FleeingNevada said:
I don't need to speculate anything. You said it yourself:
Chewster said:
his copy & pasted collage bullshit
So if all that you're taking away from a three decade long career of one artist is just that, it shows you're either not paying attention, or are willfully ignoring his merits as a director in favor of a simplified dismissal. Which is only strengthened by the "I can't even watch this whole trailer" jab.
So why bother with explaining anything to you? You've already made up your mind, and the decision to be so closeminded about the works of a filmmaker is only a disservice to yourself.
So are we now denying that Tarantino essentially recycles genres, creates pastiche films and wholesale lifts cinematic techniques from previous directors? Because I find that rather difficult to ignore at this point. His first film was taken plot-point-by-plot-point from
City on Fire (as well as being "inspired" by a handful of other films) and everyone fucking knows it. We could argue homage if we were so compelled but the line is pretty fucking thin on this one and QT doesn't even deny ripping off other styles. At least Scorsese had the decency to call
The Departed a remake while reusing the entire plot of
Infernal Affairs. My claim that QT copies & pastes a lot of his work doesn't seem like a particularly outrageous thing to say.
And none of this strikes me as being anything you don't already know. Speaking for myself, my biggest problem with him is that he doesn't live up to his potential. All of this lifting of other's work would be acceptable if the man had anything of substance to actually say. He doesn't make challenging films. They lack subtlety and nuance. Every film after
Pulp Fiction has been an exercise in showing off how knowledgeable he is of obscure B and Asian cinema, slick violence and snappy dialogue. That's fine, there is nothing wrong with liking that but his films lack an underlying deeper meaning. It's all icing and no cake. They're empty spectacles. Which is a shame, because he clearly has a degree of talent. He's not bad, he's just hardly a genius. It seems like he is content to squander all his potential on clever banter and predictably shocking violence. Yippee ki-yay Mr. Falcon. Pardon me for asking for a bit more than that before I start handing out "genius auteur" badges. And say that as a person who rather enjoyed his first few films, though
Pulp Fiction hasn't aged too well IMHO.
Maybe I just don't get it. Maybe he is a genius and his films fly way over my head, but somehow I doubt it. He did bring the English speaking world Christoph Waltz though, so I suppose we should be grateful for that. Sorry for writing so much, in any case. It's early here and I'm a bit tired.
And nobody said that anyone needs to like someone because others do, that's entirely what you read into the text.
OK.
FleeingNevada said:
ThreeName said:
He has literally has made one good movie. Tarantino is overrated garbage.
Subjective opinion, not shared by the majority of the moviegoing public nor critics.
Please clarify then. What is this if not saying "your opinion is just your opinion and also it's wrong because others disagree with you"? Throw in a "I'd like to see you do better" and we'd have the trifecta of poor Internet arguments. Again, we can assume his opinion is subjective since most are.
So what exactly what your point here? That's he popular and that his detractors are in the minority? I'd wager most people are aware of that.
