Once Upon A Time In Hollywood Teaser Trailer Released!

CharlesPapert said:
I popped by Hollywood Blvd when they were shooting the driving scenes and it was a pretty magnificent piece of art direction. I was with Alison Martino who wrote this piece on that night's shoot with some good BTS: https://la.curbed.com/2018/7/25/17614416/quentin-tarantino-once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood.

Note the Vogue theatre marquee appearing in the trailer at :44, :48 and 1:06--they made good use of that piece of the boulevard!
Click to expand...

Yeah I watched almost all BTS videos i could find on it last year on YouTube.. truly looks like QT will outdo himself once again. Some are saying he might even top Pulp Fiction.. in my eyes he hasnt yet but thats just me.
 
If this trailer didn't have big name actors in it (often indicating signing to a great script), or the name QT, I'd watch the trailer and just be like... "huh?". And not think another thing of it. Just from the trailer, I have no idea even remotely what the movie is really about.

Not a criticism at all on the trailer, I just thought it was interesting how advertising changes depending on context. QT and gang there has reached a point where they can release a trailer that basically tells you nothing other than that their next project is coming, and we're all salivating.

Point in case: because I know who's behind it, I watched the trailer and I can't wait. I'll be there opening weekend.
 
They really manage to bury the lede on the meat of the story, which is the Manson murders. Barely hinted at it in this trailer, it's pretty much just atmospheric.

The other interesting piece of info is that Leo and Brad's characters are based on Burt Reynolds and Hal Needham.
 
CharlesPapert said:
They really manage to bury the lede on the meat of the story, which is the Manson murders. Barely hinted at it in this trailer, it's pretty much just atmospheric.

The other interesting piece of info is that Leo and Brad's characters are based on Burt Reynolds and Hal Needham.
Click to expand...

From what I understand, the Manson murders are just kind of atmospheric in the movie itself, happening on the periphery of the movie, not the meat of the story itself. Manson interacted with a lot of Hollywood characters so I think the movie is more about those interactions. An interesting fact, Steve McQueen was supposed to be at the party the night of the murders, and was a target of Manson. I wonder how things would have gone down, had he been there.
 
filmguy123 said:
If this trailer didn't have big name actors in it (often indicating signing to a great script), or the name QT, I'd watch the trailer and just be like... "huh?". And not think another thing of it. Just from the trailer, I have no idea even remotely what the movie is really about.

Not a criticism at all on the trailer, I just thought it was interesting how advertising changes depending on context. QT and gang there has reached a point where they can release a trailer that basically tells you nothing other than that their next project is coming, and we're all salivating.

Point in case: because I know who's behind it, I watched the trailer and I can't wait. I'll be there opening weekend.
Click to expand...

I wouldn’t have worded it this way, but a big ole +1
 
Saw it last night, at the fabled Cinerama Dome (which appears in the film) and Tarantino was sitting two rows behind me. I wasn't fully blown away, but people had different reactions in our group so it will be interesting to see how it is received. It's certainly fun, and the recreation of 1969 Los Angeles is meticulous. Don't want to say too much about it.
 
I wonder if it'll be in keeping with the new pattern for dvxuser, where the thread about the trailer is bigger than the thread about the film itself. I must say, I have respect for Tarantino. I enjoy some of his filmography - Reservoir Dogs is a masterpiece - but I think he has some excellent insights into the industry. His stance of bowing out from directing at a certain age (he mentions 60) is at least based on something real; as he puts it, he doesn't want to tarnish his legacy and make poor movies, and thinks past 60 most directors are spent as a creative force in directing films (he plans on continuing to write for the theater). I don't know if there are such sharp cutoff lines like "age 60", but undoubtedly, the vast majority (though not all) of directors who just fizzle out.

In this regard, Brian de Palma is an interesting case. In a documentary made about him, he's interviewed and he makes the remark to the effect that past 60 a director is just not much good anymore at directing films. It's interesting that he picked the same number that Tarantino did. But this is where I respect Tarantino: he has integrity, and if he follows through, it'll just be proof. By contrast... I wish de Palma took his own words to heart. I just watched "Domino" last night. Unbelievably bad - de Palma's excuse is that the film was taken away from him, but I don't care how they re-cut this trash, it was trash in every frame and there was no cut that would have made this film anything other than garbage. If this is what de Palma amounts to as a director in his late 70's, he's way, way past his selling date. His brain seems to have been liquified. There is nothing of solid substance left.

I'm curious about the new Tarantino flick. I like the time period and whatever I can gather about the idea. I hope he delivers, because in my book most of his stuff has been, for a long time now, varying shades of disappointing. Jackie Brown was his last truly excellent work (in my opinion only, of course), and the rest "good" have been segments of films, or sometimes only scenes here and there. Still, I think Tarantino was a breath of fresh air, I'll be sad to see him go, but I understand where he's coming from. Here's to wishing for Once Upon A Time in Hollywood to be a huge artistic success!
 
OldCorpse said:
Still, I think Tarantino was a breath of fresh air, I'll be sad to see him go, but I understand where he's coming from.
Click to expand...

How many farewell tours have the Stones had ?

I suspect that the very talented Mr. Tarantino will be tempted to make a few more films before he calls it a day.

Ridley Scott is still chugging along at 81, and even a bad Ridley Scott film is more entertaining than other people's best work.
( I know a lot of people hated Prometheus, but I thought that many of the visuals were breathtaking )
 
Well, yes, that remains to be seen - once he "retires", he may find he does not enjoy it, and be tempted back for whatever reason. Many directors "retired" only to come back - Soderbergh comes to mind. Ridley Scott on the other hand, is a different animal - he alledgedly said he'll direct until the day he dies, so no retirement for him. And Ridley Scott is a much more hit or miss guy - it all depends on the script... he has abysmal sense of what a good script is, and if he gets lucky to get ahold of a good script, the film he turns in is generally quite good. Good filmmaking skills, poor script sense. He's a visual guy, not a writer type.
 
I have a strange feeling that Pitt and Leo are going to kill manson... QT likes to **** with history to fit his story.. remember the death of hitler in bastards? i think we are going to have something similar to where the murders never happen and pit and leo come in and save the day. I have my tickets for a 35mm screening here in denver on friday so we will see.
 
I don't believe this to be a spoiler--one of the more fun visual moments in the film is Leo's character digitally inserted into some classic movie footage. It's seamless.

It's definitely a love letter to LA in that era and particularly fun for those who know the city. Curious if that will translate to those who don't.
 
CharlesPapert said:
... It's definitely a love letter to LA in that era and particularly fun for those who know the city. Curious if that will translate to those who don't.
Click to expand...
I recall watching "Get Shorty" in one of those Hollywood Blvd theaters and hearing everyone in the audience chuckling at the shot of the very same block.
 
I think the movie had some great moments but overall felt like the work of a filmmaker too in love with himself. But hell, if I was Quentin Tarantino I'd probably be in love with myself too...And Mike...SPOILER...you weren't far off. It works in well in the context of the movie though and is one of the best parts of the film.
 
After mulling the film overnight, I've come to the conclusion that this is probably Quentin Tarantino's least successful film from a writing standpoint. I HATED Hateful Eight, but I don't think it was a failure of execution. Taken on its own terms, I think the screenplay for Hateful Eight does what it was designed to do and does it effectively, I just hated who it was about and the story it told. This one I don't think works as a script. It has strong individual scenes but they don't add up to a satisfying or effective whole. It's not deep enough to be a satisfying character study of a failing TV star, and definitely doesn't do justice to the Manson subplot, as fun and effective as some of those scenes are. I enjoyed watching it more than Hateful Eight, because I liked some of the characters more and the period detail was nice to look at and listen to. But it's his least well executed script for me. Death Proof is very flawed too but that car chase redeems the movie. This doesn't have enough good stuff in it to redeem its aimless lack of narrative. People defend it as a 'hangout' movie that has no plot, like Dazed and Confused or American Graffiti. Those movies have no overarching plot or big narrative stakes, but the individual characters each have some minor stakes at play that keeps momentum building. This movie has far too many inert scenes that go nowhere, with nothing real at stake, padded out with what seems like an hour of driving montages. Also, those other hangout movies have a more varied and colourful cast of characters they jump around to that sustains interest. This mostly focuses on the two guys, and I only really found Leo's character interesting, Sharon Tate being an afterthought with a wisp of a nothing character. Also, most of this film is like a day in the life like other hangout films, and I thought it was the day's events leading up to the murders, but then...SPOILER...he cuts forward six months later before that happens for reasons I don't really understand, letting the air out of what little momentum and dread he'd built up. Disappointing, because as expected for Tarantino it looks great, a lot of the acting is great, it sounds great, and I actually think it has the best, most fluid use of the camera of any of his films.
 
Last edited:
Batutta said:
This movie has far too many inert scenes that go nowhere, with nothing real at stake, padded out with what seems like an hour of driving montages.
Click to expand...

The original cut was almost 5 hours long, and Tarantino has said that he might release a 4+ hour version on blu-ray...
 
If that is a movie that QT really wanted to make, he was smart not to make it his last. And now expectations are low for the tenth?

Wish this wasn’t as lame as it sounds. Was hoping for at least Hateful 8 level film making. It is sounding more like a netflix original
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top