It's not a comparison of M. Night's work to QT's, but a comparison of how the anticipation of their newer films has waned. In M. Night's case, it has nosedived so far that people, myself included, now audibly guffaw at the "From the mind of M. Night Shyamalan" brag in trailers for his projects.

The problem with QT is not that his latest works are crap, but given the precedents he set, my expectations for greatness far exceed the quality of his latest works. I'm not at all a hater or even complainer of his latest films. In fact, I like them a lot, and I really appreciate his interpretations of bygone-era genres, but the honest truth is I walk out of his films with a tinge of disappointment.

I just need to set my expectations lower, but then I go and re-watch Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction and it fouls that whole plan up.

I hope he'll someday make the Vega Brothers film that was rumored about so long ago.

I disagree. QT knows exactly what he is doing. Some of his films are dialog driven (Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown) and some are genre and/or action driven films (True Romance, Kill Bill, Inglorious Basterds). I have no doubt he is capable of writing another Pulp, and that one day he probably will, but for now he is doing high-art pastiche of the classic exploitation dramas he grew up with. This is not to say that these action films are less good than his dialog films, they just have different aesthetic criteria.

He is much like Speilberg in this way, if polar opposites in dialog and style. Speilberg has his serious movies, and he has his homages to the serial action films of his youth.

Prediction: Eventually Quentin will eventually get his fill of action films and create another magnum opus, and likely get himself an Oscar in the process. I would absolutely love for him to take his favorite film of recent times, Battle Royale, and make an American-culture-specific version - not a remake of the film, but a remake of the concept as it would occur if it played out with American high schoolers.

Also, comparing QT to Shayamalan is blasphemy. Even Shayamalan's best work was an average film with a great twist. Shayamalan has never shown even an ounce of the writing or directing skills that QT has. Take it back. TAKE IT BACK!!1!>> ^lucky760:

Win.
I no longer have any confidence Quentin will make another Reservoir Dogs- or Pulp Fiction-caliber film, and I've made my peace with that, but I will still eagerly await every one of his new projects with fervent anticipation.
(I just hope he never descends as far down as M. Night Shyamalan.)

Win.

I no longer have any confidence Quentin will make another Reservoir Dogs- or Pulp Fiction-caliber film, and I've made my peace with that, but I will still eagerly await every one of his new projects with fervent anticipation.

(I just hope he never descends as far down as M. Night Shyamalan.)

Possibly not, he'd have to get more scars to hide it. When I say "an unrecognisable mess", I mean his swastika, not his whole face. He's not going to win any beauty contests but it's better than what would have happened to him if the Basterds hadn't intervened, getting blown up in a theatre or if he's lucky, spending his life running from Nazi hunters.

(What's up with quotes? Videosift seems to be mucking them up.)

>> ^alien_concept:

Were skin grafts that great back in the 40s? If he had to scar his whole face up, that'd still be terrible for a character like him

>> ^Quboid:
>> ^alien_concept:
>> ^Quboid:
>> ^kymbos:
I watched this film again recently, having absolutely loved it the first time, and found myself enjoying it less than I expected. Mainly because of the excessive use of the 'person is dead / no they're not not they're really just pretending' trick, which I thought was a bit cheap. It happens at least twice at key points in the film (the woman in the bar fight scene, and then the German war hero in the cinema scene).
Don't get me wrong - Tarantino is a God, and the suspense he creates in scenes is brilliant, and the Jew Hunter was pure awesome - but there were a few bits that I found a bit cheap on second viewing. I don't think it hangs together as a film as well as Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs.
So there.

Spoilers
This bugged me but what really annoyed me is this: what did the Basterds actually achieve? The only difference they made to the big ending is that they helped the main baddie! Landa (Christoph Waltz, in a superb performance) to survived, and got a nice life in the U.S. because of them screwing up the assassination attempt, at the cost of some plastic surgery. They were counter productive!

Survive with a fat swastika on his head

That could be fixed with plastic surgery, or if that wasn't available, he could get more slices in his face to change it into an unrecognisable mess. Claim he was hit by shrapnel while saving children from Nazis.
.

>> ^Quboid:

>> ^alien_concept:
>> ^Quboid:
>> ^kymbos:
I watched this film again recently, having absolutely loved it the first time, and found myself enjoying it less than I expected. Mainly because of the excessive use of the 'person is dead / no they're not not they're really just pretending' trick, which I thought was a bit cheap. It happens at least twice at key points in the film (the woman in the bar fight scene, and then the German war hero in the cinema scene).
Don't get me wrong - Tarantino is a God, and the suspense he creates in scenes is brilliant, and the Jew Hunter was pure awesome - but there were a few bits that I found a bit cheap on second viewing. I don't think it hangs together as a film as well as Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs.
So there.

Spoilers
This bugged me but what really annoyed me is this: what did the Basterds actually achieve? The only difference they made to the big ending is that they helped the main baddie! Landa (Christoph Waltz, in a superb performance) to survived, and got a nice life in the U.S. because of them screwing up the assassination attempt, at the cost of some plastic surgery. They were counter productive!

Survive with a fat swastika on his head

That could be fixed with plastic surgery, or if that wasn't available, he could get more slices in his face to change it into an unrecognisable mess. Claim he was hit by shrapnel while saving children from Nazis.


Were skin grafts that great back in the 40s? If he had to scar his whole face up, that'd still be terrible for a character like him.

>> ^alien_concept:

>> ^Quboid:
>> ^kymbos:
I watched this film again recently, having absolutely loved it the first time, and found myself enjoying it less than I expected. Mainly because of the excessive use of the 'person is dead / no they're not not they're really just pretending' trick, which I thought was a bit cheap. It happens at least twice at key points in the film (the woman in the bar fight scene, and then the German war hero in the cinema scene).
Don't get me wrong - Tarantino is a God, and the suspense he creates in scenes is brilliant, and the Jew Hunter was pure awesome - but there were a few bits that I found a bit cheap on second viewing. I don't think it hangs together as a film as well as Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs.
So there.

Spoilers
This bugged me but what really annoyed me is this: what did the Basterds actually achieve? The only difference they made to the big ending is that they helped the main baddie! Landa (Christoph Waltz, in a superb performance) to survived, and got a nice life in the U.S. because of them screwing up the assassination attempt, at the cost of some plastic surgery. They were counter productive!

Survive with a fat swastika on his head


That could be fixed with plastic surgery, or if that wasn't available, he could get more slices in his face to change it into an unrecognisable mess. Claim he was hit by shrapnel while saving children from Nazis.

>> ^Quboid:

>> ^kymbos:
I watched this film again recently, having absolutely loved it the first time, and found myself enjoying it less than I expected. Mainly because of the excessive use of the 'person is dead / no they're not not they're really just pretending' trick, which I thought was a bit cheap. It happens at least twice at key points in the film (the woman in the bar fight scene, and then the German war hero in the cinema scene).
Don't get me wrong - Tarantino is a God, and the suspense he creates in scenes is brilliant, and the Jew Hunter was pure awesome - but there were a few bits that I found a bit cheap on second viewing. I don't think it hangs together as a film as well as Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs.
So there.

Spoilers
This bugged me but what really annoyed me is this: what did the Basterds actually achieve? The only difference they made to the big ending is that they helped the main baddie! Landa (Christoph Waltz, in a superb performance) to survived, and got a nice life in the U.S. because of them screwing up the assassination attempt, at the cost of some plastic surgery. They were counter productive!


Survive with a fat swastika on his head

>> ^kymbos:

I watched this film again recently, having absolutely loved it the first time, and found myself enjoying it less than I expected. Mainly because of the excessive use of the 'person is dead / no they're not not they're really just pretending' trick, which I thought was a bit cheap. It happens at least twice at key points in the film (the woman in the bar fight scene, and then the German war hero in the cinema scene).
Don't get me wrong - Tarantino is a God, and the suspense he creates in scenes is brilliant, and the Jew Hunter was pure awesome - but there were a few bits that I found a bit cheap on second viewing. I don't think it hangs together as a film as well as Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs.
So there.


*** Spoilers ***

This bugged me but what really annoyed me is this: what did the Basterds actually achieve? The only difference they made to the big ending is that they helped the main baddie! Landa (Christoph Waltz, in a superb performance) to survived, and got a nice life in the U.S. because of them screwing up the assassination attempt, at the cost of some plastic surgery. They were counter productive!

I watched this film again recently, having absolutely loved it the first time, and found myself enjoying it less than I expected. Mainly because of the excessive use of the 'person is dead / no they're not not they're really just pretending' trick, which I thought was a bit cheap. It happens at least twice at key points in the film (the woman in the bar fight scene, and then the German war hero in the cinema scene).

Don't get me wrong - Tarantino is a God, and the suspense he creates in scenes is brilliant, and the Jew Hunter was pure awesome - but there were a few bits that I found a bit cheap on second viewing. I don't think it hangs together as a film as well as Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs.

So there.

I was hoping for a triple Marvin, Pulp Fiction style.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Things I learned about Melbourne:
-- if you're an American don't pull the bell on the tram. But if you do - say g'day and exit immediately.
-- the best pubs are on the roof up six floors of stairs - and no fair taking the lift
-- best place for the Pulp Fiction soundtrack played on sitar.
-- smartest, nicest most fun people South of the equator - and equal to the North ;-)

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Star wars, Samuel L Jackson, Darth Vadar' to 'Star wars, Samuel L Jackson, Darth Vader, pulp fiction' - edited by rasch187

Reminds me of when I was in a bar with some friends and I selected a bunch of songs from the CD jukebox, including "Miserlou" from Pulp Fiction. There was a lull then "EVERYBODY BE COOL, THIS IS A ROBBERY!" from the diner scene with Tim Roth. They included it as the intro to Miserlou.

Startled the crap out of everybody, every single person looked towards the front door. It was pretty funny.

6 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by bareboards2.