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

[Alli]

For those who say the directors are not a reason for DiCaprio' success

 

Quote

ComScore/Screen Engine's PostTrak reports tonight that close to half of the audience (47%) say that their primary reason for seeing Hollywood is because of the director. PostTrak's norm for this metric is typically 7%.

 

[OncomingStorm93]

I just can't imagine this film playing well with audiences beyond QT's base. There's no compelling hook beyond "People having fun LA in the late 60s".

 

And I think even among QT fans this will be divisive.

 

I would say it's one of my least favorite films from him, if not my least.

Edited July 28, 2019 by OncomingStorm93

[stuart360]

Wish i had done a bit of reserach on this film before seeing it, because i also didnt pick up on the Manson thing until the end when i twigged on. It made that whole lenghty scene with Brad and the hippies on the old studio lot seem pointless and weird. It made a bit more sense when i realized it was the Manson family.

I dont know, i didnt really 'get' this film. It was just like a bunch of random scenes thrown together, although i suppose a lot of his films are like that.

Apart from the acting, and attention to detail, i didnt really think this was a good film, and its certainly near the bottom of Tarantino's films for me.

And like others have said, i find it really surprising that Tarantino of all people, decided to turn Bruce Lee into a bumbling fool.

[Avatree]

10 hours ago, LawrenceBrolivier said:

Human history isn't a spoiler, though. 

Are you really saying you don't want to learn about one of the most significant events of the late '60s because you don't want to ruin a movie? A movie that it's creator wrote and directed under the assumption his viewers DO know the story he's riffing on? You won't be spoiling "Once Upon a Time..." by having a working knowledge of Charles Manson. The writer and director expects you to know about the case, and the era it occurred in. It's possible the movie won't really work otherwise.... honestly, I wonder if that's part of the reason WOM is as mixed as it is, if some audience members are so unfamiliar with what Tarantino is riffing on that it just doesn't work right. 

Okay, I haven't seen any advertising or trailers, all I know is that it is the new Tarantino film, so I wish to watch it. I wasn't aware that I am meant to have know the story BEFORE going into an original movie.

Are you just pulling this out of your arse, where does Tarantino say audiences need to read up on it beforehand? Or have you watched the film already.

 

I know that Charles Manson is a part of american history but, not being from America, I don't know anything about him or what he did. I'm sorry you seem so offended by me not reading American History books but it's not something I've ever learnt about.

 

 

9 hours ago, JohnnyGossamer said:

This. Highly important. It's actually a fault of the movie honestly. Think QT presupposed more possessed this working knowledge than actually do. Especially younger viewers.

if this is right and the film doesn't even work without people knowing the story in advance - good luck with them making their money back overseas...

 

Edited July 28, 2019 by Avatree

[JohnnyGossamer]

2 minutes ago, Avatree said:

Okay, I haven't seen any advertising or trailers, all I know is that it is the new Tarantino film, so I wish to watch it. I wasn't aware that I am meant to have know the story BEFORE going into an original movie.

Are you just pulling this out of your arse, where does Tarantino say audiences need to read up on it beforehand? Or have you watched the film already.

 

I know that Charles Manson is a part of american history but, not being from America, I don't know anything about him or what he did. I'm sorry you seem so offended by me not reading American History books but it's not something I've ever learnt about.

 

 

if this is right and the film doesn't even work without people knowing the story in advance - good luck with them making their money back overseas...

 

Still think it works just doesn't work as well. 

[TalismanRing]

I think a paragraph or so knowledge of Manson, even a sentence or two would be helpful in enjoying or understanding the film more.   In the same way one would have to know that WW II and and Hitller happened to get the most out of Inglorious Basterds. 

 

Being an original film doesn't mean having to stand alone without any preexisting context or prior knowledge.

[The Futurist]

Manson was cool in the Nineties I guess.

[Avatree]

2 minutes ago, TalismanRing said:

I think a paragraph or so knowledge of Manson, even a sentence or two would be helpful in enjoying or understanding the film more.   In the same way one would have to know that WW II and and Hitller happened to get the most out of Inglorious Basterds. 

 

Being an original film doesn't mean having to stand alone without any preexisting context or prior knowledge.

No you can make any film it's up to you how much you expect an audience to know beforehand, I suppose, but how is the audience supposed to know that they need to be well read?

 

I've not seen Inglorious Bastards so can't really judge the comparison - but, WW2 is pretty common knowledge to everyone in the world in a way that Charles Manson Murders are not.

[ban1o]

The film doesn’t work if you don’t know anything about the Manson murders. Period lol. 

[Ozymandias]

who the fuck doesn't know anything about the manson murders lol

[JohnnyGossamer]

3 minutes ago, Ozymandias said:

who the fuck doesn't know anything about the manson murders lol

Quite a few leaving the theater in was in when I caught it Thursday night. Gotta admit, I was surprised too.

[ban1o]

15 minutes ago, Ozymandias said:

who the fuck doesn't know anything about the manson murders lol

My parents and sister didn’t. My mom vaguely knew the name Manson and that he killed people but she didn’t know Once Upon a Time in Hollywood was about that. My sister didn’t know anything about it and all and didn’t recognize the name Manson. She’s 20. I had to explain it to them but they weren’t that interested lol. 

Edited July 28, 2019 by ban1o

[The Futurist]

I saw ROman Polanski once on the Champs Elysées, he s tiny.

Edited July 28, 2019 by The Futurist

[Valonqar]

1 hour ago, Alli said:

For those who say the directors are not a reason for DiCaprio' success

 

 

Doesn't bode well for poor RPatz. Nolan's gonna score 100% as the primary draw for Tenet. 

[Avatree]

47 minutes ago, Ozymandias said:

who the fuck doesn't know anything about the manson murders lol

young people? people outside of the USA?

you know not everyone is as well educated as yourself.

[LawrenceBrolivier]

2 hours ago, Avatree said:

 I wasn't aware that I am meant to have know the story BEFORE going into an original movie.

Are you just pulling this out of your arse, where does Tarantino say audiences need to read up on it beforehand? Or have you watched the film already.

 

I know that Charles Manson is a part of american history but, not being from America, I don't know anything about him or what he did. I'm sorry you seem so offended by me not reading American History books but it's not something I've ever learnt about.

 

if this is right and the film doesn't even work without people knowing the story in advance - good luck with them making their money back overseas...

 

I'm not offended by you. And yes, you're meant to have some familiarity with the time period, and with the murders themselves. I didn't pull that from my arse... There are a lot of movies where the people making it expect you to have some sort of understanding about the setting, the time, and the people. 

Also, this movie isn't a biopic. Knowing about the late 60's, Charles Manson, his cult, and the murders they performed isn't going to spoil the movie. This movie is not a historical re-enactment, but it does depend on your having a knowledge OF that period in history for context... 

 

Nobody's calling you stupid or uneducated, I certainly wasn't. But I was questioning your decision to remain ignorant to the details of the period for no other reason than "spoilers!"

[OncomingStorm93]

2 hours ago, Avatree said:

No you can make any film it's up to you how much you expect an audience to know beforehand, I suppose, but how is the audience supposed to know that they need to be well read?

 

I've not seen Inglorious Bastards so can't really judge the comparison - but, WW2 is pretty common knowledge to everyone in the world in a way that Charles Manson Murders are not.

A film called "Once Upon A Time In Hollywood" is clearly not being made for everyone in the world to understand without additional context.

 

It's obviously from the title an American centric film.

[OncomingStorm93]

43 minutes ago, Avatree said:

young people? people outside of the USA?

Neither of those demographics are being targeted with this R-rated Los Angeles lovefest.

[ban1o]

17 minutes ago, OncomingStorm93 said:

Neither of those demographics are being targeted with this R-rated Los Angeles lovefest.

I think you (and Tarantino) over estimate the amount of Americans under the age of 40 know about Charles Manson. Aside from film buffs or true crime geeks. I honestly don’t think it’s as common knowledge as people think. When I left the theatre ( in Thursday night so these were people who rushed to see it) I heard people say things that made me think they didn’t know much about the real thing. I can’t say exactly what they said because it veers into spoiler territory but some things were “was she pregnant in real life?” And “were they really a like a hippie cult” and “I was a little confused by the ranch scene” 

Edited July 28, 2019 by ban1o

[OncomingStorm93]

2 minutes ago, ban1o said:

I think you (and Tarantino) over estimate the amount of Americans under the age of 40 know about Charles Manson. Aside from film buffs or true crime geeks. I honestly don’t think it’s as common knowledge as people think. When I left the theatre ( in Thursday night so these were people who rushed to see it) I heard people say things that made me think they didn’t know much about the real thing. I can’t say exactly what they said because it veers into spoiler territory but some things were “was she pregnant in real life?” And “were they really a like a hippie cult” and “I was a little confused by the ranch scene” 

I agree with you that Tarantino overestimated. I had to explain the ending to my mom, and I could *feel* a lack of understanding in the theater. This film was made exclusively for cinephiles.

 

Or rather, the studio over-budgeted QT's nostalgic fairy tale.  QT has long earned the right to make whatever film he wants, but I just saw from deadline that this needs $400m global to break even. I don't see this playing as well overseas as Django and I think domestic legs will be disappointing as this isn't nearly as culturally accessible as Django or Basterds.

 

I'm thinking $100m domestic, $300m global. What was the last QT film that didn't turn a profit in theaters?