Back to Forum
Oldest First
Newest First
Check it out
Score: 0
oh come on, he has been asked this over and over and over again.these reporters are clearly waiting for the chance to take his words and twist them around like they always do
he could have been a little more polite about it, but i can see his point
Score: 6
Are there Django spoilers in this clip?
Score: 0
@chris200w said: Are there Django spoilers in this clip?no, unless you didn't know that there is a ton of violence in the movie
Score: 0
@Gordeaux said: oh come on, he has been asked this over and over and over again.I'm at work. What did they ask him.
Score: 0
@Jimmymac03 said: @Gordeaux said:They asked him why he feels that there's no link between violence in movies and violence in real life.oh come on, he has been asked this over and over and over again.I'm at work. What did they ask him.
Score: 0
@chris200w said: They asked him why he feels that there's no link between violence in movies and violence in real life.Ah that old dog. Yes, annoying.
Score: 1
I love QT, but the dude's kind of a dweeb. Absolute genius. Just kind of a dweeb.
Score: 1
He whined in npr too. I think he's snowblind in this interview.
Score: 0
I agree that Tarantino is a big baby who can't handle tough questions. But Django is coo'
Score: 1
I f***ing love Tarantino. But I am almost certain he is always on coke.
Score: 2
It's not just the question he's asked, the reporter's a snobby, self-entitled little douche. He seems like he's just TRYING to pull this out of Tarantino.
Score: 3
jerry,
You just don't like Brits. Admit it.
You just don't like Brits. Admit it.
Score: 3
An artist has an obligation to defend their aesthetic choices. QT's the one who looks like a nitwit in this. And I mostly love the guy's movies—just sayin'. You put geysers of blood into movies at the time kids are being mowed down in schools, um, yeah, I think the questions are valid. The brave artist defends his work without being defensive.
Score: 1
He shouldn't have to defend a film that is a stylized western. No one goes to Clint Eastwoods door. QT made a GREAT film and as it does have violence, i argue that the severe nature of his violence in films gives a real and frontal perspective, rather than glamourizing it. Anyone who wants to rip of QT, shit your pie hole. The man is a genius and doesnt deserve this b.s. his whole life, he is a stunning film maker and a true artist. Still shoots on 35 mm. That's an artist folks. Go ask Spielberg why he made Lincoln seem in such a rush to abolish slavery (he wasnt). Oh to sell tickets, fictionalizing history is just as dangerous as glamoure violence. No one talks about that.
Score: 10
I'm really talking more about his attitude in the interview. Or, it could be that the genius is just not that deep a thinker about his own work.
Score: 0
Pibbs. The issue isnt tarantino's art. It's that he gets his manties all in a wad over being asked questions he doesn't like. He needs to grow a pair.
Score: 0
Pibbs,
Nonsense. There have been several prominent critiques of Lincoln that not only questioned the historical perspective the film takes but also the glorification of corruption as a means to bring about social change.
It's not Tarantino's fault the Newtown shootings coincided with the release of his film. But as someone who uses graphic violence so prominently, he should have expected the questions and been prepared to defend his art thoughtfully. Instead, he came across as an arrogant, defensive idiot. Great artist. Childish baby.
Nonsense. There have been several prominent critiques of Lincoln that not only questioned the historical perspective the film takes but also the glorification of corruption as a means to bring about social change.
It's not Tarantino's fault the Newtown shootings coincided with the release of his film. But as someone who uses graphic violence so prominently, he should have expected the questions and been prepared to defend his art thoughtfully. Instead, he came across as an arrogant, defensive idiot. Great artist. Childish baby.
Score: 1
@Pibbs said: ...i argue that the severe nature of his violence in films gives a real and frontal perspective, rather than glamourizing it...I don't know, being that the severe nature of his violence is pretty much his calling card I'd say he is glamorizing it. and it's pretty bad ass taboot...however I personally do not condone violence nor do I have any interest in experiencing QT's portrayal of violence in real life.
Score: 1
He can make these imaginary movies filled with graphic depictions of hardcore violence yet he can't imagine that someone who is deranged watches this stuff and truly gets off on it, and in some cases, wants to re-enact it and often does so.
He's the equivalent of a porn director only violence is his smut.
Imagine if you put him in a room with a real Nazi or a real slave master? He'd piss his little skinny jeans-wearing, liberal ass and beg for his life like a little pussy.
He's the equivalent of a porn director only violence is his smut.
Imagine if you put him in a room with a real Nazi or a real slave master? He'd piss his little skinny jeans-wearing, liberal ass and beg for his life like a little pussy.
Score: -2
@ProfPhan said:
Imagine if you put him in a room with a real Nazi or a real slave master? He'd piss his little skinny jeans-wearing, liberal ass and beg for his life like a little pussy.
Wtf?
Score: 1
I think he had every right to respond that way. I'd be annoyed as hell having been asked the same question every time I put out a new movie. At some point, the camel's back will break.Yes, there is violence in fiction. It's been there for thousands of years. There's been violence in movies since movies started. These interviewers and rabble rousers need to stop pretending that every time is the first time.
Score: 1
pat,
You think he had a right to behave like a petulant, defensive baby? Ok.
You think he had a right to behave like a petulant, defensive baby? Ok.
Score: 0
@MirthBeatenWorkr said: pat,I don't think he was being petulant or a baby. I think he said just what he needed to, maybe not enough.
You think he had a right to behave like a petulant, defensive baby? Ok.
Score: 0
pat,
Fair enough. We have different perspectives.
Fair enough. We have different perspectives.
Score: 1
Also, that video interview was edited to make him look like a douche. I'm just saying, if Trey Anastasio was asked in a recent interview "Do you think your music is directly related to drug use in american youth" and the interviewer persisted to pry at this point, you would all be cursing the interviewer out. Just a matter of opinion of the artist. I have deep respect for QT and feel he deserves better treatment, considering he long-lived cinematic legacy, as do any Film-makers who have come as far as he has. He didn't graduate High School, worked at a video store and put his heart and soul into Reservoir Dogs and now has only topped himself with Django Unchained, an amazing film. It's a dame shame that an artist has to justify his own Artistic Integrity to every Tom, Dick and Harry with a microphone and then when he shows any irritation is bitched out on online forums. Go see his movie and decide for yourself. I've never heard of any school shooter being influenced by his films to kill. I have heard of video games directly influencing kids plots and strategy for their shooting plans. So what the hell... Just because we don't see the face or the know the name of the creator of COD, we don't bitch them out. What about sports? We idolize grown men who tackle each other for a living. I mean come on, you cant blame one without throwing the rest in. Ray Lewis doesn't get shit about influence of violence in interviews. Just some nerdy white guy with an attitude and a camera.
Score: 7
now this is an interview
Score: 1
"I'm not a monkey; I'm here to sell my movie."Ohhhh, the irony.
Score: 0
Pibbs, the issue isn't his right to be annoyed. But he handled the exchange very poorly. He came off like a baby.
Score: 1
@deBebbler said: "I'm not a monkey; I'm here to sell my movie."I don't see the irony there. If he was selling someone else's movie, then sure. But it's HIS. If you were in business for yourself, you'd want to sell whatever product it is you have, right? Would that make you a monkey?
Ohhhh, the irony.
Score: 2
Score: 0
dumb thread
Score: -1
@Pibbs said:
I have heard of video games directly influencing kids plots and strategy for their shooting plans. So what the hell... Just because we don't see the face or the know the name of the creator of COD, we don't bitch them out. What about sports? We idolize grown men who tackle each other for a living. I mean come on, you cant blame one without throwing the rest in. Ray Lewis doesn't get shit about influence of violence in interviews. Just some nerdy white guy with an attitude and a camera.are you kidding me? the media rakes video game makers over the coals as much if not more than movie makers. Video games are the new scapegoat for violence. In fact, with how much people had been making a stink about video games, i was surprised people even bothered to trot out the movie connection anymore. I agree with the rest of your points, though.
Score: 0
Not to mention the fact that the NFL is in the midst of one of its biggest scandals in its history because of the how the violence associated with the game may or may not be causing long-term brain damage.
Score: 0
You must be logged in to leave a comment!