Quentin Tarantino's Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

[Hunter Rider]

Yep because a guy knowing about sexual assault and continuing to work and be friends with the guy he knows is totally the same thing. Playing down the rape of a 13 year old girl is totally the same thing. These things don't play into and help cause a culture of rape at all.

You're wasting your time Darth, I gave up on this thread a couple of days ago, we are in the age where no accountability is required as long as you pump out something cool for the kids.

 

[Reek]

Yep because a guy knowing about sexual assault and continuing to work and be friends with the guy he knows is totally the same thing. Playing down the rape of a 13 year old girl is totally the same thing. These things don't play into and help cause a culture of rape at all.

Neither does considering nearly everything rape and no matter what the man is in the wrong.

 

[Reek]

You're wasting your time Darth, I gave up on this thread a couple of days ago, we are in the age where no accountability is required as long as you pump out something cool for the kids.

I never once said that. But the victim herself is even saying it's wrong to attack Tarantino... but that's clearly not enough to save his career... we have to burn him alive.

These conversations go no where when people only deal in absolutes... it's black and white.

I'm not condoning anything, as much as DS is going to try and twist it as he does. "if you see his movie you condone rape"... that's so ridiculous.

 

[jmc]

It's this type of nonsense that's results in arguments and is a gross over simplification of the things people are talking about. It's this ridiculous black and white mentality which is doing more harm than good in society today. Sometimes conversations need to be in depth and require a bit more thought because the situation isn't always clear. Most importantly, what's being lost is the ability to actually hear what people are saying. Looking at both sides of the issue is not the same as endorsing something negative, it's about being level headed and not jumping to conclusions. Too many people these days are just shoving their head in the sand and telling people to shut up when something challenges something they believe to be true, calling those people haters or whatever. This isn't how you discuss these matters. If there's irrefutable evidence that someone did someone horrific then you'll find few arguments against calling for action to be taken, but if there's more depth to the story the conversation needs to be as layered as what the incident may be.

 

[Reek]

the response to that is going to be "so you condone 13 year old being raped... you agree with Tarantino saying she wanted it. you're a rapist, too."

 

[Roose Bolton]

**** that. I went into the Pianist knowing what kind of man Polanski was, own the DVD knowing what kind of man Polanski is, because it's a ****ing beautiful piece of art that carries an important message. He might be a horrid man, but he has a voice and in that instance he used it in a way that was artistically beneficial so I feel no shame in having done that.

In comparison, Tarantino hasn't raped anyone, he hasn't committed an act of pedophilia. He made the assertion that the European definition of statutory rape is looser in comparison to the American one, claimed that he didn't believe it was a rape by those loose morals. It was a dumb thing to say and harmful to the woman who was raped, but he apologised for it. He apologised to the public and he personally apologised the woman, who accepted his apology. So no, I'm not going to feel any shame when I walk into see this next film, nor when I purchase the DVD.

 

[Greens]

It becomes he apologized, that's enough, let's not actually talk about it and move on.

Here's the deal, we have talked about it at length in this thread. Meanwhile, Tarantino has issued a statement and personally apologized to the victim which she accepted. What more is there to do here? We can go on at length about our personal opinions on the matter but I think we've all made those very clear. Hunter talking about there being no accountability... he was held accountable for his words, and he corrected and apologized for those words to the victim directly. He was forced to address what he said, and he cleared the air.

 

[Reek]

Maybe we should take an arm or something.

 

[Greens]

He can direct with one arm, that's fine with me.

 

[Aximili86]

**** that. I went into the Pianist knowing what kind of man Polanski was, own the DVD knowing what kind of man Polanski is, because it's a ****ing beautiful piece of art that carries an important message. He might be a horrid man, but he has a voice and in that instance he used it in a way that was artistically beneficial so I feel no shame in having done that.

What's the line, though? Murder? Still cool to check out their **** so long as it has some artistic value?

Charlie Mansons' songs, provided they were any good - still cool to separate the two? Hitler was a painter - a crappy one, but say that wasn't the case, he was crazy talented and he continued on putting paint to canvas through the 40s. Does the dude creating it still not matter?

Extreme hypothetical examples, for sure. But Polanski's pretty friggin' extreme, he's a goddamn kiddie rapist.

 

[Greens]

What's the line, though? Murder? Still cool to check out their **** so long as it has some artistic value?

Why does it matter to anyone but the person who's enjoying the art? If Jack Nicholson went out tomorrow and killed someone, would I be morally obligated to throw away all of my Jack Nicholson movies? Hell no.

 

[Roose Bolton]

What's the line, though? Murder? Still cool to check out their **** so long as it has some artistic value?

Charlie Mansons' songs, provided they were any good - still cool to separate the two? Hitler was a painter - a crappy one, but say that wasn't the case, he was crazy talented and he continued on putting paint to canvas through the 40s. Does the dude creating it still not matter?

Extreme hypothetical examples, for sure. But Polanski's pretty friggin' extreme, he's a goddamn kiddie rapist.

The problem with that specific comparison is that neither actually accomplished anything worthwhile with their artistic endeavours. A failed musician and a failed artist? Polanski might be a child rapist, but he also has talent as an artist and in the case of the Pianist he used that talent to create one of the best films to ever detail the Holocaust. I was moved by that film, and even if the genesis of it came from a very disturbed indivual, it's still worthwhile because it made me feel something.

And while this doesn't apply to every single artist and their works, but in the case of the Pianist it's a fairly important film for the world we live in that I think should be seen more.

 

[Greens]

I don't know, this original Hitler is pretty good

 

[MadVillainy]

You guys like Pulp Fiction?

 

[Greens]

You guys like Pulp Fiction?

Dick Dale's Misirlou is my wedding song.

 

[MadVillainy]

I mean here's the thing.

I don't see what any poster has to gain here.
When I posted the news I didn't think it would last this long of people just *****ing at each other.

I don't know what any side wants to do. You're really not going to convince people either way. Which is true with a lot of arguments here, but at least for like the fanboy arguments there is an element of fun because you're arguing over inherently silly things. Going back and forth about something like this QT thing...it's so futile and not fun I don't get why people are doing it.

Obviously I'm not a mod nor can I stop anyone from discussing what they want to discuss, but I'm just asking how about we move on. If you don't wanna see the QT movie because of recent revelations then don't. That's cool. If you're going to see it anyway, then cool. I mean we all turn a blind eye to a lot of messed up things like prison industrial system, sweat shops, CaFos, or even Hollywood in general who empowered a lot of these weirdos/sexists/homophobes/racists to enjoy things we use everyday.

I'm not saying which one is right or wrong, but arguing for hours on end on the internet is not gonna change anyone's mind. And it just clogs up a thread, convo, or whatever. It's the equivalent of going to a bar and arguing about politics at this point.

On that note

Rumor is that Chris Pine might be reading for the Cruise/Pitt role.

I still hope Pitt gets it

 

[Hunter Rider]

I never once said that. But the victim herself is even saying it's wrong to attack Tarantino... but that's clearly not enough to save his career... we have to burn him alive.

These conversations go no where when people only deal in absolutes... it's black and white.

I'm not condoning anything, as much as DS is going to try and twist it as he does. "if you see his movie you condone rape"... that's so ridiculous.

There's a lot more to it than him apologizing for something 15 years after he said it, purely to save his own ass, it's as hollow as it gets and of course she is going to pull back, she's been through enough, she isn't going to bring more heat on herself by saying anything else and bringing his little army of fanboys into her world defending their poor, picked on artist hero.

However none of that alters what he said, it came out of his way of thinking, it also doesn't alter the damage he caused Uma Thurman or the fact he was complicit and continued to profit off the actions of a sexual predator who he knew was doing the things he was doing and did absolutely nothing, instead staying in business with him to line his own pockets.

 

[Greens]

She seems like a very forgiving person, actually. If she can forgive Polanski, she can forgive Tarantino.

 

[Guts]

I don't know, this original Hitler is pretty good

 

[Aximili86]

The problem with that specific comparison is that neither actually accomplished anything worthwhile with their artistic endeavours.

I said that in the original post, it was a hypothetical. Hypothetically, if Hitler was hot **** as a painter, the 20th Century's Da Vinci, would you not begrudge some rich guy having a "prime example of a mid-period Hitler" on their wall?

Most people would. For good reason.

Polanski might be a child rapist, but he also has talent as an artist and in the case of the Pianist he used that talent to create one of the best films to ever detail the Holocaust. I was moved by that film, and even if the genesis of it came from a very disturbed indivual, it's still worthwhile because it made me feel something.

And while this doesn't apply to every single artist and their works, but in the case of the Pianist it's a fairly important film for the world we live in that I think should be seen more.

There are plenty of great Holocaust films, though. You know, prime one being the Spielberg one, arguably better than Polanski's, and by a guy who's not into defiling little kids.

Let's lay all the praise on that guy, Roman doesn't deserve it. Talented or no.

 

[Greens]

There are plenty of great Holocaust films, though. You know, prime one being the Spielberg one, arguably better than Polanski's, and by a guy who's not into defiling little kids.

Let's lay all the praise on that guy, Roman doesn't deserve it. Talented or no.

What a weird way of looking at things. Spielberg also made a Holocaust movie, so we should just defer to that one and completely ignore The Painist? I'm sure to a lot of people, young and old, The Painist is not just another Holocaust movie, it represents something more to them. I don't see why that should be erased.

 

[Roose Bolton]

I said that in the original post, it was a hypothetical. Hypothetically, if Hitler was hot **** as a painter, the 20th Century's Da Vinci, would you not begrudge some rich guy having a "prime example of a mid-period Hitler" on their wall?

Most people would. For good reason.

Well Hitler had an ideology behind him that the world at large is quite terrified of ever coming about again, so I'd probably do a double take if someone told me they owned an original Hitler. I'm not aware what exactly he painted, but if it was something as harmless and removed from his ideology, a landscape or something then I wouldn't begrudge them if they found genuine beauty in that painting.

There are plenty of great Holocaust films, though. You know, prime one being the Spielberg one, arguably better than Polanski's, and by a guy who's not into defiling little kids.

Let's lay all the praise on that guy, Roman doesn't deserve it. Talented or no.

That's just an asinine comment. There's a lot of great films dealing with the subject yes, but their existence doesn't negate the quality of the Pianist, nor vice versa.

 

[Greens]

A scenario where Hitler is a painter on the level of Da Vinci has nothing to do with Tarantino

 

[Aximili86]

It does in terms of a comparison to the Tarantino & Polanski discussion.

I'm not for throwing Tarantino's career under the bus over this either, but the Polanski thing seems worthy of it. Separating the artist from the art seems fine for, like, "Alec Baldwin's an unstable shrieking-at-photographers ***hole and I don't like him - hell of an actor though", but Polanski?

Surely there's gotta be a line. Not where you deny their talent - 'cause Roman's clearly really talented, but where decent society has to stop funding his movies or including him in the Hollywood community.

I mean, you wouldn't want that Jeepers Creepers guy getting supported anymore - clearly he's a gnat compared to Polanski's skill/talent, but it's the same basic principle. Maybe Roman can go fund his future projects totally out-of-pocket with no backing from anyone, if we want to get serious about this abuse stuff.

Wouldn't go that far with Tarantino personally, given it's just verbal bull**** and some questionable behavior rather than an actual assault, but seems the public backlash over his comments is pretty deserved too.

 

[Spider-Fan]

It does in terms of a comparison to the Tarantino & Polanski discussion.

I'm not for throwing Tarantino's career under the bus over this either, but the Polanski thing seems worthy of it. Separating the artist from the art seems fine for, like, "Alec Baldwin's an unstable shrieking-at-photographers ***hole and I don't like him - hell of an actor though", but Polanski?

Surely there's gotta be a line. Not where you deny their talent - 'cause Roman's clearly really talented, but where decent society has to stop funding his movies or including him in the Hollywood community.

I mean, you wouldn't want that Jeepers Creepers guy getting supported anymore - clearly he's a gnat compared to Polanski's skill/talent, but it's the same basic principle. Maybe Roman can go fund his future projects totally out-of-pocket with no backing from anyone, if we want to get serious about this abuse stuff.

Wouldn't go that far with Tarantino personally, given it's just verbal bull**** and some questionable behavior rather than an actual assault, but seems the public backlash over his comments is pretty deserved too.

The one key difference I will cite for that guy is he actually served a sentence and paid his debt to society. At the end of the day, you serve the sentence given to you and your supposed to be given a second chance in our society. That's different for me than Polanski, who avoided justice.