#1  
Old 05-02-2010, 10:33 PM
Reservior Dogs - Homage Or Stealing

From Rotten Tomatoes:

http://current.com/shows/the-rotten-...r-stealing.htm

What do you think?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-02-2010, 10:57 PM
Looks to me like the Chow Yun Fat film actually showed the heist. But I haven't seen that film, a bit hard to make a judgement on a 50 second video.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-03-2010, 04:31 AM
This has been the center an ongoing debate about Tarantino's films and style for years. Personally, I think it's a bit of both, although probably more homage simply because Tarantino is always very open about his influences; it's not like he steals plots from obscure foreign/grindhouse movies and hopes nobody will notice. He is always pretty overt and comprehensive when listing his influences. And ultimately, his movies are just so good, I honestly don't care where he got the ideas from.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-03-2010, 09:14 AM
He might steal the concept but the execution is all his own.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-03-2010, 02:34 PM
This is pretty old. Boo on Rotten Tomatoes with this one. Someone made a documentary around the time Pulp Fiction came out called something like "Who Are You Fooling?" This guy was writing about it in 1997: http://www.ronlim.com/worldarchive/tarantino.html

Tarantino has said that he had never seen the movie prior to making Reservoir Dogs, and that's not exactly hard to believe considering the time frame of when the City on Fire came out and when Taratino got Kitel interested in Reservoir Dogs. That doesn't mean it's impossible.

So, in 1994, he was accused of plagiarizing City on Fire.

From a psychological standpoint, I do notice a major and drastic difference between him citing his influences post-1994 and pre-1994. Prior to all this, he seemed to only talk about his movies, but afterwards, it's the opposite.

Either way, who knows? I will say that the one thing that's bothered me is that I felt he gave no mention or regard to the movie Death Rides a Horse when he was promoting Kill Bill, and that movie was obviously a major influence. It's possible that he had talked about it, and I missed it, so it's only a minor radar blip for me. Ultimately, I could really give a rat's ass. l like what Tarantino does, and respect him as a filmmaker. To me, it's not a rip off if it's better than the original. Rip off is getting ripped off. So, I would ask, "Homage or Improvement?"

Last edited by The Postmaster General; 05-03-2010 at 02:37 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-03-2010, 02:45 PM
I love Tarantino's films, they're incredibly enjoyable. But the whole "homage or stealing" argument has kinda gotten old. Can we just cut to the chase and label it stealing? It's not just Tarantino. How is it different from, say, James Cameron and his use of a couple of Outer Limits episodes that inspired Terminator? Or George Lucas who pro-actively studied Kurosawa films to come up with a story for Star Wars?

It's all theft and hackery to me. Albeit, entertaining and fun-as-hell hackery, but the whole "homage" thing is just starting to sound like "yeah I couldn't come up with anything original."
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-03-2010, 04:38 PM
I think this still comes up from time to time, because Quentin made it big and has been called an original and visionary director. In other words, if Quentin made Dogs and then he faded into obscurity - no one would care.

I think there was a time when in the 90's, when some lesser educated film fans, thought that what Quentin was doing had never been done before, but we know that's total bullshit and I think this is why it keeps coming out of the woodwork. Quentin does steal big time for better or worse as many directors do and when there were a slew of wannabe Tarantino films that came out, there were just stealing themselves from someone who was stealing from better and more obscure directors.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BubbaStrangelove View Post
This is pretty old. Boo on Rotten Tomatoes with this one. Someone made a documentary around the time Pulp Fiction came out called something like "Who Are You Fooling?" This guy was writing about it in 1997: http://www.ronlim.com/worldarchive/tarantino.html

Tarantino has said that he had never seen the movie prior to making Reservoir Dogs, and that's not exactly hard to believe considering the time frame of when the City on Fire came out and when Taratino got Kitel interested in Reservoir Dogs. That doesn't mean it's impossible.

So, in 1994, he was accused of plagiarizing City on Fire.

From a psychological standpoint, I do notice a major and drastic difference between him citing his influences post-1994 and pre-1994. Prior to all this, he seemed to only talk about his movies, but afterwards, it's the opposite.

Either way, who knows? I will say that the one thing that's bothered me is that I felt he gave no mention or regard to the movie Death Rides a Horse when he was promoting Kill Bill, and that movie was obviously a major influence. It's possible that he had talked about it, and I missed it, so it's only a minor radar blip for me. Ultimately, I could really give a rat's ass. l like what Tarantino does, and respect him as a filmmaker. To me, it's not a rip off if it's better than the original. Rip off is getting ripped off. So, I would ask, "Homage or Improvement?"
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-04-2010, 01:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by River Dog View Post
I think this still comes up from time to time, because Quentin made it big and has been called an original and visionary director. In other words, if Quentin made Dogs and then he faded into obscurity - no one would care.

I think there was a time when in the 90's, when some lesser educated film fans, thought that what Quentin was doing had never been done before, but we know that's total bullshit and I think this is why it keeps coming out of the woodwork. Quentin does steal big time for better or worse as many directors do and when there were a slew of wannabe Tarantino films that came out, there were just stealing themselves from someone who was stealing from better and more obscure directors.
No doubt. Plus, in the 90s, the Internet was still mostly about email and BBs, there wasn't all the videos and stuff where that sort of information could be as easily passed around. So, for people to find out about this kind of stuff, they had to be a little more "ear to ground", which, if they were, probably had already known a bit of this.

Part of me really believes that if Tarantino had borrowed from City on Fire like he had borrowed from this-or-that with his post-Jackie Brown flicks, that he would be all about talking about it. Part of me, though, remembers that Tarantino didn't really seem to get into pimping other people's movies until after Pulp Fiction. There's a lot of reasons it could be like this --- Like, he had become someone to listen to, so he used that as a chance to start sharing his fandom.

For me though, it just comes down to the bottom line of whether he's making something I'm going to like. It's awesome to be able to discover movies via his influences, if not recognize the style first-hand. Still, I think it's only a rip-off or stealing if it results in an inferior piece, or ends up just coming off like a knock-off. Those Asylum movies like Transmorphers - those are rip offs!

It's subjective as all hell, but I think for me, if it turns out a piece of crap - RIP OFF. If it turns out a good-great flick - homage. I could imagine the makers of movies that are lifted to feel the same way. Personally, if someone borrowed stuff that I did, it would probably end up the same way ---- If it was a real POS, I'd scream "They ripped me off!" but if I liked the movie, "Oh what a great homage!" It seems that's the way it ends up working.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-04-2010, 02:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Servo View Post
I love Tarantino's films, they're incredibly enjoyable. But the whole "homage or stealing" argument has kinda gotten old. Can we just cut to the chase and label it stealing? It's not just Tarantino. How is it different from, say, James Cameron and his use of a couple of Outer Limits episodes that inspired Terminator? Or George Lucas who pro-actively studied Kurosawa films to come up with a story for Star Wars?

It's all theft and hackery to me. Albeit, entertaining and fun-as-hell hackery, but the whole "homage" thing is just starting to sound like "yeah I couldn't come up with anything original."
All art cannibalizes other art. No exceptions. The only difference is whether or not you recognize the inspiration.

"Nothing is original. Steal from anywhere that resonates with inspiration or fuels your imagination. Devour old films, new films, music, books, paintings, photographs, poems, dreams, random conversations, architecture, bridges, street signs, trees, clouds, bodies of water, light and shadows. Select only things to steal from that speak directly to your soul. If you do this, your work (and theft) will be authentic. Authenticity is invaluable; originality is nonexistent. And donít bother concealing your thievery ó celebrate it if you feel like it. In any case, always remember what Jean-Luc Godard said: ďItís not where you take things from ó itís where you take them to." -Jim Jarmusch
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-04-2010, 02:25 AM
That's a good quote. I'm making it the tagline for my project "Espresso and Cigars"
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-04-2010, 10:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Loblaw View Post
All art cannibalizes other art. No exceptions. The only difference is whether or not you recognize the inspiration.

"Nothing is original. Steal from anywhere that resonates with inspiration or fuels your imagination. Devour old films, new films, music, books, paintings, photographs, poems, dreams, random conversations, architecture, bridges, street signs, trees, clouds, bodies of water, light and shadows. Select only things to steal from that speak directly to your soul. If you do this, your work (and theft) will be authentic. Authenticity is invaluable; originality is nonexistent. And donít bother concealing your thievery ó celebrate it if you feel like it. In any case, always remember what Jean-Luc Godard said: ďItís not where you take things from ó itís where you take them to." -Jim Jarmusch
In music, if your song sounds too much like another song - you get sued and usually have to pay out big time.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-04-2010, 01:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by River Dog View Post
In music, if your song sounds too much like another song - you get sued and usually have to pay out big time.
If it sound exactly like another song you just call it sampling, and all is well.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump