Inglourious Basterds trailer.

[mastag]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1YQTce24Ho

"I want my scalps"

After many years of waiting for this...I don't know. I'm disappointed that Morricone is out, as well as Simon Pegg.(Never thought I'd mention those 2 together)

 

[swan_song1973]

go tarrantino!

 

[Sulkdodds]

Brad Pitt is deeply unconvincing there, but otherwise this looks...

actually, the trailer makes this film look not-that-great, but I remember reading a review of the first part of the script and I reckon this be a good film comin' up.

 

[MJ12]

Pretty much agree with Sulk.

 

[Kamikazie]

Are we trying out new ways of "bastard"? Personally I like "bassturd".

 

[mastag]

Are we trying out new ways of "bastard"? Personally I like "bassturd".

Hey man, don't look at me, That's what it's called.

 

[PoeticRocker]

This trailer makes me realize how expressionless Brad Pitt's face is while acting...

I don't know about this movie. It almost looks like Kill Bill in WW2. Yet I'm sure it will be entertaining nonetheless.

 

[Reginald]

****. I have such a huge boner right now.

 

[Lucid]

That looks f*cking awesome..

Brad Pitt does not convince me at all that he's a badass soldier in WW2, replace him please.​

 

[Ennui]

I'm tentatively optimistic about this movie. We'll see.

 

[Mr Stabby]

A handful of Americans defeating half the German army, how original.

 

[Shakermaker]

A handful of Americans scalping and brutally killing Nazis, how awesome.

Corrected.

 

[knut]

I'm looking forward to it, but the trailer didn't get me as excited as I would of liked to seeing that I love Tarantino's works. Still, cool.

 

[CrazyHarij]

mehchar

 

[CyberPitz]

mehchar

My sentiments exactly.

 

[Kadayi]

Labelling all German Soldiers as Nazis is kind of akin to labelling all Muslims as Al Qaeda tbh. I'm sure the film will be B movie entertaining, but there's something vaguely republican about this, plus who were any of those 8 guys? The only person I recognised was Pitt.

 

[Eejit]

http://www.empireonline.com/features/tarantino-talks-inglourious-basterds-trailer/
Bit of extra info (some spoilerish) including some words from QT.

Are we trying out new ways of "bastard"? Personally I like "bassturd".

And new ways of spelling "inglorious" apparently.

 

[Shakermaker]

Labelling all German Soldiers as Nazis is kind of akin to labelling all Muslims as Al Qaeda tbh. I'm sure the film will be B movie entertaining, but there's something vaguely republican about this, plus who were any of those 8 guys? The only person I recognised was Pitt.

Cmon dude, it's a Tarantino flick. I wouldn't expect a historically correct depiction of the war's final months.

 

[Bad^Hat]

Watching this, I think I figured out why Brad Pitt's role in Burn After Reading was my favourite - he's so ****ing dull. He has about the same range of expression as Ben Affleck (okay maybe that's a bit harsh).

Also, how would you disembowel, dismember and disfigure someone? Wouldn't the last one be assumed after the first two?

 

[Kadayi]

Cmon dude, it's a Tarantino flick. I wouldn't expect a historically correct depiction of the war's final months.

Why not have it as a bunch of Saudi Volunteers, who say drop behind enemy lines in Bagdad to free their Iraqi brothers who are under the occupation of the cruel US Army? Show those GIs no mercy, because although they are merely footsoldiers they are the embodiment of the American ideological mindset?

Same story, shift of location. Not quite as palatable viewing now though. There was a time and a place for this film, and it's message and it was about 40 years ago.

Also, how would you disembowel, dismember and disfigure someone? Wouldn't the last one be assumed after the first two?

Disfiguring tends to reference the face. The Guy with the Swastika carved in his forehead has been disfigured.

 

[Eejit]

I'd watch that too if it were made by QT.

 

[Sulkdodds]

I'm not sure there's any pretense that what the titular Basterds are doing is moral.

 

[Direwolf]

Yeah, I think Kadayi is missing a part of the equation here. Half the point seems to be that Pitt and his crew are borderline psychopaths, like most of Tarantino's characters. Kelly's Heroes they ain't.

 

[Kadayi]

I'm not missing the point, I'm making one.

 

[2Fast4U]

There was a time and a place for this film, and it's message and it was about 40 years ago.

Man, it's a Tarantino flick. What ****ing message? As a matter of fact, it could be just like you described, with US being the "bad guys". That would be even more entertaining.

 

[Kadayi]

Man, it's a Tarantino flick. What ****ing message?

What I'm saying is it's outmoded, and more than anything inappropriate. What next from QT? A western where a bunch of US cavalrymen take out Custers defeat on the local native American population? Cheer as they rape their women and slaughter their children in cold blood perhaps?

As a matter of fact, it could be just like you described, with US being the "bad guys". That would be even more entertaining.

Unlikely to get a theatrical release though.

 

[Eejit]

What I'm saying is it's outmoded, and more than anything inappropriate. What next from QT a western where a bunch of US cavalrymen take out Custers defeat on the local native American population? Cheer as they rape their women and slaughter their children in cold blood perhaps?

Except that's a case of vengeance against a population rather than an occupying army.

 

[2Fast4U]

What I'm saying is it's outmoded, and more than anything inappropriate. What next from QT a western where a bunch of US cavalrymen take out Custers defeat on the local native American population? Cheer as they rape their women and slaughter their children in cold blood perhaps?

Actually when you think about it, americans are shown as violent psychopatic bad guys in this movie, hence the title "Inglorious Bastards". We don't really know were Tarantino will go with this, maybe he wants us to condemn their actions rather than cheer them. It doesn't seem likley from the trailer, but short action trailers tend to not reveal the true essence of movies.

 

[Sulkdodds]

I'm not missing the point, I'm making one.

Sounds to me like you're making the same one QT may be making.

 

[Kadayi]

Except that's a case of vengeance against a population rather than an occupying army.

So it's acceptable to beat to death prisoners of war of an occupying force? Kind of like beheading them on camera and uploading to youtube acceptable?

Actually when you think about it, americans are shown as violent psychopatic bad guys in this movie, hence the title "Inglorious Bastards". We don't really know were Tarantino will go with this, maybe he wants us to condemn their actions rather than cheer them. It doesn't seem likley from the trailer, but short action trailers tend to not reveal the true essence of movies.

Sounds to me like you're making the same one QT may be making.

Optimistic as you both are that QT is attempting to make a point, I'm more inclined to think he's just going to make a film that revolves around a lot of 'killings' (to quote the LOG) using WW2 and Nazis as an excuse to make more torture porn ala Hostel & Hostel 2.

If he wanted to make a point about present/past US foreign policy there wouldn't be anything stopping him using a contemporary setting. Plenty of other film makers already have.

 

[Evo]

You really think this is going to be something like Hostel? Pfft, that trailer seems like a comedy to me

 

[2Fast4U]

Optimistic as you both are that QT is attempting to make a point, I'm more inclined to think he's just going to make a film that revolves around a lot of 'killings' (to quote the LOG) using WW2 and Nazis as an excuse to make more torture porn ala Hostel & Hostel 2.

He didn't make Hostel 1/2, Eli Roth did. But anyway, it's useless to argue untill the movie itself, or some more info is released.

 

[Eejit]

So it's acceptable to beat to death prisoners of war of an occupying force? Kind of like beheading them on camera and uploading to youtube acceptable?

I was pointing out the false comparison in your poor analogy, not excusing anything.
You answer by putting words in my mouth. Nice one.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Optimistic as you both are that QT is attempting to make a point, I'm more inclined to think he's just going to make a film that revolves around a lot of 'killings' (to quote the LOG) using WW2 and Nazis as an excuse to make more torture porn ala Hostel & Hostel 2.

If he wanted to make a point about present/past US foreign policy there wouldn't be anything stopping him using a contemporary setting. Plenty of other film makers already have.

Alternatively, WW2 is the unobjectionable war, where we all know the enemy was unambiguously evil and the cause unambiguously just; fertile grounds for a demolition of that myth. I somewhat doubt that any such message will be part of the film, but judging by A) the tone of the trailer, which is hardly jingoistic, makes little pretense to morality, and freely admits psycopathy and B) the fact that there's somewhat more to the story than the killing squad (the briefing scene takes place quite a way into the film), you're probably being premature in expecting the whole enterprise to come with gung-ho moral justification.

 

[Kadayi]

He didn't make Hostel 1/2, Eli Roth did. But anyway, it's useless to argue untill the movie itself, or some more info is released.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000233/

Scoot down to the producer section.

I was pointing out the false comparison in your poor analogy, not excusing anything. You answer by putting words in my mouth. Nice one.

It was a comparison based on being a point of justification (There is no more justification to beating a captive soldier to death as there is to killing an enemies women and children). That you didn't understand and focussed on the fingertip instead of where it was pointing is your failing. :dozey:

Alternatively, WW2 is the unobjectionable war, where we all know the enemy was unambiguously evil and the cause unambiguously just; fertile grounds for a demolition of that myth. I somewhat doubt that any such message will be part of the film, but judging by A) the tone of the trailer, which is hardly jingoistic, makes little pretense to morality, and freely admits psycopathy and B) the fact that there's somewhat more to the story than the killing squad (the briefing scene takes place quite a way into the film), you're probably being premature in expecting the whole enterprise to come with gung-ho moral justification.

As I understand it, it's about a bunch of Jewish Soldiers letting rip in France under orders to kill pretty much every German they see no questions asked, no quarter given. Perfectly acceptable conduct during warfare if your Jewish yes? Because 2000 years of suffering, Holocaust, the Diaspora, etc, etc completely invalidates the Geneva convention. It's a free pass to justified sadism no? Let's revel in it like pigs in a pen!!! :dozey:

 

[Eejit]

It was a comparison based on being a point of justification (There is no more justification to beating a captive soldier to death as there is to killing an enemies women and children). That you didn't understand and focussed on the fingertip instead of where it was pointing is your failing. :dozey:

You specified raping and killing civilian noncombatants, that against versus killing soldiers in a particularly brutal way while behind enemy lines? Yes, one IS more wrong than the other. Neither is morally laudable but they're hardly the same thing.

 

[Sulkdodds]

As I understand it, it's about a bunch of Jewish Soldiers letting rip in France under orders to kill pretty much every German they see no questions asked, no quarter given. Perfectly acceptable conduct during warfare if your Jewish yes? Because 2000 years of suffering, Holocaust, the Diaspora, etc, etc completely invalidates the Geneva convention. It's a free pass to justified sadism no? Let's revel in it like pigs in a pen!!! :dozey:

While it's possible that the film is utterly unironic, and the setting truly just a passing excuse for butchery, let's just say I'll be surprised if the sarcastic, scornful tone of the latter half of your statement is not incorporated into the fabric of the film itself.

 

[Sheepo]

Zing!

Looks like it could be good.

 

[Kadayi]

You specified raping and killing civilian noncombatants, that against versus killing soldiers in a particularly brutal way while behind enemy lines? Yes, one IS more wrong than the other. Neither is morally laudable but they're hardly the same thing.

I think you'll find that when a soldier surrenders they are a non-combatant. :dozey:

While it's possible that the film is utterly unironic, and the setting truly just a passing excuse for butchery, let's just say I'll be surprised if the sarcastic, scornful tone of the latter half of your statement is not incorporated into the fabric of the film itself.

Well in response to that let's just say that I'd be very surprised if Bob or Harvey would be producing it if it were. :dozey:

 

[Eejit]

And I think you'll find when you're behind enemy lines you can't take POWs.

It's oh so logical that you take

"The Basterds are acting like the Apaches in a no-win situation," says Tarantino. "That's what they're trying to do: they're trying to win a psychological guerilla war against the Nazis."

to mean "The Basterds are acting like the Apaches in a no-win situation," says Tarantino. "That's what they're trying to do: they're trying to win a psychological guerilla war against the Nazis and thus we're portraying them as heroes and encouraging people to thin it's right."