Tarantino: Hack or not?

Karl Hungus · 17-10-2003 10:23pm #1

I'm not going to be very popular for saying this...
In fact, I'm pretty sure I'm going to get flamed to hell for this...

But...

Quentin Tarantino is a complete hack.

I really don't think he's anything special at all. In fact, I think he's utterly useless.
Don't flame me, I'm not trying to troll or anything.

Personally I think Pulp Fiction was his only decent film, and that's mainly due to the cast, rather than him as a director. Good example of this is my favorite scene of the film, the one with Christopher Walken. Ask yourselves, would that have worked with anyone else!? I think not. If you had put unknowns in that film, then you just wouldn't have the iconic status.

Mind you, that's certainly not the reason I think he's a hack. Reservior Dogs is why I think he's a hack. "But why, 'Dogs is a class film!" No, sorry it was a completely plaigerized peice of work, and completely unoriginal.

Just to prove my point, look here, and read the second plot summary. Sound familiar to anyone? Yep, tarantino completely and utterly stole the plot from another film.

His so called "breakthrough" movie is nothing more than a remake that simply doesn't credit the original. I'm shocked he wasn't sued for Reservoir Dogs! And before anyone says anything, yes I've seen the film City On Fire, and it is almost identical to Dogs in just about every way.

Don't get me started on that peice of crap Jackie Brown either.
What an utter peice of derived crap.

But now, we have Kill Bill!
A so called "Homage" to Asian cinema.

I'm just constantly remind of a Simpsons quote...
You know the episode where Bart is suspected of having Skinner killed?
Then there was a TV movie made of the supposed story.

"Apparently they changed the story just enough so they didn't have to pay us..."

It just about covers everything Tarantino has done.

yellum · 17-10-2003 10:46pm

Have you actually seen the film Angelwhore ?

I actually thought Dogs was ****e and boring. I liked Pulp Fiction and jackie Brown.

jackie brown is based on a book, not quentins own work. Its good though. Dusk Til Dawn was a good funny script. True Romance was too.

Kill Bill was good, not amazing but I am never pleased with a film now as I have turned into a super-critic who mornonically thinks he can do better.

Karl Hungus · 18-10-2003 12:29am

Originally posted by yellum
Have you actually seen the film Angelwhore ?

In fairness, Yellum... Don't take my little rant too seriously.
I'm a bit off the mark admittedly.

No, I've not seen Kill Bill yet, so I know I'm being premature here. Although, I do plan on seeing it. And frankly, I'm sure it will be a fun film, just that from a lot of sceenies, and trailers I've seen that it's simply a cut&paste mish-mash of fight scenes from 50 different movies. And I can see my own hipocrisy shining through, as I quite enjoyed another blatantly unoriginal "Homage" film, namely Cabin Fever.

But as I said, bit off the mark...
I guess I'm just annoyed at the fact that he's so highly praised.
I'm sticking to the point on Reservior Dogs however.
That film was a complete rip-off.

Also, I hope that "Super-Critic" comment wasn't a stab at me.
I'd never be as arrogant to think that I could do better.

So, I think I'll just shut up right now, untill I've actually seen Kill Bill.

ObeyGiant · 18-10-2003 1:20am

Originally posted by AngelWhore
Good example of this is my favorite scene of the film, the one with Christopher Walken. Ask yourselves, would that have worked with anyone else!? I think not. If you had put unknowns in that film, then you just wouldn't have the iconic status.

There's a few things to bear in mind when you think about this. First is the fact that many of the characters (such as the Christopher Walken character) were written specifically for those actors. Which shows remarkable foresight.
Second is the fact that, with the exception of Bruce Willis, the majority of the actors in Pulp fiction were relatively unknown by Joe Movieplex.
And finally, there's the fact that, for years, Pulp Fiction was the most oft-quoted film ever. Hell, I can't think of a party I've been to since 1995 where, at one point or another, someone hasn't played a song from the Pulp Fiction soundtrack. So, the writing and soundtrack certainly helped.

Originally posted by AngelWhore
His so called "breakthrough" movie is nothing more than a remake that simply doesn't credit the original.

Not quite - Chow Yun Fat is credited as an inspiration for Resevoir Dogs in the screenplay. Mind you, so are Goddard and Corman (oh my!).

Another thing you could have mentioned was the lifting of the names in Resevoir dogs (Mr. Blue etc.) from the Taking of Pelham One, Two, Three.

Originally posted by AngelWhore
Don't get me started on that peice of crap Jackie Brown either.
What an utter peice of derived crap.

I actually like Jackie Brown quite a bit. Like all of his movies, it's nothing particularly new. If you've been wallowing in blaxploitation movies, you'll probably be able to name everything he's referencing. It's basically a pastiche, if you will, of years and years of Jim Kelly and Pam Grier and Richard Roundtree. I love Elmore Leonard novels, and I think Tarantino managed to actually improve on them, introducing a couple of really fantastic characters, and the whole thing was just pulled off with such panache that it's easy to forgive it's shortcomings in originality.

Plus we also get to see Michael Keaton reprise the character of Ray Nicolette, which is nice.

Originally posted by AngelWhore
It just about covers everything Tarantino has done.

Not quite - we haven't even touched on his work as a writer, including my favourite of anything he's done: True Romance. It's a shame you didn't bring this up, because it really could have helped strengthen your case against QT, since it's been accused of lifting major parts of its story from Badlands, including its beautiful xylophone soundtrack.

And From Dusk Till Dawn?
We could be here all night.

Karl Hungus · 18-10-2003 1:29am

I'm not really in a state to argue with you, ObeyGiant.

I think it's just a little rant against Tarantino that I needed to get out of my system, whether or not I missed a lot of points.

Hell, if Kill Bill turns out to be ****e, I can always go and watch Iron Monkey again.
I just got the DVD.

Although, Chow Yun Fat could have been credited for a number of reasons.
There's no doubt that Tarantino is a fan.

Oh, and I've never seen Badlands, so the True Romance point is null.

SheroN · 18-10-2003 1:55pm

surpirse surpirse AW takes the attention seeking different to the majority stance, just like his clothes, taste in music etc. Isn't it great to be different? (especially when it attracts attention?)

Karl Hungus · 18-10-2003 4:23pm

Originally posted by SheroN
surpirse surpirse AW takes the attention seeking different to the majority stance, just like his clothes, taste in music etc. Isn't it great to be different? (especially when it attracts attention?)

My apologies for having a differnt opinion SheroN.
I wonder is there a post I've ever made where some idiotic muppet can't stick an "Attention Seeking" label on.

Sure, you've got a point, I'll have to admit.
Brushing off my 'Stance' as you say, as attention seeking makes it very easy to blindly ignore any points I bring up. Who needs to have seen the film City On Fire, no comparison with Reservior Dogs at all! I obviously only brought that up because I'm looking for attention, not because Tarantino is a hack. :rolleyes:

Hey, whatever keeps you from participating intellectually in a discussion.

Shad0r · 18-10-2003 9:17pm

Originally posted by AngelWhore
My apologies for having a differnt opinion SheroN.
I wonder is there a post I've ever made where some idiotic muppet can't stick an "Attention Seeking" label on.

Well (and I'm only talking about this thread) the way I see it your either "Attention Seeking" or your being a moron who hasnt spent nearly enough time thinking out his post. Also considering you are posting provocative crap to a thread by the title of a film you havent even seen yet your hardly fully informed.

I obviously only brought that up because I'm looking for attention, not because Tarantino is a hack. :rolleyes:

Tarantino isnt a hack. Your basing that judgement on the fact that the plot summary of an asian film is the same as Resevoir Dogs? This may come as a shock to you AW but theres aLOT more to making a movie than the plot summary. Especially considering Tarantino has always been more about story telling than storyline.

His so called "breakthrough" movie is nothing more than a remake that simply doesn't credit the original.

You sure you arent confusing Pulp Fiction with Resevoir Dogs? I've never heard of the later being described like that and afaik he did credit the original on the screenplay.

So, I think I'll just shut up right now, untill I've actually seen Kill Bill.

Praise the lord.

I for one have always enjoyed QT's movies. Guy Ritchie is the only other person who's come close to him on a dialogue level. Think of those scenes: Jules and Vincent talking about foot massage, Jules and Vincent in the restaraunt talking about eating pig or when they are in the back of the car wiping up blood and brain. The dinner scene in RD where Mr. Pink doesnt want to leave a tip. Great stuff, to name just a few.

18-10-2003 11:40pm

Tarantino has acknowledged the fact that Reservoir Dogs was basicallly a remake of City on Fire.

Not quite - we haven't even touched on his work as a writer, including my favourite of anything he's done: True Romance. It's a shame you didn't bring this up, because it really could have helped strengthen your case against QT, since it's been accused of lifting major parts of its story from Badlands, including its beautiful xylophone soundtrack.

Is it not Natural Born Killers which is accused of ripping of Badlands. Two lovers go on a cross country killing spree.

Karl Hungus · 19-10-2003 1:04am

Originally posted by Shad0r
Well (and I'm only talking about this thread) the way I see it your either "Attention Seeking" or your being a moron who hasnt spent nearly enough time thinking out his post. Also considering you are posting provocative crap to a thread by the title of a film you havent even seen yet your hardly fully informed.

You're right in one aspect there, Shad0r.
I should've spent more time thinking about it, maybe then I would've started a new thread.
But throwing about insults like 'Moron' is a little juvenile, don't you think?

I think you should consider that I've not said anything at all about Kill Bill, other than it being 'Homage' so my views on it, I dont think, are really in question. In fact, I admitted that I was just being a contradicting bastard in an early post.

So, I think it's fair, if we drop the issue untill I PM Draco, and see if we can get a seperate thread for this.

Originally posted by Shad0r
Tarantino isnt a hack. Your basing that judgement on the fact that the plot summary of an asian film is the same as Resevoir Dogs? This may come as a shock to you AW but theres aLOT more to making a movie than the plot summary. Especially considering Tarantino has always been more about story telling than storyline.

I think there's one vital question I must ask, and that is, have you actually seen the said Asian film?

As you might've missed, or purposely brushed off, I've actually seen the film.
So perhaps, just perhaps, you might drop the condescending tone?

For your benifit, there is a hell of a lot more in common between City On Fire, and Reservior Dogs than a mere plot summary. If you've seen the film, you'd know this, and probably be looking at things from my point of view.

Maybe you're just mistaken in your assuption of my idea of what constitutes a rip-off? I mean, to look at it one way, as I am a fan of horror movies in general, so it would be an idea to assume that I'm used to very similar plot outlines in films. Surely on paper, Halloween / Friday The Thirteenth, basically the same film. Or The Amityville Horror / The Others?

So maybe it's a little ignorant to preach to me about there being more to a film than a plot summary?

Originally posted by Shad0r
afaik he did credit the original on the screenplay.

Care to back that up at all? I've read otherwise, tbh. Even, in fact, from the horses mouth (Tarantino) denying it utterly. I'll try and find something online about it tomorrow, as I do distinctly remember an interview in Empire, where the readers sent in the questions, and somebody accused him of 'Dogs being stolen material, to which he maintained that it was just coincidence!

CodeMonkey · 19-10-2003 1:11am

Originally posted by AngelWhore
For your benifit, there is a hell of a lot more in common between City On Fire, and Reservior Dogs than a mere plot summary. If you've seen the film, you'd know this, and probably be looking at things from my point of view.

Errrm, who cares really. Lots of directors have done a lot worse than turning a popular movie from a different culture into a kinda remake the rest of the world can watch. I'd have problems with the movie and him if he denies there's no collection between the 2 but that's not the case is it? So Kill Bill....seen it yet? Is it as bad as you'd hoped so you can call Tarantino a hack some more?

Karl Hungus · 19-10-2003 1:58am

Right, I'm going to bed after this...

I've searched about a bit now, and I found something that downright shocked me.
Click here to find out exactly what Tarantino thinks of Chow Yun Fat.

I was under the impression that he was a fan?

Could it be that he's sensitive about a certain subject, and leaps directly to attacking?

Oh, and btw Codemonkey, he does deny it.
But I'm completely in agreement that this kinda thing is nothing new.
/me nods to Kurasawa, and certain westerns.

Tusky · 19-10-2003 12:16pm

jeez louize on a stick , both of yea shut up - so you have dif opinions ! so what , spend your time more productively ... likie masturbating !

yellum · 19-10-2003 1:42pm

Originally posted by AngelWhore

Also, I hope that "Super-Critic" comment wasn't a stab at me.
I'd never be as arrogant to think that I could do better.

LOL. No I was stabbing at me there. I am that arrogant.

ObeyGiant · 19-10-2003 6:14pm

Originally posted by Gianluca Bald Warship
Tarantino has acknowledged the fact that Reservoir Dogs was basicallly a remake of City on Fire.

Only subsequently, since people have begun to discover City on Fire.

His story changed from "Yeah, I look forward to seeing this Japanese film people say I 'ripped off'" to "I loved City on Fire! I have the poster framed in my room!".

Paraphrasing him, of course.

And no - it was definitely True Romance that was accused of lifting lots of Badlands (although yes, the NBK two-lovers-on-a-killing-spree could also count as 'lifting'). It's the score that makes me so certain, because it was said that this was the most brazen part of the 'copying'.

Karl Hungus · 19-10-2003 6:38pm

I promised myself I wouldn't post on this thread again, but...

Originally posted by yellum
His 2nd Unit director did that scene as far as I know. And I thought it spoiled it too.

This sparked my fire against Tarantino again!!!

How so? I hear you say.

Well...

From an interview in with Quentin Tarantino:

One of the things that people are going to notice in this movie as apposed to a normal action movie is that there's no 2nd-unit director. I'm directing it. If it's in the movie, I directed it. I said 'Action' and 'Cut,' I set up the shot. It's like when you go to these James Bond Movies and they have three directors. I never understood this notion of doing an action movie and letting someone else do the action scenes, while you're directing the action scenes. That's like having sex and letting someone else have the orgasm.

Holy taking credit for someone else's work, Batman!

I'd like to point out, that according to imdb.com that there were 5 second unit directors. And I'd also like to point out, that all the action scenes in Kill Bill were directed and choreographed by none other than Woo-Ping Yuen. So don't think any of the action in this movie has anything do with Tarantino.

Just so you know...

Giblet · 21-10-2003 6:50pm

So you liked Pulp Fiction, but Not Resivour Dogs, and you haven't seen Kill Bill or Jackie Brown.

He has made 4 movies, and I liked 3 of them. You might aswell if you see JB or KB.

Just a thought.

What about the films he has written, do you like any of them?

Karl Hungus · 21-10-2003 6:54pm

I've seen Jackie Brown, where did you get the idea that I didn't?
And I've just seen Kill Bill today.

I'll post my review up later on.

Edit:

Yeah, I quite liked Natural Born Killers, and From Dusk Till Dawn.
But hardly original.

Bannor · 24-10-2003 4:08pm

Originally posted by AngelWhore
Holy taking credit for someone else's work, Batman!

It's Quentin Tarantino what do you expect?

Anyone remember Roger Avery?

True Romance - Roger Avery wrote most of the movie. Tarantino apparently shafted him when taking the script to Warners. Hence no credit to Avery for the movie.

Pulp Fiction - where did the idea for that movie come from? Who had partly written two of the featured stories before Tarantino came up with the idea? Roger Avery. Tarantino refused to allow Avery credit for any of the screenplay, the studio insisted that he get a credit for the stories because after the True Romance episode they thought Avery would sue. Tarantino then insisted that he receive an equal credit for the stories and get a credit for Avery's Killing Zoe - hence Tarantino was name an Executive Producer for Killing Zoe.

Tarantino isn't a nice guy but he makes good movies - You don't have to like somebody to appreciate their work. :ninja:

sleepwalker · 24-10-2003 4:44pm

no hes not a hack hes just a conceited prick

lets leave natural born killers out of it because oliver stone changed that so much from the original basic story it has nothing to do with tarantino and thats a good thing by the way,

jackie brown and pulp fiction are two brilliant films

reservoir dogs is good and its good because of its script not because of its plot

the true romance/ badlands comments ehh i seriously doubt that tarantino had anything to do with the direction of music for the film

Sangre · 24-10-2003 4:46pm

Well I would think that the soundtracks are one of his strongest points.

patch · 24-10-2003 5:58pm

Indeed, except that Tony Scott directed True Romance.

He also changed the script so that it played in Normal order.

Tarantino's writing shines through though, which is strength that shines through on all his scripts/movies. Their COOL, and are a joy to watch.

If he ripped off a Disney movie, it would still be a joy to watch.
I love all his movies, True Romance being a personal favorite.... it's a damned shame he didn't direct it himself.

Elmo · 24-10-2003 6:00pm

Well I liked Kill Bill.

I don't think it is the greatest come back of all time, but very enjoyable. I could of sat for the next two hours watching the next part of the movie.

This is where he is a hack, Kill Bill Vol 1 and Kill Bill Vol 2. He does not need two movies. Producers rip off IMO.

Res Dog I liked but can see why others do not like it. Some people don't like movies that remain in the same setting for the duration. IMO The Rear Window, Res Dogs and The Panic Room are great movies.

Plup Fiction there's much to that film, prehaps too much to take in.

Jackie Browne is one of those films which start of relitavely simple but have a great middle and end.

I enjoyed True Romance it a great movie.

Natural Born Killers looks daft.

I stayed up and watched From Dusk Till Dawn on the BBC. OMG what crap Hist movie turns into one of the worst Vampire movies ever.

ObeyGiant · 24-10-2003 6:17pm

Originally posted by patch
Tarantino's writing shines through though, which is strength that shines through on all his scripts/movies. Their COOL, and are a joy to watch.

I personally think he's like the Robbie Williams of movies. This isn't the horrendous insult many of you might think it is.

While I might not like a lot of Robbie Williams' work as a singer/songwriter, he's always managed to predict the cultural zeitgeist (and in some cases, steer it), so that he's always been able to present this 'cool' image, even if it does only work on a certain group of people. And you have to respect this.

This is almost exactly the same as with Tarantino.

Asian movies have been gaining popularity among the film geeks of the world (and to a lesser extent, the general public, but who cares about those guys?). And cheesy nostalgia is at an all-time high. Tarantino literally couldn't have picked a better time to have come out with a love-letter to cheesy Asian exploitation movies.

Five years ago however, and we'd probably be singing a different tune. Probably something more along the lines of "self-indulgent nonsense". Or we'd have been even more blown away than we were now.

BLITZ_Molloy · 26-10-2003 2:22am

I don't feel he's a hack at all. I like the fact that he was able to make a film like Pulp Fiction and then leave it alone. He didn't go following it up with pale copies.

I think the fact that Kill Bill stands on its own so well without tons of dialogue or a complicated, chronologically ****ed up plot is quite refreshing. It's not what you expect from him and it shows the guy has range.

ObeyGiant · 26-10-2003 1:55pm

Originally posted by BLITZ_Molloy
I think the fact that Kill Bill stands on its own so well without tons of dialogue or a complicated, chronologically ****ed up plot is quite refreshing.

Erm. Kill Bill has a chronologically fucked up plot.

Tarantino: Hack or not?

Comments