kd5

David Lynch has more of an imagination than just shooting, stabbing, and beating the hell out of everyone. The only film I really liked by Tarantino was From Dusk Till Dawn and that was because it had vampires in it, the others are just new ways to shoot, stab, torture, and beat the hell out of everyone. -kd5-

riotinmyskull

aren't most vampire movies?

kd5

Yes, but violence just for violence's sake seems to be Tarantino's claim to fame, and From Dusk Till Dawn isn't much different, the only difference being it has vampires in it which actually required a bit of imagination, something David Lynch has in abundance. -kd5-

Ash Ketchum

I have nothing against Lynch. I have enormous respect for him and find him to be a true original. However, Tarantino's films get me excited about the art of moviemaking all over again. Lynch's films are interesting but Tarantino's films are truly stimulating and remind me in every fiber of my being why I got into film in the first place.

RocShemp

Although Tarantino wrote From Dusk Till Dawn, it's very much a Robert Rodriguez flick. So let's give credit where credit is due.

Mr. Cinema

I'm not wise enough to get the genius of Lynch, so I voted for the other guy.

Solid Snake

...I'm not sure how to understand your post. Lynch isn't a genre director so..maybe that's why you think QT lacks as much imagination as DL.

I think Lynch is ok to see every once in a while but QT was the guy that made me want to become (and know be) a student filmmaker and hopefully a successful professional filmmaker in my future.

Supermallet

Which movie do you want to know about? The only film I couldn't make heads or tails of is Inland Empire. Rather, I don't think Inland Empire has a head or tail to make out.

For a very long time, Lynch was my favorite director, and I find it funny that you would paint every single Lynch fan with the same brush stroke. Just because you don't enjoy his movies doesn't mean there isn't something there to enjoy, or ponder, or appreciate.

dick_grayson

nando820

Yes first time I watched Pulp Fiction I was blown away. I watched that movie so many times I memorized every single line of dialog then came "Kill Bill" which was the first time in my life I got the same feeling as watching japanese animation but this time with real actors. And then "Inglorious Basterds" blow me away again with its celebration of movies and history.

Yeah I think that applies to me. I get 40% percent of his films when i watch them then i have to go read about what they meant and then i go "Ohhh i can see it now... pretty clever" but then again i already spent 2 hours going crazy watching them.

jmu878

Tarantino by a long shot...it's not even close. I've only seen a handful of Lynch films and never have the desire to revisit any of them.

Hokeyboy

God DAMN you!

Hmmm... Mulholland Dr is my favorite film of the 2000s... but I fucking hated Lost Highway, and I don't fucking hate anything Tarantino ever did... plus the perfect trifecta of Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, and Jackie Brown... the Kill Bills run out of steam at the end of Part 2, but what a ride to get there... but wait, Blue Velvet and Eraserhead are mesmerizing, and I love the look and feel of Dune and, to a lesser extent, the flawed Elephant Man... but Inglourious Basterds is a total freakin' hoot...

Bah. Tarantino takes it. But it wasn't easy.

Sessa17

Haven't read through this thread, but since this forum blindly worships Tarantino like a God, I'm assuming this debate is a mute point here. That aside, realisticly this isn't even a debate worth discussing, Lynch is so beyond Tarantino in artistic talent it is laughable. Tarantino's career is nothing more than copying obscure films that mainstream audiences have never seen, & then passing them off to the masses who then think its just so cool & original. Lynch changed television with a TV series that was so influential it is still copied today, he pushed boundaries a way network television has never seen before. He pushed boundaries in Sci-Fi in a way that had never been seen before in film & has constantly tried to bend-genres with his creativity. Lynch is a true artist that embodies what creativity in the medium can be, Tarantino takes creativity of pioneers like Lynch, & makes it digestable & easy to consume.

Supermallet

Lost Highway is a trip into the unconscious, touching on themes of identity, infidelity, loss, the transience of memory, and transformation. Its narrative is a purposeful enigma, designed to take the viewer on a journey for the journey's sake. If you're trying to watch it and figure out why event A led to event B, that's not the point. It's better to think of it as a mood piece than a narrative, although the plot suggests a psychogenic fugue has taken place, Lynch has said that is not a sufficient explanation for the film's events. Rather, the images and occurrences should evoke a reaction from the viewer, and allow the audience to ponder their meaning without tying it down to a traditional narrative structure.

I will now sit and wait for the torrent of replies of how I didn't answer the question or am bullshitting or being a pretentious ass, etc. etc.

Hokeyboy

A psychogenic fugue...!

Trevor

Or perhaps all that "artistic talent" is just insanity, and his fans are too insecure to admit some of his films just plain suck?

Sessa17

There is definitely insanity involved & that turns most people off, & he has produced some crap indeed. But his highs are lightyears ahead of anything Tarantino could ever dream of & at least Lynch mines the caves of his own insanity for his films rather than Tarantino who goes to a rental store to get his ideas.

inri222

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Lynch#Influences

Lynch has expressed his admiration for filmmakers Federico Fellini, Ingmar Bergman, Orson Welles, Akira Kurosawa, Stanley Kubrick, Jacques Tati, Alejandro Jodorowsky, writer Franz Kafka (stating "the only artist I felt could be my brother was Kafka"), and artist Francis Bacon. He states that the majority of Kubrick films are in his top ten, that he really loves Kafka, and that Bacon paints images that are both visually stunning, and emotionally touching. He has also cited the Austrian expressionist painter Oskar Kokoschka as an inspiration for his works. Lynch has a love for the 1939 version of The Wizard of Oz and frequently makes reference to it in his films, most overtly in Wild at Heart.

............................

His influences have also included Werner Herzog, Alfred Hitchcock, Billy Wilder and Luis Buñuel. Some of Lynch's influences have cited him as an influence themselves, most notably Kubrick, who stated that he modeled his vision of The Shining (1980) upon that of Eraserhead and who, according to Lynch's book Catching the Big Fish, once commented while screening Eraserhead for a small group that it was his favorite film.

asianxcore

Tarantino.

nando820

I don't think it matters if you draw your inspiration from your subconscious, a floating paper bag or other films but how you create the magic with the tools used.
Yeah Lynch is definitely on a complete different level but that doesn't necessarily mean he has reached the Nirvana of film making.

Also is kinda of unfair to put these two directors together. They are working in complete different environments i think. One is trying to create chocolate milk the other one Green Tea.

As for me I like Tarantino better because he is more direct and his dialogues are always engaging and well thought of. I do see Lynch's greatness at creating something different "Muholland Drive" blew me away and it was an amazingly well structured piece of film. But his other films have left me empty and feeling a little dirty. Maybe that was his point to get me completely involved regardless if the feeling is good or bad. But for that I think Kubrick (and even Nolan now) have proven to be better at creating a film that has its own identity and universe, create a specific feel in you, makes you think and most importantly are pretty damn entertaining

Supermallet

Insanity and creativity are often closely linked. That is not an insult. And while some of his films do plain suck, it's probably a far smaller number than what you're suggesting.

Sessa17

Nobody here said it did, just that he is better than Tarantino, which isn't really saying much because many directors are. Sorry to break the news to everyone here.

Trevor

I pretty much agree with you, but just like to jump into either side of an argument when either side comes across a little smug.

And while I agree that certain things are better made and/or more original or more artistic or whatever, sometimes I just want something "fun". And QT's films are a heck of a lot of that.

Sessa17

Well, I know I'm a dick, its more fun that way. It would be boring reading all the posts of "popular movies rule, Tarantino is popular, & Lynch is weird, I don't understand that weird stuff, it might make me accidentely think during the movie". Oooops, there I go again

Supermallet

Lynch isn't for everyone. Heck, some people still look at Picasso paintings and can't figure out what's so great about the guy. But that doesn't mean that the art is lacking in merit.

And I'm not arguing for one second about the quality of QT's work. He is amazing. At the same time, I'm willing to bet if you asked his opinion of Lynch, you'd get nothing but praise from Tarantino.