|
Post by HELENA MARIA on May 23, 2019 16:54:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on May 23, 2019 17:35:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by eyebrowmorroco on May 23, 2019 18:12:59 GMT
I'm pretty sure those times are arbitrary. People are still waiting for the original cut of The Brown Bunny, but, according to Gallo himself, the cut is the one we have. He nominated a runtime that he liked (hence the confusion), editing the film right until the final moments before submission. The film was not tinkered with post-Cannes.
|
|
|
Post by eyebrowmorroco on May 23, 2019 18:44:33 GMT
Sydney Film Festival patrons have taken a hit. The festival directly following Cannes has made the unprecedented move of keeping its closing night feature a mystery. If the above is true, it's even more doubtful the said film will end up being Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. And no refunds.
|
|
avnermoriarti
Badass
Friends say I’ve changed. They’re right.
Posts: 2,388
Likes: 1,271
|
Post by avnermoriarti on May 24, 2019 16:39:09 GMT
Fnck that NYT reporter. Apart from being an idiotic question, she knew what she was getting into and Tarantino did the right thing, a short but right answer. The misogynist here is the reporter being condescending and suggesting to Margot Robbie that her role was irrelevant, the question was coming from a biased conclusion not from a fact. And now you have social media praising that woman for asking that and now Robbie is a victim, a woman that has shown intelligence to chose her projects as an actress and producer. In which planet are we living ?
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on May 24, 2019 16:43:42 GMT
What a dumb-ass question....
|
|
|
Post by HELENA MARIA on May 24, 2019 17:22:34 GMT
Fnck that NYT reporter. Apart from being an idiotic question, she knew what she was getting into and Tarantino did the right thing, a short but right answer. The misogynist here is the reporter being condescending and suggesting to Margot Robbie that her role was irrelevant, the question was coming from a biased conclusion not from a fact. And now you have social media praising that woman for asking that and now Robbie is a victim, a woman that has shown intelligence to chose her projects as an actress and producer. In which planet are we living ? Yeah, I definitely have the feeling that it was almost like a bait question in an attempt to get a reaction from QT because he's well known for shutting dumb reporters ' butts down 🤣😂 I think he handled the situation very well and so did Robbie
|
|
avnermoriarti
Badass
Friends say I’ve changed. They’re right.
Posts: 2,388
Likes: 1,271
|
Post by avnermoriarti on May 25, 2019 7:00:07 GMT
Fnck that NYT reporter. Apart from being an idiotic question, she knew what she was getting into and Tarantino did the right thing, a short but right answer. The misogynist here is the reporter being condescending and suggesting to Margot Robbie that her role was irrelevant, the question was coming from a biased conclusion not from a fact. And now you have social media praising that woman for asking that and now Robbie is a victim, a woman that has shown intelligence to chose her projects as an actress and producer. In which planet are we living ? Yeah, I definitely have the feeling that it was almost like a bait question in an attempt to get a reaction from QT because he's well known for shutting dumb reporters ' butts down 🤣😂 I think he handled the situation very well and so did Robbie Robbie's ability to not be hit by such a poisonous dart deserves a prize
|
|
|
Post by eyebrowmorroco on May 26, 2019 13:34:51 GMT
Nah, it was weak on Tarantino's part. When he's deliberately curt in response to challenging questions, he comes off looking quite petty. Tarantino is as intelligent as anyone in the room. He could render a fairly good response to those questions, but he chooses not to. He isn't in control - his megalomania is. People want know why he made the decisions that he did. Be honest. Tell them that you are not a particularly good writer of women, and that you don't think giving the Tate character more time would service the story in any way. And then praise the actress for her work. By her instinctive reaction, Robbie clearly doesn't share his penchant for being precious and defensive.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on May 26, 2019 19:35:11 GMT
She's right because maybe if he had he'd realize that you know, Sharon Tate died and that's a tragedy and you just made a rollicking comedy about an 8 1/2 month pregnant woman getting slaughtered -well sorry you DIDN"T show that right?
She's absolutely right if that's the case and everything suggests it is - he's f'd in the head and living in a complete and utter BS fantasy world....now having said that, he's not obligated to talk to Polanski but well.........see above why he should have.
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on May 26, 2019 20:45:26 GMT
What are you talking about? He consulted Sharon Tate's sister, who allegedly read the script and is totally fine with it. And QT is on record as being a big fan of Polanski as a director, so why would he lampoon him? Clearly Seigner is conflating Polanski's pariah status with the movie, and they're completely unrelated. Tate and Polanski are/were public figures, so using their likeness is not an issue.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on May 26, 2019 20:55:02 GMT
What are you talking about? He consulted Sharon Tate's sister, who allegedly read the script and is totally fine with it. And QT is on record as being a big fan of Polanski as a director, so why would he lampoon him? Clearly Seigner is conflating Polanski's pariah status with the movie, and they're completely unrelated. Tate and Polanski are/were public figures, so using their likeness is not an issue. Not sure how much simpler I can make it, this is like my 10th post on this in 2 days: * I don't care if her sister is fine with it. At all. * Showing her dead is not lampooning it, it's a fact, a horrible fact that he's not an artist enough to address. * I don't care that he's a fan of Polanski. At all. This is the first time QT has ever re-written history........and it's pretty clear to me that he did by asking for no spoilers - if I'm wrong, I'll apologize. In IB he plays with it but Hitler did die it wasn't THAT big of a stretch..........in Django there is no Django so if he wants to make up an ending........fine. But now he's RE-WRITTEN a tragedy - she lives? No, she didn't live, and the fact that Polanski has to watch a man-child show his wife alive and surviving is idiotic..................way, way, way over the line. Childish, stupid, dumb-ass - I'm not even talking about his being sensitive, I'm talking about him betraying his own film as an artist.
|
|
|
Post by Billy_Costigan on May 27, 2019 3:57:54 GMT
What are you talking about? He consulted Sharon Tate's sister, who allegedly read the script and is totally fine with it. And QT is on record as being a big fan of Polanski as a director, so why would he lampoon him? Clearly Seigner is conflating Polanski's pariah status with the movie, and they're completely unrelated. Tate and Polanski are/were public figures, so using their likeness is not an issue. Not sure how much simpler I can make it, this is like my 10th post on this in 2 days: * I don't care if her sister is fine with it. At all. * Showing her dead is not lampooning it, it's a fact, a horrible fact that he's not an artist enough to address. * I don't care that he's a fan of Polanski. At all. This is the first time QT has ever re-written history........and it's pretty clear to me that he did by asking for no spoilers - if I'm wrong, I'll apologize. In IB he plays with it but Hitler did die it wasn't THAT big of a stretch..........in Django there is no Django so if he wants to make up an ending........fine. But now he's RE-WRITTEN a tragedy - she lives? No, she didn't live, and the fact that Polanski has to watch a man-child show his wife alive and surviving is idiotic..................way, way, way over the line. Childish, stupid, dumb-ass - I'm not even talking about his being sensitive, I'm talking about him betraying his own film as an artist. How can you say the re-written history in Basterds wasnt that big of a stretch? Frankly, who gives a shit what Polanski thinks. They were public figures and he's commenting on a very public event. Even people who were "concerned" about the idea seen satisfied. Most are saying the ending is the best part. Watch the movie first.
|
|
|
Post by quetee on May 27, 2019 4:59:15 GMT
Why are we complaining about an ending we haven't seen?
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on May 27, 2019 5:34:05 GMT
Why are we complaining about an ending we haven't seen? We haven't seen it but we know what's gonna be. Or not...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2019 5:39:38 GMT
Why are we complaining about an ending we haven't seen? I don't mean to speak for pacinoyes, but I'm pretty sure all he's saying is he'd be very put off by the film (and Tarantino) if it ends up being taken in a certain direction, which he unfortunately suspects it will be.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on May 27, 2019 9:25:42 GMT
How can you say the re-written history in Basterds wasnt that big of a stretch? Frankly, who gives a shit what Polanski thinks. They were public figures and he's commenting on a very public event.
Even people who were "concerned" about the idea seen satisfied. Most are saying the ending is the best part.
Watch the movie first. This, in bold, is what I typed in March in this thread :
"I will be really unhappy if this film looks anything like Basterds or especially Django - his revisionist stuff is infantile to me - again, especially Django - and this material doesn't lend itself to revision like that either because it is not remotely distant enough, it's wayyyyyyyyyy too pop culturally ensconced. Manson had Tate and her unborn baby massacred. I'm not saying you have to show that horrific event but you can't have Tate or Lee or anyone kill Manson. Fnck that .......serve history. The fictional characters - not Lee/McQueen/Tate/Sebring can alter something in the story but those who really died either have to die or it has to end that they will after the events in the film play out."
It's far more of a stretch than IB if she lives - how can you not think so - what did he really re-write in IB that changed life or death? Also "people seem satisfied" is not really valid at all, I addressed this a couple days back (in the "Cannes" thread) - this movie didn't get reviews you'd want actually - rather it got "QT at his most QT-ish! Very funny!" bullsh it reviews, it entertains - this type of film specifically should divide and that ending especially should not entertain, it should make you uncomfortable or worse not "the dialog was snappy and Pitt looked dreamy"..........the very fact that NO ONE in Cannes (no one?!?!) was outraged by the ending is a big clue and not a good one. But yes, of course, I'll wait to see it, but we can still talk about it .......I mean HE brought it to Cannes..........HE opened his big mouth about the ending......
|
|
|
Post by RiverleavesElmius on May 27, 2019 11:00:11 GMT
What are you talking about? He consulted Sharon Tate's sister, who allegedly read the script and is totally fine with it. And QT is on record as being a big fan of Polanski as a director, so why would he lampoon him? Clearly Seigner is conflating Polanski's pariah status with the movie, and they're completely unrelated. Tate and Polanski are/were public figures, so using their likeness is not an issue. Not sure how much simpler I can make it, this is like my 10th post on this in 2 days: * I don't care if her sister is fine with it. At all. * Showing her dead is not lampooning it, it's a fact, a horrible fact that he's not an artist enough to address. * I don't care that he's a fan of Polanski. At all. This is the first time QT has ever re-written history........and it's pretty clear to me that he did by asking for no spoilers - if I'm wrong, I'll apologize. In IB he plays with it but Hitler did die it wasn't THAT big of a stretch..........in Django there is no Django so if he wants to make up an ending........fine. But now he's RE-WRITTEN a tragedy - she lives? No, she didn't live, and the fact that Polanski has to watch a man-child show his wife alive and surviving is idiotic..................way, way, way over the line. Childish, stupid, dumb-ass - I'm not even talking about his being sensitive, I'm talking about him betraying his own film as an artist. Wow. Normally I'm on your side, but you sound fucking STUPID here. Way way waaay off!!
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on May 27, 2019 11:10:06 GMT
No worries at all.............If you think not killing Sharon Tate and "saving her" is logical for any artist to do - because I'm sure you've seen that type of thing done a lot in the Art you've enjoyed, right? - and also how that makes one iota of artistic sense and makes ME rather than QT sound "f'n stupid" you can just stay on your side for this one, I think I'm better off without ya tbh buddy. I'm gonna stay over in the grown-up, Neil Young Revolution Blues section and you can join me when you and QT can put on your big boy pants and stop playing with your GI Joe action figures, k?
|
|
|
Post by quetee on May 29, 2019 21:28:01 GMT
Even if QT showed ending how can you be outraged. It happened. I don't understand how you can say, she lived so that's why there was no outrage. He can still have it where she gets murdered but Bruce Lee kicks their ass. And we all know that didn't happen.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on May 29, 2019 22:05:50 GMT
Even if QT showed ending how can you be outraged. It happened. I don't understand how you can say, she lived so that's why there was no outrage. He can still have it where she gets murdered but Bruce Lee kicks their ass. And we all know that didn't happen. Oh I think it's quite clear if he showed an 8 1/2 month pregnant Sharon Tate killed, people would be outraged by making them re-live it. I have posted repeatedly on this board about Neil Young's (great) song Revolution Blues - and a link to the song even - which is what this movie should be striving for in tone and feel and which happened much closer to the events - 45 years ago - and caused quite a bit of outrage itself without mentioning the murder even. The only way this movie, in my opinion (I don't know for sure of course) could have gotten the reviews it got - all BS warm fuzzies and BS how dreamy the cast is - is if it lets her off the death hook. I said this earlier today but Sharon Tate existed in her real life to die. That is sad, but true - when Margot Robbie says "I saw her as a light in the story" it is profoundly, spectacularly wrong. If it wasn't you could have made the story about Altamont ........ He can still have it where she gets murdered but Bruce Lee kicks their ass. And we all know that didn't happenI don't see how he could do that. When he said don't spoil my movie - that to me was a huge mea culpa - if I'm wrong I stand corrected and the criticisms I've listed of course wouldn't apply.
|
|
|
Post by Billy_Costigan on May 29, 2019 23:27:36 GMT
Even if QT showed ending how can you be outraged. It happened. I don't understand how you can say, she lived so that's why there was no outrage. He can still have it where she gets murdered but Bruce Lee kicks their ass. And we all know that didn't happen. Oh I think it's quite clear if he showed an 8 1/2 month pregnant Sharon Tate killed, people would be outraged by making them re-live it. I have posted repeatedly on this board about Neil Young's (great) song Revolution Blues - and a link to the song even - which is what this movie should be striving for in tone and feel and which happened much closer to the events - 45 years ago - and caused quite a bit of outrage itself without mentioning the murder even. The only way this movie, in my opinion (I don't know for sure of course) could have gotten the reviews it got - all BS warm fuzzies and BS how dreamy the cast is - is if it lets her off the death hook. I said this earlier today but Sharon Tate existed in her real life to die. That is sad, but true - when Margot Robbie says "I saw her as a light in the story" it is profoundly, spectacularly wrong. If it wasn't you could have made the story about Altamont ........ He can still have it where she gets murdered but Bruce Lee kicks their ass. And we all know that didn't happenI don't see how he could do that. When he said don't spoil my movie - that to me was a huge mea culpa - if I'm wrong I stand corrected and the criticisms I've listed of course wouldn't apply. I don't understand your point. People would be outraged if they showed her murder but it's stupid to have her live? You can't win. I don't see anything wrong with letting her live. It's not a documentary.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on May 29, 2019 23:44:48 GMT
That is not what I said. I am saying you actually have to make people outraged or why make the movie. I am saying he doesn't have the artistic courage to outrage his audience here. I am saying he practically admitted it by saying don't spoil my film. You can "win" with me - serve history, that's it - it's not some big complicated thing. If you think she can live, and it's not a documentary, ok, that's fine, no problem. We just differ.......no clue what everybody is getting so confused about. Could he make a good movie where Sharon Tate lives? Maybe............Could he make a GREAT one where she lives? I don't think so. I'll let you know when I see it.
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on May 29, 2019 23:57:48 GMT
That is not what I said. I am saying you actually have to make people outraged or why make the movie. I am saying he doesn't have the artistic courage to outrage his audience here. I am saying he practically admitted it by saying don't spoil my film. You can "win" with me - serve history, that's it - it's not some big complicated thing. If you think she can live, and it's not a documentary, ok, that's fine, no problem. We just differ.......no clue what everybody is getting so confused about. Could he make a good movie where Sharon Tate lives? Maybe............Could he make a GREAT one where she lives? I don't think so. I'll let you know when I see it. Maybe you should just skip it since you’ve made so many assumptions and clearly already have your mind made up.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on May 30, 2019 0:10:44 GMT
That is not what I said. I am saying you actually have to make people outraged or why make the movie. I am saying he doesn't have the artistic courage to outrage his audience here. I am saying he practically admitted it by saying don't spoil my film. You can "win" with me - serve history, that's it - it's not some big complicated thing. If you think she can live, and it's not a documentary, ok, that's fine, no problem. We just differ.......no clue what everybody is getting so confused about. Could he make a good movie where Sharon Tate lives? Maybe............Could he make a GREAT one where she lives? I don't think so. I'll let you know when I see it. Maybe you should just skip it since you’ve made so many assumptions and clearly already have your mind made up. No, that would actually be absurd. He doesn't get the luxury of dictating his audience. ............and he especially doesn't get to do it now - he is the one who took it to Cannes and he is the one who couldn't shut up about it. I'm the audience, making assumptions is my job - the way you do say when you've seen trailers and seen reviews right ..........now his job as the artist is confounding my assumptions. So.................I'll let you know when I see it.
|
|