The Quentin Tarantino Archives logo

Rip Offs


#1

Has anyone seen Kaante yet? It’s the Bollywood version off dogs, with a dash of Usual Suspects.



It’s hilarious how they treat ResDogs. They don’t give Tarantino any credit when its obvious that if Tarantino was never born, Kaante would be a very different movie.


#2

haven’t seen that.



but, did QT give Ringo Lam any credit? no.


#3

[quote]Has anyone seen Kaante yet? ÊIt’s the Bollywood version off dogs, with a dash of Usual Suspects.



It’s hilarious how they treat ResDogs. ÊThey don’t give Tarantino any credit when its obvious that if Tarantino was never born, Kaante would be a very different movie.[/quote]

It sounds like a piece of shit.



QT is a genius, his films might be inspired by earlier films but they have an originality only he could bring to them (just like DePalma’s films). They are his heart and soul. Theres a difference between a hack ripping off scenes from other movies and great filmmakers/artists using themes from other films and making them their own.



“When I’m making a film I do what painters do. I look at the old masters, in my case its the great directors of the past.” - Martin Scorsese


#4

A few weeks ago I finally saw City on Fire. I thought it was great especially the getaway after the heist. When I first heard about this movie and Tarantino ripping it off I thought it was going to be exactly like Reservoir Dogs. It’s not. There are a few scenes near the end where I see the ideas Quentin got from City on Fire and expanded on it. I wouldn’t say he ripped anything off though.



-Jason


#5

Wow. I totally should have read this thread before I posted my bit on Kaante on the ‘OH MY GOD’ thread. Whoops.:-[ But hey, if anyone’s still interested, you can read it there! :slight_smile:


#6

Yeah, I just ordered KAANTE to see how it compares. I wonder if it’ll be more RESERVOIR DOGS or CITY ON FIRE-like. :slight_smile:



As long as it’s not one of those uninspired pieces of trash like TRUTH OR CONSEQUENCES, NM, I’ll be okay.



http://www.impossiblefunky.com/qt/rd4.html


  • Mike White

#7

i just watched "who do you think you’re fooling?"



you know, I never thought it’s gonna blow me away like this.

i wont call Dogs a rip-off of City on Fire, but from what I’ve seen in that documentary, Dogs would easily qualify as a REMAKE of City on Fire.



i am indeed surprised, but, that’s how i’d call it


#8

[quote]i just watched "who do you think you’re fooling?"



you know, I never thought it’s gonna blow me away like this.

i wont call Dogs a rip-off of City on Fire, but from what I’ve seen in that documentary, Dogs would easily qualify as a REMAKE of City on Fire.



i am indeed surprised, but, that’s how i’d call it[/quote]

Any way you cut it, Dogs is its own film. City On Fire is total other film. It has no QT dialogue, no American actors, no 70s music. If some of the story and character elements are the same, so what? TONS of films have similar storylines and character elements. Its nothing new or rare.



All QT did was take some similar ideas and put it in with his own personality and his own take on the crime/heist genre. Its just like hes always done and probably always will do.



The same things can be said about Pulp Fiction, From Dusk Till Dawn and Kill Bill. QT is a master of pop culture cinema. Thats what he does best, and I love it.


#9

… seems like Dogs is… well, i dont know how to say…



its a great film, and it certainly is different, but i think everyone who denies the “remake-ish-ness” compared to City on Fire, is ignorant.



i think, QT wrote this film inspired by city on fire, and he thought it wouldnt be sucessful anyway, so why not leave it remake-like, but then he had this success and he just shut his mouth about that…

thats my theory



anyway, dogs is surely the better film. i just want to talk about that, because i think the essence of movie-loving is the criticism and the argumentation


#10

Reservior Dogs isn’t a remake of City on Fire. While I will admit it takes some major elements from City on Fire, it would be discrediting to not only Tarantino but the other films he borrowed ideas from to call it a remake of City on Fire. Some large film influences are Le Samourai (the tree way showdown), and Taking of Pelham 1, 2, 3… (the costumes and names such as Mr. Brown and Mr. Blue). Other smaller part come from The Wild Bunch (which the slow motion walking to Little Green Bag was a homage to), The Killing and Rififi.



If you want to be specific you could say some scenes were remade, such as the Crook vs. cops in car scene (where the crook shoots the officers with two guns), but the film on a whole is a completely original experience and movie.



Finally to call a film a remake is in no way insulting that movie. Take The Maltese Falcon for example. An absolute masterpiece. Also a remake. Not only a remake, but a second remake. (The version you are familiar with was released in 1941, whereas the original version was released in 1931).


#11

[quote]Reservior Dogs isn’t a remake of City on Fire. While I will admit it takes some major elements from City on Fire, it would be discrediting to not only Tarantino but the other films he borrowed ideas from to call it a remake of City on Fire. Some large film influences are Le Samourai (the tree way showdown), and Taking of Pelham 1, 2, 3… (the costumes and names such as Mr. Brown and Mr. Blue). Other smaller part come from The Wild Bunch (which the slow motion walking to Little Green Bag was a homage to), The Killing and Rififi.



If you want to be specific you could say some scenes were remade, such as the Crook vs. cops in car scene (where the crook shoots the officers with two guns), but the film on a whole is a completely original experience and movie.

[/quote]

Holiday, not to be rude, but most of us have been Tarantino fans since we first saw Dogs in 92. We know everything about the film. Theres no need to bring this stuff back up again for the Nth time.


#12

Sorry about that. I was just supporting my opinion with proof to make sure that everyone is without a doubt that RD is not a remake. I do not doubt you have been a fan since 92, as I myself have been, but there may be some member out there who isn’t quite as knowlegable about this film as others, and who I thought might benifit from knowing more about the film. Sorry about giving out redundant material.


#13

I am beginning to like this Holiday person. You don’t have to apologize… you think in the 3 years people have posted here, not one piece of information has ever been reiterated? Nothing was shared twice, three times? Sounds like a field trip to archives to me!


#14

You’re right spisnter!


#15

I’m sure I’m not the first one to say it, but i’ve always seen RD as a sotra homage to City On Fire, Wild Bunch, et al. I was reminded of that this weekend when I finally saw Django, which is the movie QT references with the ear-cutting scene.



I agree that RD is its own movie. Hell, I was 20 when it came out and that thing turned me on to so much great stuff… Although QT has made better movies, and will make better movies, I have no doubt Reservoir Dogs will remain my favorite.



Without RD I may never have found out about Eddie Bunker othe than that he wrote Runaway Train. Eddie Bunker is a fucking awesome novelist everyone should read. Even better than Elmore Leonard. Hard to believe, but true.


#16

Really?

How many books he has so far?


#17

By the way, I’m new here.

I have a question: Is Tarantino inspired by the movie ‘Taking Pelham One Two Three’, they use the name’s Mr. Blue, Mr.Grey, Mr.Brown and Mr. Green.

And they all have fake mustaches, a hat, glasses.

Just like in RD, they all have the same outfit and also have those Mr.Color names.


#18

[quote] Is Tarantino inspired by the movie ‘Taking Pelham One Two Three’.[/quote]
Yah he has!


#19

OK thanks!!

Pelham One Two Three is also a good movie!! I saw it a while ago!!



Greetings from the Netherlands!