Quentin Tarantino Continues Quest To Never Make Original Movies Again. Ever.
Is it just me, or is every chunk of cinematic refuse that comes pouring out of Quentin Tarantino obligated like a scientific LAW to be a knockoff of something he saw back in the seventies?
Oh, sure, some of it’s downright entertaining–I was terribly fond of the Kill Bill franchise and the first time I saw Pulp Fiction I absolutely loved it. Though it didn’t stand up to repeated viewings very well, but still. Seriously, it’s like the guy can’t do anything that hasn’t already kinda sorta been done!
And I even have PROOF! He’s remaking Faster Pussycat! Kill! Kill!.
He’s got a lovely leading lady and a script that’s already been done for him, pretty much, so the chances of him doing anything seriously wrong here are remote at best. If you liked the first one you can probably count on Tarantino not to botch the job. But frankly, I can’t help wondering if this guy is capable of doing anything ORIGINAL. You know, like nothing based on seventies movies. Or seventies TV. Or anything else, for that matter. I want to see Tarantino’s equivalent of Night of the Living Dead. I want him to take something that only has a minimal connection to anything else and see him make it.
I want to see him make a movie. Not REMAKE a movie.
And to catch up with one of his biggest early remakes, try the Pulp Fiction trivia on Kwanzoo.
Popularity: 2% [?]
How is Pulp Fiction a remake, again?
It very strongly resembles films released in the seventies. Much like the rest of his work.
That’s really stretching the definition:
2. Movies. to film again, as a picture or screenplay.
–noun
3. Movies. a more recent version of an older film.
I don’t think you can pick out one single film that Pulp Fiction can be said to be a “remake” of. “Derivative” is a legitimate gripe, but calling it a remake isn’t.
You have a point, but I think you’re splitting hairs at that point, Liz. When you have to drag the dictionary into things it really becomes a matter of semantics.
If you’re throwing the definitions of words out the window, why even use language at all? It’s not “semantics” to use words correctly, and you know it.
Oh come ON, Liz…words are NOT an all-or-nothing prospect. Words have shades and flavors and grades of meaning depending on who’s using them and how they’re being used, and YOU know it. For me to call a movie a “remake” because it’s BASED IN PART on earlier material isn’t TOTALLY WRONG. Just like you said–I may be stretching the definition, but I certainly haven’t BROKEN it.