criterionforum.org

Tarantino has finished his next script and hopes to shoot it this summer. It's a western, tentatively titled The Hateful Eight. A part was written for Christoph Waltz, and several sites are reporting that Bruce Dern has been approached about a role.

I'm sure this will be great (if hopefully a little more disciplined than the last two), but after reading that article, all I really want to see is 40 Lashes Less One.

I just hope it's not another revenge film.

hearthesilence wrote:I just hope it's not another revenge film.

Said no one

If they banned revenge films, Mr T would have to hang a going out of business sign.

Everything he did before Kill Bill was not what I'd call a revenge film. If revenge was a factor in any of the characters, it wasn't the driving force or the main motivation for the film. That's when he did his best work. From Kill Bill on, everything he did was built around an obsessive and often juvenile pursuit of violent retribution. Out of that whole bunch, the only one I liked was Inglorious Basterds, and even that had moments that left a bad taste. Sorry, but whatever gratification he finds in the whole idea feels pretty damn hollow and insipid to me. It's a dumb fantasy.

EDIT: I haven't seen Kill Bill in years, before the last two films, and I just remembered that, to be fair, it does have some measure of maturity in the second installment. Thurman's character at least realizes that killing these people doesn't undo her sense of loss, and even acknowledges what she's doing to the daughter of one of the characters. But after five films in a row (or four depending on how you count), it's really wearing thin and the context of his last two films can make it seem more juvenile.

Don't get me wrong. I like QT. But it is really the same thing over and over again. Revenge, retribution and/or "i'll get him before he gets me" storylines, which is fine for the entertainment value but I never expect anything deep.

FrauBlucher wrote: fine for the entertainment value but I never expect anything deep.

As good a summation of Tarantino's ouevre as any

I remember being obsessed with Tarantino around the time when Inglourious Basterds came out. It was before I had begun to really familiarize myself with different types of films, and I looked at his films and his directorial style as being incredibly visionary and unique.

That being said, in the nearly 5 years time since then, my taste for Tarantino has only begun to decline and decline, reaching its lowest nadir with Django Unchained, which was probably the most disappointing film of 2012 for me (that final act was a disaster).

I do have my hopes for Hateful Eight (any new Tarantino film is one to check out even if you're not a fan of the man's style), though I do have my doubts as well.

You'll come out on the other end realizing it's okay to enjoy yourself at the movies eventually

Tarantino is throwing a fit because his script for The Hateful Eight was apparently leaked to several people. Now he doesn't want to make the movie.

This despite the fact that he seems to make sure that every one of his scripts circulates online a year before the movie is out.

Can't say I blame him for being upset, given the amount of people he gave this to. Really a shame, was looking forward to this.

I don't blame him for being upset, but it seems like he was just looking for an excuse to pick up his toys and go home on this one

I wonder if he took any precautions? Plenty of filmmakers get the receiving person to sign some kind of confidentiality agreement first. Then there's Woody Allen, who basically leaves a printed copy of the script with the actor for at best a few hours before taking it back.

After finishing the script it seems like a bizarre choice for Tarantino to request 70mm for. The vast majority of the film takes place inside what seems to be described as a rather small set (like literally only 5% is outside in the mountains that the script demands be filmed in cinemascope. You kind of get the feeling he just wanted to use it for the sake of using it, but Django would have been a much better choice for the expense.
As far as the narrative go, the first two acts seem to be pretty mature for Tarantino, its very much a Western Reservoir Dogs and shows his ability to sustain suspense for an extended period of time, as opposed to the more vignette-like style of Django. The last act kind of explodes into a bit of a mess, with a lot of unnecessarily introduced characters. But otherwise, its a major disappointment that this isn't going to be made (at least as soon as one would have hoped). It has a great deal of potential, and given the actors who were hinted at being considered for roles, would have been incredible just for the performances if nothing else.

Call me a cynic and conspiracy theorist, but I think QT loves and wants the pub. Especially this time of year, with all eyes on Hollywood.

When it comes to Hollywood one can't be skeptic enough. Why would someone spend months writing a script only to give up on it in a pique?

As far as I remember haven't most of his recent screenplays leaked? I recall Django circulating months and months before he began casting and filming.

If it is a publicity stunt it's going to become a pretty expensive one with the new addition of legal fees:
http://www.deadline.com/2014/01/quentin ... ht-script/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm no proponent of copyright/IP laws, but if this is what it takes to bring down Gawker then I'm all for it.

That lawsuit is ridiculous, Tarantino has no chance of winning, it'll probably get dismissed. There's absolutely no precedent of a "news" organization (Gawker technically counts) getting beaten by something like this.

I don't know... QT made his intention to publish it pretty clear before Gawker distributed the screenplay; making ad revenue off of the distribution of someone else's copyrighted work seems pretty open and shut to me.

This from Gawker:

We are being sued for contributory copyright infringement for linking to a site that is being sued for direct copyright infringement. We are not being sued for publishing copyrighted information.

There is no precedent for this at all. Could you imagine suing someone for posting a link to a website. Crazy. This whole thing reeks of publicity from one of the biggest self promotors in Hollywood.

Even so, I'm pretty sure the laws are on the books even for linking to copyrighted content.

It's called "contributory infringement" and it's the reason sites like the Pirate Bay can't operate from U.S. soil (it's also what helped bring down Napster). Not sure it'll work here, since Gawker is a press outlet and as such there's a steep First Amendment burden that Tarantino would have to overcome.