>startin' to see pictures, ain't ya
what the fuck was this scene about?
Tarintino's ultimate fantasy? holy fuck that was embarrassing to watch
tarantino obviously has some weird sexual shit and masculinity issues that he sublimates into his movies
>two white guys rape a black guy in Pulp Fiction, one of them gets shot in the crotch with a shotgun
>Jackie puts a gun up against Ordell's dick in Jackie Brown
>the rapists in Kill Bill
>Stuntman Mike and basically everything in Death Proof
>everybody getting their balls shot off in the tavern scene in Inglourious Basterds
>Django nearly getting castrated with a bowie knife
>BIG BLACK DINGUS and SLJ getting his balls shot off in Hateful Eight
Jackson wanted to shoot the old general for killing nigger officers. But he needed a motive or they would hang him once they reach the town. So he handed him a gun and pissed him off with a fake ass story so he can shoot him once he picks up the gun.
ALSO yes, tarantino probably jacked off to this scene.
The scene was an inferior re-write of the same scene in True Romance, where Hopper is trying to provoke Walken to shoot him rather than torture him.
Except here it is directed like race baiting garbage and written in crayon on a stall door.
Hopper owns this.
Goggins does end up getting shot in the dick in django, for that whole close castrate encounter.
I think it's just tarantinos worst form of torture, being shot in the dick is worse than dying.
I'll break the scene down for you OP since apparently Tarantula didn't beat it over your head enough.
The previous scene is about the Lincoln letter, were sammy j admits it's fake, when asked why he lies he says it "disarms white people".
In the following scene in question, he lies for the exact opposite...he lies to arm a white person so he can kill him in self defense. IT'S PRETTY FUCKING OBVIOUS.
This fucking generation is so retarded.
When Warren recognizes the general, he immediately goes for his gun. Everyone tells him to chill the fuck out. The hangman tells him you can't just shoot old people, but you can push them down the stairs and call it an accident. Even if Warren giving the loaded gun to the general wasn't too obvious for you, the sheriff straight up tells him not to pick it up because he's trying to provoke him. And after killing the general, Warren just sits there looking smug while the rest rule it as self defence. Yet this scene is somehow still too complicated for some people. The story is likely total bullshit, but that doesn't matter because its purpose was abundantly clear.
Is this the only Tarantino flick where the hero is a heterosexual anglo-saxon male?
It's a flashback scene where Samuel Jackson tells a story to a Confederate General about his son sucking his dick. At the culmination of the story the general pulls a gun, placed next to him by SJ, and then gets shot by SJ.
There's also some dick swinging nudity in the scene.
It was fucking hillarious. The scene must have gone over your head. Doesnt surprise me considering your a millenial SW fan. You do realize everything he said was made up right? He was baiting the general into drawing on him.
It's a dude being marched through a field with his business in full view, probably only about 30 seconds of it, plus there is a white guy sucking a black guys dick...but no dick is shown in that part.
And that proves that it was fake dumbshit. He succeeded in baiting the general. That was the whole point of the scene. Were you not listening to Oswaldo's discussion with him earlier in the film?
>instead of feet scenes we get cuck scenes now
I don't like this new fetish of Tarantino.
Also why did Manix befriend Warren at the end? That made no sense. Warren killed the confederate general and killed many other confederates and Manix hated him for it at the beginning of the movie, then at the end he just forgot about it like nothing happened?
Is it because he is an honorable sheriff and believes Warren did nothing illegal?
It probably didn't happen, at least, not in the way he told it. It's established in the previous scene that he lies to manipulate white people.
He probably did kill him though, and a lot of other people coming for his bounty.
it's a bretty weak flick imho, most people talk about the 70mm gimmick or the dingus, because there isn't much more to it. way too much dialog (i know that's his """style""" but i never felt that it was this useless and empty before) and what annoyed me especially was how he does character exposition:
"well i'll be damned, if it isn't X"
"you don't know 'bout X? lemme tell you 'bout X, bla bla etc."
so much telling and no showing (just the black on white rape ofc), no wonder he says he wants to write novels. i get that it's hard to actually show who the characters are by writing something they do, by a choice they make, since he constrained himself to mostly the cabin, but i'm a lame-o hater who knows this stuff way better than Q "uno farto" T, and i could've done ezpz, and i think talky exposition is always boring
what a waste of a cool wide format and then mostly shoot inside on a set too.
That and the establishing shots went on way to long. The only thing that came to mind was "self indulgence" when watching those shots. They were pretty on there own but killed the pace of the movie for me. I don't need to see ANOTHER shot of horses tromping through snow to know that the characters are going somewhere.
I'm not saying Tarantino should make fluffy Hollywood movies, but dude, two hours and forty seven minutes? Give me a break.
>implying I didnt know what was happening
that was obvious you morons, but they could have done it so I didnt have to watch little white boy suck a big black dingus like some kind of cuck propaganda