|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Aug 16, 2019 22:45:57 GMT
Yes you are. I've said this in previous posts, but the ending's poignancy is in a way too "easy" because it depends on one's knowledge of what really happened. I'm not saying the movie fails completely because of that, but rather Tarantino opted for an externally generated source of melancholy (the audience) instead of doing the actual work to write an ending that earns poigancy through the internal drama of the film's trajectory... and that's simply less satisfying to me. It's fine if you like the ending the way Tarantino wrote it, I even felt a touch of melancholy at the end too in a way I responded positively to... but I would have preferred if the emotional payoff of the ending were more organically built up to. Tarantino can write a fantasy ending if he wants, and it'll be fun and entertaining on the surface, but I'm just saying that the emotional note that the film ends on is not internally motivated. The movie has no obligation to be absolutely faithful to history, obviously people go see this film for any sorts of reasons... but for that final melancholic note to have any real weight for any kind of viewer (not just people in the know), then the ending would have benefited from a rewrite. I'm afraid we're not going to see eye to eye on this one as no movie can have a melancholic weight for every type of viewer. That's simply impossible as we all have such hugely different lives, perspectives, and tastes. Some scenes will be powerful for a LOT of viewers - like a well-done romantic scene, as just about everyone has fond romantic memories - but still not everyone. So I see no reason to narrow it down even further. I also have no bias towards endings that function on - if only emotionally - more of a meta-level. This is fair, and I know others have responded postively to how the film's sense of pain operates more at a meta-level. I personally just prefer it to actually be woven into the film's text.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Aug 16, 2019 22:49:42 GMT
You've just made the opposite ones - you assume Pitt isn't willing to die at Spahn ........because he didn't die at Spahn........... but that's nothing you know for sure. You assume. Okay, let me rephrase. Booth wasn't willing to die for Spahn any more than he was willing to die for Dalton's slashed tire. No assumptions there, because he was more confrontational about Dalton's tire (punches a guy in the face multiple times) than he was about seeing Spahn (threatens to break open the screen door). I didn't assume that he didn't care. I (implicitly) said it's plausible that he doesn't care, if Booth had even told him. My reading of the movie is that Booth probably didn't even tell Dalton. I don't think Booth thought Spahn was fine. I said Spahn said he was fine, which he did. I think Booth thought Spahn was being taken advantage of, which is literally what he says to Spahn in his room. And when Pussycat asks Booth if he still thinks they were kidnapping Spahn, Booth says, "not the word I'd use", which harks back to his explicit statement that he thought they were merely taking advantage of Spahn. Again, no assumption. I'm going off what Booth himself explicitly says. Also, there is a difference between making a reasonable assumption and a baseless assumption. If I am assuming anything, I have given you reasons for them. Your assumptions are not only baseless but in direct contradiction to several story points and what Booth himself says.
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Aug 16, 2019 22:51:59 GMT
"in depth"? not really lol. "Braindead"? The irony.... "no you" is a weak comeback dude. Sorry, you're generally a fine poster, but some of the stuff you're saying here is just ridiculous. I would say the alleged "ridiculousness" of my points is no longer a valid rebuttal since we've now established that our difference in perspective simply comes down to the value we place on text-level vs. meta-level affect.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Aug 16, 2019 23:17:39 GMT
I didn't assume that he didn't care. I (implicitly) said it's plausible that he doesn't care, if Booth had even told him. My reading of the movie is that Booth probably didn't even tell Dalton. " It's plausible he didn't care" IS an assumption. My reading of the movie is he didn't tell him because the script goes to Hell ..........that's my assumption. I don't think Booth thought Spahn was fine. I said Spahn said he was fine, which he did. I think Booth thought Spahn was being taken advantage of, which is literally what he says to Spahn in his room. And when Pussycat asks Booth if he still thinks they were kidnapping Spahn, Booth says, "not the word I'd use", which harks back to his explicit statement that he thought they were merely taking advantage of Spahn. Again, no assumption. I'm going off what Booth himself explicitly says. Fine, but there's no reason to assume what he says is 100% literal to them - again, that's still an assumption ...............you're assuming everything literally here - no humor, no inflection, no irony.Also, there is a difference between making a reasonable assumption and a baseless assumption. If I am assuming anything, I have given you reasons for them. Your assumptions are not only baseless but in direct contradiction to several story points and what Booth himself says. You've given me reasons but it's not a validity contest, there's no pure way to assess a film after all, I'm not saying you're wrong even - just that I disagree with the methodology you use. My methodology isn't baseless it's just less verbatim oriented that's all.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Aug 16, 2019 23:30:28 GMT
"it's plausible he didn't care" IS an assumption. LOL, WTF? No, it isn't. It's a reasonable opinion, and I've already given you my reasons. Yes, based on absolutely nothing. You still haven't answered what good would have come out of Booth telling Dalton about Spahn Ranch. And you're assuming that Jake Gittes is real and isn't just a figment of the nightmare that Evelyn is having where her father gets to have her daughter too. Like, WTF are we even talking about here? I'm giving you reasons and references from the movie for what I believe, and you're just repeating your baseless assumptions and pretending they mean just as much. I'm not saying your methodology has to be verbatim-oriented. I'm saying you have to have a methodology.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Aug 16, 2019 23:45:43 GMT
Yes, based on absolutely nothing. You still haven't answered what good would have come out of Booth telling Dalton about Spahn Ranch.
Again, I'm not the writer I'm the critic , it's just you would think he'd tell his best friend about what happened to him that day .......what "good" would it do? Why do you "need" a movie to do good? Um........... Nothing "good" would come from it, except that Cliff and Rick could try to do something morally decent so then I could give a sh it about them rather than just watch them smoke a laced joint and whip out the flame thrower ...........and Rick and Cliff would die like Pike in The Wild Bunch. like I said a long time ago in this thread......... Ymmv........
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Aug 16, 2019 23:49:01 GMT
I don't inow wtf happened in the last couple hours in this thread but... please... spoiler tags
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Aug 17, 2019 0:59:56 GMT
cliff would not have said anything. It was against his character. He is too matter factly with Rick. Do you really think he would want to explain why that person was in his car when Rick hated that type. I don't buy that at all - it's like bending over backwards to cover a writing flaw......I love plenty of movies with writing flaws I don't see why people can't admit you can love this film and not love it all and it does something batsh it weird here. I mean people can like it but it's not "in character". Blow Out is one of my favorite movies ever and has a very stupid plot hole in it........that's what this is also. He could tell Rick without telling him who was "in his car" - the point is he's going back and he's gonna die like Pike died - Cliff being matter of fact is more "his character" than the moral choices he makes prior? Not to me ........that's a stretch imo. I think he's specifically a moral character up until then - then he's just a guy - there's no point in Spahn ranch then ......and Spahn ranch is the peak of the film WTF are you talking about? It’s not a writing flaw because you wanted a scene, that no once else thinks would have made sense to occur, included.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Aug 17, 2019 1:15:35 GMT
WTF are you talking about? It’s not a writing flaw because you wanted a scene, that no once else thinks would have made sense to occur, included. What kind of post is this .......like wtf, I'm gonna read that and say "yeah good point guess I was wrong" It's a writing flaw, because it would have made perfect sense for it to occur and what occurred instead was bat shit crazy and made less sense. Why would I care if "no one else thinks it made sense" - who structures their opinion on shit like that? "No one else thinks" ..........please.
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Aug 17, 2019 1:28:37 GMT
WTF are you talking about? It’s not a writing flaw because you wanted a scene, that no once else thinks would have made sense to occur, included. What kind of post is this .......like wtf, I'm gonna read that and say "yeah good point guess I was wrong" It's a writing flaw, because it would have made perfect sense for it to occur and what occurred instead was bat shit crazy and made less sense. Why would I care if "no one else thinks it made sense" - who structures their opinion on shit like that? "No one else thinks" ..........please. Ok, then it’s not a writing flaw because YOU think it is. It would have made no sense.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Aug 17, 2019 1:36:58 GMT
Ok, then it’s not a writing flaw because YOU think it is. It would have made no sense. Not enough ........there's 700 posts by me about why I say a guy with a death wish (imo), who is a moralist or who at the very least has a specific moral reason to go back would have made perfect sense to go back. This, doesn't cut it, this is saying "that's your opinion" - yeah it's my opinion............ if you have something else to say, please feel free, but it's specifically a writing flaw because I SAY IT IS because it's my opinion right? I see no evidence that it would have made no sense or the one that occurred made any sense at all, if you want to add why to your post......feel free, if not agree to disagree............
|
|
|
Post by Christ_Ian_Bale on Aug 17, 2019 1:55:33 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2019 1:55:37 GMT
What kind of post is this .......like wtf, I'm gonna read that and say "yeah good point guess I was wrong" It's a writing flaw, because it would have made perfect sense for it to occur and what occurred instead was bat shit crazy and made less sense. Why would I care if "no one else thinks it made sense" - who structures their opinion on shit like that? "No one else thinks" ..........please. Ok, then it’s not a writing flaw because YOU think it is. It would have made no sense. Well, I don't agree with pacinoyes' take on the direction the film should've gone in, but I'm not sure I follow you here. Of course it's a writing flaw in his eyes because...for him it is...he's not saying it's a writing flaw based off what you or I or Ebert's phantom spirit think, he's saying it's a writing flaw based on what he thinks. Lots of people think Saving Private Ryan is perfectly written, for example, while I find it full of holes and weak points. So, for me, there're writing flaws, whether or not others agree. Last I checked, there's no objective scale for judging the artistic merit of a piece of writing, so...yeah.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Aug 17, 2019 2:06:28 GMT
Lots of people think Saving Private Ryan is perfectly written, Who are these people? Name names.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Aug 17, 2019 2:23:03 GMT
Again, I'm not the writer I'm the critic, You could have fooled me! Maybe he did. You don't know that he didn't. Can't believe you're now turning this against me You're the one that said telling Dalton was the right thing for Booth to do instead of letting Spahn get eaten by vultures or whatever just because he was scared of what Dalton would say. So I'm asking you how exactly telling Dalton would have helped. In my opinion, telling Dalton wouldn't have changed a thing, because (1) Dalton may not have even cared and (2) Spahn was refusing to be helped.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2019 3:27:02 GMT
Lots of people think Saving Private Ryan is perfectly written, Who are these people? Name names. Among the countless legions of IMDB voters, my uncle Jack My Dad's side of the family has pretty garbage taste.
|
|
|
Post by moonman157 on Aug 17, 2019 4:40:55 GMT
Your point makes no sense. You're seriously saying the ending of the film can't be a full homerun because some people don't have the requisite knowledge of what transpired on that night? Which is being altered by Tarantino as the ENTIRE POINT OF THE MOVIE? Why is that the film's fault that some people might not know that? Are we supposed to only make films about things everyone knows about? The fuck??
I pray to God you never bother trying to read any serious literature as a lot of that depends on knowledge of other things (real life events, other novels, other authors, etc.) to fully appreciate what the writer is doing. If you think that's a bad thing I really have no idea what to tell you man. No, you're really just missing the point. There is an internal coherence to most films that deal with true historical events that enable viewers with no prior knowledge to come into the film and respond to the thematic points that it's making, because the presentation of history (or an attempted faithful interpretation of it at least) is part of the point. Some people actually watch films to learn about an historical event that they may know nothing about, and it still remains accessible. Tfw go to movies, fake things about fantasy, to learn about history
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Aug 17, 2019 13:21:32 GMT
As I said yesterday, I liked it but didn't love it. It was fun and enjoyable. The reason I dig QT is because every single movie he has done is pure entertainment. That's also the thing with OUATIH. One thing I strongly disliked was the pacing problems. I keep thinking that Sally Menke could have done miracles in this... Many scenes needed to be shorter (or cut) and the film should have been tighter (maybe about 15-20 minutes less). I mean, I love movies about movies and really liked the scenes of Leo on the set but up until the Spahn ranch scene (which was one of the best of the film) nothing was really happening... Oh, and the voice over was totally off. As for the ending, it was kind of obvious what was going to happen but I can't say I agree with that history remaking. I mean in IB, Hitler died. He changed the way he died, not the fact. Here, he totally spares Tate... I liked the ending, very Tarantino-ish and hilarious. But not what I wanted. Cinematography and Production design were marvelous!!! As for the performances, I prefer Leo than Pitt. Brad was wonderful in a showy role but that's actually what he did: Show off. Di Caprio really performed. His breakdown, his stuttering... He's great when he's at his more comedic. Too bad Robbie had so little to do. I loved her perf. Sweet and innocent. Watching herself in the cinema and enjoying the reactions of the audience... wonderful!!! I liked almost all the cameos, esp. Qualley and Butters. I wish QT had given more scenes and dialogue to Dern, Russell and Pacino. Missed opportunity here. Overall, I expected something better than that. I enjoyed what I saw but it was not one of Tarantino's best, by no means. It's 7.5/10 for me.
|
|
|
Post by RiverleavesElmius on Aug 18, 2019 22:14:01 GMT
Mid-tier Tarantino. Mostly works due to Leo and Brad's chemistry and their performances. Leo gets to perform while Brad gets to show off (he has the best scenes,IMO). They were great as the actor and his stunt double trying to get back in the game in a changing Hollywood. The first two hours is Tarantino at his most restrained and mature but also some of those scenes felt too long and made me think, "and the point is?". Once the film gets to Spahn ranch the trademark Tarantino tension builds in slowly. He brings his A game here and from this point to an explosive climax he killed it. I didn't mind that he Hollywood-ized a real life tragedy mainly because he took away the menace of the Manson family members and portrayed them as brainless oafs trying to commit horrible crimes just because they watched too many TV shows about people killing each other? . That said the time jump and the voice over narration was jarring. The movie is at least 15 min. too long and was in dire need of good editing. The costumes, production design and soundtrack were great though- 7.5/10 I think what annoys me the most is that if you're going to change history, why not just go whole-hog and have Manson at the scene? That way, the mastermind of the murders gets his comeuppance rather than three numbskulls that hardly anyone remembers these days. I remember them. And anyone who's even 50% knowledgeable of the "Manson murders" does. THEY were the killers, THEY butchered those people. I agree with Tex Watson in the new season of "Mindhunter": Those were the Watson/Krenwinkle/Atkins murders, NOT the Manson murders. Including him in you-know-what would just further enhance his thoroughly & sickeningly overblown/undeserved cult status. But I haven't learned how to use the "spoiler" function on posts, so I can't comment anymore on that ending, suffice it to say I absolutely 100% LOVED IT, think it's easily his 2nd greatest ending after BASTERDS, and it makes it his best film since that one (even though I loved his last two films before this as well).
|
|
|
Post by moonman157 on Aug 19, 2019 20:20:16 GMT
WHY'D YA HAVE TO HAVE 8 WHISKEY SOURS?
YOU'RE A GOD DAMN ALCOHOLIC
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Aug 19, 2019 21:07:38 GMT
WHY'D YA HAVE TO HAVE 8 WHISKEY SOURS? YOU'RE A GOD DAMN ALCOHOLIC Hilarious!!!! Probably Leo's best scene in the movie.
|
|
|
Post by moonman157 on Aug 19, 2019 21:10:09 GMT
WHY'D YA HAVE TO HAVE 8 WHISKEY SOURS? YOU'RE A GOD DAMN ALCOHOLIC Hilarious!!!! Probably Leo's best scene in the movie. Wonderful synthesis of comedy and depression
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Aug 19, 2019 21:12:17 GMT
Hilarious!!!! Probably Leo's best scene in the movie. Wonderful synthesis of comedy and depression And that's the kind of roles I prefer Di Caprio the most. His comic charisma is amazing.
|
|
|
Post by moonman157 on Aug 19, 2019 21:14:43 GMT
Wonderful synthesis of comedy and depression And that's the kind of roles I prefer Di Caprio the most. His comic charisma is amazing. His fluid navigation of self-pitying despair, vulnerable weakness, forced machismo, and charismatic humour is wonderful to watch. One of his best performances.
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Aug 19, 2019 21:52:52 GMT
I think what annoys me the most is that if you're going to change history, why not just go whole-hog and have Manson at the scene? That way, the mastermind of the murders gets his comeuppance rather than three numbskulls that hardly anyone remembers these days. I remember them. And anyone who's even 50% knowledgeable of the "Manson murders" does. THEY were the killers, THEY butchered those people. I agree with Tex Watson in "Mindhunter", those were the Watson/Krenwinkle/Atkins murders, NOT the Manson murders. Including him in you-know-what would just further enhance his thoroughly & sickeningly overblown/undeserved cult status. But I haven't learned how to use the "spoiler" function on posts, so I can't comment anymore on that ending, suffice it to say I absolutely 100% LOVED IT, think it's easily his 2nd greatest ending after BASTERDS, and it makes it his best film since that one (even though I loved his last two films before this as well). I never expected him to be there.
|
|