Once Upon a Time Ago...Hmmm... (Westwood: movies, live, bus)

[Exitus Acta Probat]

I'm halfway through watching Once Upon a Time Ago in Hollywood. Now then, I know that almost no period piece is without its anachronisms -- there are people who even nitpick very well done shows such as Downton Abbey. However, there's just way too much stuff in Once Upon[...] to not notice it and wonder why Tarantino couldn't have been a little more thorough, especially since this film was touted as realistically transforming parts of L.A. to the way they looked in the 60's. In just the part where Sharon Tate goes to Westwood Villlage to watch herself in a movie, you can't help but notice the modern looking 'BUS ONLY' signs on Wilshire, and even a modern looking sheltered bus stop with an MTA logo on it. Then, in Westwood Village, in the background can be seen a very modern looking LED light on a light post, modern looking storefront signs such as the one for 'Campus Cleaners', a modern blue street name sign, and other stuff. It's weird because it's a comical patchwork quilt of stuff from two different eras, and it's fairly obvious.

Couldn't Tarantino, with all his resources, been a little more thorough with removing some of this stuff, either physically or with CGI, like they removed Ashton Kusher's red cabalist bracelet from a movie he was in? It's almost laughable how sloppy this was done, and looks just plane weird with all this stuff blended together, and I don't think I'm being overly picky like complaining about the television antennas you see for a fraction of a second in Raiders of the Lost Ark or something, because the anachronisms are almost impossible to not notice in Once Upon a Time Ago in Hollywood.

[Screenwriter70]

Originally Posted by Exitus Acta Probat

I'm halfway through watching Once Upon a Time Ago in Hollywood. Now then, I know that almost no period piece is without its anachronisms -- there are people who even nitpick very well done shows such as Downton Abbey. However, there's just way too much stuff in Once Upon[...] to not notice it and wonder why Tarantino couldn't have been a little more thorough, especially since this film was touted as realistically transforming parts of L.A. to the way they looked in the 60's. In just the part where Sharon Tate goes to Westwood Villlage to watch herself in a movie, you can't help but notice the modern looking 'BUS ONLY' signs on Wilshire, and even a modern looking sheltered bus stop with an MTA logo on it. Then, in Westwood Village, in the background can be seen a very modern looking LED light on a light post, modern looking storefront signs such as the one for 'Campus Cleaners', a modern blue street name sign, and other stuff. It's weird because it's a comical patchwork quilt of stuff from two different eras, and it's fairly obvious.

Couldn't Tarantino, with all his resources, been a little more thorough with removing some of this stuff, either physically or with CGI, like they removed Ashton Kusher's red cabalist bracelet from a movie he was in? It's almost laughable how sloppy this was done, and looks just plane weird with all this stuff blended together, and I don't think I'm being overly picky like complaining about the television antennas you see for a fraction of a second in Raiders of the Lost Ark or something, because the anachronisms are almost impossible to not notice in Once Upon a Time Ago in Hollywood.

I don't think you're being picky. That would irk the h*ll out of me. My guess is Tarantino just didn't care because he's...well, Tarantino.

[CA4Now]

Don't you already have a thread regarding your same concern about this movie?

https://www.city-data.com/forum/los-...hollywood.html

[Exitus Acta Probat]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

Don't you already have a thread regarding your same concern about this movie?

https://www.city-data.com/forum/los-...hollywood.html

Not really. As stated, I'm just watching it now for the first time now. The other thread was about the film in general, not specifically about the backdrop.

[Social Democrat]

Could be because his movies are shot with film making it a pita to remove/change images. I noticed the background wasn't perfect but it didn't bother me because I enjoyed the story.

[movinon]

Originally Posted by Exitus Acta Probat

I'm halfway through watching Once Upon a Time Ago in Hollywood. Now then, I know that almost no period piece is without its anachronisms -- there are people who even nitpick very well done shows such as Downton Abbey. However, there's just way too much stuff in Once Upon[...] to not notice it and wonder why Tarantino couldn't have been a little more thorough, especially since this film was touted as realistically transforming parts of L.A. to the way they looked in the 60's. In just the part where Sharon Tate goes to Westwood Villlage to watch herself in a movie, you can't help but notice the modern looking 'BUS ONLY' signs on Wilshire, and even a modern looking sheltered bus stop with an MTA logo on it. Then, in Westwood Village, in the background can be seen a very modern looking LED light on a light post, modern looking storefront signs such as the one for 'Campus Cleaners', a modern blue street name sign, and other stuff. It's weird because it's a comical patchwork quilt of stuff from two different eras, and it's fairly obvious.

Couldn't Tarantino, with all his resources, been a little more thorough with removing some of this stuff, either physically or with CGI, like they removed Ashton Kusher's red cabalist bracelet from a movie he was in? It's almost laughable how sloppy this was done, and looks just plane weird with all this stuff blended together, and I don't think I'm being overly picky like complaining about the television antennas you see for a fraction of a second in Raiders of the Lost Ark or something, because the anachronisms are almost impossible to not notice in Once Upon a Time Ago in Hollywood.

I haven't seen the movie but that sort of thing drives me nuts. I lived in LA and worked in Hollywood during that era and I remember it vividly. I like to watch movies set in places where I've lived but it always annoys me when there are so many inaccuracies. Now I'll be prepared for this one. I'm one of those who dissects movies and TV shows so I'll probably have a field day with it.

[Exitus Acta Probat]

Originally Posted by movinon

I haven't seen the movie but that sort of thing drives me nuts. I lived in LA and worked in Hollywood during that era and I remember it vividly. I like to watch movies set in places where I've lived but it always annoys me when there are so many inaccuracies. Now I'll be prepared for this one. I'm one of those who dissects movies and TV shows so I'll probably have a field day with it.

Indeed. And honestly, I'm not all that fussy. For example, I've really enjoyed movies such as The Doors (1991) or A Bronx Tale (1993). When I've watched these films, I've felt fully immersed in them. However, this latest effort from Tarantino gets it so unbelievably wrong -- it's almost like he's trolling the L.A. audience because it's really difficult not to see this stuff in the background with the lens stop they used.

For example:






Seriously, Quentin? And it's just as bad in other shots.

[movinon]

Ai yi yi. The Continuity people should have fixed that even before it happened. That's their job, for heavens sake!