>>However, I would go so far as to say that what Tarantino
>and
>>Rodriguez did together - the Grindhouse experience (both
>>movies, plus trailers... the whole theater experience) - was
>>something new, original, and spectacular. That was probably
>my
>>second favorite theater experience ever after (Sin City).
>
>well it was new and original (as much as a homage such as this
> which is basically trying to recreate the spirit of something
>done before can be), but I don't see what was so spectacular
>about it.

I see your point, but to me, it was a spectacular movie experience. Purely subjective of course, but everyone I know who actually saw it in the theater was really impressed.


>>I'm not sure that a genre even exists for Grindhouse to
>>elevate, but if there was, I could definitely make that
>case.
>>It was definitely both artful, creative, and above all,
>>entertaining.
>
>again, entertaining I can see, if that's your thing. I don't
>see what was so artful about it though.

"Artful" is a difficult thing to explain though, isn't it? What makes one movie "more artful" than another? Is it even necessarily a good thing?

Example - I recently saw Werckmeister Harmonies, which is incredibly artful, but wasn't very entertaining so I didn't enjoy it. Other folks, like Sponge and Deebot (?), loved the shit out of it. And that's fine.

I thought both Grindhouse flicks were artful as hell for their own genre and in their own way, but isn't it a lot harder for a horror / thriller / action movie to be "artful" than a drama? It's a different scale. And one could almost call Death Proof a "slasher" movie, except that the killer uses a car instead of the usual implements. In which case, it's incredibly artful compared to most slasher flicks.

{And come to think of it, I wouldn't call it a stretch to say it elevated the slasher genre, either... if you consider it a slasher flick.}


>>So what's the distinction between "fanboydom" and someone
>who
>>just really genuinely loved the movie?
>
>here's the distinction: I loved 300 because it was fun and
>stylish and entertaining, but I didn't proclaim it some great
>work of art that elevated the genre or whatever.

So when is it okay to say that a movie actually DID elevate the genre, or was a work of art? You see where I'm going?

So anytime a movie genuinely does elevate the genre or achieve high levels of "artfulness" - and someone makes such a statement - you could call them a fanboy...

"Fanboy" is a pretty meaningless term, really.

Clearly what it's trying to imply is that the person doesn't judge the work on its merits, but rather, based on who made it.

And that's a nearly impossible thing for a third party to determine, isn't it? Unless the person admits it ("I will always love anything so-and-so does, even if it sucks"), or the entire world comes to a consensus that the work is a piece of shit that only "fanboys" can enjoy.

Which rarely happens, and is certainly not true for either Grindhouse, Death Proof, or any other Tarantino movie, all of which have strong critical approval as well as fan support.