Deleted member 8579

Oct 26, 2017
33,843
Dear Paramount,

Please don't hand Star Trek over to this awful man.

Regards,
MinusTydus


tumblr_oi9l6pgH0B1tu7563o6_r1_500.gif


tumblr_oi9l6pgH0B1tu7563o1_r1_500.gif


star-trek-dax-feet-cinderella-if-the-shoe-fits.jpg
 

Deleted member 2625

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
4,596
A lot of the stuff you're probably thinking of used body doubles

Lena Headey walked naked in front of probably 100 crew, it was definitely her, what say you

It's great that Quentin has so many people here to protect him. He appreciates it guys, really though.

sometimes defending principles requires defending assholes, no matter how distasteful you find them. see: ACLU

I think everyone here is in Weinstein mode. you don't have to like QT, again I am not a big fan at all to say the least, but he gets to challenge his performers and being uncomfortable is often a key part of performance – again in the context of the (very-recently-strengthened) SAG rules regarding sex scenes and intimacy, which offer performers an opportunity to nope out hard. power imbalances are of course a real thing in Hollywood but you can't discount what SAG brings, which are significant protections. that said feet and hands are not typically considered intimate reveals and the fact that one might find QT's foot fetish disgusting has zero bearing on anything. also this performer in the OP was obviously making a self deprecating remark about her feet. whole thing is dumb.
 

Scuttlefluff

Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,383
Thing about this is, fans of his films like myself really want to believe that QT is absolutely nothing like his long time friend, benefactor, and mentor Harvey Weinstein. And shit like this does NOT help! This isn't a huge damning offence or anything...but read the room, QT!
 
Oct 25, 2017
13,173
That's such a weird shot. It doesn't make it visually interesting and I don't know why anyone would sit like that in a car
 

AnotherNils

Member
Oct 27, 2017
11,936
I'm not sure why people are handwaving this away. QT is free to have his fetishes in his private life, but its apparent he lacks the self-control to keep it from interfering with his work. Sure, you might ignore it because it's 'just' feet, but feet to Quentin are a hyper-sexualized symbol. Would your (or the publics) reaction be the same if his obsession was something everyone found/agreed was sexual? If he was constantly inserting shots of (insert private part) into his movies, and if actresses were surprised and uncomfortable that he needed shots of their (private part).

If you think this is about what people wear sneakers on, you've got the context all wrong.
 

uncelestial

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
4,060
San Francisco, CA, USA
Serious question: why can't QT film something he finds titillating? Do we want to ban sex scenes in general now because the director might like what he's filming? There is plenty of sex in, say, Euphoria on HBO. What is the actual difference in shooting a bare foot in this case vs a bare breast in Euphoria?

Even if the only point in filming it was to give QT a big boner which I doubt, I literally don't give a fuck if it actually works in the movie. Arousal is not some verboten emotion that must never be expressed. It's a part of life.

The only and I mean ONLY is issue is whether it was a hostile work environment and done against her will, and it doesn't appear that way. Other than that, woe be to us if those who want sexless art actually win.
 

Deleted member 2533

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
8,325
We look at actor's chests, butts, and midriffs in every freaking film, and actors complain about their insecurities in scenes where they put their bodies in the spotlight all the time. If this actor had a scene where they were wearing something that exposed their cleavage, no one would care because having a breast fetish is normal.
 

AnotherNils

Member
Oct 27, 2017
11,936
We look at actor's chests, butts, and midriffs in every freaking film, and actors complain about their insecurities in scenes where they put their bodies in the spotlight all the time. If this actor had a scene where they were wearing something that exposed their cleavage, no one would care because having a breast fetish is normal.
How would people react if he kept signed copies of pictures of the actresses breasts around his home?
 

Infernostew

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,183
New Jersey
Seems pretty benign to be honest. I feel this amounts to an actor being asked to wear a white shirt in a scene and them thinking that they don't look all that great in white and would've rather worn black. Being barefoot in a scene and being self conscious about your feet seems pretty low on the list for what actors and actresses are expected to do. Ultimately it's QT's film and she probably just shrugged it off and didn't really think about until she was asked this question.
 

Akira86

Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,626
this will probably cause a barbara streisand effect where people who wouldn't have been aware before will now be ultra aware.
 

Strangelove_77

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
13,392
Oh I see someone already compared Tarantino to Harvey Weinstein because of this.
Y'all are too fucking much sometimes.
 

Lundren

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,745
She doesn't say anything like that though. She says he suggested her putting her feet on the dash, she says she told him her feet are all messed up.

In other words, it wasn't known to her before hand that she would have to do it, since he was only just then suggesting it. Another term for that is springing something on someone.
 

KingM

Member
Oct 28, 2017
4,518
I'm not sure why people are handwaving this away. QT is free to have his fetishes in his private life, but its apparent he lacks the self-control to keep it from interfering with his work. Sure, you might ignore it because it's 'just' feet, but feet to Quentin are a hyper-sexualized symbol. Would your (or the publics) reaction be the same if his obsession was something everyone found/agreed was sexual? If he was constantly inserting shots of (insert private part) into his movies, and if actresses were surprised and uncomfortable that he needed shots of their (private part).

If you think this is about what people wear sneakers on, you've got the context all wrong.
Yes, people would still be fine with it. Probably wouldn't get as wide a release but directors with creepy fetishes do just fine. Something as benign as feet or breasts are no big deal on the scale of fetishes.
 

Allstar

Member
Feb 9, 2019
53
I'm not sure why people are handwaving this away. QT is free to have his fetishes in his private life, but its apparent he lacks the self-control to keep it from interfering with his work.
??? you can say this about any breast, ass, or body close up... ever? even gay or lesbian movies indulge in what they find to be sexually and aesthetically pleasing. You are absolutely making a different thing out of it because it's feet rather than the sexual objects of desires that are usually the focus in film and tv.
 

Allstar

Member
Feb 9, 2019
53
QT was and has always been part of Harvey Weinstein circle of accomplices he was lucky that he didn't get caught up like the others but he's still has some many questionable acts that doesnt stray to far
You're not "lucky" not to get caught up because you don't feel the need to actively molest or repeatedly rape women.
 

Deleted member 2625

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
4,596
Yes, people would still be fine with it. Probably wouldn't get as wide a release but directors with creepy fetishes do just fine. Something as benign as feet or breasts are no big deal on the scale of fetishes.

which jobs are immune vs dependent on not having Creepy Fetishes? asking for a friend
 

AnotherNils

Member
Oct 27, 2017
11,936
??? you can say this about any breast, ass, or body close up... ever? even gay or lesbian movies indulge in what they find to be sexually and aesthetically pleasing. You are absolutely making a different thing out of it because it's feet rather than the sexual objects of desires that are usually the focus in film and tv.
Gratuitous nudity and needless sexualization isn't a controversial subject already?
 

Allstar

Member
Feb 9, 2019
53
Is this your interpretation on why feet come up in QTs films so often?
What I did was reference your statement saying that QT needs to police his fetish as if sex, sexualization, and even a fetish, couldn't be part of a movie. There is nothing inherently wrong with any of these things being included in movies as long as the making of them and display of it are done consensually.

Whether that was the case with Qualley, I'm not to judge which is exactly why I haven't defended this particular instance even once. But I don't believe that QT needs to censor or tone down his display of nude feet because... it's a fetish? You can be upset about too much nudity in a film and call it unnecessary, but you can't be upset about the person who created that film if every other person involved was absolutely fine and in agreement during the making of it when there's no harm done.

To me, the line I have quoted from you sounded very much as if it was something wildly different for nude feet to be shown in his films rather than breasts or buttocks being shown during a sensually and tastefully made sexual scene which I disagree with. Especially in light of how he doesn't even portray nude feet exclusively as sexual, the mere display of a nude foot is nothing that I judge as inherently wrong or having gone far too overboard in cases where everyone involved consents.
 

Dierce

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,013
I dont understand how Tarantino hasn't gotten canceled yet. The guy has been racist, sexist and is an overall weirdo.
 

EloquentM

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,631
Can we get a coherent argument as to why this situation is inappropriate in any way within the context of filming this movie?