>"Christopher Nolan tries too hard to be a great director, while Quentin Tarantino makes it look easy. Tarantino basically just shits out great movies."
Do you agree with this assessment?
Is Nolan essentially Salieri to Tarantino's Mozart?
"Great movies" is probably going to far outside of Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown (and Reservoir Dogs but that film is a huge ripoff of City on Fire)
He's a good writer and can seem to make anything his characters talk about inreresting. Though sometimes this can be masterbatory, like those two sheriffs talking about whay happened to Kurt Russel in Death Proof. As a director he mainly takes pacing and cinematography from other movies, which is disapointing
His brother writes stories with interesting concepts but they are always way too literal and skin deep. Nolan is a half decent director but tries to hard to insert deep meanings in his movies.
WHAT IS TARANTINO?
>he's not gonna do it
AND WHAT IS CHRISTOPHER 'BRAVO' NOLAN?
>loves the star wars prequels
I agree Nolan tries too hard. It makes his films very rigid and mechanical.
Tarrantino is just a lazy cunt who makes violent pastiches of old genres, with a few "niggers" thrown in for shock value.
They have that instantaneous but short term appeal, though, because they are based on recognizable elements.
Other movie that literally nobody who isn't a massive film sperglord like himself has ever heard of.
Where do you draw the line between ripping off and paying homage? Because Quentin has certainly never tried to hide from his influences
>comic books are dumb and for nerds what if batman actually happened in the real world lmao that would be awesome because he would be totally shitty and get fucked up all the time
Tarantino is a better writter obviously; he is also a better filmmaker. But this comparison isn't apt: both directors are very popular and appeal to milennials yes, but their target audiences and their style are complety different. Nolan is a big spectacle director: his peers are Whedon, Abrams, Cameron, Spielberg, Bay and others.
Tarantino movies pander to the film buff audience, but they are also easily digestible enough for casuals. That's why he is so popular, even more than Nolan
Not sure I'd put Nolan in the same league as Spielberg.
Nolan's style really needs something more signature than just "sterile, crisp and operatic."
Everything he's done for the last decade or more feels like fucking Inception.
agree Nolan works harder and it shows, Nolan is the better and more successful filmaker of the two right now cause he is not afraid to experiment and try new things
since Jackie Brown (his master piece) flopped Tarantino is just pandering to his audience
That's sort of dumb, since Tarantino attempts to change it up between movies, Kill Bill, Inglorious Basterds, Death proof and Django are nothing like one another in terms of content.
I don't care for either Tarantino or Nolan, I have no horse in this race.
I meant that the dialogue in Tarantino movies are more interesting and fluid, feels more natural, while in Nolan movies the dialogue doesn't feel that way, but the concept of getting into people dreams is more interesting than a movie about people in a cabin.
Nolan is desperate to be seen as an intellectual, and it shows. It's very off-putting.
Tarantino doesn't make it look easy, but there is a certain cool about Tarantino. Lately, it's been stupid shit, though, like CHAPTER FOUR: DINGUS HAS A SECRET
I know the Fritz Lang statement Nolan made is a meme and all, but that is really indicative of how Nolan sees himself and the movies he makes. He was talking about a fucking batman movie.
Tarantino just wants to make transparent, badass movies. Whether you like them or him is not the point, he knows exactly the shit he is making.
The fact that they do a stream is very convenient for /tv/ autists. Anon so can make up anything and just say they said it on stream.
>Rich said on the stream that he killed his own parents and then fucked a pile of nachos. He totally really said that on the stream!
Nolan and Tarantino can be summed up in two words.
Nolan makes semi enjoyable films, however he puts little effort into fleshing out the charectars or production value properly. His movies could be really good, however they suffer from him putting not enough effort into making them the best they could be, yet they still make tons of money. Hack
Tarantino makes edgy films to pander to teens and young adults. They're also well made, but its really ridiculous how many times he throws "nigger" or brutal violence into his films for shock value.
No. QT works very hard on his movies. He also knows a lot about film. His motto is basically 'few but ripe'. He works on his movies for years before even releasing one. QT is more like Mozart in that he is talented, but also works VERY hard.
If they actually were film fans, they would endlessly bash tarantino. They're actually directorfans, i.e. circlejerker that cum at pictures of directors regardless of their work.
shitposting aside, it seems polarizing. If you liked the setting of Django and the overall feeling of Reservoir Dogs, then you'll probably like this.
It's executed well, not the magnum opus people were expecting imo, but one of his better films
Reservoir Dogs ripped off lots of movies. The whole structure is stolen from Kubrick's the Killing, the backstory of each member of the heist one by one. The ending is a ripoff of Mean Streets, almost shot for shot. It's Harvey Keitel having a breakdown when the cops show up and his friend gets shot.
Jackie Brown is good though, less obvious influences, mostly Truffaut.
>Is Nolan essentially Salieri to Tarantino's Mozart?
A decent analogy, but in this case neither are playing the same kind of music so it's hard to make a comparison like that. Both are flawed, both do things exceptionally well, and both are more or less chained to their unique style. However I think Tarantino feels more effortless partially because he's just allowed to do what he does. He doesn't make studio pictures, he doesn't have existing IP's to work with, nor does he have some kind of a drive to sit in Speilberg's chair like Nolan does.
>[thing] stopped being good at [year I found 4chan]
I need to see H8ful again, but on first viewing I thought the writing was some of Tarantino's best. It was three hours long, but I still didn't want the conversations to end. Goggins is so based in this, as well as Jackson.
Them reviewing Tarantino is a lot like them reviewing Force Awakens. They're going to have a personal bias because they're amateur directors, and all amateur directors love Tarantino because of Reservoir Dogs, a 1.8 million border-line amateur cult flick which survives on style and directing. Mike seemed to just think it was a good movie, probably because he's older, and has more well-respected idols. The same goes for the Hateful Eight, that they lament over no blue-screen, filming in real snow, etc, etc, they were very excited to see a film with a director who had total control and used that control for a lot of small things that they would appreciate, some would say more than the average reviewer.
Honestly, I'm tired of Tarantino flicks. They're very repetitive. A lot of innuendo and heated discussion, finished off with a bang. Literally almost every fucking movie he's made. And the violence he DOES show, he knows he can't stylistically direct the action, so he just over-compensates by making the action "campy".
I still have yet to see an "action scene" from Tarantino that's as thrilling as even this:
What separates Tarantino films from everybody else is that they are HIS films, not films made by committee to appeal to the most diverse demographic population possible. Sometimes his shit is good, sometimes it's not, but at least when he fails, he does so because HE failed, and not because he had to film, or exclude, some shit the producers / financiers wanted.
Oh, as for how it's a lot like them reviewing Force Awakens, they have a personal bias, but not for the same exact reason, mainly because much like it is with Tarantino, Force Awakens used a lot of practical effects, real sets, and costumes. It was also a return to what they were familiar with.
>not films made by committee to appeal to the most diverse demographic population possible
Right, I'm sure he wasn't trying to appeal to the black community with Django, I'm sure he wasn't trying to appeal to the Jewish community with Inglorious Basterds, I'm sure he wasn't trying to appeal to the liberal community with Hateful Eight.
Tarantino is just an autistic savant who compiles all the cool shit he liked in other peoples movies and shoves it into one of his. "Appealing to the black community" is beyond his intellectual ability, he made Django because it was something new and shocking and fun not because he's some liberal faggot trying to fight on behalf of blacks.
You think Samuel L. Jackson would be such close friends with him otherwise? Jackson himself is pretty assburgers, they're just weirdo's making movies they're not pushing any agenda's.
>establish a few characters separately
>establish racist white guy baddies
>characters eventually interact towards a common goal of killing whitey
>insert swearing and violence
>looks like whitey will win
>minority character is assisted in killing whitey by racetraitor white protagonist
>final scene with unnecessary amounts of violence
Every Tarantino ever
>thinking inception is better than Tarantino's worst
Let me guess, is it because you're one of those really smart people who are capable of understanding such a masterfully crafted 2deep4u plot? :^)
Not him, but seriously, Inception had a better atmosphere than anything Tarantino would be able to unironically direct.
> Inception: directed by Quentin Tarantino
> SCREEN FADES TO BLACK
> Chapter 4: Entering Dream Level 1
> BBC and feet everywhere
> *Marvin Gaye music starts playing*
> Characters talk for 15 minutes about wet dreams
> Suddenly character 3 shoots character 7
> "Time to go deeper, niggers"
> SCREEN FADES TO BLACK
> Chapter 5: Entering Dream Level 2
> *California dreamin' starts playing*
> Jump cut to everyone having fun in the car, forgetting they're dreaming
> 20 minutes of pointless dialogue until they see something weird and someone points out they're in a dream
> "Shit nigga you rite!"
Why didnt the hangman tell anyone Daisy was in a gang?
Why didnt anyone take the pistol from the general?
Why did we need a flashback that gave us literally zero new information?
Why did Bob pretend to be mexican?
Why didnt Daisy die too when she got poison vomit in her mouth?
Why was a single jellybean suspicious to SLJ? Guess my entire room is a serial killer den.
Why did we need a 15 minute scene of them hammering poles into the ground?
Why did they decide to murder a dozen people at an inn and hope nobody there has a gun, and hope nobody else shows up, instead of just doing highway robbery?
If they are such an important gang, why didnt they just haggle for her life instead of a really dangerous mission?
Why did nobody check the basement?
Tarantino is incapable of thinking up anything like Inception. His movies are literally just 4 or 5 people talking and shooting at each other. Tarantino isnt subtle enough to do anything like the spinning (wobbling?) top at the end
Yes, Tarantino is great at making schlock, but it still only schlock with a high budget. He is incapable of making anything outside of genre garbage, and homages to exploitation movies. Nolan at least tries doing things outside of his comfort zone and constantly challenges himself as a director. Memento, The Prestige, TDK, and Interstellar are great films and are all very different, and each more ambitious
>trying to appeal to the liberal community with Hateful Eight
>main black character is a deranged sociopath and pretty clearly illustrates the way perceived racial injustices are used to justify antisocial behavior
>kurt russell beats the shit out of jennifer jason leigh at least once in every scene they're in, this is played for laughs
>the interracial gay sex act (which i'm assuming is what you think was liberal pandering) is portrayed as horrific and traumatizing
>legitimately evenhanded portrayal of a confederate character who in any other movie would be portrayed as flat-out evil, is instead presented as a loyal patriot and misguided at worst
>doesn't have a valid argument.
> calls it a flick and tells you to go back to reddit
Seriously someone like you would probably like reddit more. Then have sub sections so you don't have to read about QT on a board about film and television.
nolan tries way too hard most of the time, I really like most of his movies' approaches but then he does "nu uh, I'll have to include so much more because I'm the next kubrik" and then his movie goes to shit. except for memento, that ones perfect
The problem with Tarantino is that he sets his sights too low. Hateful Eight and Kill Bill and Django are fun to watch in theaters, but they have the residue of a talented filmmaker and they feel like they warrant more discussion than they actually do. And then I'm thinking about The Hateful Eight for hours and by the end of it I think Tarantino is shit, whereas if any other director had made a movie like that I'd just enjoy it and forget about it.
Why Chris Nolan Sucks
> Too many montages without depth and just use it to cram in more plot
> Generic Dialogue
> Generic acting
> Boring camera set ups
> Generic lame action scenes
> Plot twists are obvious (Interstellar)
> Believes that Inception is a complex plot and convoluted
> No cohesive editing (Dark Knight Joker attack on SWAT truck)
I've learnt that Nolan's movies are the ultimate movie theater experience. Visual are top notch, same for the audio and action. The plot is just good enough to watch ONCE. You cannot watch any of his movies more than once, that's when they fall apart.
Modern Tarantino is shit all around though.
The key is that Kill Bill was his last film, the ultimate product of his imagination interacting with the greats from the past. Everything since then has been flicks because he knows he's already made his magnum opus and doesn't care anymore.
>Remakes Lady Snowblood
WHAT A TRUEEEEEEEEEEE VISIONARYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
Western cuck film critics and journalists everyone
I really can't stand Woo's bullet splooge. It takes all the impact of the scene out as you sit there watching minutes upon minutes of stormtroopers getting wasted. It's not good cinema.
This is exactly what pisses me off about Tarantino, he doesn't even try anymore. Ever since Kill Bill he just makes silly goofy flicks he knows people will like. He's proved in the past that he has it in him to me great films (Jackie Brown, Pulp Fition), but now just settles for making edgy mememovies (Basterds, Django, H8ful).
Not OP but I went to see Inception in the theater. I was rolling my eyes after five minutes while the rest of the audiece was "ah"ing and "oh"ing at the shocking revelation that the intro sequence was all a dream all along! The rest of the movie was torture. Interstellar is already forgotten and everybody laughs at TDKR.
Nolan makes popcorn flicks for turbonormies but films them all in a clinical, somber tone giving the impressin that what you're watching is somehow serious. Then he throws in some high-concept ideas that seem complicated and deep to people with average IQs and presto, critical acclaim from pseudointellectuals and normies as well as millions of dollars from the fact that what you filmed was still capeshit nonsense. Fuck Nolan.
Are there any good torrents for Hateful 8?
I skipped the HIB spoilers so far.
Nolan doesn't even rehearse scenes, he's that shit as a director.
He was tasked with making a good movie with Batman 3 and phoned it in like the asshole he is.
Say what you want about Uno Farto but he tries his hardest when he makes his movies.