This has been a big question lately. Supposedly QT has 20 more minutes of footage he wants to finish editing and putting back in and some other stuff. But do you think the final edit will be shorter or longer. We all know that QT is going back to the editing room to edit it but is it because of some of the dialogue that dragged or what? Some people say that it will be trimmed a little to make the dialogue shorter but he also is planning on adding more scenes in.
So the thing is what do you think the final edit will be. Will it be longer but with more depth and action shown with the basterds or quicker and shorter to have a smaller time length. QT says he is planning on adding more cause he has 20 minutes he needs to finish editing. But what do you think will happen. Be longer and changed around a little or shorter?
i think it’ll be a little longer. i haven’t read the script but from what i’ve heard some key parts of the story were cut in the cannes version. he’ll probably put that back in, if it’s absolutely necessary. he’s usually pretty good at deciding what should stay out of his movies. every deleted scene so far is shit and if it were used it would poison the feel of the movie. on the other hand there’s death proof. imo he should’ve left the theatrical “Grindhouse” cut as is on the DVD and have the extra scenes be deleted scenes. they make an already slow movie be that much more excruciatingly slow.
I agree, with everything you said.
Anyone else’s opinion and thought?
I’ve read they’ll do special screenings to see the weaknesses of this cut, then polish up the thing.
In the contract, it apparently stipulates that the maximum length can reach 2 hours and 48 minutes. So yeah, it could be longer, depending on what he’ll remove and what he’ll add.
they can make a more “viewer-friendly” cut of IB if they feel the need to (cut stuff, add stuff, make it less talky), but whatever they do -
I WANT TO SEE THE TARANTINO APPROVED CUT
Just because people think the Cannes cut is weak doesn’t mean I agree with that or that Tarantino agrees with that. Maybe the Cannes cut is his preferred cut, even if people think it has problems.
As long as I can have the Tarantino-approved cut DVD and Blu-Ray, I’m happy. Would I love to see it in a cinema several times too? Of course.
I’m not sure about that run time business. My take on it is that he means he’s contractual to deliver the movie up to that length if necessary. Therefore not that they actually want the movie to be closer to that length for theatrical.
I think the test screenings are a good idea at this point. Of course it’s possible that the final cut could be a little longer than the Cannes cut if needed. I think Seb had it in a nutshell when he wrote in that latest blog: "Question is will the final theatrical version of Inglourious Basterds be even shorter, snappier (some critics say there was a lull towards the end) and quicker, or will it be longer, thus carrying more weight and giving it maybe more depth?"
I think we could see some of the longer dialogue scenes in the middle maybe being tightened up here and there and then possibly an extra scene or two being added that add a little more depth to certain characters (Madame Mimieux for Shosanna). Plus maybe more Basterds and Landa… which could come as result of test screenings.
i am sceptical about the whole test screening thing. how does this work? who is in the audience in such screenings? “test screening” somehow makes me think “hollywood marketing shit” or something.
wouldn’t it be better to just get the input of his friends like robert rodriguez and tom tykwer?
Kinick you read my mind exactly.
That is exactly what I was thinking was adding Maggie scene and maybe some others maybe the ones with the basterds cause the american crowed mostly wants that and critics say they do also need more depth and then some of the long dialogue scenes like in chapter 3 or with the British can be trimmed. WHich could make it longer or make the time not change at all.
All i know are the smartest negative complains are the ones saying there is still too much talking and not enough depth through some characters. So i hope if QT and Weinstein’s are smart they will do something like that cause people who complain about it being offensive and not historically accurate and just hating on QT’s style you can’t change those peoples opinions but the complains that can be fixed are less long dialogue scenes and more scenes that aren’t added or were taken out to be added back in to add more depth to the characters and also sadly majority of the people want to see the basterds to crazy things speaking in english then foreign actors they don’t know and won’t enjoy cause more of basterds will get more people to come and like i said before people said Basterds are a little under developed.
[quote=“tokamak”]
i am sceptical about the whole test screening thing. how does this work? who is in the audience in such screenings? “test screening” somehow makes me think “hollywood marketing shit” or something.
wouldn’t it be better to just get the input of his friends like robert rodriguez and tom tykwer?
[/quote]
It’s a very common practice…almost all directors go through this. And although QT has final say, it isn’t the first time he has done this so don’t be worried. I believe he did the same with Kill Bill.
An no, that would be the worst thing he could do, to get input from his friends, from brown-nosers a la Eli Roth.
Ever realize how incredibly talky Jackie Brown is? I sugest Quentin cut it down some. Then add some action scenes, let DeNiro shoot some more people in the parking area!
And hey, that one chapter with Butch in Pulp Fiction? TOTALLY unnecessary! It’s too long anyway, cut it I say!
And Kill Bill is so long they had to make it into TWO MOVIES! LOL! Trim it down some, and make it into ONE MOVIE so that the general public is happy!
:
: :
Yep, an another regular folk in a forum who’s seen it told us that the major flaw is, except for Landa, there’s not enough character development, they lack a little bit of substance. I can understand that, without the flashback sequence of Donny ( Yeah I know it means more shitty acting by Eli Roth ), the Mimieux sequence, I think the movie can suffer. And even the meeting between the basterds and hicox is apparently missing. It must feel a little disjointed without those crucial parts. Well, from my point of view at least.
[quote=“Pinkman”]
Yep, an another regular folk in a forum who’s seen it told us that the major flaw is, except for Landa, there’s not enough character development, they lack a little bit of substance. I can understand that, without the flashback sequence of Donny ( Yeah I know it means more shitty acting by Eli Roth ), the Mimieux sequence, I think the movie can suffer. And even the meeting between the basterds and hicox is apparently missing. It must feel a little disjointed without those crucial parts. Well, from my point of view at least.
[/quote]
Except for Landa. Are talking crazy? 
I’m all good with no more Eli Roth scenes. I think with a character like his, you kind of know where he’s coming from up front, so I don’t think he needs much development…that, and I really don’t wanna watch Eli try to carry his own scenes, haha. Don’t want to push it. Cos those ones do require him to act.
And the rendezvous before La Loiusiane…damn, get that back. It holds some depth of a few characters too, if I remember correctly…and would also get more Basterds in the picture.
[quote=“Col. Crazy Kenneth”]
Ever realize how incredibly talky Jackie Brown is? I sugest Quentin cut it down some. Then add some action scenes, let DeNiro shoot some more people in the parking area!
And hey, that one chapter with Butch in Pulp Fiction? TOTALLY unnecessary! It’s too long anyway, cut it I say!
And Kill Bill is so long they had to make it into TWO MOVIES! LOL! Trim it down some, and make it into ONE MOVIE so that the general public is happy!
: : :
[/quote]
If I remember correctly, the idea of the two volumes comes from Weinstein, so…
And you know, the cut he has presented is cut down from the original script, shorter than planned. There is nothing wrong to have input from the exterior, throw away some stuff that doesn’t work as intended or thrown in other stuff that help the story and characters, that doesn’t mean he has to follow everything he’s told.
If Quentin says the Cannes cut is weak and should be better, than that’s another story. But who are we to say that the current cut is weak? We haven’t even seen it. And since when do we trust critics?
I’ll make up my own mind if I get to see it, thank you very much. Many people also said that Jackie Brown is boring, and I strongly disagree with that.
I know I’m going to sound like a heretic here but I’m glad he is taking the Maggie scene out.
SPOILER!!!
The only reason for her scene was to slap Melanie in the face and say “Don’t’ smoke, the film is in this place is flammable.” As long as that fact is conveyed in some other way, then the whole purpose of that scene is fulfilled. It’s really not a big deal to know all the details about how Melanie came to be running the theatre, she explains enough when she is talking to Daniel Bruhl for the first time.
[quote=“John B”]
I know I’m going to sound like a heretic here but I’m glad he is taking the Maggie scene out.
SPOILER!!!
The only reason for her scene was to slap Melanie in the face and say “Don’t’ smoke, the film is in this place is flammable.” As long as that fact is conveyed in some other way, then the whole purpose of that scene is fulfilled. It’s really not a big deal to know all the details about how Melanie came to be running the theatre, she explains enough when she is talking to Daniel Bruhl for the first time.
[/quote]
You son of a bitch!
(Although I was joking I looked at it again and it looked kinda harsh, so I’ll just say I am joking in case I offend your delicate sensibilities (if you do indeed have delicate sensibilities))
I’m a Quentin Tarantino fan. How could I have delicate sensibilities?
[quote=“John B”]
I’m a Quentin Tarantino fan. How could I have delicate sensibilities?
[/quote]
Not likely. You never know though.