Criticism of the Tate scenes shouldn't be shushed away. I think removing them would remove a key component of the film and would be making a different movie, but if we get to the heart of what Hopkins is saying, it's probably that those scenes weren't effective for him and didn't contribute enough to the rest of the film for them, or it was unclear what QT was trying to do. Or even that we know what he was trying to do and they weren't very effective.
This is a sentiment repeated by multiple posters and critics, as well.
I'm more mixed on those scenes. I see what QT was trying to do, and there is something sweet and human about it, but it is also (intentionally) a shallow look at Tate. He just wants to show her as a happy person, taking pleasure in her first success, living her life, etc. We're not really getting to know Tate any better or understanding her as a human, but we are getting these little glimpses that humanize her.
I think they are sweet and effective in that way, but then again, I think QT's indulgences make it not work as much for me. Tate + foot fetish is weird (in a movie all about humanizing this person, QT has to add a scene that plays to his own extratextual love of feet, which he also knows his audience knows, so its this strange double/triple audience wink), and TBH, the entire "well, it's a good thing this type of masculine manly man was here to stop the murderers" is a very, uh, complex type of wish fulfillment/fairy tale.
...this is a bit much.