So is the title…
… a reference/homage to the character played by Harvey Keitel in Pulp Fiction?
It can’t be a coincidence, right?
Why not Wolves? That's what I'm wondering...
shareIt's because the name of the character that Harvey Keitel played in Pulp Fiction was Winston Wolf. His last name is Wolf.
In this movie, Brad Pitt and George Clooney are both playing a couple of Winston Wolf like characters, who were inspired by the Harvey Keitel character in Pulp Fiction, hence the title of the movie Wolfs.
Yeah, I got that from the OP.
I was just wondering why it wasn't called Wolves...
I just explained it to you that it's because the guy's last name was Wolf. If his last name was White, as in Winston White, this movie would be titled Whites (but that would be viewed as a very bad and racist title). Thank God (and Tarantino) his name was Winston Wolf and this movie's title became Wolfs. The two main characters in this movie were inspired by him. The title shows that it is a homage to Quentin Tarantino's character Winston Wolf. It's got nothing to do with a particular pack of wild animals known as wolves, but it has everything to do with particular person named Winston Wolf. That's why it was titled Wolfs and not Wolves.
shareYes, I appreciated that, as I did in my previous post in which I explained I appreciated that from the OP.
However, the plural of Wolf is Wolves not Wolfs. Hence why I was asking why it's not called Wolves...
Yes, you are correct when referring to the wild animal, but you are incorrect when referring to the last name. In this movie's case, the title is referring to a man's last name and not the wild animal.
shareYes but you're in a very grey area re what you are saying here.
The character is known as "The Wolf" in Pulp Fiction. Presumably as he is a "lone wolf" and works alone (This is also presumably where the humour angle of this film comes from).
He refers to himself as Winston Wolfe, which may or may not be his real name (probably not). Lol - With the alliteration and working solo, that would be some coincidence! Although who knows - maybe Mr Orange, Mr White, Mr Pink, etc were their real names in Reservoir Dogs as well 😂...
But nevertheless, the characters in this film are not relations of the same Wolf family, whom we could possibly be referring to as Wolfs (and thats even omitting the spelling grey area from consideration here also). Therefore I think it should have been entitled "Wolves"...
But if we remove the homage angle (which obviously can only be a nod) and go with the characters being "lone wolves" hilariously having to work together. Then undoubtedly, it obviously should have been "Wolves" not "Wolfs".
Wolfs is definitely a nod to his last name Wolf (it's just a nod, the characters in this movie have no relation to Winston Wolf). The only way this movie would be titled Wolves is if his last name was Wolve. If his name was Winston Wolve in Pulp Fiction, then that's the only way this movie would be titled Wolves. That's the only way. His last name is Wolf and that's why this movie is correctly titled Wolfs.
By the way, in Pulp Fiction, he refers to himself as Winston Wolf (there's no 'e' at the end of his last name), but the other criminals refer to him as The Wolf (it's a nickname they've given him because of his last name). The lone wolf aspect of the two main characters in this movie is secondary to the reference to the Winston Wolf character from Pulp Fiction.
You really didn't have to explain your take again here. As I have said previously I understood the nod from the OP.
There's no point in me repeating myself here - I explained perfectly why Wolfs was incorrect (and referenced every single point you just made here) in my previous post.
If you want to think differently that's fine and up to you 👍.
Just to clarify here, you do realize that if the movie was titled Wolves, it would 100% completely nullify the reference to Winston Wolf from Pulp Fiction?
That's why Wolfs is the correct title of this particular movie. If you want to think differently about the title of this movie, that's fine and up to you. It was nice chatting with you. 👍
No, I don't think it would nullify the reference at all.
As per my previous post, I explained why in the post proceeding that. At best it's a homage not a literal reference, they are lone wolves, not relatives nor namesakes of Wolfe (nor is anyone in this film going to say "Hey, you are a real pair of Winston Wolfs like in that film Pulp Fiction!" as some numpty below has suggested 😂) and therefore Wolfs / Wolfes is quite literally incorrect.
However, as I said, if you wish to image them as relatives or literally surnamed Wolf themselves, then the proper noun thing works fine as you interpret it 👍.
Toomer I'm on your side... lol.
shareWhat if the director of this movie had gone with the character's full name, would the title have been Winston Wolves? No, of course not, only a moron believes the title is incorrect.
shareAre you stupid or something? He's telling you it has nothing to do with the animal, you fucking idiot.
shareLOL. It's pretty clear from my replies I'm well aware of what he's saying...
And you call me a "fucking idiot" 😂 Wise up...
Yeah, suuure, buddy...
shareThank you for this wonderful gift. This thread has made my day.
shareI thought your point was legitimate. I also admired your patience and politeness in defending it.
shareSo Clooney revives his role as Michael Clayton? Or Playing his usual self in other words (I quite enjoyed that movie a few times)
shareThe titles makes sense to me. Think about it like this…Clooney and Pitt both believe (and even say) they are one of a kind and no one else can do the job they do. They also both work alone. Always. But are forced into this situation together.
So to me the title “Wolfs” makes perfect sense. It’s a play on the singular “Wolf.” You have two lone wolf individuals who always work alone.
If a sequel is made, I think “Wolves” would be a perfect title.
Well yeah, I agree - it's a play on the singular wolf they've gone for. Probably done to stand out as it's jarring. But it should be Wolves if spelt correctly...
As to your other point re a sequel - Can they still be lone wolf individuals if they work together (presuming they become big buddies by the end)? Maybe just a Wolfpack at that stage!
Actually! Re the proper noun thing, maybe it turns out one of them actually was a Mr Wolf and in the sequel the other takes his name as they sign up as a fully fledged gay couple (Mr & Mr Wolf!). Then the sequel could have been called Wolfs if they hadn't already used it! 😂
Given the fact they are in the same “business” and the kid mentions how similar they are and how it’s obvious they are partners, and considering they’ve been through a whole hell of a lot in one night - it’s reasonable to assume they will team up going forward. I would look forward to a sequel.
shareI haven't seen it and am highly unlikely to.
Was there any gay tention between the characters so we may indeed possibly see this proper noun Wolfs in the sequel?
I think as a progressive angle for this sort of film it really is something they should consider. I'm pretty sure Mr Pitt would very much enjoy filming a scene face squeezed down into a soft pillow with Mr Clooney manfully pressing down on him...