[Hopeful]

I have a dumb question. Why the spelling of both words in the title of the movie?

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by Hopeful

I have a dumb question. Why the spelling of both words in the title of the movie?

Tarantino called it a "Basquiat-esque touch." It's just an artistic flourish.

[DKelly]

Originally Posted by Hopeful

I have a dumb question. Why the spelling of both words in the title of the movie?

According to the movie's trivia page on IMDB:

"When asked about the misspelled title, director Quentin Tarantino gave the following answer: "Here's the thing. I'm never going to explain that. You do an artistic flourish like that, and to explain it would just take the piss out of it and invalidate the whole stroke in the first place."

[conceived in fire]

The funny thing is that he's personally against violence.
Reservoir Dogs is the only Tarantino movie I don't enjoy, although Death Proof isn't that great either. I'd have to agree with Siskel and Ebert who basically said both films have a fairly similar formula, only Pulp Fiction is good - really good.

[DKelly]

So, after seeing this, can any of you imagine Adam Sandler in the role of The Bear Jew? After all, he was actually Tarantino's first choice for the role.

I think it could've been interesting. I mean, I was surprised how much I enjoyed Eli Roth in the role, but I think it would've been fun to see Sandler play that character.

[SupaNova]

Originally Posted by David

So, after seeing this, can any of you imagine Adam Sandler in the role of The Bear Jew? After all, he was actually Tarantino's first choice for the role.

I think it could've been interesting. I mean, I was surprised how much I enjoyed Eli Roth in the role, but I think it would've been fun to see Sandler play that character.

It would have been fun to see him in that role. Eli Roth was great, but yeah, you know Sandler would have taken the character to a whole other level.

On a similar note, Leonardo DiCaprio was also his first choice to play Col. Landa. I don't want to imagine that.

Originally Posted by bowstaff981

I've always thought that it is strange that Tarantino has a reputation as a director that makes horrendously violent films. I've only seen three of his movies (Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, and Inglourious Basterds), and none of them are really that violent. There are of course scenes of violence, and while they are usually very graphic they are actually pretty scarce. His reputation should be for someone that writes tremendous dialogue.

well, while violence isn't usually the focal point of his films, what little violence is there is usually intense, so I can certainly understand why people might accuse Tarantino films to be bloody affairs.

Not to drag this thread off topic, but were the Kill Bill movies more violent then the rest of them? I've only seen part of one of them, but I remember there being a couple extended back to back fight scenes.

[conceived in fire]

Yes to Kill Bill, but mainly Vol. 1.

[DKelly]

Originally Posted by SupaNova

On a similar note, Leonardo DiCaprio was also his first choice to play Col. Landa. I don't want to imagine that.

That never would've worked in a million years. I'm glad Tarantino passed on him for that role.