Quentin Tarantino's Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

[OutOfBoose]

I approve close-ups of anything Margot.

 

[HammerDown]

Thor: Ragnarok Is Quentin Tarantino's Favorite MCU Movie

I haven't been keeping up to date with them for, I guess, the last four years. I think the only comic book movies I saw last year at theaters were Wonder Woman and Black Panther. But about a couple of weeks ago I started catching up with some of the Marvel movies so I could go see Endgame. I just finished Captain America: Civil War, so next up is Doctor Strange. Actually, the last one I saw was [Thor:] Ragnarok. I loved it. It was my favourite one of the series since The Avengers - drastically my favorite."

 

[terry78]

That makes sense the way he writes stuff.

 

[kvz5]

 

[THE WOLF]

 

[Doctor Jones]

Now THAT'S a poster.

 

[Gothamsknight]

Thats a gorgeous poster

 

[DarkKnight88]

Love the poster!

I just hate the whole “9th film”. I know it was in the trailer too. It’s kind of like, who cares?

A simple, From Quentin Tarantino would suffice.

 

[Spider-Fan]

The 9th film thing is also incorrect:

Reservoir Dogs
Pulp Fiction
Jackie Brown
Kill Bill Vol. 1
Kill Bill Vol. 2
Inglorious Basterds
Django Unchained
The Hateful Eight
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

But let us also not forget Death Proof Like to conveniently forget about Death Proof. I don't care if it was part of Grindhouse as a double feature. It counts!

 

[Mandon Knight]

Kill Bill (both volumes) is counted as one film, is it not ?

 

[Spider-Fan]

Kill Bill (both volumes) is counted as one film, is it not ?

One story, sure. Maybe he does count it as one movie, I am actually unsure. I know he intended for it to be one, so maybe that is where the numbering disparity comes from. But...it is 2 movies Sorry QT.

 

[DarkKnight88]

Does Four Rooms count as half. So 9 1/2 Films.

Watch him not retire at 10, and 20 years from now we get “The 28th Film...”

 

[OutOfBoose]

Kill Bill 1 and 2 - single movie. There's introduction in Kill Bill Vol. 1 that states "4th film by QT". There's no such thing in front of Vol. 2. No number, not even "a film by QT". Just "Vol. 2". So it's 9.

1) Reservoir Dogs (a film by QT)
2) Pulp Fiction (a film by QT)
3) Jackie Brown (a film by QT)
4) Kill Bill (4th film by QT in front of Vol. 1)
5) Death Proof (a film by QT)
6) Inglorious Basterds (a film by QT)
7) Django Unchained (a film by QT)
8) The Hateful Eight (8th film by QT)
9) Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (9th film by QT in the trailer)

The 9th film thing is also incorrect:

It's correct.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Kill Bill 1 and 2 - single movie. There's introduction in Kill Bill Vol. 1 that states "4th film by QT". There's no such thing in front of Vol. 2. No number, not even "a film by QT". Just "Vol. 2". So it's 9.

1) Reservoir Dogs (a film by QT)
2) Pulp Fiction (a film by QT)
3) Jackie Brown (a film by QT)
4) Kill Bill (4th film by QT in front of Vol. 1)
5) Death Proof (a film by QT)
6) Inglorious Basterds (a film by QT)
7) Django Unchained (a film by QT)
8) The Hateful Eight (8th film by QT)
9) Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (9th film by QT in the trailer)

It's correct.

Kill Bill I don't see as 1 film. QT may see it that way, but while it is definitely one story, it feels like 2 distinct films to me. Plus it was released as 2. I had to pay to see 2 movies. So no, it's not.

 

[OutOfBoose]

Kill Bill I don't see as 1 film. QT may see it that way, but while it is definitely one story, it feels like 2 distinct films to me. Plus it was released as 2. I had to pay to see 2 movies. So no, it's not.

Since he was making it as a single movie, it's irrelevant how they feel.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Since he was making it as a single movie, it's irrelevant how they feel.

But it is relevant how they were released. As 2 movies.

 

[OutOfBoose]

But it is relevant how they were released. As 2 movies.

It wasn't a creative decision, but business one. The film was too long and QT refused to cut anything from it. What's even more important - they mean nothing as single films.

 

[Spider-Fan]

It wasn't a creative decision, but business one. The film was too long and QT refused to cut anything from it. What's even more important - they mean nothing as single films.

Neither do the Lord of the Rings movies, but those are counted as a trilogy. So business decision or not, it's 2 movies.

 

[DarkKnight88]

It wasn't a creative decision, but business one. The film was too long and QT refused to cut anything from it. What's even more important - they mean nothing as single films.

But wasn’t it edited as a separate film? It wasn’t like Kill Bill was edited as one single film then just cut in the middle, I think they both had their own separate post-production schedule.

 

[OutOfBoose]

But wasn’t it edited as a separate film? It wasn’t like Kill Bill was edited as one single film then just cut in the middle, I think they both had their own separate post-production schedule.

It was edited as a single film. It's chapters structure helped split it into two features almost untouched. There were some minor additions to smooth the transition.

 

[OutOfBoose]

Neither do the Lord of the Rings movies, but those are counted as a trilogy. So business decision or not, it's 2 movies.

Lord of the Rings was always meant to be 3 films.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Lord of the Rings was always meant to be 3 films.

Intent doesn't matter. It's the same idea. It's one story released in 3 parts. Hobbit was only meant to be 2 parts, but it ended up as 3. By the Kill Bill logic, Hobbit is only 2 films then because that was the initial intent of the project. That's just not how reality works. Kill Bill was released and sold in 2 parts. Therefore, it is 2 movies.

 

[OutOfBoose]

Intent doesn't matter. It's the same idea. It's one story released in 3 parts. Hobbit was only meant to be 2 parts, but it ended up as 3. By the Kill Bill logic, Hobbit is only 2 films then because that was the initial intent of the project. That's just not how reality works. Kill Bill was released and sold in 2 parts. Therefore, it is 2 movies.

It was sold as two movies, but it was finished and intended as one. Not hard to see the difference. Hobbit is again not a correct example. It was a much more complicated production. Filmed initially as a two films, it evolved into 3 with substantial additional filming.

You can call it whatever you like - dilogy, two-part movie, vol. 1 and it's sequel. The essence doesn't change. QT means it as a single thing. He even screened it as a single feature (The Whole Bloody Affair). Restored everything back to how it was meant to be. You will never see anything like that regarding Hobbit or LOTR.

 

[Spider-Fan]

It was sold as two movies, but it was finished and intended as one. Not hard to see the difference. Hobbit is again not a correct example. It was a much more complicated production. Filmed initially as a two films, it evolved into 3 with substantial additional filming.

You can call it whatever you like - dilogy, two-part movie, vol. 1 and it's sequel. The essence doesn't change. QT means it as a single thing. He even screened it as a single feature (The Whole Blood Affair). Restored everything back to how it was meant to be. You will never see anything like that regarding Hobbit or LOTR.

Once again, QT's intent doesn't matter. The film was sold as 2 separate films to consumers once it hit the market place. Therefore, 2 films. QT can think of the project however he wants, but that doesn't change the reality of how the films were released. Thus, his credit list officially has them as 2 films, so 9th film by QT is incorrect. You can make excuses all day for why my examples are different, but that doesn't change the fact consumers had to pay for 2 movie tickets to watch the movie and buy 2 different DVD/Blu Ray packages to own it (unless you bought the 2 pack with both movies), etc. If QT wants them to be considered 1 movie, then offer it as 1 movie to consumers and stop selling them individually. But that isn't the case, so it is 2.

 

[OutOfBoose]

Once again, QT's intent doesn't matter. The film was sold as 2 separate films to consumers once it hit the market place. Therefore, 2 films. QT can think of the project however he wants, but that doesn't change the reality of how the films were released. Thus, his credit list officially has them as 2 films, so 9th film by QT is incorrect. You can make excuses all day for why my examples are different, but that doesn't change the fact consumers had to pay for 2 movie tickets to watch the movie and buy 2 different DVD/Blu Ray packages to own it (unless you bought the 2 pack with both movies), etc. If QT wants them to be considered 1 movie, then offer it as 1 movie to consumers and stop selling them individually. But that isn't the case, so it is 2.

But he offered it as one. It wasn't just widespread release and it's not on home video (yet).