Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Ilov80s

FBG Movie Club: New Juneteenth Movie Pairing due 7/13

How would you rate 13th?   

2 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, Man of Constant Sorrow said:

I liked both movies, but preferred M7 by a significant margin. 

To begin, I see similarities in the major themes of frontier justice and race. I see differences in how they are handled, which is not surprising considering 1960 vs. 2018.

I don't have time to go deeper now, but I wanted to get the ball rolling. I will add details later. 

On the whole, I am very glad that I watched both; nice start for the Club. 

Good thoughts on the themes there. Were they both new to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, wikkidpissah said:

so, what's the drill here?

Still figuring that out lol. I have a couple questions I’m going to throw out in a bit. We can now freely talk spoilers though. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

Good thoughts on the themes there. Were they both new to you?

Thnx.

I had seen M7 years ago and had forgotten most all of it. So, it felt like a new movie to me. I was really surprised by this. I think that my relatively recent watching of Seven Samurai confused me a bit; as I overlapped the two in my mind.

H8 was new; I watched the extended version. I am not a fan of most QT films, but I did like this. Narration (as mentioned earlier) and over the top gore (e.g. head exploding from 2 bullets) did make me laugh ... in a not-good-way. But otherwise, most of the other QT-isms I hate were relatively mild, imo.

This quote from Eep:

 

On 7/13/2019 at 2:33 AM, Eephus said:

OK.  I made it through Hateful Eight.  If it wasn't for this board and peer pressure, I probably would have tapped out after Chapter 3. 

My main problem was with the pacing.  Every scene lasted longer than it needed to.  Someone like Howard Hawks could have shot a half hour TV show out of the script.  I can't imagine the extended version.

I don't dislike Tarantino.  I'll probably see Once Upon a Time in Hollywood on opening week.  I appreciate his compulsion to entertain the audience and the latitude he provides for actors.   But like most manics, he's prone to excess and Hateful Eight is too much.

Maybe I'll like it better in the morning.

... I do think is accurate, but as a manic myself, this is part of his act I don't mind too much. I turned off Kill Bill mid movie and never tried KB 2 - so, this is still a tricky edge for me - but H8 worked with my tastes mostly.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

Still figuring that out lol. I have a couple questions I’m going to throw out in a bit. We can now freely talk spoilers though. 

Gotta be the teach😎

Speaking of which, will we be graded on a curve?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So besides the random narration which we all seem to agree we hated, what did people think of the Channing Tatum twist in H8?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

So besides the random narration which we all seem to agree we hated, what did people think of the Channing Tatum twist in H8?

It blew apart the only bright prospect of the entire film, that it might turn into an Agatha Christie in gore over solving the poisoneer/JJL accomplice, which would have been a good, if not saving, gadget

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ilov80s said:

So besides the random narration which we all seem to agree we hated, what did people think of the Channing Tatum twist in H8?

Made me dislike QT that much more. Not because of the twist itself but how it was clumsily added. The 'twist' that got me was the Lincoln letter. Totally bought it at the beginning.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

So besides the random narration which we all seem to agree we hated, what did people think of the Channing Tatum twist in H8?

This is part of the 1/3 act that I hated.  Like I said before, I was actually on board for the 2nd act once they got to Minnie's, but QT pulled the rug out from under me by:  1.  doing the dumb v.o., 2.  having the "twist" of Tatum being under the floor the whole time, and 3.  Going his usual Grindhouse route starting with the poisoning of Russel and feeling the need to spray blood all over the place (again, mostly directed towards JJL's direction which he seems to enjoy a little too much in his movies).  

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. I felt there was a way to handle the mystery or even use the twist in a smoother way but it was just really clumsy. Which we shouldn’t expect from such a veteran film maker. I would love to know what’s in the extended version. I can’t imagine what the regular version was “missing”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May i tell the entire flaw of the film, above & beyond however i may feel about how Tarantino makes movies? Or aren't we going there yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Charlie Steiner said:

Made me dislike QT that much more. Not because of the twist itself but how it was clumsily added. The 'twist' that got me was the Lincoln letter. Totally bought it at the beginning.

I did love that scene "of course it's bull####" (or something like that), and the bit about disarming white folks.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, wikkidpissah said:

May i tell the entire flaw of the film, above & beyond however i may feel about how Tarantino makes movies? Or aren't we going there yet?

:popcorn:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, wikkidpissah said:

May i tell the entire flaw of the film, above & beyond however i may feel about how Tarantino makes movies? Or aren't we going there yet?

Yeah for sure. This is the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KarmaPolice said:

I did love that scene "of course it's bull####" (or something like that), and the bit about disarming white folks.  

Considering how a tone of distrust was established pretty much right way, I feel I let my guard down about the letter, and that's what upset me.  As a plot point, it was brilliant, but I kick myself for not being as quick on the uptake about it.

The 'disarming white folks' line felt a little too contemporary to me, but when directors want to make a social comment, they do it however they want.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Charlie Steiner said:

Considering how a tone of distrust was established pretty much right way, I feel I let my guard down about the letter, and that's what upset me.  As a plot point, it was brilliant, but I kick myself for not being as quick on the uptake about it.

The 'disarming white folks' line felt a little too contemporary to me, but when directors want to make a social comment, they do it however they want.

 

See:  Jordon Peele's Us.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Yoke of God.

For good or ill, the personality of every non-native American of the late 19th or early 20th century was a reaction to God, grounded in the choice to accept or reject the fight between god & the devil for your soul. The Western as a genre fit the Hays Code perfectly on that basis - that a fella or a gal made that choice & paid that price. Zero sum.

The characters in Hateful 8 simply don't work because none of them have made that choice - they are all modern characters, unburdened by salvation or perdition. And, by the actions of his characters and motive of his stories, the writer/director makes it clear he is not transposing modern characters intentionally to see the affect of the milieu upon them. He just missed the essential element of the reactive patterns of every one of his characters, rendering his tale an immature, unsalvageable effort from the start.

  • Like 3
  • Thinking 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

So besides the random narration which we all seem to agree we hated, what did people think of the Channing Tatum twist in H8?

I was disappointed.

26 minutes ago, wikkidpissah said:

It blew apart the only bright prospect of the entire film, that it might turn into an Agatha Christie in gore over solving the poisoneer/JJL accomplice, which would have been a good, if not saving, gadget

I agree. I was hoping for a further delving into "frontier justice" and its uncertainty - which was touched upon earlier. But ... alas...

While I do like thew film, it could have been much much better, imo, if it had taken this route.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, wikkidpissah said:

The Yoke of God.

For good or ill, the personality of every non-native American of the late 19th or early 20th century was a reaction to God, grounded in the choice to accept or reject the fight between god & the devil for your soul. The Western as a genre fit the Hays Code perfectly on that basis - that a fella or a gal made that choice & paid that price. Zero sum.

The characters in Hateful 8 simply don't work because none of them have made that choice - they are all modern characters, unburdened by salvation or perdition. And, by the actions of his characters and motive of his stories, the writer/director makes it clear he is not transposing modern characters intentionally to see the affect of the milieu upon them. He just missed the essential element of the reactive patterns of every one of his characters, rendering his tale an immature, unsalvageable effort from the start.

Got this on the 4th reading of it. :thumbup: 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Charlie Steiner said:

The 'twist' that got me was the Lincoln letter. Totally bought it at the beginning.

Me too.

24 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

This is part of the 1/3 act that I hated.  Like I said before, I was actually on board for the 2nd act once they got to Minnie's, but QT pulled the rug out from under me by:  1.  doing the dumb v.o., 2.  having the "twist" of Tatum being under the floor the whole time, and 3.  Going his usual Grindhouse route starting with the poisoning of Russel and feeling the need to spray blood all over the place (again, mostly directed towards JJL's direction which he seems to enjoy a little too much in his movies).  

 

I agree on all points. 

 

23 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

I would love to know what’s in the extended version. I can’t imagine what the regular version was “missing”.

If I ever watch the regular version, I might be able to tell you. I'll see how my schedule looks.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Charlie Steiner said:

Got this on the 4th reading of it. :thumbup: 

just glad i didnt have to read it...

  • Laughing 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, wikkidpissah said:

The Yoke of God.

For good or ill, the personality of every non-native American of the late 19th or early 20th century was a reaction to God, grounded in the choice to accept or reject the fight between god & the devil for your soul. The Western as a genre fit the Hays Code perfectly on that basis - that a fella or a gal made that choice & paid that price. Zero sum.

The characters in Hateful 8 simply don't work because none of them have made that choice - they are all modern characters, unburdened by salvation or perdition. And, by the actions of his characters and motive of his stories, the writer/director makes it clear he is not transposing modern characters intentionally to see the affect of the milieu upon them. He just missed the essential element of the reactive patterns of every one of his characters, rendering his tale an immature, unsalvageable effort from the start.

I was forming a potential counter argument to your hypothesis until ... the bold. You obviously see it and address it. But, I am still thinking on the evidence. 

This may be a good reason for me the watch the regular version, as I could then answer 80's question and view it from your perspective on this.

I am not disagreeing, rather I am curious now. 😎

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Charlie Steiner said:

Made me dislike QT that much more. Not because of the twist itself but how it was clumsily added. The 'twist' that got me was the Lincoln letter. Totally bought it at the beginning.

the entire Lincoln letter storyline was great and one of the better things about the movie

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, need2know said:

the entire Lincoln letter storyline was great and one of the better things about the movie

This is one of the things that frustrates me about QT. He has some moments of brilliance but is autistic most of the time such that it's not worth it to me to wade through the 99.9% crap for that .1% clever/interesting bit. It's like he's trying to prove how clever he is by trying to outthink the audience and usually outthinks himself as well in the process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Charlie Steiner said:

This is one of the things that frustrates me about QT. He has some moments of brilliance but is autistic most of the time such that it's not worth it to me to wade through the 99.9% crap for that .1% clever/interesting bit. It's like he's trying to prove how clever he is by trying to outthink the audience and usually outthinks himself as well in the process.

hes just one of those directors where you have to deal with some BS throughout his movies but the good stuff outweighs the bad for me. granted with QT there is more than most. 

but overall i still liked it so i give it like a B-.  def not one of my QT favs, but still a decent flick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, need2know said:

hes just one of those directors where you have to deal with some BS throughout his movies but the good stuff outweighs the bad for me. granted with QT there is more than most. 

but overall i still liked it so i give it like a B-.  def not one of my QT favs, but still a decent flick

To be fair, most directors are probably like that, and to give him his due, he does seem able to coax memorable performances from his actors. The biggest turn-off for me about QT is the prevalence of gore/violence/stuff that makes folks feel uncomfortable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, need2know said:

hes just one of those directors where you have to deal with some BS throughout his movies but the good stuff outweighs the bad for me. granted with QT there is more than most. 

but overall i still liked it so i give it like a B-.  def not one of my QT favs, but still a decent flick

What did you think of Magnificent 7 in contrast to it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Charlie Steiner said:

To be fair, most directors are probably like that, and to give him his due, he does seem able to coax memorable performances from his actors. The biggest turn-off for me about QT is the prevalence of gore/violence/stuff that makes folks feel uncomfortable.

lol.  thats one of the things i like about him. 

he seems to like seeing dip/tobacco juice get thrown into peoples faces which is kinda gross/weird.  pretty sure i have seen that in multiple movies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ilov80s said:

What did you think of Magnificent 7 in contrast to it?

still havent seen the old one :scared:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Charlie Steiner said:

This is one of the things that frustrates me about QT. He has some moments of brilliance but is autistic most of the time such that it's not worth it to me to wade through the 99.9% crap for that .1% clever/interesting bit. It's like he's trying to prove how clever he is by trying to outthink the audience and usually outthinks himself as well in the process.

QT definitely overthinks things trying to be clever which is not a problem in Magnificent 7 or any John Sturges movie I’ve seen. They are so different in their approaches to movie making.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, need2know said:

still havent seen the old one :scared:

I would be curious to hear your take on it if you watched it- especially since you seem to be the most pro H8 person here and everyone so far has said they prefer M7.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

I would be curious to hear your take on it if you watched it- especially since you seem to be the most pro H8 person here and everyone so far has said they prefer M7.

i will try to watch it soon.  havent really watched anything in weeks. its on amazon right

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, need2know said:

i will try to watch it soon.  havent really watched anything in weeks. its on amazon right

I rented it from YouTube for $2.99 - as it allows Chromecast - ing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked The Magnificent Seven but would have liked to like it more.

The plot limits the possibilities by hunkering them down in the village too soon and for too long. They should have been able to continue the Odyssey pattern by which the Seven were formed with a chase of some kind. Perhaps one of the Seven was being pursued unfairly himself and the band had to resolve that first or in addition or, best, entwined somehow in the defeat of the bandits. Or else the bandit band needed to be pursued and they perhaps lure the Seven away and double back on the town to make the Seven both re-take & defend the village. Just seemed a waste to have these glorious characters digging trenches and waiting in dread. More showcasing would have made it a lot more fun.

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In regards to M7 - it is a great movie that I believe only suffers from the same thing that most movies of its era do ... namely, they aren't as realistic to us as modern movies are. I forgive them for that.

A fun example on this: remember the intense training that went into teaching the villagers to "squeeze" a trigger rather than "pull" it? Well ... now think back to the scene when Chico (the young guy of the 7 - Horst Buchholz) was "throwing bullets" at the enemy ... and how he exclaimed that they were there to teach the villagers how to fight.

Also - and hate to pick on poor Chico - but this kid was duuuuumb ... think of his drunken scene in the bar when he was spraying bullets around ol'Yul. Yeah. If I were Yul, I'd be all - ok, he's drunk and spraying lead around me ... nuthin' to worry bout. F that - I'd kill em - or at least stop him.

And, in regards to Chico's super dangerous approach towards the baddies in the woods that everyone rolled their eyes over? Well, if I am not mistaken, they all then took that path .. including some women and children. OK.

LOL. Like I said, I forgive these kinds of things in movies of this era, but they are so fun to find. I will prolly think of more later.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, need2know said:

i will try to watch it soon.  havent really watched anything in weeks. its on amazon right

It is- no big deal if you don’t have time, just curious 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing i noted from having re-watched M7 within a year of seeing the re-make - America lost itself somewhere between the making of the two. Oh, that we had the savvy of the new and the honor of the old. If there actually was a point where we had both, it was like sheeps...............excuse me? ......ships?......you sure?... ............ships in the night

Edited by wikkidpissah
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

QT definitely overthinks things trying to be clever which is not a problem in Magnificent 7 or any John Sturges movie I’ve seen. They are so different in their approaches to movie making.

A big difference was in the way the movies handled character development.  The best part of M7 for me was the assembly of the group.  Each character was introduced efficiently and provided with just enough motivation to risk their lives for the villagers.  Sturges and screenwriter William Roberts didn't dwell on backstory as the characters were introduced although a couple of key characters were fleshed out later.  When Yul Brynner was asked where he was from, he simply pointed backwards.  Tarantino would have taken that opportunity for a five minute monologue.

M7 showed who the cowboys were.  H8's characters, like Tarantino himself love to talk about themselves.  That's not bad in itself, QT can write clever dialog but as it turned out in H8 a lot of the exposition turned out to be a charade.  The characters told elaborate lies about who they were and why they were there.  In the end, it turned out to be another waste of the audience's time.   It's fitting that the central prop of the movie, the Lincoln letter was a fraud.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, wikkidpissah said:

I liked The Magnificent Seven but would have liked to like it more.

The plot limits the possibilities by hunkering them down in the village too soon and for too long. They should have been able to continue the Odyssey pattern by which the Seven were formed with a chase of some kind. Perhaps one of the Seven was being pursued unfairly himself and the band had to resolve that first or in addition or, best, entwined somehow in the defeat of the bandits. Or else the bandit band needed to be pursued and they perhaps lure the Seven away and double back on the town to make the Seven both re-take & defend the village. Just seemed a waste to have these glorious characters digging trenches and waiting in dread. More showcasing would have made it a lot more fun.

 

M7 lagged after their first encounter with the bandits.  Chico's infiltration of the bandits' camp was silly and the plot device of Calvera allowing the Seven to leave the village was unnecessary.  It gave Calvera and the Seven a good scene together and the Seven a chance to renew their pledge to help the villagers but it seemed artificial.  A desperate bandit wouldn't give his enemies a chance to escape.  It's been a while since I've seen Seven Samurai but I think both of these M7 plot devices diverged from the original.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Eephus said:

  The characters told elaborate lies about who they were and why they were there.  In the end, it turned out to be another waste of the audience's time.   It's fitting that the central prop of the movie, the Lincoln letter was a fraud.

This is probably giving QT too much credit but is a bit of commentary on the western genre and western lore. Guys in John Wayne movies and movies like The Magnificent Seven are often portrayed as heroes and men with honor but isn’t that really all BS? Aren’t they all mostly just violent nasty men who don’t know any way but the way of the gun?

2 minutes ago, Eephus said:

Samurai but I think both of these M7 plot devices diverged from the original.

I don’t recall if they diverged or not but I did appreciate the length of M7. I liked S7 a lot but I’m not sure it needed to be quite so long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Eephus said:

Chico's infiltration of the bandits' camp was silly

Ah ... great one!

44 minutes ago, Man of Constant Sorrow said:

I will prolly think of more later.

I thought of it ... now ... thnx. 

 

3 minutes ago, Eephus said:

... and the plot device of Calvera allowing the Seven to leave the village was unnecessary.

Yep. "Plot device" is the perfect word to use. I also kind of lump this into the "era" thing I mentioned. It seems that many movies of this type let artistic intent over-ride other concerns to a degree that approaches or surpasses the line of necessity. I really don't know why, as I am not a writer. But as a viewer, I have come to accept/appreciate it as a part of the "form". It is kind of like abstract/impressionistic/etc. paintings that diverge from reality for a reason ... but that "reason" can be subjective in its validity or success.

Another good example of this was when Britt (James Coburn) came to the camp of the first three bandits only to find their horses. He decided to wait. Good. But, then he sits down in plain sight under a tree and begins to examine a flower of some type - oblivious to the outer world it seemed. A hunter would not do this, but this character would for reasons other than the logical task at hand. Why? I think that is up for interpretation. But, I do not think it was written to portray a perfectly realistic reaction.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

This is probably giving QT too much credit but is a bit of commentary on the western genre and western lore. Guys in John Wayne movies and movies like The Magnificent Seven are often portrayed as heroes and men with honor but isn’t that really all BS? Aren’t they all mostly just violent nasty men who don’t know any way but the way of the gun?

 

That's implicit in Western mythology.  The hero is often a man outside of society.  His talents and past life separates him from the people he saves.  Shane is a good example of this but there are many others.

The characters in H8 were outside of society as well.  There was never any real attempt to connect them to the normal world in Red Rock .  My problem was with the way Tarantino intentionally obscured the characters' real identities.  Not providing character detail to create intrigue is one thing but H8 overcompensated by giving Mobray, Bob and Joe Gage pages of dialog where they spun elaborate, unnecessary tales about their false identities. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Eephus said:

That's implicit in Western mythology.  The hero is often a man outside of society.  His talents and past life separates him from the people he saves.  Shane is a good example of this but there are many others.

The characters in H8 were outside of society as well.  There was never any real attempt to connect them to the normal world in Red Rock .  My problem was with the way Tarantino intentionally obscured the characters' real identities.  Not providing character detail to create intrigue is one thing but H8 overcompensated by giving Mobray, Bob and Joe Gage pages of dialog where they spun elaborate, unnecessary tales about their false identities. 

Oh yeah it was overdone for sure. As for my point about commenting on the men from outside of society. Shane ofcourse is a good example- but that movie shows us that even though Shane is a hardnened killer, he's a hero. All the heroes have some mythology of backstory that makes them a hero but it's all BS. Shane was a murderer. This idea has certainly been done before and done better. I did like none of the H8 were mythologized or softened and the bounty hunter and the  sherrif and the soldier and the gangster are all the same. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen both of these previously, own both on dvd, and am a big QT fan overall. And both were as I remembered when I re-watched them for this - I liked M7 much better

The thing with H8 that I keep coming back to is I wanted to like it much more than I actually did. I love QT's movies, and even the things he produced / wrote / had a hand in automatically make my movie shelf.  When i first saw it, I felt H8 was his weakest effort, and this recent viewing confirmed that. The casting, especially adding Goggins to the mix, really made me think this would be his best film. Nearly 3 hours of QT-style dialog with these greats? How could you not like that? I envisioned Boyd Crowder verbally sparring with Jules.  

The funny thing is, we kind of got that, but it didn't work for me. It all felt very forced. I can't explain much else beyond that, because on the surface, it's everything it was supposed to be, yet it felt so sterile. Maybe it would have been a better film at 90-120 minutes - maybe there would have been more tension. We got too much, and in that nearly 3 hour length, it all got lost. I was bored by the end. Maybe he shouldn't have made 2 westerns in a row? This same cast in another era/story might have produced a much better film (am very much looking forward to his Hollywood film). 

M7... what else can you say? It's a great way to spend an evening. The Yul and Eli show is fantastic. It might not be as refined or as meaningful as its Seven Samurai inspiration, but it's more fun ("the walls were built to keep you in" is akin to "now yous can't leave"). The one complaint I have is I could do without counting up to 7, and the reiterations of "how many are there"? We get it - there's 7 of them. Other than that, grab some popcorn and take in a fun old-style western. 

 

Edited by jwb
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ilov80s said:

QT definitely overthinks things trying to be clever which is not a problem in Magnificent 7 or any John Sturges movie I’ve seen. They are so different in their approaches to movie making.

YES - not so much his other efforts, but this definitely sums up H8 to me. QT consciously tried to make a QT movie. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also wonder how much the leaking of the script impacted this. For those that don't kmow, the script for the movie was leaked online. QT almost just canceled the whole project over it but I do believe instead he rewrote somethings, including multiple endings and even did some live reads of the script aith an audience. I wonder how much that leak impacted QT's story and level of self awareness. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/11/2019 at 10:45 PM, Ilov80s said:

What was the best performance between the films? Who was your favorite chartacter? 

Eli Wallach

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Eephus said:

they spun elaborate, unnecessary tales about their false identities. 

the thing i liked most about the Scruggs thing the Coens did was that they turned the the sparsity - of food, of comfort, of talk, of trust - inherent to cowboy life back on itself. in H*8, the willingness of people who've already given proof of having chosen the closed-off life to be elaborate at the drop of a Stetson immediately disqualifies their palaver as valid intercourse between frontier people and makes an inside con impossible.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

I also wonder how much the leaking of the script impacted this. For those that don't kmow, the script for the movie was leaked online. QT almost just canceled the whole project over it but I do believe instead he rewrote somethings, including multiple endings and even did some live reads of the script aith an audience. I wonder how much that leak impacted QT's story and level of self awareness. 

he got it wrong and there was no one to stop him. he writes things that actors wanna play, so he gets away with that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.