Baf I agree 100% with Marnau on Spielberg. He’s a businessman first, filmmaker second. I respect what he’s done in the industry and for some of the films he’s made that I enjoyed as a child (Indiana Jones, E.T., Jaws) but this label that many have thrown at him as one of the greatest ever is laughable. He’s extremely overrated in that respect.
Hell, he called Transformers 2 “awesome” and one of Michael Bay’s best films. WTF.
Saving Private Ryan has nothing on Thin Red Line, except a technically better battle sequence in the beginning. That’s it.
Here’s hoping Basterds is better than anything Spielberg has done since the early 90s.
The international trailer is the best trailer so far but it certainly is making it look extremely campy. I agree with those who wish Tarantino to go back to the more serious tones of PF and JB. By the looks of the trailer IB is looking even less serious than Death Proof because it’s actually taking place in a particular time in history and almost making fun of it. The good thing is i read the script which re-assures me that almost 2/3s of the film will be more toward the serious…
I really dont care about Spielberg or Bay. Im here as a QT fan. As long as IB is a solid, entertaining film. Thats all I care about. Im not gonna contrast and compare it to Pulp Fiction or Kill Bill etc. We’ve been through this already about 10 times. After Ive seen it, then Ill decide where it stands for me.
We can speculate though can’t we? Where’s the fun in admitting that the only way we can truly judge and compare a film is after we’ve seen it? 
[quote=“Pete”]
I understand what youre saying but then again, its 2009. Tarantino has been absorbed into pop culture now. So we all know his overall style/aesthetic as a director. That danger we all felt was the reason why it was such a big phenomenon. But Pulp and Kill Bill are two different kinds of films. One is based in reality, the other is not. Id guess that Basterds will be closer in tone to Pulp Fiction than Kill Bill. KB was comic book type violence. The violence in Basterds will probably feel more consequential and emotional.
In what sense? As in creating films and making emotional, impactful, entertaining cinema. Whether or not its obvious to you is besides the point. I mean Im not a huge fan, but its a fact that Spielberg can direct and carry audiences like a mofo. You dont make stuff like Duel, Jaws, Poltergeist, Indy films, ET, Color Purple, Schindlers List, Minority Report, War of the Worlds without having the goods. Are we actually debating about whether or not Spielberg is a really good director now? Cmon. Lets not get silly. His stuff may be white bread, but its still well made.
QT is coming from a different place, thats all. Hes not going for sentimentality. Hes going for in your face, post-modern pulp war thriller that doesnt paint things in black and white. Every character has their good and bad sides. QTs thing from the beginning has been showing the humanity in outsiders, “criminals” and “villains”. QT will also def throw in his type of comedy that we love.
Out of Spielberg’s ouvre, Id say Basterds is closest to Raiders of the Lost Ark. It fits in with that tone. A pulp adventure set during WWII.
[/quote]
100% agree, and I would say that Spielberg’s masterpiece is, in fact, Raiders of the Lost Ark.
By the way I prefer Malick and Peckinpah over Spielberg.
I usually agree with your opinions about cinema but I don’t understand why you don’t love Death Proof, I think it is Tarantino at his best (as usual) and IB will be the confirmation.
[quote=“Stiglitz”]
Baf I agree 100% with Marnau on Spielberg. He’s a businessman first, filmmaker second. I respect what he’s done in the industry and for some of the films he’s made that I enjoyed as a child (Indiana Jones, E.T., Jaws) but this label that many have thrown at him as one of the greatest ever is laughable. He’s extremely overrated in that respect.
[/quote]
A director is never overrated in my books when he has at least 3 undisputed masterpieces under his belt. Jaws - masterpiece. Raiders - masterpiece. Schindler’s - masterpiece. Most directors can only dream of having just one movie as great as one of these three.
I think the word “overrated” is thrown around more frequently than a hooker amidst a bachelor’s party.
[quote]Baf I agree 100% with Marnau on Spielberg. He’s a businessman first, filmmaker second.[/quote]
Yes, and that’s exactly why he financed Schindler’s directly from his own pockets without even taking one penny back. :
[quote=“Scarface”]
A director is never overrated in my books when he has at least 3 undisputed masterpieces under his belt. Jaws - masterpiece. Raiders - masterpiece. Schindler’s - masterpiece. Most directors can only dream of having just one movie as great as one of these three.
I think the word “overrated” is thrown around more frequently than a hooker amidst a bachelor’s party.
[/quote]
People throw around the word masterpiece too much.
[quote=“Scarface”]
Yes, and that’s exactly why he financed Schindler’s directly from his own pockets without even taking one penny back. :
[/quote]
Then he donated it all anonymously to an organization, yes, until…he was doing a magazine interview in which he mentioned he donated it all anonymously to the organization thus tooting his own fucking horn. He even charged family members back when he made movies on his 16mm. The guy is a boyscout, he’s naive, his films are like childish dreams with typical emotions that never break the surface, he doesn’t challenge thinking, he provides comic portrayals of Nazis (even in his “Serious” films). But does he ever think what made these guys so bad? How could they kill jews and then hug their children at night? No.
Again, all you have to do is see Elem Klimov’s Come and See and you’ll never look at the concept of a War Film the same way again.
Hans Landa is ideal for me in that he’s comic book-like villian is also human. Not just a other worldly monster in a grey uniform a la Ralph Fiennes in SL.
[quote=“F.W.”]
Then he donated it all anonymously to an organization, yes, until…he was doing a magazine interview in which he mentioned he donated it all anonymously to the organization thus tooting his own fucking horn. He even charged family members back when he made movies on his 16mm. The guy is a boyscout, he’s naive, his films are like childish dreams with typical emotions that never break the surface, he doesn’t challenge thinking, he provides comic portrayals of Nazis (even in his “Serious” films). But does he ever think what made these guys so bad? How could they kill jews and then hug their children at night? No.
Again, all you have to do is see Elem Klimov’s Come and See and you’ll never look at the concept of a War Film the same way again.
[/quote]
First all, I had to split this topic so that we do not go off topic in the Basterds section.
Secondly, the money he donated, if I remember correctly, went to organisations whose aim was to raise more awareness on the Holocaust. Your accusations about tooting his own fucking horn are unfounded.
If his movies make money, good for him. Do you honestly believe that Quentin wasn’t disappointed when death Proof flopped? Do you think he wasn’t ecstatic when Pulp Fiction turned him into a multi-millionaire, or when Kill Bill started making a profit even before Volume 2 came out? If you think that Quentin doesn’t care about box office numbers, you are just bullshitting yourself.
And I can’t help but smile on the “Spielberg provides a comic potrayal of Nazis” comment. If you think that’s bad, you will probably going to think that Basterds is the worst movie ever made. ;D
[quote=“F.W.”]
People throw around the word masterpiece too much.
[/quote]
You’re right. It is. However I have no problem in calling Jaws, E.T. and Saving Private Ryan masterpieces.
So, I’m a very big Yay on Spielberg. Next favourites would probably be Duel and The Terminal.
[quote=“Scarface”]
And I can’t help but smile on the “Spielberg provides a comic potrayal of Nazis” comment. If you think that’s bad, you will probably going to think that Basterds is the worst movie ever made. ;D
[/quote]
I laughed at that too, but had to turn a blind eye.
1. There is nothing wrong with a more comic portrayal of Nazis. You think the Indiana Jones movies would have benefitted if the Nazis were realistic and 3-dimensional? I don’t think so.
2. Transformers 2 was indeed awesome. Take it for what it is - a spectacle.
3. Tarantino makes pop entertainment, but with an artistic approach. Pulp Fiction was serious? Right…Maybe you need to re-watch it.
5. I agree with Tarantino that Spielberg is a great director. (Tarantino once said that he could learn much from him)
[quote=“Col. Crazy Kenneth”]
3. Tarantino makes pop entertainment, but with an artistic approach. Pulp Fiction was serious? Right…Maybe you need to re-watch it.
[/quote]
That’s in reference to the tone of QT’s movies today. Not serious in the sense of GoodFellas or The Godfather or whatever-have-you movie-making…but more serious than anything he’s done post JB. As I said in the other thread: It might not be The Godfather, but it’s also no Analyze This. Know whadda mean?
Ive heard people refer to Pulp as serious…uh serious in what way exactly? What is serious about a Royale with cheese? Foot massages? A case full of ??, Mia and Vincent dancing in a contest, Two robbers yelling at people in a diner, Butch getting pissed off at Fabienne for forgetting his watch on the kangaroo, Zed and Maynard getting fucked up, Vincent shooting Marvin after hitting a bump in the road, Jimmy yelling at Jules for getting him into the predicament?
A serious drama it is not. QTs said many times that he considers his first two films comedies. The most serious film hes made so far is Jackie Brown. All his own films are pop culture celebrations made with personal, artistic, humorous pulp storytelling. They dont claim to be anything else.
If you cant stand “camp”, “corn”, “cheese”, then you probably never liked QTs films in the first place. He embraces and celebrates all that stuff.
Spielberg - yay or nay?
"…ooooh short answer yes with an if, long answer no with a but…"
[quote=“Pete”]
Ive heard people refer to Pulp as serious…uh serious in what way exactly? What is serious about a Royale with cheese? Foot massages? A case full of ??, Mia and Vincent dancing in a contest, Two robbers yelling at people in a diner, Butch getting pissed off at Fabienne for forgetting his watch on the kangaroo, Zed and Maynard getting fucked up, Vincent shooting Marvin after hitting a bump in the road, Jimmy yelling at Jules for getting him into the predicament?
[/quote]
Woah…you could just say that about any film in that case. Those are things that are “serious” to them. Just because they aren’t talking like they would in The Godfather or Schindler’s List…they’re talking about things that are important in their lives…sure a lot unserious stuff, but it’s still real. Of course it’s far from the most serious dramas out there, but it’s the fact that it’s far more serious than unserious stuff such as Death Proof…
The film takes itself seriously when it needs to.
“camp”, “corn” and “cheese” were never a problem in QT’s films in the first place.
Now we’re back to QT instead of SS.
[quote=“Kinick”]
Woah…you could just say that about any film in that case. Those are things that are “serious” to them. Just because they aren’t talking like they would in The Godfather or Schindler’s List…they’re talking about things that are important in their lives…sure a lot unserious stuff, but it’s still real.
The film takes itself seriously when it needs to.
[/quote]
Kill Bill takes itself serious too. I dont laugh when The Bride tells Hattori Hanzo about Bill, or when The Bride and her fiancee/friends are gunned down. I dont laugh when O-Ren Ishii and the Bride are facing off in the snow both on the verge of tears because they still respect each other but must fight to the death. All his films are basically made in the same way. They all combine a sense of humor with drama, suspense and violence done within a grindhouse meets arthouse meets world pop culture aesthetic. Theyre from QTs heart.
Back to SS. I say Yay. Hes made too many classic movies to get a nay from me. Im not a big fan of his more recent films, but Id be ignorant to say hes not a great director.
[quote=“Pete”]
Kill Bill takes itself serious too. I dont laugh when The Bride tells Hattori Hanzo about Bill, or when The Bride and her fiancee/friends are gunned down. I dont laugh when O-Ren Ishii and the Bride are facing off in the snow both on the verge of tears because they still respect each other but must fight to the death. All his films are basically made in the same way. They all combine comedy with drama, suspense and violence. Theyre from QTs heart.
[/quote]
Yes, neither do I. And all the stuff with Budd in Vol. 2 also. I like Kill Bill…but it’s when things become too camp or cheesy or whatever. There’s a lot of that in there, too. However it’s about the story predominantly. I could never watch Death Proof and get the same enjoyment out of it that I do Reservoir dogs…whilst both have QT characters sitting around diners eating and drinking and driving about in cars bullshitting.
[quote=“Kinick”]
Yes, neither do I. And all the stuff with Budd in Vol. 2 also. I like Kill Bill…but it’s when things become too camp or cheesy or whatever. There’s a lot of that in there, too. However it’s about the story predominantly. I could never watch Death Proof and get the same enjoyment out of it that I do Reservoir dogs…whilst both have QT characters sitting around diners eating and drinking and driving about in cars bullshitting.
[/quote]
The weird thing to me is, I dont consider Kill Bill campy or corny at all. I think its awesome in every way. It doesnt take itself so seriously, its just right. I think all QTs films are like that though.
[quote=“Col. Crazy Kenneth”]
- There is nothing wrong with a more comic portrayal of Nazis. You think the Indiana Jones movies would have benefitted if the Nazis were realistic and 3-dimensional? I don’t think so.
[/quote]
I made it very clear I meant in his serious movies.
Yay or nay? A definitive Yay.
The man has made some really great films, with Jaws being one of my favorite films of all time. He has also had a tremendous impact on the film industry and the medium itself. Sure, he’s had a few flicks that haven’t floated my boat here and there - but his good work far outweighs the bad in my estimation.
Is he a filmmaker that delivers studies on the human condition and the malaise of the soul? No, but he excels in telling big stories that engage the audience. So, yeah, thumbs up to Spielberg.