Is Quentin Tarantino a hack? (2 Viewers)

[wikkidpissah]

Art is driven almost completely by curiosity & the search for beauty & sublimity.

Aka needing to get laid by hot chicks.

boy howdy!

 

[Eephus]

Steven Spielberg is a hack, not Tarantino.

It really does seem like Schindler's List wrecked him as a director (and yes, that includes Saving Private Ryan).

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.

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).

Craft and art are two different things

 

[wikkidpissah]

Steven Spielberg is a hack, not Tarantino.

It really does seem like Schindler's List wrecked him as a director (and yes, that includes Saving Private Ryan).

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.

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).

Craft and art are two different things

So are footballs & smegma. I dont get your point.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Michael Bay is a hack, Quentin Tarantino is one of the best directors of this generation. Masterpieces like Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill, and Inglourious Basterds will define film making in the 90s and 00s. He likely is not the best but he's a genius and on a short list for best director of his era.

 

[Ghost Rider]

LOL at this question even being asked.

 

[McJose]

LOL at this question even being asked.

I know. It's pretty obvious that he is.

 

[Tom Servo]

LOL at this question even being asked.

I know. It's pretty obvious that he is.

He was pariodied by Jimmy Neutron. Jimmy Neutron. So the answer is yes.

 

[jdoggydogg]

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).

Here's a phenomenon I see repeated over and over, and there's rarely an exception:Every good artist has a peak period of 5 to 15 years where they are fruitful and produce their best work.

And after this period, there's an inevitable decline wherein the work is either weak, or it's very derivative of the initial peak period. So when people say things like, "Bah. He hasn't made anything good since ____________," this assumes there are multiple examples of artists that are vital for a 20 or 30 year period.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

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).

Here's a phenomenon I see repeated over and over, and there's rarely an exception:Every good artist has a peak period of 5 to 15 years where they are fruitful and produce their best work.

And after this period, there's an inevitable decline wherein the work is either weak, or it's very derivative of the initial peak period. So when people say things like, "Bah. He hasn't made anything good since ____________," this assumes there are multiple examples of artists that are vital for a 20 or 30 year period.

Good point. But the public usually lags on this. An artists "best selling" work many times follows just after what might actually be their best work.

 

[Ghost Rider]

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).

Here's a phenomenon I see repeated over and over, and there's rarely an exception:Every good artist has a peak period of 5 to 15 years where they are fruitful and produce their best work.

And after this period, there's an inevitable decline wherein the work is either weak, or it's very derivative of the initial peak period. So when people say things like, "Bah. He hasn't made anything good since ____________," this assumes there are multiple examples of artists that are vital for a 20 or 30 year period.

Good point. But the public usually lags on this. An artists "best selling" work many times follows just after what might actually be their best work.

True. Once an artist achieves a certain amount of fame, popularity, etc., pretty much anything they release will sell well, but that doesn't mean it is better than their work, which is often their best, that got them that fame. For example, I can't say this for sure, but I would bet that Metallica's Load had the the best first week sales of their career. Need I say more?

 

[Eephus]

Steven Spielberg is a hack, not Tarantino.

It really does seem like Schindler's List wrecked him as a director (and yes, that includes Saving Private Ryan).

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.

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).

Craft and art are two different things

So are footballs & smegma. I dont get your point.

Macca, DeNiro and Sondheim (and a lot of other people) hit their artistic peak early on, but continued to create with varying but generally diminishing returns. They're still talented enough craftsmen to occasionally produce something that reminds you of why they were loved artists in the first place.Tarentino has never been a great craftsman, at least as a director. His work has always been sloppy. That doesn't make him a hack or his movies less entertaining, but I think it does mean that he won't be able to hang on when he inevitably loses his creative mojo. Spielberg, who is an excellent craftsman, can direct decent movies pretty much in his sleep. QT is almost totally dependent on the quality of the source material.

 

[RhymesMcJuice]

I watch A LOT of movies and while every Tarantino film isn't a masterpiece he's one of a handful of directors who I know when I go see their film I'm going to see something that is unique and interesting. I can see why people would get tired of his dialogue style but personally I can't get enough of it.

He has really slowed down - only Kill Bill, Death Proof and IG since Jackie Brown in '97 - but that's still a quality resume over that time period. BTW, I don't count Sin City since he didn't write it and only directed one segment of the movie.

Django Unchained looks great and I'm looking forward to Kill Bill Vol. 3.

 

[wikkidpissah]

Steven Spielberg is a hack, not Tarantino.

It really does seem like Schindler's List wrecked him as a director (and yes, that includes Saving Private Ryan).

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.

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).

Craft and art are two different things

So are footballs & smegma. I dont get your point.

Macca, DeNiro and Sondheim (and a lot of other people) hit their artistic peak early on, but continued to create with varying but generally diminishing returns. They're still talented enough craftsmen to occasionally produce something that reminds you of why they were loved artists in the first place.Tarentino has never been a great craftsman, at least as a director. His work has always been sloppy. That doesn't make him a hack or his movies less entertaining, but I think it does mean that he won't be able to hang on when he inevitably loses his creative mojo. Spielberg, who is an excellent craftsman, can direct decent movies pretty much in his sleep. QT is almost totally dependent on the quality of the source material.

gotcha - we're essentially saying the same thing. it goes back to my original assertion with jdogg (this aint the 1st time we've been over this) that tarantino is not an artist, but a collector. his movies invite you to come over to his basement bedroom and see all his cool stuff. the pathology makes it compelling, either to those with similar pathologies or those who find in interesting, but it falls short of the mark as creation.

 

[NCCommish]

gotcha - we're essentially saying the same thing. it goes back to my original assertion with jdogg (this aint the 1st time we've been over this) that tarantino is not an artist, but a collector. his movies invite you to come over to his basement bedroom and see all his cool stuff. the pathology makes it compelling, either to those with similar pathologies or those who find in interesting, but it falls short of the mark as creation.

All art is derivative. There is nothing new under the sun. All artists are to some degree standing on the shoulders of those who went before. I think the pop psych is fun and all but I'm not sure it's particularly compelling as an answer to this question. And I think QT has been very clear about his love for these movies and how he wants to put his own stamp on these genres. I don't think that makes him less of an artist or a hack.

 

[hooter311]

His skill set is far from complete, he does dialogue and homage to obscure films really well, but a lot stuff seems like masturbation material for the fanboy in him. It seems like he comes up with a couple of key scenes in his head and then manages to build entire movies around them. Still, he has a passion for film that one can't deny, but I don't think we'll be getting another Pulp Fiction out of him again. He will continue to produce great single scenes though. Latest example would be the opening of IG which towers above the rest of the film for me.

 

[wikkidpissah]

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).

Here's a phenomenon I see repeated over and over, and there's rarely an exception:Every good artist has a peak period of 5 to 15 years where they are fruitful and produce their best work.

And after this period, there's an inevitable decline wherein the work is either weak, or it's very derivative of the initial peak period. So when people say things like, "Bah. He hasn't made anything good since ____________," this assumes there are multiple examples of artists that are vital for a 20 or 30 year period.

this is an interesting phenomenon. energy has been described as the dynamic tension between opposites and creative energy is probably similar. most artists have been products of the tension between what they want and what they have, how they live and what they see. success removes one of the poles which create that tension and the spark has nowhere to hop. hopefully, an artist has developed a consistent vision & considerable skill by the time that happens, but even then they have only what eephus described. if this creates further success, inspiration further declines and you have a cycle that almost must see the end of artistic currency. and that's how reunion tours are made, johnny.

 

[wikkidpissah]

gotcha - we're essentially saying the same thing. it goes back to my original assertion with jdogg (this aint the 1st time we've been over this) that tarantino is not an artist, but a collector. his movies invite you to come over to his basement bedroom and see all his cool stuff. the pathology makes it compelling, either to those with similar pathologies or those who find in interesting, but it falls short of the mark as creation.

All art is derivative. There is nothing new under the sun. All artists are to some degree standing on the shoulders of those who went before. I think the pop psych is fun and all but I'm not sure it's particularly compelling as an answer to this question. And I think QT has been very clear about his love for these movies and how he wants to put his own stamp on these genres. I don't think that makes him less of an artist or a hack.

one more time - art is inspiration, not imitation. launches require platforms and that's the only thing art & its derivation has in common. call the other thing craft, junk, culture, whatever you want, but me & my pal Leonardo BEG y'all to leave art alone.

 

[RhymesMcJuice]

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).

Here's a phenomenon I see repeated over and over, and there's rarely an exception:Every good artist has a peak period of 5 to 15 years where they are fruitful and produce their best work.

And after this period, there's an inevitable decline wherein the work is either weak, or it's very derivative of the initial peak period. So when people say things like, "Bah. He hasn't made anything good since ____________," this assumes there are multiple examples of artists that are vital for a 20 or 30 year period.

this is an interesting phenomenon. energy has been described as the dynamic tension between opposites and creative energy is probably similar. most artists have been products of the tension between what they want and what they have, how they live and what they see. success removes one of the poles which create that tension and the spark has nowhere to hop. hopefully, an artist has developed a consistent vision & considerable skill by the time that happens, but even then they have only what eephus described. if this creates further success, inspiration further declines and you have a cycle that almost must see the end of artistic currency. and that's how reunion tours are made, johnny.

Only artists driven by true angst can overcome the shackles put on them by money and success. While this is fortunate for us, it requires that the artist suffers for it.

 

[NCCommish]

gotcha - we're essentially saying the same thing. it goes back to my original assertion with jdogg (this aint the 1st time we've been over this) that tarantino is not an artist, but a collector. his movies invite you to come over to his basement bedroom and see all his cool stuff. the pathology makes it compelling, either to those with similar pathologies or those who find in interesting, but it falls short of the mark as creation.

All art is derivative. There is nothing new under the sun. All artists are to some degree standing on the shoulders of those who went before. I think the pop psych is fun and all but I'm not sure it's particularly compelling as an answer to this question. And I think QT has been very clear about his love for these movies and how he wants to put his own stamp on these genres. I don't think that makes him less of an artist or a hack.

one more time - art is inspiration, not imitation. launches require platforms and that's the only thing art & its derivation has in common. call the other thing craft, junk, culture, whatever you want, but me & my pal Leonardo BEG y'all to leave art alone.

Even Leo got ideas and technique from others.

 

[Kenny Powers]

Hack? Absolutely not. He's only directed 7 movies in almost 20 years though, which I think is smart on his part because if he was directing 1 or more a year, I could see his movies becoming stale if not bad once in awhile and not have the resonating impact or entertaintainment value I still feel they do today. At that point he could approach hack territory. I really dont understand how people can say he fell off after Pulp Fiction outside of Death Proof but that was what it was. I would disagree that he's a better writer than director as someone said, but clearly he's a great writer, and he wrote but did not direct True Romance, Natural Born Killers, and From Dusk Till Dawn which were all great in their own right.

As for hack, the definition of hack is M. Night Shallamylan. I feel like people still go to see his movies because of The Sixth Sense and expecting the next Sixth Sense or something, and he hasn't made a good movie since. I dont think people go to see Tarantino movies expecting the next Pulp Fiction, they go expecting an interesting and entertaining film.

 

[Kenny Powers]

His skill set is far from complete, he does dialogue and homage to obscure films really well, but a lot stuff seems like masturbation material for the fanboy in him. It seems like he comes up with a couple of key scenes in his head and then manages to build entire movies around them. Still, he has a passion for film that one can't deny, but I don't think we'll be getting another Pulp Fiction out of him again. He will continue to produce great single scenes though. Latest example would be the opening of IG which towers above the rest of the film for me.

Agreed and agreed, although Id say the opening scene and cellar bar room scene.

 

[jdoggydogg]

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).

Here's a phenomenon I see repeated over and over, and there's rarely an exception:Every good artist has a peak period of 5 to 15 years where they are fruitful and produce their best work.

And after this period, there's an inevitable decline wherein the work is either weak, or it's very derivative of the initial peak period. So when people say things like, "Bah. He hasn't made anything good since ____________," this assumes there are multiple examples of artists that are vital for a 20 or 30 year period.

Good point. But the public usually lags on this. An artists "best selling" work many times follows just after what might actually be their best work.

Certainly.

 

[jdoggydogg]

I watch A LOT of movies and while every Tarantino film isn't a masterpiece he's one of a handful of directors who I know when I go see their film I'm going to see something that is unique and interesting. I can see why people would get tired of his dialogue style but personally I can't get enough of it. He has really slowed down - only Kill Bill, Death Proof and IG since Jackie Brown in '97 - but that's still a quality resume over that time period. BTW, I don't count Sin City since he didn't write it and only directed one segment of the movie.Django Unchained looks great and I'm looking forward to Kill Bill Vol. 3.

 

[jdoggydogg]

His skill set is far from complete, he does dialogue and homage to obscure films really well, but a lot stuff seems like masturbation material for the fanboy in him. It seems like he comes up with a couple of key scenes in his head and then manages to build entire movies around them. Still, he has a passion for film that one can't deny, but I don't think we'll be getting another Pulp Fiction out of him again. He will continue to produce great single scenes though. Latest example would be the opening of IG which towers above the rest of the film for me.

I'd argue that the bar scene is about as good as anything I've ever seen in a movie.

 

[jdoggydogg]

gotcha - we're essentially saying the same thing. it goes back to my original assertion with jdogg (this aint the 1st time we've been over this) that tarantino is not an artist, but a collector. his movies invite you to come over to his basement bedroom and see all his cool stuff. the pathology makes it compelling, either to those with similar pathologies or those who find in interesting, but it falls short of the mark as creation.

All art is derivative. There is nothing new under the sun. All artists are to some degree standing on the shoulders of those who went before. I think the pop psych is fun and all but I'm not sure it's particularly compelling as an answer to this question. And I think QT has been very clear about his love for these movies and how he wants to put his own stamp on these genres. I don't think that makes him less of an artist or a hack.

one more time - art is inspiration, not imitation. launches require platforms and that's the only thing art & its derivation has in common. call the other thing craft, junk, culture, whatever you want, but me & my pal Leonardo BEG y'all to leave art alone.

The inspiration vs. imitation matter is a very nebulous subject. Almost every artist - good or bad - has aped another artist at one point or another.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Hack? Absolutely not. He's only directed 7 movies in almost 20 years though, which I think is smart on his part because if he was directing 1 or more a year, I could see his movies becoming stale if not bad once in awhile and not have the resonating impact or entertaintainment value I still feel they do today. At that point he could approach hack territory. I really dont understand how people can say he fell off after Pulp Fiction outside of Death Proof but that was what it was. I would disagree that he's a better writer than director as someone said, but clearly he's a great writer, and he wrote but did not direct True Romance, Natural Born Killers, and From Dusk Till Dawn which were all great in their own right. As for hack, the definition of hack is M. Night Shallamylan. I feel like people still go to see his movies because of The Sixth Sense and expecting the next Sixth Sense or something, and he hasn't made a good movie since. I dont think people go to see Tarantino movies expecting the next Pulp Fiction, they go expecting an interesting and entertaining film.

 

[wikkidpissah]

gotcha - we're essentially saying the same thing. it goes back to my original assertion with jdogg (this aint the 1st time we've been over this) that tarantino is not an artist, but a collector. his movies invite you to come over to his basement bedroom and see all his cool stuff. the pathology makes it compelling, either to those with similar pathologies or those who find in interesting, but it falls short of the mark as creation.

All art is derivative. There is nothing new under the sun. All artists are to some degree standing on the shoulders of those who went before. I think the pop psych is fun and all but I'm not sure it's particularly compelling as an answer to this question. And I think QT has been very clear about his love for these movies and how he wants to put his own stamp on these genres. I don't think that makes him less of an artist or a hack.

one more time - art is inspiration, not imitation. launches require platforms and that's the only thing art & its derivation has in common. call the other thing craft, junk, culture, whatever you want, but me & my pal Leonardo BEG y'all to leave art alone.

The inspiration vs. imitation matter is a very nebulous subject. Almost every artist - good or bad - has aped another artist at one point or another.

duh - and that part of him is not art.

 

[jdoggydogg]

gotcha - we're essentially saying the same thing. it goes back to my original assertion with jdogg (this aint the 1st time we've been over this) that tarantino is not an artist, but a collector. his movies invite you to come over to his basement bedroom and see all his cool stuff. the pathology makes it compelling, either to those with similar pathologies or those who find in interesting, but it falls short of the mark as creation.

All art is derivative. There is nothing new under the sun. All artists are to some degree standing on the shoulders of those who went before. I think the pop psych is fun and all but I'm not sure it's particularly compelling as an answer to this question. And I think QT has been very clear about his love for these movies and how he wants to put his own stamp on these genres. I don't think that makes him less of an artist or a hack.

one more time - art is inspiration, not imitation. launches require platforms and that's the only thing art & its derivation has in common. call the other thing craft, junk, culture, whatever you want, but me & my pal Leonardo BEG y'all to leave art alone.

The inspiration vs. imitation matter is a very nebulous subject. Almost every artist - good or bad - has aped another artist at one point or another.

duh - and that part of him is not art.

That you don't like Tarantino or his movies is perfectly fine. When you say he's not an artist, we've got a problem.

 

[hooter311]

His skill set is far from complete, he does dialogue and homage to obscure films really well, but a lot stuff seems like masturbation material for the fanboy in him. It seems like he comes up with a couple of key scenes in his head and then manages to build entire movies around them. Still, he has a passion for film that one can't deny, but I don't think we'll be getting another Pulp Fiction out of him again. He will continue to produce great single scenes though. Latest example would be the opening of IG which towers above the rest of the film for me.

I'd argue that the bar scene is about as good as anything I've ever seen in a movie.

I'd have to watch that scene again. I've only seen it once when it was in theaters. Reservoir Dogs came up on my rotation again a week or so ago and it still stands out at the greatest something from nothing film of all time for me. (Sorry, Clerks, you're #2) He probably couldn't show the actual robbery for budget reasons, but the characters talking about it make it better than anything that QT could have actually filmed.

 

[wikkidpissah]

gotcha - we're essentially saying the same thing. it goes back to my original assertion with jdogg (this aint the 1st time we've been over this) that tarantino is not an artist, but a collector. his movies invite you to come over to his basement bedroom and see all his cool stuff. the pathology makes it compelling, either to those with similar pathologies or those who find in interesting, but it falls short of the mark as creation.

All art is derivative. There is nothing new under the sun. All artists are to some degree standing on the shoulders of those who went before. I think the pop psych is fun and all but I'm not sure it's particularly compelling as an answer to this question. And I think QT has been very clear about his love for these movies and how he wants to put his own stamp on these genres. I don't think that makes him less of an artist or a hack.

one more time - art is inspiration, not imitation. launches require platforms and that's the only thing art & its derivation has in common. call the other thing craft, junk, culture, whatever you want, but me & my pal Leonardo BEG y'all to leave art alone.

The inspiration vs. imitation matter is a very nebulous subject. Almost every artist - good or bad - has aped another artist at one point or another.

duh - and that part of him is not art.

That you don't like Tarantino or his movies is perfectly fine. When you say he's not an artist, we've got a problem.

I don't have problems, i give 'em.

 

[jdoggydogg]

His skill set is far from complete, he does dialogue and homage to obscure films really well, but a lot stuff seems like masturbation material for the fanboy in him. It seems like he comes up with a couple of key scenes in his head and then manages to build entire movies around them. Still, he has a passion for film that one can't deny, but I don't think we'll be getting another Pulp Fiction out of him again. He will continue to produce great single scenes though. Latest example would be the opening of IG which towers above the rest of the film for me.

I'd argue that the bar scene is about as good as anything I've ever seen in a movie.

I'd have to watch that scene again. I've only seen it once when it was in theaters. Reservoir Dogs came up on my rotation again a week or so ago and it still stands out at the greatest something from nothing film of all time for me. (Sorry, Clerks, you're #2) He probably couldn't show the actual robbery for budget reasons, but the characters talking about it make it better than anything that QT could have actually filmed.

All you need to do is watch Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, and there's clear evidence that those are two of the greatest films of the last 25 years. A hack isn't capable of that kind of work.

 

[Kenny Powers]

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. Tarantino 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)

I like this line of thinking and would agree with you. That might not be the definition of a hack necessarily, but most of those guys you listed are still relying on their earlier movies to get new work and have people watch their movies, and there's many just like them.I would say that those directors have more good movies than just what you listed though:Zwick - Glory, Legends of the Fall, Last Samurai, Blood Diamond, Defiance (this was the 1 guy you listed I had no idea who he was actually & probably has the best resume of this bunch)Singleton - Boyz N The Hood, Rosewood, Shaft (guilty pleasure), Four Brothers (he's actually done less movies since Boyz than QT since Reservoir Dogs)Burns - Brothers McMullen, She's The One, Ash Wednesday, The Groomsmen (I admittedly like his style of romcom in the first 2)Haggis - Crash, The Last Kiss, Casino Royale, Letters from Iwo Jima, Quantum of Solace (he wrote, not directed most of these)Boll - RampageM. Night - Ratner - Money Talks, Red DragonThere might not be a great movie in there, but that a nice collection of solid movies.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

urbanhack is a hack

 

[RhymesMcJuice]

Haggis - Crash, The Last Kiss, Casino Royale, Letters from Iwo Jima, Quantum of Solace (he wrote, not directed most of these)

Don't forget Million Dollar Baby, In The Valley of Elah and the Next Three Days. Haggis should in no way be considered a hack.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Haggis - Crash, The Last Kiss, Casino Royale, Letters from Iwo Jima, Quantum of Solace (he wrote, not directed most of these)

Don't forget Million Dollar Baby, In The Valley of Elah and the Next Three Days. Haggis should in no way be considered a hack.

I thought Letters from Iwo Jima was fantastic.

 

[Kenny Powers]

Haggis - Crash, The Last Kiss, Casino Royale, Letters from Iwo Jima, Quantum of Solace (he wrote, not directed most of these)

Don't forget Million Dollar Baby, In The Valley of Elah and the Next Three Days. Haggis should in no way be considered a hack.

I almost put in M$B, but I personally wasnt a fan of it so left it out. Its certainly a well made movie though. Havent seen the other 2 yet but will at some point.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Haggis - Crash, The Last Kiss, Casino Royale, Letters from Iwo Jima, Quantum of Solace (he wrote, not directed most of these)

Don't forget Million Dollar Baby, In The Valley of Elah and the Next Three Days. Haggis should in no way be considered a hack.

Wait...Crash?! Oof!Worst film to ever get both nominated and win Best Picture.

 

[Kenny Powers]

Haggis - Crash, The Last Kiss, Casino Royale, Letters from Iwo Jima, Quantum of Solace (he wrote, not directed most of these)

Don't forget Million Dollar Baby, In The Valley of Elah and the Next Three Days. Haggis should in no way be considered a hack.

I thought Letters from Iwo Jima was fantastic.

Agreed, thats why I listed it. On the other hand, I thought Flags of Our Fathers was 1 of the worst war-oriented movies Ive seen in a long time.

 

[Kenny Powers]

Haggis - Crash, The Last Kiss, Casino Royale, Letters from Iwo Jima, Quantum of Solace (he wrote, not directed most of these)

Don't forget Million Dollar Baby, In The Valley of Elah and the Next Three Days. Haggis should in no way be considered a hack.

Wait...Crash?! Oof!Worst film to ever get both nominated and win Best Picture.

This doesnt make it a bad movie overall.

 

[RhymesMcJuice]

Haggis - Crash, The Last Kiss, Casino Royale, Letters from Iwo Jima, Quantum of Solace (he wrote, not directed most of these)

Don't forget Million Dollar Baby, In The Valley of Elah and the Next Three Days. Haggis should in no way be considered a hack.

Wait...Crash?! Oof!Worst film to ever get both nominated and win Best Picture.

This doesnt make it a bad movie overall.

Exactly. If Crash didn't get nominated people would be saying what an under-rated writer/director he is.

 

[meatwad1]

This is a bad thread.

Tarantino has produced one indie masterpeice: Resovior Dogs, one culturally seminal film of an era; Pulp Fiction, and also one of the greatest action revenge movies of all time in Kill Bill I and II. That alone removes him from consideration of being a hack, even if he decides to devote the rest of his life to doing Hallmark made for TV movies.

The rest of his body of work ranges from o.k to good. Just because he borrows from others means nothing. Every director does that.

 

[Eephus]

Haggis - Crash, The Last Kiss, Casino Royale, Letters from Iwo Jima, Quantum of Solace (he wrote, not directed most of these)

Don't forget Million Dollar Baby, In The Valley of Elah and the Next Three Days. Haggis should in no way be considered a hack.

I thought Letters from Iwo Jima was fantastic.

There are exceptions of course, but screenwriters don't get the lion's share of credit for what ends up on screen. Blame Andrew Sarris, not me.Tarentino is an auteur in the truest sense of the word, which is the main reason why I don't think he's a hack. If you watch his movies one after another, there's a clear consistency of purpose.Take the two 007 movies written by Haggis. Casino Royale was directed by Martin Campbell, who I'd categorize as a craftsman but others would label a studio hack. It was the best Bond movie in decades, maybe ever if you strip away the nostalgia and mystique of the Connery era movies. Quantum of Solace was directed by Marc Forster, whose background wasn't in action movies like Campbell but in more personal "artistic" pieces. Maybe Haggis' script was weaker than CR but combined with the pretensions and poor execution of basic action movie blocking and tackling, the resulting movie was as bad and confusing as its title. The movie directed by the hack was much better than the one from the Swiss arthaus dude.

 

[Kenny Powers]

This is a bad thread.Tarantino has produced one indie masterpeice: Resovior Dogs, one culturally seminal film of an era; Pulp Fiction, and also one of the greatest action revenge movies of all time in Kill Bill I and II. That alone removes him from consideration of being a hack, even if he decides to devote the rest of his life to doing Hallmark made for TV movies. The rest of his body of work ranges from o.k to good. Just because he borrows from others means nothing. Every director does that.

Jackie Brown is a lot better than "ok to good"

 

[jdoggydogg]

This is a bad thread.Tarantino has produced one indie masterpeice: Resovior Dogs, one culturally seminal film of an era; Pulp Fiction, and also one of the greatest action revenge movies of all time in Kill Bill I and II. That alone removes him from consideration of being a hack, even if he decides to devote the rest of his life to doing Hallmark made for TV movies.

Completely agree.

 

[jdoggydogg]

This is a bad thread.Tarantino has produced one indie masterpeice: Resovior Dogs, one culturally seminal film of an era; Pulp Fiction, and also one of the greatest action revenge movies of all time in Kill Bill I and II. That alone removes him from consideration of being a hack, even if he decides to devote the rest of his life to doing Hallmark made for TV movies. The rest of his body of work ranges from o.k to good. Just because he borrows from others means nothing. Every director does that.

Jackie Brown is a lot better than "ok to good"

Jackie Brown is a great movie. Period.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Gene Hackman is a hack.

 

[wikkidpissah]

Gene Hackman is a hack.

One of the later Charlie's Angels was a Hack.

 

[wildbill]

I'm looking forward to Kill Bill Vol. 3.

Say what now?

 

[Eephus]

Gene Hackman is a hack.

One of the later Charlie's Angels was a Hack.

So is the MLB record holder for RBI in a season

 

[joffer]

This is a bad thread.Tarantino has produced one indie masterpeice: Resovior Dogs, one culturally seminal film of an era; Pulp Fiction, and also one of the greatest action revenge movies of all time in Kill Bill I and II. That alone removes him from consideration of being a hack, even if he decides to devote the rest of his life to doing Hallmark made for TV movies.

Completely agree.

+1