Search found 1 match: Quentin Tarantino

I think if you don't have an inherently interesting science fiction (or fantasy) premise to explore, and you don't want to have the movie start right away, then basically you need to offer the viewer some truly engaging cinematography -- and I mean really impressive stuff because people have been making movies for a long time now and it takes serious effort/talent to use the camera effectively in a way that the viewer hasn't seen before. Or in a way that the viewer has seen before but is so much better this time around that the viewer feels like watching despite there being nothing interesting happening in terms of plot or characterization.

Actually, if you have a unique and inherently interesting character then just showing this person go about their life can be a sufficient opening in itself. But most main characters these days are not inherently interesting; they tend to be generic city-dwellers, particularly in popular indy films.

Someone mentioned lowering expectations for Hollywood flicks -- but actually I find what often sets Hollywood films apart from independent stuff is far superior pacing. The movie starts immediately or within the first ten minutes; hollywood producers seem to never take an audience's patience for granted (except coen brothers, woody allen and quentin tarantino movies, which do take patience for granted IMO, if you consider these Hollywood).

Regarding the cold open: it's similar, except what I'm talking about here has nothing to do with the placement of the credits. I don't care if there is 10 minutes of film before the opening credits/title. And if those 10 minutes have nothing happening, this is actually worse than if the title is shown up front. The main thing I care about that the movie starts within a reasonable time from when I press play; not 25 minutes later. This is regardless of when the title is shown, show the title at the end for all I care, if the movie begins at the beginning (not in the middle) and ends at the end I'm happy.