Is he one of the greats?

No, he's a racist that only white incels like

But Samuel L Jackson himself said it was impossible for Tarantino to be racist:youtube.com/watch?v=RBg-1WPRtQs

youtube.com/watch?v=RBg-1WPRtQs

Although something like apocalypse now was a adaption of heart of darkness I never saw Francis Ford Capola blatantly putting in almost direct references in his movies like Quentin did with Django, Lady snowblood, and the original inglorious bastards.

ALL OF A SUDDAAAAAAAAAA

Yeah, but how many other active directors are able to consistently make films entertaining on style and fluff alone? Nolan and Wes come to mind, but who else?

>Pulp Fiction won the Palm d'Or
And so did Blue is the Warmest Colour

But Quentin only won because of Based Clint

del toro

No. He explicitly makes pseudo-exploitation flicks and flicks that are just homages to other flicks. He's entirely too meta to be one of the greats. He comes across as a movie fanboy more than a true auteur.

>Blue is the Warmest Colour
that was a good flick, though.

He's basically a wigger Kevin Smith.

Hes great at ripping off older movies yes

but that's his style, isn't? why should every great filmmaker have the same style? imagine him doing tarkovsky films, what's the point?

Well yes the movies are entertaining, but when you see how often he would just rip scenes from older movies and other media's just to them in another movie it starts to feel slightly cheap after awhile. But I would still prefer him over capeshit.

except tarantino makes way better movies

Bay
Snyder

Not the user your replying to, but I think the argument is more that his film style is something that isn't original because all he's been doing is playing the role of a "fan-boy" to which he kinda remakes movies in his idea.

De Palma is great

If you equal great with only a single great film (Pulp Fiction). But for me greatness is consistency, i.e., at least 3 great films in his body of work.
Coppola is great, with four great films he has directed. Ford, Kurosawa, Bergman.

Yeah they're better realized but he still stays in sort of comfort zone but every character is basically just a mouth piece for him and largely just does talking head films the same way Smith does.

>all he's been doing for the past 20+ years was just making a story after cobbling together concepts and ideas from older obscure films and other media's.
this is dumb. he unquestionably has his own style even if he's obviously been influenced by other films.

He's still a film buff at heart and that's kind of endearing.

I think he will be remembered for his style but not his "greatness." It was unique and in the current climate, that's saying something

Coppola has only directed 3 great films, though. Godfather, Godfather Part II, and Apocalypse Now. He's made the bare minimum.

You may love him, you may hate him, but boy can he write a screenplay. Reading his screenplays is satisfying even if you've already watched his films.

I like how his movies are so undeniably good that the Academy is forced to put shoot 'em up movies where white people say nigger twenty times and someone gets their dick shot off next to tearjerker dramas that are all about social issues. Like you know lefty critics would be saying that Oscars should be rewarding movies that shed light on social issues and that it's irresponsible to nominate Tarantino's movies, but nobody would back them up because his movies are good.

Attached: 1532536690_4fqXI1-BIOEDLcCQ1IBxkDUk6xrc1kVlh6yJoR2Nw0c.png (750x725, 810K)

The Conversation

This is how I conceptualize this guy's career:

1. Master Italian chef exists, makes exquisite Italian dishes
2. Master French chef exists, makes exquisite French dishes
3. Line cook (Tarantino) who has worked at both restaurants opens his own restaurant. He's not bad, but he's not a master.
4. Takes the most popular elements of the Italian food and French food he cooked and blends them together into "new" dishes which are simply derivative of the most tasty elements of each original school.
5. Most of the dishes taste really good. Some of them are weird juxtapositions, but for the most part because Tarantino has mechanical skill and knows what tastes good things usually come out tasting good.
6. He's still not a master chef, and while people will say he's "original" for blending a lot of stuff together, he's not. The truly original chefs were the guys he learned from, and he's just been taking their innovative ideas and merging/morphing them over and over.

he's good, but way overrated by söyböys sucking up to his whole meta schtick

It's good, not great. Plus, the whole thing was a ripoff of Antonioni's Blow-Up (but with a sound theme instead of photography), which was in turned based on a short story by Julio Cortázar. And you're the guy who's accusing QT of not being original... come on.

This is how i conceptualize you and your post:

1. You're a gigantic faggot
2. Your post is shit

the movies he bases his movies on are not original to begin with.

Basically Tarantino is Guy Fieri working in a fusion restaurant making Korean-TexMex Southern BBQ fusion, and while he's taking us to flavortown over and over some michelin star french chef would come up and take a dump on his chest skill wise.

Quinten, go ruin Star Trek! Why are you posting here old man, you've got better things to do!

*bitch-slaps you*

Attached: nothin personel.jpg (771x394, 23K)

Might sound dumb but I kind of want to see what an animated film by him would be like.

Blue is the Warmest Colour was a great film although Mektoub, My Love is a better version.

Star Trek was never alive.

>food parable

he's one of the FUNs

what's a FUN?

>the f wotd

I just saw Inglorious Basterds for the second time last night. Was hard to watch. Don't get me wrong, it's kino. But if you saw once... Maybe I should have waited a few more years to rewatch.

He has an IQ of 160 (genius level).

Yeah I guess.
I don't re-watch his movies much.
They is what they is, pulp fiction.

He's very competent and has a unique...hodgepodge of a style. He's definitely one of the greatest writers I would say...more so than a filmmaker in general just because he's not quite breaking new ground, though no one else is really either...Gaspar Noe comes to mind as someone who is pushing the envelope, Terrence Malick...some others I'm probably forgetting but for the most part we don't have many innovators like a Noe or Malick or Lynch, we have very competent filmmakers like Denis Villeneuve or Paul Thomas Anderson or even Christopher Nolan. I think filmmaking itself hasn't made that large of strides since maybe the 70s or 80s? In fact we seem to be moving backward in terms of progression for easy cash grabs and nostalgia-bait which is a shame because it could have been different, new technology could have made things a lot more interesting I'm sure but creativity has fallen to corporate greed and a disgusting Disney monopoly where all the resources are pooled and little movies get scraps at best. I respect Tarantino for his writing, for trying to elevate the B movies he enjoyed in his youth to high art and his respect for the medium of film in general but I wouldn't say he's quite a master filmmaker.

Wes comes to mind as much more of an original at least in terms of presentation of his content.

Maybe Refn, if you can enjoy the style over the substance. He is undoubtedly stylish and has a unique visual style and aesthetic.

Would you say he'll be remembered as a sort of New Sam Peckinpah? That's the vibe I get.

He's not even 1/2 Scorsese and even Scorsese doesn't have genuine kino and artistic value.

>But Samuel L Jackson himself said it was impossible for Tarantino to be racist
He made Sam L Jackson from an angry nigger into a filthy rich star that's why tarantino can shit in his mouth and call him a nigger to his face and SLJ won't call him racist.

Yes, he's some sort of genius, but like every one of them, he's a psycho too

Attached: 1559388290140.jpg (490x554, 53K)