Talk:Inglourious Basterds/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Vfd

On April 6, 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Inglorious Bastards for a record of the discussion. —Korath (Talk) 01:23, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

"No Poster Yet"

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see how that big "No Poster Yet" graphic is an improvement over simply, you know, not having a poster. It doesn't actually convey any information, and in my opinion, it's kind of unattractive and distracting. Is this part of a general policy/style guide somewhere? --Mr Wind-Up Bird ✈ 17:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Since nobody seems to object, I removed the graphic. --Mr Wind-Up Bird ✈ 16:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Title

I don't have any idea as to how good this film will be, although if it's directed by Cutie it's bound to be watchable at least. But, in any case, what a brilliant title! Martyn Smith 13:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

remake of the The Dirty Dozen?

it seem too have the same plot of the dirty dozen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.35.146 (talk) 05:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.233.160.96 (talk) 10:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Robert Elswit

Where is the source that provides evidence for his involvement? 74.230.248.165 (talk) 03:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed Cast List

Someone had put up a cast list for the film which included amongst others, Al Pacino and Tom Cruise. Pure fantasy. No casting details have yet been confirmed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.127.94.7 (talk) 12:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Small Error

This is the sort of thing I would usually just tweak myself, but the article is write protected. The article reads 'Aldo and the commanding officer of the Basterds, interrogate...' Aldo, I believe, *is* the commanding officer of the Basterds, and the spare comma after Basterds seems to indicate that whoever wrote the sentence meant to write, correctly, 'Aldo, the commanding officer of the Basterds, interrogates...' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.173.61.53 (talk) 18:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Cool Facts?

...seriously? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.135.187 (talk) 08:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

A Rehash of Pulp Fiction?

"Of the finished film, Tarantino said he thinks that it is the closest thing to Pulp Fiction he's ever done." What exactly does this mean? The story is told through a non-linear sequence of scenes? Includes "witty" banter about fast food items and other popular culture? Revolves around organized crime? Somehow I doubt that Inglorious Basterds is "closer" to Pulp Fiction than, say, Jackie Brown. This line should probably be edited to suggest that Tarantino anticipates critical success similar to Pulp Fiction, and not that the war movie is some kind of sequel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.225.2 (talk) 06:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

New Footage!

We have some new footage from American Idol now, don't we? Mike Myers in character. Entertainment Weekly has a new photo featuring Aldo and Donnie Donowitz out as well... Couldn't we add those pictures to this article somehow? Anybody here know how to do that? 88.196.227.37 (talk) 12:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Clean-up

The openning paragraph is horribly put together and desperatly needs to be revised. The structure of the sentences is terrible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.72.153 (talk) 01:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This article has long been on the clean-up list since it is a planned film that has not seen fruition for some time. Due to recent news, I will be cleaning up the article and seeing if a merge is warranted. This is because Inglorious Bastards has previously had near-starts in the past, and this may very well be another instance of that. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Clean-up done. Comments or suggestions, feel free to leave here. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Writing Since 2001?

Hasn't the film been in the works longer than that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.143.64 (talk) 03:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

He had been writing a number of scripts from the 1990s crossing into the 2000s, hence the "Entering the 21st century" bit. It's just that his first public mention of Inglorious Bastards that I could find was October 2001. Maybe we could reword a little bit better; I just couldn't find anything saying how far before 2000 he had been working on the premise. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Revisiting this, the 2001 citation says, "Although he's kept busy acting and producing, Tarantino hasn't directed a film since 1997's Jackie Brown. He's spent the last few years writing the screenplays for two new films, Kill Bill and Inglorious Bastards, which he will shoot back-to-back next year." 2001, minus a few years, puts it in the 1990s. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Mike Myers

This reports that Mike Myers has a small role in the film. The website doesn't seem to be a reliable source, being self-published, so let's sit tight and wait for a reliable source to report this before mentioning it in the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead. Variety has it now. rootology (T) 02:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Terrific, glad confirmation came through so quickly. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

does some guy on a yahoo blog count as a critic? can you change that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.93.207.137 (talk) 07:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Mike Myers have a small part in the film as a British guy. Posted by Chris. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.21.45 (talk) 18:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Camera

Will Tarantino shoot the movie with a HD Cam? He announced after directing a part of Sin City hed like to do a film with Sony HD Cam.--Dany3000 (talk) 14:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I have not seen any source report this, so I don't think it's been mentioned yet. We'll have to wait and see about a reliable source. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

What can be seen the American Idol promo appears to be a Panaflex. Xot (talk) 09:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

At the end of this interview with Roger Ebert he says he would never shoot on video!

Language - English?

From what I read about the film from several articles,and some of the sources, the film is suggested to have just as much German as English, so should both languages be listed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.143.64 (talk) 05:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

And theres also a little bit French ;)--Dany3000 (talk) 18:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• and it#s italien style...--88.77.156.27 (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Tarentino's Re-Make

I'm surprised that the article doesn't mention that "Inglorious Bastards" is a re-make of the 1978 Italian film of the same name, which starred Fred Williamson and Bo Svenson. As I understand it, the new film will follow the general plot outline of the original in most respects. The article (and comments on the article) imply that Tarentino created ("developed") the plot and characters entirely on his own. I'm sure that QT will put his own spin on the story, but let's give credit where credit is due. Failing to do so is taking the whole auteur business a bit too far... ---- John —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.132.186 (talk) 03:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

thats the thing, its not a remake. Its in the same genre and is set in the same time-period - characters and plotlines are totally different from the 1977 film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.196.229.109 (talk) 16:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

So it has the same title(which is a pretty unique title), takes place in the same time period and it is the same genre as another film and this wiki page doesn't think to mention any of that?

Change in page title?

Why has the title of the page been changed to "Inglorious Basterds? I can find no cite for the alternate spelling.

72.227.183.1 (talk) 13:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The Weinstein Company used the new title in a official press release.--Dany3000 (talk) 18:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there any information available about the title change, other than (going by the above) that all of a sudden the studio started spelling it differently with no explanation? It's very confusing that the article includes both spellings without acknowledging the change. Propaniac (talk) 14:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The citation connected to the misspelling turns up a 404 page. --99.186.111.95 (talk) 04:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The chapters

First of all, I don´t think the chapters of a film thats just shooting now ought to be in the article (too much info) but if you guys disagree, then can I understand that. Fine, let them be. However, dont you think that its a bit TOO much to say which chapters focus on which characters and what plotlines? I mean, isn´t that too spoilery?88.196.224.43 (talk) 09:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• It would be better to act on the plain structure, which is visible in the film, I think. So what? The chapters should be mentioned, to make clear which frame works in a so called italo western with world war two iconography! <There are signs which could be read, not only a swastika! Rhetoric use of these signs in a facile structure means business

in american style...--Danaide (talk) 15:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

First picture of Aldo Raine

could someone please work it into the article? Myself, I have no idea how one does that. It would be nice to have some photos in the article for a change.88.196.224.127 (talk) 09:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

say no to fair use ;)--Dany3000 (talk) 00:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Once Upon a time...Nazi Occupied France

I think the title should be changed to Once Upon a time in Nazi Occupied France. I know the index says ... but the title card says in so i believe maybe the title card could be used instead of the index. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bioman316 (talk • contribs) 04:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The title of the movie is "Inglourious Basterds" and not what you said. That is why the article is named like it is.--Rmhs15 (talk) 02:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Spaghetti western?

Why does somebody always describe the film as a spaghtti western? The film takes place in France during the German occupation in WW II. There are neither cowboys nor any other characteristical elements of a western. Sure, Tarantino is a huge fan of Sergio Leone's Dollars-trilogy and he originally intended to do a western. But the concept of the film has changed. If at all, the film will only exhibit some characteristics of a spaghetti western. But this isn't enough to indentify the whole film as a western. Dutzi (talk) 09:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The genre of Spaghetti western extends way beyond its rudimentary use of the American West as the traditional setting. --Kaizer13 (talk) 11:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I disagree! I won't change it back but I would just like to point out that the Spaghetti western genre has specific characteristics. First, the genre is named "spaghetti" western (or Italo western) because the films were produced by Italian studios (often in cooperaton with Spanish production companies). Tarantino's film is not! You say that the genre "extends beyond rudimentary use of the American West as the traditional setting". I agree with that, but this shouldn't be exaggerated. Besides the "Old American West", a setting/theme which is often dealt with in Spaghetti westerns is the Mexican Revolution. Spaghetti westerns traditionally are set in the 19th or early 20th century. Nazi-occupied France (1944) is hardly a western setting (even for a spaghetti western). According to that, shouldn't films like The Dirty Dozen, Kelly's Heroes or the original Italian Inglorious Bastards also be described as Spaghetti westerns? The film is rather a war film in Spaghetti western style and I think that's what Tarantino meant with "truly Spaghetti Western" (see film.com). Dutzi (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Uhh, what happened to the rest of my message? That's the point I was going to make. It's a war film using elements from the filmatic style of the spaghetti western, but it doesn't make sense to categorize it as one. Sorry to appear as if I were saying the opposite >.> stupid Explorer must have garbled my talk message. --Kaizer13 (talk) 01:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

In this case, shouldn't the lead be rephrased? Something like: "Inglorious Basterds is an upcoming ensemble war film which borrows stylistic elements from the Spaghetti western genre." Because, in my opinion, the phrase as it stands now clearly indicates that the film is a complete Spaghetti western. Dutzi (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. While the source specifies it as a spaghetti western, for a film to justly be placed in that genre certain norms must be met; case in point, cowboys or a western setting. It probably could be done like that, but I'd like to hear some suggestions from a third party or even better, someone who can oppose this suggestion before anything is done. Need to hear more sides of the same coin, right? --Kaizer13 (talk) 10:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, to me, a true "spaghetti western" is more then just a genre or a sub-genre, it's more like a state of mind, almost. It's all in the techniques and the mood: the unique camera angles, the sweating heroes, the morricone music, the feeling of violence and the cosmopolitan sense of being "in the middle of nowhere" etc... That´s what makes a good spaghetti-western. It's the most stylized (sub-)genre ever: if you strip it of all its stylistic components, then you'd get an ordinary western. So if you add the spaghetti-western STYLE (to anything, almost), you by definition get a complete "spaghetti-western". It all in the feel. Admittedly, some of the chapters in this will be done in not-so-spaghetti-western-style, but that's why its called a war-film-SLASH-spaghetti-western. War film first, spaghetti western second. It's listed as a hybrid. We COULD call it a "spaghetti-war film" though, and that would be okay too. (no joke here). Thoughts? 88.196.231.3 (talk) 12:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Your comment is pretty contradictory. You say that if one removes all stylistic elements from a spaghetti western you'll get an "ordinary western". Well, let's assume Tarantino's film won't exhibit any elements of a spaghetti western. Does that mean you'll get an ordinary western? No, it clearly remains a film about WW II. I agree that a Spaghetti western differs from a classic (American) western concerning mood, characters, style, etc... However, both share one identical characteristic, the western setting (with cowboys, horses and all that stuff...). I conveniently call it the "American Old West" of the 19th and early 20th century (including Mexico during the Revolution; see my previous comment). That's why the genre is called Western. As I already mentioned, the term Spaghetti western additionally indicates that the film was produced by an Italian studio.
And Inglorious Basterds isn't a hybrid (no matter whether "war film" or "Spaghetti western" is mentioned first). Although the film features many Spaghetti elements it still lacks the basic western characteristic. I'm not saying that the Spaghetti element shouldn't be mentioned at all, I just think that it should be rephrased in order to avoid confusion. And "spaghetti-war film" is even more inappropriate because at first sight the reader might think it's a war film about a form of pasta. By the way, I think it's funny that we're discussing a film that even hasn't been released yet. Dutzi (talk) 13:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

What about Takashi Miike's self-proclaimed "sukiyaki-western" Django, in which Tarantino himself only recently acted? That film in particular, has several (spaghetti?-)western influences, but takes place completely outside America, mostly in ~1400 A. D. Japan. To me, that alone shows that the exact milieu of the film is not as important to the Spaghetti-Western genre as are it's genre-specific stylistic elements and the unique mood these films have/create.

I wouldn't say that Sukiyaki Western Django is a complete western either. Don't get confused because of its title. The fact that the film doesn't take place in America but in Japan makes the difference. Look up the definition of the Western genre. A western usually takes place in the American Old West or Wild West, sometimes in Mexico or Canada but still North America (I know, I'm repeating myself). Sukiyaki Western Django is indeed more Western than Inglorious Basterds since it keeps other important western elements, such as the era and characters (Tarantino plays an American cowboy named Ringo). So at least you have cowboys! Still, I would say that Sukiyaki Western Django is more an Eastern film with western elements. Again, it's not a complete western. You can compare it to The Last Samurai. That film also takes place in the 19th century (1870s) and the main character is an American (ex-) captain in the US Army who fought against Indians. However, nobody would seriously denote Last Samurai a western film since it mainly takes place in Imperial Japan of the late 19th century. Moreover, you admit that Sukiyaki Western Django is a self-proclaimed western. This does not automatically mean that the film is indeed a western. I think that Sukiyaki Western Django is not a good example. But what about the other war films I mentioned above. They are similar to Basterds, does that mean they are Spaghetti westerns, too?

After having enough discussed a complete different film, we should now get back to our discussion about Inglorious Basterds. Let's not lose the thread! Dutzi (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• just imagine the enimies would wear different costumes... [[[ Pocahonta!]]] QT changes the bad and the evil by using frames of western italien style for a fiction or a fairy tale of world war two. Ask the horses!? It#s a drama line which

works somehow trivial but not trashy and connectes the story of nazi defenders and it works well. Starting up quietly, charming and somehow dedectivlike, suddenly the line rises into murder and destruction._ and these line is used repetedly. Look at any italo western and you will find this line. But not an actor who plays a figure so stupidly like Pitt does. He took the wrong pills! IT'S A FILM OF QUATTROLINGUALS: [I AM ONE!] Pitt won't get any PASTA! If the bad indians are fought by cowboys it#s a simple story, each american finds the traditional values in such a story.QT costumes the former bad ones into good criminals, working for the army. It's not a joke : It's fiction. The threetime changers are working on good old nazi germany. and the nazis are real jews, intelligent, strategic and sensitive. So the feast of prejudices doesn#t take place in a traditional way but italien style. --Danaide (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Illiterate Lieutenant?

The citations given do not say where the "illiterate" label is used to describe the Aldo character. Did Tarantino himself call the character illiterate? It's worth checking out, since most commissioned officers are suppose to be college graduates. 141.151.2.144 (talk) 03:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You are talking about a guy who probably has a combat commission and a time when they did this all the time. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• It's a leader (not a liter) figure, I think. He reminds on Errol Flinn but after a big accident.(being strangled and in GERMANY) The directors opinion isn't the only measure.--Danaide (talk) 16:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect spelling of "Bastard"

I'm dead certain that Bastard is spelt with an A - or in this case, two - not an E. Someone may want to fix that.--Launchballer (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

If you look just above your entry you will see another section about this. Plus this is already indicated in the article. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah. My (rather uneducated) guess is that the abuse filter wouldn't let rude words in after The Posies published an album called "Everybody Is A Fucking Liar".--Launchballer (talk) 15:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The title is misspelled ON PURPOSE.213.219.75.128 (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, should have read the above thread.--Launchballer (talk) 12:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I find it funny how the misspelling of Basterds has been picked up twice, but the misspelling of Inglourious hasn't! :P Anyone know exactly why they felt it necessary to confuse everyone? k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 06:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

You're right. Didn't see that...--Launchballer (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This humpty dumpty isn't the real center of the film. I guess the incorrectness of spellig the title leads to may be

the wingdings, it#s an (yo)u and an e which are additional, a system in. Or there is a certain pronounciation meant. A so called onometapoetic expression....--Danaide (talk) 16:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I think misspelling Inglourious just adds a bit of humor and makes it more absurd since bastards is misspelled -- but it also fits in with the character Brad Pitt plays.

Eli Roth

Why is Eli Roth frequently removed from the billing/starring list in the infobox? Is there a policy to how many names can there be? Every time I add him, someone deletes his name. Anyhow, since he has a big role, his name should be on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.219.75.128 (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Reviews ?

There are now several reviews since critics watched it in Cannes. I have seen a very critical review in the Guardian (1 star out of 5) http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/may/20/cannes-film-festival-tarantino-inglourious-basterds and also a very favourable one http://www.20minutes.fr/article/327501/Cannes-Inglourious-Basterds-un-film-de-cinephile-pour-cinephiles.php . A quick look seems to show a mostly negative reaction. Should the article have a section about the critical reaction ? Rps (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Reviews, unless they're talking in a neutral standpoint, are useless. Why? because it is the opinion of such reviewer. A lot of the time, "reviewers" don't fall into the type of people that watch this type of movie (Tarantino movies). Therefore, they tend to give critical and negative review. Some examples are Grindhouse (it was highly critized but guess what? everyone likes it). My opinion is to remove pre-release reviews of the movie.--Rmhs15 (talk) 02:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

So wait, reviews in every single movie should be done by fans of said movies? Thats naive of you to say, and even more so in your comment about Grindhouse, who is "everybody"?. Reviews, btw, are meant to not have a neutral point of view. They are usually the personal point of of the person who writes it, and usually for entertainning purposes. You are thinking of essays.--142.68.46.81 (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Rewriting history?

Several reviews I've read have talked about how the film rewrites history at the end? Love to know more. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It's speculation. It would be wrong to introduce a section that is purely speculating something based on the opinion of a review or several reviews. That would fall into "matter of opinion".--Rmhs15 (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Inglorious bastards prequel film

There is news of a possible prequel to this film: http://www.totalfilm.com/news/inglourious-basterds-prequel-still-on can someone please write an artical based on the infomation from this website? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill Bon Jovi (talk • contribs) 00:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Macaroni combat?

In the second intro paragraph: "...the film also pays homage to the World War II "macaroni-combat" sub-genre..." I'm not exactly sure what this is, but there's no article for it and the reference isn't explained, so I don't understand it's usefulness. How common of a term is this, and what kind of films does it describe? I'm guessing it means things like The Dam Busters, Dirty Dozen, and various other "Resourceful archetypes giving Hitler what-for" type stuff, but I was just wondering if anyone has more info on this... 98.239.166.251 (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• May be it#s this story about mices and cats, which don't like to eat macaroni whole day long.And dogs pretending to be cats and cooks which urge, using a luger, a little lady to eat macaroni, she dislikes.[smith and wesson]I don't think that's a typologie of nazi archetypes, it#s a question of strategies which humans are able to build.--Danaide (talk) 17:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Censored Title

There are no references to a censored title anywhere, so i'm removing it.

I notice the swastika has been removed from advertising in the UK as well as Germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.34.186 (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

          YippiePower (talk) 05:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect Plot

I viewed an early screening of this at the weekend and the plot line described is vastly different to that shown in cinemas in the UK previews. Unless they cut different version for UK/US or release/preview then it would appear the plot in the article is incorrect. Minor points that show up this are:

* One shoe in the Tavern, not bloody. This becomes a significant plot point later.
* The Sgt does not survive
* Donny is not recognised in the toilets
* Stiglitz is next to the Major in the tavern

In order not to spoil the plot, I've only listed some examples of minor changes here. Where did the plot in the article come from? I assume its the Cannes plot. Perhaps a second section of plot should be added with the Theatrical plot line, or just the differences? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poag (talk • contribs) 10:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I concur, I saw an advance screening on Sunday and spotted many of the same plot differences as you. Most of the point are only minor missing and added scenes, but there do appear to be one or two major changes. I would suggest that the main plot summary be changed to the theatrical release one and a section added for changes since Cannes. I imagine any subsequent DVD release will have changes too. Spugmeister (talk) 23:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

True Story?

A lot of rumours are flying about whether there is any truth in the story. Although a complete work of fiction could someone add a section about this and maybe point some info to this article.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-08-09/my-father-the-inglourious-basterd/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.36.245.25 (talk) 13:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Please. Yes, it has true elements in it: World War II really happened and Germany occupied France. That's about it. Get serious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.130.104 (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you agree it needs a clean up?

The plot sections are horribly long. Hopefully will be cleaned some as more see the film and edit this. Mjpresson (talk) 02:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it`s cool this way.. --83.135.10.132 (talk) 21:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Having seen the movie 08/21/09, I am shocked and disappointed seeing as many minor and major plot points recklessly revealed. It's almost like seeing the movie in this Wiki article. How disappointed does one become after a secret plot element or ending has been spoiled, ruining the surprise element, causing one to lose further interest in seeing the movie? I winced reading about Shoshana's shoe, subsequent deaths at the tavern, and how the shoe leads to her capture and eventual death. What is the point of this ultimate reveal? Does one need to know the outcome of Shoshana and Marcel's plans being carried out, in every detail here on Wiki? I think this is horribly wrong, and will tend to steal money from Quentin, the producer Bender, and the box office gross.

Furthermore, Cliff Notes would probably do a better job of not revealing all of these crucial plot details. Whatever happened to whetting the appetite of the public by teasing about certain elements? Couldn't something be done on an editorial basis that would diminish the excruciating details that have been spilled in this Wiki page? I can't recall ever seeing as many, if any, plot-ruining elements in dozens of other pages. Why for this?

Do you ever seek acknowledgment from any of the participants of subject matter included on your pages? I'm betting that Quentin would request a vast rewrite and editing job to vouchsafe a decade of his life's work as depicted by this movie. Are you willing to make contact with him about this article, and then abide by his reply? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.88.132 (talk) 04:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, not IMDb. There is absolutely no excuse for censoring information simply because it might offend people who don't want to know it. 71.246.70.133 (talk) 05:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is our job to give the fullest plot details. We are not Quentin Tarentino's publicists. Tovojolo (talk) 14:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Harvey Keitel?

Could someone add a citation for Harvey Keitel being in the film as the basterds' commanding officer only heard on the radio. If he is in it, that would be awesome. --69.124.40.173 (talk) 16:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Name added in the Plot. Tovojolo (talk) 14:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• one of the most beloved rumors! Landas perspective in...--Danaide (talk) 17:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Graphic Novel

Was there a graphic novel tie-in or something? The recent Playboy issue has a small comic strip to one of the scenes to this movie claiming to be from a graphic novel. Should this be mentioned in the article? Emperor001 (talk) 02:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Is Frederick Zoller a German counterpart to Audie Murphy

I don't know if this accurate or not, but it seems the exploits of Frederick Zoller resemble Audie Murphy, especially as the character plays himself in the movie about him as Murphy did in real life.

Tarintino has actually made mention of this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kim-morgan/basterds-sam-fuller-and-s_b_263736.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.203.148.119 (talk) 01:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Entered a reference to Audie Murphy in the plot. Tovojolo (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Chapter Runtimes

When I went to see the movie for the second time, I recorded the runtimes of the 5 chapters- 18 minutes, 17 minutes, 26 minutes, 41 minutes, and 44 minutes.

Is this pertinent enough to warrant placement in the article?

Thanks, -ekozie [@gmail.com] (talk) 07:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Tovojolo (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

lol, you could submit that to IMDB on their IB page for trivia. --Unti987 (talk) 00:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Basterds Section (Scar)

In the article, there is a paragraph describing Raine's scar as being possibly the result of a lynching. However, given Tarantino's several comments on the influence of Spaghetti Westerns on this picture, the scar seems an obvious homage to Clint Eastwood in Hang 'Em High, in which Eastwood sports a similar scar. The article should be amended to reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Remitroamer (talk • contribs) 18:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

That could well be true, but it needs a reputable source to put it in. 69.115.19.58 (talk) 04:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hans Landa is not of the Waffen-SS

Minor Nitpick: He has the SD-Patch on his sleeve. That means that he is officer in the Sicherheitsdienst, which was part of the allgemeine SS. Would someone please change the description from Waffen-SS to Sicherheitsdienst. There is also a Wikipedia-article on that. 87.185.234.147 (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

Why are the music and genre not listed in the infobox? ForestAngel (talk) 21:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Quentin Tarantino

Quenton Tarantino reminds me of Jackson Pollack 60 years ago. Pollack came out with a new art form, Tarantino is doing the same. Jackson had lots of critics, Tarantino has many critics. No one has ever made movies like QT. Before Jackson, no one had painted like he did. QT is brave, creative, unabashed and uninhibited. His "crazy quilt" screenplays are funny, interesting and just amazing. I have to give him credit, he has my attention!

Mike Deming —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.178.166.2 (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Visual effects

Dykstra Talks Inglourious Basterds at VFXWorld. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Spoilers

Hello,

Have seen the movie but glad didn't read this first. The plot description seems excessively detailed, unnecessarily giving away several surprises. It could do with a trim

Aidan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.228.210 (talk) 03:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia contains spoilers. In general, don't read the WP article about a show or movie that you don't want to be surprised about, or just read the beginning of the article which probably won't give away too much. Fletcher (talk) 11:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The “avenging Jew” is a kind of stock character of the German political imagination

'Hasn’t every Jew dreamt of bashing in the heads of Germans with a baseball bat à la Eli Roth’s “Sgt. Donny Donowitz”?' asks John Rosenthal in A German Fantasy, Not a ‘Jewish’ One, in which the contributor to the Wall Street Journal points out the German state's contributions to Inglourious Basterds, both financial and otherwise — including probably (as several pieces of evidence testify) to the film's script.

'Well … no' is John Rosenthal's answer to his own opening question. 'And by the way: Who could possibly think such a thing? The answer is not hard to find. The “avenging Jew” is indeed a kind of stock character of the German political imagination. It has been at least ever since a certain Dr. Joseph Goebbels announced to the German public in 1944 that “the Jew Morgenthau” — otherwise known as the American Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau — was planning to turn Germany into “one big potato farm” in the event of an Allied victory over the German Reich. The allusion was to the so-called Morgenthau Plan for restricting German industry following occupation. The Völkischer Beobachter (September 26, 1944) had a different name for the plan: “The Jew’s Murder Plan”…

'…the fact of the matter is that most of the victims of the Basterds’ brutality and sadism are precisely not Nazis. They are members of the Wehrmacht: the regular German armed forces. … Moreover, the depiction of the German characters in the film does nothing to render such savagery any more understandable. On the contrary, far from being classical villains, most of the German characters are presented in a sympathetic light.

'…The nuance of the German characters has been appreciatively noted in the German reviews of Inglourious Basterds. What has as a rule not been noted is the utter superficiality and one-dimensionality of the Jewish-American “Basterds.” Indeed, though Inglorious Basterds is ostensibly about them, they are in fact barely more than extras in the film. … The tongue-tied Americans attempting to pass themselves off as Italians cut sorry, buffoonish figures as compared to the sophisticated and multilingual Landa.' 86.197.124.78 (talk) 08:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Nazi

The word Nazi is used incorrectly thru out this article. The Nazis did not occupy France - Germany did. The soldier in the tavern is refered to as a Nazi soldier - he may have been a Nazi but you can't tell that from his uniform. The article should use history as its basis not the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.0.8 (talk) 18:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• I Think the film is basic. It#s a media question and historic reality is a frame but not the only measure for media questions.If a director creates fiction not in the historic frame he isn't in general wrong. There are other possible real frames like asthetic, filmhistory and storytelling which relate to scientific WIKI categories.--Danaide (talk) 17:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with you - but the article should not use the filmmakers vison to describe historical events such as the occupation of France. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.42.103 (talk) 03:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Violence?!

• Rotten Tomatos gave 88 % positiv critics for a violent and entertaining film. To me it's real short sighted to understand violence as a teaser. QT uses this thrill and paradoxedly creates distance by using such cruel direct downshots.

Otherwise the recipient wouldn't stand the big bunch of blood.It's the one and only Tarantino style to murder in red(t), but sometimes this style crashes against ethic borders....--Danaide (talk) 17:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Alternative versions

Surely this issue should be mentioned on the main page that lots of things in the trailer are absent in the film? Like Brad Pitt saying: Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes! One of the bastards comes running with a MG-42 in a tunnel, a nazi gives an over the top nazi salute, the Jew Bears past. They said the film would be uncut but for someone who has seen it, you know its clearly not true. Posted by Chris. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.21.45 (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

"Premise"

the film is indeed "set in an alternate history" but this isn't a "premise" -- it becomes clear only like five minutes before the end. The rest of a section is even less about a "premise", being simply a plot summary. The "premise" section is superfluous and should just be merged into the "plot" section. --dab (𒁳) 21:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

uk

uk realse date ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.138.129 (talk) 18:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC) The film clearly shows Adolf Hitler being shot several times in his cinema box. We all know that he died in the bunker. Thus Tarentino brilliantly satirises the whole Hollywood WW2 film genre, "Schindler's List" is based on a novel which is itself based on fact. It is not in itself factual.

By showing Hitler killed by Jewish soldiers, Tarentino bravely sends up the "Wish fulfillment" aspect of many WW2 films which portray the Holocaust. Only this time the Jews kill Hitler, they do not have to rely on Gentile soldiers in the Red Army, the British Army or the US Army. He is as good as saying "We know films are distortions of life for political ends but most of you out there don't realise. But THIS is a distortion too far" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.111.190 (talk) 00:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The Movie Spoiler.com

Pleases note that the Movie Spoiler.com have their own very detailed plot storyline here http://www.themoviespoiler.com/Spoilers/basterds.html. Their plot cannot be copied onto Wikipedia. It is a copyright violation and vandalism. Any such posts will be immediately reverted and the poster reported for vandalism with a view to being blocked from Wikipedia.

We are clever enough to write our own plot without stealing from The Movie Spoiler.com

--Tovojolo (talk) 19:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Murphy or York

De we have a citation for where Tarantino compared Zoller to Murphy? In the film, he states that people (perhaps he mentions Goebels) liken him to Alvin York. It seems to me that the most verifiable source we have, the film people will watch, compares him to Sgt. York so we should say so. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Quentin Tarantino has spoken of the link between Frederick Zoller and Audie Murphy here [1] --Tovojolo (talk) 21:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Still, the movie itself compares him to York. Can both be mentioned? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Both Alvin York and Audie Murphy mentioned in the plot. --Tovojolo (talk) 01:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi - in the first paragraph of the plot it mentions that the sniper character is killing Soviets, but the rest of the article mentions Americans. Is he killing Soviets or Americans? I thought it was Americans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.151.157.158 (talk) 03:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No, the first paragraph of the plot says Americans. Frederick Zoller is famous, in the film, for killing 300 Americans in Italy. --Tovojolo (talk) 08:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It said Soviet yesterday, and today it says "Allied soldiers" but further paragraphs in the plot say American. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.151.157.158 (talk) 17:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)