulp, Dogs, then Jackie...but they are all works of art and nearly
perfect in every regard.
~Brian
dfenz wrote:
> Wrong. The Vega Brothers will be completely Tarantino, and it literally WILL
> be another Pulp Fiction (in that is is a prequel to PF and RD).Don't get