Mac Lethal
the one with the back hair
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Posts: 1920
Location: kc |
And what makes a film-maker "excessively overrated"?
A bunch of people like his shit? He puts out films that all sorts of demographics can be entertained by? Everyone from stuck up film snobs, to white trash action movie fanatics can latch onto his stuff and be enthralled by it? He is generally very acclaimed by most critics? So that means he is excessively overrated?
I'd like to think it means he is great at what he does.
I also hate the idea that we are chalking up his "flaws" to "Well, that's our Quentin!"
He doesn't have flaws. He's an artist, and is very self-aware in his approach to what he is doing. So while your Robert McKee (who is a Quentin fan) seminars, and other film-school theory books may try to set standards in film making that you must follow, or your film will be full of "holes" and "flaws", Quentin's style is confident and ruthless. He stays smoothly in his own lane, and has no shame in that whatsoever. |
Thu Feb 12, 2009 6:43 pm |
|
|
futuristxen
Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19343
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt |
|
 |
|
CriticalTheory_Breakfast wrote:
I was in no way saying Natural Born Killers was a Tarantino film. It is barely even the same script, but it IS the same story and I really enjoyed the original script he wrote. I was just trying to give him props where I thought they were due.
See, this is the problem. If I say I dislike Tarantino (especially in film school) I get this "people who hate on him are stupid. HE IS SO AWESOME!" If you think he's a great director, that is your business. But if you can't admit that he is excessively overrated, you are clearly biased.
My problem is that I can feel Tarantino breathing down my neck in every single film he directs. I can see him writing those "stylized" lines and thinking "man, this is pretty bad ass. who cares if everyone talks the same". I feel like most people chalk up his flaws to "oh well, thats our Quentin!"
His dialogue tries too hard to be quirky and is completely irrelevant to the story 60% of the time.
He's not excessively overrated. Sorry, but Mac is right. He's one of the best american movie makers of all-time. What American Filmmaker of the past 25 years can stack up with Kill Bill, Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown, Resevoir Dogs as their chief output? The ones you have to list are also considered great. There aren't any mediocre names in his company.
He's the guy that filled the gap after Speilburg, Coppola, and to some extent Scorcese fell off(though less so in the case of Scorcese). And while I agree that he's certainly become the establishment. There's a wonderful lineage to be drawn from Fuller, Pekinpah, and the French New Wave right through to Tarantino.
If you hate Tarantino, then surely you also hate Fuller and Pekinpah?
It's fine if Tarantino represents a tradition in film that as a film scholar you loathe. But the whole exploitation, trashy cinema, outlaw filmmaker thing IS an accepted branch of film study, and if you're into that kind of thing, Tarantino's films are a complete orgy of fantasticness.
Plus his focus on women in his films is something I've always found interesting. The extent to which he made a four hour long action epic, that is essentially about motherhood, is pretty remarkable.
And he is someone that acknowledges his references and his inspirations. He also uses his money and time, to help bring over or highlight films that maybe otherwise would have slipped through american film audiences grasp. He's almost solely responsible for making grindhouse cinema mainstream.
He has changed how most americans view and participate in film in a pretty positive way that brings in a lot of disseperate people. From film scholars to just people wanting a good time.
It's fine if he's not your cup of tea, but realize that that's a minority position, and it's almost entirely due to your own taste, and not really tagged to anything in particular in terms of his worth to american cinema. |
|
Thu Feb 12, 2009 6:45 pm |
|
|
Bandini
WIZARD APPRENTICE
Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 4667
Location: jerk city |
quentin tarantino has made only one great movie: pulp fiction. the rest of his films I couldnt care less about. I will see every film he puts out, but it's really hard to get excited about a new tarantino film after being let down for so long. |
|
Thu Feb 12, 2009 6:48 pm |
|
|
Disharmony
Joined: 01 Jun 2003
Posts: 2988
Location: Buried in Minnesota dirt. |
I don't feel strongly towards, or away from Tarantino.
But this looks meh. I can tell Pitt doesn't fit already.
Defending Tarantino to the tooth is just as bad as hating on him by the way. People have their own opinions. |
|
Thu Feb 12, 2009 6:50 pm |
|
|
Mac Lethal
the one with the back hair
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Posts: 1920
Location: kc |
|
|
|
futuristxen wrote:
CriticalTheory_Breakfast wrote:
I was in no way saying Natural Born Killers was a Tarantino film. It is barely even the same script, but it IS the same story and I really enjoyed the original script he wrote. I was just trying to give him props where I thought they were due.
See, this is the problem. If I say I dislike Tarantino (especially in film school) I get this "people who hate on him are stupid. HE IS SO AWESOME!" If you think he's a great director, that is your business. But if you can't admit that he is excessively overrated, you are clearly biased.
My problem is that I can feel Tarantino breathing down my neck in every single film he directs. I can see him writing those "stylized" lines and thinking "man, this is pretty bad ass. who cares if everyone talks the same". I feel like most people chalk up his flaws to "oh well, thats our Quentin!"
His dialogue tries too hard to be quirky and is completely irrelevant to the story 60% of the time.
He's not excessively overrated. Sorry, but Mac is right. He's one of the best american movie makers of all-time. What American Filmmaker of the past 25 years can stack up with Kill Bill, Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown, Resevoir Dogs as their chief output? The ones you have to list are also considered great. There aren't any mediocre names in his company.
He's the guy that filled the gap after Speilburg, Coppola, and to some extent Scorcese fell off(though less so in the case of Scorcese). And while I agree that he's certainly become the establishment. There's a wonderful lineage to be drawn from Fuller, Pekinpah, and the French New Wave right through to Tarantino.
If you hate Tarantino, then surely you also hate Fuller and Pekinpah?
It's fine if Tarantino represents a tradition in film that as a film scholar you loathe. But the whole exploitation, trashy cinema, outlaw filmmaker thing IS an accepted branch of film study, and if you're into that kind of thing, Tarantino's films are a complete orgy of fantasticness.
Plus his focus on women in his films is something I've always found interesting. The extent to which he made a four hour long action epic, that is essentially about motherhood, is pretty remarkable.
And he is someone that acknowledges his references and his inspirations. He also uses his money and time, to help bring over or highlight films that maybe otherwise would have slipped through american film audiences grasp. He's almost solely responsible for making grindhouse cinema mainstream.
He has changed how most americans view and participate in film in a pretty positive way that brings in a lot of disseperate people. From film scholars to just people wanting a good time.
It's fine if he's not your cup of tea, but realize that that's a minority position, and it's almost entirely due to your own taste, and not really tagged to anything in particular in terms of his worth to american cinema.
That felt so good to read. I agree with every single word in this statement.
Also, if someone even flirts with the idea of dissing Sam Peckinpaugh, I will roll through to their neck of the woods on horseback on some suicide shootout shit like they did in The Wild Bunch's climax. |
|
Thu Feb 12, 2009 6:56 pm |
|
|
R. Kamidees
Joined: 15 Sep 2003
Posts: 4830
Location: where the wild things are |
There are better directors than Q.T. IMO. But I've been entertained by everything he's put out. I look forward to a Tarantino film like a look forward to a good microbrew. This looks like a fun movie. Good times shall be had by all. |
|
Thu Feb 12, 2009 6:58 pm |
|
|
CriticalTheory_Breakfast
Joined: 16 Apr 2007
Posts: 1378
Location: NYC/Rochester |
It is funny that Mac labels my angle as a "film school" angle considering a majority of the people I go to school with are in love with QT.
I only mentioned it because I get shit all the time for not bowing at the man's feet. The fact that I'm studying film is completely irrelevant. COMPLETELY irrelevant.
I'm simply stating my opinion that his dialogue is lazy, irrelevant and "cute". I also think he uses his "style" to cover up the fact that his characters are all written the same.
It is like anything else. Calling him one of the best movie makers of all time is a BOLD statement. He struck gold in his niche and these days he could poop directly onto the film stock, give it cool music and sell it as a summer blockbuster.
I understand where you're coming from, but I think you are also giving him a pass because of the pedestal you're putting him on.
We may have to agree to disagree. Because I disagree.
Again, I'll probably like this new movie. |
|
Thu Feb 12, 2009 6:59 pm |
|
|
Mac Lethal
the one with the back hair
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Posts: 1920
Location: kc |
Disharmony wrote:
I don't feel strongly towards, or away from Tarantino.
But this looks meh. I can tell Pitt doesn't fit already.
Defending Tarantino to the tooth is just as bad as hating on him by the way. People have their own opinions.
A lot of people come on message boards to swap opinions, though. Unless I'm missing something, that's kind of the whole point. |
|
Thu Feb 12, 2009 6:59 pm |
|
|
Mac Lethal
the one with the back hair
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Posts: 1920
Location: kc |
|
|
|
CriticalTheory_Breakfast wrote:
It is funny that Mac labels my angle as a "film school" angle considering a majority of the people I go to school with are in love with QT.
I only mentioned it because I get shit all the time for not bowing at the man's feet. The fact that I'm studying film is completely irrelevant. COMPLETELY irrelevant.
I'm simply stating my opinion that his dialogue is lazy, irrelevant and "cute". I also think he uses his "style" to cover up the fact that his characters are all written the same.
It is like anything else. Calling him one of the best movie makers of all time is a BOLD statement. He struck gold in his niche and these days he could poop directly onto the film stock, give it cool music and sell it as a summer blockbuster.
I understand where you're coming from, but I think you are also giving him a pass because of the pedestal you're putting him on.
We may have to agree to disagree. Because I disagree.
Again, I'll probably like this new movie.
The fact that you are studying film apparently isn't completely irrelevant. I wouldn't have known you were studying film, unless you referenced it in the middle of your anti-Quentin rant. As I stated before, I didn't know you were studying film when I wrote those words. I just consider film-school to be a worthless endeavor if someone's ambition is to make movies, and a lot of people who go to film-school fail at making movies, so they use their film-school studying as a badge to splooge out silly opinions on movies. So I labeled it a "film-school" angle because it reminded me of one. Then I found out you were in film-school, so it kinda... I dunno. Works out.
You also are incorrect on Quentin being able to just poop on a plate and have it become a summer blockbuster. The last thing he was involved in (Grindhouse), was a box office flop, and received mixed critical reception. |
|
Thu Feb 12, 2009 7:08 pm |
|
|
See Arrrgh
Joined: 08 Feb 2009
Posts: 251
Location: New England |
I'm going to have to agree with futuristxen and mac lethal's opinion toward Tarantino and his films. Obviously, everything's already been said so I guess I'm sort of jumping onto the bandwagon, of sorts.
As for the movie in question, Inglorious Bastards, I think it looks like a good movie. And my opinion is biased on this next fact because I've always liked Pitt as an actor, but I think he fits in well with the movie, based off of this trailer.
Either way, being that the movie has the names "Brad Pitt" and "Quentin Tarantino" on it, it'll more than likely be a success financially, since both of those names draw heavy at the box offices.
That's my two-cents, at least. |
|
Thu Feb 12, 2009 7:14 pm |
|
|
CriticalTheory_Breakfast
Joined: 16 Apr 2007
Posts: 1378
Location: NYC/Rochester |
|
|
|
Mac Lethal 2007 wrote:
I just consider film-school to be a worthless endeavor if someone's ambition is to make movies, and a lot of people who go to film-school fail at making movies, so they use their film-school studying as a badge to splooge out silly opinions on movies.
Do you really think my opinions are silly, though? I mean, I don't know what else to tell you man. You really have NO idea where I'm coming from? You are just dumbfounded that someone could NOT think he is one of the greatest filmmakers of all time?
It boggles my mind that people see his work as flawless masterpieces. I don't know. I don't get it. I think some of his stuff is good, some of his stuff isn't. I don't know how you could possibly think he does no wrong. I just don't know.
As for film school being a worthless endeavor, meh. People flap their gums about the worthlessness of film school only to realize "whoa, i have no fucking idea what I'm doing. I sure wish someone had taught me what I need to know to make my art." It is art, but it is not an art you can do on your own. It takes organization skills, technical skills, problem solving skills, fundraising skills ON TOP of the ability to come up with a good idea and execute it accordingly. Most people who blow off film school will fall on their ass. Most people who GO to film school will punk out because they don't have what it takes. Thats the game. But to say it is worthless is sort of you just throwing your uneducated opinion out there. Anyways, that is SO not the point of this thread. |
|
Thu Feb 12, 2009 7:31 pm |
|
|
firefly
Joined: 27 Sep 2002
Posts: 3989
Location: Montreal |
|
|
|
CriticalTheory_Breakfast wrote:
defdans wrote:
I think i've come to the conclusion that I hate Tarantino. Thank you for that.
I don't hate him.
He is a mess of a writer. It is shitty, lazy writing. His direction is nothing special, either. He is also an annoying human being. People like his movies because of their attitude. I love Pulp Fiction, but even that has its "ugh" moments for me. Never liked Jackie Brown, never thought Kill Bill was anything special. I thought I liked Resevior Dogs until I bought it and watched it again last month. It is good, but really has massive holes in it as a film. This new movie will be entertaining as hell, and I think I will like it. I don't hate Tarantino, but the dick-riding has got to stop. You gotta watch his movies with an objective eye, and not the "ohhh, that is soooo Tarantino".
With that said, Natural Born Killers is a phenomenal script.
[/rant]
:sigh:
It's funny that the film school thing popped up because my teacher in Semiology and screen writing spoke very highly of Jackie Brown. We even watched clips of it.
Everyone has their own tastes in movies but saying that Tarantino is a bad filmmaker is just stupid. For what he does, he does it beautifully. |
|
Thu Feb 12, 2009 7:34 pm |
|
|
futuristxen
Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19343
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt |
CriticalTheory_Breakfast wrote:
It boggles my mind that people see his work as flawless masterpieces. .
Oh good grief. Do you also believe Godard made shitty films as well, just because his films were not flawless and pristine? |
|
Thu Feb 12, 2009 8:08 pm |
|
|
CriticalTheory_Breakfast
Joined: 16 Apr 2007
Posts: 1378
Location: NYC/Rochester |
I never said they were shitty films because there was something wrong with them. The folks defending QT in this thread have failed to acknowledge an anti-Tarantino view holding any validity at all. It sounds like you folks think his films are flawless masterpieces, so I am wondering if that is the case. Good grief is right. |
|
Thu Feb 12, 2009 8:25 pm |
|
|
equal eyes
Joined: 18 Mar 2007
Posts: 450
Location: Delaware |
the people i've come across that don't like tarantino movies usually dont like the dialogue. almost all of them like kill bill though. |
|
Thu Feb 12, 2009 8:26 pm |
|
|
 
|
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, ... 15, 16, 17 Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours. The time now is Tue May 21, 2013 11:53 am
|
|
|
|
| |
