jaeufraser

Has ANYONE made a 100% original movie? I'd say more than likely not. It's rare enough to find someone like Tarantino who makes great films. And even though his films find derivation from others, it seems like 1) his films are much better than the sources he derives from and 2) even though he draws from other inspirations, nonetheless the final products are unique, very much individual projects.

drjay

Reservoir Dogs is actually a pretty much direct lift from Ringo Lam's "City on Fire" (Chow Yun-Fat stars). The similarities are ridiculous... but the way QT did the non-synchronous narration was pretty out-there at the time (only film prior to Reservoir Dogs I can think of that used it was The Killing, and that was very much earlier, heh). I thought Pulp Fiction was pretty original though, and both are certainly great great movies IMHO.

drjay

devilshalo

Barry Woodward

Or are they? Quentin could easily come up with an explaination that both Vega brothers somehow survived getting shot.

Rival11

I love Tarantino as well but I think these are bad ideas - I had a feeling he would sooner or later mention something about a sequel to Pulp Fiction and I really don't want him to do it. I say leave it alone, it's a great film and doesn't need a sequel.

As for Inglorious Bastards - I thought this project was trashed as well? And If it's not, please, please, please tell me Adam Sandler still doesn't have the lead role spot.

drjay

I think everyone is using the term "sequel" a little too loosely. I have the feeling that if he does do this movie, it will be similar only in the same ways the Pulp Fiction was similar to Reservoir Dogs. They share characters, and reference each other a bit, but this is only because they both reside in the QT-universe. With both the Vegas it would certainly be more closely related (since it's using actual characters from the other movies, not just references), but as long as it isn't a movie about Wallace torturing Zed, Butch and his girl's trip away, or Sam Jackson's impending Christianity, I don't think it's entirely accurate to call it a sequel.

And yes according to his last few intervews QT has been writing the script for Inglorious Bastards for quite a while (I think somewhere here on DVDTalk I read he had written enough for 3 movies?), and will do it after a quick, more fun movie, or something like that. He is tending to be kind of vague about his next project. I think according to IMDB buzz, Sandler is still going to star...but what do those people know their forum is uncivilized. I thought he was allright in Punch-Drunk Love but in a QT movie? I have my doubts, heh.

caiman

Having Sandler star in a QT movie is just crazy enough to be brilliant. I think it could really work.

dhmac

I disagree with that view -- I actually saw City on Fire (rented it from NetFlix) and only one scene in it is directly referenced by Reservoir Dogs, and even in that scene, Tarantino's take on it was quite different than the earlier film.

Drop

Well in related news apparantly some Brit screenwriter had an idea for a Mr. Pink movie. Link: http://www.moviehole.net/news/3574.html

I don't think this is even a thought in QT's head, so I'm not even considering this, but it's intriguing. If QT was for it, I guess I'd give it a chance, but I think a Vega Bros movie is a better idea, and the last time he should revist old stuff.