Grindhouse

[Leopold_Stotch]

You know what pisses me off? That Tarantino and Rodriguez think that in order to make great films they have to splash blood and gore across the screen. You have to be very damn extreme with violence in your movie to get an NC-17 rating. I mean look at Kill Bill Volume 1. There were about 14 instances of limbs being chopped off, one instance of genitalia being cut off, and many instances of people being chopped in half, and of course heads being eviscerated or chopped off. That's about as extreme as you can get. Taking it any further is just ten steps backwards as far as I'm concerned. I just saw 300 tonight and it was certainly violent and bloody but it certainly didn't overdo it as is the custom with Tarantino. 

[ScottotD]

How is he a sell-out?, you're just putting buzzwords together and making yourself look even more stupid.
(reply to a comment Issac removed, on only he'd do that more often[/i)]

You know what pisses me off? That Tarantino and Rodriguez think that in order to make great films they have to splash blood and gore across the screen. You have to be very damn extreme with violence in your movie to get an NC-17 rating. I mean look at Kill Bill Volume 1. There were about 14 instances of limbs being chopped off, one instance of genitalia being cut off, and many instances of people being chopped in half, and of course heads being eviscerated or chopped off. That's about as extreme as you can get. Taking it any further is just ten steps backwards as far as I'm concerned. I just saw 300 tonight and it was certainly violent and bloody but it certainly didn't overdo it as is the custom with Tarantino. 

I don't understand.  Why does that piss you off?  10 steps backwards from what?

[Leopold_Stotch]

I don't understand.  Why does that piss you off?  10 steps backwards from what?

10 steps backwards from good filmmaking. The best filmmakers never needed copious amounts
of blood and gore to make good movies. No, they implied gore and violence with very subtle, dignified
touches without showing anything. I think that has much more dramatic effect than a straight up visual of
a person's arm cut off as they writhe on the floor screaming about it for 20 minutes. I don't see how any of
it is the least bit necessary.

[Petey Wheatstraw]

How is he a sell-out?, you're just putting buzzwords together and making yourself look even more stupid.
(reply to a comment Issac removed, on only he'd do that more often]

What, you needed a reason to insult me, so you refer to a post I never made? This makes you look stupid.

[ScottotD]

It depends what you consider the 'best film makers' I suppose.

What, you needed a reason to insult me, so you refer to a post I never made?

Yeah, never made. Whatever.

[MrTorso]

What was bad about 'Temple of Doom'?  Didn't religious-types protest 'Passion of jeebus' so that got a lower rating?

The heart ripping scene. After it came out a lot of parents felt it wasn't appropriate for a film that was PG. So they came out with the PG-13.  First film to be released with the PG-13 was Red Dawn.

[Petey Wheatstraw]

The best filmmakers never needed copious amounts
of blood and gore to make good movies. No, they implied gore and violence with very subtle, dignified touches without showing anything.

[ChrisHanel]

Isaac wins the thread.

[Leopold_Stotch]

That certainly is not subtle but it is still better than showing people getting hacked to pieces. As I recall, the shining was not all that gory, especially by today's standards it is pretty tame with the actual violence... except for when Jack Nicholson plunges an axe into Scatman Crothers back... that was gruesome.

[Pak-Man]

I absolutely LOVE the concept and think it's the coolest thing ever, but I won't be seeing it. Not my kinda flick. :^)

You know that makes absolutely no sense, right?

It just means I'm willing to admit that even though it's not my kinda movie, it's awesome that they're going to such lengths to recreate that kind of movie. Love the concept and it looks like a blast if you're into that kinda thing, but I'm not into that kinda thing. :^)

[Sharktopus]

I absolutely LOVE the concept and think it's the coolest thing ever, but I won't be seeing it. Not my kinda flick. :^)

You know that makes absolutely no sense, right?

It just means I'm willing to admit that even though it's not my kinda movie, it's awesome that they're going to such lengths to recreate that kind of movie. Love the concept and it looks like a blast if you're into that kinda thing, but I'm not into that kinda thing. :^)

Fair enough. Although, and this is without having seen the film, I imagine Grindhouse will be more of an homage to the old "grindhouse" movies than straight-up exploitation. I smell a hint of parody, and that's what has my interest.

[MrTorso]

The best filmmakers never needed copious amounts
of blood and gore to make good movies. No, they implied gore and violence with very subtle, dignified touches without showing anything.

[BIG ASS IMAGE OF BLOOD GETTING OFF ON THE SECOND FLOOR]

Awesome!

[MrTorso]

Tonight on FX there is a behind the scenes special on Grind House. They originally ran it last week after the premiere of the Riches and I heard it was cool.

[Sharktopus]

The best filmmakers never needed copious amounts
of blood and gore to make good movies. No, they implied gore and violence with very subtle, dignified touches without showing anything.

You're absolutely right. But here's the thing: Tarantino and Rodriguez aren't trying to make a great movie in the classic sense. They're trying to make a fun homage to the craptastic Grindhouse movies of the '70s, which relied on over-the-top sex and violence to get attention. (Hell, that's pretty much the only kind of movie Quentin Tarantino knows how to make...)

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

You know what pisses me off? That Tarantino and Rodriguez think that in order to make great films they have to splash blood and gore across the screen. You have to be very damn extreme with violence in your movie to get an NC-17 rating. I mean look at Kill Bill Volume 1. There were about 14 instances of limbs being chopped off, one instance of genitalia being cut off, and many instances of people being chopped in half, and of course heads being eviscerated or chopped off. That's about as extreme as you can get. Taking it any further is just ten steps backwards as far as I'm concerned. I just saw 300 tonight and it was certainly violent and bloody but it certainly didn't overdo it as is the custom with Tarantino. 

although it puts me in the unpopular side of this argument i got to second this. 

The best filmmakers never needed copious amounts
of blood and gore to make good movies. No, they implied gore and violence with very subtle, dignified touches without showing anything.

yeah i miss the genius of hitchcock.  And i REALLY miss subtlety.