Quote from: Alien Redrum on July 07, 2010, 12:38:58 AMQuote from: Jon on July 07, 2010, 12:12:07 AM I was concerned about that one! And it would have been very depressing to miss out on a question relating to one of my favourite films, especially if I were to be undone by a reference to the crappy remake. I think both were based on a book. That's as may be but only one of them got it right!
Quote from: Jon on July 07, 2010, 12:12:07 AM I was concerned about that one! And it would have been very depressing to miss out on a question relating to one of my favourite films, especially if I were to be undone by a reference to the crappy remake. I think both were based on a book.
I was concerned about that one! And it would have been very depressing to miss out on a question relating to one of my favourite films, especially if I were to be undone by a reference to the crappy remake.
Achim, Dragonfire and Rick are correctHal and Halo2 are incorrect
Quote from: Jon on July 07, 2010, 08:24:29 AMQuote from: Alien Redrum on July 07, 2010, 12:38:58 AMQuote from: Jon on July 07, 2010, 12:12:07 AM I was concerned about that one! And it would have been very depressing to miss out on a question relating to one of my favourite films, especially if I were to be undone by a reference to the crappy remake. I think both were based on a book. That's as may be but only one of them got it right! That I will not argue. Robert Shaw >>>> then anyone in the 2009 version.
I remember Jon stating in one of our discussions about the worth of QT, how he resurrected the career of John Travolta. Looking back now at some of the performances he's given since Pulp Fiction, I wonder if Jon would like to post a retraction?
Quote from: Antares on July 07, 2010, 05:31:30 PMI remember Jon stating in one of our discussions about the worth of QT, how he resurrected the career of John Travolta. Looking back now at some of the performances he's given since Pulp Fiction, I wonder if Jon would like to post a retraction? He can resurrect a career (Travolta had a few decent roles after Pulp Fiction) but he cannot perform miracles. If Travolta chooses crap to be in is beyond QT's influence. He can hardly but JT in all of h9is films.Besides, regardless of what one thinks of his films, I find that actors seem to go the extra mile for him, enabling him to always get the best out of the people working for him.
I won't ever dispute that he has resurrected a few careers, or at least brought much needed attention to an actor who deserved it.
Quote from: Alien Redrum on July 07, 2010, 05:57:37 PM I won't ever dispute that he has resurrected a few careers, or at least brought much needed attention to an actor who deserved it.Complete fanboys crap. Not you personally, but the people who believe that...Those actors were always working before he used them in his "movie" and he didn't used them to help them but because they cost less.It's unbelievable the kind of comment his fanboys do sometimes. Someday one of them will certainly say that he is the most original director who had ever made a movie...
Yeah, because Robert Forster was such an a-list mega-star before Jackie Brown, eh? And that Sam Jackson bloke... unheard of since Pulp Fiction. You're absolutely right about Travolta. He can barely make ends meet.