CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › The 9th Film by Quentin Tarantino
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The 9th Film by Quentin Tarantino - Page 3

post #101 of 203

Please stop, Barry.

post #102 of 203

Stop what? Don't be a SP.


Edited by Barry Woodward - 7/14/17 at 2:58am
post #103 of 203
Taking the title suggestions that Paul Schrader shared with you in confidence and passing them off as your own.

Way outta line.
post #104 of 203

Naw Molt, it was me all by my lonesome. It's not original, but it would be fitting, especially if this is meant to be an anthology film. Tarantino has been wanting to use ONCE UPON A TIME in one of his titles for a while now. With his self imposed retirement looming, he's running out of films to do so.


Edited by Barry Woodward - 7/14/17 at 1:03am
post #105 of 203

So you're saying that you came up with PULP FICTION '69? You, and not the man who got a truly nuanced performance out of Willem Dafoe in LIGHT SLEEPER? You came up with it? That's your claim?

 

Throw a big patty on that bun because that's a whopper.

post #106 of 203

I don't know, I didn't go in a Burger King.

post #107 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey View Post

I just don't get the premature hand-wringing when you have no idea what the movie is going to be like.  If you've lost faith in him as a filmmaker, that's another matter entirely.  But he's 8 for 8, in my opinion.

Where I'm at as well. I genuinely believe that H8 is his masterpiece and even something that I'm wasn't too crazy with (Inglorious Basterds) is still a damn fine film. And while I get the concerns that Tarantino won't be able to "tone" it down for...whatever this movie turns out to be, I think people using YMRT's episode on the Manson family as reference for how the story should be told, seem to forget that a lot of what whent on during that was (very darkly) humorous and outright absurd, something that fits right into Tarantino's wheelhouse.
post #108 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moltisanti View Post

I'll be honest, if I was fishing buddies with the writer of THE YAKUZA I'd be dropping that name all over these boards. It'd be "Paul and I" this and "Paul and I" that all the live long day.

Leonard! That was Paul's brother Leonard Shrader who wrote Yakuza! I think he died about ten years ago, which would make your fishing trips more with him more... pungent than usual, I'd imagine.
post #109 of 203
Quote:
 Where I'm at as well. I genuinely believe that H8 is his masterpiece and even something that I'm wasn't too crazy with (Inglorious Basterds) is still a damn fine film. And while I get the concerns that Tarantino won't be able to "tone" it down for...whatever this movie turns out to be, I think people using YMRT's episode on the Manson family as reference for how the story should be told, seem to forget that a lot of what whent on during that was (very darkly) humorous and outright absurd, something that fits right into Tarantino's wheelhouse.

 

It's funny that you bring up the dark comedy of this time, because the last couple of nights we went to a performance of the musical ASSASSINS where the central characters are all successful or failed assassins of American presidents. It's a masterpiece, but it's also incredibly funny, and it knows when to go for laughs, and when to snap back to the seriousness of it. Of course, since one of those assassins is former Manson girl Squeaky Fromme, it got me thinking a lot about this project. 

 

I keep thinking about ZODIAC a lot - how that's a fun, technically marvelous film, full of wit and fine performances, but right as you're lured in, Fincher hits you with that lakeside murder. Close-up, in your face, tense, no music. It reminds you that true crime can be fun, all this wild speculation, but these are actual crimes, that happened to actual people. And it's hard to forget for the remainder of the film. It's one of the reasons why that movie is so great. A lot of the Manson revival has been about just this - about reminding readers and listeners and viewers that Manson isn't a kooky cult meme to be slapped on trading cards - he was a person who committed monstrous, violent acts.

 

Finally, I keep thinking about the quote "one death is a tragedy, thousands are a statistic." I think that might be why some people are having trouble with this project. We get to know the black and Jewish characters in DJANGO and BASTERDS, but the Holocaust and American slavery are nevertheless painted in these broad terms. Yes, he will occasionally drill down into the horror of it (as with Django), but you get the sense that it's more a historical backdrop for him. There are moments, moreso in Basterds than Django, where you feel the weight of the millions killed, but they are few and far between. And snap forward to Manson, where his name is linked with not just his followers, but the specific names of the victims. I wonder how Tarantino is going to handle all of this. 

It's a lot to handle for him, a lot to juggle. But I think I'm going to revise my opinion on it from outright "no, no, no," to cautious - very cautious - optimism. I do think Tarantino has handled the shift from pitch-black comedy to horror and trauma well in the past - I always have to keep Jackie Brown in mind - but as I've said before, I think his recent work displays a polish and sheen that still concerns me. 

post #110 of 203

So apparently this has been floating around a bit since the Tarantino-Manson news broke.  This is (apparently) the off-screen voice of Tarantino asking a question at a Q&A for a Manson-themed documentary; his question would probably not put those who are worried about his approach at ease...

 

 

Seems to at least imply he's not averse to a conspiracy theory take on the murders.

 

At first I wrote this off as Tarantino having a bit of a laugh; knowing that the news of this project has been big talk over the last couple of days, he might have been provocative just to get people talking... then I saw that the video is from last fall.

post #111 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by neil spurn View Post

Leonard! That was Paul's brother Leonard Shrader who wrote Yakuza! I think he died about ten years ago, which would make your fishing trips more with him more... pungent than usual, I'd imagine.

 

They both wrote it, although the script that was used for the film was revised by Robert Towne. Paul screwed Leonard on the writing credit.

 

A Question of Authorship: The Yakuza

post #112 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belloq87 View Post
 

So apparently this has been floating around a bit since the Tarantino-Manson news broke.  This is (apparently) the off-screen voice of Tarantino asking a question at a Q&A for a Manson-themed documentary; his question would probably not put those who are worried about his approach at ease...

 

 

Seems to at least imply he's not averse to a conspiracy theory take on the murders.

 

At first I wrote this off as Tarantino having a bit of a laugh; knowing that the news of this project has been big talk over the last couple of days, he might have been provocative just to get people talking... then I saw that the video is from last fall.

Seems like a relatively innocuous question to me. He's just wondering if Tate was specifically targeted by Manson or if the Family chose them at random.

post #113 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtomTastic View Post
 

Seems like a relatively innocuous question to me. He's just wondering if Tate was specifically targeted by Manson or if the Family acted on their own.


I think it's fairly innocuous, too, but I can see why it would make some people uneasy.

post #114 of 203

The Cielo Drive house was previously occupied by producer Terry Melcher and visited by Manson. Manson believed Melcher had fucked him out of a record deal, which is why he sent his followers to the house - now occupied by Tate and Polanski - in the first place. I don't know why you would ask if Tate was the target unless you're leaning into the Satanic stuff. 

post #115 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by avian View Post
 

I can't understand how slavery and the Holocaust are okay subjects for Tarantino, but a serial killer in the sixties is just too raw. 


I think the difference would be that in Basterds and Django the Nazis and slave owners get punished in quite cinematic ways. I doubt he can do that with a Manson movie.

 

I'm still open minded about this movie because QT has never made a movie I didn't like.

post #116 of 203
I'm open minded. All worrying will probably be for naught (I don't know if worrying is even correct. Wondering? That's more like it.). But I have this weird "the murder scene is revised history and like Straw Dogs shot with an LSD haze but Tate survives and goes to a church to ask god for forgiveness for what she's about to do to them in return and then Tarantino unleashes his remake of I Spit on Your Grave's revenge half" image of what I think he COULD do with it. And then you find out at the end of the movie that the "revenge" movie was only a movie that the movie's version of Polanski made as catharsis. Because don't Tarantino's movies have a movie movie-verse and a REAL movie-verse? And this could occupy both?
post #117 of 203

So no one's wondering if maybe...just maybe...Tarantino is actually trying to make something that's outside of his usual comfort zone? 

 

I think back to that opening farm scene in Inglorious Basterds...and you know, I'm not worried at all. Cause that shit was grade-A horrifying in the worst way. 

post #118 of 203

I'm extraordinarily skeptical... but I'd love to be surprised. I'll put it that way. 

post #119 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Codename View Post
 

So no one's wondering if maybe...just maybe...Tarantino is actually trying to make something that's outside of his usual comfort zone? 

I thought that as well, especially with the news that it will be a story about Hollywood in the late 60s.  I recall an interview where Tarantino said Paul Thomas Anderson was a friendly rival, so part of me wonders if that might be his Inherent Vice, only with more disembowelings. (Plus, the Manson race war stuff will let him use the N-word a lot, which seems like a prerequisite at this point.)

post #120 of 203

Yeah, Tarantino basically said that THERE WILL BE BLOOD inspired him to get off his ass and start making the movies he'd been talking about making.

post #121 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangy View Post
 

I thought that as well, especially with the news that it will be a story about Hollywood in the late 60s.  I recall an interview where Tarantino said Paul Thomas Anderson was a friendly rival, so part of me wonders if that might be his Inherent Vice, only with more disembowelings. (Plus, the Manson race war stuff will let him use the N-word a lot, which seems like a prerequisite at this point.)

 

Yep.  Had similar thoughts regarding PTA and Inherent Vice.

post #122 of 203
Any news on this?
post #123 of 203

Ron Howard has taken over directing duties. 

post #124 of 203

No.

 

However, Tarantino was on Facebook today raving about Roger Moore's performance in CURSE OF THE PINK PANTHER, which is pretty damn cool (the raving and the performance).

post #125 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtomTastic View Post
 

Ron Howard has taken over directing duties. 

 

The director we deserve but not the one we need right now.

 

So we'll wait.

post #126 of 203
post #127 of 203


Feels like part overreaction to HATEFUL EIGHT's leak, part ego trip ("I'm making the big shots come to me!").  As long as the movie ends up being good, I don't really care.

post #128 of 203

It could be that whichever studio he chooses also gets his 10th and possibly final film.

post #129 of 203

QT knows he's a valuable asset.  Why should a studio benefit from the QT stimulus package without offering something impressive in return?  

post #130 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted 7/12/17 by Barry Woodward View Post
 

I just so happen to be Facebook friends with Paul Schrader, and he had this nugget to share from Tarantino himself: "My script isn't about the Manson family, but it's about Hollywood in 1969 and they are in it."

 

"There has been a lot of press that the script focuses on Charles Manson and the murder spree he orchestrated, but I'm told that is akin to calling Inglourious Basterds a movie about Adolf Hitler, when the Nazi leader was only in a scene or two.

 

I'm told that the script has strong commercial appeal, and if there is a film of Tarantino's it can be best compared to, it would be Pulp Fiction..."

 

https://deadline.com/2017/11/quentin-tarantino-new-home-studios-reading-number-9-harvey-weinstein-1202199806/

 

#Number9 #OnceUponATimeInHollywood #PulpFiction69


Edited by Barry Woodward - 11/2/17 at 9:35am
post #131 of 203

Hot take: 

 

Tarantino taking on a project about a man who exploited women in pursuit of fame and fortune so close to Weinstein is either going to be very good, or very bad. 

post #132 of 203

I am convinced Quentin Tarantino morphed into Angus Scrimm seemingly overnight.

post #133 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boone Daniels View Post
 

Hot take: 

 

Tarantino taking on a project about a man who exploited women in pursuit of fame and fortune so close to Weinstein is either going to be very good, or very bad. 

I recall Tarantino saying he rewrote Hateful Eight a bit after Ferguson. I wonder if he's rewriting this now.

post #134 of 203

Margot Robbie would be perfect as Sharon Tate. Getting the chance to see Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt interact (maybe?) or have intersecting storylines with Samuel L. Jackson, whatever, sounds excellent.

 

Music to my ears, though, is that this evidently more like Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown. It's a bit strange to say it but those are pretty much Tarantino at his "straightest," so to speak, and I'd like to see him err more toward, say, David Fincher with a dash of Wes Craven than Robert Rodriguez or Sergio Corbucci with this one.

post #135 of 203
Give Rose Byrne a blonde wig and she'd make a worthy Sharon Tate if Margot Robbie is unavailable.
post #136 of 203
Would be interesting if Tarantino was the dp on this one. I really like the look of Death Proof, and that seems like something that'd work for a Manson movie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangy View Post

I recall Tarantino saying he rewrote Hateful Eight a bit after Ferguson. I wonder if he's rewriting this now.

If I remember right that was just a change to one line with regards to a specific location or something.
post #137 of 203
I don't see Tarantino dropping Robert Richardson.
post #138 of 203

Yeah, when you've got someone of that quality at the ready, you go with him, especially now that we're squarely in the "Prestige Tarantino" era.

 

If he ever wanted to do something smaller and more stripped-down (and genre-y) again, it would be interesting for Tarantino to shoot his own movie.

post #139 of 203
Quentin Tarantino on His Upcoming Film: ‘It’s not Charles Manson, It’s 1969’

Not really a whole lot that isn't already know, but it is him saying it himself now. Sounds like it's going to start shooting in January. Was that already known too? I can't remember.
post #140 of 203
It's news to me, but it makes a lot of sense if Tarantino shoots early next year for a Christmas 2018 release. Three years between films has been his pattern for a while now.
post #141 of 203
Apparently it's not out until 2019.
post #142 of 203
D'oh!
post #143 of 203

If Tarantino delivers on directing ten films and dropping the mic I imagine he'd love to get his 10th and final film out in 2022, 30 years after Reservoir Dogs.

post #144 of 203

http://deadline.com/2017/11/quentin-tarantino-movie-bidding-david-heyman-producer-margot-robbie-tom-cruise-brad-pitt-leonaro-dicaprio-1202208169/

 

Quote:
Deadline set the stage for this auction recently, and here’s what is new: Add Tom Cruise to the short list of candidates Tarantino has spoken with to play one of two lead male roles. He joins Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio in that small circle, but it is entirely unclear if all three will be in the movie, or two of them, or any of them, because much of that comes down to making a deal and scheduling. Harry Potter producer David Heyman will join Tarantino as the main producer on this film, and it will be his first collaboration with Tarantino.

 

Scratching my head over this last bit:

 

Quote:
Those who’ve read it said the script has heart and a strong commercial appeal, and if there is a film of Tarantino’s it can be best compared to, it would be Pulp Fiction, which also was set in Los Angeles about a decade after this one.
post #145 of 203

going back to the discussion from months ago, but damn do I love The Yakuza. such a great, slept-on film.

 

can't wait to see Paul Schrader's First Reformed.

post #146 of 203

Tom Cruise directed by Quentin Tarantino is something I'd love to see.  In any event, the cast looks to be shaping up to be star-studded.

post #147 of 203

After Good Time, anyone but Robert Pattinson as Manson would kinda be a disappointment, tbh.

post #148 of 203

It's sounding like Manson is to this world what Hitler was to Inglourious Basterds: we probably see him for a few minutes here, a few minutes there, but he's not really a major character. 

 

That said, Robert Pattinson as Manson seems pretty inspired, even if it's a 10-minute role.

post #149 of 203
Really hope Cruise takes a chance and does this. He could be great in Tarantino's world.
post #150 of 203

Cruise is going to eventually have to move on to the next phase of his career. As long as he can physically pull it off he'll have the Mission: Impossible series to fall back on but playing a leading role in a Tarantino film could be the ticket toward making Cruise "cool" again in dramas and in offbeat non-action roles. Although he still has a base of fans as evidenced by American Made.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Focused Film Discussion
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › The 9th Film by Quentin Tarantino