Funny re: the misspellings. I read--or started reading--a scanned copy of this script a few months ago, and was quickly convinced that it was a fake, at worst, and a transcription of some kind at best.

It does make me wonder...can he really be that bad at it?

AWESOME scene, Scott. Thanks for posting on it. Currently I'm working on outlining a shoot 'em up scene á la Shane Black OR Quintin Tarantino so ANY gunfight scenes are appreciated.

Gotcha on the not calling out shots in a spec script, BUT I learned something via the shot Quintin called out in this scene.

By use of my American Standard Dictionary I learned that "profile" refers to a side view of an object or structure especially the head.

Why call out a PROFILE CU? (CU = closeup shot -- if you didn't know) Is there a PROFILE MED. SHOT? A PROFILE LONG SHOT? Just currious. I have a reference book that discusses shots, but the "PROFILE" shot isn't listed in that book.

Thanks,

- E.C. Henry from Bonney Lake, WA

I think it's fascinating, the number of critics who called the movie 'boring', 'verbose' and 'glacially paced'. It's as if they;re so used to Paul Greengrass sound-bite MTV chopped salad film making that an actual scene, with the rhythm and pace of actual drama, has become unrecognizable to them. Tarantino cranks the tension and cranks it tighter, and then even tighter ... it's like watching a pitcher at the bottom of the ninth inning, his team ahead by one run, gradually load up the bases until the count is 3 and 2 and the slugger at the plate blows one past the right field wall.
An even better example of this incremental intensity is the underground cafe scene, which finally explodes in a shocking burst of Reservoir Dogs-like violence.
There's a lot to learn from writing like this.

Gotta agree with Steve here.

It's sad, really, that many critics have become so immersed with what he calls "chopped salad film making" that they can no longer appreciate or even recognize a traditionally paced scene.

I find it interesting, too that "Basterds" was a certified hit at the box office, despite its pacing and QT's love of dialogue. "Taken," which faced similar criticisms, was undeniably successful, as well.

What I think all this means is the trend away from dialogue in films is an industry-driven trend, not an audience-driven one.

Write good dialogue and people will pay to hear it. That's why the best films are almost always the most quotable ones.

Gotta agree with Steve here.

It's sad, really, that many critics have become so immersed with what he calls "chopped salad film making" that they can no longer appreciate or even recognize a traditionally paced scene.

I find it interesting, too that "Basterds" was a certified hit at the box office, despite its pacing and QT's love of dialogue. "Taken," which faced similar criticisms, was undeniably successful, as well.

What I think all this means is the trend away from dialogue in films is an industry-driven trend, not an audience-driven one.

Write good dialogue and people will pay to hear it. That's why the best films are almost always the most quotable ones.

In my opinion, no one builds dramatic tension in a scene, like Tarantino. Col. Landa is an awesome character, I am a huge fan of this movie.

--and don't forget the subtitles! When was the last big Hollywood hit spoken in so many different languages and clearly devised for literate people only (Most people don;t go to the movies to read)?

I just read this script last week - haven't actually seen the film, so it was all new to me. I LOVE that a film of this length is basically made up of 5 major, long scenes. Coincidentally enough I read the Casablanca script a couple weeks ago and marvelled at the opening scene playing for 35+ pages. Wonderful!

Tarantino said in an interview (it might have been Fresh Air) that whenever he feels like he's on top of his craft, he'll be humbled by PT Anderson. Reading the There Will Be Blood script, you'll notice the "unconventional" formatting, such as all lower case sentences in quiet scenes and all CAPITALIZED dialog in the big set pieces. I wonder whether QT hasn't picked up this "lazy" way of writing. It's obviously a choice, to have a script go out that is rough, full of spelling errors, etc. Does this choice mimic some of the rough and ready direction techniques these guys are using on screen? There's definitely a reason why these master film makers are putting out scripts that break these fundamental rules.

So I guess we can now expect a generation of writers who'll turn off their spell checkers because "Tarantino" does it...

The other option might be that these guys are writing on typewriters? They're definitely low-fi enough to do so.

the typos were incredibly annoying to me. i thought the first, second and last chapters of the film were terrific, but the middle two went absolutely nowhere. a good, not great film, in my opinion.