Come on, honestly? The vampire storyline is a massive clusterfuck of goofy ideas, bizarre images, absurd nonsense, and colossal one-upsmanship on QT’s and Robert Rodriguez’s parts.
And a hell of a lot of fun…
honestly.
Absolutely. But you can’t pretend it’s a carefully plotted, thoughtfully conceived attempt to tell a coherent story. It’s just crap piled on worse improvised crap, trying to outdo the previous scene in outrageous nonsense. Pretty funny, but it doesn’t really even try to continue the first half’s themes. I’d be astonished if any plot development in the second half took up more than 30 seconds’ thought, other than how technically to present it.
I disagree. If this had been some AIP drive-in movie from the sixties, it might have been full of improvisation. But Rodriquez and Tarantino make carefully planned out movies that are homages to those AIP drive-in movies. They don’t just show up with a camera and start filming.
Oh, I’m not asserting that it was made-up-on-the-spot improvising. I’m saying that one non-sequitur in the script followed another non sequitur, and no one ever questioned how any such idea made any sense, or connected to another idea or to the first half of the film. There probably was a little improvising during the filming, but no more than in any other film.
Also FDtD had a very low budget as Hollywood movies go.
In the movie as written, Seth has to kill Richie(?) when it is made clear to him that the brother he loves is an insatiable monster driven by an unquenchable lust to kill…
That is, made clear to him the second time. It was already pretty obvious when he mutilated and murdered their hostage in the motel. That was just as good a reason to mercifully kill Richie as he should ever need. But he didn’t, because he was clinging on to the idea that somehow he could get Richie somewhere so peaceful and stress free that his “poor tormented” (actually just evil) brother would give up on the rape and murder. Seeing him as the vampire finally broke that excuse.
So start with that. Seth’s journey is to be confronted with the true monstrosity of his brother and kill him to save others. Specifically Juliet Lewis. He’s already told Keitel that he doesn’t like the way Richie looks at her, so we know he’s on the ball enough to spot the danger.
So you could have a much darker second half where the evil is less OTT: the bar is a centre for traffiking/human slavery. Perhaps Cheech is behind it all, perhaps its Hayek. This gang’s response to the Gecko brothers bringing in this family of normies is to plan to kill the father and sexually enslave the kids. Seth is horrified by this; Richie is not. Richie is offered a job with the gang, given his evident interest in this area of work. Seth has to pick a side, and works with Keitel to save the children, killing his brother in his ultimate act of redemption.
Speaking of redemption, Keitel has the other major character arc - the reverend who lost his faith and rediscovers it. Shorn of hte “if vampires are real, God must be too” catalyst for this, he needs to find transcendence in something more mundane. Maybe it’s still pretty similar - in a world with these evil people in it, he needs to hold on to his faith. Or maybe we go another way. Maybe Keitel abandons faith altogether and realises in a world without a loving god to provide justice and mercy, he must be the font of his own salvation. Mainly, in this instance, by killing people.
Anyhow, that’s my best shot. I think it keeps these key elements:
The bar that is meant to represent salvation is the gateway to something much more horrific than anything they have faced so far
Richie reveals himself to Seth as beyond salvation
Seth redeems himself and kills Richie
Keitel resolves his crisis of faith.
I also think its less fun than the original and considerably more horrible.
ETA - I have also preserved the unfortunate feature of the original that women have little impact on the story. Hayek gets offed straightaway and Lewis has a couple of minor moments but is basically damsel in distress. A bigger and better rewrite would give both of these characters a) more to do and b) some sort of arc.
I like this as the major theme to be developed in the new second half. Build on my previous notion that Richie contrives, and gets interrupted in, a series of schemes to be alone with Juliette Lewis, during the last of which Seth and the ex-pastor join forces to stop Richie from rape (but after he has made his intentions known to Juliette) and ultimately with Seth shooting Richie. I’d work Hayek and the adopted son into this plot as well, perhaps with her as Richie’s confederate trying to seduce the three of them, one at a time starting with the boy, to allow Richie to have his way with her.
Ok, this is potentially quite funny:
Seth: So we’re agreed?
Keitel: Yes,
Son: Yes
Seth: We’ll keep a close eye on Juliet, guard her from Richie, and not once, not ever, let our attention wander or get distracted.
Keitel and Son: Damn right, we’re with you brother, nothing shall stay our eternal vigilance.
Hayek: sashays through bar, dropping a handkerchief behind her, pauses at door to flutter eyelashes
Seth: …all that said, I’m going to let you guys take the first shift.
Later…
Keitel: Damn that fool Seth! He must have been seduced by the temptress. Let that be a lesson to you son, we can’t drop our guard for an instant.
Son: I understand, dad, and believe me I never will.
Hayek: gyrates back through bar, musing out loud about how hard it is to choose the best outfit for her dance routines and wishing there was someone trustworthy and honest who could watch her try them on and offer constructive criticism.
Keitel: And because I have faith in you, son, I’m going to step out for just a minute now.
And a much better movie, IMO.
They stopped at the Titty Twister because that’s where the brothers were supposed to meet their contacts who would help them disappear.
Nah. The movie’s great.
You know what I hate about Hitchcock’s Psycho? It start as this great thriller about a woman on the run with stolen money, and halfway through it becomes a serial killer flick. WTF?
Van Sant’s remake is even worse.
Some folks find the vampire story hokey, nonsensical, silly, goofy, and a radical departure from a perfectly fine escaped murderers/kidnappers story up to the first fang’s appearance.
I am one of them.
An outstanding job of alternative plotting, and yeah, the film works fine as is.
I mean, the rewrite has become a bleak bedroom farce so hokey, nonsensical, and radical departure are very much in the eye of the beholder.
There were loads of movies featuring psycho gangsters with a gift for pithy dialogue when DTD came out. Either by Tarantino or aping him. It was a refreshing change to see one go off the rails so enthusiastically.
You and me aside, viewers are pretty evenly split on the second half being a disaster and being clever as all get out.
Well…she did use a snake as a prop.
I think more to the point, Santanico Pandemonium (Hayek) is initially portrayed as a sort of “queen vampire” with Chet Pussy (Marin) as her #2. But they are killed off relatively quickly in the initial brawl so the rest of the film is just fighting mindless monsters.
So how about this… instead of getting rid of the disjointed transition (which is, as I said the only thing that makes the original unique) you double down on it. Make the first two acts all celebral dialogue-based suspense, then bam! Just when its coming to its conclusion, make the last act completely over the top Robert Rodriguez schlock horror insanity (that makes Planet Terror look sedate and understated)
Santan… Hayek’s treatment is pretty awful, really. First she’s a sex object, complete with Tarantino writing himself into a foot fetish scene. Then she’s a diabolical monster driven to weaken and enslave men, then she’s summarily dispatched with a “I’ve already got a wife” quip.
It’s… one perspective on how men should relate to women, certainly, but not a subtle one.