Page 1 of 4

QT: The Man, The Myth, The Foot-Fetishist.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 2:48 pm
by DaleTremont
mod edit: Tarantino seems to pop up a lot on our geek cultural landscape so here's a place to talk about it.

WTF?!?!

Tarantino's Next Project Will Be.....

Liz Smith reports that exploitation cinema's biggest champion Quentin Tarentino is keen on remaking Russ Meyer's cult campy soft-porn 1965 classic "Faster Pussycat! Kill! Kill!".

The original followed three thrill-seeking strippers who come upon a couple in the desert. Killing the boyfriend, they take the girl hostage and hide out on a secluded ranch owned by a wheelchair-bound redneck farmer and his two dim-witted sons. Trying to locate the man's hidden fortune, they seduce the sons to learn of the secret - soon all hell breaks loose.

Tarantino wants his version to be even raunchier, and his first choices are Kim Kardashian, Eva Mendes and none other than Britney Spears for the roles.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 2:50 pm
by LaDracul
No, that doesn't surprise me one bit.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 2:52 pm
by unikrunk
DaleTremont wrote:WTF?!?!

Tarantino's Next Project Will Be.....

Liz Smith reports that exploitation cinema's biggest champion Quentin Tarentino is keen on remaking Russ Meyer's cult campy soft-porn 1965 classic "Faster Pussycat! Kill! Kill!".

The original followed three thrill-seeking strippers who come upon a couple in the desert. Killing the boyfriend, they take the girl hostage and hide out on a secluded ranch owned by a wheelchair-bound redneck farmer and his two dim-witted sons. Trying to locate the man's hidden fortune, they seduce the sons to learn of the secret - soon all hell breaks loose.

Tarantino wants his version to be even raunchier, and his first choices are Kim Kardashian, Eva Mendes and none other than Britney Spears for the roles.


Well, he has officially achieved his goal of 'Raunchier'.


/give Britney a couple minutes, I see 'Adult' as a prefix for all her future endeavors.
//Coke-Debt movie!!!

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 2:52 pm
by King Of Nowhere
DaleTremont wrote:WTF?!?!

Tarantino's Next Project Will Be.....

Liz Smith reports that exploitation cinema's biggest champion Quentin Tarentino is keen on remaking Russ Meyer's cult campy soft-porn 1965 classic "Faster Pussycat! Kill! Kill!".

The original followed three thrill-seeking strippers who come upon a couple in the desert. Killing the boyfriend, they take the girl hostage and hide out on a secluded ranch owned by a wheelchair-bound redneck farmer and his two dim-witted sons. Trying to locate the man's hidden fortune, they seduce the sons to learn of the secret - soon all hell breaks loose.

Tarantino wants his version to be even raunchier, and his first choices are Kim Kardashian, Eva Mendes and none other than Britney Spears for the roles.


Is he ever gonna learn that self-indulgence does not a good movie make?
I can only hope nobody finances it.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 2:53 pm
by instant_karma
DaleTremont wrote:WTF?!?!

Tarantino's Next Project Will Be.....

Liz Smith reports that exploitation cinema's biggest champion Quentin Tarentino is keen on remaking Russ Meyer's cult campy soft-porn 1965 classic "Faster Pussycat! Kill! Kill!".

The original followed three thrill-seeking strippers who come upon a couple in the desert. Killing the boyfriend, they take the girl hostage and hide out on a secluded ranch owned by a wheelchair-bound redneck farmer and his two dim-witted sons. Trying to locate the man's hidden fortune, they seduce the sons to learn of the secret - soon all hell breaks loose.

Tarantino wants his version to be even raunchier, and his first choices are Kim Kardashian, Eva Mendes and none other than Britney Spears for the roles.


Wow. His descent into hackery hastens...

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 2:53 pm
by DaleTremont
I know he's all wacky and visionary, and I'd definitely see it...maybe it's even brilliant in its simultaneously mocking and embracing the jiggly oversexed superficiality of today's pop culture....all of which I'm saying while thinking, "Kim Kardashian and Britney Spears?!?!"

At least it'll be funny....

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 2:55 pm
by LaDracul
Hey, he did have a hand in getting John Travolta's career back on track...

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 2:55 pm
by Zarles
Rad. I'm on that like stink on a monkey. The only bad thing about it is that it isn't Inglorious Bastards.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 2:58 pm
by unikrunk
DaleTremont wrote:I know he's all wacky and visionary, and I'd definitely see it...maybe it's even brilliant in its simultaneously mocking and embracing the jiggly oversexed superficiality of today's pop culture....all of which I'm saying while thinking, "Kim Kardashian and Britney Spears?!?!"

At least it'll be funny....


But not the kind of funny you feel good about 10 minutes after laughing so hard you blow a blood vessel in your eye, giving you severe 'cookie-monster-eye'.

That movie is this kind of funny:


Image


/see what I mean? If you are laughing now (I am), come back and take a look in 10 minutes; you will want to cry.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 2:59 pm
by Ribbons
DaleTremont wrote:At least it'll be funny....


Yes, intentionally or no...

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 3:01 pm
by King Of Nowhere
It just sounds awful.

We all know Kardashian can act, she's faked plenty "things" before, but Shitney?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 3:01 pm
by Spifftacular SquirrelGirl
DaleTremont wrote:WTF?!?!

Tarantino's Next Project Will Be.....

Liz Smith reports that exploitation cinema's biggest champion Quentin Tarentino is keen on remaking Russ Meyer's cult campy soft-porn 1965 classic "Faster Pussycat! Kill! Kill!".

The original followed three thrill-seeking strippers who come upon a couple in the desert. Killing the boyfriend, they take the girl hostage and hide out on a secluded ranch owned by a wheelchair-bound redneck farmer and his two dim-witted sons. Trying to locate the man's hidden fortune, they seduce the sons to learn of the secret - soon all hell breaks loose.

Tarantino wants his version to be even raunchier, and his first choices are Kim Kardashian, Eva Mendes and none other than Britney Spears for the roles.



Isn't this like his 20th movie that is supposed to be allegedly his "next" film? All the power to him if he wants to go through with it but honestly... someone needs to just strap him to a director's chair and get him directing his next film already.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 3:02 pm
by Zarles
Personally, I think we all need to get over the fact that Pulp Fiction II is never going to happen, and that Quentin's going to make the movies HE wants to make no matter what the fuck we all think about it. Cries of 'Quentin's next project is...' happen far too often. I don't take any of them seriously until my ass is sitting in a seat waiting for the previews to hurry up and end so I can watch what he's actually done.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 3:05 pm
by King Of Nowhere
Zarles wrote:Personally, I think we all need to get over the fact that Pulp Fiction II is never going to happen, and that Quentin's going to make the movies HE wants to make no matter what the fuck we all think about it. Cries of 'Quentin's next project is...' happen far too often for me to take any of them seriously until my ass is sitting in a seat waiting for the previews to hurry up and end.


If his movies keep failing to make a profit, Qt won't be making anything.
after Grindhouse flopping, this is getting close to career suicide.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 3:06 pm
by DaleTremont
unikrunk wrote:But not the kind of funny you feel good about 10 minutes after laughing so hard you blow a blood vessel in your eye, giving you severe 'cookie-monster-eye'.

That movie is this kind of funny:


Image


/see what I mean? If you are laughing now (I am), come back and take a look in 10 minutes; you will want to cry.


I'm still laughing...but I feel really really bad about it. Someone posted a similar pic around these parts a couple months back, I started cracking up, my roommate asked me what I was laughing about and I showed her....

.....she still doesn't think it's funny.

But I digress. I mean, laughing at Britney Spears has become a national pastime. It's a little different than the little guy up there.

I think this could be cool...maybe Tarantino needs to get all this shit out of his system before he can do Inglorious Bastards.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 3:09 pm
by instant_karma
unikrunk wrote:
DaleTremont wrote:I know he's all wacky and visionary, and I'd definitely see it...maybe it's even brilliant in its simultaneously mocking and embracing the jiggly oversexed superficiality of today's pop culture....all of which I'm saying while thinking, "Kim Kardashian and Britney Spears?!?!"

At least it'll be funny....


But not the kind of funny you feel good about 10 minutes after laughing so hard you blow a blood vessel in your eye, giving you severe 'cookie-monster-eye'.

That movie is this kind of funny:


Image


/see what I mean? If you are laughing now (I am), come back and take a look in 10 minutes; you will want to cry.


Is he the Superman of Earth 37? Stupid Infinite Crisis...

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 3:13 pm
by unikrunk
instant_karma wrote:
unikrunk wrote:
DaleTremont wrote:I know he's all wacky and visionary, and I'd definitely see it...maybe it's even brilliant in its simultaneously mocking and embracing the jiggly oversexed superficiality of today's pop culture....all of which I'm saying while thinking, "Kim Kardashian and Britney Spears?!?!"

At least it'll be funny....


But not the kind of funny you feel good about 10 minutes after laughing so hard you blow a blood vessel in your eye, giving you severe 'cookie-monster-eye'.

That movie is this kind of funny:


Image


/see what I mean? If you are laughing now (I am), come back and take a look in 10 minutes; you will want to cry.


Is he the Superman of Earth 37? Stupid Infinite Crisis...


Yes, that would be Ninja-Turtle Superman

/those 'chucks were designed to hit the wielder in the face, look how short the chain is. Poor fucking kid.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 3:15 pm
by Zarles
king_of_nowhere wrote:
Zarles wrote:Personally, I think we all need to get over the fact that Pulp Fiction II is never going to happen, and that Quentin's going to make the movies HE wants to make no matter what the fuck we all think about it. Cries of 'Quentin's next project is...' happen far too often for me to take any of them seriously until my ass is sitting in a seat waiting for the previews to hurry up and end.


If his movies keep failing to make a profit, Qt won't be making anything.
after Grindhouse flopping, this is getting close to career suicide.


C'mon - Grindhouse was his first box office flop. Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown, and both Kill Bill movies made plenty of money on very low budgets. Death Proof is doing just fine on DVD, as well. It's funny how often people forget the guy's only made 5 movies.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 3:24 pm
by instant_karma
DaleTremont wrote:WTF?!?!

Tarantino's Next Project Will Be.....

Liz Smith reports that exploitation cinema's biggest champion Quentin Tarentino is keen on remaking Russ Meyer's cult campy soft-porn 1965 classic "Faster Pussycat! Kill! Kill!".

The original followed three thrill-seeking strippers who come upon a couple in the desert. Killing the boyfriend, they take the girl hostage and hide out on a secluded ranch owned by a wheelchair-bound redneck farmer and his two dim-witted sons. Trying to locate the man's hidden fortune, they seduce the sons to learn of the secret - soon all hell breaks loose.

Tarantino wants his version to be even raunchier, andhis first choices are Kim Kardashian, Eva Mendes and none other than Britney Spears for the roles.


You know that all that means is there's gonna be lots of close ups of womens feet...

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 3:26 pm
by King Of Nowhere
Zarles wrote:
king_of_nowhere wrote:
Zarles wrote:Personally, I think we all need to get over the fact that Pulp Fiction II is never going to happen, and that Quentin's going to make the movies HE wants to make no matter what the fuck we all think about it. Cries of 'Quentin's next project is...' happen far too often for me to take any of them seriously until my ass is sitting in a seat waiting for the previews to hurry up and end.


If his movies keep failing to make a profit, Qt won't be making anything.
after Grindhouse flopping, this is getting close to career suicide.


C'mon - Grindhouse was his first box office flop. Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown, and both Kill Bill movies made plenty of money on very low budgets. Death Proof is doing just fine on DVD, as well. It's funny how often people forget the guy's only made 5 movies.


If he gets big 2 flops in a row, he's gonna be going down the Uwe Boll paypal financing route.

I'm not forgetting anything, QT is.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 3:29 pm
by Nordling
I predicted in 1997 that the last image of Britney Spears that the public ever sees is her, smiling through tears, as a single, solitary cum-drop slowly crawls from the corner of her mouth.

Every day brings that image closer to fruition.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 3:30 pm
by Fawst
Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown, Kill Bill 1 & 2, Death Proof. Not to mention "slumming" for shows like ER and Alias (which was fucking AWESOME, by the way).

Personally, I wish he'd just do a fucking porno. It would be an interesting trip into the brain of the man. But if he wants to go this way with it...

You can't bash the guy for making his pet projects happen. Think about it, if you were able to make a somewhat studio film, and gain INSANE amounts of praise for it, writing your own ticket through Hollywood... what personal, close to your heart dream project would YOU make? I'm willing to bet at least a few people in here would come up with something obscure like this.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 3:35 pm
by instant_karma
Fawst wrote:Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown, Kill Bill 1 & 2, Death Proof. Not to mention "slumming" for shows like ER and Alias (which was fucking AWESOME, by the way).

Personally, I wish he'd just do a fucking porno. It would be an interesting trip into the brain of the man. But if he wants to go this way with it...

You can't bash the guy for making his pet projects happen. Think about it, if you were able to make a somewhat studio film, and gain INSANE amounts of praise for it, writing your own ticket through Hollywood... what personal, close to your heart dream project would YOU make? I'm willing to bet at least a few people in here would come up with something obscure like this.


I get what you're saying about him not having to satisfy anybody's creative urges but his own, but I do wish he'd take on something that didn't seem like a Tarantino film. I'm curious to see what he'd come up with working outside his comfort zone.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 4:24 pm
by Zarles
king_of_nowhere wrote:
Zarles wrote:
king_of_nowhere wrote:
Zarles wrote:Personally, I think we all need to get over the fact that Pulp Fiction II is never going to happen, and that Quentin's going to make the movies HE wants to make no matter what the fuck we all think about it. Cries of 'Quentin's next project is...' happen far too often for me to take any of them seriously until my ass is sitting in a seat waiting for the previews to hurry up and end.


If his movies keep failing to make a profit, Qt won't be making anything.
after Grindhouse flopping, this is getting close to career suicide.


C'mon - Grindhouse was his first box office flop. Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown, and both Kill Bill movies made plenty of money on very low budgets. Death Proof is doing just fine on DVD, as well. It's funny how often people forget the guy's only made 5 movies.


If he gets big 2 flops in a row, he's gonna be going down the Uwe Boll paypal financing route.

I'm not forgetting anything, QT is.


That's a pretty big 'if' there. Is what you're actually saying that you want him to fail? If it is, just come on out and say it. Like Fawst said up there, the guy's made some of the most iconic and resonant movies of his generation, yet he gets more shit than anyone when it comes to what his next project is going to be. I think people want him to fail more than what he ever actually will.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 4:26 pm
by QT!!!
Muthafuckin' awesome!

Maybe I'll finally be able to get over my fear of nudity and get some big ole titties up in this muthafucka.

If only feet had tits.
I'd never have to cheat science again, muthafucka.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 4:34 pm
by King Of Nowhere
Zarles wrote:
That's a pretty big 'if' there. Is what you're actually saying that you want him to fail? If it is, just come on out and say it. Like Fawst said up there, the guy's made some of the most iconic and resonant movies of his generation, yet he gets more shit than anyone when it comes to what his next project is going to be. I think people want him to fail more than what he ever actually will.


I'm not saying i want him to fail as a film maker, i want to see him make something on par with Pulp at least, maybe even Dogs.
I can't see it happening though & if all he's gonna make is self indulgent shit, he will fail as a film maker.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 4:49 pm
by Zarles
This may be just me, but I think he's improved as a filmmaker with every movie he's made. I can re-watch Jackie Brown a hell of a lot more than I can re-watch Pulp Fiction. Kill Bill is one of my favorite action movies ever. Death Proof is fluff, yes, but it's well-made fluff. I think it only really failed at the box office because of the package it came in. Hell, most people didn't even know to stick around for it after Planet Terror.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 4:56 pm
by Zarles
Captain, they're multiplying!

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 5:00 pm
by Nordling
He's self-indulgent, to be sure, but for the most part he's still interesting to watch. I didn't like DEATH PROOF as much as others (the car chase was great, Stuntman Mike was great, the dialogue felt forced as hell though) and I can see that QT has a tendency to fall in love with his own words. Kevin Smith has the same problem.

QT should probably adapt another work, to put his writing and directing back in synch.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 5:02 pm
by Al Shut
Doen't a remake count as an adaption?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 5:02 pm
by Flumm
Yes, it's strange how his "ouevre" seems to be devolving almost, in aspiration, if not strictly in quality.

And I say that as something of an apologist, I guess.

I'll still chime in and see what's what, as long as the man's got something he feels the need to burn on to celluloid.

I just hope he really, REALLY feels the need to make this, as it feels a little :roll: -worthy, at this stage.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 5:03 pm
by Chairman Kaga
king_of_nowhere wrote:
Zarles wrote:
That's a pretty big 'if' there. Is what you're actually saying that you want him to fail? If it is, just come on out and say it. Like Fawst said up there, the guy's made some of the most iconic and resonant movies of his generation, yet he gets more shit than anyone when it comes to what his next project is going to be. I think people want him to fail more than what he ever actually will.


I'm not saying i want him to fail as a film maker, i want to see him make something on par with Pulp at least, maybe even Dogs.
I can't see it happening though & if all he's gonna make is self indulgent shit, he will fail as a film maker.

On what the "KON scale of Film Making Failure"? You don't enjoy his recent work fine but that isn't some universal standard of success. That also seems to be contradictory....You want something like Pulp or Dogs but you don't want Q to be self indulgent? So you don't think either of those were self indulgent? If anything the closest to not-self indulging in his career was the adaptation of Jackie Brown.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 5:11 pm
by Zarles
Do we want a QT film that doesn't feel like a QT film? Sure, push the envelope, do something you haven't done before, but where is the line? Do we want a QT-directed weepy period piece with Keira Knightley and Hugh Grant?

I pass. Bring the muthafuckin' car chases and samurai sword battles, muthafucka.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 5:19 pm
by The Ginger Man
DaleTremont wrote:WTF?!?!

Tarantino's Next Project Will Be.....

Liz Smith reports that exploitation cinema's biggest champion Quentin Tarentino is keen on remaking Russ Meyer's cult campy soft-porn 1965 classic "Faster Pussycat! Kill! Kill!".

Tarantino wants his version to be even raunchier, and his first choices are Kim Kardashian, Eva Mendes and none other than Britney Spears for the roles.


Are you guys actually believing any of this? It's written by Liz Smith, in about five lines, without a single quote or source, in what is essentially a gossip column. She was probably standing in line at Starbucks and overheard two PAs talking.

PA 1: I was talking to Trent yesterday and he said he ran into Quentin Tarantino at a party--

PA 2: Bullshit.

PA 1: Yeah, probably. But he said he overheard him talking about how cool it would be to make a movie with a drugged out crazy Brittney Spears.

PA 2: Pssh. Like what?

PA 1: I don't know. He's into that old shit, like Faster Pussycat Kill Kill Kill.

PA 2: What the fuck is that?

PA 1: Who knows. I see it mentioned on AICN alot when my boss has me plant talkback reviews.

Liz Smith: DINGDINGDING! I just reached my word quota for this weeks column!

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 5:20 pm
by Chairman Kaga
Zarles wrote:Do we want a QT film that doesn't feel like a QT film? Sure, push the envelope, do something you haven't done before, but where is the line? Do we want a QT-directed weepy period piece with Keira Knightley and Hugh Grant?

I pass. Bring the muthafuckin' car chases and samurai sword battles, muthafucka.


Exactly.
As an artist I loathe that fans seem to love the idea that a Director should always be doing different things otherwise they become "self indulgent" and by proxy their work is somehow less worthwhile. "Oh he/she only made that type of movie because they enjoy it"...."How self indulgent of them. They should branch out and make art they don't like otherwise it's just not 'good'". Not everyone can be a Kubrik and cross genres and enjoy it. I prefer to see art the artist enjoyed creating instead of going through the motions simply to satisfy this idea of being a "renaissance man".

Ginger I don't really think this rumor is remotely likely but I think the points brought up in here are worth discussing regardless if this pans out or not.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 5:25 pm
by junesquad
DaleTremont wrote:WTF?!?!

Tarantino's Next Project Will Be.....

Liz Smith reports that exploitation cinema's biggest champion Quentin Tarentino is keen on remaking Russ Meyer's cult campy soft-porn 1965 classic "Faster Pussycat! Kill! Kill!".

The original followed three thrill-seeking strippers who come upon a couple in the desert. Killing the boyfriend, they take the girl hostage and hide out on a secluded ranch owned by a wheelchair-bound redneck farmer and his two dim-witted sons. Trying to locate the man's hidden fortune, they seduce the sons to learn of the secret - soon all hell breaks loose.

Tarantino wants his version to be even raunchier, and his first choices are Kim Kardashian, Eva Mendes and none other than Britney Spears for the roles.


Britney Spears... I loved her as a kid, still enjoy some of her music... but all this bad publicity is kinda earned. Oh well.... I'll keep holding out hopes for her and Lohan to become what they can become.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 5:27 pm
by Zarles
Calling QT self-indulgent is about as played as saying that Crispin Glover should've been The Joker. EVERY big-time director is self-indulgent, and every aspiring director wishes they had made the choices that the big-timers had made so they could afford to be self-indulgent. Do people call out Spielberg for being self-indulgent because he makes a lot of movies about Jewish people?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 5:28 pm
by Chairman Kaga
Zarles wrote:Do people call out Spielberg for being self-indulgent because he makes a lot of movies about Jewish people?

Or that Jaws is simply Duel in the water with a shark?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 5:31 pm
by Zarles
But it IS, man, it IS! :lol:

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 5:36 pm
by Keepcoolbutcare
Chairman Kaga wrote:Not everyone can be a Kubrik and cross genres and enjoy it.


true, and even with Kubrick's genre-hopping, there's not a film he's made that isn't, for lack of a better adjective, "Kubrickian".

he simply applied his aesthetic across a broad range of topics.

Chairman Kaga wrote:Ginger I don't really think this rumor is remotely likely but I think the points brought up in here are worth discussing regardless if this pans out or not.


indeed. Shit, we've got "Movie News" threads based on other QT related rumors...whilst perusing, I found the "Come Drink with Me" thread.

really just split this off so as not to derail the other thread.

and it's a fun discussion, one that came up previously w/r/t Wes Anderson.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 5:37 pm
by Vegeta
I had to wiki Kim Kardashian. I still don't really know who she is...

Is she kinda like a minor Paris Hilton?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 5:37 pm
by The Ginger Man
Zarles wrote:Do people call out Spielberg for being self-indulgent because he makes a lot of movies about Jewish people?


I wish they would. It would be hilarious to see it pop up in interviews.

"Mr. Spielberg, you've made some wonderful films about the Holocaust and the Jewish community. But I couldn't help but notice that....well, you yourself are actually Jewish."

"Uh.....yeah. Your point?"

"Oh. I don't have one. Just thought I'd point it out. Moving on...."

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 5:38 pm
by Lord Voldemoo
Vegeta wrote:I had to wiki Kim Kardashian. I still don't really know who she is...

Is she kinda like a minor Paris Hilton?


pretty much exactly, I think...complete with her own sex video and cheesy basic cable tv show.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 5:43 pm
by The Ginger Man
Keepcoolbutcare wrote:
Chairman Kaga wrote:Ginger I don't really think this rumor is remotely likely but I think the points brought up in here are worth discussing regardless if this pans out or not.


indeed. Shit, we've got "Movie News" threads based on other QT related rumors...whilst perusing, I found the "Come Drink with Me" thread.

really just split this off so as not to derail the other thread.

and it's a fun discussion, one that came up previously w/r/t Wes Anderson.


Jesus Christ, you guys have no sense of humor. I was making a humorous observation about the shitty source. But I can see how that would be missed in my 8-line short play entitled "Waiting for my Mocha Grande."

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 5:57 pm
by Chairman Kaga
The Ginger Man wrote:
Keepcoolbutcare wrote:
Chairman Kaga wrote:Ginger I don't really think this rumor is remotely likely but I think the points brought up in here are worth discussing regardless if this pans out or not.


indeed. Shit, we've got "Movie News" threads based on other QT related rumors...whilst perusing, I found the "Come Drink with Me" thread.

really just split this off so as not to derail the other thread.

and it's a fun discussion, one that came up previously w/r/t Wes Anderson.


Jesus Christ, you guys have no sense of humor. I was making a humorous observation about the shitty source. But I can see how that would be missed in my 8-line short play entitled "Waiting for my Mocha Grande."

I enjoyed it but I didn't think I had to type big giant guffaws. I'll make sure to do that in the future.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 6:03 pm
by The Ginger Man
But to add my 2-cents to the "worth-while" discussion, I don't think QT is self-indulgent. I do, however, think that people expect too much from him. He's directed 4.5 movies and written a few more. All of which have fit directly into his, omg, style. What more do you want from the guy?

But hey, who knows, maybe he really should shake it up a bit. And while he's doing that, maybe Tim Burton could make a movie that isn't spooky. And James Cameron could finally stop using special effects as a crutch. And George Romero could find the courage to direct my script "UNICORNS VS. TEDDY BEARS: HUG-APOLYPSE"

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 6:05 pm
by Zarles
The Ginger Man wrote:
Zarles wrote:Do people call out Spielberg for being self-indulgent because he makes a lot of movies about Jewish people?


I wish they would. It would be hilarious to see it pop up in interviews.

"Mr. Spielberg, you've made some wonderful films about the Holocaust and the Jewish community. But I couldn't help but notice that....well, you yourself are actually Jewish."

"Uh.....yeah. Your point?"

"Oh. I don't have one. Just thought I'd point it out. Moving on...."


'And is it true that you don't believe in Santa Claus? Also, the whole 'draedl' thing. Please explain.'

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 6:05 pm
by The Ginger Man
Chairman Kaga wrote:I enjoyed it but I didn't think I had to type big giant guffaws. I'll make sure to do that in the future.


I wasn't saying you had to laugh. I was saying that it was meant as a joke about the story....not a cry of "this topic has no reason for being."

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 6:05 pm
by Ribbons
The Ginger Man wrote:And George Romero could find the courage to direct my script "UNICORNS VS. TEDDY BEARS: HUG-APOLYPSE"


Right after he directs my script X-Men and Frosty the Snowman in the Cretaceous Period...

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 6:06 pm
by so sorry
The Ginger Man wrote:But hey, who knows, maybe he really should shake it up a bit. And while he's doing that, maybe Tim Burton could make a movie that isn't spooky. And James Cameron could finally stop using special effects as a crutch. And George Romero could find the courage to direct my script "UNICORNS VS. TEDDY BEARS: HUG-APOLYPSE"


And Kevin Smith can do a silent movie.