Previous Comments

[1] On Jun-24-2008, Peter wrote:

It seems they like QT in this site, but they chose to show him in really awkward facial expressions in their photos. What's up with that?

And what is up with the 11-month schedule? Esp if this is a five-hour, 2-volume movie? And no one is even cast yet? No DP yet?

It took like 7 years to write this screenplay, and so it will take 11 months to produce? That has to be a misprint.

QT, take your time with the craft, I know you will. Good luck!

[2] On Jun-24-2008, ButchTheBoxer16 wrote:

Ya I am stoked that he is getting into gear and getting off his lazy ass, but the last thing I think anyone wants to see is him rushing this thing in 11 months and having the final product suffer because of it. Why not premiere it at Cannes 2010?

[3] On Jun-25-2008, Prink wrote:

Maybe he's the kind of guy who likes to work quickly, some people work better under pressure. There's no rule that says when a movie is made quickly it comes out looking rushed.

[4] On Jun-26-2008, Saiaf wrote:

Prink is right.

[5] On Jun-26-2008, Gman wrote:

Ideally, you take your time writing the script, and then you work as efficiently as you can on set. I've always thought that directors who take longer than a year just to film a single movie need to rethink their approach, because that's incredibly wasteful of time and money. Take two years, and your characters will look two years older in your last take than they did in your first.

[6] On Jun-27-2008, Dave wrote:

Yeah I have to agree that too much time in the production phase could likely mean too much over-thinking, and thus a worse product. As Quentin has said various times, directors do not age well. To find that "inner child" within that Picasso spent his entire life trying to get back to, a bit of pressure could be a marvelous thing for Quentin.

[7] On Jun-27-2008, Gman wrote:

Definitely. I don't think you can make a movie better by babying it. Maybe having to make Death Proof fairly quickly has taught Tarantino how to work more efficiently.

I think it's kind of funny that 11 months seems unreasonable when we're talking about QT. I don't think it took Clint Eastwood nearly that long to film his own WWII double feature, and that man is in his eighties. Tarantino is from the slacker generation, though.

[8] On Jun-28-2008, ButchTheBoxer16 wrote:

To Prink and GMan,
Prink
Yes, maybe QT is the kind of guy who works well under pressure, but there a couple things you have to remember. First off, even if he works well under pressure and could put out a movie in 11 months or less, that doesn't mean that his entire staff of people (like editor Sally Menke for example) all work well, quickly and under pressure too. And making movies is a group effort, not just how fast QT alone can do it.
Also, this isn't just your average movie. If it is so long that it could get split into two, then it will take double as long to film than if he was just filming a single movie, like Death Proof, therefore, doubling the time it takes to shoot it.
Lastly, taking the time to get the actors needed could be a huge struggle. Not only does he have to cast and find the right ones he wants, but he has to make sure that they don't have any other projects lined up for the next 11 months or for however long he needs them. Plus if the actor's strike happens, this movie WILL BE DELAYED.
GMan
Just to quote you for a second, "Take two years, and your characters will look two years older in your last take than they did in your first."
Not really. Look at the actors in Lord of the Rings who some of which spent over three years making. Do you see a 3 year age difference from the Fellowship to Return of the King? No. That is why you film with the same actors all at once instead of filming with them in January and then in December for example. You film all their stuff at once. Plus Hollywood make-up can do a lot.

[9] On Jul-01-2008, It just so happens... wrote:

True, true, but the LotR movies were directed simultanuosly for the most part even if they made them as the movies were released. So in a way that can also affect how people look.

But you are right for some shots from the Return of the King were filmed before Two Towers came out, then they continued the SAME shots with same actors a year later. Yes, movie make-up can do that.

[10] On Jul-02-2008, Kevin wrote:

Honestly people. Do we really need to doubt Quentin Tarantino in any way at this point? Let the man work. Death Proof: 3 weeks he had a script on the table. You don't see other main scene directors pulling that kind of show do you? Point is, he knows what hes doing. doubt not.

[11] On Jul-09-2008, ButchTheBoxer16 wrote:

Deadline Hollywood is reporting that IB is out to 4 different studios for financing and that QT has contacted Brad Pitt about starring. Interesting...

[12] On Aug-10-2008, Jim wrote:

Was'nt the original idea for this to be a WW II film homage to Dirty Dozen, kelly's heroes, Where Eagles Dare done in a "Spagetti Western" style ?

Sounds like it's changed a bit

Jim

Add Your Comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
Body:

Recent Inglorious Bastards Headlines

Or check out all the entries in the Inglorious Bastards category.