Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino)

[Dukefrukem]

Not sure what you mean by "teaching us" ... ?

Anyway, this is the clip about "Kill Bill" I was thinking of. (It's starts around 12:50 )

I just don't know what you expect a homage to do other than reference things. If you don't know it, then you'd never be annoyed by it. But I guess if you DO reference it, it annoys Meg for some reason.

[Dukefrukem]

Not sure what you mean by "teaching us" ... ?

Anyway, this is the clip about "Kill Bill" I was thinking of. (It's starts around 12:50 )

BTW, my wife is sick on the couch behind me, and she just asked me who the PORG was and that she likes your avatar.

[Irish]

BTW, my wife is sick on the couch behind me, and she just asked me who the PORG was and that she likes your avatar.

Tell her she has good taste!

[Irish]

I just don't know what you expect a homage to do other than reference things.

We might be working from different definitions. What do you think an homage is?

To me, QT isn't making homages. He's lifting ideas from other films --- basically, sampling --- without putting much of his own spin on it. Taking an action beat from one film, a tune from another, and a costume element from a third doesn't seem wildly inventive to me, especially when the combination doesn't inform on anything in the scene.

[Skitch]

This is an example of a totally empty reference, not meant to teach anything...

[

Show Spoiler

]

Now thats just some petty shit right there. ONE screengrab = a totally empty reference? Good grief that barely even constitutes a POSE, so I guess if Iron Man stands like Iron Man its an "empty reference"? Or Cap raises his shield its an "empty reference"?

[megladon8]

I just don't know what you expect a homage to do other than reference things. If you don't know it, then you'd never be annoyed by it. But I guess if you DO reference it, it annoys Meg for some reason.

Doing something interesting with a reference, versus “hey, I’ve seen this movie! Look at me!”

[megladon8]

We might be working from different definitions. What do you think an homage is?

To me, QT isn't making homages. He's lifting ideas from other films --- basically, sampling --- without putting much of his own spin on it. Taking an action beat from one film, a tune from another, and a costume element from a third doesn't seem wildly inventive to me, especially when the combination doesn't inform on anything in the scene.

Exacto-mundo!!


Hey everyone see what I did there? I made a reference to Pulp Fiction! I’ve seen that movie! Have you?

[Dukefrukem]

Now thats just some petty shit right there. ONE screengrab = a totally empty reference? Good grief that barely even constitutes a POSE, so I guess if Iron Man stands like Iron Man its an "empty reference"? Or Cap raises his shield its an "empty reference"?

Oh please Skitch... this isn't a Marvel vs DC thing. Can we stay on topic?

[Dukefrukem]

We might be working from different definitions. What do you think an homage is?

To me, QT isn't making homages. He's lifting ideas from other films --- basically, sampling --- without putting much of his own spin on it. Taking an action beat from one film, a tune from another, and a costume element from a third doesn't seem wildly inventive to me, especially when the combination doesn't inform on anything in the scene.

I've never got this impression and I'm really surprised this is spun to be a negative.

The city of fire seems like his own spin. As does Kiss Me Deadly.

[Dukefrukem]

Doing something interesting with a reference, versus “hey, I’ve seen this movie! Look at me!”

The briefcase in Pulp Fiction is doing something interesting.

[Skitch]

Oh please Skitch... this isn't a Marvel vs DC thing. Can we stay on topic?

You reference a comic book movie thing...I counter with asking if other comic book thing is same and you dodge. Is it or isn't it?

[Dukefrukem]

You reference a comic book movie thing...I counter with asking if other comic book thing is same and you dodge. Is it or isn't it?

[

Show Spoiler

]

[Skitch]

You're comparing oranges and onions.

[megladon8]

That’s not an homage.

[Dukefrukem]

Of course it is. What are we doing here guys?

[Ezee E]

There was nothing really like it when it came out.

Agreed, but that was then. Now... I'd rather just watch something else. It doesn't hold up for me anymore.

[Ezee E]

Tarantino's nods to other movies works on its own without having seen the movie it references. I think that's what makes it stand out compared to other directors that do the same thing.

[StuSmallz]

For me, Tarantino's indulgence in cinematic homages was never inherently a major negative or positive factor when it comes to his body of his work; yes, they were one of the elements that helped distinguish his overall style, along with the other obvious aspects like the gratutious retro needle drops on the soundtrack, the long, extended build-ups to sudden explosions of violence, and the colorful, profane chatterboxes that he calls characters, but I never felt like any of those were the ultimate deciding factors in whether his movies were good or not; in other words, they were his spice, not his meat.

Rather, QT's work has always risen or fallen based upon whether they were fundamentally substantive experiences, especially in terms of developing the characters in significant, compelling ways, whether it be Jules's individual arc of redemption from "the life", Max & Jackie's over-the-hill, star-crossed romance, or Bill & The Bride's love-hate dynamic, which were the reasons the movies those characters were in are my favorites from him. His recent works have been disappointingly weak on that front, and I feel he's regressed back to the direction he took on Reservoir Dogs, which, to paraphrase Ebert's review of it, he basically sets up the story just fine, and introduces us to the characters to us, but then he doesn't go much of anywhere with them, a flaw that has resurfaced in his recent works, all of which have plenty of the Tarantino style, but little of the substance; Hateful Eight was a bit stronger in the evolution of its characters, but still not by enough, and I'm still hoping that Hollywood will be the film that sees him course-correct on that front.

[Irish]

I've never got this impression and I'm really surprised this is spun to be a negative.

How is Elle Driver whistling a tune from an old British horror movie interesting, either by itself or in relation to "Kill Bill"?

The city of fire seems like his own spin. As does Kiss Me Deadly.

QT took the entire third act of "City on Fire" and remade it. I wouldn't call that an homage, exactly, but I agree it's wholly creative.

I don't understand how the glowing McGuffin in "Kiss Me Deadly" and the glowing McGuffin in "Pulp Fiction" are substantially different enough that you could say Tarantino put his own stamp on the idea.

[DavidSeven]

For me, Tarantino's indulgence in cinematic homages was never inherently a major negative or positive factor when it comes to his body of his work; yes, they were one of the elements that helped distinguish his overall style, along with the other obvious aspects like the gratutious retro needle drops on the soundtrack, the long, extended build-ups to sudden explosions of violence, and the colorful, profane chatterboxes that he calls characters, but I never felt like any of those were the ultimate deciding factors in whether his movies were good or not; in other words, they were his spice, not his meat.

This is a good way to put it. His referential style is not inherently interesting or distracting to me. It simply reveals a man whose point of view has been shaped largely by an obsession with movies. It's his language, so to speak. He associates certain feelings with certain cinematic moments he's seen, and he goes to great lengths to recreate or subvert those moments to achieve whatever he's trying to accomplish with his film. The audience doesn't need to know the reference; Tarantino is just banking on the universality of certain cinematic language. Some of it is also just pure reverence, a way of celebrating some small things he loves and more likely for his own pleasure than anyone else's.

What MacFarlane does is a little more crude. His jokes live and die on the reference. You don't know who James Woods is? Aren't familiar with the trope of Asian newscasters? Well, the heart of those jokes are dead to you then.

[Morris Schæffer]

A few years ago I wrote this in my Hateful Eight review:

And in Kill Bill Volume 2, The Bride punches her way out of grave danger to the sounds of Ennio Morricone's L'Arena, not an original composition, but does it matter when the ensuing scene gets your blood pumping? I think the key is that Tarantino pays homage, this cannot be denied, but knows precisely what to "steal." Had he appropriated one of the main themes of Once Upon a Time in the West it would have been relentlessly blatant, but by opting for a piece of music from a little known Italian western, in this case Sergio Corbucci's The Mercenary, it's as if something that was more or less forgotten or never known, except by former video store clerks, is once again brought to attention in all its splendid glory.

So more or less what StuSmallz has said 3 posts earlier.

[Grouchy]

I think you are all selling Tarantino short.

When the Bride stands in the door frame in Kill Bill, the scene is clearly making an active dialogue with The Searchers - the gunslinger standing afar from the family life he/she craves. It's also not casual that the crowning fight scene for her comes in a Bruce Lee outfit. Not anyone can wear a Bruce Lee jumpsuit, and the fact that a clearly abused blonde wears it says something.

I just have the feeling you're all assuming Tarantino is a stupid person, which he most certainly is not.

[megladon8]

Of course it is. What are we doing here guys?

They turned the comic into a movie and directly copied an image from it.

It’s recreation, not homage.

[Dukefrukem]

They turned the comic into a movie and directly copied an image from it.

It’s recreation, not homage.

That's just an inaccurate depiction Meg. You could argue the "I'll killer her. I know" scene is an adaptation or "recreation" as you put it, of the comics. But that frame, is clearly paying homage to Frank Miller. It's not even subjective.

[megladon8]

That's just an inaccurate depiction Meg. You could argue the "I'll killer her. I know" scene is an adaptation or "recreation" as you put it, of the comics. But that frame, is clearly paying homage to Frank Miller. It's not even subjective.

Frank Miller? What?

And you’re basically doing your “I’m right, you’re wrong, end of discussion” schlock again so...k.