The Quentin Tarantino Archives logo

Inglorious Bastards as long as Pulp Fiction [news]


#1

<LINK_TEXT text=“http://www.tarantino.info/2008/06/25/in … p-fiction/”>http://www.tarantino.info/2008/06/25/inglorious-bastards-as-long-as-pulp-fiction/</LINK_TEXT>



there you have it


#2

Now no need to speculate over and over again about IB being split in two, three movies, being a mini TV series and so on. Of course QT has time to change his mind but sounds more reasonnable if he wants to release it soon and since he said that he doesn’t want to make another Kill Bill everest kind of shooting again.


#3

Oh snap! This is going to be incredible!


#4

no, inglorious :wink:


#5

Well I stand corrected guys. I apologize for my ranting and I’m glad to know that the film will be PFs running time. As long as everyones HAPPY, I’m happy :slight_smile:



I have to say Im pretty surprised QT wasnt going for a longer running time seeing this films script was so damn huge and all the talk about it being his biggest film yet. But its his vision, so whatever running time he thinks is best for it is cool by me.



I want to know whos gonna be in it now. And where hes gonna shoot it.


#6

[quote=“Sebastian”]
…And i certainly think that’s what would do the project best. …
[/quote]

how do you know what would be best for IB? What if it’s so damn huge that a two-parter would be the better solution? Would it have been better if KB was one gigantic movie? NO.


#7

Excellent news! That is exactly what I needed to hear. And frankly after the last few days, something I’d only have dreamed of hearing.



It means that if he has this length in his head, it still leaves a bit of room if his head grows, haha.



Therefore: if it grows to anything towards the 3 hour mark between now and whenever… we’re still in the running for one big movie. :wink:


[quote=“cyber-lili”]…he said that he doesn’t want to make another Kill Bill everest kind of shooting again.[/quote]

No, this IS his next mount Everest. I think he said he didn’t want to do another right after he’s just finished one, which is where Death Proof comes in - i.e. Death Proof was his warm up, now it’s time to climb again… But just doesn’t mean it has to be as long as Kill Bill’s entire length or even end up being two separate features. :slight_smile:


#8

If the length of IB is gonna be the same as PF it won’t be an everest shooting. It can’t be as exhausting as Kill Bill, not the same shooting days, and so on.


#9

Yeah he did say Bastards would be his next Mt Everest several times thats one of the main reasons I expected it to be a 4 hour film. I guess hes decided to climb Mt Washington instead. :slight_smile:


#10

Ahah, yeah, indeed, sounds more appropriated than the Everest.


#11

the Everest comment by QT clearly refers to the epicness of his war movie, rather than the length of it.


#12

QT said years ago that he had written enough for there to be three separate scripts. He called it his next Mt Everest at the same time. So naturally most people figured he meant a very long film shot on an even bigger scale than Kill Bill. Hence all the speculation on the length until his latest statement on the running time. 1 + 1 = 2. Noone here knew that he was def going to do 1 film until today.



Personally I really wanted a longer 2 part film like Kill Bill. Its not like Grindhouse where it would be two diff directors movies. I dont care about waiting for the second half. The reality of it is, the majority of our time watching Bastards will be at home on DVD anyways. Id love to be able to watch a 4 hour QT war epic.



But that said, if its as long as Pulp was, thats actually still a pretty long film. So its all good.


#13

Holy crap, he took the words right out of my mouth:

[quote=“Ify”]
Basically, I would be more than happy for it to be of a length similar to Pulp Fiction. [/quote]

Also, QT did say that Inglorious Bastards would be his Everest. That after Death Proof, he knew it would be Everest climbing time again. He just needed to recoup after the whole Kill Bill thing. He also needed a bit of pushing from a third party, and that party turned out to be Eleanor Coppola, so kudos to her for that. I wonder if she will get a special thanks.



When he says it’s time to climb Everest again, he doesn’t mean that he’s going to do another two-parter. Some of you have been wrapped up in the idea that it has to be this MASSIVE set of films. Nothing says that IB has to be more than one film. You don’t need it to be split into two parts to show how epic it is. All other filmmakers have managed to create a huge epic whilst being of the highest quality at the same time. If the likes of Leone, Kubrick and Coppola don’t need more than one film to create a cinematic, epic masterpiece, well then neither does QT. You can get plenty epic within 2 and a half hours.



I hope he stays to that plan now and not release a film split into 2 parts. Don’t get me wrong, the more QT the better, but look at Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs, 2 of the greatest films ever made, both only ONE film. Let’s not get ahead of ourselves and suggest that this art form can’t cater for QT. One whole film with all the trimmings is more than enough to satisfy our cravings. Wouldn’t you agree?!


#14

Yess i prefer it as one film rather then a longer 2 part film like Kill Bill… plus if he has additional material he could make other Inglorious Bastard films… kinda like starwars…


#15

There’s also the option of deleted scenes. Or maybe he’ll go the LOTR-way, by making one film for the cinema and that film + a larger film for the DVD market. I think that’s a good way of satisfying everybody.



Besides, even if the 600-page script was the best he’d written, it doesn’t mean that all the pages were gold. With a 150-minute movie we’re going to get the best of it.


#16

I bet if Grindhouse had been a big hit we would be getting a much longer Bastards film. This is because people are weary of anything too long in running time after that dissapointment. Im not, but the majority of the movie going public are. Thats fine.



Whatever. Id go see this film if its 90 minutes or 4 hours. Im not complaining.


#17

I’m actually completely fine with it being 150 minutes. Yes, a double-feature length film would be cool, so would a trilogy, but maybe Tarantino-fans have been a bit spoilt by long films, almost forgetting that a film doesn’t have to be 4 hours to be good. Yes, that is a bit ridicolous, but don’t forget that the most loved film of his is 150 minutes long.


#18

[quote=“Dantes Inferno”]
There’s also the option of deleted scenes. Or maybe he’ll go the LOTR-way, by making one film for the cinema and that film + a larger film for the DVD market. I think that’s a good way of satisfying everybody.
[/quote]

I like that idea very much.



The most important thing is that IB is as long as QT wants it to be, he knows best.


#19

[quote=“Crazy Kenneth”]The most important thing is that IB is as long as QT wants it to be, he knows best.
[/quote]

Yeah, I agree. Restraint can be a powerful tool sometimes.


#20

[quote=“Crazy Kenneth”]
the Everest comment by QT clearly refers to the epicness of his war movie, rather than the length of it.
[/quote]

Exactly!

[quote]Let’s not get ahead of ourselves and suggest that this art form can’t cater for QT. One whole film with all the trimmings is more than enough to satisfy our cravings. Wouldn’t you agree?![/quote]

I sure as hell do. I just hope it doesn’t turn in to another Kill Bill affair (no pun) between now and its release.



About the deleted scenes, I dunno. I think he’ll have in everything he wants and needs to with whatever he puts out. I’m not really a fan of deleted scenes because they don’t really count in the finished movie. But we’ll see what happens. As long as it stays as one complete movie I’ll be happy.



Just thinking about that AICN two movies thing, it could have been that he meant it got so big that the script turned into two movies. Not that IB was necessarily going to be two movies.