So there’s an image of this film developing in my head now, and I have a feeeling it’s going to be a kind of stoner masterpiece. Lots of drug use, especially pot and possibly even psychedelic sequences, and a killer soundtrack of period appropriate music for sure. Overall a light and humorous tone, but with events such as Tate’s death and likely other acts of violence bringing some heaviness. I think it will have a large cast and a somewhat sprawling and episodic storyline, but won’t be an anthology film and will remain more or less centered on the main characters.
so you’re thinking along the lines of Inherent Vice?
I don’t think it will have the same tone, but that’s certainly a reference point I was considering. I think Quentin wants to really capture the spirit of LA in 1969, albeit from a slightly different perspective than we’ve seen before, and like Inglourious Basterds, being of course an overt expression of his love of movies.
I hope its nothing like Inherent Vice as a story because I didnt care for that film. It was like a Big Lebowski ripoff thats nowhere near as good.
If you mean like it in capturing 1969 LA, then thats cool. Im sure QT will do that if its set in 1969 LA.
Im hoping its like a Pulp Fiction-esque slice of Hippy Hollywood at that time. Where we see famous actors/actresses played by diff people. Then Leo and Brads characters are kind of like old school oddballs that dont quite fit into that scene.
I dont know what thestory is about beyond that, but I expect it to have lots of period music/style and cool pop culture references
I love Inherent Vice, but I don’t expect this will be much like it in many respects. Inherent Vice is somewhat muddy and incoherent by design, and QT likes to keep things crisp and cracking. I’m guessing there will be a lot of references to actors he admires from that period, both as characters in the film portrayed by other actors as well as many actors from that time probably showing up in cameos as other characters. If Inglourious Basterds was a love letter to world cinema of the 40s then this will certainly be a love letter to the Hollywood of the late 60s, with the collapse of the studio system leading to the New Hollywood era of the 70s that has informed so much of Quentin’s work. I think he’ll strive to capture the vibe of Hollywood in that period as well as the vibe of films that came out of that time, which could mean something a bit more anarchic and free spirited than we’re used to from him, but not to the extent of a film like Inherent Vice.
And I’m really looking forward to seeing what he does with this soundtrack. His gradual transition to mostly using film scores (and eventually having an original score) has created some great musical moments, but the promise of a QT soundtrack packed full of late 60s rock songs is very exciting.
Id def rather it be a cohesive QT film that celebrates the start of New Hollywood and not some dull hippie stonerfest. I expect there to be hippy stuff in it, but not just BS that never ends for 2 hours
One thing thats interesting is that theres no mention of the genre. QT has done crime, westerns, war. So whats this film? Just a drama? a comedy?
I’m seeing the hippy stonerfest aspect as something that will be a strong element of it, and which would have thrilled my teenage self to no end, but this is still Tarantino we’re talking about. It may be more of a hangout film than most of the ones he’s done lately, but it will undoubtedly still be sharp and exacting in all the ways it should be.
I’ve been curious about that genre question as well. That’s why I’m positing that it could take the form of a sort of stoner comedy on the surface, but I’m sure it will ultimately be much more than that.
I like hangout films a lot and Im a fan of stoner comedies (Cheech n Chong etc). I know QT will make it work in his own unique way whatever it is. Lookin fwd to hearing more about it!
Hey guys. New to the forum and haven’t scanned all the posts but I’m sure this is not an original thought. My thinking on how this will play out is this:
Hollywood is moving on, without Rick and Cliff. Despite their efforts to remain in the spotlight, things arnt working out. At some point, their neighbor’s (Sharon Tate) have some uninvited guests (ie: Manson’s cult). This becomes apparent to Rick and Cliff as Tarantino re-writes history once again by having the boys crash the party and save the day, killing the cult and possibly Manson himself. This ultimately brings the boys back into the limelight. Boom.
Also- I believe my theory will be somewhat proven as the film is set to be released on the anniversary of these murders. Instead of a distasteful brutal murder portrayed on the anniversary, we’ll see a hero tale which can be celebrated. Instead of a helpless, pregnant Tate overcome by evildoers- a strong woman that gets the better of her would-be murders and fucks shit up.
Welcome on board, amigo!
I know that Tarantino likes to change history sometimes. The Tate murders are interesting enough and I wouldn’t change anything. Although Manson was there, he didn’t kill anyone. He was outside giving directions on what to do once they got inside. Killing Manson, to me would be a mistake. I can remember the fear the fact that he was alive, (even though he was in prison), put the country through each time he came up for parole. I was a kid and we all thought he was out to get us.
Killing him would take a lot out of the story. It’s like a Mighty Mouse thing. “Here I come to save the day!” Don’t save the day, give me a compelling story.
Oh yeah, Hiiiii!
in QTs Alt Movie Universe history, Django destroyed Candyland, Hitler was killed by Shoshanna/The Basterds, so its likely he’ll change certain events in the new film too.
Im sure whatever he chooses to do, it willl be compelling. There will be more to the story hes telling anyway.
I hope I’m right. I cheered in the theater watching Hitler and all those Nazi fuckers be shot down and burned alive. I remember the audience I saw it with laughing and clapping too. Whatever the outcome of ‘Hollywood’, I hope Tarantino cools it on the buckets of bloody goo we saw in Django and Hateful eight. Where did that come from? If a guy gets shot now, there’s an enormous eruption of bloody mess everywhere. Id like to see it toned down a bit. Not cartoonish.
Does anyone know what the situation with Debra Tate is at the moment?
She stated that she doesn’t want to see her sister’s death glorified (which I can understand).
Will this become a problem for the movie’s release? Or will there be made a some sort of agreement?
Well, “this” is the issue: only those who read the script really know what size of a role Sharon Tate will really be in the film. Until we know that, all else is speculation for the tabloids…
It seems like this movie will be like Pulp Fiction, Tarantino just confirmed. There are two main characters and a whole lot of side characters.
During his presentation Tarantino compared DiCaprio and Pitt to Redford and Newman. So maybe this is going to be some sort of (dark) buddy comedy? One of their two collaborations was a western. The title of the movie is also a reference to a famous western, and DiCaprio is playing a western actor. Although the movie is set in 1960s L.A., I wouldn’t be surprised if it has a lot of western references. And because Manson and his ‘family’ lived on a movie ranch that was being used for westerns, I’m guessing DiCaprio and Pitt accidentally end up in the murderous gang.
Burt Reynolds is also joining the posse!
The Brad Pitt character in the film seems to be based on an actual stuntman named Gary Warner Kent. Gary’s still acting. Several people in the know have launched a campaign to get Gary cast as in the role of Spahn since Burt Reynolds’ death.