WORD ON THE STREET - "FLOP": Sony is exceedingly worried that Once Upon a Time...

inb4 Yea Forums praises it as a masterpiece because the normals don't like it

well don't keep us in suspense

Would the original Aug 9 release date have boosted it's box office potential if they kept it as originally planned?

speak up

Leonardo DiCaprio is A+ list, no one is arguing that, however, his success is consistent because he tends to choose high concept films that, while mature in subject matter, are easily communicated via marketing. His longtime relationship with Scorsese surprisingly tracks well with millennials too, which allows middling releases like Shutter Island to do well at box office.

Pitt is not the star he once was, and he's laid too low after World War Z, which was a shocking success, a lucky break, because it was long thought DoA. That said, WWZ cost $250 million, at least that, maybe $300 million. It didn't break even until ancillaries kicked in.

Ad Astra was moved because it's tracking horribly at Disney, and Tarantino demanded it not share any limelight with his movie. Iirc, Tarantino had a public dispute against Disney for releasing a film near Hateful 8.

Pitt and DiCaprio in a big budget thriller or war movie would do gangbusters. But here, they are playing losers. Tracking also shows that younger audiences and those outside the coasts are confused by whether DiCaprio is impersonating a real actor from the era. This is all negative.

Tarantino's movies are enough Hollywood fellating as it is, not sure if in really want to see a whole movie on it.
Also odds on pitt/leo stopping manson and his cult before the murders?

I've never known reports about Sony being about anything other than them making losses. In every branch. How do they still exist then? They must be doing something right.

I'm interested in the movie but the trailers and marketing have been terrible. I'm still not even sure what it's about

>don't pander to low iq retards
>people will wait and see it at home instead

when will studios learn this?

if they would release it as a $100 day 1 vod they would make a killing

I kind of feel like it's Bad Times at the El Royale all over again.

Nobody in the key 18-25 demo knows anything about the Manson family incident. If they do, they certainly don't understand why it's important or worth making a movie about. Plus Tarantino has used up some of his rep, he hasn't made a crowd-pleasing blockbuster since Django.

High. That's why I won't be watching it. Inglorious Bastards was absolutely pathetic, and doing the same fetishising with Sharon Tate is beyond tasteless and lame.

I think tarantino's problem with Disney was that a star wars movie released around that time and Disney was strong arming theaters to show it so many times a day on x many screens, so he felt like they were going to screw over his movie

Movie cost too much to produce and market, plus there is no real hook to it, so it's not gonna attract attention from normies and the like, there is no way in hell it's gonna turn a profit.

Attached: The-Nice-Guys.jpg (798x420, 34K)

His last film?

Hell they could do a callback and have pitt be the one to carve the swastika on manson at the end, wouldnt doubt that

Good, Sony Pictures Entertainment is fucking awful and the sooner they go under the better. They made black Annie, Ghostbusters 2016, MIB International, currently making the Charlie's Angels reboot and shat out an innumerable amount of shitty comedies.

Attached: sony-pictures.jpg (900x900, 70K)

I'm going to watch it just so I can jack off to margo robbies feet

Agreed. I like all of QT's movies, but the marketing on this one is too vague for the normalfags, I think. I'm guessing it's a sort of "slice of life" of old school Hollywood, then the ultra violence kicks in at the end when, I imagine, Brad Pitt takes a machine gun to Manson and his followers.

I'm not sure. The entire summer season is down. Many analysts are blaming it on overcooked sequels, but as usual, it's bad product in general.

Pitt and DiCaprio doing Men in Black with Will Smith? That would gross $500 million US. A 21 Jump Street x MiB movie as planned would gross $250 million US. Instead Hollywood does MiB: International with a little known actress and no discernable ties to the first three films. And they do Gemini Man, a $200 million oater that uses a mothballed screenplay where Will Smith is chasesmd his younger self. Tracking is through the floor.

There's no stats to support my conjecture, but the Cannes premiere of OUaTiH sucked a lot of wind from its sails. Sony should have built up the mystery and star power surrounding the project and had a huge Hollywood premiere this month. Even the early reviews, while decent, were too numerous and yet none of them have an easy read as to what the movie was about and why Joe Popcorn should pay $40 to see it on a date. Cannes has lot a lot of influence in recent years and this was a terrible decision.

Spider-Man U.

>The Hateful 8 disappointed

It was an R rated movie that did two times its budget, that's good.

>if it's not spoonfed and obvious, normies have no idea what's going on
Does this extend to their every day lives, or is this just a phenomenon with the media they consume?

>Pitt and DiCaprio doing Men in Black
Now that's what I call kino.

Yes, I believe you're correct.

Based. Fuck Leo, fuck Brad, and FUCK QUENTIN.

>A film about Hollywood set in the sleaziest time in Hollywood history when your boss has been revealed as the sleaziest Hollywood Jew insider imaginable
Wow, I wonder why no one gives a shit about Tarantino's heap of dogshit

No idea, everything they do has been halfassed and shit for years, and they are supposedly making losses left and right, from their mobile to their gaming division, maybe those Bluray licensing fees are keeping them afloat.

Attached: Nikolaj_Coster-Waldau.jpg (446x599, 38K)

She's barely in the movie. Another detail that general audiences have picked up in from early reviews. Originally her part as Sharon Tate was expected to be rather major, iconic and shocking. Her biggest scene in the movie is, weirdly, one in which she views herself on a theater screen and is mostly silent.

how do they sustain themselves if they do nothing but flops?

>Only Pitt and DiCaprio would come out unscathed.
pitts got another rumored flop coming later this year and he's already resorted to doing movies for netflix. i'm worried lads.

>New Tarantino joint starring Leo and Brad flops
doubt.jpg

There's something about Tarantino's work, some kind of indescribable hook that just grabs me. I'm actually excited for Once Upon A Time, I like when his characters get to breathe, and are motivated by something other than death.

i bet this movie will have great word of mouth and be a slow burning success.

What the fuck is the movie about then? .It's been hyped up as a Tarantino/Manson movie.

There's something describable about Tarantino's work that turns me right off: try-hard fakery and Jew rim-licking

To be fair, Tarantino is considered a crowdpleaser director, except for when he pays homage to more obscure tastes, which is why Death Proof and Grindhouse were a huge disaster, which many forget.

The Hateful 8 barely broke even, if that. Tarantino oddly demanded special screenings, which cost a small fortune, and the Weinsteins really bet on it doing Django-like numbers, as their studio was crumbling. And when it hit streaming, audiences did not warm up to Hateful 8, in fact it appears Tarantino may have peaked with Django.

that's the same movie pal

>which is why Death Proof and Grindhouse were a huge disaster, which many forget.

It was because they did them as double bills and people were too stupid to understand what a double feature is anymore.

why does he always pick the worst feet in Hollywood

tarantino the hack just ran out of obscure 70s blaxploitation, spaghetti westerns and giallo films to rip off

The movie is just Tarantino jerking off to random things he loved from old Hollywood.

The idea of Leo starring in a flop is incredibly jarring. It won't happen though. Tarantino, Leo and Brad will sell the film on star power alone among the college crowd. And cinephiles will be curious enough (in a pretty shit year for cinema) to check it out

Death Proof was pretty awful, but I think he kinda overplayed his hand, that time. You can't tell people you're making a movie about Kurt Russell killing people in a death-proof stunt car, then have the movie actually be an hour and a half of zoomer Sex and the City. Planet Terror, conversely, delivered exactly what it promised: pants-on-head-retarded zombie action and gore, and that movie is good for what it is.

Sony aren't in the black for their gaming division. It keeps most of their multimedia divisions afloat single handedly.

So....feet and samurai movies?

Gaming and their insurance side are making bank, phones and tv aren't doing well. Overall group profit is 6 billion dollars last financial year, ending in march 2019.

>The studio is in a jam because Tarantino will not allow his movie to be "spoiled" by marketing and press. Problem is...there is no signature ultraviolence that audiences crave until the final 15 minutes.
fucking kys, sincerely

let's be real, the only good part of grindhouse was the fake trailers.

>Ad Astra was moved because it's tracking horribly at Disney,
I thought the studio felt the film was unmarketable in its current form (too arty) and wanted to reedit it to be more accessible?

are you the user that posted the Once Upon a Time in Hollywood spoilers a few months back? (i.e. had a relative in the production)
either way, let's hear it. I've heard it involves time travel and might pick up from City on the Edge of Forever

Possibly, if the press hadn't already reviewed the film ad nauseum. When Pulp Fiction premiered at Cannes in the 1990s it was knighted as a global gamechanger for indie film and a surefire masterpiece. When OUaTiH premiered this year, it was considered a mostly tasteful diversion for cineastes. In the many weeks since the premiere, the buzz has not only dissipated but a general consensus is settling in that this film isn't as fun and thrilling as it should be. And as someone else wisely mentioned, Lion King may take a big, unexpected bite from its long-term box office and theater count. Disney agreed to delay Ad Astra, but tracking for Lion King is surging toward $700 million, possibly higher, in the US alone.

planet terror was great

honestly i think this is one reason why the movie is interesting
I agree there seems to be some statement about doing a movie about the period in which the Jews broke the production code (late 60s) and the decline of America (Manson murders and wanton violence)
Seems to me Tarantino is making a statement

Playstation is the only thing that has been continuously successful, I don't know how well other Sony electronics are doing.

He's a good director and film maker, in the same vain as Scorsese, he has a certain style that most of his movies share, but the media and the normies have idolized him to a point where anything he does is not going to live up to the hype.

Plus he likes feet and is open about it, and gets actresses to do foot shots, he's good in my book, unless Once upon a time doesn't have any, if so fuck him.

Attached: 1532833142334.jpg (1080x1080, 250K)

I hope it fails. I hate plebentino.

>Quentin literally never made a bad movie
>surely this one will suck

They were the best part, yeah. Death Proof was bad start to finish, but I legitimately enjoyed Planet Terror for what it was.

>joint
pretty sure this isn’t a spike lee kino, dork

>Jews broke the production code
Explain further. Sounds interesting.

>Problem is...there is no signature ultraviolence that audiences crave until the final 15 minutes. The lack of guns, blood, action, sex and even romance in the marketing isn't connecting.

Sony Pictures is still living in the early 2000s fucking hell

This sounds like bullshit. Who is not gonna see the new Tarantino movie with Brad Pitt and Leo. The normies are gonna flock to this.

Ad Astra has been a problematic production from the start. I'm unsure if the temperamental director, who has never made a profitable film let a lone a big hit, has done reshoots or recut it. You are correct in that Fox was confused how to market it. But Fox was then sold to Disney, who couldn't shelve it as they wanted, so it will get a Dark Phoenix-like afterthought release, with just enough paid-for Oscar whispers to keep Brad Pitt content. Why this artsy director was entrusted with such a lavish production and major star is the bigger question, and why Hollywood is in trouble, except for the Mouse House of course.

I don't think this will flop, but 150 mil production budget is insane for something that isn't capeshit. Most of that is Leo and Brad's quote, a movie like this could be made for 30 mil even if shot on film, with less expensive actors.

he has awful taste in feet though

I certainly don't subscribe to believes like yours, and I'll only semi-dignify you with a response but you couldn't be more wrong, and Tarantino's next non-Star Trek project is evidence enough.

Disney hit job, me thinks

There should be a law that limits actors salaries to 1 million, tops.

I don't like Tarantino. But I understand the reason behind his style. He clearly is inspired by explotation cinema, mixed with sensibilities of European cinema. He is suppose to be a huge Godard fan.

>What the fuck is the movie about then?
The entire plot with spoilers is already up on Wiki... Bruce Lee, Leo and Pitt kill the Manson family in an epic shoot out/Kung Fu battle at the end to save Sharon Tate

lmao sounds like i'm 100% right

Tracking doesn't lie. Sorry if you're a fan. Right now, it may peter out at $110-120 million domestic. I'm more conservative and believe it may not gross $100 million. Anything under $400 million is a big kiss for the post-Pascal Sony regime.

I'm gonna be pretty miffed if Ad Astra ends up a jumbled mess. The concept is solid, Pitt is a fine actor, TLJ a great one. I can only hope they don't bungle the execution.

actors are cunts but i would be pretty pissed if I was the lead actor in a movie that grossed half a billion dollars and all i got was 1 mill

Spill the beans on his next project, already. Also, does that imply he IS making a Star Trek movie?

In a perfect world, Lion King 2019 would bomb haaaaaarrrrrrd.
I want that movie to fuck off, christ!

>Most of that budget is Leo and Brad's quote
To be fair, both actors are said to have taken major pay cuts for this film, but have backend deals. The budget is so high because Tarantino was used to getting everything he asked for from TWC and that's how Sony lured him, by promising a huge budget. I've heard the film cost more than $150 million, and marketing is the most expensive for any Tarantino film, yet it's proving ineffective.

>Tarantino had a public dispute against Disney for releasing a film near Hateful 8.
What a fucking baby

Not only is that the kind of retarded regulation that libertarians like to make fun of, but big names are already switching to percentage of gross over salary.

RDJ made an estimated 150m from IW and Endgame alone.

this
all those 'market predictions' are one big horseshit. Once upon a time in Hollywood will do well at the box office at worst, Tarantino knows his shit and knows how the public will react to it, he's been in the business for a long time enough now, and is aware of the financial part of things.

I didn't really expect this to be his biggest hit and the timing of the release date feels off.

I applaud anyone willing to go kamikaze over the two headed nightmare that is Iger/Horne led Disney.

>if the temperamental director, who has never made a profitable film let a lone a big hit,
you say that but gray has a great track record for making quality films and i've never heard anything about him being like a david o. russell style prima donna.

Supposedly it's a more depressing and hermetic retread of Contact and Interstellar. Sorry. The title is a big issue, audiences have no idea what it means or how to pronounce it. There is even a small percentage of social chatter that thinks the title is in a foreign language.

Still waiting on the next project info faggot

youtube.com/watch?v=_pd6yO-jBRo

Why would you call a movie " Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood"

>"Yeah, I'll get one ticket to " Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood" babe."

>"Uh what?!"

Uh WHAT?!

I really don't care if the movie makes money, I'm not getting any of it. I care if the movie is good, I care if I like it. All the things mentioned as possibly negatively impacting box office are things that make me interested in seeing it. I don't get why anyone outside of the people making movies are obsessed with box office returns, it's not indicative of quality, capeshit makes billions and its garbage.

>Tarantino is aware of the financial part of things
He's been with the Weinsteins his entire career, this is his film without them. Will it be his second flop, we shall see, but the latest tracking suggests it's very possible.

Who watches Cretino movies in the theatre?
Just wait until it's on FX or netflix.

what the fuck movies DO make money these days besides five million dollar budget blumhouse flicks and disney's live action remakes and marvel movies?

I'm not too familiar with the director of Ad Astra, but I've been told he's better suited to streaming and low budget films. After Interstellar didn't become an Inception-like blockbuster, Ad Astra should not have happened. It's not a studio film. No reason to further disappoint general moviegoing audiences.

When I first heard of this project honestly thought it was going to be a true crime movie about Manson.

I think you pretty much covered it. There's the odd non-Disney remake like Jumanji or Jurassic World, but most other remakes actually flop. Of course most of that is because they insist on banking on the gender/race swap then pay the press to cry about isms and call people nazis when it fails marketing tactic, but at this point I'm convinced it's all a big propaganda/tax write-off scheme.

Budget.
This film is predicted to flop because its budget is so high. If the budget was a quarter of what it was (around $40m) then these concerns wouldn't be a thing.
Likewise, Blumhouse films don't make *that* much, they just have really low budgets

Spics and blacks not interested in Americana? I'm shocked.

I get your point, but good box office returns do determine few important things: if a movie does well it can push others to try and mimic you, which can give life to similar movies being made, and it can also kill or sabotage careers if the movie bombs, so the people you like might not be able to projects you'd be interested in.

>African Americans are also tracking well below usual for a Tarantino release.
>tfw brotherman tell you he ain't wanna see your new movie

Attached: ct-xpm-2012-12-18-sns-rt-us-usa-shooting-connectict-djangounchainedbre8bh02-20121217.jpg (1649x2048, 567K)

>Of course most of that is because they insist on banking on the gender/race swap then pay the press to cry about isms and call people nazis when it fails marketing tactic

I was waiting for someone to spin this bs.

>what is death proof

$150 mil fircwhat exactly?

This. They are generally simple-minded and vain, and will only watch something if they see themselves in it.

>hollywood jerking itself off
of course it'll flop

>Especially with younger audiences who don't understand the plot
Zoomers will be the death of cinema

extensive cast, big sets, etc...

Making an elaborate period piece isn't cheap. There's a lot that goes into making everything look like the late 60s. I'm sure some of the other actors didn't come cheap either.

can you blame them? There's only capeshit in theaters now

Your first point isn't that much of a good thing, since ripoffs tend to not be that great, and when they are, it's certainly not enough to justify me caring about box office. In the worst case though, you get the current state of films, where Disney makes money with capeshit, so everything has to be capeshit all the time, and you occasionally may get a good capeshit film, but as a whole the trend is completely destroying cinema.
In regards to your second point, that might be the only reason to care the slightest bit, but in this case QT is such an established household name that a flop isn't likely to kill his career that late in the game, and on the off chance it does, we don't get what he claims will be his last movie(and he even said he might not do a last one, flop or not).

based zoomers

go to wikipedia and peep the cast list. it's ridiculous.

Most actors are willing to take a big pay cut to be in a Tarantino film but yeah, the cast is still stacked.

if they paid more than scale for rumer willis, lena dunham, and harley quinn smith, they got played

>can you blame them?
Yes, I can. They have easier access to films than any other generation, they can basically watch any film they want from any era online.
I'm not that old(millennial), and growing up my options for looking up older or more obscure films where track down a VHS copy locally, then track down a DVD copy locally, then download a potato quality rip on limewire over the course of a day on a slow 56k connection that busied the phone line.
With the ease of access to films zoomers have, they could have the most developed film culture, yet they don't, because they're faggots.

Most movies coming out of Hollywood are trash and rip offs anyway. The point I was making is that interesting ideas and niche pictures that do well will briefly inspire Hollywood to give similar projects that otherwise wouldn't get backing a green light and it inevitably will produce few good movies in a sea of trash. Especially in niche genres like westerns this is almost always very beneficial.

Oh to be young oh what a feeling. As the adage goes, it's called show business, not show art. Studio movies are a different ballgame, and each movie's box office success is tied to hundreds of jobs, many times thousands.

No one forced Tarantino to cease making $8 million indie films, he himself decided to become an "event film" director, and a big part of entering the big leagues is putting up big numbers. The problem is his newest film cost $150 million but has the esoteric plot and sensibility of an $8 million indie picture from the 1990s.

If the film doesn't break over $125 million it's a safe bet that many at Sony who are guilty of nothing except for handling an odd movie with big stars, will be out of work. Anything under $100 million, and it will be deemed a historic failure, a water marker for theatrical vs streaming. The irony is that Tarantino is a vocal defender of the theatrical and studio system, yet with this film's potential underperformance (or worse) he will accelerate non-IP films being confined to home viewing.

This film needed a big trailer-friendly set piece like The House of Blue Leaves, the famous "Bring out the Gimp," the Big Kahuna burger holy intervention, or a love story like Django Unchained. Why Tarantino chose not to include this I'm unsure. Manson should be depicted as more menacing, and identified in the trailers and posters.

I've also heard that Luke Perry's role is nothing more than a glorified cameo, and that's a shame because as it's his final film, marketing could have used this as an effective b-side to the primary selling points.

Django made almost half a billion dollars. Tarantula alone has enough name recognition to draw a large audience.

Django had an appealing action/western formula though. Even after watching the trailers, I'm still not quite sure what the concept of this movie is.

The idea of QT doing a movie with Pitt and DiCaprio sounds great but this feels like more revisionist history (ala Inglorious Basterds) and although I liked that flick this just seems like QT huffing his own farts and wallowing in Hollywood nostalgia. I don't feel compelled to watch this!!!FACT!!!

So what's the big 15-minute bloodbath at the end of the film?

Tate is going to kill Manson, right?

Sure, but that mostly applies to smaller budget films that become surprise hits though, and you don't really see people making threads tracking box office for those. All of these box office threads are always about big 100+ million dollar budget studio films, capeshit and the like. My point still stands, people should stop obsessing over how much money Hollywood is making on those.

Bohemian Rhapsody grossed $900 million worlwide. Hugh Jackman's circus musical, which was surprisingly good, was a sleeper hit the likes of which we haven't seen in a decade or more. The Conjuring "universe" continues its unprecedented run although the latest Annabelle is pretty creaky. And Christopher Nolan continues to blaze a trail of original big budget puzzle mysteries and historic epics.

The industry has been bearish on anime adaptations after middling attempts, but tracking extraopolates that this trend will align with the release of a $200 million live-action Akira.

have people finally grown out of the trash tarantino makes?

Freddy did so well that now just about every two bit artist is potentially getting a biopic.

>If the budget was a quarter of what it was (around $40m)

>film is just credits with Dicaprio and Pitt
KINO

>Hispanics and blacks not interested in Americana?
Hispanics came out to see Bohemian Rhapsody, a relevant comparison because it's was largely an immersive American period piece with vintage music. American Hustle is a good comparison for Tarantino's latest, it attracted a diverse audience, but I expect AH to be more financially successful and award winning when all is said and done.

Imagine a less surreal Persona starring Leo and Pitt. Think of how fucking kino that would genuinely be

He changed the ending.

>why won't they waste their life like us
because they know it's bullshit. there's enough of an age gap now where they can look back at film for what it was, an explosion of entertainment products during the century in america where the average jack off had more petty cash to throw around than he knew what to do with. you can look at it now with a wide lens and say "yup, there's the chronology of good film, mostly dealing with issues I can't relate to with narrative devices that bore me". blaming the next generation for not fetishizing a mass of media, especially at a time when it couldn't be more obvious how irrelevant it all is, puts you on the level of my old neighbor tsking me for not driving an american car.
>tfw millenials are already relics

>each movie's box office success is tied to hundreds of jobs, many times thousands
None of which are mine
>If the film doesn't break over $125 million it's a safe bet that many at Sony who are guilty of nothing except for handling an odd movie with big stars, will be out of work.
Oh no, a few big studio will lose their jobs!
I
Don't
Care
>with this film's potential underperformance (or worse) he will accelerate non-IP films being confined to home viewing.
That's a thing I'm actually excited for. I rarely go to the cinema, so the faster non-IP films with esoteric plots and indie sensibility(those are the films I like) come to streaming, the better for me.

Also, with digital technology I was hoping that we'd see a new explosion of creativity and innovation, where studios would back small movies with low budgets where Directors could play around. You can make a movie on a 4k camera and a home computer these days for nothing but that's not being pushed because studio are corporations and the stockholders and studio heads don't want small flicks that just make money, they want billion dollar grossing blockbusters that makes the stocks spike.

The smart money would be on Netflix/HBO style streaming where you can make stuff on relatively small budgets and no need to pay ridiculous money to some assholes who stand in front of a camera and say shit other people write while a small army works to make them look good.

That way you get the best of both worlds. Directors have more freedom, budgets are kept low, you don't have to spend tens of millions to market and advertise only to get 50% of the box office, or less internationally, and no censorship.

Maybe have a chain of small theaters available so that people who are members can go see stuff on the big screen if they want by using their membership card.

That's the way I'd do it!!!FACT!!!

>The irony is that Tarantino is a vocal defender of the theatrical and studio system

That's because he's an autistic wanker who has benefitted from that system and resists change!!!FACT!!!

*big studio jews

>have people finally grown out of the trash tarantino makes?

I have. He's been making movies for 27 years and hasn't developed one fucking bit as either a filmmaker or a man. He's like the "indie" version of Michael Bay, another jerkoff with a sever case of arrested development. Where as Bay's movies reflect his own persona of being a fratboy douchebag, QT is the nebbish nerd who only knows life through movies and TV which is why his films are just as shallow and Bay's!!!FACT!!!

Stop posting any time my dude!!!FACT!!!

No. Brad Pitt plays a shitkicker veteran
turned stuntman who has mellowed out, but he taps into wartime mayhem when his neighbor Sharon Tate is butchered. It's a brief thriller sequence wherein Pitt dispatched the Manson crew at their ranch, is my understanding. It's a shame Burt Reynolds, the legendary actor of the 70s and early 80s, passed away before filming his role, which was then truncated for lesser actor Bruce Dern from what I've heard. Reynolds was set to play the owner of the ranch and it could have been a third act Boogie Nights once again. Reynolds would also draw in a different audience and better connect for them the film's folksy stuntman elan.

So the cop out ending of Tate surviving is bullshit?

not a surprise once the hype around the trailers is low for normal people.

and people who knows tarantino can already imagine that this will end just like inglorious bastards, with some sort of rewriten history.

theres no way this movie can end otherwise, because it would be disgusting to explore the brutal death of sharon tate without some sort of cathartic bloody resolution.

Attached: 1526014828914.gif (244x200, 937K)

>the period in which the Jews broke the production code

what

Attached: 1504415407821.gif (265x207, 1.17M)

>Tarantino's next non-Star Trek project
While I expected more interest here on this subject, since to my knowledge, nothing has publicly leaked, I'll go ahead and share what I know.

>is Tarantino's Star Trek still happening?
Yes. JJ Abrams, who is producing, is fully committed to courting Tarantino for a sci-fi blockbuster, and an R-rated Star Trek is irresistible to him. I'm humored by commenters here who express disinterest in box office, because Tarantino is rather privately obsessed with topping himself, partly because he relishes the unrivaled perks of being a blockbuster filmmaker. He admires Nolan from what I've heard, not so much his films, but his success. Essentially Tarantino wants his own Batman, he wants to direct project that can potentially gross $1 billion before he soft-retires. But I've heard nothing on the screenplay, except that it will be set on an alien planet, which yes has alien females, (possibly alien weed or something?) and will feature a streamlined cast, with a horror element rumored to be in the style of The Thing. It will be less serious than JJ's films but scarier. In a word: popcorn. This is either his next film, screenplay pending, of it will be

>Tarantino's global spy thriller
Besides Elmore Leonard, Tarantino is a mega fan of the British spy author Len Deighton, and was previously attached to helm one or three of Deighton's works, which he privately completed a ton of research on. However, Tarantino is now more averse to adaptations of novels after Jackie Brown/Rum Punch, his least favorite film. What Tarantino has now done is to somehow merge a Len Deighton-like spy story, full of fast cars and international intrigue, with a number of stories based on real life operations of the Mossad, Israel's foreign intelligence agency that is like a deadler, stealthier version of the CIA. ... CONT

>but tracking extraopolates that this trend will align with the release of a $200 million live-action Akira.
the production was delayed indefinitely.

>Stop posting any time my dude!!!FACT!!!

Do you have anything to contribute to the discussion? No? THEN FUCK YOURSELF, YOUR WHORE MOTHER, YOUR FAGGOT FATHER AND THE REST OF YOUR INBRED FAMILY YOU COCK SUCKING NIGGER!!!FACT!!!

>Tarantino is now more averse to adaptations of novels after Jackie Brown/Rum Punch, his least favorite film.
what a pleb

>His first without Jewish mentor, infamous legend Harvey Weinstein
Based Harvey dabbing on Cuckantino

they needed a trailer with a hook, like a really good old song that hasn't been beaten to death anywhere else yet, and a "twist" to get people curious, if you don't know what I'm talking about watch the "10 Cloverfield Lane" trailer with MEW from a few years ago to see a trailer that made BUZZ (doesn't matter that the movie itself was underwhelming and the final 10 minutes practically ruined the whole thing)

We all like to joke at the state of JLaw and Watson's careers post Weinstein, but Tarantino's career might be the biggest to dissolve.
If this film flops, how will that affect his plans for his final tenth film?

Plebs. At least the kino is already made and available to view.

>Tarantino's next non-Star Trek project
...CONT
Apparently what got the ball rolling on this Mossad spy thriller is a smaller recent Israeli film, which I haven't seen, called Big Bad Wolves, that Tarantino feels is a masterpiece. Apparently Tarantino's wife, an Israeli singer and aspiring actress, bonded with him over this movie and he took a further interest in Israeli movies, the healthy growing local film industry, and in the young nation itself. He suddenly saw an international canvas that would be separate from James Bond and to a lesser extent Ethan Hunt, although Tom Cruise met with Tarantino for OUaTiH and Tarantino may have run ideas for his Israeli spy thrill to Cruise. I'm not saying Cruise is any way attached, Mission: Impossible would be too similar albeit more family friendly to this new Tarantino project. But then again, JJ Abrams produces Mission: Impossible and JJ and Tarantino are tight, and Cruise is now tight with both and really wants to be in Tarantino's next original movies before the director announces soft retirement.

As for more specifics of the plot, I doubt anything is known. The script is either a full treatment or rough draft and it's as lengthy as usual. Unlike Tarantino's recent films and dating back to Kill Bill, this seems to be a real veering towards explosive realism, more like a mega budget Reservoir Dogs, with Mossad agents, terrorists and CIA instead of gangsters and cops. His wife and friends have even gotten Mossad agents to give their input and stories. What's interesting, and further substantiation, is that Harvey Weinstein allegedly assisted Tarantino with access to this shadow world and subject matter. Guessing this was before the scandals?

That's all I know. But it sounds like a welcome change of pace and with 007 on the rocks, there's opportunity here for Tarantino to make an iconic spy thriller in a partly Middle Eastern and North African setting that makes it different enough. My last post.

>.there is no signature ultraviolence that audiences crave until the final 15 minutes
violence in the last 15 minutes is Tarantino's signature.

>What Tarantino has now done is to somehow merge a Len Deighton-like spy story, full of fast cars and international intrigue, with a number of stories based on real life operations of the Mossad, Israel's foreign intelligence agency that is like a deadler, stealthier version of the CIA
Ok, I kinda believed you and that you weren't just larping until that. Sloppy job, Mossad.

>this seems to be a real veering towards explosive realism, more like a mega budget Reservoir Dogs, with Mossad agents, terrorists and CIA instead of gangsters and cops.
If true this is going to be kino.

lmao keep drinking /pol/'s koolaid like the dumb cunt you are
I pity the likes of you, poor bastards

Attached: 1528925224711.jpg (206x250, 5K)

He wedded a Jewish Israeli last year named Daniella Pick.

I enjoyed reading these. Thx

and why would I want to trust you?

Attached: le puzzled face man.gif (280x358, 2.53M)

Dear idiot, please explain why else the movies are failing, yet something like beauty and the beast very conspicuously didn’t.

>Movies with adult themes winning awards and being box office hits (Preminger, Lumet...)
>Big budget epics losing money
>Society becomes less puritan
Studios didnt bother to follow the production code and started hiring young edgy directors

its the jews obviously

Attached: 1527150966972.png (480x480, 328K)

not trying to be a cunt here, just curious, got any sources/anything we can read more about this stuff?

I hope this movie eats shit and Tarantulas last film is remembered as a huge failure.

The subject matter Hollywood Jews could put in their films was tightly controlled from the early 1930s TO 1965 by a voluntary production code which which reined in the weird sexual excesses of hollywood producers (at least in their films). There was no nudity or mockery of clergy or other things. No Judaism, bascially.
In 1965 Jews broke the code by producing "serious" films with nudity. In the USA the film to break the code was the Pawnbroker, which was a movie about, you guessed it, the Holocaust. And it had tits in it. Basically "holocaust porn"
Within 7 years of breaking the code, Hollywood was putting full on porn in American theaters (Deep Throat and others). I believe this cultural shift is at least partly what Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is about.
EMJ goes into more detail here, but it's a long, flagged video:
youtube.com/watch?v=OUk3RPWvvtc

kek

>Unlike Tarantino's recent films and dating back to Kill Bill, this seems to be a real veering towards explosive realism, more like a mega budget Reservoir Dogs, with Mossad agents, terrorists and CIA instead of gangsters and cops.
Thanks for the post but this just looks outright boring to me. There's no way something like this would be a big grossing movie too

It's true, there's no hook. I'm sure it'll be nice but I have no hype.

Pawnbroker is a very good movie btw.
It also features the Austin Powers music.

Yeah, and the late 60s and 70s were the greatest era of American cinema.
I’m not ragging on the studio “Golden Age”, there were some gems, but a lot of that stuff is hard to watch, novels from back then have held up better, and those films were as corporatized as stuff coming out today.

>it's a more depressing and hermetic retread of Contact and Interstellar
Sounds great to me. Sci fi isn't exactly a fresh genre, so aping the classics isn't a big deal for me. Also, I'm a sucker for bleak movies and I feel like a tone of despair and loneliness would couple perfectly with the horrors of endless space.

Pleb

I legit thought this movie already came out and went

Jumanji and and Spider-Man keep them afloat

Whatever film he does next he should keep it the fuck away from Sony

>When Hollywood makes a movie about Hollywood
>Focuses on all of the boring and self absorbed parts of Hollywood
>the interesting mass murderer is just a side character

Attached: 463874a9fea799bef3b30ba82391acfd.jpg (736x765, 62K)

Faggot I’ve seen every Billy Wilder and John Ford film. Stuff from back then can be wonderful but it was just as at mercy to social justice groups and profit than it is today.

>partly because he relishes the unrivaled perks of being a blockbuster filmmaker.

He can only relish those perks if his image hasn't been tainted and the Weinstein scandal has done some considerable damage to it.

shouldn't have cast sick pedo Lena Dunham

>Dicaprio
>Pitt
>Tarintino
>Margot Robbie
>Pacino
>Kurt Russell
>Luke Perrys final film
>Charles Manson centred plot
I have high doubts this will flop, lots of big names, 70s' nostalgia, boomers will eat this up

>Problem is...there is no signature ultraviolence that audiences crave until the final 15 minutes. T
Ruh roh! I kind of thought it might go this route just from watching the trailer. It doesn't seem to have the typical ingredients to turn into a standard violent af tarantino outing. I'm honestly down for watching Brad and DiCaprio shoot the shit for 2 hours though.

I doubt Hollywood would ever spoof Mossad. It's too close to home.

>murderer
Manson never killed anyone.

Attached: jiggy.png (530x758, 1.54M)

Big bad wolves was an interesting film but I watched it before i was redpilled on the JQ. However, a Mossad flick could be pretty kino if made it realistically portraying them as the ruthless goyim hating henchmen they are.

>middling releases like Shutter Island
fuck off fag

>the late 60s and 70s were the greatest era of American cinema
holy shit. I hate that era the most

>doubt Hollywood would ever spoof Mossad
Nobody said he was spoofing Mossad. His wife is Jewish, that means Tarantino was blessed by a rabbi, and he's now Jewish like Ivanka Trump and Danny DeVito. Sounds like a more serious, sleeker version of Inglourious Basterds.

Thus proving OP's point. Sony blew their load early. I was pumped to see this shit but after reviews, feels like I've seen it already

irl Tate got pregged up by Manson and Polanski thought Tate an Angel and Charlie a Demon/Devil and the baby wouldve been Antichrist. they killed Tate, the baby and framed Charlie. this movie is going to continue the lie they created.

(((MSM))) will hype the shit out of this. Israel is a big topic these days. Spielberg's Munich made bank too. This will be Munich with gore and coke? $$

Attached: 04741109-0AA2-495E-93E4-87354A1D38DC.png (379x366, 79K)

>Bohemian Rhapsody
>American period piece
lmao what are you talking about

Attached: 38A638AF-1B86-413D-87C8-2B09C4CB03C6.jpg (512x422, 31K)

>lesser actor Bruce Dern
bruce dern a fucking lesser actor than burt fucking reynolds??

Yea but your not attributing much either. Lose your name too this isnt reddit kid.

PS4 unironically keeps Sony alive

he’s been on the record as saying his least favourite film in his filmography is death proof

yes? burt reynolds was an icon. dern was a veteran but he never had a smokey and the bandit type role.

LOL HE'S NOTHING WITHOUT HARVEY'S LOVEJUICE EITHER

>film maker, in the same vain as Scorsese
ouch, he's right

Sergio Leone, hello?

>Tarantino is now more averse to adaptations of novels after Jackie Brown/Rum Punch, his least favorite film
nice larp

>Pitt and DiCaprio in a big budget thriller
Why hasn't Nolan contacted them yet?

Isn't Tarantino literally THE quintessential normie filmmaker. He's extremely mainstream and normies the world over love his crap.

that would be spielberg

I'm only excited for it because it DOESN'T look like standard tarantino violence romp. It looks like a decent character study that is also comical, which I know, are [resent in other taratino films, but again the story just doesn't seem like his standard fare and apparently it isn't hyperviolent.

So is Hateful 8 worth watching? All I remember is hearing a lot of mixed things. Usually people salivate over everything Tarantino so I didn't check it out since the reception seemed to be split which since I'm not overly in love with his movies in the first place, I assumed I wouldn't like it if diehards didn't.

it's his best film since jackie brown

How the hell did the studio greenlit that big of a budget when Tom Rothman is running the show?

Nobody wants to watch Hollywood jerk itself off

Attached: IMG_3129.png (455x477, 560K)

Death proof
Hateful 8
Jackie Brown

I'm 29, would I enjoy kill bill 1 and 2?
I have never seen them however I've been told that it's not worth watching if you weren't a teen at the time you saw it because they actually aren't good movies otherwise. Is this true? Or should I be snuggling in for some kino tonight?

Is he still doing Star Trek? Or was that a meme rumor. I don't keep up with this shit

ehh they're okay, on Quentin's lower end

I would guess as well that it will bomb but either way it's going to be kino

here's a good rule of thumb: anything he made in the 00s is skippable

No one on a crew loses their job because a movie flops.

pretty well known by now tarantino movies never get fucking huge, just good enough sales and they are always worth a watch. who gives a flying fuck how much it brings in, just enjoy it or not.

Theyre good on their own...good. They become amazing if you like old hong kong cinema and early kung fu shows...he homages and plageriges the fuck out of them in a good way.

>The movie cost $150 million
then maybe they should stop embezzling it. No way it cost that much

havent watched the 4 piece version yet, but the theatrical cut is a mixed bag with some key points in which will turn people off entirely. its sort of weak if you consider the first decade of his career his prime though.

its hard not to like KB1&2. worth a shot regardless

It's fantastic. A cat and mouse movie full of tension set in a roadside inn. Don't go in expecting Django, it's a "dialogue" movie. Watch it alone with plenty of volume, because Ennio Morricone did the score.

Almost entirely dependent on how you feel about old school kung fu/samurai movies.

>, it's a "dialogue" movie
Isn't that all his shit pretty much? I thought that was one of his "things", you know besides feet

It's the kind of shit you would definitely eat up more as a teenager, and its's really more style/homage over 'substance'. If you're bored and want to be entertained fairly mindlessly for a few hours, give it a shot.

I will if the main characters of that jerking off are Leo and Pitt.

>La La Land

Come on.

Who is OP and why does he post like he's a hollywood insider.
Weird reading posts from someone seemingly so knowledgeable about film on Yea Forums.