>It sucked and films like that only gets made>because sympathetic people continue to make>excuses for bad movie tastes. No, it was fucking awesome and lots of people loved it. Of course, it's all subjective so I'm not wasting my time going back and forth about it. If you want to keep attacking, have a ball. >It sucked, and there are thousands of filmmakers,>some who post on here(not me, btw) who deserve that>opportunity and audience. Nope. Tarantino has earned his opportunities, fame and success by making dope as fuck movies. >Tarantino gets it because he's magically manufactured>an aura, "Magically manufactured an aura"? Do you even realize what a steaming pile of shit this entire argument is?His success, and his "magical aura", are the result of him making numerous movies that are fucking awesome and that millions of people love. But to you he's just a magician who gets by on smoke, mirrors, and propaganda. See, there's no point discussing things with you. >and people automatically think its good >just because its supposed to be good. But WHY is it supposed to be good? How did this magical aura come about? Is he a magician? Did he buy it? How did the sheep become convinced that QT was a genius if he's really a talentless hack?As Jay said:"I heard mother fuckers saying they made HovMade Hov say, "Okay, so, make another Hov" "If people only like QT's movies because they're "supposed" to like them - how did it become that way?You say it's hype - where did the hype come from?Did he find a leprechaun and wish for fame and success? Did he rub a genie's lamp?Is he really the luckiest man alive, then? Must be, if he's been tapped as the guy everybody is "supposed" to like, even though you say he makes crappy movies with nothing redeeming about them. >Nothing, at all, redeeming about that movie. Except that it was awesome and people loved it.