Talk:Grindhouse (film)/Archive 1

message: DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between 27 July 2006 and 3 May 2007.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.
Please add new archivals to Talk:Grindhouse (film)/Archive 2. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. Ibaranoff24 14:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

message: *El Wray is a pun. "El Rey" in Spanish means "The King" 
*El Wray is also the name of the secret location mentioned at the end of "From Dusk till Dawn."Jshilkoski 03:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia

message: I just saw the film last night (11 Apr 07) in British Columbia (Canada) and it didn't have this trailer in it.  I also see another comment below to the same effect.  Thus, I am changing the 'it's played in Canada' to 'is played in some locations'... if someone could clarify, that would be great. Chris b shanks 21:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hobo with a gun (in Canada)

message: I have a feeling there are more controversies than the one I added about Cherry Darling's sexy amputee-ness. Maybe they should be combined into a section outside the 'plot' section. How has this been resolve in other movie entries? Sexperts 17:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cherry, the amputee turned sex symbol has provoked sexuality rights groups to call her a cultural symbol for full sexual citizenship of the disabled.
*I removed the above statement from the article. For one thing, blogs are not allowed to be used as sources. For another thing, it's a misrepresentation of what was actually written in the blog. Here's the actual quote. (Ibaranoff24 04:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy section

message: Since Grind House is actually two movies in one, it's my suggestion that Planet Terror and Death Proof have their own film articles.  The Grind House article can provide an overview of these two movies and how they were brought together, as well as the fake trailers. --Erik 00:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree that the Grindhouse article should cover both featur(ette)s, the film is actually being split into two separate films in most countries outside of the USA. Fucking shame, if you ask me. Jeffpw 10:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder how they will handle the fake previews of coming attractions which will air between the two films?  Corvus cornix 20:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it should remain as it is. Many of the quotes and sources are focusing on the details about both films, including reviews by critics. Also, recently the two Kill Bill films were combined into one article which is somewhat similar to the condition we have here. Although the article is a little long, it isn't to much of a problem compared to other articles. --Nehrams2020 07:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Planet Terror'' and ''Death Proof''

message: I tried to turn the html tables into properly formatted wiki markup tables, but the positioning comes out wrong so I didn't commit it.  Here's the longer list, to save someone some typing.  --Andy 17:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll see what I can do when I'm done with my classes for the day.  Do you have a citation for the casting?  That would help for verifying the information until the film gets closer to the release date. (Also, do you mind deleting the cast list after the information's inserted?  Seems to displace my comment, and might displace future comments, too.) --Erik 17:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixes 

message: I recently saw a trailer for this and while this could be a wild goose chase, I figured this would be the best place to ask if anyone knows who did the soundtrack to it.
Raven_1959 22:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soundtrack? 

message: Do we need this section? looks like the works of a desperate fan and not really wikipedia material...--sin-man 07:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to smite it.  Much of this article is unfortunately unsourced, and I can't say that this film article is one of my top editing priorities. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I was just going to ask the same thing.  Killing it under the same principle as why people don't like, say, what's going on under 2006 for Chris Benoit.  Drjayphd 01:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent shooting

message: The official trailer promotes the film as Grindhouse, not Grind House. MDonfield 13:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've renamed the page to Grindhouse (film) -- could everyone help update the name elsewhere via "what links here"? -jca2112 16:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Well that hasn't seemed to stop the Weinstein Company from marketing the film title as one word. -jca2112 07:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title is incorrect 

message: I just noticed the "New Updated Information" under the section about the fake trailers.  Someone needs to wikify this. 164.107.242.131 03:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "New Updated Information" 

message: I removed this quote because it has no source information. If anyone has a source for the quote, you can add it back into the article, with a proper reference link. (Ibaranoff24 19:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote 

message: This quote:
"Between the two segments will be trailers advertising fake films. In an interview with Danny Trejo, the actor said that he will be in a fake trailer for a movie called They Call Him Machete, obviously a reference to Trejo's character of the same name in Rodriguez' Spy Kids series."
Altough may be what Trejo said, in the preview in the scream awards they showed a clip of his trailer and the title of the "film" seems to be just 'Machete'. Vicco Lizcano 04:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Machete 

message: Addendum: The real reason the movie did "poorly" is the 3+ hours running time. Most movies are barely 90 to 120 minutes and are quickly reloaded with high audience turnover. The obvious comparison is a burger vs a steak. 
I just read a rumor that the Weinstein are going to split the movies when released in different countries, could someone find a source for this so we can add it?. I'm on work and I can't surf the web freely (most sites blocked, except wiki and others). I read it at a forum, so I know it's not a valid source for wiki. Thanks. Vicco Lizcano 19:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have also read, that in Germany, where I live, the movie is released in two parts. First comes Rodriguez' part and four months later Tarantino's part. Source: bereitsgesehen.de (german). The site is in german, but you can see the dates for both parts in bold types: Planet Terror starts on April, 12th 2007 and Death Proof starts on August, 23rd 2007. But allegedly you can see the double feature, when Tarantono's part starts in cinemas. --δα ωλα 22:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Damn American film fat cats. don't they realise that not just Americans had grindhouse films in the 70's and we all want to experience this as it was meant to be too?--Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 14:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weinsteins to split movie 

message: In Australia we are getting it as one double feature release.
maybe it is for European (or non-English European) audiences the feature is being split.--ZayZayEM 13:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: international movie split

message: are you sure Tarantino is directing faux trailers for planet terror internationally? i have not heard of this anywhere. someone please make sure this is true —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Linestouch (talk • contribs) 06:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: faux trailers

message: I was watching G4 today and they said that it may get an NC-17 if there are no cuts made to it. should this be added?
Since this section has become a breeding ground for uncited information that no contributor is bothering to add into the actual body of the article, I've exported it to the talk page.  Feel free to re-add anything relevant into another section with a citation. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 03:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rating 

message: :In a contest to create your own fake trailer, an entry entitled Hobo With a Shotgun was the winner and will be featured in Grindhouse as well.
Well, that's all well and good, but are there any sources confirming that this fake trailer will be featured in the film? (Ibaranoff24 19:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fake trailers contest 

message: According to the press junket interview with Quentin/ Rodriguez found here: the NC-17 report was a rumor and nothing more. Here's the quote:
::Last week there was talk that you were having trouble with the MPAA. 
::QT: "No, that's a complete rumor. I mean it was a complete rumor. They hadn't even seen it when all ::this stuff was coming out."
::RR: "It was such a good rumor that we were actually disappointed we didn't get it -- maybe we weren't ::good enough to get an NC-17." [laughter]
I think this merits a change in the wiki article, yes?
--Hoovernj 00:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read Entertainment Weekly's latest article, they did have to chop out a chunk of the film to appease the MPAA, in particular Eli Roth's trailer.--CyberGhostface 01:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NC-17 Rumor 

message: I know there's a spoiler warning but the plot section of both movies tells the entire plot, from start to finish, in one paragraph. They tell how the bad guys die. It just seems like a little TMI. 24.124.29.130 05:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, I think this entire page needs a BIG spoilers warning; because had I seen rthis page prior to seeing the film(s), I'd have been exceptionally angry, as they were a total surprise and not at all what was presented in the trailers. Magicflyinlemur 07:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it's an encyclopedia article, not an advertisement. the plot section (with spoiler warning!) is supposed to have the full plot. --dan 18:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No its not. This is an encyclopedia. Only those plot points of encyclopedic value, i.e. notability, should be mentioned and discussed. This may include spoilers, but not necessarily every detail, or indeed every spoiler, of the movie.--ZayZayEM 01:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The summary for Planet Terror, at least needs a near complete rewrite.  For one, they wanted to SPREAD the disease so that a search for a cure would be funded, and the "Rapists" were not a proper noun, they were these supposed 'government officials' who took (not kidnapped) the already imprisoned women.  Not saying they weren't rapists, they just weren't Rapists who Kidnapped the women.  It's like Libertarian vs. libertarian. - BalthCat 04:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Incorrect capitalization aside, they don't succeed in raping anyone in the movie, so I don't see how they can properly be called rapists. 68.7.201.42 06:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Attempted Rapists then... Oy Vey —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.112.74.32 (talk) 01:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the rapists, they are credited in the movie as Rapist 1 and Rapist 2. It would seem backwards to argue the semantics and label them in contradiction to what the filmmakers call them. --SquatGoblin 07:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiling to much...? 

message: *
:Visual effects coverage; enjoy. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 19:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation for use 

message: Okay sharpe-eyed Tarantino fans, what is the original title of "Death Proof"? It flashes on the screen for about 1 second as a title over the image, but is then quickly replaced with a plain white on grey title card. Surprised that no one has caught this yet and made note of it in the article  RoyBatty42 06:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Actual title of ''Death Proof''

message: I really don't think so.  Someone's been messing with the article.
:I second that, I just saw this and I definitely didn't recognize Geraldo.134.84.103.21 08:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Geraldo Rivera in ''Planet Terror''

message: I know that I saw Stacy Ferguson listed in the opening credits for Death Proof as one of "The Girls", because that's why I looked it up.  I'm not really a Fergie fan, and I wouldn't really recognize her if I saw her.  Who was she in Death Proof?--207.119.46.109 02:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stacy Ferguson in Death Proof

message: Both of the plot sections are in need of proofreading - watch for extraneous, unencyclopic details that lengthen the article without adding any important details. (209.247.22.129 20:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot 

message: That food commercial is not mentioned anywhere in the article. Would it go under Faux Trailers or Death Proof? Steveprutz 16:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nunoz Brothers commercial? 

message: Not sure if this is something significant to mention:
*Welcome to The REAL Grindhouse!  Quentin Tarantino ripped us off!
*INDIE FILMMAKER CLAIMS "TARANTINO STOLE MY GRINDHOUSE"
*Director of $4,000 Film Called 'Grindhouse' Claims Tarantino Ripped Him Off!
Have fun with it. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The REAL Grindhouse? 

message: Just a quick heads-up on a website I've added to the External links page with the title "Grindhouse" Preview from YourGeekNews.com. It's a Movie Preview and Review site that features video of Interviews with film makers and actors as well as Scenes from the movie. This is a non-commercial site, just doing it for the love of the movies that appeal to, well, Geeks like us. At the same time, we do have full rights granted from the studios to webcast the video content, for anyone concerned about the legitimacy of the videos. Matt (04/13/07) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.100.249.107 (talk) 21:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: I added information last night that I felt was important in the description of the plot and corrected some wrong details. For instance the current plot description includes:
*Zoë plays a dangerous game which she calls "Ship's Mast", strapped to the front windshield 
*The girls decide to take revenge, chasing him on the country road and crashing into him before violently beating him in the face with a metal pipe.
*Mike's car flips over, breaking his arm,
If you saw the movie,  you'd know these are incorrect because:
*Zoë is holding onto leather straps, and not strapped in. It is crucial to why her falling off the hood was a danger. There is also a differece between the front hood and windshield. Even the photo used for the film shows that she isn't strapped in or on the windshield.
*They crashed into a his car while it was standing still, not chasing him. Zoë had stepped out of the car to beat him and drives off.
*He says that his leg was broken, and not his arm. 
In addition, I added important facts that were repeatedly mentioned in the film such as:
*The importance of the Dodge Challenger being the model from Vanishing Point. Vanishing Point and other car-chase movies is part of the exploitation film-style that Taratino is employing. It says so in the introductory part of the article. 
I can understand editing what I wrote because it wasn't clear, but edit back inaccuracies isn't productive. If there is a reason it is being reverted without discussion, I strongly recommend discussing it here, because if not me, someone else will probably correct the inaccuracies that are continuously being added back in. --SquatGoblin 19:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good points, rlorenzo.  I'm surprised no one else seems to have noted that the movie is out of sequence like Tarantino's other films.  This should be noted in the plot summary as it reads like a linear narrative at this point, which is wrong.74.99.213.103 22:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He very clearly says "My right arm is broken." I've seen it three times, it's been the same every time. And the movie is chornologically correct, there's no way the second part could have taken place before the first part. And he does still have his scar in the second part, but it's less prominent. Some guy 10:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mike drinks liquor after he parked his car after getting shot, even though he stated that he has given up alcohol in the first half. Then, obviously, that would make Stuntman Mike a liar. (209.247.22.140 01:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, well, that's really important. </sarcasm> Some guy 01:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the idea that the film is out of order. There is no way I can prove this, but there is no way anyone can say that it is played chornologically either until some offical comment is made, which is likely never. However, I will point out that Mike's attitude in the second half of the movie is completely different than the first part. If you can see this, that is your failing.Stetsonblade 22:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   He dies at the end of the second half!!! Do you think he came back to life to kill the first set of girls? Jesus Christ, use your brain. Some guy 10:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try using yours.  He doesn't exactly die at the end of the second half -- hence "Death Proof."  He is crushed in the face, which gives him the scar in the first half.  The title means nothing if it is a linear film.  And what other Tarantino film is linear?  Being a grindhouse-style film too, films not only had missing reels but were often out of sequence.  So yes, the film makes some sense in chronological order.  But it makes much, much more sense if seen non-chronologically.74.99.213.103 17:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I completely agree with you. Also, I believe the face smash has something to do with his stammered sneeze in the first part. Perhaps internal damage. Seriously, people look at his character in the two parts. He killed the women in cold-blood. He gave them no chance. In the second part he didn't try very hard if he planned to kill them. First of all he attacked them during the day and from behind. He wasn't trying to kill them. He was just messing with them. Not to mention the drinking.Stetsonblade 17:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, he has the scar in the second part, and there is absolutely no way he could have survived having his face caved in like that. It would have crushed his brain and caused irreperable damage. The title "Death Proof" is about the car, not Kurt Russel. Obviously you are very desperate for it to be out of order but that's totally illogical and unreasonable. Some guy 22:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, we can't prove either way. I say you can look at it either way. You're the one getting so torn up about it, man. See it whatever way makes you happy.Stetsonblade 15:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is incorrect; Mike does have his scar on the second half of the movie (it isn't as visible since he has a five o'clock shadow) and according to the script, he does meet his end on the second half of the movie. Like someone else said, the car was death proof, not him. He was just  trying to be macho when he was just really a sissy; I wish he had at least killed one of them but the 2nd group of girls were just tougher (and mean too, they didn't need to kill him; but then again, if someone did that to you, wouldn't you try to kill him too?) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.119.207.30 (talk) 06:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deathproof Plot Description 

message: Not sure where to stick it, but enjoy: 
:—Disavian (talk/contribs) 16:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another ref 

message: Do you think this article is ready to be nominated at GAC? It appears the only thing that will need to be updated is the box office numbers, the RT percentage (if it changes), and then add a DVD section down the road. But for now, all of the images have fair use rationales, has plenty of sources, and is broad in covering the film. Good job to everybody that put in the hard work in improving the article and compiling all of the sources. If we have a consensus here, I'll nominate it. --Nehrams2020 07:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I nominated the article. I don't think there will be any more changes except for anons editing the plot summary. --Nehrams2020 04:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone should add some information from the Grindhouse: Saga of a Double Feature book. It's good to have non-web sources if you want to get the article to FA quality. (209.247.22.140 01:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA?

message: I had a question. There's a paragraph that states:
:In a recent interview with Zombie, he confirmed that over half an hour of footage was shot for Werewolf Women of the S.S. It has not been stated at this time if the "complete" cut will be featured on the eventual Grindhouse DVD or be expanded into a feature-length film.
Did Rob mean 30 minutes worth of complete scenes, that can actually be edited together and worked into a short segment? Or just 30 minutes of footage? If there's just 30 minutes of footage, that doesn't necessarily mean that there would be enough to edit together into anything much longer than what was featured in the film. Back when they did Game of Death, the studio thought that they had enough footage of Bruce Lee to work into a film, but then they found that the supposed 90 minutes or so that was shot only amounted to a complete ending, leaving an entire film that needed to be completed. So, I'm not really sure about this sentence. (Ibaranoff24 21:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it means that 30 minutes of footage was shot, and then they used only a fraction of that to make the trailer. Then it is possible that before the release of the film in theaters, they thought that maybe they would include the 30 minutes of footage to add for a special feature for a DVD release. But now that the film has sparked some interest, he is considering expanding the film into a full-length film with proper editing and expansion. If that is the case, then they are obviously going to have shoot some more footage. Perhaps the second sentence should be edited to "It has not been stated at this time if the footage will be featured on the upcoming Grindhouse DVD or be expanded into a feature-length film."--Nehrams2020 22:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Footage doesn't mean anything. They could have used thirty minutes of film only filming the scenes that are in the trailer, and have nothing to add to the DVD. Some guy 02:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Werewolf Women of the S.S. 

message: Hey, someone deleted my Stuntman Mike picture. What gives? It's a scene from the movie. Why can't this picture stay? Please discuss before deleting. MartyArtyParty 11:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stuntman Mike

message: This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of  , , compares against the  six good article criteria:
:1. Well written?: This is the main hurdle keeping this from being a Good Article.  The prose is sloppy and difficult to read throughout.  More specifically: 
*The lead is okay at best.  Run-on sentences and repetitious syntax make it generally subpar and it could benefit from good copyediting.
*History and Development
**The first paragraph tells the same story of the impetus of the film twice which is completely unnecessary.
**The entire section utilizes so many quotes that it is extremely difficult to read.       It would benefit from more summarization and a more careful selection of quotes.
**A paragraph defines the film's title but this is already addressed in the lead and therefore is unnecessary here.
*Production
**The first paragraph makes very little sense and conveys no useful information.
**Paragraph 2 addresses casting which is a part of the development process, not production.
**This section also utilizes a ton of quotes that serve to make it much less readable.
**The paragraph on the rating should probably have its own section since MPAA ratings are often controversial and can have a huge impact on a film's success.
**The book that is mentioned should not be in the production section/
*Effects
**This section is also difficult to read at times and would benefit from copyediting.
*Plots
**The plots of both films could use minor copyediting and possibly be condensed (though the copyediting might make this unnecessary)
*Trailers
**These sections include too much development talk and backstory with very little useful description of the trailers themselves.
:2. Factually accurate?: The article is generally well sourced and seems to be factually accurate.
:3. Broad in coverage?: The article is certainly broad in its coverage of the film from conception to release.
:4. Neutral point of view?: Point of view in stable version is neutral enough to meet this criteria.
:5. Article stability? The article seems to be stable enough to meet this criteria.
:6. Images?: All images on the page have thorough fair use rationale.
When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration.  If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review.  Thank you for your work so far.FilmFemme 22:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failed Good Article Nomination 

message: Why is the trivia facts put by somebody keeps getting taken off. Is there something wrong or incorrect with those facts? I'd like to know.
Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.119.199.130 (talk) 00:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Trivia sections are being removed from the main article in order to adhere to Wikipedia standards try to steer away from trivia sections (see Wikipedia:avoid trivia sections in articles.)  There is a trivia section on the talk page that people are welcome to add to and enjoy. FilmFemme 00:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The trivia in the movie 

message: Due to the many cast sections, do you guys think that they should be removed from the tables and then put into two/three columns in lists to eliminate the large blocks of free space? Although the tables can look appealing, they aren't formatted very well for the size of this article. --Nehrams2020 07:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cast sections