Grindhouse (Tarantino/Rodriguez, 2007)

[chaddoli]

As much as I like Kill Bill, and think Grindhouse looks cool, I'm not so sure I like the direction Tarantino is going in. He's certainly turning to the lower-brow end of his talent, as opposed to what he did with Jackie Brown (imo his best film), where he actually displayed a great deal of compassion, insight and maturity.

[Jason]

I'm very excited about this and would also like to see him do something in the vein of Jackie Brown.

[Cinesimilitude]

I want to see his rumored Inglorious Bastards next, but I'm willing to bet he'll be guest directing part of sin city 2 next, and then it'll be 2 or 3 years before we see his next project.

[DrewReiber]

I want to see his rumored Inglorious Bastards next, but I'm willing to bet he'll be guest directing part of sin city 2 next, and then it'll be 2 or 3 years before we see his next project.

Supposedly, Rodriguez is looking for someone else to guest direct on Sin City 2. Considering the nature of the Weinstein Co.'s financial backing, as opposed to when the producers were at Miramax, the potential of the Inglorious Bastards remake ever happening is very slim. You'll probably see his Kung Fu project first.

[exte]

I want to see his rumored Inglorious Bastards next, but I'm willing to bet he'll be guest directing part of sin city 2 next, and then it'll be 2 or 3 years before we see his next project.

Supposedly, Rodriguez is looking for someone else to guest direct on Sin City 2. Considering the nature of the Weinstein Co.'s financial backing, as opposed to when the producers were at Miramax, the potential of the Inglorious Bastards remake ever happening is very slim. You'll probably see his Kung Fu project first.

But it's hard to imagine that they can't get some hedge fund together to back a Tarantino war film, especially with all the stars in it... I don't think we can be positive about it not happening...

[DrewReiber]

But it's hard to imagine that they can't get some hedge fund together to back a Tarantino war film, especially with all the stars in it

Well, for one thing, World War 2 films aren't faring well lately. Flags of Our Fathers was a huge bomb and Tarantino's films don't do well enough to counteract this problem with investors. Second, none of those actors are actually attached to the film. The names were nothing more than potential candidates that Tarantino mentioned 10 years ago, several who no longer carry that marquee value and/or have retired. There's no evidence to suggest the script is even done...

[Antoine Doinel]

But it's hard to imagine that they can't get some hedge fund together to back a Tarantino war film, especially with all the stars in it

Well, for one thing, World War 2 films aren't faring well lately. Flags of Our Fathers was a huge bomb and Tarantino's films don't do well enough to counteract this problem with investors. Second, none of those actors are actually attached to the film. The names were nothing more than potential candidates that Tarantino mentioned 10 years ago, several who no longer carry that marquee value and/or have retired. There's no evidence to suggest the script is even done...

Tarantino's films don't do well enough? I think the Kill Bill films, which made money in America and did very well overseas will be enough to have more than one investor jump on board and throw money at Tarantino, no matter what he does.

[Lino]

More Grindhouse goodies.

[Andre Jurieu]

Tarantino's films don't do well enough? I think the Kill Bill films, which made money in America and did very well overseas will be enough to have more than one investor jump on board and throw money at Tarantino, no matter what he does.

Except that a war film would cost much more than any film Tarantino has made so far, so the box office numbers have to be higher than most of his films. Drew is just saying that given the current market for war films, the people putting up the money will have to invest more money with higher risk and lower potential returns, so it would be hard to have someone accept those kinds of investment terms. A few people might be willing to fork over $40 million, but $100 million is a little steep for only a $5-10 million return (for people who think in these types of terms).

[Antoine Doinel]

I dunno. Miramax forked over $80 million for the Kill Bill films in a genre that isn't the most successful either. I think Tarantino's name has a cachet that, for better or worse, will allow him to do whatever he wants and find people to back him.

And certainly, any Tarantino war film won't be like Flags Of Our Fathers or Saving Private Ryan. I'm he'll find a way to put his own stamp on it somehow.

[Andre Jurieu]

I dunno. Miramax forked over $80 million for the Kill Bill films in a genre that isn't the most successful either. I think Tarantino's name has a cachet that, for better or worse, will allow him to do whatever he wants and find people to back him.

Yeah, but the Kill Bill movies are a different beast and $80 million isn't that much when it's split out over two movies, with two opening weekends. Since they were genre films and Tarantino's core audience are uber-geeks who have a cult devotion, there is a certain demographic pull with the Kill Bill projects that studios could count on.

War movies are a bit different. Tarantino probably has to be a bit more weighty with that type of material and there is a basic amount of production costs required to make it appear realistic. Essentially, the same demographic market might not be as substantial with a war movie. Plus, I doubt his story is attempting a coin-flip perspective a la Flags and Letters, so he may not have a chance at two opening weekends.

And certainly, any Tarantino war film won't be like Flags Of Our Fathers or Saving Private Ryan. I'm he'll find a way to put his own stamp on it somehow.

Well, now we're talking about slightly different things. I'm sure Tarantino will find a way to put his own stamp on his war film, but that doesn't really mean it will be a financial success or an appealing investment. We all know that good movies don't always make a great deal of money. Just look at Jackie Brown (please restrain the urge to start throwing produce at me and just give it to kind people at Homelessville).

[exte]

Yeah, but the Kill Bill movies are a different beast and $80 million isn't that much when it's split out over two movies, with two opening weekends.

I'm thinking that's what they would do for a WWII film by Tarantino. IMDb says that KB Vol 1 cost $55 million to make and made $178 million worldwide, and Vol 2 cost $30 million and made $149 million worldwide. That's $327 million for an $85 million investment, not including advertising and profit sharing...

Then again, I'm sure a WWII film by him would go as high as $125 million in terms of budget, so who knows...

[Jeff]

We all know that good movies don't always make a great deal of money. Just look at Jackie Brown (please restrain the urge to start throwing produce at me and just give it to kind people at Homelessville).

I won't be throwing anything, Andre. Jackie Brown is far and away my favorite Tarantino picture.

[DrewReiber]

That's $327 million for an $85 million investment, not including advertising and profit sharing...

Actually, the total cost between the two of them was $60 million not counting prints and advertising. The worldwide box office between both films was $332 million, but they only see about half of that total as the rest goes to the exhibitors. In total, Miramax took about $166 home. That's $106 after taking paying out the budget, then take another $15-$20 each for the marketing of both movies.

The film made just twice what it cost, somewhere about $66-$76 million. Yeah it was a hit, but ultimately Disney put most of the money and that's probably why the Weinsteins are having so much trouble over the rights in getting the uncut version released. The Inglorious Bastards remake is going to cost a lot more than that, and they have yet to show that as an independent studio they can afford and recoup such costs.

Then again, I'm sure a WWII film by him would go as high as $125 million in terms of budget, so who knows...

You're forgetting that he wants to make three of them. It's just not at all a realistic project.

[Len]

You're forgetting that he wants to make three of them. It's just not at all a realistic project.

I think it'd do well for Tarantino to actually start doing some "normal" films for a change. Not four hour tributes to exploitation films or WW2-trilogies, instead a single good script for an enjoyable 90 minute crime film would do nicely. Maybe even an Leonard adaptation or something.

It's just depressing to see him taking the wrong turn after Jackie Brown.

[toiletduck!]

And, just for an even balance, I much prefer his embrace of whatever it is he's embracing at the time. I'll settle for an unrealistic failure over a 'normal' success any day (and not just from Tarantino). What passion can you get from someone striving for normal?

-Toilet Dcuk

[Cinesimilitude]

What passion can you get from someone striving for normal?

-Toilet Dcuk

If we were able to have signatures, that quote would be in mine. I completely agree.

[DrewReiber]

I think it'd do well for Tarantino to actually start doing some "normal" films for a change. Not four hour tributes to exploitation films or WW2-trilogies, instead a single good script for an enjoyable 90 minute crime film would do nicely. Maybe even an Leonard adaptation or something.

The only reason I liked Jackie Brown at all was because the original material had a soul and he did a decent job of respecting that in the adaptation. I've never liked Tarantino's work outside of that film, and his last project was nothing more than a shot for shot remake of a handful of better movies. The last thing I would want is to see him to the same to Enzo G. Castellari and Brian G. Hutton.

Regardless of my personal bias, Inglorious Bastards is still an epic project where the financial risk and lack of development progression (on Tarantino's part) are major obstacles that won't be overcome anytime soon. The Weinsteins are having a much harder time convincing investors of the kind of vanity projects they were able to greenlight at will with the deep pockets of Michael Eisner's tenure at the Disney Company. That's why it took several attempts and a longer stretch of time to get Clerks II financed, and more than likely why Smith, Rodriguez and Tarantino have been encouraged to deliver more horror films so that the Weinsteins can capitalize on an existing, thriving market.

It's just depressing to see him taking the wrong turn after Jackie Brown.

He was crushed by the lack of critical and box office reward that came with his earlier films, so he made the obvious move and curled back into the easiest, most commercial work possible. Though I may not agree with you on his potential as a writer/director, it would be interesting if he proved me wrong.

[Len]

I'll settle for an unrealistic failure over a 'normal' success any day (and not just from Tarantino). What passion can you get from someone striving for normal?

I wasn't talking so much about doing a "normal" (yeah, that was a horrible choice of words) film for success' sake, more about the idea that Tarantino has potential to do more than just these somewhat amusing curiosities. I've never considered him to be anything really special (which can largely attributed to me not liking Tarantino's dialogue at all) the same way alot of people seem to, but somehow I think he could do something better and more interesting than what he is doing now.

Ofcourse, if these are all he's into doing nowadays, then so be it. And fuck it, I'll be going to see Grindhouse anyways (although mainly for the wonderful cast), despite my whining.

[DrewReiber]

Fangoria News

Sybil Danning... well, that made sense. Every bit of the concept behind this trailer just gives me a weird collage of flashbacks to the early days of horror on home video. I can remember passing all this ridiculous stuff on the shelf and when it blends in my mind, it looks like this sounds. Interesting.

[Fletch F. Fletch]

Wow! Nicolas Cage as Fu Manchu? Udo Kier, Sybil Danning, Bill Moseley, and Tom Towles?! Nice. I am really looking forward to this faux trailer. Man, you could actually make a pretty cool film out of this concept and cast.

[Antoine Doinel]

From the NYTimes:

[quote]Directors Who Go Together, Like Blood and Guts

By WHITNEY JOINER
Published: January 28, 2007
AUSTIN, Tex.

STUCK in traffic here some months ago, the director Robert Rodriguez — many of whose films had already dabbled in cannibalism, torture and murders of every degree and then some — began wondering how to get attention for his next effort. The answer, he decided, was a machine-gun leg.

As Mr. Rodriguez's notion evolved, the leg became a stump on the body of the 33-year-old actress Rose McGowan. Ms. McGowan's character, a go-go dancer, has lost her limb to zombies. Her ex-boyfriend, played by Freddy Rodriguez (no relation to the director), helps her fight back, attaching an automatic weapon to what's left. The result is spattered throughout “Planet Terror,â€

[DrewReiber]

[quote="Antoine Doinel"]“Grindhouseâ€

[Cinesimilitude]

the missing reels are a good idea, but It's going to piss me off. oh well, still should be great.

[Antoine Doinel]

[quote]After finishing the script he sent it to Bob Dylan, because he thought Mr. Dylan “would appreciate the wordplay.â€