Tarantino and Abrams to Do Next Trek Movie

[Saul]

There are comments i'm reading now where people are going after his films. Citing scenes of violence towards women, his use of language. Other actors and Directors are taking their shots at him for movies he has been making for years.
We are going to end up sanitizing our culture and art. Going after people like this is going to come back and bite us in the ass in a big way as it has already done with the birth of 'Make America Great again'. I'm sure there are some who have criticized Tarantino who have done much worse than him.

 

[fireproof78]

We are going to end up sanitizing our culture and art. Going after people like this is going to come back and bite us in the ass in a big way as it has already done with the birth of 'Make America Great again'. I'm sure there are some who have criticized Tarantino who have done much worse than him.

Usually the worst critics are the ones who "protest too much."

 

[Jayson1]

I have also heard that Thurman has defended Tarantino. So I think that will save his career. Plus their is the old school idea of how directors, direct actors. As a sports fan it reminds me of how sports coaches use to be know for yelling and screaming at their players to motivate them and to get the most out of them. That kind of style of coaching is slowly going away just as I suspect this old style of directing will change.

As for the Trek film I think if he does it their will be backlash but that will go away if the movie is good. One of the reasons people would still defend Polanski is because he would still make great movies. Hell that is one of the reasons why Weinstein got away with what he did for so long.
The unexpected backlash though will be if he doesn't do the movie and it ends up sucking. Whoever they would get to replace him has to go into the movie knowing that he/she was a second choice at best and also they will have to deal with the fact that his/her movie will most likely not come close to being as good as aTarantino movie would have been. I still think "Beyond" was a flop mostly because Abrams wasn't doing the movie. Abrams has big nerd appeal so some guy they never heard about and whose main credits to the audience was doing "Fast and Furious" movies had zero chance of pleasing some fans or at least being a good enough of a reason to get them to leave the house and head out to the movie theater.

Jason

 

[sttngfan1701d]

This is what I have a problem with....conflation, implication, etc. by the media. The spitting scene in Kill Bill has people saying it was sadistic misogyny. As if Uma Thurman wasn't told beforehand. As if there wasn't a discussion. Tarantino explained it....there was a discussion. He took the responsibility on himself, as the director, rather than have Michael Madsen do it...and they did it. It was for a shot, they got the shot. End of discussion. This wasn't a case of "Last Tango in Paris" where the director and star conspired something without telling the lead actress.

It wasn't too long ago that everyone was laughing at that Mormon company for editing all violence and sex out of movies. Well....THAT is where this road leads if you follow it. If you start policing morality.

Uma Thurman got spit on in Kill Bill, slapped around by Pai Mei (but Pai Mei slaps everyone around). Samuel L. Jackson got shot in the balls in Hateful Eight. Ving Rhames got raped in Pulp Fiction (and then shot Zedd in the balls). And Jamie Foxx "killed all the white people" in Django Unchained.

The films are rated R. If you aren't mature enough to watch them, don't watch them. If you are easily offended, or look for things to be offended about, don't watch them. This isn't difficult.

 

[Jayson1]

There are comments i'm reading now where people are going after his films. Citing scenes of violence towards women, his use of language. Other actors and Directors are taking their shots at him for movies he has been making for years.
We are going to end up sanitizing our culture and art. Going after people like this is going to come back and bite us in the ass in a big way as it has already done with the birth of 'Make America Great again'. I'm sure there are some who have criticized Tarantino who have done much worse than him.

This has always been my biggest issue with Political Correctness. I think Political Correctness is a very good thing for the real world. I like the idea of people feeling the need to be civil towards each other even if they don't agree with someone or even really dislike someone. People constantly yelling at each other and flinging insults doesn't ever help anything, and just keeps people in a constant state of anger and then people stop trusting people and start to see everyone as the enemy.

Movies and tv shows and comedy and music and basically art though are something different. I WANT these things to push the envelope and be risky and even dare taking the chance of offending someone. Not everything has to be super gritty and dark but I like that those things are also available to people because I think it all appeals to people on different levels. Sometimes you want to have your buttons pushed and want to be challenged but then sometimes you just want some comfort food entertainment. It doesn't have to one or the other. It can be both things. I just wish some people nowdays had a better ability to separate art from real life. Just being offended isn't always a bad thing. Anything that can stir up real human emotions in fiction is good IMO. It doesn't matter what those emotions are for the most part just as long as art is legit art and not just racist propoganda but I think most people are smart enough to know the difference between a real movie and something done just for poltical reasons. There is difference for example of being pro-religion in a show like "7th Heaven" was and being a propoganda film like those "God's Not Dead" films.

Jason

 

[M.A.C.O.]

Diane Kruger, who played Bridget Von Hammersmark in Inglorious Basterds, has come out to defend Tarantino.

http://ew.com/movies/2018/02/07/diane-kruger-quentin-tarantino-inglourious-basterds/


This really does seem like conflation to provoke overreaction of outrage in the public. QT worked with public enemy #1 Weinstein, and he made Uma do a dangerous stunt. Violence against women, and evil white men using their power to control women's bodies. As if women have no agency of their own.
#Metooflu

 

[M'Sharak]

Does anyone even care about letting someone defend themselves before they take up the pitchforks and start the tar-and-feather process?

Has anyone even bothered to actually read QT's interview and his response to questions?

Does anyone even care that he maintains a great relationship with Uma Thurman? Or that *HE* is the one who actually went back through old video footage and provided the clip of the crash for her?

The postmodern mob is no better than the medieval mob.

And those of you *constantly* preach tolerance and inclusion and diversity from one side of your mouth while also constantly using the words "white" and "male" as pejoratives are nothing short of fucking scary.

Well, I can see one person for sure is keeping an open mind about things.

One suggestion, though: whenever you (collective "you" - this applies to any and all) are tempted to make this about other posters, or are tempted to throw around terms like "pitchforks" or "tar-and-feather" or "The postmodern mob is no better than the medieval mob" or how "those of you *constantly* preach" are "nothing short of fucking scary" — whenever any of that comes into your mind, and before it comes out typed upon the page — stop.

Because none of that belongs here.

You've lost perspective, and you should be quite certain you've regained it before you consider posting again.

Talk about the topic; discuss opinions and positions expressed - even discuss them critically. That is what this forum is for. But do not, under any circumstances, allow yourself to attack any other poster for an opinion they've expressed, or a position they've taken.

Just don't. Because that's not how we do things here.

Keep this in mind, and the discussion can continue.

 

[Malaika]

Oh poor Tarantino.

Sorry but painting him as the victim now is a tad ridiculous. Some comments make it seems there is a conspiracy to end him (he is planning to retire anyway, btw, so if that were true his supposed enemies won't have much fun), and that's completely glossing over the fact that he is being criticized and blamed for stuff he had done and said. That doesn't change.
He may be sorry about Uma's accident, but he still played a big role helping a system that made it so that this person couldn't get justice and make her rights heard like any actor would in the same circumstances. And he didn't face any reprimand or real consequence for his lack of professionality for putting her in that situation.

He is sorry about Weinstein actions and for not stopping him NOW that the guy is pubblically shamed for them, but he was complicit in his actions for years and the first to dismiss actresses who voiced their distress over his inappropriate behavior, to the extent of keeping them away from tours.

I've read his interview and honestly, he comes across as delusional and out of touch with the reality, just like in the one where he claims that a 13 years old girl who repeatedly said "no" and was drugged and raped essentially asked for it and Polanski is innocent (also, as someone who was born and lives in Europe, gotta love his delusion that having sex with minors apparently is against the law only in the USA...he makes it sound like it is a cultural thing. Like, no. But really really really NO)
Now, his poor excuses made for things he did such as spitting on and choking actresses are silly and, at best, frankly grotesque. He truly doesn't get it with those "what's wrong with that?" responses of his, just like he still doesn't get why a lot of people are offended by his redundant use of the n word and the racism in his movies.
He comes across as a bit of a sociopath. He seems to have issues with empathy and understanding why basic problematic sh*t is, well, problematic.

Tl dr: it is not that 'no one cares' about other details of this "story", it simply is that while they add layers to it they don't change its core aspects that, honestly, it should be expected human beings to have some sort of adverse reaction about, still.
Expecting people to see him as the victim now, or justify him by using the derailing tactic of "you bullies you! It's a conspiracy against him and free speech, where is your tolerance and acceptance" is, honestly, lame.
At best, it is asking people to be his apologists because some people like him and his movies. Would it be the same if we weren't talking about one Tarantino?

Honestly, people like Tarantino and others don't get it worse because they are popular and famous, quite the opposite. The media itself (see that sympathetic interviewer) is already trying to help him a bit by fast putting the attention on Uma 'defending' him or him being sorry for his behavior.
The Hollywood elite, that Tarantino is himself part of and an active participant, has banned less famous people for much less so if you want to talk about hypocrisy here, talk about theirs. Not people who have a reaction over reading about despicable actions and problematic, disgusting, opinions.

 

[Jayson1]

I don't think anyone has said Tarantino is a victim. Only that he isn't a criminal. He has always had something of a suspect personality to me but in the end it doesn't matter what people really think about anything as long as they follow the law. The car crash was caused by bad judgment and i'm not so sure why someone would feel the need to be so authentic in that type of scene but i'm pretty sure he wasn't trying to get someone murdered. Also I am curious if he has changed over the years and matured and I am curious as to what he will say when he comments on the situation. Has he even said anything since this went public?

Jason

 

[Malaika]

I don't think anyone has said Tarantino is a victim.

Some seem to do exactly that now, even in this thread. They don't need to use the word victim to essentially paint him as one, and make it seems that those who are just having a reaction over stuff that is objectively questionable and bad are the problematic ones. Passive aggressive too, of course (ie the person the mod replied to just before my comment)

Only that he isn't a criminal. He has always had something of a suspect personality to me but in the end it doesn't matter what people really think about anything as long as they follow the law. The car crash was caused by bad judgment and i'm not so sure why someone would feel the need to be so authentic in that type of scene but i'm pretty sure he wasn't trying to get someone murdered.

What would've happened to him if Uma had died or developed some serious disability because of the accident?
She says she has permanent damage after that, but couldn't get the damn video of the accident for 15 years and this caused her great trouble when trying to make her rights heard, and no wonder why. This is not normal, and I may need to read what the US law of the time said to be sure, but I have a feeling they went against some law.
They protected themselves, including Tarantino, by abusing their power. It is despicable.
Again, what would've happened if Uma had died?
It is truly scary, for me, to realize the power these people have. That accident was the director's fault and they just swept it all under the rug as if nothing had happened so she could do very little. He didn't face any real consequence for his mistake, beyond only now having to read some Internet outrage about it. Again, victim? No. Would another director in his place and less popular than him be as lucky? I doubt it.


As for Uma wanting to be fair and coming across as defending him a bit now, probably due to their friendship, I'm going to be a bit critical with her too if that is the case and she wants to do a 180° now. Because she still made an interview that left very little to 'interpretation' (she even said that what Tarantino did to her is worse than what Weinstein did) in her attacks towards Tarantino and her holding him responsible for the accident, and for being complicit when it comes to Weinstein's abuses and Quentin knowing them and being part of the group that effectively covered his a$$ for years (and in another post by Uma, she was attacking said group) .
She knew what she was doing with her interview, had she wanted to leave Tarantino out of it or defend him, she wouldn't have said some of the things she said. Interviewers and articles can and do manipulate things a lot this is true, but it is still her own words for the most part.
Perhaps, her instagram post wasn't truly doing a 180° by defending him now, and some people passing her post as doing that now are projecting a bit. Maybe she just wanted to be fair about the media wrongly summarizing the accident as QT trying to kill her and still wanted to give him credit for finally giving her the video.

 

[Jayson1]

If she died it would have been a trajedy but nobody can really predict when accidental death happens and many times their is lots of blame to go around. When the Challenger exploded was that just the fault of NASA or was it the company that made the O RING or the guys who installed it? Does Tarantino deserve more blame than the people who worked on the car to make it safe? Also didn't he drive the car before she did, which no doubt might create a false sense that it wasn't as dangerous as it was. Which is pretty stupid but I don't know how to stop people from having dumb ideas because we have all had them. I think the fact that none of us have ever filmed a movie as well and are not part of that world also makes it confusing because we don't really understand the mindset of what it means to make a movie. Some things that wouldn't be acceptable in rest of society might work differently when it comes to making a movie. Kind of like how going around hitting people would be wrong if you were just walking down the street but it's expected if your playing football.

As for the tape I have heard conflicting things. I heard that it wasn't Tarantino that was trying to keep it from being released to her but the studio and he actually helped her get hold of it. That first article was badly written and it was sort of setting up a narrative that wasn't completely true.

Jason

 

[Haggis and tatties]

The Tarantino/Stern interview about Polaski was enough for me to hope he is now dropped from having anything to do with any Trek movie as some of his comments and views in that interview were just repulsive.

 

[Malaika]

If she died it would have been a trajedy but nobody can really predict when accidental death happens and many times their is lots of blame to go around. When the Challenger exploded was that just the fault of NASA or was it the company that made the O RING or the guys who installed it? Does Tarantino deserve more blame than the people who worked on the car to make it safe? Also didn't he drive the car before she did, which no doubt might create a false sense that it wasn't as dangerous as it was. Which is pretty stupid but I don't know how to stop people from having dumb ideas because we have all had them. I think the fact that none of us have ever filmed a movie as well and are not part of that world also makes it confusing because we don't really understand the mindset of what it means to make a movie. Some things that wouldn't be acceptable in rest of society might work differently when it comes to making a movie. Kind of like how going around hitting people would be wrong if you were just walking down the street but it's expected if your playing football.

As for the tape I have heard conflicting things. I heard that it wasn't Tarantino that was trying to keep it from being released to her but the studio and he actually helped her get hold of it. That first article was badly written and it was sort of setting up a narrative that wasn't completely true.

Jason

He's 200% responsible for what happened. The stunt doubles are there for a reason. Actors essentially trust directors when it comes to their safety. He acted silly, irresponsible, and in my opinion he was extremely, extremely, lucky because he didn't really face consequences that other people in his place would face.

It is disingenuos to make it seems he didn't benefit from the studio refusing to give her the video, and he wasn't essentially protected legally and career-wise by them effectively preventing Uma to take all the action anyone in her situation would have the right to take. . And he could've given it to her years ago, when it was the most useful. Why only now?

The reason why I ask what would've happened if Uma died is to emphasize how serious this thing is, and how lucky he really is that his mistake didn't have worse results. But I also wonder about the extent of these people's power and it begs the question on whether they'd be able to cover it up if something worse had happened to the actress.

The Tarantino/Stern interview about Polaski was enough for me to hope he is now dropped from having anything to do with any Trek movie as some of his comments and views in that interview were just repulsive.

It is beyond repulsive.
I guess some people didn't read it or the whole thing so here's a transcript
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...im-slams-Tarantino-claims-sex-consensual.html

Honestly, I don't care about that being back in 2003. Talk about his luck, again, that it is getting attention only now.
I serioustly doubt he is the opposite of that now and suddenly saw the light. People with that kind of opinions are hard to change.



As for trek, I'm over people making excuses for this guy just because he is QT.
First people dismissed pretty legit concerns fans expressed about his style not being suitable to trek (not to mention his comments about the reboot where he fails to get it is an au, considers the ensemble cast a hindrance, and hated stid for not being enough a remake) as them being 'haters' and whining.
Now it's dissmissing people's completely understandable disgust over this dude's modus operandi on and off the set as them being almost bullies who want to have a reason to hate him, and him being the victim of fake news and evil media wanting to end his career (when it is already ending by his choice anyway)

He isn't a God or something and there are so many talented directors and writers, people don't need QT at any cost. This is bigger than getting or not getting a new trek movie.

 

[Jayson1]

Of course he got lucky. Not sure though about how much power he has when it comes to the tape. He doesn't own the movie.There is a bunch of legal corporate stuff that I don't think many of us understand. Still to me the issue will always comes down to the law. If he didn't break the rules I am not that concerned about his personality. If he is found liable for the accident that would be fine I do think he should face some kind of penalty for it but not sure if making it so someone can never work again is the right punishment. I think he should clearly have powers restricted , not to mention all directors, when it comes to how they treat actors. In fact I am curious where the actors unions are in all these situations. If he can work in the new environment I am fine with it.

As for conspiracy stuff that stuff happens in every case. It's a byproduct of the times. Nobody trusts anyone, anymore. Everyone thinks everyone else has some secret dark motive about everything. We are living in cynical times and people are less forgiving of people's mistakes even though we have most likely had some big time mistakes in our own lives as well where things could have led to a disaster if luck hadn't gotten in the way.

Jason

 

[Commishsleer]

Has anyone even bothered to actually read QT's interview and his response to questions?

Does anyone even care that he maintains a great relationship with Uma Thurman? Or that *HE* is the one who actually went back through old video footage and provided the clip of the crash for her?

15 years later when it was too late to do anything about it,

Didn't he blame Weinstein ? He said something like Weinstein said give nothing to that woman (implying the tape). The woman(Thurman) who was injured while at work, the woman who turned Weinstein down after he assaulted her.

QT didn't get the tape for her 15 years ago when she could have sued the studio. He didn't say to Weinstein 15 yeas ago - don't be ridiculous Uma is my friend, my muse - give her the tape if she wants it. She's entitled to compensation.

Anyway I'm not saying that makes QT evil. Just not a great friend to Uma at the time., Perhaps a better friend to Weinstein. And maybe thats why Thurman and Tarantino didn't talk for years after the accident.

I'm sure that if he could change things looking back he would have not coerced Thurman into driving that day.

And maybe QT thinks just a bit it was Thurman's fault for bring a crappy driver.

 

[Jack Watkins]

Tarantino issued an apologize today.

I want to publicly apologize to Samantha Geimer for my cavalier remarks on “The Howard Stern Show” speculating about her and the crime that was committed against her. Fifteen years later, I realize how wrong I was. Ms. Geimer WAS raped by Roman Polanski. When Howard brought up Polanski, I incorrectly played devil’s advocate in the debate for the sake of being provocative. I didn’t take Ms. Geimer’s feelings into consideration and for that I am truly sorry.

So, Ms. Geimer, I was ignorant, and insensitive, and above all, incorrect.

I am sorry Samantha.

 

[Photoman15]

So a whole new field has opened up in Hollywood, Apology Sculptor. It's probably a lucrative job and is retroactive and future protected, there will always be a**holes who will do sh*t like this.

 

[Jack Watkins]

It's better than some that came before. The whole situation makes me feel disgusted.

 

[Haggis and tatties]

No amount of apologies at this stage will remove from my brain how he defended Polaski in that interview and in the same breath laid the blame on that 13 year old child, and nothing about his defence of Polaski was being "procovative", it was simply disgusting and repulsive on so many levels and hard to believe that it was coming out of a grown adults mouth, so be gone from my view sir.

 

[Jack Watkins]

I edited my original post to remove the statement about it being a good apology given the circumstances, which I meant in regards to its unequivocal nature as opposed to its sincerity. I live in hope that people evolve and can sincerely apologize, but Haggis is right (a statement I never thought I'd make :-) ): He was a grown man, and if he was stupid enough to defend Polanski to be "provocative," he should have known better. If he was stupid enough to defend Polanski because it was popular in Hollywood circles, he should have known better. That he flat-out stated a 13-year-old could give consent to be drugged and have sex with someone aged 43... That's dangerously sick. Hopefully, he understands why that assumption is wrong, though if he doesn't we'll never hear it from his lips.