|
Post by mattfincher on May 30, 2019 18:27:34 GMT
I gotta be honest pacinoyes, you sound like you’re upset Tarantino didn’t give your boy a juicer role and are now making unsubstantiated claims about what you think the movie is (or isn’t). I mean, American Hustle??? What in Tarantino’s history, even his lesser films, would make you think he’d make something that ephemeral?
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on May 30, 2019 21:56:44 GMT
I gotta be honest pacinoyes, you sound like you’re upset Tarantino didn’t give your boy a juicer role and are now making unsubstantiated claims about what you think the movie is (or isn’t). I mean, American Hustle??? What in Tarantino’s history, even his lesser films, would make you think he’d make something that ephemeral? It's really funny you should say that matt because I was just wondering WTF is wrong with all the people in this thread and what they have been saying to me in replies the past week here? I posted this in March see the bottom bold - March - and RE-POSTED that a couple days ago too, so I wouldn't have known anything about juicy roles in March would I - Where the FNCK was anybody in March, nobody said a thing - it is the same POV/post/idea/point, only now it's informed by QT's own words and the reviews out of Cannes. Now, if you think the film can work with any ending - ok, great. If you want to talk about my feelings on it, that's also great - but I assume you don't want to - if I can you know, "be honest" matt - because we don't talk movies on here, we rather freak out when people have a different POV or in your case we kinda accuse them of having ulterior motives. But to treat your post with respect now that we have the BS part of it is resolved - this is a quote of the film review from RT from the BBC - that's the ephemeral I see that you asked about (imo). I don't see that quote (and every other review that discusses its tone actually) and his own words as being unsubstantiated at all, I rather see them as indicators of the ending which I've addressed previously. * It is essentially a goofy, good-natured hang-out comedy.
************************************************************************************************************** "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."
|
|
|
Post by stephen on May 30, 2019 22:07:32 GMT
NOTE: Nothing below are spoilers as far as I know.
I don't want to speculate on ...Hollywood's ending before I see the film, but I do think there is an interesting discussion to be had on "historical responsibility" when it comes to Tarantino.
The man has already reshaped the continuum of history in his films quite substantially. Inglourious Basterds shows an alternative ending to World War II where Hitler and the rest of the Nazi high command are assassinated in a movie theater. I've read some very appealing theories from film buffs that state that this event is the breakaway point between our reality and Tarantino's own -- essentially, anything goes afterward, especially with most of his films being interconnected with little Easter eggs. The ending of Basterds engenders a violence-obsessed culture in Tarantino's world far earlier than ours.
Now. What does this mean for the Sharon Tate/Charles Manson issue?
I think if Tarantino wants to rewrite history in his own film continuity by having Tate survive the massacre and get revenge on Manson, I think that's fair game. It just creates an issue of taste or classiness because immediate family/victims are still alive and can comment upon it. But it shouldn't be dismissed as a possibility outright because Tarantino already shattered that glass ceiling and has shown that history in his films doesn't mirror history in real life. It's no different than a Harry Turtledove novel about what life would be like if the South had won the Civil War, or if JFK hadn't been assassinated.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on May 30, 2019 22:52:25 GMT
Good post stephen - to me, if Tate lives he's done something far worse than his previous films which as you can see from my posts I thought were childish at best anyway. In Basterds he toys with history but in a way that doesn't really play with your feelings of it - Hitler still dies, the Allies win. In Django (which is wholly fictitious), he paints a rosy face on slavery, the ending is stupid, but ok, in some cathartic way I can see it and slavery did end etc. So far no real harm..........
Now, I don't know that she lives - but he is telling a story that to me is a clearly delineated tragedy. There is no flipside to that story - none, zero - if you're telling someone the "story" of WWII, slavery and Manson......well you can still get them from his revisions really but not at all with a surviving Tate. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe he has something up his sleeve and I'll be the first to give him credit if he does but I'm mostly reminded of something Polanski (wisely, allegedly) said to Robert Towne regarding Chinatown.
Towne told Polanski that he had to keep his original bittersweet ending because "there's some light at the end of the tunnel" that way........Polanski snapped back that Towne didn't understand the film he actually wrote - he had become too close to it - and told him "I'm interested in the tunnel at the end of the light".
That is what I fear we have here.......a guy who knows the details of this era like the back of his hand but misreads the sensibility of the era and the events.
I like your Harry Turtledove example but, would gently argue, that those were broader that affected more things ie government, culture, society, economics etc. - in QT's film the fact that it is so narrow actually makes it harder imo to pull off. His story is about Hollywood and the movies solely as far as I can tell, and there's not an underlying comparable framework to pull the "flipside" off (that I can see but again If I'm wrong, I'll be happy to admit it).
|
|
|
Post by quetee on May 30, 2019 23:55:21 GMT
NOTE: Nothing below are spoilers as far as I know.
I don't want to speculate on ...Hollywood's ending before I see the film, but I do think there is an interesting discussion to be had on "historical responsibility" when it comes to Tarantino.
The man has already reshaped the continuum of history in his films quite substantially. Inglourious Basterds shows an alternative ending to World War II where Hitler and the rest of the Nazi high command are assassinated in a movie theater. I've read some very appealing theories from film buffs that state that this event is the breakaway point between our reality and Tarantino's own -- essentially, anything goes afterward, especially with most of his films being interconnected with little Easter eggs. The ending of Basterds engenders a violence-obsessed culture in Tarantino's world far earlier than ours.
Now. What does this mean for the Sharon Tate/Charles Manson issue?
I think if Tarantino wants to rewrite history in his own film continuity by having Tate survive the massacre and get revenge on Manson, I think that's fair game. It just creates an issue of taste or classiness because immediate family/victims are still alive and can comment upon it. But it shouldn't be dismissed as a possibility outright because Tarantino already shattered that glass ceiling and has shown that history in his films doesn't mirror history in real life. It's no different than a Harry Turtledove novel about what life would be like if the South had won the Civil War, or if JFK hadn't been assassinated. I can't remember name of movie but Travolta starred in it. The premise was about race reversal and blacks were the majority and in charge. HBO is going a series about if south won the war.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on May 31, 2019 0:00:32 GMT
I can't remember name of movie but Travolta starred in it. The premise was about race reversal and blacks were the majority and in charge. HBO is going a series about if south won the war. Confederate was cancelled because of the extreme backlash. And while I think there is something to be said for alternate history being portrayed in film and television rather than being relegated to a particular subset of books, I find that sort of story a far riskier proposition than what Tarantino is possibly going to do here, because of the modern socio-political landscape being so regressive, and being a constant reminder of the suppurating damage wrought by the real Civil War and its aftermath.
|
|
|
Post by quetee on May 31, 2019 0:04:03 GMT
I can't remember name of movie but Travolta starred in it. The premise was about race reversal and blacks were the majority and in charge. HBO is going a series about if south won the war. Confederate was cancelled because of the extreme backlash. And while I think there is something to be said for alternate history being portrayed in film and television rather than being relegated to a particular subset of books, I find that sort of story a far riskier proposition than what Tarantino is possibly going to do here, because of the modern socio-political landscape being so regressive, and being a constant reminder of the suppurating damage wrought by the real Civil War and its aftermath. on. I thought it was uncancelled. The movie I was talking about is White Man's Burden. By the way. Isn't that man in high castle show alternate universe?
|
|
|
Post by stephen on May 31, 2019 0:25:15 GMT
Yes, The Man in the High Castle is alternate history (considered by many to be the most famous example of it).
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on May 31, 2019 9:46:19 GMT
Yes, The Man in the High Castle is alternate history (considered by many to be the most famous example of it). It is indeed, at the least the way I see it. I'll keep writing this till September: Please, pretty please, with sugar on top, NO SPOILERS!!! I'll see this movie late August and it seems that by the end of July all of you guys will be discussing the ending, whatever this is.
|
|
|
Post by quetee on May 31, 2019 15:28:19 GMT
Yes, The Man in the High Castle is alternate history (considered by many to be the most famous example of it). It is indeed, at the least the way I see it. I'll keep writing this till September: Please, pretty please, with sugar on top, NO SPOILERS!!! I'll see this movie late August and it seems that by the end of July all of you guys will be discussing the ending, whatever this is. This is definitely a must see opening weekend. I was watching an interview with QT the other day and I felt even though the interviewer didn't reveal ending, he touched on tone of film. You could tell he wanted to talk about it badly.
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on May 31, 2019 15:43:58 GMT
It is indeed, at the least the way I see it. I'll keep writing this till September: Please, pretty please, with sugar on top, NO SPOILERS!!! I'll see this movie late August and it seems that by the end of July all of you guys will be discussing the ending, whatever this is. This is definitely a must see opening weekend. I was watching an interview with QT the other day and I felt even though the interviewer didn't reveal ending, he touched on tone of film. You could tell he wanted to talk about it badly. I WILL see it opening weekend. That's the problem. Where I am from, the OW is 24-25/8.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jun 11, 2019 15:22:21 GMT
I've been critical obviously but I gotta tell ya it feels really good to see Al Pacino's (at almost 80) name on a movie poster for a film that's gonna make a bajillion dollars and have a high RT score. I mean that could say "Michael Douglas" or "Liam Neeson" ..........shudder. New poster:
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Jun 11, 2019 15:52:42 GMT
And still no sign of Madsen or Roth. I guess he's not making another cut after Cannes...
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Jun 11, 2019 15:54:01 GMT
To be quite honest, besides Pitt I'm most looking forward to Olyphant's performance... but I don't imagine he gets much.
|
|
|
Post by Viced on Jun 11, 2019 15:59:38 GMT
And still no sign of Madsen or Roth. I guess he's not making another cut after Cannes... So you're expecting them to go from being cut from the movie to being front and center on the poster?
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Jun 11, 2019 16:05:14 GMT
And still no sign of Madsen or Roth. I guess he's not making another cut after Cannes... So you're expecting them to go from being cut from the movie to being front and center on the poster? Of course not. I'm just whining cause it seems they are cut for good
|
|
wonky
Full Member
Posts: 596
Likes: 713
|
Post by wonky on Jun 11, 2019 17:10:23 GMT
New poster: Irrelevant but why are the ellipsis in two different places lol (“Once Upon a Time...” and “Once Upon a Time in...”)
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Jun 11, 2019 17:38:09 GMT
New poster: Irrelevant but why are the ellipsis in two different places lol (“Once Upon a Time...” and “Once Upon a Time in...”) Nobody noticed it. Neither did they...
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on Jul 3, 2019 21:14:53 GMT
New pic, affluent Al... !
|
|
|
Post by Billy_Costigan on Jul 3, 2019 22:23:43 GMT
"I just think I’ve given all I have to give to movies." Tarantino seems more serious than ever about his retirement plan: t.co/dlwvZ2PU9F t.co/JybUKeGwD0“I think when it comes to theatrical movies, I’ve come to the end of the road,” Tarantino said. “I see myself writing film books and starting to write theatre, so I’ll still be creative. I just think I’ve given all I have to give to movies.” “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” is Tarantino’s love letter to the filmmaking era that made him fall in love with cinema as a young kid. The movie, starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt, and Margot Robbie, premiered at the Cannes Film Festival earlier this year to considerable acclaim. That the film is Tarantino’s most personal would make it a fitting curtain call to his cinema-obsessed career, and the director no longer seems to be adamant about his original 10-film plan. “Well, um,” Tarantino said when asked if he might just stop after “Hollywood.” “If it’s really well received, maybe I won’t go to 10. Maybe I’ll stop right now! Maybe I’ll stop while I’m ahead. We’ll see.” Tarantino isn’t joking, at least not according to Brad Pitt. The actor, who also starred in Tarantino’s “Inglourious Basterds,” told GQ Australia, “No, I don’t think he’s bluffing at all. I think he’s dead serious. And I kind of openly lament that to him, but he understands the math of when he feels like directors start falling off their game. But he has other plans and we’re not going to have to say goodbye for a long time.”
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Jul 4, 2019 19:58:38 GMT
"I just think I’ve given all I have to give to movies." Tarantino seems more serious than ever about his retirement plan: t.co/dlwvZ2PU9F t.co/JybUKeGwD0“I think when it comes to theatrical movies, I’ve come to the end of the road,” Tarantino said. “I see myself writing film books and starting to write theatre, so I’ll still be creative. I just think I’ve given all I have to give to movies.” “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” is Tarantino’s love letter to the filmmaking era that made him fall in love with cinema as a young kid. The movie, starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt, and Margot Robbie, premiered at the Cannes Film Festival earlier this year to considerable acclaim. That the film is Tarantino’s most personal would make it a fitting curtain call to his cinema-obsessed career, and the director no longer seems to be adamant about his original 10-film plan. “Well, um,” Tarantino said when asked if he might just stop after “Hollywood.” “If it’s really well received, maybe I won’t go to 10. Maybe I’ll stop right now! Maybe I’ll stop while I’m ahead. We’ll see.” Tarantino isn’t joking, at least not according to Brad Pitt. The actor, who also starred in Tarantino’s “Inglourious Basterds,” told GQ Australia, “No, I don’t think he’s bluffing at all. I think he’s dead serious. And I kind of openly lament that to him, but he understands the math of when he feels like directors start falling off their game. But he has other plans and we’re not going to have to say goodbye for a long time.” I could see Tarantino hanging it up if he wins BD or this wins BP. Otherwise I think he’ll still make his 10th film to try to go out on that high note.
|
|
dazed
Based
Posts: 2,631
Likes: 1,796
|
Post by dazed on Jul 4, 2019 23:19:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bob-coppola on Jul 5, 2019 13:17:46 GMT
I feel like there's been a trend of underpredicting movies opening weekend as of lately. Better to be surprised than disappointed, I guess. This movie certainly can do as well and IB did.
|
|
|
Post by Billy_Costigan on Jul 5, 2019 19:27:26 GMT
I feel like there's been a trend of underpredicting movies opening weekend as of lately. Better to be surprised than disappointed, I guess. This movie certainly can do as well and IB did. 30 is probably within range but on the low end. Django made 30 in 2012. Basterds made 38. Hateful Eight only made 15 so maybe that's bringing down expectations.
|
|
|
Post by Billy_Costigan on Jul 5, 2019 19:32:16 GMT
"I just think I’ve given all I have to give to movies." Tarantino seems more serious than ever about his retirement plan: t.co/dlwvZ2PU9F t.co/JybUKeGwD0“I think when it comes to theatrical movies, I’ve come to the end of the road,” Tarantino said. “I see myself writing film books and starting to write theatre, so I’ll still be creative. I just think I’ve given all I have to give to movies.” “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” is Tarantino’s love letter to the filmmaking era that made him fall in love with cinema as a young kid. The movie, starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt, and Margot Robbie, premiered at the Cannes Film Festival earlier this year to considerable acclaim. That the film is Tarantino’s most personal would make it a fitting curtain call to his cinema-obsessed career, and the director no longer seems to be adamant about his original 10-film plan. “Well, um,” Tarantino said when asked if he might just stop after “Hollywood.” “If it’s really well received, maybe I won’t go to 10. Maybe I’ll stop right now! Maybe I’ll stop while I’m ahead. We’ll see.” Tarantino isn’t joking, at least not according to Brad Pitt. The actor, who also starred in Tarantino’s “Inglourious Basterds,” told GQ Australia, “No, I don’t think he’s bluffing at all. I think he’s dead serious. And I kind of openly lament that to him, but he understands the math of when he feels like directors start falling off their game. But he has other plans and we’re not going to have to say goodbye for a long time.” I could see Tarantino hanging it up if he wins BD or this wins BP. Otherwise I think he’ll still make his 10th film to try to go out on that high note. I think he would retire if he wins BD. He always seems concerned with legacy and it would be a good way to go out. If you consider Kill Bill 2 separate films, this would be his 10th anyway. It makes me nervous when he says he thinks he's given all he has to movies. That's more serious than just wanting to stop after 10. I don't think he'll retire for good. He could come up with a great idea 10 yrs from now and want to film it.
|
|