SLeone has many films viewed as the top 10 greatest all time...wat?

How do u know all your supposed references are actually legit and they have some deeper meaning more than QT just having fun?

1) directly copying a movies name

2) directly copying a characters name

3) directly copying a scenes/shots structure

4) directly mentioning a movie in the dialogue

These are not coincidences. They are intentional (as QT has said himself).

I am not saying it doesn't exist, I am saying that it adds very little to the quality of the movie, because a lot of times they are just fun trivial references.

Obviously if you don't see the references they will add nothing and the movie can still be a fun time. However, they obviously add alot for film buffs like myself.

I don't see how this matters. If an argument is right, it's right, whether or not the person typing it knows stuff about stuff. (Although I'm pretty sure Pudge does in fact know what he's talking about.)

Disagree that this is not in most films. Every director has seen movies, and those movies influence him. Those influences make their way into the directors movies whether he knows it or not.

QT happens to know it. Does this make him different? Yes.

Does it make his movies different? Ask Roland Barthes.

How did Leone tell audiences that "in this movie action is dialogue not just bullets"? If Quentin is doing the same thing - and he is - why do we need to involve Leone references at all? Instead of saying "Chapter One references spaghetti westerns" why can't you say "Chapter One is a spaghetti western"?

Subtext doesn't connect one film to another.

I agree. I misread his post and thought he had not heard of Leone. However, I think it's fair to point out that someone who has not seen any of the films referenced should not really comment on the significance or added value of those references.

Like I said the movie is fun paying no attention to any of this, it is just more fun paying attention to all this.

Of course all film makers have seen films and sometimes reference them. However, nobody could argue with a straight face that QT does not do this much more than other film makers, thus making it an important part of his style.

My point (although I did not state it clearly) is that QT is telling us that his movie is more like a spaghetti western and the action will be dialogue driven and not driven by bullets.


That is exactly what it does. It connects the viewer to a larger theme. In this case the whole WWII/Nazi genre.

Ok but you have a list of like 25 things.

Edit: Kimbell did a better job of explaining things.

LOL the numbers in my list do not correspond to my original list! I am saying most of the references are of these four kinds. i.e., they are 100% intentional.

go back and look at your list of 28 things. You have several that are just speculation or that you think are homages to certain films. I mean, I think you are reading a bit too much into the movie.

Clovis, I agree that QT's references are intentional, but I am saying that it doesn't matter. Inglourious Basterds is the text that we're analyzing. Quentin Tarantino's brain is not the text. That's what I was trying to get at by mentioning Barthes.

Well yes I agree but this gets us into a much different debate about the nature of subtextual analysis. My point is I think the references, when they are recognized by the viewer, add to the film whether QT did so intentionally or not. So for me (and many film buffs) they add to the text (film) itself, and in some ways, are not even subtext.

I hate rating films but to make it as clear as possible, for me the movie is an 3.5/4 without the references but a 4/4 with them.

Everything you see and lots you don't see in Tarantino films is intentional or referential. He's a film freak and he's not exactly a prolific auteur. You're not going to be able to read too much into it.

This may spark another long debate but it's interesting you say he is not an auteur. He seems like the definition of an auteur no?

The way the Auteur theory was developed argued that film's reflected the unique vision of the director. Truffaut and other auteur theorists, thought that an auteur was someone who made films which could be easily recognized as from that director.

This seem like QT to a tee no? Like him or not, his films are unique and instantly recognizable to him. His style may be pastiche and collage, but it seems to me he is an auteur by the Truffaut definition anyway.

QT's not a "prolific auteur," meaning he doesn't make a lot of movies, meaning his allusions and references are densely packed imo.

Fair points.

He made an interesting point about this in his interview with Charlie Rose. He basically said because he is a writer/director he will never be prolific.

The Entourage thread called, they want their stupid back.

The Entourage thread's "stupid" is primarily composed of fanboys who love every episode and hate on anyone who criticizes a single thing. I will let you come to your own conclusion based on the fact you are doing the exact same thing the "stupid" does.

No, its saying stuff like "Its a great movie, but not that great."

Provoking insights.

Where did I say that?

I said that I thought it was a good movie but he is overrated as a director. I will say for the second time, the two things are not mutually exclusive.

Reading comprehension FTW, before you try and call me out at least read my posts and have something intelligent to say.

Saw it today and thoroughly enjoyed it.

going tonite! cant wait

Great film but behind Pulp fiction and reservoir dogs. Has the edge on jackie brown and grindhouse imo but need to watch jackie brown again to reconfirm.

Its better than RD. Anyone who knows film will agree with that.

what is this " when you say grindhouse, you mean death proof nonsence? Planet terror was the better movie of the two and when combined into the grindhouse experience, it was one of the greatest things I have seen on film. Planet terror or whatever was the better of the two anyway... why the hate on grindhouse?