Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
When you realize how hard it is to write a script that has dialogue as realistic as his, you'll come to appreciate him. Where the goal of most scripts is to eliminate as much uneeded dialogue as possible, Tarantino succeeds by doing the exact opposite. That takes talent.
He is known for his dialogue, but one of the descriptions I would use for it isn't realistic. Outside that, for the most part, I agree with you Fafnir.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
Opinions. Everyone's got one and, like arseholes, they ALL stink.
Interesting, lets take a quick inventory. Not exhaustive, but just a quick look....
Tarantino
Inglorious Basterds
Pulp Fiction
Jackie Brown
Resevior dogs
Awards earned:
Reservoir Dogs was given the Critic's Award at the 4th Yubari International Fantastic Film Festival in 1993.[17]
Pulp Fiction won the Palme d'Or (Golden Palm) at the 1994 Cannes Film Festival.[18] The film was nominated for seven Oscars, winning one for Best Original Screenplay, which was shared jointly by Tarantino and co-writer Roger Avary.
In 2005, Quentin Tarantino won the Icon of the Decade award at the Sony Ericsson Empire Awards.
On August 15, 2007, Philippine president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo presented Tarantino with a lifetime achievement award at the Malacañang Palace in Manila.[19]
In 2010, his film Inglourious Basterds was nominated for eight Oscars including Best Picture, Best Director and Best Original Screenplay, winning one for Best Supporting Actor.[20]
In March 2010, Tarantino was awarded the Order of Merit of the Hungarian Republic along with Lucy Liu and Andy Vajna for producing the 2006 movie Freedom's Fury.[21]
(pasted from wikipedia)
Michael Bay
Transformers 1&2
Pearl Harbor
Friday the 13th and Chainsaw massacre bastardisations
Awards earned:
5 MTV movie awards (yippee)
3 best action scenes
I beleive someone is talking out of their butt and/or attempting to troll. *coughcough...chromedog...coughcough*
If a producer needs to pick a director to make his movie a success, which one do you think they would choose...I know its a difficult and close race for the preferred directer...but try. I know you can do it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/01/08 14:35:24
I to am having some difficulty in seeing just how Transformers could be considered a superior film to Reservoir Dogs or Pearl Harbor better than Pulp Fiction.
I am both selfish and chaotic. I value self-gratification and control; I want to have things my way, preferably now. At best, I'm entertaining and surprising; at worst, I'm hedonistic and violent.
I hate Tarantino, but more than Tarantino, I hate Tarantino fanboys.
Pulp Fiction is the only film by him that I've enjoyed.
Everything else is just overstylised wankery.
I enjoyed Bad Boys, the Rock is awesome as an action movie, Armageddon had it's moments as brainless sci fi. None of it is pretentious bollocks, so I can enjoy it.
I didn't enjoy Transformers at all, and the reports I heard from Pearl Harbour and the new Transformers were enough to keep me away. I think Bay is a mediocre director, who's strengths are in action sequences and explosions. I think Tarantino is also mediocre, and entirely over-rated. He's worse than Whedon for having all the characters speak with one voice, for starters.
Da Boss wrote:I hate Tarantino, but more than Tarantino, I hate Tarantino fanboys.
Pulp Fiction is the only film by him that I've enjoyed.
Everything else is just overstylised wankery.
I enjoyed Bad Boys, the Rock is awesome as an action movie, Armageddon had it's moments as brainless sci fi. None of it is pretentious bollocks, so I can enjoy it.
I didn't enjoy Transformers at all, and the reports I heard from Pearl Harbour and the new Transformers were enough to keep me away. I think Bay is a mediocre director, who's strengths are in action sequences and explosions. I think Tarantino is also mediocre, and entirely over-rated. He's worse than Whedon for having all the characters speak with one voice, for starters.
+ 1 in regards to tarantino.
I read books for sophisticated dialogue and/or intricate stories to get my brain whirring. Films, well I want them loud, funny or with SOME explosions/gunplay (I have my limits) and a general art style always helps.
I dont care whether its sci fi, action, thriller or comedy, if one or more of those is in it, I'll watch it.
Hell, I enjoyed "Ninja Assasin". Watch that with junk food and half your brain deactivated, or drunk and you'll enjoy it.
Just dont over think things.
That said, no-one can hit the bullseye every time. give the guy a break. If the title was "How much TF2 and Pearl Harbour sucks" I would agree. Every director has his stinkbombs, even the all mighty Spielberg.
When in deadly danger
When beset by doubt
Run in little circles
Wave your arms and shout!
Monster Rain wrote:Ah guilty white paternalism. Why don't we let the "community" decide for itself what offends it, shall we? I will cite a few shows, beloved by the African American Community at large, that feature stereotypes.
(snip)
There now. I think we all just learned something. Also, I'm not going to link to it, but google "Chris Rock ignorant n word" and see how racist that particular black comedian is against himself.
Why do you think I'm white? Other then my opinions on Warhams, you literally know nothing about me at all.
Putting that aside, it's a neat catch 22 you've built for white people in general. Offended by racism? You're a white paternalist who thinks they know what's good the black community. Not offended by racism? I guess that makes you a racist. Well done.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Ouze wrote:Why do you think I'm white? Other then my opinions on Warhams, you literally know nothing about me at all.
I wasn't referring to you at all in that statement. I was referring to being offended by stereotypical characters when there are many stereotypical characters beloved by the community that you think should be offended.
Ouze wrote:Putting that aside, it's a neat catch 22 you've built for white people in general. Offended by racism? You're a white paternalist who thinks they know what's good the black community. Not offended by racism? I guess that makes you a racist. Well done.
While someone putting words in my mouth isn't generally something I enjoy...
How about this:
Be offended by real racism, and don't go looking for it in idiotic summer films.
Drink deeply and lustily from the foamy draught of evil.
W: 1.756 Quadrillion L: 0 D: 2
Haters gon' hate.
Ahtman wrote:He is known for his dialogue, but one of the descriptions I would use for it isn't realistic. Outside that, for the most part, I agree with you Fafnir.
Well, I wouldn't say it's 1-for-1 with modern dialogue, but in terms of rambling and tangents, it's very realistic. Where normal theatre dialogue is broken down and always to the point, Tarantino's characters spend an awful long time talking about nothing, much like most people do. It's not perfect to life, but it's a hell of a lot closer than normal theatre speech.
Being meandering doesn't make it realistic. The content of the dialogue is where it leaps of the side of a building and hurls toward the pavement., as far as realism goes. It can be very engaging, but it isn't realistic. If you want realism you might try some of the French or Italian realism movements.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
Ahtman wrote:Being meandering doesn't make it realistic. The content of the dialogue is where it leaps of the side of a building and hurls toward the pavement., as far as realism goes. It can be very engaging, but it isn't realistic. If you want realism you might try some of the French or Italian realism movements.
I never said it was realistic. I just said it was more realistic than normal theatre speech.
Think of it like this: Compare Schindler's List and Pulp Fiction. Now, in the case of Schindler's List, the writers actually broke down every line to the point that it had as few words as possible while still making sense. Pulp Fiction, on the other hand, adds plenty of tangents and unneccessary conversational items that do very little as far as plot is concerned. Compared to normal speech, they're both fairly abstract, but Pulp Fiction's speech is closer to realism than Schindler's List.
I saw Pulp fiction on the recommendation of a friend.
Said friend no longer has an opinion on film I listen to.
I refuse to see Inglorious Barstewards.
( it has Brad Pitt in it (can't stand him).)
Deadshane: 'Twas my opinion, nought more.
YOU like him -that's yours. We won't ever agree on more than this. You have the right to your opinion - even if it is wrong.
That Tarantino won 'icon of the decade' for a decade mostly devoid of icons is neither here nor there.
I'm OVER 50 (and so far over everyone's BS, too).
Old enough to know better, young enough to not give a ****.
That is not dead which can eternal lie ...
... and yet, with strange aeons, even death may die.
Opinions. Everyone's got one and, like arseholes, they ALL stink.
Some donkey-caves stink more than others. The idea that everyone can have an opinion and they're all just as worthy really needs to die.
And yeah, there's plenty of scope for subjectivity in film, and it’s perfectly reasonable for someone to say they enjoy Michael Bay films more than they enjoy Tarantino films. Bay’s weaknesses aren’t a problem for a lot of people because they’re not there for plotting and characterisation, while Tarantino’s schtick might not be for everyone.
But there is just no way to sensibly claim the two directors are making films of equal quality. Bay is skilled in the way a project manager is skilled, he can organise huge production teams in set design, stuntwork, CGI, actors and all the rest to bring a huge production in on time, on budget. And I think he has a great visual flair, the individual shots from all his movies look terrific. But he has little skill, and little interest in story, not even in crafting a simple story to serve the movies action scenes (some of my favourite movies are basically just a string of action scenes, such as The Killer or Ronin, and the strength there is the very small amount of story). Instead we get large blocks of screen time where the actors just dump exposition on us, stopping the action, and loads of poorly linked or entirely pointless action scenes, and the result is a really long screentime where terrible pacing and incoherent plotting leaves us watching well constructed actions that don’t mean anything.
On the other hand Tarantino packs a whole lot into his movies, and while the story itself may or may not be entirely engaging, there is a whole lot of ideas and commentary going on. The opening scene of Inglorious Basterds gives the audience more to think about than the entirety of Bay’s career. Now, that level of density might not be to everyone’s taste, and that’s fine, but it is just plain silly to call it unskilled, or to deny that others might enjoy what Tarantino is doing.
The happy reaper wrote:I read books for sophisticated dialogue and/or intricate stories to get my brain whirring. Films, well I want them loud, funny or with SOME explosions/gunplay (I have my limits) and a general art style always helps.
If that approach works for you, that’s great. It isn’t the approach preferred by everyone, so it’s probably not very sensible to tell us we’re overthinking things when we say we prefer films that aren’t incoherent messes.
That said, no-one can hit the bullseye every time. give the guy a break. If the title was "How much TF2 and Pearl Harbour sucks" I would agree. Every director has his stinkbombs, even the all mighty Spielberg.
Yes, what matters is the number of quality movies they make. The issue is that Bay’s absolute best work is somewhat fun, but stupid and bloated efforts like the Rock and the first Transformers. And those are rare compared to his entirely not fun, incredibly stupid and really bloated efforts like Pearl Harbour, Bad Boys II and Transformers II.
Monster Rain wrote:How about this:
Be offended by real racism, and don't go looking for it in idiotic summer films.
If a film is released in summer it can’t have racist elements?
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Warning may contain content inappropriate for children.
Ah, I'm glad someone posted that! If you weren't I was gonna. That sad part is, that trailer has fewer plot holes in it than TF2 did .
Actually, one of my history profs at the Naval Academy was hired to be a consultant on Bay's Pearl Harbor movie. When they sent him some of the initial concept art and story boards to critique, he marked them all up and angrily told them, "This isn't history, this is Star Wars!" The response? "That's exactly what we were going for!"
Suffice to say, my prof was a little bitter over the experience...
Monster Rain wrote:So are you saying that the black actor is racist?
Is Uncle Tom raising his ugly head?
Why does the actor's race matter?
Look, I'm fine with the defence that the black community like characters like the two robots. That makes some kind of sense to me, and as a result I've changed my opinion when I saw the film from 'that was really racist' to 'that was problematic, in a weird and complicated way'.
But I'm really confused by your defence of the robots in this thread, surely racially problematic depictions matter more when they're in huge, mainstream movies? And why does the actor's race matter? Getting a minority up and play the fool has a long history.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Because he's a member of the "affronted" community, and if he didn't have a problem with it you kind of have to decide whether he's a racist or didn't see the material as offensive.
sebster wrote:Look, I'm fine with the defence that the black community like characters like the two robots. That makes some kind of sense to me, and as a result I've changed my opinion when I saw the film from 'that was really racist' to 'that was problematic, in a weird and complicated way'.
I disagree. You haven't seen Friday, have you? Or Barbershop? There's so many black stereotypes in those movies (as well as the tv shows that I cited above) that you have to start to wonder if maybe you should look at it as the film saying something more along the lines of "some people act this way and it is amusing" and less like "all black people behave this way." I'll bring up Chris Rock's controversial N-word stand-up bit again now.
sebster wrote:But I'm really confused by your defence of the robots in this thread, surely racially problematic depictions matter more when they're in huge, mainstream movies?
sebster wrote:Getting a minority up and play the fool has a long history.
He wrote the character's dialogue, according to that article. So he's either racist or an ignorant Uncle Tom up there dancing for the man? It can't be that he thought the characters were funny, and that others would(and did) find them funny? I hated this movie, by the way.
Drink deeply and lustily from the foamy draught of evil.
W: 1.756 Quadrillion L: 0 D: 2
Haters gon' hate.
The Undying Spawn of Shub-Niggurath 
and you'll enjoy it.
- THE MENTORS - ~ 500 pts 
