Quentin Tarantino novelizing Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood

[Highway99]

Then following it up with a book of 70's film criticism....Fuk yes
https://deadline.com/2020/11/quenti...a-speculation-70s-movie-deep-dive-1234616927/

 

[hillelslovak87]

Of course it has Margot's feet on the cover........

 

[Ares Black]

Well that seems unnecessary.

 

[Hand Made]

Go back to blockbuster you foot worshipping weirdo.

 

[Zebra Cheeks]

Well that seems unnecessary.

 

[Hand Made]

I mean that’s what i would say face to face. Unless his main man Harvey was there. Then I’d say let me see your deformed penis?

 

[KnightTemplar]

Half the book will be descriptions of women's feet

 

[Adamant]

I loved the movie. I'll buy the book for sure. I bet it'll be close to 1000 pages. Tarantino will have free reign to write to his heart's content so he won't have to limit himself in any way. It's gonna be wild!

I may buy both the paperback and hardcover. Why not.

 

[Patrick Jane]

Is ... is that cover real or is it a parody?

 

[SSgt Dickweed]

Foreword by Vitor?

 

[DaleBoca]

Is ... is that cover real or is it a parody?

It’s from HarperCollins, it is the real deal.

 

[moreorless87]

Honestly at this stage I think the foot fetish aspect is really more of an in joke in his films.

 

[Yotsuya]

I have mixed feelings about the novelisation. I'm not sure I want to know more about the characters as the movie is really intriguing as it is. Cliff Booth's appeal is so much about how he's the man of action with few words that possibly getting inside his head seems counterproductive. (Did he murder his wife? What was he thinking when the acid hit him? Etc.) I'm scared that the book ruins the movie's appeal for me, but at the same time I'm pretty confident that Tarantino can handle that dilemma.

 

[Peteyandjia]

Not really excited about this, it seems more like like a fun vanity project for him moreso than for us. Good for him though.

However, the exception is I am excited to skip to the Cliff Booth on the boat chapter, & find out exactly what happened. I remember a year ago Brad Pitt saying QT had that whole thing written out in detail, but only let Pitt read it & he would never tell. Now he doesn’t have to.

 

[moreorless87]

It is quite rare that one of these vanrity things actually comes to pass, he's talked about so many in the past but not done them.

I would be interested to read the film criticism book, I know Tarantino is viewed as Mr Superfical and has arguably played that persona deliberately but there is clearly more understanding to him than that.

 

[fungi]

Shit film, shit novel.

 

[Jack&Cat]

Shit film, shit novel.

I'm honestly still on the fence about this film. I still can't wrap my brain around what I actually watched. I took my girl to see it and we both kept looking at each other like... What's happening here?

It was three hours of plot build up for five minutes of unrealistic actions sequence. And what was with the Sharron Tate storyline? If one could even call it that... A few scenes of her checking out one of her films? Then Bruce Lee getting pummeled by Pitt's character out of nowhere?

We definitely did not know what to make of it, but also both agreed it was captivating. Perhaps that's just the subtle genius of Tarantino...

 

[fungi]

I'm honestly still on the fence about this film. I still can't wrap my brain around what I actually watched. I took my girl to see it and we both kept looking at each other like... What's happening here?

It was three hours of plot build up for five minutes of unrealistic actions sequence. And what was with the Sharron Tate storyline? If one could even call it that... A few scenes of her checking out one of her films? Then Bruce Lee getting pummeled by Pitt's character out of nowhere?

We definitely did not know what to make of it, but also both agreed it was captivating. Perhaps that's just the subtle genius of Tarantino...

Visually? Entertaining, yes.
Substantially? Empty and meaningless.

Tarantino is a talented plagiarist hack.
And a sell-out.

He simply made a film about hollyweird to glorify hollyweird. To stroke some egos. That he did, and they praised him for it.

And since hollyweird is full of bs, so was his film.

 

[Jack&Cat]

Visually? Entertaining, yes.
Substantially? Empty and meaningless.

Tarantino is a talented plagiarist hack.
And a sell-out.

He simply made a film about hollyweird to glorify hollyweird. To stroke some egos. That he did, and they praised him for it.

And since hollyweird is full of bs, so was his film.

I hate that I agree with you about nearly everything you just said because I'm a sucker for Tarantino... But fear he's riding his legacy directly into BJ Penn territory.

The film was absolutely empty and meaningless. And I struggled to find the larger theme... For a while, I thought perhaps it just went over my head. But after some reflection, I'm not so sure. It seemed almost manic at times... And left the viewer to do most of the work putting it all together, with very little payout at the end.

I'd be interested to know more about the plagiarism if you had time though, for sure. I'm a slight masochist in that way...

 

[Stranger Come Knocking]

Didn't like what he did with Bruce Lee. Fuck this sick fuck. Aint there pics out there of him next to feet of women of questionable age?