|
xcore posted:Did she know he was Mexican? He didn't really say anything other than saying his name was "Bob". Either way, she probably had a different outlook on "one of four paying customers coming through" and "hiring a Mexican employee and leaving him to run her beloved business for a week while she visits her parents" Maybe, but Warren's story was she thought Mexicans were lower than dogs and not allowed in under any circumstances. I guess it's subject to change on re-watch, but I thought it was fairly obvious he was using that to see if Bob would slip. Warren asked if Bob knew about the sign, then when it was clear he didn't (because it didn't exist), Warren started adding details at will. It was just another con in Warren's bag of tricks. Cemetry Gator posted:Warren is the protagonist. Remember, protagonist does not mean "good guy," it just simply is the person who drives the story forward and the events are centered around. It's a common mistake for us to assume that protagonist and antagonist mean 'good guy' and 'bad guy' respectively, because most movies are about good people. That is true, I should have phrased it as "not being the hero of the story." He does have some (suspect) principles, but he's clearly not above manipulating people to accomplish less-than-noble goals.
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 06:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 04:31 |
|
|
Well cut off my legs and call me shorty, that was fun time at the movies! I had completely forgot that Channing Tatum was in the cast until I saw his name in the credits, BUT THEN I forgot again during the movie! So his uh, popping up out of nowhere was extra special to me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 06:35
|
|
|
I'm wondering if Ruth's severed arm handcuffed to Daisy's wrist was a nod to the opening of Female Prisoner Scorpion: Beast Stable. Especially since Tarantino already used the series theme song for the Kill Bill vol. 2 end credits. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9L2vX-JY60
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 10:54
|
|
|
With QT, anything is possible. Even if it's not an explicit nod, it's probably something he internalized.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
I was about to make the comment "Apparently Looten Plunder fucked around with this message at 03:00 on Jan 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
xcore posted:I was about to make the comment "Apparently Yellowface isn't as controversial as Blackface" and ask if there had been any uproar about the the guy that played Bob. Then it turns out that he guy is actually a Mexican. I could have sworn it was just a tanned white guy doing a Speedy Gonzales impression. Man that accent was I think Yellowface is something else and it is indeed not controversial in the least for some reason
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 02:03
|
|
|
Demián Bichir is a great actor and I hope he works with Tarantino more. He's maybe the only good thing in the sequel to Machete. Actually, Walton Goggins was okay in that too. He's another dude who I hope works with Tarantino more.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
Moxie posted:I think Yellowface is something else and it is indeed not controversial in the least for some reason Cloud Atlas got some well deserved poo poo for it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 06:58
|
|
|
Moxie posted:I think Yellowface is something else and it is indeed not controversial in the least for some reason 
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
Bob's accent was broad enough that I sort of expected it would be revealed he was actually Lars Refnson from Minnesota or something.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too long and bloated
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
I was expecting bob to turn out to be Channing Tatum. His name was in the opening credits and then he was nowhere to be found for the longest time. So between the beard and hat obscuring his face and the super fake mexican accent I thought that was going to be the twist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 13:05
|
|
|
I rewatched Django last night, and goddamn this Tarantino have a distaste for Southern politeness and hospitality. The first plantation scene in Django has the Big Daddy character do the same exact quick turn from intolerance and hatred to overly sweet politeness like Goggins does in the stage coach. It's the exact same inflection.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 04:09
|
|
|
GMEEOORH posted:I was expecting bob to turn out to be Channing Tatum. His name was in the opening credits and then he was nowhere to be found for the longest time. So between the beard and hat obscuring his face and the super fake mexican accent I thought that was going to be the twist. We all know Channing Tatum can't do a Mexican accent. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkBx0gMGuhY
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 05:40
|
|
|
i think you mean 'Messican'
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
I just realized that Bob looks like Ortega from The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed Up Zombies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 08:08
|
|
|
Question for the Civil War buffs (with a very minor, inconsequential spoiler): When Mobray suggests they should divide the room into north/south halves, he makes the fireplace side for the south and the bar side for the north. He says the fire represents Georgia (ouch) and the bar represents Philadelphia. I assume the second half that line is supposed to be just as stinging as the first, but I can't make the connection to get the joke if there is one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
Blind Pineapple posted:Question for the Civil War buffs (with a very minor, inconsequential spoiler): Probably a reference to the Whiskey Rebellion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
Blind Pineapple posted:I assume the second half that line is supposed to be just as stinging as the first, but I can't make the connection to get the joke if there is one. Question for any American, what's so stinging about the first part of the line?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
 
FreudianSlippers fucked around with this message at 23:03 on Jan 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
xcore posted:Question for any American, what's so stinging about the first part of the line? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman%27s_March_to_the_Sea TL;DR: The North used a scorched earth approach on the South toward the end of the war, most notably burning through Atlanta and Savannah.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
Blind Pineapple posted:Question for the Civil War buffs (with a very minor, inconsequential spoiler): He hesitated a little and I really he was going to say Washington.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
It's Paddy's Pub. Okay that's probably not true but I want it to be.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
I Before E posted:It's Paddy's Pub. It was still known as Patrick's Pub in those days
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
Are we still spoiler tagging? So about the differences between the two versions of the film... http://www.movie-censorship.com/news.php?ID=9991 The actual article doesn't have much to add, but commenter John Conner sure does. Don't read this if you haven't seen it, I don't think there's anything you could accidentally read while scrolling past. John Conner posted:I've written out the dialogue of the exclusive scenes. I wrote the last line that they have in common, then the missing dialogue, then finished with the next common line of both versions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 03:39
|
|
|
I'm just going to go Full SMG here and say the whole movie's about authenticity and Jesus. For the sake of convenience, I'm not using spoilers. The very first shot is a fuckin' long, long shot of the Crucifixion buried in snow. It's telling you "God is dead, and nobody cares". Nobody looks after Jesus any more. Nobody believes. ("Oh, NOW you believe in Jesus!?") Someone pointed out the similarities to the white hood of the KKK earlier, which is also quite apt. Religion has become a tool to hate people with. There's a whole lot of lying going on in this movie, as has been covered. The important thing, though, is what the characters' (and the audience's) perception of the situation is, not what's actually true. It doesn't matter if Marquis dingus'd that general's son - Tarantino goes out of his way to establish both that Warren is a liar, and that the 'flashback' is extradiegetic ("putting pictures in your head, ain't it?") - the general believed he did, and that's good enough for him. It doesn't really matter if Mannix is the sheriff or not. When he does what's 'right', he's 'rewarded'. Since we're talking about a Tarantino film here, he's still going to bleed to death in the middle of nowhere after a frontier justice hanging, but nonetheless, he and Warren get to die at peace with themselves, content in the beautiful lie of the Lincoln letter. The reason I mentioned 'Full SMG' is because our resident robo-kaiju likes to talk about how cynicism in movie analysis ignores the actual meaning of the superficial - and that's what the movie is about, basically. Saying "oh they just did this to make money" is meaningless, because the movie is still there to analyse even if it was made for profit. It doesn't matter that the Lincoln letter is a pretty crappy forgery if Warren and Mannix believe in it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
Harime Nui posted:The Whole Bloody Affair has been on my amazon wish list for like three years are you guys sure it's never coming It's been on mine for six. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
They're screening all of Tarantino's movies currently at the New Beverly in LA. If you manage to go to all 8 screenings, you get a special pass to the Whole Bloody Affair at the end of the month. I missed the first two screenings because I was out of town for New Years. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
Was anyone else disappointed by the ending? I thought the first few acts had some really nice setup for inter-character conflict, the differing reasons they're all there, the secrets everyone is hiding and the interactions between them - then it turns out the strangers are all just part of some big bad gang and it doesn't get any more interesting than that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
Boing posted:Was anyone else disappointed by the ending? I thought the first few acts had some really nice setup for inter-character conflict, the differing reasons they're all there, the secrets everyone is hiding and the interactions between them - then it turns out the strangers are all just part of some big bad gang and it doesn't get any more interesting than that. Kinda. I was expecting it to be more of an "every one is in it for themselves and has different motives" type of thing. But I think that's almost certainly deliberate on Tarantino's part. Mobray sets up this idea that society is made up of interconnected parts. That bounty-hunters, criminals, and hangmen all fit into a system that serves the purpose of civilization. And that to do things otherwise would be mob rule. Frontier Justice. But then the plot of the movie basically calls this a lie. It's always going to be one side verses the other with innocents caught in between. So in the end I was totally happy with it, but it was not what I was expecting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 02:45
|
|
|
Boing posted:Was anyone else disappointed by the ending? And while I don't have anything against over the top violence and gore per se, the fact that Tarantino's decided to end all of of his recent movies that way is getting a bit stale.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 12:46
|
|
|
The guitar Kurt Russell smashes was a priceless antiquequote:Kurt Russell does not gently caress around. That much should be clear by now. So if you don’t want Kurt Russell to destroy your valuable artifact, you should probably make that crystal clear prior to him picking it up. According to a new story in SSN Insider, the crew of The Hateful Eight failed to really internalize that notion: See, in one scene in the movie, Jennifer Jason Leigh’s Daisy Domergue is playing a guitar, and Russell’s bounty hunter stomps over to her, grabs it, and smashes it to pieces. Turns out that guitar was a priceless antique on loan from the Martin Guitar Museum, and they are less than thrilled to learn what happened. Mark Ulano, the film’s sound mixer, recounts a story about just what went wrong.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
If there are replicas made then why in the loving gently caress you would even give out the original? Also would someone even recognized it as a copy?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
Sounds like everyone except Kurt Russell was a bit thick in that situation. Tarantino probably planned it out because it would be cool though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
Steve2911 posted:Sounds like everyone except Kurt Russell was a bit thick in that situation. Kurt Russell's job is to stay in character and give a good performance. Is he going to stop each take and go "yes, before we smash this we can all confirm that it's a replica, right?"?? He's not the propmaster. Like it's a real bummer that an antique got broken but the guitar nerds posting on social media like "it's a crime! I'll go out of my way to NOT see this movie!" are getting annoying.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 04:02
|
|
|
Yeah, I mean, it sucks, but if it was sentimentally or historically irreplaceable, it was the dumbfuck who loaned it out's fault. More directly, it's the propmaster's fault. If it was important and it was one of a few items that were not props and were borrowed antiques, everyone should have been informed about it. A similar thing happened in Battlestar Galactica, where Edward James Olmos improved smashing the model ship that his character had been building. It was an amazing scene, but he didn't know that it was an actual antique model ship that the prop department had borrowed from a museum. But it was insured. Because they were smart.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 04:51
|
|
|
GMEEOORH posted:Yeah, a bit. It wasn't awful or anything, but it didn't really feel like a satisfying way to resolve all of the stuff the first half of the movie set up. I watched The Hateful 8 last week. IMO, the dialogue was not very good in general and the movie was unnecessarily long. Average movie worth watching, and then you move on. And I see it the same way: his endings are beyond predictable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 06:27
|
|
|
Blind Pineapple posted:Question for the Civil War buffs (with a very minor, inconsequential spoiler): Blind Pineapple, or anyone else. Can you tell me (approximately) when in the movie this was said? I want to watch and hear it. Thanks. Edit in:I found it. The joke or phrase is at 1:08 in the movie. Positive Optimyst fucked around with this message at 09:01 on Feb 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 08:22
|
|
|
Blind Pineapple posted:Question for the Civil War buffs (with a very minor, inconsequential spoiler): Everyone in Philadelphia is drunk. That's the loving joke. It's not a huge secret that it's a city with a notorious level of alcoholism----remember it's the second biggest in the northeast and it was the initial capital except it was abandoned because it was so very garbo. Philly's always been kinda a stank town; if Mobray/English Pete's decision to have the bar represent Philadelphia meant anything it mighta meant that, but personally I think he was just going for the idea that Georgia with its gorgeous peach groves was "the heart" of the Confederacy and Philadelphia, with its ancient bell and cathedrals and original congressional location was "the heart" of a certain Yankee Spirit, and he chose his locations based on where people were actually hanging around in the cabin.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 12:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 04:31 |
|
|
Look, if there's connotations in that one line at all, it's that The South has the advantage of having hearth and home---true values, the comfort of real kin loyalty, whereas the North is a bar---the implicit criticism being that The North is all about scrambling for your advantage to get a momentary pleasure, the breakdown of the ties represented by the cozy and connected space dubbed "Georgia." But probably Mobray was just trying to keep people from going at each others' throats all at once and wanted Ruth to stay at the bar and Mannix to stay at the loving hearth.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 13:12
|
|