The Quentin Tarantino Archives logo

Seriously, Listen to this....it's gold


#1

Anyone happen to listen to the Tarantino audio commentary track from the True Romance Director’s cut? It’s fucking gold. He talks about the script and what it meant to him. He also explains how he started from nothing then made it big after many failures. Anyway, the most interesting thing he talks about is what he would’ve done w/ True Romance if he directed it. He says he would do it out of order like Pulp Fiction. We would see the “Drexyl pussy-eating scene” first, then the “Cicilian” scene. The audience not knowing what the fuck is going on, only knows that this “mystery couple” (Clarence and Alabama) stole these gangsters’ coke. It’s very fucking interesting. If you have the Director’s cut, please listen to this commentary, because QT doesn’t do em often, and this is quite a treat.



Also, how else do you think True Romance would be different if he directed it?


#2

[quote] Also, how else do you think True Romance would be different if he directed it?[/quote]

I love True Romance so much the way it is. I dont really know how QT would do it other than out of sequence. Of course it would look different, probably have different music, more rockabilly and Elvis tunes.



I’m sure it would even be better than Tony Scotts version.


#3

[quote]


probably have different music, more rockabilly and Elvis tunes.

[/quote]

Well actually in the track QT mentions he doesn’t like the song choices that Tony Scott made. I don’t exactly like the songs either. Shitty 80’s music doesn’t do it for me. But Tony Scott does keep in one song picked by QT, it’s the song in the beginning where Clarence’s dad first appears in the movie. “Spoiled my act as a clown” or whatever. It’s practically the only song in the movie I like! :stuck_out_tongue:


#4

If Tarantino had done the film, I doubt he would’ve had the same cast. So that would probably mean the best scene in the movie, I think I don’t even have to say which scene, would be totally different. Imagine no Christopher Walken and Dennis Hopper. The movie would be TOTALLY different. And personally, I think it would’ve sucked.



If you read the script it’s outta order the way Quentin wanted it and it’s VERY confusing…When you think about it, Pulp Fiction is outta order in just 3 parts…True Romance was just all over the place…I read somewhere Tony Scott even originally had it outta order but during the pre screening the audience didn’t like it and thought it was too confusing. I agree. It would’ve been.



I’m not a hige Tony Scott fan, but I think he did a great job with True Romance.



If Tarantino had the same cast, and put the film in normal order like it is, and not like the script which he intended, the movie would’ve been a million times better just because Tarantino is such an interesting director.


#5

Well, you can’t really say if it would’ve sucked or not with a different cast, but I think it couldn’t have been that much better than it is now if QT directed it. QT says himself, he couldn’t imagine the movie any differently than it is now. Besides the song choices, he loves the movie exactly the way it is.


#6

I think there’s more than two people on this forum. Reply or not, I’m tellin you guys, listen to this QT commentary. I think it’s one of the only full commentaries he’s done, and it’s really worth a listen. It’s as good as all those other “interview” documentaries he’s done on his dvd’s. :slight_smile: Give it a try


#7

[quote]If Tarantino had done the film, I doubt he would’ve had the same cast.
[/quote]

In fact, QT has said it many times that he would have chosen Robert Fortser to play Vincenzo Coccotti. I think he would have done a great job as well, even if Walken’s performance was top-notch.


#8

yea - i got it and have to peep it finally


#9

When i was watching the commentary i really liked the fact that you can tell that Quentin Tarantino really likes the movie. He’ll be totally into a story and then suddenly stops to talk about the scene that is playing. at one point during the scene with christopher walken he stops to watch because he likes it so much.


#10

[quote]When i was watching the commentary i really liked the fact that you can tell that Quentin Tarantino really likes the movie. He’ll be totally into a story and then suddenly stops to talk about the scene that is playing. at one point during the scene with christopher walken he stops to watch because he likes it so much. [/quote]

I liked that too, he said it was like one of his favorite scene he’s ever written. It cracked me up when he was talking about Big D the man who told him about the Moors and the Sicilians it gives you some insight to why he is so cool, he was brought up around the coolest people.



I do think that I would have liked it better if Tony has used Quinton’s script structure, but from a female perspective I like that Tony Scott made it more fairy-tale then Quinton would have made it. QT says he doesent think it would have been a bummer if Clarence died, he said we would have been sad but it wouldnt have been a bummer. I disagree, I think it would have ruined the movie for me.


#11

I think that the Moor/Sicilian scene would have been terrible with Robert Forster in it. I love his work in Jackie Brown don’t get me wrong, but Christopher Walken makes that scene memorable and the movie would have been out of whack if Chris wasn’t in it.


#12

^^^^^^ I absolutely agree, I cant picture anybody but Walken in that role esp. not Forrester. Did I miss who QT would have cast as Clarence? I dont remember hearing him say anything except that Christian Slater worked well. I think all of the casting was right on point, but it would be interesting to know who QT pictured as the lead.


#13

And what’s also great, is that the Cicilian scene was not altered in any way. QT talks about how he was embarrassed that a “pie in the sky” actor like Walken is in his fucking movie saying his lines word for word exactly. It would give anyone chills down their spine.





“Can I have one of those Chesterfields now?”



"Ya know, I read a lot…"



fucking genius. I think I’m the only black guy that wasn’t offended by this scene! :stuck_out_tongue:


#14

[quote]
fucking genius. I think I’m the only black guy that wasn’t offended by this scene!  :stuck_out_tongue:[/quote]

You weren’t the only one…my father (a black guy) is the one who sat me down to watch this movie when I was 15. He loved the whole movie but that scene blew him away, he loved that someone put that piece of history in a movie. He wasnt offended at all by the use of the word nigger, and neither was I. I dont see what the big deal is, its just a word.


#15

Lol, yeah but keep in mind there are a lot of tight-asses who watch movies. QT has gotten a LOT of shit for using the words “nigger” and “fag” loosely.


#16

I was also not offended. Like Jky said it is just a word and has no bearing to what black people are. That seen is my favorite in the movie and I wouldn’t want them to change a word, especially to be politically correct.


#17

Sidenote: I haven’t seen the Director’s Cut. Can anyone tell me if it is better? What happens differently? Etc…


#18

[quote]Sidenote: I haven’t seen the Director’s Cut. Can anyone tell me if it is better? What happens differently? Etc…[/quote]

The only thing I could see that was different was the scene where Alabama gets the crap beat out of her in the hotel room. A lot of the violence that was not in the theater release is left in the movie.


#19

[quote]


The only thing I could see that was different was the scene where Alabama gets the crap beat out of her in the hotel room. A lot of the violence that was not in the theater release is left in the movie.
[/quote]

The final shoot out was a whole lot bloodier, and, unliked in the theatrical version, Alabama shoots and kills Chris Penn’s character at the end as opposed the wounded mafia guy.


#20

What would you guys say as far as the difference in quality goes?