The Quentin Tarantino Archives logo

Pussification


#1

Hey, I love Tarantino and all that’s ever come out in his name… but as far as “pussification” goes, George Carlin not only has him beat… I think he might have a case againt him considering the trade mark symbol is used. wink



I’m referring to the use of the word in the Kill Bill promo ads below.



Back in ‘99, Carlin came out with his comedy album, “You’re All Diseased”, and as far as I know introduced the term “pussification”. I can’t be 100%, but I’m pretty sure he coined it, cuz he’s used it quite prominently more than once in his standup and print work. I’ve uploaded a small minute-long mp3 of Carlin’s use of it. (250k) Snag it here if y’want.



But, this is just a retarded junkfood for thought topic, so whatever. I don’t care who coined it, I just think these ads are just poor use of the word - if it can even be called a word in the first place.



In the context of the Kill Bill ad, it comes off as something to be proud of. You’ve been pussified! You’re pimpin’ now, baby kinda thing. But I mean, c’mon… pussification strikes me as an emasculating term. Deification is when someone is made to be a god in one’s eye. So with pussification, shouldn’t it naturally mean… You’ve become a pussy?



Absolutely pointless, I know. But being a fan of Carlin, it kinda bugged me. shrugs




#2

I dont care if Carlin used “Pussification” before Tarantino. QTs just having fun with it. Im sure he knows that Carlin used that word before him. So fuckin what?



Why does everything have to be about who did what first all the time?


#3

I think I made it pretty clear I couldn’t care less who came out with it first either. It’s just poor use of it, in my opinion.



Hell, if this was all about who did what first, where would you start with Tarantino? He’s as derivative as you can get, and he’s a awe-inspiring genius at it.


#4

Toothpick, if you don’t care about who did what first, why don’t you like Guy Ritchie for making what you call, “Tarantino esque films” ????



I think you’re contradicting yourself…AGAIN :o


#5

[quote]Toothpick, if you don’t care about who did what first, why don’t you like Guy Ritchie for making what you call, “Tarantino esque films” ????



I think you’re contradicting yourself…AGAIN :o[/quote]

Oh yeah Im always contradicting myself. Thats me, Ol Contradiction Vic Vega. lol. Right.



Using a word someone else used before you like “Pussification” and someone who makes shitty Tarantino-esque films like Guy Ritchie is like apples and oranges. QT can back up his artistic ideas and talents. Guy Ritchie on the other hand got rich off of QT style movies. Hes a one trick pony.



Guy Ritchie sucks and hes not coming back. If he does hes gonna be still doing what QT already did better than anyone else.



Sorry to break the news to ya.


#6

[quote]I think I made it pretty clear I couldn’t care less who came out with it first either. It’s just poor use of it, in my opinion.

[/quote]


I agree. I have heard the word used by both George Carlin and Bill Maher, and in both cases, it involved the systematic emasculation of men in today's society. The word synonymous with "pussification", recently created, is "Metrosexual."

I've never seen that ad before, but whoever's behind it is using the term incorrectly.

#7

Oh, fuck… that “metrosexual” horseshit makes me puke.  I seriously hope it falls by the wayside real quick and doesn’t find it’s way into a dictionary any time soon. ÂÂ





And, Vic.  Y’know what?  Scorsese, de Palma, Leone, the Shaw brothers, et al… they all found something that worked, and Tarantino lifted it all.  I know he’s got a love for cinema unsurpassed by most… but even though he makes no bones about paying tribute to these masters, and even though he’s definitely got a personal style of presenting his ideas, AND even though your love for him is obviously blinding you, it doesn’t exonerate him of the fact he’s repackaging things we’ve seen.  Er…in most case things he’s seen - chances are, his fans haven’t. ÂÂ



When you watch a Ritchie film, yeh…the Tarantino influence is pretty evident.  He’s not fooling anyone.  But it’s only because he’s a contemporary that he takes so much flack for it.  If the guys Tarantino borrows from were in the mainstream with him, there’s no chance in hell he’d be seen as anything but a hack. ÂÂ



Tarantino’s my favorite director and his movies saturate my list of favorites…  But there’s no sense in a blind defense of his work over anyone else’s.  And there’s no shame in admitting he’s derivative as hell, Vic.  Who isn’t?  He can still be a genius, and you can still verbally suck his dick all you want. ÂÂ


#8

Get back to me when Guy Ritchie makes another classic Dirty Wett Asshole.



Theres a difference between DePalma, Leone, Shaw Brothers, Tarantino and Guy Ritchie. He sucks massively and they dont. lol.



Like I said, hes a hack. Thats the bottom line.



NEXT!!


#9

Toothpick, your arguments on why Ritchie sucks , suck. You look like an idiot (no offence) when all you say is his movies are “LIKE” Tarantinos and that he’s "GETTING RICH OFF TARANTINO FILMS"



No dude. They got 2 totally different styles.



For one, if you think Ritchie is a hack, look at fucking Tarantino. Believe me, I love Tarantino. But still. Reservoir Dogs is the biggest fucking rip off I’ve ever seen (though I still love the movie) Dogs BLATANTLY ripped off several, more like MANY, elements from City and used them almost EXACTLY the same…yes, the plot is somewhat different, but still the same “aT HEART”



So how the fuck can u say Ritchie is a hack?



By all means I’m gonna have to say Lock STock and 2 Smoking Barrels has FAR more originality than Kill Bill and Reservoir Dogs put together. But you know what? i still love Kill Bill and Dogs. I could care less if they ripped from other movies, cause the movies QT rippes from tend to suck (cIty on Fire)



But come on, PLEASE explain how Ritchie is a hack. Just because he makes a movie about gangsters…who do shit maybe NORMAL/CLICHED gangster movies TEND to do…DOESN’T mean Ritchie is a hack.



Don’t you realize how great it is that there’s OTHER directors who REALIZE what makes good crime dramas?!?!??!?!?



ITs good other are learning from Tarantino and making movies about gangsters BETTER…BETTER DIALOGUE.



I like those movies…AND SO DO YOU…so why do you hate them JUST cause Tarantino started a NEW way to make movies?



When WILL it be ok for movies about gangsters that talk like real people to be released? When Tarantino is dead?



come on now.


#10

Kentucky-Fried MotherTrucker… you make some excellent points. I agree with ya.



But, I guess Quentin is seen by many as a god among directors… and with every god comes a fair share of blind followers who will always see their god as infallible. Vic is one of those lost causes.


#11

he’s like the mormons.



you can love god…but c’mon! ::slight_smile:


#12

[quote]I dont care if Carlin used “Pussification” before Tarantino. QTs just having fun with it. Im sure he knows that Carlin used that word before him. So fuckin what?



Why does everything have to be about who did what first all the time? [/quote]
Do you do anything besides complain anymore?


#13

Guy Ritchie’s movies keep getting compared with Tarantino’s. I suppose this makes sense to a certain degree - Ritchie was probably heavily influenced by Tarantino - but he’s not a “hack”. Snatch had its own European flavor to it that Pulp Fiction and Dogs don’t. So no, Ritchie doesn’t rip off Tarantino, who is the ultimate rip-off artist himself.


#14

I still think Ritchie is a hack. He sucks donkey balls. Cry all you want about it.



Im not arguing over Ritchie. Dont like him, never will. Thats all Im saying.



When he makes a great film without a Tarantinoesque influence, then you can yell at me all you want. Until that day comes:



SHUT YOUR FUCKIN PIEHOLES!!! :wink:


#15

Shut your fucking face, Uncle Fucka…



Yeah, I watched the South Park movie for the 857th time today.


#16

Vic, what would you do if Tarantino made a film without using his influences? You’d barely recognize his work and probably say it was him at his worse. When he relaxed abit with Jackie Brown, it didn’t do so good, did it?



People want to see him do what he does best.


#17

[quote]I still think Ritchie is a hack. He sucks donkey balls. Cry all you want about it.


[/quote]

C’mon, while Ritchie may have followed Q.T. in the timeline of non Mafia gangster pics. You have to see that he has a style and attitude all his own. For instance : The Slow Motion scene in Snatch, : the “Dags” chase the rabbit Overlayed at the same time with the henchmen chasing the fat black driver. Throw in that bad ass techno funk track playing behind it! That’s Fucking great direction.


#18

Indeed. Another mark of great direction: I enjoyed the movie immensely, even though I didn’t have the slightest clue what was going on. I mean, no idea. The accents were confusing as hell. Maybe my sound system’s crappy.


#19

Im a lost cause because I think Tarantino is a great director? He IS a great director.



Jackie Brown is an excellent film, I dont know what the hell youre even talking about. Just because it wasnt Pulp Fiction 2 doesnt mean shit to most of us. Its still just as great as anything QT did before it.



What does Jackie Brown have to do with Guy Ritchie anyway?



Guy Ritchie can suck Madonnas big dick. He is the British equivalent of Brett Ratner. lol.



Dirty Wett Asshole, that avatar is totally offensive to me you scumbag. I think you should change it or be banned from the board.


#20

I didn’t think De Palma fans could be offended by anything.