Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino)

[Dukefrukem]

I don't recall ever seeing anything saying it was being shot in 70mm this time.

Oh bummer. I just assumed.

[Skitch]

Think that's Stuntman Mike?

Thats what I said. I hope so.

[Irish]

Great trailer.

Heard theory that the DiCapri and Pitt characters are loosely based on Burt Reynolds and Hal Needham. Footage sorta supports that, or at least doesn't discount it.

If QT rewrites history again, this'll be waaaaaay more tasteless than I initially thought.

[baby doll]

Critics upset about this can fuck off.

A reviewer's job is to describe and analyze a film. If people are concerned about spoilers (and personally, I prefer to know as little as possible about a film before seeing it, which is why I never watch trailers), they can always postpone reading the reviews until after they've seen the film.

[Skitch]

A reviewer's job is to describe and analyze a film. If people are concerned about spoilers (and personally, I prefer to know as little as possible about a film before seeing it, which is why I never watch trailers), they can always postpone reading the reviews until after they've seen the film.

I agree? Maybe I read the situation incorrectly? I read those posts to mean critics were pissed off that QT wrote a note asking to not spoil stuff.

[baby doll]

I agree? Maybe I read the situation incorrectly? I read those posts to mean critics were pissed off that QT wrote a note asking to not spoil stuff.

The way the note is written, it comes across like Tarantino doesn't want reviewers to reveal anything about the film that isn't in the trailer, which sort of defeats the purpose of having reviewers at all.

[Skitch]

The way the note is written, it comes across like Tarantino doesn't want reviewers to reveal anything about the film that isn't in the trailer, which sort of defeats the purpose of having reviewers at all.

Yeah...I'm not shedding any tears over that. Its not that hard to write a review without revealing stuff, imo. I hate reading reviews where 2/3rds of it is just telling the story of the movie.

[Ezee E]

Yeah...I'm not shedding any tears over that. Its not that hard to write a review without revealing stuff, imo. I hate reading reviews where 2/3rds of it is just telling the story of the movie.

Indeed. This is also nothing new, dating back to almost any movie with clever endings or major twists have always had this unwritten rule. I'm actually quite surprised that there's any uproar at all coming from critics.

[baby doll]

Yeah...I'm not shedding any tears over that. Its not that hard to write a review without revealing stuff, imo. I hate reading reviews where 2/3rds of it is just telling the story of the movie.

Not to be overly paranoid about it, but the paranoia of some filmmakers (and spectators) about spoilers strikes me as an insidious stratagem devised by studio publicists to control all discourse about a film (or novel, television show, etc.). Ideally, reviewers are supposed to be an independent source of information so readers can decide for themselves whether or not they want to watch a film. Therefore, a description of the film's plot (and style) is an integral--if often boring--part of any review. When filmmakers and publicists start dictating what reviewers can say, they're asking them to stop doing their jobs.

Incidentally, the fact that most reviewers are underpaid free lancers makes the bullying of a millionaire like Tarantino all the more egregious.

[Skitch]

Oh come on now, it's not like asking for no plot to be revealed in any way silences them from flat out saying "it sucks". I think you're giving way too much credence to the idea that the general public dissects critics reviews over glancing at a RT score.

I'm not saying that's good, but it's the state of cinema. Hell, I think most people have no clue and just walk up to the ticket window and say "what a starting now?"

[MadMan]

Fan poster!

That is gorgeous old school.

[MadMan]

Think that's Stuntman Mike?

Some say it's his brother. I think it would be cool if Pitt's character was a younger Mike.

[MadMan]

Great trailer.

Heard theory that the DiCapri and Pitt characters are loosely based on Burt Reynolds and Hal Needham. Footage sorta supports that, or at least doesn't discount it.

If QT rewrites history again, this'll be waaaaaay more tasteless than I initially thought.

Sure looks that way, although Reynolds managed to become a star thanks to Smokey and the Bandit.

Also I don't care if he rewrites history again. I mean would anyone expect something different after Basterds?

The new trailer was fantastic btw. Man what a cast. I laughed when Leo flamethrowered the Nazis. QT making me wish that Leo has been in more than one western in his career.

[megladon8]

It must be getting difficult for Pitt to stay that ripped.

[Grouchy]

Heard theory that the DiCapri and Pitt characters are loosely based on Burt Reynolds and Hal Needham.

Beautiful theory.

I love this trailer as much as I did the first but I wish I didn't know so much about the plot now. Still, it's Tarantino - we've only scratched the surface.

[megladon8]

Wait, was anyone at any point under the impression that this would be historically accurate?

[baby doll]

Oh come on now, it's not like asking for no plot to be revealed in any way silences them from flat out saying "it sucks". I think you're giving way too much credence to the idea that the general public dissects critics reviews over glancing at a RT score.

I'm not saying that's good, but it's the state of cinema. Hell, I think most people have no clue and just walk up to the ticket window and say "what a starting now?"

Evaluating films is only one part of a reviewer's job. The central function of a review is to provide accurate information about a film, whereas trailers and other forms of studio publicity are often purposefully misleading: The trailer usually reflects the film the studio wanted the filmmakers to make rather than the one they actually did. Compare, for instance, the trailer for Where the Wild Things Are, which makes the film look fun and exciting, with the actual film, which is morose and unpleasant. If reviewers can't describe films in detail, it makes it easier for studios to deceive audiences.

[megladon8]

Aren’t reviews more about how and why the reviewer did / didn’t enjoy the film?

Maybe I’m oversimplifying what you’re saying, but it sounds like you believe a review should be a glorified synopsis.

[baby doll]

Aren’t reviews more about how and why the reviewer did / didn’t enjoy the film?

Maybe I’m oversimplifying what you’re saying, but it sounds like you believe a review should be a glorified synopsis.

I think the main task of a review is to give the reader an idea of what they are in for if they see the film. In that regard, description (of plot and style) is more important than evaluation, although description is rarely, if ever, neutral. When Dave Kehr describes Naruse Mikio as "the least intrusive of directors, the least visible," for instance, it's both an accurate description of the style of his postwar films and an evaluation. Even if you disagree with Kehr that an invisible style is a good thing, you at least know what to expect when you see When a Woman Ascends the Stairs.

[Grouchy]

Quentin is not asking the reviewers not to do their job - only that they "avoid revealing anything that would prevent later audiences from experiencing the film the same way". That's literally what the note says and it probably means a particular plot twist.

But I guess the critics are as shitty as their reputation because I just entered the Wikipedia page for the film to check some other detail and there's a large and detailed plot synopsis.

[Ezee E]

Quentin is not asking the reviewers not to do their job - only that they "avoid revealing anything that would prevent later audiences from experiencing the film the same way". That's literally what the note says and it probably means a particular plot twist.

But I guess the critics are as shitty as their reputation because I just entered the Wikipedia page for the film to check some other detail and there's a large and detailed plot synopsis.

This is exactly what Quentin requested. Yes, history is probably being rewritten, and it would be nice for audiences to see how it happens on their own.

A good critic can certainly share their experience, detail strength/weaknesses, and even discuss their connection with the theme without having to share this plot point. Heck, with 2010's film criticism, they can still push their political viewpoint on the movie too.

[baby doll]

Quentin is not asking the reviewers not to do their job - only that they "avoid revealing anything that would prevent later audiences from experiencing the film the same way".

Which is, of course, impossible. Incidentally, seeing the film at an artificial media event that exists purely to promote films while suffering from jetlag and scrambling to make a deadline strikes me as a less than ideal circumstance in which to watch a movie.

[Dukefrukem]

Which is, of course, impossible. Incidentally, seeing the film at an artificial media event that exists purely to promote films while suffering from jetlag and scrambling to make a deadline strikes me as a less than ideal circumstance in which to watch a movie.

Seriously? Jet lag and deadlines are the excuses you're going with?

[baby doll]

Seriously? Jet lag and deadlines are the excuses you're going with?

I'm not excusing anything. I'm simply arguing that the experience of seeing the film at Cannes (that is to say, in an industry context) is rather different than the experience of paying to see the same film in a multiplex a few weeks later (i.e., in a commercial context). Hence, it's impossible for later audiences to experience the film in the same way as journalists and industry insiders attending the premiere--for better or for worse.

[Ezee E]

I've covered Telluride Film Festival for certain sites before. I always ensured to write my reviews without any spoilers, and did so just fine. It was also my choice to drive six hours to the fest, and after seeing a movie there versus at a typical movie theater, is that I have the chance to somewhat be influenced from the filmmakers that are there to explain or give discussion. So, in a way, it's more possible for me to enjoy the movie at the festival setting than it is at a complex.

But it looks like we're aiming on to agree to disagree. And that's okay too.