Tarantino's new film - Inglorious Bastards

Karl Hungus

Not content with ripping off as many films as possible, and half the time just remaking a film and hoping nobody would find out, Quentin Tarantino is now set to direct a remake of a rip-off!

Yes, you read that correct.
Inglorious Bastards is a remake of an old 70's italian Dirty Dozen rip-off.

Is the man just trying to see how many rip-offs he can shamelessly churn out before people cop on to it? :rolleyes:

Verdammt

Great title, I can just see the huge letters "Inglorious Bastards" on the front of the Savoy on O'Connell St. now.

Buck Owens

Heh,

SAMUEL L JACKSON AND MICHAEL MADSEN in 'INGLORIOUS BASTARDS'

User45701

im looking forward to it

Tusky

Who cares if he rips stuff off , he adds a splash of his own genious and his films are really really entertaining.

Karl Hungus

Tusky wrote:

he adds a splash of his own genious

Hahahahahahahaha!

...oh wait, you're serious, aren't you?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

lodgepole

Reservoir Dogs is better than City on Fire. By a long shot.
Pulp Fiction's genius lay in its structure and not in it's plots, which were fairly standard gangster tales.
Jackie Brown was an adaptation that "ripped off" no films but was heavily influenced by an entire genre.
Kill Bill was an homage in the best possible way to several different genres, and was enjoyed by a huge amount of people who had seen the films that influenced it's key scenes.

Not to mention the excellent writing on True Romance and Natural Born Killers.

The "he rips films off" card gets a little old. I mean the argument isn't entirely without merit, but it just gets thrown around so ****ing much, to the point where people seem to hate what he does, just because he does it.

I'm very much looking forward to Inglorious Bastards, as a director Tarantino has made four very different and compelling films and I expect this to be at the very least an interesting piece of work.

Karl Hungus

I'll give you Jackie Brown, but...

Lodgepole wrote:

Kill Bill was an homage in the best possible way to several different genres, and was enjoyed by a huge amount of people who had seen the films that influenced it's key scenes.

A remake of Lady Snowblood with a few fleeting references to Bruce Lee by way of a yellow jumpsuit and some leg amputation is what you consider homage? And if by 'key scenes' you meant "THE ENTIRE DAMNED MOVIE!" then maybe you'd have a point.

Lodgepole wrote:

Not to mention the excellent writing on True Romance and Natural Born Killers.

Natural Born Killers is a film that completely ripped off Badlands, which in turn was based on a true story, so considering Oliver Stone's re-writes, I doubt there was an inch of that film that could be attributed to Tarantino.

Lodgepole wrote:

The "he rips films off" card gets a little old. I mean the argument isn't entirely without merit, but it just gets thrown around so ****ing much, to the point where people seem to hate what he does, just because he does it.

Well, what did you expect from a thread by me, about Tarantino? Maybe it does get a little old, but so many people believe that the man is so much more than he is, and my god, THAT is something that gets old! I've a severe dislike for the man, and I've a severe dislike for him taking credit for other people's works.

Maybe this would be a good juncture to mention Roger Avery? I saw an advert in a magazine a while ago for Killing Zoe, and what did the advert say? "From the director of KILL BILL, Quentin Tarantino." That's what! And looking at play.com it's even spattered on the DVD itself. Furthermore, considering the downright pathetic nature of the dialogue in Kill Bill, we'd really have to wonder how much of the dialogue in Reservior Dogs and Pulp Fiction can be attributed to Avery?

nadir

let me complement that

Lodgepole wrote:

Reservoir Dogs is better than City on Fire. By a long shot.

he only rips off some scenes in city of fire, and I dont see the relevance of which film is 'better'.
You can call em homages or whatever you like but in the end of the day, he just splices together scenes of films he likes.
I mean kill bill, he even got the rza to remix the same music from lady snowblade.
While I dont dispute the fact that he may well add some quality to films he makes, the overwhelming majority of the content is not original, his films are in no way ground breaking, they dont bring anything we havnt seen before, in either structure, script or cinematography. Its mostly 'tribute' from other films.

Furthermore I dont like the way, like karl-hungus was saying, that he spatters his name everywhere. Granted it may help some foreign films get published abroad, but it gives the impression to people who are not wise of his antics that he actually had a hand in the film.
like this


I just feel he is abusing his position, and does not deserve a fraction of the credit people bestow on him. Especially considering the amount of quality directors around.
And Terry Gilliam is the man for standing up against him. I believe he said something to the effect of ' what is Tarantino going to do when he has to make real films'
im looking for the quote but i cant find it ;(,
hehe great guy tho
and a real director.

Chad ghostal

Karl Hungus wrote:

Natural Born Killers is a film that completely ripped off Badlands, which in turn was based on a true story, so considering Oliver Stone's re-writes, I doubt there was an inch of that film that could be attributed to Tarantino.

in fairness, natural born killers is quit close to the script tarantino wrote,
iv read the script and have seen both version of the movie, there are some big differences but at the same time there are alot of the original scenes and with similar tones in the script

and granted the badlands music was lifted, the characters have very little in common, neither does their trip accross country, its just a rip off of bonny and clide. .


i like tarantinos movies for what they are, i know theyr not new (for the most part in story or techniques), but theyr fun and have alot of style. Im not really bothered that he uses entire scenes from movies or even the whole story, he acknowledges it and talks about all of the films hes nicking stuff from, which introduces these films to people and brings these movies out again, so joe punchclock can get their hands on them again...

i consider most of the crap released today borrows heavily from other films, its just a constant bombardment of ****, stories slightly altered and spat out again, if you were to look at most films, you could tear them apart into stories and techniques used already, very few films these days have an ounce of originality to them..tarantino is just completly open about it..

you cant say that the current crop of asian horror movies dont borrow heavily from one another, (im not saying their crap btw)

ObeyGiant

The majority of the people who complain about Tarantino are those who tend to consider themselves better educated in film than the average multiplex-going public. They can immediately spot the Lady Snowblood references. They can see where he lifted a camera angle from. Or a piece of music. Or, or..

But there are a couple of things that these people forget, or perhaps conviently overlook. First is the fact that Tarantino is not an idiot (I know some people who will dispute this, but the man has managed to make many (woo! alliteration!) successful films, and is sitting on a pile of money I can't even begin to imagine the size of - not an idiot), and he must realise that there are people out there who will be able to spot these references. For example - do you think his putting the music from Lady Snowblood into Kill Bill was anything but a "clue"?

Which leads me to the second thing people forget. Although he lifts pieces from other movies, he lifts them from movies that the average mupltiplex-going public wouldn't have seen. This is his way of broadening their already limited horizons, and opening them up to new things that they might not see from other filmmakers.

Which brings me to the final thing that many people forget. And it's also the most important (and probably the one that's going to get most peoples' backs up) so pay attention. For those that consider themselves better educated in film than most (especially those under the age of 35) - Tarantino is at least partly responsible for your education. He has harped on and on and on about these movies that you are only discovering now. Case in point: in True Romance, he is telling everyone to check out Sonny Chiba, specifically Street Fighter and Son of Street Fighter. Japanese movies very few people would have heard of back in 1993. And now, when Sonny Chiba popped up in Kill Bill, didn't you go "Hey! It's Sonny Chiba!"? Thank Tarantino.

If this isn't convincing you enough - who do you think you have to thank for the increased availability of Asian movies in the west? Tarantino again. Now the average guy in the street can walk into his average DVD shop and pick up a copy of Lady Snowblood. No more talking to weird-smelling people in crazy shops, or importing over the internet.

Oh, and guess who's largely responsible for Hero's western release?

Go on, guess.

koneko

His films are highly enjoyable, that's all I care about. I think the constant Tarantino bashing is getting a little old :eek:

Dr. Loon

I agree wholeheartedly with ObeyGiant.
I like Tarantino's style, camerawork, dialogue and casting.

Angelwho... sorry Karl Hungus... do you ever stop yammering on about how he stole this that and everything? You're such an elitist.

I mean really. Every film, every piece of music, every book plot has been done before. Get over it.

lodgepole

Karl Hungus wrote:

A remake of Lady Snowblood with a few fleeting references to Bruce Lee by way of a yellow jumpsuit and some leg amputation is what you consider homage?

Come on, I presume you've seen both Lady Snowblood (i've only seen the first) and Kill Bill (i've seen both). Calling it a remake is entirely innacurate. A credit saying "inpsired by Lady Snowblood" may have been appropriate at the end, but there would have been a long list of films there. And if the jumpsuit and leg amputations are the only homages you noticed...

Natural Born Killers is a film that completely ripped off Badlands, which in turn was based on a true story, so considering Oliver Stone's re-writes, I doubt there was an inch of that film that could be attributed to Tarantino.

As someone else said the film is actually fairly close to the original script. But my point was referring directly to the scripts of both films since he didn't have a hand in the production of either film once the scripts were handed over. I would have a serious difficulty in describing the film as being a rip off of either Badlands or Bonnie & Clyde, they have similarities alright but they're hardly the same films.

Maybe this would be a good juncture to mention Roger Avery? I saw an advert in a magazine a while ago for Killing Zoe, and what did the advert say? "From the director of KILL BILL, Quentin Tarantino." That's what! And looking at play.com it's even spattered on the DVD itself. Furthermore, considering the downright pathetic nature of the dialogue in Kill Bill, we'd really have to wonder how much of the dialogue in Reservior Dogs and Pulp Fiction can be attributed to Avery?

Tarantino was one of the biggest directors in the world when Zoe came out. His role as executive producer is why it got made. Tarantino has nothing to do with the packaging of the DVD, but putting his name on it will sell more DVDs than putting Avary's name on it. That's a fact. The dialogue across all of Tarantino's films, except Kill Bill, is strikingly similar and Avary was involved with only two of them. True Romance, NBK, Jackie Brown and Four Rooms all have great dialogue and no sign of Avary.

bombidol

city on Fire is an awful awful movie though

Karl Hungus

The majority of the people who complain about Tarantino are those who tend to consider themselves better educated in film than the average multiplex-going public. They can immediately spot the Lady Snowblood references. They can see where he lifted a camera angle from. Or a piece of music. Or, or..

But there are a couple of things that these people forget, or perhaps conviently overlook. First is the fact that Tarantino is not an idiot (I know some people who will dispute this, but the man has managed to make many (woo! alliteration!) successful films, and is sitting on a pile of money I can't even begin to imagine the size of - not an idiot), and he must realise that there are people out there who will be able to spot these references. For example - do you think his putting the music from Lady Snowblood into Kill Bill was anything but a "clue"?

I think I'd like to point out that I never once called the man an idiot, in fact, I think he's an incredibly clever man. But the amount of money sitting in a persons bank account is hardly a measurement for a person's intelligence, and neither is their popularity/sucsess. I suppose by those standards, Micheal Bay is one of the greatest directors of our time? Or that Christina Agulera is a creating some truly challenging and original music? Or that George W. Bush is a sound politician who is truly working towards world peace?

To be quite honest, I'm suprised at you Obeygiant. I would have never thought you'd bring up such an obviously redundant arguement. But I suppose you are correct in one sense though, and that's the fact that lifting the music, camera angles, dialogue, even the yellow subtitles couldn't be anything other than clues. Maybe he's ****ing with the likes of me?

Which leads me to the second thing people forget. Although he lifts pieces from other movies, he lifts them from movies that the average mupltiplex-going public wouldn't have seen. This is his way of broadening their already limited horizons, and opening them up to new things that they might not see from other filmmakers.

Oh, I get you! Just because yer average joe hasn't seen what he lifts from, it's ok? I'm sorry, but that's just a nasty case of emu-syndrome right there, and it's nothing to be proud of. So if average joe comes along and thinks that Tarantino invented the car-boot shot, just because he hasn't seen it in anything else, I'd hardly consider that "Broadening their horizons" by any stretch of the imagination.

Which brings me to the final thing that many people forget. And it's also the most important (and probably the one that's going to get most peoples' backs up) so pay attention. For those that consider themselves better educated in film than most (especially those under the age of 35) - Tarantino is at least partly responsible for your education. He has harped on and on and on about these movies that you are only discovering now. Case in point: in True Romance, he is telling everyone to check out Sonny Chiba, specifically Street Fighter and Son of Street Fighter. Japanese movies very few people would have heard of back in 1993. And now, when Sonny Chiba popped up in Kill Bill, didn't you go "Hey! It's Sonny Chiba!"? Thank Tarantino.

You're perfectly right, that IS going to get peoples' backs up! Or at the very least, mine. I really can't imagine how you can have the gaul to speculate, ever mind state like it's fact, that Tarantino is in anyways responsible for my (Or anyone else's) education, nor that I'm only discovering such films now! So you'll forgive me if I shake my fist and shout "I don't owe him anything!" Frankly, if I owe my education in film to anyone, it would be Channel 4 during the night, and many a rental from xtra-vision, which funnily enough never used to have any problem stocking any films that I had an intrest in, be they obscure horror films, incredibly silly low-budget sci-fi or fantasy (Anyone remember Krull?), and yes, the odd martial arts film or hong kong thriller.

If this isn't convincing you enough - who do you think you have to thank for the increased availability of Asian movies in the west? Tarantino again. Now the average guy in the street can walk into his average DVD shop and pick up a copy of Lady Snowblood. No more talking to weird-smelling people in crazy shops, or importing over the internet.

Oh, and guess who's largely responsible for Hero's western release?

Go on, guess.

Now, as my aforementioned point covers most of this particular quote, I'll just point out two things. Firstly, is that I never had any bother going into a highstreet store, right here in galway, and picking up plenty of manga titles, or aforementioned kung-fu titles on VHS all those years ago. Again, I don't owe Tarantino anything! And secondly, considering a certain person's influence at Miramax, I wonder who was largely responsible for holding back the western release of Hero? Go on, guess! And lets not forget that when he got around to releasing Iron Monkey in the states, he completely re-edited it, and tagged on his name as producer! That's hardly the actions of someone who has any degree of respect for a film he's try to get seen.

Ok, so maybe if you lived in a rural part of the country, and you didn't have the channels, or you are in fact 12 years old, maybe you might think that Tarantino is solely responsible for the popularity of Asian films, and that it is only possible for the first time EVAR to see them now... But I can't really imagine that would be you, Obeygiant. So all I can see here is a ridiculous amount of hole-licking.

Come on, I presume you've seen both Lady Snowblood (i've only seen the first) and Kill Bill (i've seen both). Calling it a remake is entirely innacurate. A credit saying "inpsired by Lady Snowblood" may have been appropriate at the end, but there would have been a long list of films there. And if the jumpsuit and leg amputations are the only homages you noticed...

You're absolutely right there, Lodgepole... There's obviously tonnes more references and doses of homage than what I mentioned, and to be quite honest with you, when I saw the nod to Lucio Fulci in Volume 2, it really put a smile on my face. Hell, I love a good homage, or when I'm watching a film and there's a nod to another film or director, it really does give me a nice happy feeling. It's probably one of the reasons I love Shaun Of The Dead so much, it refences so many old zombie movies (And even newer ones) and it's probably the ultimate homage to a genre that I really do love. Perhaps that's why I hate Tarantino so much? I get the feeling with SotD that Wright and Pegg had a real love of the source material, whereas with Tarantino, I get the feeling that he treats his influences as something to be pilfered from at will, like a few lines of Dialogue from this film here, the storyline from that film there, music from those films... Do you get what I mean?

I'd disagree about the remake statement though. It's obvious that Kill Bill isn't a scene-for-scene remake of Lady Snowblood, but at the same time, neither are many other remakes. Lets take The Thing for example, which is probably the exception to the rule that of remakes being naff, but if you've seen the original film you'll know that bar the setting and the "Something" found in the ice plotline, it doesn't really bare that much of a resemblance to the original what so ever. So in that sense, I've no problem saying that Kill Bill is a remake, but you should understand that I don't mean to say that the film is a complete copy&paste job. It isn't, and I'll surely admit as much.

As someone else said the film is actually fairly close to the original script. But my point was referring directly to the scripts of both films since he didn't have a hand in the production of either film once the scripts were handed over. I would have a serious difficulty in describing the film as being a rip off of either Badlands or Bonnie & Clyde, they have similarities alright but they're hardly the same films.

Pretty much with my previous point, a film doesn't have to be word-for-word or scene-for-scene to be ripped off. Sure, it's a basic Bonnie & Clyde story, but Badlands is indeed based on true events, so perhaps the original killers that Badlands was based on (Starkweather, I beleive, don't know the girls name offhand though) had a Bonnie & Clyde thing going on, but you can't deny that Natural Born Killers was nothing more than a Sensationalist look at the exact same material, moreso Badlands than B&C.

Tarantino was one of the biggest directors in the world when Zoe came out. His role as executive producer is why it got made. Tarantino has nothing to do with the packaging of the DVD, but putting his name on it will sell more DVDs than putting Avary's name on it. That's a fact. The dialogue across all of Tarantino's films, except Kill Bill, is strikingly similar and Avary was involved with only two of them. True Romance, NBK, Jackie Brown and Four Rooms all have great dialogue and no sign of Avary.

Avery actually had a big hand in writing True Romance, just so you know. Now, as for Killing Zoe, as far as I know, Tarantino had absolutely nothing to do with the film being made whatsoever until, and he demanded his name be credited, so he was tagged on as 'Executive Producer' at the last minute, despite Avery being discredited for his work on Reservior Dogs, Pulp Fiction, and yes, True Romance.

Anyway, this has been a absolute brilliant discussion so far! And to be honest, hats of to you lads who put up a decent discussion, especially Obeygiant and Lodgepole. But lets not forget that this is a DISCUSSION board, so if you other people think it's not worth discussing, or that it's been said before, don't bother posting!

Fuhrio

Whats the problem with ripping off films (which i dont think he does too much) if people enjoy them?

Films are being remade constantly, whats wrong with onre more person doing it, especially if there doing it really really well?

ObeyGiant

Karl Hungus wrote:

I think I'd like to point out that I never once called the man an idiot

I know you didn't. And I didn't mean to imply that you had actually called him an idiot. But my point in this was merely to illustrate that he's smart enough to know that there are going to be people out there who will recognise each and every one of his references, and you do a great disservice to the man if you assume this is merely a case of him lifting things wholesale.

Karl Hungus wrote:

But the amount of money sitting in a persons bank account is hardly a measurement for a person's intelligence, and neither is their popularity/sucsess. I suppose by those standards, Micheal Bay is one of the greatest directors of our time? Or that Christina Agulera is a creating some truly challenging and original music? Or that George W. Bush is a sound politician who is truly working towards world peace?

Perhaps I should have explained myself better here. I know that there are plenty of people out there who have a ton of money, but absolutely nothing going on upstairs (*cough*parishilton*cough*), but I meant that he's made films that are both commercially and critically successful AND has a pile of money. Enough money that he doesn't have to obey any of the studios' rules, and can go off and make whatever films he likes. Do any of the people you mentioned have that power? This is the same reason I respect people like John Carpenter and George Lucas, no matter what kind of trash they put out now, they've used their smarts to be able to make the film they want to see. Audiences be damned.

Karl Hungus wrote:

So if average joe comes along and thinks that Tarantino invented the car-boot shot, just because he hasn't seen it in anything else, I'd hardly consider that "Broadening their horizons" by any stretch of the imagination.

I didn't quite mean it like this, because when people credit Tarantino with something that clearly isn't his, he'll immediately say "No way, that was done first in...". I also meant that he is bringing situations and set-ups to people that they would otherwise never actually see. Do you think Joe Mouthbreather would be able stand City on Fire? ("Subtitles? Is this supposed to be a film or a book?" would be the answer I'd expect) By taking elements from each of these films, he is able to expand their cultural horizons. Hokey as it sounds. A good example of this would be the sudden popularity of the mexican stand-off after Resevoir Dogs.

Karl Hungus wrote:

Frankly, if I owe my education in film to anyone, it would be Channel 4 during the night, and many a rental from xtra-vision

Of course, I didn't (necessarily) mean directly educated by Tarantino. I meant that Tarantino's harping on about certain films, or making certain genres popular, or telling people to check films out (listen to his commentary on True Romance, it's so funny.. every five minutes he mentions another film that the audience should check out) maybe convinced Channel 4 to show the films they did, and convinced Xtravision to stock the films they did and so on.

Karl Hungus wrote:

Firstly, is that I never had any bother going into a highstreet store, right here in galway, and picking up plenty of manga titles, or aforementioned kung-fu titles on VHS all those years ago.

Living in Dublin, and being a huge fan of Kung Fu movies as a child, I can safely say I never saw either Lady Snowblood, Street Fighter, or even any of the Lone Wolf and Cub movies for sale in any of the huge video shops back then. It wasn't until much later that I even found out these films existed. Are you saying that the availability of such films (i.e. any asian movie that doesn't star Bruce Lee or Jackie Chan) hasn't increased exponentially in the last few years? Until I was 15, my local Xtravision had a "kung fu" section that consisted of Enter the Dragon and Police Story.

Karl Hungus wrote:

I wonder who was largely responsible for holding back the western release of Hero? Go on, guess!

Oh boy. He's damned if he doesn't and he's damned if he does. Poor guy.

Karl Hungus wrote:

And lets not forget that when he got around to releasing Iron Monkey in the states, he completely re-edited it, and tagged on his name as producer! That's hardly the actions of someone who has any degree of respect for a film he's try to get seen.

This is common practice though. Look at George Lucas and Francis Ford Coppolla's name being put on Ran. Or on Powaqqatsi. It's not unusual for the person responsible for distributing a film of limited popularity to take a "producer" or "executive producer" role. Regarding the re-editing.. I haven't seen his version, but I can suggest that this was perhaps imposed on him by the studio, who tend to demand "localised" versions of such films.

Karl Hungus wrote:

maybe you might think that Tarantino is solely responsible for the popularity of Asian films, and that it is only possible for the first time EVAR to see them now

I never once said solely, although I did accidentally forget to add the words "partly responsible" to this part of my argument as I had the other. My apologies.

ObeyGiant

Karl Hungus wrote:

To be quite honest, I'm suprised at you Obeygiant. I would have never thought you'd bring up such an obviously redundant arguement.

For further evidence that this is not the point I was trying to make, I'd just like to point out that I'm, like, a genius. And I'm broke.

So clearly I didn't just mean "money = not an idiot".

Karl Hungus

ObeyGiant wrote:

I know you didn't. And I didn't mean to imply that you had actually called him an idiot. But my point in this was merely to illustrate that he's smart enough to know that there are going to be people out there who will recognise each and every one of his references, and you do a great disservice to the man if you assume this is merely a case of him lifting things wholesale.

Ok, that's cleared things up better. Though perhaps it's more that he knows quite well that average joe just doesn't care if he's a true genius or a complete plagiarist? I mean, I've seen fans parp on about Tarantino being oh-so original and then turn round the next minute and blow crap like "So what? Everyone else does it!" I suppose I hate that completely uncaring attitude, and two-faced approach as much as Tarantino himself aswell?

ObeyGiant wrote:

Perhaps I should have explained myself better here. I know that there are plenty of people out there who have a ton of money, but absolutely nothing going on upstairs (*cough*parishilton*cough*), but I meant that he's made films that are both commercially and critically successful AND has a pile of money. Enough money that he doesn't have to obey any of the studios' rules, and can go off and make whatever films he likes. Do any of the people you mentioned have that power? This is the same reason I respect people like John Carpenter and George Lucas, no matter what kind of trash they put out now, they've used their smarts to be able to make the film they want to see. Audiences be damned.

Again, much better cleared up, although you do still say "Commercial Sucsess" like it's such an important thing.
I would agree with you in principle about a director who has the money to do what they want, and an example I could give of a director I admire for doing just that is Guillermo Del Toro, who can do a film like Blade 2, pander to the masses with such a downright stupid movie, and yet create such a serious masterpeice like The Devil's Backbone. But as far as Tarantino goes, I think it's more because he has such a huge influence in Miramax itself that he can do what he wants, although at the same time, I wouldn't discredit the man for doing what he wants, just that I dislike what he wants.

ObeyGiant wrote:

I didn't quite mean it like this, because when people credit Tarantino with something that clearly isn't his, he'll immediately say "No way, that was done first in...". I also meant that he is bringing situations and set-ups to people that they would otherwise never actually see. Do you think Joe Mouthbreather would be able stand City on Fire? ("Subtitles? Is this supposed to be a film or a book?" would be the answer I'd expect) By taking elements from each of these films, he is able to expand their cultural horizons. Hokey as it sounds. A good example of this would be the sudden popularity of the mexican stand-off after Resevoir Dogs.

Maybe it's arrogant of me, or elitist... But just because a person wouldn't want to see a film, I don't beleive it should be aclimated to them. I mean, there would be absolutely no need to remake Citizen Cane just because there's an entire audience out there who wouldn't watch a film becuase it's in Black&White? I'd say it's their loss if they don't want to see a great film, and I wouldn't try and pander to them, nor would I praise anyone who would.

ObeyGiant wrote:

Of course, I didn't (necessarily) mean directly educated by Tarantino. I meant that Tarantino's harping on about certain films, or making certain genres popular, or telling people to check films out (listen to his commentary on True Romance, it's so funny.. every five minutes he mentions another film that the audience should check out) maybe convinced Channel 4 to show the films they did, and convinced Xtravision to stock the films they did and so on.

Now, I'm not talking about Channel 4 currently showing films, nor Xtravision currently stocking them, I'm talking about years and years ago, when Tarantino was only a budding film-maker, and the ideas of a DVD commentary were just a twinkle is some director's eye. I seriously don't beleive that he had such all-encompassing influence back then. Hell, I was only about 12 and I loved taping movies off the TV that my parents had no idea about, or renting a film they never heard of so they wouldn't get uppity and think "That's too violent" because of some gossip they'd heard.

ObeyGiant wrote:

Living in Dublin, and being a huge fan of Kung Fu movies as a child, I can safely say I never saw either Lady Snowblood, Street Fighter, or even any of the Lone Wolf and Cub movies for sale in any of the huge video shops back then. It wasn't until much later that I even found out these films existed. Are you saying that the availability of such films (i.e. any asian movie that doesn't star Bruce Lee or Jackie Chan) hasn't increased exponentially in the last few years? Until I was 15, my local Xtravision had a "kung fu" section that consisted of Enter the Dragon and Police Story.

Now I'm not saying that the availability of the films hasn't increased, or that you could walk into any film store and get anything you wanted. But I'm saying that it wasn't impossible before, and it's not because of Tarantino that films get so much publicity. You seem to be ignoring the advent of the internet having a sway on this, being able to purchase films over the internet, and of course, the advent of DVD, all this meaning that just about everything you can imagine is more easily heard of, and can be gotten far easier than before. Again, I really have to say that I still don't owe Tarantino anything, and you're greatly over-playing his influence on such matters.

ObeyGiant wrote:

Oh boy. He's damned if he doesn't and he's damned if he does. Poor guy.

Not damned if he doesn't/does at all, but considering the massive sucsess of Crouching Tiger in the US, you really do have to wonder why the hell Hero was kept at bay for so long?

ObeyGiant wrote:

This is common practice though. Look at George Lucas and Francis Ford Coppolla's name being put on Ran. Or on Powaqqatsi. It's not unusual for the person responsible for distributing a film of limited popularity to take a "producer" or "executive producer" role. Regarding the re-editing.. I haven't seen his version, but I can suggest that this was perhaps imposed on him by the studio, who tend to demand "localised" versions of such films.

That's a completely different kettle of fish altogether there, and you should know that. Lucas and Coppolla put up a great deal of money for Kurosawa to make Kagemusha and Ran after his incredible dry patch and attempted suicide in the 70's. They both offered a great deal of support for him, whereas Tarantino had absolutely nothing to do with Iron Monkey whatsoever! And despite your own admiration for Tarantino as a director who had the money and influence to do what he wanted, you're making some suprising excuses there, and I don't beleive for one second that a man with such huge inluence on a company like Miramax wouldn't re-edit a film unless he wanted to in the first place.

ObeyGiant wrote:

I never once said solely, although I did accidentally forget to add the words "partly responsible" to this part of my argument as I had the other. My apologies.

Alright so, but I still don't beleive he's had as much of an influence as you're making out.

ObeyGiant wrote:

For further evidence that this is not the point I was trying to make, I'd just like to point out that I'm, like, a genius. And I'm broke.

So clearly I didn't just mean "money = not an idiot".

Ok, I get your point, you broke genius you.

ObeyGiant

Karl Hungus wrote:

an example I could give of a director I admire for doing just that is Guillermo Del Toro

I would argue against Del Toro as an example of this, because he still very much works for the studio. I was trying to give examples of directors that made the studio work for them. But he's close enough.

Karl Hungus wrote:

I mean, there would be absolutely no need to remake Citizen Cane just because there's an entire audience out there who wouldn't watch a film becuase it's in Black&White?

It's apples and oranges.
Kane is arguably the most famous Western film of all time, and by virtue of this fact, is easy for people to get their hands on, should they want to. The films I am talking about are harder for people to get their hands on, and also suffer from the fact that they aren't as immediately accessible to a western audience as Kane.

Karl Hungus wrote:

You seem to be ignoring the advent of the internet having a sway on this, being able to purchase films over the internet, and of course, the advent of DVD

I'm not ignoring it. These are also major factors contributing to the success of Asian cinema in the west. Possibly the two largest factors. I've been trying to qualify my statements about Tarantino's influence over western audiences by using terms such as "partly". Which is how I feel. And since you're offering an indignant "Well, not me!", it appears we've reached a stalemate.

Karl Hungus wrote:

Not damned if he doesn't/does at all, but considering the massive sucsess of Crouching Tiger in the US, you really do have to wonder why the hell Hero was kept at bay for so long?

Well, wonder no more:

Talk of the cuts and the delay in bringing the film to American theaters fed rumors that Miramax wasn't happy with the film. But both Miramax and Mr. Zhang say that was never true and that technical factors alone were responsible for the delay. (In Variety today, Harvey Weinstein, the co-chairman of Miramax, wrote a guest column recounting his firm's differences with the Chinese distributors of "Hero" and other obstacles to the "full Oscar push" he says he had planned for it.)

(from the NYTimes)

Karl Hungus wrote:

I don't beleive for one second that a man with such huge inluence on a company like Miramax wouldn't re-edit a film unless he wanted to in the first place.

The same NYTimes article speaks about how Miramax convinced Zhang Yimou to "cut 20 minutes to speed the pace and make it more palatable for American audiences." The article mentions the studio specifically, not Tarantino. Although he's rich enough to be able to make the kind of films he wants to make, he's not rich enough to distribute the kinds of films he wants to distribute. He only has enough influence in Miramax to convince them to distribute the type of films he wants them to distribute - but the studio will distribute them the studio's way.

nadir

what a thread.

=^..^=

Karl Hungus

ObeyGiant wrote:

It's apples and oranges.
Kane is arguably the most famous Western film of all time, and by virtue of this fact, is easy for people to get their hands on, should they want to. The films I am talking about are harder for people to get their hands on, and also suffer from the fact that they aren't as immediately accessible to a western audience as Kane.

Well, Kane is obviously just an example, I could have easily said The Elephant Man, or any B&W film.

ObeyGiant wrote:

I'm not ignoring it. These are also major factors contributing to the success of Asian cinema in the west. Possibly the two largest factors. I've been trying to qualify my statements about Tarantino's influence over western audiences by using terms such as "partly". Which is how I feel. And since you're offering an indignant "Well, not me!", it appears we've reached a stalemate.

Hmm... Sorry about that, but that wasn't exactly how I meant it at all. I'm using myself here as an example, rather than trying to be unmoveable on the subject by saying "I don't owe him anything" so from now on, I'll avoid using that, at least for the sake of breaking the stalemate.

Here's a better example...
I found out about Ringu because of none other than our very own boardsie here, and I found out about an awful lot of movies because of the internet. In fact, I can't think of a film I've not heard about because of the internet right now, and seeing as I now buy most of my films from the internet, I have to say that personally that is the biggest influence on how I heard about films, and how I go about seeing film(I pretty much don't go to the cinema anymore). Many a year ago, it was taping films off TV, namely channel 4 who showed an amazing variety of films.

Now, as I see it, with intrest growing in Asian Cinema, Tarantino suddenly comes along with a film with a very Asian leaning (I won't call it a rip off for this example, and aside from Reservior Dogs being based on a Hong Kong film, there's nothing particularly asian tinged about it that any average movie goer can pick up on) and I see that as nothing more than pandering to an already growing market.

You say Tarantino has a part in making Asian cinema more popular? You might be partly right, and yes perhaps after seeing Kill Bill the average punter might go and check out a Bruce Lee movie to see where that famous Yellow Jumpsuit came more, but I can't see that having any more of an influence than someone who just saw the Italian Job remake and might want to check out the original.

But I'd far sooner credit a company like www.hongkonglegends.co.uk and the internet for creating the intrest and market that Kill Bill pandered to.

Anyway, hope that's a better arguement than the "Not me" one.

ObeyGiant wrote:

Well, wonder no more:

Whoops, now I wonder even more!
"Technical Factors" eh?
Gotta love a nice vague answer like that.

ObeyGiant wrote:

The same NYTimes article speaks about how Miramax convinced Zhang Yimou to "cut 20 minutes to speed the pace and make it more palatable for American audiences." The article mentions the studio specifically, not Tarantino. Although he's rich enough to be able to make the kind of films he wants to make, he's not rich enough to distribute the kinds of films he wants to distribute. He only has enough influence in Miramax to convince them to distribute the type of films he wants them to distribute - but the studio will distribute them the studio's way.

On this point I'll have to stop you, and say BAULDERDASH! You should know that Tarantino own his own distribution firm, Rolling Thunder, which incidentally he released Iron Monkey with, so it's completely within his power to distribute what he wants and leave it the way it's supposed to be!

ObeyGiant

Karl Hungus wrote:

Well, Kane is obviously just an example, I could have easily said The Elephant Man, or any B&W film.

I'd love to make a point about a better example asking a question of how many average westerners (and by this I mean the people who have seen Kane) have also seen the Magnificent Ambersons, Welles' next-most-amazing movie. But I'd much rather rush into my next part than develop this into something we could chew on. So let's ignore it for now.

Karl Hungus wrote:

Whoops, now I wonder even more!
"Technical Factors" eh?
Gotta love a nice vague answer like that.

I did a bit of searching for Harvey Weinstein's actual Variety column. Here's what I found (boy is it a doozy.. I wish I'd found it earlier)

Scaling the Chinese Wall

The success of "Hero" this past weekend, the biggest opening weekend ever for an Asian film, underscores Miramax's long-term commitment to Asian cinema. Many people have asked why we didn't release "Hero" until just over a year and a half after its Chinese release. I'd like to set the record straight.

We have released films from several of the great masters of Chinese cinema - Chen Kaige's "Farewell My Concubine," Yuen Woo-Ping's "Iron Monkey," Wong Kar-Wai's "Chunking Express" and Zhang Yimou's "Ju Dou," the first Chinese- language film ever nominated for the Oscar. We have released the most successful Japanese film in this country, "Shall We Dance" and we gave the first major U.S. release to a Japanese anime film. Hayao Miyazaki's "Princess Mononoke."

My own personal love affair with Asian cinema began well over a decade ago when I read Dave Kehr in the Chicago Tribune and Jay Carr in the Boston Globe describe Asian film series at repertory houses. I began tracking down these films and watching them.

But my real education in Asian cinema began when I met Quentin Tarantino, whose own love affair with these films is well known. Just as later, Marty Scorsese taught me about the great silent films and films from the '30s and '40s when we were making "Gangs of New York," Quentin gave me a master's knowledge of Asian cinema from Jackie Chan to Jet Li to Tsui Hark and King Hu. Every Saturday night, the prints would come to my screening room. Then to cap it all off, I met Sir Run Run Shaw and had a wonderful conversation with him about the Golden Age of Hong Kong cinema.

When I was offered the opportunity to co-produce and co-finance "Hero," and work with a director I have admired immensely since I saw "Ju Dou" in a cubicle in the basement of the Cannes Palais in 1990, I jumped at the chance.

I am very proud that our sizable investment in the film ensured that his magnificent vision would come to life. We envisioned a marketing campaign similar to that of "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon," with a full Oscar push. (And the great reviews the film has received show that our initial inclinations were correct.)

However, when the film was almost completed, we got some disappointing news. It was impossible for us to release the film at the end of 2002 (we weren't even delivered the film until December). But the producers had decided to release the film for one week at the end of October 2002 to qualify if for the Oscars. This was now going to make the film ineligible in all categories in the 2003 Oscar race if "Hero" was nominated in 2002 for foreign-language film (which it was).

Our strategy of giving the film a full Oscar push was impossible. Then we hit another roadblock. We scheduled the film in August 2003, but the Jackie Chan starrer "The Medallion" moved onto our date. We knew it was imperative to distance the film from any other martial-arts films. We needed to be alone in the marketplace. At this point, Quentin Tarantino stepped in and offered to present the film and suggested we attach the trailer to "Kill Bill" Vols. 1 and 2, both in theatrical release and in home video release. This gave us a unique opportunity to hit the perfect audience for "Hero" several times and Quentin's generous offer to present the film gave the film a commercial stamp of approval.

Some people have suggested that the availability of illegal imports of "Hero" on the Internet would have an effect on the box office. Clearly this was not the case and in fact our surveys showed that few audience members had seen the film on DVD. We have successfully cracked down on this practice, and have kept the sales of these DVDs to a few hundred enterprising Asian film fans. Piracy is a hugely important issue for our business and I realize now that concerns about piracy in China may have led the producers to release the film as soon as it was completed.

We have always tried to be innovators at Miramax. When we released a restored version of Yuen Woo-Ping's kung-fu classic "Iron Monkey" in the fall of 2001 it was almost 10 years old and we knew that some DVDs had been available before we purchased the rights.

Our innovations have not always worked. One of our less successful ventures was the U.S. release of "Shaolin Soccer." After I watched "Shaolin Soccer" with no subtitles and a woman translating in my ear, we bought worldwide rights excluding Hong Kong and shortly thereafter released the film all over Asia and then in most of Europe. We released a dubbed version in France and Italy and successfully reached a family audience, doing $3.4 million and $1.5 million, respectively. We spent considerable time and money creating a dubbed version for a domestic release. Once it was completed, we tested it in several markets and discovered that something wasn't working for American family audiences, and so we released the film subtitled to appeal to the Asian film fan core here.

Inspired by the bravery of filmmakers like Zhang Yimou and Chen Kaige, who make films under sometimes adverse conditions, my commitment to innovation in Asian cinema remains strong. I have always tried to expand the boundaries of film and broaden the audience for non-Hollywood fare, not ghettoize it. This fall, Miramax will release "Infernal Affairs," the first of a celebrated three-part series. My dream is to restore and release one of my favorite Asian films, King Hu's "Touch of Zen." I don't care that it is widely available on DVD. I want to do this because it is a good thing to do to.

Every step in this brave new world of bringing Asian cinema to a wide commercial audience is an experiment. Sometimes there are missteps as with "Shaolin Soccer." Sometimes there are giant steps as with "Hero." Despite the challenges, we were committed to "Hero's" brave filmmakers, Zhang Yimou and producer Bill Kong, who envisioned this huge artistic achievement. We had confidence in our plan and didn't talk publicly about the hurdles we had had to overcome.

Credit should be given to Bob Iger at Disney who got behind the film with the promotional support of ABC and ESPN and most of all to Quentin Tarantino, who more than anyone, deserves credit for opening American audiences to the excitement and artistry of Asian cinema.

My favourite bit, naturally, being where Harvey Weinstein.. Hollywood Mogul (whatever that means, but it sounds impressive) says "But my real education in Asian cinema began when I met Quentin Tarantino". If I'd seen this earlier, I could have crushed you.

On this point I'll have to stop you, and say BAULDERDASH! You should know that Tarantino own his own distribution firm, Rolling Thunder, which incidentally he released Iron Monkey with, so it's completely within his power to distribute what he wants and leave it the way it's supposed to be!

I genuinely did not know this. As much as I might be giving the impression that I'm a huge Tarantino fan, I'm not. Apart from True Romance and From Dusk Till Dawn, nothing he's been involved with has really blown me away. So that's news to me.

Karl Hungus

ObeyGiant wrote:

I did a bit of searching for Harvey Weinstein's actual Variety column. Here's what I found (boy is it a doozy.. I wish I'd found it earlier)

My favourite bit, naturally, being where Harvey Weinstein.. Hollywood Mogul (whatever that means, but it sounds impressive) says "But my real education in Asian cinema began when I met Quentin Tarantino". If I'd seen this earlier, I could have crushed you.

Perhaps it's crude of me to say this, but are you actually naive enough to beleive such spin? That's nothing more than testimant to the fact that history is written by the winners.

It's nice to read such heart-warming pap, and think that Harvey Weinstein cares, but for crying out do you actually beleive it!? Sure, he might get a bit lovey-dovey talking about the films he released, like Princess Mononoke, but the sad truth about it is that director Miyazaki had to seriously fight to get his film released without being cut down and re-edited.

Oh how nice of him to release Shaolin Soccer. Whoops, did he fail to mention that the version he released was chopped up with about 20 minutes shaved off the film? No? Course he didn't! Because his column is pure spin! Something to tell saps who might otherwise think that he's not being entirely honest.

Love the way he says a "Restored" version of Iron Monkey! Really might make you think that the film is getting some kind of Star Wars-esque "Restoring" instead of the shamefull truth that is the cutting of the film.

Oh, but if you don't want to take my word for it that Miramax isn't the big nice-nice company that's being made out in Harveys oh-so caring column, then have a look at this article from Kungfucinema.com:

Miramax Serves Us Notice!
by Mark Pollard

2003.12.08 - Left under my doormat today was a curt cease and desist order by Miramax Films in regards to the unlawful sale of import versions of Zhang Yimou's Hero. As regular readers will know, Kung Fu Cinema does not sell any films. We write about them. But apparently, linking to sites that do sell imports is an accessory to crime. Not only that, it has been made clear that, in Miramax's case, any individual caught importing a film into the U.S. that is owned by Miramax could face legal action. In other words, Miramax is actively enforcing a total ban on all Asian imports that they have purchased distribution rights to. As a result, you (as an American or Canadian resident) are not allowed to have Hero or Shaolin Soccer shipped to you or carried into the U.S. and Canada.

This is, of course absurd in my mind, but I am not foolhardy enough to challenge the might of Miramax and parent company Disney. Also, I acknowledge their legal right to protect a property they have invested in. It's simply sound business. But withholding the release of films they have purchased, heavily editing them, and not making the original versions available to Americans in any form and then expecting us to idly wait and quietly accept this is equally absurd.

All Miramax is doing is encouraging less-scrupulous people to seek illegal alternatives like file swapping and bootlegs. Take for example Shaolin Soccer. I was recently interviewed by Wired.com for an article built around the fact that Shaolin Soccer was the 10th most downloaded film in illegal file swapping communities online. This is the film that Miramax bought rights to about two years ago, fumbled with, altered, changed released dates, and still sits on today. I used to say, "well at least people can order it overseas." Now, all I can say is, "what the f--k?"

While I never appreciated what Miramax has done with their Asian film properties, I always felt that at least the imports provided an obscure, yet viable alternative for consumers. But now, Miramax is trying to take it all away with their immoral monopoly on these films. And the people who appreciate them the most and are most willing to put down their hard-earned cash are being hurt the most.

I say shame on Harvey Weinstein and shame on Miramax for their culturally inept handling of Asian films and their despotic abuse of the legal system to suppress the people's right to simply see a film the way the makers' intended it to be seen.

If this bothers you as much as it does me, there is definitely something you can do about it. Sign the online petition and send your letters to Miramax and let them know what you think of their handling of these films. Keep in mind that a well-written and respectful letter will have much more impact than an offensive rant. Visit the Appeal to Disney - Web Alliance for more information.

Or how about the 13000 or so names that signed this petition to cease re-editing asian films.

This is just two examples I found, and omg, maybe I'm not reading this right, but is Harvey Weinstein blocking people from even seeing certain films that he wants to re-edit? You know, I think it might look like that! And one would really wonder what sort of a person (Who cares so deeply about asian cinema ) would do something like that? Perhaps a man that author Peter Biskind desribes in his book Down And Dirty Pictures: Miramax, Sundance, and The Rise Of The Independant Film as "A man who will seduce with one hand, then administer a bloody beating with the other."

Hell, look at some of the related articles in the kungfucinema.com article! They're quite shocking.

Lets not forget how Mr. Weinstein probably sees a hell of a lot more films than you, or I each year, so for him, it's very easy to make such name-drops. But to be quite honest you're a fool if you think that the article is nothing more than his counter to the large number of websites and petitioners who are outraged at his treatment of asian films.

So, as we come to your lovely point of how Tarantino educated Weinstein about Asian cinema, I can't imagine how you yourself could swallow such blatant spin, Obeygiant. I'd never think you as so naive.

You're actually trying to prove your point of Tarantino being partly respsonible for the popularity of Asian cinema with an example of a man who has blatantly held back the release of Hero so it wouldn't interfere with Tarantino's prescious Kill Bill. May I make mention of Tarantino's influence with Miramax, and specifically, Weinstein again, or has my point been made?

Just in case it hasn't been proved... It's pretty well known that Hero was once slated for a release on April 16th of this year, but when Kill Bill Vol.2 was put back from it's date in February to the aforementioned date of April 16th, Hero was also put back to the date it was finally released in August. And please, by all means google the dates and see for yourself! Now if you want to beleive the ****e that Weinstein has spewed, then by all means, go ahead! But if you've any semblage of sense, it's damn well clear that Hero was held back from it's release constantly in order not to interfere with Kill Bill, Tarantino's influence with Miramax and the sheer amount of money he made for the company is the defining factor here, and this clearly shows that QT is NOT responsible for Hero's western release, but that it was CLEARLY held back on his account!

So please, if you honestly think you've "Crushed" me by copy&pasting that lump of gob****e column from Weinstein, and buying into that rubbish, you've seriously got some delusions. Crushed me? You've given me far more solid evidence that Tarantino is a prick and that his influence on the popularity of asian cinema is nothing unless it suits the commercial gain of his own film.

lodgepole

Karl Hungus wrote:

when I saw the nod to Lucio Fulci in Volume 2, it really put a smile on my face.

Avery actually had a big hand in writing True Romance, just so you know. Now, as for Killing Zoe, as far as I know, Tarantino had absolutely nothing to do with the film being made whatsoever until, and he demanded his name be credited, so he was tagged on as 'Executive Producer' at the last minute, despite Avery being discredited for his work on Reservior Dogs, Pulp Fiction, and yes, True Romance.

I didn't actually spot the Fuilci moment in Vol 2, where exactly was it? I'm a massive zombie/cannibal/gore film fanatic so i'm surprised that I didn't...

I wasn't aware that Avary had anything to do with the writing of True Romance, where did you read that he had? The executive producer title is one that gets thrown around a lot, and really means nothing. Like I said earlier given Tarantino's standing at the time I wouldn't have been surprised if the producers behind Zoe offered him the title if he was willing to put his name to it. Again, where did you read that about the film? I'd be interested to read it.



To my knowledge, Hero was released uncut (not for violence but for time), because of Tarantino. I can imagine it's release being delayed so as not to go up against Vol 2, but I don't imagine that he wanted an altered version put out. Say what you will about Tarantino the director/writer/producer, he's twice the film fan any one of us is and I get the impression that many of us in this conversation really ****ing dig film.

My copy of Iron Monkey is a Chinese DVD so I don't know what Miramax finally released but again, what I heard was that it was Tarantino who pushed the film to be released unedited. The same goes for Hero, since I imported mine from yesasia.com.

The Princess Mononoke fiasco was 100% Disney, nothing to do with Miramax. IMO, Miramax did a ****ing splendid job with the English dubbing of the film. The quality of the dubbing allowed it to be seen by a far wider audience, brutal dubbing being the reason that a large amount of asian animation is laughed at in the west (by the cinema going public).




I'll feel more confident about getting stuck into this conversation tomorrow when it isn't three thirty, so i'll leave the rest until then...

ykt0di9url7bc3

AngelWhore wrote:

So please, if you honestly think you've "Crushed" me by copy&pasting that lump of gob****e column from Weinstein, and buying into that rubbish, you've seriously got some delusions. Crushed me? You've given me far more solid evidence that Tarantino is a prick and that his influence on the popularity of asian cinema is nothing unless it suits the commercial gain of his own film.

So what if Tarantino wants to remake another film for whatever his reasons, a lot of people like his style and will pay money to see it...

Holding back the release of Hero is straight up economics *whinge* *whine* you gotta live with it...

and you cannot deny that Kill Bill will have an good influence for any viewer from an isolationist American culture that wishes to view similiar titles and may delve into the hongkonglegends...

as for signing a petition to halt remakes of popular Aisan titles pfft, they probably are having the same arguement over some Aisan director remaking "War of the Buttons" being set in china as it detracts from the original...if Tarantino hadnt done it, then some one else would have..

having seen Ringu, I actually looked forward to the American remake and was pleasantly surprized and happy with it, this now means I'm an uncultured brainless **** that should have his eyes burned away with acid... :roll-****ing-ears:

The amount of bashing western directors receive for re-making films is unjustified, I myself see it as a person with a creative spark wanting to share something he\she likes in a medium that their audiences can apreciate...we can only wait until we see the film to make up our own minds about it...

I wonder AW, would you object to an Aisan remake of "The good, the bad, the ugly"? I wouldnt, even knowing that they could never replicate the magic\acting\music of that film...let them see what it is and maybe they might see more of Leone's work...

Are you a little upset that QT has done well from his work while the isolationist american culture hasnt fully embraced Aisan cinema?

lodgepole

Emberly Plain Searcher wrote:

I wonder AW, would you object to an Asian remake of "The good, the bad, the ugly"? I wouldnt, even knowing that they could never replicate the magic\acting\music of that film...let them see what it is and maybe they might see more of Leone's work...

Ironically the first part of the Dollars trilogy, A Fistfull of Dollars, was a remake of the Akira Kurosawa film Yojimbo.

ObeyGiant

Karl Hungus wrote:

Perhaps it's crude of me to say this, but are you actually naive enough to beleive such spin? That's nothing more than testimant to the fact that history is written by the winners.

Now, maybe it's the two hours of sleep I managed to get tonight. Or maybe it's the fact that you have ceased to make sense as anything other than a jilted fanboy bordering on conspiracy theory nut who is apparently unable to see the business logic or business sense in anything Miramax does. Or maybe it's because you failed to see my "crush you" line as anything but a joke. One or the other, I think I've finally lost my patience.

Karl Hungus wrote:

Oh how nice of him to release Shaolin Soccer. Whoops, did he fail to mention that the version he released was chopped up with about 20 minutes shaved off the film? No? Course he didn't!

When I read his line "We spent considerable time and money creating a dubbed version for a domestic release", this is exactly what I understood from it. I didn't think that the "considerable time and money" was spent making sure they got the top voice-actors and those voice actors nailed their lines first time. I read it as: we created a version of Shaolin Soccer that would appeal to a general American audience.

And from an economic standpoint, it makes sense. If you've paid money to distribute a film, and think it's got a good chance of mainstream success (he specifically mentions "family audience") with a little "tweaking", why not? Remember, they are a business with profit margins and shareholders to appease.

Karl Hungus wrote:

Love the way he says a "Restored" version of Iron Monkey! Really might make you think that the film is getting some kind of Star Wars-esque "Restoring" instead of the shamefull truth that is the cutting of the film.

Likewise.

Karl Hungus wrote:

Oh, but if you don't want to take my word for it that Miramax isn't the big nice-nice company that's being made out in Harveys oh-so caring column, then have a look at this article

I'd like to know how this is any different to when Harvey actually states in his column "Some people have suggested that the availability of illegal imports of 'Hero' on the Internet would have an effect on the box office. ... We have successfully cracked down on this practice". As my understanding of Irish Law (I'm assuming it's the same in America, since their laws are now much more draconian), when you import a DVD from abroad, you are in fact breaking the law. Those "Not for sale or rental in .." warnings? They actually mean something, and they're not just there for retailers who might get confused. This gives distributors a legal leg to stand on when it comes to pursuing people who "illegally import" works they have already bought the rights to.

Like Hero.

Most times this isn't upheld by the distributor, because they're willing to turn a blind eye to the practice, because they don't have big plans for the movie. But when they do, they're well within their rights to enforce this. Why didn't Miramax start clamping down on imports of Shaolin Soccer? Because they weren't trying to help it win an oscar, just score some money with a wide crowd (a "family audience", he states).

Karl Hungus wrote:

Or how about the 13000 or so names that signed this petition to cease re-editing asian films

This is almost completely irrelevant. I might as well post about the 9000 schmucks who want another season of Charmed. Perhaps I'm just overly cynical, but whenever I see an on-line petition, I sneer heartily.

Karl Hungus wrote:

This is just two examples I found, and omg, maybe I'm not reading this right, but is Harvey Weinstein blocking people from even seeing certain films that he wants to re-edit? You know, I think it might look like that! And one would really wonder what sort of a person (Who cares so deeply about asian cinema ) would do something like that?

One who, omg, is running a business and, omg, says that he's "trying to bring Asian cinema to a wide commercial audience".

Perhaps you don't understand what is meant by this. It means that he knows there's money to be made from Asian cinema if he can just find the way to make it appeal to everyone and not just the art-house movie crowd or people who will blindly love all Asian cinema. Hollywood has known this for a long time, but hasn't yet managed to find out exactly how - look at its botched attempts to market Jackie Chan, Jet Li and Chow Yun Fat to an American audience.

Put yourself in his shoes. You've got a load of money (but not enough that you can afford to make too many mistakes), a bunch of shareholders breathing down your neck, and a love (and a knowledge) of Asian cinema that you want to turn into a moneymaking venture. Do you do it by releasing films that, as they stand, appeal to a very limited market (I only have to see my own results of showing people Shaolin Soccer to see how limited its market is)? Or do you do it by taking these films and localise them to make them appeal to a wider market. You lose a little "artistic integrity" (but that's easy to fake), but will be bringing in a proper Return On Investment and making Asian cinema more readily available to the public, in some form.

Being one of the producers of Hero during its development, Miramax were able to enforce their changes from the start, which is something Zhang Yimou was open to because he too wanted (needed!) the film to appeal to a wide audience. And this move has gotten the film to the top of the American box office and a full-page ad in Variety from Jet Li, thanking Tarantino and Miramax for what they did to make the film so successful.

Please, do not try to turn this particular point around into somehow being another example of Tarantino and Weinstein using their malevolent powers to stop you from seeing the film you wanted to see. If you utter the words "If they really loved Asian cinema, they wouldn't have enforced those changes!", I will first COMPLETELY LOSE MY SHIT, and then I will point out how unbelievably ridiculous and naive you are being.

Just so you know.

Karl Hungus wrote:

I can't imagine how you yourself could swallow such blatant spin, Obeygiant. I'd never think you as so naive.

And this is the third time you've wrongly used this particular device with me in this thread, Karl Hungus. I can't believe you'd go for the hat trick.

Karl Hungus wrote:

Just in case it hasn't been proved... It's pretty well known that Hero was once slated for a release on April 16th of this year, but when Kill Bill Vol.2 was put back from it's date in February to the aforementioned date of April 16th, Hero was also put back to the date it was finally released in August. And please, by all means google the dates and see for yourself!

Karl Hungus wrote:

it's damn well clear that Hero was held back from it's release constantly in order not to interfere with Kill Bill

Remember what I said earlier about "jilted fanboy"? This is what really nailed that home for me. You seem shocked that they pushed back the release of Hero in marketplace crowded with "kung-fu movies". Even more so that they favoured releasing Kill Bill Volume 2 instead of Hero. Weinstein himself gives the reason for this ("We needed to be alone in the marketplace"), and releasing it after Kill Bill Vol 2? Well, simple.. by placing the trailer for Hero before both Kill Bill 1 and 2, they managed to create a 'buzz' about the movie that helped it achieve the kind of success with American audiences it already has. Weinstein again mentions this, in plain English, if you can see past your impetulent rage. Hell, he states plain as day, that he's doing everything he can to give Hero favourable conditions for winning an Oscar.

Karl Hungus wrote:

You've given me far more solid evidence that Tarantino is a prick and that his influence on the popularity of asian cinema is nothing unless it suits the commercial gain of his own film.

With one sentence, you've just proved that you're actually incapable of listening to reason when it comes to Quentin Tarantino, Miramax, or even the economics of movie-making. Nice going, bro.

ObeyGiant

Quotes that I'm hoping will help Karl Hungus see reason:

"I think fans will find that the few changes to the original are all for the better. Some fight scenes have been tightened up just a bit and only serve to make the story move with more precision and intensity."

-- Yuen Woo-Ping on the changes to Iron Monkey.

"I had to fight for it with Miramax. I think they lost faith in it and everything. And I thought that Hero was an absolute masterpiece, so I fought with them not to cut it. Not to bring it down, but to keep it the same length as when I saw it. And finally they agreed if I would present it. So I got in touch with Zhang Yimou and he was cool with that. Yeah, he was as happy as a clam. So that's what I am doing—it's pretty much what I did for Iron Monkey."

-- Tarantino talking about Hero in Fangoria Magazine

damien

Oh look, another thread started by Karl Hungus to advertise to the masses that he knows stuff about films.

You did the same crap in the music forum for ages. Putting yourself high up on a shaky pedestal but ObeyGiant has easily knocked you off it.

ixoy

Emberly Plain Searcher wrote:

and you cannot deny that Kill Bill will have an good influence for any viewer from an isolationist American culture that wishes to view similiar titles and may delve into the hongkonglegends...

Exactly. The majority of people on this film boards, and in particular those in this thread, are completely unrepresentative of the average film goer. The average movie-per-head count in a year is, if I remember, about 3.8. Out of those movies they're generally going to go for what they know, what's familiar. That is not going to include some obscure movie they won't hear about unless it's pushed forward in a mainstream medium, such as Kill Bill.

Proof required? There's a study here about a selected group of US cinema-goers. Choice point is:

However, these participants, like US moviegoers in general, had much less frequent exposure to non-US films. Nine percent of the participants saw a non-US film once a month, and 51% of the participants estimated they saw at least two a year. Many of these films are likely to have come from Great Britain or Australia, as is indicated by the relative rarity of viewing subtitled movies. Six percent saw a subtitled or dubbed film at least once a month, 28% estimated they saw two a year.

28% is a very low number. There is, whether you like it or not, an aversion to seeing subtitled movies relating to cultures they don't automatically identify with (see the study I provided). To help people overcome this, I think it's fantastic that the likes of Tarantino can introduce audiences to these. For these producers, working on budget miniscule next to Hollywood, this is advertising that dreams are made of. You can talk all you like about the Internet as a medium, but to actually go to the likes of kungulegend you have to be aware of it in the first place. Tarantino, more than any other, is helping introduce a whole new audience. Other praise must go to Gore Verbinski for his 'Ringu' remake which will introduce audiences to Hideo Nakata's works, and his contemporaries, in such flicks as 'Dark Water' and 'Ju On' where viewers will be encouraged to see the originals of movies that they'd never otherwise see.

What's most humorous really about this is the fact Tarantino, and others, are widening the fanbase for Asian movies. Regardless of whether you like the movies, shouldn't you be happy more people are getting to see them? Or is it losing its underground appeal?

ykt0di9url7bc3

Lodgepole wrote:

Ironically the first part of the Dollars trilogy, A Fistfull of Dollars, was a remake of the Akira Kurosawa film Yojimbo.

that is not the first part of the trilogy..

the good, the bad, the ugly is a prequel to the first 2 films

watch it it first and then watch a Fist Full of Dollars and FAFDM

lodgepole

Emberly Plain Searcher wrote:

that is not the first part of the trilogy..

the good, the bad, the ugly is a prequel to the first 2 films

watch it it first and then watch a Fist Full of Dollars and FAFDM

Yes I know but it was the first that Leone made, and arguably the first of his films to have him recognised as the talent that he is known as today. I didn't mean to step on your point, I was just making note of it.

mycroft

Harvey Weinstein is knicknamed among other things Harvey Scissorhands in the industry, famous for editing and re-editing films that fall into his grasp, in fact most post production schedules figure in an extra few months of cutting time when miramax are involved.

Sleepy

I don't know half the films he's referencing/ripping off, and to be honest I don't really care that much. To date, the guys made one good movie (Pulp Fiction) and the rest of his stuff has been pretty uninspired and more style than substance. If you#'re an art & design student, I can see why you like his movies but I'd take a good plot over a slick set any day...

The one thing I will give him is that he's great with soundtracks.

echomadman

heheh
this thread delivers


I cant believe you're getting antsy about remakes of your precious asian cinema. Asian cinema consists entirely of remakes of older asian cinema.

"oe noes, tarantino is making my sekrit sub-culture widely acceptable, damn him" seems to be the motive force at work here.

I'm not particularly enamoured of tarantino, Jackie Brown or True Romance would be my favourites of his, dogs and pulp are good but overexposure has rendered them unwatchable to me.

I've loved asian cinema since i saw bruce lee's movies as a 4/5 year old, along with hosts of other weird badly dubbed kung fu flicks that could only be found in dingy old video shops and out of the back of vans(pre-internet video pirates), I have a few cinema buffs in the family sothat helped too.

For me watching Kill Bill wasn't an annoyance, it was an amusing tale with lots of "in-jokes" for nerds like me and obviously enough cinematic merit of its own to keep "non-enlightened" viewers happy.


Your vitriol over this matter is a bit excessive karl-Hungus, These are only movies, i refer back to my original point, Asian cinema consists largely of remakes of other asian cinema and western movies, getting annoyed because a western director is doing the same is ridiculous.

Memnoch

i'd have to say that as a neutral i'm more convinced by Karl's arguements, mainly because i really despise plagerism.

Being inspired is one thing, but plagerising is another.

If tomorrow some asian dude made a film about people with mysterious powers that used glowing swords that could deflect energy weapon fire in a futuristic environment, you could bet george lucas and co. wouldn't be too happy about it.

It works both ways

Lex_Diamonds

Answer the question about the Fulchi reference in Kill Bill btw? Cheers.

ObeyGiant

Lex_Diamonds wrote:

Answer the question about the Fulchi reference in Kill Bill btw? Cheers.

The Annotated Kill Bill would be a good place to start.

lodgepole

ObeyGiant wrote:

The Annotated Kill Bill would be a good place to start.

That's a good website, thanks for linking it.

Karl Hungus

I didn't actually spot the Fuilci moment in Vol 2, where exactly was it? I'm a massive zombie/cannibal/gore film fanatic so i'm surprised that I didn't...

It was the whole hand reaching out of the grave thing, which is uncannily similar to the cover of Zombie Flesh Eaters.

as for signing a petition to halt remakes of popular Aisan titles pfft.

Thanks for not even reading the petition there Searrard... It was about Miramax slicing up Asian films, and had nothing to do with remakes.

Now, maybe it's the two hours of sleep I managed to get tonight. Or maybe it's the fact that you have ceased to make sense as anything other than a jilted fanboy bordering on conspiracy theory nut who is apparently unable to see the business logic or business sense in anything Miramax does. Or maybe it's because you failed to see my "crush you" line as anything but a joke. One or the other, I think I've finally lost my patience.

I'm going to stop you right there, Obeygiant!
Kindly leave the arrogance aside for one moment there, and don't insinuate that I've no concept behind the buinness logic of Miramax. I understand everything reguarding buinness policy perfectly well, and that the amount of money that is made factors into every descicion. I also full well understand that shareholders factor into this aswell.

When I read his line "We spent considerable time and money creating a dubbed version for a domestic release", this is exactly what I understood from it. I didn't think that the "considerable time and money" was spent making sure they got the top voice-actors and those voice actors nailed their lines first time. I read it as: we created a version of Shaolin Soccer that would appeal to a general American audience.

Fair enough, I shall withdraw my comments of calling you "Naive" but at the same time, just because you got it, doesn't mean every average american joe wasn't drawn in aswell. As you know yourself there's obviously a bussiness decision in there, and considering that Asian cinema is indeed at an all time high (Be this because of the growing DVD market and intrest created by the internet, or because of Tarantino) Weinstein is perfectly aware of this, and wants to play to this growing intrest with nothing more than marketing spin. Even the name-dropping of Tarantino is spin.

So considering all the business practice that you point out, and considering how much of this business is marketing, would it be an idea for me to point out that Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon was an absolutely huge sucsess in America without being edited specifically with American audiences in mind? Considering that, there's no reason to be slicing up films with the proper marketing campaign behind it and some good business practices.

Have a little look HERE for info about copyright law, and Weinstein being a complete liar trying to scare people into not attempting to import a film for personal use LEGALLY. So when he speaks about people importing illeagally, he's simply using scare tactics.

Here's a snippet:

Ordering a movie online from an overseas distributor, so long as it is not a counterfeit copy, is also permitted under U.S. law.

"There's no reason under the copyright law why I couldn't import a single copy for my private, personal use," said Jeff Cunard, a partner at Debevoise & Plimpton, who represents clients in the media, entertainment and technology industries.

I love how you go on to mention "Botched" attempts at marketing actors like Jackie Chan, Jet Li and Chow Yun Fat though... Remind me again how much the Rush Hour films made? Or Shanghai Noon/Knights? Because I don't remember any botched attempts at marketing there at all! In fact, those films were pretty big if I remember right. I don't think Jet Li has any less sucsess than Chan in the states, though Chow Yun Fat probably isn't the biggest sucsess, but he's done well with films like The Replacement Killers and Bulletproof Monk. Though that was a pretty terrible film.

So considering that making a film is only half the battle when you're looking to turn a profit, you understand the importance of marketing, and as such, the internet has a big effect on this. Look at a man like Harry Knowles (Just one example) who really does have the power to impact a film's sucsess in the same way that Roger Ebert would, so obviously Weinstein is aware of this, and would want to counter-act this with some nice cheap words.

But I'll tell you this, I know for a fact you know all this very well. And I know for a fact that you really are quite a genius. And of course, if I was making a film, I'd be damned sure I'd ask you to market it! Because you really are a master of spin, aren't you? G'wan, you are. So I'll stop bleeting about business and marketing for now, and I won't even bother with points about how your little quote from Tarantino completely goes against the tripe that Weinstein spewed in his article about the 'full oscar push', nor will I bother about points Yuen Woo-Ping being quite gratefull for the amount of money he's gotten, not only from Iron Monkey, but of course, from Kill Bill, so that a little marketing spin from him wouldn't be unheard of. Or the fact that Miramax had bought the rights to Hero before the film was even completely, so their role as producers was simply tagged on at the end (Though I'm not holding that against them, mind you) Or very well, and more of the many points I could make. Sorry, I had to get those in there quickly, but I could waffle on about all this for ages, and of course, you know that.

Now, for the sake of arguement, I'll just go right ahead and say that both Weinstein and Tarantino are absolute heroes themselves, totally dedicated to film, and that nothing they say could be spin. Now I'm saying this because right now I'm wondering how the hell any of this became relevant? Well, in short, I think it's spin on your side, Obeygiant. Because lets face it, the internal business of Miramax really has **** all to do with what actually started this!

Lets go back a little bit to your original post on the subject:

Which brings me to the final thing that many people forget. And it's also the most important (and probably the one that's going to get most peoples' backs up) so pay attention. For those that consider themselves better educated in film than most (especially those under the age of 35) - Tarantino is at least partly responsible for your education. He has harped on and on and on about these movies that you are only discovering now. Case in point: in True Romance, he is telling everyone to check out Sonny Chiba, specifically Street Fighter and Son of Street Fighter. Japanese movies very few people would have heard of back in 1993. And now, when Sonny Chiba popped up in Kill Bill, didn't you go "Hey! It's Sonny Chiba!"? Thank Tarantino.

I especially love the part where you say "Especially those under 35." But where does this statement go after this? I dunno, it seems to have dissapeared, and not quite factored into the argeument at all. Despite the fact that I do go on to agree with you that right now, he does have a part to play in popularising Asian films:

yes perhaps after seeing Kill Bill the average punter might go and check out a Bruce Lee movie to see where that famous Yellow Jumpsuit came more, but I can't see that having any more of an influence than someone who just saw the Italian Job remake and might want to check out the original.

And even in Ixoy's post, he provides proof for this point:

The majority of people on this film boards, and in particular those in this thread, are completely unrepresentative of the average film goer. The average movie-per-head count in a year is, if I remember, about 3.8. Out of those movies they're generally going to go for what they know, what's familiar. That is not going to include some obscure movie they won't hear about unless it's pushed forward in a mainstream medium, such as Kill Bill.

Proof required? There's a study here about a selected group of US cinema-goers. Choice point is:

However, these participants, like US moviegoers in general, had much less frequent exposure to non-US films. Nine percent of the participants saw a non-US film once a month, and 51% of the participants estimated they saw at least two a year. Many of these films are likely to have come from Great Britain or Australia, as is indicated by the relative rarity of viewing subtitled movies. Six percent saw a subtitled or dubbed film at least once a month, 28% estimated they saw two a year.

28% is a very low number. There is, whether you like it or not, an aversion to seeing subtitled movies relating to cultures they don't automatically identify with (see the study I provided). To help people overcome this, I think it's fantastic that the likes of Tarantino can introduce audiences to these. For these producers, working on budget miniscule next to Hollywood, this is advertising that dreams are made of. You can talk all you like about the Internet as a medium, but to actually go to the likes of kungulegend you have to be aware of it in the first place. Tarantino, more than any other, is helping introduce a whole new audience. Other praise must go to Gore Verbinski for his 'Ringu' remake which will introduce audiences to Hideo Nakata's works, and his contemporaries, in such flicks as 'Dark Water' and 'Ju On' where viewers will be encouraged to see the originals of movies that they'd never otherwise see.

Karl Hungus

As I've said in my re-posting of my point, yes, I will credit Tarantino for his help introducing new audiences to films they mightn't have seen otherwise. But no more than I'd credit Sylverster Stallone for his version of Get Carter, which Ironically, I've ranted about before with as much venom(if not more!) as I've ranted right here on this very, but nobody seemed to get uppity and say how Stallone is introducing audiences to new films, or with comments of "Who cares? Nothing's original. Everyone does it. Get over it." But more that Get Carter was an abomination that never should've happened, and that Stallone is a bastard. Jesus, with that lump of **** and the recent Italian Job butchering, if Michael Caine was dead, he'd be spinning in his grave!! Then we could strap magnets to him and use him to generate energy...

But anyway, I've admitted as much that currently Tarantino is partly responsible for the popularising of Asian cinema (Definetly in America anyway) with Kill Bill, and I hate to bring in the "Not me!" arguement again, but I'm 22 years old which is WELL under the age of 35, and I've obviously not just been introduced to Asian cinema, despite in your original post you say "movies that you are only discovering now". Maybe that's true for American audiences, but this is all completely and utterly irrellivant right now, and you know why? Because you firstly say:

The majority of the people who complain about Tarantino are those who tend to consider themselves better educated in film than the average multiplex-going public.

Then you say:

For those that consider themselves better educated in film than most (especially those under the age of 35) - Tarantino is at least partly responsible for your education.

This really isn't ANYTHING to do with what Tarantino is doing right now with introducing people to other films through Kill Bill, because at the very start of your arguement you completely dismiss them. You are SOLELY talking about people who complain about Tarantino, and on these very boards there really aren't that many people who do complain about him, and cheif among them is myself, as you well know! So that statement is undenyably talking about myself and very few other people, so when I said "I don't owe him anything!" it's quite valid, and I shouldn't have retracted it in the first place, because this really is about ME! The average cinema-going joe, Harvey Weinstein, people without internet access or who don't visit places like imdb.com or any number of different movie resources on the internet, you've already completely dismissed them before you'd even brought them into the arguement in the first place!

Furthermore, while I've admitted to the fact that currently Tarantino is partly introducing people to certain films with Kill Bill, (although I do still say it's moreso to the rise of DVD and The Internet) you've done absolutely nothing to back up your previous statements about how "those that consider themselves better educated in film than most (especially those under the age of 35) - Tarantino is at least partly responsible for your education." and where did any of that arguement go?

Your vitriol over this matter is a bit excessive karl-Hungus, These are only movies

You completely miss my reasons for ranting, Echo . Remember, this is only a discussion board, and I'm only discussing. I'm not really getting worked up at all about this, and I'm not being in any way angsty, no matter what colourfull uses of language or terms I fill my posts with. I just REALLY enjoy a good discussion, and this is a topic that has extremely good merit for discussion. Not to mention the fact that Obeygiant himself has some serious constitution for discussion beyond that of your average boardster, and I really relish the opportunity to discuss with him.

ObeyGiant

Karl Hungus wrote:

Fair enough, I shall withdraw my comments of calling you "Naive" but at the same time, just because you got it, doesn't mean every average american joe wasn't drawn in aswell.

This point would work so much better if Weinstein hadn't actually written his article for Variety - hardly everyday reading for an average joe. As a matter of fact, it would be fair to say that the majority of the people reading his article would be well versed in the history of Miramax and its changes to Shaolin Soccer, Iron Monkey etc.

Karl Hungus wrote:

would it be an idea for me to point out that Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon was an absolutely huge sucsess in America without being edited specifically with American audiences in mind?

Two things to point out... first, Crouching Tiger was not a mainstream success in America. Sorry, but it just wasn't. It had a great deal of success with a limited audience. The figures back this up (In one week, Hero has done one quarter of the business Crouching Tiger did in its entire 7-month run). No doubt this had a lot to do with the "Tarantino Spin" as you put it - but in this context:
1. Can it really entirely account for the runaway success of Hero?
2. If you answered "Yes" above, is that really such a bad thing?

The second point here is that Ang Lee was already making films in the west before he made Crouching Tiger.. he has admitted in interviews that this possibly led him to subconsciously create a more "westernized" movie than he probably would have otherwise.

Karl Hungus wrote:

So when he speaks about people importing illeagally, he's simply using scare tactics.

Only if you're reading it wrong. The Wired article talks about how copyright law is extremely murky for retailers. And this is exactly who Miramax went after - retailers (or mistakenly-perceived retailers). Not the average joe in the street.

Remind me again how much the Rush Hour films made? Or Shanghai Noon/Knights? Because I don't remember any botched attempts at marketing there at all!

I'll admit, they've scored a whole lot of commercial success with some of those films. But you're completely and conveniently ignoring The Tuxedo, The Medallion, Around the World in 80 Days, Jet Li's God-Awful "Rise to Honour" video game, Cradle 2 the Grave et al.

Karl Hungus wrote:

Bulletproof Monk. Though that was a pretty terrible film.

And exactly the film I was thinking of when I mentioned botched attempts with Chow Yun Fat. Hell, they couldn't even manage it with a mismatched buddy cop movie. And they're easy.

Karl Hungus wrote:

I won't even bother with points about how your little quote from Tarantino completely goes against the tripe that Weinstein spewed in his article about the 'full oscar push'

Just as well you won't bother, because I'd just point out that if you read what Weinstein says. I mean, really read it, and not try to read between the lines, you'll see he clearly states that they'd intended to give it the "full oscar push", but can't now, because it already got nominated for Best Foreign Language film in the 2002 Oscars. So they can't give it any oscar push. Let alone a big one.

Karl Hungus wrote:

nor will I bother about points Yuen Woo-Ping being quite gratefull for the amount of money he's gotten, not only from Iron Monkey, but of course, from Kill Bill, so that a little marketing spin from him wouldn't be unheard of.

You credit him with such little artistic integrity that you think a little money (or a lot of money) would make him thank Miramax for butchering his creation? Now, not crediting Tarantino with much artistic integrity is one thing, but now you're just out of control.

Karl Hungus wrote:

Well, in short, I think it's spin on your side, Obeygiant. Because lets face it, the internal business of Miramax really has **** all to do with what actually started this!

That Inglorious Bastards is just going to be another Kill Bill-alike "homage"-fest? I'm already bored of that conversation, and it would be impossible to get you to see it as anything but a "rip off" (when the differences and homages are already rolling in: "Where Eagles Dare", Charles Bronson, Cross of Iron (supposedly the largest influence)). This is much more fun.

Karl Hungus wrote:

But where does this statement go after this? I dunno, it seems to have dissapeared, and not quite factored into the argeument at all.

Well, it fizzled out as we hit that stalemate of personal anecdotes. I appreciate that you tried to move us out of that stalemate, but we were still stuck in personal anecdotes, but there's one that I hope (for my sake) is harder to deny. As well as explicitly naming potential movie spring-boards for people to check out, Tarantino along with a few other directors such as Soderbergh Linklater etc., also helped revitalise the American independent movie scene [quantifiable fact], which also no doubt helped feed your cinematic education [personal anecdote].

Karl Hungus wrote:

Despite the fact that I do go on to agree with you that right now, he does have a part to play in popularising Asian films

We probably shouldn't overlook his role in re-popularising the whole "gangster" genre after Resevoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. Or re-popularising the Blacksploitation genre after Jackie Brown. For a man with only Four/Five actual films under his belt, depending on how pedantic you want to be, it's easy to overlook this achievement.

Just one question, which might help us get a better understanding of what's going on here:
Shaun of the dead (and Spaced in general) - reverent homage-fest, or shameless rip-off?

Karl Hungus wrote:

Not to mention the fact that Obeygiant himself has some serious constitution for discussion beyond that of your average boardster, and I really relish the opportunity to discuss with

Marry me?

Karl Hungus

ObeyGiant wrote:

This point would work so much better if Weinstein hadn't actually written his article for Variety - hardly everyday reading for an average joe. As a matter of fact, it would be fair to say that the majority of the people reading his article would be well versed in the history of Miramax and its changes to Shaolin Soccer, Iron Monkey etc.

All the more reason for him to have written it for Variety, as a counter arguement to people who are aware of this.

ObeyGiant wrote:

Two things to point out. first, Crouching Tiger was not a mainstream success in America. Sorry, but it just wasn't. It had a great deal of success with a limited audience. The figures back this up (In one week, Hero has done one quarter of the business Crouching Tiger did in its entire 7-month run). No doubt this had a lot to do with the "Tarantino Spin" as you put it - but in this context:
1. Can it really entirely account for the runaway success of Hero?
2. If you answered "Yes" above, is that really such a bad thing?

The second point here is that Ang Lee was already making films in the west before he made Crouching Tiger. he has admitted in interviews that this possibly led him to subconsciously create a more "westernized" movie than he probably would have otherwise.

Ok, you're perfectly right there about Ang Lee, but I'd say that the sucsess of Hero is to do with clever Marketing (Tagging the trailer onto Kill Bill obviously has a massive affect here, as American audiences would be very likely to see the film after Kill Bill whetted their appetites for the swordplay angle) and the sheer amount of buzz on the internet about the film (Step farward Harry Knowles and the like), and yes, even the Tarantino spin. Though I'm completely unsure about 2. there.

ObeyGiant wrote:

Only if you're reading it wrong. The Wired article talks about how copyright law is extremely murky for retailers. And this is exactly who Miramax went after - retailers (or mistakenly-perceived retailers). Not the average joe in the street.

I will agree, only if you're reading it wrong, but Mr. Weinstein's use of words does make it seem that if you import a DVD, it's illegal. And I'm sure he's well aware that he can of course put the ****s up someone so to speak that would be considering importing a film with a carefully worded sentence putting the emphasis on "Illegal" importing.

ObeyGiant wrote:

I'll admit, they've scored a whole lot of commercial success with some of those films. But you're completely and conveniently ignoring The Tuxedo, The Medallion, Around the World in 80 Days, Jet Li's God-Awful "Rise to Honour" video game, Cradle 2 the Grave et al.

As far as I know, The Tuxedo was pretty well received on the rental market moreso than cinema, so it wasn't a complete flop. But I'm not saying that they're all a sucsess, just not that they're all botched as you made them out to be. Sure, it's hit and miss, but Jackie Chan has mostly big sucsess in America.

ObeyGiant wrote:

You credit him with such little artistic integrity that you think a little money (or a lot of money) would make him thank Miramax for butchering his creation? Now, not crediting Tarantino with much artistic integrity is one thing, but now you're just out of control.

Depends on how you look at it.
Yuen Woo-Ping directed Iron Monkey over 10 years ago now, and he's really doing nothing more but directing other people's action scenes these days, he's done it for The Wachowski's, he's done it for Ang Lee, and he's done it for Tarantino. The last film he's actually directed is a film called Tai Chi Boxer from 1995, almost ten years ago, and the next film he's set to direct fully is slated for 2005, ten years later, hasn't even started filming yet, doesn't have a cast, and there's rumour of it being cancelled! So for a man who doesn't even direct his own films anymore, I'd say getting a big fat paycheck for something he's done well over 10 years ago just by letting Weinstein and Tarantino twiddle and tinker with it wouldn't exactly make that much of a dent in his artistic integrity.

Funnilly enough, if you had asked me about him before, completely seperate of this thread, I'd probably tell you the same thing. Even just taking him as a director of action scenes, his work has seriously gone downhill, from the last two Matrix films to the Kill Bill films, he's completely faltered! I loved Iron Monkey, it really was an excellent tongue in cheek kung fu movie, but I've hardly had any respect for the man for some time as an artist or as a director, and you really should've expected as much.

ObeyGiant wrote:

That Inglorious Bastards is just going to be another Kill Bill-alike "homage"-fest? I'm already bored of that conversation, and it would be impossible to get you to see it as anything but a "rip off".

No no no! We've not actually touched on that at all, and you're expecting the opposite. To be completely honest, this whole thread really shouldn't have gone off in such a rant against Tarantino on my part, because the man is FINALLY admitting he's doing a remake as opposed to an original peice. And **** it if there isn't even a bit of integrity in that for once!

But damned if the idea that's put forward that Tarantino is something more than he isn't (Or the two-faced fans who praise how original he is, only to turn around and give the old "Eeveryone does it/nothing's original" excuse at the mere notion that he's a plagiarist) doesn't get my goat, and damn well gets me in ranting mode. Not that that's a bad thing really, as I do look a good rant, and a good discussion. Though that's not the point I'm making right now.

My point is that perhaps now that Tarantino admits to making a remake, maybe there won't be such a hoopla about how oh-so original he is, and the film can be taken by the fans as nothing more than a remake? Maybe if he credited Reservior Dogs as a remake of City On Fire, and Kill Bill as a remake of Lady Snowblood, I wouldn't be so annoyed with the man, and I wouldn't get so annoyed with the fans?

The reason I can't stand him is the fact that he's dishonest. I think it would be a good point to mention that two of my very favorite films aren't original works by any stretch of the imagination, namely Miller's Crossing and Throne Of Blood. The difference here though is honesty. When someone goes to see Miller's Crossing, they know they're not going to see an original film, but the Coen's take on Daschiel Hammet, just as when someone goes to see Throne Of Blood they know they're going to see Kurosawa's take on Shakespear. This is also applicable for Ran. But when someone goes to see Kill Bill, they don't know they're going to see his take on Lady Snowblood, they're going in thinking they're seeing a completely original film. See where I'm coming from?

ObeyGiant wrote:

Well, it fizzled out as we hit that stalemate of personal anecdotes. I appreciate that you tried to move us out of that stalemate, but we were still stuck in personal anecdotes, but there's one that I hope (for my sake) is harder to deny. As well as explicitly naming potential movie spring-boards for people to check out, Tarantino along with a few other directors such as Soderbergh Linklater etc., also helped revitalise the American independent movie scene [quantifiable fact], which also no doubt helped feed your cinematic education [personal anecdote].

Ok, so I think this is pretty much over here, we're not really going to get anywhere else other than the personal anecdotes, but as I mentioned before, your entire arguement being aimed pretty much at me, what is there but personal anecdote? Personally, I wouldn't credit Soderbergh for much influence on the indpendent scene in America, I've not seen anything of use out of him lately, I didn't enjoy Out of Sight or Traffic, didn't bother seeing Oceans Eleven or Solaris, and his upcoming film about Che Guevara seems pointless after The Motorcicle Diaries. Hardly an person I'd credit as an indipendant film-maker at all, unless you mean someone other than Steven Soderbergh? And to be quite honest with you, I've never seen anything by Richard Linklater! Shamefull, I know, and I've got Waking Life sitting here right beside me for ages which I've still not gotten around to watching. So sorry for more personal anecdote there, but neither director has helped feed my cinematic education. Though it might be prudent to say 'Yet' as I've still to see anything by Linklater.

Karl Hungus

GOD DAMN THIS 10,000 character limit! BLARGH!

ObeyGiant wrote:

We probably shouldn't overlook his role in re-popularising the whole "gangster" genre after Resevoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. Or re-popularising the Blacksploitation genre after Jackie Brown. For a man with only Four/Five actual films under his belt, depending on how pedantic you want to be, it's easy to overlook this achievement.

Just one question, which might help us get a better understanding of what's going on here:
Shaun of the dead (and Spaced in general) - reverent homage-fest, or shameless rip-off?

Firstly, I won't deny the man had certainly a hand in re-popularised the gangster genre with Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. Though I think in the early 90's I'd give as much credit to Goodfella's.

Secondly, I've not seen Spaced, but I have answered the Shaun Of The Dead question before in adressing Lodgepole previously:

Hell, I love a good homage, or when I'm watching a film and there's a nod to another film or director, it really does give me a nice happy feeling. It's probably one of the reasons I love Shaun Of The Dead so much, it refences so many old zombie movies (And even newer ones) and it's probably the ultimate homage to a genre that I really do love. Perhaps that's why I hate Tarantino so much? I get the feeling with SotD that Wright and Pegg had a real love of the source material, whereas with Tarantino, I get the feeling that he treats his influences as something to be pilfered from at will, like a few lines of Dialogue from this film here, the storyline from that film there, music from those films...

ObeyGiant

Karl Hungus wrote:

All the more reason for him to have written it for Variety, as a counter arguement to people who are aware of this.

This is all very choppy. You're willing to accept that I'm not naive enough to believe such spin, but being a trade magazine, you believe other Hollywood insiders would be? If anything, I'd go out on a limb and say they saw it as Weinstein thumbing his nose at them.

Karl Hungus wrote:

Ok, you're perfectly right there about Ang Lee, but I'd say that the sucsess of Hero is to do with clever Marketing

You're saying it's entirely down to the clever marketing, and not even partly because it's a good film that's easily digestible by western palates? That the opening weekend of $18,000,000 came entirely from sheep who followed blindly down the "Quentin Tarantino Presents.." trail? I find that hard to swallow, if for no other reason than the fact that it's the highest grossing Wu Xia film of all time, even in territories where Quentin Tarantino's name means nothing.

Karl Hungus wrote:

Sure, it's hit and miss, but Jackie Chan has mostly big sucsess in America

And I'm not denying this fact. I'm saying that Hollywood largely doesn't really know what to do with Jackie Chan. He's famous for his insane action sequences. Hollywood doesn't dare allow him to do half the things he once would have: "So, you want to jump off this huge building, land on the road, get run over by a bus, and then fight a shark? Are you crazy, little Asian man?". But yeah, he's had a lot of success anyway.

Karl Hungus wrote:

I'd say getting a big fat paycheck for something he's done well over 10 years ago just by letting Weinstein and Tarantino twiddle and tinker with it wouldn't exactly make that much of a dent in his artistic integrity.

Once again, this is all pure speculation. I could argue that the Chinese are a proud race who believe strongly in a code of honour that we don't really have in the wesdt, and I'm certain that this would protect him from being such a stooge. But again, this would be pure speculation. (note: this is not a serious point, I'm just pointing out how invalid speculation can be).

Besides - you seem to think that he's unhappy "doing nothing more than directing other people's action scenes". Or that, somehow, this is almost beneath him. I have no doubt that he's making fantastic amounts of money out of this, and has an awful lot of respect in the film community.

But again, pure speculation.

Karl Hungus wrote:

the man is FINALLY admitting he's doing a remake as opposed to an original peice. And **** it if there isn't even a bit of integrity in that for once!

Maybe this is like waving a red flag in front of a bull, but Tarantino has admitted this is going to be as much a remake as Kill Bill was of Lady Snowblood. Yes, it's got the same basic plot as the Italian movie (and yes, it's wrongly listed on IMDB as a remake), but from reading interviews with Tarantino, it is inspired more by Cross of Iron than any other movie.

Karl Hungus wrote:

Maybe if he credited Reservior Dogs as a remake of City On Fire, and Kill Bill as a remake of Lady Snowblood, I wouldn't be so annoyed with the man, and I wouldn't get so annoyed with the fans?

But these aren't actual remakes. He has borrowed ideas and shots (and musical themes) from these films, but they are not direct remakes, so shouldn't be listed as such. And besides, you cannot deny that there is a quality and style to Tarantino's movies that is hard to replicate (I'm not even a Tarantino fan, and I can easily admit this), and this is what makes his movies so popular.

Karl Hungus wrote:

This is also applicable for Ran. But when someone goes to see Kill Bill, they don't know they're going to see his take on Lady Snowblood, they're going in thinking they're seeing a completely original film. See where I'm coming from?

I haven't seen Miller's Crossing, and I didn't know that it was inspired by Dashiell Hammett. But once again, this is a bad example. The Coens make movies for more "savvy" filmgoers. Ask someone coming out of Kill Bill who Dashiell Hammett is, and there's a good chance you'll see the blankest stare imaginable. Ask if they know who the Coens are, and maybe you'll get a glimmer of recognition.

Karl Hungus wrote:

Personally, I wouldn't credit Soderbergh for much influence on the indpendent scene in America ... Hardly an person I'd credit as an indipendant film-maker at all, unless you mean someone other than Steven Soderbergh?

Since there's no on-line copy of Biskind's new book which could easily be counted as an "authority" on such things, I guess we'll have to google it. Doing a google search for "Independent cinema" "sex, lies and videotape"[/quote] results in:
"The book (American Indpenedent Cinema) is mostly preoccupied with the wave of American independent cinema that came in the wake of spectacular and unexpected financial success of Steven Soderbergh's 1989 film, Sex, Lies and Videotape"
"Winner of the Palme D’Or at Cannes, and a major turning point in the re-birth of American Independent Cinema."
"The feature debut by 26-year-old writer/director/editor Steven Soderbergh galvanized the independent film movement of the late '80s and '90s"
" There are few, if any, publications referencing American independent cinema that do not regard the success of Steven Soderbergh's sex, lies and videotape (1989) as a crucial moment in that industry's history."
and so on, and so on.
But this is all beside the point.

Regading Shaun of the Dead (sorry I didn't see that before), I'm still very curious to find out exactly why you think there is a difference. Is it because SoTD is very "playful" with the source material? (Ed screaming down the phone to the mum "WE'RE COMING TO GET YOU BARBARA!" made me giggle, and my friends thought I was insane). I can't help but see certain parts of Kill Bill as just as playful as Shaun of the Dead. A GREAT example of this would be the use of the "Shaw Scope" logo at the beginning of the movie, which doesn't really serve any other purpose other than as a playful gesture for people who know their Kung Fu movies

Karl Hungus

ObeyGiant wrote:

If anything, I'd go out on a limb and say they saw it as Weinstein thumbing his nose at them.

Ok, I think at this point, that's a perfectly good explanation, and despite that one of my major beliefs in the infinity of human stupidity, and just because someone works in hollywood doesn't mean they're exempt from this belief, I'll settle on your view for the time being.

ObeyGiant wrote:

You're saying it's entirely down to the clever marketing, and not even partly because it's a good film that's easily digestible by western palates? That the opening weekend of $18,000,000 came entirely from sheep who followed blindly down the "Quentin Tarantino Presents.." trail? I find that hard to swallow, if for no other reason than the fact that it's the highest grossing Wu Xia film of all time, even in territories where Quentin Tarantino's name means nothing.

No, sorry! I'm not saying that at all, of course it's down to it being a good film, but there's obviously a lot of publicity at work here reguardless of whether it's marketing, word of mouth, good reviews, internet buzz.

ObeyGiant wrote:

Once again, this is all pure speculation. I could argue that the Chinese are a proud race who believe strongly in a code of honour that we don't really have in the west, and I'm certain that this would protect him from being such a stooge. But again, this would be pure speculation. (note: this is not a serious point, I'm just pointing out how invalid speculation can be).

Besides - you seem to think that he's unhappy "doing nothing more than directing other people's action scenes". Or that, somehow, this is almost beneath him. I have no doubt that he's making fantastic amounts of money out of this, and has an awful lot of respect in the film community.

But again, pure speculation.

No, I don't think he's unhappy doing it at all! He's an action director, and I'm sure he's perfectly happy directing nothing but action, though of course the amount of money he makes factors into this. I'm just saying that he's not anyone I'd rate with any kind of artistic integrity anymore, and that for the most part, I think that what he's doing currently is pretty sloppy compared to his older work, especially where he was fully in the director's seat.

ObeyGiant wrote:

Maybe this is like waving a red flag in front of a bull, but Tarantino has admitted this is going to be as much a remake as Kill Bill was of Lady Snowblood. Yes, it's got the same basic plot as the Italian movie (and yes, it's wrongly listed on IMDB as a remake), but from reading interviews with Tarantino, it is inspired more by Cross of Iron than any other movie.

Perhaps it is indeed, but I suppose we'll both have to wait and see the film before either of us make any judgements. I won't bother speculating how the film is going to be taken by the fans, as a wholely original peice, or as just another remake? So this is a pretty null point right now.

ObeyGiant wrote:

But these aren't actual remakes. He has borrowed ideas and shots (and musical themes) from these films, but they are not direct remakes, so shouldn't be listed as such. And besides, you cannot deny that there is a quality and style to Tarantino's movies that is hard to replicate (I'm not even a Tarantino fan, and I can easily admit this), and this is what makes his movies so popular.

Well, lets look at it this way. I've already said this to lodgepole, but a film doesn't have to be a scene-for-scene or word-for-word to be a remake. Lets take The Thing for example, and I'm going to assume you've seen the original film also as you do seem pretty well versed in horror. Now, looking at the film, bar the setting and the premise, they really don't have much in common at all but John Carpenter's Film is considered a remake.

Now, there's no doubt that Tarantino does add something, because I don't remember a scene from City On Fire where the gang were arguing over tips, but aside from that, and the whole chronological structure of the film, I'd far sooner credit Reservoir Dogs as a remake that's far closer to the original film than The Thing.

ObeyGiant wrote:

I haven't seen Miller's Crossing, and I didn't know that it was inspired by Dashiell Hammett. But once again, this is a bad example. The Coens make movies for more "savvy" filmgoers. Ask someone coming out of Kill Bill who Dashiell Hammett is, and there's a good chance you'll see the blankest stare imaginable. Ask if they know who the Coens are, and maybe you'll get a glimmer of recognition.

It's actually inspired by a couple of Dashiell Hammett's stories rather than a proper adaptation, but I won't tell you which ones, because Miller's Crossing is an absolutely amazing film and if you're a fan of Hammett, then you're really going to treat yourself to what is quite possibly one of the finest adaptations of his work there is, not to mention of the finest gangster movies out there.

ObeyGiant wrote:

Since there's no on-line copy of Biskind's new book which could easily be counted as an "authority" on such things, I guess we'll have to google it. Doing a google search for "Independent cinema" "sex, lies and videotape"

results in:
"The book (American Indpenedent Cinema) is mostly preoccupied with the wave of American independent cinema that came in the wake of spectacular and unexpected financial success of Steven Soderbergh's 1989 film, Sex, Lies and Videotape"
"Winner of the Palme D’Or at Cannes, and a major turning point in the re-birth of American Independent Cinema."
"The feature debut by 26-year-old writer/director/editor Steven Soderbergh galvanized the independent film movement of the late '80s and '90s"
" There are few, if any, publications referencing American independent cinema that do not regard the success of Steven Soderbergh's sex, lies and videotape (1989) as a crucial moment in that industry's history."
and so on, and so on.
But this is all beside the point.[/QUOTE]

Ok, I've not actually seen Sex, Lies and Videotape either, but from what I had seen of the man's work, I didn't credit him with much respect, and especially not anything on my personal education in indipendant cinema.

ObeyGiant wrote:

Regading Shaun of the Dead (sorry I didn't see that before), I'm still very curious to find out exactly why you think there is a difference. Is it because SoTD is very "playful" with the source material? (Ed screaming down the phone to the mum "WE'RE COMING TO GET YOU BARBARA!" made me giggle, and my friends thought I was insane). I can't help but see certain parts of Kill Bill as just as playful as Shaun of the Dead. A GREAT example of this would be the use of the "Shaw Scope" logo at the beginning of the movie, which doesn't really serve any other purpose other than as a playful gesture for people who know their Kung Fu movies

If we're talking source material here, aside from the stand "Hole up in a building" fare, Shaun is pretty original with it's characters. I'm not sure about yourself, but I don't ever remember seeing a character like Shaun himself in any Zombie movie ever before. In fact, I'd call him the first "Everyman" everyman character, because he's possibly the first that I've actually identified with, or at the very least, Identified with the most. Most of the time, I'm quite uncaring about the main characters, and with watching a zombie movie I'm more hoping the Capt. Rhodes character to be killed than I am the leads not to be killed. I think that's the main reason I loved the film, as opposed to the nods to other films. Although, did you pick up on the whole "Satalite re-entering earths orbit" near the start? I missed that the first time I saw the film.

So with that in mind, and my previous points about considering remakes, although for this point, I'll say that Kill Bill was "heavily inspired" by Lady Snowblood rather than calling it a remake. So while Shaun obviously has loads of nods to a vast number of different films, I don't see how Kill Bill is doing the same thing. I don't see how the House Of Blue Leaves sequence could be considered just a nod to the sequence in Lady Snowblood where Yuki is fighting off the big gang in yer wans (Sorry, dunno her name, been a while since I seen the film) estate, even down to the part with the silhouttes. Neither do I see how The Bride's training with Pai Mei could be considered just a nod to the respective sequence of Yuki's training with her cruel master in Lady Snowblood. The same can be said of the scene where the Bride is innitially shot down, and the use of the exact same camera angle of the villains standing over her as was in Lady Snowblood.

God, Quentin! You must've really loved that film, what with the sheer amount of absolutely huge, lenthy nods to it. :rolleyes:

You get the difference yet?

ObeyGiant

Karl Hungus wrote:

No, sorry! I'm not saying that at all, of course it's down to it being a good film, but there's obviously a lot of publicity at work here reguardless of whether it's marketing, word of mouth, good reviews, internet buzz.

Okay. But to be fair - I asked you if the success of Hero was solely to do with the marketing and the Tarantino spin, and you said "I'd say that the sucsess of Hero is to do with clever Marketing", without qualifying it with a "partly to do with.." or "a lot to do with...". I'm not denying this had a huge impact, but I'm saying that it definitely helped that there was a western-friendly film underneath this marketing.

But at least now I think we're on the same page regarding Hero.

Karl Hungus wrote:

I think that what he's doing currently is pretty sloppy compared to his older work, especially where he was fully in the director's seat.

Another argument could be that he's been working in the west for so long that he does actually see these changes as a good thing, and can't see what he originally put into his own film to make it unique. But why would I mention that, since it just confuses the issue? Hang on, which side am I on?

Karl Hungus wrote:

Perhaps it is indeed, but I suppose we'll both have to wait and see the film before either of us make any judgements

But didn't this thread start with you making judgements about the film?

Karl Hungus wrote:

Well, lets look at it this way. I've already said this to lodgepole, but a film doesn't have to be a scene-for-scene or word-for-word to be a remake.

But when you're taking bits of various pieces from all over the place and adding your own distinct style to it, does that still count as a "remake"? I'd admit that if Kill Bill had nothing other than the pieces from Lady Snowblood, it should be called a remake, or at least admit to being inspired by this film. But it takes pieces from all over, and to put an "inspired by.." at the beginning of the film would take forever (look at the "references" part of the 'movie connections' for Kill Bill on IMDB). The Thing would count as a remake because it uses the 1951 movie so heavily as a starting point and adds mainly its own elements that it's fair to call it this.

Karl Hungus wrote:

Ok, I've not actually seen Sex, Lies and Videotape either, but from what I had seen of the man's work, I didn't credit him with much respect, and especially not anything on my personal education in indipendant cinema.

I haven't seen it either, except for a quick fast-forward when I was in my teen years looking for something to quench my insatiable teenage libido (it sucked from that point of view, btw), but this is not the point. The point is that this movie put independent cinema on the map, and is largely responsible for many of the major studios putting out an independent arm to help finance many of the smaller movies that would have inspired you, or helped you along your way with regards a cinematic education. So my point is that it (like Tarantino) might not have a direct influence on your tastes and cinematic education, but they are at least partly, indirectly responsible for them

Karl Hungus wrote:

I don't see how the House Of Blue Leaves sequence could be considered just a nod to the sequence in Lady Snowblood where Yuki is fighting off the big gang in yer wans (Sorry, dunno her name, been a while since I seen the film) estate, even down to the part with the silhouttes.

Interestingly, the primary inspiration for most of this sequence was a Sonny Chiba TV show called Shadow Warriors. If you watch the "Making of" on the Kill Bill DVD, you'll see a clip from this TV show that also looks like the fight in Kill Bill. There are many nods to Shadow Warriors in Kill Bill - including the fact that Sonny's character is called Hattori Hanso, the same as his name in Shadow Warriors. This isn't just a direct rip-off either. The way it goes is that in every series of Shadow Warriors, Sonny Chiba played "Hattori Hanso", but a different Hattori Hanso. In the first series, he played Hattori Hanson the first, in the second series, Hattori Hanso the second. Tarantino admits with a certain amount of mischievous glee that he named the character Hattori Hanso as a nod to this - Hattori Hanso the Hundredth or something.

Karl Hungus wrote:

The same can be said of the scene where the Bride is innitially shot down, and the use of the exact same camera angle of the villains standing over her as was in Lady Snowblood.

Interestingly enough, Uma Thurman came up with that premise and the idea for that shot opening the movie. And this was apparently during the filming of Pulp Fiction, before he'd showed her the stuff that he was using as an influence (and she specificially mentions Lady Snowblood as one of the things he made her watch in the Making Of)

Karl Hungus wrote:

You get the difference yet?

To be honest, not really. I still can't see why you're blithely dismissing Kill Bill's many references and nods (did you check out that "Movie Connections" thing on the IMDB like I suggested?) while accepting Shaun of the Dead's many references and nods. They're pretty much doing the same thing.

edit: never mind

ObeyGiant

Karl Hungus wrote:

I don't see how the House Of Blue Leaves sequence could be considered just a nod to the sequence in Lady Snowblood ... even down to the part with the silhouttes.

Not to nit-pick or anything, but the inspiration for the sihouettes sequence is cited as being Samurai Fiction. A good site to check for the references (even better than the Annotated Kill Bill guide I listed earlier) is Kill Bill References Guide.

Karl Hungus

ObeyGiant wrote:

Okay. But to be fair - I asked you if the success of Hero was solely to do with the marketing and the Tarantino spin, and you said "I'd say that the sucsess of Hero is to do with clever Marketing", without qualifying it with a "partly to do with.." or "a lot to do with...". I'm not denying this had a huge impact, but I'm saying that it definitely helped that there was a western-friendly film underneath this marketing.

But at least now I think we're on the same page regarding Hero.

I didn't think there was anything particularly Western-friendly about the film at all, at least not moreso than any other martial arts movie you'd care to point out. In fact, it's probably a hell of a lot more intelligent than a lot of other martial arts films, so perhaps its sucsess in that sense is a little baffling?

ObeyGiant wrote:

Another argument could be that he's been working in the west for so long that he does actually see these changes as a good thing, and can't see what he originally put into his own film to make it unique. But why would I mention that, since it just confuses the issue? Hang on, which side am I on?

You're completely 100% on my side.
You just don't know it yet.

Seriously though, I think you do understand why I don't rate the man anymore, so that's pretty much that.

ObeyGiant wrote:

But didn't this thread start with you making judgements about the film?

Yes, but maybe I should've added a qualifier like "Further judgements" to that.

ObeyGiant wrote:

But when you're taking bits of various pieces from all over the place and adding your own distinct style to it, does that still count as a "remake"? I'd admit that if Kill Bill had nothing other than the pieces from Lady Snowblood, it should be called a remake, or at least admit to being inspired by this film. But it takes pieces from all over, and to put an "inspired by.." at the beginning of the film would take forever (look at the "references" part of the 'movie connections' for Kill Bill on IMDB). The Thing would count as a remake because it uses the 1951 movie so heavily as a starting point and adds mainly its own elements that it's fair to call it this.

Regaurdless of the amount of other references (And I do admit them to be nothing more than references) Kill Bill does take the bulk of the movie from Lady Snowblood. You say that The Thing counts as a remake because it uses the original heavily as a starting point, but Kill Bill doesn't count yet also uses another film heavily as a starting point? I really don't get you there at all.

ObeyGiant wrote:

I haven't seen it either, except for a quick fast-forward when I was in my teen years looking for something to quench my insatiable teenage libido (it sucked from that point of view, btw), but this is not the point. The point is that this movie put independent cinema on the map, and is largely responsible for many of the major studios putting out an independent arm to help finance many of the smaller movies that would have inspired you, or helped you along your way with regards a cinematic education. So my point is that it (like Tarantino) might not have a direct influence on your tastes and cinematic education, but they are at least partly, indirectly responsible for them

Fair enough, I take your point that it's certainly a possibility.

ObeyGiant wrote:

Interestingly, the primary inspiration for most of this sequence was a Sonny Chiba TV show called Shadow Warriors. If you watch the "Making of" on the Kill Bill DVD, you'll see a clip from this TV show that also looks like the fight in Kill Bill. There are many nods to Shadow Warriors in Kill Bill - including the fact that Sonny's character is called Hattori Hanso, the same as his name in Shadow Warriors. This isn't just a direct rip-off either. The way it goes is that in every series of Shadow Warriors, Sonny Chiba played "Hattori Hanso", but a different Hattori Hanso. In the first series, he played Hattori Hanson the first, in the second series, Hattori Hanso the second. Tarantino admits with a certain amount of mischievous glee that he named the character Hattori Hanso as a nod to this - Hattori Hanso the Hundredth or something.

I was aware of the Hattori Hanso reference, but I've no intention of buying the Kill Bill DVD, so I'll take your word for it about the fight in Shadow Warriors. But even so, the exposition of the fight itself is remarkably identical to that of the respective scene in Lady Snowblood... The particular woman each heroin is out to take revenge on at that juncture of the film being a big criminal underworld figure. So unless the storyline behind it was also identical in Shadow Warriors, my point still stands firmly.

ObeyGiant wrote:

Interestingly enough, Uma Thurman came up with that premise and the idea for that shot opening the movie. And this was apparently during the filming of Pulp Fiction, before he'd showed her the stuff that he was using as an influence (and she specificially mentions Lady Snowblood as one of the things he made her watch in the Making Of)

"Apparently" during the filming of Pulp Fiction being the optimal word there. But that's just me going into conspiracy theory mode again where nothing can be proved, and it's only speculation, so I'll shut up on this point. Or at least untill I can torture Tarantino into admitting he's a blatant plagiarist.

ObeyGiant wrote:

I still can't see why you're blithely dismissing Kill Bill's many references and nods (did you check out that "Movie Connections" thing on the IMDB like I suggested?) while accepting Shaun of the Dead's many references and nods. They're pretty much doing the same thing.

You're blatantly dismissing the fact that I've never dismissed Kill Bill's references! I've stated earlier in the thread that I do indeed love a good nod in a film, and I specifically mention how I loved Tarantino's nod to Fulci, so this entire point you're trying to make falls flat on its face entirely! You know full well that it's not because of the references that I'm in dislike of Kill Bill, and aside from the KB-LS connection, there's still the Reservoir Dogs and City On Fire connection.

If you want a few more references I liked in Kill Bill, how about during the House Of Blue Leaves fight where you see one of the Crazy 88 gang get a slice across his face, cutting his cheeks apart. Definetly a nod to Mr. Kakihara there. Or another nod to Takashi Miike is the whole "When you're grown up, if you want to take revenge, I'll be waiting" peice of Dialogue taken from Rainy Dog. Oddly enough, that last one wasn't in the references listed on imdb.com though. And who could forget the "Old Klingon Proverb" piece!? I could go on for quite a while here, as I'm sure you well know, but you also well know that it's certianly not becuase of the references I dislike Kill Bill, and that Shaun certainly doesn't do the same thing at all.