I very much liked the part where Bill shouted 'Let me finish!' to Quentin after having talked over him every single time Quentin was trying to make a point.
@@zackerythomas3675 Bill in other interviews act superior and makes petty points. Not fun to listen to. I wouldn't be too surprised tarantino interrupts. Surprised he agreed in the first place. What movie is he promoting?
When I watched 1917 in the theater, I spent the first 15 minutes looking for the cuts, and that got tiresome and I decided to just enjoy the good story. There was nothing wrong with their shot "gimmick", it created immersion and I got engrossed in the visuals and storytelling.
@@Shaki123 So don't be a snob and look for them. I would assume those who know how 'moviemakingg works' would appreciate the technical ability in a film that has achieved something they never will or would be interested in simply enjoying a film.
That’s the thing is that the movie was very unique but it sacrifices a lot to keep the 1 shot gimmick alive. You are pretty much watching this 1 guy walk around for 2 hours straight, its not exactly a movie I would watch everyday but it was cool for the 1 time I watched it.
Maher and Tarantino? Neither are team players. For them, "conversations" are monologue tennis (although they don't wait their turn). Also, both of them could easily be viewed as know-it-alls.
1. Bill: Novice media maker, average film goer who doesn't know what question to ask 2. Judd : film nerd, listens attentively and understands the language 3. Quentin: cinema autuer who's seen the evolution of film throughout the decades trying to preach. It's like a hamster, a cat and a tiger trying to discuss dinner plans
Yeah in another clip of this Bill said Judd's movie Funny People was a great movie. Which is his opinion of course but it made me realize how out of his depth he was
In WW1 there was the campaign in east Africa, Carl Von lettow successfully pushed back the British. Also France had Tirailleurs who fought in Verdun, so it is valid to say people of colour took part in the conflict.
Got to get the DEI in history. FFS there were 20000 British men killed in ONE DAY at The Somme. Which was ONE battle in WW1. But of course, to people like you white people can't' suffer in masses. All about the quotas. All about the quotas..
I respect Quentin Tarantino in this because he’s not arguing that the movie was good. He respects the shots, he’s arguing with people that don’t understand film. It’s a nuance thing. It’s a subtle thing that directors look for.
It's kind of embarrassing to me that people think it's just a few shots. It's tons of shots. It would be as embarrassing as people thinking Star Wars has actual space battles with real spaceships
This saved so much time hearing everyone's opinion shouted over each other. This would've been a 30 minute video if they all got to finish their thoughts. Much appreciated!
Quentin doesn't get mad, he gets overly opinionated to the point where it becomes obvious he's a narcissist, like basically saying he could do 1917 better. Maybe he has beef with Sam Mendes or Roger Deakins, but for him to point out "mistakes" they made in that film shows his true character.
@@fuckamericanidiot Of course he's made better movies than 1917 (in totally different genres however). I'm saying he had no reservations by publicly asserting he could've made 1917 even better, perhaps visually, which is kinda throwing shade at the director & DP because of his narcissism.
@@katlis He’s just discussing what he enjoys, worked, didn’t work, etc. He’s talking about movies like anyone who loves movies talks. He just happens to be one of the greatest filmmakers of all-time.
@@katlis So he's made better movies, therefore there's a good chance he could do a better job. And he said it out loud. Any accusation of narcissism is completely irrelevant.
At 4:00 Bill was going to reply I didn't go to film school but he then stops himself knowing that neither did Quentin lol. I almost wish he said it because quentin would have yelled "NEITHER DID I" .
This show was made so Bill can hear himself talk even more than just on Friday nights. Lol. Standing there questioning Tarantino about film directing is wild lol
He thinks he's always the smartest person the room, bill knows fuck all to a student director let alone Tarantino and Judd, yes Judd directs amd writes comedies but he was holding back in telling Bill he's a dumbass
@@clockwork8251 yeah it seems to be made for people who grew up in that era like he did. Something like Django or Inglorious have a much wider appeal to general audiences and are better films imo
Bill should release the edited version of these interviews which cut all his interruptions out. I might watch them then. He gets such interesting people on and he never shuts up or stops cutting them off.
According to Mendes, the shortest unbroken shot was 39 seconds long, while the longest single continuous shot was 8-1/2 minutes long. The fact that it feel Like a half hour is impressive in itself
Mostly using tracking shots, right? You can see 1917 done great by Kubrick in the 1950s with his Paths of Glory (often regarded as the greatest war movie of all time). I don't think there is anything extremely impressive about 1917, it's just that most of its viewers are young and don't know cinema -- and it happens to be one of the few relatively normal movies of the last 6 years, so it sticks in people's minds right now. But, I don't judge movies based on 'right now' -- I compare to all movies of history. In this way, 1917 is pretty average.
Yes, and they're literally shown in the movie he's talking about. He must have been so amazed at the "one cut" gimmick that he didn't notice the Indian soldiers in the truck that the guy gets into.
The reason why the long cut makes sense in 1917 is because the story has a time limit or else something horrible will happen. I don't know why no one talks about that. It isn't a gimmick, it enhances the story.
My favorite part of it was how there was so much silence but it kept me on the edge of my seat. Made me really feel like I was in the characters shoes.
@@shadowprince4482 I have so many favorite parts lmao but one particular is probably how apart from the main characters no one gets more than 2-3 minutes of screentime, and yet so many of them completely nail their roles. Richard Madden especially I mean holy shit, the scene where Schofield meets Lt. Blake is fucking incredibly acted!
I actually agree that Bill Maher (even though I find him generally entertaining and sometimes insightful) just likes to hear himself talk, but at the same time I don't find anyone questioning anyone on any subject out of line. I think even layman should question experts. Sometimes even genius miss the simplest of things.
Once upon a time in Hollywood was not spectacular. It was team packed with bloated meaningless and uninteresting content. Only a handful of memorable scenes. The rest was Quintin just admiring his own work and only caring about how the shot looks and not the content of the shot or if it's interesting or not. The rock Dalton storyline was utterly boring. Cliff was cool but wasted for the majority. How he can say this is the best work of his career is criminal! Beat looking visually? He may have a point. Some of the shots were magnificent. But in regards to the story and its lack of interesting plot was so underwhelming.
@@jaycuthbert245 Finally somebody said it, hated the movie so much. As a huge fan of QT, got disappointed with that one, no plot, nothing, just people roaming here and there, only last 10 minutes of the movie was worth watching.
I dont remember 1917 being advertised as having no cuts. It was promoted as having long takes which undoubtedly added to the immersion. Brilliant movie.
Exactly, I feel like Quentin is blinded by being upstaged with what he see's as a cheap trick when it's just a creative choice that helps enhance the story. Alfonso Cuaron did long takes in Children of Men with hidden cuts and that film is much more immersive for it. Mendes was pulling off the evolution of that I feel.
@@KevinHarvey-YT upstaged? 1917 is entirely forgettable (and highly unoriginal) beyond the meme of trying to look like one continuous shot. That's literally all it had going for it. Q's right, it would be a lot more impressive if it were actually long takes; there are many movies with long takes and they're always more impressive for it. It's a bold move and not necessarily easy to pull off. Not only in the directing side but acting as well; if you can nail a long take and keep it engaging, it is cinematic gold. In contrast however, it does not take a lot of talent to do a whip pan edit and blend a multitude of cuts (though credit given where it's due to editing) and if that's all this movie brings to the table then okay... But a gimmick edit has got nothing on a single Tarantino movie. They're all too memorable and iconic. Whereas I couldn't cite anything besides editing and Roger Deakins' cinematography for 1917. Furthermore I can't say I've cared to revisit it🤷♂️ there's too many other greater war films out there with greater content, originality, strong writing, real character and memorable moments. I'm not saying it's a bad movie like say hacksaw ridge lmao but it's definitely not great. I forgot all about it until now. Meanwhile, I could never forget FMJ or Apocalypse Now for example. For the record hacksaw had a decent enough premise but the execution was piss poor.
Judd Apatow had nothing to offer as he's a hack making mediocre (at best) films. He was too scared to engage Tarantino in a serious conversation regarding films.
I love how bill says “how is this?” Then Tarantino tries to explain and bill jumps in two words into Tarantinos explanation. On the other hand when QT says “it was so OBVIOUSLY” like everyone could see it
Feel like Tarantino is coming off as a bit of an ass here. Something like "As a master filmmaker I can easily spot the invisible cuts and therefore the movie sucks". He is indeed a master filmmaker but he is not exactly representative of the audience. The invisible cuts are done more than well enough to make the entire film an incredibly immersive experience, and the cinematography is next-level. And honestly Quentin is pretty much the same as Bill, neither one can let the other one get more than 5 words out before interrupting. Super annoying haha.
@@baverfjant no Quentin is trying to say that they promoted the movie off being 1 take and all they talked about they were doing something revaluationary and Quentin was saying if your going to do that then actually do something revaluationary and make it at minimum 15 min takes he isn't impressed with the 5 min takes stitched together it isn't as hard as there making it seem promoting it. Quentin said he loved the film just not because of the long takes because it wasnt that impressive to do.
@@Strife93 Exactly, they promoted it as like a One Take, and anyone that actually watches, or takes notice of the craft, had their immersion broken every time saw the cuts. It ruined the movie for me. It was a good movie, but do not try to make me think it was a single take, that ruined it for me when could see every cut.
@@Strife93No, they were very open with it not being one take but being made to LOOK LIKE it was one take. Casual movie fans don't really pay attention to promotions and talks about a movie, and thought it was one take and were raving about it. That kind of speaks to how well they made it look like it was one take when it really wasn't.
@@baverfjant I guess man I just didn't see Quentin coming off as an asshole or anything he was just being him. He acts the same in every interview or podcast
WWI was full of POC, depending on the unit, as both the British and French made extensive use of Commonwealth/Colonial forces. 1917 is largely focused on just 2 guys though, and then (spoiler) just one of those guys, so it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to discredit it on the grounds of not being diverse enough. Also, I admire Quentin Tarantino, but talking movies with him would get exhausting pretty quickly just based on all the technicalities alone.
Yeah I don't care that it doesn't have POC in it. It is showing the story it is showing and it was a great film. However, Maher's history knowledge is extremely bad here. There were over a million Indians who fought in WW1 and that included the Western Front. That is just Indians, not even talking about others.
Just as a note, there were many people of color who fought in WWI. European countries brought in their colonial subjects into the fray in sizeable numbers. Also, black Americans fought in the war and were revered greatly by the French, who gave them equal treatment not received in 1917 America. So, Maher and Quentin aren't quite correct here.
They are so wrong indeed , there were MILLIONS of colonial soldiers who fought on all sides of the war, french brought in vast number from africa and England brought in 1.4 million Indians!
I think Tarantino is not giving 1917 enough credit. It was masterful editing and planning. It doesn’t take place in a building. It spans across lots of areas during a war. It’s nuts
it’s very well done but when russian ark exists it’s kind of hard to be impressed, proper planning and editing are the bare minimum for every film. most even have to get the viewers emotionally invested beyond the presentation.
@@sudevsen There would be no way for it to be a real oner, unless you filmed for 45 minutes without cutting. I guess you could do the other 45 minutes the next day and have a two day shoot.
He actually said in the interview he liked the movie, he just has criticisms of the way the movie is cut. But that doesn't make a good clickbait title.
I wonder if they've seen Boiling Point. It's a pretty simple movie showing one night of a busy restaurant, but the entire movie is literally shot start to finish with no cuts whatsoever. Pretty impressive feat.
It was a remarkable film - and you've just reminded me that I haven't seen the follow up TV show (same people) and have a long flight in a couple of weeks. Time to track it down! Thank you :)
1917 was the most realistic war movie which made me like I was inside the WW I. I liked it more than Dunkirk. It was really something more than a movie.
@@JamesNixon-b7p really hoping cagdassimsek8089 takes your advice on this one. 1917 certainly looks good and was shot well but AQOTWF is undoubtedly a much better WWI movie
Tarantino here reminds me of guitarists getting mad at people who gush about the intro to Sweet Child Of Mine - like "it's not hard to do, why are you so impressed!?" And people are just like "I like it, I think it's cool". It's just the way a great director enjoys a movie differently to the rest of us
@@jonathanw1019 Kinda like when some of the worlds best cuisine doesn't have a Michelin star. Award are for the popular crowd to pat themselves on the back. It's called pretension.
There was so much great about 1917 but too much was made of the long takes stuff. To me the most impressive thing about 1917 was the investment in George Mackay’s performance for so much of it which entirely worked. Schofield’s run is a classic piece of cinema and one of those scenes that will stick in my mind for many years.
What the film did very well is show how great it is that filmmakers have developed the art of montage over the past 100+ years, and how dull a film can be when that tool isn't used.
Tarantino never says he hated the movie! He literally says he liked it and was just annoyed with how much credits it for for having long cuts when it didn't actually have unbelievably long cuts.
True, but when it comes to modern day film making having a movie that only has a few cuts and having it be a phenomenal film seems like a bigger success than the movies that have so many cuts in a span of a scene.* But in the end entertainment (and yes a whole lot of other things) is what matters when you watch a movie regardless of the way a filmmaker gets there. *I'm admittedly burnt out when it comes to superhero movies and that's all it was (obviously not all there was but a lot of what was pushed when it came to movies) for a while.** **Yes I see how silly that is considering 1917 and Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood are the films being discussed in this clip. I think the guys at Red Letter Media said it best (I'm paraphrasing) that it's always great when a Tarantino movie comes out because he's an actual filmmaker/director that has a vision and voice rather than a director who is there for a little and then it's all the CGI/special effects folks left to do what they do.
1917 may not be one of my favorites but I’ll never forget the climax and the lead up to it. When Schofield finally pushes his way far into the trenches, the camera pans and you just see all the soldiers in formation and ready to to go. Fucking goosebumps.
I could tell that there was 3 cuts. 1:when they came across the trap in the bunker. 2:the sniper in the 2nd floor window. 3:when he jumped into the river. Am I right? I loved this movie
Tarantino is thinking of it from a filming perspective, but the audience doesn't really give a shit HOW it was filmed, they only care about how it looks. And if it looks like it's been done in one giant take, then it's still reasonably impressive as a concept, especially with everything that was going on in the movie. Maher's challenge to the examples Tarantino brought up are valid.
@@anthonyhernandez1609then he would explain what that was and every other techniques that they could use and forget all about the point he was trying to make.
I believe that the cuts are not for showing technica feats, but to transmit the urgency of the story, like Los Ángeles in the 60’s on Tarantino’s movie, the great thing is that most of us didn’t though about it because it was made to make the story work, not to show how good they are at making backgrounds for movies.
"most of us didn’t though about it because it was made to make the story work" If you went into the cinema, knowing that this is the movie that looks like one long take... in fact, I don't know about you, but I wasn't able to not pay attention to the gimmick. Ruined my immersion.
WW1 was fought by over 12 Million Black and Brown people…..From far east Asia to the over 800 thousand African American troops in the US Army, to the countless North Africans assisting in Europe.
tarantino is probably right from a technical standpoint, but what 1917 brought as an experience was truly amazing for the actual viewers. Just goes to show that you can lose the thread when you get too deep into something.
for me the great achievement of the film is not the “visual long takes”, but the “narrative long takes”. telling an interesting story without boring moments without resorting to time lapses… is the great achievement
I thought the cinematography in 1917 was marvelous, even if I put the "no cuts" gimmick aside. It was a very memorable cinema experience with a big screen and big speakers.
Its memorable in the same way watching a fireworks show would be, there is no emotional depth to the movie, its flat and the characters are cardboard cutouts
There is a lot of cuts in 1917. The hardest one was of the two soldiers climbing out of the trench. There was no jump and they go full CG characters for a moment.
People in the comments seem to not understand the point of this podcast. It’s not an interview show. It’s supposed to be friends getting together, drinking, smoking, and having conversations. This is how people talk to each other in real life.
i could sit here for an hour or two just listening to these guys talk. sure, Bill is interrupting a lot. sure, not all their thoughts are completed before they move on. but it just sounds like guys having a conversation, not much different how i talk with my friends. Tarantino is just so passionate about movies and i like hearing what he has to say purely because of how excited he is.
I'm sorry that Tarantino didn't elaborate on the only truly deliberate cut (change of shot) in "The Rope". It's a (simple) moment when the language of the film explodes, full of meaning. What bothers me about Sam Mendes' film is that the narrative - and its dramatic implications - seems to be locked inside a huge technical achievement. War movies always have a spectacular side, but when it overlaps human drama... it's not exactly my cup of tea.
Tarantino is maybe the most talented to biggest 😮douche bag ratio ever in movies (and that’s saying a lot). Him calling the “1917” Academy year “my year” is the shortest form for his douche-baggery. Maybe they’ll give him an Oscar one day for directing but it will likely be his 4th or 5th best movie, when he moves into his far less obnoxious, lifetime achievement award phase.
@@dislike__buttonI don’t find many films are worth paying for the IMAX experience anymore, but 1917 definitely was. Incredible film. I was on the edge of my seat the entire time. The film manages to capture the terror of warfare, despite the protagonist himself engaging in relatively little combat. It’s one of those films you wish you could wipe from your brain in order to experience it for the first time again.
The worst part for me. When a German pilot is saved from burning to death by two British soldiers. The pilot then repays one of his savior’s by gut stabbing him? You gotta be kidding me.
He probably would've gone to a POW camp or something at best, if your choices are that, try and make a break for it and hope they just let you go or incapacitate them it's not like it's that crazy to go for the third one
Here's a list of African troops involved in World War I: Allied Forces: 1. Senegalese Tirailleurs (France): 170,000 soldiers from Senegal and other French colonies. 2. African troops in the British Army (UK): 55,000 soldiers from various British colonies, including: - King's African Rifles (Kenya, Uganda, Nyasaland) - West African Frontier Force (Nigeria, Ghana, Sierra Leone) - East African Frontier Force (Kenya, Uganda, Tanganyika) 3. Belgian Congolese Forces (Belgium): 20,000 soldiers from the Congo Free State. 4. Portuguese African Troops (Portugal): 10,000 soldiers from Angola, Mozambique, and Guinea-Bissau. 5. South African Native Labour Corps (South Africa): 25,000 laborers. Central Powers: 1. German Askari (Germany): 12,000 soldiers from German East Africa (Tanzania). 2. German Cameroon Troops (Germany): 5,000 soldiers from German Cameroon. Theatres of Operation: 1. East Africa Campaign: German East Africa (Tanzania), Kenya, Uganda, and Mozambique. 2. West Africa Campaign: German Cameroon, Togo, and Nigeria. 3. North Africa Campaign: Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia. Notable Battles: 1. Battle of Tanga (1914) 2. Battle of Kilimanjaro (1914) 3. Battle of Jasin (1915) 4. Battle of Mahiwa (1917) 5. Battle of Narungombe (1917) Casualties: Estimated African casualties range from 100,000 to 200,000 soldiers. Legacy: African troops played significant roles in World War I, often facing harsh conditions and brutal treatment. Their contributions are sometimes overlooked but remain an important part of African history and the global narrative of the war.
Quinten is such a baby. All he does is complain. He doesn’t want people telling him how to make his movies so why is he telling other people how their’s should be.
@@parmenidesofelea9092uhm, you can’t tell someone else how something made them feel. this paired with your use of the word “incorrect” makes you sound delusional.
I've been in Judd's shoes SO MANY TIMES IN MY LIFE. People interrupting each other's ego trip and I am just trying to keep up mentally without speaking LOL
It's in the documentary, showing how they did it - they use CGI to merge the shots. They literally *animate* sections of the film to merge them. They did it when he jumps at one point, animating sections of his body to merge the cut. And Tarantino's films up until "Hollywood" were not "all revenge movies". lol And Bill - "Jackie Brown" was a love story.
Some of it was much more simple/traditional, like just cutting during dark/bright scenes, or when passing objects. Personally I didn't like the movie anyway, to me it just felt like a series of stage play scenes/sets, with similarly stagey acting and actors.
More than one million Indian soldiers were deployed overseas to fight on behalf of the British Empire in the Indian Army during World War I. They fought in France and Belgium, Egypt and East Africa, Gallipoli, Palestine, and Mesopotamia. WTF is Maher talking about?
Not to mention one of the nations involved was the Ottoman Empire. These guys are literally whitewashing history while complaining they are somehow now being marginalized. Amazing lack of awareness on display
I love seeing these two guys argue about this , I love having these kind of conversations myself LOL I almost never go against Tarantino but I think it's silly of him to compare a movie with one take shot in an apartment compared to a war movie shot in one take
In defense to this format. If youve ever been in a convo in a bar with friends it kinds goes like this. Theyre not in conflict- this is just a really firey and fun convo we just arent in it
Two minutes into this clip and Bill Mahar is still running his yap. I wanted to hear Tarantino but couldn’t get past Mahar wanting to hear his own voice.
@@jimlechuga3193 No doubt....even when I'm with good friends and we're all drunk we can still let each other speak....might be more animated and loud...but we don't interrupt each other EVERY 15 seconds. Good lord.
I feel like the REASON for using the long takes/one-takes is more important for the film than how long the cuts are. In 1917, I think it really served its purpose, as it’s a literal journey following one-two people
I didn't even notice it was supposed to appear as a one-cut shot until after like 40 minutes into the movie... I only noticed because there was no sub-plot. It was just one plot with the protagonist. But normally there's a supporting character with their own subplot.
Let's not forget the camera following Clive Owen through an urban warscape in Children of Men. There are other digitally assisted long takes in that movie but that one is truly skilled and climactic ...
And both of that films had actual cuts that were masked to look like it was one long shot when it wasn’t. Is it still as impressive to you knowing they actually did cut and didn’t keep going?
I feel like 1 one shot is a decision that should benefit the storytelling. The decision was better utilized in Children of Men because it was used sparingly as opposed to 1917 which, to me seems like its showing off more than its benefiting the storytelling. It cheapens the effectiveness of the 1 shot by doing it the whole film. I think the scene where he finally meets Cumberbatch's character could have had an effective gut punch of a cut and the movie would be more interesting to me for it because the 1 shot then has more weight and doesn't come off as technical wizardry for technical wizardry's sake. Thats just how I feel.
@Habadashery Jones I felt like I was walking two steps behind those boys the whole time.. It played to me like ultra voyeurism falling somewhere between documentary and video game. Loved that. It was as if the viewer was more than just a viewer. From fly on the wall to soft participant. I wasn't really thinking about the technical so much as I was mesmerized by the gruesome beauty of it.
No cuts will ALWAYS be more impressive than many cuts that look like no cuts. Regardless of where the set takes place. Even if the movie is set in an apartment. It is extremely challenging to perform with very few cuts
Rope has a few more cuts than just one. Surprised Quentin didn't remember that. I think film reels only lasted 15 or 20 mins back then so they had no choice. It was clever how Hitchcock transitioned between each though. I remember the push-in on the back of someone wearing a black suit.
The movie got tons of accolades and tarantino is just correcting bill whos he point was that it was a groundbreakign movie Tarantino was explaining that it wasnt
Not to mention over a million Indian troops under the British, or the American Harlem Hellfighters under the French. And there was definitely fighting happening in Africa due to their colonies. I think a movie about that would be interesting since a lot of Americans are completely unaware.
![[TH] 2024 PMGC League | Survival Stage วันที่ 1 | PUBG MOBILE Global Championship](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/FVFT-PFwU80/mqdefault.jpg)
I very much liked the part where Bill shouted 'Let me finish!' to Quentin after having talked over him every single time Quentin was trying to make a point.
Yeah, Bill Maher has always been an ass.
Yeah he's good at that 😄
I was just thinking that, fucking guy thinks he's on his talk show
Two egomaniacs don't usually make for great conversation
Bill actually did it more than Q did
Letting people finish their thoughts is an art form. 🤷🏻♂️
Thank you.
Bill and Tarantino just kept interrupting each other, especially Tarantino.
Drinks can do that
@@zackerythomas3675 Bill in other interviews act superior and makes petty points. Not fun to listen to. I wouldn't be too surprised tarantino interrupts. Surprised he agreed in the first place. What movie is he promoting?
Two self-important Jews and a foot fetishist cuckold walk into an interview...
It really isn’t but it has become one unfortunately
3:17
I love how when Quentin says, "yes, but," he sounds like a parent who's about to lose his mind but is trying to hold it together and be patient.
He’s dealing with a child, makes sense
When I watched 1917 in the theater, I spent the first 15 minutes looking for the cuts, and that got tiresome and I decided to just enjoy the good story. There was nothing wrong with their shot "gimmick", it created immersion and I got engrossed in the visuals and storytelling.
You look for cuts when watching films?
The cuts are VERY easy to spot if you know how moviemaking "works".
@@Shaki123 So don't be a snob and look for them. I would assume those who know how 'moviemakingg works' would appreciate the technical ability in a film that has achieved something they never will or would be interested in simply enjoying a film.
Did you see it in IMAX. Movie was such an experience
That’s the thing is that the movie was very unique but it sacrifices a lot to keep the 1 shot gimmick alive. You are pretty much watching this 1 guy walk around for 2 hours straight, its not exactly a movie I would watch everyday but it was cool for the 1 time I watched it.
These two have taught me to not interrupt so much in real life
I recall seeing an Indian soldier in the truck
I hate when people interrupt me. I become very, very aggressive.
You usually learn what you are doing wrong by watching other people do the same thing wrong. You get an outside perspective.
Cocaine says, what?
So, BM thinks OUATIH is not a revenge film, but instead a bromance? He may have missed the last ten minutes.
Maher and Tarantino? Neither are team players. For them, "conversations" are monologue tennis (although they don't wait their turn). Also, both of them could easily be viewed as know-it-alls.
Imagine lecturing Quentin Tarantino on film directing and editing.
He's a hack.
@@daniellee2343 lol
Tarantino movies are mostly trash though
@@recession81 go watch Disney movies,snowflake.
@@recession81this is why society has to stfu about movies
Imagine having such an amazing guest like Tarantino and you just railroad the entire conversation that’s insane
Classic Bill Maher 🙄
Yea, what the hell is Bill's problem, he just incoherently rants, interrupts, and goes nowhere lol worst podcast host ever.
That’s because Bill Maher doesn’t know how to talk without a democratic politician giving him a paycheck with a script attached to it.
Worse, he uses his guests to monologue the same goddamn points he belabors with other guests.
Quentin actually just sounded like a hater… couldn’t just say 1917 was amazing…. Had to say some random bs
Quentin's back in the video store arguing with customers.
Hahah
Brilliant!
“Ouuuuh, navy seals”
-Clerks
What I love about him
It's his natural environment.
4:45 mins until he actually lets Tarantino make his argument.
thx
1. Bill: Novice media maker, average film goer who doesn't know what question to ask
2. Judd : film nerd, listens attentively and understands the language
3. Quentin: cinema autuer who's seen the evolution of film throughout the decades trying to preach.
It's like a hamster, a cat and a tiger trying to discuss dinner plans
Yeah in another clip of this Bill said Judd's movie Funny People was a great movie. Which is his opinion of course but it made me realize how out of his depth he was
B+ Comparison, bravo 👏🏼
@@jarod9135 Tarantino actually named Funny People his third favorite movie of 2009.
Nice attempt at sounding smart maybe next time give spelling it correctly a shot
Though I agree woth a lot of this, Judd apatow has directed a handful of hit movies and produced many more.
In WW1 there was the campaign in east Africa, Carl Von lettow successfully pushed back the British. Also France had Tirailleurs who fought in Verdun, so it is valid to say people of colour took part in the conflict.
Not to mention over a million soldiers from Indian and other colonial troops, Bill just trying to be provocative as usual.
Got to get the DEI in history. FFS there were 20000 British men killed in ONE DAY at The Somme. Which was ONE battle in WW1. But of course, to people like you white people can't' suffer in masses. All about the quotas. All about the quotas..
Thank you both !
It was Europeans who were massacred, stop trying to present it as an equal effort
I respect Quentin Tarantino in this because he’s not arguing that the movie was good. He respects the shots, he’s arguing with people that don’t understand film. It’s a nuance thing. It’s a subtle thing that directors look for.
But as the viewer who pays to see it I don't care just make a good movie
Art can last centuries and something good well, good can only last so long.
You mean Judd Apatow? Lol. Bill Maher, no shit. He doesnt understand anything.
@@tripsaplenty1227 oh shit. I thought the answer was @tripsaplenty1227
It's kind of embarrassing to me that people think it's just a few shots. It's tons of shots. It would be as embarrassing as people thinking Star Wars has actual space battles with real spaceships
This saved so much time hearing everyone's opinion shouted over each other. This would've been a 30 minute video if they all got to finish their thoughts. Much appreciated!
Lies again? Love Hate USD SGD
QT's point about the cuts actually took a minute and a half to make. Add three times that to get past BM's bs.
I love how Quentin can get SO passionate about something without getting really mad about it
Quentin doesn't get mad, he gets overly opinionated to the point where it becomes obvious he's a narcissist, like basically saying he could do 1917 better. Maybe he has beef with Sam Mendes or Roger Deakins, but for him to point out "mistakes" they made in that film shows his true character.
@@katlis He has made better movies than 1917, he has the right more than most people, narc or not.
@@fuckamericanidiot Of course he's made better movies than 1917 (in totally different genres however). I'm saying he had no reservations by publicly asserting he could've made 1917 even better, perhaps visually, which is kinda throwing shade at the director & DP because of his narcissism.
@@katlis He’s just discussing what he enjoys, worked, didn’t work, etc. He’s talking about movies like anyone who loves movies talks. He just happens to be one of the greatest filmmakers of all-time.
@@katlis So he's made better movies, therefore there's a good chance he could do a better job. And he said it out loud.
Any accusation of narcissism is completely irrelevant.
At 4:00 Bill was going to reply I didn't go to film school but he then stops himself knowing that neither did Quentin lol. I almost wish he said it because quentin would have yelled "NEITHER DID I" .
😂😂😂 love this little detail
thought exactly the same thing haha Nice to know I wasn't the only one
This show was made so Bill can hear himself talk even more than just on Friday nights. Lol. Standing there questioning Tarantino about film directing is wild lol
True. It’s refreshing to see pretentious people get pushback tho
He thinks he's always the smartest person the room, bill knows fuck all to a student director let alone Tarantino and Judd, yes Judd directs amd writes comedies but he was holding back in telling Bill he's a dumbass
He’s talking to him like how friends shoot the shit
@@JustAnotherBlader friends let eachother talk.
@@Stranger_In_The_Alps 💯
Idk how you could even compare 1917 and Once upon a time in Hollywood. Both great in their own category but such different movies
I don't think anyone was trying to compare those movies until Tarantino started his autistic screeching
1917 is a phenomenally great movie.
Once upon is not even quentin's best
But the fucker in 1917 kept getting lucky! Haha
@@clockwork8251 yeah it seems to be made for people who grew up in that era like he did. Something like Django or Inglorious have a much wider appeal to general audiences and are better films imo
RIP all the POCs who died in WW1.
0:50
Tarantino: "no, you dont have to change your opinion, I just dont agree."
a love people like this
Bill should release the edited version of these interviews which cut all his interruptions out. I might watch them then. He gets such interesting people on and he never shuts up or stops cutting them off.
Enough material for one yt short
According to Mendes, the shortest unbroken shot was 39 seconds long, while the longest single continuous shot was 8-1/2 minutes long. The fact that it feel
Like a half hour is impressive in itself
Russian Ark. Period piece, 2500 actors and extras, countless scenes, interior, exterior: one take, no tricks. 1917, hold my vodka.
@@carlodave9 Russian Ark is awesome
@@carlodave9 boring
@@carlodave9also Victoria (2015) did it way better.
Mostly using tracking shots, right? You can see 1917 done great by Kubrick in the 1950s with his Paths of Glory (often regarded as the greatest war movie of all time). I don't think there is anything extremely impressive about 1917, it's just that most of its viewers are young and don't know cinema -- and it happens to be one of the few relatively normal movies of the last 6 years, so it sticks in people's minds right now. But, I don't judge movies based on 'right now' -- I compare to all movies of history. In this way, 1917 is pretty average.
There were plenty of African, Indian and other regiments of people with colour in 1st world war. Britain and France called in their colonies to fight.
You can't tell an idiot that.
America sent Black troops as well. I have no clue where Bill Maher gets his information from other than possibly just pulling BS out of his a$s
Yes, and they're literally shown in the movie he's talking about. He must have been so amazed at the "one cut" gimmick that he didn't notice the Indian soldiers in the truck that the guy gets into.
Imagine being so smug about being so ignorant, like Bill is.
@@jlhilgert92 "The Berbers" he says. That would be the Moroccans, and the French had entire divisions of them.
The reason why the long cut makes sense in 1917 is because the story has a time limit or else something horrible will happen. I don't know why no one talks about that. It isn't a gimmick, it enhances the story.
That's a good point. The conveyor belt effect makes it feel like you are being pushed against time
You noticed that the movie started with the soldier resting under a tree and ended the same way? Full circle.
My favorite part of it was how there was so much silence but it kept me on the edge of my seat. Made me really feel like I was in the characters shoes.
@@shadowprince4482 I have so many favorite parts lmao but one particular is probably how apart from the main characters no one gets more than 2-3 minutes of screentime, and yet so many of them completely nail their roles. Richard Madden especially I mean holy shit, the scene where Schofield meets Lt. Blake is fucking incredibly acted!
GREAT POINT
I thought 1917 was amazing and that Bill articulated why that’s so perfectly.
I also think Once Upon a Time in Hollywood was spectacular…
I actually agree that Bill Maher (even though I find him generally entertaining and sometimes insightful) just likes to hear himself talk, but at the same time I don't find anyone questioning anyone on any subject out of line. I think even layman should question experts. Sometimes even genius miss the simplest of things.
Once upon a time in Hollywood was not spectacular. It was team packed with bloated meaningless and uninteresting content. Only a handful of memorable scenes. The rest was Quintin just admiring his own work and only caring about how the shot looks and not the content of the shot or if it's interesting or not. The rock Dalton storyline was utterly boring. Cliff was cool but wasted for the majority. How he can say this is the best work of his career is criminal! Beat looking visually? He may have a point. Some of the shots were magnificent. But in regards to the story and its lack of interesting plot was so underwhelming.
RIP all the POCs who died in WW1.
@@jaycuthbert245 Finally somebody said it, hated the movie so much. As a huge fan of QT, got disappointed with that one, no plot, nothing, just people roaming here and there, only last 10 minutes of the movie was worth watching.
I hadn't been shocked in a long time.
Enjoyed the gratuitous "shit" the entire time.
Judd just sitting there like he’s watching his parents argue
I dont remember 1917 being advertised as having no cuts. It was promoted as having long takes which undoubtedly added to the immersion. Brilliant movie.
Exactly, I feel like Quentin is blinded by being upstaged with what he see's as a cheap trick when it's just a creative choice that helps enhance the story.
Alfonso Cuaron did long takes in Children of Men with hidden cuts and that film is much more immersive for it. Mendes was pulling off the evolution of that I feel.
@Mazy Lee didn't this film also have invisible cuts? At least Aronofsky claimed it.
i mean it is a gimmick. a very well done gimmick, but the film has nothing else going on.
@@KevinHarvey-YT upstaged? 1917 is entirely forgettable (and highly unoriginal) beyond the meme of trying to look like one continuous shot. That's literally all it had going for it. Q's right, it would be a lot more impressive if it were actually long takes; there are many movies with long takes and they're always more impressive for it. It's a bold move and not necessarily easy to pull off. Not only in the directing side but acting as well; if you can nail a long take and keep it engaging, it is cinematic gold. In contrast however, it does not take a lot of talent to do a whip pan edit and blend a multitude of cuts (though credit given where it's due to editing) and if that's all this movie brings to the table then okay... But a gimmick edit has got nothing on a single Tarantino movie. They're all too memorable and iconic. Whereas I couldn't cite anything besides editing and Roger Deakins' cinematography for 1917.
Furthermore I can't say I've cared to revisit it🤷♂️ there's too many other greater war films out there with greater content, originality, strong writing, real character and memorable moments. I'm not saying it's a bad movie like say hacksaw ridge lmao but it's definitely not great. I forgot all about it until now. Meanwhile, I could never forget FMJ or Apocalypse Now for example.
For the record hacksaw had a decent enough premise but the execution was piss poor.
It was advertised as being a "single shot"
How is Tarantino not losing his mind being interrupted constantly
I was alittle surprised to see him not get upset 😂
And to quote a line from ‘Almost Famous’ - they’re on Pot ! Enough said, it’s banter not an interview
With some of the names he's worked with, I'm sure he's used to it
He already lost it, alriiiight
Because he’s accustomed to working with actors
I like how Jud is just chilling with his comedy films. great directors the both of them
Judd Apatow had nothing to offer as he's a hack making mediocre (at best) films.
He was too scared to engage Tarantino in a serious conversation regarding films.
@@cgh7337tarantino is the biggest hack in the history of hollywood who made a career out of imitating and stealing from better directors
I love how bill says “how is this?” Then Tarantino tries to explain and bill jumps in two words into Tarantinos explanation. On the other hand when QT says “it was so OBVIOUSLY” like everyone could see it
Feel like Tarantino is coming off as a bit of an ass here. Something like "As a master filmmaker I can easily spot the invisible cuts and therefore the movie sucks". He is indeed a master filmmaker but he is not exactly representative of the audience. The invisible cuts are done more than well enough to make the entire film an incredibly immersive experience, and the cinematography is next-level.
And honestly Quentin is pretty much the same as Bill, neither one can let the other one get more than 5 words out before interrupting. Super annoying haha.
@@baverfjant no Quentin is trying to say that they promoted the movie off being 1 take and all they talked about they were doing something revaluationary and Quentin was saying if your going to do that then actually do something revaluationary and make it at minimum 15 min takes he isn't impressed with the 5 min takes stitched together it isn't as hard as there making it seem promoting it. Quentin said he loved the film just not because of the long takes because it wasnt that impressive to do.
@@Strife93 Exactly, they promoted it as like a One Take, and anyone that actually watches, or takes notice of the craft, had their immersion broken every time saw the cuts. It ruined the movie for me. It was a good movie, but do not try to make me think it was a single take, that ruined it for me when could see every cut.
@@Strife93No, they were very open with it not being one take but being made to LOOK LIKE it was one take. Casual movie fans don't really pay attention to promotions and talks about a movie, and thought it was one take and were raving about it. That kind of speaks to how well they made it look like it was one take when it really wasn't.
@@baverfjant I guess man I just didn't see Quentin coming off as an asshole or anything he was just being him. He acts the same in every interview or podcast
WWI was full of POC, depending on the unit, as both the British and French made extensive use of Commonwealth/Colonial forces. 1917 is largely focused on just 2 guys though, and then (spoiler) just one of those guys, so it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to discredit it on the grounds of not being diverse enough. Also, I admire Quentin Tarantino, but talking movies with him would get exhausting pretty quickly just based on all the technicalities alone.
Yeah I don't care that it doesn't have POC in it. It is showing the story it is showing and it was a great film. However, Maher's history knowledge is extremely bad here. There were over a million Indians who fought in WW1 and that included the Western Front. That is just Indians, not even talking about others.
BUT MUH WOKE
@@kendallandrews8691 He's a yank. Knowledge of history and the world wars are not something they are known for accurately knowing.
@@Gambit771 damn Yankees!
There were African, Caribbean and Indian soldiers representing the British and French armies in the trenches. Americans are clueless.
Just as a note, there were many people of color who fought in WWI. European countries brought in their colonial subjects into the fray in sizeable numbers. Also, black Americans fought in the war and were revered greatly by the French, who gave them equal treatment not received in 1917 America. So, Maher and Quentin aren't quite correct here.
They are so wrong indeed , there were MILLIONS of colonial soldiers who fought on all sides of the war, french brought in vast number from africa and England brought in 1.4 million Indians!
Lol couldn't watch any more after that. Day one WW1 history butchered
I think Tarantino is not giving 1917 enough credit. It was masterful editing and planning. It doesn’t take place in a building. It spans across lots of areas during a war. It’s nuts
He just mad he didn’t come up with that lol
The movies mid
it’s very well done but when russian ark exists it’s kind of hard to be impressed, proper planning and editing are the bare minimum for every film. most even have to get the viewers emotionally invested beyond the presentation.
when tarantino trash talk films it's always out of insecurity and jealousy
The building part was about “Rope”, an almost complete true one-take. That’s what that line was about
Quentin did not say he hated the movie. He said it wasn't done in one take.
Tarrintino is being such a hater here. Making it look like there’s only one cut is also really impressive.
@@aaronhedick4355 He pretty much said that. Just not as impressive as the Hitchcock scene.
More like he wished it was a real oner instead of a fake oner that was hyping up its gimmick.
@@sudevsen There would be no way for it to be a real oner, unless you filmed for 45 minutes without cutting. I guess you could do the other 45 minutes the next day and have a two day shoot.
He actually said in the interview he liked the movie, he just has criticisms of the way the movie is cut. But that doesn't make a good clickbait title.
I wonder if they've seen Boiling Point. It's a pretty simple movie showing one night of a busy restaurant, but the entire movie is literally shot start to finish with no cuts whatsoever. Pretty impressive feat.
In a small restaurant with tiny empty spaces, great film
It was a remarkable film - and you've just reminded me that I haven't seen the follow up TV show (same people) and have a long flight in a couple of weeks. Time to track it down! Thank you :)
I could watch 1917 over and over again. It’s fascinating…
In Direct point of view, yes.
nah it's overrated
Do it then
You're overrated
@@TonyDracon nope,, only ur comment is.
Love this podcast, watching Judd try to absorb Tarantino's essence.
Judd is always out of his depth. Watch him with comedians.
1917 was the most realistic war movie which made me like I was inside the WW I. I liked it more than Dunkirk. It was really something more than a movie.
It was good, but All Quiet on the Western Front shits on this movie.
No apocalypse now is the most realistic greatest war movie of all time
@@JamesNixon-b7psplatter movie disguised as art
Jesus go watch a couple more movies before you say some shit like that. Westfront 1918 for starters.
@@JamesNixon-b7p really hoping cagdassimsek8089 takes your advice on this one. 1917 certainly looks good and was shot well but AQOTWF is undoubtedly a much better WWI movie
why does Bill never let his guests talk 😂 man will ask a question and answer himself
yup, he is dented
Tarantino here reminds me of guitarists getting mad at people who gush about the intro to Sweet Child Of Mine - like "it's not hard to do, why are you so impressed!?" And people are just like "I like it, I think it's cool".
It's just the way a great director enjoys a movie differently to the rest of us
Yeah if you actually do something as opposed to just a fan, they know all the tricks. They’re not blown away by simple shit we as fans enjoy.
Great analogy
A valid point, but in Tarantino's defense, the intro to SCOM wouldn't win the award for Best Guitar Solo of the Year.
@@jonathanw1019 insert whatever song makes you happy
@@jonathanw1019 Kinda like when some of the worlds best cuisine doesn't have a Michelin star. Award are for the popular crowd to pat themselves on the back. It's called pretension.
"needs more feet" quentin tarantino
There was so much great about 1917 but too much was made of the long takes stuff. To me the most impressive thing about 1917 was the investment in George Mackay’s performance for so much of it which entirely worked. Schofield’s run is a classic piece of cinema and one of those scenes that will stick in my mind for many years.
What the film did very well is show how great it is that filmmakers have developed the art of montage over the past 100+ years, and how dull a film can be when that tool isn't used.
Tarantino never says he hated the movie! He literally says he liked it and was just annoyed with how much credits it for for having long cuts when it didn't actually have unbelievably long cuts.
We need Wolfenstein: The Movie, written, directed and produced by Quentin Tarantino
Yes! I would totally support that film!
Inglorious Basterds
...Overlord?
This is so obvious how haven't I thought of that
tarantino only directs his own material. except for jackie brown is a bit inspired by a book i think.
Judd got one word in edgewise in this conversation and it is perhaps the best point on the whole subject: one cut, a million, none of it is real.
True, but when it comes to modern day film making having a movie that only has a few cuts and having it be a phenomenal film seems like a bigger success than the movies that have so many cuts in a span of a scene.*
But in the end entertainment (and yes a whole lot of other things) is what matters when you watch a movie regardless of the way a filmmaker gets there.
*I'm admittedly burnt out when it comes to superhero movies and that's all it was (obviously not all there was but a lot of what was pushed when it came to movies) for a while.**
**Yes I see how silly that is considering 1917 and Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood are the films being discussed in this clip. I think the guys at Red Letter Media said it best (I'm paraphrasing) that it's always great when a Tarantino movie comes out because he's an actual filmmaker/director that has a vision and voice rather than a director who is there for a little and then it's all the CGI/special effects folks left to do what they do.
What was his point? Bill was marveling at moviemaking magic, no cuts in the film, etc. and Judd said hey, it's not real. It seemed nonsensical
1917 may not be one of my favorites but I’ll never forget the climax and the lead up to it. When Schofield finally pushes his way far into the trenches, the camera pans and you just see all the soldiers in formation and ready to to go. Fucking goosebumps.
I could tell that there was 3 cuts.
1:when they came across the trap in the bunker.
2:the sniper in the 2nd floor window.
3:when he jumped into the river.
Am I right? I loved this movie
Tarantino is thinking of it from a filming perspective, but the audience doesn't really give a shit HOW it was filmed, they only care about how it looks. And if it looks like it's been done in one giant take, then it's still reasonably impressive as a concept, especially with everything that was going on in the movie. Maher's challenge to the examples Tarantino brought up are valid.
I just love two directors trying to explain to Bill how to hide cuts 😂
@@anthonyhernandez1609then he would explain what that was and every other techniques that they could use and forget all about the point he was trying to make.
"I actually liked the movie"-Tarantino
"Why Tarantino hated 1917"-TH-cam
Come on guys we aren't helping ourselves here
I LOVED 1917.. BRILLIANT Movie!!!!
I believe that the cuts are not for showing technica feats, but to transmit the urgency of the story, like Los Ángeles in the 60’s on Tarantino’s movie, the great thing is that most of us didn’t though about it because it was made to make the story work, not to show how good they are at making backgrounds for movies.
it can be both at the same time
"most of us didn’t though about it because it was made to make the story work"
If you went into the cinema, knowing that this is the movie that looks like one long take... in fact, I don't know about you, but I wasn't able to not pay attention to the gimmick. Ruined my immersion.
WW1 was fought by over 12 Million Black and Brown people…..From far east Asia to the over 800 thousand African American troops in the US Army, to the countless North Africans assisting in Europe.
tarantino is probably right from a technical standpoint, but what 1917 brought as an experience was truly amazing for the actual viewers. Just goes to show that you can lose the thread when you get too deep into something.
Looks great. Not much more to it.
for me the great achievement of the film is not the “visual long takes”, but the “narrative long takes”. telling an interesting story without boring moments without resorting to time lapses… is the great achievement
true, and that's exactly what 1917 does
0:15 In fact, African soldiers were involved in WWI, fighting alongside the French.
Spot on mate.
Yes and they were useless and a burden
You won't see them in the front because they were afraid and that would be sending them to 💀
@@miquebtsInternet tough guy wow. Thought you guys died out
@@Chillllllbruhthey weren’t front line soldiers though
I thought the cinematography in 1917 was marvelous, even if I put the "no cuts" gimmick aside. It was a very memorable cinema experience with a big screen and big speakers.
Its memorable in the same way watching a fireworks show would be, there is no emotional depth to the movie, its flat and the characters are cardboard cutouts
There is a lot of cuts in 1917. The hardest one was of the two soldiers climbing out of the trench. There was no jump and they go full CG characters for a moment.
People in the comments seem to not understand the point of this podcast.
It’s not an interview show.
It’s supposed to be friends getting together, drinking, smoking, and having conversations.
This is how people talk to each other in real life.
i could sit here for an hour or two just listening to these guys talk. sure, Bill is interrupting a lot. sure, not all their thoughts are completed before they move on. but it just sounds like guys having a conversation, not much different how i talk with my friends. Tarantino is just so passionate about movies and i like hearing what he has to say purely because of how excited he is.
I'm sorry that Tarantino didn't elaborate on the only truly deliberate cut (change of shot) in "The Rope". It's a (simple) moment when the language of the film explodes, full of meaning. What bothers me about Sam Mendes' film is that the narrative - and its dramatic implications - seems to be locked inside a huge technical achievement. War movies always have a spectacular side, but when it overlaps human drama... it's not exactly my cup of tea.
Tarantino is maybe the most talented to biggest 😮douche bag ratio ever in movies (and that’s saying a lot). Him calling the “1917” Academy year “my year” is the shortest form for his douche-baggery.
Maybe they’ll give him an Oscar one day for directing but it will likely be his 4th or 5th best movie, when he moves into his far less obnoxious, lifetime achievement award phase.
1917 is a wonderful film to experience, unfortunately some directors can't enjoy films without reducing them to the sum total of their cuts.
Right? Just enjoy the damn movie lol
It's not the greatest movie but it's so beautiful and cinematic. I envy those who had the chance to see it in a movie theatre.
@@dislike__buttonI don’t find many films are worth paying for the IMAX experience anymore, but 1917 definitely was. Incredible film. I was on the edge of my seat the entire time. The film manages to capture the terror of warfare, despite the protagonist himself engaging in relatively little combat.
It’s one of those films you wish you could wipe from your brain in order to experience it for the first time again.
@@michaelstein7510perfectly said
1917 is a really good movie.
1917 was a marvel, All quiet on the western front was a masterpiece
Many black Africans fought in WWI for the Allies--mostly for the French. My grandfather was one of them.
I didn't even notice the lack of cuts I just watched and enjoyed the damn movie. It was really good IMO.
“I couldn’t direct a line of ants to a melting Hershey bar” that is genius
The worst part for me. When a German pilot is saved from burning to death by two British soldiers. The pilot then repays one of his savior’s by gut stabbing him? You gotta be kidding me.
He probably would've gone to a POW camp or something at best, if your choices are that, try and make a break for it and hope they just let you go or incapacitate them it's not like it's that crazy to go for the third one
The worst part about the whole movie was that they could have just sent a pigeon.
1917 was the movie of the year, no doubt. Was the only movie I bought that year and I am not repented to this day.
Listening to this video is like nails on a chalkboard. Everyone's talking over each other, its freaking chaos.
Here's a list of African troops involved in World War I:
Allied Forces:
1. Senegalese Tirailleurs (France): 170,000 soldiers from Senegal and other French colonies.
2. African troops in the British Army (UK): 55,000 soldiers from various British colonies, including:
- King's African Rifles (Kenya, Uganda, Nyasaland)
- West African Frontier Force (Nigeria, Ghana, Sierra Leone)
- East African Frontier Force (Kenya, Uganda, Tanganyika)
3. Belgian Congolese Forces (Belgium): 20,000 soldiers from the Congo Free State.
4. Portuguese African Troops (Portugal): 10,000 soldiers from Angola, Mozambique, and Guinea-Bissau.
5. South African Native Labour Corps (South Africa): 25,000 laborers.
Central Powers:
1. German Askari (Germany): 12,000 soldiers from German East Africa (Tanzania).
2. German Cameroon Troops (Germany): 5,000 soldiers from German Cameroon.
Theatres of Operation:
1. East Africa Campaign: German East Africa (Tanzania), Kenya, Uganda, and Mozambique.
2. West Africa Campaign: German Cameroon, Togo, and Nigeria.
3. North Africa Campaign: Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia.
Notable Battles:
1. Battle of Tanga (1914)
2. Battle of Kilimanjaro (1914)
3. Battle of Jasin (1915)
4. Battle of Mahiwa (1917)
5. Battle of Narungombe (1917)
Casualties:
Estimated African casualties range from 100,000 to 200,000 soldiers.
Legacy:
African troops played significant roles in World War I, often facing harsh conditions and brutal treatment. Their contributions are sometimes overlooked but remain an important part of African history and the global narrative of the war.
I don’t recall Mr. Tarantino using the word HATE.
I don't recall asking you a goddamn thing.
@@Burgmannn Wh-what?
@@Burgmannn I got it haha
But we call clicked on the video didn't we?
@@murrynathan He Murray, did you hear him use the word hate in there? I meant to ask you earlier.
Absolute cope from Tarantino. I have never been more locked in in my life than when watching 1917 in theatres, it was incredible.
Average film
@@slaktheking69 Incorrect; it was a riveting film that made you feel like you were on the front. Hence, it was awarded three Academy Awards.
@@slaktheking69a film better than most films is not average. Hope this helps!
Quinten is such a baby. All he does is complain. He doesn’t want people telling him how to make his movies so why is he telling other people how their’s should be.
@@parmenidesofelea9092uhm, you can’t tell someone else how something made them feel. this paired with your use of the word “incorrect” makes you sound delusional.
I've been in Judd's shoes SO MANY TIMES IN MY LIFE. People interrupting each other's ego trip and I am just trying to keep up mentally without speaking LOL
Man just to be able to talk to Tarantino about movies would be such a treat.
1917 was an experience I loved that year
It's in the documentary, showing how they did it - they use CGI to merge the shots. They literally *animate* sections of the film to merge them. They did it when he jumps at one point, animating sections of his body to merge the cut. And Tarantino's films up until "Hollywood" were not "all revenge movies". lol And Bill - "Jackie Brown" was a love story.
Literally!
Some of it was much more simple/traditional, like just cutting during dark/bright scenes, or when passing objects.
Personally I didn't like the movie anyway, to me it just felt like a series of stage play scenes/sets, with similarly stagey acting and actors.
These guys should watch a Russian movie called Russian Ark. The whole film is one single take, and it's unbelievably complex. Mind blowing!
More than one million Indian soldiers were deployed overseas to fight on behalf of the British Empire in the Indian Army during World War I. They fought in France and Belgium, Egypt and East Africa, Gallipoli, Palestine, and Mesopotamia.
WTF is Maher talking about?
Not to mention one of the nations involved was the Ottoman Empire. These guys are literally whitewashing history while complaining they are somehow now being marginalized. Amazing lack of awareness on display
I love seeing these two guys argue about this , I love having these kind of conversations myself LOL I almost never go against Tarantino but I think it's silly of him to compare a movie with one take shot in an apartment compared to a war movie shot in one take
Honestly, I was looking for the cuts during 1917. I knew the gimmick was there but the story had me the entire time.
In defense to this format. If youve ever been in a convo in a bar with friends it kinds goes like this. Theyre not in conflict- this is just a really firey and fun convo we just arent in it
Two minutes into this clip and Bill Mahar is still running his yap. I wanted to hear Tarantino but couldn’t get past Mahar wanting to hear his own voice.
It's a huge problem.
@@theSacredAtheist adults usually allow the other person to speak
@@jimlechuga3193 No doubt....even when I'm with good friends and we're all drunk we can still let each other speak....might be more animated and loud...but we don't interrupt each other EVERY 15 seconds. Good lord.
It is called a discussion it is not an interview.
@@bighands69 it’s called a
monologue when one person won’t let the other speak.
I like the way Bill and Quentin don't pander to each other and there's no fake politeness.
I feel like the REASON for using the long takes/one-takes is more important for the film than how long the cuts are. In 1917, I think it really served its purpose, as it’s a literal journey following one-two people
"When it rains in movies is not raining in real life??"
- Bill Maher probably
I didn't even notice it was supposed to appear as a one-cut shot until after like 40 minutes into the movie... I only noticed because there was no sub-plot. It was just one plot with the protagonist. But normally there's a supporting character with their own subplot.
I'm a big Tarantino fan and I love all his movies except for one: I thought Hollywood was awful, truly.
the music really made the film amazing. the scene with the flares popping off is so good.
m.th-cam.com/video/xolxw74qqgw/w-d-xo.html SO GOOD.
Let's not forget the camera following Clive Owen through an urban warscape in Children of Men. There are other digitally assisted long takes in that movie but that one is truly skilled and climactic ...
The long take isn't to be showy like Quentin wanted. It was to show the real time experience of a soldier. It made you feel it.
My favorite long-cuts film is
Children Of Men..
1917 takes a close 2nd.
And both of that films had actual cuts that were masked to look like it was one long shot when it wasn’t. Is it still as impressive to you knowing they actually did cut and didn’t keep going?
I feel like 1 one shot is a decision that should benefit the storytelling. The decision was better utilized in Children of Men because it was used sparingly as opposed to 1917 which, to me seems like its showing off more than its benefiting the storytelling. It cheapens the effectiveness of the 1 shot by doing it the whole film.
I think the scene where he finally meets Cumberbatch's character could have had an effective gut punch of a cut and the movie would be more interesting to me for it because the 1 shot then has more weight and doesn't come off as technical wizardry for technical wizardry's sake. Thats just how I feel.
@Habadashery Jones I felt like I was walking two steps behind those boys the whole time..
It played to me like ultra voyeurism falling somewhere between documentary and video game. Loved that. It was as if the viewer was more than just a viewer. From fly on the wall to soft participant.
I wasn't really thinking about the technical so much as I was mesmerized by the gruesome beauty of it.
Technical pissing contest aside, 1917 was absolutely phenomenal.
No cuts will ALWAYS be more impressive than many cuts that look like no cuts. Regardless of where the set takes place. Even if the movie is set in an apartment. It is extremely challenging to perform with very few cuts
Rope has a few more cuts than just one. Surprised Quentin didn't remember that. I think film reels only lasted 15 or 20 mins back then so they had no choice. It was clever how Hitchcock transitioned between each though. I remember the push-in on the back of someone wearing a black suit.
Great movie
It has three
The movie deserved more recognition and respect. Really these guys are picking at Sam mendes for attempted a wonderful art form on screen.
The movie got tons of accolades and tarantino is just correcting bill whos he point was that it was a groundbreakign movie
Tarantino was explaining that it wasnt
Indian and africans fought in ww1, i think chinese dug the tunnel that enabled an explosion under german trenches that caused that huge crater.
1917 is a banging movie.
1917 was really good. Enjoyed it immensely.😊
Actually people of color were in WWI… French Army’s colonial troops were black Africans (Senegalese) & they fought on the Western Front
Not to mention over a million Indian troops under the British, or the American Harlem Hellfighters under the French. And there was definitely fighting happening in Africa due to their colonies. I think a movie about that would be interesting since a lot of Americans are completely unaware.
“You don’t have to change your opinion I just don’t agree”. I Iove that line. People act like if you have a different option it’s an attack on yours.
1917 is far more than just a movie with no obvious cuts.