They're marketing this movie as the 50th "anniversary" of Sharon Tate's death. Does anyone else find this a little disturbing?
Especially with Tarantino embroiled in this #metoo stuff, mistreating Uma Thurman on set...it's all a bit sick that they're just going to make a glorified true story about the murder of a woman like this.
All I can say is this...knowing Quentin's filmography there will not be any class or tact in his handling of this whole situation..someone is gonna end up looking cool with his dialogues...as for morale, when was the last time Hollywood stopped making a movie because of morality.Whats surprising is the fact that these movie stars are willing to work with him even after Uma Thurman's article.
He has always been a weird director to me.The most blatant way I can compare how he is treated in Hollywood in terms of the way he makes controversial movies is African Americans will say are you okay to him after he uses N word in his movies its almost like he is that one filmmaker who gets the African American experience.Which is mind boggling to me.
Hollywood has a way of elevating this notion of tortured genius like Roman polanski ,Harvey Weinstein and the funny thing is that it applies only to white male filmmakers(I am white so its just a observation and not a race thing).
I wish this movie gets scrapped but I dont see that happening.Only way this movie can be punished is during 2019/20 post #metoo oscars with no nominations for this movie or atleast no major category nominations.
and the funny thing is that it applies only to white male filmmakers(I am white so its just a observation and not a race thing).
"As for the subject matter, is it any different than making a war movie? Or Titanic making a love story surrounded by the real life deaths of so many people. "
"I guess it's up to the viewer to decide what's the line of poor taste, and if it crosses your line, again, simply, don't watch it."
THANK YOU!!! I'm always amazed by these little bitches complaining about how a movie is offensing or how "this sequel will ruin the originals don't do it". Just shut the fuck up and ignore the existence of these movies if you don't like it/don't want to watch it.
I have like this... always complains about the next superhero or Star Wars movies... and still go to see them several times.
I have a strong suspicion that Tarantino will go down the "revenge fantasy" route with this film.
Although Sharon Tate was gruesomely killed in real life, at least she would probably get a chance to "get revenge" on the big screen 50 years later.
Perhaps she will even be a survivor in this movie. Think about it: that would be a fascinating cinematic gesture and a passionate way to honor the memory of Sharon Tate.
Pretty prophetic
share[deleted]
Bad taste, but that never put off Tarantino before, and even though I regard his early films as greats and was a big fan of his, I'll probally give this a miss.
shareThe jury is still out on the tastefulness or ethics of the project, as we have yet to see the approach to the story.
That said, I don't think that taste or ethics are a major consideration in Hollywood.
Movies get greenlit based on their financial potential or the clout of the people who want to make them.
[none]
There is no room for ethics in film.
shareQT has already given us the atrocities committed by the Nazis against the Jews in "Inglorious Basterds" and by Southern slave owners against their African-American slaves in "Django Unchained."
The brutal murders in 1969 of a handful of Americans who were "minding their own business" and killed in home invasion raids for ultimately ridiculous reasons is...perhaps not too far removed from what QT covered in Basterds and Django.
But it remains the Very Big Question about Once Upon a Time in Hollywood:
QT has an incredible large cast(albeit many in cameos), Pitt and Leo working together for the first time, Pacino in a QT film for the first time, Robbie re-united with Leo , a sweeping look at a fascinating era in America(1969) and...it could all be dashed if the murder scenes are too exploitative or gory.
I think this conflict creates a real "dread factor" for Once Upon a Time in Hollywood that will last right up until somebody -- ANYBODY -- actually sees the film for the first time and finds out "how far QT is willing to go."
For Quentin, violence in film is entertaining except for some instances.
You don't seem to understand that for a lot of people it's fun to watch.
There is nothing wrong with gore and exploitation in film.
For Quentin, violence in film is entertaining except for some instances.
You don't seem to understand that for a lot of people it's fun to watch.
There is nothing wrong with gore and exploitation in film.
---
There's good food for thought here.
QT said somewhere that maybe the best reason that movies exist "is to show violence." And he may have something there. So many classics are violent in nature, from On the Waterfront to From Here to Eternity to Psycho to Bonnie and Clyde to The Wild Bunch to The Godfather to GoodFellas Silence of the Lambs to Pulp Fiction. These are great movies in which violence is a strong component.
And this likely reflects something innate in humans that we need to keep under control: bloodlust. A craving FOR violence that is as hardwired in a human as their sex drive. For while sex propagates the species, violence allows for survival...and domination. Perhaps violent movies and violent video games have allowed people to fanatasize about violence without anyone really getting hurt. And there are different KINDS of violence: when the good guys shoot the bad guys to pieces in a Western, it is violence we can support. When the psycho stabs the victim in the shower, it is violence that is meant to terrify us(we identify with the victim.)
If a movie shows people having sex(even simulated), this is something real (and hopefully loving) and that we can all experience from a certain age on. If a movie shows violence -- shootings, stabbings, beheadings -- this HAS to be a fantasy; in real life, you go to prison for doing it.
QT has shown violence among crooks(Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown.) He has shown violence among Asian trained swordfighters(Kill Bill). He has shown violence in war(Inglorious Basterds). He has shown violence within the slave system(Django). And he has shown violence in a Western setting(Django, Hateful Eight.)
But I think the "dread" factor has kicked in with this Manson movie because we know that the violence in question REALLY took place(these aren't fictional crooks, cowboys, or soldiers) and was cruelly imposed on utterly innocent people by ultimate depraved psychopaths. We have seen photos of pretty Margot Robbie as pretty Sharon Tate -- just how far will QT go in showing the bloody murder of a very pregnant Robbie? It blocks out our excitement about the all-star cast and '69 nostalgia of this movie.
I am reminded that CBS as a broadcast network in the late 70's was able to make a safe-for-TV version of the book Helter Skelter, about the Manson murders and trial. When it came time to show the stabbings, close ups of people remembering them were superimposed on "from a distance" non-bloody views of the attacks and stabbing motions. We got to see the murders, but we couldn't really SEE them.
I wonder if QT will go for that.
Hollywood has always exploited people. If a studio can't convince you to sell the rights to your name they'll just change the spelling a little bit and use you anyway.
shareHow does Roman Polanski fall into the mix? Is he in this?
shareIf it were a true story he would probably be shown in a sleazy motel raping little half conscious girls while his wife was getting killed.
share"How does Roman Polanski fall into the mix" of a story in which Sharon Tate is a major character? Are you really that ignorant?
shareNo more than every other retelling of the story of the Manson Family's crimes.
share