I feel like Grindhouse could actually make for a good TV series if it was handled right.

>>212376173 (OP)
A deliberately trashy aesthetic and ambiguous moral content isn't the exception it was when Grindhouse was first popularized anymore, it's the rule now and thus any subsequent attempts at reviving the genre will just come across as quaint.

>>212376287
I feel the opposite is true. It seems like we've entered an era of soft censorship, where even R-rated films feel more like PG because of their adherence to inoffensive moral standards.

>>212376400
Maybe I'm just a pearl-clutching faggot and you're right, it's hard to say. I would ironically still watch a Grindhouse TV show regardless, I just think it isn't going to have the same impact as it once did.

>>212376626
Yeah i mean your not entireloy wrong with stuff like Terrifier being straight up gore porn but I feel the thematic tones are still softer. None of it feels truly edgy like what we were seeing in the early 2000s (I Spit on Your Grave, Eden Lake, Hills Have Eyes ect.)

>>212376400
>90's
It's '90s. It's not ninety is!

>>212376173 (OP)
A TV series feels like the natural way for QT to bypass his dumb 10 movie limit. Make it a 8 to 10 episode anthology series ala Fargo and True Detective.

>>212376173 (OP)
> if it was handled right
It wouldn't be. In order to do it properly, the people making it would have to be well aware of actual Grindhouse cinema (not the film, but the genre), understand why it's celebrated, and actually enjoy it. That's asking a lot.
There was a Dusk Till Dawn series. It also completely missed the mark. Then again, it's questionable whether there would be an audience if they were able to capture the actual grindhouse aesthetic.

>>212376287
>A deliberately trashy aesthetic and ambiguous moral content isn't the exception it was when Grindhouse was first popularized anymore, it's the rule now
disagree. A huge part of the grindhouse aesthetic comes from shameless exploitation of "thrilling" topics that are often considered taboo. While some shows may *occasionally* flirt with exploitation, they tend to bend over backwards to justify it and somehow make it "okay". I fucking wish trashy exploitive shows were normalized.

>>212376173 (OP)
That doesn't make much sense given the aim of the project.

>>212376173 (OP)
It would require finding writers who actually understood the genre.

>Wait our intentionally bad 3 hour long film did poorly at the box office?
Seriously, who thought the double-feature was a good idea?

>>212379309
Rodriguez/Tarantino overestimated how cool the general public is

>>212379391
This. It sucks that other peoples' lameness is the reason why we can't have nice things.

>>212379391
>>212379990
Grindhouse sucked shit.
>stupid unmemorable zombie movie
>movie about a set of dull characters getting killed, then another set getting in a car chase

It's just the usual Tarantino tripe like Kill Bill: take a "cool" genre, remove all depth and thoughtfulness and strip it down to its aesthetics, and add in a bunch of childish B-movie trash.

>>212381169
>strip it down to its aesthetics
>and add in a bunch of childish B-movie trash
I think you misunderstand. The childish B-movie trash is the point. I don't watch Tarantino for super deep philosophy. Same goes for Bad Girls Go to Hell (1965), Daddy's Gone A Hunting (1969), Psychedelic Sex Kicks (1967), or Schoolgirls in Chains (1973). The trashy exploitation is fun.

It's like listening to the Ramones and trying to assess it based on the same criteria as you would a Symphony from the mid 1800s. Both can be great for different reasons, but if listen to the Ramones for thematic development, ellision of harmonic cadences, or brilliant orchestration, you'll be sorely disappointed. Most of the lyrics are "oh yeah, oh yeah", the chords are basic and repetitive, and the the playing is sloppy, and that's why it's fun.

>>212382458
>>212381169
>>212379990
>>212379391
>>212379309
Flopped internationally as well where they split them up and only showed one movie instead of one after the other. So this excuse doesn't work

>>212382508
people are plebs everywhere. it's not just america

>>212382508
The length wasn't the problem. The gamble that the general public would be cool enough to also be into grindhouse films as much as Tarantino and Rodriguez were was.
The double feature format was just a part of the throwback to that genre, but I think the failure was that most people don't watch old movies and didn't really "get it".

>>212382619
Liking shitty movies doesn't make you cool no matter how many times fa/tv/irgins tell you this.

>>212382796
If you don't get it, you don't get it.

>>212376173 (OP)
Dumb arugment. The whole point of Grindhouse was that it was replicating the aesthetic of drive-in movie theaters. Why would it appeal to tv?

>>212382822
Filtered by his opinion. Keep liking shitty movies. It will make you cool any day now.

>>212383095
This statement says more about you than me. Who watches movies to be cool? Just like what you like, retard.

>>212383459
I think it's like old horror movies. Some people love stuff like Creature From the Black Lagoon, and others can't get into it because the story doesn't have a twist and the creature is clearly a guy in a rubber suit. You can't convince the people who hate it that it's good and you can't convince the people who love it that it's bad.