The Quentin Tarantino Archives logo

Great New Article in GQ w/QT Interview


#1

<LINK_TEXT text=“http://men.style.com/gq/features/landin … ntent_9977”>http://men.style.com/gq/features/landing?id=content_9977</LINK_TEXT>


#2

He looks pretty cool 8)


#3

That IS a good picture of him. Why can’t he look like that all the time? He looks good in suits and almost never wears them.


#4

he’s not a suit person


#5

didn’t like the article too much


#6

I didn’t like the writing, but I get what the dude was going for. I liked it.

[quote=“Eastern Beauty”]
He looks pretty cool 8)


[/quote]

Looks sort of like something’s up his bum.


#7

so what did we learn in this interview? hmm…lets see…



he writing a movie review book (wow)



him and Pitt smoked weed out of a coke can pipe that Pitt constructed



Quentin excused himself in the middle of a big question to umm…“powder his nose”?



and he humiliated a waitress



god i love this man


#8

I am just fucking thrilled to be hearing ANYTHING he’s said lately. He’s not been allowing the press hound dog the shit out of him like he usually does. Which is good in a way, but I like hearing what he’s got to say… Even if it’s telling a waitress how she fucked-up.



I mean, seriously, if I took over a table when I came on shift, I’d still take good care of them… Not to mention how I would NOT fuck up if it was Quentin Tarantino! I know there are excuses for her, "the other waitress may not have told her how important the “9:00” check-drop was… But still, I waited tables for years, and you don’t just set the check on the table. You say, “Unless you fellas need anything else, I have your check”. I mean seriously, you don’t just be like, “do you need anything else?” and when they say no, set the check down.


#9

the writer tries too hard to be smart and he fails (his opinion on IB, the last paragraph among other things are lame)… but i like it ;D


#10

I also like the article, we all know that Quentin, like a lot of artists/stars, can get bitchy sometimes, big deal…


#11

And you know how these writers are in these long celebrity exposes they try to infer a lot and make more out of events than they really are to make the article more interesting… And writers always seems to portray him in the same way… a talented arrogant egotistical idiosyncratic bombastic film crazy drug addicted director who never learned how to play well with others… is it true? who knows


#12

Artists/Stars can be bitchy sometimes? How about everybody can be bitchy sometimes? I’m not trying to be sycophantic, but I take exception with what the writer is trying to infer by including the bit where QT is scolding someone who failed to fulfill a simple task. Comes off as a butthurt critic. Thats how these media people operate, you criticize the critics, and they try and destroy your character and make snide comments about your appearance.


#13

In concern to the running time worries - wasn’t there another article that countered that claim? I remember reading something here that had Harvey Weinstein showing no concern for Basterds running time. And just so people may know - Transformers 2 is over two and a half hours long and look at how much money it is making.



On critics. I think most critics tend to over-analyze films. These guys are basically robots that try to find a flaw in a film and exploit it. Going to the movies is all about having fun and trying to invest to the story that is being told. Like Roger Ebert’s review on There Will Be Blood was incandescent with jealousy. If you read it again there’s some kind of anger as he compares it to Citizen Kane. He even bitches about the lack of women and static scenery. He missed the point! Daniel Plainview was a reclusive character and blocked out all the people from his life, including his bastard son in the end. Jerry Lewis even felt they were too analytical of his jokes. I can see how Quentin is fed up with most of their nonsense reviews.



Oh my god how long is this fucking article! >:(



ON A NEW NOTE:



Has anyone noticed Hollywood’s transitional period of emerging artists that are being pushed on us?



Most artists are getting pretty old, so now we’re seeing all these new faces like: Lebouf, Fox, Twiligh Guy, Efron, etc.



Are those guys really the future? :o :frowning:


#14

[quote]Has anyone noticed Hollywood’s transitional period of emerging artists that are being pushed on us?



Most artists are getting pretty old, so now we’re seeing all these new faces like: Lebouf, Fox, Twiligh Guy, Efron, etc



Are those guys really the future?.[/quote]

Hollywood is in a state of transition and I think that our old conception of a “movie star” is going to change and they will be less essential to the success of a movie which could be a bad or good thing depending on how you look at it. I think the concept of a movie is going to be a lot more important than who is starring in it… I think we are reaching a point where the only movies we’re going to see are movies based on comic books, cartoons, and remakes of old movies… No one is willing to take chances in movies anymore It could lead to a resurgence of independent films that go straight to video


#15

[quote=“Lt. BioBasterd”]
ON A NEW NOTE:

Has anyone noticed Hollywood’s transitional period of emerging artists that are being pushed on us?

Most artists are getting pretty old, so now we’re seeing all these new faces like: Lebouf, Fox, Twiligh Guy, Efron, etc.

Are those guys really the future? :o :frowning:
[/quote]

Well sadly the majority of those “actors” are being pretty widley accepted by the people who are putting down big bucks to see them. If they’re the future I’m moving to Europe where people make more sense ;D



I fucking yearn for the day when we get our next James Dean. And as far as I’m concerned Heath Ledger ain’t it just because he died young.



Is it just me or all the people on that list you made Bio some clean cut goody two shoe square ass mother fuckers? We need a bad boy or two.


#16

[quote=“nublob”]
Hollywood is in a state of transition and I think that our old conception of a “movie star” is going to change and they will be less essential to the success of a movie which could be a bad or good thing depending on how you look at it. I think the concept of a movie is going to be a lot more important than who is starring in it… I think we are reaching a point where the only movies we’re going to see are movies based on comic books, cartoons, and remakes of old movies… No one is willing to take chances in movies anymore It could lead to a resurgence of independent films that go straight to video
[/quote]

Well…that’s a little too extreme. I mean this year we’re getting “Amelia” with Hilary Swank, and the second half of the year has not started yet. We’re getting five to six great pictures each year. So let’s not ask for the moon when we have the stars. But yes the future is looking a bit bleak, maybe It’ll get better - who knows.


#17

[quote=“Ordell Rodriguez”]
Well sadly the majority of those “actors” are being pretty widley accepted by the people who are putting down big bucks to see them. If they’re the future I’m moving to Europe where people make more sense ;D



I fucking yearn for the day when we get our next James Dean. And as far as I’m concerned Heath Ledger ain’t it just because he died young.



Is it just me or all the people on that list you made Bio some clean cut goody two shoe square ass mother fuckers? We need a bad boy or two.
[/quote]

We’ll probably see more and more better actors. I think Shia Lebouf and Megan Fox can become better over time. Who knows.


#18

[quote]We’re getting five to six great pictures each year[/quote]

I know. That’s sad. Out of 100-150 big studio films each year. This is the most we’re getting now.

[quote] I think Shia Lebouf and Megan Fox can become better over time[/quote]

After seeing Transformers 2, no they can’t… ::slight_smile:


#19

Well see this is where most people are gravely mistaken. The actors work with what they get. You rewind their lifes, 5-7 years back. These actors would KILL to get a leading part in a big film with big pay. Let’s say you wanted to act in a film, and you got nothing but supporting roles with little pay after doing TV for some odd years. Then one day they give you a great offer with lots of money, etc. You’re not going to say “No”, are you? This is what they have been waiting to do, for many years. To be in a picture. I think they’re still too young to refuse work. They can act, when they get good material, you’ll see what they can do. I think Shia is doing a film with Oliver Stone right now.


#20

[quote=“nublob”]
I know. That’s sad. Out of 100-150 big studio films each year. This is the most we’re getting now.

[/quote]

I refuse to complain anymore. I mean all mediums have their downers and their winners. In books, videogames, Broadway plays, etc. And looking back to the 30s, 40, 50s - The Golden year days - most films were not that great. We’ve began to think that way because we just tend to look back and see the plethora of greatness, and not see the many faliures that were. Also Broadway properties were more accessible to the studios and they made great material out of them in the movies.