Reminder Once Upon A Time in Hollywood needs to make 400 million to break even

Reminder that Quentin,Leo,and Brad are being jewey and taking 30% of the films first run box office

Attached: 71AC4518-D7A7-4E6E-80D9-3206C5899942.jpg (600x600, 42K)

Good movie saw it this afternoon

Isn't Tarantino pretty much immune to a flop at this point? I doubt it'll slow down his career if the movie underperforms.

Compared to the literal studio Jews taking a bigger cut?

I saw it the second time today and I now see some of the flaws of the second act. I feel Pitt and Dicaprio spend too much time apart. Maybe that's the point, but it just felt like if we had seen them together more their friendship would have been more believable, though it was still good. Also I hated how much was unresolved between them. Did the attack change their relationship? Will Rick find some way to keep Cliff around? What will Cliff do for work if he can't work for Rick? I wish the deleted phonecall between Rick and the little girl was left in too. And I wish we got to see more of Sharon Tate.

I now have more mixed feelings, but it's still one of the best films in years and a total must watch. Easily one of Tarantino's best, but I think number one is still Reservoir Dogs.

They allegedly would get paid in residuals back in

The studio needs needs to make that money back some how

Who cares? They’ve made billions off of him and will continue to do so.

I bet there were more scenes of them together, but they kinda Mog each other on screen. You’re not sure which character to focus on

What was the point of emphasizing February 8th and 9th and all of the action happening in one day? They just skip 6 months ahead for the 3rd act anyways

LOL. This is a case where "box office gross" doesn't apply. That's a capeshit meme.

Arthouse films, like Welcome To The Neighborhood, The Art of Self Defense, Rocketman, and yes, Once Upon A Time were made for the love of film. Studios and directors don't put these out for profit, they do it for the admiration and love of the game.

Films like Godzilla, John Wick, Shazam... these are films made solely for profit. With no heart or inspiration behind them. If you cannot see the difference between these films or why they are made, then I feel very, very sorry for you. Cause you do not know what it means to be kino and do not belong on my site that is Yea Forums.

Begone Yea Forumsfag!

Attached: YOU ARE FUCKING LOSERS.jpg (430x307, 32K)

Agreed, the movie is 2 hours and 45 minutes but it flies by

It felt like it needed to be like an hour longer. We should have seen some stuff in Italy, how Rick and Cliff met, what their relationship was really like, maybe see them get mad at each other or frustrated. Leo's relationship with Steven in Django or with Donnie in Wolf of Wall Street were way more complex and interesting. Cliff and Rick are great characters, they just didn't have enough chemistry.

The only really developed character in the film was the city itself, which was amazing. But he spent so much time making the city so realistic and beautiful that he forgot to paint the underlying relationship which should have been the heart of the movie.

Take Inherent Vice. A much lower budget, smaller scale picture about the same place, same Era, similar tone. But much less shots of the city and less production design and far, far more emotional scenes and development between the two male leads. I'm not really saying one is better but they both have elements the other doesn't. Hell even Big Lebowski has more chemistry and character development between the two male leads.

If they spent 140m they need 140m to break even, where do you get 280m from?

These Jews being Jews and taking 30% of the box office

Attached: 543A3DEF-55F8-4EEA-860A-B15F94735236.jpg (201x251, 13K)

I honestly have no idea. I'm not sure why he shows the names of certain characters in one scene and never again. Or why he has Kurt Russell narrate. Or why he just shows movie posters of the portion in Italy. I still love the movie but some things are very odd.

Yeah the first time I saw it I loved how long and complex it felt. On second viewing it felt short and characters felt somewhat under developed. He spends too much time on the cowboy TV show and the Manson Ranch. I wish there was more bromance and more Bounty Law scenes.

Well said.

Tarantino has said his next film will be his last
even if it's the biggest flop of all time, studios and platforms would kill to get him to cancel that retirement and we all know it. He could single-handedly turn a fledgling platform into a major competitor simply by signing an exclusive deal with them

Reminder that a Yea Forums insideranon was talking about this in May and June.

The international release isn't in full swing yet. The film is going to do well. Its biggest problem in the US is that it had to compete with The Lion King. Overseas, I think they'll prefer live action human drama more.

marketing

He's backtracked. Star Trek won't be his last film but it's his next film. He's also doing a Bounty Law streaming series, he already penned eight eps. Also rumors here he's doing an Israeli project. Streaming projects don't count, and he said if it's an adaptation like Jackie Brown it won't count toward his auteur filmography.

>The only really developed character in the film was the city itself,

Attached: download-14.jpg (259x195, 15K)

I stand by what I said, the city looked incredible. The whole film did, but the characters were kind of boring. It's still awesome and I loved it, but it was more of an exercise in technique than something deeply emotional. His best film is still Reservoir Dogs.

What deleted phone call?

>Arthouse films, like Welcome To The Neighborhood, The Art of Self Defense, Rocketman, and yes, Once Upon A Time were made for the love of film. Studios and directors don't put these out for profit, they do it for the admiration and love of the game.

oh man you can't be srs

Attached: download-2.png (211x239, 9K)

>he said if it's an adaptation like Jackie Brown it won't count toward his auteur filmography.
lmao Jackie Brown is his best work

He's still Tarantino, he's one of the only directors in the world who doesn't need to attach to a marketable brand or franchise to get people to come see his movies. Really it's just him, Spielberg, Scorsese, Nolan and Fincher. Wes Anderson and PTA don't even make that list, not a lot of people went out to go see Isle of Dogs or Phantom Thread, despite both of those being great films.

I like Jackie Brown since its the only one that's authentic and not designed to be a 'thing'. It puts the story and characters before the brand

he is not serious

Based and Elmorepilled

Attached: 1559451566185.jpg (1024x640, 56K)

>first run

What's that refer to? First week? Month?

There was supposed to be a phone call with the child actress and Leo after their scene together, where she is holding the teddy bear like on the poster for the film.

I like Jackie Brown a lot too, it's still a heist movie, albeit a very good heist movie. I like Reservoir Dogs the most because it has the best character development and the single best relationship of any Tarantino movie, between White and Orange. None of his other films get anywhere close to that relationship. People are gonna call me a weeb for saying it, but it's like Shinji and Kawarou.

It's the only truly adult film he has ever made in my opinion

Tarantino is a fucking pussy for cutting out the tate murders. I cant get over what a a massive blue balling sneaky jew down he actually pulled with this one.

Aw, really? That sucks, I really loved that kid. She stole every scene she was in.

why do redditors love defending dishonest filmmaking so much?

Attached: 580b57fcd9996e24bc43c531.png (736x1024, 26K)

I was just excited to see our girl in a Tarantino movie.

Maybe we'll get a Kill Bill vol. 3

Attached: PRI_76957872.jpg (644x874, 66K)

He didn't cut shit, he was always going to try to subvert your expectations.

As the Bride's daughter grown up? Definitely.

As they fucking should

DUDE, LETS HAVE NOTHING HAPPEN FOR 3 HOURS AND HAVE THE ONLY WORTHWHILE SCENE AT THE END HAVING 0 CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT AND THE SAME INTERACTIONS OVER AND OVER AGAIN IS GENIUS GUYS!

Leo looks like he's pissing in the thumbnail.

Mouthbreathers like you literally thought we were going to get a Crazy 88s style bloodbath with Sharon Tate getting her baby cut from her womb
Tarantino used that expectation to keep the audience on edge and you fell for it

>fairytale ends with a happy ending

The absolute gall

the original cut of the movie was something like 4 hours 10 minutes, so it was super trimmed down

Did Cliff kill his wife?

More like $10 million on ads. Tarantino doesn’t need to advertise he’s making a movie. He’s one of those rare guys that people will go see a movie because it’s the newest Tarantino flick, not even caring what the movie is actually supposed to be about.

The most they probably spent was on those billboards, and I wouldn’t be surprised if they got some of that back after they were damaged since it’s not really accurately advertising the film

>90 million budget
jfc, it was such a standard flick without any major effects or cgi. i'm guessing most of that went into the pockets of Pitt and DiCaprio. still, say they both got paid 10 million for it, it still seems oddly over budget.

It was just him day dreaming.

Probably

biography.com/news/natalie-wood-death-mystery

as they should, they're the reason the film will get any popular audience

>it wont make any money being sold digitally and for cable tv

the various connections are making it one of my favorite films qt has done. easily top 3.
i can get why ppl can find it boring but for me, every scene has substance.
>about hollywood and actors, the stunt man is the actual hero
>shows more about how fame effects us, the child actress (trudi foster), the pretty face actress getting first taste of fame (sharon tate), a over the hill cowboy star struggling to get his confidence up (rick dalton), the young up and coming cowboy star (james stacy), the actor that is friendzoned cuz of the star director swooping on the girl he loves (jay sebring) and the star that seemingly has it all but cant have the one girl he wants (steve mcqueen)
>steve lacey later irl would get in a motorcylce crash and lose his arm and leg. last shot we see him in he is on his motorcyle.
>leo is a fucking mess, brad is calm cool and collected
>does not glorify manson, shows story thru POV of hollywood
>highlights the degradation from the "free love, summer of love" in 1967 to the depths of deprivity of the late 60s , where pedos were running rampant and tweens were overtly promiscous.
>the story of cliff booth killing his wife is a refrence to robert wagner and natalie wood. in fact cliffs wife says she has a sister named Natalie

>he subverted your expectations by replacing what you're anticipating with something totally underwhelming and uninteresting

Bravo Rian, truly a master stroke of surprising disappointment.

You are literally defending the disneyizing of an R rated film. Reevaluate your life choices.

Tarantino has been rewriting history for the past 4 movies. This is his personal chance to go back and save someone he cared about. If you want to see Sharon Tate's unborn baby get stabbed, there's at least a dozen shitty movies about that exact thing.

>more Bounty Law scenes
I would unironically watch the hell out of Bounty Law if it was a real show.

Same with all of those shitty Italian movies

30% for each?

location and money laundering

If you've been watching the film like everyone else was, you'd decifer from the tone that showing the murders, and even having them happen, was absolutely not going to happen. The entire last hour had zero tension because it was obvious they were going to fail.
Tarantino blew the alt-history card on Inglorious Bastards, which was great because who the hell saw them actually killing Hitler in the end and ending the war a year early? I honesty think it would be so much better if all the Manson stuff was left out, Cliff and Dalton's relationship and watching 1960s movie making and seeing the city of LA in a time capsule was far more interesting than Bastards 2.0, Hollywood Edition

They don't plan on this being a marvel tier flash in the pan where the opening weekend is all that matters. All of Tarantino's movies sell really well, even years after release. They don't care if it breaks even now, because they know it'll continue to sell decently for years to come, not to mention slapping it box sets and collectors editions.

there's literally like 10 movies about it already. two that came out THIS YEAR.

>Bastards 2.0, Hollywood Edition
Except it wasn't because Basterds had two very interesting plotlines that wove seamlessly into a coherent narrative.

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood has the Dazed and Confused vibe. It's essentially just a snapshot of a bygone era.

it could be done with less. pitt and dicaprio would accept to make less if youre able to sell them this iconiclastic indie movie vibe, taking chances and shiiiit.

also, no need for so much historical details.

but the mistery is the marketing. terrible posters, weird trailers, there was a lack of aesthetical coherence and something well done.

and the distribution is shit, this movie should be out there all over the world. in brazil - a big market - will be out august 15th. england also will take some time. amateurish, to say the least.

>a woman who famously was brutally murdered after having her baby ripped out of her womb instead living happily ever after is underwhelming and uninteresting
Nice bait. A bit edgy for my tastes, but effective!

something i never understood is this: if a movie flops, who loses money? the ones who financed the movie. but the ones who financed the movie could have just gotten the funding via credit lines, through wall st., etc. if the movie was financed by one guy, like Ryan Kavanaugh, then he doesn't lose the money, because he got the money from banks. if the movie was financed by a big studio, same thing, they don't really give a fuck.

everyone got paid from top to bottom. the director got paid millions, the big name actors got paid millions, the producers got their cut, all the way down to the wagies getting their salaries. the "loss" doesn't really affect anyone, or cause real loss in terms of cash, or physical wealth. no one actually gets fired when something flops. no one takes a hit. it's almost like hollywood is an invincible money-making machine. when they do "lose money" due to a flop, it doesn't matter, because they got the money via credit through various banks, which got the money for free via the treasury and the Fed Reserve printing the money. and who controls the Fed Reserve and the treasury? i won't name names.

this is why when a movie flops it really has no financial impact on anyone. it's all monopoly money. they don't care if the goyim watch or don't watch. they can just fudge the sales data if needed.

Attached: its all so tiresome.jpg (1151x647, 56K)

you are a fucking moron

>movies flops
>stop making movies like that

nice rebuttal, brain-dead faggot

regarding ryan kavanaugh, his company did file for bankruptcy twice, but my point stands. he's still "wealthy" and there are no real consequences.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_Media

This. As long as they can keep pushing out degenerate shit like this, nothing is going to change.

youtube.com/watch?v=lfrVtrAMWYQ

Attached: Good_Boys_Movie_Poster.jpg (220x348, 102K)

divorce is expensive, user
brad must pay that freak angelina forever now.

Regardless, the last hour still feels silly because I'm pretty sure we all knew what was going to happen.
Could you imagine all the huff and puff there'd be if we had all that screentime of Tate being whimsical and picturesque to have her murdered at the end?
My last point still stands, I was far more entertained by the movie magic of the first third than anything with the Mansons. It treded too close to what Bastards achived without earning the katharsis at the end (he obviously knew this hence the flame thrower and actual homage to his own 10 year old movie). Regardless, call it Tarantino having his Hollywood Spaghetti and TV Western cake which is also about Manson murders and eating it too. I think one or the other would have been more satisfying.

but they are not stopping
they are going full-steam ahead
more gender swapping, more race swapping
more shitty faggot storylines
and yea, some of these do cross the profit threshold like disney's shit, but after some point, we can't tell the difference between them lying or the general public just being too stupid to stop watching.

if every regular person stopped watching movies and TV next month, and continued the boycott for the rest of the year, the major studios and media outlets could just lie about the viewership numbers.

>b-but the studios will just run out of money
they have access to unlimited money via connections to Elites, international bankers.

But the movies doing that degenerate shit have ridiculous promotional budgets and can brainwash as many people as they can to make them successful.

He said his next film will be his last one (#10).
Regardless it will be important for the legacy. People have been saying this is his best film in a decade, which you don't wanna hear if you're a filmmaker.

He's going to do Star Trek and then say that one didn't count and then do #10.

>People have been saying this is his best film in a decade
The Hateful Eight was better

I want the four hour version

It'll be exclusive to Netflix in two years, don't worry.

>The Hateful Eight
It was okay. Had mixed feelings.

actually was disappointed by it, was bored halfway the first time seeing it

does anyone know why pic related shows up in Tarantino movies, is she blackmailing him?

Attached: 800px-Zoe_Bell_Oblivion_Premiere.jpg (800x1143, 209K)

Movie was pure kino

Art of Self Defense was absolutely trash, fuck off

his best film after pulp fiction and tied with kill bill vol. 2 for second place. maximum comfy and hangout kino.

was great
unironically great

i wanna see an action kino starring mel gibson and tom hardy, directed by tortellino.

he probably just had a crush on her and gives her the roles hoping she will fuck him someday

Disagree. This was best since inglorious bastards.

how come queertin is the only director able to get something good out of dicrapio?? not even marty manages to pull that off.

Attached: 145990502333.png (435x478, 506K)

really boring. only 3 memorable scenes in 3 fucking hours and they all happened after the halfway mark

bruce lee
spahn ranch
and ending

What was the name of the movie in the previews about the black couple running from the police?

Why does a stunt woman appear in a scene with Brad Pitt in a movie where he plays a stunt man?

He’s officially made more bad movies than good.

Based. fuck that director

shes been in a few, she fucks up every scene shes in by being entirely forced.

Attached: DpQ9YJl.png (700x700, 21K)

he's had maybe 2 movies that hit $300+...so maybe not billions

I watched the movie yesterday and I don't know what to make of it. I know fuck all about Hollywood, just the bare minimum about Charles Manson, his crazy cult, Roman polanksy the old perv, his dead wife and Bruce Lee being a selfimportant cunt.
Other than that, the film flew straight up over my head.
The dialogue was solid but I have fucking clue which actor was supposed to represent which "real" celeb other than leo being in the same position als Clint Eastwood with the offer for Spaghetti Western.

>and do not belong on my site that is Yea Forums.
I wish this were true, but unfortunately this site belongs to capeshit.

>some how
Like thats a fucking mystery? They get to charge licensing fees for tv, streaming rights almost quarterly for the rest of it's existence.

He's an actor that can't act acting as an actor that can't act.

>Lets say they spent $50M on ads so $140M so it'll need like $280M to break even.
Yeah, I also find it hard to believe that they would have spent more than $50 million on advertising/promotion for this, so ~$300 in box office gross should pull them out of the red and into profit.

Also, Tarantino probably does well post box-office as many of them gain 'cult' status, which means DVD/Bluray sales and streaming deals.

WHy do these modern movies set in the past always look plastic and fake? They're doing something wrong but I don't know what

Attached: 6b6d3ea6.jpg (657x527, 36K)

Just five guys in the world with that clout?

>plastic and fake
cause they are. Also seeing the 70s in digital film just doesn't mesh with our mental image of it from photo quality of that time.

Mad Men looked good

Reddit's a dishonest place

Attached: 84ff912.jpg (1242x790, 60K)

cope

Saw it in 35mm and it looked FAR better for that problem

I've seen plenty of real high quality 70's footage from movies and such though. Things like bad air quality, dirty cars, the way people behave and look etc. aren't captured in a lot of these new movies. It always looks like they just bought some old clothing from a flea market and rented a few vintage cars but didn't bother with the little details.

Why not use the original actress. She made a cameo as the girl selling acid cigs to Cliff Booth