Quentin Tarantino's Once Upon A Time In Hollywood

[Deej 76766]

And poor Cliff has to do the heavy lifting for Rick one final time, while Rick gets the adulation. Life of a stuntman.

[billfromlaketravis 11466]

11 hours ago, tbone_ said:

The shit I have to explain to that bunch in my office is maddening sometimes. Yes, Brylee, we had a tax law change in the 80s that wiped out about half the value of commercial real estate, the savings and loan industry with it, and plunged the country into a massive recession. How is it again that you have an MRED and have never heard of this concept?

But that’s a different discussion.

If it's not on Netflix or YouTube, 20 somethings haven't seen it. 

99% of the them haven't seen When Harry Met Sally. How is this possible?

[WBT 20564]

11 hours ago, tbone_ said:

How is it again that you have an MRED and have never heard of this concept?

Don't they give those out for looking good on the billboard?

[Carl Spackler 3482]

Saw it tonight.  Thought it was . . . interesting.  Worth seeing just for the 60's kitsch if nothing else.  Brad Pitt was really good. 

I thought the movie would drag given that it was 2:45, and there were some spots where I thought some film editor should have beaten Tarantino unconscious and then taken a scalpel to the film, but the movie definitely held my attention and the 2:45 ended up passing quickly.

[Trey3216 15346]

12 hours ago, tbone_ said:

 How is it again that you have an MRED and have never heard of this concept?

But that’s a different discussion.

Go right to the source and ask the horse 
He'll give you the answer that you'll endorse. 
He's always on a steady course. 
Talk to MrEd. 
 

[mulletpelini 5211]

truth be told, I didn't have a ton of knowledge about the murders as they were a full year before I was born. I knew about them, knew the principal players, knew a little about the background story.  I actually looked up more about them about 4 or 5 months ago when the trailers started coming out to educate myself a bit more.

 

[JohnnyRage 1617]

Hot Damn!

[Sweetnsourpoke 169]

On ‎8‎/‎8‎/‎2019 at 10:17 AM, Beau Vine said:

Pretty sure I saw the same black Mustang in the background of two different scenes, though.

True. I know I saw that milk truck more than once. But it looks like he got the Polanski cars right.

 

 

[futureman 22457]

8 hours ago, Carl Spackler said:

there were some spots where I thought some film editor should have beaten Tarantino unconscious and then taken a scalpel to the film

I would love to know which parts

[4th&Five 41527]

Saw it last week and the more I think about it the more I like it. 

[BurdineBandit 815]

1 hour ago, 4th&Five said:

Saw it last week and the more I think about it the more I like it. 

Thinking about it? What are you some kind of cot-damned philosopher commie? It's 2019, you watch it once, react immediately (classic or trash?) and the proclaim how much you hated it or loved it to whoever you know, loudly, and never think about it again.

Deej had a pretty good/succinct write-up, kudos.

[Gene Parmesan 4006]

15 hours ago, billfromlaketravis said:

If it's not on Netflix or YouTube, 20 somethings haven't seen it. 

99% of the them haven't seen When Harry Met Sally. How is this possible?

When Harry Met Sally seems like an odd choice to get on a soapbox.

[YChang 3443]

6 hours ago, 4th&Five said:

Saw it last week and the more I think about it the more I like it. 

Same here.

[MAUFRAIS 6624]

When Harry Met Sally seems like an odd choice to get on a soapbox.

I’ll have what he’s having.

[ztejas 43419]

On 8/11/2019 at 9:40 AM, Deej said:

Yes. I had to explain the Manson murders to some 20 year olds at the office after they saw the movie. They had zero knowledge. 

I was googling it during the movie because yeah, I had very little knowledge other than knowing the name. 

It was 50 years ago and isn't discussed as much as you would think. 

Think about when you were in your 20s, then go 50 years back. There are plenty of news stories that would have fallen out of public discussion or that you wouldn't know about. 

[wood 11225]

4 hours ago, BurdineBandit said:

Thinking about it? What are you some kind of cot-damned philosopher commie? It's 2019, you watch it once, react immediately (classic or trash?) and the proclaim how much you hated it or loved it to whoever you know, loudly, and never think about it again.

Deej had a pretty good/succinct write-up, kudos.

Haha, yeah. It's funny. I was thinking about this just yesterday --- how I find myself thinking more and more about movies after seeing them these days than ever before.

[mdmost 43001]

15 minutes ago, ztejas said:

I was googling it during the movie

You damn millennials. 

[Carl Spackler 3482]

7 hours ago, futureman said:

I would love to know which parts

Spoiler

Off the top of my head . . . I thought the scene in which DiCaprio's character meets the child actress on set could have been shortened.  I wouldn't advocate deleting that scene -- it showed Rick Dalton's realization that his career is on the same arc as the main character in the book he's reading -- but the leadup to that realization was stretched out too long IMO.  I thought Tarantino could have been more economical.  (FWIW, I thought the kid who played the child actress was excellent in her role.)  The Playboy Mansion scene, while nice from an eye candy standpoint and somewhat informative as to the relationship between Tate and Sebring and the types of men who were attractive to Tate, was mostly gratuitous otherwise.  And the scenes of Tate in the movie theatre didn't particularly advance the plot.  I think they dovetailed with Tarantino's homage to that era of Hollywood and I also think they show Tate as more than just a pretty face, so I understand why QT included them, but if they had been deleted I don't think the movie would have been the worse for it.  Overall, I liked the movie.  I just thought it could have used a little editing.  And note that I said editing with a "scalpel," not a cleaver.    

 

Edited August 12, 2019 by Carl Spackler

[ztejas 43419]

19 minutes ago, Carl Spackler said:

I thought the scene in which DiCaprio's character meets the child actress on set could have been shortened. 

Agreed.

23 minutes ago, Carl Spackler said:

And the scenes of Tate in the movie theatre didn't particularly advance the plot. 

Double agreed. Went to the bathroom during one of these. 

[wood 11225]

52 minutes ago, ztejas said:

I was googling it during the movie because yeah, I had very little knowledge other than knowing the name. 

It was 50 years ago and isn't discussed as much as you would think. 

Think about when you were in your 20s, then go 50 years back. There are plenty of news stories that would have fallen out of public discussion or that you wouldn't know about. 

So, that was you ...

[tbone_ 14118]

Not knowing the Manson Tate story pretty much robs the viewer of the tension the movie is built around I would think. Sort of like missing the whole point.

 

[Deej 76766]

7 minutes ago, tbone_ said:

Not knowing the Manson Tate story pretty much robs the viewer of the tension the movie is built around I would think. Sort of like missing the whole point.

 

Yeah. It'd be like not knowing the story of the end of WWII in Europe and the fate of Hitler before watching "Inglourious Basterds"

[ztejas 43419]

11 minutes ago, tbone_ said:

Not knowing the Manson Tate story pretty much robs the viewer of the tension the movie is built around I would think. Sort of like missing the whole point.

 

I wouldn't tell someone they need to go read up on Charles Manson before seeing the film. If you're familiar with the Manson happenings then you will obviously pick up on the tie in, but the plot doesn't rely on outside knowledge or perspective at all. Especially since it's a complete alternate reality that isn't attempting to follow or dramatize what actually occurred. 

[wood 11225]

15 minutes ago, ztejas said:

I wouldn't tell someone they need to go read up on Charles Manson before seeing the film. If you're familiar with the Manson happenings then you will obviously pick up on the tie in, but the plot doesn't rely on outside knowledge or perspective at all. Especially since it's a complete alternate reality that isn't attempting to follow or dramatize what actually occurred. 

It doesn't rely on it per se, but at the very least a significant portion of the impact of the ending will be lost on anyone who doesn't know anything about how that story turned out in reality.

[ztejas 43419]

2 minutes ago, wood said:

It doesn't rely on it per se, but at the very least a significant portion of the impact of the ending will be lost on anyone who doesn't know anything about how that story turned out in reality.

I'd probably buy that. I'm in a weird spot perspective wise since I knew that Sharon Tate was murdered but didn't know much else. So I can't speak at all to the accuracy of the depiction of the Manson clan but I was able to enjoy the idea of "what if they broke into the wrong/a different house?"

I mean it piqued my curiosity enough to skim wikipedia while I was watching it so maybe that's all the proof you need. 

I do think you could enjoy the film walking in knowing nothing - but going back and reading about what actually took place probably increases the appreciation and could prompt a desire to rewatch. 

[henrygandorf 29190]

ok, finally saw this on saturday night.  was actually supposed to go last week at the new beverly (it's only playing there all month) but the wife wanted to wait and she likes a bar by arclight, so we saw the 35mm there.  because of the run time, they did not show any trailers.  i love trailers, but this is why the arclight is the best.  they get it.

i enjoyed it quite a bit, and i had some skepticism built up from hateful 8, and parts of django.  it exceeded my expectations.  acting and cinematography were outstanding, obviously.  music was also great, as expected.  having the constant radio track the entire movie was very reservoir dogs, and i appreciated that.

for obvious reasons, i had not kept current on this thread, and just read 6 pages, so my comments might be a little all over the place.

many people have said it could've/should've been shorter.  i agree with this, but was not ever bored.  when guys like tarantino both write and direct, the movies will run long.  he won't ever cut scenes he wanted to shoot and really liked, no matter what it does to the story flow or the plot structure.  some scenes ran long, and others didn't need to be in there at all.  doesn't mean "this movie sucked because it was too long" but it does mean "this movie could've been better if it was a tight 2:20".

my issue wasn't the time though, it was the plot.  not even the plot, as much as "what is this movie about?"  i know tarantino isn't "by-the-book" but traditionally, movies need to be about something, and they need to be about only one thing.  and once you figure out that one thing, every scene should further the story you're trying to tell about that one thing.  each scene should be looked at and judged on its own merit.  and if it doesn't accomplish the goal, it either shouldn't be in there, or it should be tweaked and made better.  tarantino obviously doesn't do this, and has earned the right to not do this, but it's scenes like these that make people walk out and say, "what was the fucking plot of that movie?"

to me, the movie was about a 1950's western tv actor trying to adapt to 1960's hollywood (movies, hippies, whatever).  the game was changing, and dalton and booth were having trouble keeping up and staying relevant.  hollywood changes every 20 years or so, so this story isn't that unusual, and it was interesting to watch, especially during leo's scenes of frustration.  i might be in the minority, but i thought he was head and shoulders above pitt from a pure acting perspective.  he crushed this.  and i'm a huge brad pitt fan.

anyway, the issue i had was that tarantino took his story about rick dalton, and then shoe-horned a second story about sharon tate/the manson family, so that he could have some fun and revise history, like only he can.  and while the tate aspect represents the changing hollywood that dalton would have to adapt to in order to survive, i don't think it deserved (or received) enough screentime to warrant being a real "subplot" of the movie.  someone brought up the playboy mansion - which i agree was an odd choice.  he put this scene in to explain to the viewer about the relationship between tate and sebring.  while a cool looking scene, it wasn't necessary.  i didn't care that she had a male friend who was still hung up on her.

the problem with combining these two plots into a disjointed story is that margot robbie is a big actress.  if she wasn't, nobody would be talking about how few lines she got.  she got few lines because her story wasn't that important to the overall narrative being rolled out.  in fact, he could've almost told this story and barely mentioned tate/polanski.  we could've found out they lived next door after the murders even.  he chose to do it differently, and that's ok, i'm not trying to challenge his brilliance.  they're part of the misdirect, because everyone knows the real story.

besides the playboy mansion, the scene in westwood village (when she went to go see her movie) was drawn out and ultimately added very little.  everyone in hollywood seeks recognition, no matter what they say to jimmy kimmel.  dalton missed it.  tate was starting to get it.  booth looked like he should be getting it, but didn't ever really get it. 

the middle part of the movie - while he was shooting the tv show - was a very long part of the movie.  sure, it could've been shorter.  but to me, that was the focal point of the movie.  that answered the question - what is this movie about.  the scene with the little girl.  the knee pads.  all the extra shit that little actor (not actress) did to make herself better.  rick drinking then losing his shit, then seeing younger versions of himself, but keeping it together to give a standout performance when it counted, even though it was some bullshit western pilot.  

the scene he had with that director was great, all the wardrobe details - the world was changing.  i would've rather pacino play that character (assuming he had to be in the movie for some reason) and then changed the intro scene at musso's.  i get that it foreshadowed the italy part, but that, again, wasn't really necessary for the plot.  the two of them shooting the shit at musso's would've been a better use of my time.

the funny thing is that the latest avengers is 3 hours long, and it actually took 3 hours to tell that story.  it was just a really long story, instead of other superhero movies that insist upon themselves with 40 minute fight scenes to end the movie.  this movie, even with its plot, could've been told perfectly in ~2:20. 

but here's the thing about movies with plot issues, is that it really only matters the first time you watch a movie.  moving forward, this will likely be even more enjoyable that it was, and i would probably give the first viewing a b+ or a-.  i will probably see it again in the theater, just because it's one of those.

[tbone_ 14118]

I’m just saying if you know the Manson history there’s a serious undercurrent of dread that makes it a different experience than if you aren’t woke to the history.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

Enjoyable write up.  I wonder if it will be as good the second time though.  The Spahn Ramch scene had all this tension and you’ll go in knowing nothing happens.  And the laughter of the gang getting slaughtered was half because of the surprise.  Those were two big parts of the enjoyment to me. 

[ztejas 43419]

14 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

the middle part of the movie - while he was shooting the tv show - was a very long part of the movie.  sure, it could've been shorter.  but to me, that was the focal point of the movie.  that answered the question - what is this movie about.  the scene with the little girl.  the knee pads.  all the extra shit that little actor (not actress) did to make herself better.  rick drinking then losing his shit, then seeing younger versions of himself, but keeping it together to give a standout performance when it counted, even though it was some bullshit western pilot.  

the scene he had with that director was great, all the wardrobe details - the world was changing. 

I agree. That was the real story and what I thought was done best. Probably why I feel that knowledge of Manson/Tate's murder isn't totally requisite to enjoy the film. 

 

Edited August 12, 2019 by ztejas

[henrygandorf 29190]

oh, and about 3 pages ago, someone made the comment that this movie "wasn't set in hollywood" or something.

for those who don't know, or are too lazy to look it up, here is where everything is in real life, to the best of my recollection.

cielo drive (where they all lived) is in benedict canyon, which is above beverly hills.  the physical address is probably los angeles, but could be bh.  not to be confused with the wonderland murders (john holmes, boogie nights, etc) which was on wonderland ave, off lookout mountain, and very close to where i lived for 8 years during my frat house rock phase.

before the murders, they went to el coyote, on beverly, which is technically weho, since it's west of la brea.  the new beverly (www.thenewbev.com) is across the street, and tarantino owns it.  he redid it and it opened back up in january, but i haven't been since, largely because of the shitty schedule.  but you can't go to the new beverly without going to el coyote first.  the guys went to casa vega, which is in sherman oaks in the valley.  while inconveniently located, you could cut through beverly glen and it wouldn't be too terrible to get from the valley to cielo.

musso and frank is on hollywood, in hollywood.

the long day dalton spent shooting that western looked to be on the warner bros lot, judging from where he got picked up.  that's in the valley in burbank.

booth made a comment to pussycat about her trolling up and down burbank blvd, which is also not in hollywood.  it's in the valley.  he picked her up and went to the spahn ranch in chatsworth, which is very west valley near woodland hills, several miles west of the 405.  until recently, it was the porn capital of the world. 

i can't remember all the neon shots, but one was the cinerama dome, which is part of arclight, but not the theater we saw the movie in.  the dome is playing it in 70mm, because that's how the dome rolls.

sharon tate went to go pick up the book for polanski and see the movie at the bruin - one of the huge one-plexes in westwood village (by ucla).

panorama city where cliff lived was up near van nuys - in between warner bros and the spahn ranch.

the playboy mansion is on charing cross in beverly hills.

i can't really remember anywhere else.  but yeah, not much took place technically in hollywood.

[Queen Bitch 1692]

The titular Hollywood refers to the industry not the neighborhood, yeah?

Also, this is a good scroll for location porn: 

https://la.curbed.com/maps/once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood-map

Edited August 12, 2019 by Queen Bitch
just remembered the curbed article

[Deej 76766]

1 hour ago, ztejas said:

I agree. That was the real story and what I thought was done best. Probably why I feel that knowledge of Manson/Tate's murder isn't totally requisite to enjoy the film. 

 

I loved that little moment where the you see the girl's stunt double after Rick's scene cuts. It's her own little Cliff.

And Pitt going home to his trailer and his dog gave me a Lethal Weapon vibe.

Edited August 12, 2019 by Deej

[ztejas 43419]

6 minutes ago, Deej said:

I loved that little moment where the you see the girl's stunt double after Rick's scene cuts. It's her own little Cliff.

And Pitt going home to his trailer and his dog gave me a Lethal Weapon vibe.

The scene where he's explaining the book he's reading got me in the feels. Very well acted by Leo. 

[Deej 76766]

Just now, ztejas said:

The scene where he's explaining the book he's reading got me in the feels. Very well acted by Leo. 

Yep.

[mchookem 16330]

i agree with hg...Leo was the standout. Brad was cool and awesome and fun to watch... but he was Brad, he's always cool and awesome and fun to watch. Leo killed it.

[Ths71 472]

Really enjoyed it.
Tarantino's attention to detail is pretty phenomenal. As a car guy, I was impressed with the realism and variety of the 2000 extra cars used in the film.
The '66 Cad that Pitt drove was the same one used in Reservoir Dogs and is still owned by Madsen. I'm betting that car could go for some cash some day at auction.  

I was going WTF when Pitt was racing through traffic in the Ghia. Just read that it actually had a modern Subaru engine and auto tranny.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[veritas aequitas 443]

3 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

my issue wasn't the time though, it was the plot.  not even the plot, as much as "what is this movie about?"  i know tarantino isn't "by-the-book" but traditionally, movies need to be about something, and they need to be about only one thing.  and once you figure out that one thing, every scene should further the story you're trying to tell about that one thing.  each scene should be looked at and judged on its own merit.  and if it doesn't accomplish the goal, it either shouldn't be in there, or it should be tweaked and made better.  tarantino obviously doesn't do this, and has earned the right to not do this, but it's scenes like these that make people walk out and say, "what was the fucking plot of that movie?"

to me, the movie was about a 1950's western tv actor trying to adapt to 1960's hollywood (movies, hippies, whatever).  the game was changing, and dalton and booth were having trouble keeping up and staying relevant.  hollywood changes every 20 years or so, so this story isn't that unusual, and it was interesting to watch, especially during leo's scenes of frustration.  i might be in the minority, but i thought he was head and shoulders above pitt from a pure acting perspective.  he crushed this.  and i'm a huge brad pitt fan.

anyway, the issue i had was that tarantino took his story about rick dalton, and then shoe-horned a second story about sharon tate/the manson family, so that he could have some fun and revise history, like only he can.  and while the tate aspect represents the changing hollywood that dalton would have to adapt to in order to survive, i don't think it deserved (or received) enough screentime to warrant being a real "subplot" of the movie.  someone brought up the playboy mansion - which i agree was an odd choice.  he put this scene in to explain to the viewer about the relationship between tate and sebring.  while a cool looking scene, it wasn't necessary.  i didn't care that she had a male friend who was still hung up on her.

 

I thought the intertwining of the 2 stories was the point of the Once Upon a time in Hollywood ending. Rick Dalton was fading into obscurity but then his career was saved by the Manson family failed murder attempt leading to him getting the invite up to the Polanski house he had dreamed about. So now he is in with the in crowd and since Sharon Tate wasn't murdered then Polanski doesn't get ran out of town for banging kids and goes on to make some big block busters.

[Deej 76766]

Something tells me Polanski was still going to diddle little girls.

[henrygandorf 29190]

14 minutes ago, veritas aequitas said:

I thought the intertwining of the 2 stories was the point of the Once Upon a time in Hollywood ending. Rick Dalton was fading into obscurity but then his career was saved by the Manson family failed murder attempt leading to him getting the invite up to the Polanski house he had dreamed about. So now he is in with the in crowd and since Sharon Tate wasn't murdered then Polanski doesn't get ran out of town for banging kids and goes on to make some big block busters.

are you saying that dalton becomes jake gittes?

[threesheets 1672]

Or Vincent Vega.

[BoomMF 1399]

oh, and about 3 pages ago, someone made the comment that this movie "wasn't set in hollywood" or something.
for those who don't know, or are too lazy to look it up, here is where everything is in real life, to the best of my recollection.
cielo drive (where they all lived) is in benedict canyon, which is above beverly hills.  the physical address is probably los angeles, but could be bh.  not to be confused with the wonderland murders (john holmes, boogie nights, etc) which was on wonderland ave, off lookout mountain, and very close to where i lived for 8 years during my frat house rock phase.
before the murders, they went to el coyote, on beverly, which is technically weho, since it's west of la brea.  the new beverly (www.thenewbev.com) is across the street, and tarantino owns it.  he redid it and it opened back up in january, but i haven't been since, largely because of the shitty schedule.  but you can't go to the new beverly without going to el coyote first.  the guys went to casa vega, which is in sherman oaks in the valley.  while inconveniently located, you could cut through beverly glen and it wouldn't be too terrible to get from the valley to cielo.
musso and frank is on hollywood, in hollywood.
the long day dalton spent shooting that western looked to be on the warner bros lot, judging from where he got picked up.  that's in the valley in burbank.
booth made a comment to pussycat about her trolling up and down burbank blvd, which is also not in hollywood.  it's in the valley.  he picked her up and went to the spahn ranch in chatsworth, which is very west valley near woodland hills, several miles west of the 405.  until recently, it was the porn capital of the world. 
i can't remember all the neon shots, but one was the cinerama dome, which is part of arclight, but not the theater we saw the movie in.  the dome is playing it in 70mm, because that's how the dome rolls.
sharon tate went to go pick up the book for polanski and see the movie at the bruin - one of the huge one-plexes in westwood village (by ucla).
panorama city where cliff lived was up near van nuys - in between warner bros and the spahn ranch.
the playboy mansion is on charing cross in beverly hills.
i can't really remember anywhere else.  but yeah, not much took place technically in hollywood.

.

[BigOrange1 6436]

23 hours ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

Enjoyable write up.  I wonder if it will be as good the second time though.  The Spahn Ramch scene had all this tension and you’ll go in knowing nothing happens.  And the laughter of the gang getting slaughtered was half because of the surprise.  Those were two big parts of the enjoyment to me. 

i'm super excited to watch that scene again, and although nothing bad happens, i'm guessing it will still be tense upon a rewatch.

stuff definitely happens in each scene, but once upon a time in nazi-occupied france and operation kino are still very tense rewatches even if you know what happens.

[Trey3216 15346]

I’m telling y’all, especially those that really enjoyed it, go see it again.  There’s so much going on with the visual sensory overload on first viewing that you definitely miss some things.  A second view is well worth it.  

[mdleast 8289]

I did enjoy in my second viewing being able to focus on the backgrounds and sets. So much detail and stuff to look at in every shot.

[veritas aequitas 443]

22 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

are you saying that dalton becomes jake gittes?

Yep, and then Polanski wouldn't get caught banging a 6th grader at Jack Nicholson's house.

[Deej 76766]

3 hours ago, mdleast said:

I did enjoy in my second viewing being able to focus on the backgrounds and sets. So much detail and stuff to look at in every shot.

Just purchased my ticket online to see it again. 

And note to Alamo Drafthouse: if a movie is more than 2 1/2 hours long, and you sell buckets of beer, have a 5 minute intermission. 

Edited August 14, 2019 by Deej

[mdleast 8289]

38 minutes ago, Deej said:

Just purchased my ticket online to see it again. 

And note to Alamo Drafthouse: if a movie is more than 2 1/2 hours long, and you sell buckets of beer, have a 5 minute intermission. 

Agreed. That was a great thing about seeing Grindhouse as a double feature there back in 2007 - they had an intermission with a countdown clock in between the two films so you knew how much time you had to do your business and not miss anything later on in the film/credits.  I always felt like the Avengers films are kinda fucking with the audience with what seem like especially long credits making you wait for that last stinger.

[Deej 76766]

Just now, mdleast said:

Agreed. That was a great thing about seeing Grindhouse as a double feature there back in 2007 - they had an intermission with a countdown clock in between the two films so you knew how much time you had to do your business and not miss anything later on in the film/credits.  I always felt like the Avengers films are kinda fucking with the audience with what seem like especially long credits making you wait for that last stinger.

I saw Grindhouse at the Alamo. Went through two buckets of beer by myself. The intermission was welcomed.

[JohnnyRage 1617]

On 8/12/2019 at 3:07 PM, ztejas said:

I wouldn't tell someone they need to go read up on Charles Manson before seeing the film. If you're familiar with the Manson happenings then you will obviously pick up on the tie in, but the plot doesn't rely on outside knowledge or perspective at all. Especially since it's a complete alternate reality that isn't attempting to follow or dramatize what actually occurred. 

Impossible to have a worse take.

[Tom 2959]

11 hours ago, mdleast said:

 I always felt like the Avengers films are kinda fucking with the audience with what seem like especially long credits making you wait for that last stinger.

 

You could probably go piss, hang out at the bar and get a drink, post in the Marvel thread what you thought about the movie, and be back to your seat in time to see the credits thanking Canada where it was filmed on location just before the after credits scene rolls.