Not Enough Manson - Once Upon a Time in... Hollywood (2019) Discussion

[–] modica (4169) 5 years ago

Yeah, maybe. There might have been more since QT seems to shoot loads of footage that never gets used in the theatrical run. I hope Netflix gives us an extended version of this like they just did with The Hateful Eight. I would be in Heaven if I could see all the cut footage.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

You are most likely correct about the existence of unused footage. However, I wonder if Manson was largely omitted from the theatrical cut because Tarantino was getting a lot of flak for invoking the Manson murders which was the first bit of marketing I heard about the film last year. A lot of people felt it was in poor taste. And so in the version we see "The Family" doesn't look anything like the creepy but utopian hippies in the Manson documentary from '73. And Manson himself is entirely sidelined from the story. Peculiar omissions in a film that promises through foreshadowing its stories will converge on August 8/9, 1969. No talk of The White Album? No talk of Revelation 9? You can't make up material that wacky! Tarantino should have used it even if he couldnt get the rights to a single Beatles song.

reply

[–] whynotwriteme (7722) 5 years ago

Would have been much better if Manson had been the focus of the film, but I guess as long as there are living relatives of the victims, we cannot expect an exploitation director's take on it in a major big budget film.

reply

[–] TheMouseShadow (418) 5 years ago

f*** manson. Hes had enough limelight since he was put in prison.

reply

[–] Daggerboard (581) 5 years ago

☝

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I can't speak for Quentin Tarantino, but it's foolish to create a fictitious film around a very real and identifiable historical event like the Tate murders without showing the most notorious individual behind it. Like him or not, Manson is still a fascinating personality and it seems like such a missed opportunity not to include him in the story.

reply

[–] TheMouseShadow (418) 5 years ago

Unless you are trying to underscore the mindless followers of a cult of personality.

reply

[–] sut6432 (2908) 5 years ago

Like him or not

Like him or not? Like him???

Fuck him. He was a worthless piece of shit, and so is anyone who likes him. The only way I would want to see him more in this movie is in the hope that he would get lit up by the blowtorch in another QT history altering move.

He should have been fried in prison a long time before he actually died. The fact that he got love letters and marriage proposals in prison shows just how fucked up society was then, and continues to be now.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I will give you this bit of warning: Manson in many of his interviews likens himself to a mirror and says many people see what they want to see in him--approving father figure, hippie cult leader, Jesus resurrected, the devil incarnate, etc. Your comment was based from a standpoint of hatred and fear of something I seriously doubt you've put much energy into researching. Are you certain this "worthless piece of shit" you speak of isn't a projection of what's going on inside your own head?

reply

[–] yatzo376 (7717) 5 years ago

He was a dangerous criminal.
Period

reply

[–] legnadibrom (6245) 5 years ago

you forgot the period after the word period

reply

[–] Mrmojo4700 (21511) 5 years ago

Ok then Metatron. What do you see in Manson?

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." -Wittgenstein

reply

[–] LiquidOcelot (2407) 5 years ago

Cop-out answer. Pathetic.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

What's your beef with the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus?

reply

[–] sut6432 (2908) 5 years ago

Lol. Well thank you for the warning.

Your sympathy for him tells me something about you for sure. Your post comes off as pretty creepy and disturbing.

And no...how I feel about that genuinely evil person in is no way a projection in my head. What in the fuck?

Go a find a more weak minded individual to spew that bullshit to you ridiculous Manson sympathizer.

He was a worthless, I say again, WORTHLESS piece of shit.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Sorry. I won. You had to resort to petty insults of both Mr. Manson and myself. Thanks for playing

reply

[–] sut6432 (2908) 5 years ago

Poor Mr. Manson. What a sympathetic figure. I really should apologize for insulting that former waste of oxygen and taxpayer money, but I'm absolutely not going to, because he doesn't deserve a damn ounce of sympathy. The world is a MUCH better place without him.

I didn't insult you once. I said your sympathy for Manson and your post was creepy and disturbing to me, and I stand by that 100%.

But thank you for ending the conversation, because I'd rather not talk to anyone who is a fan of and sympathizes with Charles Manson.

You did not win a damn thing, and you make less sense with each word you post at this point.

Have a great day, and good luck with all your issues.

reply

[–] TaRaNRoD (1579) 5 years ago

"I didn't insult you once. I said your sympathy for Manson and your post was creepy and disturbing to me, and I stand by that 100%. "

Same here. OP has some mental issues obviously.

reply

[–] Mrmojo4700 (21511) 5 years ago

Petty insults of “Mr. Manson?” You have got to be kidding. The guy was a monster.

reply

[–] manwithoutaplan (227) 5 years ago

Anyone that says they have won on the internet is a loser.

It boggles my mind how often I see this on the internet. You won what exactly? You both have an opinion. How do you win?

If I read you correctly Mr. Manson and yourself are misunderstood. WOW just WOW.

Petty insults? What the F are those?

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] yatzo376 (7717) 5 years ago

Won what?
Manson’s dead

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4631) 5 years ago

You won nothing. The "insults" you got were warranted, as you invited them with your post consisting of laughable psychobabble and equally laughable Manson sympathizing.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Nope. I still won.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4631) 5 years ago

"Nope. I still won."

Your mere gainsaying is dismissed, and since you have no arguments, your tacit concession is noted.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Arguments given above. I have little time or patience to rebut Mansonphobes. Thanks for keeping my thread alive though!

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4631) 5 years ago

"Arguments given above."

You said, "Nope. I still won," which consists of mere gainsaying followed by a mere assertion, neither of which is an argument, and as such, they can both legitimately be dismissed out of hand. Again, the "insults" you got were warranted, and I'll also add that insults have nothing to do with who wins an argument. For example, if you said...

"Two plus two equals three"

... and someone replied...

"No, two plus two equals four, idiot."

... you don't win the argument because you got insulted, obviously.

"I have little time or patience to rebut"

Then you shouldn't have replied, because by doing so without an argument, you've tacitly conceded.

"Mansonphobes."

Your non sequitur is dismissed.

"Thanks for keeping my thread alive though!"

No problem, and your tacit concession remains noted.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I'm touched you spent so much time writing that. Unfortunately, the only part of that I read was the part when you quoted my own words back to me. I'm a busy man and don't have time to read the ravings of Mansonphobes/Tarantinobots. Happy New Year!

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4631) 5 years ago

"I'm touched you spent so much time writing that."

"So much time" writing 6 sentences? LOL at that, and LOL at you too, you know, while I'm at it.

"Unfortunately, the only part of that I read was the part when you quoted my own words back to me. I'm a busy man and don't have time to read the ravings of Mansonphobes/Tarantinobots. Happy New Year! "

Your non sequitur is dismissed and your tacit concession remains noted. Also, in case you haven't put two and two together yet: when you concede, tacitly or otherwise, it means you've lost.

reply

[–] whynotwriteme (7722) 5 years ago

I see him as a crafty manipulator and con-man who doesn't really give a crap what people think about him, so I guess your mirror theory holds water.

reply

[–] prometheus1816 (1060) 5 years ago

And that the the reason you've bought into his act. He was a worthless piece of lying crap. He said he was raised in a poor household. He wasn't. He was left with his maternal grandparents who spoiled him. He was a malcontent right from the jump. He was sent to numerous boys camps due to his own behaviour. He was a projection from his own ego. He was also a Cancer who knew his own impulses so much he begged the warden not to release him from Terminal Island in 1967. I've been with this case since 1976 and have seen the grief and anguish this master manipulator caused in the families of the victims. So much so Sharon Tate's mother, Doris, had bars and locks put on her home to protect her from his cult due to them issuing death threats against her due to her work to keep the Tate/LaBianca killers behind bars. So please spare me this "mirroring" crap. He was a fake. Big fat fake. He took advantage of a bunch of people who were as much a Cancer as he was. All his motions and the way he spoke was an act learned from his attending the Process Church of the Final Judgement, the precursor to Scientology. He was an act, a rube and a pariah. Nothing more than that, and that's not my projecting. That's who he was. I wish the moratorium hadn't been put on the death penalty. He'd have been dead before he died in 2017 and less of a magnet for sickos and sycophants to jump on his cray cray train. So no, no projection. Just pretty good at playing a part.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

This man had Beach Boys recording his songs. I bet you couldn't do it!

reply

[–] prometheus1816 (1060) 5 years ago

So????? And I suppose anyone who buys artwork from John Wayne Gacy is cool in your book?🙄

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Believe it or not but I know a guy who was both a Manson penpal and had a Pogo the Clown painting Gacy sent to him free of charge!

reply

[–] liscarkat (18461) 5 years ago

This "Metatron" idiot is a complete idiot.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

And only an idiot uses the word "idiot" twice in the same sentence, idiot (three times is allowed).

reply

[–] TaRaNRoD (1579) 5 years ago

"The fact that he got love letters and marriage proposals in prison shows just how fucked up society was then, and continues to be now."

Unfortunately, this keeps happening to a lot of criminals who committed horrible crimes (murders in most cases).

Where I live there is a guy who stabbed his both children, and he was receiving many love letterd from many women. Why? I really don't get it.

Maybe my opinion about this is a bit exaggerated, but I'd them in jail as well just in case.

reply

[–] jekporkins (1973) 5 years ago

Believe me or not, but I have a bro-in-law that worked in the prison system. Apparently, Charlie got raped a ton until they took him out of general population for fear he'd be murdered.

reply

[–] prometheus1816 (1060) 5 years ago

Awwwwe, poor Charlie. Raped in prison. Poor baby. He was set on fire for being an idiot. Too bad he didn't die then.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Correction: he was set on fire by a deeply disturbed schizophrenic and Hare Krsna enthusiast who had killed both his father and eventually a Hare Krsna devotee in one of their California temples. Not sure having yourself burned by a lunatic qualifies Manson as an "idiot". You might be irritated too if you had to put up with somebody chanting the Hare Krsna mahamantra all day, everyday.

reply

[–] prometheus1816 (1060) 5 years ago

Live by the sword........ One lunatic burned another lunatic. The way I see it it's like the snake eating its tail. Both committed crimes to end up where they were. Either live with it or die. I'm just happy Charlie was exposed to pain.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Sorry, I won.

reply

[–] prometheus1816 (1060) 5 years ago

https://media2.giphy.com/media/ewmH6uw2M7xwQ/200w.webp?cid=790b7611b8052ace83ab48f01dc41606b0e1f9707d1bffbf&rid=200w.webp

reply

[–] RickGee (265) 5 years ago

👏👏👏

reply

[–] RickGee (265) 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I'm okay with minimizing Manson. Stupid kids watching the movie would've totally started idolizing him as some kind of cool antihero.

reply

[–] Smith365 (30) 5 years ago

Yes, dam morons! Explain how it is cool to like someone who was involved in the stabbing a clearly pregnant lady..

reply

[–] R_Kane (15828) 5 years ago

Or how it’s “fascinating.”

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I didn't say the Tate murders were fascinating. I said Manson's personality was fascinating. You can only discover that by hearing him in interviews. For me, the funniest were the interviews with Geraldo Rivera and Diane Sawyer, both of whom come in with the mindset "This man is a monster" and proceed to make him look that way on camera. Manson is something of a showman and ends up subtly subverting these interviews. Sometimes he can make me laugh harder than the funniest comedian. A more sedate Manson can be found in works from more respectful interlocutors. Recommended is Leah Shore's short experimental film "Old Man" with Manson giving a riveting stream of consciousness monologue about the ills of our world. Some of it's bullshit but some of it shows penetrating insight. All of these clips are available on Youtube. Perhaps it was Manson's interest in Nietzsche that inspired him to speak in short and pithy aphorisms, which sound profound even if they don't quite make logical sense.

reply

[–] prometheus1816 (1060) 5 years ago

Manson's personality was not fascinating. There's no "discovering" him. All there is about him is tolerating the amount of press he got ahead of his victims. He subverted nothing. He merely cemented himself in the minds of those of us who know exactly what and who he was. He could spew all he wanted. He was still a small man with a small mind. As Vincent Bugliosi said of him, "He wasn't even special. He used a bunch of kids to kill for him. He wasn't even capable of doing it right since he was caught." And he was right. Manson's problem was he was loud. The type who would announce himself and his "family" became like him which is why Susan Atkins blabbed to Ronnie Howard in Sybil Brand after the arrest in October from the Myers and Barker Ranch raids. There was nothing profound about him. He was a small man who tried to talk big.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] prometheus1816 (1060) 5 years ago

For this particular parasite, I could give a crap. His actions alone make it difficult if next to impossible to care.

reply

[–] StarWarsRey (566) 5 years ago

I think there was a misconception from a lot of people who thought this was going to be a Charles Manson movie. A lot of people who saw it at the same time as me seemed to believe it was.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

That's how the film was being sold in its earliest marketing. Perhaps it was a Columbia-inspired manufactured controversy to get people talking about the movie. The trailer also played up the connection even showing us a shot from Manson's only scene in the film. And we see Sharon Tate is a prominent character so naturally we expected more of the Manson story than was told. It's almost a bait-and-switch operation.

reply

[–] Bigcat (259) 5 years ago

I didn't. I was under the impression that the movie was based off Burt Reynolds and Hal Needham.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

You already did that joke.

reply

[–] KBiker (1005) 5 years ago

I get your point, but as I recall all the Helter-Skelter stuff in the news at the time, I'll only add this: fuck Manson, who I wish were rotting in hell right now, if such a place could really exist.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

His songs are catchy, you have to admit. Wish QT had inserted a few more of them on the soundtrack.

reply

[–] CraigJamesReview (1720) 5 years ago

Well Tarantino did say there is a 4 hour cut of the film that may end up on Netflix one day. I did think this movie was going to be more about Hollywood in the 60's than on any one thing to begin with though. I just didn't really see the point.

Have a short review of this movie if anyone is interested. Enjoy! Review here - https://youtu.be/oem63khueyY

reply

[–] Bigcat (259) 5 years ago

There wasn't enough references to Burt Reynolds and Hal Needham for me.

reply

[–] DrRed (536) 5 years ago

There wasnt enough cowbell. It needs more cowbell.

reply

[–] Xcalat3 (3748) 5 years ago

I'm glad Tarantino didn't focus on him and more on the main Duo, I was dreading the 'big finale' and was happy to say how he switch that up as well.

reply