Previous Comments

[1] On Oct-16-2008, Glenn MacDougall wrote:

The title is spelled that way because that is how the Germans would say it. You know the old image of the Nazi saying things with an extra vowel like an extra "e" or "u"

[2] On Oct-16-2008, Glenn MacDougall wrote:

Plus, I read the script already. And it is, of course, great!

[3] On Oct-16-2008, ... wrote:

Yeah, for the admin or whatever of this site he really whines like a bitch all too much.

Tarantino does what the hell Tarantino wants.

If he wants do homage films or genre films he is allowed to make them for one simple reason...

THEY ARE THE GREATEST FILMS EVER!!

I can honestly say no Tarantino film has let me down. And I thought that Death Proof would suck before I saw it.

[4] On Oct-17-2008, ButchTheBoxer16 wrote:

The first picture from filming (of Brad Pitt) is online! Please post a link so everyone on this site can see!

[5] On Oct-21-2008, dave swann wrote:

I generally like QT's movies, but after reading the script for Inglorious Basterds, I have to say I really don't "get" the idea of the film. There is very little action in it and it is very very talky...think Kill bIll with less action....Im pretty bummed about it actually...and the ending is just...lame. I know it aint a documentary, but jeez, SOME sense of reality is called for in a WWII film. And there is not ONE SINGLE fight between the nazis and the Basterds...

Oh well...

dave swann

[6] On Oct-22-2008, Ryan wrote:

Dave Swann, dialog is, in my opinion, Tarantino's greatest gift. If you people talking, what did you like about Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction?

[7] On Oct-22-2008, Anonymous wrote:

dave swann- not a single fight??

Well now Im disapointed

[8] On Oct-22-2008, Gman wrote:

Scripts don't usually describe all of the action scenes in depth.

I really love the ending a lot more than the same ending every single WWII movie ever made has. To hell with historical accuracy, this is WWII as a comic book, as a movie, not as a docudrama, and I'm glad someone is finally doing Hitler as a supervillain and letting us watch him get blowed up real good. No other WWII movie ever has, or ever will, let us see Hitler get killed by the heroes, because that's not how it happened in real life. But, that's how it SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED.

[9] On Oct-22-2008, dave swann wrote:

I like his writing in most of his films, but in a WWII movie, there should at least be some fair amount of action and realism - as far as hitler et al. being blown up at the ending, I guess I just like a certain amount of realism to "get into the movie" so to speak.
Im not saying its crap or wrong, Im just saying its not for me.

I guess in the end I wish he's make movies like pulp fiction, jackie brown and res. dogs again because all those movies COULD have happened - there is a sense of gritty realism there. Even Kill Bill was good because it sent up a genre - kung fu, in a funny way.

But the holocaust and Nazis being treated in a pop culture hipster way just doesnt work for me. Just sayin...

[10] On Oct-24-2008, Gman wrote:

It depends on how he pulls it off. If he were a novelist and he said that this was in the "alternate history" genre, nobody would bat an eyelash at the ending. In Watchmen, the US won the Vietnam war and Nixon was president for like forty years. It can get away with that because it's a comic book. Metal Gear Solid plays with history a lot, but because it's a video game, nobody criticizes it. It seems like only movies are ever picked apart for having fun with timelines.

This script is very well researched. People are saying QT didn't do his research because of the ending, but that's retarded. Everyone knows Hitler didn't get blown up in a theater. However, all the details in the script are very accurate and reveal that Tarantino really did his research. If he can sell it with the production, the costumes, sets, etc, showing Hitler get killed will provide the catharsis and climax that the art of fiction was invented to provide, but which real life can not.

[11] On Oct-24-2008, Gman wrote:

Anyways, Hitler getting blown up COULD have happened, it almost DID happen, in fact. It didn't happen, but I think that's what fiction is for, giving us "What if?" scenarios. If movies only stuck to the facts, they wouldn't be fiction. Just like a jehri-curled hitman finding God and walking the earth COULD happen, but didn't, just like a middle aged black woman ripping off a small time gun dealer COULD happen, but didn't.

I say at least give it a chance. If you know anything about modern day crime in LA, you know that nobody employs black-suit hitmen, so Pulp Fiction is as much a "What if?" as Inglourious Basterds.

[12] On Oct-25-2008, misterpink867 wrote:

also, the basterds and the nazis do have some fight scenes, contrary to what was said earlier.

just to clear that up.

[13] On Oct-25-2008, ... wrote:

thanks misterpink867 for clearing that out. I knew it cant be totally action free even if it is a Tarantino flick.

[14] On Oct-26-2008, swann433 wrote:

I went back over the script and could not find an actual "fight scene" per se. there is a shootout in a basement but it isn't really between the Basterds and Nazis - its more Nazis vs Basterds vs other Nazis. and that's it - mostly we just see people talking before and after shootouts.

of course, I guess seeing the theater full of Nazi high command get blown up counts as an action scene...

[15] On Oct-27-2008, ColinS wrote:

Why the F would y'all read the script? Any one of you producing the film? Now STFU, and let's just wait to see the slugger play some baseball.

(my comment is just for jest.)

[16] On Oct-28-2008, misterpink867 wrote:

i can think of one scene in particular where the basterds storm a group of nazis.

granted, it's not very long in the script, but QT didn't necessarily need to write out exactly how every shot would look.

wait and see...

i really liked the script. it had a ton of laugh out loud moments and if you love film, it will really appeal to you. i thought it was pretty cool. there are a ton of old film references, i.e. german, silent, etc.

[17] On Oct-29-2008, swann433 wrote:

16 - could you point to the scene you are referring to? maybe I missed something but I cant recall this scene in the script - there is one scene that depicts an interrogation of two german soldiers AFTER an ambush of german troops, but there is no scene of the acual action as far as I can remember....

dave swann

[18] On Oct-31-2008, misterpink867 wrote:

again, like i said before, the scene is not very long in the script, but obviously can have more done with it in the film. the exact line reads:

"The Basterds AMBUSH the prison convoy, killing everybody".

if that doesn't sound like a damn action scene to me, I don't know what is.

regardless, no one has seen the movie, no one knows how QT will shoot the movie, so stop bitching about a film you haven't even seen yet. the script does not drag - it flows well. it's well written and has the potential to be a great flick.

[19] On Nov-01-2008, dave swann wrote:

jeez luweez - kind of flipping out on me here mister pink? going all midevil and shit?

we're just discussing the script - hell, I could be wrong but debating the points of a script aint no big deal...reasonable people can disagree was sort of my attitude.

I guess I missed that one sentence - my bad. ok, it is an action scene...happy?

Im hoping my gut is wrong on this one, sorta like W's on Iraq....we'll see.

dave

[20] On Nov-01-2008, misterpink867 wrote:

dave - see my comments on the topic above this one.

i'm not as pissed as you'd think. =)

my whole thing is that a script is a script, nothing more...yet. but you touched on that. i think that we're pretty much in the same boat man. no worries.

i'm not planning to go medieval on anyone's ass. =)

[21] On Nov-01-2008, dave swann wrote:

thanks...no problem dude. but I was wondering if anyone who has actually read the script is interested in discussing a few things (since I don't wanna ruin it for some with spoilers) I would like to get your opinions on how the movie ends (after the cinema scene)...I think its interesting that QT chose to let one particular character live....

[22] On Nov-02-2008, Cameron wrote:

I think that particular character you speak of dave comes across quite arrogant and over confident throughout the script and the fact a deal is made and "credit" given to him, makes him believe he's a hero(and still untouchable). And that pisses Aldo off and he does'nt want to let him get away with it, at least not without something to remind him of who he really is. It's the ultimate disgrace.

[23] On Nov-02-2008, dave swann wrote:

SPOLIERS AHEAD SO DONT READ IF YOU DONT WANT TO KNOW ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS ____

True - I guess I was more interested in QT allowing him to live at all...oh and willie with the newborn kid in the basement...apparently he lives too...interesting...

[24] On Nov-02-2008, misterpink867 wrote:

yeah the last scene where they did the carving was a little random to me. at first i didn't really dig it, but then i kind of put myself in the headspace i had during death proof.

the last scene in that where they kill stuntman mike was just so random too, but i loved the delivery. it'll all depend on the execution.

[25] On Nov-03-2008, dave swann wrote:

they killed stuntman mike? I thought they just beat him up? did it ever show him die?

?

[26] On Nov-03-2008, cameron wrote:

I think dave in the "grindhouse" version they just kicked the shit out of him, but the extended version shows the girls kicking the shit out of him then it pauses with them jumping in the air, then the screen goes black and comes back for a split second showing one of the girls stomping on mikes head.

[27] On Nov-03-2008, dave swann wrote:

aaahhh - missed that version. thanks for the info - I guess showing them killing him would be ...? too gory? strange how they decided not to show that....

[28] On Nov-04-2008, misterpink867 wrote:

they showed it in the theatrical version. they stomp on his head in the original too.

[29] On Nov-04-2008, cameron wrote:

I missed that. I want the complete grindhouse on bluray!
And why the hell did they release Kill Bill on blu ray with no special features?

[30] On Nov-10-2008, nate wrote:

i've read the script, it all seems a bit far fetch'd...but hey it's tarantino we're talking about here, and judging by the actors i've heard are going to be in the movie it should be good, i mean c'mon how can you go wrong with brad pit and bo vensen? i can't wait to see the scene where they're scalping the germans, and leaving them barefooted hahaha...i'm pretty sure tarantino has a thing with feet...i mean listen to the discussion between travolta and L jackson in pulp fiction...and the licking the finger and grazing the foot bit you saw in deathproof lol...just a thought.

[31] On Nov-10-2008, nate wrote:

oh and by the way i am completely on Gman's side when it comes to alternate reality...all of his opinions expressed in his comment i agree with 100%

[32] On Nov-22-2008, Ryan wrote:

wow. The script is too talky. the cast isn't good enough blah blah blah. all you people do is whine. first off, every qt film is entirely based on dialogue. your not gonna have 8 pages of him describing what the characters doing, the story flows based on the dialogue alone. second, he spends most of his time deciding who would be perfect for the role. he doesn't pick from any type of a list or b list at all. he finds the right actor/actress for the role whether its an unknown or someone that has been doing movies for fuckin 30 years. You people have to realize that the reason why his films work so well is because he chooses the right people to bring out the character and the dialogue in the first place. so what if adam sandler isn't gonna be in it. you really think adam sandler would pull off qt dialogue? no offence to him, I mean I think hes fuckin hilarious but I highly doubt it would work. which is probably why hes not in it now. stop being little children about it and recodnize the reasons why the cast is what it is. every person on there is there because they fit the role perfectly. hes probably the most anal director of all time. he won't stop shooting until he gets it absolutly perfect. and the only way to do that is have the perfect cast. I think you're all gonna shit your pants when this film is done. watch and learn.

[33] On Nov-22-2008, ryan wrote:

haha shit I posted this in the wrong one haha. anyways, as far as the script I refuse to read it. considering its gonna be totally different by the time the movie is done. you guys know that right?

Add Your Comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
Body:

Recent Inglorious Bastards Headlines

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