# Where can I find the Hateful 8?



## hendo (Jan 22, 2014)

Apparently the script of Tarantino's project has leaked on the interwebs, leading to the genius director to shelve the project completely.
If, and obviously I'm not, but if I _was_ looking for the script, where would be the sort of place I would find it?


----------



## wiskey (Jan 22, 2014)

He did say he reserved the right to still make it though, if he wanted to... If everyone said 'oh what a pity you shelved it it would have been _great_' for example


----------



## Ax^ (Jan 22, 2014)

he said it had been leaked to hollywood not the interwebz


appears agents of actors he had show the first draft to started to send selected actors to Q asking for roles within the project..

which prompted him to throws his toys out of the pram and decided to release it as a novel


----------



## hendo (Jan 22, 2014)

I cannot find it anywhere, so this makes sense. Some hacks saying its on the web though, but they're wrong I think.


----------



## T & P (Aug 14, 2015)

First trailer released. Not a massive fan of westerns and not expecting to be blown away by it (new Tatantino's films increasingly feel like the law of diminishing returns) but I'd watch it all the same


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 14, 2015)

I thought Sam Jackson had said he wasn't going to work with Tarrantino any more, owing to a disagreeement about the latter's overuse of his favourite word in many of his movies.


----------



## Reno (Aug 15, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> I thought Sam Jackson had said he wasn't going to work with Tarrantino any more, owing to a disagreeement about the latter's overuse of his favourite word in many of his movies.



Spike Lee took Tarantino to task for that, Jackson defended Tarantino.


----------



## Buddy Bradley (Aug 15, 2015)

Not massively impressed with the trailer - it seems a bit Tarantino-by-the-numbers to me, there's none of the wow factor that made you want to see Django Unchained for example.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Dec 22, 2015)

I just saw on a bus that this is not out until January 8th. I assumed it was already on DVD as on Sunday night I watched a 100% perfect picture copy of it on-line.


----------



## Reno (Dec 22, 2015)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> I just saw on a bus that this is not out until January 8th. I assumed it was already on DVD as on Sunday night I watched a 100% perfect picture copy of it on-line.


It's film awards season and therefore screener time. I want to see this at the cinema or at least in HD as it was shot on 65mm.


----------



## Ranu (Dec 22, 2015)

There's a screener version of it available to download.  As has been said, perfect quality.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 22, 2015)

Having seen a DVD copy I'd recommend going to the cinema to watch it.

Much better than the last two Tarrantino efforts, more disciplined. Feels like he's taking his own work seriously again.


----------



## starfish (Dec 22, 2015)

Have just noticed its available for streaming on Showbox.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Dec 23, 2015)

its available streaming on a site with a  .is  domain


----------



## felixthecat (Dec 24, 2015)

Reno said:


> It's film awards season and therefore screener time. I want to see this at the cinema or at least in HD as it was shot on 65mm.


 I agree with this. I only want to see this at the cinema to get the full effect of the Panavision 65. It'll be wasted on a small screen so I'll wait.


----------



## keybored (Dec 25, 2015)

A group of people shacked up during a blizzard with Kurt Russell being all paranoid and pointing guns at everyone


----------



## keybored (Dec 28, 2015)

keybored said:


> A group of people shacked up during a blizzard with Kurt Russell being all paranoid and pointing guns at everyone


Seen it all the way through now and can confirm it even has as much gore as "The Thing".


----------



## DexterTCN (Dec 28, 2015)

Tim Roth's character was totally Christoph Waltz.

And yes, 'cowboy' version of The Thing, not necessarily a bad thing.

Trying to spot the Channing Tatum character totally distracted me for quite a while.


----------



## Reno (Dec 28, 2015)

....


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 31, 2015)

DexterTCN said:


> Trying to spot the Channing Tatum character totally distracted me for quite a while.



Same here.


----------



## Gromit (Dec 31, 2015)

DexterTCN said:


> Tim Roth's character was totally Christoph Waltz.
> 
> And yes, 'cowboy' version of The Thing, not necessarily a bad thing.
> 
> Trying to spot the Channing Tatum character totally distracted me for quite a while.



He played Minnie the owner of the haberdashery yes?


----------



## lizzieloo (Dec 31, 2015)

Wrong thread


----------



## D'wards (Dec 31, 2015)

DexterTCN said:


> Trying to spot the Channing Tatum character totally distracted me for quite a while.


 I think they should not have credited him at the start - distracted you there, and gave the audience the spoiler they probably were not alone in the cabin.


----------



## DexterTCN (Dec 31, 2015)

D'wards said:


> I think they should not have credited him at the start - distracted you there, and gave the audience the spoiler...


Didn't give me any spoilers, I was looking at everyone.

Using Holmes' method....I deduced it was Bob.

You have though


----------



## Teenage Cthulhu (Dec 31, 2015)

not-bono-ever said:


> its available streaming on a site with a  .is  domain



I have seen the film but wouldn't mind knowing of another streaming site. Look at my puppy dog eyes.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Dec 31, 2015)

its the opposite of a call option

and soemwhere you stick your clothes whilst at the gym


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jan 1, 2016)

Teenage Cthulhu said:


> I have seen the film but wouldn't mind knowing of another streaming site. Look at my puppy dog eyes.



Just download the complete file from Kat, Pirate Bay or ExtraTorrent. The streaming sites are just the same stuff with added buffering.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Jan 1, 2016)

Thought it was OK. Too long, as seems to be the way of most films these days. Not sure I feel about the reveal. I think I need to watch it again. Still, far better than death proof, I didn't even make it the whole way through the short version.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 6, 2016)

Woikd one to watch it again now I know what I know from the first viewing. 
And also after reading this:.
‘The Hateful Eight’ Is a Hellish Journey into Quentin Tarantino's Psyche | VICE | United States


----------



## belboid (Jan 7, 2016)

Damn, I'm going top have to pay to see this now.  Bloody Cineworld are refusing to show it, and so I can't use my pass


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 7, 2016)

Teenage Cthulhu said:


> Look at my puppy dog eyes.


your eyes, i hope, and not an actual dog's.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 7, 2016)

belboid said:


> Damn, I'm going top have to pay to see this now.  Bloody Cineworld are refusing to show it, and so I can't use my pass


perfectly good screener available on the usual torrent sites. Not one of tarantino's keepers to my mind


----------



## belboid (Jan 7, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> perfectly good screener available on the usual torrent sites. Not one of tarantino's keepers to my mind


This is (or should be) a good film that is on release here (or will be tomorrow).  I'll pay to see a proper copy, beautifully screened, and without irritating idents


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 7, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> perfectly good screener available on the usual torrent sites. Not one of tarantino's keepers to my mind


you may be right but i'll still see it


----------



## ffsear (Jan 7, 2016)

Perfect screener of The Revenant out also.   Looks like no oscar again for Dicaprio this year!


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 7, 2016)

ffsear said:


> Perfect screener of The Revenant out also.   Looks like no oscar again for Dicaprio this year!


Why? His performance has been praised loads.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 7, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Why? His performance has been praised loads.


yeh. but what bearing does praise have on the oscar process?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 7, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. but what bearing does praise have on the oscar process?


Some


----------



## ffsear (Jan 7, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Why? His performance has been praised loads.




Its good,  but its not stand out for me.  The film itself though I think could land best cinematography,  which was excellent.


----------



## Reno (Jan 7, 2016)

Was going to go to see this at the pictures tomorrow but it's £20 for the 70mm screening. 

Fuck that, but I'll at least wait for the Blu-ray to rent or an HD torrent.


----------



## Kesher (Jan 8, 2016)

belboid said:


> Damn, I'm going top have to pay to see this now.  Bloody Cineworld are refusing to show it, and so I can't use my pass



Cineworld members can email  complaints to: 

unlimited@cineworld.co.uk

or phone 

0330 333 4444


Customers services is:

customer.services@cineworld.co.uk

or phone

0333 003 3444


----------



## Reno (Jan 8, 2016)

ffsear said:


> Perfect screener of The Revenant out also.   Looks like no oscar again for Dicaprio this year!


He is currently the front runner on all the Oscar prediction lists for 2016. Not only is he overdue for a win, he stars in one one of the top awards films for 2016 and the Oscars love a character who suffers and overcomes adversary and that he does in The Revenant.

I doubt a DVD screener is "perfect" especially for a film as visually stunning as The Revenant. These things get rushed out for awards voters and often have not even gone through a final grade and mix for home video. On any reasonably large display they will look crap. I was in a position for many years where I legitimately got sent screeners for all the new awards worthy films and eventually I stopped watching the ones for films which primarily worked on a visual/sensory level (like The Revenant) because they don't represent the films the way they were intended to be seen.


----------



## Reno (Jan 8, 2016)

belboid said:


> Damn, I'm going top have to pay to see this now.  Bloody Cineworld are refusing to show it, and so I can't use my pass


This is why Cineworld isn't showing  The Hateful Eight


----------



## belboid (Jan 8, 2016)

Reno said:


> This is why Cineworld isn't showing  The Hateful Eight


yes, they're being right childish tossers.

(tho maybe they think it just wont do as well as yet another screen showing Star Wars)


----------



## felixthecat (Jan 9, 2016)

Went to see this last night. Loved it. Slow build up, couldn't quite see where is was going then the most wonderful Tarantino blood, brains and body parts orgy of violence kinda explained it all

I've been offered a screener of the Revenant but turned it down in favour of seeing at the cinema next week - really looking forward to it.


----------



## Diamond (Jan 14, 2016)

Just seen it in 70mm format at The Rich Mix (incidentally a fantastic cinema with a brilliant screen that I was previously unaware of) and thought that it was fantastic.  For me Michael Madsen stole the show.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 17, 2016)

Reno said:


> Was going to go to see this at the pictures tomorrow but it's £20 for the 70mm screening.
> 
> Fuck that, but I'll at least wait for the Blu-ray to rent or an HD torrent.


I really dont think this film needs to be seen in 70mm - i saw it digitally and it looked super sharp - but quality aside, the main thing is that 90% of the film takes place on one clearly-a-studio set, and another 6% on another studio set, and personally i dont see how this whole 70mm thing added anything to this particular film, other than being misleading that it was going to be an epic snowy western with lots of great landscapes in the style of The Great Silence. It couldn't be more opposite - to me it looked a TV show. I deliberately didn't read anything about it before hand, but i kind of wish id known this as maybe i wouldn't have been so disappointed.

There were things i liked a lot: the score, the couple of outdoor shots, the attempt to make a hollywood blockbuster that is effectively a one room, dialogue led theatre piece, some of the performances....but there were loads of things I really didnt like: some awkward dialogue at times, lots felt like a rehash of earlier tarantino films, some weird caricature acting (Roth especially), tone changing from serious to pantomime, from realistic to cartoon, the whole n-word thing yet again... Above all it all felt really stagey, and was lit like a tv set, and so for me there was very little suspension of disbelief. Didnt believe for a second they were out isolated on top of a mountain in a blizzard. The Shining you feel that to the bone - here they were just stuck on a set.

I saw Death Proof over xmas and loved that because it was out and out going for b movie territory, and you got the feeling that Tarantino relaxed and just had fun with it. Whereas here there are moments and signs of attempting to do something a lot better than that, but in fact that just confused me to the fact that this is really just a long pantomime yarn.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jan 17, 2016)

I really rather enjoyed this film.  Granted it's not one of his best but still a great film.  A lot of the complaints about it seem to be around the fact it largely takes place in one room, did these people not see Reservoir Dogs then?


----------



## ska invita (Jan 17, 2016)

interesting overview of this endless Tarantino use of the word nigger....
http://gawker.com/the-complete-history-of-quentin-tarantino-saying-nigge-1748731193


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 17, 2016)

ska invita said:


> interesting overview of this endless Tarantino use of the word nigger....
> http://gawker.com/the-complete-history-of-quentin-tarantino-saying-nigge-1748731193



gleefully slapping a woman about too. I can see the little ferret faced master of pastiche sniggering as he wrote that bit. I give you it that its treatment of women is perhaps historically accurate as probably is the repeated nigger-saying. I don't think tarantino pulls either off with enough depth to make them anything other than cheap tricks to shock and awe.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 17, 2016)

I thought his use of language in Django Unchained was very effective. As far as I recall, excepting the German character, every white person in the whole film uses just one word for black people. Given the times he is depicting, I found that very effective, particularly given the film's black and white morality. In fact, it defines the film's morality: every single one of these people deserves to die. The Australians use different words (don't remember what exactly), and there is a momentary questioning as to what they deserve, but no, they're in it as well, so bang bang. 

I didn't find that gratuitous or a cheap trick at all - it had an important point to it.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jan 18, 2016)

Don't really understand why it's made an issue of really. None of the usages of it are particularly out of context and more often than not they're spoken by a black actor.  Granted, it was probably over used in Django and the Hateful 8 but when considering the times those films are set in it's not out of context at all.  America hasn't even begun to deal with its slavery history or the fact the country is built on a genocide and it seems to me those that can't or won't accept it are often the ones screaming loudest about this.  Of course there would be little, if any, concern at all if Tarrantino was black


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Granted, it was probably over used in Django



It's pretty much exclusively spoken by white actors in Django (and the Hateful 8 for that matter). Would it have been better if those nasty white slave-owners had used less vile language about the people they owned?

I think it was used in exactly the right proportion in Django.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 18, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Don't really understand why it's made an issue of really. None of the usages of it are particularly out of context and more often than not they're spoken by a black actor.  Granted, it was probably over used in Django and the Hateful 8 but when considering the times those films are set in it's not out of context at all.  America hasn't even begun to deal with its slavery history or the fact the country is built on a genocide and it seems to me those that can't or won't accept it are often the ones screaming loudest about this.  Of course there would be little, if any, concern at all if Tarrantino was black


Did you not see this?


ska invita said:


> interesting overview of this endless Tarantino use of the word nigger....
> http://gawker.com/the-complete-history-of-quentin-tarantino-saying-nigge-1748731193


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 18, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's pretty much exclusively spoken by white actors in Django. Would it have been better if those nasty white slave-owners had used less vile language about the people they owned?
> 
> I think it was used in exactly the right proportion in Django.


how about in Pulp Fiction? It's clear that he gets off on saying it


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> how about in Pulp Fiction? It's clear that he gets off on saying it


Is it? In PF you're right, it's used very differently, but not in a fanciful way - that usage happens in the US. The argument would be that depicting those particular characters not talking like that would be a sanitising cop-out.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jan 18, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Did you not see this?



Yeah I did. Still don't see the issue really.  Jackie Brown was a homage to blacksploittion films where every person in that film using the word is black and is well in line with those films.  Jules using it in Pulp Fiction is pretty much how I'd expect his character to talk, same with  Marcellus.  There's a few instances of it in True Romance, which he didn't actually direct, that's a bit OTT and in Reservoir Dogs but Django and Hateful 8 is where it's most used and most in context.  In those times black people were lynched for looking at a white woman the wrong way so they were hardly going to be referred to as anything other than a nigger were they? It's therefore realistic it's used that much in a film about slavery and in another film set in the time just after a civil war over slavery.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Yeah I did. Still don't see the issue really.  Jackie Brown was a homage to blacksploittion films where every person in that film using the word is black and is well in line with those films.  Jules using it in Pulp Fiction is pretty much how I'd expect his character to talk, same with  Marcellus.  There's a few instances of it in True Romance, which he didn't actually direct, that's a bit OTT and in Reservoir Dogs but Django and Hateful 8 is where it's most used and most in context.  In those times black people were lynched for looking at a white woman the wrong way so they were hardly going to be referred to as anything other than a nigger were they? It's therefore realistic it's used that much in a film about slavery and in another film set in the time just after a civil war over slavery.


Pretty much. It's odd in many ways for people to take exception to the use of language by racist white characters in the deeply racist 19th century USA. Of all the things to take exception to about those times. He doesn't skirt around the fundamentally racist nature of the times - he confronts that nature head-on. You might not like the way he does it, but it's odd in the extreme to me to have a go at him for doing it. Think of all the Westerns still made that barely touch it.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 18, 2016)

i buy the realism, but not the glee QT seems to take in using the word


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 18, 2016)

I mean, come off it:


----------



## ska invita (Jan 18, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> how about in Pulp Fiction? It's clear that he gets off on saying it


this is the thing - as much as Tarantino is a director, he is perhaps above all a screenwriter, but unlike most screenwriters you really hear his own voice coming loud and clear through the actors - the reason for that is partly because rather than writing really character-specific dialogue, often the characters are really quite 2d, and are more conduits for clever Tarantino lines.

In Hateful Eight there was a scene with Milly where she learns to say Oui, and has her saying "ask me if my ass is fat" which felt really inappropriate for her, even though the character had only been on screen a minute - what it felt like was Tarantino making some kind of a gag (which to me was on the offensive spectrum somewhere!).

Eight films in its clear that Tarantino is really interested in having african-american characters in his films, and in the last two specifically getting into some historic US race politics. These are big issues. I just dont think he's mature enough to deal with them, which means you end up with big issues raised, and then dealt with in what to me feels like a clumsy/b-movie/pantomime way. Some scenes work. Many others don't. Likewise his use of the word nigger - at times its appropriate and effective - but other times its comes over as a thrill for him, and awkward for the audience. Often the dialogue in his films feels like him showing off, rather than writing character-specific dialogue.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> i buy the realism, but not the glee QT seems to take in using the word


I see no glee in it in Django Unchained. None at all.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jan 18, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> I mean, come off it:




'Do you a see sign on my house that says dead black fellow storage?' - It doesn't have quite the same ring to it does it? Nor does it fit with the tone of the film either.  It's a forceful word, an aggressive word and yes a racist word. Doubtless he uses it to shock in this context, in the same way he shows John Travolta shooting some bloke in the face and the extremely gory aftermath of it.  Whether it's gleeful or not I dunno but the fixation with him using the word is purely because he's a white film director using it in his films.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Often the dialogue in his films feels like him showing off, rather than writing character-specific dialogue.


I do agree with this, and felt it somewhat in Hateful 8. I thought it had some good ideas - particularly the Lincoln Letter - but there were jarring moments. This isn't a spoiler as it's right at the start, but right at the start there is a very knowing discussion of the use of language. I hated that - it pulled me right out of the action and felt self-indulgent and unnecessary.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 18, 2016)

ska invita said:


> conduits for clever Tarantino lines.


I stopped finding them clever around Inglorious Basterds era. And when you don't buy his lines and the well judged shooting is just that? you are left with hollow pastiche, and pastiche should never be hollow.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 18, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> I stopped finding them clever around Inglorious Basterds era. And when you don't buy his lines and the well judged shooting is just that? you are left with hollow pastiche, and pastiche should never be hollow.


yeah it does get a bit tired. and i agree there is something a bit hollow there. thats why i liked Death Proof - it was a hollow set up with no pretensions and you end up letting him off more on just doing a film in his style.

In Death Proof he has a real stunt woman Zoe Bell playing one of the leads. Shes not a great actress and her performance in it is pretty B Movie-ish. But so what? Its fun in the set up of the film, and then she does some cool stunts and its all a fun ride.





She make a short appearance in the Hateful 8 and is again unconvincing, with an OTT performance - but this film isnt Death Proof - it feels like it wanted to be more than that. Its got a Morricone soundtrack. Its shot in 70mm. Its dealing with bigger issues. Why have her in it, saying she's from Auckland and generally breaking the mood of the film? Why, because Tarantino likes her and he wants to have fun making films his own way. 

And again at that bit I started thinking about Tarantino again - it happened a lot - rather than getting lost in the story or the mood I was thinking about him and what he was doing. Some people on IMDB are saying this film was self indulgent - and I think thats right - its so much about him. The fact he comes in as a narrator in it was another sign of it. Or in the titles saying Tarantinos 8th Film. And to go back to the nigger-use, often thats part of the same problem - its comes over as him using the word rather than the character.

I dont know...I'm thinking out loud a bit...something just doesn't sit right and its hard to put a finger on what it is exactly


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 18, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I see no glee in it in Django Unchained. None at all.


Why are you focussing on just one film?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 18, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> the fixation with him using the word is purely because he's a white film director using it in his films.


Yes, for good reason


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 18, 2016)

Did you see Hobo With a Shotgun ska? its not tarantino but its of the deathproof grindhouse (i think thats what its called) mould. Its brilliant



Rutger Haur ftw


----------



## ska invita (Jan 18, 2016)

Want to go to bed, but one other major gripe was that the mood of the Habberdashery was so fake - such a studio set. Westerns often have such great settings and sense of place...
These from Once Upon a Time in the West felt so real and memorable
The Station




The Bar





The Train
(cant find a picture of the train)

Just doesnt compare...Tarantino had 60 million to make this film and its all on one set - I just dont get it - unless its deliberately meant to feel like a stage set, which _might_ be the case what with how much of a play the film is like.


DotCommunist said:


> Did you see Hobo With a Shotgun ska? its not tarantino but its of the deathproof grindhouse (i think thats what its called) mould. Its brilliant
> 
> 
> 
> Rutger Haur ftw



no, heard about it but title put me off - will give it a try


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Why are you focussing on just one film?


Why are you generalising across all his films? Given that django is top of that graph seems one to tackle.  I answered about pulp fiction too.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Want to go to bed, but one other major gripe was that the mood of the Habberdashery was so fake - such a studio set. Westerns often have such great settings and sense of place...
> These from Once Upon a Time in the West felt so real and memorable
> The Station
> 
> ...


My impression was that the staginess was deliberate. I think that can work. Like Hitchcock's Rope, the staginess can add to the claustrophobia.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 18, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Why are you generalising across all his films? Given that django is top of that graph seems one to tackle.  I answered about pulp fiction too.


I maintain that QT takes a perverse pleasure in writing the n-word and making his characters say it, especially his white characters. The most egregious example is when it's said by a character he plays.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jan 18, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Yes, for good reason



What's that then?


----------



## belboid (Jan 18, 2016)

ska invita said:


> yeah it does get a bit tired. and i agree there is something a bit hollow there. thats why i liked Death Proof - it was a hollow set up with no pretensions and you end up letting him off more on just doing a film in his style.
> 
> In Death Proof he has a real stunt woman Zoe Bell playing one of the leads. Shes not a great actress and her performance in it is pretty B Movie-ish. But so what? Its fun in the set up of the film, and then she does some cool stunts and its all a fun ride.
> 
> ...


I think Bell was fine in this. Yes, her mood/accent/behaviour is completely at odds with everyone else's, but that happens. A couple of moments of light relief before the inevitable starts (again).  Hearing such accent sin the wild west does sound immediately wrong (as QT's did in Django) but it is perfectly historically supportable.

This film did feel rather slighter than his last couple, and far more televisual, but it worked for that, i think. It's not as serious as DU or Inglorious, almost halfway between them and Grindhouse, but it's all the better for that. And it is kinda based on (inspired by?) old Gunsmoke/High Chaperal episodes, so its televisual look suits if quite well.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 18, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> What's that then?


Oh, you know, hundreds of years of oppression and use of language to effect such oppression


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jan 18, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Oh, you know, hundreds of years of oppression and use of language to effect such oppression


So a white person isn't allowed to use it in context in a film then because it makes you feel offended on behalf of other people? Yeah, that seems like a really sensible way to proceed, pretend it never existed and still doesn't exist.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 18, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> So a white person isn't allowed to use it in context in a film then because it makes you feel offended on behalf of other people? Yeah, that seems like a really sensible way to proceed, pretend it never existed and still doesn't exist.


That's a rather theatrical response. 'Isn't allowed'? Who's stopping QT?
'Offended'? Not me. There's a difference between being offended and saying QT being infatuated with using the word is a bit dodgy. 
And it's not just me saying this. A lot of people have criticised his use of the word.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jan 18, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> That's a rather theatrical response. 'Isn't allowed'? Who's stopping QT?
> 'Offended'? Not me. There's a difference between being offended and saying QT being infatuated with using the word is a bit dodgy.
> And it's not just me saying this. A lot of people have criticised his use of the word.


Yeah a lot of people have criticised it. Those people being, as usual, precious white liberal types who can't deal with the present day reality and history of their own country. Most of QT's characters aren't nice people and I'd expect them to be racist, most people I know who aren't nice people are racist to varying degrees. I'd say the only film it's used gratuitously and largely unnecessarily is Reservoir Dogs.


----------



## weltweit (Jan 18, 2016)

The people I saw Hateful 8 with burst into laughter when one of the gang had his head blown off. I didn't get into the film, nor find it funny, the setup for the inevitable violence was quite pedestrian, I didn't find the characters convincing, except for the girl, and the violence was typical Tarrantino and since Reservoir Dogs / Kill Bill etc etc, does not shock me anymore.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 18, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Yeah a lot of people have criticised it. Those people being, as usual, precious white liberal types who can't deal with the present day reality and history of their own country. Most of QT's characters aren't nice people and I'd expect them to be racist, most people I know who aren't nice people are racist to varying degrees. I'd say the only film it's used gratuitously and largely unnecessarily is Reservoir Dogs.


Nope, plenty of black people have criticised him too, notably Spike Lee.
And I can't believe people don't think QT's character in Pulp Fiction doesn't use it gratuitously.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jan 18, 2016)

weltweit said:


> The people I saw Hateful 8 with burst into laughter when one of the gang had his head blown off. I didn't get into the film, nor find it funny, the setup for the inevitable violence was quite pedestrian, I didn't find the characters convincing, except for the girl, and the violence was typical Tarrantino and since Reservoir Dogs / Kill Bill etc etc, does not shock me anymore.


Why would it shock anyone when every day mass shootings in America no longer shock anyone anymore either? Certainly not enough for anyone to do anything about it. I find his violence has taken on an absurd Tom & Jerry like quality to it in recent films, the blood being so ridiculous it is funny like in brain dead, ever see that film? I suspect it's intentional.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Nope, plenty of black people have criticised him too, notably Spike Lee.


Hmmm. Spike Lee saw fit to criticise Django Unchained without even watching it, which is a bit poor imo.


----------



## belboid (Jan 18, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Nope, plenty of black people have criticised him too, notably Spike Lee.
> And I can't believe people don't think QT's character in Pulp Fiction doesn't use it gratuitously.


really? What word do you think that character would have used?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 18, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Hmmm. Spike Lee saw fit to criticise Django Unchained without even watching it, which is a bit poor imo.


He's criticised it's use in Jackie Brown and other films too


----------



## belboid (Jan 18, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Hmmm. Spike Lee saw fit to criticise Django Unchained without even watching it, which is a bit poor imo.


Lee's point is fair enough - the mass annihilation of black slaves not being a spaghetti western. So it's fair enough he wouldn't want to see it.  Same as I have no desire to see Michael Bay's Benghazi movie, but will still say it's shit.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 18, 2016)

belboid said:


> really? What word do you think that character would have used?


I don't know! I'm not QT. It seems over the top to me. I don't know any Americans who'd use the word but I also don't know any who'd receive a visit from two criminals who'd accidentally blown someone's head off


----------



## weltweit (Jan 18, 2016)

Anyhow, can anyone date it? It has to be post civil war because of the characters but pre Lincoln's assassination because that is not mentioned in the discussion of his fake letter.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> I don't know! I'm not QT. It seems over the top to me. I don't know any Americans who'd use the word but I also don't know any who'd receive a visit from two criminals who'd accidentally blown someone's head off


When I lived in the States, I met plenty of white people who would not hold back in using the word even to people they'd just met. Probably a class thing - if you are mostly meeting middle class Americans, then no, they won't use it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2016)

weltweit said:


> Anyhow, can anyone date it? It has to be post civil war because of the characters but pre Lincoln's assassination because that is not mentioned in the discussion of his fake letter.


No, post-war - a few years after the war, so post-Lincoln's assassination.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jan 18, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Nope, plenty of black people have criticised him too, notably Spike Lee.
> And I can't believe people don't think QT's character in Pulp Fiction doesn't use it gratuitously.


Yeah we all know what Spike Lee thinks about it, it's well documented, meh. Maybe he did use it gratuitously that one time. I hadn't really given it much thought until you brought it up repeatedly. Even if he did so what? Is he a racist now? You might as well point out he's infatuated with and gratuitously uses the word fuck too.


----------



## weltweit (Jan 18, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No, post-war - a few years after the war, so post-Lincoln's assassination.


But wouldn't they have mentioned his assassination when discussing his supposed letters!?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2016)

I like Spike Lee a lot, but he seems to be marking out territory here. For instance, Bamboozled makes its point in a way that I think he would criticise Tarantino for if Tarantino were to dare to try it.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 18, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I like Spike Lee a lot, but he seems to be marking out territory here. For instance, Bamboozled makes its point in a way that I think he would criticise Tarantino for if Tarantino were to dare to try it.


That's fair enough though.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> That's fair enough though.


Is it? I'm not sure that it is - if you're critcising not the thing that is made but the person who has made it.


----------



## belboid (Jan 18, 2016)

weltweit said:


> Anyhow, can anyone date it? It has to be post civil war because of the characters but pre Lincoln's assassination because that is not mentioned in the discussion of his fake letter.


"Set six or eight or twelve years after the Civil War"


----------



## belboid (Jan 18, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Is it? I'm not sure that it is - if you're critcising not the thing that is made but the person who has made it.


that's understandable. If it is used by a writer/director we believe to be actually, full on, racist, then the effect of the word is rather different then when it's used by Lee (or, arguably, Tarantino). Where the writers sympathy lies has a massive impact upon how we view the usage of the word (and, in QT's case, I think he is overwhelmingly sympathetic to his black characters, more so than most of his white characters)


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2016)

belboid said:


> that's understandable. If it is used by a writer/director we believe to be actually, full on, racist, then the effect of the word is rather different then when it's used by Lee (or, arguably, Tarantino). Where the writers sympathy lies has a massive impact upon how we view the usage of the word (and, in QT's case, I think he is overwhelmingly sympathetic to his black characters, more so than most of his white characters)


Yes, I agree about where T's sympathies lie, but that comes out from the work itself, no? Do we need to know who the writer/maker is before we can judge?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 18, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Is it? I'm not sure that it is - if you're critcising not the thing that is made but the person who has made it.


It's to do with QT's ethnicity rather than him himself.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 18, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> So a white person isn't allowed to use it in context in a film then because it makes you feel offended on behalf of other people? Yeah, that seems like a really sensible way to proceed, pretend it never existed and still doesn't exist.


thats the thing - it often goes well beyond context, beyond characterisation, and into a self-conscious Tarantino voice


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> It's to do with QT's ethnicity rather than him himself.


Exactly. What kind of film you are allowed to make depends on your ethnicity.


----------



## belboid (Jan 18, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes, I agree about where T's sympathies lie, but that comes out from the work itself, no? Do we need to know who the writer/maker is before we can judge?


good god no - this is urban, we barely need to get to the end of a sentence before we can judge.  But it is a far more informed judgement once we do know something about the creator


----------



## weltweit (Jan 18, 2016)

Anyhow, I didn't enjoy it, no need for it to be so long, nothing uplifting about it, at least in Die Hard films the goodies tend to win in the end, here there were no goodies, too much gratuitous violence in fact the warning at the start said "18 cert bloody violence" which at least was accurate. And what was the point in telling the story of the New Zealand girl who could drive a team of six when she was immediately to be killed anyhow?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 18, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Exactly. What kind of film you are allowed to make depends on your ethnicity.


Again, it's not about being allowed. QT can make any film he wants, but if he was to make a film on the subject that Bamboozled or Hollywood Shuffle are about, he'd be roundly and rightly criticised for it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Again, it's not about being allowed. QT can make any film he wants, but if he was to make a film on the subject that Bamboozled or Hollywood Shuffle are about, he'd be roundly and rightly criticised for it.


That's what I meant about not being allowed.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 18, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's what I meant about not being allowed.


Being criticised for exercising free speech is not censorship.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Being criticised for exercising free speech is not censorship.


Ok, but you misunderstood me.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 18, 2016)

I think the people who are defending QT's bizarre and troubling infatuation with the n word need to read this again:
‘The Hateful Eight’ Is a Hellish Journey into Quentin Tarantino's Psyche | VICE | United States


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 18, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ok, but you misunderstood me.


How?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> How?


Because by 'not allowed' , I meant precisely that you would be criticised for doing it.

Lee's position is a narrow form of identity politics - there is such a thing as a collective black experience, and if you're not black you won't understand it.

ETA: and importantly, this includes adopting a proprietorial view towards history.


----------



## belboid (Jan 18, 2016)

weltweit said:


> Anyhow, I didn't enjoy it, no need for it to be so long, nothing uplifting about it, at least in Die Hard films the goodies tend to win in the end, here there were no goodies, too much gratuitous violence in fact the warning at the start said "18 cert bloody violence" which at least was accurate. And what was the point in telling the story of the New Zealand girl who could drive a team of six when she was immediately to be killed anyhow?


because shit like that happens? Someone wandered into the wrong place at the wrong time, it's a movie staple.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 18, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Because by 'not allowed' , I meant precisely that you would be criticised for doing it.


That's not the same. If he's said it already, he has been allowed. This is precisely the position that politicalcorrectnessgonemadders take when they 'you're not allowed to call it Christmas anymore', immediately contradicting themselves by saying it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> That's not the same. If he's said it already, he has been allowed. This is precisely the position that politicalcorrectnessgonemadders take when they 'you're not allowed to call it Christmas anymore', immediately contradicting themselves by saying it.


Alright, well accept that this is what I meant and we can move on.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jan 18, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Again, it's not about being allowed. QT can make any film he wants, but if he was to make a film on the subject that Bamboozled or Hollywood Shuffle are about, he'd be roundly and rightly criticised for it.


Yes this is what I mean about not being allowed. Of course you're not suggesting he shouldn't be allowed, neither is anyone else, but he isn't allowed to in the sense he's criticised for doing so purely because he's white. I think that's a dodgy view point itself.

That word is part of our language, especially in America and it has the baggage we all know it has, both for black people and white people. Criticising someone for exploring that baggage, bringing it to the fore and confronting it through a piece of art is not the way to proceed I don't think. Especially when that criticism is largely  because the person doing it is white.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 18, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Yes this is what I mean about not being allowed. Of course you're not suggesting he shouldn't be allowed, neither is anyone else, but he isn't allowed to in the sense he's criticised for doing so purely because he's white. I think that's a dodgy view point itself.
> 
> That word is part of our language, especially in America and it has the baggage we all know it has, both for black people and white people. Criticising someone for exploring that baggage, bringing it to the fore and confronting it through a piece of art is not the way to proceed I don't think. Especially when that criticism is largely  because the person doing it is white.


The word has different types of baggage depending on one's ethnicity though. So while it may be appropriate for a black film director to explore the use of the word, the same isn't true for a white director


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jan 18, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> The word has different types of baggage depending on one's ethnicity though. So while it may be appropriate for a black film director to explore the use of the word, the same isn't true for a white director



I disagree. I think a white person exploring it, particularly in the context of the period Django and Hateful 8 are set in, is important.  It's white baggage too.  As I said earlier, America hasn't even begun to confront its history, nor have we really, ignoring the horrors of it doesn't help. Him using it this much does kinda make me feel uncomfortable, as it should, even when I use it in context I feel uncomfortable, as I should as it's fucking shameful but that needs to be confronted.  Film is a good medium to make a contribution to that confrontation I think.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 18, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> I disagree. I think a white person exploring it, particularly in the context of the period Django and Hateful 8 are set in, is important.  It's white baggage too.  As I said earlier, America hasn't even begun to confront its history, nor have we really, ignoring the horrors of it doesn't help. Him using it this much does kinda make me feel uncomfortable, as it should, even when I use it in context I feel uncomfortable, as I should as it's fucking shameful but that needs to be confronted.  Film is a good medium to make a contribution to that confrontation I think.


He doesn't just use it in the historical films. As I said earlier, his most problematic use of it is in his films that have contemporary settings or are set in the recent past


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 18, 2016)

See this, particularly the two videos at the bottom:

4 Reasons White People Can’t Use the N-Word (No Matter What Black Folks Are Doing)


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> See this, particularly the two videos at the bottom:
> 
> 4 Reasons White People Can’t Use the N-Word (No Matter What Black Folks Are Doing)


We're not talking about 'using the N-word'. We're talking about making films in which characters use it. There's a very important difference. I would be very surprised if QT uses it himself in his life. If he does, he's being a twat, no argument there.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jan 18, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> He doesn't just use it in the historical films. As I said earlier, his most problematic use of it is in his films that have contemporary settings or are set in the recent past





> As a writer, I demand the right to write any character in the world that I want to write. I demand the right to be them, I demand the right to think them and I demand the right to tell the truth as I see they are, all right? And to say that I can't do that because I'm white, but the Hughes brothers can do that because they're black, that is racist. That is the heart of racism, all right. And I do not accept that ... That is how a segment of the black community that lives in Compton, lives in Inglewood, where _Jackie Brown_ takes place, that lives in Carson, that is how they talk. I'm telling the truth. It would not be questioned if I was black, and I resent the question because I'm white. I have the right to tell the truth. I do not have the right to lie.



I think the above QT quote is fair, more than fair in fact.  I accept it was a bit cringey in Reservoir Dogs but I expect characters like that to be vile. The bit in True Romance I think is truly vile but well in context.  I can't think of a more brutal way to insult a nailed on member of the Sicilian mafia than to say they descend from 'niggers' to say the man's mother fucked one is the icing on that insult's cake.  It's horrible for us to hear, it's horrible to use as an insult but in the context of that film, that story and at that particular scene it's gruesomely spot on.  I mean it kinda makes your ears themselves whince but that's the point!


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 18, 2016)

Well, I don't buy it. He clearly gets off on it


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> I think the above is fair, more than fair in fact.  I accept it was a bit cringey in Reservoir Dogs but I expect characters like that to be vile. The bit in True Romance I think is truly vile but well in context.  I can't think of a more brutal way to insult a nailed on member of the Sicilian mafia than to say they descend from 'niggers' to say the man's mother fucked one is the icing on that insult's cake.  It's horrible for us to hear, it's horrible to use as an insult but in the context of that film, that story and at that particular scene it's gruesomely spot on.  I mean it kinda makes your ears themselves whince but that's the point!


What someone criticising him for that is basically saying is that he, as a white person, is not allowed to make films with black characters from rough neighbourhoods who talk like that. 

And yes, OU, I'm using 'not allowed' in the sense that he'll be told he shouldn't be doing it.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 18, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> I think the above QT quote is fair, more than fair in fact.  I accept it was a bit cringey in Reservoir Dogs but I expect characters like that to be vile. The bit in True Romance I think is truly vile but well in context.  I can't think of a more brutal way to insult a nailed on member of the Sicilian mafia than to say they descend from 'niggers' to say the man's mother fucked one is the icing on that insult's cake.  It's horrible for us to hear, it's horrible to use as an insult but in the context of that film, that story and at that particular scene it's gruesomely spot on.  I mean it kinda makes your ears themselves whince but that's the point!



That response from QT doesn't hold up to the Hateful 8...all the characters using it repeatedly, are White.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> That response from QT doesn't hold up to the Hateful 8...all the characters using it repeatedly, are White.


Yep. Racist white people using racist language. It does hold up, surely: racist white people would use racist language.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jan 18, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> That response from QT doesn't hold up to the Hateful 8...all the characters using it repeatedly, are White.



Yeah, read the thread we already discussed that point and its use by white people in Django.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 18, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What someone criticising him for that is basically saying is that he, as a white person, is not allowed to make films with black characters from rough neighbourhoods who talk like that.
> 
> And yes, OU, I'm using 'not allowed' in the sense that he'll be told he shouldn't be doing it.


Incorrectly then


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Incorrectly then


Not really. This is saying that there is appropriate subject matter for white directors and other subject matter that is only appropriate for black directors. Moreover, there are certain kinds of black characters that it is not appropriate for white directors to include in their films. Essentially, what this is saying is that a white director in the US can't make films encompassing the fullest range of contemporary US life.

So what is Tarantino to do? If he wishes to portray the margins of society, he has to lie and either not include black characters or have those characters talk in a way that is not true to life. The effect of that would be to exclude representation of a particular class of people by anyone other than (normally middle-class, like Spike Lee) black directors.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 18, 2016)

For the third time, I shall link to that article noone seems to have read:
‘The Hateful Eight’ Is a Hellish Journey into Quentin Tarantino's Psyche | VICE | United States
It also links to some good pieces:
Tarantino Unchained - The New Yorker
Surviving "Django"


----------



## ska invita (Jan 18, 2016)

belboid said:


> I think Bell was fine in this. Yes, her mood/accent/behaviour is completely at odds with everyone else's, but that happens. A couple of moments of light relief before the inevitable starts (again).  Hearing such accent sin the wild west does sound immediately wrong (as QT's did in Django) but it is perfectly historically supportable.


she  breaks the spell though...which happens a lot in the film...often consciously.... i find it jarring


weltweit said:


> And what was the point in telling the story of the New Zealand girl who could drive a team of six when she was immediately to be killed anyhow?


Shes a real stuntwoman who is in a previous QT film and he was having fun including her in this - it all felt very pally to me and for the fun of QT.


littlebabyjesus said:


> What someone criticising him for that is basically saying is that he, as a white person, is not allowed to make films with black characters from rough neighbourhoods who talk like that.


As Ive said its not about allowing, its about proportion and writing credible characters - Tarantinos own voice and handywork just comes out too much


littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes, I agree about where T's sympathies lie, but that comes out from the work itself, no? Do we need to know who the writer/maker is before we can judge?


Its very much is with QT as his ego, personality and own voice looms large in his films - he puts himself firmly in the films, whereas otehr filmamkers are more dispassionate, or better at presenting a story that at least appears objective. His films are totally subjective to him. That makes for a storng voice and I think interesting films, but it comes at a price too....


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 18, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not really. This is saying that there is appropriate subject matter for white directors and other subject matter that is only appropriate for black directors. Moreover, there are certain kinds of black characters that it is not appropriate for white directors to include in their films. Essentially, what this is saying is that a white director in the US can't make films encompassing the fullest range of contemporary US life.
> 
> So what is Tarantino to do? If he wishes to portray the margins of society, he has to lie and either not include black characters or have those characters talk in a way that is not true to life. The effect of that would be to exclude representation of a particular class of people by anyone other than (normally middle-class, like Spike Lee) black directors.


No. I was again taking issue by you saying QT wasn't allowed to make such films when he has. It's bullshit to say he isn't allowed to make them, yet you keep saying it.


----------



## belboid (Jan 18, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> For the third time, I shall link to that article noone seems to have read:
> ‘The Hateful Eight’ Is a Hellish Journey into Quentin Tarantino's Psyche | VICE | United States
> It also links to some good pieces:
> Tarantino Unchained - The New Yorker
> Surviving "Django"


that Vice piece really isn't very good - the line "Such consistency [two black characters being violently assaulted more than twenty years apart] in content suggests that Tarantino has an irresistible thing for punishing his black male characters lest they get too cocksure." is just rubbish. 

That QT is a cocky ass, who probably does think he is an honorary black man, is true.  Irritating, maybe, but no worse than that.  And his use of racial epithets is, overwhelmingly, apposite.


----------



## belboid (Jan 18, 2016)

ska invita said:


> she  breaks the spell though...which happens a lot in the film...often consciously.... i find it jarring


as you say, it is one of several occasions when the spell (the main spell?) is broken.  It's one of the things he does, and she wasn't the most jarring by any means, I didn't think. That honour would go to the vomiting scene.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> For the third time, I shall link to that article noone seems to have read:
> ‘The Hateful Eight’ Is a Hellish Journey into Quentin Tarantino's Psyche | VICE | United States
> It also links to some good pieces:
> Tarantino Unchained - The New Yorker
> Surviving "Django"


Read the first one. I think the author is wide of the mark in a few cases - on Django, how does he think the word was over-used? Does he wish the white slave-owners could have been a little less racist? Same criticism of his criticism of Hateful8 - at every point the word is used, its use reinforces the racist nature of the character using it. This writer seems to have that about-face to me.

Also he's factually incorrect here in trying to make a point:



> The film's nadir is a gruesomely protracted sequence that culminates in the graphic murders of three women, among them two indefensible black caricatures: a sassy "mammy" and a chicken-plucking "maid."



Nope. The graphic murders are not just of these three women, and they're not even all murdered in the same bit of the film. To pick these murders out from all the other murders is dishonest writing, imo.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 18, 2016)

Well I think it's spot on, as are two articles it links to, as well as that Gawker article.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 18, 2016)

belboid said:


> as you say, it is one of several occasions when the spell (the main spell?) is broken.  It's one of the things he does, and she wasn't the most jarring by any means, I didn't think. That honour would go to the vomiting scene.


I thought the vomiting scene was hilarious


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2016)

belboid said:


> that Vice piece really isn't very good - the line "Such consistency [two black characters being violently assaulted more than twenty years apart] in content suggests that Tarantino has an irresistible thing for punishing his black male characters lest they get too cocksure." is just rubbish.


Yep. He's carrying out some extreme cherry-picking to make a case that simply isn't there.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 18, 2016)

Some bizarre pickyness on this thread over what is a great film. He does indulge himself - and why not?.

I saw it at the odeon in leic sq, it's worth seeing it in the cinema on a big screen with a decent sound system for the score.


----------



## belboid (Jan 18, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Well I think it's spot on, as are two articles it links to, as well as that Gawker article.


you think its spot on, despite a number of clear and unambiguous falsehoods contained in it?  hmmm...

The New Yorker piece has an interesting paragraph on Stephen, which makes good points, but says very little about use of the n word. And the Buzzfeed piece seems more concerned about how mostly white audiences react to its use, rather than its use itself.  Now that [the audiences reaction] is an interesting point to make, and you can easily see where the writer is coming from, but I dont think it really undermines QT's use of the word.


----------



## weltweit (Jan 18, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> Some bizarre pickyness on this thread over what is a great film. He does indulge himself - and why not?.  ..


Why do you think it is a great film. I really didn't think so.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2016)

ska invita said:


> As Ive said its not about allowing, its about proportion and writing credible characters - Tarantinos own voice and handywork just comes out too much
> 
> .


This is fair enough. All the characters do tend to speak with one voice - his. But that's a criticism of QT as a writer, no, which is fine, but a different point.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 18, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is fair enough. All the characters do tend to speak with one voice - his. But that's a criticism of QT as a writer, no, which is fine, but a different point.



But it isn't is it? All the points being made here are the details of why people believe his _mono-voice_ writing doesn't work.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> But it isn't is it? All the points being made here are the details of why may people believe his mono-voice writing doesn't work.


I think that's a stretch, tbh.

It's also a bit of an impossible ask - if criticism of the use of language stems from QT's perceived failure to write a script in which each character has their own voice, that sets up an unfair standard, I think: you can do it, but only if you do it better than you're currently doing it.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 18, 2016)

weltweit said:


> Why do you think it is a great film. I really didn't think so.


The plot is good - I was wondering who in on it until late, the characters are good, Goggins especially. The score is excellent.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 18, 2016)

Nigger remains possibly the most offensive word in English. If you are going to have characters saying it, often, then you need to show care and necessity. Because QTs characters come across as conduits for his voice it becomes hard to believe in the characters saying it, who may well be justified in the context of the story... Instead you end up thinking, stop swearing QT!

It's partly to do with the pantomime tone... The great villains of cinema feel like real people, and if they swear a lot you believe Them.  Ben Kingsley in sexy beast for example. Something about QT that you don't ever totally buy in to it... And that makes the use of the word so much more problematic. It's quite a subtle thing, but I think people pick up on that, even if they don't quite know why.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Nigger remains possibly the most offensive word in English. If you are going to have characters saying it, often, then you need to show care and necessity. Because QTs characters come across as conduits for his voice it becomes hard to believe in the characters saying it, who may well be justified in the context of the story... Instead you end up thinking, stop swearing QT!


This is perhaps where we'll need to agree to disagree because, in the two historical films at least, Django and Hateful8, I do think he shows that care and necessity. I'd go as far as to say that its use in Django is essential. It is far from careless or gratuitous - it forms an integral part of the film's moral structure.

Point here I would make about Django is that the slave-owners' use of this and only this word to refer to their slaves serves not to dehumanise the slaves, but to dehumanise the slave-owners. I think it's really rather clever.


----------



## belboid (Jan 18, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I think that's a stretch, tbh.
> 
> It's also a bit of an impossible ask - if criticism of the use of language stems from QT's perceived failure to write a script in which each character has their own voice, that sets up an unfair standard, I think: you can do it, but only if you do it better than you're currently doing it.


not quite sure I follow your point here. Every character _should _have their own voice, it's poor writing if they dont. But QT does generally achieve this, within each film, you're not going to mistake Jackson's character for Goggins' or Russels, or especially not Madsen's.  He clearly does often write with Jackson in mind as his lead character tho, and his voices are very similar, but that is something of an exception. 

I do agree with you re its use in Django in particular, and i think that one of the main reasons it does sometimes sound wrong in the way ska is saying is simply because we almost never ever hear it used in film/tv, it's use is immediately noticeable and can be jarring. Even cunt is used more regularly, and that is usually held up as the most objectionable word in English.


----------



## ebonics (Jan 18, 2016)

I think it's a bit rich to suggest that QT's deliberate [over]use of the word "nigger" is out of some sense of verisimilitude -- as if "reality" is something he's remotely known for or interested in. His scripts are not transcriptions. We're not looking at found footage, here. QT is nothing if not a purposeful auteur. And he purposefully writes, crafts, and casts lurid, B movie-style action set pieces that are meant to provoke a response. His characters are awesomely entertaining to watch, but they're like sockpuppets. Personally, I love most of the byzantine-ass speechifying: but at no point have I ever been so transported that I forgot I was watching a movie. QT, the writer, never fades into the background. I think that the author of that Vice piece is right on: Jackie Brown is one of QT's most understated offerings, and also one of his best. Perhaps because the source material was not his own, and it largely resisted his bombastic handwaving? 


Anyway, for me, his use of the word "nigger" is absolutely of a piece with the shocking violence -- and I  think that QT groks that, but is also convinced that he's a better filmmaker than he actually is, with the ability to dictate how his characters and their speech will be received. That is, I think he DOES care whether he's perceived as a down-ass white dude. 

This thread has been super interesting to follow, because I absolutely do surrender to American solipsism and forget that international audiences (even English-speaking ones) come to any text with an entirely different set of ears.

Signed,
A black American woman who doesn't speak for anyone else but who's thrown off by QT's use of the word "nigger" every goddammit time even though I should be prepared for it by now


----------



## ska invita (Jan 18, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is perhaps where we'll need to agree to disagree because, in the two historical films at least, Django and Hateful8, I do think he shows that care and necessity. I'd go as far as to say that its use in Django is essential. It is far from careless or gratuitous - it forms an integral part of the film's moral structure.
> 
> Point here I would make about Django is that the slave-owners' use of this and only this word to refer to their slaves serves not to dehumanise the slaves, but to dehumanise the slave-owners. I think it's really rather clever.


Agree that its essential within the subject matter, and so agree its use is justified, but I think theres just something about the way he makes films that makes it jarring. Its really complex - i dont totally know exactly what I think about it - but on Django he hasnt made a film like 12 Year A Slave, which treats the subject with gravitas. He doesn't make his characters believable, in the sense they are real people who might have existed. The tone can be humorous - darkly so, but still humorous. And it makes it all confusing, and makes the grounds of justification feel rocky. And Im with OU that he gets a buzz out of it, and that comes across - rather than feeling the weight of racial oppression on his shoulders...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2016)

ebonics said:


> Jackie Brown is one of QT's most understated offerings, and also one of his best. Perhaps because the source material was not his own, and it largely resisted his bombastic handwaving?


Agree with you on this. I think JB is my favourite Tarantino film.


----------



## ebonics (Jan 18, 2016)

Think I might go watch it again right now! Pam Grier is just...God, that woman.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 18, 2016)

people big up this films soundtrack but JB has his best. I'd never heard 'Across a hundred and tenth street' before that film and had to seek out straight away after the film.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> I mean, come off it:



Watching this particular example again, I do in fact agree with you that it's not necessary and jars. The character's wife is black, so a white guy with a black wife casually throwing the n-word around? Hmmm. It's also not helped by the fact that Tarantino is a terrible actor!


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 18, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is perhaps where we'll need to agree to disagree because, in the two historical films at least, Django and Hateful8, I do think he shows that care and necessity. I'd go as far as to say that its use in Django is essential. It is far from careless or gratuitous - it forms an integral part of the film's moral structure.


It is massively gratuitous


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 18, 2016)

QT uses _care and necessity_ with his use of 'nigger' in the Hateful 8?   /laugh/cry/laugh/cry moment

Is he making some kind of point with his over-use of it then? If so what point?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> It is massively gratuitous


I don't agree, and I've said why. It is a decision - white slave owners use this word and this word only when referring to their black slaves. We'll have to agree to disagree, I think.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Is he making some kind of point with his over-use of it then? If so what point?


That the characters using it are a bunch of racist cunts.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 18, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't agree, and I've said why. It is a decision - white slave owners use this word and this word only when referring to their black slaves. We'll have to agree to disagree, I think.



How about in the Hateful 8, which this thread is about?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 18, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That the characters using it are a bunch of racist cunts.


I think that's just an excuse


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 18, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That the characters using it are a bunch of racist cunts.



Oh okay...cos we wouldn't have gotten that otherwise?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Oh okay...cos we wouldn't have gotten that otherwise?


It forms a counterpoint to the Lincoln Letter - it provides the exemplification of why the Jackson character carries it. It shows the size of the problem he faces. Why wouldn't they be portrayed like that?


----------



## belboid (Jan 18, 2016)

JB is generally held to be his most rounded and 'complete' film, I think


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 18, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It forms a counterpoint to the Lincoln Letter - it provides the exemplification of why the Jackson character carries it.



Even though Jackson explicitly made the point of why he carried it? I disagree. QT's over usage labours that 'point' into ridiculous pantomine...if that was a serious point he was trying to make he ruined it.

What did you make of Jackson's character's monologue about how he killed the older bloke's son together with how/where Jackson was eventually shot?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> What did you make of Jackson's character's monologue about how he killed the older bloke's son together with how/where Jackson was eventually shot?


I hadn't made that connection - good one. Not sure what I make of it.  

The monologue struck me as almost certainly made up. This was a man he despised, remember, a man who killed black prisoners of war because they were black, so Jackson was taking his revenge.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Even though Jackson explicitly made the point of why he carried it? ?


That's a basic of storytelling, though - don't tell, show. So the ubiquitous racism of Jackson's world was also shown, not just told.


----------



## belboid (Jan 18, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Watching this particular example again, I do in fact agree with you that it's not necessary and jars. The character's wife is black, so a white guy with a black wife casually throwing the n-word around? Hmmm. It's also not helped by the fact that Tarantino is a terrible actor!


I disagree (except about Tarantino's acting, which is obviously rubbish). He's clearly good mates with Jules, and is also clearly very very pissed off. He'd want to rile Jules a bit, and would repeat the annoying phrase over and over to make his point.  So if he was going to say nigger once, he would say it four or five times over.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 18, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I hadn't made that connection - good one. Not sure what I make of it.
> 
> The monologue struck me as almost certainly made up. This was a man he despised, remember, a man who killed black prisoners of war because they were black, so Jackson was taking his revenge.



I agree it sounded made up... I was also aware that Jackson was the only character that was given such sexualised dialogue and later had his dick blown off... Another deliberate point being made by QT?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 18, 2016)

belboid said:


> I disagree (except about Tarantino's acting, which is obviously rubbish). He's clearly good mates with Jules, and is also clearly very very pissed off. He'd want to rile Jules a bit, and would repeat the annoying phrase over and over to make his point.  So if he was going to say nigger once, he would say it four or five times over.


He said over and over cos it gave him a naughty dangerboner


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jan 18, 2016)

OK let's make this easier. How many time is the use of the word acceptable in a film that's about slavery or in a film set in a time just after a civil war about slavery that features a confederate general?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> I agree it sounded made up... I was also aware that Jackson was the only character that was given such sexualised dialogue and later had his dick blown off... Another deliberate point being made by QT?


Dunno.

He was given the sexualised dialogue, but the justification of that would be that he's throwing racist white fears back at a racist white man - because that was the single worst thing he could think of the racist white man wanting to hear. And he very clearly wanted to say the single worst thing he could.


----------



## belboid (Jan 18, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> He said over and over cos it gave him a naughty dangerboner


yawn.  Believe that if you wish, but if you are going to argue your point, try actually arguing your point rather than just saying the same thing over and over.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 18, 2016)

belboid said:


> ....but if you are going to argue your point, try actually arguing your point rather than just saying the same thing over and over.



Which is pretty much what people are asking of QT as a film maker. Funny that.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 18, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> OK let's make this easier. How many time is the use of the word acceptable in a film that's about slavery or in a film set in a time just after a civil war about slavery that features a confederate general?


13-17


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 18, 2016)

belboid said:


> yawn.  Believe that if you wish, but if you are going to argue your point, try actually arguing your point rather than just saying the same thing over and over.


I have to say the same thing over and over as no one is listening


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 18, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> OK let's make this easier. How many time is the use of the word acceptable in a film that's about slavery or in a film set in a time just after a civil war about slavery that features a confederate general?



Ask yourself a question...how many times is reasonable/necessary/true to life etc?


----------



## belboid (Jan 18, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Which is pretty much what people are asking of QT as a film maker. Funny that.


true, altho at least QT puts in a couple of different words around the sides, and varies the context in which the repeated phrase is used.


----------



## belboid (Jan 18, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> I have to say the same thing over and over as no one is listening


No, we're disagreeing. Try making your point better if you want to be paid attention to.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Ask yourself a question...how many times is reasonable/necessary/true to life etc?


One criticism I would have of both Django and particularly Hateful8 is that they both to me display a modern sensibility transported back in time. But then neither film is aiming at historical accuracy particularly. Repetition is sometimes for effect - repeat the horrible thing and you create the universe the film is set in, a horrible universe in the case of Django in which the slave-owners are monsters who deserve to die.


----------



## belboid (Jan 18, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Ask yourself a question...how many times is reasonable/necessary/true to life etc?


Three very different things there (reasonable/necessary/true to life), of which the middle one is central when it comes to telling a story, with the other two being important, but secondary (the usage has to have some verisimilitude, but it also shouldn't be entirely true to life, cos most of us don't speak as neatly as film scripts demand).  It - any word - should be used only as necessary in order to create the required/desired effect. Sometimes that means a word should be used once and once only, sometimes it requires repetition.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 18, 2016)

belboid said:


> No, we're disagreeing. Try making your point better if you want to be paid attention to.


Apologies, clearly I'm not very good at making them. I thought the articles I linked to made the points far better than I ever could.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 18, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> OK let's make this easier. How many time is the use of the word acceptable in a film that's about slavery or in a film set in a time just after a civil war about slavery that features a confederate general?


Its not the quantity its the quality.

Heres a test - when QT is writing his scripts, and he writes a sparky line with the word "nigger" in it, do you think he's thinking "oh the world is so bad, racial oppression is so terrible, and i hope we can all live in a world where this kind of language will no longer be necessary ...sigh...the burden of the author...." or do you think he thinks "nigga please! I love my new script!!"


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Apologies, clearly I'm not very good at making them. I thought the articles I linked to made the points far better than I ever could.


both belboid and I read at least one of your articles and responded to them with several points.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jan 18, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> 13-17



Good god your argument is weak. You were reduced to focussing on one scene in one film which people largely agreed with you that it was OTT.  Now you don't seem too concerned with the word itself just the number of times.



Rutita1 said:


> Ask yourself a question...how many times is reasonable/necessary/true to life etc?



With regards to the characters he writes and the times, places his films are set in? I'd say he largely gets it spot on, it's a little OTT in Reservoir Dogs but that's about it IMO.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 18, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> both belboid and I read at least one of your articles and responded to them with several points.


Which I respectfully disagree with. I'm with the writers on this.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 18, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Good god your argument is weak. You were reduced to focussing on one scene in one film which people largely agreed with you that it was OTT.  Now you don't seem too concerned with the word itself just the number of times.
> 
> 
> 
> With regards to the characters he writes and the times, places his films are set in? I'd say he largely gets it spot on, it's a little OTT in Reservoir Dogs but that's about it IMO.


I was being facetious as it was a daft question. As if you could quantify it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Which I respectfully disagree with. I'm with the writers on this.


Even the points of factual error? 

You're not really engaging. You respectfully disagree without actually countering the criticisms. Sorry, but belboid and I have both engaged with you more than you've engaged with us.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jan 18, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Its not the quantity its the quality.
> 
> Heres a test - when QT is writing his scripts, and he writes a sparky line with the word "nigger" in it, do you think he's thinking "oh the world is so bad, racial oppression is so terrible, and i hope we can all live in a world where this kind of language will no longer be necessary ...sigh...the burden of the author...." or do you think he thinks "nigga please! I love my new script!!"



I doubt he's thinking either tbf.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 18, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Even the points of factual error?
> 
> You're not really engaging. You respectfully disagree without actually countering the criticisms. Sorry, but belboid and I have both engaged with you more than you've engaged with us.


What factual error?


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jan 18, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> I was being facetious as it was a daft question. As if you could quantify it.



So let's not use it at all then, even in its correct historical context, lest it offends your precious ears. Unless of course a black director uses it then have at it.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 18, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> So let's not use it at all then, even in its correct historical context, lest it offends your precious ears. Unless of course a black director uses it then have at it.


Nope, that's not what I suggested.
I notice there has been little response to ebonics post .


----------



## belboid (Jan 18, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Its not the quantity its the quality.
> 
> Heres a test - when QT is writing his scripts, and he writes a sparky line with the word "nigger" in it, do you think he's thinking "oh the world is so bad, racial oppression is so terrible, and i hope we can all live in a world where this kind of language will no longer be necessary ...sigh...the burden of the author...." or do you think he thinks "nigga please! I love my new script!!"


sorry, but that isn't a test, it's just projection. I doubt very much he thinks anything like either of those things.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 18, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> So let's not use it at all then, even in its correct historical context, lest it offends your precious ears. Unless of course a black director uses it then have at it.



You gonna call my ears precious too?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 18, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> With regards to the characters he writes and the times, places his films are set in? I'd say he largely gets it spot on, it's a little OTT in Reservoir Dogs but that's about it IMO.


 Do all text/films set in those times use the word as frequently then? What are you using as a measure?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> What factual error?


about the killing of the women.

And another point of issue in that is his assertion that the n word was overused in Django. If you agree with that, can you explain how it is overused? Where is it used where it shouldn't be?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 18, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Do all text/films set in those times use the word as frequently then? What are you using as a measure?


It's ridiculous as no one can know for sure just how realistic it is. 
It's a non-starter as a defence anyway as QT is hardly realistic in other areas.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 18, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> It's ridiculous as no one can know for sure just how realistic it is.
> It's a non-starter as a defence anyway as QT is hardly realistic in other areas.



SSSSSSSSSSSSSSShhhhhhhhhhh!  Let him answer...he is measuring and I want to know how!


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 18, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> about the killing of the women.
> 
> And another point of issue in that is his assertion that the n word was overused in Django. If you agree with that, can you explain how it is overused? Where is it used where it shouldn't be?


Opinion, not fact.
I can't and neither can you prove it was used an acceptable amount of times, whatever that it is.
I can only state my view that it was gratuitous and that QT takes great pleasure in writing the word and having his characters say it.


----------



## belboid (Jan 18, 2016)

ebonics said:


> I think it's a bit rich to suggest that QT's deliberate [over]use of the word "nigger" is out of some sense of verisimilitude -- as if "reality" is something he's remotely known for or interested in. His scripts are not transcriptions. We're not looking at found footage, here. QT is nothing if not a purposeful auteur. And he purposefully writes, crafts, and casts lurid, B movie-style action set pieces that are meant to provoke a response. His characters are awesomely entertaining to watch, but they're like sockpuppets. Personally, I love most of the byzantine-ass speechifying: but at no point have I ever been so transported that I forgot I was watching a movie. QT, the writer, never fades into the background. I think that the author of that Vice piece is right on: Jackie Brown is one of QT's most understated offerings, and also one of his best. Perhaps because the source material was not his own, and it largely resisted his bombastic handwaving?
> 
> 
> Anyway, for me, his use of the word "nigger" is absolutely of a piece with the shocking violence -- and I  think that QT groks that, but is also convinced that he's a better filmmaker than he actually is, with the ability to dictate how his characters and their speech will be received. That is, I think he DOES care whether he's perceived as a down-ass white dude.
> ...


Actually, 'I think 'verisimilitude' is precisely the right word for what QT does.  It means giving the _appearance _of truth and reality, not actually being so.  And sometimes that means using it more than would happen irl, sometimes less. All his films are grossly exaggerated versions of reality, and all the language is similarly exaggerated.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Opinion, not fact.
> I can't and neither can you prove it was used an acceptable amount of times, whatever that it is.
> I can only state my view that it was gratuitous and that QT takes great pleasure in writing the word and having his characters say it.


I've told you how I see its use in that film, the point to it, so yes, I can very precisely say that having each instance that a slave-owner referred to black people using just this one word was precisely the right amount of times. 

We're going in circles now.


----------



## belboid (Jan 18, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Opinion, not fact.
> I can't and neither can you prove it was used an acceptable amount of times, whatever that it is.
> I can only state my view that it was gratuitous and that QT takes great pleasure in writing the word and having his characters say it.


The statement about the killing of black characters is wrong, pure and simple.  That's not an opinion, its a matter of record.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 18, 2016)

belboid said:


> The statement about the killing of black characters is wrong, pure and simple.  That's not an opinion, its a matter of record.


How so?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2016)

belboid said:


> The statement about the killing of black characters is wrong, pure and simple.  That's not an opinion, its a matter of record.


Pretty serious allegations to get wrong - one that he has a thing about killing black characters, the other that he has a thing about killing female characters. Both big allegations, both factually wrong.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 18, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Pretty serious allegations to get wrong - one that he has a thing about killing black characters, the other that he has a thing about killing female characters. Both big allegations, both factually wrong.


You said 'IMO' in your original reaction to that and now you're stating it as fact.
I don't agree. I'm with the writers in that he takes a perverse pleasure in these killings.

ska invita and ebonics are doing way better than me in pointing out QT's weird fixation, so I'm gonna bow out so you don't just address the bloke who's rubbish at making his point.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> You said 'IMO' in your original reaction to that and now you're stating it as fact.


he was factually wrong about the killing of the three women being more gratuitous than the other killings, and also about them coming together as a climax. That's just not what happens.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 18, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> he was factually wrong about the killing of the three women being more gratuitous than the other killings, and also about them coming together as a climax. That's just not what happens.


That's a matter of opinion.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> That's a matter of opinion.


No it's not! have you seen the film?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 18, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No it's not! have you seen the film?


Yes!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Yes!


So you'll remember the other people who are killed in that scene, too, then? The author is cherry-picking to make a point that isn't there.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 18, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> So you'll remember the other people who are killed in that scene, too, then? The author is cherry-picking to make a point that isn't there.


Yes, that doesn't invalidate the point they're making though.


----------



## ebonics (Jan 18, 2016)

I don't think verisimilitude is the right word, precisely because I don't think that what we're presented with has the appearance or sheen of reality (or "authenticity," whatever that means). Others have pointed out the profound "staginess" of The Hateful Eight; and I do think that's quite deliberate. This is a film that draws enormous amounts of attention to the manner and mode of its creation. It's purposefully self-aware and yes, I do think QT often does get in his own way, at times. Someone else pointed to the weird and disjointed tonal shifts in TH8 - from pantomime to slapstick to visceral horror to straight drama and everything else -- and  it's those shifts that subvert the verisimilitude. For me. YMMV.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 18, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> I doubt he's thinking either tbf.





belboid said:


> sorry, but that isn't a test, it's just projection. I doubt very much he thinks anything like either of those things.


you know the point im making though...it feels flippant...and he thinks its cool too


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2016)

ebonics said:


> Others have pointed out the profound "staginess" of The Hateful Eight; and I do think that's quite deliberate. This is a film that draws enormous amounts of attention to the manner and mode of its creation. It's purposefully self-aware and yes, I do think QT often does get in his own way, at times. .


Yep, I think exactly this. I don't mind the staginess at all, but yes, he gets in his own way. I think that's a very nice way to put it.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jan 18, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> You gonna call my ears precious too?


Yes, if your objections are on similar grounds as OTs.

I can't multi quote on my phone but you're right other films set in that period don't use it, perhaps they should. Not all the time I grant but yes more should use it otherwise it's just sanitising history and I'm really not in favour of that. Tarnatino is, AFAIK, the first to use the word so much in a film set in that era which is why he gets so much stick I imagine.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 18, 2016)

...googling verisimilitude....


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jan 18, 2016)

Mel brooks got loads of grief for blazing saddles didn't he? Although probably not as much as if he'd have released it in this age because the internet wasn't around then.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 18, 2016)

Okay we're on 8 hateful pages now! 



Doctor Carrot said:


> Mel brooks got loads of grief for blazing saddles didn't he? Although probably not as much as if he'd have released it in this age because the internet wasn't around then.



My memory of Blazing Saddles is that it sends up racism brilliantly... i wonder if its aged badly?


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jan 18, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Okay we're on 8 hateful pages now!
> 
> 
> 
> My memory of Blazing Saddles is that it sends up racism brilliantly... i wonder if its aged badly?


It does send it up brilliantly but it probably has aged badly, reasons why that is would make an interesting thread in itself I think. 

I'm not say QT's main aim is to send up racism in django or hateful 8, or even an aim at all but it certainly looks absurd to me and makes the perpetrators of it look stupid.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jan 18, 2016)

ska invita said:


> ...googling verisimilitude....


Do let us know what it means won't you because I have no idea either! [emoji4]


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jan 18, 2016)

On the original topic of the hateful 8. I think the stage look if the set is intentional. I must admit I didn't notice it much when I watched the film, i noticed just how fantastically detailed it was though. What I did notice was how the scenery looked going past outside when they were in the wagon. It had that comically fake look about it.

The 60 mil budget is puzzling though. I saw a brief clip about the cameras and how the lenses had to be refurbished or something so unless that was eye wateringly expensive I can't think why it cost that much.


----------



## ebonics (Jan 18, 2016)

Blazing Saddles is still funny AF


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 18, 2016)

belboid had it right when he said verimissilitude is the faithful appearence of reality (paraphrasing) but I'd also add its hard to do that in a pastiche because by its nature it is knowing, and expectant on the audience to have some knowing. Its not being played with a face so unstraight its satire but it isn't a straight face. Thus the overuse of a certain racist word, the slapping about of a woman. Somehow its like the nature of his storytelling hasn't earned the right. If that makes any sense at all. 


caveat: I have no idea what he's pastiching here but then I am no film buff. I'm sure all the critics clocked this shot or that theme.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 18, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> On the original topic of the hateful 8. I think the stage look if the set is intentional. I must admit I didn't notice it much when I watched the film, i noticed just how fantastically detailed it was though. What I did notice was how the scenery looked going past outside when they were in the wagon. It had that comically fake look about it.
> 
> The 60 mil budget is puzzling though. I saw a brief clip about the cameras and how the lenses had to be refurbished or something so unless that was eye wateringly expensive I can't think why it cost that much.


look through all the people involved in making it: The Hateful Eight (2015) - Full Cast & Crew - IMDb
think about the hire of the cameras, construction of sets, costumes etc etc etc
Making of 'Hateful Eight': How Tarantino Braved Sub-Zero Weather and a Stolen Screener


----------



## ska invita (Jan 18, 2016)

supposedly The Thing is the big reference


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 18, 2016)

ska invita said:


> supposedly The Thing is the big reference


nicely done if so because the enemy was us all the time. Also brings in themes of passing and fear of the Other which The Thing is riven with. Totally went over my head though.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> nicely done if so because the enemy was us all the time. Also brings in themes of passing and fear of the Other which The Thing is riven with. Totally went over my head though.


Over my head too. Don't think that matters. A film can make references to other films but still needs to stand on its own. Reservoir Dogs is the biggest Tarantino example of that - nicks whole scenes virtually from John Woo films. 

I don't mind. Some great films are total rip-offs - A fistful of dollars, eg.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 18, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Over my head too. Don't think that matters. A film can make references to other films but still needs to stand on its own. Reservoir Dogs is the biggest Tarantino example of that - nicks whole scenes virtually from John Woo films.
> 
> I don't mind. Some great films are total rip-offs - A fistful of dollars, eg.


star wars...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> star wars...


Yes, some great films, and Star Wars.


----------



## weltweit (Jan 18, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> ... The 60 mil budget is puzzling though. I saw a brief clip about the cameras and how the lenses had to be refurbished or something so unless that was eye wateringly expensive I can't think why it cost that much.


While I don't know much about film making, 60 million dollars (I assume) does seem a lot when there were so few locations and sets involved. There were some special effects what with heads being blown off etc but not that many. Would be interesting to know what other films cost though to be able to compare.


----------



## dylanredefined (Jan 18, 2016)

ebonics said:


> Blazing Saddles is still funny AF



The permanently offended of tumblr probably think it is appalling racist missing the joke completely.
 It is still funny.


----------



## belboid (Jan 18, 2016)

It is the equipment hire that is the most expensive part of movie making, apparently. There are exceptions for some stars, but QT often gets them at very basic rates. The cameras will have been v v expensive.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 18, 2016)

70mm film costs a helluva lot, I imagine


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jan 18, 2016)

Yeah reading the article Pickman's linked to the refurb of the cameras cost 10 mil alone.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Yeah reading the article Pickman's linked to the refurb of the cameras cost 10 mil alone.


Kubrickesque! And for a film in which most of the action is on a very stagey set!


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 18, 2016)

On the subject of referencing other films... Carrie was there for most of it.

When we came out of the cinema I commented on how it seemed like a piece of theatre but I do think that kind of script would have felt very different presented on stage live to an audience. There would have been more drama for example, it would have seemed more desperately horrific and less slapstick. There is an honesty about theatre that would have helped this make it's 'points' I think.

Pantomine/exaggerated reality/ Satire/ Adult cartoon, QT trying to be an edgy B Movie maker, whatever it is, bar a few scenes and the soundtrack... it doesn't work for me as a film.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 18, 2016)

Carrie? I didn't get any of that!


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 18, 2016)

The main female character was treated as an oddity/freak, repeatedly covered/dripping in blood. From getting punched about to the more 'complete' drenchings as people started getting shot to bits all over her face in the Haberdashery.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> When we came out of the cinema I commented on how it seemed like a piece of theatre but I do think that kind of script would have felt very different presented on stage live to an audience. There would have been more drama for an example, it would have seemed more desperately horrific and less slapstick. There is an honesty about theatre that would have helped this make it 'points' I think..


I was thinking about how you'd stage it in the theatre as I was watching. I agree that it misses some beats somehow. I haven't been able to pinpoint exactly where or how, but given the action, it felt strangely flat. The end should have felt satisfying, but didn't. Stagey films can work - I mentioned Rope earlier, which definitely works.

I think part of the problem for me was in the very basics of the plot. I was with the others about the Hangman. Just kill them and take in the corpse. But then there'd be no movie.


----------



## spartacus mills (Jan 18, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> On the subject of referencing other films... Carrie was there for most of it.



I think 'The Thing', 'Reservoir Dogs', 'The Big Silence' and 'Carrie' were obvious references.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 18, 2016)

spartacus mills said:


> I think 'The Thing', 'Reservoir Dogs', 'The Big Silence' and 'Carrie' were obvious references.



I picked the one no one had mentioned here already as far as I could see.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 18, 2016)

I just knew someone would have counted... 

http://gawker.com/the-complete-history-of-quentin-tarantino-saying-nigge-1748731193


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 18, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> I just knew someone would have counted...
> 
> http://gawker.com/the-complete-history-of-quentin-tarantino-saying-nigge-1748731193


that was posted earlier, wasn't it? i could be confused cos i saw it on twitter too


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 18, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> that was posted earlier, wasn't it? i could be confused cos i saw it on twitter too



Maybe...I've been at work so could have missed it.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 18, 2016)

ska posted it back on page 2


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 18, 2016)

I don't even remember that many N's from pulp fiction. Sure Marcellus Wallis and Samuel L Jackson said it a few times but thats different to a white person using it prejoritavly (is that the right word?). You know you hear it in hip hop and in dramas like the wire all the time but not used in the same manner as quentin has his characters do.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 18, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> ska posted it back on page 2



so what?  I have already admitted I missed it! I work a lot. :/ He always copies me anyway.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 18, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> so what?  I have already admitted I missed it!


oh It don't matter, just orang said he thought he'd seen it already so clarifying like. Nay beef or rudeness intended


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 18, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> oh It don't matter, just orang said he thought he'd seen it already so clarifying like. *Nay beef or rudeness intended*



Likewise dotty.


----------



## Cid (Jan 18, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> I don't even remember that many N's from pulp fiction. Sure Marcellus Wallis and Samuel L Jackson said it a few times but thats different to a white person using it prejoritavly (is that the right word?). You know you hear it in hip hop and in dramas like the wire all the time but not used in the same manner as quentin has his characters do.



He says it himself (32 secs in).


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 18, 2016)

That's the most unnecessary example of all of his uses of the word.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 18, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> That's the most unnecessary example of all of his uses of the word.



You say that but this scene absolutely reflects how I associate QT...


----------



## ska invita (Jan 18, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Maybe...I've been at work so could have missed it.


yes i posted it! pay attention at the back


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jan 20, 2016)

I just happened upon this article which, I confess, I only skim read but I had a look at the comments section and came across what I thought was superb and, IMO, really nails home one of Tarrantino's main point of the film.  It turns out he actually makes a superb point about misogyny.  I'll spoiler it as it describes the ending:



Spoiler



At the end of this film, the black Yankee and the white Confederate come together to gleefully lynch the woman, all while talking about progress. At that point, a film that I thought was mostly about racism shifted to being about misogyny. It was the one thing that was most ingrained in these men, more than their wartime allegiances, more than their racial prejudices. They cloaked their actions in the idea of justice, which in this form just served to reinforce the status quo. Of course this is something we still struggle with today, in our comparatively civilized society.

After that, the two men read from a letter and wistfully talk about Mary Todd. So maybe they do care about women, just a bit? Nope, Walton Goggins' character says, "that was a nice touch," because this Mary Todd is just the creation of a man. Sam Jackson's character wrote the letter, it was a fake, and their idea of woman is all in their heads.

Did Daisy do enough to be the Big Bad? Of course not, her main crime was being the female leader of her gang. Did Six-Horse Judy and Minnie deserve better? Of course they did!



When you couple that with Tim Roth's character's monologue about how justice needs to be dispassionate I think it really makes sense.  I know I need to see it again.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jan 22, 2016)

I just saw it tonight.  I really enjoyed it. Mainly as a dark comedy.


----------



## Tankus (Apr 3, 2016)

Blimey.  .   just seen it

Feel somewhat brutalised over a who dunnit...?

Worth a punt...

Dunno...... But was QT channelling some elements of Monty python in there ?


----------

