comment #1

nemo says ...

QT seems like a guy who could riff another 40 pages off the top of his head in a single weekend, if he could ever stop partying with his pal RR.

comment #2

George Prager says ...

These scripts take too long to write. Didn't Stallone finish COBRA in 8 hours?

comment #3

JustThisGuy says ...

165 minutes seems fairly par for the course for Tarantino, as I recall his first three movies all rolled in around the 2:30 to 2:40 mark. At any rate it's a hell of a lot better than having yet another two parter from QT.

comment #4

PhilipGalasso says ...

I think it'll probably clock in somewhere around 2.5-3 hours, if only because too much after that we're talking two movies, and I don't think anyone wants that at this point. I'm really curious how the script reads compared to other scripts of his. How specifically written is the action? Stuff that would often be one or two lines describing a gunfight in an average script are much more detailed in a Tarantino script, I would think especially here.

comment #5

Mgmax says ...

So he shoots a 165-minute version and cuts it for release to 140 or 150, plus some deleted scenes for the DVD, how is that any different from most movies these days?

comment #6

D.Z. says ...

There's no way Pitt's going to be in a geek fantasy movie. The reason he works with directors like the Coens, Gilliam, and Fincher is that they actually give him meatier roles than he can normally get in Hollywood. I don't count "True Romance", since that's technically Tony Scott.

comment #7

Arizona Joe says ...

Back in more decorous times, an out-of-wedlock birth was considered a scandal. Thus, a bastard was "inglorious" by definition. "Inglorious Bastards" is an oxymoron.

Would not a better title have been "Glorious Bastards?" Knocking off that extra syllable makes the title sound better, to my ear.

The title betrays Tarantino's dearth of literary precision. I don't find him as clever as others.

comment #8

Richardson says ...

DZ - Pitt works with those directors because he wants to be more than a pretty boy. And he does movies like 'True Romance' and 'Snatch' because he likes those sorts of movies. I am totally sure he would work with Tarantino, it's more of a question whether Tarantino would want to work with somebody who is a modern day movie star. That doesn't seem like his style. But companies will surely feel like it's a safer bet if he does.

I'm kind of shocked that Pitt is working with Aronofsky again.

comment #9

Noel Murray says ...

Given that Tarantino's talked about wanting to contemporize the WWII action sequences, there's a good chance that some of those pages could have a scene that reads "They shoot at each other" which will take up 10-15 minutes of screen time.

On the other hand, knowing Tarantino, there could also be 5-minute dialogue scenes that take up 20-odd pages.

Still, I'm pulling for a single film here. I thought the tightened version of DEATH PROOF was terrific; the longer DVD version was a trial.

comment #10

Richard_Stone says ...

There's slim hope for a lean mean collaborative movie since someone besides Weinstein will be funding this puppy. I doubt most studios will be eager to fund Tarantino's self-indulgence as is after Death Proof tanked.

comment #11

T. S. Idiot says ...

Since most of those fighting in WWII were under 30, is Pitt too old?

comment #12

Arizona Joe says ...

I meant to say, "Inglorious Bastards" was a something of a double negative, and a redundancy.

"Glorious Bastards" is an oxymoron, and thus more catchy.

comment #13

DavidF says ...

Arizona Joe - It's not Tarantino's title. As referenced here a few days ago, it's based on a 70s film.

And Noel said what I was going to say which is basically that I suspect page-a-minute calculations are probably out the window with Tarantino.

comment #14

Rich S. says ...

Arizona Joe, not to be picky, but you did bring up literary precision. Do you not mean "redundancy" rather than "oxymoron?"

comment #15

Mgmax says ...

"Since most of those fighting in WWII were under 30, is Pitt too old?"

By the standards of what, The Longest Day?

comment #16

The Bandsaw Vigilante says ...

Re: Jeff's "[It's] a pickle" comment --

That's a good thing, then, I take it?

(I'm not as up on my old-timey "Gen-W" argot.)

comment #17

Edward says ...

To me Jackie Brown is Tarantino's masterpiece. His directorial choices, his writing, the acting and cinematography were all outstanding.

comment #18

MickTravis says ...

I think -- but have no proof other than having read QT's previous scripts -- that he sticks pretty closely to page-a-minute flow. He's certainly no David Lynch, who can take a 60 page script and stretch it across two hours.

QT tends to know exactly what he wants and seems to cut more than add. With a project he's been working on for roughly 67 years, it doesn't seem likely that he'd suddenly expand a shoot-out from one line to 15 pages. But of course I haven't read the script and won't until after I see the movie (presumably sometime in fall, 2012). I'm even going to avoid the trailers for as long as possible, go in clean.

comment #19

Terry McCarty says ...

George Prager wrote:
These scripts take too long to write. Didn't Stallone finish COBRA in 8 hours?

Judging from the final results, I think Stallone wrote it on one of his lunch hours while shooting ROCKY IV.

comment #20

corey3rd says ...

The first reel of Cobra is pure action gold. We used to just run that first reel as a "short." Too bad the rest of the film doesn't stack up to the first act genius

comment #21

JD says ...

Is this the same Jeff Wells who wanted Zodiac to be LONGER... and praised the hell out of the 4-hour Che? Who cares how long the movie is, as long as it's great.

comment #22

AllieAnne says ...

I'd be curious to see the results of Tarantino directing Pitt. I think Pitt's tightest work has been with David Fincher (with the exception being Twelve Monkeys) who is, from various accounts, a perfectionist with a disciplinarian attitude. Tarantino is terrific but maybe he's a little too loose with the reins to pull a great performance out of the sometimes laconic (at least, IMO) Pitt.

comment #23

MickTravis says ...

The Onion A.V.Club is reporting that shooting is scheduled to start in October and the plan is to fast-track it so the movie can make it to Cannes next May.

http://www.avclub.com/content/newswire/filming_begins_on_tarantinos

We shall see.

comment #24

gruver1 says ...

Wells to JD: If a film pays in such a way that a long or longish length is vital to its potency, then let it be as long as whatever. I'm only coming from the fact that the original 1978 version is 99 minutes or thereabouts.

comment #25

BurmaShave says ...

Pitt doing this makes absolute sense. And it continues his amazing streak of working with the best filmmakers in the business.

comment #26

Richardson says ...

"I'm only coming from the fact that the original 1978 version is 99 minutes or thereabouts."

To my mind, it makes a lot of sense. If you're remaking a movie that you consider to be great, making it longer -- piling in more of all the stuff you loved about it -- is one of the few things you can do, unless you're talking about improved special effects. And improved special effects are not guaranteed at all -- I maintain that '34 "King Kong" has more impressive effects than '76 "King Kong".

I'm not saying Jackson's "Kong" wasn't flawed, but it kind of makes more sense to me to remake a great two hour movie as an epic three hour movie than as another two hour movie. Just following the same story beats as the original seems like a boring remake; longer running time means you can explore the world in more depth, and allow for some of those sidebars which, frankly, tend to always be the best part of a Tarantino movie.

comment #27

BurmaShave says ...

Also maybe they'll have Pitt laughably understate his age the way Tim Roth did in THE INCREDIBLE HULK.

comment #28

Edward says ...

Interesting comments about Pitt needing a strong director. I've always thought his performance in Interview With a Vampire to be one note, without any of the nuance the character called for.

comment #29

D.Z. says ...

Richardson: "I am totally sure he would work with Tarantino, it's more of a question whether Tarantino would want to work with somebody who is a modern day movie star. That doesn't seem like his style. "

He worked with Bruce Willis...

T.S.: "Since most of those fighting in WWII were under 30, is Pitt too old?"

If Hanks and John Wayne can get away with it...

JD: I imagine Zodiac and Che are about the characters, and not the director's favorite movies and shows repeated by the characters.

comment #30

BurmaShave says ...

Edward very true. I rewatched it recently and was shocked at how poor he was in it. Tom was literally acting circles around him. And forget nuance, how about energy? How did he not notice how much fun Cruise, Banderas, Rea and Dunst were having? He keeps it from being a total camp masterpiece, to his eternal shame.

Still, he figured a lot out fast, because the next year he did 12 MONKEYS.