She could leave them on they wouldn't be a issue

Based reference!

Bravo.

@Norwindian ds

Yeah, she didn't show her bare feet. Lol

nah cur You win. You goddamn poet.

The Video Store Guy is more awesome when the video store had a little room behind saloon-style doors, with the adult selection. Then of course any true cinephile from pre-internet days would have watched Deep Throat and Behind The Green Door if they had access to them.

You win everything

but he bought the video store so you can say you can't take the video store boss out of the director.

You can take the director out of the porno theater usher but you can't take the porno theater usher out of the director.

Agreed. Everyone who worked on that movie did such a great job and it shows.

No

Absolutely agree. It still stands today as my favorite film of all time.

@@paulvoorhies8821 It's my personal favorite film too. You can hardly say a bad thing about the movie. It's just so well made and everything just came together so well in that film. I feel like it's a criminally underappreciated movie today.

@@dancortes3062 100%. It’s wild to think about how amazingly precise PTA was with the details in this movie, even though he was only 26 when he wrote it and was just a young child in the 70s. Everything is just so spot on, and the cast is uniformly excellent with amazing chemistry.

And dishonest

He's right though, the fact that the porn movie is so terrible is a real insult to the characters. I get it, it's funny that Reynolds' character thinks it's good when it isn't, but it turns a real moment into just a gag. As opposed to the "Feel My Heat" part, which works amazingly well as just a gag, because the guys are so coked out, it makes complete sense.

@@sthubbins4038 Its not an insult to the character because who ever said Burt Reynolds played a great director? He is a porno director who is probably a horrible storyteller. Enthusiasm doesn't mean quality. have you heard about Ed Wood. Quentin is all hung up on this Damiano guy, but he is NOT based on him (according to the guy who invented the character) and who ever knows a single f*** about Damiano??? So no, it is not an insult to the character Burt plays. If anything it gives me insight into his character as a bad filmmaker.

@@laurencewhite4809 yes but Tarantino's right. Burt's moment is so sincere, so beautifully acted that if you buy into the moment, and I did, it doesn't play as funny, it plays as a moment of sad melancholy. And that happens because we know Burt's character is smarter than that and to Tarantino's point has to be a better filmmaker than that. It's a contradiction borne of a cheap desire to grab a gag moment for an audience that reads the film about as well as Burt's character does. It's an epic film but QT's right - it was a bit insecure on Anderson's part (ie frogs raining from the sky for no apparent reason)

No. I and everyone who is a cinephile, and who loved this movie, noticed this flaw... mostly because its the only flaw in the film.

Same

It’s my #1.

Same here

The writing is fucking brilliant... my favorite writing by PT...to be sure...

Same

I completely agree.

And they were caricatures of stereotypes.

It captures a very specific moment in cinematic history too, because for just a brief moment in time porno itself had the chance to be taken seriously as cinema

Exactly, Quentin just wanted to say he worked in a porno theatre, so he knows better how it would've been lol. Meanwhile how he depicted Bruce Lee was beyond disrespectful.

I thought, when seeing _Boogie Nights_ for the first time more than a couple of decades ago, that the character played by Burt Reynolds made me think of filmmaker Edward D. Wood, but without the humor. Kind of tragic, really on the contrary, I thought.

Tarantino talking bollocks as usual, no one outside film geekdom ever heard of this real porn director, and anyway, artistic license is surely allowed. Within the film, it seems totally logical that Jack is so blinkered and in denial. His characterization seemed to hint at someone who fell into porn, but who had always wanted to be a real director, but that boat had sailed. What's Tarantino's best film? In my opinion probably Jackie Brown, which was based on a novel, so the story wasn't even his own. He's not capable of making a film as skilled and deep as Boogie nights. He's all surface and extreme violence.

@@Therejectionartist QT reading too much into it, just making someone look like a stereotypical porn director of the 70s doesn’t mean he is supposed to literally be him. Likewise there were girls who looks like Amber Waves in the 70s with the big red hair, freckles and mascara too but she is clearly her own character.

Well I love PTA but I think Tarantino makes a valid point there. It's not only about the portrait of Damiano being truthfull or not. It is about the nature of cinema: IF the character longs to do a movie with such personal passion, then he would be much more critical about result. Or else he is an Ed Wood type one dimensional charakter.

@@caponsever He’s a porn hack who it is implied, wanted to make real movies, so it’s totally logical that he would be deluded and lacking the skills to make a real movie, or be able to stand back and critically assess his own work. The fact he made an action porn flick was like his trying to convince himself that he finally made it, but it was still just a porn flick. He was a frustrated Artist who didn’t develop his career how he really wanted it, but was able to have some final fantasy that he made a real movie. For me it’s deep characterization, something that Anderson does a lot better than Tarantino.

@@Therejectionartist Yes but consider the other option: him making a film which was not that bad, watchable but still a failure which passes by completely unnoticed or him making a film and realizing that it was bad and that he lacks what it takes. To me that would have added a brokennes to the charakter which would've made him deeper.

Exactly. And QT fudges history or characters based on historical figures all the time. Seems like such a weird nitpic that one could apply to many of his films as well.

@@iansmart4158 l you couldn't be more right. They are even saying that about Bruce lee in his film

Maybe PTA chose to make Burt Reynold look like Gerard Damiano because he wanted his character to believe he was just as good as George Damiano, that's why he thinks he made the perfect film, because his ego matches that of George Damiano, and maybe that was PTA's intention.

Exactly my thinking, I believe that’s all that PTA was doing here. He wasn’t making a Gerard Damiano biopic. There’s a lot of comedy in Boogie Nights, and I think that scene with Reynolds’ character saying this was his best work yet, and the movie is clearly, intentionally terrible-looking, it’s supposed to be humorous.

Ian Smart Yes, another great point. This comment about Boogie Nights is simply off the mark in multiple ways...QT can certainly be cringey when he wants to be.

He ain't lyin'

I've seen a lot of porn. I guess I'm a genius.

I never knew he WORKED at a porno theater. Even for as hardcore a film geek as Tarantino, that must have been a nightmare job.

I wish I could get paid to watch porn

I've seen more porn than the 2 of them combined

The tension in that whole scene. Holy shit. One of my favorites.

I literally watched Boogie Nights today and I think it may be my favorite film that I’ve ever watched.

The firecrackers really ratcheted up the tension.

It’s not inspired on the wonderland murders, it’s inspired on the robbery that happened that lead to the wonderland murders. The wonderland murders didn’t happen in Nash’s house, Nash didn’t live in wonderland. They robbed Nash then supposedly/allegedly Nash sent some guys to the wonderland apartment to wack ‘em.

@@fonzee754 You’re right. I’m pretty sure that’s what he meant. It’s like how people always have to correct you that Frankenstein is the doctor and not the monster.

Gethyn Thomas casino royal wouldn’t have been a good Tarantino film

darktennisball ok, I’m talking about biggie nights tho, what do you mean?

He would have made it better.

CelestialWoodway I definitely hold PTA in higher regard than Tarantino these days.

Tbh, as much as I loved OUATIH, i felt there was some points where it was a knock off of Boogie Nights.

Nicely done. This comment section is on fire.

I disagree. It think it’s very obvious. If he was supposed to be a purely fictional character there’d be absolutely no reason to use Damiano’s look (and it isn’t “just a little”) for Reynold’s character because the director would not want to create any doubts or misunderstanding, IMO.

@@danc3693 Meh this was from like over a year ago. I'm over it.

The display of Damiano’s various toupees was pretty funny. Thick black ones, little curly grey ones. Of course, that’s another thing Burt & Damiano had in common. Burt could just afford a much better wig. As a chrome dome myself, I just goggle at such ridiculous vanity.

@@danc3693 Dude....Rahad Jackson the guy in the robe is supposed to be Eddie Nash, Dirk Diggler is John Holmes....Its a loose fucking interpretation. QT is a complete hypocrite he's done the same things multiple times.

That's not what we're talking about here man

@dutyaccountabilitymedia Kurt Russell too, in The Hateful 8.

That’s absolutely not unique at all

Even better examples abound in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.

He sucks. Michael Bay all day.

@@kentonkruger8333 Neither was presented as a historical. He was open about the fact it was never to be fantasy.

@@hawkwindarcher Yes. I was simply saying Once Upon a Time had more examples that we know more about their day to day personalities.

I think he's more trying to say porn has artistic qualities yet PTA was treating pornos like they all are trash and out of touch

pipes no repeats,"sex"

Burt Reynolds said be was embarrassed by his role in Boogie Nights & wished that he never taken the role in one of his final interviews. The dialogue & the performances were so lame, my top over hyped movies of all time ! A complete bore !

@@majortom4658 Burt Reynolds was nominated for an Oscar for Boogie Nights and he went to the award ceremony. None of what you said is relevant to what the other person wrote

@@majortom4658 I heard him say that he liked his character and the film, but didn't like the director.

Look, Dirk Diggler didn't make films to encourage people to go out and have sex with anyone they could. He did those films as a public service. It's not about getting a million women off; it's about getting your wife off. And to those people who don't appreciate his selflessness...well, what do you expect when you're on top? I mean, when Napoleon was the king, people were constantly trying to conquer him, in the Roman Empire.

i think Tarantino understood Reynold's character was deluded and didn't have a problem with that. His problem is that Reynold's character is based on a real director whom he respects, and whom's film making abilities was incidentally tarnished by the film.

Nice train of thought!

It sounds like Quentin is basing his opinion on the Dimanao guy being a great filmmaker...Horner may look like him but he clearly isn't him. Anderson may have just been paying homage to Dimaiano

I think Anderson went for the gag and sacrificed the reality. He was kind of a pretentious fellow in a way.. or a bit puffed up, a legend in his own mind, as you say... it doesn't ruin it but it changes who he is. Quentin wants to believe he's a cool dude maybe. If he really thinks it is a great film, he isn't. Was it a decision? He could've had the film look a bit artsy. It would've played the way Quentin wanted but it wouldn't have been funny,......... I think you're right actually. It's funny. It IS a gag... but they're actual walking gags . their money only comes from getting on the bandwagon at the right time. They think it has something to do with talent. they think they're sophisticated but this is the rot in their minds.

Nail on the head

Their deluded senses of themselves are part of the humor. Quentin is off base here.

Yup!

Louder for the people in the back I love QT but he sounds like a hater here

THIS

I thought the same thing. Also I’ve seen Deep Throat and I’m no director, but it looked like a piece of shit too. The filmography was basically identical to the cop movie in boogie nights.

Yeah I was kinda shocked to hear Quentin say that because lots of movies will use a look from a real life person then give them a totally different personality.

Agreed

its fine

Yea indeed, it is

RIP Robert Downey Sr.

It was a great movie

A movie with Chest Rockwell & Brock Landers named Angels Live in My Town, how could a person NOT want to watch that?

Beastie boys Sabotage

I think the way Tarintino put this MAKES Burt's line funny hahaha

I havent rewatched the movie yet but rewatching the scene it does make sense. Everything about Burt's character is his passion and dedication to his art, and then his movie is shown to be a piece of a shit, and a punchline, because he's completely oblivious to it

I think PTA is more talented than QT overall, sooooo...

Yeah, I would love to hear his defense of a few different things in OUTIH

it was Cliff Booth's memory of the situation....

what exactly did he do?

@@jeremymullins1294 what exactly in the movie hints that statement?

This is a solid response, I can't lie.

I completely agree.

I think it’s either a flaw or a benign pathology for Anderson though because he was adamant that he didn’t base The Master off of L Ron Hubbard and that was clearly not true either. I wonder if it’s part of a creative quark for Anderson in conceiving a new character from a real person but it does seam to be a significant feature for him. I’m not sure that it becomes a flaw for a viewer if they don’t know the true story of Damiano, or at all in the case of the Master.

I can kind of understand Tarantino's point, though I'm not nearly well versed enough in 70s Porn Cinema to really have a stance, but I would wonder if the line in question was deliberately made a bit confusing or questionable, like Burt Reynolds character is so involved & nearly out of touch or possibly delusional that he thinks it is a great film. Like he's too close to it, which is a reality that most artists have to keep perspective on. I wonder what PTA's response would be? But I've never really had much interest or understanding of "porn as artistic expression" maybe if I was around in or closer to that decade and POV. PS. YA GOT TA HAVE AN OPINION!

@@brentulstad3275 it’s also a movie satirizing the industry, so when Anderson set’s up the character as a Damiano figure he’s subverting the reality that a porn director was probably the superior filmmaker to many making mainstream pictures. What’s really missing from this interview, the logical follow-up question, is what PTA’s response to the critique actually was, because his intention for the character makes all the difference.

The issue is the character is based on that famous director then he makes that at the end lol

You’re absolutely 100% correct. Tarantino is overlooking the fact that Burt’s character is a horrible director anyway, regardless of what his dreams and aspirations are.... this is the reason why he’s a porn director and his career never ascended into the realm of real cinema. I find it surprising that someone like Tarantino would overlook this fact.

Allan Deir this is exactly what I was thinking when Tarantino was saying this. Lol. I thought it made perfect sense for his character in the movie.

@@Misfit_Minded I think where Tarantino is getting it wrong is assuming that the character is supposed to be a fictional version of Damiano. Sure PTA might have taken the "look" of Damiano for the Reynolds character...but the movies he makes...or at least the one they reference in this video is clearly based on the "Johnny Wadd" films directed by Bob Chinn and starring John Holmes. Anderson copied some of that stuff scene for scene in the film within a film. He's right in saying that Damiano would have known the movie looked like shit...hell, he knew his biggest success, "Deep Throat", wasn't a good "film". Devil In Ms. Jones and Story Of Joanna were light years ahead of it....whether a person likes porno films or not...those movies are far more cinematic and professionally done than anything the Jack Horner character would have done.

I thought the same thing...all of the characters are trying to be better than they're reality is...Diggler a great actor, Amber a good mother, etc.

The difference is that in Tarantino’s movies the “inaccuracies” are deliberate and have the purpose of surprising and entertaining the audience, whereas the inaccuracy that he pointed out in Boogie Nights concerns Burt Reynold’s character. Tarantino is very particular about his characters and treats them as if they were real people, so I understand why that would bother him.

@@gilmillan4575 Actually no because Reynold's character in the film isn't a great but a mediocre filmmaker, so the footage didn't have to be great; Tarantino is simply missing the point here because how dare they compare him to anyone; unless of course his fans are willing to agree that Tarantino has the right to decide how good a fictional filmmaker is in a film made by someone else and even go as far as to say Paul's decision not to contradict the already stated mediocre character was incidental, whether or not it was inspired by a real person. I mean, couldn't I say real life nazis weren't as dumb and lame at warfare to be torn to shit by a couple of cool-line dudes and a crazy apache descendant? Or that maybe I'm not buying how a last few months free black man in the wild west could get that good at obliterating as if by the hand of God as much lifelong, armed and raised in violence scum he wishes due to always being cool, being the best and carrying a Colt 45, only because his theme song says so? How's that for treating characters as "real people"? Of course I'd be wrong because it's Quentin fucking Tarantino and who the fuck am I to question cinema's Zeus, right?

​@Elías Baez Tabe I get your point, but the character in the movie was based on a real person and they changed his artistry level just for the sake of a joke that isn't even that funny in my personal opinion. You could accuse Tarantino of nitpicking and maybe he is but I still tend to agree with what he's saying here and it's not because I think he's "cinema's Zeus". I can look for faults in his movies just as I would with any other filmmaker. The fact that Quentin treats his characters as real people doesn't mean that he actually thinks they're real. He has fun with them but never makes them do things they wouldn't do if they were actually real. And no, you couldn't say that real life nazis weren't as dumb as they are in Inglourious Basterds because that would imply that there were no dumb nazis, which would be preposterous.

@@gilmillan4575 A) There's no "joke" involving the scene Tarantino discusses here, so I guess you either haven't watched the film or didn't quite follow. B) The things I said his characters do are, precisely, nonsensical and unrealistic, as in he doesn't treat them as real people; I never accused him of believing his characters were realistic because that was never the topic in this discussion, hence your response makes as much sense as a Quentin Tarantino character: you argue "he doesn't make them do things they wouldn't do if they were real" against my argument which included how absurd it is to turn a slave who couldn't even read into the top hitman, trader, liar and poetlike hero the world ever saw in a matter of months spent with a german, slave loving hitman and dentist in the wild west ... I mean, give me a break. C) Fact: the german forces effectively invaded and defeated every major country in Europe, so it's safe to say nazis were good at warfare without the further implication that there were no dumb nazis as you schizophrenically suggest; this is rather an exposition of evidence against which Quentin's verbose nazi killing dudes are sensless as if I wrote a script in which the Philipines army defeat the US army; under your logic, my film would make sense because to assume the US is good enough at warfare to eliminate the Philipines before they could sneeze would somehow imply all american soldiers are geniuses ... unless of course you're as delusional as to argue that even if not every nazi was dumb at warfare every nazi which encounters Quentin's heroes in Quentin's film actually is ... because it's Quentin Tarantino having fun I guess. Paul's character, inspired or not, is a fictional character, just like Tarantino's Hitler, and it just doesn't work to say Paul had that kind of responsibility comming from the man who had a stoned war hero and a drunk actor pulverize real peolpe who actually live in prision; it's not a matter of being funny or entertaining the audience, Quentin is arguing against the use of real life people inspiration without accurately portraying them, and that's bullshit, specially for him. To avoid misunderstanding I have to say Tarantino is a great filmmaker and both Django and Basterds are masterpieces, but the man can say very stupid things with the most ease. D) Writing preposterous as arbitrarily is very preposterous.

​@Elías Baez Tabe Why would it be delusional to suggest some of the nazis in the movie are dumb? If Tarantino can re-write history in his films, why am I all of a sudden "delusional" for theorizing about something that we both know is not real? Also, I don't get why you keep insisting that the nazis in Inglorious Basterds are so dumb. What is it that they did specifically that makes you think they're so dumb? Smart people can be outsmarted too, you know. I'll explain myself one last time and I'll try to be as clear as possible: As a creator of fiction you are in complete control of the story you are trying to tell and how to tell it. When you are able make an audience suspend disbelief, even though they know it's fiction, that makes you a good storyteller. The things that happen in Tarantino's movies are not likely to happen, but at the same time, he's good enough at what he does to make you suspend disbelief to a certain point. Part of the fun of watching his movies is seeing how he puts his characters in crazy situations or how he re-writes history in a very entertaining and spectacular way, but he's still able to handle the material in a way that seems realistic, and part of the reason he's able to do that is that he DOES treat his characters as if they are real people. The actions that his characters take in his movies always seem to make sense. The character of Django was believable because he was very intelligent and was motivated by vegeance and rescuing his wife. So maybe I just disagree with you there. Tarantino was not arguing against the use of real life people inspiration without accurately portraying them. He was simply explaining why it didn't make sense to him that the director's porno movie in Boogie Nights looked so shitty, and I have to say I agree with him. The poor quality of the porno was meant to be seen as humorous. That's what I meant by the "joke" in my previous comment.

Like Ed Wood?

​@@chrishelbling3879or Neil Breen

Completely agree. And I think its not too difficult to presume every porn director at that time looked like that.

Yup. Jack Horner is Damiano + Tim Burton's Ed Wood. Ed Wood had the devotion to craft that Jack Horner does, but was completely deluded about his level of ability.

I thought one of PTA's achievements as a writer/director was making me care about characters that I was also laughing at for how stupid they were.

Nicely put🤔

Yes, but that's what he meant by "cheap" - it was done for laughs, but at the expense of the character.

@@nuclear_warrior I feel he meant cheap a little more literally. I mean this is pure speculation, but given the context, I feel he means it seemed "cheap", they didn't try very hard

@@rrd3k3 Didn't he say it was a cheap "line"? Meaning, the line of dialogue.

@@nuclear_warrior Well this whole thing is pertaining to the fact that the character Bert is loosely portraying from reality wouldn't make such a "cheap" film. It has nothing to do with dialogue, nor does my comment

@@rrd3k3 So when you say "it", you're not referring to the line of dialogue? Just want to be clear about your original comment.

It's a real film!. Scott.

@milesdoyle. What in the hell??

Indeed. Tarantino has talked so much utter crap in interviews during the years.

He doesn't realise on what topic he was talking once he opne his mouth

That was my problem with Basterds - QT had to have his money shot at the end with the machine guns, grenades etc - why did he have to go for Hitler...?

@@urbanwarrior3470 You’re upset when watching Hitler getting gunned down? Ok.....

@@mysteriousmrocd8384 He jut had to alter history...

u don't get it

It's a pretty big flaw. Of course, no one would have noticed it if QT hadn't pointed it out and tainted it forever.

@@vvblues But why is it a flaw? Just because BR's character is based on the guy who did deep throat does not mean he was capable of making deep throat. There are plenty of ppl with good taste who make bad films. it happens all the time.

I agree completely with you. That way is funnier and it contrasts with PTA movie

Seanjkbs 👍👍agreed

Exactly. Horner is just as self deluded as Dirk but is different in that he seems to be more in charge and thinks he knows what the audience wants. But it reveals he can sell out too - he thinks it's "the film they'll remember me by" and then does like 15 more of them.

That’s actually what I took from it as well. What QT should’ve been focusing on was the fact Boogie Nights was Goodfellas and Raging Bull set in the porn industry.

Yeah but, as Tarantino pointed out, the character is not supposed to be a generic parody but based on an actual person.

He's just critiquing what he didn't find to be believable or consistent about one character in one scene bc it breaks the reality of the movie for him. Ask anyone who plays guitar/piano/violin and sees an actor faking it in a movie it instantly snaps you out of the movie for a second because you know what it's supposed to look like based on what sound is being made and faking just seems so disingenuous you can't buy it as the audience for that scene. As a director, he's saying he knows that line what put in for a laugh instead of something in line with the characters personality.

@@carolinehaf21 I'm not a director but I'm always snapping out of Tarantino movies..

I thought it was merely OK. Overall I find PTA's movies to be the very definition of boring.

Fanboy behavior. Glad u enjoyed it but don't put down people who didn't.

@@bangslamwham88 You like "Bares für Rares" -no wonder you think PTA is boring. Stick to your Prosieben/RTL/Vox average person stuff, please

100% right on.

What's a porn movie?

He used to work at a porno movie theater back in the day.

He also said Polanski did nothing wrong. So, He's a sick fuck, just like Roman is.

@@samokazem2211 Roman Polanski's pregnant wife was brutally murdered. What he did 8 years later wasn't right, but I cut the guy a little slack. Tarantino sticking up for what he did in present day is a bit disturbing.

@@putinscat1208 no slack for that sort of thing.

Well they are also very, very good friends

What made BN great is even if you laughed at the characters, you still cared about them.

But QT seems like he always thought that porno industry is an art, not a joke

Yeah Burt's character really is blind to what a crappy film maker he is. Like how Ed Wood doesn't even see how appallingly schlocky his horror movies are. He thinks they are great art.

Absolutely was meant that way to laugh at the way the characters thought they were making real films! Tarentino is jealous he didn’t make such a great movie

@@chillsunghyun I think it's more that QT understands that a successful porn director knows when they're shooting something that is good film and when they're shooting something that is passable and meets their budget restrictions. And if you watch interviews with people who shoot porn, like the ones that Holly Randall does, QT is proven correct. These people went to film school. They studied film. Then they went into porn because they wanted to pay their mortgage and that was the best way for them to do so. People who shoot b-movies don't think they're making fine films and people who shoot porn don't think they're making fine films. They're shooting to budget and getting something on the screen and QT's right that it's a joke, but it's a cheap joke because that character would know better.

Why just porn directors? Why not other directors? I've noticed just as many elsewhere, not specifically in just that genre.

@Francis Joseph um what? there will always be people who think they're good when they suck in all facets of life how is that a now thing? it wasn't just porn directors.

The Wachowskis are one step away from doing porn.

@@AS-is4dt Ed Wood comes to mind.

@@philipcass488 Manos: The Hands of Fate

Great point. In fact that is THE point. Odd criticism by QT here.

Poppppp

That or "I'm a jealous fuckstick and don't you dare compare me with that Anderson guy or I'll bitch for 4 minutes straight." - Quentin Tarantino.

Or maybe just maybe, Quintin Tarantino and Paul Thomas Anderson don't make such perfect films as you all think they are.

@@brandon_Larsen Or maybe just maybe Quentin's name is Quentin and not "Quintin" to begin with.

@@necroyoli08 Maybe just maybe, people can make spelling mistakes every once in a while.

@@brandon_Larsen Of course they can, but maybe just maybe it's funny when such a person also makes the grammatical mistake of writing "are" instead of "do" against the verb "make"; you could've either said "they don't make perfect films as you think they do" or "they're not as perfect as you think they are". Moreover, it's twice as funny when the topic of discussion is perfection.

Lol, funny distinction to have.

Did you listen to the second commentary where everyone gets drunk, debates whether Luis Guzman was high during the shooting, Melora Walters has to quiet her kids down, and Mark Wahlberg points out an extra in the pool party scene who he went home with?

Fun story, but for perspective's sake, Quentin probably was talking to someone for at least 450,000+ minutes out of 525,600 in 1999.

how were you able to finally get away??

The line wasn't meant to be funny.

DLOOT11 All these characters taking themselves too seriously was the joke.

oh so we just have to love everything and agree 100% with everything anybody has ever done?

@@juancpgo Where did he say that anywhere in the original comment? How does one jump to such a conclusion?

@@DLOOT11 yes it was....

"the porno wasnt good." Who cares? Not the point of the movie

@@andresguillen6750 Tarantino cares.

"Ed Wood" is a pretty great movie. Ed Wood movies are shit.

@@Nicefail87 that obvious joke is not as obvious as you are delivering it.

@@jockoadams3377 Yes, Ed Wood was very good, and Plan 9 wasn't, but I've never had the desire to see Ed Wood again, despite Martin Landau's great performance. I could watch Plan 9 two or three times a year and never get tired of it. It's consistently entertaining throughout. Sometimes, that's what matters.

Donald Dude that’s literally the idea of the movie. It’s not meant to be realistic it’s a retelling of World War II however hitler dies

@@juxe411 it is just a joke

He didn't beat him up. They were -1-1 in a two out of three falls fight. There was no blood on Bruce Lee.

To me that was just the Stuntman’s wet dream like “yeah I could totally take Bruce Lee” that’s why after his fantasy trip scene, his next line was comedic. Because all of what happened was bullshit

Stunt man/War hero

Agreed.

absolutely. unfuckingreal is what it is. it's like michael motherfucking bay saying that he did not like how kubrick did this and did that. imagine the guy who made transformers say oh 2001 was quite a frivolous movie with slow pace and untimately no aim, that is how qt is treating pt and these chumps in this comment section the way they say he has not done anything good since twbb have no idea about the brilliance of the master and inherent vice. qt is a child, the way he talks and the way he thinks and everything else about him. neither qt nor his movies have any maturity, all his characters talk with the same eccentricity he talks and have no individual or unique voice of their own.

@Rodycaz Mr. "He's one the greatest directors of all time, he's entitled to critize whomever he feels like" talking about being touchy?

@Rodycaz Well, you said that in response to people pointing out Tarantino is way more reckless when it comes to historic accuracy, and then asked for a peeled and into your mouth explanation, so yeah, you are very touchy.

@Rodycaz Bitching about people not agreeing with you in that his criticism is valid only because of his prestige is about as touchy and bitchy as it could ever get. Ironic huh?

@Rodycaz Trying the high ground after being destroyed in an argument is also very touchy.

Bruce Lee's wife thought it was an accurate portrayal of her husband. He was very proud of himself and also vain.

Best comment.

​@@33Luger Um, in real life it's been documented that Bruce Lee literally said Cassius Clay would beat him. The opposite of what the fictionalized Bruce Lee says in the movie. The real Bruce was rather humble.

tonywords Actually it was laced with acid and it’s possible he received the dose via his lips and not via smoking it. It still isn’t super realistic but it is possible.

@Adam Dustin but it's still stupid.

He didnt day it about Tarantino.

Explains why Tarantino is so messed up

Also, how does he know that... Its not like you couldn't watch porn movies daily w/o working porn theater (I thought he worked at a rental place?). And they are not that super individualist that it makes a difference if you watched 1000 or 10000, especially back in the day.

@@Entertainment-nl7lf I would take as QT being an unapologetic film nerd/snob. He can't seem to help himself sometimes whether its in his works, or interviews. Comes as off as nitpicky, but, he got to where he was by being a nitpick - in many ways.

@@Entertainment-nl7lf id say there's a difference It's like a lot of porn films from the 70s used an Italian inspired aesthetic, and the good directors did those fade outs and close ups quite well, showing they were skilled but were just perverts It does take some perverts to know perverts though

PS: I think if Paul was as childish he would quickly find many "CHEAP" lines in Quentin´s films. MANY!

Its a little sad really ;(

@@santiagofernandezdecastrog7994 or just point out how hypocritical Tarantino is in reference to Bruce Lee

Quentin is like a cartoon filmmaker where his movies are not based in reality. PTA's are, and his movies are taken more seriously as dramatic, real-life pieces. PTA is a director for grown ups. Quentin is a director for teenagers and single males in their 20s and 30s.

You think Tarantino’s films are unique? Most everything in movies is unoriginal but, geez, crack open an Elmore Leonard book and you’ll see where he gets his characters and dialogue. Watch some Shaw Bros., Pinky Violence, Spaghetti westerns, Peckinpah, etc.

omg especially hateful 8.... whew

Matthew Stull Gimme one flaw you found in TH8

@@Osamah0 how about Jody popping up from the floor that was weak. What about the prison wellenbeck that major marques supposedly burnt down that they claimed was in a Northern State why would the southern Army put a prisoner-of-war camp in a Northern State? Is 2 enough or would you like some more?

Django Unchained....Schultz is too prominent a character...Django is pretty much a supporting character in his own movie. The shootout at Candyland before the ending...why did Stephen and the other Candyland henchman not kill Django as soon he surrendered after killing Calvin Candy, rather than selling him back into slavery?

@@Osamah0 How about the entire plan to free Jennifer Jason Leigh's character? "Lets execute the entire cabin once over and literally surround the next group of guests, but make sure and give them just long enough to get the upper hand on us." I feel like Jody's gang had ample time to make their move on Samuel L Jackson, Walter Goggins, and Kurt Russel even before any suspicion was raised. The flashback painted the gang as cold and calculating, but their IQ drops a few dozen points for plot convenience as soon as Samuel's horse buggy arrives. Someone already mentioned a similar convenience in Django. They literally pull a James Bond Villain esque move by having Django by the actual balls and then letting him go. How is the group of Australian's they handed Django off to worse than death by castration if Django fools them with next to no effort?

You can completely disagree with somebody and still be friends. Lol that’s pretty obvious. Btw QT LOVES boogie nights, it’s his fav PTA movie and one of his fav movies of the last 20 years. And i also agree with his point

@@shauner8754 DID I SAY THEY WEREN'T FRIENDS?

Leave it to a KZfaq commenter to think two people can't be friends if one person thinks one way and the other thinks another way.

@@OBFLife Are you replying to me or to the original person I'm posting under?

Pulp Fiction destroys boogie nights in ever way period

@@stevemcqueen8961 whatr u five?

Steve McQueen no way.

Twbb and the master* not boogie

That is also my interpretation.

Exactly

That would be fair if it weren't for the follow-up line about wanting this to be the movie he's remembered for.

I actually think it’s the opposite. For me at least, Reynolds was the only character throughout the film who I believed had actual ability and talent. The rest always came off as having an inflated sense of self, believing they’re more than they are (porn actors thinking they’re doing world changing stuff whilst accepting awards to a room of 60 people). Then all of a sudden, we see this piece of shit movie and Reynolds thinks it’s gold. The satire is brilliant, especially paired with his iconic line that Tarantino mentions here (making a film that’s right, true and dramatic).

In this case, isn't it actually for the movie goer to decide? And the evidence is that even what is considered best is just mediocre. I mean the whole movie portrays a pretty seedy image as a whole. I think it was meant to be accurate in the context of the film, Tarantino ought to understand that.

I was going to say the same thing... it's not a crappy movie but I hated how everyone started looking at it as the culmination of QT's talent while I happen to believe that "Kill Bill" was his last masterpiece.

made my day!

Neither of them is Joel or Ethan Coen.

Good point. The majority of people who watched Boogie Nights on its release and since won't know who Damiano was or seen his work. And it's not as if they used his name.