Go Back   Movie Fan Central Discussion Forums > Movie Talk! > Upcoming Movie Talk
MOVIE FAN CENTRAL FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 05-03-2011, 02:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicPuppet View Post
It might be backwards if you look at Tarantino like he was meant to be the next Scorsese, but if you think of him as more of a successor to Brian De Palma, then his career makes perfect sense.
Scorsese v. De Palma is a good comparison. Unlike APZombie, I don't think De Palma is terrible. Though most of his work is mediocre to awful, I adore Carlito's Way and Blow Out and think Femme Fatale is a rather brilliantly put together genre film (with all its faults and excesses I also really dig Scarface), but even in those films the emphasis is definitely on style over substance. He's great at fluid, masterfully staged camerawork and generating tension, but he's not much of a serious artist. That is basically what QT's been doing this decade.

I guess the thing is, like AP, I do think Tarantino was meant to be the next Scorsese, or closer to him than De Palma at least. I've actually often said that (along with Spike Lee and P.T. Anderson) he's the most innately talented, dynamic visual storyteller to emerge since Scorsese, and he's able to elicit incredible performances when he writes a flesh-and-blood character. So maybe I am misjudging him, but I just can't get over the immense promise of his early work (Pulp was my favorite movie for damn near a decade and is still in my top 5) so I'll feel like he's slumming until he realizes the promise of his greatest skills again.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 05-03-2011, 02:46 AM
Tarantino's niche is his ability to capture that exploitation vibe and do it well. You can tell how much input Avery had into Pulp Fiction. Just watch Killing Zoe. Then watch everything Tarantino wrote. If Pulp Fiction hadn't of had the vibe it had it wouldn't have been one of the great films. That was Quentin's input. This is what you see in all of his movies. When he writes, it isn't that much like Pulp Fiction in terms of storyline and character development. No, we can't say for sure how much of Pulp was Avery and how much was Tarantino, but we should clearly be able to make a pretty close guess.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 05-03-2011, 03:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by QUENTIN View Post
I see what you're saying and agree RD wouldn't exist without City of Fire, but I'd say at the least with Kill Bill, he did basically the same thing. Including some lines of dialogue or bits of the soundtrack or visual motifs like that isn't what I was talking about so much. Kill Bill woudn't exist without Lady Snowblood and the plot (a woman seeks revenge by working her way down a list of badass killers who did her wrong) is Tarantino's adaptation of that film, even if it also includes references to a lot of other movies (as does Reservoir Dogs). The major influences on IB are more diffuse and varied, but I think that wouldn't exist without The Dirty Dozen and its many ripoffs which form the basis of the Basterd's storyline.

I don't think RD was more original, I just think it was a better, deeper, more character-driven and less exploitative film than its influence which is also frankly true for his other work (save Death Proof maybe) but to a considerably lesser extent in my opinion.
I see what you're saying. I think my problem probably stems from never having seen Lady Snowblood, so that's why I see Kill Bill as more like a smorgasbord of influences than it coming from a single film. But I'm curious to give that one a shot now.

Quote:
I can see where you're coming from, I just don't think Tarantino is pushing the envelope like Kubrick (as I'd love to see him do). I feel he's taken his carte blanche to do films that are less interesting and challenging, safer, more familiar and crowd-pleasing genre films. In that sense I'd say he's more like William Friedkin than Stanley Kubrick in his career trajectory.
I think there was a misunderstanding here. I was using Kubrick as a counter point to QT. I don't think their careers have a lot in common. I think Kubrick always had a specific point of view and his films were an extension of that, whereas with QT, I always felt he was just excited to tell a story and if it had a theme, then it was an extra cherry on top of a good story.

Quote:
I guess the thing is, like AP, I do think Tarantino was meant to be the next Scorsese, or closer to him than De Palma at least. I've actually often said that (along with Spike Lee and P.T. Anderson) he's the most innately talented, dynamic visual storyteller to emerge since Scorsese, and he's able to elicit incredible performances when he writes a flesh-and-blood character. So maybe I am misjudging him, but I just can't get over the immense promise of his early work (Pulp was my favorite movie for damn near a decade and is still in my top 5) so I'll feel like he's slumming until he realizes the promise of his greatest skills again.
I guess I never saw him as the next anything. I could never see Tarantino making Taxi Driver, Raging Bull or Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore. I was actually just talking to Post Master, and we both agree that if there's a filmmaker QT is similar to, it's Hitchcock. I think this quote by Hitchcock best sums up what their films are all about:

"For me, the cinema is not a slice of life, but a piece of cake."

Funny enough, I think either man could have said that.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 05-03-2011, 04:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicPuppet View Post
I guess I never saw him as the next anything. I could never see Tarantino making Taxi Driver, Raging Bull or Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore. I was actually just talking to Post Master, and we both agree that if there's a filmmaker QT is similar to, it's Hitchcock. I think this quote by Hitchcock best sums up what their films are all about:

"For me, the cinema is not a slice of life, but a piece of cake."

Funny enough, I think either man could have said that.
I couldn't see him making those films either. But then, I couldn't see P.T. Anderson after Boogie Nights having something like There Will Be Blood in him. Never would have figured after Eraserhead that Lynch could do The Straight Story. That early Soderbergh would go on to do Che. That the Spielberg of Jaws, Close Encounters, 1941, and Raiders would make Schindler's List. That slapstick early 70's goofball Allen would do Crimes and Misdemeanors, Interiors, or Match Point. Or that early Kubrick was heading toward the ultimate trip with 2001. Etc. Etc. Et cetera.

That's what I'm looking for from most great filmmakers - a sense of development and growth and change. Auteurs always have their preoccupations and recurring themes, but I think there are very few people with Quentin's talent in the post-Classical era who've gone a decade making the same movie over and over like this.

As for the Hitchcock comparison, damn. I'm sure I've seen someone somewhere make that comparison at some point, but I can't recall it. It's solid. In terms of being distanced or emotionally cold from the characters, a consummate stylist, a fetishist, an ENTERTAINER (all caps) whose chief overriding interest is playing the audience like a piano. Yeah man, that's apt. I have some of the same problems with most of Hitchcock's output, but you can't argue with his success or that he was a master at what he did. Hmmm.

Last edited by QUENTIN; 05-03-2011 at 04:08 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 05-03-2011, 04:18 AM
I may have made that comparison before. I think De Palma borrows more from Hitchcock, but I feel like Tarantino has Hitchcock's sensibilities. Like Hitchcock, there's a lot of bones thrown to the audience among all that suspense. They sort of have more of a sense of humor in how they make their movies. I know Tarantino cites De Palma a lot, but I think in terms of making the grandfather proud, Tarantino out-De Palma'ed De Palma.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 05-03-2011, 04:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by QUENTIN View Post
I couldn't see him making those films either. But then, I couldn't see P.T. Anderson after Boogie Nights having something like There Will Be Blood in him. Never would have figured after Eraserhead that Lynch could do The Straight Story. That early Soderbergh would go on to do Che. That the Spielberg of Jaws, Close Encounters, 1941, and Raiders would make Schindler's List. That slapstick early 70's goofball Allen would do Crimes and Misdemeanors, Interiors, or Match Point. Or that early Kubrick was heading toward the ultimate trip with 2001. Etc. Etc. Et cetera.

That's what I'm looking for from most great filmmakers - a sense of development and growth and change. Auteurs always have their preoccupations and recurring themes, but I think there are very few people with Quentin's talent in the post-Classical era who've gone a decade making the same movie over and over like this.
I agree with this assessment. That's pretty much what I look for too. But I think all the filmmakers you mentioned, you could tell there was something waiting to blossom in those early films. They were all inspired by life to a great degree. I don't think we would have gotten Close Encounters if not for Spielberg's love for space and the idea that aliens could exist. I see it as a very passionate film from Spielberg. Soderbergh's first movie was about sexual repression in American society. Even Allen, as silly as his films were, showed he was a guy who had his ear to culture. Bananas wouldn't exist without what was happening in Cuba and Latin America, and Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Sex... took on a taboo subject and openly lampooned it. I'm betting that half the laughter in the theaters for the last film came from a pent up release.

In contrast to Tarantino, I always got the vibe that he's more inspired by movies than he is by real life. And I feel he blossomed early, and probably felt Pulp Fiction was the best movie he'd ever make. Even in that film, I don't see a filmmaker who is really influenced by life in the sense that he has something to say about it. It's more like he's using it to color his canvas rather than having it be the backdrop like with the other filmmakers you mentioned.

Last edited by Cop No. 633; 05-03-2011 at 04:46 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 05-03-2011, 04:43 AM
I couldn't find the clip online, but the scene from when Shohanna emerges from making herself up and makes her way into the gala premiere to when Landa kills von Hammersmarck, I don't think Hitchcock would have shot a frame differently. Practically his version of The Key to Reserva.

Last edited by QUENTIN; 05-03-2011 at 04:52 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 05-03-2011, 06:52 AM
he gets the hacks on board, as they are the only directors that will roll with his cult film vision remakes or whatever. still it's tarantino and come trailer time i'll be on board i'm sure. would prefer this over kill bill 3, a film that doesn't warrant being made imo
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 05-03-2011, 09:52 AM
I don't think QT looks at Pulp Fiction as the best film he's made. The combination of final line and closing credit following Inglorious Basterds always seemed sort of like back-slapping to me. This is another piece of evidence for me that Quentin is more about what he's turned out lately than he was about Fiction. I'm not saying Fiction isn't his movie, but I think he's turning into a laser to better do what, in part, made Fiction so great. Quentin's a storyteller, and the reason I think he's a higher notch director for me is because he's one of the better visual storytellers of this generation. Pulp Fiction is the better film, the one I like better, but I don't think it's the better Quentin Tarantino film. There's a lot of him on screen, but not to the degree I get with his other movies. If he intends differently, I'm not taking it that way.

I'm also disagreeing with the assessments I keep hearing thrown around about filmmakers like P.T. Anderson being so diverse. All his films are these sort of intense relationship dramas centered around some sort of scene or way of life. The vegas gambling scene, 70's/80's porn scene, and an Adam Sandler vehicle; these are as diverse as a kung-fu movie, car chase thriller, and war movie.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 05-03-2011, 11:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Postmaster General View Post
I don't think QT looks at Pulp Fiction as the best film he's made. The combination of final line and closing credit following Inglorious Basterds always seemed sort of like back-slapping to me. This is another piece of evidence for me that Quentin is more about what he's turned out lately than he was about Fiction. I'm not saying Fiction isn't his movie, but I think he's turning into a laser to better do what, in part, made Fiction so great. Quentin's a storyteller, and the reason I think he's a higher notch director for me is because he's one of the better visual storytellers of this generation. Pulp Fiction is the better film, the one I like better, but I don't think it's the better Quentin Tarantino film. There's a lot of him on screen, but not to the degree I get with his other movies. If he intends differently, I'm not taking it that way.

I'm also disagreeing with the assessments I keep hearing thrown around about filmmakers like P.T. Anderson being so diverse. All his films are these sort of intense relationship dramas centered around some sort of scene or way of life. The vegas gambling scene, 70's/80's porn scene, and an Adam Sandler vehicle; these are as diverse as a kung-fu movie, car chase thriller, and war movie.
Yeah, he definitely thinks Basterds is his masterpiece. I think he's very pleased with his recent output generally. This is what he wants to be doing, we just have different tastes and I wish he wanted to do something different I guess. Man seems to have boundless energy, but I hope he tires of doing the same thing eventually.

I'm not sure if you're talking about assessments in this thread or generally, but in this thread I think I'm the one who brought up P.T. Anderson among examples and that's not what I said about him. What I said is I think he's growing, evolving, and changing and I wouldn't have expected There Will Be Blood from him following Boogie Nights if I was trying to define what types of movies he made based on his early work. He's still got preoccupations, recurring themes, etc. All his movies are about families and family connections (whether blood or chosen) to a considerable extent too. I wouldn't describe him as "so diverse." He's no Ang Lee or Michael Bay. Though I don't think "intense relationship dramas centered around some sort of scene or way of life" is remotely as unified and similar as "60's/70's-style exploitation revenge flicks" considering the scene and way of life changes each time. I mean Scorsese keeps making movies about emotionally/psychologically disturbed guys who have issues with guilt, women, anger, and violence but with the exception of Casino I don't think he's continually covering old ground. I think the differences between Boogie Nights and There Will Be Blood or Gangs of New York and The Aviator are substantially greater than the differences between any of Tarantino's output this decade.

Last edited by QUENTIN; 05-03-2011 at 11:09 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 05-03-2011, 12:18 PM
I don't care who's making it, it's a western - so I'm there.

Tarantino behind it is just icing on the cake.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 05-03-2011, 12:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Postmaster General View Post
I don't think QT looks at Pulp Fiction as the best film he's made. The combination of final line and closing credit following Inglorious Basterds always seemed sort of like back-slapping to me. This is another piece of evidence for me that Quentin is more about what he's turned out lately than he was about Fiction. I'm not saying Fiction isn't his movie, but I think he's turning into a laser to better do what, in part, made Fiction so great. Quentin's a storyteller, and the reason I think he's a higher notch director for me is because he's one of the better visual storytellers of this generation. Pulp Fiction is the better film, the one I like better, but I don't think it's the better Quentin Tarantino film. There's a lot of him on screen, but not to the degree I get with his other movies. If he intends differently, I'm not taking it that way.
Yeah, you're right. Inglourious Basterds is his favorite film, but if you asked him to pick one film to be remembered by, I'm positive it would be Pulp Fiction. It's the one he'd pick to be etched on his tombstone.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 05-03-2011, 05:33 PM
Actually when ever people ask him for the movie he'd prefer to be remembered by he's said Reservoir Dogs on a number of occasions.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 05-03-2011, 05:36 PM
I wonder what actors he's used before he will use in this.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 05-03-2011, 09:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Papaya View Post
I wonder what actors he's used before he will use in this.
Well if the report is true he'll use Christoph Waltz. Samuel L. Jackson and Harvey Keitel will pop up somewhere, as they are QT regulars. Im hoping he'll find a way to squeeze Brad Pitt and Robert De Niro in there, as I've been waiting for De Niro to do another movie with Tarantino since Jackie Brown. Probably Omar from Death Proof as well especially if Roth is going to be in it. I'm also hoping that Til Scweiger is in there as well, he wasn't in Inglourious Basterds enough. I think it'd also be cool if he got Bruce Willis in it also.

Im thinking that I would like to see Anthony Mackie or Don Cheadle as the lead character. Now granted I don't much about the character but I think Mack and Cheadle would fit well in a Tarantino movie and it would also be a good star vehicle for either actor.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 05-03-2011, 10:04 PM
got a hold of the script, was asked not to forward it (it will no doubt get around) but i'll share spoiler free thoughts after i give it a read.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 05-03-2011, 11:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elgyn View Post
Every single Tarantino movie > Shutter Island


And that includes Death Proof.
I disagree. Shutter Island has tonal missteps in its midsection, but overall retains very striking psychological reverberations. I think Death Proof is a very good film, and don't understand how certain people fail to see the Tarantino's consummate craftsmanship evidenced throughout, but still prefer Shutter Island despite its more apparent flaws. One Scorsese film I truly don't think much of, despite almost nobody else sharing my stance, is Taxi Driver.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 05-04-2011, 12:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by overwatch View Post
Actually when ever people ask him for the movie he'd prefer to be remembered by he's said Reservoir Dogs on a number of occasions.

That's not what I'm talking about so much. I think he believes he's a better filmmaker when he made Basterds than when he made Fiction, or Dogs. There's stuff that he likes to do, and he does it the more with subsequent films. Even the closing lines of Basterds, if not a direct wink, was a direct remark supporting practice makes perfect.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 05-04-2011, 02:37 AM
I can only hope this turns out nothing like Sukiyaki Western Django.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 05-04-2011, 01:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by APzombie View Post
got a hold of the script, was asked not to forward it (it will no doubt get around) but i'll share spoiler free thoughts after i give it a read.
Is the script set out in Chapters?

How long do you think before it leaks for all of us?

Just because you don't get no where without asking... michaeldraycott@hotmail.com (go on, send the script my way, pleeeeeeeeeeeease haha)

And, does it have one of QT's awesome opening scenes?
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 05-05-2011, 02:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Papaya View Post
Is the script set out in Chapters?

And, does it have one of QT's awesome opening scenes?
minor spoilers

- There are no chapters in the latest draft, but there are about three title cards. There is a narrator that carries over a few flashbacks like Inglourious Basterds (about as seldom as IB too).

- the opening scene is very, very fun but isn't as memorable as Inglorious Basterds. There is a set piece within the first fifteen minutes that I think will be high up there though.

Reading the script, it is easy to imagine some QT regulars in the cast, chief among them is Christolph Waltz, who no doubt had possibly the best role in the film written for him. It is obvious that the role is for him and it would almost be impossible to recast it if he doesn't play it.

It is easy to picture other regulars in some of the roles, Sid Haig could be just about anyone, it is easy to picture someone like Sydney Poitier (Jungle Julia) as one of the prominent characters. I would be surprised as hell if Samuel L. Jackson isn't playing the role of Stephen ("the Basil Rathbone of house niggers").

If the news that Keith Carridine is in it, then I think it is a safe bet he is playing the main villain Calvin Candie (owner of "Candy Land", fourth largest Mississippi Plantation).

The script reads like butter, as all of his do. Very energetic, fun read. It's very much in tone with his more recent radical exploitation sensibilities. In fact, it is a lot like Basterds. Replace Jews in WWII with blacks in nineteenth century America and you get the idea-- the primary goal is to give blacks the well executed exploitation revenge movie they never really got.

If Spike Lee was pissed at Jackie Brown for the use of the word 'nigger', then Django Unchained may well turn him white. There are about 2 or 3 "niggers" a page. It's very provocative, but I wouldn't say it is distasteful. Just expect it to make the rounds on local six o'clock news for the months around it's release. I have a feeling (if it is Basterds "good" and not Death Proof "ok") it might cause a stir with middle-to-upper class suburban whites.

Like all QT scripts, there are moments that are very very tough, moments that are incredibly funny (one scene almost seems like it could be in Blazing Saddles. It's gold), and moments of pure suspense.

This is a crowd pleaser through and through. You can hear the audience erupt while reading it in sections. On that front, it is a success. To be honest, I don't think I liked it as much as I did the first time I read Kill Bill or Basterds. I liked it much more than I did with Death Proof (having read all of his scripts of the last decade before watching them). There are great set pieces, suspenseful dialogue of just people at a dinner table that is pure Tarantino. It is however, expected Tarantino. You expect some things--- revenge flashbacks (plenty), the bickering of nick names and their origins, references and critical analysis (from Taxi Driver to The Three Musketeers). It it all incredibly well paced and well written, it will be an exquisite production no doubt. I can't say it will be anything more than what we've come to expect.

At worst it is old ground in some sense, at best it is a master sharpening the tools he knows better than anyone. I think some of you guys nailed the comparison to Hitchcock, who was king shit when it came to thrillers, even if he never ventured away from them. It seems this past decade Tarantino has become king shit of the revenge.

Don't get me wrong, I read a lot of scripts and this is the best script i've read all year. It will likely be one of my favorite movies of the year it's released, while QT isn't shifting any radical gears this time out, most likely it will be a rip roaring thrill ride of a movie.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 05-05-2011, 03:24 AM
Probably won't be able to read it for another couple weeks when I'm done with grad classes, but for those interested here's a link to download the script:

http://www.mediafire.com/?i2zs7tufx7qc5zs

It's a legit copy. I tried attaching it but the file size is too big.

Glad to hear you liked it AP.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 05-05-2011, 04:49 AM
So I couldn't resist, read the first 30 or so pages (until they leave Bennett's plantation).

This is not new territory by any means, but so far I like it more than the script to Basterds and a lot more than Death Proof. My principal complaint with it is the same one I had there. I know this sounds silly to complain about in a Tarantino movie, but it's just too talky at times. Schultz (the Waltz part) is Landa on crack in the constant verbosity department.

However, while I've found his characters' love for the sound of their own voice to be a blessing -- often transcendently great dialogue -- and a curse -- often far too much of it, to the point of redundancy and grinding the movie to a halt for non-sequitirs that sound not like conversation but pompous lectures the characters have prepared in advance -- I think in IB (and especially Death Proof which gets worse every time I see it) that was true of nearly all the characters: Landa, Aldo, Hicox, Zoller, and Hellstrom at least, which is why I had the problems with it I did despite liking it overall. In Django, so far anyway, that trait is confined to Schultz and the rest of the characters speak in a fashion more or less true to who they are (a slave, an overseer, a marshall) so it doesn't bother me nearly as much. I'm totally cool with a larger than life character or two (The Wolf is certainly that) as long as I don't feel like everyone is a caricature who speaks in the familiar rhythms of QT himself.

It doesn't hurt that much of what Schultz says and especially does is uproariously funny, funnier and more to the point than Landa (who was himself, for the most part, a great creation). That scene outside the saloon is gold.

So, yeah, I've enjoyed this a lot more than I expected to and while I can totally see how it fits into an exploitaton genre, and it certainly exploits slavery for glib entertainment, it doesn't strike me so far as an exploitation picture the way Kill Bill and Death Proof did. It has more in common with Basterds which outside of the Basterds themselves was mostly a real movie based in a fairly believable world. It's also ridiculously fast-paced and so far is following one strong and clear narrative thread rather than a half-dozen, which gives it great focus unseen since Dogs and keeps the energy constantly high. Lots of nice, welcome surprises in the first act which play to Tarantino's strengths (I love when I have no idea where a scene is headed and at his best he does that remarkably welll), and while it's simple and direct it's not straight-forward.

I'm a lot more excited now than I was when I heard the announcement and learned of the premise. The man can write. If the rest of it is this strong, I think I'll really enjoy the movie. For what it is, and as AP said it's certainly expected ground in an expected style from the man, it's about as good as it can imaginably be.

I really don't have the time to finish it while I'm in finals week, but at this rate that'll only take an hour or so, which means in all likelihood I'll be back with more thoughts soon.

Last edited by QUENTIN; 05-05-2011 at 07:38 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 05-05-2011, 10:04 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by APzombie View Post

If Spike Lee was pissed at Jackie Brown for the use of the word 'nigger', then Django Unchained may well turn him white.
lol
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 05-05-2011, 10:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by QUENTIN View Post
Probably won't be able to read it for another couple weeks when I'm done with grad classes, but for those interested here's a link to download the script:

http://www.mediafire.com/?i2zs7tufx7qc5zs

It's a legit copy. I tried attaching it but the file size is too big.

Glad to hear you liked it AP.
They took it offline
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 05-05-2011, 06:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by APzombie View Post
minor spoilers

I would be surprised as hell if Samuel L. Jackson isn't playing the role of Stephen ("the Basil Rathbone of house niggers").
Even though I haven't read the script, I thought the exact same thing the moment this project was announced.

Let me say that it's refreshing to actually see QT working on projects rather than just talking about them for ten plus years. I enjoy his work, but seriously, he spends more time talking about films he'd make than actually making them.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 05-05-2011, 06:27 PM
All of this makes me really hope QT doesnt stop makin movies at 60. I wanna see him keep playing with genres.

I wanna see a QT superhero movie. Or God, I cant even imagine a QT horror/suspense film.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 05-05-2011, 06:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarface98.9 View Post
They took it offline
Don't be sad. I'm sure it'll turn up somewhere.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 05-05-2011, 08:06 PM
Just finished reading it. I actually contemplated not reading it and saving the surprises for first viewing, but fuck it, it's a Tarantino script.

Some minor spoilers...

One thing is for sure, this is one of his more focused scripts. Even at 168 pages, it feels lean and moves along at an incredible pace. Basterds is a masterpiece in my eyes, but that script did have a bit of fat (much of which was left on the cutting room floor). Other than during some parts of the first quarter of the script where there is a running joke of Schultz being wordy and Django asking him to explain it in normal terms, there was never a point when I was wanting the script to hurry up.

A lot of what makes it so focused is that we are with Django and Schultz for the majority of the script. Only on brief occassion (such as the terrific bit from Django's wife's perspective) does the attention divert elsewhere. Their relationship is also something that harks back to Tarantino's earlier work. With Basterds, we were with different characters in every chapter, so while it was an incredibly entertaining and thrilling film, there wasn't really an emotional connection to anyone other than maybe Shoshanna. And while Schultz is certainly larger than life, there is a great bit where his number one rule is that you can't break character and yet amongst all the pain and suffering that he witnesses he often breaks character and gets weak emotionally, while Django sits through everything emotionless after being exposed to it for so long. There's a dynamic between the characters that hasn't been present in the same way since Jackie Brown.

The ending isn't as good as that of Basterds, but it's a classic Tarantino ending and reminiscent of many classic western endings. And of course, the dialogue is as snappy, clever and entertaining as ever. There are dozens of lines that will be quoted for years to come.

As for casting... Michael K. Williams has to play Django. I also concur with APzombie that Samuel L. Jackson must be a shoe-in to play Stephen.

I read a script review over at Obsessed With Film (?) that said it was non-commercial? Really? I imagine this will be more digestible than Basterds for mainstream audiences, and that movie was a smash hit. This is a more complex script than Basterds, but it is probably even more entertaining.

Last edited by Bourne101; 05-05-2011 at 08:41 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 05-05-2011, 10:17 PM
Much appreciated, Cosmic.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 05-07-2011, 11:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smiert Spionam View Post
Really curious to see who gets cast as the lead in this....
maybe Will Smith

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hea...trunner-186250
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 05-07-2011, 11:29 AM
While I'm sure Will Smith would do a competant job, this a potential career boosting role that I think would be better spent on a younger, up and coming black actor (though, in all fairness, if either Wire alum Elba or Williams were cast in the lead, I'd be down with that shit too.)
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 05-07-2011, 11:51 AM
I haven't read the script, Idk if the age has been mentioned, but some of those mentioned look too old to play an apprentice.

Mos Def? could play younger than he is.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 05-07-2011, 12:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by echo_bravo View Post
please no
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 05-07-2011, 03:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smiert Spionam View Post
While I'm sure Will Smith would do a competant job, this a potential career boosting role that I think would be better spent on a younger, up and coming black actor (though, in all fairness, if either Wire alum Elba or Williams were cast in the lead, I'd be down with that shit too.)
I hear ya. I know I've been pluggin this guy for awhile now on here but I'm gonna do it again and plug this guy for the lead role...Anthony Mackie (Sucker Free City, Hurt Locker).

I saw he did already sign on for World War Z so not sure if he'd be able to get the role.

Thats a good call as well SS Block. Mos Def is a damn good actor (surprisingly really versatile)

Last edited by echo_bravo; 05-07-2011 at 03:23 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 05-07-2011, 03:32 PM
Smith certainly has the swagger that Django develops as the story moves along, but I'm not sure if he is suited for the more subdued aspects of that character earlier on in the story.

But Tarantino always gets great performances out of his actors, so I'm really not worried at all.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 05-07-2011, 04:14 PM
For the role of the villian, I would suggest Ian McShane. He would be perfect.

I agree with Smiert. I would love to see Iris Elba in the role. He's a great actor who needs more mainstream roles (He was awesome in THOR, and hope returns for The Avengers and/or THOR sequels).
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 05-07-2011, 05:03 PM
Tarantino should direct a pixar moviedo, just because.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 05-07-2011, 06:07 PM
I stayed up really late last night reading the script and LOVED it. It takes awhile to really get going for me but turned into an awesome read and certain actors and roles really jumped out at me.

I could see Will Smith doing a great job as Django but I'd love for Michael K. Williams to get the role.

I know Keith Carradine will probably get the role but I kept thinking of this man as the perfect Calvin Candy...Powers Boothe:

Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 05-07-2011, 06:33 PM
Django Comin'

I think Smith is capable of doing a fine job and he's one of the few ways this gets guaranteed to have the kind of budget, marketing, etc. QT wants. This may be a difficult sell to mass audiences without a star.

But I definitely read the role with Michael K. Williams in mind and think he'd be pitch-perfect for the part. Though in fairness, I also think he'd be perfect for Schultz or Calvin. He would have made a great Shoshanna too.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	MKWPoster.jpg
Views:	102
Size:	32.6 KB
ID:	9032  

Last edited by QUENTIN; 05-07-2011 at 06:40 PM..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump