“Quentin Tarantino is moving forward with ‘The Hateful Eight,'” abcnews.go.com reports. “The Weinstein Co. says it will distribute the filmmaker’s latest project — a post-Civil War Western — next year . . . Weinstein Co. said production on ‘Hateful Eight’ would begin in January. Bob and Harvey Weinstein have a long history with Tarantino. They distributed such Tarantino films as ‘Reservoir Dogs’ and ‘Django Unchained.'” That would be the same Harvey Weinstein who appeared on Piers Morgan Tonight to declare that he’d swore off “gratuitous gun violence” after green-lighting a [currently stuck in development hell] film he claimed would “make the NRA wish they weren’t alive.” A boast excoriated by TTAG here. And above. [h/t MJ]
No insult to Tarantino, but more bullets fly in one of his movies then three Michael Bay flicks. Anyone who bankrolls his projects and says guns should be banned deserves a Google caption under the search term “Epic Hypocrite”.
This^
This will be 8 from Tarantino? Wonder how many Ed Wood had?
By the title alone I would guess that it’s about anti gun crusaders, ‘cept there’s more than eight of them.
Naw, the rest were bused in from Oak Park
Swore off gun films? How much money has he earned putting those previous films on screen? Also how many us does his and morgen’s body guards have on them at all times to protect their patrons?
Looks like more formulaic Tarantino, faux moral quandaries with bullets a flying…zzzz.
Combined with Weinsteins politics, I’m voting with my wallet…NOT gonna see this one.
Yep. And I was thinking I might actually see this one too.
Can’t agree, I’ll bite the pillow and buy a ticket.. Half of the 20 movies I’ve paid for in theaters over the past 15 years have been Tarrentino movies. There’s almost always a scene in every Tarrentino movie that’s worth the price of admission by itself. Kill Bill 1&2 had enough scenes to pay for clunker movies for the next 20 years.
My penance will be to send another check to the NRA.
Agreed.
While tastes certainly vary, I’m a big Tarantino fan.
I even really liked True Romance (written by Tarantino, directed by Tony Scott).
Have you seen Grindhouse? The second movie inside (“Death Proof”) was the one directed by Tarantino and it is without question PRO-CCW, pro-self-defense. Not even remotely kidding…it is just as good a piece of pro-RKBA propaganda as the NRA has ever made, if of course a bit more bloody :).
OK, a lot more :). But it still rocks. And Weinstein’s production company was involved! I think Tarantino has at least some pro-RKBA tendencies and overrode Weinstein.
I have no problem with paying to see a movie made by an anti gunner… as long as the reviews are good. Differences in political opinion should not not prevent someone’s art or talent from being appreciated.
That being said, I am willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that there will be more gratuitous violence in this movie than pretty much anything this side of ‘The Purge’. If he wants to go on an anti gun campaign, he is free to do so… but he better be able to explain how he can openly shun violence while profiting heavily from it.
As I age, I become more and more inclined to have them cram their hypocritical art straight up their ass. I will go out of my way to avoid lining the pockets of gun grabbers with my money.
Haha.
Wow, you are “getting it” way earlier than I did. Good on ya
I wait til the dvd’s are in the used stores. The hollywood anti’s don’t get a dime from me.
I may watch it out of Red Box.
I love Tarentino, but how does Weinstein Co. sleep at night? Laughable.
The same way Bloomberg is certain -Certain!- that God has saved a special place in heaven for him at His right hand. Good old-fashioned delusion, coupled with a complete refusal to do even 5 minutes of research regarding the validity of your crusade. Because who needs facts when you have moral superiority?
Well put. They are delusional jack-asses.
Apparently deals/promises/claims made on TV programs are only valid as long as the show isn’t cancelled.
The Weinstein’s may be hypocritical in their words and deeds but I am free to choose if the pleasure is worth the pain. The US Department of Agriculture subsidizes the manufacture of cheese. The Department of Health recommends a restricted intake of cheese in ones diet for one’s health and well being. I understand the Weinstein’s position much more than I understand why my government is in the cheese business. Now bullets, bullets could use some subsidizing. Scotch too.
The government subsidizes bullets more than damn near anything else.
Just not for you.
That’s true and depressing. I think I’ll eat some cheese.
Guns for me, but none for thee.
If the US government subsidized it, would it still be Scotch? Look at the quality of subsidized “cheese”… I’ve seen play dough with more nutritional value.
Okay forget the cheese. I’m going with the Scotch.
Triple shot….
Templeton Rye, Iowa made whisky.
Didn’t Harvey Weinstein make a promise to stop making violent movies?
According to an article by Charlie Spiering in Breitbart: “They’re going to wish they weren’t alive when I’m done with them,” Weinstein boasted during an interview with Howard Stern in January. The Hollywood executive has profited heavily from movies that glorify gun violence. “I don’t think we need guns in this country. And I hate it. The NRA is a disaster area,” he said during the interview.”
“I don’t think we need guns in this country. And I hate it. Unless I can make gore fest movies that make Tarawa look like Gilligan’s Island, and rake in an armored car parade of dough.”
I seem to recall from that same interview not just his misplaced hatred of the NRA, but a specific promise not to deal in such violent, gun-centric movies anymore. It was covered here at TTAG.
A pack of lies!
Tarantino hasn’t made a bad movie yet (unless you count Death Proof, and even that had its moments), and his latest (Django Unchained) was pretty damn pro-gun, weather he realizes it or not.
He does (realize it):
Host Jay Leno had asked the director, “Let me ask you about violence, gun violence, that’s a big issue today. This comes up with you a lot.”
“Yeah it sure does,” Tarantino replied, “I mean, it’s one of those things that’s like –this is just a real national tragedy that ended up happening, but I’ve been – I’ve been making these movies for 20 years now. I’ve been – doing it – this is what I do. This is my way for 20 years now. You know what you get when you see my films. “
“And you have to be an adult,” Leno interrupted.
“And you have to be an adult to see them,” Tarantino continued, “So I actually think, dealing with entertainment like this, that in the midst of this tragedy it’s actually disrespectful actually to bring up these side issues when actually, the issue is mental health.”
That last paragraph is soo full of win
And here’s one of his go-to actors:
The shootings at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., have stirred up a slew of gun-control sentiment in Hollywood.
But an actor who stars in perhaps the most gun-heavy movie of the season says that an abundance of firearms in this country isn’t necessarily the problem, and that reducing them isn’t automatically the answer.
“I don’t think it’s about more gun control,” said Samuel L. Jackson, who stars as a conniving house slave in Quentin Tarantino’s upcoming revenge fantasy “Django Unchained.” “I grew up in the South with guns everywhere and we never shot anyone. This [shooting] is about people who aren’t taught the value of life.”
Parents and role models who emphasize that value, he said, will accomplish more than legislators reducing the number of firearms.
Very much true. I think many shootings and killings we set up to happen long before they did happen
Don’t forget his famous “Because it’s so much FUN, Jan” quote.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7k4GQSGvx8 Jump to 2:40
I never thought he was anti-gun and he hasn’t said anything that would give me that impression. Also, Samuel L. Jackson is full of win. He is just… bi-winning.
Death Proof was absolutely hardcore pro-RKBA, pro-CCW. No other way to read it.
Seriously? Besides the fact that the movie would be about two minutes long (okay, twenty minutes if you factor in all the required amount of comic book references and.. feet) if the main characters had guns, what about Death Proof seemed pro-RKBA to you? I’m not arguing, I only saw it once when it first came out so it’s beyond likely that I missed something, just curious.
During one scene, one of the female protagonists is criticized by her friends for legally carrying a concealed handgun. She easily defends her choice by stating “I don’t know what futuristic utopia you live in, but the world I live in, a b—- need a gun.” She then goes on to respond to a suggestion of pepper spray by saying she doesn’t want to give a rapist a skin rash, she wants to shut him down, and that she wouldn’t carry a knife either, because people who carry knives tend to get shot. Later in the film, she fires her concealed weapon at their attacker (striking him once); at that exact moment, she and her friends instantly gain the upper hand and chase down the defeated bad guy. The theme of the second half of the film is female empowerment against a psychotic male antagonist, and it is only through [defensive use of] the firearm that this dynamic is made possible. The film has a VERY clear pro-RKBA message, especially as it pertains to women.
Your em tags are showing, at least on mobile.
That video of the Harvey Weinstein quote is dead, so here one that still works
http://youtu.be/K2wN-Sr88zk
I seem to remember in his last film he had Hitler die at the hands of Americans in a surprise attack…not exactly how history records it…actually, nothing LIKE history….so I’m not going to take his historical account to heart…it’s his historical fantasy…
His movies exist outside the realm of history and reality. It’s like an alternate history kind of thing.
Fact is leftards never let morals get in the way of making money.
Why should they?
“You gotta separate the morals from the moolah”, as long as you aren’t hurting people (too much).
See? There is the difference. A man does not profit from what he publicly decries as immoral. Animals don’t give a f*ck. Those on the political left CHOOSE to be animals, and therefore make themselves the enemies of humanity, quite willingly.
You still haven’t answered my question? Why should they? Sure, it is not the morally right thing to do but it makes you a boatload of money. Money is important in this world.
So, you have the morals of an animal and are proud of it. Okey dokey, then.
Well that promise of making violent films didn’t last long. But of course he’s going to not resist the urge to make millions of dollars off of Tarantion’s movie.
Hey, he’s a limousine liberal; so long as he says he wants to do something, that’s as good as actually doing it.
I’ve never been a huge fan of Rush Limbaugh, but one slogan of his I’ve always liked is “Words mean things.” To the virus that is hardcore leftism, especially the necrotizing Hollywood strain, the opposite is true; they give and expect full credit for the things people say and don’t factor in what they do. It’s why they’ll protest to keep rapists and murderers off death row, but at the same time demand public executions for people who drop the N-bomb.
Is it just me, or were movies better when the studio heads were more interested in fvcking the starlets than in fvcking us.
50/50
Old movies might seem better but that is because time has filtered out the bad ones. Though recently they just go for reboots of superheroes which is really annoying. I mean, how many times do you have to make a film about the origin of Superman? Also it is really stupid to start a franchise/series of movies by beginning with the origin. You should first show the good/cool stories and then go with the origin.
Though I will admit, Guardians of the Galaxy was really good IMO then again it wasn’t a reboot. Short origin, jump into an interesting story, BAM, good movie. Also Chris Pratt is just likeable for some reason.
Isn’t this the movie where he threw a temper tantrum over the movie script being leaked, then pissed and moaned about how he would never let the movie see the light of day? You mean that movie? Yawn.
While Bob and Harvey Weinstein are rabid anti-gunners like the title says, Tarantino certainly is not. In December 2012 in an interview with Leno, he responded to the Newtown shooting by saying the real issue was mental health. While you may or may not disagree with that sentiment, he did not mention firearms.
Additionally, Tarantino’s 2007 film “Death Proof” carried a strong pro-gun message. One of the female protagonists defends her ability to legally carry a concealed handgun when she is criticized by here friends. She later uses the firearm in self-defense. I really don’t think the dialogue and events in that film would have played out that way if he didn’t want to send a distinctly pro-gun message.
So in summary, I think its very important to put the blame where it belongs (as far as anti-gun activism are concerned)- with the Weinsteins.
Comments are closed.