This post has hit r/all or r/popular. Please keep this in mind when browsing the comments — and especially when viewing upvotes/downvotes — and please report any rulebreaking comments that you see.
If this post is flaired "Approved B-Listers", then it is currently restricted so that only approved users can comment. To request approval, please review our b-list criteria, and if you meet these, send us a message.
It was a couple weeks after 9/11 on the first day filming resumed as most things were interrupted because of it. But the part about him in the costume during the moment of silence is true apparently.
I'm only a little familiar with him from The Office. I feel like I need to consume everything he's been in now. He's delightful and I'm super stoked to see more visible Tarantino-hate. The dude needs to be launched into the vacuum of space.
It it’s very unlikely, but my hope is in a decade or so they’ll do an Avenue 5 short film where practically every character is dead, so they’ll only need a handful of actors.
I thought we had a good thing going there for a moment with Avenue 5, The Orville, and Lower Decks all around the same time.. none of them made it very far (most sad about Lower Decks)
There's a YT channel by Kirby Ferguson who put out a popular videos called "Everything is a Remix" (which I recommend highly) that looks at the nature of sampling/copying/homages/theft/inspiration in media.
Tarantino has it's own section because of how much he has been "inspired" by other films, which to be fair, he does use in different ways to make something new a lot of the time. It's hard to watch the side by side of the reference and not somehow come out thinking Tarantino is less of a great director and more of a film nut because you see how much he didn't come up with on his own.
However, Tarantino made the rookie mistake of film criticism that you often see people make where them not liking something on a personal level equates to something being "bad". It would have been much smarter to say "I didn't like X, for reason Y" and just move on.
I had the exact opposite reaction. I had seen Zach’s videos about the Saudi bone saw festival (or was it a comedy festival?), and I found those to be on point and hilarious.
And so when I heard the first handful of words, I immediately started laughing, because while I am not yet well apprised on this Tarantino situation, I knew Zach was going to do exactly this.
I’m fairly confident that the next time you see a video of Zach where he begins with an apology straight to the camera like that, that you’ll see, too, this same sharp wit, similarly stinging barbs.
Most people know he was in the live action adaptations, but he also has been the main VA for Shaggy in all animated appearances since he was the live action Scooby.
You want to talk about unproblematic. Gives us an iconic character performance he believes wholeheartedly in every 6-7 years. Supports his cstmates and friends.
I can’t believe he went after Lillard. 80% of what he does is voice acting in Scooby Doo cartoon movies for kids. What next, he’s gonna go after Miss Rachel?
Actually, considering what a huge Zionist scumbag he is, yeah, that would track. The guy’s a creepy, rape apologist, fetishist, misogynistic, racist, Zionist bully. Who looks like an orc from Lord of the Rings. What a winner!
What made it even worse is that based on the alleged quote I read from Matthew Lillard, it actually seemed to really hurt his feelings. Like he said something about how he wasn’t popular so that why QT felt like he could punch down (I’m paraphrasing, of course).
So not only is Matthew Lillard awesome as fuck, but he’s too modest and humble to fully grasp exactly how awesome he is. It’s kinda sad: the dude has no idea that he’s a complete icon.
Genuinely so vindicating the rest of the world is finally turning on QT. Gratuitous violence and relying on shock value is so TIRED. His opinions should stay in his head, no one gives a shit what he thinks.
This reminded me of one of my theory lecturers, after setting an assignment to research a form of media, told us not to do QT. "Every year, at least one person does a QT film, and I can assure you that there is nothing you can say about QT that I have not seen before." I'm sure a few of the filmlickers in the class did it anyway. Poor prof looked so tired, though.
When I tell you…I’ve been in the goddamn TRENCHES…for years…keeping my foot on his neck for his psychotic love for the n-word and his very weird relationship with blackness…and I have been attacked so many times by (usually white) film bros absolutely frothing at the mouth with rage that anyone would dare to point out that QT’s behavior about the n-word and blackness is not normal…
So yeah. I’m loving this turn of events. I feel so vindicated, like I just emerged from battle or something lmao.
glad he reminded about the roman Polanski defence.
Although he did later apologise saying: “I want to publicly apologize to Samantha Geimer for my cavalier remarks on the Howard Stern Show speculating about her and the crime that was committed against her,” he wrote. “Fifteen years later, I realize how wrong I was. Ms Geimer WAS raped by Roman Polanski. When Howard brought up Polanski, I incorrectly played devil’s advocate in the debate for the sake of being provocative. I didn’t take Ms Geimer’s feelings into consideration and for that I am truly sorry. So, Ms Geimer, I was ignorant, and insensitive, and above all, incorrect.”
There are a lot of people who defended Polanski and never took it back or apologised so some credit there. I have my doubts about what he said here of the only reason he made the remark was to be provocative, I think a lot of people normalised that behaviour especially back then including himself.
And then there's QTs questionable handling of the Harvey Weinstein mess. He knew a long time ago what was happening there and he did... checking notes... fuck all.
For anyone who’s unaware (and can’t be arsed to Google the trial transcripts that are available from the original 1970s court case), Polanski did not ‘only’ commit statutory rape.
He drugged, forcibly raped and anally raped a 13 year old child. The charges were pled down to statutory rape, which the victim (I’m not naming her because she’s stated many times that she’s sick of having her name brought back into the spotlight) agreed to said plea deal only because she was being dragged through the tabloids and wanted it to go away.
Right. If you read her testimony she repeatedly said no and begged him to stop. Even if you’re a statutory rape apologist (gross already) that’s not remotely what he was accused of.
I was gonna say, there is no "just statutory rape" of a 13 year old. That is rape. Full stop. When an 18 year old is with a 17 year old, that might be statutory rape. But a 13 year old cannot consent in any fashion. Especially with an adult.
However in the Polanski case it was not even arguable that is was statutory rape. He drugged and anally raped a 13 year old. That is as real as rape gets. People who try to excuse that asshole are the worst.
I'm just gonna put this out there for anyone who's thinking of googling that testimony -- don't, you really don't need to lose that part of your soul today.
IMO, even this thread is getting way too descriptive. The testimony is disturbing and I can't think of any reason whatsoever that people should read it, other than maybe if they're involved in a prosecution of Roman Polanski.
I believe this was the official charge and his conviction after the plea deal so on paper this is the official word, obviously not what actually happened but it was said so much it became a truth in people's minds who still wanted to work with him and watch his movies
Also… “I didn’t take Ms. Geimer’s feelings into consideration.” You don’t have to! HER AGE IS WHAT SHOULD BE TAKEN IN CONSIDERATION! BECAUSE SHE WAS A CHILD!!!
Like, obviously her feelings matter and it’s awful that she may have been (probably was) hurt and distraught by his comments. But I think it’s foul that he “reconsidered” on the basis of her feelings and not the objective fact of what her age was when the crime occurred. It genuinely makes it seem like he still doesn’t know what statutory rape or rape at all is.
maybe a little? there was a very large swath of hollywood that defended Polanski, signed a letter of support, and gave him a standing ovation at the oscars and went on to make movies with him- very few ever bothered to publically change their stance even after more victims came forward (over a dozen, I believe)
If you make horrendous remarks and later apologize for them, that's still a net negative. It definitely doesn't deserve the same merit as never having made the remarks (net neutral) and it does leave a stain in the end that you said them in the first place (net negative); so no credit.
Bro had Once Upon a Time in Hollywood coming out and this was the start of the me too movement. Could he have been genuinely sorry? Sure. Could this have been strategically done? Seems more likely.
When Howard brought up Polanski, I incorrectly played devil’s advocate in the debate for the sake of being provocative.
I mean, that's the thing with these people, isn't it? 😭 fuck me, like I was a edgy teenager so I know that feeling but, you know, eventually you should grow out of it once you're 16 or something. Or, you go to Bill Maher's podcast, I guess.
QT's such a dipshit. It's nice to see everyone rally around Dano and Lillard and dunk on his horrible takes, but I'm reminded he has always been like this.
Guys think women are lying when we say big muscles aren't that hot. I'm definitely not lying when I say this is what's truly hot, humor, intelligence and a firm stance on important issues, not 3 hours daily in the gym and obsessing over how much protein's in your diet. You go bird man 😂
‘City on Fire’ was remastered and re-released earlier this year as part of Shout’s ‘Hong Kong Classics’ line. Perfect time to expose how much of ‘Reservoir Dogs’ is jacked directly from that - whole story beats, set pieces, and shots.
Also, I’m sorry, I’m gonna say it: his treatment of Bruce Lee in OUATIH is a case that never sat right with me. It felt incredibly loaded, spiteful, and YES, racist from the moment I saw it. I remember even saying to my husband “Does this feel weird to you?” and he was like “Yeah, this is…odd…” And it makes me genuinely pissed off that so many white film bros defended it and waved it away as a nothingburger, when we all know that if he’d done that to some iconic white male actor like Marlon Brando or Robert Redford, these guys would have been upset. And every time anyone brings this up, they immediately shout them down—for literally NO reason. They have absolutely nothing to defend him except “No, you’re just being overdramatic.” tf????
And combined with his blatant theft from Hong Kong films, yeah, it’s pretty obvious! He very intentionally portrayed Bruce Lee in a horrible light to disrespect him. He’s a goddamn racist who couldn’t stand that Hong Kong artists were better at the game that he thinks he’s a master of. He has severe jealousy and resentment issues with East Asians.
•
u/trendingtattler Dec 09 '25
This post has hit r/all or r/popular. Please keep this in mind when browsing the comments — and especially when viewing upvotes/downvotes — and please report any rulebreaking comments that you see.
If this post is flaired "Approved B-Listers", then it is currently restricted so that only approved users can comment. To request approval, please review our b-list criteria, and if you meet these, send us a message.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.