Talk:Inglourious Basterds

A Rehash of Pulp Fiction?

"Of the finished film, Tarantino said he thinks that it is the closest thing to Pulp Fiction he's ever done." What exactly does this mean? The story is told through a non-linear sequence of scenes? Includes "witty" banter about fast food items and other popular culture? Revolves around organized crime? Somehow I doubt that Inglorious Basterds is "closer" to Pulp Fiction than, say, Jackie Brown. This line should probably be edited to suggest that Tarantino anticipates critical success similar to Pulp Fiction, and not that the war movie is some kind of sequel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.225.2 (talk) 06:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

New Footage!

We have some new footage from American Idol now, don't we? Mike Myers in character. Entertainment Weekly has a new photo featuring Aldo and Donnie Donowitz out as well... Couldn't we add those pictures to this article somehow? Anybody here know how to do that? 88.196.227.37 (talk) 12:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Clean-up

The openning paragraph is horribly put together and desperatly needs to be revised. The structure of the sentences is terrible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.72.153 (talk) 01:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This article has long been on the clean-up list since it is a planned film that has not seen fruition for some time. Due to recent news, I will be cleaning up the article and seeing if a merge is warranted. This is because Inglorious Bastards has previously had near-starts in the past, and this may very well be another instance of that. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Clean-up done. Comments or suggestions, feel free to leave here. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Writing Since 2001?

Hasn't the film been in the works longer than that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.143.64 (talk) 03:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

He had been writing a number of scripts from the 1990s crossing into the 2000s, hence the "Entering the 21st century" bit. It's just that his first public mention of Inglorious Bastards that I could find was October 2001. Maybe we could reword a little bit better; I just couldn't find anything saying how far before 2000 he had been working on the premise. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Revisiting this, the 2001 citation says, "Although he's kept busy acting and producing, Tarantino hasn't directed a film since 1997's Jackie Brown. He's spent the last few years writing the screenplays for two new films, Kill Bill and Inglorious Bastards, which he will shoot back-to-back next year." 2001, minus a few years, puts it in the 1990s. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Mike Myers

This reports that Mike Myers has a small role in the film. The website doesn't seem to be a reliable source, being self-published, so let's sit tight and wait for a reliable source to report this before mentioning it in the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead. Variety has it now. rootology (T) 02:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Terrific, glad confirmation came through so quickly. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Camera

Will Tarantino shoot the movie with a HD Cam? He announced after directing a part of Sin City hed like to do a film with Sony HD Cam.--Dany3000 (talk) 14:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I have not seen any source report this, so I don't think it's been mentioned yet. We'll have to wait and see about a reliable source. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

What can be seen the American Idol promo appears to be a Panaflex. Xot (talk) 09:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Language - English?

From what I read about the film from several articles,and some of the sources, the film is suggested to have just as much German as English, so should both languages be listed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.143.64 (talk) 05:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

And theres also a little bit French ;)--Dany3000 (talk) 18:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Tarentino's Re-Make

I'm surprised that the article doesn't mention that "Inglorious Bastards" is a re-make of the 1978 Italian film of the same name, which starred Fred Williamson and Bo Svenson. As I understand it, the new film will follow the general plot outline of the original in most respects. The article (and comments on the article) imply that Tarentino created ("developed") the plot and characters entirely on his own. I'm sure that QT will put his own spin on the story, but let's give credit where credit is due. Failing to do so is taking the whole auteur business a bit too far... ---- John —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.132.186 (talk) 03:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

thats the thing, its not a remake. Its in the same genre and is set in the same time-period - characters and plotlines are totally different from the 1977 film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.196.229.109 (talk) 16:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

So it has the same title(which is a pretty unique title), takes place in the same time period and it is the same genre as another film and this wiki page doesn't think to mention any of that?

Change in page title?

Why has the title of the page been changed to "Inglorious Basterds? I can find no cite for the alternate spelling.

72.227.183.1 (talk) 13:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The Weinstein Company used the new title in a official press release.--Dany3000 (talk) 18:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there any information available about the title change, other than (going by the above) that all of a sudden the studio started spelling it differently with no explanation? It's very confusing that the article includes both spellings without acknowledging the change. Propaniac (talk) 14:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The citation connected to the misspelling turns up a 404 page. --99.186.111.95 (talk) 04:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The chapters

First of all, I don´t think the chapters of a film thats just shooting now ought to be in the article (too much info) but if you guys disagree, then can I understand that. Fine, let them be. However, dont you think that its a bit TOO much to say which chapters focus on which characters and what plotlines? I mean, isn´t that too spoilery?88.196.224.43 (talk) 09:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

First picture of Aldo Raine

could someone please work it into the article? Myself, I have no idea how one does that. It would be nice to have some photos in the article for a change.88.196.224.127 (talk) 09:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

say no to fair use ;)--Dany3000 (talk) 00:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Once Upon a time...Nazi Occupied France

I think the title should be changed to Once Upon a time in Nazi Occupied France. I know the index says ... but the title card says in so i believe maybe the title card could be used instead of the index. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bioman316 (talk • contribs) 04:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The title of the movie is "Inglourious Basterds" and not what you said. That is why the article is named like it is.--Rmhs15 (talk) 02:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Spaghetti western?

Why does somebody always describe the film as a spaghtti western? The film takes place in France during the German occupation in WW II. There are neither cowboys nor any other characteristical elements of a western. Sure, Tarantino is a huge fan of Sergio Leone's Dollars-trilogy and he originally intended to do a western. But the concept of the film has changed. If at all, the film will only exhibit some characteristics of a spaghetti western. But this isn't enough to indentify the whole film as a western. Dutzi (talk) 09:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The genre of Spaghetti western extends way beyond its rudimentary use of the American West as the traditional setting. --Kaizer13 (talk) 11:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I disagree! I won't change it back but I would just like to point out that the Spaghetti western genre has specific characteristics. First, the genre is named "spaghetti" western (or Italo western) because the films were produced by Italian studios (often in cooperaton with Spanish production companies). Tarantino's film is not! You say that the genre "extends beyond rudimentary use of the American West as the traditional setting". I agree with that, but this shouldn't be exaggerated. Besides the "Old American West", a setting/theme which is often dealt with in Spaghetti westerns is the Mexican Revolution. Spaghetti westerns traditionally are set in the 19th or early 20th century. Nazi-occupied France (1944) is hardly a western setting (even for a spaghetti western). According to that, shouldn't films like The Dirty Dozen, Kelly's Heroes or the original Italian Inglorious Bastards also be described as Spaghetti westerns? The film is rather a war film in Spaghetti western style and I think that's what Tarantino meant with "truly Spaghetti Western" (see film.com). Dutzi (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Uhh, what happened to the rest of my message? That's the point I was going to make. It's a war film using elements from the filmatic style of the spaghetti western, but it doesn't make sense to categorize it as one. Sorry to appear as if I were saying the opposite >.> stupid Explorer must have garbled my talk message. --Kaizer13 (talk) 01:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

In this case, shouldn't the lead be rephrased? Something like: "Inglorious Basterds is an upcoming ensemble war film which borrows stylistic elements from the Spaghetti western genre." Because, in my opinion, the phrase as it stands now clearly indicates that the film is a complete Spaghetti western. Dutzi (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. While the source specifies it as a spaghetti western, for a film to justly be placed in that genre certain norms must be met; case in point, cowboys or a western setting. It probably could be done like that, but I'd like to hear some suggestions from a third party or even better, someone who can oppose this suggestion before anything is done. Need to hear more sides of the same coin, right? --Kaizer13 (talk) 10:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, to me, a true "spaghetti western" is more then just a genre or a sub-genre, it's more like a state of mind, almost. It's all in the techniques and the mood: the unique camera angles, the sweating heroes, the morricone music, the feeling of violence and the cosmopolitan sense of being "in the middle of nowhere" etc... That´s what makes a good spaghetti-western. It's the most stylized (sub-)genre ever: if you strip it of all its stylistic components, then you'd get an ordinary western. So if you add the spaghetti-western STYLE (to anything, almost), you by definition get a complete "spaghetti-western". It all in the feel. Admittedly, some of the chapters in this will be done in not-so-spaghetti-western-style, but that's why its called a war-film-SLASH-spaghetti-western. War film first, spaghetti western second. It's listed as a hybrid. We COULD call it a "spaghetti-war film" though, and that would be okay too. (no joke here). Thoughts? 88.196.231.3 (talk) 12:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Your comment is pretty contradictory. You say that if one removes all stylistic elements from a spaghetti western you'll get an "ordinary western". Well, let's assume Tarantino's film won't exhibit any elements of a spaghetti western. Does that mean you'll get an ordinary western? No, it clearly remains a film about WW II. I agree that a Spaghetti western differs from a classic (American) western concerning mood, characters, style, etc... However, both share one identical characteristic, the western setting (with cowboys, horses and all that stuff...). I conveniently call it the "American Old West" of the 19th and early 20th century (including Mexico during the Revolution; see my previous comment). That's why the genre is called Western. As I already mentioned, the term Spaghetti western additionally indicates that the film was produced by an Italian studio.
And Inglorious Basterds isn't a hybrid (no matter whether "war film" or "Spaghetti western" is mentioned first). Although the film features many Spaghetti elements it still lacks the basic western characteristic. I'm not saying that the Spaghetti element shouldn't be mentioned at all, I just think that it should be rephrased in order to avoid confusion. And "spaghetti-war film" is even more inappropriate because at first sight the reader might think it's a war film about a form of pasta. By the way, I think it's funny that we're discussing a film that even hasn't been released yet. Dutzi (talk) 13:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

What about Takashi Miike's self-proclaimed "sukiyaki-western" Django, in which Tarantino himself only recently acted? That film in particular, has several (spaghetti?-)western influences, but takes place completely outside America, mostly in ~1400 A. D. Japan. To me, that alone shows that the exact milieu of the film is not as important to the Spaghetti-Western genre as are it's genre-specific stylistic elements and the unique mood these films have/create.

I wouldn't say that Sukiyaki Western Django is a complete western either. Don't get confused because of its title. The fact that the film doesn't take place in America but in Japan makes the difference. Look up the definition of the Western genre. A western usually takes place in the American Old West or Wild West, sometimes in Mexico or Canada but still North America (I know, I'm repeating myself). Sukiyaki Western Django is indeed more Western than Inglorious Basterds since it keeps other important western elements, such as the era and characters (Tarantino plays an American cowboy named Ringo). So at least you have cowboys! Still, I would say that Sukiyaki Western Django is more an Eastern film with western elements. Again, it's not a complete western. You can compare it to The Last Samurai. That film also takes place in the 19th century (1870s) and the main character is an American (ex-) captain in the US Army who fought against Indians. However, nobody would seriously denote Last Samurai a western film since it mainly takes place in Imperial Japan of the late 19th century. Moreover, you admit that Sukiyaki Western Django is a self-proclaimed western. This does not automatically mean that the film is indeed a western. I think that Sukiyaki Western Django is not a good example. But what about the other war films I mentioned above. They are similar to Basterds, does that mean they are Spaghetti westerns, too?

After having enough discussed a complete different film, we should now get back to our discussion about Inglorious Basterds. Let's not lose the thread! Dutzi (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Misspelled Title

Basterds is misspelled, anyone know why? It should be in the article, most people will be wondering, and this is where they expect to find out that kind of thing. Habanero-tan (talk) 05:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it was altered for copyright or censorship issues. StevePrutz (talk) 15:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Here it's partly explained by Tarantino: http://www.empireonline.com/features/tarantino-talks-inglourious-basterds-trailer/default.asp

You can add it to the article. --84.88.162.167 (talk) 19:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Illiterate Lieutenant?

The citations given do not say where the "illiterate" label is used to describe the Aldo character. Did Tarantino himself call the character illiterate? It's worth checking out, since most commissioned officers are suppose to be college graduates. 141.151.2.144 (talk) 03:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You are talking about a guy who probably has a combat commission and a time when they did this all the time. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect spelling of "Bastard"

I'm dead certain that Bastard is spelt with an A - or in this case, two - not an E. Someone may want to fix that.--Launchballer (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

If you look just above your entry you will see another section about this. Plus this is already indicated in the article. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah. My (rather uneducated) guess is that the abuse filter wouldn't let rude words in after The Posies published an album called "Everybody Is A Fucking Liar".--Launchballer (talk) 15:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The title is misspelled ON PURPOSE.213.219.75.128 (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, should have read the above thread.--Launchballer (talk) 12:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I find it funny how the misspelling of Basterds has been picked up twice, but the misspelling of Inglourious hasn't! :P Anyone know exactly why they felt it necessary to confuse everyone? k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 06:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

You're right. Didn't see that...--Launchballer (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Eli Roth

Why is Eli Roth frequently removed from the billing/starring list in the infobox? Is there a policy to how many names can there be? Every time I add him, someone deletes his name. Anyhow, since he has a big role, his name should be on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.219.75.128 (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Reviews ?

There are now several reviews since critics watched it in Cannes. I have seen a very critical review in the Guardian (1 star out of 5) http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/may/20/cannes-film-festival-tarantino-inglourious-basterds and also a very favourable one http://www.20minutes.fr/article/327501/Cannes-Inglourious-Basterds-un-film-de-cinephile-pour-cinephiles.php . A quick look seems to show a mostly negative reaction. Should the article have a section about the critical reaction ? Rps (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Reviews, unless they're talking in a neutral standpoint, are useless. Why? because it is the opinion of such reviewer. A lot of the time, "reviewers" don't fall into the type of people that watch this type of movie (Tarantino movies). Therefore, they tend to give critical and negative review. Some examples are Grindhouse (it was highly critized but guess what? everyone likes it). My opinion is to remove pre-release reviews of the movie.--Rmhs15 (talk) 02:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

So wait, reviews in every single movie should be done by fans of said movies? Thats naive of you to say, and even more so in your comment about Grindhouse, who is "everybody"?. Reviews, btw, are meant to not have a neutral point of view. They are usually the personal point of of the person who writes it, and usually for entertainning purposes. You are thinking of essays.--142.68.46.81 (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Rewriting history?

Several reviews I've read have talked about how the film rewrites history at the end? Love to know more. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It's speculation. It would be wrong to introduce a section that is purely speculating something based on the opinion of a review or several reviews. That would fall into "matter of opinion".--Rmhs15 (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

uk

uk realse date ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.138.129 (talk) 18:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Inglorious bastards prequel film

There is news of a possible prequel to this film: http://www.totalfilm.com/news/inglourious-basterds-prequel-still-on can someone please write an artical based on the infomation from this website? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill Bon Jovi (talk • contribs) 00:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Macaroni combat?

In the second intro paragraph: "...the film also pays homage to the World War II "macaroni-combat" sub-genre..." I'm not exactly sure what this is, but there's no article for it and the reference isn't explained, so I don't understand it's usefulness. How common of a term is this, and what kind of films does it describe? I'm guessing it means things like The Dam Busters, Dirty Dozen, and various other "Resourceful archetypes giving Hitler what-for" type stuff, but I was just wondering if anyone has more info on this... 98.239.166.251 (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Censored Title

There are no references to a censored title anywhere, so i'm removing it.

I notice the swastika has been removed from advertising in the UK as well as Germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.34.186 (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

          YippiePower (talk) 05:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect Plot

I viewed an early screening of this at the weekend and the plot line described is vastly different to that shown in cinemas in the UK previews. Unless they cut different version for UK/US or release/preview then it would appear the plot in the article is incorrect. Minor points that show up this are:

* One shoe in the Tavern, not bloody. This becomes a significant plot point later.
* The Sgt does not survive
* Donny is not recognised in the toilets
* Stiglitz is next to the Major in the tavern

In order not to spoil the plot, I've only listed some examples of minor changes here. Where did the plot in the article come from? I assume its the Cannes plot. Perhaps a second section of plot should be added with the Theatrical plot line, or just the differences? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poag (talk • contribs) 10:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I concur, I saw an advance screening on Sunday and spotted many of the same plot differences as you. Most of the point are only minor missing and added scenes, but there do appear to be one or two major changes. I would suggest that the main plot summary be changed to the theatrical release one and a section added for changes since Cannes. I imagine any subsequent DVD release will have changes too. Spugmeister (talk) 23:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

True Story?

A lot of rumours are flying about whether there is any truth in the story. Although a complete work of fiction could someone add a section about this and maybe point some info to this article.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-08-09/my-father-the-inglourious-basterd/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.36.245.25 (talk) 13:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)