Inglourious Basterds

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 17 Mar 2009, 22:33

luckystars wrote:No, that place is reserved for The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou

Hell yeah 8)

HungFist · Post by **HungFist** » 21 May 2009, 19:57

Maestro Castellari also has made a new film; Caribbean Basterds.

"You were inspired by my movie, but I just copied from yours with no shame" - Enzo G. Castellari

http://www.variety.com/article/VR111800 ... =1043&cs=1

HungFist · Post by **HungFist** » 01 Jul 2009, 16:29

Good news, Harvey doesn't want Tarantino to cut Basterds, he wants him to make it longer.

The Cannes version received mixed reviews. But also keep in mind that Tarantino edited it in just six weeks. It was a rushed job for sure.

http://men.style.com/gq/blogs/gqeditors ... error.html

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 04 Aug 2009, 21:22

OMG! I've just seen the UK trailer. According to the trailer it's called:

Inglourious

WTF! No Basterds period.

HungFist · Post by **HungFist** » 04 Aug 2009, 21:29

Ha, in Finland it's "Kunniattomat paskiaiset", which is a direct translation of Inglorious Basterds but without the misspelling. For once the Finnish title is better than the original.

EDIT: actually it's not a direct translation at all (such doesn't exist), but "bastard" is almost always translated as "paskiainen", so...

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 04 Aug 2009, 22:08

The BBFC have called it the correct title so I suspect it's just a marketing thing.

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 05 Aug 2009, 03:09

Well yeah, the trailer voiceover guy can't say 'Inglorious Basterds' on TV can he...

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 05 Aug 2009, 13:41

How about Inglorious Baskets?

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 05 Aug 2009, 13:44

gasteropod wrote:Well yeah, the trailer voiceover guy can't say 'Inglorious Basterds' on TV can he...

Yes he should be able to, after 9pm at least. Besides there is no voice-over man as far as I know. The dumb part is title "on-screen".

It looks tosh anyway. Kill Bill Vol. 1 and Death Proof are good fun but I do wish QT would get back to making proper movies. He's only made 3 real movies! Come on!

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 05 Aug 2009, 13:50

bradavon wrote:Besides there is no voice-over man as far as I know. The dumb part is title "on-screen".

There is a voiceover guy because I heard him on TV, he said 'Inglorious'. Perhaps adverts aren't allowed to swear, I can't remember ever hearing one swear at any time of the night.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 05 Aug 2009, 14:44

Shouldn't be a problem after 9pm.

I saw the film mentioned on BBC News 24 and they used the full title and showed the original title card.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 05 Aug 2009, 19:09

I bet they don't though and just run the same advert. It would make more sense to not mention the title at all and just show the title card. That wouldn't really be swearing and besides it doesn't even bloody say bastard.

I can well believe adverts aren't allowed to swear though, maybe not even after 9pm. They have much stricter rules than TV shows.

Shingster · Post by **Shingster** » 05 Aug 2009, 23:47

Technically bastard isn't even a swear word!

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 06 Aug 2009, 00:00

It's used as one.

HungFist · Post by **HungFist** » 06 Aug 2009, 13:38

In Finnish it its. The Finnish title is basically "Inglorious Shitheads" (well, that would be the closest translation).

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 06 Aug 2009, 13:58

Shingster wrote:Technically bastard isn't even a swear word!

How do you work that out? Bloody is and that's so minor everyone uses it.

If bastard isn't, fuck and shit aren't either. Both of those have legitimate meanings too.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 06 Aug 2009, 16:15

Bastard wasn't originally a swearword (it meant a child with unmarried parents) but it was bastarised into one (now it's mainly used as an insult).

(See what I did there...?) 8)

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 06 Aug 2009, 18:25

You could say the same about most swear words. Bitch for example. It's a swear word, end of.

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 06 Aug 2009, 18:31

I hate it when things get altered over time for the worse, e.g. 'barbecue' misspelt so much that it's pretty much acceptable to spell it 'barbeque' nowadays and it annoys me no end. Same for saying 'I'm nauseous'... no you're not, you feel 'nauseated', if you're nauseous it means you're inflicting nausea upon others.

*rant over*

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 06 Aug 2009, 19:07

Crikey I had no idea it's supposed to be spelt with a C and I make a point of spelling words correctly. I cannot see bastard being spelt differently though. Any idea why it is misspelt?

I know what you mean, when people say "it's like xxx" (such as like annoying), that's not the same thing as "it's annoying". I always feel like turning around and saying "so it's not actually annoying then?".

A better example, lite and nite are used so often, people think they're correct spellings when neither are. That said and where it gets complicated is American words that were once misspellings are now considered correct spellings. Color for example. I'd say it's legitimate but where does it go from a misspelling to a new spelling?

It annoys me more (thankfully it doesn't happen on this forum) that people use so much text speak, abbreviating every single word, that it's almost impossible to bloody understand what they're saying.

gasteropod wrote:if you're nauseous it means you're inflicting nausea upon others. *rant over*

Really?

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 06 Aug 2009, 19:56

Text speak really annoys me. Color. humor etc are correct spellings in American English just not British English. Meh.

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 06 Aug 2009, 20:51

bradavon wrote:Crikey I had no idea it's supposed to be spelt with a C and I make a point of spelling words correctly. I cannot see bastard being spelt differently though. Any idea why it is misspelt?

Probably the same reason so many people spell 'definitely' as 'definately', they don't know any better.

bradavon wrote:
gasteropod wrote:if you're nauseous it means you're inflicting nausea upon others. *rant over*
Really?

Usage Note: Traditional critics have insisted that nauseous is properly used only to mean "causing nausea" and that it is incorrect to use it to mean "affected with nausea," as in Roller coasters make me nauseous. In this example, nauseated is preferred by 72 percent of the Usage Panel. Curiously, though, 88 percent of the Panelists prefer using nauseating in the sentence The children looked a little green from too many candy apples and nauseating (not nauseous) rides. Since there is a lot of evidence to show that nauseous is widely used to mean "feeling sick," it appears that people use nauseous mainly in the sense in which it is considered incorrect. In its "correct" sense it is being supplanted by nauseating.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 06 Aug 2009, 22:04

:mrgreen: bestest thread evr

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 07 Aug 2009, 13:27

gasteropod wrote:Probably the same reason so many people spell 'definitely' as 'definately', they don't know any better.

I never do that one.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 09 Aug 2009, 18:14

Saw a TV spot for Inglorious Basterds today and it was just called 'Quentin Tarintino's Inglorious'

Bullets 'n' Babes

Inglourious Basterds

Re: Inglourious Basterds

Re: Inglourious Basterds

Re: Inglourious Basterds

Re: Inglourious Basterds

Re: Inglourious Basterds

Re: Inglourious Basterds

Re: Inglourious Basterds

Re: Inglourious Basterds

Re: Inglourious Basterds

Re: Inglourious Basterds

Re: Inglourious Basterds

Re: Inglourious Basterds

Re: Inglourious Basterds

Re: Inglourious Basterds

Re: Inglourious Basterds

Re: Inglourious Basterds

Re: Inglourious Basterds

Re: Inglourious Basterds

Re: Inglourious Basterds

Re: Inglourious Basterds

Re: Inglourious Basterds

Re: Inglourious Basterds