djtoell

Huh? You said that any single Tarantino film has made more than all of Cronenberg's films together. Even cutting out Reservoir Dogs, this isn't remotely true. Get a clue, please.

(And The Fly (1986) earned over $60 million worldwide.)

DJ

OldBoy

it wasn't meant to be taken literally...i really had no idea I was only making an example which i think most will get...obviously not you.

djtoell

You made a factual assertion with no qualifications, and one that is completely plausible. You then continued to defend this assertion on factual level, even though you deleted that post. Now, suddenly, it wasn't meant to be taken literally? Come on, dude. You said something, and it was wrong. Be a man. Don't try to turn it around and blame me because you post things that you make up without doing any research.

DJ

IanH

djtoell,

The subject of this thread is "Cronenberg slags Tarantino's movies" You posted in response to my initial post that you claim just amounts to fanboy gushing. I was arguing Tarantino isn't a "hack" as Cronenberg seems to imply.

I believe Tarantino has had a stronger impact with popular culture and has a more recongnizable style to more people because he uses more familiar elements. Like kung fu films to gangster pictures. His films are by nature more accessible than most of Cronenberg's movies because he uses more popular themes and subject matter. For instance, Tarantino's type of signature violence is more popular than the fantastical/surreal violence of Videodrome or Naked Lunch. Cronenberg just tends to deal with stranger more obscure subject matters.

I don't measure the greatness of a director based on popularity either. I think there are other directors today that are more talented and more consistent than either of them; but they simply haven't had as much of a cultural impact as either Tarantino or Cronenberg. I never said or implied that Cronenberg lacked a signature style. But you keep badgering me about the fact that he does, that he was influential, and has quite a following in Canada. Yeah. Fine. I said from the very beginning that he does have his own style, just not as "apparent" or as obvious as Tarantino's to mainstream audiences. Where did I say that Cronenberg didn't? Where? I've simply never seen in the mainstream media or elsewhere discusson of Cronenberg's style to the same degree as Tarantino's.


You called Tarantino "wholly unimpressive" and keep going on about Cronenberg. I never said anything bad about Cronenberg but you keep accusing me of doing something I never did. My crime apparently is the crime of omission. Not praising Cronenberg the way I did for Tarantino. I'm on neither side because in fact I'm FOR both directors. Its Tarantino that I feel thats getting unfairly trashed here.

Think carefully and reread my posts before you start self congratulating yourself for taking me "to task".

MovieExchange

Maybe this has already been said, but I'm not reading through the large war to find out. Tarantino is NOT as great as his legion of drooling fanboys think he is. While everyone lifts a little here and there from their inspirations, at least they only do a scene or so, and they tend to admit that it's an homage to what they loved. Tarantino thoroughly bastardizes obscure films and calls them his own. He's not as creative as people think he is.

While I don't mind violent movies, I at least like the violence to be a necessary part of the story. Tarantino does violence just for the sake of having violence. He's fixated on violence like a teenager is fixated on sex.

Hokeyboy

What cracks me up immensely is how much people are trying to state opinion as fact, or tout bullshit as reality.

I love Tarantino's movies, and to a point I agree with Cronenberg save for the fact that I don't think his comments are necessarily BAD things. And I never saw any post-modernist, wink-wink moments in Jackie Brown *except* for maybe the opening credits. What a great movie. Don't like it? Then I must

OldBoy

don't go the jackass route and demean everyone in this discussion differing from you. i believe posts up you do the same to another. c'mon now and it has every bit to do with the discussion originally set out in this thread.

OldBoy

i'm done. you of little mentality. you have to live with yourself. i don't.

lamphorn

uh-huh uh-huh, but how much did Pulp Fiction make??

ah, 45.5 million. Cronenberg sucks.

caiman

Holy shit dude, just stop saying stuff.

DarthVong

So since....

Friday the 13th Pt.5 - $21,930,418
Friday the 13th Pt.4 - $32,980,000
Jeepers Creepers - $37,470,017
Halloween - $47,000,000

So if were going by BOG to establish great directors then that means that 2 Fridays were almost of good, so was Jeepers Creepers, and that John Carpenter's Halloween is the best of these examples.....

Shows you that stats can be manipulated to mean whatever you want them to. I think we can all agree that currently John Carpenter can't direct traffic successfully.

djtoell

I actually don't think box office gross means any of that, which you can easily see if you read my entire post (as I said there, "[i]t has absolutely no bearing on the discussion..."). I posted the information only for the limited purpose of showing that scott1598's assertion was not even correct on basic factual level, regardless of its relevance.

DJ

djtoell

Right, because you praised Tarantino in a post of mine that did not call for such a response.

Then perhaps you'll want to make such posts without quoting the posts of others who are not arguing that point. If you want to reply directly to the subject of the thread without arguing with any specific individual therein, don't pretend to quote someone else and put a response underneath their quoted words.

Wrong. Try reading it again. I called your assertion that Tarantino is a "tastemaker," which was totally irrelevant to the post of mine to which you were allegedly replying, wholly unimpressive. I never made any such commentary about Tarantino in general, only your irrelevant fanboy gushing concerning him. My not being impressed by some guy randomly running around calling Tarantino a "tastemaker," despite its lack of relevance, says nothing about my opinions on Tarantino as a person or his body of work.

I think your misreading of my use of the phrase "wholly unimpressive" in this thrad perfectly sums up our interaction in this thread. Your reading comprehension, either by lack of skills or by willfull blindness caused by wanting to defend Tarantino even where he is not being attacked, results in you responding to someone else's post, quoting them, and then so utterly misconstruing or ignoring their words that feel you have to defend Tarantino regardless of what is actually being discussed. Your replies thus amount to little more than spam, promoting Tarantino even when it is not appropriate.

I do?

Says the guy whose reading comprehension is so poor that he converts my criticism of him into a criticism of Tarantino...

DJ

DarthVong

Sorry, I probably shouldnt have quoted you because my response was not directed at you.

Just using it as an example to show that bringing box office figures into a discussion about who is the better director is useless.

I like individual films by both directors. I also hate individual films by both directors.

Still, the original statement made by D.C. is correct about Q.T. but that doesnt mean his films are bad per se, just predictable and reimagined.

Look at the original Star Wars, it borrows heavily from other films, yet is still a classic film. Now, I don't mention that to throw Luca$ into the discussion either, just an example that Q.T. is not the only director to recycle subject matter into their films.

But they both are still Lucas' bitches....

feloosa

Long Live the New Flesh!

IanH

I'm not so tight fisted about my own posts that if someone were to quote me then expand or talk further about something they feel is related to the subject of this thread I wouldn't go ape shit and jump on every single thing being said.


Fair enough on that point. Maybe since you're posts are so downright hostile and full of piss about some positive things I had to say about Tarantino I'm not sure who you are attacking.
And so you weren't "impressed" by my argument that Tarantino is a "tastemaker". Fine. But, in my opinion of course, having a certain cinematic style has a lot to do with being a tastemaker. Combined with his success thats what gave him the clout to talk in the media and talk about his influences, his likes, and dislikes (more than I've ever seen Cronenberg do). Not to mention all the actors, directors, and more obscure films he helped to bring awareness to mainstream America. I won't mention them since you probably won't be impressed by names like John Woo, Wong Kar Wai or the popular actors from the 70's he made popular again.

Yes. That Cronenberg has his own signature style when I already adknowledged he did. But coming from a Tarantino "fanboy" that you allege me to be thats not quite good enough for you is it?


From a very early post of yours:

It was your initial lack of reading comprehension skills that made you assume that I was arguing that the "lack of debate among teenagers negate the existence of strong directorial signatures" Did I even imply that? Did I jump all over your post and go on a relentless crusade for twisting my words and bringing up a whole other subject? No. I didn't and won't make a big deal about it.

No worries. All your posts are obviously sacrosanct. I'll never respond to your posts again even ones that criticize mine. I'll never muddy your immaculate posts again. Either that or this is a game to you and the actual subject of movies is incidental. Go ahead have the last word.

djtoell

Given that you've attempted to criticize me for not wanting to engage in a discussion on the topics you brought up in your responses to me, this kind of holier-than-thou attitude doesn't really fly.

Yes, yes, I know, I know. It's all my fault when you make a mistake. You've got no responsibility for anything you do.

Yes, you did. You quoted a post (mine) concerning whether Cronenberg's films had a strong directorial signature, and pointed out that Tarantino's films are debated among teens. Go right to the first time you responded to one of my posts. It's right there. I'm sure you'll tell me that this was just you "expanding," but it doesn't get rid of the implication that the two concepts were related. If directly responding to someone doesn't imply that that response is related to that other person's words, then nothing does.

Well, that's because you did actually do it. Plus, you were too busy dropping names and telling me how cool and influential Tarantino is.

Yes, yes, I know. Big bad me. I'm the one who made you post those things. Woe is you. When you've got no more excuses left, blame everyone else.

DJ

RyoHazuki

John Woo is popular in America because of Tarantino.

Hokeyboy

Seriously, quit digging that hole.

Anyway, this is a silly discussion. If, say, Martin Scorsese (just to pull a name out of my ass) came out tomorrow talking trash about (to pull out another name) Alejandro Amenabar, what difference would THAT make? Would his opinion be more valid because he made Taxi Driver? Or less, because he made Gangs of New York? I do have a soft spot for Kundun though. Why does that film get shat upon so frequently? I'll never understand. Man I'm beat.

William Fuld

That wasn't what IanH said. He said Tarantino helped bring awareness of Woo to mainstream America, and that's true. What that has to do with anything, I haven't figured out.

IanH

deleted. Redundant post.

Cygnet74

i'm having trouble understanding how someone could argue that "popularity" or "celebrity status" is somehow the standard by which a person should decide who the better filmmaker is.

RyoHazuki

Maybe I'm slow, but could you explain this to me?

IanH

I thought this wasn't about who the "better" director is?

I thought this thread should have always been about whether Cronenberg is right or wrong in his statements or whether his statements had some truth to it or not?

I've never tried to argue who was better or tried to use "popularity" as the basis for determining the quality of a director.

I do think how influential a director is to other directors and movie making in general is an important measure of how "good" a director is. Whether you think his influence was positive or negative well, that up to the individual to decide.



Cronenberg doesn't seem to see much or any value in Tarantino's movies because he believes Tarantino's films are just "about movies" or life "filtered through old movies". While Cronenberg and others seem to have a problem with that I and others do not. Thats assuming that that is an accurate description of Tarantino's movies. And other prominent directors do that as well since movies don't necessarily reflect pure reality; but often a purely cinematic interpretation of life (I believe Kubrick's movies are the most obvious examples of a purely cinematic interpretation of life). Now, thats what other movie critics and writers seem to interpret and I agree with them. Other people have their interpretations. And whats wrong with genre pictures which is what Tarantino has done? Cronenberg I feel is overemphasizing one aspect of Tarantino's method and can't seem to find any value in Tarantino's movies.

IanH

True Romance featured clips from a John Woo movie and raised more awareness of Woo's movies. (Sonny Chiba as well)

Tarantino often referenced or copied Woo's movies like the "standoff" between Mr. White, Nice Guy Eddie, and Joe Cabot in Reservoir Dogs.

I don't think its a coincidence that John Woo's movies started to gain acceptance among a wider audience after Reservoir Dogs and True Romance came out.