Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think he's horrible or anything, I like many of his movies, but I don't get why some people think he's the best thing ever. I mean he's a good action director, but what has he done that is so much better than other good action directors? I'm not criticizing him or anybody, I just want to know why people love him so much.

Simply, because alot of people haven't seen alot of other films that he has payed homage too in his films.

I love his movies though, I think they're always interesting, and hugely entertaining.

Because to the people who aren't familiar with the material he's shamelessly stealing and presenting as his own work he seems like a fresh innovative talent doing unique work in the action/adventure genre.

He obviously knows how to use a camera tho, so I'm hoping that at some point he'll do something original.

"Homage" my fuzzy pooper - you apologists are as bad as he is.

Well, he's making a war movie next. That will be interesting.

Its a remake of "Quel maledetto treno blindato" from 1977 - so hardly original. Tho no doubt they will say it's a Re-imagining as thats the buzz-word du jour for people denying they are ripping off old ideas.

And I'm willing to make a bet right now that it will have dozens of "homage" moments to old Sam Fuller war movies since QT is such a fan.

In fact I think the answer to the threads question is that QTs genius is that he manages to put all these disparate stolen influences and riffs from other movies together into a cohesive whole - and stitch it together with his brand of free-flowing pop culture dialog. The individual ideas he lifts may not be original but the end product certainly is.

Yeah, I guess it's not a surprise that he uses a lot of stuff from other films and gets many of his ideas from them, seing as he had a job at a video rental place before he became a director, so he must've had a lot of time to watch movies and get ideas from them. I've just seen so many other action films that are just as good if not better than his, yet he's praised as the best action director ever. Maybe it is because of his background from where he came from to some just make him even greater, who knows.

Mr. Zero, are you aware that professional wrestling matches are pre-determined? Because as much as you love blowing the whistle on common knowledge scandals, you could have a field day shouting from the rooftops that it's all fixed. Go get 'em, tiger!

WE KNOW QUENTIN STEALS FROM OTHER MOVIES! That's part of his charm! He may not admit freely enough to your liking just where and when he appropriated/borrowed/paid tribute to/stole from another movie/TV show/video game/Babylonian parchment, but most of his fans are willing to look beyond that and simply enjoy the treats.

For Crom's sake, is there an original idea circulating ANYWHERE in Hollywood anymore? How many carbon-copy reality shows are debuting this week? How many sexy teen comedies, war flicks, or bean flickers about divorcees with cancer? How many summer camp slashers have we had to contend with over the years? How about disaster epics, historical biopics or buddy cop movies? The most original movie out there at the moment is "The Village", but 1) everybody hates it, and 2) it apparently was stolen from a 1995 novel by Margaret Peterson Haddix.

If we "apologists" like Quentin more than you think we should, and care not that his movies are Frankensteined from others, just chalk it up to blind loyalty and move on to the Orlando Bloom cultists. If anybody needed an ass-kicking, it's them.

simpsons did it

Had to paraphrase your rant there Roundy but I'll try to answer your points: mainly that you say most of QTs fans know but dont care that he lifts and reassembles: I dont think thats true - most of the cinema going public doesnt know and doesnt care. Some know vaugly what he does and dont care and a few know the full extend of his unashamed thievery and dont care.

I agree original ideas are hard to come by - but thats not the issue - recycling ideas is one thing - adapting old novels is another - QT assembles his directing style by mimicking the work of others: Its not just his ideas that are unoriginal - its his his visual style.

And if you read my post you will see than far from thinking this is a problem i think he should be celebrated for it - it's an act of bare faced cheek that I can only imagine QT getting away with so successfully and with such panache. Rather than whining about how he's not the thief everyone makes him out to be you should be pointing out how friggin genius his method of working is.

It's not so much that we don't care--if we started seeing the same exact techniques, plots, camera tricks, etc., we'd start getting bored with it all, just as we did with the "Matrix Camera" trick after seeing it for the thousandth time. We just haven't grown weary of Quentin--but the moment he sells out and starts "Hollywoodizing" his art, we'll turn on him like a pack of angry Mr. Blonds.



Agreed. Most of the cinema-going public doesn't know its ass from a hole in the ground (as we see by much of the conversation in other areas of this board). If you were to tell "IloveOrli14lol" that Quentin lifted a shot from Ding Dong Poo's master epic of 1958, her head could well deflate from the entropy that would follow.



Okay. But then, some people like blood sausage (vaugly). My point was that those who appreciate Quentin (like me) tend to overlook the fact that he rips off/pays homage to all those movies he's come to know and love.



True, but again, what director hasn't snuck in a tribute to Orson Welles or John Ford here or there? Quentin's "thievery", if you will, is much more plentiful if for no other reason than he has so many more mentors. However, the relative obscurity of many of those sources more than makes up for their number. What tiny percentage of the population is familiar enough with H.B. Halicki to even know, much less care that Quentin used his "sunglasses on the dashboard" shot in KB1?





I read your posts, and I'm positive I didn't misinterpret them. Which one of those was the higher praise?



As I've said before, we are well aware of his stealing, and are more than willing to forgive him. If I didn't think his methods were worth defending, I wouldn't have spent this much time and effort trying to debate about it (however futilly) with a total stranger. Now, if there's any whining to be ceased, it should probably be those detractors who sit piously atop their own cinematic accomplishments (if any) and ***** endlessly about Quentin's.

the one about 6 inches above here that says

"In fact I think the answer to the threads question is that QTs genius is that he manages to put all these disparate stolen influences and riffs from other movies together into a cohesive whole - and stitch it together with his brand of free-flowing pop culture dialog. The individual ideas he lifts may not be original but the end product certainly is."

SEE! I like QT - we can be buddies now! YAY!

meh I think 98% of QT's movies blow.

thats a very precise percentage - did you get a statistician to do the math?

LMAO damn you are a sarcastic little bugger arent you? And to answer your question...Nope I pulled that number right outta my a$$!

Ding Dong Poo's master epic

Taretino doesnt steal anything from anyone. though some of his ideas and camera shots may be inspired,his techniques in making a movie stay his own original vision. does he use other directors techniques? Yes ,but he makes it abundantly clear everytime he does. Every Great film director has borrowed from previous or modern greats. This is expanding ones arsenal in film making. Kill Bill held many style shots and story based camera techniques directly from asian martial arts cinema, but that was the point of the film people. He made it clear and doesnt try to hide this fact. He wanted to make a martial arts grind film because they dont make them anymore, and what did he do? He gave us a film that rivals the best in asian martial arts cinema. The film was still packed with his cynical and sarcastic dialgue touch along with his own style.

Unlike many Filmakers, when Tarentino gets and idea for scene he will not make exceptions in presenting his vision, not for the FCC and not for the fear that audience may not approve. Tarentino Doesnt change the pace and style of his movies, they always stay consistant, and everytime your watching one of his films you know that it is infact a tartentino film. He is a filmaker that never strays from his style,but only elaborates on it. when all is said and done his movies offer great raw entertainment, that are well written and loaded with smart dialogue. quentin is an average guy who loves film, not money or fame, but movies. He came from nothing, and had only one shot to make it into movies, and succeeded because he has an original and vivid feeling to his movies.

http://images.killermovies.com/forums/moresmilies/yes.gif

If you want an example of what unoriginal is in the business of filmaking, take a look at Ron howard films. they are all unoriginal and are all taken from previous movies and stories.

Except the stories and characters for his movies.



Example?

I am not saying Howard can't direct movies. I am just saying he can't come up with idea's on his own. He may have movies with original feeling to his films yet the stories are anything,but original, yet he gets praised as being one of the most innovative and original directors out there. Ranson, EdtV, and parenthood are movie remakes. All others are eigther movies he fell into or were inspired from stories that have already been written, or has had other writers write the screenplays for him. the only films that he has written which are far and away and grand theft auto. which are heavily inspired by many published stories. the guy can make movies,but when it comes to creating stories the guy doesnt have an original bone in his body. Even his techniques are greatly inspired by lucas, and Da palma.

When Howard goes into making a movie, he has a crew of writers, and editors by his side. It is known he rarely writes the scripts and screenplays for his films, and also has an editing team. He say's he trusts his writers and editors because they have worked with him for so long. I don't think this is any exscuse though for taking the credit that he does. I'm not saying he steals anything from anyone, that was an exageration.

Tarentino Gains inspiration for his films. He doesnt steal a damn thing . When he uses inspired characters from stories or previous movie characters he always makes it known. Tarentino also writes all of his scripts and screenplays, and takes a full both hands in editing. He cares about his films,and does whatever it takes to make sure they get made in his vision. Saying he steals his stories is like saying every director in the business steals their stories for having inspiration. If anyone in the business is a thief it would be Howard, every movie film he makes is eigther directly taken from a published story, or movie, or is dominated greatly by other films and stories.

I'm going to quote you a few times, so if this looks messy, I apologize in advance.



That's not what's in question here. If that's the case, and you're arguing in the defense of Tarantino, he and Howard are in the same boat.



"Inspiration", "homage", use whatever word you want other than plagiarism. To cover his bases, he claims that he's "inspired" by grindhouse, blaxploitation, yadda, yadda, yadda. All he does is take characters and storylines from the most obscure movies imaginable, and uses them as his own, because he knows nobody is going to go through a video stores library, looking for the sources.

How many times has Quentin Tarantino said "Yes, I took the story from "The Bride Wore Black" and applied it to "Kill Bill."

How many times has Quentin Tarantino said "Yes, I took the story
from "Lady Snowblood" and applied it to "Kill Bill."

How many times has Quentin Tarantino said "Yes, I took the story
from "City on Fire" and applied it to "Reservoir Dogs."

How many times has Quentin Tarantino said "Yes, I took the story
from "Badlands" and applied it to "Natural Born Killers."

How many times has Quentin Tarantino said "Yes, I took the story
from "Kalifornia" and applied it to "Natural Born Killers."

How many times has Quentin Tarantino said "Yes, I took the story
from "Rum Punch" and applied it to "Jackie Brown."

Really? How many times has he acknowledged these "inspirations"?



Stories and characters can only be used in so many ways. There is a very THICK line between "inspiration" and straight up theft. How Ron Howard is a thief, merely by making screen adaptions from books, which a solid 50% of movies come from as it is, or by directing movies written by other people is beyond me.

Tarantino is a thief. Plan and simple, and he has all his fans duped. No matter how nonchalantly they carry themselves when approached with the evidence, we all know that his lack of originality gets to them, and they are wallowing in some insufferable stage of denial.

A common thread of blood, sexism, and foul dialogue doesn't make him original. It makes him the Milli Vanilli of cinema.

Sorry guy but thats horsepoop - I'll limit myself to RD as an example

When people began to point out that Reservoir Dogs wasn't as innovative as we first thought - but was in fact mostly ripped off from Chow Yung Fats City on Fire and A Better Tommorow II QT was all "Who? ME? Noooooo..."

It's only recently that with the evidence becoming so overwhelming (and Kill Bill being such a patchwork quilt of other directors styles characters and situations) That he's having to come clean.

Like I say - I think he's amazing for pulling this grab-bag thing off with such style. He can write some snappy dialog but he can't put a plot together for shit and directorialy he's like a rap artist that can't write a tune so has to sample some old classic and mumble over the top about how big his dick is.

what are you talking about? He never lied about that crap. I remember when pulp fiction Came out Tarentino was questioned about that a great deal. He always said that it was a heavy motivator for the film, that he has loved chow yun fat, and when watching city on fire he was overwhlemed with idea's on how to elaborate on the films story, and yes he did so greatly. though the idea of an undercover cop who befriends one of the villians was taken. The movie was so great because of the execution and the rawness in his writing. so your pissing about a remake that is remade into a totally different story.

as to kill bill. Yes he says all the time that the concept of the bride was taken from the bride wore black and snowblood very openly. Every talk show he appeared on he always talked about it, and also the other schenes in the films that he took from old gring house films. Shit he even talks about the bride concept on the DVD. He says also that the movie was made for fans to the genre like me.

Tarentino has also never tried to hide the fact that jackie brown was from the novel rum punch. He also always gives the author recognition. Saying Tarentino cant create a plot is crazy. He makes movies that he wants and feel are worth making. Even with the stories that he borrows and elaborates which are fewer than you claim. He writes the entire screenplay and script. This is a man that understands story telling. Many producers and directors have apporached tarentino many times to write seagments or elaborate on characters in their stories.

Tarentino wrote the story for the film true romance, which was directed by tony scott.this was an entirely original and well written story, he wrote and sold the story to fund his project reservoir dogs. True romance is a great movie and is acclaimed. this proves that tarentino diddnt just steal the story of RD because he knew it would sell well,or he would have just made true romance himself. he did it because it was a vision he had in making a great movie That revolved loosely around a film he grew up loving.

Tarentino is a writer to rival any hollywood writer, and has a cinematic vision and excution that is totally unique.

I thought it was the yellow jumpsuit from "Enter the Dragon" that inspired "Kill Bill", CA.

Now then, it's always been public that "Jackie Brown" is adapted from Elmore Leonard's novel "Rum Punch". It's insane to suggest that Quentin tried to cover that up, especially since Leonard is even acknowledged in the film's opening credits.

As to whether he's first denied, then admitted to using other films as inspiration to one extent or another, I'm not seeing any documentation here. Like I said earlier, even his most hardcore followers would support any evidence of such machinations on Quentin's part, then chastise him accordingly.

I would, i would bash him into the ground if he ever took credit for somthing that wasnt his, but it is the cinematic presence he creates on film with his characters,dialogue and story that i like so much about him.

Even if he stole the plot for reservour dogs directly from city on fire, and never acknowleged it as being a motivator of his, and not only a dream of his to be his first film. even if his claims of having the script written years before he made it, it would still be a different totally different film from city on fire, but have the same under basis. If he would never have acknowledged this, my views on tarentino would be different. I would still like his films because there all products of great movie making, but i wouldnt be as fanatic about him. He is a regular guy who dropped out of high school and was working a dead end job and decided to enter a film at some festivals. Theguy has no reason to lie. He parties with his fans and recognizes his fan base as being the only reaosn he is able to make movies. He has no reason to lie, and when he says that he has taken certian characters or scenes in amovie to create a vision he was given from there inspiration, i tend to believe him especially since he gives credit where credit is due, even if he doesnt get all his credit.

I see I've wasted my time in this thread.

You say that like you are surprised? It was a forgone conclusion...

(in unrelated - where is your little mini-me today?)

I left the door open, given there was little hope for salvation, but alas.

As for Stormydiction; he was last seen licking his wounds in the "Mona Lisa Smile" and "Blade" threads.

I actually seriously hurt my gut laughing.

SD isnt going to be around for about 2 weeks.

So I read. Sorry for the derailment, Q.T. fans.

Yes, that's starting to be a real problem for you, apparently. Maybe you'd be happier in a place where everybody agrees with you all the time; where your cut-and-paste opinions are never disputed, and nobody calls bullsh*t on your double-edged and/or fallacious "arguments".

I concur ....

http://images.killermovies.com/forums/moresmilies/yes.gif
Indeed

I'm a huge fan of QT and wouldn't label him as a genius. Great director and filmaker yes!

Why do we like him? One factor is that QT like the rest of us here loves movies. The man is an Encyclopedia of movies. Whether is classic Hollywood or Cult or foreign, QT has seen tons of those films. Some of us identified ourselves with his movies. Take for example Kill Bill look at the elements of the film like Kung Fu, Assasins, Revenge. We'd all seen that before in other movies. But NEVER in the style that QT presents the film.

I speak as Kung fu, Spaghetti Western, Sci-fi fan and what I want is to see some one assemble all these genres into ONE single film. And QT did it in Kill Bill. I'm sure there are ppl who don't like QT movies and that's understandble. I mean not every director can be like Spielberg or Lucas. Which btw-speaking of Lucas HE'S the one that really BLEW it with Episode II. But that's a thought for another time.

One reason I think that Mr. Tarantino is a genius is because he has a tested IQ in the 160's -- well above genius level.

However, the main reason I think that QT is a genius is because of his movies like Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction.

Detractors will say that Tarantino is unoriginal and simply steals his work. Supportes claim he is merely paying homage to his favorites. What both sides seem to be forgetting is that Tarantino is an artist who has chosen film as his way of expressing himself. And, like all true artists, his goal is to say as much as possible in a unique way with the medium he is using.

While there is no argument that Tarantino "borrows" heavily from outside sources, you really need to consider why Tarantino chooses the homages to pay when he does choose them.

Tarantino hides so much in his movies that the average movie goer fails to see. For example, read these quotes from Pulp:

"Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper, and the finder of lost children" -- Jules, from his Ezekial speech.

"This is the Valley, Vincent, Marsellus ain't got no friendly places in the Valley" and "If Jimmy's ass ain't home, I don't know what we're gonna do" -- Jules, in the car after Vincent shot Marvin. They were in the Valley of Darkness, now they needed Jimmy to be their brother's keeper.

"When you came pullin' in here, did you see a sign outside my door that said Dead N****r Storage? Do you know why you didn't see that sign? 'Cause it ain't there, because storing dead n******s ain't my business!" Jimmy, when Jules and Vincent arrive at his house with Marvin's body. Now, if he was truly his brother's keeper, wouldn't storing dead n******s be his business? At least a part of it?

"Stay out of trouble you crazy kids." The Wolf. Did he find these lost children?

"Totally f*******g cool." Jules, describing his impressions to Vincent about the Wolf in the Hawthorne Diner.

"We're gonna be like three little Fonzies. What's Fonzie like?" "Cool?" "Correctamundo, and that's how we're gonna be, we're gonna be cool." Jules, to Pumpkin and Honey Bunny, as he tries to nip their crime spree in the bud.

"The truth is, your the weak, and I'm the tyranny of evil men. But, I'm trying, Ringo, I'm trying real hard to be the shepherd". Jules. Who was he trying to be like?

Also, consider this line from Reservoir Dogs, when Nice Guy Eddie confronts Mr. Orange about the death of Vic Vega:

"The man you just killed was just realeased from prison. He was caught in a company warehouse full of hot items. He could have walked. All he had to do was say my father's name. But he didn't. He kept his mouth shut and he did his time and he did it like a man."

Mr Orange was silent. What he should have said was:

"Oh yeah? Well, the man YOU just killed was just released from a TRUNK. He was caught in a company warehouse full of hot PEOPLE. He could have walked, all he had to do was say MY name, but he didn't. He kept his mouth shut, and he did his time and he did it like a man."

QT is a genius.

Just because a guy has great dialogue, doesn't make him a genius.

If that's the case, I'm the ****ing Stephen Hawkins of KMC.

Um, did you read the rest of the post?

Wow! what an arrogant mind you posses. yeah, for the record. Stephen hawking has shitty dialogue. Great, ground breaking studies and theories on quantum physics, but shitty dialogue my friend. So yeah, i would say you very well could be the stephen hawking of KMC

I think you are clearly the ignorant one here. If you actually knew anything about him, you'd know that he never presents it as his own work. He always gives credit where credit is due. You really don't know what you're talking about

Yep, I got the whole I.Q. bit, which I couldn't care less about. It's his movies I have a problem with.

Us so called "detractors", meaning people who aren't too deep in denial to prove that he plagiarizes, will indeed say that Tarantino is unoriginal and simply steals his work, because he does.



Why does he?



I read the quotes, what was I supposed to find in them? Some "cool" dialogue? That's not hard to decipher. You forget to mention any of the sexually demeaning dialogue that people go gah gah for.



You're clearly confused.

I said if someone is to go as far as saying Q.T. is a genius because of his dialogue, then I must be the Stephen Hawking (a real genius, whom which I used merely as an instance) of KMC, given my typical witty lexicon.

You dig?

I like Tarintino for a few reasons, originality is none of them.

1. His dialogue is extremely well done. He is arguably the best dialogue writer in teh business. He has an uncanny ability to take seemingly generic types of conversations and throw them in his films, which adds a realism that very few other films posess. It makes his characters that much more believable. However, he also makes these conversations mean something, and help define the character who is saying them.

2. Also, he is a master story teller. His films flow extremely well, and considering the non-linear way he usually tells his stories, that's saying a lot. It takes great skill to make a film that jumps around and still flows and makes sense. He's one of the few people who does this.

3. His characters are great. He often has some of the most interesting and 3 demensional characters around. You can tell that the man actually cares about the characters he's creating, giving them a unique and realistic personality that's easy to differentiate between other characters.

I think as a director he's solid. But I think it's writing that he's most skilled at. Because both of these aspects I mentioned above are directly connected to his scripts rather then his directing abilities.

I think his overwhelming skill in all of these departments more then makes up for the fact that he lifts most of his premises from earlier films.

Tarantino has so much control in his direction. He plays with the audience. The Gimp, the adrenaline shot, Mr. Blonde's torture scene, Nurse Buck, and the rock salt blast are just a few examples of his uniqueness and unpredictability as a writer and director. He loves the small scenes, too: when Mr. Orange (going undercover) is about to walk out the door to meet the criminals, he fishes a ring (was he married? divorced? or did his wife die?) out of some change; Vincent talks to himself in front of the mirror, trying to reason his way out of Mia Wallace's home without getting himself in trouble; after killing someone, Bruce Willis gets in his car and starts singing with the radio! These minimalistic scenes harken back to Sergio Leone; like Tarantino, Leone made huge movies, but they always had these little scenes that stuck in your mind forever (my favorite was in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly when Eastwood gives a dying soldier in the Civil War a drag off his cigar). Tarantino pays homage incessantly, but his movies drip originality. Plus, film has changed in the past decade due to Quentin's style. Films like The Usual Suspects, The Boondock Saints, and many others pay dues to Tarantino. These are the reasons I find Tarantino the most important director in the last decade.

i agree mostly with what BackFire said.

But simply put, QT is the genius filmmaker because he has that aura of fearlessness around him when he makes movies. He just does not seem to care about critics, as long as his films 'catch' attention.

I like his diolage and interesting characters the most.Not so much the way he directs his films.

Quentin Tarentino? Ugh!!!! the Kill Bill movies suckssssssss.... and that Hero movie sucks more... and all his movies sucks.. He has no originality. (just my own, honest opinion)

4 words and a comma.

Resevoir Dogs,Pulp Fiction

So you're saying The Gimp, cutting a guy's ear off, a nurse letting people screw a woman in comatose, and gangsters discussing divine intervention is unoriginal? I'm a writer, and I wish I could come up with material half that ingenuitive.

You are aware that Hero isn't a QT movie.

yeah I kinda knew that QT didn't really do the movie Hero. But all the same to me.. lol.. and about the originality thing, I wasn't talking about Kill Bill being not original. I just meant that the story is very typical and not to mention boring (I've seen same plot in some Chinese, Thai and other Asian movies.) Anyways you're free to love or like QT's movies. But IMO anyways, I really think Kill Bill sucks (and is overrated) So yeah.

Yeah, rape, aside from being ingenius, is something to be glorified.

You must be a Kubrick fan.

Murder is glorified all the time in films, has been for decades, might as well glorify rape too.

That's fine. One more clueless director for me to ignore.

The rape scene in "Pulp Fiction" wasn't glorified, nor was the attempted rape in "Kill Bill Vol. 1". In fact, the rapists in each (Maynard & Zed in PF, Buck and the trucker in KB1) were portrayed as the most despicable of characters.

Likewise, Alex in "A Clockwork Orange" (if that's the Kubrick you're referring to), as rapist/murderer/overall scumbag wasn't glorified so much as he was examined. When he was bad at the beginning, he was reviled; when he was tortured/reformed/beaten in the middle, he was pitiful; and when he was turning back to his evil ways at the end, we were left feeling contempt for the system that wanted to manipulate his situation AND for him, as he didn't seem to mind one bit (just so long as he was allowed to return to business as usual).

Tell me a movie where Lucy Liu and Vivika A. Foxx are both assasins that Uma Thurman is hunting down because they (and not to mention the rest of the Deadly Viper Assasination squad) tried to murder Uma at her Wedding Day.

Question is, did "The Bride" need anymore motivation to kill than a failed murder attempt? Was rape necessary? Or was it thrown in to keep up with Q.T.'s track record of perverse dialogue and visuals?



Just throw together "The Bride Wore Black" & "Lady Snowblood"? Revenge is a very tired premise.

I'm not a fan of rape, but I know a shocking scene when I see it.
Kubrick was great: A Clockwork Orange, Dr. Strangelove, The Killing, and 2001: influential work...

Fine by us, I doubt anyone in this thread really cares.

Its really not that hard just think of a few violent and mindless-uneccessary things

Heres one

A sword goes threw a guys eye and then the person rips the blade from his head.

See its not that hard to think up mindless gore

Oh, boohoo, violence in a film, woe is me.

I tire of people whining about some violence. If you don't want to watch violence, then don't see rated R movies.

All violence is unnecessary in films, all of it. It's done for atmosphere, or in some cases, simple novelty entertainment. Who cares? Really?

Why do people have a problem with gore and violence in movies??? What the Hell? Do people really believe that shit about blamming films for some murder or crime? If a person can't tell the difference between a movie and real life then that person is a total IDIOT!

QT has only uses a moderated style of Gore in his movies. In Vol.1 he only increases it a little. So what? Someone has a problem with it.....TOO BAD!

why is he a genius? he spent his whole life watching movies, so he has a near infinite resource to give his own original movies a certain degree of homage all while adding his own unique twist to things. Thats what makes him great... and violence is expected, movies arent supposed to be boring like everyday life. A little violence is shocking/surprising every now and then

you know about the gore and violence thing. In kill bill volume 1. If tarentino hadnt made the blood and gore as ridiculously exagerated as he did, it would then be violent. The way he did it was very comedically non violent though. Shit the f.C.C's piss them selves so much, we have to watch the last fight scene in black and white. that is bullcrap. In ascene like this where the violence a humourous aspect, whereas in the passion the gore was for brutality, but the F.C.C's diddnt whine about that shit. we diddnt have to watch those scenes in black and white.

So you're saying gangsters discussing divine intervention is "mindless gore?" Non-violent examples of Tarantino's writing prowess for those uninterested in "mindless, unnecessary things" (by the way, if it's mindless, wouldn't it already be unnecessary?): the argument about tipping and the brilliant "toilet story" in Reservoir Dogs; the revealing of what the French call a quarter-pounder and the argument concerning the differences of a foot massage and oral sex in Pulp Fiction; the meticulous double-crossing and Samuel L. Jackson's thing for screwdrivers (solid characterization starts with minute things) in Jackie Brown; and finally, the ethical dilemma when--SPOILER--The Bride finds Bill with their child in Kill Bill Vol. 2. Of course, I could list examples all day long.
Classic plays such as Oedipus Rex and Hamlet had loads of violence; there's nothing wrong with violence in art whether it be for realism, humor, or dramatic tension.

I wasnt whining I just thought his movie focused on it too much and didnt have any good story.That he saved for the second which made me think his un-chronological pattern didnt work.

I dont have a problem with gore but when a movie focuses more on it than the story and characters then thats when I have a problem.

Pulp Fictions the greatest movie yes

should talk bout this sorta crap in the directors/actors forum, but to answer your question..... i dunno

This should be moved to the QT/Kill Bill forum

He is a genius because his films are the coolist. He has original ideas. If there was a mountrushmore for great film makers he would be up there with Steven Speilsberge...

He has good ideas but he just doesnt know how to put them together in a way that fits.

Again, he was paying homage to old samurai/kung fu flicks in which the blood would spray out violently after a dismemberment.

Yes i know that. I was just pointing out the fact. The F.C.C's actually got on him about the extreme blood. that is when he told them, that yeah he could take out all the spraying, and replace it with more realistic blood splatter, but that is what would make it violent. after weeks of fighting, tarentino agreed to have the last battle in black and white so he diddnt have to change anything in the film.

I dont know, i think his best feature of film making, besides his writing is infact making his movies fit into a non linear story.

I love his writing, but ive only seen the kill bill franchise so I really cant speak for any of his other films.

QT is a post modernist - nothing is original anyway. This is like the backlash against early dance music and hip-hop that used samples from old seventies funk.
But now we appreciate these tunes as masterpieces in their own right.
The reason he's hailed as a genius though is because he has a knack for catching the zeitgeist and driving a classic movie through its heart.

lol yeah... they release movies like saving private ryan -where the soldiers be walking around carrying thier legs and intestines- without a scratch and kill bill had to be edited? pffsh... FCC really needs to rework thier policies

I understand what you mean, but, the mayhem and extreme violence in SPR was necessary.

You see, the characters are despicable human beings that don't care about human life (in other words they are hitman or assasins). So of course they are violent and brutal. Therefore the gore you see is essential to make the characters looked more evil and menacing. Gore is part of the character. Same with the violence.

I see no problem with gore if it is used to make the film more realistic, or to help define the characters and stories, I mean in war movies you if you really want to show how horrible war is and make it real, you have to show violence and gore. A lot of times though gore is just added in movies as eye candy without doing anything for the story. That is what Kill Bill 1 was I think.

1. Reservoir Dogs/ mr white / o ren / the matrix (sophie)
2. Pulp Fiction/ mr orange / vernita / little nicky
3. Jackie Brown/ mr brown / budd / johnny cash / Bill's blue shirt from Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure
4. Kill Bill/ mr blonde / full tilt boogie / elle driver / l driver produced it
5. Glorious Bastards/ where's Bill??? / Kung Fu Fans know it! it's all about them

Yep, cause KB (well at least 1) is a B-Movie. But seriously, it wasnt eye-candy, it looked really fake, like slightly red coloured water or something.

Exactly like it was meant to be.

Sorry for joining in the discussion so late b/c I've just stumbled upon this forum.

Many points have been raised and discussed already so I'll keep mine short.

Kill Bill is entertaining, if you like this kind of movies. I'll give it that. And I can understand why many people would think that QT is such a genius or great director. But for those who, like me, have seen many many Japanese animations? KB is just another one of those thousands of animes. Nothing special about it. Nothing to call any one genius about it. Everything from the editing, lighting, camera work, storyline to characters are all so familiar. As a matter of fact I will even say that KB is a pretty well made animie. He did a good job copying. But again, nothing to write home about. It's NOT "his" style as many of his fans like to say so much. Don't take my word for it. Go rent some animes and see for yourself.

I am a photographer and I think I can talk about "inspiration" a little bit. As an artist I am always inspired by other artists' works. But I never copy. There is a big big difference between inspiration and copying. Any one who say that QT is merely being inspired and "somehow makes it his own" really needs to spend some time to ponder upon the difference between inspiration and copying.

quentin tarintino is a vagina. and sucks at making movies, especially kill bill, its a terrible movie. the only reason any of his other movies were any good, are becuz Samuel L. Jackson was in a couple of em.

tarantino**

Have you ever seen Samuel L. Jackson do better than in a QT movie? No. QT brings out the best in actors and you can't deny that. Hell, who would have thought that David Carridine could act at all?

No, copying is taking a movie, and doing the exactly same thing. Thats copying.
Inspiration is taking something you love and creating something of your own.
Kill Bill, he was inspired by various influences in his life. Kung Fu, Spagetti Westerns, Anime and he's love for cinema. It feels like an anime, but also of westerns. The story is unique with character he made himself and great dialogue. The combination of anime, print (the way the story jumps), music and the universe that movie created was all unique.
And its not an anime because its not animation. It feels like an anime but Mystic River felt like a mystery but that doesnt mean Eastwood copyied it from countless others.

Huh. After reading through this thread I don't even know if I want to post my opinion. Someone my rip my f*ckin lung out and eat it just because I don't agree with what they're saying. Honestly, just because someone doesn't believe what you believe doesn't make they're argument any less valid nor does it mean that their some kind of dim wit. It just means that they see things differently. It's called perspective people. Honestly, people are more concerned about being right than they are about the discussion. *stepping down from soapbox*

Anyhow, to answer the question, I can't speak for other people and say why they may think that Quentin is a genius. I don't. I thin his movies are derivative and shallow. That's not to say that I'm not a fan, because I am. But, I take the movies as they are. *shrugs*

I think a lot of what pisses people off about Quentin is not even him. It's the fans who think that dissecting his films, noticing things and others don't and just stating that Pulp Fiction (Jackie Brown was better) is their favorite movie makes them part of some elite intellectual sphere.

So yeah, that's my two(hundred) cents.

Originally posted by Smasandian
No, copying is taking a movie, and doing the exactly same thing. Not necessarily. Copying doesn't need to be "doing the exactly same thing." If I take Citizen Kane and change Kane to be a woman, move the location to rural China, change the time period to Middle Ages, etc., etc., (*cough* Reservoir Dogs *cough*) it's still copying. Well, perhaps plagiarism is a better word for it.

Originally posted by Smasandian
Inspiration is taking something you love and creating something of your own. The key here is being "of your own." There is nothing in any of QT's movies any avid film fan can say it's a QT original. Nothing. But QT is getting slick though. He doesn't steal from just one movie any more. He steals a little bit from here and a little bit from there and, thus, making his plagiarism relatively difficult to detect.

KB's editing is cool? Yeah, but that style of editing is common place in animes.
KB's camera works is cool? Yeah, but that style of camera works is common place in animes.
I can go on and on like this but you get my point which is that while KB or any of QT's movies are cool and entertaining, there is absolutely nothing original about them.

I guess what bugs me is NOT whether QT is a good filmmaker or not. I readily admit that he is a very good commercial film director. His movies are entertaining, gimmicky and fun. I watch them. But what bother me is the fact that some people worship him like he is the Cinema God; that he is such a Genius; that he is Original. Oh, give me a break.

Originally posted by ms_erupt
I think a lot of what pisses people off about Quentin is not even him. It's the fans who think that dissecting his films, noticing things and others don't and just stating that Pulp Fiction (Jackie Brown was better) is their favorite movie makes them part of some elite intellectual sphere.
Very well put! Don't want to offend any one and I certainly do not want to generalize all QT fans w/ one board statement but I do believe that QT has achieve a cult status and some people like to be in a cult to worship a Cinema God b/c they think it'll make them cool too.

We shall all sacrifice ourselves in the name of Tarantino.

I have no problem with the perspective argument. I understand it is not for everybody. I also find it irritating when people like something just because it is "cool" to like. However, here is my perspective.

Pulp Fiction is my favorite movie and has been for years. However, I know that I don't like it because it is "cool" to like it for the reason of me not knowing it was cool to like Pulp Fiction until a while after I saw it. I watched it because my brother recommended it to me when I didn't know much about it. His recommendation also came from the fact that he thought it was "my type" of movie (he actually wasn't a fan of it himself so he didn't apply a positive biasness of his own). Slowly over the next two years I started to notice this "cult" that you guys have mentioned. Did it bug me? No, but that was because I was already a fan myself. But I can see that if I hated the movie I would hate it more just because of the fan base (*coughCollateralcough*). On the whole copying thing... WHO CARES? Rarely will you find a movie that doesn't copy ideas from other movies. QT copies from a lot of movies but he merges a little bit of one thing into a little bit of another so well that it honestly becomes so much cooler (imo). Referring to Kill Bill, I hear a lot of people complaining about how it was edited in a similar fashion to an anime so it was nothing unique either. But there is major appeal in this as well. I hate cartoon movies (unless funny like South Park). I especially hate animes (I find them completely annoying). However, I do like live action animes. And don't get me wrong, because I like foreign movies such as Zatoichi and Kung Fu Hustle, but there is just something so much more appealing about watching something in your own language. Can you name any movies in English done in an anime style (and if so, is it good?)? Back to the copied thing, QT's movies may not be original, but I feel they are presented better than the originals. I find nothing more entertaining than a QT movie (hopefully Sin City will change that even though QT worked on it). This is just my side though and I know that not everybody agrees so you won't see me bashing somebody for opposing.

Except you Ms. Erupt... F*CK YOU!
































































j/k Ms. Erupt

Myth, I couldn't have said it better. I was nodding in agreement the whole time I was reading it.

As for the plagerism thing, I hate it when fans try and pretend that he's original. As I said, very deriviative. They're this sort of patchwork quilt of different movies all presented in his own way. That's about the only thing truly oringinal about them. But, big but, I don't ever recall him pretending that his films were works of creative genious. That was pretty much his fans (and some critics) as well.

So, in the end, his films are my kind of films. Like, don't like em. That's up to you. I won't pretend I'm special because I like them nor will I burn you at the stake for not liking them.

Damn, I have like 4 spelling mistakes up there. Can we say stupid?

Originally posted by ms_erupt
Myth, I couldn't have said it better. I was nodding in agreement the whole time I was reading it.


Why thank you.

Aah, trashing what's popular. How entirely creative yourself there, Mr. Zero. You know, it's all too easy to "go against the grain" for the hell of it, but heckling Tarantino fans kind of brings a whole new definition to sad.. seeing as you're seeking us out.

haha i love how everyone dissis QT for stealing shit. He ADMITS to STEALING shit. i love that, he steals stuff and makes it better. i would rather have him steal stuff and use it to his advantage than steal something and make it worse.

I don't get why people have to go in detail into movies in order to enjoy them.

who cares if he doesn't use his own ideas.. he seems to be doing really well for himself and as long as people like him, I'm pretty sure he doesn't give a sh*it either.

Just about every director steals stuff from other people.

With the exception of Tim Burton and John Waters..

Especially John Waters.. who could even think of some of that stuff?

-MD