Once Upon a Time in... Hollywood | July 26 2019 | Digital Foot Technology | RIP Cinerama Dome

[EarlyDeadlinePredictions]

Isn't the plot on wikipedia? Unless someone posted a fake one.

[Jake Gittes]

55 minutes ago, JGAR4LIFE said:

This is literally what everyone is talking about: that the third act/ending is phenomenal. I’m hearing multiple comments saying that the first two acts, especially the second one, don’t have a clear “goal” and no sense of a plot moving forward. Leo, Tarantino and Pitt star power aside, there’s nothing exciting that’s being displayed and conveying audiences to see this, hence why I’m saying it looks boring. I’m not sure if the marketing was effective (seems to be working for the older crowds), but maybe they should’ve teased some bits from the climax in the trailers. 

Maybe it's just not a plot-driven movie. 

[Sam]

Almost forgot this one is coming out cause I’ve been avoiding promos and spoilers. 

 

Definitely looking forward to the movie even more cause of the confirmed involvement of Digital Foot Technology.

[EarlyDeadlinePredictions]

38 minutes ago, EarlyDeadlinePredictions said:

Isn't the plot on wikipedia? Unless someone posted a fake one.

Someone removed it just now. Must have been legit. 

[cannastop]

Just now, EarlyDeadlinePredictions said:

Someone removed it just now. Must have been legit. 

lol

 

Should be back soon. Quentin Tarantino isn't the boss of wikipedia.

[maxalcamo]

Are we acting like Pulp Fiction has a plot? 

[BoxOfficeFangrl]

There was a detailed plot summary on Wikipedia right after Cannes, that's when I read it. It seemed to fit in with the tone of the reviews, so it was probably legit. I wonder if it was there all this time, or if it kept getting removed and put back, over and over. Anyway after the general release date, having the plot summary on Wikipedia is usually fair game.

 

And yes, I could have gone into the movie without being spoiled, but I didn't want to. What is the big deal? Not everybody enjoys movies the same way. I think the choice is up to the individual, as long as they are respectful and don't ruin someone else's experience.

Edited July 24, 2019 by BoxOfficeFangrl

[Barnack]

18 minutes ago, BoxOfficeFangrl said:

And yes, I could have gone into the movie without being spoiled, but I didn't want to. What is the big deal? Not everybody enjoys movies the same way.

It is quite common people that enjoy spoiler:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797611417007

 

 

https://www.jbe-platform.com/content/journals/10.1075/ssol.3.1.09lea

Spoilers, despite their name, seem to increase enjoyment of stories. This could be because readers enjoy reading expected endings, because knowing the ending allows them to appreciate aesthetic elements instead of guessing what will happen, or because knowing the ending increases fluency by enabling readers to correctly interpret clues and events. We conducted three experiments to test these hypotheses. Experiment 1 collected ratings at the midpoints of anthologized stories, and determined that readers experience greater pleasure even before reading the end of spoiled stories. This spoiler benefit was mediated by processing fluency, and not by appreciation of aesthetic elements. Experiment 2 found that spoilers similar to those in Experiment 1 do not increase ease of reading — or pleasure — for very-easy-to-read stories. Experiment 3 found, however, that very simple spoilers could increase the pleasure of easy-to-read stories.

 

That why director often open movie with the end and roll back, that tv show spoil the next episode, etc... definitely not a big deal.

[efialtes76]

2 hours ago, TheDarkKnightOfSteel said:

Ok to whoever wants to know the ending...I will PM it to them.But before I do that,as soon as I have the time,I want to you to know that the ending is so ridiculous,hilarious and great that consider finding out about it when you watch the film.IMO,it brought the movie to a whole new level while i was trying to collect myself of the things i just witnessed but i can see why some might find it...well not controversial...maybe...I can't find the right word...it's that awesome...

Send me a PM now! 

Pd:Please. 

[VENOM]

 

 

Love how Margot sells the movie in this, well said!  “This isn’t a prequel, sequel, remake.. this is a completely original genius idea out of Quentin's brain”

Edited July 24, 2019 by VENOM

[TMP]

7 minutes ago, VENOM said:

 

 

Love how Margot sells the movie in this, well said!  

If this flops the same weekend a soulless remake makes a killing, then maybe the future of cinema really is streaming.

[LawrenceBrolivier]

17 minutes ago, TMP said:

If this flops the same weekend a soulless remake makes a killing, then maybe the future of cinema really is streaming.

 

It's streaming whether this movie comes out or not... It's been too late to go back. Studios are spending almost hundreds of billions over the next 5-10 years to launch streaming networks and put movies on them to compete with Netflix, which has spent hundreds of billions to become a studio on top of already being a streaming network. 

 

Add to that the fact the theatrical experience has been diminishing for decades on top of the always rising ticket and concessions price,... now contrast that with the fact home theater product has been as good if not better on the PQ side of things, and has been that way since the first blu-ray rolled off a production line... 

The future of cinema is streaming because the future of exhibition is amusement parks... nothing's going to change that in the next 10 years, this movie included. 

[VENOM]

17 minutes ago, TMP said:

If this flops the same weekend a soulless remake makes a killing, then maybe the future of cinema really is streaming.

It’s maddening to think about, people would rather watch the same thing over and over again over something original. People are applauding a copy paste job while the rest of us are thinking this is how cinema dies..

 

[Barnack]

5 minutes ago, LawrenceBrolivier said:

Add to that the fact the theatrical experience has been diminishing for decades on top of the always rising ticket and concessions price,..

 

Really not sure about ticket price part. That is probably true about the average exhibition quality commitment too.

 

6 minutes ago, LawrenceBrolivier said:

The future of cinema is streaming

Really not 100% sure about that part either, would streaming platform invest in 2 hours closed on themselves story that cost a fortune by minutes they cannot monetize by views type of content ?

 

Video game future was in home with the arrival of PC and console and not at the arcade for sure, but it was not the future for arcade type of games, games rapidly changed to become something else (for the very most part, arcade type game still exist but are a rather niche portion) than the type of games people played before.

 

Game needed to be really hard but possible to go through them in one game session, now that you can play when you want at home and save your progress, they changed quite a bit.

 

Same could happen on media content, the thing that is sure is that media content future is streaming.

 

But technological possibility and moneytisation model could shape content (youtube for example is all about volume and extreme low budget by minutes), TV in the past has never been that good for cinema and it is not certain that because the 200 Billion paid TV industry will shift into a streaming one (and possibly a smaller one) that it will suddenly become a good format for it.

 

Maybe that in a near future (say less than 50 year), cinema will make little sense on streaming (or at least the feature film length type will not make more sense than very short one and very long one and become something of the past has a major-more prestigious that the rest affair).

[The Futurist]

60's Hollywood nostalgia, so orignal & creative.

Damn.

None of the image in this film are original or are ex nihilo.

They are all recreations of Tarantino s fetishes and obsessions that his gigantic brain has recorded and classified.

Edited July 24, 2019 by The Futurist

[CoolioD1]

1 minute ago, The Futurist said:

60's Hollywood nostalgia, so orignal & creative.

Damn.

None of the image in this film are orignial or are ex nihilo.

They are all recreations of Tarantino s fetishes and obsessions that his gigantic brain has recorded and classified.

your thought on this is well documented. i think everyone has seen it by now. 

[Barnack]

 

 

Quote

 

60's Hollywood nostalgia, so orignal & creative.

 

 

How many big budget studio movies featuring either Manson or 60s Hollywood nostalgia did we get last year, this year or next year ? Or in the 2000s ? Could you name just 2 other ? 1 ?

 

Not sure I get the repetitive complain here.

[The Futurist]

FYI, Definition of originality :

 

Everything that is not the CURRENT norm.

 

Originality is a very loose concept and I see nothing original in the trailer of this film and the premise puts me to sleep.

 

A director in any franchise/brand film takes 100 creative decisions per day, way more than in any grounded movie since everything has to be invented.

 

This movie is basically a nice and cute Xerox of the 60's.

So creative it boggles the mind.

I heard Jon Favreau is oh  so jealous.

Edited July 24, 2019 by The Futurist

[Barnack]

1 minute ago, The Futurist said:

FYI, Definition of originality :

 

Everything that is not the CURRENT norm.

?

 

Not sure what you mean by that.

 

Originality is the aspect of created or invented works as being new or novel, and thus distinguishable from reproductions, clones, forgeries, or derivative works. An original work is one not received from others nor one copied from or based upon the work of others. It is a work created with a unique style and substance.

 

The Wikipedia one.

 

I will repeat my question about the: 

60's Hollywood nostalgia, so orignal & creative.

 

Name a list of other's big budget Hollywood movie that had that for background ? Why do you point that out have being unoriginal ?

[LawrenceBrolivier]

5 minutes ago, Barnack said:

 

Really not 100% sure about that part either, would streaming platform invest in 2 hours closed on themselves story that cost a fortune by minutes they cannot monetize by views type of content ?

 

But technological possibility and moneytisation model could shape content (youtube for example is all about volume and extreme low budget by minutes), TV in the past has never been that good for cinema and it is not certain that because the 200 Billion paid TV industry will shift into a streaming one (and possibly a smaller one) that it will suddenly become a good format for it.

Streaming platforms are already investing in big-budget films... as well as a lot of mid-budget films and independent features that would otherwise never see any distribution at all. They've been doing it for awhile now too... they're chasing industry awards, exhibiting them theatrically solely to qualify for the awards... but even when they aren't doing that, the fact is there is an entire mid-budget model of film that studios used to make more than anything, and they just don't do that anymore, and streaming networks are the ones doing it now... 

TV has been making legitimately cinematic product for almost 20 years now. Some of the best "cinema" released in the last decade was made for TV... a distinction that doesn't really mean what it used to because making something for TV hasn't meant "for a square barely 27 inches wide" for a very long time now. 

The TV Industry isn't separate from the film industry in a lot of ways. They're largely just a different department within the same content studio, but at this point the consolidation going on in a lot of these entertainment companies is erasing those divisions and departments... 

Cinema is already on the streaming networks. The studios all want to be their own individual streaming networks.... this is not even a new thing for them, really... Before our grandparents were born, the studios were trying to own theater chains... but now they're trying to own streaming networks... It's less about the quality of the product and more about the means of distribution because at this point the quality of the product... especially audio/visually... is basically equal between home viewing and theatrical exhibition. If there's no meaningful distinction between the two anymore, or that distinction is rapidly shrinking every year.... then it makes sense theaters are going to become the novelty (amusement parks) and streaming and home video is going to be the main target... And it's already happening, too...