why tarantino sucks

L

locust tree

Ok, i don't think he sucks. But if i titled this post "n00b intro" none of you would read it. I'm from CT. I'm 17 years old. I own a Sony TRV740 digital 8 camera. It was son'y's top of the line... in 2001. I joined this board to get inspiration, and to be able to bounce my ideas off other filmmakers, as well as help them out with their own stuff.

With that out of the way, what IS the big freaking deal about Tarantino? He's good, but I don't consider him a visionary. Somebody tell me what sets him apart from every other filmmaker in history, why he should be put on a pedestal and paraded around?
 
woah... don't go saying anything you'll regret.

What set's Tarantino apart is his work.. if you watch it, you might be smart enough to get it.
 
Eh... I would have gone with the plain ol' "Hello, I'm new"... but each has their style.

Which is what Tarantino has. 8)

I'm not a huge fan of Mr Tarantino, but I can easily see what he brings to the table. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Regardless of how I may perceive one of his flicks to be (good/crap), there is no denying his unique brand of showmanship.

Reservoir Dogs: Crap
Pulp Fiction: Brilliant
Jackie Brown: Never saw it
Kill Bill I: Had potential, didn't deliver
Kill Bill II: Still waiting for dvd release.

I think Mr Tarantino's greatest "trick" (for lack of a better term), is creating new tales from old tales. Nothing he makes is really new... but rather compressing all the best bits of what we used to watch when it was new. We remember how cool it was back then... reminiscence is wonderful. Fond times.

His most bizarre role might have been in the original "From Dusk 'Til Dawn"... That started off with all the promise of a (yes, stereotypical but well done) suspense story... until suddenly switching gears to a laughable attempt at action/horror. What was he smoking when he decided to go in on that movie? I'm not sure... but I'm pretty sure it was grown in the '80's. Good times 8)

...and welcome to IndieTalk! Rar!
smiley_badger.gif
 
locust tree said:
With that out of the way, what IS the big freaking deal about Tarantino?
Click to expand...

I honestly think the one thing that makes him appealing to his fans is his ideology of making his own movies his own way. It just so happens that there are tons of people that enjoy the same things he does. Is he a great director, I think so. Are there ones better than him, absolutley. But he is what he is, he's found a niche and it works for him. Be happy for him.

Zensteve said:
Reservoir Dogs: Crap
Click to expand...

Best of QT's movies, by far. I'm surprised at your complete retardedness. =P~

Zensteve said:
What was he smoking when he decided to go in on that movie?
Click to expand...

He actually wrote the movie and convinced Robert Rodriguez to direct it.

Poke
 
yeah, i totally agree with poke, sorry zen, i like you an' all but don't just pay out flicks when you don't know what you're talking about. Dusk is supposed to be corny and over the top, that's what he was going for. and dude! Reservoir Dogs is not crap! my all time favourite film! so, no offence zen but just don't start mouthing off on stuff you don't know about.

and tree, if you don't get his style, you're not watching his films properly.
 
I like pretty much all of his work but I think he stands out more than most hollywood directors these days because, in my opinion, theres not a real lot of great films being made in hollywood these days. and his style is just different from the typical mainstream.
 
First of all, this thread's title was really just a ploy on my part to lure people in, because if i saw the words "i'm a newbie, hi" in a subject line, i'd probably just skip right over it.

Now, i'm not saying QT is a bad filmmaker by any means. I really got a kick out of Pulp Fiction. But just doing things your own way is not reason enough to merit being put up on a pedestal and hailed as a timeless legend. Don't call me an idiot and think that if i'm not raving about one of his movies, it's because i've glossed over all the subleties and nuances of his filmmaking. I've read into Pulp Fiction deeper than i ever wanted to. I've read essays about Jules' transition from the anal to genital psychosexual stage... there's no point in going that deep unless you're a teacher or a student.

There's something about Tarantino that seems to make everybody and their grandmother want to make their own caper movie. Try as i might, I just can't see Pulp Fiction as anything more than an intelligent action movie. I would be fully ready to embrace QT if he settled down and made a straightforward drama without any of the guns, glory, or money. To me, action movies are a slap in the face to struggling filmmakers everywhere, simply because they're a vulgar display of budget. Cars flipping over, guns, intense fight scenes... to me, that's just more BS to sit through before I can get to the real subject matter of the movie.

Ok, but i'm drifting from my original topic. What i'm saying is, there's something about Tarantino that speaks to filmmakers. It's like, if you have any clue what's going on on the other side of the camera, you appreciate what he's doing... but i just can't figure out why. Really, i mean no offense, this is really just a matter of opinion, and this is mine. Prove me wrong- show me something i've overlooked. I'm not an asshole, i promise :lol:
 
Welcome welcome! Glad to see someone who's starting out early with film.

I'll have to agree with bad haircut on this one.. I take the fifth! ;)
 
Mr Dimp.

I think your reaction to my opinions on the films is a little over-excited.

Since I gave opinions on films that I saw, I don't believe this falls under "mouthing off on stuff you don't know about".

It's my opinion; no more, no less.

I stand by my original post where I say that Mr Tarantino is not a teller of really original tales. He takes all the bits and pieces of various movies that he likes, and piles them all together under an umbrella that he calls a new film. There is no denying this. In his interviews, that's what he talks about along with which movies and why.

Working in that fashion, one could make a good argument that he is not "original". He is not. He openly and blatantly rehashes older films that he likes. Anything wrong with that? No, not really... it's his trademark style. It many cases it works well.

Regardless of the originality of his stories, what he does bring to the table is an extremely new and interesting visual way of presenting it. He is an extremely good director and has a very clear vision of what he wants to show, and how to go about it. He is daring in what he does, and it pays off... it would seem that people are willing to pay good dollars to go see what they saw twenty years ago, but new & improved.

As far as "From Dusk 'Til Dawn"... What is it?!

It's a story about escaping the law. Oh wait. It's a story about hostages trying to get away. Oh wait. It's about vampires, silly me.

You can make a more cohesive story using those magnets with random phrases on them, and plopping them onto the front of your fridge.

In my opinion, Mr Q. tried to do what Spielberg & Lucas did, when they came up with ideas for the "Raiders of the Lost Ark". It worked for them: it didn't work for Tarantino. It's fine for a movie to change pace, change location, throw in plot twists, toss in a macguffin or three, add all the in-jokes, visual gags and things-that-made-you-scared-when-you-were-a-kid... but changing genre mid-film?! :roll:

I'm wracking my brain trying to think of another film that has tried to do something similar. Aside from some episodes of Twilight Zone, not any that I can come up with. Maybe "Schindler's List" would have made more sense, if halfway through, everyone hopped into spaceships and engaged in some space-battles? That's the kind of transition that happened in FDTD when it turned to campy horror from psychological thriller.

It was actually working very well for the first half. Actually, the second half wasn't so bad (for what it was) either. Both halves were fine... in their own right. I would describe the transition between genres, though, as being at 5000rpm in my car, while changing gear from 3rd to 1st without using the clutch. Ram that stickshift hard enough and it'll make it in there... if the motor doesn't blow.

The motor blew.

-------------------------

Started to waffle, so a brief summary....

Tarantino has a unique style.
Tarantino has made some good movies.
Tarantino has made some bad movies.
Tarantino is not an original story-teller.
Tarantino is an excellent director.

The above are opinions. (Specifically, mine)

-------------------------

I also stand by my original post's first line...

Eh... I would have gone with the plain ol' "Hello, I'm new"...
Click to expand...

Makes life much easier ;)

"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire
Click to expand...
 
>>"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire<<

Zen, you rock :D! That's one of my favorite quotes.
 
It was pretty clear you were kidding, Poke... especially with the pokey-tongue "smiley" after that.

However...

Zen has not been infected by the Retardedness Virus.
Click to expand...

You will retract that fast enough, when you see my IndieTalk film entry :P
 
Zensteve said:
What was he smoking when he decided to go in on that movie?
Click to expand...

I can tell you in 2 words why Tarantino wanted his part in Dusk till Dawn.
"Salma Hayek"

I mean honestly if someone came up to you and said "I want you to be in the worst movie ever constructed, but Salma Hayek will be half naked pouring wine down her body into your mouth."

You would be on set so fast, the directors head would spin.

For the record I like from Dusk till Dawn I think Tom Savini as Sex machine is too pimp.
 
Tarantino is really great I'll admit. He had a good thing going with Resovoir Dogs but perfected it with Pulp Fiction, which is a film he hasnt been able to better. So I'll reserve on calling him a God until he makes a film that rivals the Pulp Fiction status.
Anyway, since I'm a newbie I'll take this opportunity to say HELLO to you all. It's great to have a site where anyone can have their say on films, and people actually listen.
 
Mr T is an incredibly successful Hollywood film maker who has managed to retain an indie feel to his work, which from my point of view makes him an incredibly interesting film maker.

There is also little doubt that he has become one of the most talked about and influential directors for other indies.

Personally, I find his films entertaining, but lacking in substance. He's the filmic equivalent of a good ice-cream milk shake, all sugar and very little nutritional value. The more I watch his work the more I personally consider him a man of hidden shallows.

As such he is perhaps the perfect MTV generation, style over substance director. Whether his films will pass the test of time is another matter. He's certainly no Kurosawa or Tarkovsky, he's certainly less interesting than directors like Nicholas Roeg, Luc Besson or Michael Mann, but I don't think anyone can fail to be impressed with a man who has established so strong a brand for himself as a film maker. People go to see the next "Tarantino" movie, he is one of the few directors most people would recognise in the street.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top