People saying the only thing Tarantino does is copy other movies.

[The Heart Collector]

Yeah, this kinda pisses me off. I mean, call me crazy, but I was under the impression that what Tarantino does is take traditional movie conventions and archetypal characters from old genre films, use them as a framework, but focus the movie on other things. I mean, it's not so much that Tarantino takes an old movie and makes a carbon copy of it, but that he takes the world of an old movie and uses that as a basis to have people talk. This is more evident in Pulp Fiction than in any of the others, and I could understand the complaint about him copying being said at Kill Bill, but c'mon. How many people criticize Reservoir Dogs by saying it's a 'remake' of some old Hong Kong movie? I believe the old Hong Kong movie's purpose wasn't having a monologue about the meaning of 80s pop songs.

[Mr-Blonde]

I'd like a schmoe to name one director that hasn't borrowed from another in some form. Ya can't do it can ya? Ya know you can't!

All I am saying is that art imitates art. And if done well, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Tarantino borrows a little bit from every type of movie that ever influenced him. He is the film geek's film geek. When asked in a Kill Bill interview what he had been doing for the last few years he replied that he had been watching lots of movies.

If someone says that Tarantino's films aren't original they don't know what they're talking about. he has a unique style all his own that is wholly original and completely his own.

[boombche_stum]

I agree. I don't see why people blast Tarantino at all. No ideas original and that holds true for any director, but it's not as if they are ripping other films off completely, saying it's their own idea and not giving credit where credit is due. Tarantino just loves movies in general and just like anyone who is a lover of film, is influenced by the films he loves. Just as all directors and such are. Anyway, it's ridculous to call him a plagerizer or a rip off in my mind, the man is simply paying homage to the films he loves and uses those films as canvases for his own film. I see nothing wrong with that.

[Patrick Bateman]

DITTO.
Well said boombche_stum.
I completely agree.

[James Logan]

All great directors borrow stuff, either as an hommage, or just because it works, and they fit it in their own work. Tarantino does it. Scorsese does it. Spielberg does it.

That's how it works for every artist or craftsman. You're inspired and influenced by those who came before you.

[jeo4]

Originally posted by The Heart Collector
Yeah, this kinda pisses me off. I mean, call me crazy, but I was under the impression that what Tarantino does is take traditional movie conventions and archetypal characters from old genre films, use them as a framework, but focus the movie on other things. I mean, it's not so much that Tarantino takes an old movie and makes a carbon copy of it, but that he takes the world of an old movie and uses that as a basis to have people talk. This is more evident in Pulp Fiction than in any of the others, and I could understand the complaint about him copying being said at Kill Bill, but c'mon. How many people criticize Reservoir Dogs by saying it's a 'remake' of some old Hong Kong movie? I believe the old Hong Kong movie's purpose wasn't having a monologue about the meaning of 80s pop songs.

I agree completely. I get sick of hearing people rip QT over this. What director doesn't cite previous influences??

[Grim H.]

Homages are what make the movie industry go 'round. At least Tarantino acknowledges films he borrows from. Others may just rip off something completely and claim it as their own. Tarantino never does that.

[isileth]

What makes me laugh is that the movies that Tarantino has copied, such as old Hong Kong movies or Italian Movies of the 70' have always been considered crap as they probably were.
Now that "Tarantino the great" has remade them they're great.
I don't like people like Tarantino or Kubrick because I think they their movies are overrated.
I watched Shining made by Kubrick and I felt asleep after 10 minutes.
He had succeeded in turning a wonderfully scary tale into a boring experience.
When I watched one of his movies I felt as someone was pulling my leg and the same happened with Tarantino.

[MinimalistCouch]

Bunuel didnt copy anyone

[adamjohnson]

I knwo who never copied anyone.

The man who invented the moving-image camera! His movies were damn original.

:D

[James Logan]

Originally posted by isileth
What makes me laugh is that the movies that Tarantino has copied, such as old Hong Kong movies or Italian Movies of the 70' have always been considered crap as they probably were.


They weren't crap. Many movie buffs, including myself, love those kinds of movies.

[jeo4]

I agree, James. The entire genre has a huge following, too.

[Beeblebrox]

I find that whether or not a director gets accused of ripping off or defended for paying homage is directly proportional to how much you like his work. If you don't like him, he's ripping off. If you do like him, he's paying homage.

If Michael Bay were to come out with an epic trilogy called Master of the Rings about a little person that goes on a journey to destroy a magic ring, I doubt very seriously people would say he was paying an homage.

[Tuukka]

Originally posted by MinimalistCouch
Bunuel didnt copy anyone

Fritz Lang and Jean Renoir at least come to mind. Bunuel did homages, or rip-off's, of their movies. No artist lives in a vacuum. Especially no GOOD artist lives in a vacuum.

[jeo4]

Originally posted by Beeblebrox
I find that whether or not a director gets accused of ripping off or defended for paying homage is directly proportional to how much you like his work. If you don't like him, he's ripping off. If you do like him, he's paying homage.

If Michael Bay were to come out with an epic trilogy called Master of the Rings about a little person that goes on a journey to destroy a magic ring, I doubt very seriously people would say he was paying an homage.

My only bitch here is that the rip-off label stuck to Quentin better than most. And he's pretty straight forward in talking about his influences.

And if George Lucas, Francis Ford Coppolla or Martin Scorcese did a trilogy about a little guy on a quest to destroy a ring, I doubt it would be well-received, either.

It could be argued that timing is important in the making of a "homage".

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by jeo4
[B]My only bitch here is that the rip-off label stuck to Quentin better than most. And he's pretty straight forward in talking about his influences.

There are as many if not more people who praised Tarantino's originality, particularly early on, as if he were the first person to ever make a movie with a non-linear storyline. So it does go both ways. Personally, I think all the praise AND detraction are pretty much on the mark.

And if George Lucas, Francis Ford Coppolla or Martin Scorcese did a trilogy about a little guy on a quest to destroy a ring, I doubt it would be well-received, either.

It depends. How many people on this site bitch and moan about the lack of originality in Hollywood but are drooling all over themselves about Peter Jackson's King Kong?

I think what it comes down to is taste. We can try and quantify what we like and what we don't like for this reason and that reason, but really we like what we like and that's all there is to it. I hate some sequels, but I'm not going to invent some principle about it that I know won't hold up. I don't mind some "homages." I do mind others. It's not about the homage itself but how I personally feel about the work being made and the work it's being borrowed from.

[Grim H.]

Originally posted by adamjohnson
I knwo who never copied anyone.

The man who invented the moving-image camera! His movies were damn original.

:D

Yeah, well, he probably just copied off some old photographers or painters. :D

[miguel_montes]

Originally posted by Grim H.
Yeah, well, he probably just copied off some old photographers or painters. :D

LOL.... And even them were copying from...??? The first pre-historic men who drew and painted their caves with figures of animals and hunts... :D

[beastieben21]

I'll play devil's advocate...

Here's my assessment of Mr. Tarantino's career thus far: He's the greatest cover artist alive. He's like a perfect Beatles cover band, who's got the look, the sound, the swagger all down pat. However, the Beatles cover band, despite being fantastic, is still imitating what has been done in the past, and because of this, offers no 'new' contribution to music.

Tarantino, despite what fanboys may think, copies other films much more than other directors simply because he can. He has the knowledge and the artistic freedom to do so. He's a lot like his idol, Sergio Leone, but to an extreme. Kill Bill is a superlative example of this. I know he openly admits that he borrowed DOZENS of elements and reused them, but that still makes him just a cover artist. With great, original directors, they invent new and radical ways of doing things. There are elements that are wholly original, and forever will be considered "Kubrickian" or "Kurosawa-esque." Tarantino hasn't done anything like that yet. Despite the unabashed love on these boards for him, and the fact that he has made a few pretty good movies, he hasn't done anything to push the film genre forward. He's simply copied and replicated things that have been done before. Pulp Fiction is probably the closest he's come to a masterpiece, but that film's closest comparison is probably the Matrix, it was just the right film at the right time, despite it's obvious influences.

I still think that Tarantino has the ability, like Leone, to make his "Once Upon a Time in America," where he throws refrences out the window, gets himself a composer and makes a wholly original project. That's what he needs in my opinion. There's nothing wrong with being a cover artist; it can be entertaining and fun. But at the end of the day, you remember the original. You like the cover artist because they remind you of the original. Hopefully, someday Tarantino will break that mold.

(Braces himself for the backlash...)

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by beastieben21
I still think that Tarantino has the ability, like Leone, to make his "Once Upon a Time in America," where he throws refrences out the window, gets himself a composer and makes a wholly original project.

Ha! Is that what you think Leone did with Once Upon A Time in America?

I don't know if I said this before in my previous post, but I think one of the differences between Tarantino and other directors is that Tarantino's audience is simply more aware of his influences. Partly because it's so obvious and partly because Tarantino himself has pointed them out.

But just because you don't know what Leone or Kubrick ripped off doesn't mean they were "wholly original."

[Tuukka]

Originally posted by beastieben21
Kill Bill is a superlative example of this. I know he openly admits that he borrowed DOZENS of elements and reused them, but that still makes him just a cover artist. With great, original directors, they invent new and radical ways of doing things. There are elements that are wholly original, and forever will be considered "Kubrickian" or "Kurosawa-esque." Tarantino hasn't done anything like that yet.

RE:

I have never seen a film which didn't borrow dozens of elements from other movies. In fact I'm 100% sure that nobody has ever made a film like that, at least not in terms of what we consider as a feature film. Concious or subconscious, every filmmaker copies, borrows and steals from others.

Everyone.

I'm suprised that you have never heard the term "Tarantino-esque". It's commonly used and generally people know immediately what it means. They know it because Tarantino has defined his own style.

The only difference between Tarantino and most others is the fact that he keeps his influences on his sleeve. He has always been very open about them, while most filmmakers don't discuss in detail what other movies inspired particular scenes.

[boombche_stum]

Originally posted by beastieben21
I'll play devil's advocate...

Here's my assessment of Mr. Tarantino's career thus far: He's the greatest cover artist alive. He's like a perfect Beatles cover band, who's got the look, the sound, the swagger all down pat. However, the Beatles cover band, despite being fantastic, is still imitating what has been done in the past, and because of this, offers no 'new' contribution to music.

Tarantino, despite what fanboys may think, copies other films much more than other directors simply because he can. He has the knowledge and the artistic freedom to do so. He's a lot like his idol, Sergio Leone, but to an extreme. Kill Bill is a superlative example of this. I know he openly admits that he borrowed DOZENS of elements and reused them, but that still makes him just a cover artist. With great, original directors, they invent new and radical ways of doing things. There are elements that are wholly original, and forever will be considered "Kubrickian" or "Kurosawa-esque." Tarantino hasn't done anything like that yet. Despite the unabashed love on these boards for him, and the fact that he has made a few pretty good movies, he hasn't done anything to push the film genre forward. He's simply copied and replicated things that have been done before. Pulp Fiction is probably the closest he's come to a masterpiece, but that film's closest comparison is probably the Matrix, it was just the right film at the right time, despite it's obvious influences.

I still think that Tarantino has the ability, like Leone, to make his "Once Upon a Time in America," where he throws refrences out the window, gets himself a composer and makes a wholly original project. That's what he needs in my opinion. There's nothing wrong with being a cover artist; it can be entertaining and fun. But at the end of the day, you remember the original. You like the cover artist because they remind you of the original. Hopefully, someday Tarantino will break that mold.

(Braces himself for the backlash...)


Well, as for your Beatles reference, you should know the Beatles openly said they were heavily influenced by Chuck Berry, so in a sense they really didn't bring anything that new to the table either. But that's not the point. No ideas original. That's the thing. And it's all in how it's done. Tarantino, as many have said, openly talks about his influences and such. Where as other directors do not nearly as much as he does. So does that make him a rip off? Does that make the Beatles a rip off because they say they were so heavily influenced by Chuck Berry? No. Should we consider Goerge Lucas a rip off because many of the techniques used in Star Wars are directly from Kurosawa films (also, the plot is similar to Hidden Fortress). I don't think so. He may have used those techniques and was obviously influenced heavily by Kurosawa but he's not ripping the ideas and saying they are his own, nor is he using them in the same way Kurosawa did. Same goes for Tarantino. He throws out little homages and uses scenes and techniques from other films that have had a huge influence on him, but he uses them in a different way and acknowledges his influences.

[Mr-Blonde]

Originally posted by beastieben21
I'll play devil's advocate...

Here's my assessment of Mr. Tarantino's career thus far: He's the greatest cover artist alive. He's like a perfect Beatles cover band, who's got the look, the sound, the swagger all down pat. However, the Beatles cover band, despite being fantastic, is still imitating what has been done in the past, and because of this, offers no 'new' contribution to music.

As someone already pointed out, the Beatles were heavily influenced by 50's rockers and their music heavily reflects this. So it could be argued that even the great Beatles (of whom I'm a big fan) were simply paying homage to artists like Chuck Berry, Elvis and Buddy Holly.

Tarantino, despite what fanboys may think, copies other films much more than other directors simply because he can. He has the knowledge and the artistic freedom to do so. He's a lot like his idol, Sergio Leone, but to an extreme. Kill Bill is a superlative example of this. I know he openly admits that he borrowed DOZENS of elements and reused them, but that still makes him just a cover artist. With great, original directors, they invent new and radical ways of doing things.

And Sergio Leone was influenced by those who came before him. I'm sure there are many elements from Once Upon A Time In America that were borrowed from films that came before it.

There are elements that are wholly original, and forever will be considered "Kubrickian" or "Kurosawa-esque." Tarantino hasn't done anything like that yet.

You have neglected to list what these things are that are so completely and utterly original. What exactly are you talking about? I understand that certain directors are known for a certain style or for sertain elements that they bring to their films. That doesn't make these elements wholly original either.

Despite the unabashed love on these boards for him, and the fact that he has made a few pretty good movies, he hasn't done anything to push the film genre forward. He's simply copied and replicated things that have been done before. Pulp Fiction is probably the closest he's come to a masterpiece, but that film's closest comparison is probably the Matrix, it was just the right film at the right time, despite it's obvious influences.

The same could be said for all the directors you've listed. You haven't proven any of your points.

[Scarface98.9]

Tarantino could be the biggest rip off of all time, but he makes entertaining movies, and since I have no big love for movies he borrows from, I don't have all the baggage that comes along with it. Borrowing techniques used in early 60's Truffaut movies? Ok. I've never seen those movies, nor have any interest in them, so fuck it. I don't care. Most of the movies he borrows from are uninteresting looking to me, or are so obscure that only a guy like Tarantino could find copies of'em. City on Fire may've patterned Reservoir Dogs, but I haven't seen it, and I doubt a large number here have

[Tuukka]

As for the Beatles analogy, they ripped off pieces of melodies and musical cues STRAIGHT from other people's songs, especially early in their career. I'm too lazy to search for links, but being the HUGE Beatles fan I am I have read quite a lot about their influence roughly 10 years ago. Too long time ago to remember the details, but if necessary, I can search and find more detailed info about these rip-offs they did.

Still the greatest band of all time, IMHO.

[The Heart Collector]

Originally posted by boombche_stum
Well, as for your Beatles reference, you should know the Beatles openly said they were heavily influenced by Chuck Berry, so in a sense they really didn't bring anything that new to the table either.

LOL. I agree with all your points, but the Beatles' most known and respected material (their older) is hardly influenced by Chuck Berry, and DID bring a billion things to the table.

[pyscho dude]

It's not that he "borrows" from other movies that makes me not like his films, it's his sad attempts at being cool and stylish which make me hate his films.

[boombche_stum]

Originally posted by The Heart Collector
LOL. I agree with all your points, but the Beatles' most known and respected material (their older) is hardly influenced by Chuck Berry, and DID bring a billion things to the table.


I agree, I'm not trying to diss the Beatles. Just trying to make a point to whoever it was who used the reference, point being nothing is original.

[Mr. Fancy Pants]

Originally posted by jeo4


And if George Lucas, Francis Ford Coppolla or Martin Scorcese did a trilogy about a little guy on a quest to destroy a ring, I doubt it would be well-received, either.



You're right. It was called WILLOW and it was too crappy for a trilogy.

[MinimalistCouch]

i'll tell you who didnt copy anyone. Gore Verbinski.

The man is pure original

[beastieben21]

First of all...I never compared Tarantino to the Beatles. I simply used them as the backbone for my analogy.

Yes, we can have the argument that nothing is 'original' anymore. That everything is refrencing something in one way or another. Afterall, one of my favorite quotes from Jean Luc-Godard was that "it doesn´t matter where it comes from, It's what you do with it." That being said, there's a difference between refrencing other films and straight out taking the story elements. Before I go off, it should be noted that I enjoy Tarantino's work. He, to me, is like the Beastie Boy's "Paul's Botique," an album comprised almost entirely of samples that is genius. I have no ethical problem with what Tarantino does, I just know, like the Beastie Boys, that he is capable of so much more.

That being said, if you look in the end credits of "Reservoir Dogs" there is no mention of "City on Fire," a fillm that, although not very good, Tarantino outright steals from. That's a problem. Not only is he stealing, but he's not 'refrencing' it like so many on these boards claim. "Pulp Fiction" I have no problem with, I think he's taking small elements from other films (scenes and dialouge from, off the top of my head, DePalma, Woo, Godard, Hawks and Hill films) but composing an original whole.

"Natural Born Killers?" "The Badlands"

"Kill Bill?" Hundreds...more obvious are "The Bride Wore Black" and "Zaitochi."

Yet, Tarantino's fans seem to have such unabashed love for the man that they cannot admit that, although his films may be great and entertaining, they are FAR from original. He's not an auetuer, he's not an original voice. His plot devices, characters, scenes, dialouge, are outright stolen from other sources (especially when you don't pay royalties of any sort...despite "acknowledging his sources").

Again, that doesn't mean I don't enjoy his work (although I typically don't). Rather, it's the principle involved. Tarantino is a cover artist. It wouldn't annoy me if I didn't think he had the capacity to create a fantastic original film. At some point, I get sick of hearing the same samples over and over again and want to hear something new.

[adamjohnson]

Originally posted by Grim H.
Yeah, well, he probably just copied off some old photographers or painters. :D

Ok, then......GOD!

One. Original. Motherfucker.

[Mr-Blonde]

Originally posted by beastieben21

[quote]Yet, Tarantino's fans seem to have such unabashed love for the man that they cannot admit that, although his films may be great and entertaining, they are FAR from original. He's not an auetuer, he's not an original voice. His plot devices, characters, scenes, dialouge, are outright stolen from other sources (especially when you don't pay royalties of any sort...despite "acknowledging his sources").

Again, that doesn't mean I don't enjoy his work (although I typically don't). Rather, it's the principle involved. Tarantino is a cover artist. It wouldn't annoy me if I didn't think he had the capacity to create a fantastic original film. At some point, I get sick of hearing the same samples over and over again and want to hear something new.

Actually we were all fully acknowledging the fact that Tarantino borrows from other films. Hell, Tarantino himself does this in just about every interview of his that I've ever read. All I am saying is that those directors and films you've listed are not 100% completely original either. My argument is that no film is. If you're getting sick of Tarantino's films that's fine, but your stated reason why (that Tarantino's is nothing but a cover artist) is applicable to any other filmaker out there.

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by beastieben21
Yet, Tarantino's fans seem to have such unabashed love for the man that they cannot admit that, although his films may be great and entertaining, they are FAR from original.

Um, almost everyone here has said repeatedly that they KNOW Tarantino steals from other films. They've simply argued that the filmmakers you cite as "wholy original' aren't original either and that very very few filmmakers, if any, are.

They all take from someone. And I don't remember Leone acknowledging Copolla in the credits to Once Upon A Time in America, but since that's what your "wholy original" filmmakers do, I'm sure I just missed it somewhere.

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by Mr-Blonde
If you're getting sick of Tarantino's films that's fine, but your stated reason why (that Tarantino's is nothing but a cover artist) is applicable to any other filmaker out there. [/B]

I finished my post and realized that I had repeated almost all of your points, Mr. Blonde.

I agree that Tarantino being a cover artist has NOTHING to do with why this guy doesn't like Tarantino. Otherwise, he wouldn't like ANY movie EVER, because all of them have unstated references (that's right, no one lists their references in the credits, not just Tarantino) to other films. I mean, this guy must hate Star Wars, which borrows from Hidden Fortress, which borrows from John Ford westerns. And the list goes on.

[Tuukka]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by beastieben21
First of all...I never compared Tarantino to the Beatles. I simply used them as the backbone for my analogy.

RE:

Did you know that the first Beatles album had 5 cover songs in it? Or that their 2nd album had 6 cover songs in it? Or that their 4th album was made entirely out of cover songs?

You're analogy isn't quite working.

"Natural Born Killers?" "The Badlands"

RE:

Did you know that Badlands was based upon the true story of the Charles Starkweather and Caril-Ann Fugate murders in 1958? Or that there are many other movies with a similar basic concept. Like a film called Bonnie And Clyde?

"Kill Bill?" Hundreds...more obvious are "The Bride Wore Black" and "Zaitochi."

RE:

How can a movie be a rip-off of HUNDREDS of other movies? That sounds pretty contradictionary. How do you actually do that? Do you rip off one minute from every movie, or what? I have to say that it must take exceptional talent and creativity to actually rip off HUNDREDS of other movies and make a coherent whole.

Then again, all filmmakers are influenced by other movies and in one way or another have hundreds of shots and concepts that can be traced to earlier movies.

This argument makes me think of someone saying that a particular song is a copy of another song because it uses the same notes. The notes are in different order, but they are still the same notes.

Which Zatoichi do you mean?

[beastieben21]

The close mindedness and inability for some schmoes to simply partake in a discussion is simply stunning. Well done. I've attempted to argue the other side of a case without patronizing or using an overly-sardonic tone, but that didn't stop others from acting like assholes. Congratulations. Attacking my film tastes with no knowledge of what I'm interested is quite mature, Beeblebrox. You're everything that's great and wonderful about these boards.

[Mr-Blonde]

Originally posted by beastieben21
The close mindedness and inability for some schmoes to simply partake in a discussion is simply stunning. Well done. I've attempted to argue the other side of a case without patronizing or using an overly-sardonic tone, but that didn't stop others from acting like assholes. Congratulations. Attacking my film tastes with no knowledge of what I'm interested is quite mature, Beeblebrox. You're everything that's great and wonderful about these boards.

So in other words, we're being close-minded if we don't agree with your points and state our case why? WTF? If we decide to challenge the points you're making we're somehow being patronizing? Isn't that what having a discussion is all about? As for your claim that we are attacking your film tastes-- nobody here was doing that. We were just pointing out that none of the films or directors that you had listed were wholly original as you had claimed. I can appreciate your difference of opinion but I think that you're getting a tad too defensive there.

[The Heart Collector]

Originally posted by MinimalistCouch
i'll tell you who didnt copy anyone. Gore Verbinski.

The man is pure original

LOL.

[beastieben21]

Originally posted by Mr-Blonde
So in other words, we're being close-minded if we don't agree with your points and state our case why? WTF? If we decide to challenge the points you're making we're somehow being patronizing? Isn't that what having a discussion is all about? As for your claim that we are attacking your film tastes-- nobody here was doing that. We were just pointing out that none of the films or directors that you had listed were wholly original as you had claimed. I can appreciate your difference of opinion but I think that you're getting a tad too defensive there.

No, that wasn't directed at you Blonde. I'm all about intelligent film discussion. However, when someone's goal is merely to parade around and condescend other schmoes for having a differing opinion, I take offense to it. Sorry if that was misconstrued as being directed at you.

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by beastieben21
I've attempted to argue the other side of a case without patronizing or using an overly-sardonic tone, but that didn't stop others from acting like assholes.

Like when you referred to some of us as "fanboys" for defending Tarantino? No, nothing patronizing about that.

So if you're going to start your discussion by being patronizing and sardonic, you might at least provide examples of filmmakers that don't completely undermine and contradiction your point. So far, you haven't done that.

And no one is attacking your taste either, at least I'm not. I don't care if you don't like Tarantino. Lots of people don't. I just said that your opinion isn't really based on his originality because you cite other filmmakers you DO like who are just as guilty of plagiarism as Tarantino.

[Ronaldinho]

I think that part of the problem is there is a contingent out there that worships Tarantino, and a lot of us who are more lukewarm about him probably overreact a bit.

By my counting, the man's made one great film and one very good one. On the other hand, he's made some overlong movies, too, and seems to be in love with just about every frame of film he's ever shot. (And, honestly, batting .500 -- if you count the Kill Bills as one film -- is pretty damn good. Not a lot of filmmakers do that. Of course, most make more movies than he does, but...)

He also -- and this is where the criticisms about copying comes in -- blurs the line between pastiche and homage awefully often.

(The Beatles analogy really breaks down around the release of "Rubber Soul." They were a highly derivative band, and then they took it to another level. There really was almost no precedent for stuff like "Tomorrow Never Knows" or "Sgt. Peppers." Of course, there wasn't a precedent for "Revolution #9" either -- which just goes to show that not all experimentation is good.)

But Tarantino -- in my opinion -- has fallen in love with his own voice. In Kill Bill was supposed to be a highly derivative movie, and that's fine, but it -- IMO -- doesn't measure up to the films that inspired it. You have to ask yourself, "What's Tarantino adding here that's good?" and when you come up with slowing the movie down to a crawl, making it too long, and putting his own voice into his character's mouths (eg, that Superman speech... there's nothing in the film up to that point which suggests that Bill is a comic book fan. That's QT talking, and it's not that interesting.)

So where, in "Pulp Fiction" and "Resevoir Dogs," you saw QT's influences but you also saw the fresh, new things he was adding, in his later films he seems either to be repeating himself, repeating without adding anything new, or repeating but being merely a pale shadow of the original.

[MacReady]

http://www.designpaulchampagne.com/images/cases/Tarantino.jpg

See the one on the top/middle?

Case closed.

[jeo4]

You are the man, Mac.

[MacReady]

Originally posted by jeo4
You are the man, Mac.

Super! Does this mean you'll become a heartless, atheist pro-choicer like me?:D

[jeo4]

Originally posted by MacReady
Super! Does this mean you'll become a heartless, atheist pro-choicer like me?:D

Not necessarily, but my political views have been swayed. Hard. Left. (http://www.joblo.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=89184)

[AJAX]

Q may wear his influences on his sleave, but he is no hack. I have zero problems with what he does in his movies.