Quentin Tarantino's Inglorious Bastards To Be Two Films!
When Quentin Tarantino announced at Cannes that his WWII epic Inglorious Bastards was finally going into production later this year, not too many people believed him. However, some bits of information started to circulate that confirmed it actually was true. Today we have an update from the guys over at AICN and it sounds like it definitely is going in production and that it might even be better than we were all originally thinking. Tarantino recently interviewed Italian filmmaker Enzo Castellari for the upcoming DVD release of his 1978 film Inglorious Bastards, of which Tarantino's version is very loosely inspired. The best news to come out of it - Tarantino's Inglorious Bastards will be cut into two films!
Harry from AICN apparently has seen this interview, which will show up on the 3-Disc Special Edition of Castellari's Inglorious Bastards (seen to the right), due out on July 29th. Tarantino explains that the premise of Castellari's film is only the start of where his will lead. He explains that are a "bunch of hardened criminals on a military transport during World War II - that got ambushed by the Nazis. Everyone but the criminals gets killed and the prisoners decide to make their way to neutral Switzerland - and must fight the Nazis and the Allies to get there. It's a true No Man's Land scenario." Sounds like a great start of an incredible WWII story to me, but that might be because I'm partially a sucker for great WWII films.
As for the idea of cutting it into two, Harry explains that as Tarantino was writing and researching actual events and footage from WWII for the script, "the story kept growing and growing." So much so that "it became too big for one film" and thus he's turn it into two. Hearing this news to me is like hearing Anne Hathaway is single again. The Kill Bill films, specifically Kill Bill Vol. 2, are some of the greatest films in history (in my own opinion). What Tarantino achieved in Vol. 2 was amazing and I don't know why more people don't recognize it as one of the best revenge tales in cinematic history. Hearing that this will follow in the same footsteps of Kill Bill and get split into two gives me shivers it's so exciting. I don't care whether you like Tarantino as a person or not, Inglorious Bastards is going to be an amazing project.
The last bit of news to come from the interview surrounds casting. Over the many years that Tarantino has been working on this, he's thrown around countless names of those who might be part of the group of soldiers. Schwarzenegger, Stallone, Willis, Samuel Jackson, John Travolta, Tim Roth, Michael Madsen, even Adam Sandler and Johnny Depp have all been on the list. Tarantino unfortunately confirms that all of them were all just talks, nothing more. They were all only "conversations that Quentin has had, that have grown to mythic levels." Instead of writing roles for specific actors this time, however, Tarantino is going the other route and actually writing characters that he'll afterwards find the perfect actor to embody.
"For the first time, Quentin has decided not to write for the voice of actors he's decided to cast in advance. He felt that one can do that, but then they're limiting what they feel an actor can do with the part. He's decided to write the characters with no specific actor in mind. To allow the character to be everything that character can be and to actually find an actor to become that character." I guess I might say that it's about time Tarantino realized that this was the right way to cast for a movie. Why do you think the voices for characters in Pixar's film always sound so perfect? It's because they develop a character before choosing the actor and then find the right voice. Now that Tarantino is doing this for Inglorious Bastards, it actually gives me some additional hope. Not that I needed any more to begin with.
The way this entire project is coming together sounds amazing. I know I'm all too often overly positive, but I've have absolutely no problems with all of this news. Some of you will nitpick and claim that he's stuffing way too much story into the film and cutting it into two isn't going to help, but I'm basing my expectations for this purely off of Kill Bill. Those two movies changed my appreciation for cinema so much that I can't help but be excited for what Tarantino is cooking up with Inglorious Bastards. Let's just hope Tarantino actually gets this into production before they hit another roadblock and it gets delayed again for another six years. Do all of these updates on Tarantino's Inglorious Bastards instill any confidence in the project?
Reader Feedback - 19 Comments
Kill Bill style production. Hope the 2nd comes out within the same year.
Mike Balrog on Jun 19, 2008
Unfortunately, Tarantino hasn't had a real good film since Pulp Fiction. Kill Bill 1 was good but the second installment was pretty flat. Not sure what he's trying to do here, Grindhouse/Death Race absolutely bombed at the box office. Let's see Steve Buscemi back into one of his movies again for once.
EFEL on Jun 19, 2008
cant wait, Tarantino is King!
Lou on Jun 19, 2008
"I don't care whether you like Tarantino as a person or not, Inglorious Bastards is going to be an amazing project." What? How do you figure it's going to be amazing, just like that? Because he can't make one good movie and instead has to stretch it out over two films? Sorry man, I don't get your logic there at all.
Colin Boyd on Jun 20, 2008
Really, I can't wait !! A two-film war epic !! Seriously, and do you imagine all the classic Tarantino dialogues that will come out of those soldier's mouth ! I've seen all Tarantino movies and enjoyed all of them (although Jackie Brown was a bit of a letdown) and I can't just imagine how he could come up with a bad movie.
Ariel on Jun 20, 2008
Colin Boyd, I never get the logic on this site. These guys are nerdy fanboys who don't have many brains. "The Kill Bill films, specifically Kill Bill Vol. 2, are some of the greatest films in history (in my own opinion)"???? They say an opinion can't be wrong, but yours is. Have you guys seen a film that was made before 1990?
Krug on Jun 20, 2008
Glad to know I'm not the only one tiring of Tarintino. Of course he's splitting it into two movies. It's gimmicky. No way in HELL he'd just make a movie. Gotta go for the arthouse woah-that's-different feel. Jackie Brown and the 2nd Kill Bill ruined Tarantino for me. Then I figured I'd give him the benifit of the doubt and watch Grindhouse. And, like most, Grindhouse was the deciding factor for me Tarantino. I'm done. Think about it. What's he BEST known for? Pulp Fiction. ONE movie (albeit with awesome sequencing and story). And I STILL think the best thing he ever contributed to was From Dusk Til Dawn (sorry...I love satirical gore). This split movie crap for the sake of being different will end him. Boo.
Barry on Jun 20, 2008
I have to agree that Kill Bill Pt. 2 was a problematic film. I understand what QT was aiming for, but I think it ended up somewhat self indulgent and ultimately made me believe Kill Bill should have been one film. I realize there's a whole history behind why and how it turned into 2 films. And of course the studio likely made a lot more money with 2. Regardless, there was quite a bit that should have been cut and a condensed 2 hour and 45 minute film would've been pretty amazing. William Faulkner had this advice for writers - kill your darlings. QT should heed it - there are often some amazing sequences on paper or in a person's head - but ultimately they take away from the whole creative piece. It's why most of the cut scenes on DVD special editions are crap - because they didn't need to be there in the first place. There are exceptions, but I don't believe Kill Bill is one of them. I digress from the topic at hand. If he wants to make Inglorious Bastards into 2 films, so be it. But if Kill Bill is any indication - QT should take the time to cut it down to one movie. If it's long - 3 hours or thereabouts - then so be it. But I think it's worth the effort to create one great film rather than 2 decent ones.
bob jones on Jun 20, 2008
I am also thinking...why the 2 films? Not AGAIN. Kill Bill should have been ONE movie. There was a lot that could have been cut. Sadly, after Grindhouse, it is obvious Tarantino is in love with his own dialogue writing skills. I'm thinking the same will be true for this film. Tarantino is entering the realm of directors who doesn't have someone to tell him 'no that's a lousy idea.' Yes, he writes GREAT dialogue, but if it has no connection to the film and plot, it needs to be cut out. Ugh. Pulp Fiction was great, but that's the only film of his I've enjoyed.
Movie Lover on Jun 20, 2008
When I got to see a movie, I do not want to see half of it then told to come back in a year and pay another $10 to see the other half. You only want to show me half a movie, then charge me half the price or give me a voucher to see the other half for free when that comes out. The only exception to this current trend is LOTR. You got your money's worth with each film. Plus each film where based on a seperate book, so it made sense to split them up.
Ash on Jun 20, 2008
Alex - I love the 'Kill Bill' films. And no, you don't have to assume cutting a film in half will make it bad (although 'Flags' and 'Letters' aren't one film separated but two entirely different productions), but you don't have to believe it's going to be great - or any better, at least - because it has more stuff. More stuff is usually a bad thing in movies. Look at the multiple villains in 'Spider-Man 3' or, if you prefer, the Jennifer Hudson sub-plot in 'Sex and the City.' More does not always equal better, but it always means more. To me, it's problematic that he can't trim his focus a little bit. Bob Jones/William Faulkner are right. Maybe not in every case, but more often than not, being efficient is the best option. Plus, I don't see what's so overwhelming epic about the story that it warrants two films. 'Kill Bill' worked because it was essentially told two different ways. I'm not seeing the silver lining here, I guess.
Colin Boyd on Jun 20, 2008
The only thing I'm attacking is his hubris, which Tarantino has carried with him for a decade-and-a-half, that no matter what he does, people will think it's brilliant and he's brilliant. As for the rest of the argument, I can just as easily claim that I don't see what's so epic about the story, having seen the original, as you can claim that no matter what we think of Tarantino, this is going to be amazing. I'm just saying that if QT recognizes the film he's writing is too big, the answer may not be to cut it in half. The answer may, in fact, be to cut down what he already has. That's the old "addition by subtraction" method.
Colin Boyd on Jun 20, 2008
How bout you just make 1 good film instead of 2 mediocre ones.
website design on Jun 20, 2008
Am I the only one who still likes QT? Great news Alex.
Ryan on Jun 21, 2008
its about time QT started becoming more pixar like.
chris on Jun 21, 2008
Hello boys and girls... I have a copy of the script ( Inglorious Bastards ). I read it and what I have to share is not good news. If this indeed is the script written by QT, then I must tell you that at its very best, it's little more than a low-brow, un-amusing melodrama about ( you guessed it ) a girl's revenge. I kept asking myself: Is this shit for real? Are we going to watch "Kill Bill" all over again on a WW2 set? I might also add that that whoever typed the script did not know the difference between the words "there", "their", and "they're". It looks to have been written by a semi-literare person with a fondness for comic books. I had a hard time believing that the man who wrote Pulp Fiction would also write this mis-spelled ( "Basterds" ), choppy script. But why then does the script keep getting pulled off the internet? Is it that Miramax does not want to spoil the ending for audiences? I think not. Many novels are adapted and made into movies without hurting box office results. I think the script is getting yanked from cyber-land, because it's very badly written, and perhaps a warning to readers to stay far and away from the soon-to-be-released movie. To add further insult... the historical facts in this story are a mess -- the story ends with Hitler dying in a French cinema, caused by a small explosive. That's great... but why would an author use a major historical figure if he intended to stray so far from historical truth? It lends to the script's over-all comic book quality, but, truly I have expended my patience for Kill Bill self-parody. If the movie version of "Inglorious Bastards" is anything like "Death Proof"... this may become a swan song for a drowning duck. Quack-quack.... If you would like to read this trashy script, please contact me at: empireclub@Live.ca
I SAW IT FIRST on May 5, 2009
I am so sick of the predictable... There were millions of other people killed by the Nazis besides Jews..russians, poles, czechs and partisans, gays and poles were treated just as badly a jews...but the only way you can make a nazi film in hollywood is you better make the jews look good. Of course the ones metting out justice are jews... else this movie would not be allowed to be made let alone with Brad Pitt. Tarantino is paying homage to hollywood jews who would otherwise crush him if there was any mentuon of Nazis without some enormous Jewish counter balance. When I heard the plot was underground people killing Nazis...I said, there we go, they have to be Jewish, else this movie would still be just a script. Nazis are killing thug bastards and the world is better without them, but it was not only Jews who suffered under their reign. I have most of my Polish ancestors DEAD because of Nazi's and becauswe of their ideology and the fact that Nazis wanted their homes for the "new Germans", and not one was Jewish. Millions of non-jewish Poles died and were sent to concentration and work camps in WWII at the hands of Nazis..when was the last time you saw a non-Jewish Polish/Nazi movie?..even a supposedly funny one. Its the same old shit over and over... what a joke.
StewHome on Aug 21, 2009
Sorry, no commenting is allowed at this time.