His earlier stuff was special, unique, despite it drawing upon so much extant film-work. Now, he seems to be a bit of a parody of himself. There were certain sections of Django that were jaw-droppingly bizarre. Death Proof was a joke. Inglourius was visually-fantastic and, like Django, peppered with amazing moments, but I feel it is over-rated.
Quentin Tarantino, yay or nay?
- Thread starter jsmoke
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 5,233
- Location
- North East England
Easyrider spouts nonsense in film thread shocker.
Who does easyrider write film reviews for? I think it would make an entertaining read
Everything he has contributed to this thread is pointless.
Who does easyrider write film reviews for? I think it would make an entertaining read
Everything he has contributed to this thread is pointless.
1. Agree
2. Hated it 1st, grown on me now
3. Seen only bits & pieces, so can't comment
4. Disagree, both are my Fave Tarantino films.
5. Agree, the end is stupid.
6. Agree & Disagree, Seeing as Tarantino does cameos in all his films (In a Hichcock kind of way)
7. Not seen it
On the whole, Yay.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,668
NOT according to many different dictionary definitions, including the one you yourself supplied.
No.
Your earlier inconsistencies were sufficient, plus I don't really care. The point has already been made and now you're just backpedaling.
And for them of us wot never went to You-Knee and got degrees and stuff, so got us no logs in?(You can login through any academic institutions login).
No, it's Resistance that's futile, chap...
I play drums, but I still know a good guitarist from a bad one.
"None may judge of the craft, but the craftsman"
George Silver, 1598.
What Mr. Silver refers to in his oft-quoted statement there is the actual method by which something is crafted, made, created, achieved, done, etc etc... but in his particular treatise, he was referring specifically to swordsmanship and later explained, in far more verbose fashion, that while the craft may only be thus judged, the end result and the judgement thereof is typically plain to most mens' eyes.
Or to put it another way, ie that of my drum teacher - "The only rule in music is that it must sound good".
So you could have a thousand drummers arguing a thousand different ways to play something, but it's their audience who gets to decide if it's any good or not.
If Clapton only plays for himself and if Tarantino only makes for himself, why do they release and even publicise these works to the general public?
Why are they trying to sell this stuff, when they can only make money if we, the general public, actually like it?
They care what we think, because they HAVE to, because ultimately we pay their salary.
You can't cook a roast dinner? Seriously ?
But what constitutes a bad roast dinner ?
Van Gogh only sold one painting in his lifetime.
Did that stop him painting? No?
Clapton puts stuff out...because it's art not because of the money....
It just so happens that people buy it...he wouldn't stop playing guitar if people stopped buying it...
One of the reasons he turned his back on pop and left the yardbirds was that they were becoming to commercial and selling out. He turned his back on it and pursued blues.
Paul McCartney once said...the best way to approach music and creativity is to please yourself...if people like it great...if they don't who cares...
Last edited:
You can't cook a roast dinner? Seriously ?
I can barely cook a thing. I can eat a boatload, though.
easyrider said:
You can't imagine a badly cooked roast dinner?
None of which means your work is exempt from criticism. It's all well and good if you are prepared to ignore criticism of your own work, but plenty of other people might well want to discuss it.
I enjoyed Hateful Eight - reminded me of a play. A weird cowboy play with lots of death! Otherwise, Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs and True Romance are genuinely great. Jackie Brown and the Kill Bills I thoroughly enjoyed too. Infact, even at his worst, I still enjoy Tarantino's movies.
Now, Ridley Scott - he's made some proper ****e!
Now, Ridley Scott - he's made some proper ****e!
As said ...anyone can criticise anything. I made this point a while back...
If people want to discuss it that's fine...I talk about film...doesn't mean it carries any significance to anyone who chooses to discard it.
Will it change or influence what QT creates?
Not one jot.
The Martian for one.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,668
Based on what people generally consider a roast dinner, I can't cook one either. I also have the disadvantage of an old electric hob, but the Mrs specialises in roasts anyway.You can't cook a roast dinner? Seriously ?
But what constitutes a bad roast dinner ?
I do better braais, bobotie, fry-ups, stir-frys, chips, steaks, sandwiches and so on... oh, and my Milktart is brilliant!!
So then either it should be FREE for everyone to enjoy, or else it's the kind of art you pay for, which means it's essentially a commission and still done to please someone else, and so subject to their critique...
And if it's actual proper "Art" then there should be a myriad up-their-own-backsides arty-farty pretentious critics all supplying critique on his work, using made-up portmanteaus of neuvo-French words to try and pretend they know what they're talking about, then....
They wouldn't buy it if he wasn't selling it in the first place.
And the reason Tarantino turned his back on the commercial world of Hollywood companies like Weinstein, Columbia, Universal, UIP, Warner, Miramax and so on.... oh, wait, they're still involved? Oh well, then...!
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,755
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
Are you talking about the same Eric Clapton who turned his back on pop and made these pop classics after he turned his back on pop?
I Shot the Sheriff
Willie and the Hand Jive
Swing Low, Sweet Chariot
Knockin' on Heaven's Door
Lay Down Sally
Wonderful Tonight
Behind the Mask
Bad Love
Tears in Heaven
and so on ............
I won't even mention Cream and their pop songs.
You do talk some crap.
So the motivation to write Tears in heaven was money ?
I thought it was a vehicle for dealing with the death of his son?
So the motivation for writing wonderful tonight was money? I thought it was his love song for Pattie Harrison?
You do talk some crap.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,755
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
Where have I mentioned money?
You claimed he turned his back on pop and clearly hasn't.
I even used the word 'pop' 4 times so it might sink in but once again you will backtrack.
I was taking about creating art and music with Clapton. Not chasing commercial success.
I was clear enough.
Just like QT...he makes movies to make movies. Not for the money.
If he gets a hit thats fine...If he doesn't it matters not.
Van gogh painted..he sold one painting...Did he stop painting? Nope.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,755
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
But Clapton turned his back on Pop
Its all about the roast potatoes, get them wrong and the dinner is ruined
Very entertaining thread this... Its nice to see (mostly) good natured arguing, but, what was the op's question again?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...c-Clapton-God-looks-back-on-His-mistakes.html
Clapton says he learnt to withdraw into music, that it was the only thing that was "real" for him. And "real" is what it had to be – emerging on to the British blues scene in the early 1960s as a gifted young guitarist, he became a sort of blues fundamentalist, refusing to soil his hands with commercial pop, which was why, having joined the Yardbirds, he walked out on them just as they were having their first hit.
Its all about the roast potatoes, get them wrong and the dinner is ruined
Very entertaining thread this... Its nice to see (mostly) good natured arguing, but, what was the op's question again?
Prefer mash myself.