Quentin Tarantino is writing a 20 page review of Superman Returns

[Solaris01]

This is only a small part of the interview,



Did you like being on the jury?
I loved it. I enjoy arguing. There was one year when I visited Cannes, and I was so caught up in the spirit that I picked 12 movies that I had never seen from all different countries and I watched them and did my own little awards thing. Can I tell you the movie that won? ‘‘Perfume’’ by Tom Tykwer. ‘‘Perfume’’ won my own little Cannes Film Festival.

In your festival, who won best director?
Bryan Singer for ‘‘Superman Returns.’’ I am a big fan of ‘‘Returns.’’ I’m working on what is now a 20-page review of that movie, and I’m not done yet.



http://www.nytimes.com/indexes/2009/05/03/style/t/index.html#pagewanted=0&pageName=03taranw&



As a big fan of SR myself, I'd love to read his review!

[Will.S]

I'm not sure if I'd want to read a 20 page review unless he plans to do an illustrative version but I'd be curious as to why he's such a big fan of the movie.

I happened to like the movie despite its many flaws.

[The Confessor]

It’s nice to hear someone championing Superman Returns for a change, instead of picking holes in it. I personally loved the movie but that doesn't seem like a very widely held view point amongst the comic book reading fraternity.

Should be interesting to read Tarantino’s 20-page review…when and where will it be published?

[CYOTI]

This is the equivalent of having Mark Foley writing a review of the Boy Scouts Handbook. Absolutely worthless and overshadowed by the personality writing it.

[Mat001]

It'd still be an interesting review. It's twenty pages because he tends to go off on a tanget for a bit, before getting back to the topic at hand.

[Ilash]

Do you think he'll go off and write out the entire script of Kill Bill 2 in the middle of the review?

[Mainline]

This is the equivalent of having Mark Foley writing a review of the Boy Scouts Handbook. Absolutely worthless and overshadowed by the personality writing it.Niven's 12-Part (but admittedly not 20 page) "Kleenex" has done alright... a scifi writer's scifi perspective on Superman's carnal relations. This will be a filmmaker's perspective on Superman's latest film.

I don't expect his review to change hearts and minds, but it might raise a few good points amongst the more open-minded.

Myself, I can appreciate why every decision was made the way it was... but I disagree with certain decisions- even if I can see the rationale- and the aggregate effect was fairly disappointing even if not bad. It'll be interesting to read the ravings of a filmmaker who thinks every choice was inspired....

[CYOTI]

Niven's 12-Part (but admittedly not 20 page) "Kleenex" has done alright... a scifi writer's scifi perspective on Superman's carnal relations.
Only as a piece of parody.

[Mainline]

Uh, considering QT's films... I don't think that'll be a problem for him.

[Solaris01]

I'm not sure if I'd want to read a 20 page review unless he plans to do an illustrative version but I'd be curious as to why he's such a big fan of the movie.
I happened to like the movie despite its many flaws.

Well, as a big fan of the movie myself, I can understand why he liked the movie. Clearly, it is a matter of taste and opinion.

And no, I don't think the movie is flawless. No movie is, not even TDK. But I find that it's strenghts far outweigh its weaknesses. I think it's a great Superman film. Shoot me. lol

A lot of people liked the movie, including critics. The movie got mostly good reviews in places like rottentomatoes, yahoo,

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/superman_returns/

It even won as Best Movie and Breakout Star of the Year for Routh by the readers of Total Film magazine back in 2006,

http://www.totalfilm.com/features/review-of-the-year-and-total-film-readers-awards





It’s nice to hear someone championing Superman Returns for a change, instead of picking holes in it. I personally loved the movie but that doesn't seem like a very widely held view point amongst the comic book reading fraternity.

Should be interesting to read Tarantino’s 20-page review…when and where will it be published?

Hi, The Confessor, nice to 'read' you. :biggrin:

Well, yeah, but a lot of people out of these type of boards liked the movie, hence why it made nearly $400 mil worldwide. :wink:

And no, we don't know when the review will be done; it is known that Tarantino takes his sweet time to get things done. Check this link please,

http://thinkmcflythink.squarespace.com/movie-news/2009/5/4/tarantino-writing-20-page-review-of-superman-returns.html

see ya,

Oh, almost forget, there are other places where people like the movie a lot; I can give you the link if you want. ;)

[DeadXMan]

It was alright

I just think it high time to up the actiion and bring in some villians like darkseid and Lobo.

[Ilash]

My take on the film is that the script was fairly weak (structurally it was all over the place, Luthor's plan was beyond ridiculous and did we really need the kid?) but I loved the feel that Bryan Singer brought to it. It felt like a Superman movie, in the best possible sense. And I liked Routh as well.

I hope they keep Singer around for the next one and get better writers. And starting from scratch might not be a terrible idea either.

[Elayis]

Being my first Superman film (of course I'd heard of the Christopher Reeve's films, but I'm generally not a fan of films older than '85), I actually quite liked it.

The first time I ever heard anything bad about it was on the Wikipedia page for the film. And I heard some people at Mile High Comics in Denver talking crap about it, saying it was the opposite of TDK.

I was just wondering why people don't like it.

The only parts I was confused by, was that I didn't feel it continued off of the first 4 films, and that Superman was a little young to have a son.But otherwise I thought it was an all-around good movie. I just wish Singer would've done the third X-Men film, instead. I've never been partial to Superman, and as first two X-Men films were phenomenal, I was curious as to what he would've done with a third.

[Ilash]

Being my first Superman film (of course I'd heard of the Christopher Reeve's films, but I'm generally not a fan of films older than '85), I actually quite liked it.

The first time I ever heard anything bad about it was on the Wikipedia page for the film. And I heard some people at Mile High Comics in Denver talking crap about it, saying it was the opposite of TDK.

I was just wondering why people don't like it.

The only parts I was confused by, was that I didn't feel it continued off of the first 4 films, and that Superman was a little young to have a son.But otherwise I thought it was an all-around good movie. I just wish Singer would've done the third X-Men film, instead. I've never been partial to Superman, and as first two X-Men films were phenomenal, I was curious as to what he would've done with a third.

You don't watch movies older than 1985? You mean you haven't even seen the original Star Wars trilogy, ET or Raiders of the Lost Ark? Anyway, definitely check out the first two Superman flicks, they have their problems but they're still the most charming superhero films ever, as far as I'm concerned. Hell, they're worth it just for Chris Reeve alone. And the first one was only made 1979. It's not that old.

[Ilash]

I did say generally. I have watched many films before '85, but I've noticed that many films before this period are very campy. I guess the 80s was just a time of maturity, both for film and comics.

And I have actually seen the first 2 Superman films; actually, I've seen all four. They were okay, but the effects really bring me out of the film, and I just can't stand the actress that plays Lois in the old films.

Oh sorry based on what you said, I thought you hadn't seen them.

Other than that I pretty much disagree with everything you've said here.

Margot Kidder was a great Lois Lane - well, for that interpretation of the character anyway.

Camp films have always existed and there is certainly elements of that in all the Superman themes. I don't see this as always being a problem though - this campiness gave the early Superman films a sense of humour that worked in their favour (overall) for the first two films.

Some of the all time greatest films came out pre-1985: most of which aren't camp in the slightest.

Superhero comics did come of age in the 80s. Maybe even comics in general. Film very much did not, however.

I get what you're saying about the effects but I actually really enjoy them. CGI has become waaay too much of a crutch for many modern day blockbusters though not Superman Returns oddly enough.

[BYC]

I dislike QT since he seems to love himself a bit too much. But I would be interested in reading what he says. And as usual, he'll say a ton.

It seems like the people who dislike Superman Returns tend to give reasons that end up being more of disliking Superman instead of the movie. To me, the movie really highlighted once again how it seems like the public doesn't "get" Superman anymore. All we ever hear is how "Superman is too powerful", "he's a boy scout", "he's too perfect". Yet of these things were addressed in Superman Returns, and lots of people bashed it.

In the end, I think the movie is good, but not great. And the sites that judge movies show most people liked it, and that's good enough for me.

[Herr Mike]

If any movie deserves a 20 page review, it's not Superman Returns.

[Sean Whitmore]

It seems like the people who dislike Superman Returns tend to give reasons that end up being more of disliking Superman instead of the movie.

Really? You should dig up some of the threads we've had about it on this board (if they haven't been wiped). There are plenty of reasons that fans of Superman could still find the movie disappointing.


SEAN

[rmyers1995]

I liked Superman Returns too. I liked Superman I and II better, but SR was good.

[GRANT!]

I'm not a fan of the movie at all but I wouldn't mind reading a 20 page review by Tarantino about it (and I doubt I'll rethink my position on it). I enjoy reading or listening to what other filmmakers say about movies even if I'm not a fan of the movies.

[Crowforge]

I too really like SR, this should be interesting to see why he liked it.

[Name Already Taken]

Would anyone like to see Tarantino write a comic? He would probably do a good Vertigo or dynamite/Top Shelf book with some interesting ideas.

[Mainline]

If you're the type to impute an actor's performance in one film to another, do not ever seen "Beyond The Sea" (2004) which features a love-story between Spacey and Bosworth. This utterly killed Returns for some people.

[GRANT!]

Would anyone like to see Tarantino write a comic? He would probably do a good Vertigo or dynamite/Top Shelf book with some interesting ideas.

I think people have tried. I remember Kevin Smith talking about trying to talk him into doing something for Marvel Knights.

I don't know if I'd enjoy a Tarantino comic. His movies often have long stretches of talking and short bursts of action or violence. Which is cool in a movie (at least to me) but it's kind of the opposite of what I want from a comic (at least a genre comic book). If he wrote a novel that might be interested but I think he's working in the best medium for his talents.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

Really? You should dig up some of the threads we've had about it on this board (if they haven't been wiped). There are plenty of reasons that fans of Superman could still find the movie disappointing.


SEAN

Yeah, not liking Superman wasn't the problem most people had with the movie. Although Returns certainly gave Superman-haters a lot of ammunition for why they don't like him.

[Indigo Al]

Would anyone like to see Tarantino write a comic? He would probably do a good Vertigo or dynamite/Top Shelf book with some interesting ideas.

I thought I had heard rumors that some of the Kill Bill characters were going to be adapted? I could be wrong.

In any case, I'm surprised he liked Superman Returns as much as he did (I would have thought S2 would have been his favorite), but maybe it makes sense in light of Bill's speech to the Bride about Superman?

EDIT: Does the Clark Kent persona in SR reflect the "commentary on humanity" Bill thinks Superman makes by assuming the Kent identity? I don't think so, but, I haven't seen SR in ages and have no desire to watch it again.

[Jae Namkyoung]

My take on the film is that the script was fairly weak (structurally it was all over the place, Luthor's plan was beyond ridiculous and did we really need the kid?) but I loved the feel that Bryan Singer brought to it. It felt like a Superman movie, in the best possible sense. And I liked Routh as well.

I hope they keep Singer around for the next one and get better writers. And starting from scratch might not be a terrible idea either.

Superman: Man of Steel, 2011, however IMDB is a little slow as it may just be Superman: Unleashed > http://www.superherohype.com/news/supermannews.php?id=8107

Mark Millar has even had a proposed script as well, so we shall see.

[Will.S]

Superman: Man of Steel, 2011, however IMDB is a little slow as it may just be Superman: Unleashed > http://www.superherohype.com/news/supermannews.php?id=8107

Mark Millar has even had a proposed script as well, so we shall see.
From what I've heard of his script, I can't say I really cared for it.

[The Batman]

As for Tarantino's twenty-page review of Superman Returns, if it ever sees the light of day, I'm interested in reading it.

[Solaris01]

So, Elayis happens to like SR better than the older Superman movies; what's wrong with that? IMO, you have great taste, mate. ;)

You know, outside these boards there is people (that don't read the comics) who think those movies are to cheesy and campy, and who actually prefer SR..

I love the first two Superman movies with Christopher Reeve, especially Superman The Movie, but the truth is that those movies are not perfect either. They have its flaws; they are too silly and campy in some parts (the villains-- Otis), and there are some plot holes. But there is also A LOT good in them. Donner definitely got the essence of the character right, which is what matters to me.

[DeadXMan]

So, Elayis happens to like SR better than the older Superman movies; what's wrong with that? IMO, you have great taste, mate. ;)

You know, outside these boards there is people (that don't read the comics) who think those movies are to cheesy and campy, and who actually prefer SR..

I love the first two Superman movies with Christopher Reeve, especially Superman The Movie, but the truth is that those movies are not perfect either. They have its flaws; they are too silly and campy in some parts (the villains-- Otis), and there are some plot holes. But there is also A LOT good in them. Donner definitely got the essence of the character right, which is what matters to me.

it not about SR
it's the fact he never watches movies that were made before 1985.

we're trying to broaden his horizons

[Sean Whitmore]

The movie discussions have been good, but were getting just a bit too far from the topic, so I've ported all relevant posts to the TV/Film Board:

http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=268621


SEAN

[Elayis]

it not about SR
it's the fact he never watches movies that were made before 1985.

we're trying to broaden his horizons

Again, it's not that I don't watch movies made before this period; it's just I've noticed that a lot of films made before this are very campy, a style that I very much dislike (which is one of the reasons why I don't like Loeb. I can certainly see his appeal for people who like cheesy stuff, but I don't.

Still off topic, but as I think o my favorite films sporadically, I'm just going to post them when they come to me. I really enjoyed Donnie Darko. Did anyone else?

[Gitaroo_Dude]

Again, it's not that I don't watch movies made before this period; it's just I've noticed that a lot of films made before this are very campy, a style that I very much dislike (which is one of the reasons why I don't like Loeb. I can certainly see his appeal for people who like cheesy stuff, but I don't.

Still off topic, but as I think o my favorite films sporadically, I'm just going to post them when they come to me. I really enjoyed Donnie Darko. Did anyone else?

I LOVE Donnie Darko. Definitely one of the quintisential high school films in my opinion.

[Sean Whitmore]

Ahem.

Post #32, guys.


SEAN

[Jason1Kent]

X-Men was a good move, X-men 2 was great , why? because synger introduced viewers first of all to his take on the X-men and then layed seeds for a strong story which was followed into X-Men 3, which was a not so good movie.

When you take on Superman, the studio obviously want a series of films as appose one and so Synger once again introduced us to his take on Superman . The Last Kryptonian returning to a world he decided to leave in the hopes of finding other Kryptonians. Taken from the perspective of anyone who has felt alone in society and seeks out others who are the same you can understand this .

On finding nothing he returns to earth to his Mother and starts to realise he was never alone and that he must rebuild what he left but all is not the same.......................
Clark as apposed to Superman must try and salvage what he has lost and in the process he realises that Superman is needed in the World too, earth calls out to him but Clark can't call out to Lois because she has moved on , reality kicks in for him.

Throw in Lex Luthor to remind him he is different and you have a man of steel who is fighting to not let another World die . Not to metion the New Krypton in Space by the end and he falls to earth, home.
What will happen with this new Krypton? Lex knows its there, others may know its there. This like X-men 2 lays way for action! Also not forgetting through his son, he now has a connection to earth, he truely is not alone anymore. We now know where and what the world is and so Synger like X-Men 2 (again) turns up the action in the next movie. This, I think is also a trilogy storyline as I said, companies want sequels.
Like X-men you can't take Superman Returns as a single movie, with buisness nowadays you can't hence why I think Taratino liked it as he knows if they want sequels it gives you a bigger playing field to expand a story or even tell a story that does not have to be fit into one movie.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Well, yeah, but a lot of people out of these type of boards liked the movie, hence why it made nearly $400 mil worldwide. :wink:


It is worth pointing out that the studio that made the film considers this to be a failure, compared to the money a Superman film should have made.
That $400 mil should have been made in America, not worldwide - that just shows that people WANT a Superman movie and will go see a Superman movie, not that it was a great Superman movie.
Dark Knight smashed that in America, let alone world wide.

So whilst yes, it made more than we'll ever see, and it made it's money back, it should have made more.

I like Superman, and so I liked watching the film (admittedly, it took till the second time that I could enjoy it, the first I was pretty bored), but that script was pretty bad, and the big bad villain was an island.
An island.

If the same director and cast had made a relaunch of the series, or a film with more action - hell, just more flying - they could easily have doubled that taking.

Basically, and this is only my opinion here, I believe they basically forgot to show everyone why Superman is so great - there wasn't enough in the film to remind/show people why Superman is so cool.
If this had come out back when it had only been a couple of years since the last Superman film, it would have had a better reception, but when it's been well over a decade or two, people need more - it assumed a love of the Donner films that the younger audience today don't have.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

If you're the type to impute an actor's performance in one film to another, do not ever seen "Beyond The Sea" (2004) which features a love-story between Spacey and Bosworth. This utterly killed Returns for some people.

Yeah, but those people are idiots.

The end.

Really, why would you care what some one that dim-witted has to say about anything?

[_OM_]

I was just wondering why people don't like it.

...It basically can be summed up as a combination of the following factors:

1) The film simply didn't have an ending that resolved anything, It was closer to a closing scene in a bad daytime soap, and for audiences used to seeing the hero beat the shit out of the villain and putting him behind bars - or six feet under - it was totally unfulfilling and bland.

2) Except for Brandon Routh and to some extent Kevin Spacey, the cast was just not up to the specs a film like Superman Returns would have required to meet the expectation generated by all the hype. Most notable of the miscastings was Kate Bosworth as Lois, who managed to take the look-n-feel that the great Margot Kidder gave to the character and made Lois into the biggest bimbo since some of the lines foisted on Phyllis Coates(*) in the Superman TV series.

(*) Phyllis was an excellent actress, but there were times towards the end of the series that Lois was written as if she were such a ditz that she made the comic book version in Superman's Girlfriend look like a genius.

3) The overall visual look of the film was crippled with the plague of HDRI, or overenhancing the colors and contrast of the film. It made everything way too dark, and when combined with the "darkened" version of Superman's super-suit, totally drained the film of the bright "magic" the first two films possessed.

...Others will no doubt add their own issues they had with the film, but those three are the most common amongst critics.

[Mainline]

Yeah, but those people are idiots.

The end.

Really, why would you care what some one that dim-witted has to say about anything?I guess Bryan Singer is an dim-witted idiot then, because his search for an unknown to play Superman was to avoid this very issue.

[RolandJP]

20 page review by QT.

Not enough cursing or N' word usage.


written a billion times.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

I guess Bryan Singer is an dim-witted idiot then, because his search for an unknown to play Superman was to avoid this very issue.

Ahhh, you one of those people are you then?

Sorry.

However, Singer, as part of his giant homage to the earlier Donner films, wanted an unknown because Reeves was an unknown when cast.
This of course does make for a blank slate with the audience, but also stops it being just another 'Nic Cage film' - which also stops ego getting in the way.

But let's be fair though - just because Singer felt he needed to cast a new face for an audience who might not willingly accept someone they already know as Superman, does not make him a moron, it just means some people are.
Otherwise, he would have cast an unknown in every role he ever cast.

[Mainline]

Nice on the double-speak, doesn't hide the fact you've completely back-tracked on your stance in embarassing fashion.

Singer considered it an issue expressly in his rejection of Caviezel and his casting of Bosworth. The fact that he showed audiences consideration gives him an iota of common sense which your analysis lacks. Again, irrespective of whether I, Singer, or you impute performances... only an arrogant moron would think things like type-casting and prior performances have no affect on films.

Not saying you're an arrogant moron, but if Singer had cared MORE about audiences, he wouldn't have been forced to drop his writers or be banished to sequel limbo.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Nice on the double-speak, doesn't hide the fact you've completely back-tracked on your stance in embarassing fashion.

I'm not backing down - I think people who can't get over an actor acting is a moron.
I really, really do.

Singer considered it an issue expressly in his rejection of Caviezel and his casting of Bosworth.

Actually, Caviezel expressed an interest in the role - it doesn't mean Singer ever considered him.
Sean Young famously really wanted the role of Catwoman in Batman Returns, doesn't mean she was ever actually in the run in.


The fact that he showed audiences consideration gives him an iota of common sense which your analysis lacks.

Actually I covered that.
I obviously didn't use the words or points that make you feel better about being you, but that doesn't mean I didn't.

Again, irrespective of whether I, Singer, or you impute performances... only an arrogant moron would think things like type-casting and prior performances have no affect on films.

Singer wanted an unknown because he knew some people are idiots and can't separate an actor playing one role and then playing another...
Actually - I don't know that there is actually a big group of people who are like that, Pacino has a career, Caine has a career, Nicholson has a career - and these guys have been doing it since before I was born.
I'd say he cast an unknown because, apart from doing it the way they did with Reeves (and that can't be stated enough, as the majority of that film was a mass homage to the original two), he wanted the story, and thus attention, to be on Superman, not the person playing the role - ie. if it was Cage, he didn't want stories about Cage's divorce/remarriage coming in, or a 'Brangelina' type thing colouring perceptions - like Katie Holmes and Cruise took the focus at the opening of Batman Begins.
With an unknown, he was unknown, and thus people were only interested in him as Superman.


Not saying you're an arrogant moron, but if Singer had cared MORE about audiences, he wouldn't have been forced to drop his writers or be banished to sequel limbo.

Is he in sequel limbo?
He seems to be doing just fine with his career, and those writing was rather bad on the film.

[Mainline]

For someone who doesn't know Singer's express statements about Caviezel as well as his express statements about his OWN casting motivations- right there on video- or the status of his career, you're doing a good job of pulling stuff out of your ass on why he did it. If it's a legitimate concern for a director, god forbid it being a legitimate concern for someone suggesting a film.

It's fine to live in a fantasy where Singer has secret unspoken motivations that all line up with your world-view... but some might credit those as unrealistic.

BTW, newsflash, Superman is a pop-icon... pop as in popular. As in the unwashed masses, "moronic" as they may be. A vision that universally resonates with that icon is way more important to the franchise and it's success than any pretentious art-house notion of integrity. I can't believe you're trying to claim imputation is stupid in an industry and medium that runs almost entirely on the celebrity of its characters, writers, and artists.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

For someone who doesn't know Singer's express statements about Caviezel as well as his express statements about his OWN casting motivations- right there on video- or the status of his career, you're doing a good job of pulling stuff out of your ass on why he did it. If it's a legitimate concern for a director, god forbid it being a legitimate concern for someone suggesting a film.

I took it from wikipedia actually - Caviezel approached Singer, Singer liked the idea of casting Jesus in the role, but turned him down.
Comments he made about it after wards are just to give a reason why - people lie.
Often - especially when doing press spins.
It's also there that the quote that he wanted to cast an unknown because Reeves was an unknown is from.

As for career status, how is Singer trapped in sequel limbo?
Valkyrie just came out to mostly positive reviews and a decent take.


It's fine to live in a fantasy where Singer has secret unspoken motivations that all line up with your world-view... but some might credit those as unrealistic.

Mate, I studied film and work in tv, at a movie channel - I'm a film buff and research films all the time.
As someone who can't handle actors playing different roles, I'm pretty certain I'm more well versed than you.
I've read a lot about casting in films and such, and the only times you hear of people worrying about casting someone from a different film is if it's against type - usually involving someone with a persona in their films such as Jimmy Stewart or Pauly Shore - or someone from a long running tv series.
Your theory, which is actually based on you not being able to handle Bosworth and Spacey having a different relationship in a different film, doesn't actually make sense, because if directors thought that way, every actor would play one role.

Also, Routh had done wok before Superman, and thus not a complete unknown.


BTW, newsflash, Superman is a pop-icon... pop as in popular. As in the unwashed masses, "moronic" as they may be.

I didn't say the masses are morons - just people who can't handle actors playing different roles.


A vision that universally resonates with that icon is way more important to the franchise and it's success than any pretentious art-house notion of integrity. I can't believe you're trying to claim imputation is stupid in an industry and medium that runs almost entirely on the celebrity of its characters, writers, and artists.

Well, you're not using a definition of imputation I know (my fault I'm sure), but I don't believe I said any of that.
Did you switch to talking about the comics or something?
I'm really lost by what any of that last paragraph has to do with anything I said... can you simplify, expand or take another shot at it for me?

[Mainline]

I took it from wikipedia actually -
Comments he made about it after wards are just to give a reason why - people lie.
Often - especially when doing press spins.Wow. Wiki- and your divination of motivations- is more reliable than the lies spewing from Singer's lips, eh? Good luck out there in the real world, mate.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Wow. Wiki- and your divination of motivations- is more reliable than the lies spewing from Singer's lips, eh? Good luck out there in the real world, mate.

So you ignore the rest of my points because you can't argue them?

Fine - can you at least explain that last paragraph?

Cherry picking arguments really isn't the best way to argue your point with merit.

As for the wiki points - at least I said where I took mine, and I didn't realise this was meant to be a thesis.
Yours are taken from a video you saw... somewhere - and never actually proves that he wanted an unknown because people can't separate one actors role from another.

[Crowforge]

Has this come out yet?

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Has this come out yet?

Yeah, about four years ago!

Whoa!

Sorry. Please tip your waitress...

[Mainline]

Has this come out yet?No.

Don't hold your breath, he once said, "If I really considered myself a writer, I wouldn't be writing screenplays. I'd be writing novels." If it comes out, it will be inspite of himself.

By the by, "I don't believe in elitism. I don't think the audience is this dumb person lower than me. I am the audience." - QT

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

By the by, "I don't believe in elitism. I don't think the audience is this dumb person lower than me. I am the audience." - QT

This of course being the guy who cast Travolta as a hitman, Uma Thurman as an action heroine and Pam Grier in a decent role.
The success of his films are proof that the vast majority of people can separate an actors previous roles to their current ones.

[Mainline]

Ex-Grease star doing the Batusi and Look Who's Talking personality as hitman in the satire Pulp Fiction. A personal friend and former star of The Avengers as an action heroine. And Foxy Brown as Jackie Brown homage, huge leap there. Not to mention David Carradine. Not exactly making your case there. QT exploits prior performances with relish, not to establish some elitist baseline.

[Crowforge]

He's a geek and that's the shit he was into.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Ex-Grease star doing the Batusi and Look Who's Talking personality as hitman in the satire Pulp Fiction.

Big leap.
Honestly, Grease is a family film, as was Look Who's Talking - in Pulp he's killing people and shooting heroin.
Not too mention he's actually acting.

Bruce Willis in a non-traditional action role was a big leap at the time as well.

A personal friend and former star of The Avengers as an action heroine.

His friendship has nothing to do with your point - she hadn't been in an action film before -and if Avengers counts, which I truly don't believe it does - it was a flop.

And Foxy Brown as Jackie Brown homage, huge leap there.

Massive leap - you seen Foxy Brown or any of her Corman films?
Very different role to Jackie Brown.

Not to mention David Carradine.

Former star known for his martial arts in a film where he does nothing but talk?

Not exactly making your case there. QT exploits prior performances with relish, not to establish some elitist baseline.

Not making my case if you haven't seen their prior films and the Tarrantino one's, making my case if you have.

For you initial point to be true - that people can't separate an actor in one role from the next - how did Pacino ever play gay in Cruising, let alone straight again for the rest of his career?
For one example of the millions out there.

[Crowforge]

Kung fu was nothing but talking!!!!

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Kung fu was nothing but talking!!!!

Sad but true...

But it wasn't meant to be.

[srhanson]

Anyone know if QT ever finished his review? Someone should get in touch with him and encourage him to publish it in a magazine or something.

[clownprince01]

Anyone know if QT ever finished his review? Someone should get in touch with him and encourage him to publish it in a magazine or something.
Not that I know of. Although I would love to read it. If I recall, he first mentioned this at Cannes while promoting Inglourious Basterds. It's been awhile since then, so I get the feeling that this might just be another one of those projects Tarentino talks about but never ends up doing like a Vega Brothers movie or the long awaited complete version of Kill Bill which combines volume 1 and 2.

Still, you never know. He may just surprise us.

[srhanson]

I know what you mean. I figure the combined Kill Bill will come out the day I buy the separate volumes on Blu-ray :frown:

Still, I hope he does publish his review someday. Even if it's not complete.

[Kurosawa]

Well I like Tarantino and agree with *some* of his opinions on Superman, so I would love to read this.

[thepenguin]

A pointless exercise if the audience you aimed it at failed to see the point of it. No reviewing is going to help it. I don't need a thesis to patronize me and tell me a movie imo is rubbish.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Still, I hope he does publish his review someday. Even if it's not complete.

It probably never happened.

Tarantino says a lot of things are going to be his next project, or something on the side he's going to do.
But not many of them end up happening.