Video Games Hangouts
EtcetEra Hangouts
Trending

Odd scene in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood...

H2Yo

H2Yo

The Fallen
Oct 28, 2017
859
Melbourne, Australia
So I was watching this film for the first time while flying internationally and there was a scene that made me rewind twice to wonder what the fuck was going on.

The first time Leonardo meets Timothy on set, Tim comes over without a hat and has a huge nose. Mid sentence there is like a clicking sound and the frame cuts to Tim talking with a normal nose and a hat on.

At first I thought this was some plane edit, but I've since rewatched this scene on a legit copy and it's as I saw on the plane.

What the hell is going on?
 

Thekillerichi

Avenger
Nov 26, 2017
345
I thought it was to show three different ways the conversation started, because you noticed it was like it was three different conversation(that way I saw it)
 
OP
OP
H2Yo

H2Yo

The Fallen
Oct 28, 2017
859
Melbourne, Australia
I could pass it off as a mistake if there was no large nose and cene cut transition sounds -- It happens twice in succession. It's so odd because nothing else like that appears in the film.
 
TheJackdog

TheJackdog

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,497
the movie messes with the audience in "who is filming" with a lot of those scenes, and actors who are acting watching themselves acting. a lot of the Lancer filming contains details like this where you don't know who is "filming", tarintino or the director of Lancer. As for the scene you are referring to it also jumps the conversation around too.

A lot of movies shot around this time contain these continuity errors too, i think its a jab at that. thats why the conversation starts, and hes suddenly wearing a hat.

I think its just another part of a movie paying homage to a very specific time in hollywood, even in its editing.

its just a stylistic choice.
 
Mikey Jr.

Mikey Jr.

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,173
I won't lie, I didn't understand this movie at all.

Just felt like a series of things that were happening, and 2 different stories that didn't seem to cross at all until the last 10 seconds of the movie.

The ending scene was awesome. But other than that.......I was disappointed in this Tarantino movie.

Maybe I am too young to understand these references from the 60's.
 

Deleted member 2625

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
4,596
watched this last night. what a crap film.

as usual for Tarantino it's full of wonderful setups and attention to set dec and really tries to capture a vibe... and it's in service of a meandering, nonsensical, frankly stupid story that goes completely off the rails into cartoon violence in the last 5%. just like Hateful Eight.
 
Seesaw15

Seesaw15

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,138
Mikey Jr. said:
I won't lie, I didn't understand this movie at all.

Just felt like a series of things that were happening, and 2 different stories that didn't seem to cross at all until the last 10 seconds of the movie.

The ending scene was awesome. But other than that.......I was disappointed in this Tarantino movie.

Maybe I am too young to understand these references from the 60's.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

:P But its not that serious. Its just a love letter to a period of time Tarantino cares about and a fable for what could of been. Knowledge of the period is helpful but isn't required. You probably just didn't like the movie.
 
Last edited:
Darkwing-Buck

Darkwing-Buck

Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,242
Los Angeles, CA
It's a reference to french new wave cinema and director Jean-Luc Godard.

In films like Breathless or Band of Outsiders, there would be editing hitches like that because of the careless style of Godard.

In here, it's a very deliberate reference rather than a real editing mistake.
 
retroman

retroman

Member
Oct 31, 2017
2,395
Mikey Jr. said:
I won't lie, I didn't understand this movie at all.

Just felt like a series of things that were happening, and 2 different stories that didn't seem to cross at all until the last 10 seconds of the movie.

The ending scene was awesome. But other than that.......I was disappointed in this Tarantino movie.

Maybe I am too young to understand these references from the 60's.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Nah, I'm old and I generally enjoy Tarantino's flicks, but I also wasn't a big fan of this movie. It all felt a bit too meandering to me. I might've enjoyed it more if they'd cut quite a bit of the running time.
 
Mary Celeste

Mary Celeste

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,879
I assumed it was a joke about how the conversation they had was utterly meaningless and so we skip right through it
 
DIE BART DIE

DIE BART DIE

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,547
This is a film where some distance from it has revealed it to be quite a weak effort. Great visuals and atmosphere, but the core drama is wanting.
 
Mars People

Mars People

Comics Council 2020
Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,131
All I know is Tarantino needs to keep his damn fetishes in check.
At least twice we had actresses shove their dirty feet into the camera for like 10 minutes at a time.
C'mon dude, we get it, but you don't need to literally shove your kink in our faces.
 
Ziltoidia 9

Ziltoidia 9

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,721
Yeah, you arn't gunna get that kinda mistake with this.

dan2026 said:
All I know is Tarantino needs to keep his damn fetishes in check.
At least twice we had actresses shove their dirty feet into the camera for like 10 minutes at a time.
C'mon dude, we get it, but you don't need to literally shove your kink in our faces.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Pretty sure at this point he is just making on the nose. Hence, right on the camera.
 

Deleted member 19218

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
4,323
I vaguely recall it. Could it be about different perceptions like the big buck toothed sheriff in the X Files?
 
Shy

Shy

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
18,520
It was intentional . OP.
Darkwing-Buck said:
It's a reference to french new wave cinema and director Jean-Luc Godard.

In films like Breathless or Band of Outsiders, there would be editing hitches like that because of the careless style of Godard.

In here, it's a very deliberate reference rather than a real editing mistake.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This user knows what's up.
 
Lord Error

Lord Error

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,474
Mikey Jr. said:
I won't lie, I didn't understand this movie at all.

Just felt like a series of things that were happening, and 2 different stories that didn't seem to cross at all until the last 10 seconds of the movie.

The ending scene was awesome. But other than that.......I was disappointed in this Tarantino movie.

Maybe I am too young to understand these references from the 60's.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This movie requires knowledge of Charles Manson cult, and the death of Sharon Tate. If you're not familiar with it, it's absolutely required to read up on this before seeing the movie in my opinion, and I wish someone told me that, and that that's what the movie was about. I went into it 100% blindly, as with every other QT movie, willing to be surprised - but so much of what was shown totally flew over my head because I wasn't familiar with that side of Holywood history. I simply never realized that the commune shown in the movie was the actual Charles Manson cult commune, and that people shown in it are the actual real life people. I think the movie is quite ingenious now that I've realized what it was really about, but at the time of watching it, I felt it was a bit of a letdown.
 
Last edited:
Tom Penny

Tom Penny

Member
Oct 26, 2017
13,384
I could not get through this movie. It felt like nothingness for too long in the beginning.
 
Dmax3901

Dmax3901

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,342
I think it was a much longer take that had to be edited down but Tarantino was stubborn and wanted to keep some of the conversation in.
 
phonicjoy

phonicjoy

Member
Jun 19, 2018
2,991
Lord Error said:
This movie requires knowledge of Charles Manson cult, and the death of Sharon Tate. If you're not familiar with it, it's absolutely required to read up on this before seeing the movie in my opinion, and I wish someone told me that, and that that's what the movie was about. I went into it 100% blindly, as with every other QT movie, willing to be surprised - but so much of what was shown totally flew over my head because I wasn't familiar with that side of Holywood history. I simply never realized that the commune shown in the movie was the actual Charles Manson cult commune, and that people shown in it are the actual real life people. I think the movie is quite ingenious now that I've realized what it was really about, but at the time of watching it, I felt it was a bit of a letdown.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
it’s his way of giving Sharon Tate the life she lost. I thought it was pretty incredible.
 
PogChamp

PogChamp

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
10,196
Lord Error said:
This movie requires knowledge of Charles Manson cult, and the death of Sharon Tate. If you're not familiar with it, it's absolutely required to read up on this before seeing the movie in my opinion, and I wish someone told me that, and that that's what the movie was about. I went into it 100% blindly, as with every other QT movie, willing to be surprised - but so much of what was shown totally flew over my head because I wasn't familiar with that side of Holywood history. I simply never realized that the commune shown in the movie was the actual Charles Manson cult commune, and that people shown in it are the actual real life people. I think the movie is quite ingenious now that I've realized what it was really about, but at the time of watching it, I felt it was a bit of a letdown.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Exactly the same experience. I was baffled why they focused on Margot Robbie's character for so many scenes and then had seemingly zero payoff with her.
 
Psychoward

Psychoward

Banned
Nov 7, 2017
30,874
It was intentional, my main issue with the movie is that Tarantino's male gaze fuckshit is at an all time high. We don't need 4 foot fetish scenes especially if he's trying to respect Tate, we get it.

Then Margaret Qualley's character just straight up asking to suck Brad Pitt's dick? Come on

Least favorite Tarantino movie by a longshot
 
rude

rude

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,310
A few months removed from this, I now think it’s probably his best work. I think most viewers just don’t have the vernacular to appreciate how good this movie is. It’s Tarantino’s take on the 70s vibes of films like Two Lane Blacktop etc. Once Upon a Time really is an achievement even if it is a little too long.
 
Dabanton

Dabanton

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,979
Psychoward said:
It was intentional, my main issue with the movie is that Tarantino's male gaze fuckshit is at an all time high. We don't need 4 foot fetish scenes especially if he's trying to respect Tate, we get it.

Then Margaret Qualley's character just straight up asking to suck Brad Pitt's dick? Come on

Least favorite Tarantino movie by a longshot
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That made sense

He sent those girls out into the world to incite men to the cult. It was funny how baffled she was when he turned her down.
 
Moff

Moff

Member
Oct 26, 2017
3,335
When people complained about this boing too slow I feared it might not be for me like hateful eight, but to my surprise I adored each minute and every scene. what a beautiful movie.
 
Dabanton

Dabanton

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,979
The movie for me works if you have a even rudimentary knowledge of that era.

I smiled at stuff like Matt Helm and the cheesy tv shows as my dad would play those. The film is a love letter to an era of Hollywood we'll never see again.

The scene with the neon lights made the movie for me.
 
Hampig

Hampig

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,391
Moff said:
When people complained about this boing too slow I feared it might not be for me like hateful eight, but to my surprise I adored each minute and every scene. what a beautiful movie.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Agreed, I wasn't sure about it beforehand but I found myself wishing it was longer. Probably in the minority there.
 
MaitreWakou

MaitreWakou

One Winged Slayer
Avenger
May 15, 2018
12,888
Toulouse, France
The thing with Tarantino, is that it's a very very popular director. He has become a pop culture icon. Thing is, part of Tarantino's esthetic is to reference not only other pop culture icons, but also to reference foreign cinema, which is not something that most of his public will understand. (Heck, even in France, most people don't know anything about the Nouvelle Vague unless you're a film enthusiast)
Like someone else has said, it's probably a reference to the french Nouvelle Vague.
Tarantino is a huge Godard fan.
The Nouvelle Vague is kinda the french counterpart to the New Hollywood.
Basically, it was when the cinema became modern in the late 50s (France) (and late 60s in the US for the New Hollywood).
They basically destroyed a lot of rules from the classicism. Godard was particularly fond of continuity errors. He wanted to remind you that you're watching a film. He wanted to destroy Renoir's "Grande Forme", no transparency, you would notice the editing.
(Transparency is the most important thing in classic cinema, and even today in Hollywood : the spectator must forget that he's watching a film, and he must totally believe in the world that is being created in front of his eyes)
 
broadwayrock

broadwayrock

Member
Oct 27, 2017
148
H2Yo said:
I could pass it off as a mistake if there was no large nose and cene cut transition sounds -- It happens twice in succession. It's so odd because nothing else like that appears in the film.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It also happens when Leonardo is in the makeup trailer talking to the director who mentions changing leo's hairstyle and midway through the conversation Leo's hairstyle changes.

This is Tarantino's breaking the fourth wall nod to cineasts to remind them they're watching a film.

This film reminded me of the Coen Brother's 'Hail, Ceaser!' : a series of cinematic genre pastiches slapped onto an undercooked screenplay.
 
Dmax3901

Dmax3901

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,342
phonicjoy said:
it’s his way of giving Sharon Tate the life she lost. I thought it was pretty incredible.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This is one of things I actually didn't like about the movie. I get it with Django and IB: it's nice to imagine an alternative. But with this, being about the death of a very specific, small number of people, it just felt hollow. I couldn't help but think: yeah but that's not what happened. Instead of feeling cathartic, it felt dishonest. I dunno.
 
winjet81

winjet81

Member
Oct 27, 2017
466
Incredible movie.

As others have said, if you’re not familiar with the era and/or the Manson/Tate/helterskelter back-story, you’re really going into this movie short-handed.
 
Tupper

Tupper

Member
Jul 15, 2019
393
Dmax3901 said:
This is one of things I actually didn't like about the movie. I get it with Django and IB: it's nice to imagine an alternative. But with this, being about the death of a very specific, small number of people, it just felt hollow. I couldn't help but think: yeah but that's not what happened. Instead of feeling cathartic, it felt dishonest. I dunno.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I just watched it yesterday and this was my take as well. Beautiful movie filled with inside Hollywood moments most I didn't get but the end felt dishonest. I'm not sure why this feels that way and Inglorious Basterds didn't to me but it did.

As to the OP. I uh didn't notice these edits but the way you described them they are definitely deliberate (I'm not super good about picking up on stuff like this, lol).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.