Entertainment things everyone else is wrong about, and you are right about.
- Thread starter Jamesfett
- Start date
drusselmeyer
Master Member
You sir, win the RPF. This is the best summation of Tarantino I've ever heard. A relative of mine who's a hipster fanboy tried to convince me that Tarantino doesn't imitate but rather pays "homage". Right lol.
drusselmeyer
Master Member
I have to wholeheartedly disagree. 13, tops.
Last edited:
drusselmeyer
Master Member
Tarantino reminds me of one of those child audience members that first put me off of Star Wars. I couldn't get into it because of the loud, popcorn-slobbering, kid culture that ruined the experience. I really couldn't enjoy the film until many years later.
I think that's what makes him sort of unique. Most of the industry feels like it's either coming from a kid or an adult. Tarantino actually feels like somewhere in between.
We get 'adult' comedies that are rated PG-13 or R. They may be full of cuss words. They may hit on adult topics like sex. But they still usually have a very childish tone. Comedy went that way in the Adam Sandler/Jim Carrey era and it never recovered.
Modern comedy probably stays that way because cuss words & fart jokes don't offend nearly as many people as grownup-toned comedy would. SNL is a public network TV show and yet a huge percentage of their older skits wouldn't fly today.
drusselmeyer
Master Member
The problem with Carey is that he operates on two levels and and the slapstick is so loud most of the audience misses it. The audience of the slapstick usually doesn't seem to catch any of his biting satire.
This next movie will bomb. I've called my bookie about it and I'll laugh all the way to the bank
View attachment 1711761
Oh eff me. First time I've heard of this. A live action remake????? Those films were perfect!
Why? why?????
drusselmeyer
Master Member
There were no supernatural events at the Overlook.
Danny let his dad out of the pantry so he could kill him.
The entire film is about trust and betrayal.
This is why the vw bug from the novel is crashed by the side of the road.
Danny was abused in unmentionable ways when his dad was drunk.
Danny let his dad out of the pantry so he could kill him.
The entire film is about trust and betrayal.
This is why the vw bug from the novel is crashed by the side of the road.
Danny was abused in unmentionable ways when his dad was drunk.
joberg
Legendary Member
Very difficult to do an "Homage" without "Ripoff"
If I do an homage to Kubrick's for example; I'll have to take several of his direction's techniques + POV of camera shots + lighting+ decors/costumes, etc...what to choose, what to choose
Strikerkc
Sr Member
Rip off vs homage is like porn vs art; we know it when we see it.Very difficult to do an "Homage" without "Ripoff"
joberg
Legendary Member
I guess it comes to personal feelings in the end...
ScourgiousJinx
Master Member
When films are imitated shot for shot, angle for angle, sometimes for entire scenes, it's challenging for many to view that as a "homage." When an artist makes their name mostly on imitating others and rarely adds anything new of their own, it's hard to find a measure of respect for their work.
Last edited:
el toro
Sr Member
I have enjoyed watching several of Tarantino’s films (e.g., pulp fiction and hateful eight), but I view him as more of a DJ and not quite a full-fledged musician creating his works whole cloth. In a way, he might be seen as the film analogue to daft punk, who sample an insane number of sources to build up their tracks. Basically he’s a pop culture geek, and is able to incorporate his knowledge through obscure references that his fanboys can’t get enough of. That has helped build his cult brand. So, that said, I find several (but not all) of his movies entertaining, but I agree that he’s overrated for much of his actual work product. Some people like DJs and some people don’t. It’s apples and oranges.
joberg
Legendary Member
Everything is appropriation of some sort
When you study the history & techniques of cinema, you're bound to put what was already filmed/known into your own production. Whether it's conscious/unconscious is the big debate. Can you come-up with "new" things? Very difficult if not rare!
ScourgiousJinx
Master Member
I entirely understand this. That's partially why there's very few great filmmakers. It's hard to be original, yet it happens.Everything is appropriation of some sort
Very difficult if not rare!
There's a massive difference between imitation by nature of the medium or that occurs unintentionally vs. overt purposeful copying and selling as "homage." I get that some consider making a homage or a remix of others works forms of art. I understand their justifications but respectfully don't agree.
Just as I don't see the value of sticking a banana on a wall and calling it fine art. Even after understanding the reasons the artist did so. It's still a banana on a wall. Just as it's still someone else's talent in a homage. No matter how it's twisted or spun, that's what it is. And spin some filmmakers do with laughable PR explanations behind their "artistic vision" for films like Kill Bill which I enjoy yet recognize is copied fluff.
My opinions, obviously. Everyone else is welcome to theirs.
Last edited:
Strikerkc
Sr Member
I think Tarantino is good at what he does. He makes movies people enjoy. A lot of his "homage vs rip off" falls solidly on the homage side of things, or at least on the endearing side of "rip off" when it's a bit more on that side.
He's first and foremost a fan, and there are a lot of genres of film that are just out of vogue these days, that he's still a big fan of and had the opportunity to make his own entry into the genre.
A number of his films have started along the lines of "Man, the old [movie type X] was great. why don't people make those anymore? folks are missing out. I'm gonna make my own [movie type x]!".
Being removed by time and interest in the genre can leave us feeling like he copied a specific movie (usually the most popular example from it that we can think of); but we skip over that it was simply one film in an era of same/similar movies. I suspect we'll get to see people in 2050 complaining that some director is just copying Blaire Witch when they put out the first big found footage movie for the last 25 years.
I've never gotten the impression he was making a movie a certain way to try and make money off nostalgia; the only nostalgia he's chasing is his own.
He's first and foremost a fan, and there are a lot of genres of film that are just out of vogue these days, that he's still a big fan of and had the opportunity to make his own entry into the genre.
A number of his films have started along the lines of "Man, the old [movie type X] was great. why don't people make those anymore? folks are missing out. I'm gonna make my own [movie type x]!".
Being removed by time and interest in the genre can leave us feeling like he copied a specific movie (usually the most popular example from it that we can think of); but we skip over that it was simply one film in an era of same/similar movies. I suspect we'll get to see people in 2050 complaining that some director is just copying Blaire Witch when they put out the first big found footage movie for the last 25 years.
I've never gotten the impression he was making a movie a certain way to try and make money off nostalgia; the only nostalgia he's chasing is his own.
Similar threads
