Movies | June 09, 2009 | 40 comments

Is Harvey Weinstein asking Tarantino to cut 40 minutes from Inglourious Basterds?

source: http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/06/09/is-harvey-weinstein-asking-tarantino-to-cut-40-minutes-f...

Image
atomiclegion
Forcing a filmmaker to submit to editorial oversight can be a good thing, but when the Big Brother hanging over your Avid is Harvey Weinstein? Things can get ugly. We knew that Quentin Tarantino was making some cuts and changes to Inglourious Basterds in the wake of the film’s Cannes Premiere, tightening that 2 hour 27 minute cut and even adding a scene or two. But Sharon Waxman at The Wrap claims that The Weinstein Company wants Tarantino to cut a massive 40 minutes. Is this an artistic move to strengthen the film or a desperate bid to squeeze more cash out of the film in August by keeping the running time down? With The Weinstein Company having massive cash problems, what do you think?
  1. groups:
    Movies,   Entertainment News,   Movie News,   Editor's Picks
  2. tags:
    Movies,  Entertainment News,  Movie News,  Editor's Picks,  6 more
  3.     
    |

40 comments // Is Harvey Weinstein asking Tarantino to cut 40 minutes from Inglourious Basterds?

  • Rex_Raptor
    • 0
      Rex_Raptor  

    • No one wants another Watchmen. Masterful for it's story, tact, and ability to adapt another story intuitively...but 3 hours, really?

      Wish this flick the best.

    • 3 years ago
  • yesindeed
    • 0
      yesindeed  

    • blah blah blah
      who knows if 40 min should be cut, none of us have seen it! personally, I think it looks like an interesting film. I sorta have a love/hate thing with Quentin though. Pulp Fiction was amazing but Kill Bill does not catch my eye.
      maybe the 40 min should NOT be cut, seeing as it is art, and it's Tarantino's art, not this guy Weinstein's. but if it's going to make the film better then why not? I haven't seen it, so I don't know.
      it does bug me though when people complain about a movie's length. if it's actually really good, who cares how long it is?

    • 3 years ago
  • vicafri
  • THIRST
  • Mackenzie_Sheppard
    • 0
      Mackenzie_Sheppard  

    • Either way we'll see the full uncut version. It'll probably be later released on DVD as an extended edition.

      But I can imagine that Tarantino would be ticked off.

    • 3 years ago
  • reactionforce
  • CraigandSteve
    • 0
      CraigandSteve  

    • I was able to read a draft of the script and personally I could totally see this film loosing 40 minutes (or pages as I was reading) but on the other hand QT is the master of long scenes that keep you from blinking, and there are some great scenes... on paper. And as it was said before, DVDs are wonderful things, so that footage will not be lost.

    • 3 years ago
  • dreamsenvoy
  • trelk
  • michaelgonline
  • yesindeed
  • Saladin
    • 0
      Saladin  

    • Well, since the film is solely an excuse to show some ultra violence with the "but they're Nazis so it's ok" excuse, I doubt we're missing anything but some clever kills.

      I like some of QT's older stuff, Jackie Brown especially.

      But this looks to be just trash, like pretty much all of his recent stuff. Seeing the trailer in theaters just made me depressed. So mindless and retarded, no class at all.

    • 3 years ago
  • timlfrench
    • 0
      timlfrench  

    • As a filmmaker I can say that the hardest part is cutting your piece down, but it can also be the most important thing to do. Have you ever sat through all of "Apocalypse Now: Redux", the original theatrical release is a far better film.
      And don't forget that it Weinstein was the one who decided to make Kill Bill into two parts, instead of one ridiculously long movie.
      And as much as I like QT (MOTHA F%^&ING GENIOUS!!!), I think he's one who often would do better with a little tightening, lord knows "Deathproof" could have used it.

    • 3 years ago
  • thornman
    • 0
      thornman  
    • timlfrench:

      I disagree, Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown wouldn't have felt the same without the very real sounding dialogue between the characters, and to accomplish that he had to put nearly everything he shot in there. I will however admit that Kill Bill vol. 2 and Death Proof had less interesting (in my opinion) dialogue than his earlier work.

    • 3 years ago
  • CroatianPimp
  • mik661
  • jfill
  • mik661
  • michaelgonline
  • mik661
  • bons
    • 0
      bons  

    • I don't care for Tarantino. I don't like most of his films either. I say cut the piece of crap up. The fanboys and fangirls will eat it up anyway, and then they can release the theatrical version on DVD, then release the director's cut and make even more money, and then Tarantino can cry about his artistic freedom blah blah blah.

    • 3 years ago
  • curtisreed
    • 0
      curtisreed  

    • 'inglorious basterds" is "art"? a shoot em up revision of history? oh, crap, that made me laugh hard.

      omg, i might not see the movie if I don't think it's true to Tarantino's real vision! ha ha ha ha

    • 3 years ago
  • jonbrooks
    • 0
      jonbrooks  

    • I think one of the biggest problems with Tarantino's last few films has been with Weinstein giving him to much space. Kill Bill probably would of been much better as just one film not two and Grindhouse definitely suffered as a result of the decision to make two long films rather than one mega one.

    • 3 years ago
  • MissAmanda
    • 0
      MissAmanda  

    • people will see it no matter how long it is. I think they want to cut it to release it on "special edition DVD" in blueray, widescreen, fullscreen, anyscreen to make more money with things you couldn't see when you paid 10 bucks to see it in theatres...

    • 3 years ago
  • Denica_Cassandra
    • 0
      Denica_Cassandra  
    • jiminycricket:

      whoa! I think he is as much an artist as any other film maker. Why don't you like him? (I'm curious about other people's take on film)
      I like him because he reflects a madness and violence that already exists in our culture but is somewhat magnified by his stuff. I love film!

    • 3 years ago
  • vaniac
  • bgoode22
    • 0
      bgoode22  
    • jiminycricket:

      are you kidding, Irreversible is the most gratuitous excuse for graphic violence ever recorded on film not mention the 9+ minute of Monica Belluci's rape, and the guy head getting smashed with a fire hydrant. you really enjoyed this crap, and can't even enjoy Reservoir Dogs? Really? I mean, I wasn't that impressed with Death Proof, but Quentin invented that style which you called pulpy, no one has since come close to the way Quentin does it as someone who writes and directs and stars in film,

    • 3 years ago
  • Denica_Cassandra
  • seanalyn
    • 0
      seanalyn  
    • jiminycricket:

      While I can agree that Tarantino often goes overboard in indulging in his fetishes and tastes in film (often I feel his movies now are almost a parody of himself). You cant discount his earlier work like Jackie Brown and Pulp Fiction which I feel (and many other film nuts) are great pieces of art.

    • 3 years ago
  • RonenA
  • Betico
  • Bassman113
    • 0
      Bassman113  
    • jiminycricket:

      You have the right to say what you want, Jiminy, though I don't know what you mean by calling him a "vulgar philistine". Some name calling is merely superficial, so I geuss that's ok, too.

      I don't care who you are, but you do not have the right to decide what is and isn't art for anyone else. General rule of thumb: if you don't get it, it doesn't mean it isn't understandable to anyone (or everyone) else. Value your opinion. Cultivate it. Don't insult people for like specific art, though.

    • 3 years ago
  • reactionforce
  • StrangE2U
    • 0
      StrangE2U  
    • jiminycricket:

      "seanalyn"
      - While I can agree that Tarantino often goes overboard in indulging in his fetishes and tastes in film (often I feel his movies now are almost a parody of himself). You cant discount his earlier work like Jackie Brown and Pulp Fiction which I feel (and many other film nuts) are great pieces of art. -

      Exactly. I mean you cannot blame a director/writer of a film to indulge deeply in to his/or her vision, or for being rather smug and into themselvs when one (or more) of those visions are loved by A LOT of people. Shit, if i directed Reservoir Dogs i'd have a pretty big head too! Whether or not you and everyone else likes it is simply an issue of individual taste, but it has nothing to do with where or not it's art.

      That would be like saying that a cubist's depiction of a woman is not art because it only resembles a woman, but a baroque period Caravaggio is because it truly depicts a woman.

    • 3 years ago
  • Spider_
  • diabolical44
  • sybaritical
    • 0
      sybaritical  

    • It doesn't really matter either way. Any footage that Weinstein deems extraneous will eventually surface in a directors cut or as DVD extras.

    • 3 years ago
  • thornman
  • StrangE2U
    • 0
      StrangE2U  
    • sybaritical:

      could not agree more... i don't see a ton of movies in the theatre, so the ones i do, i want to see the way they were meant to be seen, with no cuts for "time." sucks that this happens so much.

    • 3 years ago
  • Denica_Cassandra
more from Movies:
from the community

top videos