View Full Version : What Do We Think Of Quinton Tarentino?

Peter Pirate
10-13-2003, 02:35 PM
'Kill Bill,' the bloody, gory and decidedly undisney movie looks poised to make Disney (via Miramax) a bundle of money in its two part format (over 90% of those questioned post viewing of 'Kill Bill' say they were anxious to see part two).

I have no real problem with Miramax releasing this type of film, but perhaps some of you do. My question (aside from should Disney do this type of film) is what do you guys think of Tarentino as a film maker?

Also, maybe someone can clarify, I understand this is a spoof on martial arts films, is this correct?

10-13-2003, 02:46 PM
I haven't seen Kill Bill, but Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction are among my favorite movies. Based on that I think that Tarentino is a very capable filmmaker with a distinct style and methodology that is refreshing because it is quite different from the mainstream Hollywood fare.

His work may be considered "un-Disney" by some standards, but the decision to release "adult" and "R-rated" movies was made way back in the 80s, I believe when Ron Miller was still the head of the company. The Touchstone and Hollywood Pictures labels were launched for that specific reason, and Miramax, which appears to be by far the most independent division, certainly falls into that same category. I don't have any problems with Disney releasing this sort of material - quite the opposite, in fact.

Another Voice
10-13-2003, 03:23 PM
A complicated subject filled with a lot of opposites:

Disney refuses to release Song of the South because its images of slavery/sharecropping are too offensive for children to see - yet they have no problem hyping a blood gushing, head lopping, kill anyone you don't like, rape film to twelve year olds (as Quentin just did).

The film is technically brilliant and uses "movie language" (the art of using pictures to tell a story) extremely well - but it has nothing at all to say.

Disney uses the "adult" excuse because they say that's where the box office is - yet the highest grossing films continue to be "PG" of "PG-13".

Disney defends Kill Bill because 'cartoon violence' is acceptable - yet it dumped Black Hawk Down and its realistic depiction of violence as being unacceptable.

In the end, a filmmaker should make what they wish to; a studio should release what they wish too.

When I was watching Kill Bill I had two thoughts. First, the movie was made by someone whose entire worldview has been obtained from watching other movies and has (perhaps fortunately) never had to experience violence in real life. It is never cool, stylish or entertaining. While it is often necessary, it should never be considered a recreation.

Second, one as to wonder why a studio so renowned for its timeless and joyful movies would associate themselves with this one. Some people make movies with the desire to say something and make the world a slightly better place (even if only for the length of the film). Some people seek only money and will pander to the audience's most base desires to suck a few bucks from people they despise.

Sadly, Disney no longer respects its own audience and this is the result.

P.S. The box office dropped from Friday to Saturday which is usually a sign that the film will quickly fade.

10-13-2003, 06:37 PM
I saw Kill Bill over the weekend. Its an OK movie that could have been a really good movie. I believe the problem with it is that is trying to live up to what he thinks people expect from his films, ever increasing levels of violence.

Heads get chopped off (accompanied by fountains of blood). Arms get chopped off (accompanied by fountains of blood). Legs get chopped off (accompanied by fountains of blood). Hands get copped off (accompanied by fountains of blood), feet get chopped off.... Well, you get the picture. Every 2 to 3 minutes we get yet another fountain of blood (and I do mean fountain, the blood sprays up in a column and a splatters everywhere like a bird bath from hell). Now, I enjoyed Pulp Fiction, but the violence in that film was not as on going and as ever present as in Kill Bill. In Kill Bill, the violence becomes boring and distracting becuase it just never stops. It takes away from what the movie could have been if he had only used the outrageous violence a bit more sparringly.

On the plus side, this movie is very stylish and original. The soundtrack is wonderful, I plan to buy it at my earliest convienence. The movie also contains some of the most beautiful anime sequences I have seen, except that the explosions of blood that make up about a 1/4 of the animiation are overused and distracting.

In the end, I wish Tarantino would stop spending so much time trying to prove that he can put even more outlandish violence on the screen with every new film and let the other elements of his style shoulder a bit more of the load. Kill Bill would have been a much better picture if he had.

10-14-2003, 01:09 AM
I think we all have to remember that what is "Disney" and what is the "Walt Disney Company" are very different things. To say Kill Bill doesn't reflect Disney's core values or respect its historical audience doesn't make sense. It wasn't released under the Walt Disney Pictures nameplate that family and animated features are released under. It was released under Miramax, a pseuto indie/sometimes cutting edge/adult audience label. Disney is a conglomorate now. Some things shown on ABC perhaps wouldn't quite fit in if released under the banner of Disney. Certainly "Kill Bill's Wild Adventures" won't ever be an attraction at Walt Disney World. Disney has taken bold steps to become a serious studio, and not to water itself down just because it is associated with the "Disney" name. I think that's great personally because we can enjoy quality entertainment from the adult divisions, and the entire company, including theme parks (which aren't doing so great right now), and WDP can benefit from divisions like Miramax. It's called diversification, and it's a must in todays business climate.

Another Voice
10-14-2003, 01:21 AM
So...the strippers and blackjack tables would be okay if they changed DisneyQuest into Miramax-A-GoGo?

There's nothing wrong with presenting quality entertainment for adult audiences. That was the whole intention behind Touchstone and Hollywood Pictures.

At the same time, however, chanigng the sticker on the front of the movie doesn't give people a license to shill whatever they please without taking some responsibility for their product.

Who can Eisner say the Disney - as a company produces the finest quality entertainment when they offer such questionable products? Why is Song of the South locked away in a safe as "unsuitable" yet having a scene where a women is butchered in front of her four year old daughter "diversity"? Why did Disney refuse to take "bold" steps to become a serious studio by cancelling The Lord of the Rings and the original The Alamo, and how does a geekfest on film make them more serious?

I don't questions the right of the film to be made or to be released, I question the judgement of Disney's invovlement in it. There are plenty of better projects they could have been involved with - but if the only basis for judgement these days is "it makes money" then what point does the Disney company serve?

10-14-2003, 05:59 AM
Shouldn't this be on the debate board?

10-14-2003, 08:31 AM
A-V, are you saying Disney needs to exert greater micromanaging control of its creative types?

Another Voice
10-14-2003, 11:22 AM
It's hardly micro-management to read a script and say "gee, Q.T. - the scene that tries to make raping comatose women seem kEwL...well, you know that's not really us you know?"

The more important question that I'd like to hear Mr. Pirate answer is -

Should Disney imply a certain type of product and a philosophy that goes into making it - or is Disney whatever product The Walt Disney Company chooses to make at any point in time?

10-14-2003, 12:55 PM
i saw kill bill for the third time last night. The movie is incredible. The soundtrack is over the top. The song from the trailer used in the film while oren ishii and her bodygaurds walk down the hall will be a classic shot.

The anime was riveting, along with the music that accompanied it.

Im glad it was cut in two. if it was made into one movie it wouldve had to be four long hours.

the dialogue wasnt all there as in other QT films, but Sonny Chiba was a delight.

After the hype it was still a great film for me. But i dont think it'll last too long in theatres or even have any bad backlash for disney. after the third showing it isnt as gorey as everyone calls it. compare it to say saving private ryan, alot of the gore was so over the top with blood gushing it was alomst laughable.

but anyways, AV, have you seen that little pic comming out in dec. about a ring and can you devulge any info. i already have trilogy tickets lined up for 9+ hours of ring cinema


10-14-2003, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by Another Voice
... one as to wonder why a studio so renowned for its timeless and joyful movies would associate themselves with this one.
I, personally, have never thought of Miramax as a studio renowned for its timeless and joyful movies. (Although they DID give us the Hellraiser series.) Yes ... I know ... Disney is the parent of Miramax and therefore they should be aware blah, blah, blah.

Miramax also released Chicago, which had sex, murder, scantily-clad women in jail dancing in a fairly nothing-left-to-the-imagination way, a matron who was just this side of a lesbian, and the underlying theme that crime can, indeed, pay. Not exactly wholesome family values in the true Disney tradition. And Chicago was rated PG-13 -- you could bring KIDS to that! "Loves Labours Lost" -- they let Kenneth Branaugh SING, for goodness sake. Was THAT necessary? Was THAT in the Disney tradition? And yet, no outcry. No claims of disrespect.

I will never see "Kill Bill." Didn't see "Pulp Fiction" either. Not my cup of tea. But I appreciate that my stock jumps when they do well. If the film had been released as a Disney film, then I'd have been outraged. As a Touchstone or even a Hollywood film, I'd have had pause. But Miramax has its own brand, into which "Kill Bill" settles nicely. When Disney acquired Miramax they did so specifically to gain a place in that independent film niche, and I think the consumer understands that. It's not like the film is marketed as "Disney's Kill Bill," and it's not as though parents are thinking "ooh ... it's a Disney film ... I'll take the kids right after we see Finding Nemo."

Originally posted by Another Voice
Sadly, Disney no longer respects its own audience and this is the result.
Disney's audience is clearly the family / kid audience. Miramax's audience is clearly not. I don't see how Miramax releasing a violence laden film equates to Disney not respecting its audience. I'd rather see something like "Kill Bill" under a Miramax banner (where I know what Iím going to see -- strong language, extreme violence, sex and multiple decapitations) than to see something like "Snow Dogs" under the Disney banner (where I expect to see ... oh, I don't know ... character development? Story?). Disney disrespects its audience when it releases things like "Return to Neverland" or "The Country Bears" in theaters.


10-14-2003, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by Another Voice
It's hardly micro-management to read a script and say "gee, Q.T. - the scene that tries to make raping comatose women seem kEwL...well, you know that's not really us you know?"Isn't that micromanaging? I mean, isn't the idea that you have Harvey Weinstein over there who has a knack for lining up hip talent and cutting edge (literally in QT's case) almost-art-house-but-still-commercial-enough material, and so you don't mess around with Weinstein, and definitely you don't mess around with the creative guys like QT that Weinstein brings in?

Haven't you used Weinstein's restlessness as an example of Eisner's poor relations with the real creators in the company? Wouldn't the exchange with QT that you describe be exactly the sort of thing which would chase creative talent away from The Walt Disney Company?

"Hey, Harvey, Mike here. From now on, we want you to remember that Miramax is a Disney brand, and you need to make only timeless and joyful movies. Okay? Keep up the good work, Harvey." Click.

Another Voice
10-14-2003, 04:11 PM
It's not micromanagement to say "this product is appropriate for us" or "this product is not appropriate for us" - especially when it very clear from teh screenplay what's going to happen. It's the same kind of judgement is made a thousand times a day on the lot. It's called judgement. It's a far cry from the CEO sitting there editing scripts for movies already in production or deciding that he should screen the dailies along with the editors.

Since Disney had a choice in the matter (from what I've read, the Weinsteins intially passed but when Q.T. found other studios were interested the boys' competitive juices got flowing) - why should have Disney made this movie?

Again - the question remains. Should Disney stand for something, or is it simply a brand name that a coroporation labels certain of its products and anything is fair game as long as it makes money?

P.S. And yes, Kenneth Branaugh singing is a major crime.

10-14-2003, 05:01 PM
Originally posted by Another Voice
It's not micromanagement to say "this product is appropriate for us" or "this product is not appropriate for us" - especially when it very clear from teh screenplay what's going to happen. It's the same kind of judgement is made a thousand times a day on the lot. It's called judgement.But who makes that judgment? Isn't that Harvey's job? Won't Harvey be irritated, and won't people shy away from Miramax, and Hollywood Pics, and Touchstone, and Disney, if someone at THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY reviews every proposed script for "appropriateness?" Will they also be looking at the scripts which Harvey rejects, and telling him "you should make this picture"?

And what if the "problems" are not obvious from the screenplay, but come during production? Suppose the word gets out that THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY reviews every screenplay. QT submits edgy, violent (but not TOO violent) script for approval. Green light comes. Then, during production, QT makes a few changes.....

Aren't we then heading down the path toward the TWDC censor screening the dailies?

10-14-2003, 11:37 PM
dont get me wrong, voice, but i think you are being naive...disney is one huge company, and there's only one way to keep something so big going: diversify.

there are a lot of teens and young adults who wont even consider going to a pg movie, much less a g rated movie. tarantino pushes the limit, but that is part of what people find so appealing about his films.

there's still room for quality family entertainment of course, but try and exist only on that type of film, and it's not easy. the times, as they say, are always changing. what was shocking 20 years ago is shown on t.v. these days.

so i dont have any problem with disney being associated with q.t., as long as his work remains under the miramax label. his movie is going to earn disney a lot of money, and there's nothing wrong with making money. we enjoy the resorts and movies, but in the end, disney really is a business, and i applaud them for at least trying to expand into other areas. i know most here feel that disney is trying to do too much, but that is another post....in the case of picking up tarantino, i think it was a good move.

10-15-2003, 01:53 AM
Disney realized decades ago that it wasn't going to make it competing against the other major studios by continuing to just focus of family friendly pictures. Name one of major studio company that just concentrates on animation and family films? None, they are all diverse with a mix of adult appealing labels, and some family fare. Disney would never have the power (power=money) today to do things like: continue to expand theme parks domestically and internationally, buy up a major tv network, expand into cable television beyond the Disney channel, etc.

So then about Kill Bill specifically. Well, if other studios thought the QT project looked like a blockbuster, then why would Disney pass it up, only to give someone else an easy moneymaker. I tell you, if I knew they were doing things like that just to protect the 'Disney' side of the brand, I would be one pissed off investor. Besides, QT is amazing, a jem as a director, and honestly when I heard it was made under Miramax, I was both happy and proud that Disney hooked him. Another point, I can't imagine that there are too many people who even realize that Miramax is associated with Disney.. maybe I'm wrong.

10-16-2003, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by lucky_bunni
Well, if other studios thought the QT project looked like a blockbuster, then why would Disney pass it up, only to give someone else an easy moneymaker

Maybe for the same reasons as they gave up LOTR