Tarantino's "tributes"

J.R. Hudson said:
But his intent was announced from the get go. Kill Bill 1 and 2 ? A pure tribute to Hong Cinema and Spagehtti Westerns. Deathproof ? A direct tribute to the films of that era.

I don't recall that ever being a mystery.

Jesus, everytime I start talking about Quentin I get mad that Inglorious Bastards is so far away.
Click to expand...


He can say what he wants about his intent, but he is taking/borrowing/copying just as much for his new films as he did for his old, yet the films are night and day. His old films are just as much tribute as the new ones, they just aren't 'sold' that way. I love Tarantino's early stuff, but I am not cutting the man slack for the newer movies.

All 'true' fans are waiting, I just wonder how he is going to cut his super script down. I am not sure if I am right on this, but I remember him saying the Inglorious Bastards script is upwards of 1000 pages. Like Jim said earlier, I hope it is not another 'tribute'.


I don't care what he copies, just make some great films!
 
JR I can relate to you man, I've never been a fan of Tarantino. Yeah sure his films are great...if you haven't seen the exact camera angles and stroy plots he's ripped off just to make money off of. Damn it really just pisses me off that there's unique and interesting ideas out there and yet htis guy is going around flaunting this stuff like it's his own idea!

I haven't seen the mist yet, but I'm really looking forward to it. I'm a huge fan of the shield and that style they portray, at least for the shield the camerawork adds to the tension and the drama which makes it work extremely well.
 
Hackers-Poster-C10134400.jpeg


I love the two taglines.
 
Tarantino rips off other movies... is this news?

Always been that way and it's always been well publicized. There's barely one original thought in any of his flicks, but it's the way he puts them together that is his talent.

Yes, Reservoir Dogs is a flat rip off of City on Fire, but rent that flick and then tell me which is better
 
Cheesesailor77 said:
Tarantino rips off other movies... is this news?

Always been that way and it's always been well publicized. There's barely one original thought in any of his flicks, but it's the way he puts them together that is his talent.

Yes, Reservoir Dogs is a flat rip off of City on Fire, but rent that flick and then tell me which is better
Click to expand...

City On Fire....it had good acting, great story, tension, action...and it was rather original. The dialogue wasn't as punchy as in RD, but then again, Roger Avary had nothing to do with COF, so it's understandable. I saw Reservoir Dogs when it came out in theatres, and I thought it was great...and still do. I just happened to like City On Fire more...partially due to it's fresh style (for someone who hadn't seen much Hong Kong stuff like that.)

Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown are his Tarantino's best films, and the latter is his most well rounded. Teen boys and the like will always remeber him for stuff like Kill Bill, but they have no concept of cinema before they were six years old, and they question nothing...so everything is new to them. Cinephiles will look to the two films mentioned above...and any new great work he may have left in him. The sad thing is when grown ass men pretend the dude is totally new and inventive...

It's like rap, in a way...if I start rhyming over "Every Breath You Take" by The Police, yes I have created something new(er) and enjoyable, added my creativity and brought it to a new audience...but how much of the end material can I claim for myself and attribute to my "genius"?

Hating on him is like hating on McDonald's because of what they do to beef. I don't care how much yoy like a good steak, sometimes a Big Mac hits the spot like no T-bone can...

If anybody thinks being a Tarantino fan is somehow making them a member of a small, esoteric and knowing little clique, they're not half as film savvy as they'd like to think, and twice as deluded as someone who thinks there is something to "get" about him.

He's a good director with quite an ear for dialogue and a gift for spicing up other's ideas with his geek/cool pop culture knowledge and flair...and he's unabashed about showing his 60s and 70s B-movie influences in his work.

What you see is what you get with this guy, and you're never going to sway a zealot, so why even debate it on here?

You get the same three guys lighting candles and staring daggers...
 
I didn't get to see RD until about 4 years ago, and while I liked it, I didn't get what a big deal it was. But if I had seen it at the time it was released, I'm sure I would have felt differently.

Jackie Brown is hands-down my favorite QT film. Which indicates to me that I like him more as a director than a writer. Pulp is still genius, but it hasn't held up for me over a decade later like I thought it would. But, it was the first movie that kept me up all night thinking about it.

And, it bears noting, that "Liking something" is not the same thing as saying it's good. I like David Hasselhoff.
 
DeSica said:
City On Fire....it had good acting, great story, tension, action...and it was rather original. The dialogue wasn't as punchy as in RD, but then again, Roger Avary had nothing to do with COF, so it's understandable. I saw Reservoir Dogs when it came out in theatres, and I thought it was great...and still do. I just happened to like City On Fire more...partially due to it's fresh style (for someone who hadn't seen much Hong Kong stuff like that.)
Click to expand...

I watched City on Fire and thought it felt like a Made For TV movie. If anything, Tarantino made it better. Who even heard of that film until the Dogs revelation ?

Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown are his Tarantino's best films, and the latter is his most well rounded. Teen boys and the like will always remeber him for stuff like Kill Bill, but they have no concept of cinema before they were six years old, and they question nothing...so everything is new to them. Cinephiles will look to the two films mentioned above...and any new great work he may have left in him. The sad thing is when grown ass men pretend the dude is totally new and inventive...
Click to expand...

Agreed in part. Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown are his best films to date. Who thinks he is new and inventive ? It is common knowledge and this threads title that admits that. My spin is that he is cut from a certain cloth of filmmaker which I find to be fresh when no one else is doing it. I like his style and welcome it. It is a rare style to see when everything else looks the same.

It reminds me of De Palma being ragged on about being too much like Hitch back in the day; there aint enough filmmakers working that are steeped in technique.

It's like rap, in a way...if I start rhyming over "Every Breath You Take" by The Police, yes I have created something new(er) and enjoyable, added my creativity and brought it to a new audience...but how much of the end material can I claim for myself and attribute to my "genius"?
Click to expand...

I don't know. I've written songs that were hummed with others in my head. Paintings have been painted as direct tributes and styles to others, books have been spawned off existsing material. It's an art cycle.

Hating on him is like hating on McDonald's because of what they do to beef. I don't care how much yoy like a good steak, sometimes a Big Mac hits the spot like no T-bone can...
Click to expand...

:shocked: Huh ?

If anybody thinks being a Tarantino fan is somehow making them a member of a small, esoteric and knowing little clique, they're not half as film savvy as they'd like to think, and twice as deluded as someone who thinks there is something to "get" about him.
Click to expand...

I'm probably the biggest Tarantino fan on this board, but a quick Google search shows he is super popular. My point is made even better with those comments, I'm glad there are some here that don't like his work like I do, cause I can't identify with the crap they do like. That was my point in case you missed it.

It goes back to the cloth. He cuts from it in much the same way as De Palma, like Scorsese and Spielberg's cinematic vernacular, they're operating off of the same table.

He's a good director with quite an ear for dialogue and a gift for spicing up other's ideas with his geek/cool pop culture knowledge and flair...and he's unabashed about showing his 60s and 70s B-movie influences in his work.
Click to expand...

He's a great filmmaker who writes some of the best dialogue heard. Some director's are known for certain styles; Burton and his twisted setdesign styles, Gilliam and his crazy imagination, Lynch .....

Why discount a trademark ?

What you see is what you get with this guy, and you're never going to sway a zealot, so why even debate it on here?
Click to expand...

You get the same three guys lighting candles and staring daggers...[/quote]

Then why comment in here ? You'e being insulting DeSica with these undercurrent statements.

Your dismissive tone is what is concerning me here. The same spin can be said from the other point of view of the fans perspective.
 
agreed JR, let's stick to discussing the merits of the filmmaking (or lack thereof), and not each other's level of taste (again, or lack thereof).
 
I dunno, DeSica is entitled to his opinion and he's not trying to be insulting, i dont think.

I don't agree with him, but he's just participating in the discussion.
 
It's funny how very few filmmakers cause such ire in discussion; De Palma, Tarantino, Spielberg, Kubrick, Lynch and even little Michael Bay.

Love em or hate em, one can't deny their impact in cinema.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top