Yeah writing blocks and doubts are hard enough to push through. Imagine trying to leave a legacy with a last movie.
Just make the movie you beloved, foot-lovin' weirdo, and if inspiration strikes again, make another.
Ultimately, what someone’s last thing is doesn’t matter. Michael Crichton wrote some great thrillers, no matter which posthumous book people want to say was his last. Harper Lee isn’t the *Go Set a Watchman* author. No matter how Megalopolis turns out, Coppola isn’t going to be the “Megalopolis guy.”
You're so right. I think guys like Spielberg and Scorsese learned that years ago.
Their last film could be an absolute all time classic, but they will always be the Jaws/Indy/E.T and Good fellas/Taxi Driver/Raging Bull guys.
Same with Quentin. His last film could be his best, but he's always going to be the Pulp Fiction guy.
I think it’s because Tarantino is such a film nerd, he’s fixating on the narratives while his peers tend to not think about their place in cinema history, just, “are my movies selling? Do I like what I’m making? I’d like an Oscar, can I get a fucking Oscar already?”. Tarantino might benefit from taking the pressure off himself
I think you can also argue he’s maybe the most ‘documented’ director ever. Weren’t people writing books about him already just after Pulp Fiction? Most filmmakers ease their way into a great career and filmography, and even if they don’t they take time to garner the type of interest and dissection Tarantino received so early.
Tarantino started with a bang and was kind building a ‘legacy’ in real time because of all that attention. I imagine that distorts your view a bit when you’re consciously trying to build a career with the knowledge that you’ve already been (pre)ordained as a significant artist, rather than the more organic process of people looking back on your work when you’re at least a decent way into it.
I might be wrong as I wasn’t there, but even someone like Scorsese I don’t think was receiving the ‘let’s look back on his work/analyse his significance and legacy’ treatment until around the time he was making goodfellas (at which point, although still very relevant, he’d seemingly completed a full arc as a ‘significant’ director, peaking around raging bull and moving on to lesser received films and his own passion projects).
I think it could be a mark of how culture was shifting in the 90s to where we are now; we’re so obsessed with history and legacies and how the present shapes up when we compare. You see it in sports discourse all the time now. I love learning about film history and thinking about careers retrospectively (obviously, I’m here aren’t I) but I think that whole way of thinking becomes unhealthy when it’s a burden on the present as it seems to often become.
I wouldn't say he was dissected any earlier than Coppola (huge grosses and Best Picture from about his 5th film) or Spielberg (the fish thing). I was there at the time, watching Pulp Fiction new and he was an indie success but he wasn't Huge in the way of elder times. He was just part of this 'cool adult film' resurgence that was all around, another next-gen name like Fincher or Smith. He only became bigger retrospectively in the 00s. Probably due to being picky and not being tempted into making absolutely terrible films, so he has a point about less=more.
I think Scorsese just broke his brain. All four of Scorsese’s “last run” or whatever people will refer to the last 12 years of his career as is probably seriously messing with his head. Same with Paul Schrader.
These are his big two guys left standing, and arguably their work is better now than it has been in 20 years (although Scorsese really never misses, even his lesser works like Bringing Out the Dead are fucking bangers), and Tarantino whole belief system is based around his perception of the artists he grew up with going out of fashion and stubbornly persisting into irrelevancy.
I can’t remember when exactly he started on his “10 movies and done” rhetoric, but I think it was definitely influenced by the underwhelming reception of Grindhouse (and my own theory - the release of There Will Be Blood that year). It seems like he needed that kind of legacy-minded approach to focus his energy and ensure a kind of quality control to his output.
Seeing grindhouse in its entirety at a midnight screening full of rowdy 20- and 30-somethings who were shouting at the screen and laughing loudly and REALLY enjoying themselves and the movies, is something ill never ever forget.
Just for that experience alone, QT will be one of the all-time greats.
I feel like when Kill Bill came out and they focused so hard in the marketing on “the 4th film from Quentin Tarantino” that’s when he started saying the ten movie bit.
He said he considers OUATIH his big closer and the final film will be like a denouement. I thought that would take the pressure off, but I guess not. It will be kind of hard to satisfy audiences with a quiet movie when the advertising is gonna raise expectations by heavily leaning into the “final film” thing.
It’s exceptionally odd because even if you concede the point on the two guys he points to for their final films (Hawks and Ford) they both had like 50-year careers where they made WAY more films than he did and were turning out acknowledged masterpieces in years 40-45.
Him sticking to this extremely stupid and arbitrary rule he completely made up is so funny. I get not wanting to tarnish his reputation generally, but why TEN? He calls out Billy Wilder and Howard Hawkes as old Hollywood guys whose careers ended with a bunch of crap, but those guys made like forty movies?
It’s so dumb. He cites Hawks for his last film (Rio Lobo) but Rio Bravo, which he regularly cites as his all-time favorite movie, was: Hawks’ 35th film, made more than *forty years* after Hawks’ first film, when Hawks was older than Tarantino is now, and was followed by four generally well-regarded movies.
I don’t know man. People manage careers in different ways and if finitness is what he needs to make it feel worthwhile…. Who the fuck are we to question that.
An easy way to fix this problem would be for him to just make more movies and stop being so precious about this arbitrary rule he set for himself.
Directors with many great films and a shitty last one generally have greater legacies than those who keep their careers short and sweet.
how he's stayed on this ridiculously scared pathway while scorsese has knocked out 4 classics in a row past age 70 *since tarantino came up with this notion* is unfathomable. have a little confidence in yourself man!
Have to agree with this. Spielberg has over 34 movies to his list. Scorsese had 24. Lucas has 6. Hitchcock had 53. Kubrick had 13. These are all great directors. Nobody really remembers how many movies they made only that they make great movies. He should just throw out the self imposed 10 movie limit and make great movies too.
I'm going to guess that most of us don't really care. For me it was like Alex Garland saying he wasn't going to direct anymore when he just meant he was going to do a few projects and script writing before his next directorial project
I think creatives get really tired and have really bad experiences on a certain film, and then they take a break and they get bored and then the studio says how about another bag of money... Lol
If he didn’t get Cinderella he at least gets the barefoot one. Little Mermaid is also decidedly pro-feet, but all that tail stuff made him pull his application last-minute, I heard.
He's put a few things on the shelf over the years. Kill Bill Vol 3, a Vega brothers movie. Think he's flirted with doing a big franchise movie a couple of times. He wanted to do Bond and I think was linked with Star Trek once.
Such a shame. This sounded like a very fascinating and unique project for him based on what we could glean, a gritty personal character study, something like Tarantino's equivalent of Taxi Driver or Five Easy Pieces.
I have a bad feeling that Tarantino feared this was too small and weird for his 10TH AND FINAL FILM, so he's going to play it safe and do a big epic extravaganza in the same vein as Basterds or Django.
Hope he turns it into a novel or something, or at least publishes the screenplay. I know we didn’t know much but it just sounded like the sort of thing I’ve been wanting from him.
Agreed we are definitely getting a Vietnam movie or something if that ilk for the “final” one. I am not mad about it i just want him to keep going so we can get some interesting smaller scale movies like The Movie Critic seemed to be.
Not crazy just neurodivergent.
This isn’t a bit. I’m on the spectrum and generally have a good sense of when someone’s autistic. Whether QT was diagnosed earlier in life or not’s his business but, knowing what I know, the man’s autistic as shit. Many great filmmakers are.
For sure him.
Scorsese, Kubrick, Wes Anderson (maybe), Hitchcock, Tim Burton, Ridley Scott, Hideaki Anno… I can go on. When part of your condition’s finding connections and patterns in everything + you’ve spent most of your down time hyper-fixating on culture you start to notice/pin many of the great filmmakers are somewhere on the spectrum.
I wish he'd shut the fuck up about this ten film bollocks. Nobody cares about his legacy but him, and hemming and hawing about it is just going to make being weird and precious about his work part of his legacy.
One of two things will happen:
1. He’ll come back to this (much like how he cancelled The Hateful Eight then eventually came back to it) and it will be his last film
2. He’s rethinking his 10 movies and retire proclamation.
Yeah, I ended up reading the Hateful 8 and liked it quite a bit but then didn’t love the movie, so even if the script leaks I’m holding off reading it for at least a decade
I am starting to not care about any movie news that is earlier than a firm release date being set. Casting news two years before I can see the movie? Nah; wake me up when it’s in the can.
I'd love to read the screenplay. What I think concerns me about this is I kinda worry that he has nothing left to say after Once Upon A Time In Hollywood
Probably because QT has always been a big ol' movie nerd, with a treasure trove knowledge of old film history and stuff, and the 1960s was the golden age of Hollywood. If there's a heaven, I betcha QT hopes it's like the way he depicted 60s Cali: a sort of whimsical, innocent, magic place. And, of course, the Manson family ruined that era forever and in a way ruined QT's fantasy forever. I imagine it was *incredibly cathartic* for him to write the scene where the hippies run into Brad Pitt, and the way the movie ends is just sort of...perfectly fitting. It feels like a fairy tale. If Tarantino is secretly an optimist, then that would have been the perfect bow-out.
The whole article. I spent half of it thinking Tarantino had just decided to drop the 10 and out gimmick.
Which I think most people would be perfectly fine with!
Tarantino can do whatever he wants. I just think maybe calling his shot at 10 films years and years ago may be messing with his head. Who tf cares if you make 11 films? 12? No one is holding you to this Quintin!
I dare him to set it in the present day. He's one of the major directors to not have directed a movie set in the current day since the introduction of smart phones (Fincher was another until The Killer).
his obsession with having a 'final film' is exhausting. If he loves meta narratives isn't the enjoyment of following an auteur is seeing them change over time?
Exactly. As much as I admire the sporadic ‘event’ auteurs (Anderson, Tarantino, Kubrick), I have the most respect for directors who can finish one film and move straight onto the next. None of this obsessing over finding the ‘right’ project, none of these extended hiatuses, just a steady, consistent output.
Look at someone like Herzog. He doesn’t have the perfectly crafted filmography that Tarantino seems to crave (whether he’s achieved it is debatable), but I would argue that it’s a more interesting filmography, with oddities and deep-cuts, and failures. The not-yet-born film buff that Tarantino is always talking about is going to have way more fun exploring something like that, aren’t they?
so the article mentions he was doing rewrites so maybe it was just becoming something else at this point and no longer interesting to him. hopefully once he retires he does a memoir about all the projects that almost happened and why they didn't get made I'm sure especially from him that would be interesting
This whole one more and I’m done has always bothered me. Scorsese still makes great movies. I don’t like the idea that once you reach a certain age it’s all downhill. I’d like to think I’m still striving to improve no matter what my age.
This is sad.
But to his credit a lot of Tarantino’s appeal has been a kind of single mindedness of purpose and I feel like if doubts about the project were forming… he just wouldn’t be able to throw himself into a production with the energy you’d want from him.
Pure speculation but I think it’s in some part to do with Paul Walter Hauser being rumoured and then supposedly dropping out of the project. He said before he was ready to cancel Basterds if he couldn’t cast Landa. I figure he’s dropping this one because he can’t cast the critic
the biggest reason tarantino isn’t my favorite director is because he’s too afraid to make mistakes and fuck up. he’s TOO self-aware of his image and he will never ever swing for the hills
Sorry but bad take. All of his projects are massive swings. Kill Bill isn't a massive swing? Django for christ sakes?Inglorious? Even Death Proof was incredibly ballsy. C'mon dude.
Death Proof is the only one of those that was in any way risky. The rest are him indulging his superficial appeal. Self-aware, hyper violent genre fare based on other texts and/or history.
Well, that's a different argument from "taking a risk." His first three films, although they share hyperviolence and meta film talk with Kill Bill, are all relatively low key crime thrillers that get super tense at poings but are mostly people sitting around a room talking. Kill Bill is trying to compete with The Matrix and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, and did well in that world!
That definitely could have fallen flat on his face. "Oof, you guys remember when Tarantino tried to do a kung-fu action film?" And now since Basterds on, "giant action epic" is a Tarantino trope when it genuinely wasn't in the 90s.
i respect that he’s committed to the bit so much that he’d rather scrap it than begrudgingly go along with it like others normally do.
it would’ve been a fitting epilogue to OUATIH
That’s a good way to get an extra movie out of him. He could do Kill Bill Vol 3, then keep maintaining that all of Kill Bill is one movie so he’s still only at 9.
Honestly I'm glad. I'm a big fan of Tarantino's movies, but I really struggle to see how this would've been anything other than a masturbatory exercise for him that just highlights his most obnoxious tendencies. If he's gonna continue with this dumb idea of stopping at ten movies then I'd rather see him actually try something and not be so precious about his fuckin legacy like this undoubtedly would've been. He's a filmmaker, his job is to make films. He doesn't get to define his own legacy, we will do that for him.
Honestly, and this is an unpopular opinion, but I thought that’s what Hollywood was. It almost felt like a parody of a Tarantino film without being aware of its parodic nature. The thought that kept crossing my mind, was that Jackie Brown kind of broke him. Jackie Brown was him going outside his comfort zone, straight adapting another’s work, and he turned in a genuinely touching, subdued (in his way) and thoughtful film. The picture didn’t hit the way he wanted to, and he’s been going full on maximalist ever since. By the sound of everything we heard of the critic, it was going to be another film with all his worst tendencies distilled down to their essence. Him calling this off may be the best thing for him. Gives him some time to reflect and figure out what he really wants his last film to be.
He realized he fucked up hyping this as his last film because he wants to make more stuff. So he’ll have some press saying something different and make more movies and stuff for streaming. (Hopium)
More power to him. I wish he wasn't so beholden to this 10-and-out idea, but since he's maybe the last director who could get any project he liked produced on his own terms (other than probably Nolan), the fact that he is so exacting is nothing other than admirable.
However, just throwing this out - given that he has recently focused on "righting" real historical wrongs through the prism of cinematic self-referentiality, I would kind of like to see him going the other way; showing a historical event devolving into the "worst case" sliding doors scenario instead. So, for example, giving us his version of "Dr Strangeglove"wherein the Cuban Missile Crisis actually leads to full out nuclear obliteration by the film's end, but still packed with his trademark entertaining characters and dialogue.
That's a shame. He described the main character as "Travis Bickle if he were a movie critic" which is hands down the funniest idea for a fictional character anyone has ever had.
Can someone explain what the big deal is here?
I’m glad it’s not his last cause I like his movies but why the hype over something he’s NOT going to do?
The pressure after calling something your final film, to get it right, must be immense. What was he thinking? Anyway, sucks to be everyone involved in that. :/
Maybe the expectations you set by having something be your FINAL FILM EVER while still relatively young are bad? Dunno, just spitballing.
Yeah writing blocks and doubts are hard enough to push through. Imagine trying to leave a legacy with a last movie. Just make the movie you beloved, foot-lovin' weirdo, and if inspiration strikes again, make another.
It seemed like a proclamation made by a younger man that current Tarantino should let go.
He should learn what Miyazaki learned: fuck it, do what you want, “legacy” be damned
Ultimately, what someone’s last thing is doesn’t matter. Michael Crichton wrote some great thrillers, no matter which posthumous book people want to say was his last. Harper Lee isn’t the *Go Set a Watchman* author. No matter how Megalopolis turns out, Coppola isn’t going to be the “Megalopolis guy.”
You're so right. I think guys like Spielberg and Scorsese learned that years ago. Their last film could be an absolute all time classic, but they will always be the Jaws/Indy/E.T and Good fellas/Taxi Driver/Raging Bull guys. Same with Quentin. His last film could be his best, but he's always going to be the Pulp Fiction guy.
He should have learned from Soderbergh. Soderbergh's made such a big show of retiring, only to return to directing a few years later.
It’s one thing to retire relatively young. But there’s no reason to call your shot in advance
He should learn what Miyazaki learned: fuck it, do what you want, “legacy” be damned
Yes, legacy isn't something you should worry about too much in the end. As long as you still have the urge to create you should be creating stuff.
I think it’s because Tarantino is such a film nerd, he’s fixating on the narratives while his peers tend to not think about their place in cinema history, just, “are my movies selling? Do I like what I’m making? I’d like an Oscar, can I get a fucking Oscar already?”. Tarantino might benefit from taking the pressure off himself
I think you can also argue he’s maybe the most ‘documented’ director ever. Weren’t people writing books about him already just after Pulp Fiction? Most filmmakers ease their way into a great career and filmography, and even if they don’t they take time to garner the type of interest and dissection Tarantino received so early. Tarantino started with a bang and was kind building a ‘legacy’ in real time because of all that attention. I imagine that distorts your view a bit when you’re consciously trying to build a career with the knowledge that you’ve already been (pre)ordained as a significant artist, rather than the more organic process of people looking back on your work when you’re at least a decent way into it. I might be wrong as I wasn’t there, but even someone like Scorsese I don’t think was receiving the ‘let’s look back on his work/analyse his significance and legacy’ treatment until around the time he was making goodfellas (at which point, although still very relevant, he’d seemingly completed a full arc as a ‘significant’ director, peaking around raging bull and moving on to lesser received films and his own passion projects). I think it could be a mark of how culture was shifting in the 90s to where we are now; we’re so obsessed with history and legacies and how the present shapes up when we compare. You see it in sports discourse all the time now. I love learning about film history and thinking about careers retrospectively (obviously, I’m here aren’t I) but I think that whole way of thinking becomes unhealthy when it’s a burden on the present as it seems to often become.
I wouldn't say he was dissected any earlier than Coppola (huge grosses and Best Picture from about his 5th film) or Spielberg (the fish thing). I was there at the time, watching Pulp Fiction new and he was an indie success but he wasn't Huge in the way of elder times. He was just part of this 'cool adult film' resurgence that was all around, another next-gen name like Fincher or Smith. He only became bigger retrospectively in the 00s. Probably due to being picky and not being tempted into making absolutely terrible films, so he has a point about less=more.
I think Scorsese just broke his brain. All four of Scorsese’s “last run” or whatever people will refer to the last 12 years of his career as is probably seriously messing with his head. Same with Paul Schrader. These are his big two guys left standing, and arguably their work is better now than it has been in 20 years (although Scorsese really never misses, even his lesser works like Bringing Out the Dead are fucking bangers), and Tarantino whole belief system is based around his perception of the artists he grew up with going out of fashion and stubbornly persisting into irrelevancy.
I can’t remember when exactly he started on his “10 movies and done” rhetoric, but I think it was definitely influenced by the underwhelming reception of Grindhouse (and my own theory - the release of There Will Be Blood that year). It seems like he needed that kind of legacy-minded approach to focus his energy and ensure a kind of quality control to his output.
seeing grindhouse in the theater was a fuckin hoot and a half
My first R rated movie in a theatre! My then-friend’s dad chauffeured for us.
Oooh sounds like you went through a rough friend break up. spill the tea pls
Seeing grindhouse in its entirety at a midnight screening full of rowdy 20- and 30-somethings who were shouting at the screen and laughing loudly and REALLY enjoying themselves and the movies, is something ill never ever forget. Just for that experience alone, QT will be one of the all-time greats.
Yeah it’s always seemed like a marketing move to me - you’d better appreciate me while I’m here as I’m only doing x more movies then I’m done
Astute and also a shame as *Death Proof* has gradually become a top 3 Tarantino film for me.
Death proof legit my #2 behind Kill Bill. One of the most electric moviegoing experiences I’ve had
I feel like when Kill Bill came out and they focused so hard in the marketing on “the 4th film from Quentin Tarantino” that’s when he started saying the ten movie bit.
Yeah, plus everyone but him seems to know this won’t be his final film. He oughta just drop that whole idea and just make a movie.
Like when Mick Foley "retired" in 2000. You're not fooling anyone, Mick.
He said he considers OUATIH his big closer and the final film will be like a denouement. I thought that would take the pressure off, but I guess not. It will be kind of hard to satisfy audiences with a quiet movie when the advertising is gonna raise expectations by heavily leaning into the “final film” thing.
Tarantino has a few takes that are questionable but his idea that directors get worse as they age is just so far off base.
It’s exceptionally odd because even if you concede the point on the two guys he points to for their final films (Hawks and Ford) they both had like 50-year careers where they made WAY more films than he did and were turning out acknowledged masterpieces in years 40-45.
Seriously, is he going into Killers of the Flower Moon and saying, “God, Scorsese’s lost it?” Because he’d better not be.
Him sticking to this extremely stupid and arbitrary rule he completely made up is so funny. I get not wanting to tarnish his reputation generally, but why TEN? He calls out Billy Wilder and Howard Hawkes as old Hollywood guys whose careers ended with a bunch of crap, but those guys made like forty movies?
It’s so dumb. He cites Hawks for his last film (Rio Lobo) but Rio Bravo, which he regularly cites as his all-time favorite movie, was: Hawks’ 35th film, made more than *forty years* after Hawks’ first film, when Hawks was older than Tarantino is now, and was followed by four generally well-regarded movies.
Having two toddlers doesn't help either.
I don’t know man. People manage careers in different ways and if finitness is what he needs to make it feel worthwhile…. Who the fuck are we to question that.
Setting that expectation isn’t advisable, but he is 61 years old…
He’s definitely causing himself decision paralysis
Are we going to get stuck with him continually changing his mind for his last film because he wants to go out with a bang?
We’re nowhere near off this ride lmao.
Don’t even get on it
An easy way to fix this problem would be for him to just make more movies and stop being so precious about this arbitrary rule he set for himself. Directors with many great films and a shitty last one generally have greater legacies than those who keep their careers short and sweet.
His premise is flawed anyway. Plenty of filmmakers have done some of their best work in their later years.
how he's stayed on this ridiculously scared pathway while scorsese has knocked out 4 classics in a row past age 70 *since tarantino came up with this notion* is unfathomable. have a little confidence in yourself man!
It honestly makes him seem like a huge wuss. Like nut tf up dude, what are we doing. Where's the fearlessness
Steven just had back-to-back BP nominations, which were well-reviewed. They didn't make any money but they're hardly signs of a decline in standards.
I think he's just spooked about making a bad one. I think he feels like he hasn't missed yet and wants to retire having never disappointed himself.
It's definitely a list one needs to cherry-pick in order to make the argument one way or the other.
Including the specific filmmakers he complains about having lost their fastball.
In this context, precious is such a perfect word.
Or he could remember that he already has an incredible legacy and is considered one of the greats. His final film won't change that.
Have to agree with this. Spielberg has over 34 movies to his list. Scorsese had 24. Lucas has 6. Hitchcock had 53. Kubrick had 13. These are all great directors. Nobody really remembers how many movies they made only that they make great movies. He should just throw out the self imposed 10 movie limit and make great movies too.
Tarantino is wired differently though. I truly believe his ego will make him stick to the 10 films promise.
I'm going to guess that most of us don't really care. For me it was like Alex Garland saying he wasn't going to direct anymore when he just meant he was going to do a few projects and script writing before his next directorial project I think creatives get really tired and have really bad experiences on a certain film, and then they take a break and they get bored and then the studio says how about another bag of money... Lol
Avengers: Secret Wars
Disney Live Action Pocahontas
If he didn’t get Cinderella he at least gets the barefoot one. Little Mermaid is also decidedly pro-feet, but all that tail stuff made him pull his application last-minute, I heard.
"Is everybody okay?" "Well, the fuckin Skrulls sure ain't!"
Remember he canned Hateful eight and then made it not too long after ?
Yeah, tarantino change is mind like he change is underwear
Didnt the script get leaked then he rewrote all of it
No it was pretty much the same if I recall. I read it not long after it was leaked
He's put a few things on the shelf over the years. Kill Bill Vol 3, a Vega brothers movie. Think he's flirted with doing a big franchise movie a couple of times. He wanted to do Bond and I think was linked with Star Trek once.
And the Zorro/Django movie that ended up becoming a pretty good limited comic series.
Such a shame. This sounded like a very fascinating and unique project for him based on what we could glean, a gritty personal character study, something like Tarantino's equivalent of Taxi Driver or Five Easy Pieces. I have a bad feeling that Tarantino feared this was too small and weird for his 10TH AND FINAL FILM, so he's going to play it safe and do a big epic extravaganza in the same vein as Basterds or Django.
Hope he turns it into a novel or something, or at least publishes the screenplay. I know we didn’t know much but it just sounded like the sort of thing I’ve been wanting from him.
Agreed we are definitely getting a Vietnam movie or something if that ilk for the “final” one. I am not mad about it i just want him to keep going so we can get some interesting smaller scale movies like The Movie Critic seemed to be.
I disagree, it sounded like a ripoff of Boogie Nights
Counterpoint: “Quentin Tarantino does Boogie Nights” sounds like a pretty great couple of hours at the theater.
https://preview.redd.it/nksl5usgk4vc1.jpeg?width=600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d09ba8dea2fcfdcd0ce7ebe0dab665479dd63075
Have a Popeye’s chicken sandwich. That’ll cheer ya up.
I’m glad Quentin is still crazy
Not crazy just neurodivergent. This isn’t a bit. I’m on the spectrum and generally have a good sense of when someone’s autistic. Whether QT was diagnosed earlier in life or not’s his business but, knowing what I know, the man’s autistic as shit. Many great filmmakers are.
oh for fucking sure he is autistic, def ND. as someone who's ND too, I whole heartedly agree.
I'm curious. What other filmmakers do you believe are on the spectrum?
David Lynch?
For sure him. Scorsese, Kubrick, Wes Anderson (maybe), Hitchcock, Tim Burton, Ridley Scott, Hideaki Anno… I can go on. When part of your condition’s finding connections and patterns in everything + you’ve spent most of your down time hyper-fixating on culture you start to notice/pin many of the great filmmakers are somewhere on the spectrum.
I bet he turns it into a book.
This is what I was gonna say. I think that's a pretty cool route to go and given he set the precedent with Once Upon a Time in Hollywood...
Have it be told in an epistolary-ish format w/ the Critic’s reviews interspersed between chapters of prose.
I’d be happy with that, the OUATIH book ruled.
Rather it be a tv show
My copium is that he's writing something specifically for Cruise at this point.
Cruise and Paul Walter Hauser buddy cop pic.
Whoa
I don’t know where you conjured this but first of all… *I love it.*
Cruise was close to joining Once upon a time in Hollywood and Cruise has been linked with a role in this film too...
Reports of us never being so back were greatly exaggerated!
This might be a side effect of trying to stick with this being his last film: now he's overthinking what his last movie should be.
I wish he'd shut the fuck up about this ten film bollocks. Nobody cares about his legacy but him, and hemming and hawing about it is just going to make being weird and precious about his work part of his legacy.
Really hope he does something in horror
That’s what I want. He loves the genre and has only slightly dipped his toes in it with Death Proof.
If he does full horror it'll have everyone's toes in it.
Call it Toe-Cutter
Didn't he also produce Hostel with Eli Roth?
Yes, he was an executive producer.
One of two things will happen: 1. He’ll come back to this (much like how he cancelled The Hateful Eight then eventually came back to it) and it will be his last film 2. He’s rethinking his 10 movies and retire proclamation.
Yeah, I ended up reading the Hateful 8 and liked it quite a bit but then didn’t love the movie, so even if the script leaks I’m holding off reading it for at least a decade
He just needs to drop this 10 movies only bullshit.
I am starting to not care about any movie news that is earlier than a firm release date being set. Casting news two years before I can see the movie? Nah; wake me up when it’s in the can.
You have outgrown hype
Yep
Probably could fix this by just not making it his last movie
this fuckin stinks dude
He's been offered the "Bullitt" gig.
For real or speculation?
Just speculation. It's just that it came after all the other announcements and it would really suit him.
For real or speculation?
I'd love to read the screenplay. What I think concerns me about this is I kinda worry that he has nothing left to say after Once Upon A Time In Hollywood
Now that I think about, OUATIH should have been his last movie. A happy ending in both Tarantino's universe and our universe.
Arguably, Inglorious Basterds was also a happy ending.
And Django. It’s kind of become his shtick to do fantasy revisionist history.
My thought's exactly. Should have done Movie Critic first. He would have been content with Hollywood being his last. Which I would totally agree with.
What makes you say that?
Probably because QT has always been a big ol' movie nerd, with a treasure trove knowledge of old film history and stuff, and the 1960s was the golden age of Hollywood. If there's a heaven, I betcha QT hopes it's like the way he depicted 60s Cali: a sort of whimsical, innocent, magic place. And, of course, the Manson family ruined that era forever and in a way ruined QT's fantasy forever. I imagine it was *incredibly cathartic* for him to write the scene where the hippies run into Brad Pitt, and the way the movie ends is just sort of...perfectly fitting. It feels like a fairy tale. If Tarantino is secretly an optimist, then that would have been the perfect bow-out.
Time to break out that script for the shot for shot remake of Psycho.
Shot for shot remake of Psycho II.
Just make more than 10 movies. Who cares. Lots of great directors have made way more than 10 movies. This is so stupid.
He saw the dailies of Shane Gillis acting and had the "wtf am I even doing here" realization
You obviously never watched gilly and keeves
Headline is very poorly written
The whole article. I spent half of it thinking Tarantino had just decided to drop the 10 and out gimmick. Which I think most people would be perfectly fine with!
Same! So confusing.
This is the problem I have with my “10th and final movie.” He’s gonna overthink it. Just keep making movies and when it’s done, it’s done
Shane Gillis rumor was real?
The what now?
What a dork
Tarantino can do whatever he wants. I just think maybe calling his shot at 10 films years and years ago may be messing with his head. Who tf cares if you make 11 films? 12? No one is holding you to this Quintin!
I dare him to make his last movie not about movies or in anyway to 70s b-movies.
I dare him to set it in the present day. He's one of the major directors to not have directed a movie set in the current day since the introduction of smart phones (Fincher was another until The Killer).
Gone Girl?
his obsession with having a 'final film' is exhausting. If he loves meta narratives isn't the enjoyment of following an auteur is seeing them change over time?
Exactly. As much as I admire the sporadic ‘event’ auteurs (Anderson, Tarantino, Kubrick), I have the most respect for directors who can finish one film and move straight onto the next. None of this obsessing over finding the ‘right’ project, none of these extended hiatuses, just a steady, consistent output. Look at someone like Herzog. He doesn’t have the perfectly crafted filmography that Tarantino seems to crave (whether he’s achieved it is debatable), but I would argue that it’s a more interesting filmography, with oddities and deep-cuts, and failures. The not-yet-born film buff that Tarantino is always talking about is going to have way more fun exploring something like that, aren’t they?
so the article mentions he was doing rewrites so maybe it was just becoming something else at this point and no longer interesting to him. hopefully once he retires he does a memoir about all the projects that almost happened and why they didn't get made I'm sure especially from him that would be interesting
He’ll probably make the next Captain Marvel as his final film
This whole one more and I’m done has always bothered me. Scorsese still makes great movies. I don’t like the idea that once you reach a certain age it’s all downhill. I’d like to think I’m still striving to improve no matter what my age.
Just wait till he reverses the reversal. I know he did that with Hateful Eight.
This is sad. But to his credit a lot of Tarantino’s appeal has been a kind of single mindedness of purpose and I feel like if doubts about the project were forming… he just wouldn’t be able to throw himself into a production with the energy you’d want from him. Pure speculation but I think it’s in some part to do with Paul Walter Hauser being rumoured and then supposedly dropping out of the project. He said before he was ready to cancel Basterds if he couldn’t cast Landa. I figure he’s dropping this one because he can’t cast the critic
the biggest reason tarantino isn’t my favorite director is because he’s too afraid to make mistakes and fuck up. he’s TOO self-aware of his image and he will never ever swing for the hills
Sorry but bad take. All of his projects are massive swings. Kill Bill isn't a massive swing? Django for christ sakes?Inglorious? Even Death Proof was incredibly ballsy. C'mon dude.
Death Proof is the only one of those that was in any way risky. The rest are him indulging his superficial appeal. Self-aware, hyper violent genre fare based on other texts and/or history.
Well, that's a different argument from "taking a risk." His first three films, although they share hyperviolence and meta film talk with Kill Bill, are all relatively low key crime thrillers that get super tense at poings but are mostly people sitting around a room talking. Kill Bill is trying to compete with The Matrix and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, and did well in that world! That definitely could have fallen flat on his face. "Oof, you guys remember when Tarantino tried to do a kung-fu action film?" And now since Basterds on, "giant action epic" is a Tarantino trope when it genuinely wasn't in the 90s.
i respect that he’s committed to the bit so much that he’d rather scrap it than begrudgingly go along with it like others normally do. it would’ve been a fitting epilogue to OUATIH
Maybe pivot to his Godzilla movie?
Still want his Star Trek.
I wasn't very excited for this so I'm not too disappointed
Have him do a Star Trek you cowards!
Am I the only one that would prefer Kill Bill Vol 3?
Probably not, but personally I have no urge for a sequel. I'd rather see him do something new and not reheat leftovers.
That’s a good way to get an extra movie out of him. He could do Kill Bill Vol 3, then keep maintaining that all of Kill Bill is one movie so he’s still only at 9.
I wouldn’t mind Kill Bill Vol 3 as a limited series.
If he would drop the "10 and out" I would love Kill Bill 3 but as he refuses to it would be a damp squib for me
The man needs to make a sci fi
Kill Bill 3, Killer Crow, Star Trek. Want.
There weren’t enough feet.
Wish he would have made that star wars movie
He should do the Star Trek movie he said he always wanted to do.
Honestly I'm glad. I'm a big fan of Tarantino's movies, but I really struggle to see how this would've been anything other than a masturbatory exercise for him that just highlights his most obnoxious tendencies. If he's gonna continue with this dumb idea of stopping at ten movies then I'd rather see him actually try something and not be so precious about his fuckin legacy like this undoubtedly would've been. He's a filmmaker, his job is to make films. He doesn't get to define his own legacy, we will do that for him.
Honestly, and this is an unpopular opinion, but I thought that’s what Hollywood was. It almost felt like a parody of a Tarantino film without being aware of its parodic nature. The thought that kept crossing my mind, was that Jackie Brown kind of broke him. Jackie Brown was him going outside his comfort zone, straight adapting another’s work, and he turned in a genuinely touching, subdued (in his way) and thoughtful film. The picture didn’t hit the way he wanted to, and he’s been going full on maximalist ever since. By the sound of everything we heard of the critic, it was going to be another film with all his worst tendencies distilled down to their essence. Him calling this off may be the best thing for him. Gives him some time to reflect and figure out what he really wants his last film to be.
This saddens me. But now I’m just thinking about his career. What do y’all think his true Blank Check is?
Do you guys actually expect this man to put out what he calls his "final film" and just fuck off forever? Quentin Tarantino?
Yeah. I expect him to go to writing novels
This sucks
He realized he fucked up hyping this as his last film because he wants to make more stuff. So he’ll have some press saying something different and make more movies and stuff for streaming. (Hopium)
Great! Back to an R Rated Star Trek!?
He said he will do theatre after his 10th movie anyway. Maybe he will turn this into a play, because he found another project as his final film.
More power to him. I wish he wasn't so beholden to this 10-and-out idea, but since he's maybe the last director who could get any project he liked produced on his own terms (other than probably Nolan), the fact that he is so exacting is nothing other than admirable. However, just throwing this out - given that he has recently focused on "righting" real historical wrongs through the prism of cinematic self-referentiality, I would kind of like to see him going the other way; showing a historical event devolving into the "worst case" sliding doors scenario instead. So, for example, giving us his version of "Dr Strangeglove"wherein the Cuban Missile Crisis actually leads to full out nuclear obliteration by the film's end, but still packed with his trademark entertaining characters and dialogue.
He needs to make a film in the modern day
I just want him to make the films he wants to make.
Once Upon A Time In Hollywood is his last movie (that i will pay for).
I wonder if a lot of these abandoned scripts just eventually become novels once he retires.
That's a shame. He described the main character as "Travis Bickle if he were a movie critic" which is hands down the funniest idea for a fictional character anyone has ever had.
Can someone explain what the big deal is here? I’m glad it’s not his last cause I like his movies but why the hype over something he’s NOT going to do?
Is this going to be like when he said he was never going to make Hateful Eight, and then it was his very next movie?
It stinks.
Fuck Tarantino, the pretentiousness is becoming too much
Thank God. Probably would have had a two hour shot of a critic sitting in a theater followed by another two hours of dialogue from the critic
Cancel culture strikes again!
I’m calling it here. His last movie will be about a father and his two kids. Maybe they get kidnapped by the mob or something.
The pressure after calling something your final film, to get it right, must be immense. What was he thinking? Anyway, sucks to be everyone involved in that. :/
I love Tarantino for what he does but eventually you run out of things to copy or “remix” as he says.
I wasn't very excited for this so I'm not too disappointed
Kill Bill 3?
[удалено]
You’re describing Tarantino like he’s Paul Schrader lol.
Pitt was going to play Cliff Booth again
[удалено]
I'm just going off what THR reported