Tarrintino's spin on directing a 007 movie (Page 2 of 5)

Three things. One, what sex are you referring to? I don't think there has been a single sex scene in any of his films, certainly that I can remember (there may have been one in Jackie Brown.) Two, what's wrong with exaggeration? Three, his touch involves the interraction of IMO creative dialogue with graphic violence which is altered depending on the context (the violence in the car scene in PF was different to the attempted rape scene in Kill Bill Vol. 1 etc...)

Well, I think he does know how to do it. Look, we're going around in circles. So why I just summarise our points of view since we seem to be going over the same territory. I regard QT as a great auteur and one of the greatest writer-directors of all time, but who still shouldn't be hired to direct Bond. You regard him as a talentless hack who shouldn't be allowed near Bond. Am I right?

So let me get this straight, you're calling Peter Jackson, the creator of such films as Bad Taste, The Frighteners, The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, and Crossing the Line, an auteur, but not Tarantino whose films are soaked in thematic Tarantino elements every time through? The long sweeping camera angles reminded me much more of literary Lord of the Rings than previous Peter Jackson pieces.

You say Tarantino is not original, that all of his movies are rip-offs of seventies exploitation flicks, but this isn't quite the case. It's a matter of originality through cliche. Yes, Tarantino was inspired by many exploitation films from the seventies and happened to utilize the elements that have inspired all of his films to date. It would be unlikely that one would compare the abstract expressionist, Jackson Pollack to Quentin Tarantino. However, the two share an commonality different than many others. There are those that look at a Jackson Pollack painting and state that he or she could easily replicate his masterpiece. But that's just the case, Pollack was the first and remains the best at it, just as Tarantino in films.

Auteur is not a word to describe the elite, and the founders of this coining would be most disgraced to hear anyone put it like that. Tarantino embodies Autuer. Autuers are not mainstream sell outs, Auteurs do not always make films that everybody is guaranteed to love, hell, Auteurs don't always make films their fans are guaranteed to love - they do one thing and one thing only, make the films that they want to make, without Producer influence, or the current tastes of society. You call him trendy and cool - last I checked the kids in school who did nothing but talk about movies were not considered the cool ones, nor were the fans to date - they were the nerds, the rejects, the one nobody could hold a conversation with. There's nothing cool or trendy about that.

Moreover I agree entirely with Dan Same. This is a post about whether or not Tarantino should direct a Bond film, which we've been in unison about. There was no need to move into the realm of arguing Tarantino's worth as a filmmaker of his genre, unless of course you wanted to start your very own Tarantino bashing post in our off-topic chat. In which I'd feel you're more than welcome to do.

I don't think Jackson is an auteur either, I just know what his films are stapled with. I can even say John Glen's distinction is shooting locations with a bland sense of workman like direction but that dosen't mean I think he's an auteur.

POLLOCK you mean. And Jackson POLLOCK shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath of a hack.  With Pollock's work you can find a sense of construction with a careful eye. "Ultilizing elements", "Orginality through cliche", you can use what terms you like but it still adds up to making cheap knock offs.  I am really tired of people making words for bad art or just plain laziness. I have heard it all for animation and live action/

I am saying that because most directors let the script control them and not the storyboards or their own vision. Very have few are really distinctive.

Let me re-direct for a minute on "selling out". Their is nothing wrong with doinf it and have to in oder to stay afloat. You make something for yourself but you also have to concern with getting the largest audience you possibly can get. 

Everyone talks about movies. It's the "nerds" and "rejects" who usually go beyound what is playing in the theatre currently. Tarantino is a hipster.

And you saying it's great is merely your opinion so it's a moot point.

I am not refering to this thread alone when I said I am tired of execuses for bad art. Also I don't care how many people admire him here or anywhere else. He's a total hack and you do great insult to a superior artist like Pollock to say he has anything common with a slop artist.

Last edited by Rick Roberts (19th Aug 2009 17:11)

Yes, but you don't always seem to realise that your opinions are just that, and saying that you're tired of people defending art  is absurd.

IN YOUR OPINION! I don't think he is a total hack, and I think he can absolutely be compared to Pollock! I think that Pollock should feel complimented to be compared to Tarantino. You may not care how many people admire him, but make no mistake that your view that Tarantino is a hack is an opinion, not fact.

Last edited by Dan Same (19th Aug 2009 17:21)

Maybe because I have studied art extensively and those opinions are absurd. It's like walking into a room saying a room is painted white when it is painted yellow. An un-educated opinion can be wrong.

Why don't you for once actually come up with a counter argument instead of saying "that is just your opinion" or "I don't agree".

I have all the time. Read my previous posts on Tarantino. The problem, however, is that I tend to get annoyed by arrogant people who mistakenly consider their opinions to be facts. I'm funny that way.

Oh, and saying 'I don't agree' is polite. It's common curtesy.

Last edited by Dan Same (19th Aug 2009 17:26)

Really, and what dime a dozen movie critics are those? Do you realise that many, perhaps most, of the world's leading film critics love Tarantino, or at least like him? Comparing me to professional film critics doesn't exactly prove your point.

Except I don't think it's horrible! It may shock you, but I quoted that dialogue as I think it is wonderful; creative, funny and poetic.

So, now you're insulting me. You know, coming from you, this is a compliment. I've noticed that in so many of your discussions on this board, you resort to insults. I wonder why.

No, I just don't think in this subject you have any idea what you are talking about.

Funny, I feel the exact same way about you. Oh, BTW, isn't in interesting how of all the people who responded to this topic, most disagree with you? Does that mean that we all have no idea what we are talking about? You may know alot about art, I don't know, but if you think that you are an expert on film, you are sadly mistaken.