I think Tarantino has made great use of non linear storytelling in his other films but in this case I am glad Tony Scott decided to tell it linearly. The scene where Clarence goes to kill Drexl is so tense because we dont know what is going to happen.
I feel like without the linear story, the audience wouldn’t have been as invested in Clarence and Alabama. And the Sicilian scene would come too early. Interesting to hear how QT imagined the story unfolding, but I prefer how it was shot.
It’s an amazing idea - the Tarantino cut - it could be done , get the man himself to do it and rerelease it - probably make a lot and bring in a new wave of fans too
I like the idea of his version, it adds mystery to the whole story. But the cut that they did was best IMO. It felt like you were on a crazy ride with two crazy friends. Plus it still had that element of the audience knows what's coming but the characters don't.
As a writer or rather someone who aspires to be a published writer, I just learned more about storytelling in 6 minutes listening to Quinton than i did attending years of creative writing seminars.
This is probably my all time favorite flick, so I can't say that this version would be better, but it'd be cool if someone edited it to fit this format.
@@r.pmcmurphy2158 yes indeed. Something else has occurred to me since I made this comment. What QT describes for True Romance is basically what he did for Pulp Fiction. Had he got that out of his system by making True Romance it seems likely we wouldn’t have had Pulp Fiction in all its glory. And even if he did make it the same way part of it’s excellence was it’s uniqueness, so that aspect of it wouldn’t have been there.
the audience knows less than the crew (diamond robbery gone wrong), the audience plays catchup (mr. oranges flashback), act 3, the audience knows way more than the characters (the rat, mr white, mr pink). very reservoir dogs.
Very true observation. This may be proof that sometimes things work out as they should, because Tony Scott was correct in the way this film was told. The momentum was right for this film and the ending change was right. So grateful for this once in a lifetime collaboration.
I’d love to say this would be a better version, but this is my favorite movie. My dog’s name is Alabama because of this movie (no, she’s not a hooker, as far as I know).
I think a director doing that to my film would be even more annoying than changing scenes. Honestly the order of things is really important. I re-edited Reservoir Dogs once and it suprised me how much I didn't realize the actual order of the movie; how the Bathroom Story comes AFTER they get their nicknames, how much more screen time Orange actually gets in the movie that's hidden by good editing, etc. The movie becomes The Departed very quickly when it's in order lmao.
The *True Romance* that Scott made is such a masterpiece, I doubt Tarantino’s original scrip would have surpassed it. I’m also not down with Clarence dying, it’s called true romance after all.
@Sam Saltwell Tarantino himself actually admitted to preferring Scott’s version of the ending. He said that he felt the audience would have fallen in love with the characters so much that both of them would have deserved a happy ending. He said that he most likely would have rewritten the ending while shooting if he himself had directed. I personally think giving this movie a linear, chronological structure worked against the film. If Tarantino had directed, I really believe that it would be even more acclaimed than it is today.
@@thomaskilroy4573 disagree. he is a great story teller/writer/director but he’s made some really boring movies to. The non linear story telling just isn’t needed with this story
@Synn Boring movies? Have you seen a Tarantino film?! You probably think boring is anytime someone isn’t actually getting their head blown off like the dialogue scenes in Inglorious Basterds. And yes. The original structure would have ended up working brilliantly. If anything, while I love True Romance as is, it does seem to dip somewhat at the end of the second act going onto the third. Tarantino’s initial non-linear progression would have brought us the first third of the film (the best part) into the middle and provided a much needed shot of energy that would have kept us going for longer.
I have been able to see both cuts through a fairly successful fan-edit, and my favorite is the cinematic cut by Tony Scott. Tony's pace and way of shooting doesn't fit well with that structure that Tarantino wanted. The only way it would work is if Quentin had directed it. Tony Scott did a great job, his cut is more cool.
How cool would it be if QT somehow got the green light from the 'peeps-that-be' for him to re-edit True Romance with that original scripted structure. You re-release it in cinemas like a Tarantino remix. Boom. Imagine if he threw in his own soundtrack underneath? We'd still have the original masterpiece and then a groovy re-edit by a master writer/ filmmaker. I'd go see that.
I love this movie. I wouldn't change a thing except maybe some of the music. Seal and Aerosmith don't belong in a Tarantino scripted movie. Itty Bitty tear, however, was right on the money.
I think it's telling that the movie is just as good linearly as it would have been out of order. It's an entertaining movie all throughout. I can see why he wanted to do it out of order, though, it does feel like it was designed that way, but I really enjoyed it regardless. Tarantino has a weird way of making you like characters who are a little off.
The movie would have been way more interesting and thrilling to watch during the whole second act in that way which always thought it decays a bit through the final act. Stone's whole storytelling mood with a Tarantino-like script is still unique and stands somehow as nice movie with a "just bit of this and that would just make it timeless great one"
@@clanofclams2720 Or... Maybe you need a new hobby instead of talking shit to people online. Seriously. There are some things that are actually rewarding.