Inglourious Basterds

Started by Cinemaddiction16 pages

It gets lost in the trash talk, to me anyway, and it seems to me that dialogue, in the end, is the only thing original about movies. Everyone else clams up about his "originality" when I lay the hammer down and show where his "ideas" for his movies coem from.

Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
What work of Quentin's [b]isn't a ripoff? 🙄 [/B]

Maybe you are confusing "ripoff" with "inspiration".

he adds alot to the table i think for people who arent really comfortable with their ablity to write. he is a self taught film maker. instead of spending thousands of dollars for the proper education he taught himself the one best way anyone could teach themself and that is by watching classic movies. he adds his own twists and ideas into these films. this is a guy who is writting and making movies that he enjoy! to me thats inspiring, because the guy is doing what he loves and is doing it his way. he doesnt so much rip off other ideas but pays tribute to his classic movies because the guy is in love with film. shit havent you ever wanted to pay tribute to something you like.

plus he is only 12 years into the business. his name is credited for at least a dozen movies! 12 years is not a long time to give yourself the name of one like kubrick, hitchcock, or burton. the reason that he gets alot of shit is that he came into hollywood with a great first movie now everyone is expecting a huge ****ing amazing move to follow. yes he mainly writes about violence and and thiefs and such but that is what he is good at! but that doesnt mean that he wont one day break away from that genre (example the war movie). plus if hes good at something that he enjoys doing, then why the **** stop?

and if your talking bout him being unoriginal with his stories then wht about kubrick? jsut about every kubrick movie is based off a novel. shit just bout every movie now-a-days is first a novel. most of quentin stories were either told by novels or by other films, but whats the difference really. so your saying that since he is taking ideas from another movie that hes ripping it? well then you can put the same name on anyother director do looks to books for a story or a shot! and if your again he in a way is giving tribute to old movies and bringing some of the classic stories bakc that we have all heard before but with a new light behind them.

one thing you have to take in to consideration is that his movies are about theifs and killers! they are repersented as the hero in the movie but what they do as a job and their personalities are still represented with crime. if anyother movie represents thiefs and killers with bad language then why cant a movie based around them be? plus cursing is a very strong emotional release. when some one say shut up it jsut doesnt have the same effect as shut the **** up! when wrting a script the writer needs to take dialogue to a super natural level of extreme situation but still make it able to be related with the audience. and using strong laungue like f.u.c.k is something that every human is familiar with and when used in a sentence like, shut the **** up, people realize the emtion and the meaning the character is putting behind his words.

and if anything that i find amazing about quentin is that he is writting his stories with most characters in his movies related with another in his other movies. he is making a community of characters so that his movies in a way all relate and tie in together. and i dont know of anyone director who has done such a thing.

Well, if you look at the premises of his movies, their about hitman, robbers, and criminals. So, is it not realistic to have bad langage because i have feeling lower end criminals dont use words like please or have perfect grammer.
And people usually talk about things that have nothing to do with thier actions. Its called conversation. Thats why he's good. And most movies these day's have already done ideas behind them. But it doesn't mean that the film-making behind them isnt.

Any guy with a Scary Movie 3 sig has no right to bash Tarantino. Besides - the point of his dialogue is not that it's super smart or witty or refined - it's that it's real. And no one does real anymore.

And as for the ripoff comment... look: he never denies the fact that he likes to borrow. What writer, director or producer doesn't borrow? I mean, that jumpsuit the bride wears is right out of a Bruce Lee movie... A ripoff is when someone borrows but in such a way that they think they're clevarly disguising that fact. That is a ripoff. Tarantino just pays small hommages to the movies he loves.

Tarantino finally gets his German chick.

http://movies.yahoo.com/mv/news/va/20080902/122034522500.html

Hurry up QT! I want to see some Nazis getting splatter all over the floor already!

I've never understood the side of the argument in saying that QT is a rip off artist.

Originally posted by Cory Chaos
Well, I never meant to come in here and rip into him or his work, but this is a segment of a reply to Foxota5 over in the "Greatest Movies of All Time" thread.

I mean, say what you want, but all the evidence is right there.

Hey, but that said, I'll probably go see this one, just because it's a war movie. 😛

Have you ever actually seen City on Fire?

Make a list of the traits that made Reservoir Dogs so popular. Use bullet points, listing all of the things that people mention when they talk about the movie. All the things that made it stand out among typical Hollywood fare.

Now list all of the things it has in common with City on Fire.

Compare the lists and I bet you'll find that the only item which appears on both lists is the Mexican stand-off. The rest of the second list will be a bunch of bare plot points of a by-the-numbers heist story.

But did you ever hear someone rave about Reservoir Dogs because of the plot?

I'm extremely excited about Inglorious Bastards, even though close to nothing is known about the film (besides some cast members/the general plot). There's something about Tarantino+Pitt+WWII that just gets me kinda pumped.

Two new photos: http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/12/11/inglourious-basterds-two-new-photos/#comments

Also, the official spelling of the film's title is "Inglourious Basterds."

Thank you for using the search function, SnakeEyes. You're one of the few.

Fixed the title.

Don't mention it, I hate duplicates!

Teaser Trailer: http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/02/11/inglourious-basterds-teaser-trailer/#more-19651

"And I want my scalps!"

Originally posted by SnakeEyes
Teaser Trailer: http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/02/11/inglourious-basterds-teaser-trailer/#more-19651

"And I want my scalps!"

Oh hell, my vagina just leaked a little bit

Thanks for sharing the trailer. That looks absolutely badass.

Did anyone see some of the comments on that link

laughingcrows (2 hours ago)Holy crap, now Tarantinos stealing old movies!?

The original came out in 1978.

It's just sad

What the hell is the old one called ?

The title pays homage to a 1978 Italian film, Quel maledetto treno blindato (literally translated as That damned armored train and released as Inglorious Bastards in the USA). The premise is partially similar, but that guy's being pretty dumb, because Tarantino's "Basterds" is going to be far different. He was merely inspired by this film (among others, like The Dirty Dozen).

In a nutshell: Don't be alarmed, this will still very much be a Tarantino film, not a remake, etc.

Some stupid family group over my way is complaining about this movie how it should be banned because he's gone too far with it.

Originally posted by Kazenji
Some stupid family group over my way is complaining about this movie how it should be banned because he's gone too far with it.

REALLY?...,Really?, Zack and miri make a porno, Now this? Oh well, big T always get's this kind of publicity and it always works out for him.

Now i just want to see it more 💃 😕

Here it is here

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25087289-664,00.html