M. Night's movies have made more money and have been just as critically acclaimed, despite the backlash. Tarantino has benefitted from having an some kinda impenetrable shield of coolness, where his films are not be taken seriously...um, unless they are. He's like Kevin Smith 2.0 in that respect. "Oh, it's just for fun...you don't get it." An entire generation of hack industry writers, heavily influenced by Pulp and Dogs, act as if everything this muhfucka does is cutting edge. They just always seem to find some clever euphemism for BAD. He can put his bad acting ass in all his movies and no one says shit, but M. Night does it and there's a problem.

Anyway, 'nuff of my bitching. Who will have the better career when it's all said and done.

Far as I'm concerned, Tarantino's a one-hit wonder. M. Night Dogg is just flat out more talented than dude.

Poll question: Better Career: M. Night Dogg or Tarantino?

Poll result (63 votes) M. Night Dogg (8 votes) Vote Tarantino (40 votes) Vote They both make the same movie over and over, so who cares. (4 votes) Vote You just mad I'm bringing this up, bitch (2 votes) Vote Yeah, they mad, Ba (2 votes) Vote Whew! Thank goodness he signed that extension when he did...damn, I'd be so scared right now. LMAO. I WON! GOD HELPED! (7 votes) Vote

QT has made 1 big disappointment to me. I haven't seen Grindhouse yet.

They both have huge egos though.

M. Night Dogg (LOL) has been building an impressive career (well... i haven't seen his last one yet) while Tarantino has done NOTHING of note in ten years

if Tarantino really continued at his early pace he would eclipse everyone but it's just not happened. he did a slightly mediocre adaptation then went AWOL for years, only to return with a fluff film (Kill Bill), which he turned into two fluff films (kill bill vol 1 and vol 2), and then further delayed his proper comeback by making a tribute to fluff films (Grindhouse) and sticking his name on a number of tasteless projects (Hostel, Hero)

what films do u have in mind?

Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, in quite a short space of time

they were all amazing works

then he took quite long to make Jacke Brown, and it wasn't that good, and then...

i asked because people are like "oh, tarantino is amazing" and yeah but can they back that up. all they can say is reservoir dogs and pulp fiction. then i'm like yeah two movies genius. i'm nt fan of him but that might be because people who are dont know why they are most of the time. shit like that bugs me. ur right thogh. that was a good pace. i realize he has name on a lot of stuff too. but that might be a detrement to his fans since a lot of the films people dont know about, they probably wouldnt be fans of.

Negro pass revoked -- if you are indeed a Negro to begin with...






(better put this here, lest there be more thinly-veiled shots and bait-seeking mayhem):

</sarcasm>
______________________________________________________________________
sing it for your nation y'all

______________________________________________________________________
sing it for your nation y'all

all y'all muhfuckas do on these boards is make threads like this for the sole purpose of arguing your views. it was like that before me and will stay that way.

i simply have no tolerance for pretense.

God, i wish i hated the wire, so i could be offended that jackasses here call me crazy for not liking it.

>all y'all muhfuckas do on these boards is make threads like
>this for the sole purpose of arguing your views. it was like
>that before me and will stay that way.

... gang, this was brought up like it was a problem.

I don't know (nor honestly care) which posts you read, but these "this place is nuthin' but a pretentious circle jerk" accusations that you and others keep coming up with are almost always off-base and quite tiresome.

Some people like more high-end shit than others do. Some people like more junky shit. Some like both. Let 'em live. They ain't hurtin' you.

Some people like T--------'s movies. Some like Shyamalan's. Some like both. Some hate both. Let 'em live. They ain't hurtin' you.

And ain't nobody "mad" or "pretentious" just cause they don't agree 100% with you. Or like something your ass doesn't like.
______________________________________________________________________
sing it for your nation y'all

______________________________________________________________________
sing it for your nation y'all

nm

Not even close.




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


O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.



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

(C)Keith Murray, "Cosmic Slop

Or do you think they're both bad and you just hate QT more?

>Or do you think they're both bad and you just hate QT more?

And his worst work is no worse than QT's worst.



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


O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.



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

(C)Keith Murray, "Cosmic Slop

Cuz to me, even with my beefs with QT's more tedious films, I just found The Village and Lady in the Water both to be excruciating.

I can hear the best argument, and can see where that argument could be made. I guess I just wanna hear your thoughts more in-depth on M. Night's and QT's body of work, or at least whatever your familiarity is with whichever movies they've done.

Usually QT fanboys are able to hide his bad film making with the whole

"IT WAS ENTERTAINING!!!" plea cop that yall always make
for him.

That is how you guys rationalize watching the suckfest known
as Kill Bill. It sucked, but it had swords and asian girls in
school uniforms, so you guys said "ITS ENTERTAINING!!!"

'Death Proof' wasn't even entertaining. It was boring, and
terrible. Every waking second of it. All of it.




>Cuz to me, even with my beefs with QT's more tedious films, I
>just found The Village and Lady in the Water both to be
>excruciating.

Neither were as bad as 'Death Proof'.

>I can hear the best argument, and can see where that argument
>could be made. I guess I just wanna hear your thoughts more
>in-depth on M. Night's and QT's body of work, or at least
>whatever your familiarity is with whichever movies they've
>done.

Okay. I'll do it later. I'm busy saving the world and fucking
girls.


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


O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.



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

(C)Keith Murray, "Cosmic Slop

>Okay. I'll do it later. I'm busy saving the world and fucking
>girls.

I mean, for someone who clearly hates every movie a director has made in the past decade

I would think...

My thoughts exactly. I just don't get it.

I watched.

I fucked.





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


O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.



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

(C)Keith Murray, "Cosmic Slop

you know you went to see Premonition and got the okie-doke back at your crib

>
>Usually QT fanboys are able to hide his bad film making with
>the whole
>
>"IT WAS ENTERTAINING!!!" plea cop that yall always make
>for him.
>
>That is how you guys rationalize watching the suckfest known
>as Kill Bill. It sucked, but it had swords and asian girls in
>
>school uniforms, so you guys said "ITS ENTERTAINING!!!"

it WAS entertaining. well, Vol.1 at least. and the Pai Mei shit from Vol.2.


>'Death Proof' wasn't even entertaining. It was boring, and
>terrible. Every waking second of it. All of it.

all the talking was boring. the chase scenes were okay.


>>Cuz to me, even with my beefs with QT's more tedious films,
>I
>>just found The Village and Lady in the Water both to be
>>excruciating.
>
>Neither were as bad as 'Death Proof'.

I didn't see either one of those, but Signs was worse.

and please say some shit like signs was "corny" or some shit, because i love how a white woman being a ninja isn't corny.

everything about being a QT revolves around being "cool"...cool actors and cool action. it's the same fuckin movie, man.

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=signs

^^^ that's how.

that's the kinda "cool" muhfucka that gives QT passes.

they spend all kinds of time & preparation patiently scouting out invasion sites & marking them with crop circles and whatnot, but they never figure out that water (which covers 70% of the earth's surface and frequently falls from the sky) fucking KILLS them? that shit was fucking absurd.

they came a long way, both technologically and intergalactically, just to get to earth and die from drinking water filled with micro organisms and bacteria that could kill them. AMAZING!

all that hiding out machines under ground and shit and harvesting folks and shit and making invisible shields that could cover rhode island...for what?

"oh, the water bad for us, yall"

did some little net faggot make a clever lil entry about that shit?

fuck outta here

War of the Worlds sucked ass too.

Um, humans have been to the moon. Doesn't mean I can't lock the next man in a pantry.

besides the fact that they were engaged in an invasion mission on a planetary scale and thus should've probably been more prepared to overcome the awesomely impenetrable defense of the common homeowner locking their doors... they could also jump onto rooftops in a single leap, but can't break down a gotdamn common wood door? FOH

the whole thing was set on the farm, the grand scale of it isn't important
it's the british style of sci fi which is much more domesticated than the american style

>the whole thing was set on the farm, the grand scale of it
>isn't important
>it's the british style of sci fi which is much more
>domesticated than the american style

not the point.

don't you think all this 'the earth is 3 quarters ocean' stuff would have occured to him before he even began filming... i mean personally i'd look for they key that allows it to make sense instead of just assuming he made a rudimentary error and dismissing the film

because it's not what the movie is really about & as a filmmaker it wasn't what he was focusing on. but as a viewer I cared, because it's fucking retarded and makes no fucking sense and ruins whatever appreciation I might have had for the story he was trying to tell.

>don't you think all this 'the earth is 3 quarters ocean'
>stuff would have occured to him before he even began
>filming... i mean personally i'd look for they key that allows
>it to make sense instead of just assuming he made a
>rudimentary error and dismissing the film

you mean personally you'd cop pleas because there is no key and it makes absolutely no fucking sense any way you look at it.

and I thought the movie sucked even before the end, but that just elevated the absurdity level to 'worst.movie.ever' status.

or not even think of it

suppose for a second they're highly advanced Borg-like conquerors... why would they be messing around leaving geometric signs in crop circles? ... exactly

as I said, I think he was more concerned with the "big picture" of the themes he was trying to address in the movie and so he didn't really care about those other details.

>suppose for a second they're highly advanced Borg-like
>conquerors... why would they be messing around leaving
>geometric signs in crop circles? ... exactly

nope. there is at least some sense of mystery to that, like you are trying to figure out what the hidden meaning is behind it. hence suspension of disbelief can work there. the water killing them/can't open a door stuff is just plain fucking retarded.

the inspiration for the film

so you have to ask, what sort of aliens would travel across space but mess about with silly patterns? don't they have laser designators, computer maps and stuff?

from the original premise it rules out them being logical Star Trek sort of aliens

>the inspiration for the film
>
>so you have to ask, what sort of aliens would travel across
>space but mess about with silly patterns? don't they have
>laser designators, computer maps and stuff?
>
>from the original premise it rules out them being logical Star
>Trek sort of aliens

missing the point again, and I already addressed this in the previous post.

the fact is they called the movie Signs and foregrounded the crop circles
if this was irrelevant then why involve the crop circles at all

i would actually find it stupid if the aliens turned out to be all intellectual and militaristic but needed to leave signs in fucking crop fields

the film is like a short story, not a novel. the ideas about the aliens simply 'work' on a vague level
they are not explored in detail, as it's not that sort of sci-fi like you say

because it seems like you don't.

fact remains Shyamalan CHOSE to make the aliens dimwitted and vulnerable in a way that would surprise viewers who thought Mel Gibson would have to pilot a stolen saucer into the mothership and upload a computer virus to their Mac OS 9 server

he didn't just write an alien invasion and then think 'oh shit, how are the humans actually going to defeat them? damn damn damn i'll have to make them allergic to water or something'. it's ludicrious to think so.

>fact remains Shyamalan CHOSE to make the aliens dimwitted and
>vulnerable in a way that would surprise viewers who thought
>Mel Gibson would have to pilot a stolen saucer into the
>mothership and upload a computer virus to their Mac OS 9
>server
>
>he didn't just write an alien invasion and then think 'oh
>shit, how are the humans actually going to defeat them? damn
>damn damn i'll have to make them allergic to water or
>something'. it's ludicrious to think so.


so he did it deliberately as a twist to throw viewers who were expecting Invasion Day for a loop? LOL - now THAT is ludicrous to think so.

don't worry i'm 90% certain i know what you were going to say anyway

>>fact remains Shyamalan CHOSE to make the aliens dimwitted
>and
>>vulnerable in a way that would surprise viewers who thought
>>Mel Gibson would have to pilot a stolen saucer into the
>>mothership and upload a computer virus to their Mac OS 9
>>server
>>
>>he didn't just write an alien invasion and then think 'oh
>>shit, how are the humans actually going to defeat them? damn
>>damn damn i'll have to make them allergic to water or
>>something'. it's ludicrious to think so.
>
>
> so he did it deliberately as a twist to throw viewers who
>were expecting Invasion Day for a loop? LOL - now THAT is
>ludicrous to think so.

no he didn't do it FOR that reason, but he was aware that some would have that reaction/expectation

when people say 'do you even know what the film is ABOUT?' alluding to some theme in the story in cases like this it usually indicated to me they don't really understand fiilms properly

>don't worry i'm 90% certain i know what you were going to say
>anyway

judging from your replies in this thread I doubt it.


>> so he did it deliberately as a twist to throw viewers who
>>were expecting Invasion Day for a loop? LOL - now THAT is
>>ludicrous to think so.
>
>no he didn't do it FOR that reason, but he was aware that some
>would have that reaction/expectation

so you know what he was aware of and what reactions he was expecting? LOL


>when people say 'do you even know what the film is ABOUT?'
>alluding to some theme in the story in cases like this it
>usually indicated to me they don't really understand fiilms
>properly

funny, cuz when people are asked if they know what a film is about wrt the theme in the story in cases like this and they evade answering the question, it usually indicates to me they don't actually know and don't really understand films properly.

>>don't worry i'm 90% certain i know what you were going to
>say
>>anyway
>
>judging from your replies in this thread I doubt it.
>

so why don't you say it then

>
>>> so he did it deliberately as a twist to throw viewers who
>>>were expecting Invasion Day for a loop? LOL - now THAT is
>>>ludicrous to think so.
>>
>>no he didn't do it FOR that reason, but he was aware that
>some
>>would have that reaction/expectation
>
>so you know what he was aware of and what reactions he was
>expecting? LOL

yeah like i say it's common fucking sense that he would have considered all this

>
>
>>when people say 'do you even know what the film is ABOUT?'
>>alluding to some theme in the story in cases like this it
>>usually indicated to me they don't really understand fiilms
>>properly
>
>funny, cuz when people are asked if they know what a film is
>about wrt the theme in the story in cases like this and they
>evade answering the question, it usually indicates to me they
>don't actually know and don't really understand films
>properly.
>

why would you want me to second guess what you think the film is about. why wouldn;t you just come out and say it

hilarious

>yeah like i say it's common fucking sense that he would have
>considered all this

it's not actually. you are making a hell of a lot of assumptions you have no basis for.

and that's irrelevant anyway, cuz I never said he didn't consider it - I just said I don't think he cared one way or the other.



>why would you want me to second guess what you think the film
>is about. why wouldn;t you just come out and say it
>
>hilarious

because then you'll just say "yeah I knew that", when you actually had no idea until I told you - FOH

I mean if it's that big a deal to you and you actually know then fucking answer the question already instead of trying to play all this reverse psychology evasion bullshit.

>>yeah like i say it's common fucking sense that he would
>have
>>considered all this
>
>it's not actually. you are making a hell of a lot of
>assumptions you have no basis for.
>
>and that's irrelevant anyway, cuz I never said he didn't
>consider it - I just said I don't think he cared one way or
>the other.
>
>

so now you know what he cares about? LOL

>
>>why would you want me to second guess what you think the
>film
>>is about. why wouldn;t you just come out and say it
>>
>>hilarious
>
>because then you'll just say "yeah I knew that", when you
>actually had no idea until I told you - FOH
>
>I mean if it's that big a deal to you and you actually know
>then fucking answer the question already instead of trying to
>play all this reverse psychology evasion bullshit.
>

no
look, this isn't a playground
this sort of 'what is it then?' 'i'm not telling you nyah nyah nyah' nonsense is childish
what does it matter to you whether i know or not. the only way you'll gain anything from this conversation is by explaining your position then reading what i have to say about it

>so now you know what he cares about? LOL

nope - I only said I don't *think* he cared about it. And I only even said that much because you asked me about it (cuz unlike you, when I'm asked a direct question I can actually give a straight answer w/o all this runaround evasion bs you're on).

meanwhile you're claiming you know for a fact that he deliberately chose to make them that specific way for so-and-so specific purpose? LOL.


>no
>look, this isn't a playground
>this sort of 'what is it then?' 'i'm not telling you nyah nyah
>nyah' nonsense is childish


LOL - no, this evasive 'lol enlighten me then' 'i'm 90% certain i know what you were going to say anyway nyah nyah' nonsense is what is childish here.

Look, I asked you a simple, direct question, and you don't want to answer. fine. then I guess it's not that big of a deal to you, so then you should be able to fucking drop it already and move on.

But if you're so eager to find out, then answer the fucking question already instead of throwing the question back at me and claiming you already know the answer and all that other evasive reverse psychology bullshit you're running.


>what does it matter to you whether i know or not.
>the only way
>you'll gain anything from this conversation is by explaining
>your position then reading what i have to say about it

it doesn't matter to me whether you know or not, it only goes to highlight that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about with all the other shit you've been saying in this thread. And there is nothing for me to gain from this conversation, it's a fucking horrible movie that I hated anyway & that's all I even came in here to say in the first place.

but the only way you'll gain anything from this conversation is by explaining YOUR position then reading what I have to say about it, and then we can compare and contrast our positions and perhaps have a constructive discussion on it, if that's what you actually want.

but you evading the question and waiting for me to answer it for you & you then just saying "yeah I already knew that" (which you've already prepared for ahead of time by claiming you're 90% certain you know what I was going to say anyway) is a childish game that I'm not going to play, so if that's the route you want to go then you're wasting your time here.

so like I said, answer the question or FOH.

ok, basically i think it's rude to say 'do you even know what the film's about??' (implying that I don't hence my seeing things differently) and then expecting me to prove i know what you're thinking. it makes it more of an intellectual pissing contest than an actual discussion. the logical way to start is say 'the film is really about ______ and so ______ doesn't matter because _______'. i'm dissappointed in you for not doing this

i take it you're going to say the film is about faith, how the main character lost his faith but regained it when he saw everything come together in a moment of crisis

c.f. '*enlighten* me'

your turn

>ok, basically i think it's rude to say 'do you even know what
>the film's about??' (implying that I don't hence my seeing
>things differently) and then expecting me to prove i know what
>you're thinking. it makes it more of an intellectual pissing
>contest than an actual discussion. the logical way to start is
>say 'the film is really about ______ and so ______ doesn't
>matter because _______'. i'm dissappointed in you for not
>doing this

and I think it's rude when you ask someone a direct question and they keep avoiding it by throwing it back at you. and I didn't start off by saying "do you even know what the film is about", I responded to your question about "don't you think he realized all this already" with saying that's not what the movie was really all about, and he was more concerned with dealing w/ issues relating to the central theme of the film rather than worrying about all those nagging little plot details. THAT was an actual discussion right there.

And you responded by ignoring my point & incomprehensibly going on and on about crop circles (which is odd since you apparently knew exactly what I was talking about), and turned it into an intellectual pissing contest by throwing my rather simple & direct question back at me and saying you knew the answer but were not going to say what it was.

and I could give a damn with you being disappointed in anything I do, so spare me the fucking condescension.


>i take it you're going to say the film is about faith, how the
>main character lost his faith but regained it when he saw
>everything come together in a moment of crisis
>
>c.f. '*enlighten* me'
>
>your turn

exactly. so why the fuck did you keep going and on about crop circles for? that's the plot of the movie, not the theme.

so to restate my point, I think Manoj was more concerned with dealing w/ issues relating to the central theme of faith rather than worrying about all those nagging little plot details, which is why I think he didn't really care too much if said details didn't make any sense even for an alien invasion movie.


now explain to me why he made those details so absurdly nonsensical if he cared so much about them again? cuz you never gave an explanation that makes much sense of it.

go ahead, ball's in your court now.

>>ok, basically i think it's rude to say 'do you even know
>what
>>the film's about??' (implying that I don't hence my seeing
>>things differently) and then expecting me to prove i know
>what
>>you're thinking. it makes it more of an intellectual pissing
>>contest than an actual discussion. the logical way to start
>is
>>say 'the film is really about ______ and so ______ doesn't
>>matter because _______'. i'm dissappointed in you for not
>>doing this
>
>and I think it's rude when you ask someone a direct question
>and they keep avoiding it by throwing it back at you. and I
>didn't start off by saying "do you even know what the film is
>about", I responded to your question about "don't you think he
>realized all this already" with saying that's not what the
>movie was really all about, and he was more concerned with
>dealing w/ issues relating to the central theme of the film
>rather than worrying about all those nagging little plot
>details. THAT was an actual discussion right there.
>
>And you responded by ignoring my point & incomprehensibly
>going on and on about crop circles (which is odd since you
>apparently knew exactly what I was talking about), and turned
>it into an intellectual pissing contest by throwing my rather
>simple & direct question back at me and saying you knew the
>answer but were not going to say what it was.
>

but you should have just said what you thought the film was 'about', why deal in abstractions
i mean what were you waiting for? for me to guess the wrong thing so you could revel that you have superior powers of observation?

furthermore, 'faith' isn't necessarily the main theme. it could be a particular take on faith, or something quite different (forseeably). people often disagree broadly on what hte main theme of something is. lots of people on the internet say the main theme of Pulp Fiction is redemption but they're talking out their rectum.



>and I could give a damn with you being disappointed in
>anything I do, so spare me the fucking condescension.
>

*shrug* i don't mind arguing with people on the internet but when they go a certain route, i start to think talking to them's a waste of time. i know a few otherwise knowledgeable posters who i don't really respect anymore because of it

>
>>i take it you're going to say the film is about faith, how
>the
>>main character lost his faith but regained it when he saw
>>everything come together in a moment of crisis
>>
>>c.f. '*enlighten* me'
>>
>>your turn
>
>exactly. so why the fuck did you keep going and on about crop
>circles for? that's the plot of the movie, not the theme.
>
>so to restate my point, I think Manoj was more concerned with
>dealing w/ issues relating to the central theme of faith
>rather than worrying about all those nagging little plot
>details, which is why I think he didn't really care too much
>if said details didn't make any sense even for an alien
>invasion movie.
>
>
>now explain to me why he made those details so absurdly
>nonsensical if he cared so much about them again? cuz you
>never gave an explanation that makes much sense of it.
>
>go ahead, ball's in your court now.


but the details are not 'absurdly nonsensical', at least onlysofar as the real-life premise of alien-made crop circles is nonsensical to start with.

secondly it's wrong to assume the plot and theme are separate, or that the plot can be ignored

the crop circles are central to the film; that CANNOT be ignored. they're not a 'plot detail' they ARE the plot

if the film was purely about faith, then it wouldn't be an alien invasion movie. in THAT case i could see the author overlooking a scientific detail because he doesn't care about it (for instance if a character died of a disease with unrealistic swiftness)

the plot details don't make for brilliant sci-fi on their own, but for Shyamalan's purposes they are fitting. i would need to watch it again to properly analyse how he framed the movie but considering his obvious influences, that the audience would be familiar with too (Invasion of the Body Snatchers type movies, the Twilight Zone, HG Wells science fiction, Hitchcock's 'The Birds'), it's clear he put care into the details of the invasion.

and it's easy to think up explanations -
- the aliens that visited Earth obviously aren't very smart, they could be 'drones'. the real intelligences behind the spacecraft might not even be on the saucers
- the invasion ended after one or two days, suggesting they were merely passing by Earth
- maybe they landed out of curiousity and found the place unsuitable
- maybe they had to make a stop to get food

shymalan suggested the aliens were 'harvesting' the humans - fittingly the whole thing takes place on a farm. seems to be the central symbolism

as for the water, notice how they only imply that the aliens were defeated by water generally; maybe they were smart enough to wear biosuits, except for that one who got left behind then came back at the end. the real reasons for their retreat is left to the imagination

anyway the crop circles and the behavior of hte aliens is important to the film and i think shyamalan framed it just the way he wanted, far from not putting a second thought into it

the aliens were meant to be enigmatic and left mostly to the imagination
made the whole scarier too. the wierdness of aliens is completely lost on most modern sci fi films, i'm glad shyamalan recaptured that feeling/terror from classic scifi/horror

>but you should have just said what you thought the film was
>'about', why deal in abstractions
>i mean what were you waiting for? for me to guess the wrong
>thing so you could revel that you have superior powers of
>observation?

I wasn't "dealing in abstractions", I simply said all that stuff wasn't what the film was all about. and I specifically stated that those were just plot details and that Manoj's main focus in the film was instead on the broader thematic elements, so I made myself perfectly fucking clear for the intent of my argument. And WTF are you talking about "what were you waiting for?" I asked YOU the question, dude. so what were YOU waiting for? If you wanted me to talk about those thematic elements and what I thought the film was actually 'about', you should have just asked without all the snotty "lol enlighten me then" attitude. especially since you apparenlty already knew the answer. I mean why all the games? shit is uneccesary.


>furthermore, 'faith' isn't necessarily the main theme. it
>could be a particular take on faith, or something quite
>different (forseeably). people often disagree broadly on what
>hte main theme of something is.

no, 'faith' is unequivocably the main theme.

>lots of people on the internet
>say the main theme of Pulp Fiction is redemption but they're
>talking out their rectum.

so? they're entirely different kinds of films, so that example is irrelevant.



>*shrug* i don't mind arguing with people on the internet but
>when they go a certain route, i start to think talking to
>them's a waste of time. i know a few otherwise knowledgeable
>posters who i don't really respect anymore because of it

so if you think it's a waste of time why do you keep arguing? proving your superior powers of rhetorical debate?


>but the details are not 'absurdly nonsensical', at least
>onlysofar as the real-life premise of alien-made crop circles
>is nonsensical to start with.

no. I already explained this above a couple of times.


>secondly it's wrong to assume the plot and theme are separate,

except when they are. and I said I was specifically referring to the naggling little plot details I mentioned, not the overall plot.


>or that the plot can be ignored

oh no, I agree that the plot can't be ignored - if fact that's where Manoj fucked up & why the movie fucking sucks ass.


>the crop circles are central to the film; that CANNOT be
>ignored. they're not a 'plot detail' they ARE the plot

I wasn't talking about the crop circles.


>if the film was purely about faith, then it wouldn't be an
>alien invasion movie. in THAT case i could see the author
>overlooking a scientific detail because he doesn't care about
>it (for instance if a character died of a disease with
>unrealistic swiftness)

if the film was purely about faith it would be a blank screen, because faith is intangible. so this is a nonstarter.


>the plot details don't make for brilliant sci-fi on their own,
>but for Shyamalan's purposes they are fitting.

exactly my point. the problem is that for the purposes of a reasonable plot to frame that in it fails miserably.

i would need to
>watch it again to properly analyse how he framed the movie but
>considering his obvious influences, that the audience would be
>familiar with too (Invasion of the Body Snatchers type movies,
>the Twilight Zone, HG Wells science fiction, Hitchcock's 'The
>Birds'), it's clear he put care into the details of the
>invasion.

Ed Wood put care into the details of the invasion in Plan 9 From Outer Space, that don't mean it wasn't fucking atrocious.


>and it's easy to think up explanations -
>- the aliens that visited Earth obviously aren't very smart,

that's the problem, they HAVE to be very smart to have developed interstellar propulsion and navigation capability to cross the vast expanses of space to reach earth. which is why their blinding stupidity when they arrive is so fucking ridiculous.

>they could be 'drones'. the real intelligences behind the
>spacecraft might not even be on the saucers

there's absolutely no indication that this is the case in the movie. every indication is that they are fully self-aware extraterrestrial intelligences. just really, really dumb ones.

>- the invasion ended after one or two days, suggesting they
>were merely passing by Earth

the crop circles had been appearing around the Earth for weeks in the movie, right? so this doesn't fly either.

>- maybe they landed out of curiousity and found the place
>unsuitable

simple spectrographic analysis of the earth's atmosphere would tell them that before they ever landed. we were able to do that shit before sputnik, so how the fuck they gonna have warp drives and shit but can't do simple shit like that?

>- maybe they had to make a stop to get food

or maybe they were depressed and wanted to commit suicide. come on now. the fact that you have to think up all these ridiculous explanations indicates how much of a failure the movie was.



>shymalan suggested the aliens were 'harvesting' the humans -
>fittingly the whole thing takes place on a farm. seems to be
>the central symbolism

great, but that still doesn't explain their blinding stupidity.


>as for the water, notice how they only imply that the aliens
>were defeated by water generally; maybe they were smart enough
>to wear biosuits, except for that one who got left behind then
>came back at the end. the real reasons for their retreat is
>left to the imagination

or maybe it's not water but rather alchohol that is poison to them, and Mel prayed real hard & Jesus turned the water into wine and killed them all.

>anyway the crop circles and the behavior of hte aliens is
>important to the film and i think shyamalan framed it just the
>way he wanted, far from not putting a second thought into it

and the way he framed it was fucking absurd either way and the movie sucks as a result.


>the aliens were meant to be enigmatic and left mostly to the
>imagination
>made the whole scarier too. the wierdness of aliens is
>completely lost on most modern sci fi films, i'm glad
>shyamalan recaptured that feeling/terror from classic
>scifi/horror

and that fails too when he shows them in the end. that's why Kubrick refrained from physically depicting the aliens at the end of 2001. which is just reason 5720 why 2001 is so great and why Signs fucking sucks.

and the feeling of terror was lost when these scary aliens traveling all over the world, running like cheetas through the corn fields and leaping on rooftops in a single bound like ninjas on steroids, couldn't get through a fucking wood door in a farm house.

>>but you should have just said what you thought the film was
>>'about', why deal in abstractions
>>i mean what were you waiting for? for me to guess the wrong
>>thing so you could revel that you have superior powers of
>>observation?
>
>I wasn't "dealing in abstractions", I simply said all that
>stuff wasn't what the film was all about. and I specifically
>stated that those were just plot details and that Manoj's main
>focus in the film was instead on the broader thematic
>elements, so I made myself perfectly fucking clear for the
>intent of my argument. And WTF are you talking about "what
>were you waiting for?" I asked YOU the question, dude. so what
>were YOU waiting for? If you wanted me to talk about those
>thematic elements and what I thought the film was actually
>'about', you should have just asked without all the snotty
>"lol enlighten me then" attitude. especially since you
>apparenlty already knew the answer. I mean why all the games?
>shit is uneccesary.
>
>

it was a question not worth asking or answering, you should have just said what the film was 'about' and why this made shyamalan not care about plot details


>>furthermore, 'faith' isn't necessarily the main theme. it
>>could be a particular take on faith, or something quite
>>different (forseeably). people often disagree broadly on
>what
>>hte main theme of something is.
>
>no, 'faith' is unequivocably the main theme.
>

nope, faith is definitely one of the main subjects but the main THEME could easily be something else like, the fallacy of faith, species interaction, horror, an examination of notions of aliens in the popular imagination/culture

> >lots of people on the internet
>>say the main theme of Pulp Fiction is redemption but they're
>>talking out their rectum.
>
>so? they're entirely different kinds of films, so that example
>is irrelevant.
>

lots of people disagree about the main theme of War of the Worlds, a similar story

>
>
>>*shrug* i don't mind arguing with people on the internet but
>>when they go a certain route, i start to think talking to
>>them's a waste of time. i know a few otherwise knowledgeable
>>posters who i don't really respect anymore because of it
>
>so if you think it's a waste of time why do you keep arguing?
>proving your superior powers of rhetorical debate?
>

because i don't think you quite realize what you're doing; some other people are deliberately obnoxious

>
>>but the details are not 'absurdly nonsensical', at least
>>onlysofar as the real-life premise of alien-made crop
>circles
>>is nonsensical to start with.
>
>no. I already explained this above a couple of times.
>

no, you already *ignored* it a couple of times

>
>>secondly it's wrong to assume the plot and theme are
>separate,
>
>except when they are. and I said I was specifically referring
>to the naggling little plot details I mentioned, not the
>overall plot.
>

but this is quite a big plot detail: how the aliens are defeated, and how they behave when encountered

>
>>or that the plot can be ignored
>
>oh no, I agree that the plot can't be ignored - if fact
>that's where Manoj fucked up & why the movie fucking sucks
>ass.
>

this reminds me of people who complain about the unrealisticness of the murderous jealousy of Othello or dude in The Winter's Tale, assuming Shakespeare didn't care about it, but in doing show manage to overlook the actual explanations

>
>>the crop circles are central to the film; that CANNOT be
>>ignored. they're not a 'plot detail' they ARE the plot
>
>I wasn't talking about the crop circles.
>

you were asking why i keep going on about crop circles

>
>>if the film was purely about faith, then it wouldn't be an
>>alien invasion movie. in THAT case i could see the author
>>overlooking a scientific detail because he doesn't care
>about
>>it (for instance if a character died of a disease with
>>unrealistic swiftness)
>
>if the film was purely about faith it would be a blank screen,
>because faith is intangible. so this is a nonstarter.
>

absurd.
most themes are 'intangible'
if you wanted to make a film about, say, child abuse, you wouldn't set it during an alien invasion because that would most likely detract from the issue

>>and it's easy to think up explanations -
>>- the aliens that visited Earth obviously aren't very smart,
>
>that's the problem, they HAVE to be very smart to have
>developed interstellar propulsion and navigation capability to
>cross the vast expanses of space to reach earth. which is why
>their blinding stupidity when they arrive is so fucking
>ridiculous.
>

the beings that invented the technology are obviously smart (than humans)
but there is absolutely no indication that those are the beings that set foot on Earth, or even that they're flying the spacecraft


>>they could be 'drones'. the real intelligences behind the
>>spacecraft might not even be on the saucers
>
>there's absolutely no indication that this is the case in the
>movie. every indication is that they are fully self-aware
>extraterrestrial intelligences. just really, really dumb
>ones.
>

hardly. they scurry about like animals. if there had been a scene showing them engaged in some intellectual activity, you would have a case

>>- the invasion ended after one or two days, suggesting they
>>were merely passing by Earth
>
>the crop circles had been appearing around the Earth for weeks
>in the movie, right? so this doesn't fly either.
>

one or two weeks on the timescale of interstellar travel is hardly extensive preparation

>>- maybe they landed out of curiousity and found the place
>>unsuitable
>
>simple spectrographic analysis of the earth's atmosphere would
>tell them that before they ever landed. we were able to do
>that shit before sputnik, so how the fuck they gonna have warp
>drives and shit but can't do simple shit like that?
>

i didn't say 'uninhabitable'

>>- maybe they had to make a stop to get food
>
>or maybe they were depressed and wanted to commit suicide.
>come on now. the fact that you have to think up all these
>ridiculous explanations indicates how much of a failure the
>movie was.
>

they're not ridiculous interpretations at all, but they're based on the ideas Shyamalan presented

for instance you (and Scary Movie 3) keep complaining about how that alien couldn't break through the wooden door

it would have been easy for Shyamalan to write it as the alien went into the basement and get trapped behind a big-ass steel hatch, then the audience would accept that despite its superhuman strength there's no way its getting out of there

but Shyamalan CHOSE to make it just a wooden door that strength + intellect would easily overcome, indicating, EMPHASIZING to the audience that the aliens (that we see) are NOT intellectual

also remember humans couldn't do ANYTHING to the spaceships. there was no vast exploding motherships scene. the aliens just left. maybe they got what they wanted


>>the aliens were meant to be enigmatic and left mostly to the
>>imagination
>>made the whole scarier too. the wierdness of aliens is
>>completely lost on most modern sci fi films, i'm glad
>>shyamalan recaptured that feeling/terror from classic
>>scifi/horror
>
>and that fails too when he shows them in the end. that's why
>Kubrick refrained from physically depicting the aliens at the
>end of 2001. which is just reason 5720 why 2001 is so great
>and why Signs fucking sucks.
>

it's so simple minded to think the 'don't show, only hint' technique is the only one
it's actually one of Shyamalan's greatest strenghts that he doesn't shy away from actually showing the monsters (in The Village and Signs, and 6th Sense too i suppose), and pulls it off
you'll probably say 'it wasn't scary at all' but i've seen plenty of indication that the alien walking past the window in the birthday party video was scary enough for most people

>it was a question not worth asking or answering,

it was definitely worth asking, cuz I said all those plot details are not what the movie was really all about & you incomprehensibly just kept yapping on & on about crop circles.

>you should
>have just said what the film was 'about' and why this made
>shyamalan not care about plot details

post 149: "I don't think he really cared because it's not what the movie is really about & as a filmmaker it wasn't what he was focusing on."

post 153: "as I said, I think he was more concerned with the "big picture" of the themes he was trying to address in the movie and so he didn't really care about those other details."

post 177: "and I specifically stated that those were just plot details and that Manoj's main focus in the film was instead on the broader thematic elements, so I made myself perfectly fucking clear for the intent of my argument."


It's getting really fucking tedious repeating this shit ad-nauseum, especially when it was fucking self-explanatory to begin with.


>nope, faith is definitely one of the main subjects but the
>main THEME could easily be something else like, the fallacy of
>faith, species interaction, horror, an examination of notions
>of aliens in the popular imagination/culture

Wrong. Manoj said himself that the main theme is faith.

... and species interaction could easily be the main theme? WTF? yo I'm past even caring about being at all cordial with you at this point, so I'll just say you're sounding like a fucking idiot right now.


>lots of people disagree about the main theme of War of the
>Worlds, a similar story

great, but still a moot point because Manoj has said himself the main theme of Signs is faith.


>because i don't think you quite realize what you're doing;
>some other people are deliberately obnoxious

I realize what I'm doing, I asked you a simple fucking question. I don't think you realize what a fucking tool you're being here.


>>>but the details are not 'absurdly nonsensical', at least
>>>onlysofar as the real-life premise of alien-made crop
>>circles
>>>is nonsensical to start with.
>>
>>no. I already explained this above a couple of times.
>>
>
>no, you already *ignored* it a couple of times

no, I already explained it and YOU already ignored it:

post #153: "there is at least some sense of mystery to that, like you are trying to figure out what the hidden meaning is behind it. hence suspension of disbelief can work there. the water killing them/can't open a door stuff is just plain fucking retarded."

... but you were too busy being a fucking asshole to actually address my arguments.



>but this is quite a big plot detail: how the aliens are
>defeated, and how they behave when encountered


no, it SHOULD have been a big plot detail, but Manoj dropped the ball and made it an afterthought, and a poorly concieved, absurdly explained/executed one at that.



>this reminds me of people who complain about the
>unrealisticness of the murderous jealousy of Othello or dude
>in The Winter's Tale, assuming Shakespeare didn't care about
>it, but in doing show manage to overlook the actual
>explanations

wow, you're comparing Manoj to *Shakespeare* now? LMFAO

because, of course, a husband's murderous jealosy of his wife's (perceived) infidelity is as unrealistic as scientifically advanced aliens not being able to open a door or realizing that water kills them. obviously.



>>>the crop circles are central to the film; that CANNOT be
>>>ignored. they're not a 'plot detail' they ARE the plot
>>
>>I wasn't talking about the crop circles.
>>
>
>you were asking why i keep going on about crop circles

you're going in circles here. go back and read the thread again if you don't get it, I'm tired of repeating myself.


>>>if the film was purely about faith, then it wouldn't be an
>>>alien invasion movie. in THAT case i could see the author
>>>overlooking a scientific detail because he doesn't care
>>about
>>>it (for instance if a character died of a disease with
>>>unrealistic swiftness)
>>
>>if the film was purely about faith it would be a blank
>screen,
>>because faith is intangible. so this is a nonstarter.
>>
>
>absurd.
>most themes are 'intangible'

exactly you dumb fuck, that's why your poing was so fucking absurd.


>if you wanted to make a film about, say, child abuse, you
>wouldn't set it during an alien invasion because that would
>most likely detract from the issue

WTF does that have to do with anything?

I mean it's pretty simple: a film about faith doesn't have to be set in a fucking monastery.


>the beings that invented the technology are obviously smart
>(than humans)
>but there is absolutely no indication that those are the
>beings that set foot on Earth, or even that they're flying the
>spacecraft

more like there is absolutely no indication that it's not. and the fact that you're all pressed to pull all these explanations out of your ass to explain away the plot holes indicates just what a failure the movie was on that level.


>>>they could be 'drones'. the real intelligences behind the
>>>spacecraft might not even be on the saucers
>>
>>there's absolutely no indication that this is the case in
>the
>>movie. every indication is that they are fully self-aware
>>extraterrestrial intelligences. just really, really dumb
>>ones.
>>
>
>hardly. they scurry about like animals. if there had been a
>scene showing them engaged in some intellectual activity, you
>would have a case

um, they made the crop circles in all those intricate patterns all over the earth - hardly something a witless animal could do.


>
>>>- the invasion ended after one or two days, suggesting they
>>>were merely passing by Earth
>>
>>the crop circles had been appearing around the Earth for
>weeks
>>in the movie, right? so this doesn't fly either.
>>
>
>one or two weeks on the timescale of interstellar travel is
>hardly extensive preparation

extensive enough to discover that IT FUCKING RAINS POISON TO THEIR SPECIES FROM THE SKY



>>>- maybe they landed out of curiousity and found the place
>>>unsuitable
>>
>>simple spectrographic analysis of the earth's atmosphere
>would
>>tell them that before they ever landed. we were able to do
>>that shit before sputnik, so how the fuck they gonna have
>warp
>>drives and shit but can't do simple shit like that?
>>
>
>i didn't say 'uninhabitable'

neither did I. but does a planet that FUCKING RAINS POISON TO THEIR SPECIES FROM THE SKY sound 'suitable' to you?


>they're not ridiculous interpretations at all, but they're
>based on the ideas Shyamalan presented

no, they're ridiculous interpretations that are not based on anything Manoj presented and you just pulled out of your ass because you want to cop pleas for him.

>for instance you (and Scary Movie 3) keep complaining about
>how that alien couldn't break through the wooden door
>
>it would have been easy for Shyamalan to write it as the alien
>went into the basement and get trapped behind a big-ass steel
>hatch, then the audience would accept that despite its
>superhuman strength there's no way its getting out of there
>
>but Shyamalan CHOSE to make it just a wooden door that
>strength + intellect would easily overcome, indicating,
>EMPHASIZING to the audience that the aliens (that we see) are
>NOT intellectual

only problem is that he already emphasized to the audience that they ARE INTELLECUTAL BY ESTABLISHING A HIGHLY INTRICATE SYSTEM OF SYMBOLS AROUND THE GLOBE

i.e., FOH


>also remember humans couldn't do ANYTHING to the spaceships.
>there was no vast exploding motherships scene. the aliens just
>left. maybe they got what they wanted

they wanted to be killed by water? if that was the case why didn't they just jump straight into the ocean first?




>>>the aliens were meant to be enigmatic and left mostly to
>the
>>>imagination
>>>made the whole scarier too. the wierdness of aliens is
>>>completely lost on most modern sci fi films, i'm glad
>>>shyamalan recaptured that feeling/terror from classic
>>>scifi/horror
>>
>>and that fails too when he shows them in the end. that's why
>>Kubrick refrained from physically depicting the aliens at
>the
>>end of 2001. which is just reason 5720 why 2001 is so great
>>and why Signs fucking sucks.
>>
>
>it's so simple minded to think the 'don't show, only hint'
>technique is the only one

motherfucker you JUST said "the aliens were meant to be enigmatic and left mostly to the imagination made the whole scarier too. the wierdness of aliens is completely lost on most modern sci fi films, i'm glad shyamalan recaptured that feeling/terror from classic scifi/horror"

I mean sweet jesus, you really are acting like a fucking idiot right now.


>it's actually one of Shyamalan's greatest strenghts that he
>doesn't shy away from actually showing the monsters (in The
>Village and Signs, and 6th Sense too i suppose), and pulls it
>off

he DIDN'T pull it off in Signs. Not by a long shot. I haven't seen the Village, but from what I hear he didn't pull it off there either.


>you'll probably say 'it wasn't scary at all' but i've seen
>plenty of indication that the alien walking past the window in
>the birthday party video was scary enough for most people

no, that scene was actually pretty good, particularly Joaquin's response to the video. too bad that was only like 5 seconds out of a 2 hour movie.

>>it was a question not worth asking or answering,
>
>it was definitely worth asking, cuz I said all those plot
>details are not what the movie was really all about & you
>incomprehensibly just kept yapping on & on about crop
>circles.
>
>>you should
>>have just said what the film was 'about' and why this made
>>shyamalan not care about plot details
>
>post 149: "I don't think he really cared because it's not what
>the movie is really about & as a filmmaker it wasn't what he
>was focusing on."
>
>post 153: "as I said, I think he was more concerned with the
>"big picture" of the themes he was trying to address in the
>movie and so he didn't really care about those other
>details."
>
>post 177: "and I specifically stated that those were just plot
>details and that Manoj's main focus in the film was instead on
>the broader thematic elements, so I made myself perfectly
>fucking clear for the intent of my argument."
>
>
>It's getting really fucking tedious repeating this shit
>ad-nauseum, especially when it was fucking self-explanatory to
>begin with.
>

ok, so you think saying that the aliens aren't important to his big picture is enough without explainig what said picture is (i don't)
my problem is that when you said "you'll just claim you knew all along once i've told you" that shows this is really about EGO, whereas it should only be about information

>
>>nope, faith is definitely one of the main subjects but the
>>main THEME could easily be something else like, the fallacy
>of
>>faith, species interaction, horror, an examination of
>notions
>>of aliens in the popular imagination/culture
>
>Wrong. Manoj said himself that the main theme is faith.
>

do you have a link to where he said this?
i can think of an interview where Tarantino stresses that Pulp Fiction is a comedy, but that was in reply to a specific point and doesn't reflect what the film is overall 'about'
i found Shyamalan saying this:
"It's about this little family living on this little farm and they see all these things on TV. For them, that's what the world outside their farm is because they live a very isolated existence. We never leave the farm so we get sucked into their world. Mel's character was a reverend and he's having all these issues about faith and belief. I think I take what you might call a B-movie story, deal with B-movie subjects, and I treat it as if it's an A-movie in terms of my approach, my crew, my actors, my ethics and so on."
so he didn't exactly just say 'it's about faith'

>... and species interaction could easily be the main theme?
>WTF? yo I'm past even caring about being at all cordial with
>you at this point, so I'll just say you're sounding like a
>fucking idiot right now.

well the main thing the aliens do is assert themselves above us in the food chain, right?


>
>>>>but the details are not 'absurdly nonsensical', at least
>>>>onlysofar as the real-life premise of alien-made crop
>>>circles
>>>>is nonsensical to start with.
>>>
>>>no. I already explained this above a couple of times.
>>>
>>
>>no, you already *ignored* it a couple of times
>
>no, I already explained it and YOU already ignored it:
>
>post #153: "there is at least some sense of mystery to that,
>like you are trying to figure out what the hidden meaning is
>behind it. hence suspension of disbelief can work there. the
>water killing them/can't open a door stuff is just plain
>fucking retarded."
>

only if you start making retarded assumptions


>>this reminds me of people who complain about the
>>unrealisticness of the murderous jealousy of Othello or dude
>>in The Winter's Tale, assuming Shakespeare didn't care about
>>it, but in doing show manage to overlook the actual
>>explanations
>
>wow, you're comparing Manoj to *Shakespeare* now? LMFAO
>

i could list more dramatic similarities but there's no point right now

>because, of course, a husband's murderous jealosy of his
>wife's (perceived) infidelity is as unrealistic as
>scientifically advanced aliens not being able to open a door
>or realizing that water kills them. obviously.
>
>
>
>>>>the crop circles are central to the film; that CANNOT be
>>>>ignored. they're not a 'plot detail' they ARE the plot
>>>
>>>I wasn't talking about the crop circles.
>>>
>>
>>you were asking why i keep going on about crop circles
>
>you're going in circles here. go back and read the thread
>again if you don't get it, I'm tired of repeating myself.
>
>
>>>>if the film was purely about faith, then it wouldn't be an
>>>>alien invasion movie. in THAT case i could see the author
>>>>overlooking a scientific detail because he doesn't care
>>>about
>>>>it (for instance if a character died of a disease with
>>>>unrealistic swiftness)
>>>
>>>if the film was purely about faith it would be a blank
>>screen,
>>>because faith is intangible. so this is a nonstarter.
>>>
>>
>>absurd.
>>most themes are 'intangible'
>
>exactly you dumb fuck, that's why your poing was so fucking
>absurd.
>

your point wasn't even worth SAYING. i mean just think about it

>
>>if you wanted to make a film about, say, child abuse, you
>>wouldn't set it during an alien invasion because that would
>>most likely detract from the issue
>
>WTF does that have to do with anything?
>
>I mean it's pretty simple: a film about faith doesn't have to
>be set in a fucking monastery.
>

and a film about child abuse doesn't have to be set in an ophanage or even during chilldhood
but it wouldn't be casually set during AN ALIEN INVASION

>
>>the beings that invented the technology are obviously smart
>>(than humans)
>>but there is absolutely no indication that those are the
>>beings that set foot on Earth, or even that they're flying
>the
>>spacecraft
>
>more like there is absolutely no indication that it's not. and
>the fact that you're all pressed to pull all these
>explanations out of your ass to explain away the plot holes
>indicates just what a failure the movie was on that level.
>
>
>>>>they could be 'drones'. the real intelligences behind the
>>>>spacecraft might not even be on the saucers
>>>
>>>there's absolutely no indication that this is the case in
>>the
>>>movie. every indication is that they are fully self-aware
>>>extraterrestrial intelligences. just really, really dumb
>>>ones.
>>>
>>
>>hardly. they scurry about like animals. if there had been a
>>scene showing them engaged in some intellectual activity,
>you
>>would have a case
>
>um, they made the crop circles in all those intricate patterns
>all over the earth - hardly something a witless animal could
>do.
>
>
>>
>>>>- the invasion ended after one or two days, suggesting
>they
>>>>were merely passing by Earth
>>>
>>>the crop circles had been appearing around the Earth for
>>weeks
>>>in the movie, right? so this doesn't fly either.
>>>
>>
>>one or two weeks on the timescale of interstellar travel is
>>hardly extensive preparation
>
>extensive enough to discover that IT FUCKING RAINS POISON TO
>THEIR SPECIES FROM THE SKY
>
>
>
>>>>- maybe they landed out of curiousity and found the place
>>>>unsuitable
>>>
>>>simple spectrographic analysis of the earth's atmosphere
>>would
>>>tell them that before they ever landed. we were able to do
>>>that shit before sputnik, so how the fuck they gonna have
>>warp
>>>drives and shit but can't do simple shit like that?
>>>
>>
>>i didn't say 'uninhabitable'
>
>neither did I. but does a planet that FUCKING RAINS POISON TO
>THEIR SPECIES FROM THE SKY sound 'suitable' to you?
>
>
>>they're not ridiculous interpretations at all, but they're
>>based on the ideas Shyamalan presented
>
>no, they're ridiculous interpretations that are not based on
>anything Manoj presented and you just pulled out of your ass
>because you want to cop pleas for him.
>
>>for instance you (and Scary Movie 3) keep complaining about
>>how that alien couldn't break through the wooden door
>>
>>it would have been easy for Shyamalan to write it as the
>alien
>>went into the basement and get trapped behind a big-ass
>steel
>>hatch, then the audience would accept that despite its
>>superhuman strength there's no way its getting out of there
>>
>>but Shyamalan CHOSE to make it just a wooden door that
>>strength + intellect would easily overcome, indicating,
>>EMPHASIZING to the audience that the aliens (that we see)
>are
>>NOT intellectual
>
>only problem is that he already emphasized to the audience
>that they ARE INTELLECUTAL BY ESTABLISHING A HIGHLY INTRICATE
>SYSTEM OF SYMBOLS AROUND THE GLOBE
>
>i.e., FOH
>
>
>>also remember humans couldn't do ANYTHING to the spaceships.
>>there was no vast exploding motherships scene. the aliens
>just
>>left. maybe they got what they wanted
>
>they wanted to be killed by water? if that was the case why
>didn't they just jump straight into the ocean first?
>
>
>
>
>>>>the aliens were meant to be enigmatic and left mostly to
>>the
>>>>imagination
>>>>made the whole scarier too. the wierdness of aliens is
>>>>completely lost on most modern sci fi films, i'm glad
>>>>shyamalan recaptured that feeling/terror from classic
>>>>scifi/horror
>>>
>>>and that fails too when he shows them in the end. that's
>why
>>>Kubrick refrained from physically depicting the aliens at
>>the
>>>end of 2001. which is just reason 5720 why 2001 is so great
>>>and why Signs fucking sucks.
>>>
>>
>>it's so simple minded to think the 'don't show, only hint'
>>technique is the only one
>
>motherfucker you JUST said "the aliens were meant to be
>enigmatic and left mostly to the imagination made the whole
>scarier too. the wierdness of aliens is completely lost on
>most modern sci fi films, i'm glad shyamalan recaptured that
>feeling/terror from classic scifi/horror"
>
>I mean sweet jesus, you really are acting like a fucking idiot
>right now.
>

the above quoted point pertained to the aliens in general, their culture, purpose, origins, morality etc
the other point is about about specifically the physical appearance of the aliens and shyamalan choosing to show them in full, instead of just silhoettes or flashing lights or footprints and claws
see the difference?

>
>>it's actually one of Shyamalan's greatest strenghts that he
>>doesn't shy away from actually showing the monsters (in The
>>Village and Signs, and 6th Sense too i suppose), and pulls
>it
>>off
>
>he DIDN'T pull it off in Signs. Not by a long shot. I haven't
>seen the Village, but from what I hear he didn't pull it off
>there either.
>
>
>>you'll probably say 'it wasn't scary at all' but i've seen
>>plenty of indication that the alien walking past the window
>in
>>the birthday party video was scary enough for most people
>
>no, that scene was actually pretty good, particularly
>Joaquin's response to the video. too bad that was only like 5
>seconds out of a 2 hour movie.

well since that was the first time the aliens were revealed, after a long build up, that pretty much constitutes 'pulling it off'


as for all the other points about the intelligence of the aliens:

- crop circles don't really constitute intellectual behavior. for years people thought they were natural phenomenon. even assuming those aliens made them and not the saucers landing in the fields, WHAT THE FUCK SORT OF INTELLECTUALS CROSS THE GALAXY TO FUCK ABOUT MAKING CIRCLES

- there's every indication that the aliens we saw were not supposed to be the geniuses that designed the ships. you seen them endangering themselves needlessly and getting trapped in cupboards. why the fuck would you assume they're SUPPOSED to be real smart? lol

- do any of them get caught in the rain? no

- when you're walking about invisible and the only danger is PEOPLE throwing water at you, is it a suicide mission? no

if you can't live with any of this then you're going to have trouble with a lot of classic sci-fi dawg. the aliens of course are not under scientific focus. the main objective is to bring them into a domestic setting so you can have scenes like 'there's an alien in my pantry' and the alien showing up in the living room at the end. but that doesn't mean it's unabashedly nonsensical or self-contradictory

>ok, so you think saying that the aliens aren't important to
>his big picture is enough without explainig what said picture
>is (i don't)

it is if you understand the difference between plot details and overall themes. I guess I should just assume that you're an idiot who can't tell the difference and fucking spell everything out for you like your 5 years old.


>my problem is that when you said "you'll just claim you knew
>all along once i've told you" that shows this is really about
>EGO, whereas it should only be about information

my problem is when you say "lol enlighten me then" and "don't worry i'm 90% certain i know what you were going to say anyway", that shows this is really about EGO, whereas it should only be about information.

I asked you a simple, direct question and you wanted to turn it into a pissing contest. so FOH with all your moral indignation.



>>Wrong. Manoj said himself that the main theme is faith.
>>
>
>do you have a link to where he said this?

yup (oh and manoj also says the aliens are just a backdrop to that & are irrelevant to the what the movie is actually all about, which ethers your entire argument)

http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue276/interview2.html

"I guess I just keep pounding away at this until I get it myself. Which is kind of a guy waking up to his potential and who he is and the things around him. So all three of those movies are this guy waking up. I don't know why, I just keep writing that guy. I could easily write another one about a guy waking up and realizing this. And then the supernatural or the sci-fi elements of the movie—the ghosts or the aliens—is kind of irrelevant to me. It's just a backdrop.

A man learning to believe again, ... believe in himself in Unbreakable. Believe in love in Sixth Sense and believe in himself as a therapist in Sixth Sense, in his job. These are the things that I was dealing with at the time. Each one is a different thing. And in Signs, it's basically this faith, believing in fate."

L

>i can think of an interview where Tarantino stresses that Pulp
>Fiction is a comedy, but that was in reply to a specific point
>and doesn't reflect what the film is overall 'about'

why the fuck are you still talking about Pulp Fiction? that shit is irrelevant here.



>>... and species interaction could easily be the main theme?
>>WTF? yo I'm past even caring about being at all cordial with
>>you at this point, so I'll just say you're sounding like a
>>fucking idiot right now.
>
>well the main thing the aliens do is assert themselves above
>us in the food chain, right?

No, you're thinking of "V". In Signs we have no idea what the "main thing" the aliens are doing: we have no idea why they came, what the signs meant, or what they wanted. all that is left completely unanswered. And how the fuck is them asserting themselves above us on the food chain the main "theme"?


>>post #153: "there is at least some sense of mystery to that,
>>like you are trying to figure out what the hidden meaning is
>>behind it. hence suspension of disbelief can work there. the
>>water killing them/can't open a door stuff is just plain
>>fucking retarded."
>>
>
>only if you start making retarded assumptions

LOL - nope. unlike your retarded assumptions to try to explain away all the absurd plot elements, there is no need to make assumptions here. the meaning behind the signs is left a mystery and that is fine.

>>wow, you're comparing Manoj to *Shakespeare* now? LMFAO
>>
>
>i could list more dramatic similarities but there's no point
>right now

you never had a point to begin with.


>>>>>if the film was purely about faith, then it wouldn't be
>an
>>>>>alien invasion movie. in THAT case i could see the author
>>>>>overlooking a scientific detail because he doesn't care
>>>>about
>>>>>it (for instance if a character died of a disease with
>>>>>unrealistic swiftness)
>>>>
>>>>if the film was purely about faith it would be a blank
>>>screen,
>>>>because faith is intangible. so this is a nonstarter.
>>>>
>>>
>>>absurd.
>>>most themes are 'intangible'
>>
>>exactly you dumb fuck, that's why your poing was so fucking
>>absurd.
>>
>
>your point wasn't even worth SAYING. i mean just think about
>it

you HAD no point at all, let alone one worth saying. I'd ask you to think about it, but you're not thinking at all here.


>>>if you wanted to make a film about, say, child abuse, you
>>>wouldn't set it during an alien invasion because that would
>>>most likely detract from the issue
>>
>>WTF does that have to do with anything?
>>
>>I mean it's pretty simple: a film about faith doesn't have
>to
>>be set in a fucking monastery.
>>
>
>and a film about child abuse doesn't have to be set in an
>ophanage or even during chilldhood
>but it wouldn't be casually set during AN ALIEN INVASION

again, WHAT THE FUCK DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING? Faith is a far more intangible theme than child abuse and is open to a much broader range of thematic explorations/interpretations.

I mean WTF kind of asinine shit is this?


>the above quoted point pertained to the aliens in general,
>their culture, purpose, origins, morality etc
>the other point is about about specifically the physical
>appearance of the aliens and shyamalan choosing to show them
>in full, instead of just silhoettes or flashing lights or
>footprints and claws
>see the difference?

saying the aliens were meant to be "left mostly to the imagination" implies lack of physical appearance, so you did not make that point very clearly. and as for how manoj show them in full... um, green humaniods with claws? wow, what stunning wierdness and imagination!


>well since that was the first time the aliens were revealed,
>after a long build up, that pretty much constitutes 'pulling
>it off'

that was just a teaser scene, they're only 'revealed' for a split second on a TV in what looks like that stock Bigfoot footage you always see. so no, it does not constitute 'pulling it off'


>
>as for all the other points about the intelligence of the
>aliens:
>
>- crop circles don't really constitute intellectual behavior.

of course they do.

>for years people thought they were natural phenomenon.

people think alot of dumb stuff, that don't mean shit.

even
>assuming those aliens made them and not the saucers landing in
>the fields, WHAT THE FUCK SORT OF INTELLECTUALS CROSS THE
>GALAXY TO FUCK ABOUT MAKING CIRCLES

so now you're saying Manoj fucked up too, huh? LOL - how ironic.

oh, and we don't know and that goes to the mysterious, enigmatic nature of the aliens that you were just gushing about (more irony)



>- there's every indication that the aliens we saw were not
>supposed to be the geniuses that designed the ships. you seen
>them endangering themselves needlessly and getting trapped in
>cupboards. why the fuck would you assume they're SUPPOSED to
>be real smart? lol

LOL - THERE IS NO FUCKING INDICATION OF THAT WHATSOEVER!

You are just copping pleas for manoj and it's pathetic.

>- do any of them get caught in the rain? no

uh, point is there is water all over this planet.

>- when you're walking about invisible and the only danger is
>PEOPLE throwing water at you, is it a suicide mission? no

A) they weren't 'invisible'
B) they didn't just skulk about in the shadows and leave, they came out of hiding and went after PEOPLE.


>if you can't live with any of this then you're going to have
>trouble with a lot of classic sci-fi dawg. the aliens of
>course are not under scientific focus.

LOL - you're the one who can't live with this and have to pull all this shit out of your ass to try to explain away all the fucking absurd shit in the movie. and it's not about 'scientific focus' as much as it is about common fucking sense.

>the main objective is
>to bring them into a domestic setting so you can have scenes
>like 'there's an alien in my pantry' and the alien showing up
>in the living room at the end. but that doesn't mean it's
>unabashedly nonsensical or self-contradictory

it didn't have to be, but the way manoj did it it was. and the movie sucks as a result.

>>ok, so you think saying that the aliens aren't important to
>>his big picture is enough without explainig what said
>picture
>>is (i don't)
>
>it is if you understand the difference between plot details
>and overall themes. I guess I should just assume that you're
>an idiot who can't tell the difference and fucking spell
>everything out for you like your 5 years old.

this statement is just artistically naive, especially with a work like this (short-storyish)

>
>
>>my problem is that when you said "you'll just claim you knew
>>all along once i've told you" that shows this is really
>about
>>EGO, whereas it should only be about information
>
>my problem is when you say "lol enlighten me then" and "don't
>worry i'm 90% certain i know what you were going to say
>anyway", that shows this is really about EGO, whereas it
>should only be about information.
>
>I asked you a simple, direct question and you wanted to turn
>it into a pissing contest. so FOH with all your moral
>indignation.

i've said what the film's 'about' is not an open and shut case
why would i want to put words in your mouth, i invited you to state you case
i merely suspected that you were going to say 'faith', but why jump the gun

>
>
>
>>>Wrong. Manoj said himself that the main theme is faith.
>>>
>>
>>do you have a link to where he said this?
>
>yup (oh and manoj also says the aliens are just a backdrop to
>that & are irrelevant to the what the movie is actually all
>about, which ethers your entire argument)
>
>http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue276/interview2.html
>
>"I guess I just keep pounding away at this until I get it
>myself. Which is kind of a guy waking up to his potential and
>who he is and the things around him. So all three of those
>movies are this guy waking up. I don't know why, I just keep
>writing that guy. I could easily write another one about a guy
>waking up and realizing this. And then the supernatural or the
>sci-fi elements of the movie—the ghosts or the aliens—is kind
>of irrelevant to me. It's just a backdrop.
>
>A man learning to believe again, ... believe in himself in
>Unbreakable. Believe in love in Sixth Sense and believe in
>himself as a therapist in Sixth Sense, in his job. These are
>the things that I was dealing with at the time. Each one is a
>different thing. And in Signs, it's basically this faith,
>believing in fate."
>
>L
>

yeah he says he can write the same character regardless of what the genre is
that doesn't mean the supernatural elements are irrelevant and non-consequential to the film
secondly he doesn't even say it's about 'faith' as in religous faith; in other interviews (maybe even that one) he says 'faith in following an adventure' which is rather different and hardly a theme in the same way that religious faith would be


>
>>>... and species interaction could easily be the main theme?
>>>WTF? yo I'm past even caring about being at all cordial
>with
>>>you at this point, so I'll just say you're sounding like a
>>>fucking idiot right now.
>>
>>well the main thing the aliens do is assert themselves above
>>us in the food chain, right?
>
>No, you're thinking of "V". In Signs we have no idea what the
>"main thing" the aliens are doing: we have no idea why they
>came, what the signs meant, or what they wanted. all that is
>left completely unanswered. And how the fuck is them asserting
>themselves above us on the food chain the main "theme"?
>

correct we don't know why they came or what they are doing
thanks for admitting that
but the one thing we do know is that they've topped us in the foodchain

i didn't SAY i personally thought this was the main theme, but i could easily see someone making a case for it, being that it's set on a farm, and the humans have no real way of overcoming the aliens except on an individual basis (like how a lion can kill a human)

>
>>>post #153: "there is at least some sense of mystery to
>that,
>>>like you are trying to figure out what the hidden meaning
>is
>>>behind it. hence suspension of disbelief can work there.
>the
>>>water killing them/can't open a door stuff is just plain
>>>fucking retarded."
>>>
>>
>>only if you start making retarded assumptions
>
>LOL - nope. unlike your retarded assumptions to try to explain
>away all the absurd plot elements, there is no need to make
>assumptions here. the meaning behind the signs is left a
>mystery and that is fine.
>

the meaning behind the signs is that the aliens caused them
that's their significance to the film, because it prompts the question of what sort of aliens would do this


>
>>>>if you wanted to make a film about, say, child abuse, you
>>>>wouldn't set it during an alien invasion because that
>would
>>>>most likely detract from the issue
>>>
>>>WTF does that have to do with anything?
>>>
>>>I mean it's pretty simple: a film about faith doesn't have
>>to
>>>be set in a fucking monastery.
>>>
>>
>>and a film about child abuse doesn't have to be set in an
>>ophanage or even during chilldhood
>>but it wouldn't be casually set during AN ALIEN INVASION
>
>again, WHAT THE FUCK DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING? Faith
>is a far more intangible theme than child abuse and is open to
>a much broader range of thematic explorations/interpretations.
>
>

eh, that's irrelevant
hte point is abnormal settings are not chosen casually
you could make a film about romantic love and be fairly casual about the setting. set it in Paris, set it in drawing rooms, set it in office workplaces, people might not care. but you can't set it in a prison without expecting that to change the whole outlook, or greatly distract from it

>
>
>>the above quoted point pertained to the aliens in general,
>>their culture, purpose, origins, morality etc
>>the other point is about about specifically the physical
>>appearance of the aliens and shyamalan choosing to show them
>>in full, instead of just silhoettes or flashing lights or
>>footprints and claws
>>see the difference?
>
>saying the aliens were meant to be "left mostly to the
>imagination" implies lack of physical appearance, so you did
>not make that point very clearly.
but i made them as two separate points... it was just you trying to trip me up
anyway you understand now


>and as for how manoj show
>them in full... um, green humaniods with claws? wow, what
>stunning wierdness and imagination!
>

no the wierdness/imagination was with the other point
with the physical appearance, it's the artistic impression that counts
you know a great portrait doesn't have to be an unusual portrait
think how many films have used similar humanoid aliens but haven't been scary in the slightest? how many episodes of Star Trek??
obviously the costume design and overall presentation drew on archetypal ideas (like the Big Foot footage)

>
>>well since that was the first time the aliens were revealed,
>>after a long build up, that pretty much constitutes 'pulling
>>it off'
>
>that was just a teaser scene, they're only 'revealed' for a
>split second on a TV in what looks like that stock Bigfoot
>footage you always see. so no, it does not constitute 'pulling
>it off'

you get a clear and distinct view of the aliens
i can't remember if you see them again. i don't think you do until the cups scene. which had awesome special effects, anyone who says otherwise is a hater

>
>
>>
>>as for all the other points about the intelligence of the
>>aliens:
>>
>>- crop circles don't really constitute intellectual
>behavior.
>
>of course they do.
>
>>for years people thought they were natural phenomenon.
>
>people think alot of dumb stuff, that don't mean shit.
>

intellectual is different from just 'intelligent'
intellectual would be if they dropped a hi-tech gadget in the fields
shymalan says in an interview (probably that one you psoted) that he wanted the aliens to seem 'primitive' and 'intelligent' at the same time (to create a sense of danger). that works well with the crop circles

> even
>>assuming those aliens made them and not the saucers landing
>in
>>the fields, WHAT THE FUCK SORT OF INTELLECTUALS CROSS THE
>>GALAXY TO FUCK ABOUT MAKING CIRCLES
>
>so now you're saying Manoj fucked up too, huh? LOL - how
>ironic.
>
>oh, and we don't know and that goes to the mysterious,
>enigmatic nature of the aliens that you were just gushing
>about (more irony)
>

i thought i explained this already
the crop circles is the ready-made PREMISE on which he based the film
his goal is not to change that, but to present some aliens that we suppose create them

>
>
>>- there's every indication that the aliens we saw were not
>>supposed to be the geniuses that designed the ships. you
>seen
>>them endangering themselves needlessly and getting trapped
>in
>>cupboards. why the fuck would you assume they're SUPPOSED to
>>be real smart? lol
>
>LOL - THERE IS NO FUCKING INDICATION OF THAT WHATSOEVER!
>
>You are just copping pleas for manoj and it's pathetic.
>

i don't see why you refuse to make the logical connection between
1. the aliens acting dumb, getting locked in cupboards etc
2. the idea that they are SUPPOSED to be dumb

i mean in star trek the borg seem pretty dumb (as a race) until you realize the nature of their intelligence


>>- do any of them get caught in the rain? no
>
>uh, point is there is water all over this planet.
>

yeah, and they avoid the water, as it states in the film

>>- when you're walking about invisible and the only danger is
>>PEOPLE throwing water at you, is it a suicide mission? no
>
>A) they weren't 'invisible'
>B) they didn't just skulk about in the shadows and leave, they
>came out of hiding and went after PEOPLE.
>

they had active-camouflage, and they managed to catch/hunt a lot of humans before everyone got wise to using water as a projectile weapon

>
>>if you can't live with any of this then you're going to have
>>trouble with a lot of classic sci-fi dawg. the aliens of
>>course are not under scientific focus.
>
>LOL - you're the one who can't live with this and have to pull
>all this shit out of your ass to try to explain away all the
>fucking absurd shit in the movie. and it's not about
>'scientific focus' as much as it is about common fucking
>sense.
>
>>the main objective is
>>to bring them into a domestic setting so you can have scenes
>>like 'there's an alien in my pantry' and the alien showing
>up
>>in the living room at the end. but that doesn't mean it's
>>unabashedly nonsensical or self-contradictory
>
>it didn't have to be, but the way manoj did it it was. and the
>movie sucks as a result.
>
>

it's not serious speculative fiction, the idea of throwing water to kill them is borderline comic (the idea of fighting them in the street with Super-Soaker 2000s...) but stuff like 'the earth is 70% water' 'there's water vapour in the atmosphere,' 'it tends to rain' is not pertinent, it does not prove people are smarter than Shyamalan for realizing this, and it does not debunk the plot. if the aliens started setting up camp it would be a different matter, like 'their unchecked advance through the metropoli of north america was halted on july 7th in Detroit, when eight year old Chucky S Thurman threw a water balloon at one of the hostiles, unexpectedly causing its body to decompose,' but there is no indication of that, they come and go, their fleet unperturbed

look, this has gotten quite abrasive
i've been trying to tone it down over the last few posts
it probably started in that global warming thread where i was playing devil's advocate and starting every post with 'no.' and ending with 'LOL'
i didn't really mean it to get like this
:-(
seriously though
but.... whateva

>and please say some shit like signs was "corny" or some shit,
>because i love how a white woman being a ninja isn't corny.

this is a hard comparison to make but i don't see how m night would even be considered remotely better then tarantino. m. night's first(well first that put him on the map) the sixth sense although its a good movie is not better then reservoir dogs. his second unbreakable another decent effort can't touch pulp fiction. m night's third signs was good for what it was and tarantino's jackie brown was decent the two are pretty difficult to compare so i'll leave that up to you guys, up next was the village which i thought was absolutely terrible then tarantino had kill bill no contest there. and i didn't even bother watching lady in the water so i won't comment on that. shyamalan's problem is that he's trying too hard to please his audience and it's been back firing on him, both him and tarantino have had success pretty early on but tarantino is out making movies that he wants to make and that he finds entertaining he doesn't really care about what anyone else wants to see while shyamalan is trying to please viewers.

I'll just go ahead and ditch my Tarantino bias for a second.

1. Box Office:

QT -
Reservoir Dogs: $2,687,008 (USA) (7 March 1993)
Pulp Fiction: $107,928,762 (USA) (sub-total)
Jackie Brown: $39,647,595 (USA) (22 March 1998)
Kill Bill Vol. 1: $70,098,138 (USA) (23 May 2004)
Kill Bill Vol. 2: $66,207,920 (USA) (22 August 2004)
Grindhouse*: $13,848,178 (11 April 2007)

* = I'm counting this one in the QT camp even though he's only responsible for half of it.

Night -

Wide Awake: $258,212 (USA) (5 April 1998)
The Sixth Sense: $293,501,675 (USA) (14 May 2000)
Unbreakable: $94,999,143 (USA) (15 April 2001)
Signs: $227,965,690 (USA) (2 February 2003)
The Village: $114,195,633 (USA) (28 November 2004)
Lady in the Water: $42,272,747 (USA) (24 September 2006)

The Winner: Night by a longshot.



2. Awards -

QT: 1 Oscar (Best Original Screenplay - Pulp Fiction), Nominated for 2 Academy Awards (Best Original Screenplay - Pulp Fiction, Best Director - Pulp Fiction). 0 Emmys, 1 Emmy Nomination (Outstanding Direction - CSI). 1 Golden Globe (Best Screenplay - Pulp Fiction), 2 Golden Globe Nominations (Best Screenplay - Pulp Fiction, Best Director - Pulp Fiction)

Night: 0 Oscars, Nominated for 2 Academy Awards (Best Director - Sixth Sense, Best Original Screenplay - Sixth Sense). 0 Golden Globes, Nominated for 1 Golden Globe (Best Screenplay - Sixth Sense)

Both of their breakthrough films were nominated for Best Picture in the year they were released, neither of them won.

The Winner: QT.



3. Critical Acclaim (via RottenTomatoes.com) -

QT:
Reservoir Dogs - 95%
Pulp Fiction - 96%
Jackie Brown - 85%
Kill Bill Vol. 1 - 84%
Kill Bill Vol. 2 - 85%
Grindhouse - 82%

Night:

Wide Awake - 43%
The Sixth Sense - 84%
Unbreakable - 67%
Signs - 75%
The Village - 43%
Lady in the Water - 24%

The Winner: QT



4. Career Outside of Writing/Directing Feature Films:

This one is obviously subjective, but I think you've gotta give it to Tarantino. He's done more writing (From Dusk Till Dawn, True Romance, Natural Born Killers), other directing (CSI, Four Rooms, Sin City), and the big one: producing. He's brought over some films that have done extremely well over here such as Iron Monkey and Hero and then was instrumental in bringing us Hostel (which I haven't seen but it killed at the box office). Night has stuck to his films...which is obviously fine, but not as profitable.

The Winner: QT.



5. The Less Annoying One:

The Winner: Night.



6. The Better Actor:

The Winner: Neither.

I caught your tricknologing ass!!

IT COUNTS!

15% and under 3 million and it had madonna in it. i'd say that gives the edge to m. night.

GOOD!

*eating lox on dat bagel wit

GODDAMN...i dropped it. HAHAHAHAHAHA!!

so

Tarantino's average would still be higher...plus that wasn't HIS project (though I guess it would count). I liked Rodriguez and Tarantino's portions of it myself.

Oh yeah and (edit): I didn't leave it off, I just didn't count it as a Tarantino project. Nobody calls that a Tarantino film like they do Grindhouse (which is also a collaborative project but it's much bigger than a 20 minute sequence). If I left in Four Rooms, I might as well leave Sin City to Tarantino. I did include it in another section though.

and i hope sanjaya win dat idol. GO AMERICA!

than m night, who has made 1 good movie...yes QT is over rated, but damn m night hasnt done shit since 6th sense

unbreakable i enjoyed, and the end completely ruined it for me
village and lady in the water are both ass

at least qt did reservoir dogs and pulp fiction (tho im sure u hate those movies as well)

and people keep giving him passes because of them

the Village was some bullshit, tho.

But then so was Jackie Brown, Kill Bill, and 3/4 of pulp fiction.

And Unbreakable is one of the best comicbook movies ever.

nm

>>Who will have the better career when it's all said and done.

^^^^this is the question.


Because right now, I think Tarantino is on E of his creative tank (if he ever was creative), and he is rehashing his once cool/hip/slickster/filmgeek ideas and trying to pass them off as great, i.e. Death Proof. And next is his so-called "war epic" Inglorious Bastards. This sounds like it has the potential of a break or bust move for Tarantino.

That rehashing of hipster jive sh*t is getting old. And if you can tell by Grindhouse's box-office sales, nobody really cares anymore. And the plea coppage is hilarious. I mean, some are even clowning media/critic darling Will Ferrell's Blades of Glory in defense of Grindhouse's lack of appeal. lol

Tarantino has it made. He has the critics on his d*ck and he can do no wrong. He has a niche-type fanbase, that equated mainstream ticket sales (before Grindhouse).

But I think Pulp Fiction was a blessing and a curse for Tarantino. Its not that great of a movie,although it has him set financially for the rest of his life and given him basically total creative freedom and independence. But the success of Pulp Fiction catapulting Tarantino as the critics darling, may ultimately be his downfall. What they praise as perfection, is actually a medicore and flawed way of directing movies. Tarantino was a hack who hit the jackpot.

So when it is all said and done, if you take away the feet,the filmgeek trivia, the homages, and artificial and trivial dialogue of Tarantino, what do you really have?

a medicore director, whose long-term career is in question.

I think M. Night will do fine. He is legit. Critics hate him because he is good and M. Night wants to go down in history and be able to sit down at the table with the Speilbergs of cinema. Nah. Critics. The nerve of him? lol aint' having that. They gonna shoot him down every chance they get. But, like Spike Lee, M. Night ain't going away. When you are good, they may hate you, but they can't deny you.

I think the real question is for Tarantino. As much praise as he gets, can he really sit at the table of Scorsese, Coppala, DePalma, Speilberg, Spike (yeah I said it) with his body of work?

I think the answer is a resounding no.

I think Rob Rodriguez has better a long-term future than Tarantino. I don't see Rob trying to sit at the table though of the big greats. He just trying get paid and make movies people can enjoy and not compartmentalize.

But for Tarantino. You can only get over for so long, before you have to evolve. He has yet to do that yet. Maybe because he doesn't want to and is still basking in the glory of his unconditional love from crtics. Or maybe he doesn't evolve because he is incapable of doing so.

I'm looking dead at Ryan's excellent breakdown, complete with "stats"

But I'm guessing that won't be good enough, because it produces the "wrong" outcome

Longo's also asked for a breakdown, and hasn't gotten it

This poll is a sandtrap. Any answer other than Shyamalan will invite accusations of being "mad," "hipster pretension," film geek bias (which kinda goes hand-in-hand with "hipster pretension"), media hype bias, racial self-hatred, and God knows what else.
______________________________________________________________________
sing it for your nation y'all

>I'm looking dead at Ryan's excellent breakdown, complete with
>"stats"
>
>But I'm guessing that won't be good enough, because it
>produces the "wrong" outcome
>
>Longo's also asked for a breakdown, and hasn't gotten it


Who will have the better career when it's all said and done?

That was Basa's question.

calm down, inhale-exhale.

I've already noted how I like both filmmakers in previous posts here

But that's not acceptable, it's either T-------- hate, or bust
_______________________________________________________________________
sing it for your nation y'all

______________________________________________________________________
sing it for your nation y'all

tarantino or m night?

>>>Who will have the better career when it's all said and
>done.
>
>^^^^this is the question.
>
>
>Because right now, I think Tarantino is on E of his creative
>tank (if he ever was creative), and he is rehashing his once
>cool/hip/slickster/filmgeek ideas and trying to pass them off
>as great, i.e. Death Proof. And next is his so-called "war
>epic" Inglorious Bastards. This sounds like it has the
>potential of a break or bust move for Tarantino.
>
>That rehashing of hipster jive sh*t is getting old. And if you
>can tell by Grindhouse's box-office sales, nobody really cares
>anymore. And the plea coppage is hilarious. I mean, some are
>even clowning media/critic darling Will Ferrell's Blades of
>Glory in defense of Grindhouse's lack of appeal. lol
>
>Tarantino has it made. He has the critics on his d*ck and he
>can do no wrong. He has a niche-type fanbase, that equated
>mainstream ticket sales (before Grindhouse).
>
>But I think Pulp Fiction was a blessing and a curse for
>Tarantino. Its not that great of a movie,although it has him
>set financially for the rest of his life and given him
>basically total creative freedom and independence. But the
>success of Pulp Fiction catapulting Tarantino as the critics
>darling, may ultimately be his downfall. What they praise as
>perfection, is actually a medicore and flawed way of directing
>movies. Tarantino was a hack who hit the jackpot.
>
>So when it is all said and done, if you take away the feet,the
>filmgeek trivia, the homages, and artificial and trivial
>dialogue of Tarantino, what do you really have?
>
>a medicore director, whose long-term career is in question.
>
>I think M. Night will do fine. He is legit. Critics hate him
>because he is good and M. Night wants to go down in history
>and be able to sit down at the table with the Speilbergs of
>cinema. Nah. Critics. The nerve of him? lol aint' having that.
>They gonna shoot him down every chance they get. But, like
>Spike Lee, M. Night ain't going away. When you are good, they
>may hate you, but they can't deny you.
>
>I think the real question is for Tarantino. As much praise as
>he gets, can he really sit at the table of Scorsese, Coppala,
>DePalma, Speilberg, Spike (yeah I said it) with his body of
>work?
>
>I think the answer is a resounding no.
>
>I think Rob Rodriguez has better a long-term future than
>Tarantino. I don't see Rob trying to sit at the table though
>of the big greats. He just trying get paid and make movies
>people can enjoy and not compartmentalize.
>
>But for Tarantino. You can only get over for so long, before
>you have to evolve. He has yet to do that yet. Maybe because
>he doesn't want to and is still basking in the glory of his
>unconditional love from crtics. Or maybe he doesn't evolve
>because he is incapable of doing so.

but he has never, ever, EVER known how to tell a proper story.

and that's okay... personally, i actually don't think the story is necessarily the most important thing in a movie. but i know that the majority of people DO look for things like that.

>But the
>success of Pulp Fiction catapulting Tarantino as the critics
>darling, may ultimately be his downfall. What they praise as
>perfection, is actually a medicore and flawed way of directing
>movies. Tarantino was a hack who hit the jackpot.

a hack?

look... i'm not trying to say that Pulp Fiction reinvented the wheel, but if you're honest, you'll admit that it was at the very least a fresh, crisply-constructed screenplay that re-oriented a lot of people's minds about how you can tell a story in American cinema.

(ditto his screenplays for Natural Born Killers and True Romance, even though they were not filmed in their proper format)

>So when it is all said and done, if you take away the feet,the
>filmgeek trivia, the homages, and artificial and trivial
>dialogue of Tarantino, what do you really have?

why should you take those things away, though? those are part of hsi style.

>I think the real question is for Tarantino. As much praise as
>he gets, can he really sit at the table of Scorsese, Coppala,
>DePalma, Speilberg, Spike (yeah I said it) with his body of
>work?

his body of work is actually much less spotty than that of Coppolla or DePalma's. or even Scorsese's.

yeah, you may say that Jackie Brown sucked (others feel it's his best film... me? i think it's aiight) but does QT have a chinless monster like Gangs of New York in his body of work? or a masturbatory turkey like Body Double? or a blatant paycheck grab like John Grisham's The Rainmaker?


>But for Tarantino. You can only get over for so long, before
>you have to evolve. He has yet to do that yet. Maybe because
>he doesn't want to and is still basking in the glory of his
>unconditional love from crtics. Or maybe he doesn't evolve
>because he is incapable of doing so.

Kill Bill was actually an evolution.

for a filmmaker known primarily for talkiness to make a movie that puts action above dialogue... that was evolution, whether or not you actually liked the movie.

>
>>But the
>>success of Pulp Fiction catapulting Tarantino as the critics
>>darling, may ultimately be his downfall. What they praise as
>>perfection, is actually a medicore and flawed way of
>directing
>>movies. Tarantino was a hack who hit the jackpot.
>
>a hack?
>
>look... i'm not trying to say that Pulp Fiction reinvented the
>wheel, but if you're honest, you'll admit that it was at the
>very least a fresh, crisply-constructed screenplay that
>re-oriented a lot of people's minds about how you can tell a
>story in American cinema.
>

it really wasn't anything. and it hasn't aged well either.

he got lucky.

i'm a hip-hop fan, who loves lyrics. so, it was fresh from the dialogue, but the pacing of that movie was horrendous.

but was the screenplay seemless? no. it had its dull moments and lulls.

what Pulp Fiction did was give wannabe directors false-hope and wannabe intellectual buffs and film critics an erection. A movie they can dissect until the cows come home and make something Quentin didn't even intend for it to be.

>(ditto his screenplays for Natural Born Killers and True
>Romance, even though they were not filmed in their proper
>format)
>

I think Resovoir Dogs was one his best film and screenplay (along with Kill Bill). And deserves a heck of lot more praise than Pulp.


>>So when it is all said and done, if you take away the
>feet,the
>>filmgeek trivia, the homages, and artificial and trivial
>>dialogue of Tarantino, what do you really have?
>
>why should you take those things away, though? those are part
>of hsi style.
>

But that style is getting played out. Death Proof wreaked of rehashing moments of Tarantino's stuff. And it gets back to Basaglia's original point. When its all said and done, who will have the better career? Rehashing once-fresh ideas and is a tall-tale sign of the begining of the end.


>>I think the real question is for Tarantino. As much praise
>as
>>he gets, can he really sit at the table of Scorsese,
>Coppala,
>>DePalma, Speilberg, Spike (yeah I said it) with his body of
>>work?
>
>his body of work is actually much less spotty than that of
>Coppolla or DePalma's. or even Scorsese's.
>

Take their greatet works, respectively, and put them against Tarantino's?

It ain't the same sandwich (c) Bamboo.


>yeah, you may say that Jackie Brown sucked (others feel it's
>his best film... me? i think it's aiight)

I thought it was alright, myself. I think its better than Pulp. Jackie Brown was flat though. There was no rise, no peak, just one plateau .And it was his most straight and narrow movie to date. It did not suck. But people who panned it mostly was because it lacked that plethora of hipset bullsh*t that Pulp had.


>>But for Tarantino. You can only get over for so long, before
>>you have to evolve. He has yet to do that yet. Maybe because
>>he doesn't want to and is still basking in the glory of his
>>unconditional love from crtics. Or maybe he doesn't evolve
>>because he is incapable of doing so.
>
>Kill Bill was actually an evolution.
>
>for a filmmaker known primarily for talkiness to make a movie
>that puts action above dialogue... that was evolution, whether
>or not you actually liked the movie.

Point taken. I liked Vol.1 and Vol.2 as well. Kill Bill and Reservoir Dogs are his best work.

But...

He has regressed with Death Proof and took several steps back by resting on his old sh*t that was once hip and slick, but now stale and tired.

because it seems that the anti-QT camp always makes a lot of really radical and somewhat baseless statements in order to support their arguments.

(no disrespect, jam... you know i love you)

>it really wasn't anything. and it hasn't aged well either.
>
>he got lucky.

jambone... if you tell me that you don't like Pulp Fiction, i will just have to say "okay... your opinion" and walk away.

when you say that it hasn't aged well, i will agree with you to a *certain* degree (most things from the early 90s in general look tacky to me now)

when you say "it wasn't anything" and "he got lucky"... well, then i will have to say that you are either bugging or hating.

if you mean "he got lucky that it was a smash hit," then okay.

but if you mean "he got lucky that it was a good script"... come on, now. a screenplay like that doesn't happen by luck.

and if you want to say "it wasn't nothing," i will just have to ask you to compare it to other movies that were coming out at that time and see how it stands out.

>i'm a hip-hop fan, who loves lyrics. so, it was fresh from
>the dialogue, but the pacing of that movie was horrendous.
>
>but was the screenplay seemless? no. it had its dull moments
>and lulls.

i personally don't think it had that many dull moments... maybe some of the stuff with Travolta and Uma was just a *teensy* bit overlong... but again, if that's your opinion, then fine.

>what Pulp Fiction did was give wannabe directors false-hope
>and wannabe intellectual buffs and film critics an erection. A
>movie they can dissect until the cows come home and make
>something Quentin didn't even intend for it to be.

why not talk about the qualities (or lack thereof) of the actual movie, rather than its sociological effects, though? because if the latter is what you want to base things on, then QT *definitely* will have a greater legacy than M. Night.


>But that style is getting played out. Death Proof wreaked of
>rehashing moments of Tarantino's stuff. And it gets back to
>Basaglia's original point. When its all said and done, who
>will have the better career? Rehashing once-fresh ideas and is
>a tall-tale sign of the begining of the end.

M. Night's style is even more played-out, though. we all know that it's gonna be some massive twist!

(and if you want to talk about rehashing once-fresh ideas, M. Night's twists tend not to even be surprises... he takes his plots from 1950s EC horror and suspense comics, "Twilight Zone" episodes and old movies like Carnival of Souls.

QT also takes elements of old movies, but unlike M. Night, the plot is not necessarily the most important thing about his movies. even if Reservoir Dogs borrows from City on Fire, you're still entertained by the crackling dialogue. even if you know that The Bride is gonna kill everybody at the end of Kill Bill, you still stick around for the sheer *spectacle* of the proceedings.

with M. Night, it's all driven by the plot which he has built up to be such a big surprise... and if you figure out the surprise early, the rest of the movie is essentially meaningless)

>>his body of work is actually much less spotty than that of
>>Coppolla or DePalma's. or even Scorsese's.
>>
>
>Take their greatet works, respectively, and put them against
>Tarantino's?
>
>It ain't the same sandwich (c) Bamboo.

but you talked about the entire bodies of work, though... not their best against his best

(though i do feel that the best of QT *sons* the best of DePalma, who i think is a passionless hack)


>But...
>
>He has regressed with Death Proof and took several steps back
>by resting on his old sh*t that was once hip and slick, but
>now stale and tired.

i can't tell you that Death Proof is by any means my favorite of his work... but it was an entertaining and moderately successful experiment.

i've refrained from confronting you on your passionate praise for Planet Terror which actually made me incredibly angry when i was watching it, though. *that* was a really regressive movie, IMHO.

>because it seems that the anti-QT camp always makes a lot of
>really radical and somewhat baseless statements in order to
>support their arguments.
>
>(no disrespect, jam... you know i love you)
>

its all goood.

much respect.

>>it really wasn't anything. and it hasn't aged well either.
>>
>>he got lucky.
>
>jambone... if you tell me that you don't like Pulp Fiction, i
>will just have to say "okay... your opinion" and walk away.
>
>when you say that it hasn't aged well, i will agree with you
>to a *certain* degree (most things from the early 90s in
>general look tacky to me now)
>
>when you say "it wasn't anything" and "he got lucky"... well,
>then i will have to say that you are either bugging or
>hating.
>
>if you mean "he got lucky that it was a smash hit," then
>okay.
>
>but if you mean "he got lucky that it was a good script"...
>come on, now. a screenplay like that doesn't happen by luck.
>

no, the former.

he got lucky that it was a smash hit. it became frankenstein.

i'm not saying it was a sh*tty screenplay, no.

i'm saying its not that great of a film.

i think its a travesty that Quentin is measured by Pulp as opposed to Kill Bill or Reservoir Dogs, which, imo, are better works and shows more of his directorial skills than Pulp does.

>>He has regressed with Death Proof and took several steps
>back
>>by resting on his old sh*t that was once hip and slick, but
>>now stale and tired.
>
>i can't tell you that Death Proof is by any means my favorite
>of his work... but it was an entertaining and moderately
>successful experiment.
>

see, it was a failure, and really insulting to his so-called talent.

Death Proof was made by a guy who would fellate himself if he could. Quentin is really starting to believe his own hype and it showed. His ego is the downfall of this movie. His dialgoue, which he thinks everybody wants to hear and well love instantly, was terrible. The movie dragged on forever. He thinks he is raising the bar by being a man and writing dialgoue for women. He isn't. The car chase scene was boring. No suspense. The film is Quentin's homage to himself and not to the genre(s).

Death Proof was a bad movie. A glass 3/4's empty.

>i've refrained from confronting you on your passionate praise
>for Planet Terror which actually made me incredibly angry when
>i was watching it, though. *that* was a really regressive
>movie, IMHO.

lol. Why did it make you angry? Planet Terror was what it was, an enjoyabe movie. Is it going to cure cancer? No. Will it go down in history as one of the finest moments of cinema? No. But you can't compartmentalize Planet Terror. You either can enjoy for what its worth or you don't.

I liked Planet Terror, because its not taking itself seriously. Quentin takes himself waaaaaaaaay too seriously. And because of it, he failed with Death Proof. Death Proof was all about Quentin. Planet Terror was all about the audience.

if you wanna say that he was lucky that Pup Fiction turned out to be the massive smash and acclaimed modern-day "classic" that it's turned out to be, then i agree.

and if you say that it's not even his best work... again, i will agree.

but it still IS a damn good movie.

>Death Proof was made by a guy who would fellate himself if he
>could. Quentin is really starting to believe his own hype and
>it showed. His ego is the downfall of this movie. His
>dialgoue, which he thinks everybody wants to hear and well
>love instantly, was terrible. The movie dragged on forever. He
>thinks he is raising the bar by being a man and writing
>dialgoue for women. He isn't. The car chase scene was boring.
>No suspense. The film is Quentin's homage to himself and not
>to the genre(s).

but you know what? part of QT's appeal IS the (self-)mythology that surrounds him... i don't see that as a shortcoming at all.

it's actually the same situation with Spike Lee... was the first or only or even the best Black director making movies in the 1980s and 90s?

of course not.

it's just that he was such a massive self-promoter who imprinted his personality on every movie or TV show or commercial he ever shot. he created a BRAND. when you watch a Spike Lee Joint, like it or hate it, you *know* you are watching Spike Lee.

it's like that with a LOT of great directors, actually... Scorsese, De Palma, Spielberg, Woody Allen, Hitchcock.. you name 'em. ultimately, their movies are really about THEMSELVES.

and there's nothing wrong with that. it's actually the thing that distinguishes great directors from merely competent ones.

>Death Proof was a bad movie. A glass 3/4's empty.

i don't think it's a bad movie at all. i'm tempted to go see it again, but i'm really daunted by the prospect of having to sit through Planet Terror again.

>lol. Why did it make you angry? Planet Terror was what it was,
>an enjoyabe movie. Is it going to cure cancer? No. Will it go
>down in histor as one of the finest moments of cinema? No. But
>you can't compartmentalize Planet Terror. You either can enjoy
>for or you don't.

i really hated Planet Terror because it was obvious that Rodriguez didn't have the love or even the knowledge of the genre that he was supposedly spoofing.

all the jokes were so overdone... like the crappy-looking computer-generated grain he threw onto his (digital video) image to that part in the love scene where the "film" burns up.

what annoyed me is that he attempted to pay tribute to bad movies by MAKING a bad movie... i hate that shit. i think it's kinda cheating... pre-emptively copping a plea for being inept.

it reminds me of when Craig Kilborn was the host of "The Daily Show" and his jokes were never funny. but if you pointed out that he was not funny, YOU were the loser because you didn't get the joke... which is that he's not funny!

so when you watch Planet Terror and it makes no narrative sense, and Marley Shelton's character breaks her hand when she's trynna open the car door, if you ask why her hand is perfectly unharmed 5 seconds later, you're a loser because you're "taking it too seriously."

i mean, i get spoofs... i understand parody. but "Mad TV" has done (funnier) spoofs than this that were 10 minutes long, not an hour and a half.

and in the age of YouTube, you see spoofs like this all over the Internet for free. i was really offended that i had to pay $10 to see something like this (even if it had better production values than YouTube shit).

with Death Proof... QT did something different: he tried to pay tribute to bad movies by making a GOOD movie. did he succeed? not all the way... but he tried.

i think making a bad movie on purpose is just too cheap, too easy... it's the loser's way out and it's insulting to the audience.

but i AM glad so many people seem to like Planet Terror even though i hated every frame of it... because for a while i felt sorry and embarrassed for Rodriguez. now i can just say "different strokes... i guess the movie wasn't made for people like me" and shrug it off.

damn, i'm rambling... but that's how mad Planet Terror made me!

and she hate me

QT makes ass and everyone goes "oh, it's an ode to blah blah...you don't get it...it's soooo cool"

some bullshit. that shit ryan posted should tell you all you need to know about QT and critics.

is the fact that Crooklyn is a very UN-Spike movie

as for She Hate Me... well, that movie is just a mess. but there are still a lot of people who defend it.

it just happens that QT's cheerleading brigade is larger and broader than Spike's, but they both get crazy passes.

>is the fact that Crooklyn is a very UN-Spike movie


>as for She Hate Me... well, that movie is just a mess. but
>there are still a lot of people who defend it.

i don't.

>it just happens that QT's cheerleading brigade is larger and
>broader than Spike's, but they both get crazy passes.

and that's why he had no reviews below 80% on RT. except four rooms, which thnakfully was realeased before the internet boom, considering that sites counts lots of reviews from nerds with websites...nerds that grew up loving QT.

>>Death Proof was made by a guy who would fellate himself if
>he
>>could. Quentin is really starting to believe his own hype
>and
>>it showed. His ego is the downfall of this movie. His
>>dialgoue, which he thinks everybody wants to hear and well
>>love instantly, was terrible. The movie dragged on forever.
>He
>>thinks he is raising the bar by being a man and writing
>>dialgoue for women. He isn't. The car chase scene was
>boring.
>>No suspense. The film is Quentin's homage to himself and not
>>to the genre(s).
>
>but you know what? part of QT's appeal IS the (self-)mythology
>that surrounds him... i don't see that as a shortcoming at
>all.
>
>it's actually the same situation with Spike Lee... was the
>first or only or even the best Black director making movies in
>the 1980s and 90s?
>
>of course not.
>
>it's just that he was such a massive self-promoter who
>imprinted his personality on every movie or TV show or
>commercial he ever shot. he created a BRAND. when you watch a
>Spike Lee Joint, like it or hate it, you *know* you are
>watching Spike Lee.
>
>it's like that with a LOT of great directors, actually...
>Scorsese, De Palma, Spielberg, Woody Allen, Hitchcock.. you
>name 'em. ultimately, their movies are really about
>THEMSELVES.
>
>and there's nothing wrong with that. it's actually the thing
>that distinguishes great directors from merely competent
>ones.
>

But here is the thing. Thats fine if it works. If it doesn't work, then what? And in Death Proof, it was a hindrance.

Dialogue and writing is supposedly Quentin's forte, right? But the dialgoue sucked, it was annoying, and it was stale. And he was totally dependent on his old ideas that used to work. How many foot shots did we have to see over and over again? How many old movies did they have to mention every single time? It didn't work.



>what annoyed me is that he attempted to pay tribute to bad
>movies by MAKING a bad movie... i hate that shit. i think it's
>kinda cheating... pre-emptively copping a plea for being
>inept.
>

Quentin falls in this category with Death Proof.

Not Rodriguez. These films are right up Rob's alley. He can do these in his sleep. Desperado, Dusk till Dawn, Sin City,

>so when you watch Planet Terror and it makes no narrative
>sense, and Marley Shelton's character breaks her hand when
>she's trynna open the car door, if you ask why her hand is
>perfectly unharmed 5 seconds later, you're a loser because
>you're "taking it too seriously."
>

no, it was funny.

mofos busted out laughing when she broke her hand in the theatre.

>with Death Proof... QT did something different: he tried to
>pay tribute to bad movies by making a GOOD movie. did he
>succeed? not all the way... but he tried.
>

QT didn't do anything but revere himself.

The only thing Death Proof was about was "hey look at me, look how brilliant I am. Look, I'm a man writing dialogue for women, and it sounds so cotdamn natural. i'm a genius....look Ma, no CGI!! I'm a real director...i got a stunt women who looks just like my muse, UMA, and i'm going to make her a star....i'm going to make Sydney Portier's daughter a star...i'm going to give Kurt Russel his career back just like I did Travolta...I'm Quentin Tarantino...and I'm great...and damn I can write dialogue for black people...I'm white and I know how black people act and talk better than a lot of black people do...i'm so cool and such a genius...i should fellate myself...wait till they hear my dialogue...Shakespeare who?".


>i think making a bad movie on purpose is just too cheap, too
>easy... it's the loser's way out and it's insulting to the
>audience.
>
>but i AM glad so many people seem to like Planet Terror even
>though i hated every frame of it... because for a while i felt
>sorry and embarrassed for Rodriguez. now i can just say
>"different strokes... i guess the movie wasn't made for people
>like me" and shrug it off.
>

Nah, i think Tarantino is in that boat.

Rob will move on do his Sin City's and Machete's, keep making the movies he tends to make.

But Tarantino? Its kind of murky of what his future holds.

>But here is the thing. Thats fine if it works. If it doesn't
>work, then what? And in Death Proof, it was a hindrance.

i don't think it was.

in talking about this movie (and himself, obviously) QT has alluded a lot to the fact that he feels like he is jerking the audience off and he wants to make the audience cum, but first he wants to tease them... delay the pleasure... play with them.

while i do think that the talky sequences went on too long, i understand what he was *trying* to do there.

he knows we've all seen these kinds of movies... we know what's gonna happen next and we're waiting for it... but he's gonna fuck with us a bit first.

see... to me, that is trying to do something new with an old format, and it's much more creative than doing an A = A parody with all the jokes surrounded by big blinking neon lights.

there's lots of playing with the audience expectations in the movie... like at the very beginning where Vanessa Ferlito is running up the stairs screaming that she's gotta take a massive piss... because QT knows that *we* in the audience have probably got to piss too, after sitting through Death Proof....

(mind you, i'm not saying that small, subtle touches like this should make Death Proof a great movie if you already hate it, but i'm just pointing out the pattern of deliberately manipulating the audience.)

>How
>many foot shots did we have to see over and over again? How
>many old movies did they have to mention every single time? It
>didn't work.

and how many times does Spike Lee have to use that dolly shot to make characters look like they're gliding?

(i'm sorry to keep bringing up Spike, but he's just a good candidate to illustrate the way directors have certain tropes and trademarks that they return to again and again, for better or worse)

>Quentin falls in this category with Death Proof.
>
>Not Rodriguez. These films are right up Rob's alley. He can do
>these in his sleep. Desperado, Dusk till Dawn, Sin City,

exactly... he *can* make these movies in his sleep, and that's part of the problem.

apart from El Mariachi, the only Rodriguez film that does not fall apart narratively before the end is Sin City... and that is based on someone else's script.

Rodriguez obviously has a problem with storytelling... he's even admitted it himself. what Planet Terror does is give him an opportunity to engage in some poor storytelling with the caveat that he's "being bad on purpose" because he's spoofing bad movies.

i personally think that's really cheap. i know some people like that kind of thing, though.

but it's suspect to me when your "bad on purpose" shit is really the same as your "regaular" shit.

and make no mistake: i LOVE Rodriguez... but let's be real about his shortcomings.

>>so when you watch Planet Terror and it makes no narrative
>>sense, and Marley Shelton's character breaks her hand when
>>she's trynna open the car door, if you ask why her hand is
>>perfectly unharmed 5 seconds later, you're a loser because
>>you're "taking it too seriously."
>>
>
>no, it was funny.
>
>mofos busted out laughing when she broke her hand in the
>theatre.

yeah, it was funny when she broke her hand.

but the thing about storytelling is that it requires *commitment.*

when you decide to break a character's hand because you think it's funny, you are *stuck* with the broken hand and you have got to make it work from there on out for the rest of the story.

if you need the character to drive a car 5 seconds later, you are stuck with that broken hand (and actually, if you are smart... you should actually be able to use that broken hand as an opportunity to milk further laughs and suspense)

but breaking the hand to get a big laugh and then immediately fixing the hand because you need the character to use it again... it's just cheap pandering and bad storytelling. and it's worse when you try to pass it off as "bad on purpose."

>>with Death Proof... QT did something different: he tried to
>>pay tribute to bad movies by making a GOOD movie. did he
>>succeed? not all the way... but he tried.
>
>QT didn't do anything but revere himself.

so the car chase was not thrilling to you?


>Rob will move on do his Sin City's and Machete's, keep making
>the movies he tends to make.
>
>But Tarantino? Its kind of murky of what his future holds.

Tarantino will most likely keep on making the kinds of movies he wants to make, too... and as you guys have stated, he DOES tend to get a pass, so they will most likely be well-accepted even if they are not that great.

i don't think he's worried at all.

>in talking about this movie (and himself, obviously) QT has
>alluded a lot to the fact that he feels like he is jerking the
>audience off and he wants to make the audience cum, but first
>he wants to tease them... delay the pleasure... play with
>them.
>
>while i do think that the talky sequences went on too long, i
>understand what he was *trying* to do there.
>

okay, I got you.

maybe he was *trying*.

he did a bad job of it.

and, he also mentioned about how great his dialogue was for this movie, and that it was his best dialogue yet. So much so, he said he sent it to Bob Dylan.

so okay, i hear you about teasing the audience and all that, but that is a poor excuse or guise to simply show-off dialogue Tarantino thinks is breath-taking.

Again, his ego is his downfall.

I get it. Its like I said before, the concept is great, the execution is poor. And when you are conceited, drowning in your own pool of your own arrogance, its hard to fully flesh out ideas w/ great results.

>he knows we've all seen these kinds of movies... we know
>what's gonna happen next and we're waiting for it... but he's
>gonna fuck with us a bit first.
>

and he did a bad job of doing it.

i tell you what was a great tease, the opening sequence of Kill Bill Vol. 2 That was great dialogue between B and Bill,and you knew what was going to happen next. The tension was building throughout. That was great writing. That was great directing.

Death Proof had none of that.

>see... to me, that is trying to do something new with an old
>format, and it's much more creative than doing an A = A parody
>with all the jokes surrounded by big blinking neon lights.
>

see, i hear you, but it came off more as Quentin trying to show how great he is and under the guise of come see this homage to the 70's.

>there's lots of playing with the audience expectations in the
>movie... like at the very beginning where Vanessa Ferlito is
>running up the stairs screaming that she's gotta take a
>massive piss... because QT knows that *we* in the audience
>have probably got to piss too, after sitting through Death
>Proof....
>

stretch, maybe?

first thing that came to my mind, is that are we going to see her take them drawers off when she was holding herself. lol

I mean, that sequence was all about Eye Candy. Not about the audience and if they got to take a piss. I mean Sydney bending over in her undies with the ass shot, and then Vanessa running, grabbing her crotch, and then the shot of annoying little blonde chick.


>(mind you, i'm not saying that small, subtle touches like this
>should make Death Proof a great movie if you already hate it,
>but i'm just pointing out the pattern of deliberately
>manipulating the audience.)
>

i don't hate Death Proof.

i thought he did a bad job of directing and writing with Death Proof.

The he had some indredients, but the dish was awful.

>>How
>>many foot shots did we have to see over and over again? How
>>many old movies did they have to mention every single time?
>It
>>didn't work.
>
>and how many times does Spike Lee have to use that dolly shot
>to make characters look like they're gliding?
>

Again, Spike has run that into the ground too. But how many dolly shots are shown throught out the movie. Usually, its a few seconds shot. I mean there were feet everywhere for the 1st half of the movie.

>(i'm sorry to keep bringing up Spike, but he's just a good
>candidate to illustrate the way directors have certain tropes
>and trademarks that they return to again and again, for better
>or worse)
>

i understand. Its not ALL bad. Like when Sydney was dancing to the music, and she kept shaking her head and hair to go along with the beat while they were in the bar. It was unnecessary, but it was great style points. lol I loooooved that part.

>>Quentin falls in this category with Death Proof.
>>
>>Not Rodriguez. These films are right up Rob's alley. He can
>do
>>these in his sleep. Desperado, Dusk till Dawn, Sin City,
>
>exactly... he *can* make these movies in his sleep, and that's
>part of the problem.
>
>apart from El Mariachi, the only Rodriguez film that does not
>fall apart narratively before the end is Sin City... and that
>is based on someone else's script.
>
>Rodriguez obviously has a problem with storytelling... he's
>even admitted it himself. what Planet Terror does is give him
>an opportunity to engage in some poor storytelling with the
>caveat that he's "being bad on purpose" because he's spoofing
>bad movies.
>
>i personally think that's really cheap. i know some people
>like that kind of thing, though.
>

I feel Quentin is guilty of this.

With Rob, he has his flaws. But he doesn't really care. He made a Rob Rodriguez movie with Planet Terror.

With Quentin, Death Proof was a shell of Quentin's former self.

>but it's suspect to me when your "bad on purpose" shit is
>really the same as your "regaular" shit.
>

is Planet Terror NOT some of Rodriguez's regular sh*t?

Sin City, Dusk till Dawn, and Desparado? Over the top movies, with non-sensical and exaggerated humor.

no?

>and make no mistake: i LOVE Rodriguez... but let's be real
>about his shortcomings.
>

Like you said, Rob is real about his shortcomings. But is Quentin and fanbase real about Quentin's shortcomings? I think that is the bigger question, that goes unanswered.


>yeah, it was funny when she broke her hand.
>
>but the thing about storytelling is that it requires
>*commitment.*
>
>when you decide to break a character's hand because you think
>it's funny, you are *stuck* with the broken hand and you have
>got to make it work from there on out for the rest of the
>story.
>
>if you need the character to drive a car 5 seconds later, you
>are stuck with that broken hand (and actually, if you are
>smart... you should actually be able to use that broken hand
>as an opportunity to milk further laughs and suspense)
>
>but breaking the hand to get a big laugh and then immediately
>fixing the hand because you need the character to use it
>again... it's just cheap pandering and bad storytelling. and
>it's worse when you try to pass it off as "bad on purpose."
>

correct me if i'm wrong,but her hand wasn't fix when she was trying to start the car and drive, no? her hand were still f*cked up. she was trying to start the car forever, and then she had to use the upper part of her forearms to steer, no?

>>>with Death Proof... QT did something different: he tried to
>>>pay tribute to bad movies by making a GOOD movie. did he
>>>succeed? not all the way... but he tried.
>>
>>QT didn't do anything but revere himself.
>
>so the car chase was not thrilling to you?
>

no. i was waiting for the movie to end so badly.

what was thrilling was the first car episode and Stuntman Mike killing Rose McGowan and then the build-up and crash with the 1st set of 4 girls. That was good.

>
>>Rob will move on do his Sin City's and Machete's, keep
>making
>>the movies he tends to make.
>>
>>But Tarantino? Its kind of murky of what his future holds.
>
>Tarantino will most likely keep on making the kinds of movies
>he wants to make, too... and as you guys have stated, he DOES
>tend to get a pass, so they will most likely be well-accepted
>even if they are not that great.
>
>i don't think he's worried at all.
>

And thats the problem. Him not worrying is when complacency seeps in. And its all over Death Proof.

Death Proof is definitely a very self-satisfied movie... and it IS an ode to himself as much as it is to grindhouse cinema.

i just don't find that as bothersome as you do, though... for one thing, i don't think of this as a real "Quentin Tarantino Joint" per se... it looks to me like two friends just got together and did a movie they thought would be fun and which they MUST have known would have limited appeal.

folks are acting like the commercial or artistic failure of this movie signals the beginning of the end of QT or RR's careers. i don't see that.

it was a self-indulgent idea that they both indulged in with their respective indulgent styles... it's them basically *celebrating* the fact that they're both big enough to get away with making movies like this.

>>there's lots of playing with the audience expectations in
>the
>>movie... like at the very beginning where Vanessa Ferlito is
>>running up the stairs screaming that she's gotta take a
>>massive piss... because QT knows that *we* in the audience
>>have probably got to piss too, after sitting through Death
>>Proof....
>>
>
>stretch, maybe?

no... i don't think it's a stretch at all. it leapt right out at me because i had to piss like a racehorse at that point and seeing her needing to piss on screen just made it worse!


>Again, Spike has run that into the ground too. But how many
>dolly shots are shown throught out the movie. Usually, its a
>few seconds shot. I mean there were feet everywhere for the
>1st half of the movie.

he wanted it to be sexy... QT has a sort of pre-adolescent aversion to blatant sexuality so foot fetishism is a sort of code - a metaphor if you will - for sexuality in his movies. i think it's weird too, but it's just something you accept when you walk through the door.

(i was actually surprised he focused so much on ass and tits, though... usually, he seems a bit scared/embarrassed to go there)


>is Planet Terror NOT some of Rodriguez's regular sh*t?
>
>Sin City, Dusk till Dawn, and Desparado? Over the top movies,
>with non-sensical and exaggerated humor.
>
>no?

yeah, but the "bad" parts are ratcheted up.

dunno why, but that really offended me. maybe it's because i tend to watch RR's movies on DVD and i can accept some of his shortcomings in a home video setting much more than in the theater, where i feel my time and money are being wasted.


>Like you said, Rob is real about his shortcomings. But is
>Quentin and fanbase real about Quentin's shortcomings? I think
>that is the bigger question, that goes unanswered.

i know there are some real QT zealots who are totally out of touch with reality, but i'd say *most* regular QT fans are pretty realistic about his strengths and weaknesses.


>correct me if i'm wrong,but her hand wasn't fix when she was
>trying to start the car and drive, no? her hand were still
>f*cked up. she was trying to start the car forever, and then
>she had to use the upper part of her forearms to steer, no?

her hand was still paralyzed, but it was not broken.

and when the paralysis wore off later in the movie, her hand was completely fine.

it was just a desperate grab for a big laugh in one scene without any follow-up or commitment after that.

i don't mean to harp on it, but i just find that one scene to be representative about a *lot* of things that i hated about the movie (and some of RR's other movies too)


>>so the car chase was not thrilling to you?
>>
>
>no. i was waiting for the movie to end so badly.

okay.

>Death Proof is definitely a very self-satisfied movie... and
>it IS an ode to himself as much as it is to grindhouse
>cinema.
>
>i just don't find that as bothersome as you do, though...

its not bothersome, its just bad.

>for
>one thing, i don't think of this as a real "Quentin Tarantino
>Joint" per se... it looks to me like two friends just got
>together and did a movie they thought would be fun and which
>they MUST have known would have limited appeal.
>


They never thought that. I know Quentin didn't. Weinsteins sure didn't. Nobody expected the numbers they had in the 1st week, until after the fact. Issues weren't brought up until after the fact.

>folks are acting like the commercial or artistic failure of
>this movie signals the beginning of the end of QT or RR's
>careers. i don't see that.
>

Not RR's.

But because QT tried make his part of the film, he is greatest dialogueyet, and then you finally see the final product of Death Proof, it kind of raises a red flag. And this could be the beginning of the end, if he continues down this road (no pun intended), he may fall on his face.

You know, its funny how Quentin made the character of Stuntman Mike. Stuntman Mike in the movie and his fate may be actually be Quentin.

>it was a self-indulgent idea that they both indulged in with
>their respective indulgent styles... it's them basically
>*celebrating* the fact that they're both big enough to get
>away with making movies like this.
>

i mean, over-the-top movies are made all the time. what their doing is nothing new. Particularly, Rob. Its his thing. And Quentin is always paying homages anyway.

Quentin's name is the bigger draw, and word is getting around, that the sh*t ain't that good.

And I think that is why you aren't seeing the response they had anticipated. The Weinsteins want to blame it on external factors instead of looking in the mirror.

>no... i don't think it's a stretch at all. it leapt right out
>at me because i had to piss like a racehorse at that point and
>seeing her needing to piss on screen just made it worse!
>

lol.


>
>he wanted it to be sexy... QT has a sort of pre-adolescent
>aversion to blatant sexuality so foot fetishism is a sort of
>code - a metaphor if you will - for sexuality in his movies. i
>think it's weird too, but it's just something you accept when
>you walk through the door.
>
>(i was actually surprised he focused so much on ass and tits,
>though... usually, he seems a bit scared/embarrassed to go
>there)


Yeah, i remember him saying that he hated porn movies and they repulsed them. I don't know. A lot of times I think its just schtick. He likes to put the feet in their. I think its part of his self-created mythology,than it is his psychological makeup.

In terms of the ass shots, I wished the chicks had asses. lol

I mean there were some serious ironing board ass issues with them broads in Death Proof.

>>Like you said, Rob is real about his shortcomings. But is
>>Quentin and fanbase real about Quentin's shortcomings? I
>think
>>that is the bigger question, that goes unanswered.
>
>i know there are some real QT zealots who are totally out of
>touch with reality, but i'd say *most* regular QT fans are
>pretty realistic about his strengths and weaknesses.
>

i'd be curious to know what do you think his strengths and weaknesses are, particulalry his weaknesses?

but at the same time, it's not like i want to see Ki-Toy and Buffie up in there... it woulda been too distracted.

i think a lot of those girls had fairly "regular girl" bodies, and that was attractive. they were sexy.


>i'd be curious to know what do you think his strengths and
>weaknesses are, particulalry his weaknesses?

well, we know that the dialogue tends to be a bit indulgent, and in general, i never found him to be that interesting as a *director*

i mean, i've always loved Quentin as a WRITER, but as a director his stuff always seemed very visually flat to me. not as flat as Kevin Smith, but still... just visually inert.

of course, he changed my mind about that with Kill Bill. and even Death Proof, which he acted as Director of Photography on himself (something he's never done before). so he *is* stepping up his visual game... he *is* evolving.

prior to that, a lot of his screenplays were more like one-act stage plays to me... simple set-up and then miles and miles of talking.

but other than that, QT has really helped to rvolutionize the way American films are written: he wasn't the first to realize that as long as a screenplay has a beginning, middle and end that they didn't have to come in that order, but he used that conceit in a more ingenious way than just about anybody before him.

his dialogue was witty and refreshing, and added new dimensions to the kind of characters who would have been stock cut-outs in movies before him.

one of the QT's biggest strengths, though... is the fact that he just flat-out LOVES movies and it shines through in all his work. even when the movie doesn't come together the way that it should, you still get the sense that this dude is genuinely excited about what he is doing, and that kind of excitement is infectious.

he's always bragged that he's never done any movie for money and that he never will. he'll do other things for money if he has to, but when it comes to his movies... it's all about the love.

i admire that.

>but at the same time, it's not like i want to see Ki-Toy and
>Buffie up in there... it woulda been too distracted.
>
>i think a lot of those girls had fairly "regular girl" bodies,
>and that was attractive. they were sexy.
>

i loved the italian chick from brooklyn. And Sydney's daughter was nice too.


>
>>i'd be curious to know what do you think his strengths and
>>weaknesses are, particulalry his weaknesses?
>
>well, we know that the dialogue tends to be a bit indulgent,
>and in general, i never found him to be that interesting as a
>*director*
>
>i mean, i've always loved Quentin as a WRITER, but as a
>director his stuff always seemed very visually flat to me. not
>as flat as Kevin Smith, but still... just visually inert.
>
>of course, he changed my mind about that with Kill Bill. and
>even Death Proof, which he acted as Director of Photography on
>himself (something he's never done before). so he *is*
>stepping up his visual game... he *is* evolving.
>
>prior to that, a lot of his screenplays were more like one-act
>stage plays to me... simple set-up and then miles and miles of
>talking.
>


i agree. i always felte like his movies were plays too. They never felt "directed" if that makes sense. His movies tend to drag on and on a lot. Even in his great works like Kill Bill and Reservoir, there are periods of time where there is a lag in time. Like 10 minutes of the movie feels like 30 minutes. 15 minutes feels like 35 minutes. He never really took advantage of him directing a movie (the visuals) until Kill Bill. It seems with Death Proof, he went back to his old way of doing things but w/o the same creative zest.

>
>his dialogue was witty and refreshing, and added new
>dimensions to the kind of characters who would have been stock
>cut-outs in movies before him.
>

it was great slick-talk. i've always thought that Quentin should have been a rapper. He would make a great lyricist.

>one of the QT's biggest strengths, though... is the fact that
>he just flat-out LOVES movies and it shines through in all his
>work. even when the movie doesn't come together the way that
>it should, you still get the sense that this dude is genuinely
>excited about what he is doing, and that kind of excitement is
>infectious.
>

i think so,and he is a geek/nerd. Dude is a walking encyclopedia of movies AND music. He has a great ear for songs and song placement in his movies. He would have been a great DJ.


>he's always bragged that he's never done any movie for money
>and that he never will. he'll do other things for money if he
>has to, but when it comes to his movies... it's all about the
>love.
>

I don't buy that though. (no pun intended). He loves money. And he does make movies for money. He wants to get paid. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. He is shrewd and astute person and businessman. He knows his audience (including his critics) to a tee. And that love you speak of is slowly evaporating and turning into conceit.

or he doesn't want to make money

but i can't see him making a movie with money as the sole - or even the main - motivation, like Francis Ford Coppolla phoning in "John Grisham's The Rainmaker" for a paycheck.

i really believe that any movie QT makes, he makes it because he is truly excited about the material and feels that he has something unique to say.

the closest thing to phoning in he's ever done is probably Jackie Brown... and even then he had Pam Grier and Robert Forster to keep him interested.

>The only thing Death Proof was about was "hey look at me, look
>how brilliant I am. Look, I'm a man writing dialogue for
>women, and it sounds so cotdamn natural. i'm a genius....look
>Ma, no CGI!! I'm a real director...i got a stunt women who
>looks just like my muse, UMA, and i'm going to make her a
>star....i'm going to make Sydney Portier's daughter a
>star...i'm going to give Kurt Russel his career back just like
>I did Travolta...I'm Quentin Tarantino...and I'm great...and
>damn I can write dialogue for black people...I'm white and I
>know how black people act and talk better than a lot of black
>people do...i'm so cool and such a genius...i should fellate
>myself...wait till they hear my dialogue...Shakespeare who?".

and from Jambone, no less!

.

>I think M. Night will do fine. He is legit. Critics hate him
>because he is good and M. Night wants to go down in history
>and be able to sit down at the table with the Speilbergs of
>cinema. Nah. Critics. The nerve of him? lol aint' having that.
>They gonna shoot him down every chance they get. But, like
>Spike Lee, M. Night ain't going away. When you are good, they
>may hate you, but they can't deny you.

Guys, M. Night's last two movies were BAD. And I'm a passionate defender of both Unbreakable and Signs, both of which I think are terrific. The guy CLEARLY has a degree of talent, especially in the directing portion.

But the last two movies were bad, bad, bad. The Village was well directed but AWFULLY written, and Lady in the Water had nothing redeemable that I could note about it. Maybe a good original score. Decent special effects. *shrug*

Critics did not hate M. Night until his last two movies. But they were hated for a reason. Because they're bad.

I can hear all criticisms of QT and totally, completely understand them. But the talk of M. Night going down as a classic director is boggling my mind right now.

>
>>I think M. Night will do fine. He is legit. Critics hate him
>>because he is good and M. Night wants to go down in history
>>and be able to sit down at the table with the Speilbergs of
>>cinema. Nah. Critics. The nerve of him? lol aint' having
>that.
>>They gonna shoot him down every chance they get. But, like
>>Spike Lee, M. Night ain't going away. When you are good,
>they
>>may hate you, but they can't deny you.
>
>Guys, M. Night's last two movies were BAD. And I'm a
>passionate defender of both Unbreakable and Signs, both of
>which I think are terrific. The guy CLEARLY has a degree of
>talent, especially in the directing portion.
>
>But the last two movies were bad, bad, bad. The Village was
>well directed but AWFULLY written, and Lady in the Water had
>nothing redeemable that I could note about it. Maybe a good
>original score. Decent special effects. *shrug*
>

Death Proof was bad and poorly directed and AWFULLY written.

Critics still love it.

>Critics did not hate M. Night until his last two movies. But
>they were hated for a reason. Because they're bad.
>

Death Proof was bad and poorly directed and AWFULLY written.

Critics still love it.

Your point?

If Quentin makes a bad movie, which he has, he will not get the vitriolic onslaught of criticism that M. Night has recently received. Never.


>I can hear all criticisms of QT and totally, completely
>understand them. But the talk of M. Night going down as a
>classic director is boggling my mind right now.

who said he was going down as a classic director? lol.

again, folks get sensitive and defensive when it comes to Tarantino. I don't know what it is, but they really do.

You can't have a rational conversation about Tarantino and how he stands amongst his peers in the field, without folks getting their underoos in a bunch.

I wonder why? Maybe they know something they don't want to admit. lol

They were definitely mixed on it. Some said Rodriguez made a GREAT B movie and Tarantino's was downright boring, or some said Death Proof was the best part of Grindhouse. Overall the movie got like an 82% from Rottentomatoes, but if they were to rate the films seperately, I'd have to think that from the reviews I've read that Death Proof would be around 65% or so.

>They were definitely mixed on it. Some said Rodriguez made a
>GREAT B movie and Tarantino's was downright boring, or some
>said Death Proof was the best part of Grindhouse. Overall the
>movie got like an 82% from Rottentomatoes, but if they were to
>rate the films seperately, I'd have to think that from the
>reviews I've read that Death Proof would be around 65% or so.

the movies aren't separated, though.

and those who did critique Tarantino, gave him a pass.

Its a bad movie. the reviews should not be mixed at all.

Let M. Night make the same exact movie. They would rip him a new one.

His last two movies were terrible. Period. That's why critics hated them. Because they were bad.

Say what you will about QT. I go back and forth on the guy, depending on the movie.

But M. Night's last two movies were bad. Bad, bad, bad. That's why critics hate him. That's why his career and legitimacy are being questioned. Cuz he made one great movie, two good movies (in my opinion really good movies), and after that made two real stinkers. People wonder if there's another good one in him.

So again, say what you will about QT. I'm not talking about him. I'm talking about the defense of M. Night saying critics unfairly shit on him. They did NOT start roundly shitting on him until his last two movies, both of which deserved to be shitted on.

didn't rodriquez made lava boy or some shit? did he get shit on? and he made the shitty ass faculty...did he get shit on constantly?

how come when other young directors make shit, people cop pleas like "he was experimenting"...fuck outta here

i can't wait to see how the young hipster critics reconcile m. night dogg hatred and marky mark jockery for "the happening"

>didn't rodriquez made lava boy or some shit?

Yeah but he didn't start w/ Sixth Sense

Had M started w/ some shit like Signs, no one would be giving a fuck when he's makes more crap along the same vein such as Lady in the Water or The Village. Since Sixth Sense was so good of a debut, you tend to expect that the director will continue to impress. He's been fallin off worse & worse by the wayside with each picture since then.

>didn't rodriquez made lava boy or some shit? did he get shit
>on?

Yes. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/adventures_of_shark_boy_and_lava_girl/

It got awful reviews and several reviews questioned why he'd waste his talent making this tripe.

and he made the shitty ass faculty...did he get shit on
>constantly?

Yes. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/faculty/

It was called a ripoff of other scary movies. AND since Kevin Williamson was the "hot" horror writer at the time, Rodriguez got a lot of the blame.

>how come when other young directors make shit, people cop
>pleas like "he was experimenting"...fuck outta here

Lady in the Water was just that: a failed experiment. But when your last movie sucked as much as The Village did, you're given no room for failure.

That applies to other directors too. When you make a big money picture that fails, if your next film is an "experiment" then it better be good. Soderbergh came under a lot of fire for following Solaris with Full Frontal. Shyamalan followed The Village with Lady in the Water, a type of experiment that costs a lot of money to make, and they advertised the HELL out of it, yet it still didn't succeed the way they wanted it to. You fail with a big film, and the next one isn't a sure thing, it better better BETTER be good.

Again, the critics didn't hate M. Night until The Village, which was bad. He then followed it with an experiment, which was almost worse.

>i can't wait to see how the young hipster critics reconcile m.
>night dogg hatred and marky mark jockery for "the happening"

I would love to see M. Night direct a movie he didn't write. I think where he's slipped recently has been in large part in his writing. He's a talented director, and most reviews (even the scathing ones) say he creates a clear mood, scores some nice visuals, and has shown the capacity to do better.

I think his storytelling is fine, it's the stories he's choosing to tell that are letting him down.

people talking shit like m. night is done. that's crazy talk.

>people talking shit like m. night is done. that's crazy talk.
>

I loved 6th sense.

Thought Unbreakable was pretty good but the ending was terrible.

Signs is 1 of the better comedies over the past decade or so.

Didn't bother with his last 2 flicks after hearing how bad they were.

Not so crazy to label him done dunn.

as much money as his movies have made and he's done because is last one bombed.

disregard critical acclaim...village made MONEY. one bomb ain't gonna ruin dude.

only muhfuckas who want his career to be over honestly believe there's a chance in hell he can't get his next movie financed.

>as much money as his movies have made and he's done because
>is last one bombed.
>
>disregard critical acclaim...village made MONEY. one bomb
>ain't gonna ruin dude.
>
>only muhfuckas who want his career to be over honestly believe
>there's a chance in hell he can't get his next movie financed.

Ok he might not be done getting his movies financed. When people say he's done, I assume they're referring to whether or not he's done making good movies. Lately it certainly seems so. Hopefully he still has som'n left in the tank tho because he is a talented director.

No one's saying Ice Cube's done just because his movies are all dumb now. But M. Night used to make great movies. And he doesn't anymore (or at least hasn't his past 2).

I've been saying for awhile that people are far too quick to dismiss directors nowadays, and Night is definitely in that category. I mean look at "classic" directors and the shit they made inbetween amazing films. Night's still capable of making something great, I don't doubt that.

no one cares about lava boy cause thats a kid movie that was obviously made for the money and the faculty he had no choice but to do it cause in his previous contract it stated that he had to direct a movie of the studios choosing and they gave him that. thats why he made those kids movies, they make millions of dollars studio heads are happy and give him creative control over whatever kind of movie he wants to make, like grindhouse

>And I'm a
>passionate defender of both Unbreakable and Signs, both of
>which I think are terrific.

M night is one more bad movie away from being a wrap

I thought Kill Bill was bannanas

QT fades M Night easily imo

Nothing M Night ever did is messing with Pulp Fiction or Resevoir Dogs or even Kill Bill



M Night needs a dope movie like yesterday

The gripes with M. Night are different than QT. Critics gripe that M. Night isn't matching his potential. We can't tell if QT is matching his because every film he puts out is a homage to something. Personally, I don't think we'll be able to gauge exactly good QT really is until he jumps out of doing homages. I personally think that QT is our George Romero except his genre is homages to old genres.

While I think QT has been more consistent in writing than M. Night, M. Night IS the better director. More than likely, M. Night will follow the Spike Lee route (film-wise) and have to a couple of "director-for-hire" movies here and there so he can keep doing his thing.

QT, on the other hand, will keep making films as long as the Weinsteins keep giving him money. QT makes a profit off every film because he makes them quickly and cheaply. No studio is cutting ties with directors that will turn a profit. Grindhouse may be seen as a flop because of its Easter weekend opening but it WILL turn a profit.




"Being the bigger man is overrated." -- Huey (The Boondocks)

http://www.myspace.com/dozingoff

i'd be bothered if m. dogg had that worst.

Nobody refers to New York Stories as a Woody Allen film, or a Marty Scorsese film, or a Coppola film. Those anthologies are generally bad ideas for directors. Nonetheless I dug the second half of Four Rooms.

>Nobody refers to New York Stories as a Woody Allen film, or a
>Marty Scorsese film, or a Coppola film. Those anthologies are
>generally bad ideas for directors. Nonetheless I dug the
>second half of Four Rooms.

*Rushes out to see Wild Hogs*

apprently, he can't make a bad movie, because we're just supposed to be entertained (like america has been by wild hogs) and give him a pass.

so, if that's the case, if people aren't entertained enough to tell their friends to see, i guess it's some shit. 'cause nobody wanna see grindhouse

have u seen m night's wide awake? or his first feature praying with anger?? those r two shitty films way worse then four corners will ever be so i don't know what you're talking about tarantino having the worst one cause that's only a segment in a four part movie these are two features that sucked ass and put those with the village and lady in the water and you have 4 shitty ass movies by one writer/directer

wide awake is no where near awful.

furthurmore, it shows m. night dogg can make something DIFFERENT than what he's known for, which QT will not, because he cannot.

you just mad.

stop hating

you think that pulp fiction is a lesser film than the 6th sense?
you think reservoir dogs is a lesser film than unbreakable?
i think all weve established here is that you have no taste
peace

n/m

it's still getting made?

Both of them are way overrated

I just watched that Lady in the Water movie a few weeks ago. I have to admit that I liked it. Overall I think critics hated on it because he hated on them with the movie critic who was an ass and got... and they hated the fact that he played a character that was suppose to write something that would change the world. They figured M. Night's an arrogant and pretension little bastard.

i expected that movie to be HORRIBLE...like color of night/night of the lepus bad.

Shit was actually a pretty entertaining fable.

Critics wasn't feeling a critique of criticism, tho...

Basically, Tarantino has the clout -- deserved or not -- to do whatever he wants.

Shyamalan threw a public hissy fit (via a book) when the studio head suggested his script wasn't up to snuff, then he later agreed that some of the suggested changes had to be made. Oh, and had to go make it at another studio.

I guess it all depends on your definition of better career, but by my definition it's Tarantino in a landslide. Frankly, I'd be suspect of any definition that didn't include having the greatest degree of artistic freedom.

And I have no reason to suspect anything will change in the future. While Tarantino hasn't enjoyed a huge box office, Grindhouse was his first real dud (fuck Four Rooms); all the rest of them connected with their intended audience and were critically hits. Shyamalan's movies haven't all been well received and, due to higher budgets, have had their box office receipts more scrutinized. Lady in the Water was his first true dud, though.

And no I'm not a Tarantino fan. I've enjoyed more Shyamalan's movies (even going back to his first film, Praying with Anger). However, Shyamalan's movies are targeted at a broader audience, so when they don't hit the majority of the target, it's a higher profile failing. At that level, you can only be off the mark so many times.

Tarantino clearly isn't for everyone (me included) and he isn't trying to be. Except for Grindhouse, he is right on the money with his target everytime. So, as long as he isn't trying to make $150 million epics, no one is going to bother him about what he wants to do next.

RED
http://arrena.blogspot.com

Minimal name-calling and dude's going on the defensive. A LOT less back and forth than we usually get from QT posts, and some decent dialog.

Forget what I said about the back and forth by the way.

ALLAHU AKBAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Completely blindsided me.

anyone saying m night is a dumb motherfucker

and that's borne out by the posters saying so

the WORLD has spoken, too.

and God, as he's allowed m. night dogg more success.

you mad?

no, why should i be?

i watch movies for my own enjoyment. i'm not a cheerleader.

that shit is laughable.

as far as comparing these two filmmakers, tarantino has never made a movie as wack as 'the village' or 'lady in the water'.

few filmmakers have.

>as far as comparing these two filmmakers, tarantino has never
>made a movie as wack as 'the village' or 'lady in the water'.

M.Night is far more skilled, a better storyteller, far more thoughful.

Tarantino's fratboy schtick is old and tired.


>few filmmakers have.
>


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


O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.



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

(C)Keith Murray, "Cosmic Slop

but i'll take your word for it

your opinion carrying so much weight and all

lol

actually a good movie. I thought it was a microcosm for what really goes on in certain countries, keep em in fear so that they can maintain a certain way of life. M.Night is inspired by Hitchcock and also by his own Spiritual journey, so those influences are most often conveyed in his movies. QT is a pop culture buff, and grew up on gangster flix, cowboy movies, scary movies, kung-fu flix, comic books, etc... and that influences much of his work. it really don't think you can compare either, they have created their own lanes. Only thing you can compare is numbers, and M. Night is killing him by a long shot.

how efficient of PTP.




http://fuck-your.blogspot.com
http://www.myspace.com/insightclopediabrown
http://www.myspace.com/dumhi
http://www.youtube.com/group/okayplayer
http://www.last.fm/user/DawgEatah
R.I.P. 3rd i