Similar or Different?

[ghrogels]

http://www.bellinghamlan.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=5375http://www.bellinghamlan.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=5376


is/isn't?

[Ender]

Inglorious Bastards looks cooler. ;)

[Itsmeee]

Tarantino's movie posters are always so badass. He has an eye for detail and a love of awesome.

[QuietStorm]

Inglorious Bastards looks cooler. ;)
Basterds*

It's a shame Tarantino is a Burtonesque director -- an eye for visual flair and a total lack of soul mark all of his work.

[DiscoDave]

It's a shame Tarantino is a Burtonesque director -- an eye for visual flair and a total lack of soul mark all of his work.
Totally disagree. Tim Burton's implants all sorts of "soul" in many of his movies.
Big Fish stands as a prime example.

[CrazyRob]

Totally disagree. Tim Burton's implants all sorts of "sole" in many of his movies.
Big Fish stands as a prime example.

edited for obvious bad pun

[QuietStorm]

Fair enough, Dave. Big Fish was decent. So was Edward Scissorhands. And Tarantino did a decent job with Resevoir Dogs.

But, on Burton's side of things: Corpse Bride, Planet of the Apes, Sleepy Hollow, Batman Returns (LOL), Sweeney Todd, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory...

And, on Tarantino's side: Death Proof, Sin City, Kill Bill. (Apparently, he also did Jackie Brown. Never saw it.)

If I wanted elaborately-filmed violence, I'd see a Robert Rodriguez fillm.

[Pineconeboy]

The preview for this movie completely killed my desire to see it. It really does look pointless.

[jinx666]

Fair enough, Dave. Big Fish was decent. So was Edward Scissorhands. And Tarantino did a decent job with Resevoir Dogs.

But, on Burton's side of things: Corpse Bride, Planet of the Apes, Sleepy Hollow, Batman Returns (LOL), Sweeney Todd, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory...

And, on Tarantino's side: Death Proof, Sin City, Kill Bill. (Apparently, he also did Jackie Brown. Never saw it.)

If I wanted elaborately-filmed violence, I'd see a Robert Rodriguez fillm.


You don't know what you're talking about.

Tarantino only guest directed sin city (i.e. only parts of it) and Robert Rodriguez did as well.

Death proof was BRILLIANT! on it's own and even better as the Grindhouse double feature... it was intended to be an homage to the whole summer blaxploitation/low budget/schlock movies of the 70's and he did it spot on with all real stunts and no cgi

Not to mention crappy rubber limbs, and poorly thrown buckets of blood!

I absolutely loved Kill Bill, and you certainly can't forget Pulp Fiction, which FYI saved Miramax's ass financially. The Weinsteins (owners/now controlling shareholders/producers for Miramax) were quoted in an interview saying that they really didn't care how much Tarantino went over budget, he can do whatever he wants because if it weren't for his films nearly 200 other films would never have been developed... (there are 188 films listed in IMDB under Miramax since pulp fiction.)

His movies might be schlocky, but like I've said before...
not all of us like florid prose, sometimes a good rough fuck is just what some of us need... and Tarantino does that very, very, well.

I do agree with you on most accounts regarding Tim Burton. However I liked Sleepy Hollow, and thought Sweeny Todd was excellent considering how much I despise the musical genre!

This is all just opinion however...

On a side note, I'm really looking forward to QT's remake of Russ Meyers "Faster Pussycat, Kill, Kill!" which if you don't know and appreciate Russ Meyers work as a B-Movie Director then you have no business pontificating American Cinema!

And that is fact!

[QuietStorm]

It probably will be, but I love Brad Pitt, so I'll probably see it -- just might wait for a rental, since I hate Tarantino so much.

[DiscoDave]

Tarantino only guest directed sin city (i.e. only parts of it) and Robert Rodriguez did as well.
As I recall, one part. That took place in a car and was purely an exposition scene.

Rodriguez just wanted to show off the camera system he was using.

(Based on recollection, I read about it in Wired).

[QuietStorm]

As always, Jinx, to each his own. One of the reasons I dislike Tarantino so strongly is because of the inordinate amount of praise he receives from those of my generation.

[Dr. Deezee]

I hate popular things too, but arguing Tarantino has no soul in his movies is an unwinnable argument.

[QuietStorm]

No, it's really not. His movies have no soul. They're pretty and they're violent but there's nothing much beyond that.

[Ender]

ITT: DZ about to go ape all over QS.

[Dr. Deezee]

Nah. Why waste my time on that? It's absolutely ridiculous to argue that something completely subjective like "soul" does not exist in someone's art. Especially not when I have other shit to do with my time, these days. :P

You could say, with Quietstorm's very likely narrow definition of soul and opinion of Tarantino's films, Tarantino does not have soul in his movies. But who would care? If you use a reasonable definition of soul (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/soul), the argument becomes so ridiculously untenable because it is based so completely on subjective interpretation that you just come across like an arrogant, pompous ass with a vendetta. You don't like his films? Great. Come up with a more legitimate criticism than that they are lacking in something you can't objectively prove. (Or, continue to try and "win" your petty argument and look like a moron. Your pick!)

[smor]

i just plain don't like his shit-tastic movies. i saw him in an interview once and now i just don't like tarantino either. those are facts.

[QuietStorm]

Okay, something factual? He does nothing original in his movies; everything he does is a ripoff. Some people like to call them "homages," but that's a bit of a joke. Everything Tarantino does is lifted straight out of other, better directors' films. Hell, 90% of his camerawork is just copying Sergio Leone.

[jinx666]

Okay, something factual? He does nothing original in his movies; everything he does is a ripoff. Some people like to call them "homages," but that's a bit of a joke. Everything Tarantino does is lifted straight out of other, better directors' films. Hell, 90% of his camerawork is just copying Sergio Leone.


Dude STFU already, you can't win this, it's like trying to describe art, so his movies don't speak to you and other filmmakers work does... that doesn't mean they lack soul or originality it just means you don't walk away feeling "it".

To put it in terms you'll understand:
I'm not fond of say... Blue Oyster Cult, Fleetwod Mac, or Jethro Tull, that prog-rock bullshit has never done it for me, just self indulgent noodling as far as I'm concerned, but I'd never go so far as to say they have no soul... It just doesn't turn my crank is all.

As far as originality goes you can't name one modern artist who's work is not derivative of someone else's weather painting, music, film or whatever, all of them will be compared to someone from the past because that's all we know... progression is slow and nebulous and any artist who, at one time or another taps into the collective sub-conscious of the masses is doomed when they try and create anything else...every other work they subsequently create ends up being compared to it.

Finally if you bring up Gilliam's work again as an example of originality, he's far from it. That guy wants to be Stanley Kubrick, Alexandro Jodorowsky, and Jim Henson all rolled into one...

P.S. Sergio Leone is a huge influence on Tarantino and Russ Meyer, the low budget spaghetti westerns have been influencing American Cinema, as well as Japanese Cinema for DECADES, so what? I like spaghetti westerns, kung fu movies, hong-kong gangster, slasher films and high-brow surrealism at least those kinds of films don't pretend to be something they're not...

[PirateIvan]

I concur with Jinx on the originality argument. It is a very, very rare thing to find an artist who generates highly original work. One of that rare few that sticks out in my mind within the last 100 years is Léon Theremin with his invention of the instrument that bears his name.

The main thing that most artists do is to combine the influences from the past in innovative ways. Take queen, for example. Many hail them as a highly original band. The truth is that their music was an incredible mix of hard-rock, heavy metal, classical, barbershop and more. They just mixed them so damn well that it created a new sound. It's like when you make a new kick-ass beef stew. You can claim credit for the flavors, but not for the invention of the potato.

[QuietStorm]

I've got Irish blood in me. It's where my freckles come from. So, you're damned right I claim to have invented the motherfucking potato.

Also: Jinx, I stopped reading your post when you called Fleetwood Mac prog.

[ghrogels]

Okay, something factual? He does nothing original in his movies; everything he does is a ripoff. Some people like to call them "homages," but that's a bit of a joke. Everything Tarantino does is lifted straight out of other, better directors' films. Hell, 90% of his camerawork is just copying Sergio Leone.
That's the fucking point.
I guess allusions in literature also make a lot of books and poems rip-offs too.
He's just making movies he'd like to watch. If that includes scenes and camera-work that make reference to another movie and he gets a kick out of it, good for him. 90% of the scenes he steals 90% of the people couldn't tell you where he's stealing it from.

[QuietStorm]

Tarantino does more than allude, LOL. There's a difference between an allusion and just lifting from other works.

I'm sorry, I just get pissed off about people thinking Tarantino is some fucking god of filmmaking. He's marginally talented at best.