This is topic Tarantino on Kimmel Live in forum Ground Level at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=000936

---

Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 10-09-2003, 11:36 PM:
 
WTF is he saying?

"12 year olds buy a ticket for Good Boy! and SNEAK into Kill Bill."

He basically goes on to say that the film is suitable for any 12 year old in America. I knew the man was twisted... but Sweet Lord...

Kimmel asked him "well, how will you get the money?" (if the kids snuck in)

"It's not about the money..."

What a dick... An ingenious one, but still a dick!


 

---

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 10-10-2003, 01:33 AM:
 
There is more dead bodies (and body parts) in this film than all the films in the last decade combined.

I will be during auditorium checks frequently and kicking out those kids that try to pull that crap.........
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 10-10-2003, 02:37 AM:
 
Jason, today we have a new word for you to expand your vocabulary.

Main Entry: sar·casm
Pronunciation: 'sär-"ka-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: French or Late Latin; French sarcasme, from Late Latin sarcasmos, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein to tear flesh, bite the lips in rage, sneer, from sark-, sarx flesh; probably akin to Avestan thwar&s- to cut
Date: 1550
1 : a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain <tired of continual sarcasms>
2 a : a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b : the use or language of sarcasm <this is no time to indulge in sarcasm
 

---

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 10-10-2003, 04:54 AM:
 
But still... This film we need to be extra careful about. Not just checking tickets and id at the box and podium, but also at the auditorium entrance. This is not your usual r-rated film. This film could seriously corrupt young ones. (But it is a lot of fun for old ones!)
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-10-2003, 06:24 AM:
 

quote:

---

There is more dead bodies (and body parts) in this film than all the films in the last decade combined.

---

quote:

---

Star Wars (all those poor people on Alderon, and rated PG to boot!)

---

Wasn't it called Alderaan?
 

---

Posted by Ron Yost (Member # 1850) on 10-10-2003, 06:05 PM:
 
What I meant was he's a dick if he suggested young kids be allowed to see his self-indulgent nonsense, or suggest to them that they sneak in. That's completely irresponsible, IMHO. Adults can do whatever they want.

I'm an older guy, not in to blood and gore under any guise.

There's nothing at all cool, funny, enjoyable, sarcastic or ingenious about violence and gratuitous blood-letting to me. I saw enough of the real thing in Vietnam.

Brad .. how about equate or justify, then. Better words than rationalize, tho it still applies, IMHO. I'm fully aware of the meaning of the words I use, thank you very much.

Ron Yost
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-10-2003, 07:22 PM:
 
I'll go with equate, but for you to call him a dick just because he has made a movie intended for adult audiences that he feels is ok for 12 year olds is ridiculous. There are LOTS of movies being made that are designed for adult audiences and that is just his one opinion of the age that is suitable. Obviously the MPAA did not agree.
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 10-10-2003, 07:31 PM:
 
I agree with Travis. Tarantino is one of my favorite writer/director. The real Ass POS is Jimmy Kimmel.

"From Dusk Till Dawn"
"Four Rooms"
"Pulp Fiction" ('Surf Rider' is a GREAT tune!)
"Reservoir Dogs"

Are some of my favorite films.

Ron: See Mike's explanation of sarcastic humor.

OBTW, I too saw a lot of the real thing in Vietnam, but I certainly don't use that as a rationalization for disliking "violent movies". I mean, after all, they are really cool!

(That last line was sarcastic humor for those that don't get it.)

>>> Phil
 

---

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 10-10-2003, 10:49 PM:
 
I was kinda over-doing it there huh?

But there is way more blood than a lot of movies...
 

---

Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 10-10-2003, 11:13 PM:
 
Michael,

I understand the concept of sarcasm. Might I ask, did you, by chance, see the interview? If not, then don't comment, as you know not the tone nor manner in which the comment was spoken. And, for the record, I'm not being sarcastic.

We had no real problems with kids sneaking in tonight, but we have wknd security and a pretty tight set of cashiers. I wrote the post as he was speaking the words, so maybe I came off a bit brazen, but yet I am still very vocal about any director/producer/distributor making a film obviously targeted for an older audience then stating that kids should sneak in!

AT least with the 3rd installment of Scary Movie they had wisened up and gone with a 13 rating, as opposed to the traditional R. I think the film will make much more money and we'll have fewer refunds due to kids getting someone else to buy the tickets only to be carded again at the door.

I said he was a dick. I stand by the comment. I stated my reason in the first post so feel free to scroll right back up to the top for clarification should the need arise.. Make note that I also said he was a very talented dick, but a dick none the less..

I guess I should stop with the 'D' word, lest Phil get all excited and be overcome (pun intended) with joy.
 

---

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 10-11-2003, 01:26 AM:
 
Tarantino made the same encouragement to youth in Great Britain. There the film has a rating of 18 and anyone below that age cannot see it, even if there parents go with them. The posters in this thread who are calling Tarantino a dick are doing so because he is undermining the very ratings system that we are trying to enforce. Our job enforcing the rating system is hard wnough without the writer/director of a film encouraging people to ignore the very same rating system.
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 10-11-2003, 01:42 AM:
 
The "rating system" is a joke. Those old farts, over-protective mothers, and religious thumpers need to get a grip on real life. I get soooo tired of some of their stupid ratings based on "their" idea of morality and what is acceptable to teens.

Most teens now-a-days are much more "enlightened" and savvy to the world than many of us "adults" think and care to admit.

>>> Phil
 

---

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 10-11-2003, 02:10 AM:
 
I don't know about where you all live, but Jimmy Kimmel comes on about 2 am here in Utah. Is he a afterschool special where you are all from? Does anyone actually watch Jimmy Kimmel? At all?

I mean other than the original poster here.

I think that Quentin knew damn well that only seven people were watching that show. He also knew damn well that is wasn't an afterschool special, you know that one where janie buys drugs from phillip and then she gang bangs the principal.

Dave
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 10-11-2003, 01:10 PM:
 

quote:

---

Might I ask, did you, by chance, see the interview?

---

How could I? I don`t even have a TV! But I don`t need to see that - all of Q´s work is steeped in sarcasm (for a defintion, see above). He is one of the masters.
His suggestion to buy a ticket for a film with a lesser rating to go see "Kill Bill" is a good example.
Why? Because he says something that we all know anyway like it was a new idea. We all tried to look older when we were 10 to be admitted to a Bond movie.
 

---

Posted by Ron Yost (Member # 1850) on 10-11-2003, 01:10 PM:
 
Ah, I didn't know Jimmy Kimmel was on late at night. Never heard of him or his show. I should have checked on it before making assumptions. Hopefully little kids don't watch it on Tivo.

I'm not a 'moralizer', when it comes to what adults can or can't do. I am one, however .. and a censor, too, when it's about protecting kids and limiting what they're exposed to. That's the job of responsible adults and society in general.

Please keep the little ones out of this film, if it's in your power to do so. That's all I ask.

Ron Yost
 

---

Posted by Brent Mahaney (Member # 1090) on 10-11-2003, 03:18 PM:
 
He made a movie and he is promoting it with controversy, because controversy sells. He did a full interview with Kimmel, and what did the press pick out? Exactly what Tarantino wanted them to print...take your 12 year old to see this movie. Bad press is still press, and he probably increased ticket sales with that one comment.

Has anybody read the stories about how Disney is reconsidering their partnership with Miramax because of Kill Bill and Tarantino's comments? I saw something about it a couple of days ago but I haven't heard anything else.
 

---

Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 10-11-2003, 04:08 PM:
 
Brent,

I've not even seen anything in print regarding the interview.. But I don't live in a metro area nor do I read metro papers...
 

---

Posted by Jesse August (Member # 1798) on 10-11-2003, 06:52 PM:
 
Please remember that it is just a movie. Kids are a little smarter than you might think. I'm pretty sure they realize that it isn't real.
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 10-11-2003, 08:00 PM:
 
The violence is pretty cartoonish. I doubt that a 12-year-old would be harmed by seeing it.
 

---

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 10-11-2003, 09:41 PM:
 
I will agree with you on that one Steve. It seemed about as harmless as a pokemon cartoon, or whatever, samarui jack, or one of the japanese cartoons that have more violence than stuff like this. It's all about desensitization.

Dave
 

---

Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 10-12-2003, 01:24 AM:
 
You guys are correct in a sense, yet in still, QT is making OUR job a PITA, as if it isn't already bad enough with smart ass kids these days.

Bottomw line, if you want a twelve year olds money, then edit your fucking film to allow the proper rating.... Don't encourage a child to do something that should not be done in the first place!

And as someone else stated (I believe it was Dave) Kimmel was on at midnight, so I doubt many kids saw it, but that still isn't the point. Don't say what you don't mean. If you mean it, say it. Stand behind it and be done with it. But dont' encourage someone to do something that violates a state obscenity law, leaving the theatre manager or chain to be the asshole when they kick them out... !
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 10-12-2003, 04:07 AM:
 
You`re right. If Mr Q hadn`t said that, no kid on the planet would ever have come up with the idea.
 

---

Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 10-12-2003, 09:33 AM:
 
The point is not that kids wouldn't try to sneak in anyway, it is that he stirred up the pot by telling them to do it.

Michael, I am left to ask, do you actually manage a theatre on a daily basis? Do you have to put up with the PITA kids of today's society on a from day to day?

Why on earth would you think it is ok for someone to advise kids (and NO, QT wasn't the first to state the same- I remember any who have said similar, even in print (Maxim mag, for example) to do something that goes against policy or state law even?
 

---

Posted by Steven Privett (Member # 718) on 10-12-2003, 09:50 AM:
 
So what is the final verdict. Should I NOT take my 4 year old boy to see this movie? He asked about it while we were playing Grand Theft Auto-Vice City together. I mean quality time is quality time, right? He saw the trailer on House Of 1000 Corpses and it's all he has been talking about.
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 10-12-2003, 01:51 PM:
 
Jason, you just don`t get it. Nobody says it is OK. But what Q says on TV doesn`t change anything about the reality we live in. Do you think if he or any other movie celebrity goes on TV and says: don`t do this, or don`t smoke or, do your homework, it will have any effect?
No.
His comment was just a cheeky line. I have dealt with many problems like this in my cinema life. But I think it is funny that he said that.
At this point, you may not understand what sarcasm means. Here is the key: don`t take everything people say and especially don`t take yourself too seriously.
 

---

Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 10-12-2003, 02:02 PM:
 
Michael,

You may be on to something in your last post. I, in reading your previous posts form the start, have read that you found it suitable that he made the comments. Almost as if you, yourself, were endorsing the fact that kids should be allowed to view this film, which I think is total . Maybe I misinterpreted what you were attempting to convey. Unfortunately, thru visual text only, one does not have the accompanying tone set in a normal "live" conversation.

We will simply have to agree to disagree on the fact that QT's comment was funny, permissible, passe' or whatever you'd like to call it. In my opinion, it made him sound like a dick, plain and simple.

With that, I end my 'tirade' over the QT comment on Kimmel live.

Next......
 

---

Posted by Scott D. Neff (Member # 185) on 10-12-2003, 08:00 PM:
 
I'm the youngest of 5 children, all sons. I've been watching R-Rated films for as long as I can remember. I don't see any problem with other parents allowing their 12 year old children to watch this film. By the time you're 12, you're in the 7th/8th grade and you've already seen and heard far worse than Kill Bill. (And there was no such thing as INTERNET when I was 12... imagine exposure now.)

In the same vein, if a 12 year old goes and sees this film and decides it's a good idea to go chop up a bunch of people with a Samurai Sword... then they were dipshits to begin with and their parents need to explain to them that the stuff that goes on inside electronic boxes and in movie theatres is all fantasy and imagination.

That's just my opinion though.

As far as Tarantino giving kids the idea to sneak in, the smart ones already thought of it years ago.
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 10-13-2003, 02:34 AM:
 
I remember when I watched explicit violence in films when I was quite young, I was to a certain extent shocked by it but not traumatized in any way. But it actually helped me understand what devastating effect physical violence can have on people.
I find that far more educating than the way violence was depicted in older "cleaner" movies. Bang, bang, bang, three Indians fall of their horses, it doesn`t really look violent.

If you think about it, that "clean" depiction of violence is actually far more drastic in that it makes it look as if it is nothing special or ugly to kill people.

Scott is right - when somebody watches violence and finds it appealing to do that to other people, then there is already something very wrong with that person.
 

---

Posted by Michael Swarbrick (Member # 1108) on 10-13-2003, 09:51 AM:
 
My 2p:

The violence in Kill Bill is too OTT to be realistic, as Quentin intended it to be. I have no problem with my 12-year-old sister watching it, as she knows the difference between fantasy and reality. Besides, when was the last time you heard of a kid killing people with a samurai sword?

I don't like when directors have to make cuts to their films to get a lower rating. The 10 minute black and white sequence in Kill Bill was going too far to appease the censors, especially when I'd seen the colour version in the trailers. The UK rating system is better than the US in that there's no stigma attached to the 18 certificate as opposed to NC-17. Unfortunately, we still got the edited version. I'm just going to have to get the Japanese DVD when it's released!

By the way, I think the body count of Kill Bill is almost exactly 100. Have I seen this film too much already?
 

---

Posted by Scott D. Neff (Member # 185) on 10-13-2003, 12:54 PM:
 
Perhaps... I can see your blood thirsty need to brandish a samurai sword just boiling in your eyes.
 

---