Quentin Tarantino insists that he’s not making a new Kill Bill with Maya Hawke
His final movie is about a movie critic in the '70s, it doesn't have any Bill killing in it
Aux News Quentin Tarantino
In 2021, after he had instituted his “I’m only making 10 movies” rule but before he had really decided what that meant or what that 10th movie might be, Quentin Tarantino seemed vaguely open to the idea of making a third Kill Bill movie—and by that we mean that when somebody at a film festival asked if he would do it, the most definitive answer he could come up with was to ask “why not?” and then leave it at that. He has apparently come up with a good reason why not to do it in the years since, though, because we know what his final movie will be and it’s not a Kill Bill sequel.
Tarantino is working on The Movie Critic, something set in the ‘70s about a man who is not Pauline Kael, and he recently confirmed to De Morgen (a newspaper in Belgium) that he’s not making a rumored Kill Bill sequel starring original star Uma Thurman and her real-life daughter Maya Hawke. “I don’t see that happening,” he said, reiterating that this next and final film is “about a film critic, a male critic.”
So that seems pretty conclusive, assuming his pants are not currently in fire, because he’d either have to be laying about his next movie being this film critic adventure or about stopping after 10 movies—and he must know that he will be mocked ruthlessly at America’s hip independent movie theaters if he becomes a liar.
Elsewhere in the interview, which takes the ever-popular form of a list of things Tarantino likes, he mentions that, if he had been a songwriter instead of a filmmaker, he would’ve liked to make something like Bob Dylan’s Blonde On Blonde. He also highlights how good Peppa Pig is, saying he appreciate that the episodes are short, that the characters are cute, and that there’s a surprising amount of satire in it. So there you go, Tarantino fans: Blonde On Blonde and Peppa Pig.
94 Comments
I’m pretty sure we shouldn’t believe Tarantino when he says he’s going to stop after this movie. After all, nothing is keeping him to “making only ten movies” except for a comment he made in a 2012 interview. If he doesn’t want to make any more movies after this, that’s fine- nobody ever *has* to make a movie, but if he wants to make an 11th or 12th etc. movie, it’s not like anybody is going to stop him.
“and he must know that he will be mocked ruthlessly at America’s hip independent movie theaters if he becomes a liar.”Huh? He’s been mocked ruthlessly for 20 years plus anyway.
If anything, he should be mocked for his pretentious, self-imposed rule.
Deservedly so.
I’m pretty sure he enjoys it. He’s down for humiliation. Especially if it involves getting stepped on
“He’s been mocked ruthlessly for 20 years plus anyway.”
Yeah, I’m sure 20 years of people treating a foot fetish as if it’s weirder than someone being obsessed with big tits has really hurt him.
Yes he is mocked mercilessly at independent cinemas everywhere, like the beloved New Beverly Cinema.Hating Tarantino in the 2020’s is like hating Spielberg in the 90’s.
If he makes more than 10 movies, the only public response I can see is one of understanding. We’ve accepted that nothing ends. In some ways, we’ve enabled it. This will be his ‘last’ film in the same way horror movies always say that. Or Toy Story, apparently. See you at the next one, Quentin.
The “public” isn’t going to give a fuck one way or another. If you stopped 100 people on the street anywhere outside of LA and asked them about QT’s 10 movie rule, 99 of them would have no idea what you were talking about.Film nerds like us will talk about it, and have absolutely no impact on the decision one way or another, before seeing the film anyways out of some combination of admiration, hatred or sense of obligation.
This is a great point that I keep reminding folks in my circle (and myself) about:
Sometimes we’re all just the general, mainstream consumer. Sometimes we’re the 1%ers on a specific topic. It’s tough to know the difference without stopping, zooming out, and remembering that the vast majority of people don’t know or care about the things we’re intensely interested in, and our reaction is an outlier/not at all indicative of the general interest/knowledge base.
Proofread your copy for God’s sake.
I’m all they’ve got, and I have a real job now 🤷🏿♀️
I mean:
So that seems pretty conclusive, assuming his pants are not currently in on
fire, because he’d either have to be laying lying about his next movie being
this film critic adventure or about stopping after 10 movies—and he must
know that he will be mocked ruthlessly at America’s hip independent
movie theaters if he becomes a liar. makes a liar of himself.
…
He also highlights how good Peppa Pig is, saying he appreciate appreciates that the episodes are short,
That’s 5 minutes work there, not including having to scroll up and down to copy/paste. Three typos and one stylistic choice because I just think ‘becomes a liar’ sounds incredibly clumsy. Not the end of the world, but it’s pretty glaring when published with such easy fixes left untouched.
Everyone proofs their own copy these days, that’s why it’s gone downhill so far.Not just here, like newspapers and stuff too. The newspaper I worked for hasn’t had an actual proofreader since like 2006 or so, the writers just proof their own stuff. It’s….not a great newspaper.
Dude’s only 60. He’ll get bored. He’ll come up with a loophole. Or he’ll say, “Fuck it”. Or, “Did you think I was serious?” Or, “Yeah, I meant it then, but things change”. Or whatever. In any event, he’ll make a 11th, 12th, 13th, how many ever more films down the road. It might be a year later, a few years, or ten years, but he’ll be back.
Knowing Tarantino’s ego, if/when he decides to make a 11th movie, he’ll just compare himself to film legend, Hayao Miyazaki, who has retired something like four times now. Maybe five?
He’ll get offered like half a billion to come write a TV series for Netflix, or something, and that’ll be his loophole. “I said movies. Never said anything about TV.”
Yes, he’s explicitly said tv is an exception from the beginning.
I could see Tarantino being down for doing a director spot in a hour long anthology show. I could also see him directing a lifetime movie
“I said movies. Never said anything about TV.”
He has literally already said this.
Or he can make films under a pseudonym; that feels like something he would do.
Well, he can’t use Tintin Quarantino, that’s my dog’s name.
Damn, that’s good. Works on a lot of levels.
Novel writing and TV work. I think he’ll stick to not doing shown-on-a-big-screen 90+ minute movies.
Soderbergh also claimed he was going to retire, but then a few years later made a movie, and has done like 6 more or something since. Some of these people just can’t stay away.
For sure, Stephen King has also retired multiple times, though to be fair to QT Soderbergh didn’t talk about when he was going to retire for 20 years leading up to it.
“Some of these people just can’t stay away.”
Yeah, It’s weird… Creative people like to continue to be creative. Hummingbirds keep coming to my feeder. The sun continues to exist and be visible from Earth.
How ‘bout: “Kill Bill Vol.1 and 2. were just one movie. I tricked you! Now I can make Vol. 3 and another movie!”
Since Scorcese turned 60, he has made:The AviatorThe DepartedShutter IslandHugoThe Wolf of WallstreetSilenceThe IrishmanKillers of the Flower MoonOn top of that, he’s made a bunch of documentaries and directed some TV shows. Tarentino has this weird take that all directors suck after 60…maybe he lacks confidence in himself.
“Tarentino has this weird take that all directors suck after 60″
Yeah, he never said that. Not ever.
Ten? Jfc, Bergman directed 48 feature length films. I find QT’s egotism sadistic in it’s proportions; he may believe his celebration of violence is atavistic, but it’s just the expression of the simple ‘justice’ in adolescent fantasies. He doesn’t know how to solve problems any other way. he’s a cinematic con man. Make a tenth and then go away.
Did he kick your dog or something? You’re allowed to just ignore the guy if you don’t like his movies.
I don’t mind his movies, but I can’t understand how he’s risen to this sought of haute-auteur level he’s been placed at. All the stuff he’s praised for is the exact sort of stuff you’re not supposed to do. And I can’t really say that he does it any better than…any of the hundreds of B-grade flick directors he watched when he was snivelling “BE KIND, REWIND” at the video shop customers. Macguffins, violence, pointless dialogue…I was told specifically not to do that shit in uni, and I’d be like…Does- doesn’t Tarantino do that?“Yeah! And he’s awesome for it!”And I never got a straight answer as to why. I don’t know how he gets away with it, other than being…just the One Guy Who Is Allowed To Do That.
They love his hyper-macho violence? Alpha male who adopts ‘quirkiness’ to offset his lack of talent or to appear more approachable?
“They love his hyper-macho violence?”
Keep exposing yourself as someone who hasn’t even bothered to watch his movies. It’s a great look, showing off your ignorance like a moron.
“Alpha male who adopts ‘quirkiness’ to offset his lack of talent or to appear more approachable?”
Today I learned that, of ALL people, Quentin fucking Tarantino is an ALPHA MALE!BWahahahahahahahahahahahaha, ok. So you just woke up today and decided you’d prove to everyone that you are a fucking ignoramous?
Cool, I guess.
If you watch Pulp Fiction and Boondock Saints back-to-back, I think there’s certainly a difference. I mean, the moment in Jackie Brown where Robert Forster first sees Pam Grier…it’s good! He’s got talent.
But I agree that there’s a world where he’s not the first person to do some of these things (using Elmore Leonard-style dialogue, for example, would have been a hit for whoever managed to sneak that past the studio) and he’s just another name rather than An Auteur.
It’s pretty simple for me anyway – the people who like him find his work compelling. It’s hard to have a conversation about it with people who define themselves by their dislike of Tarantino though, because his films don’t work IF you’re predisposed to not go along with the character journey. David Lynch and Kubrick are the same way – if you want to be snarky and “too smart” for Lynch for example, yea you can hand wave it as psuedo-artistic trash because his films won’t work that way.
If however, (to pick Pulp Fiction as an example) you’re following Jules and Vincent’s story emotionally, those pointless conversations just set up their mundane humanity before who they are becomes apparent to you. Tarantino does this a lot incidentally (again like Lynch), mixing the over-the-top with normal people. There’s a lot of playing with the audience and your emotional attachment.
The reason screenwriting usually doesn’t want you doing that is because it’s general convention that everything in the script should further the story. The reason Tarantino, Lynch, and a handful of others get away with it is because they know how to use it to add texture/contrast to their characters and stories – so the guts of the conversation IS meaningless, but what it means to the story is not. Your standard B fare, while definitely influential, on average doesn’t do it with as much skill. It works if one finds the film compelling.If the viewer has the time to sit back and dissect it while watching the film though, it’s just not working for that viewer. It’s a valid reaction.
“All the stuff he’s praised for is the exact sort of stuff you’re not supposed to do.”
Yeah, you’re NOT supposed to have great writing, great casting, great direction and great acting in movies. Why can’t he do something right FOR ONCE?!?!?!?!??
“Macguffins, violence, pointless dialogue…I was told specifically not to do that shit in uni, and I’d be like…Does- doesn’t Tarantino do that?”
Wait, so Tarantino is overrated because you went to a shitty school with teachers who didn’t know what the fuck they were talking about?Macguffins are bad? Violence is just a clear-cut bad thing, is it? And “pointless dialogue” just shows that you know fucking *NOTHING* about writing.
But hey, at least you exposed yourself as someone who doesn’t like Tarantino simply because you think you should be him, and are pathetically jealous about it.
I don’t know who told you not to do Macguffins, but if it’s good enough for Hitchcock, it’s good enough for anybody else. Take the briefcase from Pulp Fiction. It’s a classic symbol of greed like the Maltese Falcon or the Treasure of the Sierra Madre. Everyone who goes after it meets their doom. It’s a symbol.I don’t know who told you not to use violence, but it’s hardly something that makes a movie bad. Like he says, it’s just fun. Why does John Ford make so many movies about cowboys? Why Tim Burton make everyting look like Halloween? Why does Woody Allen This is just what he does.I don’t know who told you not to do pointless dialogue, but I suspect it’s someone who thinks everything in a film should be in service of the narrative. Tarantino dialogue, like the restaurant conversation at the beginning of Reservoir Dogs, is about revealing character. Everything every character says is a clue as to what kind of person they are. It’s not pointless dialogue, unless you think dialogue should only serve the plot.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with Macguffins or violence, like anything else they can be overused or used poorly. And QTs dialog isn’t pointless just because it isn’t exposition. It establishes characters and adds texture.I think the current state of film and TV suggests that a lot of screenwriters are better at following screenwriting rules than constructing an interesting scene.
his movies came across as quite novel during the 90s, thats pretty much it. feels like as his career went on his movies became more and more about simply doing homages to scenes and moments in other movies. but thats just my opinion of course. i still like his earlier movies but yeah the violence (to an extent) and language (esp all the n-word) is a bit of a harder watch now.
It seems like you answered your own question about how he came to be so acclaimed:
You were told not to do certain things, and your reaction was “But doesn’t Tarantino do those things?” He was told not to do certain things, and he did what he wanted because he’s not making films for university professors. He doesn’t care how many of his films my Mom has seen. He doesn’t care that someone who shares his influences can namecheck the same directors he’s winking at. He receives acclaim because he’s committed to his own vision – even when that vision is remixing or amplifying other creators – and comfortable with the idea that it’s not for everyone. Nothing is for everyone.
When did we start looking to Tarantino to solve the world’s problems?
You mean you haven’t adopted Quentin as your personal Lord and savior?
So what?
You ok man? Having a hard time sleeping?
They’re just movies, man
but violence is even in like breakfast cereals, man!
Are you saying you don’t like his movies?
Grow the fuck up.
Imagine how hateable he’d be if he used the word “atavistic” unprompted.
Be more pretentious, you douchebag.
FFS, Bread, your comment comes off as pretentious as you think QT is. Although, honestly, a generally agree with you that he’s disappeared up his own ass in the last few years. I think his films are still great, but his disregard for what other people like is pretty shitty. Anyway, sorry about the pretentious comment.
I like to imagine Orson Welles wrote your comment
It’s funny seeing GMG Union members protesting their bosses moving towards using AI-generated articles, when this vapid, unfunny slop is what passes for human-written content.
We don’t need another sequel. The guy makes great original movies. Not much of that these days. Excited for The Movie Critic.
If he’s making a sequel to his own film, is that not also an original movie?
“have to be laying about his next movie” should be “lying”.
Minor quibble.
Maya’s feet are safe for at least one more day.
i’m guessing Maya’s feet aren’t up to Quentin’s standardsi do kind of like the idea of Zendaya being Black Mamba’s now-grown daughter out for revenge
Vernita Green/Vivica A. Fox was Copperhead, Beatrix Kiddo/Uma Thurman was Black Mamba.
sorry got my snakes mixed up, thanks
No worries. Kill Bill is my favorite movie, and I love snakes, so the info is always at the ready.
I’m a curious person and want to understand your snake love. I’m an animal lover and I’m not afraid of snakes, and I’ve had two friends that owned snakes (ball python and red tailed boa, if I recall) and they were beautiful and cool to interact with but I found it tough to connect with them. What is it that you love about them. No judgment, just genuine curiosity.
A few things.
1. The way they look, and the diversity of appearances, is absolutely fascinating.
2. How they’re able to be as mobile as they are is biomechanically astounding (a famous quote I heard is that if intelligent aliens were to visit Earth, and the first living thing they saw was a snake, they’d be convinced our planet was the weirdest place ever and would leave).
3. The fact they’re one of the few animals that can both lay eggs or give live birth (dependent on species).
4. Certain species can change their biological sex depending on environmental conditions.
5. Environmental conditions can lead to certain species being able to engage in either faculative parthenogenesis (essentially a female sex being able to reproduce without engaging in sex) or spontaneous parthenogenesis.
6. There’s a single snake species that’s solely one biological sex and thus reproduces by obligate parthenogenesis.
7. The different predatory habits (such as utilizing venom or constriction) is surprising from an evolutionary adaptation standpoint.
8. Lastly, as pets, they’re very “set it and forget it”, which is nice for someone like me who just doesn’t have the time necessary to engage in the caretaking of something like a dog. They’re very much like cats in that regards (cats, unsurprisingly, being my second favorite animal).
Very cool. Thanks for taking the time to share all that. In addition to being a snake owner, you sound like you might be a herpetologist, too? Either way, thanks for the education. Cool to learn some Snake Facts!
And it famously chapped Vernita’s ass all the way to the end.
I don’t know about Zendaya. I like her in things but the Dune 2 trailer has me worried. Her total lack of even attempting an accent just pulled me out.
havent seen that yet but doesn’t sound great. Would be kind of funny if she attempted some totally inappropriate accent instead, like a strong new york accent or somesuch. “Look out sandworms – I’m walkin here!”
Or like Harvey Keitel in The Last Temptation of Christ
i need to give that one a rewatch altho i saw it a few times back in the day. i remember it seemed slow but i was younger and more impatient then. i still like parts of the peter gabriel soundtracki was in high school at the time and i remember one of my buddies worked at a theater and had to deal with the protesting nuts.
I’d go Boston. “Do you like apples? Well I just took control of Arrakis. How do you like them apples?!”
I think that was a director rather than actor choice, though. She had an american accent (which to us sounds like no accent) last movie which makes sense since Liet Kynes was the same. Pretty sure Jamis also, though with less screen time, possible I’m remembering him wrong). Of the fremen, I think only Stilgar has a distinct accent in part 1.
For some reason I thought Liet had an accent but I guess she didn’t. It just may be how the trailer is cut and in the movie she may sound fine. I don’t want to get labeled a Zendaya hater
Tenth movies that are not Kill Bill remakes/sequels:Slay Ray
Shoot Newt
Murder Werner
Decapitate Nate
Unalive Clive
Dead TedExpire MyraWhack Jack (yes, it’s ready made for a porn parody.)Waste Grace
Filet Rene
This reads like a set of Garbage Pail Kids.
I love Tarantino but the Kill Bill films are so boring. Which is a bummer because his best film is female fronted (Jackie Brown is hands down the best showcase for his strengths and restraint). We really don’t need a third one. I just hope his “final” film steps away from the “alternate” history twist, which was brilliant in Basterds but underwhelming in Hollywood (I mean, imagine if M. Night Shyamalan pulled a “he was a ghost the whole time” in a second film).
“(I mean, imagine if M. Night Shyamalan pulled a “he was a ghost the whole time” in a second film)“
Imagine if that was in any way related to what Tarantino did.
Honestly it seems like such a fucking waste to have a set-up like that and not pay it off. Dollars to donuts he’ll make it a comic like the Zorro/Django thing from a few years back. Also, let’s all pretend I didn’t just say “Dollars to donuts.”
“Honestly it seems like such a fucking waste to have a set-up like that and not pay it off.”
A set-up like what?
i think with inflation that expression could probably be reversed now
Clearly Tarantino is out of touch. Bluey eats Peppa Pig(and pretty much every other kid show and many adults ones) lunch.
I know it won’t happen, but I hope/would love for him to go the Jackie Brown route; direct other people’s written word. Even Elmore praises it. Sure, Tarantino does some good stuff when he’s directing his own verbalage, but honestly, he shines at working with other people’s stuff. It’s a sad loss that he never did more of that, I just love Jackie Brown.
And these days there’s no shame about adaptations even by “arty” directors. The Coens and Scorsese have both done adaptations.
*praised it
His final film is going to be a live adaptation of “The Critic”. The big question is – does/can he get Jon Lovitz, or just use one of his regulars?
His last film will be another 5 hours of the Hateful 8.
they should just do a Pixar-babies version like Muppet babies or that Watchmen babies comic on Simpsons.
LOOPHOLE: Split your final film into multiple chapters released annually and you can just keep going.
Did you even run spell check before writing this drivel?