First off, I didn't realize Inglorious Bastards is actually a remake...

Second, I agree with Eugene Novikov's brief article "asking why two parts?"...

Third, a link to Harry Knowles AICN article on QT's remake, and the original's DVD release scheduled for July 29th

Yeah, I heard that Tarantino, when doing his research of WW2, discovered so much stuff that he couldn't stop writing. Which doesn't sound like a good thing to me, because Tarantino has always had a problem with excess in his movies. Jackie Brown was far too long and Death Proof marked the first time (at least for me) that his typical, pop-culture obsessed dialogue interfered with the pace of the story he was trying to tell. It sounds like this could be happening again with this film.

Also, does anyone think that the title is going to give him problems with the MPAA? I mean, with some of the rulings they've made, is it going to be alright with them to have giant billboards, commercials and posters with "Inglorious Bastards" written on them?

With that in mind, maybe this'll be released more like the exploitation films that Tarantino loves? As in, no big billboards or TV spots — just late-night runs in seedy picture houses or indie theaters.

My appreciation and love of Tarantino has done a 180 over the past five years — thought he was an unmatched genius when I was in college, now I see him as a tiresome collage-maker with occasional flashes of brilliance (I love Pulp Fiction). I've been following the slowwwwwwwwwwwww pre-production of this movie for years now; maybe it's because the idea of Tarantino working on a WWII picture actually clicks in my head.

(Plus, I have a soft spot for Michael Madsen.)

I haven't liked any of Tarantino's films except for "Jackie Brown". In fact, I disliked "Pulp Fiction" so intensely I've pretty much avoided everything else he's done. It's not one of those things where I'm incredulous that he's considered talented by so many; clearly he's talented. His films, save for "Jackie" (which doesn't even feel like a Tarantino other than the nonstop profanity) are just not my cup of tea.

A BBC NEWS article indicates that Tarentino has finished the script for Inglorious Bastards, and that he wants to shoot it and have it ready for the 2009 Cannes Film Festival.

Nikki Finke at Deadline Hollywood is reporting that Tarantino is pursuing Brad Pitt to star, and shopping the script to several studios.

Jeffrey Wells reads the script:

I've finished 80-something pages of Quentin Tarantino's Inglorious Bastards script and while it's easy to see why others have called it Kill Bill meets The Guns of Navarone meets The Dirty Dozen meets Cinema Paradiso, I have to say that I'm mainly enjoying it as a violent, vaguely art-filmy World War II attitude comedy -- a deliberate exploitation piece full of war cliches turned on their ear, and a general theme of Jewish payback upon Nazi swine for the Holocaust.

It is absolutely the most inauthetic, bullshit-spewing World War II movie that anyone's ever written. And I love it, love it, love it for that. Every other line is a howl or a chortle. It almost could have been written by some 15 year-old suburban kid who used to play pretend WWII games with his friends when they were 10 or 11. Four or five times I literally laughed out loud, and that's rare for me. And every scene is pure popcorn, pure shit-kickin' Quentin, pure movie poontang.

When I read the character name of "Pvt. Butz," a German combat soldier, I almost fell out of my chair. This is straight out of the mind of Stanley Kubrick when he called two hotel-clerk characters in Lolita "Mr. Swine" and "Mr. Putz."

[ snip snip snip snip snip ]

Pitt and DiCaprio?

Brad Pitt, Simon Pegg hang with 'Bastards'
David Krumholtz, Nastassja Kinski also circle WWII project
Hollywood Reporter, August 7

Mike Myers enlists in 'Bastards'
Myers will play British Gen. Ed Fenech, a military mastermind who takes part in hatching a plot to wipe out Nazi leaders.
Variety, August 14

Wow. It may turn out to be just another Tarantino self-indulgence, but having this bizarre assortment of actors in the same film is enough to ... I hate to admit it ... have me standing in line already.

For me, the big question re: Myers is whether he will just indulge his usual over-the-top British-Scottish persona, or whether he will take the opportunity to actually ACT as he did in, say, 54. With Tarantino as his director, who knows, it could go either way.

Sam Levine (Neil from Freaks & Geeks) joins the cast:

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/37956

Tarantino had me at Simon Pegg, and this just sweetens the deal.

It'll be interesting to see how well this movie performs. I mean, at this point, the cast — assuming they're all in and stay in — is ridiculous. But the movie also has "bastard" in the title, which will probably turn many people off.

According to ComingSoon.net, Simon Pegg will not be available for Inglorious Bastards due to scheduling conflicts.

NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

Title change......




I had read an article yesterday that the film started principle photography last week, and noticed the title change. Perhaps this is the German spelling (he asks, not being able to schprken no German).



Story here.

Oh, I really like this poster.

Via, Hollywood-Elsewhere.

Looks like the poster folks didn't get the memo on the spelling change.

If memory serves, the "new" title is the actual title scrawled on Tarantino's screenplay -- which was apparently full of lots of OTHER spelling errors, too (as well as grammatical errors like "should of" instead of "should have", etc.). Jeffrey Wells took it to be an intentional gag, but a number of his readers took it to be a sign that Tarantino has really bad spelling (and grammar, etc.). I don't think the title change settles the issue one way or the other, since it could be that Tarantino and/or the studio STARTED with a spelling error and then decided they liked it so much that they might as well make it the title of the movie anyway.