I thought there was plenty of tension in that car crach scene. I was literally on the edge of my seat. It was a masterpiece of filmmaking. QT doing what he knows best.
Stay on topic guys.
[quote=“Kinick”]
In all honesty, I think Jackie Brown was as mature as we got and are going to get from the Q man. I believe he’s evolved into something too wild and un-grounded.
[/quote]
The misunderstanding about JB is that it wasn’t representative of where QT wanted to go. He just did it because he wanted to prove to the ones who said his cinema was all about superficiality and violence he could do a more mature work. And in his recent interviews his talks about the movie are more like: ok, I’ve proved that I could do it but now I’m going back to do the cinema I want to do. QT knows that everyone expects from him a “message” movie but it ain’t what he wants to do…
Still off-topic but are you really sure he wanted to prove something? I think he doesn’t care what other people think. IMO he made JB just because he wanted to make JB. I love Jackie Brown, I love Pulp Fiction, I don’t see JB like a movie more mature than PF.
[quote=“21grams”]
Still off-topic but are you really sure he wanted to prove something? I think he doesn’t care what other people think. IMO he made JB just because he wanted to make JB.
[/quote]
I exaggerated but this was basically the kinda answer he was making to people who reproached Volume 1 to be less “deep” than JB. That he proved once that he could a movie like this, that he thought he’d make “geriatric cinema” if he did expand on that way and that now that he’s done it he can move on.
[quote=“21grams”]I love Jackie Brown, I love Pulp Fiction, I don’t see JB like a movie more mature than PF.
[/quote]
Let’s say JB is classic, timeless, with mature and psychologically deep characters who are rooted in real life. On the other hand RD, PF, KB are more “movie world” orientated. That doesn’t prevent these movies from being great but, contrarely to these movies, JB’s characters can to my mind keep up with the emotional charge of the characters of Scorsese, Eastwood, Francis Ford Coppola because, just like the characters of these directors, JB’s characters are rooted in the real world. But I better create another topic in the JB section.
Ok I know what you mean.
I like to know exactly what you mean hehe.
Wow… NONE of this page’s conversation is at all on the Inglorious Bastards script. Let’s stay on topic.
My favorite scene in the script is the tavern basement scene where the tension is drawn out for-e-ver and finally everyone has guns on each other and blow each other away. I think that will be classic.
I won’t say right off the bat that IB is Tarantino’s best script, but I do believe this is his best STORY he has ever written. And this is the first time since Pulp Fiction that I feel every single scene in the film has the potential to be iconic, thus, this is his best script since Pulp in my opinion. You can tell he spent 5 years writin’ this bitch.
Inglorious Bastards truly is QT’s Good, Bad, Ugly
Ok. A question for those who read the script. Lots of dialogues in the script are about references to the pop culture of the 40’s/50’s and German industry and popular cinema of that time. I enjoyed it due to my certain knowledge of this era. But how’s it gonna do with most of the audience who doesnt know ?
It’s weird to me how QT has decided to go that route with IB - talking about cinema. I mean there were bits and pieces of it in his first three films, not so much in his 4th, and the 5th was steeped in it. When I watched DP, I was really surprised at how self-referential it was as a film. And now with revelations that in IB he talks a lot about cinema and everything related, it makes me feel like that’s all he knows now. Like he can’t make a film anymore without having all these references to cinema (not films, but the whole cinema thing). It’s like he is showing off what he knows about the art-form. If these revelations are true, that a lot of the film is about cinema, it will certainly cement his auteur status as a post-modern filmmaker. One who isn’t on the same level of say Kubrick, Scorsese or Coppola. It’s clear Tarantino has huge limits.
What-If-Man - he probably can, but he doesn’t want to. He’s just making what he wants to see.
IB is more like a propaganda film than a WWII epic. Nowhere near the level of Kubrick, Scorsese or Coppola.
I was surprised to see the whole cinema thing worked into his decade-long WWII epic too.
[quote=“Kinick”]
What-If-Man - he probably can, but he doesn’t want to. He’s just making what he wants to see.
IB is more like a propaganda film than a WWII epic. Nowhere near the level of Kubrick, Scorsese or Coppola.
I was surprised to see the whole cinema thing worked into his decade-long WWII epic too.
[/quote]
And what he wants to see is what he knows. And what he knows is cinema. Face it, he grew up in front of the TV screen. He doesn’t have the life experience that people like Oliver Stone and Scorsese had. Scorsese grew up on the streets, that’s how he knows about it and can make Goodfellas and Mean Street (btw, he’s also knows as much if not more about cinema than QT). Stone faught in Vietnam, did a lot of coke, he knows about Platoon and Scarface. Whereas QT, well his knowledge seems limited to cinema. He had some experiences in France and Amsterdam, he spent some time in jail and he has used up much of that experience in his first two films. The third was adapted from a novel. The 4th was purely from what he has seen in cinema. The 5th is mostly his experience within filmmaking.
I know he would have researched WWII a lot, but I’d like him to use what he’s learnt in IB as opposed to churn out more cinema-related things. If only a part of IB is about cinema, I don’t mind at all. But I don’t want it to be another Death Proof. He’s already done the cinema thing, he should move on.
It sounds like the cinema plays a big part in IB. Im not reading the script but if Shosanna runs a movie theater, it must be pretty important to the story.
It all depends on how QT fits it into the story. If its like Cinema Paradiso, thats an awesome film. I hope its like that, if so I’ll really love all the theater storyline of the film.
Aww, Ify. I LOVE the cinema aspect of this script. It’s fucking great! QT said it would be like no WWII movie anyone’s ever seen, and it is!
I’m just saying I’d like to to be less self-referential than Death Proof. DP was a bit too close to home, I started to become a bit too self aware of the film as a film rather than an experience. We never have that problem with RD, PF, JB or KB. Those films were true experiences. If IB is like that (or better) I’m all for it. I just got put off by:
[quote=“Sunday”]
Lots of dialogues in the script are about references to the pop culture of the 40’s/50’s and German industry and popular cinema of that time.
[/quote]
The entire second half of the movie revolves around the theater and it is NOTHING like Cinema Paradiso
[quote=“Ify”]
And what he wants to see is what he knows. And what he knows is cinema. Face it, he grew up in front of the TV screen. He doesn’t have the life experience that people like Oliver Stone and Scorsese had. Scorsese grew up on the streets, that’s how he knows about it and can make Goodfellas and Mean Street (btw, he’s also knows as much if not more about cinema than QT). Stone faught in Vietnam, did a lot of coke, he knows about Platoon and Scarface. Whereas QT, well his knowledge seems limited to cinema. He had some experiences in France and Amsterdam, he spent some time in jail and he has used up much of that experience in his first two films. The third was adapted from a novel. The 4th was purely from what he has seen in cinema. The 5th is mostly his experience within filmmaking.
I know he would have researched WWII a lot, but I’d like him to use what he’s learnt in IB as opposed to churn out more cinema-related things. If only a part of IB is about cinema, I don’t mind at all. But I don’t want it to be another Death Proof. He’s already done the cinema thing, he should move on.
[/quote]
Uh, yeah, precisely! I thought that’s what I was getting at.
[quote=“Kinick”]
Uh, yeah, precisely! I thought that’s what I was getting at.
[/quote]
Ok, dude. Btw, where abouts are you from?
[quote=“Ify”]
Ok, dude. Btw, where abouts are you from?
[/quote]
I already told you this when you asked me last week? I’m from Northern Ireland.
[quote=“Kinick”]
I already told you this when you asked me last week? I’m from Northern Ireland.
[/quote]
I asked you that before? I can’t even remember :-[. Anyways, back on topic.
The IB script isn’t about cinema the way DP was. There are references to what German popular cinema was at the time but not to the “working in movie industry” like in DP. It’s more like they talk about pop culture of their time the way the RD/PF characters were talking about the pop culture references of the 70’s/80’s. These “cinema cinema” stuff was there in RD and PF but it was less seenable cause the references were more “mainstream”. And tell it’s a limit of QT as a director: yes, it can be put that way. But the early Godard movies were in that field and it didn’t prevent them becoming THE classics of their era… And I must add: the best Kubrick, Scorsese and Coppola movies are non original material and thus it can’t be compared with the work of QT who filmed mostly original material. De Palma’s movies began for instance to feel less about cinema, less Hitchcock referenced when he began to direct non original material…