Current Events > Once upon a time in Hollywood got pretty weird at the end *spoilers*

(+) Yeah! (+)

I knew it was revolving around the manson murders going in, but I didn't think it was going full retcon on reality into a Manson family murder fantasy, lol

Also why did they portray Bruce Lee as a giant tool?

All in all, decent movie. Not Tarantino's best work but it was alright.

---

They wanted to spark more Bruce Lee vs Ali debates.

---

I wasn't surprised after seeing Inglourious Basterds.

---

Why did they make Brad Pitt such a cuck

idk, I really enjoyed it.

knowing what happened to Sharon Tate irl, I felt so much dread for her character as the end was nearing, and especially since the movie humanized her so well as this super optimistic young actress, so the ending took me for a huge loop.

---

Realforce posted...

I wasn't surprised after seeing Inglourious Basterds.

Yeah, I had a suspicion it was probably going that route after the time jump. Just didnt really see how they were going to tie Nick and Cliff into the Tate murders other than going full kill bill/inglorious bastards

---

ShibaToken posted...

Why did they make Brad Pitt such a cuck

Uh, wut?

---

Solid Snake07 posted...

Uh, wut?

He took everybody's shit and did nothing about it. He just accepted that he was a beta compared to everyone else

ShibaToken posted...

He took everybody's shit and did nothing about it. He just accepted that he was a beta compared to everyone else

....did we watch the same movie? He was pretty much the archetypal masculine guy who's too cool to give a shit and doesn't take shit from anybody

I mean he worked for Nick but it was a demeaning relationship or anything

---

I really didn't like that movie

I don't think I quite got it

---

Solid Snake07 posted...

....did we watch the same movie? He was pretty much the archetypal masculine guy who's too cool to give a shit and doesn't take shit from anybody

I mean he worked for Nick but it was a demeaning relationship or anything

Nah dude lived in a trailer and was basically Nick's bitch boy and he was comfortable with all that shit

Dude could have been an alpha but he chose to be a bitch

^ I just saw it as a Hollywood fairytale, where the good guys won in the end, had their dreams realized, etc.

it probably goes deeper than that, but I'm not super analytical when it comes to movies.

edit: at post 10

---

Flauros posted...

They wanted to spark more Bruce Lee vs Ali debates.

Ali would have absolutely murdered Bruce Lee.

But still, they sort of portrayed him as kind of a dipshit. I don't know, I've never heard anything like that about him. Seems kind of fucked to portray a real person like that for no real reason.

But whatever

---

In real life when Bruce Lee was young he was an asshole. He would pick fights on purpose to show off, he would cheap shot people offering handshakes, and was really a thug in general. He grew out of that as his career took off, but the movie takes place in 1969, and that scene is a flashback. It was fairly accurate.

Note that the fight does get cut off quickly, it's not like he outright gets his ass kicked (though he was losing). The scene shows that Cliff knows how to actually fight.

---

DarkChozoGhost posted...

In real life when Bruce Lee was young he was an asshole. He would pick fights on purpose to show off, he would cheap shot people offering handshakes, and was really a thug in general. He grew out of that as his career took off, but the movie takes place in 1969, and that scene is a flashback. It was fairly accurate.

Note that the fight does get cut off quickly, it's not like he outright gets his ass kicked (though he was losing). The scene shows that Cliff knows how to actually fight.

I don't really have an issue with him getting his ass kicked. Cliff was a bigger guy who knew how to fight. A bigger guy who knows how to fight is going to almost always win a fight against a smaller guy.

Just seemed kind if weird to make him a dumb asshole. I'd never heard anything like that about him. But I'm not a bruce lee expert or anything, maybe there was more to it than I know.

---

DarkChozoGhost posted...

Note that the fight does get cut off quickly, it's not like he outright gets his ass kicked (though he was losing). The scene shows that Cliff knows how to actually fight

It's also cliffs version of what happened in his memory which is going to exaggerate.

---

Solid Snake07 posted...

I don't really have an issue with him getting his ass kicked. Cliff was a bigger guy who knew how to fight. A bigger guy who knows how to fight is going to almost always win a fight against a smaller guy.

Just seemed kind if weird to make him a dumb asshole. I'd never heard anything like that about him. But I'm not a bruce lee expert or anything, maybe there was more to it than I know.

You're just missing some Bruce Lee trivia. He was very provocative, egotistical, and looking for chances to fight and show off. It wasn't just a random thing Tarantino was doing, it was very much a part the love letter to that era like the rest of the movie.

---

Yeah, the whole glamorizing a pedophile rapist/fugitive was pretty weird.

Bobby_Lee posted...

Yeah, the whole glamorizing a pedophile rapist/fugitive was pretty weird.

Polanski? he was barely even in the movie. I don't even remember him having a line

---

He was in it enough to be glamorized.

He wasn't though?

Tarantino has confirmed that his movies take place in an alternate timeline with a drastically different history.

---

Bobby_Lee posted...

Yeah, the whole glamorizing a pedophile rapist/fugitive was pretty weird.

That's not something he did in the movie. Movie Polanski could've been a different person entirely.

He was also barely in the film at all.

---

DarthDemented posted...

Tarantino has confirmed that his movies take place in an alternate timeline with a drastically different history.

Has he confirmed whether Polanski drugs and rapes children in this alternate timeline?

It's okay of a movie but I do think it's Tarantinos worse movie. Yes, worse than Death Proof which is at least entertaining.

---

please stop responding seriously to SMAL

---

The real-life murders were a Hollywood tragedy, and this movie is a Hollywood response to that tragedy. It shows mercy to the victims and drags the murderers through the mud. The Manson Family achieved celebrity status in real life, which they still have. This movie was an attempt to chip away at that status and diminish their real-world pop-culture power. Only a tiny little bit, but it's not an easy job to rewire the public's fascination with atrocity. We'll need a lot more movies like this (and a lot more than just movies) to actually shift the world in a better direction.

That said, I still think it's too eager to get gory. But I understand this desire to just wail on scum like the Manson Family, the same way that Inglourious Basterds did with the Nazis.
---

DarkChozoGhost posted...

In real life when Bruce Lee was young he was an asshole. He would pick fights on purpose to show off, he would cheap shot people offering handshakes, and was really a thug in general. He grew out of that as his career took off, but the movie takes place in 1969, and that scene is a flashback. It was fairly accurate.

Note that the fight does get cut off quickly, it's not like he outright gets his ass kicked (though he was losing). The scene shows that Cliff knows how to actually fight.

You have any sources for these claims? I've read from people who had actual encounters with Bruce Lee that he never instigate fights.

---

Bobby_Lee posted...

Has he confirmed whether Polanski drugs and rapes children in this alternate timeline?

No. That took a pretty dark turn there..

---

Love the film, dont remember Roman Polanski being glorified but it also didnt shame him enough. If were going for catharsis like with the ending then I think it would have been nice if Tarantino had thrown more shade at the despicable monster Polanski.

---