More dramas for Wizards Of The Coast?

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
Gringnr said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's a classic misread of a form to complain that Kar Wai's films are about images and ideas rather than story. It assumes that the point of all films is the story, when most of them, great and otherwise, work entirely on a different level. What those people must make of the films of a Herzog or Lynch, let alone someone like Bela Tarr, I can't even imagine.

And it's not just art movies: The Big Sleep's plot famously makes little sense, it's about the vibes and characters, just like The Big Lewbowski, which parodies it.
 
T. Foster said:
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.
Click to expand...
Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, True Romance and Jackie Brown were all downright classics.
 
My favorite film of QT's is probably The Hateful Eight. Pulp Fiction was a funny one, because I didn't like it as much on first viewing as I did on re-watching it.
 
Gringnr said:
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).
Click to expand...
It's hard to do with The Hidden Fortress, but easy to do with The Dam Busters.
 
The problem with Tarantino is the problem with any artist, at least in America, you get famous enough and no one EVER tells you what you need to hear. As a result you become a bloated, self-indulgent parody of yourself, AKA George Lucas. Tarantino can rein it in enough to not deliver a bomb, but even his best movies these days are a roller coaster ride of quality.
 
Baulderstone said:
It's hard to do with The Hidden Fortress, but easy to do with The Dam Busters.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised if one inspired the other but listening to the audio a large amount of that seems like it would be similar for anyone trying semi realistically portraying an air attack on a small target. Is it a known case of duplication or just coincidence?
 
JAMUMU said:
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.
Click to expand...
Working titles included Goldfeeter, and Casino Royale With Cheese.

Edit: how could I have missed The Spy Who Loved Feet?
 
Voros said:
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.
Click to expand...
I was totally on board for the first 3/4 or so, but the twist finale (which wasn’t even that clever or shocking as a twist since he’d already done the same thing in Inglourious Basterds) totally wrecked it for me. Even that would have been okay if there had been another twist at the very end that the first twist was a dream/hallucination by DiCaprio - his guilty conscience imagining what he felt he could could/should have done. But at least as far as I remember there’s no hint of that, at least in the movie (maybe there’s something like that in the book version that I haven’t read?) and it’s supposed to be read straight, which struck me as dumb and juvenile and undercut the feel and tone of everything that came before.

The scenes with DiCaprio and the child actor, and Brad Pitt at the Spahn movie ranch, were great, though.
 
Gringnr said:
Speaking of Picasso, has anyone here seen F For Fake? Man, that's some good shit.
Click to expand...
The reconstruction of The Other Side of the Wind that was released a few years ago was also pretty amazing. I’m surprised it didn’t get more attention - it felt to me like a major event, a significant new/rewritten chapter in cinema history akin to the publication of Billy Budd in 1924, but instead it seemed to disappear off the cultural radar almost immediately with no lasting impact whatsoever. AFAIK nobody is talking about it at all anymore and I don’t believe it ever even got a home video release.
 
BedrockBrendan said:
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
Click to expand...
Yes he does, which is why it's all the more noticeable when he doesn't.
 
Gringnr said:
Yes he does, which is why it's all the more noticeable when he doesn't.
Click to expand...

It isn't an obligation for him to always tell you what source he is drawing from. But again I would say it is much more in the realm of oversight, wanting to let other people figure out for themselves what inspired him etc. And haven't seen the Rebel so I can't comment specifically on that case. I am just not particularly troubled that he wouldn't mention it in this instance or in another, when he has a long standing habit of talking about his sources
 
BedrockBrendan said:
It isn't an obligation for him to always tell you what source he is drawing from. But again I would say it is much more in the realm of oversight, wanting to let other people figure out for themselves what inspired him etc. And haven't seen the Rebel so I can't comment specifically on that case. I am just not particularly troubled that he wouldn't mention it in this instance or in another, when he has a long standing habit of talking about his sources
Click to expand...
I never said he was obligated to tell me personally. However, I really don't think it's crazy to find it skeevy when someone - an artist, no less - uses another's work pretty much wholesale without crediting them. Furthermore, I do think he has an obligation to be honest about using so much of someone else's work.

You keep saying, " I haven't seen the Rebel, so I can't comment on specifically on this case." Well, this is specifically the case I'm talking about. I'm not talking about any of his other stuff. I already admitted to being wrong about Reservoir Dogs. But, if you haven't seen it, and you "can't comment on it," that episode is on YouTube, it's 25 minutes long. Feel free to check it out.

But, here, aside from the dialogue and situations I previously posted pictures of, the plot of both is this: A group of strangers wind up at a coaching station together. Among them is a bounty hunter with a female captive shackled to his wrist. The usual attendant is gone, replaced by a stranger. The group is unable to leave, and must stay together until they can do so. Someone poisons the bounty hunter, and the strangers must figure out who among them is in league with the female outlaw.

I guess we can just agree to disagree. I'm not being hostile, I just have a certain opinion about this, and other people will have opinions that are opposed to mine. C'est la vie.

I mean, I still like the movie, "Lockout," even though it was found in a French court to be a straight rip-off of Escape from New York.
 
Baulderstone said:
It's hard to do with The Hidden Fortress, but easy to do with The Dam Busters.
Click to expand...

Oh my God that's fantastic.


CRKrueger said:
The problem with Tarantino is the problem with any artist, at least in America, you get famous enough and no one EVER tells you what you need to hear. As a result you become a bloated, self-indulgent parody of yourself, AKA George Lucas. Tarantino can rein it in enough to not deliver a bomb, but even his best movies these days are a roller coaster ride of quality.
Click to expand...
Never could bring myself to watch Kill Bill. Maybe it's great, but the trailers oozed such self-indulgence. One of these days, I'll have to give it a go. And yeah, agreed on the quality. UOATIH was uneven AF. I really liked Inglorious Bastards, though.
 
Bunch said:
I wouldn't be surprised if one inspired the other but listening to the audio a large amount of that seems like it would be similar for anyone trying semi realistically portraying an air attack on a small target. Is it a known case of duplication or just coincidence?
Click to expand...

Lucas has namechecked Dam Busters as an influence for the sequence, I believe he even screened it for his crew. I also believe he did a draft edit of the space battles in SW using clips from old war movies, including Dam Busters.
 
Gringnr said:
Oh my God that's fantastic.



Never could bring myself to watch Kill Bill. Maybe it's great, but the trailers oozed such self-indulgence. One of these days, I'll have to give it a go. And yeah, agreed on the quality. UOATIH was uneven AF. I really liked Inglorious Bastards, though.
Click to expand...

Kill Bill 1 is Tarantino's best action film and a very fun tribute to the martial arts films of HK and Japan.

Kill Bill 2 starts well but the last reel or two collapse into self-indulgence.
 
Agemegos said:
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.
Click to expand...
A25 is about 60 now with Inflation.
 
Price of books doesn't bother me much any more I'll because it's less of a gamble. I usually don't need to buy a physical book to see if the game is something I might actually run so I tend to buy the book only if I'm likely to run a game.

There's less money wasted on games that won't get played.

And for D&D in particular eveything you need is accessible on the internet for nothing. Money's not much of a barrier for entry. People who genuinely can't afford the books can still play the game easily enough.
 
Voros said:
Lucas has namechecked Dam Busters as an influence for the sequence, I believe he even screened it for his crew. I also believe he did a draft edit of the space battles in SW using clips from old war movies, including Dam Busters.
Click to expand...
633 Squadron is the other big influence on the Battle of Yavin. It's also seems to be the main influence on Top Gun: Maverick. I find it funny when people keep saying it is a rip-off of Star Wars.
 
Voros said:
Kill Bill 1 is Tarantino's best action film and a very fun tribute to the martial arts films of HK and Japan.

Kill Bill 2 starts well but the last reel or two collapse into self-indulgence.
Click to expand...

I actually liked Kill Bill 2 more than part one for some reason. But I seem to be in a minority on this opinion (I loved part 1 as well I just really enjoyed the shift in pace and focus in part 2, where you get to see more back story). I was very involved in martial arts when it was released and it came at a time when I was also staying up late watching a ton of old hong kong martial arts movies so it hit me at the right moment I think.

For me Kill Bill is my favorite, followed by Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, then Once Upon a Time in Hollywood and Inglorious Basterds (just based on how often I rewatch them)
 
Voros said:
Lucas has namechecked Dam Busters as an influence for the sequence, I believe he even screened it for his crew. I also believe he did a draft edit of the space battles in SW using clips from old war movies, including Dam Busters.
Click to expand...

I think one of the interesting things is the shift in influences between the first and second trilogy. I know one for fight choreography was Moon Warriors for the prequels, and I am sure there were other wuxia style films in the mix. You can definitely see the different approach in how light saber fights are handled between the first and second trilogy.
 
BedrockBrendan said:
I actually liked Kill Bill 2 more than part one for some reason. But I seem to be in a minority on this opinion (I loved part 1 as well I just really enjoyed the shift in pace and focus in part 2, where you get to see more back story). I was very involved in martial arts when it was released and it came at a time when I was also staying up late watching a ton of old hong kong martial arts movies so it hit me at the right moment I think.

For me Kill Bill is my favorite, followed by Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, then Once Upon a Time in Hollywood and Inglorious Basterds (just based on how often I rewatch them)
Click to expand...
I'm actually surprised people don't mention Jackie Brown. Personally I think its his most mature (as in not over the top like most of his films) piece, like a film that a director makes when they get older and wiser, but he wasn't actually that old, and still had plenty of OTT films to make later.

For example, Jackie Brown is the only QT film that doesn't have OTT violence (typically a QT trademark). Its got a very well curated soundtrack and its quality is timeless. All in all I think its a standout film.
 
Art's Puzzlebox said:
I'm actually surprised people don't mention Jackie Brown. Personally I think its his most mature (as in not over the top like most of his films) piece, like a film that a director makes when they get older and wiser, but he wasn't actually that old, and still had plenty of OTT films to make later.
Click to expand...

A couple of people have mentioned it. I do like Jackie Brown, and I can definitely see why you would make the case you are for it (it is much less over the top and a deeper character study I think). But if I am being honest it is one I just don't rewatch as much (and I think the reason is one of the things I like about Tarantino is the over-the-top stuff). But it is one of his better movies I think. I wouldn't argue against what you are saying.

Art's Puzzlebox said:
For example, Jackie Brown is the only QT film that doesn't have OTT violence (typically a QT trademark). Its got a very well curated soundtrack and its quality is timeless. All in all I think its a standout film.
Click to expand...

Again I can't disagree with this at all. I think I am just a sucker for over the top violence (just to give you an example I treated myself to a all the Death Wish movies this week while I was sick and I was in heaven----despite the obvious quality issues of the later entries). Every once in a while though I do get the urge to watch Jackie Brown and it is an A+ movie, so I can't really disagree with anything you say about it here. It is also interesting because we get to see how he directs when trying to be faithful to a source novel. And I think the performances are all very good in it as well.
 
BedrockBrendan said:
A couple of people have mentioned it. I do like Jackie Brown, and I can definitely see why you would make the case you are for it (it is much less over the top and a deeper character study I think). But if I am being honest it is one I just don't rewatch as much (and I think the reason is one of the things I like about Tarantino is the over-the-top stuff). But it is one of his better movies I think. I wouldn't argue against what you are saying.



Again I can't disagree with this at all. I think I am just a sucker for over the top violence (just to give you an example I treated myself to a all the Death Wish movies this week while I was sick and I was in heaven----despite the obvious quality issues of the later entries). Every once in a while though I do get the urge to watch Jackie Brown and it is an A+ movie, so I can't really disagree with anything you say about it here. It is also interesting because we get to see how he directs when trying to be faithful to a source novel. And I think the performances are all very good in it as well.
Click to expand...
Trust me when I say I love all of QT's movies, violence or not. For example, QT wrote the script for Natural Born Killers (and wrote Kill Bill around the same time), and had to sell his NBK script to make money for his own projects (along with the script for True Romance). QT has a very keen eye for what he wants in his films (& I like that he makes films how he wants to instead of how others think he should).

I actually think NBK is his best work, and I suspect he regrets selling that one off.

My wife's favorite QT film is actually Death Proof, which I introduced her to. Now she loves Grindhouse films.
 
Last edited:
One thing to keep in mind with Jackie Brown is that it bombed. Pulp Fiction was a huge hit and gave Taratino a golden ticket to do whatever the wanted, and he made a faithful Elmore Leonard adaptation and hardly anybody wanted to watch it. After that, he course-corrected and made Kill Bill. It's why I find attacks on Kill Bill as "self-indulgence" to be misguided. If anything, Jackie Brown was him indulging himself, while Kill Bill was him making a crowd-pleaser, at least with Vol. I.

I don't really get "self-indulgence" as a criticism of art anyway. Yes, Kill Bill Vol. II is a deeper dive into the wuxia territory of relationships between masters and students rather than the more straight-forward action movie that is Vol. I, but that's what I like about it. I completely understand other people not being interested in it, but a movie having a more narrow focus doesn't make it innately bad.

The making and consuming or entertainment is largely indulgence anyway.
Gringnr said:
I loved Stone's treatment of NBK. There's a pretty good book about the making of the film that gives a lot of ink to QT's attempts to get it back before Stone actually made it. I can't remember what it's called.
Click to expand...
I'm of the opinion that Stone is exactly the kind of self-indulgent, not-half-as-smart-as-he-thinks-he-is director that people accuse Tarantino of being. He is an excellent stylist, but most of his movies are dragged down by his simplistic ideas.
 
Baulderstone said:
One thing to keep in mind with Jackie Brown is that it bombed. Pulp Fiction was a huge hit and gave Taratino a golden ticket to do whatever the wanted, and he made a faithful Elmore Leonard adaptation and hardly anybody wanted to watch it. After that, he course-corrected and made Kill Bill. It's why I find attacks on Kill Bill as "self-indulgence" to be misguided. If anything, Jackie Brown was him indulging himself, while Kill Bill was him making a crowd-pleaser, at least with Vol. I.

I don't really get "self-indulgence" as a criticism of art anyway. Yes, Kill Bill Vol. II is a deeper dive into the wuxia territory of relationships between masters and students rather than the more straight-forward action movie that is Vol. I, but that's what I like about it. I completely understand other people not being interested in it, but a movie having a more narrow focus doesn't make it innately bad.

The making and consuming or entertainment is largely indulgence anyway.

I'm of the opinion that Stone is exactly the kind of self-indulgent, not-half-as-smart-as-he-thinks-he-is director that people accuse Tarantino of being. He is an excellent stylist, but most of his movies are dragged down by his simplistic ideas.
Click to expand...
I don't think an artist being self-indulgent is bad, in and of itself. I'm a huge John Woo/Wong Kar Wai fanboi, after all. And Woo has been self-referential for decades now. But it can be... alienating... if you don't share the artists's interests. Kevin Smith's "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back" is a good example of bad self-indulgence, IMO. While something like Howard Chaykin's Time2 comic would be good self-indulgence. Or Jordan Peele putting the Akira slide into Nope. Again, IMO, and this is all highly subjective.

And while I agree with you about Stone, at least with regard to his later works (and Platoon, which seems as horribly dated to me now as, say, Boyz N The Hood), Wall Street is a stone cold classic, and NBK was where he peaked. YMMV.

Edit: NBK might seem simplistic now, but, man, you could just see it sailing right over peoples' heads in the theater.
 
Baulderstone said:
I don't really get "self-indulgence" as a criticism of art anyway. Yes, Kill Bill Vol. II is a deeper dive into the wuxia territory of relationships between masters and students rather than the more straight-forward action movie that is Vol. I, but that's what I like about it. I completely understand other people not being interested in it, but a movie having a more narrow focus doesn't make it innately bad.
Click to expand...
I agree on this one as well. I could name a few directors that are imho steeped in self indulgence by comparison, take John Hughes as one example. Ironically self-indulgent films seem to do welll.


ferris-bueller-ferris-buellers-day-off.gif
 
Last edited:
Gringnr said:
Edit: NBK might seem simplistic now, but, man, you could just see it sailing right over peoples' heads in the theater.
Click to expand...
I haven't seen it since it was in the theater, so I can't go too deep on my thoughts about it, but I had the feeling that the screenplay sailed over Stone's head too.
 
Baulderstone said:
I haven't seen it since it was in the theater, so I can't go too deep on my thoughts about it, but I had the feeling that the screenplay sailed over Stone's head too.
Click to expand...
Well, his vision was quite different from QT's, that's for sure. The critical eye towards media violence/celebrity angle was mostly Stone, according to Tarantino. So, in that sense, you could well be right. He definitely had a different vision for the film. Of course, I'd be curious to see what QT would have done with it. But I've never been curious enough to read his actual screenplay.
 
I haven't seen NBK since it came out. I do remember liking it though, but have been meaning to rewatch it and just never got around to it.

Personally I like Oliver Stone, though I thin some of his movies don't land as well as others for me. Platoon is an amazing movie. It is one of the best films I have ever seen.
 
Gringnr said:
And while I agree with you about Stone, at least with regard to his later works (and Platoon, which seems as horribly dated to me now as, say, Boyz N The Hood), Wall Street is a stone cold classic, and NBK was where he peaked. YMMV.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen Boyz N the Hood in ages. I would be curious how well it holds up. One issue crime movies have is audiences get more savvy about how crime works in the intervening years and that can make movies look a little uninformed or overly simplistic when you watch them years later I find. I do remember liking it when it first came out and seeing it on video. I also remember Colors from around the same time (I think a little earlier).
 
I'll admit that there is a lot to like about NBK. It put Woody Harrelson on the map as a great actor, and as I said earlier, Stone has a great sense of style. My main issue is that that "tabloid TV is evil" was a tired topic in the late '80s, let alone in 1994. Satirizing tabloid TV was certainly an element of the original screenplay, but Stone pushed it into Very Special Episode territory.
 
BedrockBrendan said:
I haven't seen Boyz N the Hood in ages. I would be curious how well it holds up. One issue crime movies have is audiences get more savvy about how crime works in the intervening years and that can make movies look a little uninformed or overly simplistic when you watch them years later I find. I do remember liking it when it first came out and seeing it on video. I also remember Colors from around the same time (I think a little earlier).
Click to expand...
I think Colors has definitely held up better. Not that BITH is bad by any means, but you're absolutely right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top