|
The jellybean in the floorboard scene shows you there's a basement.
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 22:42 |
|
|
How so? Because the toppled jellybeans were missing? (i.e. fell into the basement)
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
From what I can remember you can see right through the cracks in the floorboards into the hollow space underneath
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
RCarr posted:From what I can remember you can see right through the cracks in the floorboards into the hollow space underneath Huh, I did not notice this. I will look for it on my next viewing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
Haven't rewatched this yet. Can someone clear this up - Where did Pete get the gun he shot Mannix with? Didn't Ruth take his gun and give it to OB to put in the outhouse? Did Pete have another hidden or something? Like with the basement these guys aren't quite paranoid enough for the situation. Warren spots something is up straight away but still would let everyone stay armed were it not for Ruth.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
I think it shows how unprofessional these guys really are, and that whole theme about justice really just being on the right side of society's lines.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
OrthoTrot posted:Did Pete have another hidden or something? I assume everyone in westerns has at least 6 guns hidden on their person at all times.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
Steve2911 posted:I assume everyone in westerns has at least 6 guns hidden on their person at all times. I know they're six-guns, but how many?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
I Before E posted:I know they're six-guns, but how many? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
I Before E posted:I know they're six-guns, but how many? I like this post.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
OrthoTrot posted:Haven't rewatched this yet. Can someone clear this up - This bugged me too. Warren seems like he's thinking at least two steps ahead of everyone else. Didn't make sense.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
I doubt Warren would have been able to non-violently disarm everybody by himself. Plus he doesn't have the excuse of having a live prisoner to safeguard. It might also be possible that Ruth disarming everybody was Warren's idea.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
socketwrencher posted:This bugged me too. Warren seems like he's thinking at least two steps ahead of everyone else. Didn't make sense. Yeah but I feel like Marquis was kind of just ready to shoot everyone. The first person he kills in the movie he literally gives them a gun to get them to draw on him so he can justify killing them. When we first see him, he's literally sitting on a pile of bodies. While this might be overconfidence on his part, the only reason he doesn't come out on top in the end is because of the basement. Does he even get shot besides that time? I think he would have been happy to kill everyone there if he could find a legal justification.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
Snak posted:Yeah but I feel like Marquis was kind of just ready to shoot everyone. The first person he kills in the movie he literally gives them a gun to get them to draw on him so he can justify killing them. When we first see him, he's literally sitting on a pile of bodies. While this might be overconfidence on his part, the only reason he doesn't come out on top in the end is because of the basement. Does he even get shot besides that time? I think he would have been happy to kill everyone there if he could find a legal justification. That's true. If Channing Tatum missed his shot then Marquis would probably have waited out the blizzard, eaten some stew and walked away with $50k+ worth of bounty corpses.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
OrthoTrot posted:Haven't rewatched this yet. Can someone clear this up - Where did Pete get the gun he shot Mannix with? Didn't Ruth take his gun and give it to OB to put in the outhouse? Did Pete have another hidden or something? At the end of the flashback chapter it shows them stashing various extra guns about the place.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
Did it strike anyone else as curious why someone decided to poison the coffee? Jody gave specific instructions about having patience and waiting for Ruth to fall asleep. Mannix and Marquis showing up unexpectedly changed the dynamic, but it's only been a couple hours. It just made me wonder who made the call to use the poison (like did Daisy signal Gage or something). I don't see why Marquis shooting the general would have prompted immediate action. Also, Gage seemed like he picked a pretty bad time to use the gun from under the table. Mannix and Marquis were staring right at him with guns pointed. They'd both been shot and were going to go downhill, so why not wait for a better opportunity? Yeah, I get that the poo poo had hit the fan, but still.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:I doubt Warren would have been able to non-violently disarm everybody by himself. Plus he doesn't have the excuse of having a live prisoner to safeguard. Good points. I just hated him turning his back on everyone to grab some stew when he knew that Ruth was at the table chowing down without gun in hand.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
Snak posted:Yeah but I feel like Marquis was kind of just ready to shoot everyone. The first person he kills in the movie he literally gives them a gun to get them to draw on him so he can justify killing them. When we first see him, he's literally sitting on a pile of bodies. While this might be overconfidence on his part, the only reason he doesn't come out on top in the end is because of the basement. Does he even get shot besides that time? I think he would have been happy to kill everyone there if he could find a legal justification. I agree with all of this, except that he could have been killed if the gang was smarter. It may have been overconfidence, but I doubt he was counting on them acting stupidly. It wasn't just the stew thing, he also let his guard down when he was telling his story to the general. Just seems too careless for someone who's survived for so long on his wits. Also, sorry, I should have multi-quoted. Still trying to wake up here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
It's pretty fitting with the themes and what Warren tells us earlier in the movie: He just wants to kill white southerners, and fortunately for him there are all kinds of legal ways for him to do that. Pete asserts that justice requires an impartial executioner, but Marquis seems to think that as long as killing is done according to the letter of the law, it's just fine. After the intermission, QT points out that while the others debate the legality of Marquis shooting Sandy Smithers, Marquis has not doubt as to the legality of it. This is so important that it's not just implied, QT literally tells us. In a lot of ways, this movie is about how different ideas of right and wrong and justice and crime cause people to act in conflict with each other. Two characters seem to have strong senses of honor and romantic ideals: John and Jody, and they both die unceremonious deaths at the hands of their more pragmatic enemies. John Ruth believes that what he does is made better by answering for it. He brings criminals to stand trial and then watches them hang. He considers this his duty. He is meticulous in his practice of insuring his success, but he is also trusting. He is outraged and insulted when he learns that Marquis has lied to him and taken advantage of his romantic sensibilities. Similarly, while Jody opens with a cheap shot ambush and, prior to that, murdered a whole family, (not counting his life of crime prior to the events of the film), he pops out of the floor, hands up, grinning, that he's coming to save his sister. As though his loyalty means something. Neither he, nor his sister seem to expect that he will be immediately shot, although what other outcome they could expect is beyond me. In the end, the two people that survive are the ones who were dedicated to their personal causes, but not specific fantasies. Warren just wanted to kill white southerners and Mannix just wanted to fight for white southerners, and while they were on opposite sides, they seemed to develop a mutual respect centered on the fact that they mirrored each other. Everyone else was busy fighting over their differences. Claiming to be better than each other. edit: ^eh, you claim that he let his guard down during the story, but the way that the story ends basically proves that's not true. Snak fucked around with this message at 20:01 on Jan 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
Snak posted:
I read it as nobody survived. That the story allows him to let his guard down and not suffer the consequences doesn't change the fact that he (in my view) let his guard down.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
Oh I mean, you're right, they don't survive either, because they will both bleed out, I just kind of meant they are the last men standing, even if not for long. If that makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
Snak posted:Oh I mean, you're right, they don't survive either, because they will both bleed out, I just kind of meant they are the last men standing, even if not for long. If that makes sense. Yeah I get what you're saying. I'm probably just nitpicking. I just love cat-and-mouse scenarios where both sides are smart, it's just so much more interesting to me. Again, I refer to Inglorious Bastards- the opening scene, the scene in the restaurant with the strudel, the bar scene. I just love that kind of thing, and it's the sort of thing that film does so well as the subtlest gestures can be conveyed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
socketwrencher posted:Yeah I get what you're saying. I'm probably just nitpicking. I just love cat-and-mouse scenarios where both sides are smart, it's just so much more interesting to me. Again, I refer to Inglorious Bastards- the opening scene, the scene in the restaurant with the strudel, the bar scene. I just love that kind of thing, and it's the sort of thing that film does so well as the subtlest gestures can be conveyed. "Attendez la créme" is perhaps the best moment in Tarantino's career.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
socketwrencher posted:Yeah I get what you're saying. I'm probably just nitpicking. I just love cat-and-mouse scenarios where both sides are smart, it's just so much more interesting to me. Again, I refer to Inglorious Bastards- the opening scene, the scene in the restaurant with the strudel, the bar scene. I just love that kind of thing, and it's the sort of thing that film does so well as the subtlest gestures can be conveyed. Yeah, I don't think this is really one of those movies. A lot of people have expressed disappointment at the lack of emphasis on the "whodunnit" aspect of the story. I don't think the story is intended to be a whodunnit or a battle of wits. These aspects exist in the story to be sure, but I think the movie is much more about playing with our preconceptions and feelings than the characters. We, like the characters, are never really given a chance to piece things together before they come into play. For example we can't catch someone poisoning the coffee in the background. We don't see it and then we're told it happens. We haven't been given reason to think that there is a basement any more than the characters have.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
Worth noting that this is the first Tarantino movie completely devoid of pop-cultural or cultural references from characters. Like, he managed to sneak in the movie game into Basterds and even Django has that dialogue about Ziegfried (plus some Dumas talk later). Hateful Eight feels like his most "adult" movie because of that: politics and the perception of justice are put in front of everything, the characters are not allowed any simple, silly quirks to defuse the tension or make them more sympathetic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
Snak posted:Yeah, I don't think this is really one of those movies. A lot of people have expressed disappointment at the lack of emphasis on the "whodunnit" aspect of the story. I don't think the story is intended to be a whodunnit or a battle of wits. These aspects exist in the story to be sure, but I think the movie is much more about playing with our preconceptions and feelings than the characters. We, like the characters, are never really given a chance to piece things together before they come into play. For example we can't catch someone poisoning the coffee in the background. We don't see it and then we're told it happens. We haven't been given reason to think that there is a basement any more than the characters have. I'm not disappointed that it wasn't more of a whodunnit, but no matter the movie's intentions, the characters have to make sense. Marquis didn't. He may not have pieced the whole thing together before they came into play, but he caught the gist, and it was not good. After Ruth took the guns off Mobray and Gage, was Bob checked? I actually don't remember but I don't think he was. That's idiotic. The General is the "one of these things is not like the others" so I can see not being overly concerned with him. We do see a gloved hand pouring the poison into the coffee. As for the basement, there's a hatch cut out in the middle of the floor. What gets me about things like this is that they could have been handled differently and still left the rest of the movie and its intention to play with our preconceptions and feelings intact. It's not one or the other.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
When you see the gloves hand, its while QT is telling us that Daisy saw it, and not before. I think Marquis makes perfect sense. He's not a perfect superman, he's a flawed human like everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
Snak posted:When you see the gloves hand, its while QT is telling us that Daisy saw it, and not before Fair enough on both counts. It doesn't take a superman to cover some really obvious bases though, and I'd say he figured out how to survive by not being like everyone else, but I know I'm being tedious so I'll let it go.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 23:15
|
|
|
I think one thing to remember is even if you know something is up, you might not be able to act on that knowledge. All Warren has to go on really is his gut, since pretty much most of what he says about Minnie seems contradicted by the film. For example, her hatred off Mexicans is not supported by the flashback. So he suspects something is up, but accusing someone of murder without proof is likely to get you killed. I think because his hunch is correct, we overlook how wrong he was about a lot of little things. Basically, he was right for the wrong reasons.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:I think one thing to remember is even if you know something is up, you might not be able to act on that knowledge. All Warren has to go on really is his gut, since pretty much most of what he says about Minnie seems contradicted by the film. For example, her hatred off Mexicans is not supported by the flashback. So he suspects something is up, but accusing someone of murder without proof is likely to get you killed. I think because his hunch is correct, we overlook how wrong he was about a lot of little things. Basically, he was right for the wrong reasons. I agree that Warren couldn't directly accuse anyone of murder. But I think he had more than his gut telling him that Minnie and co. were killed and the culprit(s) were in that cabin. The way Warren was acting- not overly cautious, turning his back on people, not (surreptitiously) checking everything (like the hatch) in the cabin- might actually have made more sense if Minnie was still there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
It's more than that. Even if you suspect someone of murder, and you've been a bit forward about not not trusting them, turning your back on them for a brief period in a crowded room isn't necessarily opening you up to immediate assassination, and it may allay the fears of the suspect that you are on to them. I just don't think it's a fault. He seemed to be really happy to feel out the situation and let it progress, right up until poo poo started to hit the fan, and then he put everyone against the wall.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:I think one thing to remember is even if you know something is up, you might not be able to act on that knowledge. All Warren has to go on really is his gut, since pretty much most of what he says about Minnie seems contradicted by the film. For example, her hatred off Mexicans is not supported by the flashback. So he suspects something is up, but accusing someone of murder without proof is likely to get you killed. I think because his hunch is correct, we overlook how wrong he was about a lot of little things. Basically, he was right for the wrong reasons. It's actually Mannix who ends up being the most 'truthful' character. He pokes holes in Marquis initial story about how he escapes. He understands the law. Turns out he is the Sheriff of Red Rock. He's seemingly the only person who immediately understands that the Lincoln letter is a lie and chances are he's right about Gage (Though if I remember he makes Gage for a liar before they actually find out the truth). As for Warren, he knows something is up (And of course in this cosy coalition it's the black man who sees that something is rotten), and from then on out he's cautious, but there's not a lot he can really do about it. He's happy to go along with Ruth and corral the others, and who knows, after that was done then maybe he starts making some real noise. He's not stupid, it would be dumb to see the jelly beans on the floor and then immediately start asking questions when you're outmanned.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:I think one thing to remember is even if you know something is up, you might not be able to act on that knowledge. All Warren has to go on really is his gut, since pretty much most of what he says about Minnie seems contradicted by the film. For example, her hatred off Mexicans is not supported by the flashback. So he suspects something is up, but accusing someone of murder without proof is likely to get you killed. I think because his hunch is correct, we overlook how wrong he was about a lot of little things. Basically, he was right for the wrong reasons. Marquis did find the covered up bloodstain on Sweet Daves chair, which shows that something bad happened to Dave, and Bob had something to do with it since he was claiming Dave and Minnie went to visit Minnies mother.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
DrVenkman posted:It's actually Mannix who ends up being the most 'truthful' character. He pokes holes in Marquis initial story about how he escapes. He understands the law. Turns out he is the Sheriff of Red Rock. He's seemingly the only person who immediately understands that the Lincoln letter is a lie and chances are he's right about Gage (Though if I remember he makes Gage for a liar before they actually find out the truth). Yes and no. There is a recurring theme that no one believes he's the sheriff. If it's an act then it's definitely one he sticks with. But he's a weird character with a lot going on. He's young and nervy - awkward and desperate to fit in. He ingratiates himself with Ruth, Smithers and Warren at various points. The scene in the coach show he will say pretty much anything to keep himself in the good graces of those around him. I get the impression that he may be lying to himself as much as other people some of the time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
DrVenkman posted:As for Warren, he knows something is up (And of course in this cosy coalition it's the black man who sees that something is rotten), and from then on out he's cautious, but there's not a lot he can really do about it. He's happy to go along with Ruth and corral the others, and who knows, after that was done then maybe he starts making some real noise. He's not stupid, it would be dumb to see the jelly beans on the floor and then immediately start asking questions when you're outmanned. QT did an Interview on JJJ Radio this morning, he stated that Warren, being one black man in a cabin filled with white people, didn't trust anyone. He knows something is up, but like you said, can't really ask questions or do anything until he has the upper hand.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 02:03
|
|
|
Snak posted:It's more than that. Even if you suspect someone of murder, and you've been a bit forward about not not trusting them, turning your back on them for a brief period in a crowded room isn't necessarily opening you up to immediate assassination, and it may allay the fears of the suspect that you are on to them. I just don't think it's a fault. He seemed to be really happy to feel out the situation and let it progress, right up until poo poo started to hit the fan, and then he put everyone against the wall. Ok maybe I need to watch it again because it seems no one else had an issue with all this. I appreciate the feedback. On to the next issue: I've never seen more grown men hammer nails like 10-year-olds in my life.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 08:49
|
|
|
Saw this a few days ago. Post-Jackie Brown Tarantino has been a really mixed bag for me. His love for exploitation cinema doesn't really mix too well with his nonexistent financial restraints and his inability to just rein his movies in. When it comes to classic exploitation cinema, part of the charm to me is that pressure truly makes diamonds. The movies Tarantino is in love with and pays homage to never had the budgets that his films do and more importantly could not have the running times that his movies do. In my opinion, Kill Bill and Death Proof were mostly trash but Inglorious Basterds, Django Unchained and now The Hateful Eight have moments of brilliance in them. The cinematography, the acting, the plot, the score and (most) of the acting are all usually great. In Inglorious Basterds especially (every scene Christoph Waltz is in, the bar scene) you get these reminders of what a fantastic filmmaker Tarantino can be and how incredibly tense the scenes in his movies mostly are. Some goes for Django Unchained, there are plenty of these individual set pieces that really shows the genius of Tarantino. But... the sum of the parts haven't added up to much ever since Jackie Brown. I think one issue is that emotional engagement isn't really Tarantino's thing. That in itself isn't really a problem to me, especially when you have something so tightly constructed like Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction where there's basically no fat at all. Jackie Brown is fairly long film, but since you are so emotionally involved in the characters that doesn't really become an issue. In his last few movies, it's all surface and it's more importantly incredibly undisciplined surface. There is no reason for his current movies to be this long. Scenes go on forever with very little story development or quite frankly much else other than showing off technical or verbal marvel. Had Inglorious, Django and now The Hateful Eight been two hours each with half the budget I'm sure they'd all be instant classics but right now, Tarantino needs to do away with all the yes men and bring in an editor that can seriously trim his work down.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 09:56
|
|
|
Warren is a man of the law. He isn't an assassin. The war is over. He can't go around shooting everyone that lies because lying isn't a capital offense. That's why he "prosecutes then executes" Bob.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 22:42 |
|
|
temple posted:Warren is a man of the law. He isn't an assassin. The war is over. He can't go around shooting everyone that lies because lying isn't a capital offense. That's why he "prosecutes then executes" Bob. I'm not saying he should have gone around shooting people, just that some of his actions seemed careless and didn't seem to fit his character and mindset given the circumstances. And this man of the law stuck a knife in Gage's neck to persuade him to give up his gun, and killed Bob without actual proof that he killed Minnie et al.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 17:58
|
|