Quentin Tarantino is a douchebag.

[Radu]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/video/item/quentin-tarantino-on-charlie-rose/

Douche. Bag.

I love it when people put seemingly insignificant details like background events that would have an enormous impact on the character and could significantly enrich the plot into a film, and then leave it up to me to decide what it was. I have a better idea, Quentin.

I've got some editing software here.... why don't you just put a bunch of clips on a DVD and I can buy that? That way, instead of having just one movie to watch, with all those clips at my disposal I can watch dozens! Hundreds! Thousands (if you count self-approving back patting fucking bullshit maneuvers like not telling the audience important shit as creating new films)!

Seriously.

The pulp fiction briefcase... I didn't mind so much. It was a thing. It wasn't really that important to the story, and to tell you the truth, I have my own take on what's in the case. I think it's full of I don't give a shit. Attempts like this to substitute empty artistic gestures for substantive plot elements are why Tarantino has been going steadily downhill in my esteem. The man's just simply NOT that great of a director. He's stolen pretty much every movie he's ever made, in terms of character, plot, and style, and yet there's a huge cult of personality around him. He's made a few decent films, but he's full of artistic pretensions like this. Fuck him with a stick.

[TiQuinn]

He's just vocalizing something that a lot of directors have done for years, going back to Hitchcock. Why would the rope burn really be important, and not simply a character trait/hook? Sometimes it's really better to leave certain details unexplained, IMO.

[The Winslow]

On QT being a pretentious douche bag: yes. Yes he is. With so many people inflating his ego since Reservoir Dog, of course he is.

On the backstory behind a scar on a character mattering a lot: no. It was caused by an I don't give a shit, to use your terms. It's about as important as the origin of all that bling-bling in Captain Jack Sparrow's hair.

[Name Lips]

What I hear is somebody whining that lots of people like a bunch of movies and they shouldn't 'cause they're bad movies and people are just too dumb to realize it.

Yet, they (I should say "we," since I am one of them :D) are the ones who still get to have fun at the movies, and not spend the whole time irritated at the director. So we win. :D

[Scarbonac]

Don't ask why the Coyote chases the Roadrunner, goddammit.

[Radu]

What I hear is somebody whining that lots of people like a bunch of movies and they shouldn't 'cause they're bad movies and people are just too dumb to realize it.

I didn't say people shouldn't like his movies. I just think that he's not a very good director--- there's a difference. You know who else isn't a very good director, who has nonetheless entertained me at the movies? Zak Snyder. I enjoyed "300" and "Watchmen," but I think "Dawn of the Dead" is what really did it for me. I'm not saying every movie has to be a gem, but I'm tired of hacks like Tarantino and Michael Bay crapping out terrible movies again and again. I think that they lower the standards. Yes, that might make me an elitist film snob, but so what? Since when has it been a bad thing to have standards? It IS possible to make an entertaining "mindless" film. Case in point: "xXx."

Yet, they (I should say "we," since I am one of them :D) are the ones who still get to have fun at the movies, and not spend the whole time irritated at the director. So we win. :D

And what part of my anti-Tarantino rant led you to believe I don't have fun at movies? I'm irritated at him because he's made such good films in the past ("Reservoir Dogs" and "Pulp Fiction" remain good movies despite what I feel about him now) that now he's kind of like Peter Jackson: his name alone is enough to get an audience, and he's built up a sort of film style that has become overwhelming. "King Kong" was at least an hour too long for the amount of story it told and the substance it had. Same thing with "Kill Bill." I enjoyed the films when they came out, but after rewatching them they don't really have any sticking power themselves.

Part of this is probably a backlash against artistic pretensions. I really hate it when people are self-consciously "artsy." I find that it usually falls flat. In reality, it's probably nothing to get irked about, but it seems like the sort of detail that's only put in because it CAN be put it. Film-maker in-jokes are all well and good, but that doesn't mean I can't get irritated by it.

On the backstory behind a scar on a character mattering a lot: no. It was caused by an I don't give a shit, to use your terms. It's about as important as the origin of all that bling-bling in Captain Jack Sparrow's hair.

Scratch the surface of a Tarantino film and you get more surface. Good example, Winslow. The key difference here is I don't see Gore Verbinski waxing philosophically about how all the gew-gaws can be interpreted in different ways to produce different films. You watch the pirates films and you see... the pirates films. There's something to be said for just making a (WELL CONSTRUCTED!) fun film (and the 1st pirates film was REALLY fun. Haven't seen the others).

[TiQuinn]

Scratch the surface of a Tarantino film and you get more surface. Good example, Winslow. The key difference here is I don't see Gore Verbinski waxing philosophically about how all the gew-gaws can be interpreted in different ways to produce different films.

He wrote a monologue about the meaning of the lyrics in "Like a Virgin". His longest movie was a mish mash of Spaghetti Western, Manga, and Kung Fu Theater. His deepest movie was Pulp Fiction, which if you boiled it down was about two gangsters who have a close call, and one decides to re-evaluate and lives, and the other doesn't and dies. He's a geek obsessed with pop culture and B movie genres, pure and simple; the kind of guy who'll write a dissertation on the group dynamics of the Scooby Gang. Fun to listen to, but not too much deep going on there.

[The Winslow]

There's something to be said for just making a (WELL CONSTRUCTED!) fun film (and the 1st pirates film was REALLY fun. Haven't seen the others).

Still entertaining, with plenty of over-the-top scenes, but more repetitive and overall not as good. Such is the fate of so many sequels...

[Hatter]

Honestly, I don't watch Tarantino films to be inspired or intellectually challenged. But they are quite a bit of fun. I don't know whether it was intended this way, but I always laugh at the briefcase in Pulp Fiction for being such an obvious MacGuffin.

[The Theocrat of Poon-Tang]

Yes, that might make me an elitist film snob, but so what?...

Film snobs...I hate these guys. ;)

[Janos]

He's a douchebag. But as long as he's a douchebag making movies like Inglorious Basterds, he has my $12.00 for a ticket.

[Dr. Paragon]

He's a douchebag. But as long as he's a douchebag making movies like Inglorious Basterds, he has my $12.00 for a ticket.

Preach it on the mountain top!!!1
:D