Le epic feet man

What does Yea Forums think about him and his movies?

Attached: Quentin_Tarantino_by_Gage_Skidmore.jpg (1200x1604, 362K)

They're good, fun pastiches of a bunch of different types of movies. He's got a huge passion for cinema, and it's cool to see that come out so vividly in his work.

That being said, they're essentially just top-tier genre schlock/entertainment. Anyone insisting on genuine artistic merit in his work and/or comparing him to other notable directors--Kubrick, Scorsese, Hitchcock, etc.--should actually be shot and hung. He's part of the group of directors that make fun and engaging movies, not necessarily "great" ones, but he gets miscast among higher-tier directors because he's edgier than Wes Anderson and higher-energy than David Fincher.

>but muh pulp fiction

Non-linear storytelling has been around for centuries--see Ulysses, Frankenstein, Wuthering Heights, and so on. Tarantino got lucky at a time in Hollywood when the industry was ripe for young independent talent and audiences craved something new, and he gave it to them.

Plus, compare his repertoire to other great directors, see above, and each of them btfos Tarantino with new, innovative stories and methods in most, if not all of their famous works; Tarantino made Pulp Fiction and then just kind of used the same techniques over and over again, except in different genres.

Tl;dr--he's a good director who makes good movies, not a great director who makes great movies.

Attached: 1554754674554.jpg (400x400, 69K)

Pulp Fiction > Kill Bill > Inglorious Bastards > Death Proof > Jackie Brown > Reservoir Dogs > Hateful Eight > Django Unchained
What qualifies as having artistic merit?

All movies are entertainment, and you don't get to decide what constitutes art.

Uncreative. He takes other people's ideas and repurposes them. He has no original ideas

Are any of Tarantino's movies shot as well as 2001? Do any of his characters come close to Scorsese's in terms of development and dialogue?

He's a good filmmaker, not a great one. His movies are fun, but that's it. There's no deeper story or message to them. It's like watching a fireworks show--it's satisfying, but nothing's really being discussed.

And that's totally fine. That's not bad, we need directors who are just entertaining and fun or else cinema would get bogged down in boring thematic shit all the time. But that also means that we can't mistake style for substance, which often happens with Tarantino.

I'll always say it: The first 20 minutes of Inglorious Basterds is better than anything else he ever has done or will do.

tl;dr

Imagine being this much of a pretentious faggot

Offer a real argument you illiterate fuck. Contribute to the conversation and stop being an edgy cunt.

That is literally the case with every idea. There are no original ideas and if you believe so, you're naive and probably underaged.
There's nothing deep about any Kubrick or Scorsese film. They have themes and messages but they can similarly be found in plenty of other media, let alone film. What matters is the execution and good execution of a common element of the human condition doesn't have any more inherent value than good execution of the kinds of entertainment concepts and emotions that Tarantino's films have to offer. I certainly find Kubrick and Scorsese to be better at the craft than Tarantino, just not more "artistic" or "meaningful".