Rewatched Pulp Fiction

chromeboy007 said:
that has something to do with it but there are more substantive reasons... a number of his work were considered to be extreme, or controversial, when they first came out. Hell Clockwork is still controversial. He achieved considerable commerical success while maintaining ALL his creative freedom from Lolita onwards, for most people it's one or the other (QT is a modern exception). None of his movies suck, or even come close to it.

This auteur/perfection/stubborn/maverick/bold/controversy/secrecy/mystery blend is very appealing to people (ok my grammar sucks). The fact that he made so few films probably helped raise his status more.
Click to expand...

Nice take

Ah, I've seen how you sharks circle when a noob dares question a vet on here. Good stuff.
Click to expand...

It's the chum that bring's the sharks Lime. There are no favorites around here; only honesty. So don't confuse things.

Just mellow out and have a good time. Don't itch for controversy.

You start making comments about someones opinion being juvenile (especially mine wiseguy) you're only asking for it.
 
John_Hudson said:
Baseless shift ? juvenile ? teenage boy ?

I got into an argument with an ex girlfriend once and told her to stop acting like a *****. She said 'Don't call me a *****'. I said I didnt call you one, I said you are acting like one.

I can't imagine you're actually calling me a juvenile, right ?

Let's watch the tone Lime. Savvy that ?

-

If you deduced that machismo = orginality in my mind, then you're focusing too hard on the linear word. Try and have a more abstract view on the subject.

There is nothing baseless about it. Gondry is original. Tarantino is original. Ill take Quentins films anyday based purely on having a pulserate above 70 but moreso I find Tarantino to have a better understanding of Mis-en-scene and the language of cinema overall than Gondry does. Gondry gets mad props from me for his bringing a surreal quality to his cinema but his general verite is rudiment as his his body of work.

-
Click to expand...
Posting the below from a private message sent to Mr. Hudson so we're clear that he and I had crossed our topics and have cleared the air ...

------

Your opinion surprised me, because I don't think machismo has anything at all to do with originality. I think the line we crossed in the discussion was you focusing on preferences and me focusing on originality. I'm not a particular fan of Chris Cunningham's work, but it's unlike anything else out there, so it wasn't a preference of mine, simply an example of originality. I don't think I look forward to anyone's first feature, well except for my own, as much as I do Cunningham's. Simply to see something new.

My "baseless shift" comment was only intended to suggest that there was no reason (without basis) for you to switch (shift) from a discussion of originality to one of preference midstream. Does that make sense? It was in no way a denegration of you.

The juvenile/teenage boy comments reflect how I see "originality" being based on "machismo" ... not on how I see "preference" being based on "machismo" ... to say that QT is more original than Gondry because of machismo is the kind of response I'd expect from a teenager. To say you prefer QT to Gondry is an unquestionable opinion and one I'd not challenge and certainly not call juvenile.

-----

Apologies for the confusion everybody. I have no wish to alienate or cross anyone on here - simply have a passionate discussion of filmmaking.

And now back to the discussion.
 
Okay, I watched UNDERTOW tonight and I think it's safe to say David Gordon Green does not deserve further mention in this thread.
 
I played Forgotten Hope tonight and let us just say that the Nazi's were not good people. (And yes, the Allies won again)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top