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.