Well, Tarantino blows.

I hate to put that to a generation that would like to collectively fuck him in the ass, but he really does. I know, he made Pulp Fiction, and Kill Bill, but they are not good films. I'm not against his writing. It can be quite good (like Natural Born Killers)

However, good ol' QT, he fucks up on the direction of a film. He has no artistic flair, he shoots movies how he thinks people want to see them shot. This, in my opinion, is not what directing is about. It is about expression, using less obvious means of expressing yourself. And now what? He can't think of anything that he thinks people want to see, so he's doing that "Quentin Tarantino presents..." crap. I do not care what he presents. He's presenting it to the world just to make money.

If I ever had the talent to be a decent director, I would rather make a thousand good films that made no money whatsoever, than make Pulp Fiction and earn enough to retire each fucking week.

I don't know, argue with me if you want. Agree, if you feel like.

At least answer this question, if you think Tarantino "iz da bomb":

What the fuck is so great about his films, direction-wise? Or even, why do you insist on fucking everything he releases, like Kill Bill? They were awful, plagiarised shit.

You wouldn't be in business if your movies made no money to begin with. When Quentin Tarantino wrote Reservoir Dogs, he was literally broke. The movie became a cult phenomenon followed by yet another one named Pulp Fiction, which is currently #9 on IMDB's top 250 movies along with being #94 of AFI's top 100 movies of all time. At that point obviously, he would tend to experiment as seen now with the upcoming Grindhouse movie. Most directors tend to experiment after much success and through critics and finances.

I love his direction. The trunk shots, the extended scenes without break and the sense of Americana make his movies unique. Personally my favorite scene in Pulp Fiction is where Vincent and Mia enter Jack Rabbit Slims. The set design, camera angels and overall atmostphere of the location is superb. The script structure of Pulp Fiction, making it into a chapter story form is utterly unique. That very structure is thought today in film schools across the world. Lastly, you have to know Tarantino makes a lot of homages in his films. The spaghetti western stand offs, the glowing briefcase, anything with martial arts to simply The Bride's yellow track suit. It's not copying, everybody is guilty of it in the industry.

A few homages I can deal with. Constant homage gets to me.

But I respect your opinion, yo.

Pulp Fiction not a good film? You lose.

Pulp Fiction IS a bad film.

okay lets go down the list:

1: "You wouldn't be in business if your movies made no money to begin with."
Bullshit. Orson Welles said it best: "there are hundreds of directors, very well-off directors who haven't made a good film in there life, and still get jobs that pay far too much money." fuck, how about Uwe Boll? that dumb fuck has never made a movie that grossed its own cost, and he's STILL making films.
2:IMDB and the AFI's lists are skewed, bias and broken. IMDB's rating system is broken as fuck, and have you seen the rest of the AFI's list? there are only about 3 films on the whole list that are even remotely justified in being somewhere on that list.

3: his direction is far from original, Trunk Shots is an invention of 70's exploitation directors, and the following camera is an invention of David Cronnenberg.

Tarentino is not a good film maker, he is the worlds most grandios plagarist, he isnt a genius, he isnt even an auteur. he's a film geek with too much money. he's collaged a million lesser-known films into neat little unoriginal packages for the mainstream to fawn over.

and when the fuck did Americana make you a genius? Americana is just his lazy, manipulative way of trying to pass himself off as a cultural satirist or something.
i'm not beefing on you Trigger_Street, you seem like a nice enough dude from other posts i've seen you do, but sufficive to say, i beg to differ.

Pakx, that post made no sense.

Pulp Fiction is a good film, no doubt. It's surely not bad.

IMDB's voting system is shit. People should have to fill a knowledge survey to be able to vote.

Pakx, that post made no sense.

Pulp Fiction is a good film, no doubt. It's surely not bad.

IMDB's voting system is shit. People should have to fill a knowledge survey to be able to vote.

the fuck are you talking about?

the fuck are you talking about?

Your post made no sense, it didn't prove Tarantino sucked.

I restated that Pulp Fiction is not a bad film.

I agreed with you about IMDB having a shit voting system.

my post stated that tarentino is an unoriginal hack without an inch of talent of his own. call me an idealist but i'd say unoriginality and plagerism mean you suck.

Pulp Fiction IS a bad film.

okay lets go down the list:

1: "You wouldn't be in business if your movies made no money to begin with."
Bullshit. Orson Welles said it best: "there are hundreds of directors, very well-off directors who haven't made a good film in there life, and still get jobs that pay far too much money." fuck, how about Uwe Boll? that dumb fuck has never made a movie that grossed its own cost, and he's STILL making films.

*sigh*

Directors who make great movies, but which make no income at the end, will never survive in the industry. Hollywood relies on a capitialisitic system. Let's take writers to begin with. Eric Roth (Forrest Gump, Munich), Jeff Nathanson (Catch Me If You Can), Akiva Goldsman (A Beautiful Mind), Tom Schulman (Dead Poets Society), Scott Rosenberg (Con Air, Gone in 60 Seconds) and Stuart Beatie (Collateral, Pirates of the Caribbean) are the industry's leading screenwriters. They're in constant demand by movie studios and are strived for by directors and producers to often polish/re-write a not so well written script. What do they all have in common? They make movies that sell. You can write a great move, but it won't get you anywhere unless it serves profit potential to your producer/agent. A script is not a living item or "work" in the industry. It's a selling item. Michael Bay is notorious for making rather pointless/laughable films. However they make money. He's doing something right.

2:IMDB and the AFI's lists are skewed, bias and broken. IMDB's rating system is broken as fuck, and have you seen the rest of the AFI's list? there are only about 3 films on the whole list that are even remotely justified in being somewhere on that list.

http://www.afi.com/tvevents/100years/movies.aspx

1. CITIZEN KANE (1941)
2. CASABLANCA (1942)
3. THE GODFATHER (1972)
4. GONE WITH THE WIND (1939)
5. LAWRENCE OF ARABIA (1962)
6. THE WIZARD OF OZ (1939)
7. THE GRADUATE (1967)
8. ON THE WATERFRONT (1954)
9. SCHINDLER'S LIST (1993)
10. SINGIN' IN THE RAIN (1952)

Gaha, are you kidding me? That's just the top ten out of the 100 AFI has listed. They're not justified to even being there? I really think you need re-read and watch those films over, to truly see where they are to begin with.

As for IMDB, it relies on popularity ratings. I would agree it would be discriminatory, but I believe most people would have a good sense in movies.

3: his direction is far from original, Trunk Shots is an invention of 70's exploitation directors, and the following camera is an invention of David Cronnenberg.

Tarentino is not a good film maker, he is the worlds most grandios plagarist, he isnt a genius, he isnt even an auteur. he's a film geek with too much money. he's collaged a million lesser-known films into neat little unoriginal packages for the mainstream to fawn over.

He's not a good film maker? They how come he is, where he is today? I can assure you it's by no accident. People work their way up through the industry by hard work and dedication in their craft. None other. I want to see you climb up there and make great films. Once you do, then we'll talk.

and when the fuck did Americana make you a genius? Americana is just his lazy, manipulative way of trying to pass himself off as a cultural satirist or something.i'm not beefing on you Trigger_Street, you seem like a nice enough dude from other posts i've seen you do, but sufficive to say, i beg to differ.

I never said Americana made anyone a genius. I simply said I favored how he incorporated it into his movies. I would like to add, you seem to have a bit of an ego, which makes me laugh. I would love to see one of your screenplays. I would love mostly to see a coverage report of one or an inquiry letter from an agency admiring your work. You seem to talk a lot, yet don't have much to back it up with. You have to understand one thing: Everybody is a critic. However writers and film makers seperate themselves from the wannabe's by doing something. By getting something written or made.

I'm not fond of Tarantino as a director. I think he's greatly overrated (perhaps his fault, perhaps not) by young film students and aficionados, while other, very interesting/important directors get overlooked (Godard, Paul Thomas Anderson, etc), and he's really only made a few films over a lengthy period of time. I don't think the world would be better off without him, but I likely won't be making any great attempt to see his future work, though I hope he can prove me wrong.

Unfortunately, he not only also sounds like an arrogant jerk from many of the comments he's made, but he generally manages to simultaneously stick his foot in his own mouth my uttering remarks that are ultimately incorrect and backfire. Oh, well.

whao nig, first off dont make this personal, i flat out said i have no beef with you, chill the fuck out. and dont talk about me like you know a thing about me. first of all i'm 19, directing and writing an 80 minute feature, and got a scholorship from Concordia last year to go to Hong Kong for film apprentaceship, so there's my "back-up" that i apparently need for message board discussion. my ego hasnt a thing to do with this, and i sure as hell dont need you trying to call me out over personal opinion and open debate, especially after i made it clear i've got nothing against you. so get off my ass, and by the way "Singing In The Rain" and "Gone With The Wind" are bad movies. and i dont care what Roger Ebert says, Citizen Kane doesnt deserve a spot on top.
and as for Tarentino's success over his talent, it's been prooven time and again that popular opinion at the given time doesnt mean shit towards an artists impression over history. just because the masses arent informed about Tarentino's plagerism now doesnt mean a thing, hell, 50 Cent brings in the bucks, and so did Debbie Gibson in her day, remember Paraschute Pants? Disco? are those things great because they made cash in thier given hayday? no, they're fads bought by the ignorant bandwagoneers of the time. Tarentino is no different.

"People work their way up through the industry by hard work and dedication in their craft. None other" <<< that's gotta be the most naaive statement an informed person has EVER made about the film industry.

He's not a good film maker? They how come he is, where he is today?

He hit the pop culture jackpot. That does not make him a good film-maker.

Hollywood means nothing other than that you can make money off of [mostly] stupid people. Stop acting like it's the be all and end all of film.

He hit the pop culture jackpot. That does not make him a good film-maker.

true, the man himself comes over a bit of a prick, i hate him as an actor tho, it's bloody clear he can't act and yet somehow he ends up starring in the odd film..

But I like Pulp Fiction, thats a classic film!

true, the man himself comes over a bit of a prick, i hate him as an actor tho, it's bloody clear he can't act and yet somehow he ends up starring in the odd film..

But I like Pulp Fiction, thats a classic film!

The only movie I've seen him act in is Pulp Fiction, he did PERFECT for the character Jimmie.

Tarentino went to film school as an actor in the first place, he's been in a shitload of movies as an actor: Desperado, Resevoir Dogs, From Dusk 'Till Dawn, Full Tilt Boogy, one of those awful Spy Kids movies, an early episode of Alias, the list goes on. and he was fucking terrible in all of them.

Turbo-50 Pakx never makes sense he's a dumbass that tries to use long sentences to hide the fact but fails all the time.

Anyway I disagree, while I don't think he is the end all and be all with directors I think he's a great director and for the most part I like his movies. Whatever you feel is your right though just my bottom line thoughts

Turbo-50 Pakx never makes sense he's a dumbass that tries to use long sentences to hide the fact but fails all the time.

..ever think i might just go a little over your head, stupid?

..ever think i might just go a little over your head, stupid?

no I am pretty sure you are just a dumbass but you can go on thinking what you want to think because you are the worst kind of dumbass, an arrogant one.

all i can say is Kill Bill Vol. 2 has some of the best script writing in movies, period. (in my opinion)

Also to the guy who is calling tarentino unoriginal, im just curious as to what directors u think are original in the way they direct.. examples would be nice. thank u lol.

just for some back up to Tarentino's praise... I was in a band a while ago with a guy that has been doing a lot in the film industry lately.. he films for the popular canada comedy Corner Gas, he worked on the sets for X-Men 3 for a couple months, has done some work with Peter Jackson, and of course he is also a graduate from film and photography in university... and all i know is that he, unlike Pakx, seems to think tarentino is one of the most innovative and creative directors of our day... not saying he is right or wrong, but coming from sum1 that is educated and involved in the business makes it a bit of a stronger opinion than any we can have.

The issue of "plagiarism" and "unoriginality" to me duznt really hold up, just cuz in the context that some people think he is plagiarising is the equivalent to saying Elton John is plagiarising sum1 like Mozart for playing an A then and E right after... technically its the same thing, but its just techniques when it comes to art... because i draw a face with a pencil duznt mean im plagerizing Chuck Close, influenced by him maybe, but its not straight out plagerism... just my thoughts

i enjoy watching horrible movies.
i sat through crouching tiger. and i hated that movie with passion, but i'd probably watch it again.
that being said i really like kill bill 1 & 2. and the reason i like it is because it's so bad, same with pulp fiction. except pulp fiction was super long and bad. but bad in the good way.

smoke that, francis.

:shrug:

I ENJOY his movies, that's all that really matters to me. Fuck, I might sit through "Barbie's House Shopping Experience in LA" if I thought I'd enjoy it in some form.

It's kind of like my gaming habits. While I might suck ass at almost every game I play, I play because I enjoy it, and that's that.

Movies are about entertainment and escaping, and if that is pulled off and I enjoy the 2 hour trip, that's all I care about. I dont really give a shit if he rips off his directing queues from former directors, or that he's not original or whatever.

Also to the guy who is calling tarentino unoriginal, im just curious as to what directors u think are original in the way they direct.. examples would be nice. thank u lol.

sure, lets start off with the guy he rips off the most and work our way down.

Russ Meyer(Faster Pussycat! Kill,Kill!): the father of exploitation film

David Cronnenber(Existenz): while some of his films aren't the best, on a technical level he's a master. his range is incredible, and i'd agree that he's canada's answer to Chanwook Park. (although the two are nothing alike in style)

Chanwook Park (sympathy for Mr. Vengenace): the greatest film maker alive today. an absolute master, the Mozart of film.

Robert Roderiquez (El Mariachi): say what you want about this guy's kids movies, he's a stylish, original and frugal director with a creative eye for grindhouse and a knack for utilizing new technologies.

Chris Nolan (Memento): reclusive and picky, but always a deliverer.

Akira Kurosowa (Roshomon): the father of cinema, the grand auteur.

Orson Welles (Citizen Kane) : inventer of Filmnoir stylistically speaking.

Sam Raimi (The Evil Dead): sure, they're goofy and cheesy and wierd and dumb, but they still kick ass, and on a technical level they are incredibly definitive.

Micheal Mann(collateral): the master of urban film making.

Paul Greengrass(Bloody Sunday): a documentary stylike fiction filmmaker who's been copied by the likes of Oliver Stone (Elephant) and Fernando Meirelles (The Constant Gardener)

Darren Aronofski(Requiem For A Dream): watch his films, you wont know what hit you.

some other examples:
Micheal Gondry(Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind)
Luc Besson (Leon The Proffessional)
Hayao Myasaki(Princess Mononoke)
Martin Scorsesse(Taxi Driver)
Sam Mendez (American Beauty)
Bob Reiner (This Is Spinal Tap)


so there are some examples


i dunno why people outside the film industry think that everyone in the industry automatically has taste, if that were true we wouldn't have bad movies, hell even if they didnt have a scratch of originality we'd just end up running around with a bunch of Tarentino's, who watch alot of good movies, then rip them off. (which we kinda do anyway.)

and as for that whole Elton John thing, that's horseshit. it doesnt apply at all to tarentino, Tarentino actually copies scenes, lines of dialogue and shots from other film makers, puts things in his film directly plagerized from other films, and he can call it homage if he likes, but when Bob Dylan homaged Jimi Hendrix it was fine, know why? 'cause Bob Dylan has talent that is his and his alone, he didnt just build his career by ripping of a million other good musicians, and slapping some pop culture refferences into his songs. y'dig?

If you hate Tarentino so much, i sujest you watch Resovior Dogs (If you haven't already).
The film, imo, is a masterpeice. Full of random stuff, and shows what most films about robbery don't show you. The Aftermath of a robbery gone wrong. Also quite a good twist at the end.

If you hate Tarentino so much, i sujest you watch Resovior Dogs (If you haven't already).
The film, imo, is a masterpeice. Full of random stuff, and shows what most films about robbery don't show you. The Aftermath of a robbery gone wrong. Also quite a good twist at the end.

of course i've seen resevoir dogs, i'm not one of those annoying people who makes a call without knowing the facts. and Resevoir dogs is just as plagerized, derivitive and stylistically manipulative as any other tarentino film.

and that bit about "it shows you what other films dont show you" is horseshit too. many films before tarentino did that, and had none-linear stories with a twist at the end, some of them even envolved a mole in the group.

I didn't mean abot the mole in the group, just the whole part that the film is based after a robbery-gone wrong. First film i've seen trying that, or atleast the first film that was good enough, to do that, and for me to remember it.

sure, lets start off with the guy he rips off the most and work our way down.

Russ Meyer(Faster Pussycat! Kill,Kill!): the father of exploitation film

David Cronnenber(Existenz): while some of his films aren't the best, on a technical level he's a master. his range is incredible, and i'd agree that he's canada's answer to Chanwook Park. (although the two are nothing alike in style)

Chanwook Park (sympathy for Mr. Vengenace): the greatest film maker alive today. an absolute master, the Mozart of film.

Robert Roderiquez (El Mariachi): say what you want about this guy's kids movies, he's a stylish, original and frugal director with a creative eye for grindhouse and a knack for utilizing new technologies.

Chris Nolan (Memento): reclusive and picky, but always a deliverer.

Akira Kurosowa (Roshomon): the father of cinema, the grand auteur.

Orson Welles (Citizen Kane) : inventer of Filmnoir stylistically speaking.

Sam Raimi (The Evil Dead): sure, they're goofy and cheesy and wierd and dumb, but they still kick ass, and on a technical level they are incredibly definitive.

Micheal Mann(collateral): the master of urban film making.

Paul Greengrass(Bloody Sunday): a documentary stylike fiction filmmaker who's been copied by the likes of Oliver Stone (Elephant) and Fernando Meirelles (The Constant Gardener)

Darren Aronofski(Requiem For A Dream): watch his films, you wont know what hit you.

some other examples:
Micheal Gondry(Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind)
Luc Besson (Leon The Proffessional)
Hayao Myasaki(Princess Mononoke)
Martin Scorsesse(Taxi Driver)
Sam Mendez (American Beauty)
Bob Reiner (This Is Spinal Tap)


so there are some examples

i agree with all of those directors/movies that i knew.. very very original.. but i still dont think tarentino rips them off.. when u mention those i see elements of many of those in his movies, but he combines a lot of it to make it his own.. i agree he isnt the most original director, but he's still got originality in the sense that he combines styles and ideas in an innovative way that other mainstream directors havent really touched on. its more that hes influenced rather than hes ripping off. theres a distinct difference.

i agree with all of those directors/movies that i knew.. very very original.. but i still dont think tarentino rips them off.. when u mention those i see elements of many of those in his movies, but he combines a lot of it to make it his own.. i agree he isnt the most original director, but he's still got originality in the sense that he combines styles and ideas in an innovative way that other mainstream directors havent really touched on. its more that hes influenced rather than hes ripping off. theres a distinct difference.

other than Russ Meyer and Chris Nolan i wouldnt say Tarentino touches those guys. i guess i see where you're coming from, but my point is that "influenced" is one thing, Aaronofski for instance is heavily influenced by Akira Kurosowa and many hiphop music video directors, but his work is still his own in a big way, what tarentino does goes far beyond that. and it wouldnt be so bad if he had some parts that WERE his, but there's nothing there, every single thing he does can be traced back to A:70's exploitation or B: 60's slickflick.

Lolercaust, what was the Dylan-Hendrix thing about, wigger?

Dylan covered a hendrix song ages ago. and will ya stop calling me that?

Dylan covered a hendrix song ages ago. and will ya stop calling me that?

Scratch that and reverse it...
Hendrix covered All Along The Watchtower and I'm pretty sure Dylan never returned the favour...

Hendrix also covered Like A Rolling Stone with BB King.

my mistake,