schmendeler said:

---

PatAg said:

---

I dont know if we talked about this, but I really thought the guy that played Tex gave an amazing performance in limited screen time. Would not be surprised to see him start to get larger roles

after I posted this I looked it up, and he is going to be in Baz Luhrmann's Elvis Presley movie AS Elvis

---

it always interests me how sometimes a new actor will show up in a movie and then be in several other movies soon thereafter, often having worked on the next before the first is released.

how does this happen, that a person goes from nothing to several movies in rapid succession? it can't be luck. is it just like copycat effect from movie makers? like if someone takes a risk on an actor, then the actor must be ok, so it's worth putting them in your project, too?

---

Probably a few reasons. Not all movies are planned, shot, and released all within a set time. Some movies are shot and released in the same year and others take 2 or more years from beginning of production to release date. Jessica Chastain was in 6 different movies released all in 2011 and everyone was like, who the hell is she and where did she come from?

Yeah, feels like an uphill battle at this point. The only chance will be for it to come second or third in basically all the ballots, and Parasite to take enough votes from 1917.

I'd also factor in the various acknowledgements of the 100 year anniversary of WWI in the last couple years (and pick any year or event from the war to decide which 100 year anniversary you're acknowledging), Peter Jackson's WWI in color, etc., I think there's a general sentiment of revised interest in WWI after all the WWII Greatest Generation sentiment of the previous decade. May be a bit of a tide there.

Nice, thanks for posting.

Do these usually go out to the academy?

No problem, and I honestly don't know. I just know that it's rare for a studio to post a behind the scenes thing like this for the public.

https://www.thewrap.com/quentin-tarantino-rick-dalton-after-once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood/

My headcanon was that after the movie, he became close friends with Sharon Tate, and eventually worked with Polanski, who finally made him a movie star. (In this universe, the whole rape thing never happens, since he remains married to Tate.)

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

My headcanon was that after the movie, he became close friends with Sharon Tate, and eventually worked with Polanski, who finally made him a movie star. (In this universe, the whole rape thing never happens, since he remains married to Tate.)

---

yeah I think that is what any rational person would conclude.

weird

I NEED this 4+ hour cut.

I have read some criticisms of this film Here and the primary response from those of you who really liked it are that the explanations of why we didn't love it are that they weren't thoroughly explained. That said, I didn't really dislike it per se, I just really didn't get it, and I'm not sure it was made for people like me.

First off, I was born in 1980 so past the heyday of this movie. I think this was QTs homage to the Golden Age of Hollywood and a lot of the nostalgia was probably one of the reasons so many in Hollywood liked it so much. There is nothing wrong with that at all. TCTTS is the resident Hollywood guy here and I'm sure a lot of the scenery and throwbacks to old shows and the landscape really resonated with him and those who are into that tome. I am not. I don't really have much interest in old Hollywood and that era so it just didn't resonate. On the contrary, my favorite movie of the last few years that absolutely hit home with me was Everybody Wants Some. While I wasn't alive during that era the experiences were the same in my college years and I really related to all of it. I loved those same days so it was a pretty perfect encapsulation of my college years.

Secondly, Ill admit, I didn't really get it. Im still not sure what QT was trying to convey with the movie and I still don't know what his statement was. I think you have to be familiar with the inner workings of the town and the industry to understand a lot of the scenes. I'm sure there was something deep about going and watching herself on the big screen, but whatever it was, I just didn't get it. A lot of this movie fell flat with me because I just didn't "get it". That's ok. Not every movie was made for everyone, and I'm not going to bag on anyone who liked it, but for Me, who grew up and have lived in Texas all my life, I just didn't relate.

Now, it wasn't all bad. Cliff was an awesome character, and there were some scenes that I laughed my ass off. I'd say In terms of Tarantino movies this is middle of the pack. I didn't hate it, but certainly didn't love it either.

For the record, I was born in 1980 as well and the only old TV shows I've ever seen are the ones that used to play on Nick at Nite, and none of them were westerns or anything like that FBI show. I don't know that world any better than you do. But the whole point of cinema is to introduce us to worlds we might be unfamiliar with, and to build empathy for people we might otherwise not know or encounter. As Roger Ebert once put it, ultimately, movies are "empathy machines," and to me, the point of this one was to endear us to Sharon Tate via her tragic history and the pure joy she experiences in that movie theater. The entire film is an exercise in preserving, celebrating, and, quite literally, defending that joy of cinema by way of empathy for a soul who was otherwise lost far too soon. Rick and Cliff are Hollywood personified, and in the end, "Hollywood" is literally defending "the joy of cinema" - personified through Tate - from those who wish to kill it. I'm sure there are other interpretations, some more eloquent or accurate than mine, but that's a big part of what I took away from it, at least.

That said, I get how it's an unconventional approach, and if it didn't work for you, it didn't work for you. Absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Born in 88 here. Love this movie.

Why were the 60s the golden age of Hollywood?

Isn't every age golden in Hollywood?

Certainly they were better than the 70s but I would back up in time to find the most golden age, the 50s were pretty darn good. I guess I don't see the 60s as being more magical and I lived through it.

BQ78 said:

---

Why were the 60s the golden age of Hollywood?

Isn't every age golden in Hollywood?

Certainly they were better than the 70s but I would back up in time to find the most golden age, the 50s were pretty darn good. I guess I don't see the 60s as being more magical and I lived through it.

---

Who are you asking? The movie is QTs vision, he is the one who thinks that was the golden age of hollywood. It sounds like you think it was the 50s. Personally I would put it (Hollywood's golden age) in the 70s when so many of the greatest movies of all time were made and several of the most important directors were at their peak. The films of the 50s and early 60s to me almost all still have that kind of stiff 1930s type of line delivery.
Honestly, it was probably the idiotic Hays Code more than anything else that made those movies from the 30s to the mid 60s so campy and bad.

Whoever wants to answer.

Just never thought of the 60s as being the best decade for Hollywood. I appreciate some of your critque of the '50s but would put forth James Dean, Robert Mitchum, Gregory Peck, Grace Kelly, Jimmy Stewart, Hitchcock and Ford all in their best decade and Ben Hur as Hollywood at its finest.

BQ78 said:

---

Whoever wants to answer.

Just never thought of the 60s as being the best decade for Hollywood. I appreciate some of your critque of the '50s but would put forth James Dean, Robert Mitchum, Gregory Peck, Grace Kelly, Jimmy Stewart, Hitchcock and Ford all in their best decade and Ben Hur as Hollywood at its finest.

---

Nostalgia must play a part for all of us. Sort of interesting (to me) that you're class of 78 and see it as the 50s, I'm class of 98 and see it as the 70s and QT is in the middle of us and he sees it as the 60s.

What we saw on TV as youngsters?

TCTTS said:

---

For the record, I was born in 1980 as well and the only old TV shows I've ever seen are the ones that used to play on Nick at Nite, and none of them were westerns or anything like that FBI show. I don't know that world any better than you do. But the whole point of cinema is to introduce us to worlds we might be unfamiliar with, and to build empathy for people we might otherwise not know or encounter. As Roger Ebert once put it, ultimately, movies are "empathy machines," and to me, the point of this one was to endear us to Sharon Tate via her tragic history and the pure joy she experiences in that movie theater. The entire film is an exercise in preserving, celebrating, and, quite literally, defending that joy of cinema by way of empathy for a soul who was otherwise lost far too soon. Rick and Cliff are Hollywood personified, and in the end, "Hollywood" is literally defending "the joy of cinema" - personified through Tate - from those who wish to kill it. I'm sure there are other interpretations, some more eloquent or accurate than mine, but that's a big part of what I took away from it, at least.

That said, I get how it's an unconventional approach, and if it didn't work for you, it didn't work for you. Absolutely nothing wrong with that.

---

I think if they had not cast such a well known actor in the Sharon Tate role, some people would have less issues with her not really doing anything in the movie. I think people were expecting some amazing acting/scenes from Robbie to go toe to toe with Pitt and Leo, but as you stated, that wasn't the purpose of her character.

Not saying everyone that wasnt a fan of the movie has this problem or issue with the film.

Quote:

---

I think people were expecting some amazing acting/scenes from Robbie to go toe to toe

---

No pun intended, I'm sure.

I suppose what you are getting at is story/acting vs. filmmaking.

Sometimes movies are so well made they win director, cinematography, sound, editing, set design etc. and cumulatively that is the best picture also.

Other times it isn't that so . much as it is the story and acting performances.

Sometimes it is both or all of that.

I've seen those three movies and two other noms and would have a hard time picking best picture among them for that reason.....but here's my brief reviews....

Once Upon a Time - great acting, story is a little meh until the end, and technically it has some great elements as usual for Tarantino, period piece aspect was well done.

1917 - technically off the charts, the size and scope is incredible, directing, cinematography, etc., the acting is good but not great.

Parasite - incredible story really, just keeps you mesmerized cuz it's so unique. some great acting too. directing, technical stuff is all very good also. really good to great in all aspects.

The Irishman - another great Scorsese flick with great performances. story is a little dry, period piece stuff is great. technical aspects did not stand out other than the de-aging of course.

Marriage Story - this is just full of great acting, and a good story but nothing special in terms of directing or technical things.

So I have not seen Ford v Ferrari, Joker, Little Women, or JoJo Rabbit. But plan to see 2 of those this weekend - Jojo and Little Women.



But based on what I've seen so far I think we might actually have the first foreign picture win Best Picture with Parasite. With none of the others standing out head and shoulders above I probably would give it to Parasite based on it being the most surprising thing I've seen this year in so many ways.

But I could see 1917 or any of those I saw winning actually. It's as wide open this year as ever I think. But that's also why I think Parasite might win as traditional voters will be split on those others and then the voting method they use becomes a factor:

They don't use a straight popular vote but something called Preferential Balloting. With more than 5 nominees the academy wanted to avoid giving best picture to some film that only got say 20% of the votes if it was well liked by just that small percentage but hated by others. So they brought back the old style preferential ballot method. In this voting method voters have to rank the nominated movies from 1 to 9. Then they disperse them effectively into piles with their top vote. If no film has more than 50% of the first place votes then they take the bottom movie out and redistribute it's votes to the 2nd picture on their list. Then again they see if one film has more than 50% of the votes cast. And they repeat that until some film does removing the bottom film and redistributing to their 2nd or 3rd choice if it was already redistributed, etc. etc.

So that's where I think Parasite can win. It might not be top among more than 50% but I think it's going to be split among 4-5 films and Parasite will be in the top 3 for many of them. That may be true of 1917 as well though. I think it's between those 2 personally.