Which film of Quenton Tarantino is your favorite?

with worldwide theatrical grosses and DVD the Grindhouse flicks made a profit of $30 million.

AND they had strong critical reviews.

Neither was a critical nor a commercial failure, sorry.

You mad.

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=grindhouse.htm

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2007/GRNDH.php

that shit was garbage and bombed on its domestic release.

which Harvey Weinstein said about Grindhouse. studios don't want to wait for DVD sales before they can recoup a profit, especially movies from an A-list director that they are banking on being a hit.

and the numbers you posted were gross, not net. there are still marketing and other overhead costs not included in those figures.

so no, it's not that simple actually.

and I think you should take a closer look at those numbers...it doesn't seem like you understood them.

>and I think you should take a closer look at those
>numbers...it doesn't seem like you understood them.

LOL - ironic, since you're talking about making profits yet the figures you posted are all gross numbers... it doesn't seem like you understood those numbers yourself, or the concept of net profit.

and I think you should take a closer look at these numbers:

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/what-went-so-wrong-with-grindhouse/

"Weinstein admitted to spending at least $30 million on U.S. promotion and advertising for Grindhouse, which, added to what I'd already heard was a $67+ mil budget and not the low-50s cost he has claimed, makes this at least a $100 mil movie."

your numbers are smoke and mirrors. Grindhouse bombed. sorry.

Most people are smarter than the formula of
$$$ = good movie
no $$$ = bad movie.

Otherwise, the best movies ever are the ones which made the most money...

So why give out awards or talk about which movies are the best or our favorites? We may as well just look at the numbers.

It's basically like saying the top-selling CD was the best album that year. Maybe some people are that simple, I don't know.

I do know that I've never seen anyone whose "best movies" list or "best albums" list is the same as the list of top money-makers.
So obviously no one actually thinks that way.

and talking about all this supposed "profit" it's made and whatnot.

I'm just pointing out that he's wrong.

...and I love that fuckin movie. But it bombed hard.

is to imply that BECAUSE it didn't make money (or as much as expected), it's therefore a bad movie.

Which is a bullshit argument to begin with.

There are obviously great movies that make a shitload of money (e.g., Dark Knight), bad movies that make a shitload of money (e.g., Matrix Reloaded, arguably Titanic), great movies that didn't make a shitload of money (lots of them), and bad movies that didn't make a shitload of money (a whole bunch of them).

So there really isn't much point in bringing up money-making when talking about a movie's quality, since neither one is a good indicator of the other.

I know what you're saying. but it did in fact bomb at the box office. if dude wants to argue grindhouse's merits as a movie, go ahead. but he's trying to deny that it bombed for some reason.

>added to
>what I'd already heard was a $67+ mil budget

Sounds like rumour and conjection to me.

So let's deal with numbers with non-blogger's names attached to them, shall we? Even if we take this dubious additional $30million promotional budget and add it to the $53 million production budget...you get $83 million.

Now. Let's add the worldwide gross ($50 mill) to the DVD sales ($38 million to date) and what do you know? 88 million > 83 million!

(it's common practice)

...and Nikki Finke is usually not the WORST of blogger sources...

...yeah.

But you're clearly not gonna be converted, soooooo...

The arguement that Deathproof is a bomb is about as strong now as that Kanye doesn't produce his own tracks.

That's a techique from the Dubya School of Facts.

... that should have been Hint #1.

>>added to
>>what I'd already heard was a $67+ mil budget
>
>Sounds like rumour and conjection to me.
>
>So let's deal with numbers with non-blogger's names attached
>to them, shall we? Even if we take this dubious additional
>$30million promotional budget and add it to the $53 million
>production budget...you get $83 million.

uh, she's a columnist at LA Weekly, and she interviewed Weinstein for the piece. but you seem to think that's just "conjection" on her part. Ok, so let's look at the numbers reported by some more established sources, shall we?

Time magazine:

"The project tanked at the box office (a $25 million domestic gross on a reported $67 million budget)"

http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1665692_1665693_1672123,00.html

USA Today:

"The highest-profile casualty may be Grindhouse, the grisly homage to the exploitation films of the 1970s from Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez. The $67 million Weinstein Co. film was considered a lock for No. 1 and at least a $25 million debut. Since its release April 6, it has taken in $23.9 million."

http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2007-04-29-horror-movie-trend_N.htm

the London Times:

"Naturally, the Weinsteins, who sank $100 million into the movie (an alleged $67 million in production costs, plus $30 million in marketing) have been forthcoming with their own mea culpas."

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article1672383.ece


also, basa already cited the $67 million figure separately from another source in post #26:

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=grindhouse.htm


>Now. Let's add the worldwide gross ($50 mill) to the DVD
>sales ($38 million to date) and what do you know? 88 million
>> 83 million!

wow, you can count! good for you, sport!

but I think you should take a closer look at those numbers...it doesn't seem like you understood them: those numbers are GROSS, i.e., that $50 million in worldwide gross ticket sales doesn't all go to the studio. studios typically get 70-80% of the ticket gross in the first 3 weeks of theatrical release, after that the studio's split goes down and the theater's split goes up. but let's just say the studio got 80% of the entire gross here to be generous. That puts the studio's box office take at $40 million.

Now. Even if we take your figure of $53 million for the production budget, let's add the DVD sales ($38 mil) to the studio's net box office take ($40 mil) and compare that to the prodution & marketing costs, and what do you know? 78 million << 83 million!

and that's still not taking into account distribution costs, or the fact that your DVD sales figure is again gross & so the studio doesn't get that entire $38 mil either.

Grindhouse bombed. end of story.

N/M

i feel the same way too

But a close second is Lady Snow Blood, um, I mean Kill Bill

:)

we pray for dollars and we work for change © Slug of Atmosphere

Jackie Brown
True Romance (even though he didn't direct it and Tony Scott changed a lot)
Kill Bill
Reservoir Dogs
Pulp Fiction
Death Proof


"I mean people think this business is all about money, sex and drugs. Well, it is. But you've also got to remember it is a business. So handle your business, pay your taxes and be on time.''
-The infinite wisdom of Juicy J of Three 6 Mafia

.

n/m

All of his films have been pretty different. But, i have to say, the Jimi Hendrix movie he is suppose to be doing will most likely be my favorite flick. When ever it comes out. But, as right now goes:

*Pulp Fiction
*Kill Bill Vol. 1
*Death Proof
*Jackie Brown
*True Romance
*Resevoir Dogs
*Kill Bill Vol. 2
*Four Rooms
*Natural Born Killers

Lyterall appears courtesy of
Midnight Heat Ent./Planet Ill

The new album "Stop Looking At Me" coming Winter 2009.... just waite and listen!

..and its brilliant. I love Jackie Brown too.
In Order:

Pulp Fiction
Jackie Brown
Kill Bill 2
Reservoir Dogs
Kill Bill 1
Death Proof

i will kick their ass and laugh while doing it

AND WHAT?
you ain't kickin shit
~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~

http://unodostres.etsy.com

http://playvicious.com/

I enjoyed it too


http://sayitwitme.blogspot.com/
www.myspace.com/spathegod

that it's a tarantino movie?

enlighten me

Death Proof was dope. A little TOO much dialogue for a horror flick, but it worked. Thought the idea/story was refreshing and new. The music was dope. Casting Kurt Russel as Stuntman Mike (GENIUS!). And who can forgot all the eye candy in the movie. Especially Jungle Julie (watching her walk around in those tight panties in the first scene, had me HARD ROCKIN!!!). There really wasnt anything WACK about Death Proof. Hell, im really glad i got the chance to see GrindHouse in theatres, made my Death Proof experience so damn good.

Lyterall appears courtesy of
Midnight Heat Ent./Planet Ill

The new album "Stop Looking At Me" coming Winter 2009.... just waite and listen!

about it made it a horror movie?
or a grindhouse movie for that matter?

and that song shorty did the lapdance to was funkier than f!k! I know in the theatre that shit musta KNOCKED

the lap dance wasn't in the theatrical release. At least it wasn't when I went to see it.

:-(

which director did which
i let it be a surprise
and when i saw PT i suspected it was rodriguez
and saw DP but it wasn't really confirmed for me until i went home


so i LOVED it because it was a roller coaster ride at the end
yes it was slow
but i enjoyed the details/scenic view
until it started
though our audience was small
we all stood up and applauded at the end
it was just that fantastic and FUN

as a matter of fact last thanksgiving
i subjected the relatives to it
who yes dragged their feet through the beginning
but when it got good
it REALLY got good and they loved it
most went and bought it after
~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~

http://unodostres.etsy.com

http://playvicious.com/

________________________________________________________________________
<-- A real American.

I liked it because Tarantino tried (and succeeded) to elevate the genre by making a artful movie, while Rodriguez tried (and succeeded) to emulate the genre by purposly making a shitty movie (which is ironically made it good)...

>I liked it because Tarantino tried (and succeeded) to elevate
>the genre by making a artful movie,

artful? lol
you fucks. seriously. if rodriguez did death proof it would have been slammed from pillar to post. but no, tarantino did it. i mean come on, its TARANTINO! WOW! what a great movie!

just accept that plenty of people liked or even loved it and keep it moving.

You have no evidence that people liked it just because it's Tarantino, and you never will. Some people thought it was a very good, very entertaining movie. End of story.

>You have no evidence that people liked it just because it's
>Tarantino

>>You have no evidence that people liked it just because it's
>>Tarantino

You can claim that people only liked it because of QT's name, but there is NO evidence.

Your personal opinion that the movie wasn't good does not count as evidence by any stretch of the word.


In fact, MOST people liked the movie, so the notion that it's all based on QT's name is pretty damn weak.

Approval ratings (rottentomatoes):
--- Grindhouse: 81% critics (76% top critics), 92% users
--- Death Proof: 61% critics, 76% users

Regardless of whether you trust rottentomatoes or not, 92% is quite fucking high. Most people loved Grindhouse. Period.

>>>You have no evidence that people liked it just because
>it's
>>>Tarantino
>
>You can claim that people only liked it because of QT's name,
>but there is NO evidence.
>
>Your personal opinion that the movie wasn't good does not
>count as evidence by any stretch of the word.
>
>
>In fact, MOST people liked the movie, so the notion that it's
>all based on QT's name is pretty damn weak.
>
>Approval ratings (rottentomatoes):
>--- Grindhouse: 81% critics (76% top critics), 92% users
>--- Death Proof: 61% critics, 76% users
>
>Regardless of whether you trust rottentomatoes or not, 92% is
>quite fucking high. Most people loved Grindhouse. Period.

thats not evidence, thats fanboy logic.

again, your reaction is the all evidence that is needed.

>>Approval ratings (rottentomatoes):
>>--- Grindhouse: 81% critics (76% top critics), 92% users
>>--- Death Proof: 61% critics, 76% users
>>
>>Regardless of whether you trust rottentomatoes or not, 92%
>is
>>quite fucking high. Most people loved Grindhouse. Period.
>
>thats not evidence, thats fanboy logic.

First, it's better evidence that anything you've provided, which is basically your opinion and nothing else.

Second, it's ridiculous to think that the entire rottentomatoes site is composed of QT fanboys.


>again, your reaction is the all evidence that is needed.

Again, you clearly don't know what evidence means. Sorry, but neither my single opinion nor your single opinion is much "evidence" for anything.

However, the compiled ratings of 186 critics and 1048 users for Grindhouse (or 31 and 543 for Death Proof alone) DOES count as evidence.

>>>Approval ratings (rottentomatoes):
>>>--- Grindhouse: 81% critics (76% top critics), 92% users
>>>--- Death Proof: 61% critics, 76% users
>>>
>>>Regardless of whether you trust rottentomatoes or not, 92%
>>is
>>>quite fucking high. Most people loved Grindhouse. Period.
>>
>>thats not evidence, thats fanboy logic.
>
>First, it's better evidence that anything you've provided,
>which is basically your opinion and nothing else.
>

rottentaomatoes kills your entire argument

and reveals your fanboy zeal that you think you are somehow concealing.

>Second, it's ridiculous to think that the entire
>rottentomatoes site is composed of QT fanboys.
>

mostly

>>again, your reaction is the all evidence that is needed.
>
>Again, you clearly don't know what evidence means. Sorry, but
>neither my single opinion nor your single opinion is much
>"evidence" for anything.
>
>However, the compiled ratings of 186 critics and 1048 users
>for Grindhouse (or 31 and 543 for Death Proof alone) DOES
>count as evidence.

rottentaomatoes kills your entire argument

and reveals your fanboy zeal that you think you are somehow concealing.

>rottentaomatoes kills your entire argument

How? Because 1000+ opinions are worth more to me (and any reasonable person) than yours?


>and reveals your fanboy zeal that you think you are somehow
>concealing.

I get it now, anyone who likes anything is a fanboy and can thus be ignored. How simple your world must be.


>>Second, it's ridiculous to think that the entire
>>rottentomatoes site is composed of QT fanboys.
>>
>
>mostly

^^^ delusional


>>>again, your reaction is the all evidence that is needed.
>>
>>Again, you clearly don't know what evidence means. Sorry,
>but
>>neither my single opinion nor your single opinion is much
>>"evidence" for anything.
>>
>>However, the compiled ratings of 186 critics and 1048 users
>>for Grindhouse (or 31 and 543 for Death Proof alone) DOES
>>count as evidence.
>
>rottentaomatoes kills your entire argument
>
>and reveals your fanboy zeal that you think you are somehow
>concealing.

Repetition of shitty arguments doesn't make them stronger. Go ahead and get the last word (which is sure to be full of shit too), I'm done with you anyway.

>>rottentaomatoes kills your entire argument
>
>How? Because 1000+ opinions are worth more to me (and any
>reasonable person) than yours?
>

1000+ tarantino fanboys are as worthless as yours



>
>>and reveals your fanboy zeal that you think you are somehow
>>concealing.
>
>I get it now, anyone who likes anything is a fanboy and can
>thus be ignored. How simple your world must be.
>

anyone who is agitated and cites rottentomatoes to justify a sh*tbag movie by Tarantino is.

you wearing the shoe Fred Astaire.

>
>>>Second, it's ridiculous to think that the entire
>>>rottentomatoes site is composed of QT fanboys.
>>>
>>
>>mostly
>
>^^^ delusional

you are, yes

>
>
>>>>again, your reaction is the all evidence that is needed.
>>>
>>>Again, you clearly don't know what evidence means. Sorry,
>>but
>>>neither my single opinion nor your single opinion is much
>>>"evidence" for anything.
>>>
>>>However, the compiled ratings of 186 critics and 1048 users
>>>for Grindhouse (or 31 and 543 for Death Proof alone) DOES
>>>count as evidence.
>>
>>rottentaomatoes kills your entire argument
>>
>>and reveals your fanboy zeal that you think you are somehow
>>concealing.
>
>Repetition of shitty arguments doesn't make them stronger. Go
>ahead and get the last word (which is sure to be full of shit
>too), I'm done with you anyway.

rottentomatoes as resource doesn't make your argument stronger or give it any validity. in fact, it kills it.


i'm right

and your face is red because of it.

plea cop away, fanboy.

I mean cmon. you can like the movie for being entertaining or whatever, but that is a pretty ridiculous statement that has QT fanboyism written all over it.

>RE: dude said Tarantino "evated the genre by making a artful movie"

That's his opinion.

Personally I loved the movie, but I might not go that far for Death Proof as a stand-alone movie (though it was damn good).

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).

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.


>I mean cmon. you can like the movie for being entertaining or

Many people do.


>whatever, but that is a pretty ridiculous statement that has
>QT fanboyism written all over it.

Perhaps. Of course, it's always easy to proclaim someone a "fanboy" anytime they have a REALLY strong opinion about ANYTHING.

So what's the distinction between "fanboydom" and someone who just really genuinely loved the movie?

>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'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.


>>I mean cmon. you can like the movie for being entertaining
>or
>
>Many people do.

and that's fine.


>>whatever, but that is a pretty ridiculous statement that has
>>QT fanboyism written all over it.
>
>Perhaps. Of course, it's always easy to proclaim someone a
>"fanboy" anytime they have a REALLY strong opinion about
>ANYTHING.
>
>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.

>>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.

>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?

I can say that about 'Soulplane' and my opinion
would be about as valid as the ones I hear for
why 'Pulp Fiction' was artful.

Every single conversation, bar none, about 'Pulp Fiction'
descends into a wanna be discourse on the philosophy of art.

Not because PF fans are smart, but instead because they're
not smart enough to recognize they've been duped and have
divert the discussiont o "what is art?"

That way, they don't actually have to discuss the film.
They can simply say:

"Art is what it is. Pulp Fiction is art. How do I know?
Because who says that it is not?"

It sounds like the conversations I had with my boys in
the sixth grade, when niggas starting questioning the
biblekorantorah.


>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...

No, you guys are fanboys because you can't actually
explain what the hell it was REALLY ABOUT let alone
what makes it so great(and miss me with the "redemption"
bullshit...haha...motherfucking Shawshank was about
redepmtion...Pulp Fiction was NOT).


>"Fanboy" is a pretty meaningless term, really.

No, it isn't, fanboy.

>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.

Jesus H. Christ.

>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.


Jesus H. Christ.

That didn't make a grain of motherfucking sense, at all.


>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.

Another plea cop:

When Pulp Fiction fanboys run into people like me who
actually think for themselves, they retreat to:

"Well, it was critically acclaimed. That's why
its good"

Using POPULAR APPEAL by a bunch of CRITICS to argue
why it was good. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I MEANT BY:

"Well, its good because its supposed to be good."

No one can ever explain it.

Fans of PF do two things:

1)Get blabber mouthy about philosophy

2)Retreat to "Its good because everyone says it was."


HILARIOUS.



----------------------------


O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.



"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "Cosmic Slop"

>>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?
>
>I can say that about 'Soulplane' and my opinion
>would be about as valid as the ones I hear for
>why 'Pulp Fiction' was artful.

I guess that's true to some extent - except that it's ONE opinion, vs. however many have been made about Pulp Fiction.

If one person says something is art or highly artistic, maybe it is, maybe that person’s full of shit.

But when the general CONSENSUS (among both critics and viewers alike) says something is art or of high artistic quality, it almost certainly is. That’s how art works. Sorry if you can’t grasp that.

Thus is the case for Pulp Fiction, but NOT Soul Plane, which as far as I know, is generally regarded as crap (though I've never and probably will never see it, so I won’t comment).


You, however, somehow continue to argue that Pulp Fiction was a terrible movie, and that the overwhelming consensus of opinion on Pulp Fiction is entirely fabricated on hype - a ludicrous and unfounded bullshit argument that has absolutely no merit or evidence whatsoever.

Yet, you can't resist repeating your insane "Pulp Fiction is all hype" argument, despite the fact that it is completely unfounded and full of shit.

Where did the hype come from, and why? If it's marketing, why not do the same for Grindhouse, or any other movie? It can't be done.

You simply can't manufacture the level of critical and fan acclaim that Pulp Fiction has attained. If you could, every studio would be doing it.

Yes, you can argue that hype and advertising had a hand in the success of Pulp Fiction - maybe that's true - but if it wasn't already a brilliant and amazing work, it wouldn't have worked. Period. You can’t market something with no appeal.

And I'm done talking about that particular point, because you've become like Bill O'Reilly - spewing the same loud and incorrect "point" about something that is obviously not true to anyone with a brain.

Besides, I've already refuted it here: http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=6&topic_id=365316&mesg_id=365316&listing_type=search#365819
So, the consensus / majority opinion is that Pulp Fiction is an excellent movie and of high artistic quality.

You can provide exceptions, but the MAJORITY of both critics and viewers view it as much.

Opinions to the contrary - yours for example - are minority opinions. There will always be minority opinions about everything - nothing is universally loved.


>Every single conversation, bar none, about 'Pulp Fiction'
>descends into a wanna be discourse on the philosophy of art.
>That way, they don't actually have to discuss the film.
>They can simply say:
>
>"Art is what it is. Pulp Fiction is art. How do I know?
>Because who says that it is not?"

Bullshit. That's a lie. I've seen plenty of discussions on this very board about the movie that don't involve the "philosophy of art." You are blatantly lying here. Do you watch Fox News?


>>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...
>
>No, you guys are fanboys because you can't actually
>explain what the hell it was REALLY ABOUT let alone
>what makes it so great(and miss me with the "redemption"
>bullshit...haha...motherfucking Shawshank was about
>redepmtion...Pulp Fiction was NOT).

What was it ABOUT? You need a fucking plot synopsis?

What makes it so great? Everything. Every fucking thing was great.

You always claim that no one can ever give you reasons why they love it, but I have.

For example, I did it right here: http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=6&topic_id=365316&mesg_id=365316&listing_type=search#366068

Quotes:
- “Personally, I don't think I'd call it profound - it didn't change the way I viewed the world or anything. It didn't teach me lessons about life. It's just one of the coolest and most entertaining movies ever, that's all.

I love everything about it - the tone and style, an awesome interwoven plot full of all the elements I love (action, drama, humor), cool plot structure, great acting, the beloved dialogue, fascinating characters, good music... and it exudes visceral coolness (there's the "hype machine" talking, right?).

Shit, what's not to like?”

^^^ a shitload of reasons right there. More points I made:

- “the dialogue in PF is better, cooler, more enjoyable, better written, etc.”
I’m comparing it to Last Boy Scout (a movie that you claim is better), but really, that quote applies to MOST movies. The dialogue in Pulp Fiction is practically second to none.

So your claim that “no one can give me reasons” is obviously a gigantic pile of shit.

I gave you a whole bunch of reasons in that post, which you summarily ignored and rejected as I knew you would – because as we all know by now, you are a gigantic asshole who doesn’t want to actually discuss anything intelligently.

And lest we forget, let me quote you:
“In THIS VERY THREAD I got about 8 different opinions on why it was good.”
http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=6&topic_id=365316&mesg_id=365316&listing_type=search#365868

Wait, what were those reasons? Hmm, here are a few:

the_one--- “I thought the way they pieced the storyline together was really dope.”

Sanjuro--- “I just thought it was accepted as a popular, cool, witty, ultra-violent gangster-flick with semi-original time shifts and unconventional structuring… The structure and dialogue are the most standout elements to that flick - both GREAT, by the way, hence the reputation Pulp Ficiton has gained.”

SoulHonky--- “I think Pulp Fiction is much better than Last Boy Scout in it's inventiveness, dialogue, story, and acting. I think those elements were all done at a high level in Pulp Fiction and that's why it deserved an Oscar nod...

Inventiveness: IMO there weren't many films like Pulp Fiction out there before it came out. Call it mood, tone, whatever, it was different. I thought the timeline and tone and talkyness was new and, at the time, fresh. It's been done to death but it was IMO inventive when it came out.

To me the dialogue was far better in Pulp Fiction than Last Boy Scout. Lasy Boy Scout had some quality lines but I don't think it compares to Pulp Fiction. Again, I think Pulp Fiction is more comparable to Lethal Weapon. And dialogue was one of the aspects I noted. I didn't say it was a dumb movie with great dialogue. I liked the movie itself.”


The Damaja--- “Well, most famously the original and elegant use of timeshift and multiple, interwoven storylines. Add to that the foregrounding of conversational dialogue which allowed the film to have wonderfully nuanced characters and constant humour and many memorable scenes/lines. Not forgetting the brilliant use of music (not score) and filming techniques (like the special emulsion celluloid they used to give the diner scene its richness). But most IMPORTANTLY the textual (perhaps intertextual) and moral depth that underpins the films status as a masterpiece of cinema.”


Granted, some of these people didn’t think it was all that great, but all of them thought it was a good, entertaining movie - and they gave reasons. So get the fuck out of here with your whiny bullshit about “no one can give me reasons why it was good.”

Disagree with their reasons all you want, but that feeble claim that “no one gives reasons” is clearly killed once and for all.


>>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.
>
>Jesus H. Christ.

That’s what a “fanboy” is, right? Someone who likes a movie because of who made it, and not because of its content? That’s a much more useful definition than the way you choose to define it – which is basically anyone who likes a movie that you didn’t.


>>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.
>
>
>Jesus H. Christ.
>
>That didn't make a grain of motherfucking sense, at all.

It did, but let me simplify it for simpler minds:

- How does a third party (you) determine that someone is a “fanboy”?
{No, it’s not just because they disagree with you and love a movie that you think sucks.}

That third party would have to prove that the person likes the movie because of who made it. And how would that be done?

As far as I can tell, the only ways to determine this are:

A) by admission (the person admits that’s why they liked it)

B) there is an overwhelming general consensus that the movie is quite bad; thus, there’s a decent chance that anyone with the opposite, minority view only likes it because of the name. It’s still only a maybe, but at least you’ve got a case.

However, in the case of Pulp Fiction, MOST people liked it. Critics, viewers, etc. You are in the minority. So unless the majority of the people who viewed Pulp Fiction are all fanboys, you have no point whatsoever.


>>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.
>
>Another plea cop:
>
>When Pulp Fiction fanboys run into people like me who
>actually think for themselves, they retreat to:
>
>"Well, it was critically acclaimed. That's why its good"
>Using POPULAR APPEAL by a bunch of CRITICS to argue
>why it was good. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I MEANT BY:
>
>"Well, its good because its supposed to be good."

NO. No one ever fucking says this! You’re so fucking simple sometimes.

It was good for all the reasons I and others mentioned above (and probably plenty more).

The fact that it was highly critically acclaimed SUPPORTS the notion that it was a good movie, but is not THE REASON it was a good movie. It’s merely EVIDENCE that it is.

The reason fans point out the critical acclaim (and acclaim among general viewers as well) is not to assert that critical acclaim MAKES it a good movie.

The fact that everyone loves it does not mean: “It’s good because it’s supposed to be good.”

What is actually means is: “It’s good and everyone knows it.” Except you.

A shitload of people loved it. That’s not hype; that’s because it was a very good movie. Period.

And their cumulative opinions carry a whole lot more weight than your own single one. Sorry, that’s how it is.



>No one can ever explain it.

See above. You should never make this bullshit claim again. But you will, because like Fox News, you think saying a lie over and over again makes it come true.


>Fans of PF do two things:
>
>1)Get blabber mouthy about philosophy
>2)Retreat to "Its good because everyone says it was."

1) Yes, some fans do get crazy with philosophy shit, but most of them can also give a ton of concrete, non-philosophical reasons why they love it, if you actually cared to listen, which you don’t.

2) No one actually does this. The fact that you don’t understand WHY someone would reference the nearly-universal critical and commercial acclaim as evidence that a movie is good is particularly telling.

I dare you to find one example of someone saying the movie is good BECAUSE everyone says so. You’ve got it fucked.

THE MOVIE IS GOOD. PEOPLE SAYS SO BECAUSE IT’S TRUE.
It’s not the other way around, no matter how much you wish it were.


One final question – do you fucking like anything? I don’t think I’ve seen you praise anything on here – you are almost 100% negative about everything.

I love movies – not all of them obviously – but lots of them.

Whereas you just seem to hate everything. It’s not high standards, it’s just hate.

That’s fine, have fun. Personally, I’d rather praise the movies I love than appear in every single post I can find about movies and directors that I hate (I’m talking about you here). Seriously, you chase them around like it’s your job.

I really think you post just to try to make people mad, which doesn’t work in my case, because I enjoy talking about movies I love – that’s often why I’m here in the first place. Although I have to admit that e-conversations with you are particularly pointless, which is why I generally try to avoid them... unless I’m bored enough to want to expose your endless stream of bullshit for what it is (e.g., just now).

Or maybe you post to make yourself feel good by deceiving yourself into thinking you “won” an e-argument. Which would be fucking pathetic.

Now, go ahead and unleash a stream of “you mads” and BWAHAHA. I’m done with you.

Without hesitation.

I can say that, and I've been around klan members
and creationists and schizophrenic people.

I mean, wow.


>I guess that's true to some extent - except that it's ONE
>opinion, vs. however many have been made about Pulp Fiction.

So basically, because a lot of people share a viewpoint,
it must be right and valid.

Hmmm.

That is the stupidest, illogical, nonsensical thing I've
ever heard in my life.

Actually, consensus says nothing about the validity
of a point. All "consensus" tells us is that viewpoint
is popular.

"Popular" does not equal "correct."

Hence majority of Americans believing that Darwin
was wrong.

Hence the majority of Americans thinking W was
fit for the job in 2004.

The majority of the world thinks Soccer is
more exciting than American football or
basketball.

Hence many countries believing women shouldn't
go to school.

Hence most Americans thinking starvation,
environmental degradation, and the HIV
pandemic aren't worth their time, money
or attention.

All of those viewpoints are incorrect
(if not out right wrong)

All of those viewpoints extremely
popular.


Now, I wouldn't have to explain this if you
thought, at all, about anything.



>If one person says something is art or highly artistic, maybe
>it is, maybe that person’s full of shit.


>But when the general CONSENSUS (among both critics and viewers
>alike) says something is art or of high artistic quality, it
>almost certainly is. That’s how art works. Sorry if you can’t
>grasp that.

That doesn't make a grain of motherfucking sense.

Not one.

General consensus says nothing about the legitimacy
of something's validity.

And to further ether you on this point,
how about this:

Vincent Van Gogh died broke, alone, obscure,
having sold ONE PAINTING HIS ENTIRE MOTHERFUCKING
CAREER.

There were plenty of artists in the day of Van Gogh
who were VERY popular.

MORE popular than Van Gogh.

The CONSENSUS during his day was that Van Gogh
was more SOULPLANE than Pulp Fiction.

Guess what?

We know now that the people who created the
CONSENSUS might have been WRONG.

And the same could very well be true now,
because consensus has nothing to do with
anything, and doesn't legitimize art.


>You, however, somehow continue to argue that Pulp Fiction was
>a terrible movie, and that the overwhelming consensus of
>opinion on Pulp Fiction is entirely fabricated on hype - a
>ludicrous and unfounded bullshit argument that has absolutely
>no merit or evidence whatsoever.

All I ever ask for is for someone to tell me what its
about, in clear terms. I've received no less than
52 explanations, all of them bullshit.

>Yet, you can't resist repeating your insane "Pulp Fiction is
>all hype" argument, despite the fact that it is completely
>unfounded and full of shit.

Calm down

>Where did the hype come from, and why? If it's marketing, why
>not do the same for Grindhouse, or any other movie? It can't
>be done.

Not sure what you mean here, but you haven't earned
the benefit of the doubt.

>You simply can't manufacture the level of critical and fan
>acclaim that Pulp Fiction has attained. If you could, every
>studio would be doing it.


Actually, you can.

Ever hear of Britney Spears?

Not talented.

More popular than say....Smokey Robinson ever was,
who was ultra talented.


One had more hype than the other.


Not sure what the fuck your point is.

>Yes, you can argue that hype and advertising had a hand in the
>success of Pulp Fiction - maybe that's true - but if it wasn't
>already a brilliant and amazing work, it wouldn't have worked.
>Period. You can’t market something with no appeal.

So, we know it was genuinely, really, good simply because
it became popular?

Again -- you're using popularity as a gauge for
"essential goodness" which is, well.....stupid.

>And I'm done talking about that particular point, because
>you've become like Bill O'Reilly - spewing the same loud and
>incorrect "point" about something that is obviously not true
>to anyone with a brain.

Says the mean who can't separate popularity
from essential quality.


>Besides, I've already refuted it here:
>http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=6&topic_id=365316&mesg_id=365316&listing_type=search#365819
>So, the consensus / majority opinion is that Pulp Fiction is
>an excellent movie and of high artistic quality.

Which says nothing but that its popular.

See the evolution statistics for more detail.

See the outcome of the 2004 election for more


>You can provide exceptions, but the MAJORITY of both critics
>and viewers view it as much.

Which says nothing for the validity of the argument.

See the evolution statistics for more detail.

See the outcome of the 2004 election for more.

>Opinions to the contrary - yours for example - are minority
>opinions. There will always be minority opinions about
>everything - nothing is universally loved.

But the fact that they are minority doesn't necessarily
mean they are any more right or wrong. It simply means
they are less popular.

If you can wrap your head around what the difference
between popularity and essential goodness is, or at least
concede that quite often they are completely independent
of each other, than....wow.


>Bullshit. That's a lie. I've seen plenty of discussions on
>this very board about the movie that don't involve the
>"philosophy of art." You are blatantly lying here. Do you
>watch Fox News?

Yes, I watch Fox News because it has illogical people
who think the popularity of W in 2004 is synonymous
with him being an essentially better person.



>What makes it so great? Everything. Every fucking thing was
>great.

Oh, okay.

Glad someone finally told me.


>You always claim that no one can ever give you reasons why
>they love it, but I have.


“Personally, I don't think I'd call it profound - it didn't
>change the way I viewed the world or anything. It didn't teach
>me lessons about life. It's just one of the coolest and most
>entertaining movies ever, that's all."

Okay, so 'Pulp Fiction' is like...I dunno....
...The Last Boyscout? "Cool and entertaining?"

Of course, the Last Boyscout was about 5000X as
good, but I am seeing your point.

At least your not arguing a simple film in the ilk
of last boyscout deserves true artistic praise...
....are you?


>I love everything about it - the tone and style, an awesome
>interwoven plot full of all the elements I love (action,
>drama, humor), cool plot structure, great acting, the beloved
>dialogue, fascinating characters, good music... and it exudes
>visceral coolness (there's the "hype machine" talking,
>right?).

"visceral coolness."


Jesus H. Christ.


You didn't actually name a single reason. You cut
and pasted buzz phrases from reviews.

>Shit, what's not to like?”

Lots. The messy, confusing, convulated story.

The dumbass, think characters.

The "look at me, I'm so smart" hidden camera
tricks.

The super duper metaphorical storyline.

The dumbass narcissistic tarantino-isms.


“the dialogue in PF is better, cooler, more enjoyable,
>better written, etc.”
>I’m comparing it to Last Boy Scout (a movie that you claim is
>better), but really, that quote applies to MOST movies. The
>dialogue in Pulp Fiction is practically second to none.

Okay, it had cute dialogue in a bad movie.

I'm willing to entertain that.

>So your claim that “no one can give me reasons” is obviously a
>gigantic pile of shit.

No, you didn't give me any reasons.

>I gave you a whole bunch of reasons in that post, which you
>summarily ignored and rejected as I knew you would – because
>as we all know by now, you are a gigantic asshole who doesn’t
>want to actually discuss anything intelligently.

Because those are headlines from reviews.

Not reasons.


>Sanjuro--- “I just thought it was accepted as a popular, cool,
>witty, ultra-violent gangster-flick with semi-original time
>shifts and unconventional structuring… The structure and
>dialogue are the most standout elements to that flick - both
>GREAT, by the way, hence the reputation Pulp Ficiton has
>gained.”

What's funny is that you're ethering your own point:

Part of the problem with Pulp Fiction hype is that
people CREATE reasons to like it because THEY THINK
THAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO.

That's what all of you have done.

This is why there are 1,844 different reasons
the film is great.

You wanna know why there's so many reasons?

Because no one can settle on one, because
the film wasn't actually any good.


>Inventiveness: IMO there weren't many films like Pulp Fiction
>out there before it came out.

As bad as it? No, there weren't.

>I thought the timeline and tone and talkyness
>was new and, at the time, fresh. It's been done to death but
>it was IMO inventive when it came out.

No, that had been done before. Hell, 'Do the Right
Thing' had dialogue eons better.

And unlike Pulp Fiction, Do the Right Thing was actually
about something.


>To me the dialogue was far better in Pulp Fiction than Last
>Boy Scout. Lasy Boy Scout had some quality lines but I don't
>think it compares to Pulp Fiction. Again, I think Pulp Fiction
>is more comparable to Lethal Weapon. And dialogue was one of
>the aspects I noted. I didn't say it was a dumb movie with
>great dialogue. I liked the movie itself.”


Lethal Weapon is 452,991 times better than Pulp Fiction
in every single way, so please, shush.

>The Damaja--- “Well, most famously the original and elegant
>use of timeshift and multiple, interwoven storylines. Add to
>that the foregrounding of conversational dialogue which
>allowed the film to have wonderfully nuanced characters and
>constant humour and many memorable scenes/lines. Not
>forgetting the brilliant use of music (not score) and filming
>techniques (like the special emulsion celluloid they used to
>give the diner scene its richness). But most IMPORTANTLY the
>textual (perhaps intertextual) and moral depth that underpins
>the films status as a masterpiece of cinema.”

The Damaja is one of the least intelligent people on
earth. He said the use of drugs in Pulp Fiction was a
commentary on the "scales of justice."

LOL.


>Granted, some of these people didn’t think it was all that
>great, but all of them thought it was a good, entertaining
>movie - and they gave reasons. So get the fuck out of here
>with your whiny bullshit about “no one can give me reasons why
>it was good.”

They gave thousands of different reasons, because they
created them, because again, you guys didn't want to left
out of the arthouse avant garde scene.

People who think for themselves, like me, didn't feel
the need to do that.

We thought it was garbage.

>Disagree with their reasons all you want, but that feeble
>claim that “no one gives reasons” is clearly killed once and
>for all.

No, people write things, but none of them are reasons.



>However, in the case of Pulp Fiction, MOST people liked it.
>Critics, viewers, etc. You are in the minority. So unless the
>majority of the people who viewed Pulp Fiction are all
>fanboys, you have no point whatsoever.

Jesus H. Christ.

The "consensus" can often be wrong and awful, you
know, even when it comes to art.

Remember 'Shakespeare in Love' defeating 'Saving
Private Ryan' for best picture?

How's that for "consensus?"



>The fact that it was highly critically acclaimed SUPPORTS the
>notion that it was a good movie, but is not THE REASON it was
>a good movie. It’s merely EVIDENCE that it is.

How?

How does popularity support essential-ity?

How?


Actually use logic, for me. Try it.

Lol.


>A shitload of people loved it. That’s not hype; that’s because
>it was a very good movie. Period.

A shitload of people love Bush and Britney Spears.

Not sure where we are going with this.

>And their cumulative opinions carry a whole lot more weight
>than your own single one. Sorry, that’s how it is.

I'm glad Van Gogh disagreed.

Not to mention your opinions are a disrespect to every
artistic movement, ever, most of whom were DEFINED BY
TRYING TO GO AGAINST THE GRAIN, many of the artists
not receiving praise or acknowledgment until decades
after they authored their work.


>See above. You should never make this bullshit claim again.
>But you will, because like Fox News, you think saying a lie
>over and over again makes it come true.

No, because you guys keep copping pleas.


>THE MOVIE IS GOOD. PEOPLE SAYS SO BECAUSE IT’S TRUE.
>It’s not the other way around, no matter how much you wish it
>were.

Jesus H. Christ.


>One final question – do you fucking like anything? I don’t
>think I’ve seen you praise anything on here – you are almost
>100% negative about everything.

The Last Boyscout >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pulp Fiction

Mad?



>That’s fine, have fun. Personally, I’d rather praise the
>movies I love than appear in every single post I can find
>about movies and directors that I hate (I’m talking about you
>here). Seriously, you chase them around like it’s your job.

No, its fun and easy.

>I really think you post just to try to make people mad, which
>doesn’t work in my case, because I enjoy talking about movies
>I love – that’s often why I’m here in the first place.
>Although I have to admit that e-conversations with you are
>particularly pointless, which is why I generally try to avoid
>them... unless I’m bored enough to want to expose your endless
>stream of bullshit for what it is (e.g., just now).

No, you are mad.

>Or maybe you post to make yourself feel good by deceiving
>yourself into thinking you “won” an e-argument. Which would be
>fucking pathetic.

No, you are mad.

>Now, go ahead and unleash a stream of “you mads” and BWAHAHA.
>I’m done with you.

That was the longest, driest post I've ever responded to.

>>I guess that's true to some extent - except that it's ONE
>>opinion, vs. however many have been made about Pulp Fiction.
>
>
>So basically, because a lot of people share a viewpoint,
>it must be right and valid.
>
>Hmmm.

Never said that. I never ever fucking said that.

It's not right and valid BECAUSE a lot of people share the viewpoint. You're confusing reasons with evidence.

But if a lot of people share the viewpoint, that makes it a lot fucking more likely to be right and valid, especially if you've got BOTH critics (who are the closest thing we have to "art experts" for movies) and moviegoers who share the opinion.

{And we're talking about ART, and not politics, science, disease, women’s rights, or whatever other absurd and poorly thought-out analogies you throw out.}


Pulp Fiction is a good movie. It's not good BECAUSE people like it; people like it BECAUSE it's good.


>So, we know it was genuinely, really, good simply because
>it became popular?

Nope. You keep getting it backwards. It's understandable, but I shouldn't have to keep explaining it over and over. It became popular because it was genuinely really good. I know I'll never convince you, but this shit is just comical to me.

Not all popular things are good. Not all good things are popular.

Let me break it down into four categories:

1) Movies that are popular among moviegoers but that get shit upon by critics usually fit your "popular but not necessarily good" category. They may appeal to lots of people, but maybe aren't very "artful."

2) Then there's the pretentious, arty joints that are loved by critics but shit upon by real people. Those MIGHT be good movies, to some people. But it's not a consensus.

3) Then there's the movies that aren't loved by critics OR average viewers. These are "BAD" movies. Maybe some day they'll be appreciated as good movies, a la Van Gogh, but it's unlikely.
{For every Van Gogh, there's a million shitty artists whose works were regarded as crap and really were crap. He is an exception, not the rule.}

4) Finally, there's the movies that are loved by BOTH critics and moviegoers. Like Pulp Fiction. These are "GOOD" movies. Classics, even. Obviously, even these won't be unanimously enjoyed, but that's the nature of art.


In short, most people would agree that movies that receive both critical and general acclaim are really good movies.

Disagree on that point if you want, but you're only showing your ignorance.

It actually means something when a movie is BOTH critically and commercially successful.


I said you "can't manufacture the level of critical and fan acclaim that Pulp Fiction has attained. If you could, every studio would be doing it."

Your response was that you can, and you gave Britney Spears as an example. But she was only popular among tasteless teenyboppers, but has pretty much always been critically shit upon for her lack of talent.

So comparing Pulp Fiction, which is loved by BOTH critics (who are generally regarded as better judges of art than mere consumers, since that's their fucking job) and fans, is an incredibly poor comparison. Again, why do I bother with you at all?

Pulp Fiction is almost universally regarded as a high quality work of art.

And I get it - in your world, the more people that share an opinion, the more likely it is to be wrong. Popular but wrong. Brilliant! You are a rebel who goes against the grain. Kudos, congrats.

But in reality, when talking about art (which movies are), the ONLY possible way to measure and judge them is based on people OPINIONS, because art is subjective.

So when a shitload of people share the same opinion about a work of art, that means something.

YOUR opinion, which is the ONLY fucking thing you have with which to argue, is worth dogshit to me (okay, less than dogshit, but let's not be mean).

Meanwhile, the cumulative opinions of both critics and moviegoers alike is worth something to me.


If "consensus doesn't legitimize art" - even among both critics and the general population - what does?


>Actually, consensus says nothing about the validity
>of a point. All "consensus" tells us is that viewpoint
>is popular.
>
>"Popular" does not equal "correct."

How else do you judge art?

Each person judges art on its merits and forms an opinion.
Whatever opinion is the most common - amazing, favorable, mediocre, unfavorable, piece of shit - that's going to be how that work of art is generally regarded.

I don't make the rules, that's how it is.

You're free to live in your fantasy world, in which the overwhelming consensus about a work of art is worth significantly less than your own opinion, but most people understand how art works.


>Hence majority of Americans believing that Darwin
>was wrong.

That's not art. Regardless of what Americans believe, science holds the answer. It's not subjective, it's science.


>Hence the majority of Americans thinking W was
>fit for the job in 2004.

Again, not art. Are you really that dense to not see any difference?


>The majority of the world thinks Soccer is
>more exciting than American football or
>basketball.

Well, it kinda is. Not to us, but to them. The majority of the world gets more excited about soccer than most Americans get about football or basketball. Those fans are RABID. The NFL and NBA would LOVE to have that kind of support.

So while I agree that soccer is boring and not very exciting to me, it obviously excites the shit out of millions of people.

So, it IS more exciting. Pretty easy to grasp, and this makes it abundantly clear you are incapable of trying to see the world from someone's else's perspective or opinion.

If you don't like soccer, the whole world is wrong and you're right.

Since you don't like Pulp Fictio, the whole world is wrong and you're right.

Eureka. Of course it's fucking easy for you to dismiss an overwhelming consensus of opinion on anything.

Because you simply don't give the slightest fuck about anyone's opinion other than your own.



>You didn't actually name a single reason. You cut
>and pasted buzz phrases from reviews.

No, I didn’t. I wrote a list of things I liked about the movie. Then I pasted a bunch of reasons other people gave for liking the movie.

But you chose to ignore those reasons, as well as everyone else’s perfectly valid reasons for liking the movie. But I called it – you still can’t admit you’re wrong, you can’t admit that you’ve been given lots of reasons.


>You wanna know why there's so many reasons?
>
>Because no one can settle on one, because
>the film wasn't actually any good.

Fucking idiot. When people like something for a whole bunch of different reasons, that usually means there’s a lot to like.

It’s completely absurd to think everyone is going to “settle on one” reason to like a movie.

In fact, I don’t think there’s EVER been a single movie that I liked for only one reason. If I only liked one thing about a movie, I probably didn’t enjoy it very much, except for that one thing.

So I’d probably say, “Shitty movie, but great acting.” I think that’s more common than someone saying, “Great movie, solely because of the acting. Everything else was shit, but I loved it.”


>No, people write things, but none of them are reasons.

Asshole. That’s all I can say.

You obviously don't care about anyone else's opinions, so I'm not going to pay attention to any of yours.

And that's why it's a waste talking to you, period.

LOL

You in here carrying a dead carcass of an argument with
you everywhere hoping that it'll solve itself in
the end. Problem is, it won't.

Your argument is based on a logical fallacy, based
on phantom mathematics, that somehow tries to argue
that the popularity of a film amongst critics is
actual evidence that it is good. That doesn't make a
grain of sense, at all.

But again, let's carry things thing out as long as
we need to.

>It's not right and valid BECAUSE a lot of people share the
>viewpoint. You're confusing reasons with evidence.

?????

You're off to an awful start, chief.


>But if a lot of people share the viewpoint, that makes it a
>lot fucking more likely to be right and valid, especially if
>you've got BOTH critics (who are the closest thing we have to
>"art experts" for movies) and moviegoers who share the
>opinion.

LMAO!!!

Based on what?


On what basis does the mere popularity of a viewpoint
have anything to do with the likelihood of it being
true?

Give me ONE REASON why that is true.



>{And we're talking about ART, and not politics, science,
>disease, women’s rights, or whatever other absurd and poorly
>thought-out analogies you throw out.}

LOL. Plea copping

Validity is validity

Your non-sensical bullshit argument sucks just
as much in art as it does in politics

>Pulp Fiction is a good movie. It's not good BECAUSE people
>like it; people like it BECAUSE it's good.

Or, people like it because they don't think for
themselves, or because bad, lousy things are popular.

Popular has absolutely, nothing to do with
essential goodness, at all.

I mean, wow.


>Nope. You keep getting it backwards. It's understandable, but
>I shouldn't have to keep explaining it over and over. It
>became popular because it was genuinely really good. I know
>I'll never convince you, but this shit is just comical to me.

Because you're not making a grain of motherfucking sense.
The fact that a lot of people like it has nothing
to do with the validity, rightness, or goodness. It only
speaks to its popularity. Popularity is a characteristic
that stands on its own.

Some good things are popular.

Other good things are not.

Critics like some good things.

They dislike others.



>1) Movies that are popular among moviegoers but that get shit
>upon by critics usually fit your "popular but not necessarily
>good" category. They may appeal to lots of people, but maybe
>aren't very "artful."

Critics aren't a legion of Jedi Knights. They're moviegoers
just like everyone else, so I don't really make the distinction.

I was once asked to be a movie critic for a fairly prominent
university newspaper.

That doesn't automatically make my opinion any more valid.


>2) Then there's the pretentious, arty joints that are loved by
>critics but shit upon by real people. Those MIGHT be good
>movies, to some people. But it's not a consensus.

This doesn't make any sense, at all.


>3) Then there's the movies that aren't loved by critics OR
>average viewers. These are "BAD" movies. Maybe some day
>they'll be appreciated as good movies, a la Van Gogh, but it's
>unlikely.

>{For every Van Gogh, there's a million shitty artists whose
>works were regarded as crap and really were crap. He is an
>exception, not the rule.}

And for every Coen Brothers, there are dozens of filmmakers
who make film that had no business being made.

For example,

The latest Indiana Jones?

Huge waste of time, space, energy, and money.

Spielberg would have been better off taking a long
vacation while some young, more relevant, talented
filmmaker got the chance.

Odd thing is that Rotten Tomatoes still have it
pretty good reviews, even though it was complete
shit.

The regular public liked it too, which is why
it made so much money.



>4) Finally, there's the movies that are loved by BOTH critics
>and moviegoers. Like Pulp Fiction. These are "GOOD" movies.
>Classics, even. Obviously, even these won't be unanimously
>enjoyed, but that's the nature of art.

You don't define a "classic" by whether it was loved by
both critics and moviegoers. You define a classic as being
great, for concrete reasons that you can describe.

I know that critics didn't like 'American Gangster'
nearly as much as I did. I think that the movie is
easily quality enough to be a "classic."

It classic, of course, because of details that I can
articulate.

Not because of its popularity in circle X or Y.

And that is why you are proving my point: You are using
Pulp Fictions POPULARITY as EVIDENCE that it is good.
That has nothing to do with it why a film is good,
and that evidence cannot be used transitively


>In short, most people would agree that movies that receive
>both critical and general acclaim are really good movies.

These are phantom statistics: What does "general
acclaim" mean? What percentage? Whom are you polling?
Who is the general public? Do we mean internationally?
Or only the US? What demographic in the US?


>It actually means something when a movie is BOTH critically
>and commercially successful.

Yes - it means its both critically and commercially
successful.

It doesn't mean it was good.

I'll keep repeating it because you keep making the
same bad point over and over again


>I said you "can't manufacture the level of critical and fan
>acclaim that Pulp Fiction has attained. If you could, every
>studio would be doing it."

Films actually don't give a shit about critical acclaim.
They care about box office draw. The only care about the
former insofar as it informs the latter.



>And I get it - in your world, the more people that share an
>opinion, the more likely it is to be wrong. Popular but wrong.
>Brilliant! You are a rebel who goes against the grain. Kudos,
>congrats.

Uh. No.

Lots of people love Star Wars. I love Star Wars.

The difference between me and you is this:
When someone asks: "Orbit, why is Star Wars so good?"

I'll point out scenes, and sequences, and specific
dialogue, and action, and the storyline.

I won't say "its good because critics and the general
public like it."

Just because the latter might be true doesn't mean
that its a reason why its good, because again,
the popularity phenomenon is not a proper assay for
goodness.


>But in reality, when talking about art (which movies are), the
>ONLY possible way to measure and judge them is based on people
>OPINIONS, because art is subjective.

LOL

But here's the thing:

There's no rule in art where phantom statistics define
what is good versus what is not.



>So when a shitload of people share the same opinion about a
>work of art, that means something.

Right, that means that a shitload of people share
an opinion.

>YOUR opinion, which is the ONLY fucking thing you have with
>which to argue, is worth dogshit to me (okay, less than
>dogshit, but let's not be mean).

No, let's be mean.

>Meanwhile, the cumulative opinions of both critics and
>moviegoers alike is worth something to me.

Why?

What if they are all idiots?




----------------------------


O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.



"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "Cosmic Slop"

by making an artful movie, does that mean it's a sensible opinion?

>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.

spectacular how? impressed with what? seriously, I'm just asking, cuz on my part I'm not seeing it.


>"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?

not really. the movies I think are artful I can at least explain to some degree or express some sense of what I thought was artful about it. and it's not about comparing one movie as "more artful" than another, just saying what you found artful about the movie on its own terms.


>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'm not equating artful with entertaining though.


>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.

again, it's not about comparing its "artfulness" to Citizen Kane or something. just asking, on it's own terms, what is artful about it?


>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?

when you can actually articulate a good case for it.

>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...

not if they can actually articulate how it elevates the genre or achieves high levels of "artfulness"

>"Fanboy" is a pretty meaningless term, really.

depends.

>>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.

well, that shoe does fit sometimes though.

>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.

or if they keep proclaiming the greatness of its artistic merits , but can't articulate how or why.


>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.

I don't put too much stock in critical approval really. but Grindhouse got trashed by alot of critics too. and it seems to have diehard fan support, but not much general fan support though. I like most of Tarantino's movies and I thought it sucked.

>RE: it could be my opinion Highlander 2 elevated the sci-fi action genre
> by making an artful movie, does that mean it's a sensible
>opinion?

If it's shared by a consensus of critics and movie-viewers alike, yes, you may just be on to something.

But when someone has an opinion that most others (including critics and everyday people) would view as clearly absurd - "Highlander 2 is the greatest sci-fi movie of all-time, and it elevated the genre" - then you're probably full of shit.

I haven't seen Highlander 2, so I have no comment.


>>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.
>
>spectacular how? impressed with what? seriously, I'm just
>asking, cuz on my part I'm not seeing it.

Spectacular as in, "holy shit, that movie was amazing!" Let's see it again!


>>"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?
>
>not really. the movies I think are artful I can at least
>explain to some degree or express some sense of what I thought
>was artful about it. and it's not about comparing one movie as
>"more artful" than another, just saying what you found artful
>about the movie on its own terms.

Sure. But for people who aren't film students, it may be hard to put into words WHY they felt a movie was artful. They just feel it and love it.

I gave a whole bunch of reasons why I loved Pulp Fiction - pretty much everything about it: "the tone and style, an awesome interwoven plot full of all the elements I love (action, drama, humor), cool plot structure, great acting, the beloved dialogue, fascinating characters, good music... and it exudes visceral coolness."

All of these are pretty concrete things, except for "visceral coolness", which IMO is essentially the "can't put into words" quality that some art has on the viewer. It's probably mostly generated by the tone and style; the dialogue and action help too.

Now if you want me to get all arty and talk about cinematography, lighting, framing, the dénouement... I'm not your guy. I just love movies, and I don't write essays now that I'm out of school. :)


>>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'm not equating artful with entertaining though.

Okay, but PF is both. That's my opinion, but it's shared by both critics and fans alike.


>again, it's not about comparing its "artfulness" to Citizen
>Kane or something. just asking, on it's own terms, what is
>artful about it?

I'd like to see someone describe what's "artful" about any mainstream movie.

Pulp Fiction had its own voice and style. It's been imitated since, but at the time, that alone was artful. The narrative structure - while perhaps not unique, was artful. Just a few quick examples off the top.


>>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?
>
>when you can actually articulate a good case for it.

Sure. And I'm even more trusting when a whole bunch of critics can make a good case for 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.
>
>or if they keep proclaiming the greatness of its artistic
>merits , but can't articulate how or why.

But they did. Critics did, fans did. OE insists no one can give reasons, but plenty of people did.


>>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.
>
>I don't put too much stock in critical approval really. but
>Grindhouse got trashed by alot of critics too. and it seems to

I don't put much stock in critical approval alone, but in conjunction with fan approval, it's pretty compelling.

I understand that Grindhouse was a love-it or hate-it flick, so some critics and people won't like it, but I think the majority (granted, not nearly as universal as Pulp Fiction) enjoyed it.


>have diehard fan support, but not much general fan support
>though.

From what I understand, most everyone around my age (31 now) loved it. I think it has a lot of general fan support - what makes you think it doesn't?

>I like most of Tarantino's movies and I thought it
>sucked.

Wow. To each his own. Personally, I just don't understand how one could watch that movie and not enjoy it.
Unless you're turned off by violence, drugs, or bad language (e.g., old people)... but I doubt that's the case.

think you got stuck in "debate O_E mode" talking about Pulp Fiction - LOL.

>>RE: it could be my opinion Highlander 2 elevated the sci-fi
>action genre
>> by making an artful movie, does that mean it's a sensible
>>opinion?
>
>If it's shared by a consensus of critics and movie-viewers
>alike, yes, you may just be on to something.

the comparison was being made to grindhouse, and the consensus of movie-viewers seems to be no on that.


>But when someone has an opinion that most others (including
>critics and everyday people) would view as clearly absurd -
>"Highlander 2 is the greatest sci-fi movie of all-time, and it
>elevated the genre" - then you're probably full of shit.
>
>I haven't seen Highlander 2, so I have no comment.

you're lucky. shit is horrible.




>>>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.
>>
>>spectacular how? impressed with what? seriously, I'm just
>>asking, cuz on my part I'm not seeing it.
>
>Spectacular as in, "holy shit, that movie was amazing!" Let's
>see it again!

yeah but why? The Dark Knight was like that for me , but I can tell you why I thought that.


>Sure. But for people who aren't film students, it may be hard
>to put into words WHY they felt a movie was artful. They just
>feel it and love it.

they don't have to write a thesis on it, but I'm sure they can at least say what it was about the movie that struck them.


>I gave a whole bunch of reasons why I loved Pulp Fiction -
>pretty much everything about it: "the tone and style, an
>awesome interwoven plot full of all the elements I love
>(action, drama, humor), cool plot structure, great acting, the
>beloved dialogue, fascinating characters, good music... and it
>exudes visceral coolness."
>
>All of these are pretty concrete things, except for "visceral
>coolness", which IMO is essentially the "can't put into words"
>quality that some art has on the viewer. It's probably mostly
>generated by the tone and style; the dialogue and action help
>too.

right, those are good reasons. I'm not really seeing anything similar given for grindhouse though.


>>>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'm not equating artful with entertaining though.
>
>Okay, but PF is both. That's my opinion, but it's shared by
>both critics and fans alike.

dude I like Pulp Fiction.


>>again, it's not about comparing its "artfulness" to Citizen
>>Kane or something. just asking, on it's own terms, what is
>>artful about it?
>
>I'd like to see someone describe what's "artful" about any
>mainstream movie.

you just did for Pulp Fiction.


>>>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?
>>
>>when you can actually articulate a good case for it.
>
>Sure. And I'm even more trusting when a whole bunch of critics
>can make a good case for it.

consensus I don't care so much about. I tend to be more trusting if a critic can articulate something meaningful or insightful about a movie, even if it might not be the consensus. cuz alot of times critics in the consensus can be full of shit and just seem like they're cosigning the consensus just because.


>>>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.
>>
>>or if they keep proclaiming the greatness of its artistic
>>merits , but can't articulate how or why.
>
>But they did. Critics did, fans did. OE insists no one can
>give reasons, but plenty of people did.

grindhouse, not PF.


>I don't put much stock in critical approval alone, but in
>conjunction with fan approval, it's pretty compelling.
>
>I understand that Grindhouse was a love-it or hate-it flick,
>so some critics and people won't like it, but I think the
>majority (granted, not nearly as universal as Pulp Fiction)
>enjoyed it.

exhibit A on why I don't put much stock in critics consensus.


>>have diehard fan support, but not much general fan support
>>though.
>
>From what I understand, most everyone around my age (31 now)
>loved it. I think it has a lot of general fan support - what
>makes you think it doesn't?

are you still talking about PF, or grindhouse? I'm talking about grindhouse, and I don't think it had much general fan support because the shit bombed horribly.


>>I like most of Tarantino's movies and I thought it
>>sucked.
>
>Wow. To each his own. Personally, I just don't understand how
>one could watch that movie and not enjoy it.
>Unless you're turned off by violence, drugs, or bad language
>(e.g., old people)... but I doubt that's the case.

again, grindhouse, not PF.

looking at our lists ranking Tarantino's movies I think we're pretty much in agreement aside from Death Proof.

>think you got stuck in "debate O_E mode" talking about Pulp
>Fiction - LOL.

I forgot we were discussing Grindhouse because the post I was replying to didn't mention it by name...


>>If it's shared by a consensus of critics and movie-viewers
>>alike, yes, you may just be on to something.
>
>the comparison was being made to grindhouse, and the consensus
>of movie-viewers seems to be no on that.

True. Personally I think the argument can definitely be made that Grindhouse, as a double-feature, trailers and all - was very artistic and original.

Death Proof as a stand-alone movie? It's artful as shit compared to most "slasher" / killer movies (which are generally viewed as disposable, mindless entertainment, with a few excpetions).

I really need to see it again; I just got the DVDs so I'll have to post WHY it was artful once I've done so.


>yeah but why? The Dark Knight was like that for me , but I can
>tell you why I thought that.

Again, let me watch them again and I'll probably have responses.


>>I gave a whole bunch of reasons why I loved Pulp Fiction -
>>pretty much everything about it: "the tone and style, an
>>awesome interwoven plot full of all the elements I love
>>(action, drama, humor), cool plot structure, great acting,
>the
>>beloved dialogue, fascinating characters, good music... and
>it
>>exudes visceral coolness."
>>
>>All of these are pretty concrete things, except for
>"visceral
>>coolness", which IMO is essentially the "can't put into
>words"
>>quality that some art has on the viewer. It's probably
>mostly
>>generated by the tone and style; the dialogue and action
>help
>>too.
>
>right, those are good reasons. I'm not really seeing anything
>similar given for grindhouse though.

:) I know. I'll have to revisit. I know for a fact that the style of both Grindhouse flicks was really cool to me. I loved the plots for both, they both had awesome action scenes, and the dialogue (esp. Death Proof) was very good. But again, these are reasons why I loved them, not why they're necessarily "artful." That requires a closer viewing and analysis.


> consensus I don't care so much about. I tend to be more

That's just the thing - to me, consensus suggests that most everyone found something to like. So I probably will to.

Now a single critic's opinion I don't trust for shit, but if they all agree... it's probably either

A) a pretentious arty joint that will bore me (which is why I also try to check out the average moviegoer's responses - my friends most first and foremost, blogs, shit like that), or

B) a really good flick.

Consensus can be very helpful, and despite OE's insanity, I don't think it's very common for people to "cosign the consensus just because."


>>I understand that Grindhouse was a love-it or hate-it flick,
>>so some critics and people won't like it, but I think the
>>majority (granted, not nearly as universal as Pulp Fiction)
>>enjoyed it.
>
>exhibit A on why I don't put much stock in critics consensus.

You didn't like Grindhouse as a whole? Including the trailers and "feel" that the double feature presentation created? Or you just didn't like Death Proof? Did you like Planet Terror? I'm curious.


>are you still talking about PF, or grindhouse? I'm talking
>about grindhouse, and I don't think it had much general fan
>support because the shit bombed horribly.

It wasn't marketed well, IMO. The idea of an incredibly violent, intentionally "low-fi," 3+ hour double feature was clearly not everyone's cup of tea. I think the DVDs are doing pretty well, but I really don't care about sales, so I'm not going to belabor the point.

If most people didn't like it, that's fine. I still did.


>>>I like most of Tarantino's movies and I thought it
>>>sucked.
>>
>>Wow. To each his own. Personally, I just don't understand
>how
>>one could watch that movie and not enjoy it.
>>Unless you're turned off by violence, drugs, or bad language
>>(e.g., old people)... but I doubt that's the case.
>
>again, grindhouse, not PF.

Gotcha. Yeah, I can see how one would not like Grindhouse. It doesn't have the nearly-universal (ha!) appeal of Pulp Fiction.

>You didn't like Grindhouse as a whole? Including the trailers
>and "feel" that the double feature presentation created? Or
>you just didn't like Death Proof? Did you like Planet Terror?
>I'm curious.

I liked parts of it, but yeah as a whole it didn't work for me. Going in I was interested in seeing a RR flick & a QT flick, but aside from that I didn't really care much about the double feature "feel" of the presentation (the thanksgiving trailer was kinda funny, but the rest of that stuff was eh)

some parts of Planet Terror were cool, but overall I thought it was pretty disposable. I actually liked some parts of Death Proof too, but it dragged way too much at parts. like it was cool when they finally got around to the car chase, but all that that damn sitting around & talking in the middle of the movie killed all the momentum I thought.

kill bill
death proof
reservoir dogs
sin city
~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~

http://unodostres.etsy.com

http://playvicious.com/

these people are delusional.

he has not evolved one bit. he makes the same shit over and over.

>he has not evolved one bit. he makes the same shit over and
>over.

That nigga's 90s shit was overrated as fuck too.

Still can't get anyone to give me a straight
answer as to why 'Pulp Fiction' was good, or
even what it was about.

No one knows. Answers have been reduced to
"because everyone says it was good, Orbit"

----------------------------


O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.



"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "Cosmic Slop"

if you don't already understand why Pulp Fiction is good, then nobody explanation will change your mind...

>if you don't already understand why Pulp Fiction is good,
>then nobody explanation will change your mind...

"If you don't get it, than you never will."

That's everyone's excuse to not have to
explain why the movie is good, because no
one can actually tell me what the hell its
about, or what is profound or good about
briefcases, and miracles, and all that bullshit.

Corniest shit ever.


----------------------------


O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.



"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "Cosmic Slop"

Among movies he directed:
1. Pulp Fiction (no doubt)
2. Kill Bill (need to see it again to see if it deserves the spot above RD, I am lumping the two volumes together)
3. Reservoir Dogs
4. Death Proof
5. Jackie Brown

I don't really remember Four Rooms, but didn't he only do one of the four parts?
And I'm not counting Sin City (which is one of my favorite movies ever, after Pulp Fiction) since he only directed a little bit).



Adding movies he wrote (Natural Born Killers, True Romance, From Dusk Til Dawn):
1. Pulp Fiction (always # 1)
2. Kill Bill
3. Natural Born Killers (hard to put this third, I love this movie)
4. Reservoir Dogs
5. True Romance
6. Death Proof
7. Jackie Brown (though the writing is better than Death Proof, I probably enjoyed DP more as an overall movie)
8. From Dusk Til Dawn

These are ranked by how much I love the movies, and not based on the writing alone.

>I don't really remember Four Rooms, but didn't he only do one
>of the four parts?

Yep. He did the last room with Bruce Willis & the bet.

kill bill volume 2

In that order

What was it about?





----------------------------


O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.



"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "Cosmic Slop"

especially in regard to pop culture

the rest of his films were were horrible.


Great ---> Reservoir Dogs

Good ---> Kill Bills

average ---> Jackie Brown

horrible ---> Pulp fiction & Death Proof

for real though, tossup between Reservoir Dogs & Pulp Fiction.

followed by Kill Bill 1.

then Kill Bill 2.

Jackie Brown was eh.

Death Proof sucked.

(this post is full of it)

Anyway, here's my list:

1. Pulp Fiction
2. Kill Bill, Vol. 2
3. Jackie Brown
4. Death Proof
5. Kill Bill, Vol. 1
6. Reservoir Dogs
7. CSI: Grave Danger, Vols. 1 and 2


And anyone who's awaiting WHYs and HOWs, they're not coming. So stay fuming.
________________________________________________________________________
<-- Willie Gold... a real American.

>1. Pulp Fiction --- # 1, as it should be.

>2. Kill Bill, Vol. 2 --- Better than volume 1? But V1 had the best scenes in the movie! I really need to see them both again.

>3. Jackie Brown --- The pacing of this one drops it to the bottom of my list, but it's still a very cool flick. Great story, well-done.

>4. Death Proof --- They hate you now, you know that?

>5. Kill Bill, Vol. 1 --- This seems way too low, but that's just me.

>6. Reservoir Dogs --- Seriously too low. Wow. This movie is the shit. But, I guess something has to be at the bottom.

>7. CSI: Grave Danger, Vols. 1 and 2 --- Fair enough. As far as CSI episodes go though, these were among the best (and I'm a big CSI fan, or at least, I was for the first several years).

Actually, I'd put the CSIs over Reservoir Dogs I think, too...

I finally saw it last month, and it was alright and all, but I don't really see what's so great about it.

and Reservoir Dogs is the shit, you are buggin on that one.

at least we agree on Death Proof though.

...but then again, I'm a sucker for Elmore Leonard stuff when done right.

______________________________________________________________________________

R.I.P. Sean Taylor, 1983-2007

http://cscpov.blogspot.com/

"There's a fine line between persistence and foolishness..."
-unknown

"To Each His Reach"
-George Clinton

I never read any Elmore Leonard so I guess it didn't have the same effect for me.

...it's the ONLY QT film imo where attention is paid to character development and relationships more than dialogue and homage. I really loved it. It has the QT feel without making any of the sacrifices that having an ironic filmmaker voice usually come with.

>...it's the ONLY QT film imo where attention is paid to
>character development and relationships more than dialogue and
>homage. I really loved it. It has the QT feel without making
>any of the sacrifices that having an ironic filmmaker voice
>usually come with.

I'd say that applies to Reservoir Dogs somewhat too, but yeah Jackie Brown stands out more in that regard.

for those who are on a 'we like the name and not the movies' bent


i will NOT be seeing
sukiyaki

~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~

http://unodostres.etsy.com

http://playvicious.com/

n/m