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

Jack&Cat said:
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...
Click to expand...

His first ever film "Reservoir Dogs" he straight ripped off Hong Kong flick "A city on fire" with Chow Yun-Fat.

Back in 1992 very few followed or knew foreign cinema. So when he released RD, he was lauded as the next big director. The "next big director" my ass.

Heck, even today (with google and imdb) very few know shit about foreign cinema.

https://whatculture.com/film/8-problems-with-reservoir-dogs-nobody-wants-to-admit?page=2

He is a nerd level cinephile and probably has encyclopedic knowledge of cinema. He is a talented plagiarist, it takes at least some talent to make a good copy.
I even say that sometimes his copy may arguably be better than the original.

Yet... his forays into "original" cinema lack any substance, i.e. "inglorious basturds",
"D is for Django", "Once upon a time", etc.



https://www.theguardian.com/film/2010/mar/10/quentin-tarantino-law-killbill

https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/8-scenes-quentin-tarantino-stole-from-other-movies.html/

https://www.businessinsider.com/quentin-tarantino-movies-steals-cinema-homage-reference-2019-7
 
fungi said:
His first ever film "Reservoir Dogs" he straight ripped off Hong Kong flick "A city on fire" with Chow Yun-Fat.

Back in 1992 very few followed or knew foreign cinema. So when he released RD, he was lauded as the next big director. The "next big director" my ass.

Heck, even today (with google and imdb) very few know shit about foreign cinema.

https://whatculture.com/film/8-problems-with-reservoir-dogs-nobody-wants-to-admit?page=2

He is a nerd level cinephile and probably has encyclopedic knowledge of cinema. He is a talented plagiarist, it takes at least some talent to make a good copy.
I even say that sometimes his copy may arguably be better than the original.

Yet... his forays into "original" cinema lack any substance, i.e. "inglorious basturds",
"D is for Django", "Once upon a time", etc.



https://www.theguardian.com/film/2010/mar/10/quentin-tarantino-law-killbill

https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/8-scenes-quentin-tarantino-stole-from-other-movies.html/

https://www.businessinsider.com/quentin-tarantino-movies-steals-cinema-homage-reference-2019-7
Click to expand...

Mind... Blown.

Looks like I have a rabbit hole to head down!

Thank you for enlightening me about this. So much disappointment!

In college I took a film class for an easy elective, but had one of those profs determined to make people 'earn it.' That's when I became fascinated with Tarantino's work, and have clung to the notion that he was the master of not only his craft, but the craft in general... barring Kubrick, of course.

If I find out he's indeed a plagiarist, I'll likely be drowning in cheap whiskey and carne asada fries by tomorrow afternoon... While Air Supply plays in the background.
 
Absolutely awful movie but people will praise it because it's Tarantino and makes them look smart.

It felt like a parody of a Tarantino movie. Shots of his favorite actors doing casual things like eating and smoing, and a ton of seemingly meaningless dialogs that are supposed to be witty but just sucked.
 
Jack&Cat said:
Mind... Blown.

Looks like I have a rabbit hole to head down!

Thank you for enlightening me about this. So much disappointment!

In college I took a film class for an easy elective, but had one of those profs determined to make people 'earn it.' That's when I became fascinated with Tarantino's work, and have clung to the notion that he was the master of not only his craft, but the craft in general... barring Kubrick, of course.

If I find out he's indeed a plagiarist, I'll likely be drowning in cheap whiskey and carne asada fries by tomorrow afternoon... While Air Supply plays in the background.
Click to expand...
No need to drown your sorrows.
His first 4 or 5 films have been rather decent adaptations/remakes.

It's only with "inglorious basturds" his legacy went to shit.
 
fungi said:
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.
Click to expand...

Its true Hollywood is does love itself and anything covers it will be much more likely to get attension.

I do think it does have a pretty clear intension and meaning beyond just a recreation of an era though. Its the story of an actor involved in pulp cinema who's a bit ashamed of himself finding worth in his career and then utimately saving the day in real life in a pulp cinema like fashion from the badguys who blame pulp cinema for the worlds ills.
 
moreorless87 said:
Its true Hollywood is does love itself and anything covers it will be much more likely to get attension.

I do think it does have a pretty clear intension and meaning beyond just a recreation of an era though. Its the story of an actor involved in pulp cinema who's a bit ashamed of himself finding worth in his career and then utimately saving the day in real life in a pulp cinema like fashion from the badguys who blame pulp cinema for the worlds ills.
Click to expand...
Leo's arc?
A load of pitbullshit!

Leo is a talentless hack. I think he sucked off loads of producers when he was a child/teen actor.

I av no proof. I'll put my tinfoil hat on now.
tenor.gif
 
I heard his screenplays are almost like novels

hillelslovak87 said:
Of course it has Margot's feet on the cover........
Click to expand...

hetero AF!

fungi said:
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.
Click to expand...

 
Will buy now for Margot Robbie's feet on the cover!
 
I hope the line “I figure fifty thousand dollars will buy me a whole lotta chicken mole in Mexico” is in there.
 
fungi said:
He simply made a film about hollyweird to glorify hollyweird. To stroke some egos. That he did, and they praised him for it.
Click to expand...

Stoking Hollywood egos? Was he though?

He made Bruce Lee get his ass kicked by some pretty, white boy stuntman. Steve McQueen was a sitting in the friendzone, lusting over Tate. Shannon Tate
got to survive
but otherwise did nothing but dance around like she was at a rave high on mollies.
 
Alphaboy said:
Stoking Hollywood egos? Was he though?

He made Bruce Lee get his ass kicked by some pretty, white boy stuntman. Steve McQueen was a sitting in the friendzone, lusting over Tate. Shannon Tate
got to survive
but otherwise did nothing but dance around like she was at a rave high on mollies.
Click to expand...
Yes, he was.
It was not on a personal level. More of glorifying the hollyweird itself.
And every struggling/failing actor could see himself in leo's character, every actress in Sharon Tate's, etc.
 
I pre-ordered the softcover. When the hardcover becomes available I'll order that one too.

Jack&Cat said:
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...

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.
Click to expand...
empsim said:
It felt like a parody of a Tarantino movie. Shots of his favorite actors doing casual things like eating and smoing, and a ton of seemingly meaningless dialogs that are supposed to be witty but just sucked.
Click to expand...

Tarantino purposely didn't give the film a traditional plot. He simply wanted to show "a few days in the life of" the characters at hand. He felt they were interesting enough to just follow for a weekend. No overarching plot. No MacGuffin. Just a few days hanging out, basically. I personally loved it, with the exception of the ending. I'm not really a fan of him changing history. It just makes the whole thing feel a bit awkward. Though, the way he describes it, had his characters existed in real life then perhaps they would have been able to change the outcome of the real event. He simply tells the story of "what if" his characters were there when the major event went down. If they were, they would have changed things. (I still struggle to wrap my head around this concept but it's certainly interesting)

I've only seen the movie once. I have yet to rewatch it, but I remember a scene that was surprisingly entertaining was Cliff Booth going back to his trailer at the beginning of the movie and cooking himself some mac & cheese. That's all that happens for like 2 minutes straight and it was somehow so damn interesting.

As for copying other people, I think Tarantino just uses his vast knowledge of cinema to recreate his favorite moments, albeit with his own spin.
 
fungi said:
Says "Drain Bamage"!!!
Is that an equivalent to 14 oscars in 2021?
Click to expand...

It's a touch more original than Reservoir Dogs anyways and with a lot richer cinematic language. It's probably still his best shot movie.
 
Hateful 8 is one helluva gorgeous movie

Leading up to the haberdashery anyway
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,092
Messages
55,467,291
Members
174,786
Latest member
plasterby

Share this page

Back
Top