What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Is Quentin Tarantino a hack? (1 Viewer)

Is Quentin Tarantino a hack?

  • Total voters
    398
jdoggydogg

jdoggydogg

Footballguy
I've seen many sources claiming that Quentin Tarantino's a hack. For the purposes of this discussion, here's the dictionary definition:

Origin:

1680–90; short for hackney

1. Originally, a quick job that produces what is needed, but not well.

verb (used with object) 6. to make trite, common, or stale by frequent use.

 
Hackjob= Michael Bay doing transformers. Tarantino >>>>>> Bay. Answer to the question=no.

When I watch a Tarantino flick I go in expecting to be entertained and I've rarely been disappointed. And I am always intrigued when his name is attached to a project.

 
'jdoggydogg said:
6. to make trite, common, or stale by frequent use.
Click to expand...
I think he's more akin to this definition. His early stuff through Resevoir Dogs is fantastic and original, but (and I'll get blasted for saying this) from Pulp Fiction on it just seems like he was trying too hard, striking the same notes (particularly the violent ones and his now tiresome approach to dialogue), and at some points almost becoming a parody of himself (albeit seemingly intentionally at times). Between Jackie Brown and Basterds there's nothing he was involved with that I found even remotely interesting, mostly annoying.He's way overhyped.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'Gr00vus said:
'jdoggydogg said:
6. to make trite, common, or stale by frequent use.
Click to expand...
I think he's more akin to this definition. His early stuff through Resevoir Dogs is fantastic and original, but (and I'll get blasted for saying this) from Pulp Fiction on it just seems like he was trying too hard, striking the same notes (particularly the violent ones and his now tiresome approach to dialogue), and at some points almost becoming a parody of himself (albeit seemingly intentionally at times). Between Jackie Brown and Basterds there's nothing he was involved with that I found even remotely interesting, mostly annoying.He's way overhyped.
Click to expand...
Pulp Fiction was one of the most influential films of the past 20 years, so yeah you can reasonably expect to get blasted when you suggest that it's just more of the same.
 
I guess I'm going to have to watch Pulp Fiction again as it was one of my most reviled movies of the last 20 years.

Kill Bill: Vol 1 and Inglorious Basterds are great though.

 
'Andy Dufresne said:
I guess I'm going to have to watch Pulp Fiction again as it was one of my most reviled movies of the last 20 years.
Click to expand...
Just to clarify, I don't mind that much if somebody tells me that they didn't like Pulp Fiction. I can't really relate, but different people have different tastes. That's totally fine. But there's no denying that Pulp Fiction had a significant influence on movies that came after it and can fairly be considered seminal, at least to the extent that any modern movie could be. That' the part of Gr00vus's post I was objecting to.
 
'IvanKaramazov said:
But there's no denying that Pulp Fiction had a significant influence on movies that came after it and can fairly be considered seminal, at least to the extent that any modern movie could be. That' the part of Gr00vus's post I was objecting to.
Click to expand...
I don't dispute this. I still view it as a weaker, watered down follow on from Resevoir Dogs, with even more strained/absurd dialogue and mannerisms. He went from having something to say to saying the same thing louder, in a funny voice while making goofy faces.
 
The only time Tarantino displays hackery is when he does stuff like Death Proof.

But, basically, the guy is brilliant. The directors bagging on him are just jealous he has made great movies that are not 100% unique. You don't have to completely invent something new to be great.

 
'jdoggydogg said:
'wikkidpissah said:
Thief
Click to expand...
Examples?
Click to expand...
i think we've been through this before, dogg. QT's work betrays a youthful obsession with cool without skills to achieve it. in between getting the #### kicked out of his nerdy ###, he watched movies and stored every revenge fantasy moment that spoke to him. in his one stroke of genius, or at least inspiration, he realised that assembling these scenes & sentiments in screen pieces would resonate in the id of everyone who's ever been minimized/bullied and give him his best chance at being well-considered. now, his every filmic moment matches his every life moment - the nerd's King of Cool. he'll simply never be cool to anyone who's cool, but he's now more powerful than most cool people & cool to everyone else, so he wins. still, he wakes up every day needing the validation of others more than his own, and that makes him pathetic. But his pathology & encyclopedia of compensations will always make him interesting.
 
'wikkidpissah said:
'jdoggydogg said:
'wikkidpissah said:
Thief
Click to expand...
Examples?
Click to expand...
i think we've been through this before, dogg. QT's work betrays a youthful obsession with cool without skills to achieve it. in between getting the #### kicked out of his nerdy ###, he watched movies and stored every revenge fantasy moment that spoke to him. in his one stroke of genius, or at least inspiration, he realised that assembling these scenes & sentiments in screen pieces would resonate in the id of everyone who's ever been minimized/bullied and give him his best chance at being well-considered. now, his every filmic moment matches his every life moment - the nerd's King of Cool. he'll simply never be cool to anyone who's cool, but he's now more powerful than most cool people & cool to everyone else, so he wins. still, he wakes up every day needing the validation of others more than his own, and that makes him pathetic. But his pathology & encyclopedia of compensations will always make him interesting.
Click to expand...
None of this eloquent paragraph answers the question: how is he a thief?
 
'17seconds said:
The only time Tarantino displays hackery is when he does stuff like Death Proof.
Click to expand...
Is it hakery if your doing it on purpose? Because that's what I see him doing. He has a bunch of flicks that are homages to film genres that he punches up with a modern twist. I voted no.

 
'wikkidpissah said:
'jdoggydogg said:
'wikkidpissah said:
Thief
Click to expand...
Examples?
Click to expand...
i think we've been through this before, dogg. QT's work betrays a youthful obsession with cool without skills to achieve it. in between getting the #### kicked out of his nerdy ###, he watched movies and stored every revenge fantasy moment that spoke to him. in his one stroke of genius, or at least inspiration, he realised that assembling these scenes & sentiments in screen pieces would resonate in the id of everyone who's ever been minimized/bullied and give him his best chance at being well-considered. now, his every filmic moment matches his every life moment - the nerd's King of Cool. he'll simply never be cool to anyone who's cool, but he's now more powerful than most cool people & cool to everyone else, so he wins. still, he wakes up every day needing the validation of others more than his own, and that makes him pathetic. But his pathology & encyclopedia of compensations will always make him interesting.
Click to expand...
You use your fingers prettier'n a $20 whore, but you didn't answer the question.
 
'jdoggydogg said:
'wikkidpissah said:
'jdoggydogg said:
'wikkidpissah said:
Thief
Click to expand...
Examples?
Click to expand...
i think we've been through this before, dogg. QT's work betrays a youthful obsession with cool without skills to achieve it. in between getting the #### kicked out of his nerdy ###, he watched movies and stored every revenge fantasy moment that spoke to him. in his one stroke of genius, or at least inspiration, he realised that assembling these scenes & sentiments in screen pieces would resonate in the id of everyone who's ever been minimized/bullied and give him his best chance at being well-considered. now, his every filmic moment matches his every life moment - the nerd's King of Cool. he'll simply never be cool to anyone who's cool, but he's now more powerful than most cool people & cool to everyone else, so he wins. still, he wakes up every day needing the validation of others more than his own, and that makes him pathetic. But his pathology & encyclopedia of compensations will always make him interesting.
Click to expand...
None of this eloquent paragraph answers the question: how is he a thief?
Click to expand...
i thought it was clear - because every sensibility & expression in his work & personality has been appropriated from someone else. as i can imagine nothing more boring than inventorying that sad amalgam, you'll have to go elsewhere for the Trial of QT you seem to be seeking.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'The Juggernaut said:
'17seconds said:
The only time Tarantino displays hackery is when he does stuff like Death Proof.
Click to expand...
Is it hakery if your doing it on purpose? Because that's what I see him doing. He has a bunch of flicks that are homages to film genres that he punches up with a modern twist. I voted no.
Click to expand...
Origin:

1680–90; short for hackney

1. Originally, a quick job that produces what is needed, but not well.

verb (used with object) 6. to make trite, common, or stale by frequent use.
Click to expand...
Death Proof was a B-movie for the sake of doing a B-movie. It had nothing going for it other than the style. He produced what was needed, but not well.
 
Anyone who calls Tarantino a thief has no real idea how art works. With the smallest handful of exceptions, all artists are "thieves". But more to the point, art builds on art, art influences art and its a spinning wheel. Besides, the objects of his "theft" are such direct homages, it's kind of stupid to call him a thief.

Hacks are guys who are push button filmmakers, who make mass product for audiences in my estimation. Off the top of my head, my hack list:

- Edward Zwick

-John Singleton

-Ed Burns

-Paul Haggis

-Uwe Boll

-M. Night

-Brett Ratner

What I notice about all these guys is, they have one movie, often early in their career, that was ok, to good, and somewhat surprisingly well received and they were able to spin a career out of it. Personality and self-salesmanship matter more than skills as a director you could argue, and I would guess in their own way, all of the above are adept at that. Tarantio is also probably great, but he is supported by multiple projects on the good to great level. He's got his clunkers but he hits more than he misses. Of the above guys I listed, the only good movies I could pick out are:

-Glory(Zwick)

-Shamalyan(Unbreakable, Sixth Sense)

Ratner( Rush Hour)

 
'dutch said:
Hackjob= Michael Bay doing transformers. Tarantino >>>>>> Bay. Answer to the question=no. When I watch a Tarantino flick I go in expecting to be entertained and I've rarely been disappointed. And I am always intrigued when his name is attached to a project.
Click to expand...
this
 
'moderated said:
'Andy Dufresne said:
'moderated said:
Steven Spielberg is a hack, not Tarantino.
Click to expand...
It really does seem like Schindler's List wrecked him as a director (and yes, that includes Saving Private Ryan).
Click to expand...
Early Spielberg was good but he's gotten lazy and just puts out trash now.Saving Private Ryan is a good starting point for when he jumped the shark.
Click to expand...
Paul McCartney, Robert DeNiro, Stephen Sondheim have also been out of inspiration and good ideas for a quarter century. It happens. I'm grateful now that i loved them enough to be disappointed by them (and Spielberg).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'17seconds said:
'The Juggernaut said:
'17seconds said:
The only time Tarantino displays hackery is when he does stuff like Death Proof.
Click to expand...
Is it hakery if your doing it on purpose? Because that's what I see him doing. He has a bunch of flicks that are homages to film genres that he punches up with a modern twist. I voted no.
Click to expand...
Origin:

1680–90; short for hackney

1. Originally, a quick job that produces what is needed, but not well.

verb (used with object) 6. to make trite, common, or stale by frequent use.
Click to expand...
Death Proof was a B-movie for the sake of doing a B-movie. It had nothing going for it other than the style. He produced what was needed, but not well.
Click to expand...
I was entertained. Same could be said for Jackie Brown, Kill Bill, Basterds, and even Pulp. I guess that's the crux of the question. I feel like he takes elements from those genres and makes them interesting in a modern since.
 
'Smack Tripper said:
Anyone who calls Tarantino a thief has no real idea how art works. With the smallest handful of exceptions, all artists are "thieves". But more to the point, art builds on art, art influences art and its a spinning wheel. Besides, the objects of his "theft" are such direct homages, it's kind of stupid to call him a thief. Hacks are guys who are push button filmmakers, who make mass product for audiences in my estimation. Off the top of my head, my hack list:- Edward Zwick-John Singleton-Ed Burns-Paul Haggis-Uwe Boll-M. Night-Brett RatnerWhat I notice about all these guys is, they have one movie, often early in their career, that was ok, to good, and somewhat surprisingly well received and they were able to spin a career out of it. Personality and self-salesmanship matter more than skills as a director you could argue, and I would guess in their own way, all of the above are adept at that. Tarantio is also probably great, but he is supported by multiple projects on the good to great level. He's got his clunkers but he hits more than he misses. Of the above guys I listed, the only good movies I could pick out are:-Glory(Zwick)-Shamalyan(Unbreakable, Sixth Sense)Ratner( Rush Hour)
Click to expand...
you're on to something here, i think. i tend to think hacks are guys who are derivative and unoriginal. going further, they are unable to make their art somehow their own. QT, while *heavily* influenced by other filmmakers is somehow able to make his work original. they are identifiable as a tarantino film. most of those guys you list have no discernible POV with the exception of maybe M. Night and Boll.
 
'wikkidpissah said:
'jdoggydogg said:
'wikkidpissah said:
'jdoggydogg said:
'wikkidpissah said:
Thief
Click to expand...
Examples?
Click to expand...
i think we've been through this before, dogg. QT's work betrays a youthful obsession with cool without skills to achieve it. in between getting the #### kicked out of his nerdy ###, he watched movies and stored every revenge fantasy moment that spoke to him. in his one stroke of genius, or at least inspiration, he realised that assembling these scenes & sentiments in screen pieces would resonate in the id of everyone who's ever been minimized/bullied and give him his best chance at being well-considered. now, his every filmic moment matches his every life moment - the nerd's King of Cool. he'll simply never be cool to anyone who's cool, but he's now more powerful than most cool people & cool to everyone else, so he wins. still, he wakes up every day needing the validation of others more than his own, and that makes him pathetic. But his pathology & encyclopedia of compensations will always make him interesting.
Click to expand...
None of this eloquent paragraph answers the question: how is he a thief?
Click to expand...
i thought it was clear - because every sensibility & expression in his work & personality has been appropriated from someone else. as i can imagine nothing more boring than inventorying that sad amalgam, you'll have to go elsewhere for the Trial of QT you seem to be seeking.
Click to expand...
It's not clear at all from your post. You said that Tarantino is a frustrated nerd that sees his films as adolescent wish-fulfillment. Is it your position that art doesn't normally derive from personal pain and angst?
 
'jdoggydogg said:
'wikkidpissah said:
'jdoggydogg said:
'wikkidpissah said:
'jdoggydogg said:
'wikkidpissah said:
Thief
Click to expand...
Examples?
Click to expand...
i think we've been through this before, dogg. QT's work betrays a youthful obsession with cool without skills to achieve it. in between getting the #### kicked out of his nerdy ###, he watched movies and stored every revenge fantasy moment that spoke to him. in his one stroke of genius, or at least inspiration, he realised that assembling these scenes & sentiments in screen pieces would resonate in the id of everyone who's ever been minimized/bullied and give him his best chance at being well-considered. now, his every filmic moment matches his every life moment - the nerd's King of Cool. he'll simply never be cool to anyone who's cool, but he's now more powerful than most cool people & cool to everyone else, so he wins. still, he wakes up every day needing the validation of others more than his own, and that makes him pathetic. But his pathology & encyclopedia of compensations will always make him interesting.
Click to expand...
None of this eloquent paragraph answers the question: how is he a thief?
Click to expand...
i thought it was clear - because every sensibility & expression in his work & personality has been appropriated from someone else. as i can imagine nothing more boring than inventorying that sad amalgam, you'll have to go elsewhere for the Trial of QT you seem to be seeking.
Click to expand...
It's not clear at all from your post. You said that Tarantino is a frustrated nerd that sees his films as adolescent wish-fulfillment. Is it your position that art doesn't normally derive from personal pain and angst?
Click to expand...
Art is driven almost completely by curiosity & the search for beauty & sublimity. Fuel, on the other hand, seems to come most commonly from agony seeking ecstacy.
 
One way we might define a hack is to be someone who has very little useful or interesting to say.

While I might quibble a bit with Ivan, I generally agree that QT movies are usually at least entertaining, and if they're derivative they're derivative in interesting ways because he's aping so many genres and forms at once. With that said, I do think QT has quit having much intersting to say after Pulp Fiction.

Reservoir Dogs blew me away. In part because of all the stock Tarantino stuff that's been copied so much that it's no longer particularly impactful, but mostly because I thought it really was a great subversion of the crime picture. It showed how the concept of honor among thieves has to become a fantasy when the rubber meets the road. And I thought Pulp Fiction went one step further by showing how our genre conventions were ultimately absurd.

The thing is that Tarantino hasn't really had a particularly profound thought since then. Every movie he wants to introduce us to stuff he thinks is cool. Which is fine, some of that stuff (like German Expressionism in Inglorious Basterds) is definitely, IMO, cool. Increasingly, he wants to use the exploitation genre to make revenge wish-fulfillment fantasies. And because they're women's wish-fulfillment fantasies, or Jewish wish fulfillment fantasies, or (now) slave wish fulfillment fantasies they somehow become "political." But they're not political. They're just kind of silly excuses to get distinctive and underrated actors together to read some arch dialogue and film some fun action scenes. Often, I find, the arch dialogue and the action scenes go together like chocolate and sardines.

 
'Smack Tripper said:
Anyone who calls Tarantino a thief has no real idea how art works. With the smallest handful of exceptions, all artists are "thieves". But more to the point, art builds on art, art influences art and its a spinning wheel. Besides, the objects of his "theft" are such direct homages, it's kind of stupid to call him a thief. Hacks are guys who are push button filmmakers, who make mass product for audiences in my estimation. Off the top of my head, my hack list:- Edward Zwick-John Singleton-Ed Burns-Paul Haggis-Uwe Boll-M. Night-Brett RatnerWhat I notice about all these guys is, they have one movie, often early in their career, that was ok, to good, and somewhat surprisingly well received and they were able to spin a career out of it. Personality and self-salesmanship matter more than skills as a director you could argue, and I would guess in their own way, all of the above are adept at that. Tarantio is also probably great, but he is supported by multiple projects on the good to great level. He's got his clunkers but he hits more than he misses. Of the above guys I listed, the only good movies I could pick out are:-Glory(Zwick)-Shamalyan(Unbreakable, Sixth Sense)Ratner( Rush Hour)
Click to expand...
ridiculous. learning is thieving under that criteria. the past makes the present, points to the future. big deal. disingenuous appropriation is quite another thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top