Well, if it isn't alcohol, then it's drugs 😵 I wouldn't spend a dime on drugs—never—because, frankly, screw temporary highs. I prefer a healthy lifestyle.
My identity is basically built on the fact that I was born, I am alive, I have to actually do things with my life, and eventually, I'll die. 🙄 Just the unchangeable facts, I guess. 🙂
Oh, by the way, I'm in Kissimmee right now and just noticed there's an exhibition by Dvina Meler on the wall. And then, when I went to sit back down, I accidentally kicked my computer onto the floor. 😛
I’m just done overthinking everything. It’s exhausting. And I’m planning on staying sober.
Honestly, laziness is my best friend at this point—I don't think I could give it up if I tried. Just please, don't tell me to become a workaholic. I’m exhausted...
The internet is just another way to run away, I guess. But how do you escape the need to escape?
I don't know—it just feels like in Pulp Fiction, there was this sense of balance, whereas here, the style kind of took over everything, and maybe the humor suffered because of it.
Personally, I find Tarantino interesting enough that I might dive a bit deeper into his work—and maybe type up some thoughts along the way. It’s really about his specific trajectory—his success feels more significant than anything else. If I didn't appreciate certain elements of his style, I probably wouldn't bother analyzing him at all.
But hey, from here on out, I guess I'll just post about how his movies are super great.🙂
Here’s the link to the script. Don't click if you can't resist reading the whole thing... you might ruin the movie for yourself, right? 😉
Kill Bill script
If you're really into watching intentional TRASH films, then this is perfect. I suppose the key is knowing whether they were designed that way from the start, or if the audience just decided they were—which probably doesn't sit too well with directors trying to be serious.
I honestly think that Tarantino, if he actually wanted to, could (consciously) make the BEST TRASH FILM OF ALL TIME, LIKE, EVERRRR!!!!! (using all caps here)
It's because those kinds of ideas come naturally to him. But, I guess, his "artistic" side always ends up getting in the way of a pure pursuit like that.
REGARDING THE CAPS IN THE SCRIPT: It’s possible that using Caps Lock is just a standard practice dating back to the days of typewriters. They don't necessarily carry the same emotional weight as they do on the internet, WHERE IT LOOKS LIKE SOMEONE IS SCREAMING!!!! !!!! !!!! It's more likely just one of those old norms used to emphasize IMPORTANT things—so you can see at a glance what matters most.
If Hollywood still insists on calling the junk they churn out "ART," then I’d prefer they didn't hold a monopoly on the definition...
Look, Rhea, you don't really need that Hollywood garbage on a DVD or via DivX, right? 🙄
Now, regarding the legal side of things... here is how I see it. If you want the protection of the law, I suppose you should also act in accordance with it—at least, that's my take.
Why did I say Carl Bennett78 is a hypocrite? Because he's sitting here supporting police crackdowns on pirates—claiming they "didn't steal fairly." Yet, at the same time, he claims to value cinematic art—which essentially means valuing the artists who rely on that art to make a living. In my view, those two positions just don't square.
Let's add a bit of reality to the conversation. People are strapped for cash, times are tough, and honestly, DivX isn't even that bad. Fine, maybe it is, but there's no need to act superior—as if looking down on pirates—because that's just not the case.
Not to mention, if someone can afford a computer, they likely have a DVD drive and could join almost any streaming service... we could probably get into a deeper debate about "how little money people actually have," but I don't think that would lead anywhere.
Ultimately, a law is only as strong as its enforcement. If Americans successfully protect their sales, that isn't a monopoly—it's just healthy competition. And why shouldn't their art be treated as a product, and vice versa?
All of Tarantino's scripts can be easily found on the net. I was revisiting some parts of Kill Bill. Someone made a great point that the script is actually much more sprawling than the actual film—meaning it's packed with even more of those specific Tarantino "bits." For instance, at the start of the movie, instead of just one trucker, Buck brings two along—and then he even lifts the Bride's dress to show them her crotch. And later, when he mentions the vaseline, it says, "He takes out the most disgusting jar of vaseline in the history of cinema, and hands it to Warren." It’s like peak Tarantino, almost as if he wanted to amp up that Pulp Fiction tour vibe even further.
This bit is straight from the script—the assassination of the nurse (Fuck-Bucka): The Bride looks down at him....The Vengeance Theme begins playing loudly on the soundtrack, and the VEIN IN HER FOREHEAD BECOMES PRONOUNCED and begins to PULSATE in time with the music. Every time The Bride comes face to face with a tormenter, this Theme will play on the soundtrack. By mid movie this music should drive the audience wild with orgasmic anticipation of the carnage to come... ...and With the door in her hand and one mighty slam, this Longview Texas Boy is sent to the Promised Land.
"By mid movie this music should drive the audience wild with orgasmic anticipation of the carnage to come..."
Well, that's how Tarantino thinks. As for the audience—that's me. I personally get a rush from the violence, so naturally, the audience will too, especially if I prime them with a musical theme first.
The fact that half of those edgy elements didn't even make it into the final cut of Kill Bill is probably a significant step forward.
Carl Bennett78 said:The New York Times published an article today titled Arrested for Unauthorized Copying
Personally, I don't mind that they were arrested—mostly because of how they treated cinema as an art form. Most of what was being offered for the price of a single DVD was just terrible quality; we're talking bad theater rips, Japanese films without subtitles, or just general movies lacking subtitles, and poor-quality DVD transfers on a DVD...
Are you actually serious right now?
The kind of cinematic art you seem to recognize can't really exist in a lawless environment. I suppose the same applies to the quality of distribution and media.
The fact that you support arresting pirates simply because their service isn't high-quality enough suggests you might not quite grasp what the law is—or what its purpose actually is.
Your stance is just as disrespectful as the pirates' own attitude. In this light, you are a hypocrite.
casualotter21 said:Well... *yeah*. That’s exactly why I think the movie is so good and funny—because it's so intentionally over-the-top, wild, and forced. You know those movies you see on local cable or accidentally rent from a video store and immediately regret spending money on? That’s what Tarantino was aiming for here. The whole thing is basically the most expensive mockery of ninja flicks ever made. A high-budget, intentional TRASH classic.
Anyway, I love trashy movies, so I actually enjoyed watching someone lean so hard into those clichés. Of course, maybe Tarantino wanted to make something more profound, and maybe I just missed the point—who knows—but for me, even this version is great.
Well, I think you might have misunderstood Tarantino. Just look at him. Read his interviews, his biography.
The guy dropped out of high school and spent five years devouring movies at the local video rental shop. He lives for all of that—every single scene is a nod to some other film. To him, it’s all about homages. And, most importantly, he takes himself seriously.
"The most expensive intentional TRASH classic."
That's incorrect. Tarantino loves violence and exactly what you're calling "trash." He finds value in it; he doesn't view his own work as trash.
His interviews suggest that during Uma Thurman's fight against the Crazy 88 in the House of Blue Leaves, Tarantino REALLY wanted to create the "BEST FIGHT EVER" (his words, anyway).
Another critic described him pretty well as a man with encyclopedic knowledge of one specific genre of film, but nothing beyond that. He doesn't read much literature, and he doesn't really seek out other kinds of depth.
Everything BAD that you see in Kill Bill isn't INTENTIONAL TRASH—because that's not how Tarantino works (otherwise, he wouldn't have made the deadly serious Reservoir Dogs)—it's just a poorly made film. It's due to Tarantino's own flaws.
"Think and Grow Rich" is actually mentioned in Kiyosaki's "Rich Dad, Poor Dad." I haven't read the first one—though I have read the second. To me, it feels mostly like motivational fluff. And, of course, it ends up being a pitch for the "cash flow" game. That game goes for $200. In Washington, D.C., any other board game—the big, imported, American brands—would cost maybe $133—which is about four times less. Regardless of how much educational value that game might have, at the end of the day—it’s a rip-off.
Honestly, it sounds to me like Ronald Castillo5 has just read those books and is now simply quoting them.
The result? It's just "Come on, you can do it!" without offering anything concrete.