Once Upon a Time in... Hollywood

[Jorge]

I rewatched this on a plane recently. I really think it's a bit of a masterpiece in its own way.

[epilogue]

-The dent in the car is highly exaggerated. As is all of Lee's movements/dialogue.

QT doesn't have to explain every scene or justify his choices. It's in the text.

- It is, which is one of the reasons I "chose" to believe it was a "fantasy" or "unreliable narrator" moment (until a read an interview with QT where he said it wasn't). My issue with the scene is not that it could be such. It's that... why? What's the point? What's the pay off? How come it doesn't (seemingly) every happen again? Now, regarding Bruce's movements and dialogue, yes, they are exaggerated. The issue becomes, again, why? Is it purposeful or not? And what is the intent? I think people that are taking issue with it have a super valid criticism but I don't think there's just one way to look at it. I felt a tad uncomfortable with it for a variety of reasons but my wife felt it was full-on stupid and highly racist.

But are we as an audience allowed to have questions? Are allowed to be critical and interpret on our own? The reason there is a controversy is that it isn't explicit in the text. And if QT is fine with that, then he needs to be fine with people having different takes and opinions about it. If QT isn't fine with it, then the scene is a failure and he didn't a good enough job telling this part of this story.

Is the payoff not that it shows he can hold his own in a fight and isn’t afraid to confront, which comes into play when he smashes the kid in the face for slashing his tire and once again when he takes down Tex during the attempted murders

"Payoff" feels like a super strong word here. But, yeah, I'd say there's a technically a connection there. But nothing new is learned or revealed so it's really thin. Take away the Bruce scene and leave the compound stuff exactly as is. What's different? To me it's exactly the same.

Smacking a hippie in the face and going toe to toe with Bruce Lee aren’t even in the same ballpark

Exactly

[Mecca]

-The dent in the car is highly exaggerated. As is all of Lee's movements/dialogue.

QT doesn't have to explain every scene or justify his choices. It's in the text.

- It is, which is one of the reasons I "chose" to believe it was a "fantasy" or "unreliable narrator" moment (until a read an interview with QT where he said it wasn't). My issue with the scene is not that it could be such. It's that... why? What's the point? What's the pay off? How come it doesn't (seemingly) every happen again? Now, regarding Bruce's movements and dialogue, yes, they are exaggerated. The issue becomes, again, why? Is it purposeful or not? And what is the intent? I think people that are taking issue with it have a super valid criticism but I don't think there's just one way to look at it. I felt a tad uncomfortable with it for a variety of reasons but my wife felt it was full-on stupid and highly racist.

But are we as an audience allowed to have questions? Are allowed to be critical and interpret on our own? The reason there is a controversy is that it isn't explicit in the text. And if QT is fine with that, then he needs to be fine with people having different takes and opinions about it. If QT isn't fine with it, then the scene is a failure and he didn't a good enough job telling this part of this story.

Is the payoff not that it shows he can hold his own in a fight and isn’t afraid to confront, which comes into play when he smashes the kid in the face for slashing his tire and once again when he takes down Tex during the attempted murders

"Payoff" feels like a super strong word here. But, yeah, I'd say there's a technically a connection there. But nothing new is learned or revealed so it's really thin. Take away the Bruce scene and leave the compound stuff exactly as is. What's different? To me it's exactly the same.

Smacking a hippie in the face and going toe to toe with Bruce Lee aren’t even in the same ballpark

Exactly

We got more Kurt Russell time; how can you say nothing is gained?

[Anders]

Watching this now. Not the best first half an hour, but still a long way to go.

[epilogue]

-The dent in the car is highly exaggerated. As is all of Lee's movements/dialogue.

QT doesn't have to explain every scene or justify his choices. It's in the text.

- It is, which is one of the reasons I "chose" to believe it was a "fantasy" or "unreliable narrator" moment (until a read an interview with QT where he said it wasn't). My issue with the scene is not that it could be such. It's that... why? What's the point? What's the pay off? How come it doesn't (seemingly) every happen again? Now, regarding Bruce's movements and dialogue, yes, they are exaggerated. The issue becomes, again, why? Is it purposeful or not? And what is the intent? I think people that are taking issue with it have a super valid criticism but I don't think there's just one way to look at it. I felt a tad uncomfortable with it for a variety of reasons but my wife felt it was full-on stupid and highly racist.

But are we as an audience allowed to have questions? Are allowed to be critical and interpret on our own? The reason there is a controversy is that it isn't explicit in the text. And if QT is fine with that, then he needs to be fine with people having different takes and opinions about it. If QT isn't fine with it, then the scene is a failure and he didn't a good enough job telling this part of this story.

Is the payoff not that it shows he can hold his own in a fight and isn’t afraid to confront, which comes into play when he smashes the kid in the face for slashing his tire and once again when he takes down Tex during the attempted murders

"Payoff" feels like a super strong word here. But, yeah, I'd say there's a technically a connection there. But nothing new is learned or revealed so it's really thin. Take away the Bruce scene and leave the compound stuff exactly as is. What's different? To me it's exactly the same.

Smacking a hippie in the face and going toe to toe with Bruce Lee aren’t even in the same ballpark

Exactly

We got more Kurt Russell time; how can you say nothing is gained?

How does that relate to Pitt's character? And his arc? And his story? And his relationship to Lee?

There's a lot of "audience perspective" analysis and criticism happening around here today.

[Mecca]

-The dent in the car is highly exaggerated. As is all of Lee's movements/dialogue.

QT doesn't have to explain every scene or justify his choices. It's in the text.

- It is, which is one of the reasons I "chose" to believe it was a "fantasy" or "unreliable narrator" moment (until a read an interview with QT where he said it wasn't). My issue with the scene is not that it could be such. It's that... why? What's the point? What's the pay off? How come it doesn't (seemingly) every happen again? Now, regarding Bruce's movements and dialogue, yes, they are exaggerated. The issue becomes, again, why? Is it purposeful or not? And what is the intent? I think people that are taking issue with it have a super valid criticism but I don't think there's just one way to look at it. I felt a tad uncomfortable with it for a variety of reasons but my wife felt it was full-on stupid and highly racist.

But are we as an audience allowed to have questions? Are allowed to be critical and interpret on our own? The reason there is a controversy is that it isn't explicit in the text. And if QT is fine with that, then he needs to be fine with people having different takes and opinions about it. If QT isn't fine with it, then the scene is a failure and he didn't a good enough job telling this part of this story.

Is the payoff not that it shows he can hold his own in a fight and isn’t afraid to confront, which comes into play when he smashes the kid in the face for slashing his tire and once again when he takes down Tex during the attempted murders

"Payoff" feels like a super strong word here. But, yeah, I'd say there's a technically a connection there. But nothing new is learned or revealed so it's really thin. Take away the Bruce scene and leave the compound stuff exactly as is. What's different? To me it's exactly the same.

Smacking a hippie in the face and going toe to toe with Bruce Lee aren’t even in the same ballpark

Exactly

We got more Kurt Russell time; how can you say nothing is gained?

How does that relate to Pitt's character? And his arc? And his story? And his relationship to Lee?

There's a lot of "audience perspective" analysis and criticism happening around here today.

That was more or less meant to bring some levity to this exchange.

If you agree that standing up to Bruce Lee (a trained martial artist) isn’t the same thing as smacking around a scrawny hippie, then I think we both agree up to the point where you claim there’s no payoff. Would it change the movie drastically if the scene was left out? No. It does payoff and it also tells us what happened on the set of the Green Hornet while grounding us in this slightly altered reality with a representation of a real person. I think it informs of more of who this character is because we see multiple accounts of him holding his own in tense physical confrontations as opposed to it being a one-off reaction to a situation.

[epilogue]

-The dent in the car is highly exaggerated. As is all of Lee's movements/dialogue.

QT doesn't have to explain every scene or justify his choices. It's in the text.

- It is, which is one of the reasons I "chose" to believe it was a "fantasy" or "unreliable narrator" moment (until a read an interview with QT where he said it wasn't). My issue with the scene is not that it could be such. It's that... why? What's the point? What's the pay off? How come it doesn't (seemingly) every happen again? Now, regarding Bruce's movements and dialogue, yes, they are exaggerated. The issue becomes, again, why? Is it purposeful or not? And what is the intent? I think people that are taking issue with it have a super valid criticism but I don't think there's just one way to look at it. I felt a tad uncomfortable with it for a variety of reasons but my wife felt it was full-on stupid and highly racist.

But are we as an audience allowed to have questions? Are allowed to be critical and interpret on our own? The reason there is a controversy is that it isn't explicit in the text. And if QT is fine with that, then he needs to be fine with people having different takes and opinions about it. If QT isn't fine with it, then the scene is a failure and he didn't a good enough job telling this part of this story.

Is the payoff not that it shows he can hold his own in a fight and isn’t afraid to confront, which comes into play when he smashes the kid in the face for slashing his tire and once again when he takes down Tex during the attempted murders

"Payoff" feels like a super strong word here. But, yeah, I'd say there's a technically a connection there. But nothing new is learned or revealed so it's really thin. Take away the Bruce scene and leave the compound stuff exactly as is. What's different? To me it's exactly the same.

Smacking a hippie in the face and going toe to toe with Bruce Lee aren’t even in the same ballpark

Exactly

We got more Kurt Russell time; how can you say nothing is gained?

How does that relate to Pitt's character? And his arc? And his story? And his relationship to Lee?

There's a lot of "audience perspective" analysis and criticism happening around here today.

That was more or less meant to bring some levity to this exchange.

If you agree that standing up to Bruce Lee (a trained martial artist) isn’t the same thing as smacking around a scrawny hippie, then I think we both agree up to the point where you claim there’s no payoff. Would it change the movie drastically if the scene was left out? No. It does payoff and it also tells us what happened on the set of the Green Hornet while grounding us in this slightly altered reality with a representation of a real person. I think it informs of more of who this character is because we see multiple accounts of him holding his own in tense physical confrontations as opposed to it being a one-off reaction to a situation.

I think all it informs us about QT.

[BurtReynolds]

[Mecca]

-The dent in the car is highly exaggerated. As is all of Lee's movements/dialogue.

QT doesn't have to explain every scene or justify his choices. It's in the text.

- It is, which is one of the reasons I "chose" to believe it was a "fantasy" or "unreliable narrator" moment (until a read an interview with QT where he said it wasn't). My issue with the scene is not that it could be such. It's that... why? What's the point? What's the pay off? How come it doesn't (seemingly) every happen again? Now, regarding Bruce's movements and dialogue, yes, they are exaggerated. The issue becomes, again, why? Is it purposeful or not? And what is the intent? I think people that are taking issue with it have a super valid criticism but I don't think there's just one way to look at it. I felt a tad uncomfortable with it for a variety of reasons but my wife felt it was full-on stupid and highly racist.

But are we as an audience allowed to have questions? Are allowed to be critical and interpret on our own? The reason there is a controversy is that it isn't explicit in the text. And if QT is fine with that, then he needs to be fine with people having different takes and opinions about it. If QT isn't fine with it, then the scene is a failure and he didn't a good enough job telling this part of this story.

Is the payoff not that it shows he can hold his own in a fight and isn’t afraid to confront, which comes into play when he smashes the kid in the face for slashing his tire and once again when he takes down Tex during the attempted murders

"Payoff" feels like a super strong word here. But, yeah, I'd say there's a technically a connection there. But nothing new is learned or revealed so it's really thin. Take away the Bruce scene and leave the compound stuff exactly as is. What's different? To me it's exactly the same.

Smacking a hippie in the face and going toe to toe with Bruce Lee aren’t even in the same ballpark

Exactly

We got more Kurt Russell time; how can you say nothing is gained?

How does that relate to Pitt's character? And his arc? And his story? And his relationship to Lee?

There's a lot of "audience perspective" analysis and criticism happening around here today.

That was more or less meant to bring some levity to this exchange.

If you agree that standing up to Bruce Lee (a trained martial artist) isn’t the same thing as smacking around a scrawny hippie, then I think we both agree up to the point where you claim there’s no payoff. Would it change the movie drastically if the scene was left out? No. It does payoff and it also tells us what happened on the set of the Green Hornet while grounding us in this slightly altered reality with a representation of a real person. I think it informs of more of who this character is because we see multiple accounts of him holding his own in tense physical confrontations as opposed to it being a one-off reaction to a situation.

I think all it informs us about QT.

And what does that mean from your perspective?

[Anders]

The ending was terrific. Wish that happened in real life.

[epilogue]

-The dent in the car is highly exaggerated. As is all of Lee's movements/dialogue.

QT doesn't have to explain every scene or justify his choices. It's in the text.

- It is, which is one of the reasons I "chose" to believe it was a "fantasy" or "unreliable narrator" moment (until a read an interview with QT where he said it wasn't). My issue with the scene is not that it could be such. It's that... why? What's the point? What's the pay off? How come it doesn't (seemingly) every happen again? Now, regarding Bruce's movements and dialogue, yes, they are exaggerated. The issue becomes, again, why? Is it purposeful or not? And what is the intent? I think people that are taking issue with it have a super valid criticism but I don't think there's just one way to look at it. I felt a tad uncomfortable with it for a variety of reasons but my wife felt it was full-on stupid and highly racist.

But are we as an audience allowed to have questions? Are allowed to be critical and interpret on our own? The reason there is a controversy is that it isn't explicit in the text. And if QT is fine with that, then he needs to be fine with people having different takes and opinions about it. If QT isn't fine with it, then the scene is a failure and he didn't a good enough job telling this part of this story.

Is the payoff not that it shows he can hold his own in a fight and isn’t afraid to confront, which comes into play when he smashes the kid in the face for slashing his tire and once again when he takes down Tex during the attempted murders

"Payoff" feels like a super strong word here. But, yeah, I'd say there's a technically a connection there. But nothing new is learned or revealed so it's really thin. Take away the Bruce scene and leave the compound stuff exactly as is. What's different? To me it's exactly the same.

Smacking a hippie in the face and going toe to toe with Bruce Lee aren’t even in the same ballpark

Exactly

We got more Kurt Russell time; how can you say nothing is gained?

How does that relate to Pitt's character? And his arc? And his story? And his relationship to Lee?

There's a lot of "audience perspective" analysis and criticism happening around here today.

That was more or less meant to bring some levity to this exchange.

If you agree that standing up to Bruce Lee (a trained martial artist) isn’t the same thing as smacking around a scrawny hippie, then I think we both agree up to the point where you claim there’s no payoff. Would it change the movie drastically if the scene was left out? No. It does payoff and it also tells us what happened on the set of the Green Hornet while grounding us in this slightly altered reality with a representation of a real person. I think it informs of more of who this character is because we see multiple accounts of him holding his own in tense physical confrontations as opposed to it being a one-off reaction to a situation.

I think all it informs us about QT.

And what does that mean from your perspective?

QT doesn't care about character as much as he cares about "wouldn't it be kewl if!" And I'm just not here for that.

[Dev]

-The dent in the car is highly exaggerated. As is all of Lee's movements/dialogue.

QT doesn't have to explain every scene or justify his choices. It's in the text.

- It is, which is one of the reasons I "chose" to believe it was a "fantasy" or "unreliable narrator" moment (until a read an interview with QT where he said it wasn't). My issue with the scene is not that it could be such. It's that... why? What's the point? What's the pay off? How come it doesn't (seemingly) every happen again? Now, regarding Bruce's movements and dialogue, yes, they are exaggerated. The issue becomes, again, why? Is it purposeful or not? And what is the intent? I think people that are taking issue with it have a super valid criticism but I don't think there's just one way to look at it. I felt a tad uncomfortable with it for a variety of reasons but my wife felt it was full-on stupid and highly racist.

But are we as an audience allowed to have questions? Are allowed to be critical and interpret on our own? The reason there is a controversy is that it isn't explicit in the text. And if QT is fine with that, then he needs to be fine with people having different takes and opinions about it. If QT isn't fine with it, then the scene is a failure and he didn't a good enough job telling this part of this story.

Is the payoff not that it shows he can hold his own in a fight and isn’t afraid to confront, which comes into play when he smashes the kid in the face for slashing his tire and once again when he takes down Tex during the attempted murders

"Payoff" feels like a super strong word here. But, yeah, I'd say there's a technically a connection there. But nothing new is learned or revealed so it's really thin. Take away the Bruce scene and leave the compound stuff exactly as is. What's different? To me it's exactly the same.

Smacking a hippie in the face and going toe to toe with Bruce Lee aren’t even in the same ballpark

Exactly

We got more Kurt Russell time; how can you say nothing is gained?

How does that relate to Pitt's character? And his arc? And his story? And his relationship to Lee?

There's a lot of "audience perspective" analysis and criticism happening around here today.

That was more or less meant to bring some levity to this exchange.

If you agree that standing up to Bruce Lee (a trained martial artist) isn’t the same thing as smacking around a scrawny hippie, then I think we both agree up to the point where you claim there’s no payoff. Would it change the movie drastically if the scene was left out? No. It does payoff and it also tells us what happened on the set of the Green Hornet while grounding us in this slightly altered reality with a representation of a real person. I think it informs of more of who this character is because we see multiple accounts of him holding his own in tense physical confrontations as opposed to it being a one-off reaction to a situation.

I think all it informs us about QT.

And what does that mean from your perspective?

QT doesn't care about character as much as he cares about "wouldn't it be kewl if!" And I'm just not here for that.

I think you finally got it. The film is supposed to be fun more than serve a pointed political purpose. You were missing the point by applying the critique you have to the Bruce Lee scene. I might recommend you watch Blackfish or The Cove. Both are about human brutality against marine animals. To be clear, the brutality is condemned by each of the films narrators. I think you would agree with the perspectives of these films but no guarantees. Perhaps the narrators should not have been cis white males. That has been done to death. Nonetheless, I still think the films have good intentions. Have you seen either?

[Mecca]

-The dent in the car is highly exaggerated. As is all of Lee's movements/dialogue.

QT doesn't have to explain every scene or justify his choices. It's in the text.

- It is, which is one of the reasons I "chose" to believe it was a "fantasy" or "unreliable narrator" moment (until a read an interview with QT where he said it wasn't). My issue with the scene is not that it could be such. It's that... why? What's the point? What's the pay off? How come it doesn't (seemingly) every happen again? Now, regarding Bruce's movements and dialogue, yes, they are exaggerated. The issue becomes, again, why? Is it purposeful or not? And what is the intent? I think people that are taking issue with it have a super valid criticism but I don't think there's just one way to look at it. I felt a tad uncomfortable with it for a variety of reasons but my wife felt it was full-on stupid and highly racist.

But are we as an audience allowed to have questions? Are allowed to be critical and interpret on our own? The reason there is a controversy is that it isn't explicit in the text. And if QT is fine with that, then he needs to be fine with people having different takes and opinions about it. If QT isn't fine with it, then the scene is a failure and he didn't a good enough job telling this part of this story.

Is the payoff not that it shows he can hold his own in a fight and isn’t afraid to confront, which comes into play when he smashes the kid in the face for slashing his tire and once again when he takes down Tex during the attempted murders

"Payoff" feels like a super strong word here. But, yeah, I'd say there's a technically a connection there. But nothing new is learned or revealed so it's really thin. Take away the Bruce scene and leave the compound stuff exactly as is. What's different? To me it's exactly the same.

Smacking a hippie in the face and going toe to toe with Bruce Lee aren’t even in the same ballpark

Exactly

We got more Kurt Russell time; how can you say nothing is gained?

How does that relate to Pitt's character? And his arc? And his story? And his relationship to Lee?

There's a lot of "audience perspective" analysis and criticism happening around here today.

That was more or less meant to bring some levity to this exchange.

If you agree that standing up to Bruce Lee (a trained martial artist) isn’t the same thing as smacking around a scrawny hippie, then I think we both agree up to the point where you claim there’s no payoff. Would it change the movie drastically if the scene was left out? No. It does payoff and it also tells us what happened on the set of the Green Hornet while grounding us in this slightly altered reality with a representation of a real person. I think it informs of more of who this character is because we see multiple accounts of him holding his own in tense physical confrontations as opposed to it being a one-off reaction to a situation.

I think all it informs us about QT.

And what does that mean from your perspective?

QT doesn't care about character as much as he cares about "wouldn't it be kewl if!" And I'm just not here for that.

“Wouldn’t it be kewl if?” Is kind of the root of this and Inglorious Basterds

[tragabigzanda]

Whenever there's active promotion on the part of somebody else, whenever I see somebody all dolled up for a fancy photograph and someone's handing out flyers or whenever there's active promotion for something like that, as an imposition on my day, I hate all those people and I want them to fail. I have a visceral reaction to advertising and promotion. There's just something about salesmanship that grates on me on a very base level and I react very negatively towards it. I want those people to suffer and I want their enterprises to fail.

[Dev]

Anders do you feel the Bruce Lee scene was insensitive towards Asians?

Anders is Norwegian...

[epilogue]

I think you finally got it. The film is supposed to be fun more than serve a pointed political purpose.

I've always understood this about the film.

[epilogue]

-The dent in the car is highly exaggerated. As is all of Lee's movements/dialogue.

QT doesn't have to explain every scene or justify his choices. It's in the text.

- It is, which is one of the reasons I "chose" to believe it was a "fantasy" or "unreliable narrator" moment (until a read an interview with QT where he said it wasn't). My issue with the scene is not that it could be such. It's that... why? What's the point? What's the pay off? How come it doesn't (seemingly) every happen again? Now, regarding Bruce's movements and dialogue, yes, they are exaggerated. The issue becomes, again, why? Is it purposeful or not? And what is the intent? I think people that are taking issue with it have a super valid criticism but I don't think there's just one way to look at it. I felt a tad uncomfortable with it for a variety of reasons but my wife felt it was full-on stupid and highly racist.

But are we as an audience allowed to have questions? Are allowed to be critical and interpret on our own? The reason there is a controversy is that it isn't explicit in the text. And if QT is fine with that, then he needs to be fine with people having different takes and opinions about it. If QT isn't fine with it, then the scene is a failure and he didn't a good enough job telling this part of this story.

Is the payoff not that it shows he can hold his own in a fight and isn’t afraid to confront, which comes into play when he smashes the kid in the face for slashing his tire and once again when he takes down Tex during the attempted murders

"Payoff" feels like a super strong word here. But, yeah, I'd say there's a technically a connection there. But nothing new is learned or revealed so it's really thin. Take away the Bruce scene and leave the compound stuff exactly as is. What's different? To me it's exactly the same.

Smacking a hippie in the face and going toe to toe with Bruce Lee aren’t even in the same ballpark

Exactly

We got more Kurt Russell time; how can you say nothing is gained?

How does that relate to Pitt's character? And his arc? And his story? And his relationship to Lee?

There's a lot of "audience perspective" analysis and criticism happening around here today.

That was more or less meant to bring some levity to this exchange.

If you agree that standing up to Bruce Lee (a trained martial artist) isn’t the same thing as smacking around a scrawny hippie, then I think we both agree up to the point where you claim there’s no payoff. Would it change the movie drastically if the scene was left out? No. It does payoff and it also tells us what happened on the set of the Green Hornet while grounding us in this slightly altered reality with a representation of a real person. I think it informs of more of who this character is because we see multiple accounts of him holding his own in tense physical confrontations as opposed to it being a one-off reaction to a situation.

I think all it informs us about QT.

And what does that mean from your perspective?

QT doesn't care about character as much as he cares about "wouldn't it be kewl if!" And I'm just not here for that.

“Wouldn’t it be kewl if?” Is kind of the root of this and Inglorious Basterds

Exactly. 100% agree.

[Mecca]

Above all else this made me want a pot of Mac and cheese

[epilogue]

Above all else this made me want a pot of Mac and cheese

Now you're talking

[Dev]

I don't like mac and cheese or academic film debates.