More dramas for Wizards Of The Coast?

[CRKrueger]

You guys are shopping at a different Amazon than me then. I get tons of decent stuff from them.

If you know a specific model from a specific brand that you’re looking for, you’re ok. If you’re just looking for some type of appliance or tech item, you’ll be inundated with dogshit. Unfortunately for Baulderstone, standing lamps are one of the worst items you can try to buy online.

 

[Agemegos]

For me the costs of books is a consideration. Seventy dollars I think is getting too steep.

When I bought AD&D, which was in 1980, the PHB and MM cost A$25 each and the DMG was either A$30 or $35. (We had a steep import duty on books ostensibly to protect the local publishing industry, and the price of my physics and chemistry textbooks made my eyes water). A$80 in 1980 was equivalent to A$362 now in comparison to consumer-goods prices and equivalent to A$699 now in comparison to wages and salaries.

The Australian dollar exchanged for more than a US dollar in 1980 and for about US65¢ now. So think of paying US$235–$454 for an RPG.

 

[BedrockBrendan]

When I bought AD&D, which was in 1980, the PHB and MM cost A$25 each and the DMG was either A$30 or $35. (We had a steep import duty on books ostensibly to protect the local publishing industry, and the price of my physics and chemistry textbooks made my eyes water). A$80 in 1980 was equivalent to A$362 now in comparison to consumer-goods prices and equivalent to A$699 now in comparison to wages and salaries.

The Australian dollar exchanged for more than a US dollar in 1980 and for about US65¢ now.

Well I don't think 362 dollars would be reasonable at all for the core books. But when I bought the AD&D 2E PHB it was 20 bucks (if you look up the 1989 edition, the price is still on the back cover. With inflation that comes to something like 48.93 or 46.42 (if you count inflation from 1990 when I likely bought it).

But again a lot of this just boils down to how much people are willing to spend on a game book. My point here has been prices across the board are going up for people, RPG books and similar items are likely to be the first thing on the chopping block if you are trying to budget. That is especially the case with a game like D&D that requires the purchase of 3 core books.

If WOTC were a small company, I could understand charging 50, maybe 60 if they have to. But they aren't a small a company. They benefit from ordering large print runs (print runs the size of which they have bragged about) and one benefit of large print runs is lower cost per unit. I think they could keep prices down if they wanted to. But as we all know, they think D&D is being under-monetized.

 

[Baulderstone]

Well I don't think 362 dollars would be reasonable at all for the core books. But when I bought the AD&D 2E PHB it was 20 bucks (if you look up the 1989 edition, the price is still on the back cover. With inflation that comes to something like 48.93 or 46.42 (if you count inflation from 1990 when I likely bought it).

But again a lot of this just boils down to how much people are willing to spend on a game book. My point here has been prices across the board are going up for people, RPG books and similar items are likely to be the first thing on the chopping block if you are trying to budget. That is especially the case with a game like D&D that requires the purchase of 3 core books.

If WOTC were a small company, I could understand charging 50, maybe 60 if they have to. But they aren't a small a company. They benefit from ordering large print runs (print runs the size of which they have bragged about) and one benefit of large print runs is lower cost per unit. I think they could keep prices down if they wanted to. But as we all know, they think D&D is being under-monetized.

Another consideration is that they aren't planning to make money off the books. They are planning to make money off their online subscription for D&D players. The more books they get in people's hands, the larger the potential customer base for their service grows. If they really have faith in this whole VTT thing, they should be pricing the books as loss leaders.

 

[Agemegos]

Another consideration is that they aren't planning to make money off the books. They are planning to make money off their online subscription for D&D players.

Until, perhaps, someone asks "why not both?".

 

[Mankcam]

I want to see Leonardio DeCaprio play a Bard holidaying in Waterdeep during the "Hot Student Summer Fayre".

EXTRA EXTRA:

Hasbro: "We Finally Rolled A 20!"

Hollywood is alight with the news that Quentin Tarrantino's final masterpiece now has a new title:

" Reservoir Dungeons: Once Upon A Time In Waterdeep"

Details are sketchy, but lead roles have been confirmed, with Brad Pitt playing the role of "The Rogue", alongside Leonardo DiCaprio, who will be playing the role of "The Bard".

A sprawling ensemble cast is rumoured to be on board with appearances from notable names including Samuel L. Jackson, Tim Roth, Ian McShane, Zoe Saldana, Harvey Keital, Christoph Waltz, Ed Harris, Kurt Russel, Brad Dourif, Titus Welliver, Bruce Dern, Juliette Lewis, Timothy Oliphant, Salma Hayek, Norman Reedus, Jamie Foxx, Steve Bucemi, Mads Mikkelsen, Uma Thurman, Jeffrey Wright, Zoe Bell, Woody Harrelson, Ben Mendelsohn, Travis Fimmel, Walter Goggins, Michael Madsen, Tom Waits, and Danny Trejo, as yet in unconfirmed supporting roles.

The plot is rumoured to be inspired from one of Tarrantino's famous epic one-shot D&D sessions that was alleged to run a full weekend after one of the esteemed Director's infamous private screenings, during which the participants allegedly played 48 hours straight of classic OSR rules.

It is unclear if the scenario goals were fully resolved, or if it was an actual TPK; although several insiders have speculated that neither outcome is mutually exclusive.

'Blades & Blood', Tarrantino's new D&D OSR heartbreaker rpg, has seen sales go thru the roof in recent weeks with news of this film tie-in announcement

Watch PUBTube tonight for live stream of Blades & Blood, with mystery Mod GM hosting 4 hrs non-stop gaming action!

 

[S'mon]

I think the implication is that the show's new game (tie-in) is a horror game set in the early part of the 20th century/late 19th.

I disagree with Discourse Minis & the other pundits who think the CR show Candela Obscura will hurt Call of Cthulu. CO seems to be set in a very Steampunk, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen style fantasy version of the early 20th century (ca 1895-1920), which AFAICS is not the 1920s New England-with-tentacles Call of Cthulu setting at all.

 

[Bunch]

EXTRA EXTRA:

Hasbro: "We Finally Rolled A 20!"

Hollywood is alight with the news that Quentin Tarrantino's final masterpiece now has a new title:

" Reservoir Dungeons: Once Upon A Time In Waterdeep"

Details are sketchy, but lead roles have been confirmed, with Brad Pitt playing the role of "The Rogue", alongside Leonardo DiCaprio, who will be playing the role of "The Bard".

A sprawling ensemble cast is rumoured to be on board with appearances from notable names including Samuel L. Jackson, Tim Roth, Ian McShane, Zoe Saldana, Harvey Keital, Christoph Waltz, Ed Harris, Kurt Russel, Brad Dourif, Titus Welliver, Bruce Dern, Juliette Lewis, Timothy Oliphant, Salma Hayek, Norman Reedus, Jamie Foxx, Steve Bucemi, Mads Mikkelsen, Uma Thurman, Jeffrey Wright, Zoe Bell, Woody Harrelson, Ben Mendelsohn, Travis Fimmel, Walter Goggins, Michael Madsen, Tom Waits, and Danny Trejo, as yet in unconfirmed supporting roles.

The plot is rumoured to be inspired from one of Tarrantino's famous epic one-shot D&D sessions that was alleged to run a full weekend after one of the esteemed Director's infamous private screenings, during which the participants allegedly played 48 hours straight of classic OSR rules.

It is unclear if the scenario goals were fully resolved, or if it was an actual TPK; although several insiders have speculated that neither outcome is mutually exclusive.

'Blades & Blood', Tarrantino's new D&D OSR heartbreaker rpg, has seen sales go thru the roof in recent weeks with news of this film tie-in announcement

Watch PUBTube tonight for live stream of Blades & Blood, with mystery Mod GM hosting 4 hrs non-stop gaming action!

That is one old adventuring party. Are those people all alive or is necromancy involved?

 

[sharps54]

I disagree with Discourse Minis & the other pundits who think the CR show Candela Obscura will hurt Call of Cthulu. CO seems to be set in a very Steampunk, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen style fantasy version of the early 20th century (ca 1895-1920), which AFAICS is not the 1920s New England-with-tentacles Call of Cthulu setting at all.

I don’t think it will hurt CoC but I never saw CoC as only in 1920’s New England. We always used it for whenever and wherever we wanted.

 

[Gringnr]

EXTRA EXTRA:

Hasbro: "We Finally Rolled A 20!"

Hollywood is alight with the news that Quentin Tarrantino's final masterpiece now has a new title:

" Reservoir Dungeons: Once Upon A Time In Waterdeep"

Details are sketchy, but lead roles have been confirmed, with Brad Pitt playing the role of "The Rogue", alongside Leonardo DiCaprio, who will be playing the role of "The Bard".

A sprawling ensemble cast is rumoured to be on board with appearances from notable names including Samuel L. Jackson, Tim Roth, Ian McShane, Zoe Saldana, Harvey Keital, Christoph Waltz, Ed Harris, Kurt Russel, Brad Dourif, Titus Welliver, Bruce Dern, Juliette Lewis, Timothy Oliphant, Salma Hayek, Norman Reedus, Jamie Foxx, Steve Bucemi, Mads Mikkelsen, Uma Thurman, Jeffrey Wright, Zoe Bell, Woody Harrelson, Ben Mendelsohn, Travis Fimmel, Walter Goggins, Michael Madsen, Tom Waits, and Danny Trejo, as yet in unconfirmed supporting roles.

The plot is rumoured to be inspired from one of Tarrantino's famous epic one-shot D&D sessions that was alleged to run a full weekend after one of the esteemed Director's infamous private screenings, during which the participants allegedly played 48 hours straight of classic OSR rules.

It is unclear if the scenario goals were fully resolved, or if it was an actual TPK; although several insiders have speculated that neither outcome is mutually exclusive.

'Blades & Blood', Tarrantino's new D&D OSR heartbreaker rpg, has seen sales go thru the roof in recent weeks with news of this film tie-in announcement

Watch PUBTube tonight for live stream of Blades & Blood, with mystery Mod GM hosting 4 hrs non-stop gaming action!

In true Tarantino style, both movie and game would be eerily similar to earlier, more obscure works, which Tarantino would then claim not to be familiar with.

 

[Baulderstone]

In true Tarantino style, both movie and game would be eerily similar to earlier, more obscure works, which Tarantino would then claim not to be familiar with.

Are we talking about the same Tarantino who championed Hong Kong movies in the US? The guy who will talk at length about old movies at the slightest opportunity? The guy who owns his own theater so he can introduce people to movies he loves?

 

[Gringnr]

Are we talking about the same Tarantino who championed Hong Kong movies in the US? The guy who will talk at length about old movies at the slightest opportunity? The guy who owns his own theater so he can introduce people to movies he loves?

The same. The guy who claimed never to have seen City On Fire despite being a fan of of HK cinema (Ringo Lam is day one shit, sorry, not plausible), and who cited The Virginian and Bonanza as influences on The Hateful Eight, despite having lifted the plot, situations, and even some dialogue for that film from "Fair Game", a 1963 episode of TV Western, The Rebel.

I loved The Hateful Eight. But, then, I think Tarantino is at his best when he's using other peoples' work. Kind of the Carlos Mencia of directors.

Look, I get it, everyone stands on somebody's shoulders (Swingers reference). But Tarantino has more than once intentionally tried to obfuscate his sources, and that's kind of fucked up.

I'm not claiming the man isn't good (he's def hit and miss for me, but when he's good, he's DAMN good).

Edit:

 

[Jetstream]

EXTRA EXTRA:

Hasbro: "We Finally Rolled A 20!"

Hollywood is alight with the news that Quentin Tarrantino's final masterpiece now has a new title:

" Reservoir Dungeons: Once Upon A Time In Waterdeep"

Details are sketchy, but lead roles have been confirmed, with Brad Pitt playing the role of "The Rogue", alongside Leonardo DiCaprio, who will be playing the role of "The Bard".

A sprawling ensemble cast is rumoured to be on board with appearances from notable names including Samuel L. Jackson, Tim Roth, Ian McShane, Zoe Saldana, Harvey Keital, Christoph Waltz, Ed Harris, Kurt Russel, Brad Dourif, Titus Welliver, Bruce Dern, Juliette Lewis, Timothy Oliphant, Salma Hayek, Norman Reedus, Jamie Foxx, Steve Bucemi, Mads Mikkelsen, Uma Thurman, Jeffrey Wright, Zoe Bell, Woody Harrelson, Ben Mendelsohn, Travis Fimmel, Walter Goggins, Michael Madsen, Tom Waits, and Danny Trejo, as yet in unconfirmed supporting roles.

The plot is rumoured to be inspired from one of Tarrantino's famous epic one-shot D&D sessions that was alleged to run a full weekend after one of the esteemed Director's infamous private screenings, during which the participants allegedly played 48 hours straight of classic OSR rules.

It is unclear if the scenario goals were fully resolved, or if it was an actual TPK; although several insiders have speculated that neither outcome is mutually exclusive.

'Blades & Blood', Tarrantino's new D&D OSR heartbreaker rpg, has seen sales go thru the roof in recent weeks with news of this film tie-in announcement

Watch PUBTube tonight for live stream of Blades & Blood, with mystery Mod GM hosting 4 hrs non-stop gaming action!

I unironically want to see that.

 

[Gringnr]

I wish we had gotten a Tarantino Star Trek movie fr

 

[Gringnr]

The same. The guy who claimed never to have seen City On Fire despite being a fan of of HK cinema (Ringo Lam is day one shit, sorry, not plausible), and who cited The Virginian and Bonanza as influences on The Hateful Eight, despite having lifted the plot, situations, and even some dialogue for that film from "Fair Game", a 1963 episode of TV Western, The Rebel.

I loved The Hateful Eight. But, then, I think Tarantino is at his best when he's using other peoples' work. Kind of the Carlos Mencia of directors.

Look, I get it, everyone stands on somebody's shoulders (Swingers reference). But Tarantino has more than once intentionally tried to obfuscate his sources, and that's kind of fucked up.

I'm not claiming the man isn't good (he's def hit and miss for me, but when he's good, he's DAMN good).

Edit:

Part 2:

 

[BedrockBrendan]

I am pretty sure I have seen Tarantino talking about City on Fire and even talking about the section of the movie he pulled for Reservoir Dogs

 

[Gringnr]

I am pretty sure I have seen Tarantino talking about City on Fire and even talking about the section of the movie he pulled for Reservoir Dogs

Now that you mention it, I think you're right. The quote of him saying he hadn't seen it was from Kurt Loder, and I think QT was on record talking about CoF before that. H8, tho? Straight up lifted from Fair Game.

 

[BedrockBrendan]

Now that you mention it, I think you're right. The quote of him saying he hadn't seen it was from Kurt Loder, and I think QT was talking aboyt CoF before that.

Kurt Loder is a pretty shitty reporter. He is the same guy who tried to do a gotcha interview with Jewel because she misused a word in her poetry book (haven't read her poetry book but when it happened I remember thinking it was pretty odd of him to do). My memory is Tarantino spoke highly of City on Fire and said he took stuff from it, way back when it was released. But there are more recent videos like this one: https://youtube.com/shorts/LXoWJuZ32qo?feature=share

I think he has been pretty good about promoting Hong Kong films, genre films and Asian cinema in general (a lot of people have come to through him). He does have an ego but for a great film maker to have an ego, that isn't too surprising. And the best movies take from other films (a lot of the genre films and hong kong movies he is taking from are also taking from other sources as well, like westerns---some even completely lift the music from them). Personally I am a fan of that kind of remixing. Getting obsessed with copyright is more about large companies trying to profit off stuff the creatives have made anyways. It is a healthier system if musicians, writers, filmmakers, etc can borrow from one another more freely

 

[Gringnr]

Kurt Loder is a pretty shitty reporter. He is the same guy who tried to do a gotcha interview with Jewel because she misused a word in her poetry book (haven't read her poetry book but when it happened I remember thinking it was pretty odd of him to do). My memory is Tarantino spoke highly of City on Fire and said he took stuff from it, way back when it was released. But there are more recent videos like this one: https://youtube.com/shorts/LXoWJuZ32qo?feature=share

I think he has been pretty good about promoting Hong Kong films, genre films and Asian cinema in general (a lot of people have come to through him). He does have an ego but for a great film maker to have an ego, that isn't too surprising. And the best movies take from other films (a lot of the genre films and hong kong movies he is taking from are also taking from other sources as well, like westerns---some even completely lift the music from them). Personally I am a fan of that kind of remixing. Getting obsessed with copyright is more about large companies trying to profit off stuff the creatives have made anyways. It is a healthier system if musicians, writers, filmmakers, etc can borrow from one another more freely

Like I said, The Hateful Eight is one of his best films, IMO. I'm a big fan of remixed and repurposed art. But there's a difference between Andy Warhol's soup can, which has an obvious origin, or Chuck D talking about the James Brown samples in Public Enemy's music, and QT talking about Bonanza when he obviously lifted H8 from The Rebel. These things are not the same.

In the director's commentary for Assault on Precinct 13, almost the first thing out of John Carpenter's mouth is, "This is my version of Rio Bravo." Tarantino won't even acknowledge The Rebel. The difference is integrity. This isn't even a case of cryptomnesia, a la George Harrison's "My Lord." It's straight up using someone else's work, without giving them credit.

And, yeah, I'll never forgive Kurt Loder for his negative review of "The Pros and Cons of Hitch-Hiking."

I'm a huge fan of the band Mithras, even though they're basically a Domination-era Morbid Angel tribute band. They have a derivative sound. The fact that they're one of my favorite bands (I like them more than Morbid, tbh) doesn't change that.

Hell, John Woo is one of my favorite directors ever, and you can easily see the influence of Peckinpah, De Palma and others in his work. But he cops to it.

It's not the kind of thing that keeps me awake at night, but it definitely colors my perception of QT and his work, a fact that I'm sure makes him cry into his gigantic stacks of cash.

Edit: there's no question that Tarantino has raised awareness of some great genre films. But he definitely blurs the line between "homage" and "rip-off", and that's on him.

 

[T. Foster]

My impression of Tarantino is that his level of candor and intellectual honesty is highly variable depending on how coked up he is at any given moment. I also think he’s good at creating scenes and moments of visceral impact but considerably less good at actual storytelling and character exploration - that the experience of his movies is very shallow and transient, and any actual depth or human understanding in them is incidental or accidental - either brought by the actor or perhaps a residual palimpsest from whatever prior work he drew inspiration from.

I loved Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction (and True Romance) when I was in college, but everything since has been less interesting and satisfying to me - that his budgets got bigger which allowed the technical scope of his movies to expand, but the ideas behind them never did. The only movie of his that feels in any way mature and post-adolescent to me is Jackie Brown, non-coincidentally his only one that’s an (acknowledged) adaptation of a pre-existing work.

Kill Bill is still a lot of fun, though. If I’d been ten years younger when it came out it would probably be my favorite movie.

 

[BedrockBrendan]

Like I said, The Hateful Eight is one of his best films, IMO. I'm a big fan of remixed and repurposed art. But there's a difference between Andy Warhol's soup can, which has an obvious origin, or Chuck D talking about the James Brown samples in Public Enemy's music, and QT talking about Bonanza when he obviously lifted H8 from The Rebel. These things are not the same.

In the director's commentary for Assault on Precinct 13, almost the first thing out of John Carpenter's mouth is, "This is my version of Rio Bravo." Tarantino won't even acknowledge The Rebel. The difference is integrity. This isn't even a case of cryptomnesia, a la George Harrison's "My Lord." It's straight up using someone else's work, without giving them credit.

And, yeah, I'll never forgive Kurt Loder for his negative review of "The Pros and Cons of Hitch-Hiking."

I'm a huge fan of the band Mithras, even though they're basically a Domination-era Morbid Angel tribute band. They have a derivative sound. The fact that they're one of my favorite bands (I like them more than Morbid, tbh) doesn't change that.

Hell, John Woo is one of my favorite directors ever, and you can easily see the influence of Peckinpah, De Palma and others in his work. But he cops to it.

It's not the kind of thing that keeps me awake at night, but it definitely colors my perception of QT and his work, a fact that I'm sure makes him cry into his gigantic stacks of cash.

Edit: there's no question that Tarantino has raised awareness of some great genre films. But he definitely blurs the line between "homage" and "rip-off", and that's on him.

I am not as familiar with the rebel and whether Tarantino has commented on it, but like I pointed out, he acknowledged the influence of City on Fire and has long acknowledged the influence of the movies that have inspired his films. I don't really see much of an issue (even if he neglects to point out one movie he borrowed from).

 

[JAMUMU]

I'm sure I read that QT was very conscious of City on Fire.

Also read that he was approached for the Casino Royale Bond re-boot. Apparently he wanted to set it in the early 50s and film it in b&w. The Broccolis said no. I do like the Casino Royale movie (it's the second best Casino Royale film ever made!) but man, i consider Tarintino's pitch to be one of the great unmade movies.

 

[Gringnr]

Flawed filmmakers can still be great fimmakers, IMO. Wong Kar Wai is absolutely one of my favorite directors ever, and depending on who you talk to, he's either an astounding genius, or an overrated hack whose movies are more about images and ideas than stories.

 

[JAMUMU]

Flawed filmmakers can still be great fimmakers, IMO. Wong Kar Wai is absolutely one of my favorite directors ever, and depending on who you talk to, he's either an astounding genius, or an overrated hack whose movies are more about images and ideas than stories.

David Lynch is one of my favouritest directors of all time and some say exactly the same about him.

 

[BedrockBrendan]

Edit: there's no question that Tarantino has raised awareness of some great genre films. But he definitely blurs the line between "homage" and "rip-off", and that's on him.

He has said “I steal from every movie ever made… Great artists steal; they don’t do homages.” Personally though I think he always reworks it into something new even if he is taking structural elements or even scenes. This is a long debate in his career. But I think it gets overblown and part of the reason I think it is so is because he is self taught and he doesn't often speak the language of film critics and the film intelligentsia. But what he is making is better than 90 percent of the other stuff out there

 

[BedrockBrendan]

Flawed filmmakers can still be great fimmakers, IMO. Wong Kar Wai is absolutely one of my favorite directors ever, and depending on who you talk to, he's either an astounding genius, or an overrated hack whose movies are more about images and ideas than stories.

That I agree with. I would even say flawed people usually make better art than those who aren't flawed. But I also think people are overplaying his lack of acknowledgement of his inspirations, when he points to them all the time

 

[BedrockBrendan]

Flawed filmmakers can still be great fimmakers, IMO. Wong Kar Wai is absolutely one of my favorite directors ever, and depending on who you talk to, he's either an astounding genius, or an overrated hack whose movies are more about images and ideas than stories.

I would definitely agree with you about Wong Kar Wai. Wong Kar Wai is stunning IMO. Personally I find arguments that about flawed storytelling to be not very persuasive when film is the topic. I go to a movie to be moved by sound and image, not to be read a novel or to watch a three act play. With Wong Kar Wai, what I love is how disoriented and immersed he can make me feel as a viewer. Watching his movies is like getting drunk. If a film can make me feel like I am having an altered state of consciousness, I don't care about any of the other technical details.

 

[Gringnr]

That I agree with. I would even say flawed people usually make better art than those who aren't flawed. But I also think people are overplaying his lack of acknowledgement of his inspirations, when he points to them all the time

The Rebel excepted.

Would you have the same attitude if someone used the same theme, framework, structure and some text from one of your games without giving you credit? I'd guess that most people wouldn't.

David Lynch is one of my favouritest directors of all time and some say exactly the same about him.

I like a lot of his stuff, but I've never been able to sit though Eraserhead.

 

[Gringnr]

I would definitely agree with you about Wong Kar Wai. Wong Kar Wai is stunning IMO. Personally I find arguments that about flawed storytelling to be not very persuasive when film is the topic. I go to a movie to be moved by sound and image, not to be read a novel or to watch a three act play. With Wong Kar Wai, what I love is how disoriented and immersed he can make me feel as a viewer. Watching his movies is like getting drunk. If a film can make me feel like I am having an altered state of consciousness, I don't care about any of the other technical details.

I think Ashes of Time is a warning not to make selfish choices in matters of the heart. And Fallen Angels is a statement on the emotional unavailability of men. I'm probably wrong, of course, but when analyzing his work through the lens of themes and ideas as opposed to stories, drawing back a bit, his movies seem to make more sense. At least to me. But, man, whether they're any good or not, they're so beautiful it's heartbreaking.

 

[BedrockBrendan]

The Rebel excepted.

Again not as familiar with the rebel, but failing to acknowledge one source among the many that he has, seems more like an oversight than any deliberate attempt at obfuscation

Would you have the same attitude if someone used the same theme, framework, structure and some text from one of your games without giving you credit? I'd guess that most people wouldn't.

I don't really spend time worrying about this. I doubt I would be troubled by theme, framework or structure being lifted. With text it would depend. But in the case of Tarantino I don't have a problem with the way he has repurposed things. In an RPG context I would need to see what we are talking about to know if it were a problem or not. Every medium is different. I think on the whole we have moved too far in the direction of restricting copyright and it inhibits the creation of shared myth

 

[JAMUMU]

The Rebel excepted.

Would you have the same attitude if someone used the same theme, framework, structure and some text from one of your games without giving you credit? I'd guess that most people wouldn't.


I like a lot of his stuff, but I've never been able to sit though Eraserhead.

I adore Eraserhead. For most of my 20s I had it on a loop in my apartment, back in the VHS days. This has absolutely nothing to do with my crippling mental health problems. NOTHING!

If you haven't seen The Straight Story, that's my big recommend.

 

[Gringnr]

Again not as familiar with the rebel, but failing to acknowledge one source among the many that he has, seems more like an oversight than any deliberate attempt at obfuscation



I don't really spend time worrying about this. I doubt I would be troubled by theme, framework or structure being lifted. With text it would depend. But in the case of Tarantino I don't have a problem with the way he has repurposed things. In an RPG context I would need to see what we are talking about to know if it were a problem or not. Every medium is different. I think on the whole we have moved too far in the direction of restricting copyright and it inhibits the creation of shared myth

I mean, there is the legitimate question of what is really original anymore, sure. And is actual cryptomnesia a moral issue? When the music industry got up in arms about sampling (Much of which fell under the umbrella of re-purposed art, in my opinion), and started demanding payment for every sample, it was bad for rap. I mean, a lot of DJs used to take bits and pieces of all kinds of stuff, and fold, spindle and mutilate it until it was legitimately something new. Nowadays, it seems that artists feel like since they have to pay for samples, they can only use one per song, and it's basically the whole backing track.

 

[Baulderstone]

Almost every movie is 90% taken from other movies. Tarantino just gets more flack for it because he is inspired by more obscure sources rather than just remaking last year's hit movies. If Reservoir Dogs had been a Die Hard rip-off, it would barely be worth commenting on.

Even if you are taking inspiration from older movies, it's still really hard to do. It's easy to label DePalma as a Hitchcock ripoff, but it Hitchcock is so easy to rip-off, why don't all hack directors in Hollywood do it and succeed? Disney has three great Star Wars movies it can openly draw on, but you can still overflow the toilet bowl with its failed attempts to do so. Look at Amazon's dire attempt at trying copy Jackson's LotR movies.

 

[BedrockBrendan]

I mean, there is the legitimate question of what is really original anymore, sure. And is actual cryptomnesia a moral issue? When the music industry got up in arms about sampling (Much of which fell under the umbrella of re-purposed art, in my opinion), and started demanding payment for every sample, it was bad for rap. I mean, a lot of DJs used to take bits and pieces of all kinds of stuff, and fold, spindle and mutilate it until it was legitimately something new. Nowadays, it seems that artists feel like since they have to pay for samples, they can only use one per song, and it's basically the whole backing track.

I don't know the rules for sampling now, but I think they should just let people sample. A lot of rock songs I like show up as snippets in hip hop songs and to me it seems like we are killing a whole genre of music by not allowing sampling to be used in that way (I could understand if they just played the whole song as a backtrack, but when it is mixed and blended, I think it is sufficiently different that copyright should not apply).

The problem I have with music getting whacked for cryptomeria is 9 times out of 10 if you look at the song in question that the claim is made on the behalf of, that artist also unconsciously stole from a previous work (because it is really, really hard not to do that in music). We tend to like things because they sound familiar, and so a melody that pops into our head that we like has a pretty good chance of having come there from elsewhere. And with music the problem is traditionally music has been used by building off of existing works (even taking whole chord progressions and melodies and reworking them). Think of how many traditional and classic songs are pretty identical to Greensleeves for example. I would be less troubled if it was primarily about artists getting recognition, but is primarily about copyright holders who had nothing to do with the original recording for writing of the work getting money. With a style built on sampling like hip hop, the thing that makes it interesting is having so many samples and putting them together. I am not as acquainted with hip hop as some other genres but I can see the artistry there (having written music myself I can honestly say what they are doing is a lot harder than writing music whole cloth because it takes tremendous skill to blend existing music to create something new that sounds good).

WIth music what is going on largely is automated copyright claims by companies holding rights to the music or by trolls. It is also happening with other media on social media. I've used public domain recordings as bumper music on podcasts and got hit with copyright claims. I've had no music at all and still got hit because I used a promotional movie poster in a blog entry about the movie in question. The problem is if you fight the claim and don't take things down, your channel, your blog, it can all be removed. And fighting copyright claims requires you provide sensitive identifying information to the person filing the claim (who could just be a troll outside the country where the claim is even a concern).

 

[Voros]

Like I said, The Hateful Eight is one of his best films, IMO. I'm a big fan of remixed and repurposed art. But there's a difference between Andy Warhol's soup can, which has an obvious origin, or Chuck D talking about the James Brown samples in Public Enemy's music, and QT talking about Bonanza when he obviously lifted H8 from The Rebel. These things are not the same.

In the director's commentary for Assault on Precinct 13, almost the first thing out of John Carpenter's mouth is, "This is my version of Rio Bravo." Tarantino won't even acknowledge The Rebel. The difference is integrity. This isn't even a case of cryptomnesia, a la George Harrison's "My Lord." It's straight up using someone else's work, without giving them credit.

And, yeah, I'll never forgive Kurt Loder for his negative review of "The Pros and Cons of Hitch-Hiking."

I'm a huge fan of the band Mithras, even though they're basically a Domination-era Morbid Angel tribute band. They have a derivative sound. The fact that they're one of my favorite bands (I like them more than Morbid, tbh) doesn't change that.

Hell, John Woo is one of my favorite directors ever, and you can easily see the influence of Peckinpah, De Palma and others in his work. But he cops to it.

It's not the kind of thing that keeps me awake at night, but it definitely colors my perception of QT and his work, a fact that I'm sure makes him cry into his gigantic stacks of cash.

Edit: there's no question that Tarantino has raised awareness of some great genre films. But he definitely blurs the line between "homage" and "rip-off", and that's on him.

This is the first time I've heard of The Rebel, I would think the Spanish SW The Cutthroat 9 is a more obvious reference, both in the title and the plot elements.

Tarantino certainly knows his Western tv shows but also considering the huge number of shows and episodes that were churned out through the 50s and 60s I think you could find almost any film's plot, let alone a Western, echoed in an episode somewhere.

Genre film, and Italian genre film in particular, has been so fertile because of the continual cycle of films ripping off other films and then generating more films ripping off the succesfuls rip-offs, etc.

Luigi Cozzi said that when talking to producers the first question was always 'What hit film is this based on?'

I get that Tarantino operates at a level significantly above those films he is using for inspiration but the most common complaint I've seen, from Castelleri for instance, the great Italian screenwriter and sometimes director who made the original Inglorious Bastards, wasn't that Tarantino was 'ripping them off' but that he wasn't helping him secure money to make a new film.

As Carpenter said to Guilmero Del Toro about the retrospective love and respect The Thing now receives, with many considering it one of the greatest horror films of all time, 'What the hell good does that do me now?'

 

[Gringnr]

Almost every movie is 90% taken from other movies. Tarantino just gets more flack for it because he is inspired by more obscure sources rather than just remaking last year's hit movies. If Reservoir Dogs had been a Die Hard rip-off, it would barely be worth commenting on.

Even if you are taking inspiration from older movies, it's still really hard to do. It's easy to label DePalma as a Hitchcock ripoff, but it Hitchcock is so easy to rip-off, why don't all hack directors in Hollywood do it and succeed? Disney has three great Star Wars movies it can openly draw on, but you can still overflow the toilet bowl with its failed attempts to do so. Look at Amazon's dire attempt at trying copy Jackson's LotR movies.

Ehhhh, kind of. Sure, it's nearly impossible to come up with something 100% original. But "Everybody does it" is kind of a cop out. Intent matters. While Kurosawa's The Hidden Fortress is an admitted influence on Star Wars, one would be hard pressed to find the type and number of similarities I posted above (though there are a couple). Same with High Noon and Outland.

And I have to say, If Tarantino had somehow managed to beat Die Hard into the shape of a violent, vulgar story of brotherhood and betrayal, that'd be noteworthy, indeed!

 

[Gringnr]

This is the first time I've heard of The Rebel, I would think the Spanish SW The Cutthroat 9 is a more obvious reference, both in the title and the plot elememts.

Tarantino certainly knows his Western tv shows but also considering the huge number of shows and episodes that were churned out through the 50s and 60s I think you could find almost any film's plot, let alone a Western, echoed in an episode somewhere.

Genre film, and Italian genre film in particular, has been so fertile because of the continual cycle of films ripping off other films and then generating more films ripping off the succesfuls rip-offs, etc.

Luigi Cozzi said that when talking to producers the first question was always 'What hit film is this based on?'

I get that Tarantino operates at a level significantly above those films he is using for inspiration but the most common complaint I've seen, from Castelleri for instance, the great Italian screenwriter and sometimes director who made the original Inglorious Bastards for instance, wasn't that Tarantino was 'ripping them off' but that he wasn't helping him secure money to make a new film.

As Carpenter said to Guilmero Del Toro about the retrospective love and respect The Thing now receives, with many considering it one of the greatest horror films of all time, 'What the hell good does that do me now?'

I have yet to see "Cut-Throats 9". It's on my to-watch list. As far as snowbound spaghetti westerns go, The Great Silence is cool as hell.

 

[Gringnr]

He has said “I steal from every movie ever made… Great artists steal; they don’t do homages.” Personally though I think he always reworks it into something new even if he is taking structural elements or even scenes. This is a long debate in his career. But I think it gets overblown and part of the reason I think it is so is because he is self taught and he doesn't often speak the language of film critics and the film intelligentsia. But what he is making is better than 90 percent of the other stuff out there

"Talent borrows; Genius steals." It's an old axiom.

 

[Voros]

My impression of Tarantino is that his level of candor and intellectual honesty is highly variable depending on how coked up he is at any given moment. I also think he’s good at creating scenes and moments of visceral impact but considerably less good at actual storytelling and character exploration - that the experience of his movies is very shallow and transient, and any actual depth or human understanding in them is incidental or accidental - either brought by the actor or perhaps a residual palimpsest from whatever prior work he drew inspiration from.

I loved Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction (and True Romance) when I was in college, but everything since has been less interesting and satisfying to me - that his budgets got bigger which allowed the technical scope of his movies to expand, but the ideas behind them never did. The only movie of his that feels in any way mature and post-adolescent to me is Jackie Brown, non-coincidentally his only one that’s an (acknowledged) adaptation of a pre-existing work.

Kill Bill is still a lot of fun, though. If I’d been ten years younger when it came out it would probably be my favorite movie.

I think his storytelling skills are considerable even in his weakest films, I'm rarely bored watching one of his films, but I do agree about his characterization often lacking but the big exception there is Jackie Brown, which is full of great characters and subtle emotional depth. But then he was working from a book by the great Elmore Leonard and was able to benefit from his skill at characterization and a mastery of dialogue that exceeds even Tarantino, who is generally excellent at dialogue.

Once Upon a Time in... Hollywood is also a rich emotional film that spends more time with its characters but whose overall greatness to me is more about his experiments in mood and suspense throughout.

 

[Gringnr]

You guys are shopping at a different Amazon than me then. I get tons of decent stuff from them.

I will absolutely not buy any softback books from Amazon. I've ordered RPG scenarios/supplements a few times, and it's ALWAYS "thin book in oiversized envelope that arrives looking like it was run over by a lawnmower." I don't even mean a bend, ding, or crease. I mean freakin' DESTROYED. I mean, sure, I sent them right back, but what a waste of time.