QT & Violence

General Quentin Tarantino talk
Charlie Brown

QT & Violence

Post by Charlie Brown » Tue Nov 23, 2004 9:10 pm

Lets face it, QT's films have a lot of Violence in them. But too much? It's a very much argued theme. Like the whole, 'does violence in films have a negative influence on people' argument that the papers seem to have a lot to say about.

What are your guys thoughts?






I changed the title - Ify
Last edited by Ify on Sun Feb 19, 2006 8:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Bleach
Fucking Professional
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 4:18 pm
Location: Latvia

Re: QT= Sick Fuck?

Post by Bleach » Tue Nov 23, 2004 10:05 pm

Kill Bill violence was artistic. Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction were more realistic and gangsterish. But I don't see SO much violence in his films now, when I've read about torture, seen Faces Of Death. No film can be more violent than true events are.
[img width=500 height=66]http://i41.tinypic.com/9sqlpu.jpg[/img]

User avatar
Sebastian
Inglourious Basterd
Posts: 7839
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2000 11:00 pm
Location: Berlin, Germany
Contact:

Re: QT= Sick (because of violence)

Post by Sebastian » Wed Nov 24, 2004 2:46 pm

this discussion is centuries old. people just can't get over the fact that violence in QT's film is cartoonish, over-the-top and not cruel at all. watch The Passion of the christ or Saving Private Ryan and you see what's REALLY violent

User avatar
Bleach
Fucking Professional
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 4:18 pm
Location: Latvia

Re: QT= Sick (because of violence)

Post by Bleach » Wed Nov 24, 2004 10:09 pm

MiaMsPink wrote: I think it is pretty moronic to say that the violence in KB was artistic. The movie as a whole was amazingly artistic.
Well, if you say the whole movie is artistic, then the violence is too, we talked about VIOLENCE and it IS artistic. What's so moronic there?
[img width=500 height=66]http://i41.tinypic.com/9sqlpu.jpg[/img]

Big Mans Wife

Re: QT= Sick (because of violence)

Post by Big Mans Wife » Wed Nov 24, 2004 10:38 pm

Sure there's violence in QT's films... but many people sound as if they hadn't seen any other films at all!
Besides, as I have mentioned somewhere here before, QT's violence is a means to tell a story about something else...
And as for the violence in movies having a negative effect in the audience... well, all I can say is that the most violent real life recent episodes (yes, the war and all its horrors) haven't been organized by Tarantino fans...

guiltygenius
Kiddo
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2004 7:58 pm
Location: Seattle, Washington

Re: QT= Sick (because of violence)

Post by guiltygenius » Mon Nov 29, 2004 8:32 pm

His films are violent?

Yasmin

Re: QT= Sick (because of violence)

Post by Yasmin » Sat Dec 04, 2004 1:14 am

Every Tarantino film/script have violence in them because violence is a part of life. You get violence in Disney movies too.

I dont see why people make such a song and dance about the violence in Quentin's movies. For me it is all part of the beauty of his movies. Most of the characters who get the shit kicked out of them or are killed deserve it one way or the other

Inquisitor

Re: QT= Sick (because of violence)

Post by Inquisitor » Sat Dec 04, 2004 11:40 am

Oh god, it's so stupid. There are even more violent films than QT's. He's not sick, Charlie Brown, you are. Watch cartoons.

Big Mans Wife

Re: QT= Sick (because of violence)

Post by Big Mans Wife » Sat Dec 04, 2004 5:55 pm

Ehrm... inquisitor, I don't think Charlie Brown was stating he's sick... he just "threw" the topic for discussion.
Besides: "there are even more violent films than QT's" doesn't mean his aren't. Mind you, I see your point and agree... but [especially] being your first post, it's a bit unfortunate to start calling people sick for no reason. That's violence.

User avatar
Ify
Fucking Professional
Posts: 5484
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 12:51 am
Location: The Dark Side of the Moon

Re: QT= Sick (because of violence)

Post by Ify » Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:41 pm

Fatale wrote: Every Tarantino film/script have violence in them because violence is a part of life. You get violence in Disney movies too.

I dont see why people make such a song and dance about the violence in Quentin's movies. For me it is all part of the beauty of his movies. Most of the characters who get the shit kicked out of them or are killed deserve it one way or the other
They say he glorifies violence which is why they are so opposed to him doing violence
Image

"Movies are my religion and God is my patron. I'm lucky enough to be in the position where I don't make movies to pay for my pool. When I make a movie, I want it to be everything to me; like I would die for it." - QT

Charlie Brown

Re: QT= Sick (because of violence)

Post by Charlie Brown » Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:56 pm

Big Mans Wife wrote: Ehrm... inquisitor, I don't think Charlie Brown was stating he's sick... he just "threw" the topic for discussion.
Besides: "there are even more violent films than QT's" doesn't mean his aren't. Mind you, I see your point and agree... but [especially] being your first post, it's a bit unfortunate to start calling people sick for no reason. That's violence.
Cheers for backing me up, that's exactly what I meant, I think QT is one of the most talented directors of our time. I don't get offended by violence, but some people do!

Inquisitor:
Check out the '?' at the begining of the title, generally meaning it's a question. My main purpose for asking the question was because I am doing my disseration on QT and needed to get a view at how people consider the violence in his films.

And you obviously didn't get the Charlie Brown reference. I love my cartoons, doesnt make me a child. (Im 21)

guiltygenius
Kiddo
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2004 7:58 pm
Location: Seattle, Washington

Re: QT= Sick (because of violence)

Post by guiltygenius » Mon Dec 06, 2004 10:01 pm

I don't see how he glorifies violence.  In the majority of the movies, the violence is horrific and most often punished with equal violence.  Since the violence in Kill Bill is actually vengence, I don't see it as "glorified".

When I think of glorified violence, I usually am considering whether or not I would want to be the person responsible for the violent act.  In other words, would I want to be Vincent Vega or Mr. White, etc.

The Bride

Re: QT= Sick (because of violence)

Post by The Bride » Tue Dec 07, 2004 2:08 am

Since I started watching his movies, the thought that there was possibly "too much violence" in his films never crossed my mind. It was only after I had seen "all" of his films, that I became aware of people accusing him of having too much violence, and I never understood it. I still don't. I've seen waaayy more violent movies than his! When there is violence in his films, it is part of the story and it adds to the movie. There are some movies where blood and gore are there for no reason. When I think of Quentin Tarantino, the first thoughts that come to mind are good dialogue and good storylines, not glorified violence.

KingQuentin

Do you think more people will like his movies if they werent so violent

Post by KingQuentin » Tue Dec 07, 2004 2:39 am

I perseonly like the violents but thats not what QT is all about he is a Genius at what he does his violents are just a small part of it the story is a big thing the script is another the cinematography is one also his direction is a big one too but i was just wondering because some people dont like QTs movies just because there violent and some people cant stand the dialog that he uses in his script but what do you guys think?

KingQuentin

Re: QT= Sick (because of violence)

Post by KingQuentin » Tue Dec 07, 2004 2:45 am

I dont really agree that the violence went down.  Kill Bill was probally the most violent of them all and thats his newest film.  Yes it is more fake.  But kill bill actaully had gore in it.  Like scene with Go Go and the other asian guy and they were drunk and when she stabbed him and some of his intestants came out.  Also when part of Lucy Lu's head got cut off and her brain was showing. Another one is when uma thurman pulled out Elle Driver's eye out and the other guys eye out in kill bill volume 1.  So there are just as much or more violence in his films now.

User avatar
clown
Hard Drinker
Posts: 182
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 2:02 am

Re: QT - violence

Post by clown » Tue Dec 07, 2004 12:49 pm

wtf are you talking about?
and why do you list all the scenes?
Image

User avatar
Joseph
Hard Drinker
Posts: 178
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2004 8:33 am
Location: Big Bear Lake, CA
Contact:

Re: QT - violence

Post by Joseph » Tue Dec 07, 2004 2:53 pm

Clown, i dont think youve solved that rubiks cube yet.  Go back downstairs



Tarantino's movies arent any more violent than most movies.  And I wouldnt go so far as to say the gore in KB was "artistic".  Just because its spraying out all over the place in an unnatural fashion doesnt mean it is meant to be aesthetically stimulating.  Its Intentenionally Over the Top, not Artistic.

I personally wouldve perferred if he did the HOBL scene in a very realistic manner.  That could have made the already FUCKING AWESOME scene FUCKING FANTASTICALLY DELICIOUSLY AWESOME.

User avatar
Scarface
Fucking Professional
Posts: 4042
Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2003 12:05 am

Re: QT - violence

Post by Scarface » Tue Dec 07, 2004 5:44 pm

Anyone can play the moral dickhead anytime he wants, but there's one thing for certain. Violence can also be both fun and funny when taken in a cinematic context. And QT is the master of making violence fun and funny. Is it morally wrong? I could give a rat's ass. I just enjoy it, and I've never been a threat to anyone in my life. Classification boards exist for a reason.I mean honestly, is there anyone who didn't at least enjoy watching Uma chop off the legs of the Crazy 88 with "Nobody But Me" playing in the background?

User avatar
Joseph
Hard Drinker
Posts: 178
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2004 8:33 am
Location: Big Bear Lake, CA
Contact:

Re: QT - violence

Post by Joseph » Tue Dec 07, 2004 6:02 pm

I think I can assure you everybody in this forum did

greendestiny

Re: QT - violence

Post by greendestiny » Sat Dec 11, 2004 4:25 am

Joseph wrote: I think I can assure you everybody in this forum did
Speak for yourself man. Hapless violence with little or no context at all does little for some (particularly me) When i saw people being ripped apart by machine gun fire in Saving private Ryan, or Kids murdering each other left and right in City of God,  the one thing that did not cross my mind in any of those movies is "Goodness, that blood is so obviously fake, and "that guy who is juggling that fake limb is such a bad actor" i dont know of many people who were grossed out by the violence in kill bill. Every one i know (including the people on this board) thought the scenes were comedic in a  sense. Yet no one was laughing out loud. To me the scenes appeared rather ridiculous and contrived. I still dont see anything stylish about cutting of some ones arm and having her roll around for minutes while fake blood spurts out of the stub!!!!  May be its my sense of humor but i fail to see the comedic value in that..Perharps i missed the punch line, perharps i missed the ultra deep secret coded message Tarantino was trying to deliver here. (I guess i lost my cool)...All i was thinking about was that scene that other movie where i saw that before, and it was funny that one time, i wasnt going to find it funny this time!!!! Give me that scene from Enemy at the Gates, where Zaitsev fires 4 bulllets into 4 nazis... I assure you while watching that scene, the last thing on my mind was, the lighting in the scene or the color of the uniform he wore, or even how un realistic the action sequence was....
The only thing that went through my mind was, "DAMN!!!!!!" that motherfucker is a headshot king (fans of UT can appreciate such authenticity) and last i heard about that scene, thats the only point the director was trying to make

The violence in kill bill did not put me off, my problem was i never got involved in the movie in the first place.  I felt more insulted than impressed every time some one sprung a crimson leak!!! Violence in movies when done right is awesome, for me...Mindless blood spewing does nothing for some people. (i never saw The passion of the christ but i  think i can safely assume it did not have as much blood, or even 10% of the dismemberment kill bill had) yet, i read of people having heart attacks (i think two people  might have died while watching it) and some one was so taken by the movie they drove their car into a river bed....

Perharps some of you may compare and contrast the violence in the two movies so as to understand
the two extremely different reactions peiople had to both movies)

WeaselCo

Re: QT - violence

Post by WeaselCo » Sat Dec 11, 2004 5:23 am

The blood squirting was just a homage to samurai films. Why is it okay for war movies to have violence. Saving Private Ryan isn't based on a true story. You shouldn't have violence limitations based on context. Plus if this movie showed what a true kitana could do it would have been rated x. I can't wait to see thbl in color.

I felt more uncomfortable in the theater where kids were with there parents during the buck scene. Now that was disturbing.

I am a big fan of samurai swordplay and kung fu so i appreciated a movie with 30 minutes of non-stop bloodsquirting action. Was I laughing. No. Was I drooling and thinking sweeeet. Hell yeah. If the precision of violence wasn't so thrilling nobody would be playing cs or ut. I don't see a big market for online paintball games.

Anyone who has seen dead alive should be so desensitized they could watch any violent fictional film.

Jot

Re: QT - violence

Post by Jot » Sat Dec 11, 2004 7:39 am

WeaselCo wrote: The blood squirting was just a homage to samurai films.
Yeah, you just got to see movie's like shogun assasian and stuff to see that he was mimicking those sort of films, besides, by making the violence obvious it stopped it being 'disturbing' and , like Scarface is on strike said, in scenes like the the crazy 88 fight scene, very entertaining (hell it was almost like a dance sequence).

User avatar
Scarface
Fucking Professional
Posts: 4042
Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2003 12:05 am

Re: QT - violence

Post by Scarface » Sat Dec 11, 2004 3:17 pm

Jeez, this dickhead greendestiny is still around? What kind of sad life is he livin'? Now he's even comparing Kill Bill to a movie he hasn't even seen.

User avatar
Ify
Fucking Professional
Posts: 5484
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 12:51 am
Location: The Dark Side of the Moon

Re: QT - violence

Post by Ify » Sat Dec 11, 2004 3:22 pm

greendestiny wrote:

Speak for yourself man. Hapless violence with little or no context at all does little for some (particularly me) When i saw people being ripped apart by machine gun fire in Saving private Ryan, or Kids murdering each other left and right in City of God,  the one thing that did not cross my mind in any of those movies is "Goodness, that blood is so obviously fake, and "that guy who is juggling that fake limb is such a bad actor" i dont know of many people who were grossed out by the violence in kill bill. Every one i know (including the people on this board) thought the scenes were comedic in a  sense. Yet no one was laughing out loud. To me the scenes appeared rather ridiculous and contrived. I still dont see anything stylish about cutting of some ones arm and having her roll around for minutes while fake blood spurts out of the stub!!!!  May be its my sense of humor but i fail to see the comedic value in that..Perharps i missed the punch line, perharps i missed the ultra deep secret coded message Tarantino was trying to deliver here. (I guess i lost my cool)...All i was thinking about was that scene that other movie where i saw that before, and it was funny that one time, i wasnt going to find it funny this time!!!! Give me that scene from Enemy at the Gates, where Zaitsev fires 4 bulllets into 4 nazis... I assure you while watching that scene, the last thing on my mind was, the lighting in the scene or the color of the uniform he wore, or even how un realistic the action sequence was....
The only thing that went through my mind was, "DAMN!!!!!!" that motherfucker is a headshot king (fans of UT can appreciate such authenticity) and last i heard about that scene, thats the only point the director was trying to make

The violence in kill bill did not put me off, my problem was i never got involved in the movie in the first place.  I felt more insulted than impressed every time some one sprung a crimson leak!!! Violence in movies when done right is awesome, for me...Mindless blood spewing does nothing for some people. (i never saw The passion of the christ but i  think i can safely assume it did not have as much blood, or even 10% of the dismemberment kill bill had) yet, i read of people having heart attacks (i think two people  might have died while watching it) and some one was so taken by the movie they drove their car into a river bed....

Perharps some of you may compare and contrast the violence in the two movies so as to understand
the two extremely different reactions peiople had to both movies)
Yes but Kill Bill was fantasy. Any of those films you mentioned definately weren't. I mean the things that happen in Kill Bill are not supposed to be real and it is basically just for entertainment. Kill Bill is not in the real universe but in a fantasy universe where hilarious things are not uncommon. QT's aim wasn't to make a scene to be realistic, believable or true to life.
Image

"Movies are my religion and God is my patron. I'm lucky enough to be in the position where I don't make movies to pay for my pool. When I make a movie, I want it to be everything to me; like I would die for it." - QT

User avatar
Sebastian
Inglourious Basterd
Posts: 7839
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2000 11:00 pm
Location: Berlin, Germany
Contact:

Re: QT - violence

Post by Sebastian » Sat Dec 11, 2004 3:24 pm

Scarface is on strike wrote: Jeez, this dickhead greendestiny is still around? What kind of sad life is he livin'? Now he's even comparing Kill Bill to a movie he hasn't even seen.
yeah. and how lame! the passion has like tankloads of blood. kill bill seems pussy to gibson's whip-the-jeezus movie

greendestiny

Re: QT - violence

Post by greendestiny » Sat Dec 11, 2004 7:14 pm

WeaselCo wrote: The blood squirting was just a homage to samurai films. Why is it okay for war movies to have violence. Saving Private Ryan isn't based on a true story. You shouldn't have violence limitations based on context..
You are confusing the film makers "intentions" (in this case paying homage) with his achievements.
Simply put, if a certain director wanted to pay homage to old horror movies and decided to use the old
fake rubber suits with steam shooting out the nostrils (read fake special effects and too much squirting blood)..Fine he has suceeded in incorporating a certain aspect of the old horror (read sumurai) movies, but that does not negate the fact that the audience will still find the cheesy rubber suits stupid or more or less insulting. Movie audiences evolve along with cinema. It is ridiculous for a film maker to assume that his audience will some how by pass the obvious, absurd and over board scenery they are looking at in favor of some nostalgic understanding of film history.

There are many ways to pay homage to a  movie genre and simply copying and pasting one aspect from the subject genre while casting aside the level of maturity of todays audience is not the way to go. Case and point, last Samurai, that set out specifically to pay homage to Samurai movie lore had about as much violence yet had better sucess at reaching audiences across the board!


And no one said that its okay for war movies to have violence while fictional work cant. Scarface was a work of fiction but the violence worked in that movie. And 20 years later it is still has that much appeal.

User avatar
Sebastian
Inglourious Basterd
Posts: 7839
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2000 11:00 pm
Location: Berlin, Germany
Contact:

Re: QT - violence

Post by Sebastian » Tue Dec 14, 2004 12:47 pm

ok back on topic (after deleting all the crap...)

i think if someone accues QT of making violent films, that person forgets the context.

the context being:
-there are hundreds of more violent movies that tarantinos'
-Tarantino's violence is always cartoonish and not serious or "normal"
-tarantino's violence is overstylized while in most other films its used to disturb the audience or show realism or brutality
-his films are always rated R, so if you're not old enough to see the blood, just dont watch it

WeaselCo

Re: QT - violence

Post by WeaselCo » Tue Dec 14, 2004 12:57 pm

yay!  ;)

User avatar
clown
Hard Drinker
Posts: 182
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 2:02 am

Re: QT - violence

Post by clown » Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:07 pm

Tarantino Forum Admin wrote: -Tarantino's violence is always cartoonish and not serious or "normal"
if you meant and not serious or not "normal"
then i have to disagree.

only kill bill was cartoonish
in every other movie the violence was realistic
Image

User avatar
Sebastian
Inglourious Basterd
Posts: 7839
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2000 11:00 pm
Location: Berlin, Germany
Contact:

Re: QT - violence

Post by Sebastian » Tue Dec 14, 2004 2:46 pm

clown wrote: only kill bill was cartoonish
in every other movie the violence was realistic
nope. in pulp fiction the violence was hip, crazy and over-the top (marvin's head, vince shooting the pothead amidst the sentence...etc).
in reservoir dogs it was over the top (orange in the car) and funny (i cant see anything, i got blood in my eyes - brown).
in jackie brown violence seems reduced to a level of normality (de niro shooting the chick in the guts because she talks so much).
-> no realism

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests