So it isn't the same as stealing if you only rip off part of a movie? How about something original from Mr. Tarantino? How about if I only plagiarized the first 2/3rds of a book you wrote? That wouldn't be stealing/ripping-off since I didn't take your whole book, right?
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Jul 24 2008 : 2:09AM
CQ, plot points do not a film make. Is Ringo Lam ripping off Don Siegel or William Friedkin?
[Link]
conquistador Deactivated User
Hellhamster. 2947 Posts 10/03
Posted - Jul 24 2008 : 10:51PM
Point taken. I still think Tarantino "borrows" rather key plot elements from the films of others. That is not to say he is the only film maker who does so. Would the standoff in "Reservoir Dogs" have been filmed the same way (if at all) had QT not seen "City on Fire"? Impossible to say."How a video store geek plagiarized his way to the top of Hollywood"
Again, my problem with QT isn't as much that he takes elements from other films but that rather that his films are NOTHING BUT elements from other films. I don't see anything uniquely Tarantino. I just see compilations of other films and that's not a mark of quality in my eyes. At least Thom Andersen made his compilation film about that. Edited by - john lyons on 7/25/2008 12:09:13 AM
Yeah, there's no more innovation in film anymore, but that doesnt mean there aren't any good films these days. The Dark Knight is #1 on IMDB right now. Christopher Nolan cites Heat as the main inspiration behind it. If I didn't know that, I would have watched The Dark Knight thinking that Nolan was ripping off Michael Mann. Heat can be said to be taken from Jean Pierre Melville's 1970 film Le Cercle Rouge, a film that has a kickback to Rififi, the first and most innovative heist film ever made. Le Cercle Rouge, Heat, and The Dark Knight even all have a steel blue color palette to the cinematography. The Dark Knight (2008)--> Heat (1995)--> Le Cercle Rouge (1970)--> Rififi (1954) I was expecting The Tracy Fragments to be one of the most original films in a long time, but ended up being exactly like The 400 Blows. Great movie though. Also, every Tarantino fan must check out the films of Seijun Suzuki. His yakuza films from the 60's (Youth Of The Beast, Tokyo Drifter, and Branded To Kill) have a direct influence on Tarantino. I like seeing filmmakers show their influence, but I hate when stupid kids (critics and IMDBers) say that some newer crime film is "a Tarantino rip-off" without knowing that Tarantino is borrowing scenes from older movies.
Yes. I really liked it too, although I'll admit I can't really get through the whole of it in one sitting (I usually break it up into 2 90 minute increments). I find it kinda funny that he took the name for it from a film which does something he hates: abbreviates Los Angeles to L.A. By the way, if you haven't seen L.A. Plays Itself, it's highly recommended.
Ripping off is nothing new. Obviously. A good director is more than welcome in my opinion to take creative license from other films/filmmakers as long as they still bring in their own substance and ideas. Two of my favorite directors, Claude Chabrol and Brian DePalma are known for being heavily influenced by Hitchcock. But watch either of their films and, narrative similarities aside, you'll find two extremely unique filmmakers whose styles are distinctly their own.
Now you are really making yourself sound silly, or petty. If you really believe that, then there is no point even arguing with you. BTW, what is the last film of his that he was actually in? I haven't seen him since Dogs.
[Link]
conquistador Deactivated User
Hellhamster. 2947 Posts 10/03
Posted - Jul 25 2008 : 12:54PM
He was in (his own movie) Death Proof (2007). Hope that helps.
Wicked Pictures,Vouyer Media, Axel Braun Productions, Marc Dorcel, JoyBear Pictures, abbywinters.com 1390 Posts 7/05
Posted - Jul 25 2008 : 2:14PM
The late Richard Franklin, too. He was something of a Hitchcock protoge (the two began corresponding in the Sixties, Franklin invited him to speak at USC (while he was a film student there), and Hitchcock brought him to his two final sets to observe his working style. Franklin's early work obviously wore Hitch's influence on its sleeve, most obviously of course in Psycho II. But by the time he was creating his own best work - Hotel Sorrento - he had developed a unique voice (although he joked in interviews that he'd simply moved away from Hitchcock and adopted the invisible technique of John Ford).
Oh, totally. That's the beauty of his films though. Just about all of his major films directly copy elements from Veryigo, Rear Window, Psycho, and Dial M for Murder. I would actually compare DePalma with Tarantino to say that they're both film geeks who love great cinema and use that cinema as direct inspiration for their own films. Tarantino's films don't reflect an understanding of great cinema but rather play out as a series of direct lifts or approximate recreations. DePalma's films however act as comments on Hitchcock's work, often taking out the seriousness and replacing it with kitschy flare. I would compare them to say DePalma is like a film teacher whereas Tarantino is like a college student who invites all his friends over to watch the latest cool movie he "discovered."
It must have been in a really small role as I have seen the movie twice and couldn't remember his being in it. Besides, his "roles" in his films amount to little more than cameos. I'm sure his motivation to make movies is to give himself insigificant roles. You are really reaching.
(Exasperated sigh) You guys should just admit that you hate Tarantino and stop trying to come up with lofty reasons why. I hate some directors too, but I don't throw everything but the kitchen sink out there to come up with a valid excuse. To say that QT only copies, without expanding on the genre is ludicrous. Compare the scene with Uma Thurman against the Crazy 88s to the chop socky schlock films that influenced him. KB is so much more stylistic, better choreographed, and visually exciting. As to the statement that QT's films don't "reflect an understanding of great cinema", well that may be true but not really relevant. His films to date have been based on crime novels, chop socky films, and revenge flicks. Not exactly AFI Top 10 material now is it? I would guess, however, that Tarantino has seen a lot more of the greatest films than many of his critics. Just because he doesn't, or hasn't yet, made those type of movies doesn't prove anything. Also, Tarantino writes all of his films, and for other directors too. In fact it's what he want an Oscar for. As for De Palma, he has made some great movies, but his last few efforts were snooze fests. Black Dahlia? God that was awful. Before that it was Femme Fatale, Mission To Mars, Snake Eyes, Mission Impossible (I liked that one), and Carlito's Way. Not his best work by a long shot.
I do hate QT films, I never said otherwise. Again, he's not nearly the worst director who ever lived but he's still not very good. My reasons for disliking his films are the result of my own relationship with cinema. Others may like him as a result of their relationship with cinema. I'm not "right" and they're not "wrong" but I don't see why arguments for both sides shouldn't be made and debated. That's the point of a DISCUSSION forum, right?
Hello, taking up this thread: Just had to mention that in Kill Bill Tarantino features a very lovely lady in the role of the girl schoolgirl assassin Go Go Yaburi (with her ball and chain). The lovely lady who does that role is Chiaki Kuriyama (born 1984). She is very popular in Japan and she has participated in films like Ju On (the Grudge), Battle Royale and Azumi 2. When she was very young she made some nude pictures which caused a stir in Japan, with talk about child pornography. They even canseled a photobokk that she gave out. So it is interesting that Tarantino features such a gorgeous and lovely Japanese star for his movie. Otherwise I consider the real Japanese films much better than Tarantinos films.
I know I'm late to the party. Could you point me to movies with very similar dialoque like for example in Pulp Fiction. Sure he is also influenced (everybody's influenced) but that is some amazing distinctive dialogue. I guess I haven't seen enough movies (Im sure I haven't in comparison to you and others in here) but I find that movie very satisfying and unlike anything I had ever seen. What about the toying with chronology of the film (I know it has been done but not often I think?)? The way he tells the story through the words spoken is simply very cool and he is also very great in casting actors and choosing muscic imo! So I would say he's got a lot of things going for him. And it's great that he can use a lot of used ideas and celebrate them. With the praise being thrown towards him I guess most critics and people in the industry don't mind is homage style.
A couple of years ago I saw Tarrantino coming out of a sex shop on 8th Avenue in New York. I pointed at him and said, "Tarrantino!" He had a bag of porn, which he quickly put behind his back and said, "Hey! Hey, man, how you doin"? He tried to shake my hand and I said, "Whoaaaa, brother." I did not shake his hand. It looked moist.
Hey Danish Man. I honestly haven't seen Pulp Fiction in years so I can't tell you off the top of my head exactly where he stole stuff from. I will take a look at it in the next few days and try to assemble a list of a few distinctive rip-offs. In the mean time, check out the Movie Connections page on IMDB to get a partial list of Tarantino's "inspirations" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110912/movieconnections Also check out You're Still Not Fooling Anybody. I agree completely that he has good taste in actors and music, as well is in films he copies. Does that make his movies better? No! Bernard Herman was a great composer before QT used music Herman wrote for different films. One thing I do remember from Pulp Fiction is QT directly ripping off The Panic in Needle Park (which the IMDB also supports) not only in photographic style and similarly used locations, but in conversational pieces being lifted directly from that film. This argument has been played out many times, but just to reiterate, homage is openly acknowledged references to another person's work in order to praise or criticize that work. Copying is the use of someone else's work in one's own piece, as if it were originally created for the secondary piece.
Ok. Maybe a fair argument could be made that he puts together is various sources of inspiration in a talented way that does make his movies great, but if you just break down every scene and discard them because it's a rip off then I can definitely see it from your point of view. Especially if you are a big fan of the movies he copies. I look at the whole movie and enjoy it. Perhaps because I haven't watch many of is influences but I doubt it would change my mind much. In the end it of course comes down to personal taste. Edited by - Danish Man on 12/15/2008 4:16:13 PM
[Link]
Knuckle Kids Deactivated User
287 Posts 4/08
Posted - Dec 15 2008 : 8:18PM
Tarantino played Warren the Bartender in Deathproof. Any word on the movie "Machete" that was a clip in Grindhouse?
[Link]
sasha_grey14388 Deactivated User
16 Posts 12/08
Posted - Dec 31 2008 : 7:34AM
sasha gerey I searched alot to find you and peter north in one scene but I did not find....is there any reason that you or he can not punch your stomach sweeetie!!!
Posted - Jul 23 2008 : 9:31AM
Better than (the old) IMDb discussions.