And once you're in that slot, it's not the end of the trouble. I love Scrubs and it's weird to me that it struggles to get renewed every season and when it does get renewed NBC throws it around the timeslots as it sees fit.

KS: They keep moving it around but in defence of NBC they've kept it alive. They could have said, "This isn't performing as well as we had hoped so f*ck it, let's just get out of here." But they've kept supporting it, they just keep trying to find a timeslot for it and it just doesn't quite attract the audience that the critics feel it should or that the network feels it should. But at least they kind-of stick with it, whereas in something like the case of Firefly, they did something like twelve episodes, you're talking about a network - Fox - who gave it a shot and it didn't work within a few episodes and the just pulled the plug altogether.

You can see why it's soul-destroying to be a show runner on TV.

KS: Never mind the show runners, it's the creators; people who came up with idea for whom it's their lifeblood, their passion. They struggle so hard to get to that point and after a few episodes the network throws them in the garbage.

And in Joss's case, you are talking about a guy, too, who had a successful, syndicated show with Buffy. And Angel spun off. Granted it was never in the top ten, top twenty ratings-wise, I don't think, but he had the demographics numbers. The audience tuning in to watch was an audience they could sell adverts to. You figure the dude's got a track record, stick by him. Maybe the show doesn't take off right away but perhaps by season two it will.

The days of Seinfeld are long gone; Seinfeld started very f*cking slow as a summer series and then within the third or fourth season it really took off and started climbing into the top ten all the time. That was an example of a network sticking by a show they liked even though it was a ratings challenge, and it eventually panned out for them. Very few people are willing to take that risk anymore. Now it's like, if it's not working in the first two months f*cking yank it.

There's no heart involved anymore.

KS: It's business, man. It's purely f*cking numbers; dollars and cents and whatnot. And every once in a while something that has something to say or something of quality slips through and winds up earning as well as appeasing some sort of artistic intent.



Whereas in film, I'd imagine that Harvey Weinstein isn't wanting for a few quid here and there but he's still willing to give things a shot and put his faith in something.

KS: Thank God, 'cause otherwise I wouldn't have a career. And, you know, those dudes are to be applauded for Grindhouse. I know they're taking a lot of sh*t because in overseas territories outside of the UK and the US they're going to split those movies into two, and everyone's like, "How come we can't see it the way you guys are seeing it?" First off, it's like, just wait six to eight months and you'll be able to see it on DVD. But second off it's kind-of a defensible position.

Everyone's like, "Oh, they're just money-hungry." They invested a lot of money making that movie and they'll invest a lot of money in marketing that movie. Give them a shot to make some of their f*cking coin back. Even if the movie makes a hundred million bucks they've still got a little ways to go before profitability based on whatever their budget was and based on the P&A they'll wind up putting into it.

So, you know, they should be applauded, if anything, for letting the movies go out as one in the territories they are, and some would argue the top-earning territories. If they've got to split it up overseas to kind-of ensure their investment, can you really blame them for doing that?

And Quentin has said that ultimately they're made to complement each other but in the tradition of grindhouse they're two separate movies that can be watched individually.

KS: Totally. Having seen it, Grindhouse would not suffer from being split up into two movies. They still both work independently and they still work co-dependently.

I ultimately think Kill Bill is the same.

KS: Totally. In fact, Kill Bill, that was a movie I was really glad was split up into two, because of the cliff-hanger nature of it. That really lent to Volume 2 being what it became. Grindhouse is not a cliff-hanger but when you split it up into two they're both an independent viewing experience. It's a three hour and five minute experience. If somebody was like, "The only way you can watch this is if it's split up into two," I'd be OK with that. Although, to be fair, it was the fastest moving three hours and five minutes I ever sat through and at the premiere once it was done if they were like, "We're going to show it again right now," I would have sat and watched it again for another three hours. It is spellbinding, that flick.