Cinematic Grammar [Or: How I am Finding It Harder and Harder to Respect Homage]

Tools    





All good people are asleep and dreaming.
Originally Posted by The Silver Bullet
"Directing" and "art" aren't even similar words. Maybe if you'd said "cinema" or "film" as opposed to "directing," or "painting" as opposed to "art," it would have made sense.
Sorry.


And besides, you're wrong.
With that kind of an arguement you've convinced me.


Originally Posted by SamsoniteDelila
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
The average price of a ticket in the U.S. is eight dollars.

If you believe Kill Bill is one movie, either both films should cost four dollars, or pay for the first part, and the second is free.

I think this is a move by the studio or Tarantino to make more money.


Originally Posted by Urban Cowboy
Can we finally get off this Tarantino argument. this whole thing has been done on so many threads, and the argument is becoming quite repetitive and tiresome. I realize Qt has become one of the most polarizing forces in the world of cinima today, but this has to stop. Nobody seems to be bringing anything new to this, already overhyped, debate, and it is thus becoming pretty boring.
By posting aren't you adding to the problem?


Originally Posted by Urban Cowboy
Ferrand: Listen, it's very simple. We'll stop and begin shooting again when you find me a cat who knows how to act!
~Day for Night.
That scene cracks me up!



Originally Posted by Loner
I think this is a move by the studio or Tarantino to make more money.
You don't say? God help you if you haven't noticed how Miramax likes to screw people out of money.



All good people are asleep and dreaming.
Originally Posted by Garrett
You don't say? God help you if you haven't noticed how Miramax likes to screw people out of money.
God help me then.



Standing in the Sunlight, Laughing
Originally Posted by Loner
The average price of a ticket in the U.S. is eight dollars.

If you believe Kill Bill is one movie, either both films should cost four dollars, or pay for the first part, and the second is free.

I think this is a move by the studio or Tarantino to make more money.
The nerve of them.

What does that have to do with the quality of the movie (s), though?
__________________
Review: Cabin in the Woods 8/10



Originally Posted by SamsoniteDelila
What does that have to do with the quality of the movie (s), though?
Nothing really. I take it that he means that anyone who uses the "one movie" thing as a defense... has no defense. It does seem kind of ridiculous if you pay twice to see something that's supposed to be one movie.



Originally Posted by Loner
With that kind of an arguement you've convinced me.
Or at least so one would hope.
__________________
www.esotericrabbit.com



All good people are asleep and dreaming.
I got distracted for a while.

I was watching Quentin Tarantino's, I mean Ringo Lam's City on Fire on IFC.

Quentin Tarantino is going to be the next Spike Lee.

Starts off with a strong independent film.

The big studios notice him and give him a big budget.

Movie is a commercial and critical success.

All the money and the hype goes to his head.

Starts to live the Hollywood lifestyle.

Makes a string of forgettable movies.

The studios and his fans tire of his attitude.

Tries to win over the studios by making less personal, more commercially viable films.

Ends up being just another director.


Originally Posted by Garrett
Nothing really. I take it that he means that anyone who uses the "one movie" thing as a defense... has no defense. It does seem kind of ridiculous if you pay twice to see something that's supposed to be one movie.
Exactly.



All good people are asleep and dreaming.
Originally Posted by SamsoniteDelila
There are stories that can't be well-told in one 2 or 3 hour sitting.
Yes, and there are movies like Kill Bill that can't told well at all.


Originally Posted by SamsoniteDelila
I doubt you'd have wanted to see LOTR in one sitting, hmm?
If the "Man With No Name" trilogy was playing at Cinerama, I'd sure as hell go to see that.

I'm not going to compare J.R.R. Tolkien's writing to Quentin Tarantino's.

I saw The Return of the King at the theater.

Besides the movie itself being three and a half hours long there was a medical emergency during the film that stopped it for half an hour.

It won an Academy Award for best editing?

Best editing my ass!

It should have won for best non-editing.

The film should have been called Lord of the Rings: The Never Ending Ending.



Bug Planet Proximus
Originally Posted by Loner
It should have won for best non-editing.
very witty



Bug Planet Proximus
I think urban cowboy is right. Too many threads infected by Tarantino's man-lust. Maybe we will all learn to re-appreciate him if we leave him be. Absence makes the heart grow stronger.
And we know it works. About a year ago i wasn't so ashamed of loving Scarface like every other gangsta film fanboy, cos it sorta died down....then came roaring back along with the dvd releases.



Silver Bullet, don't back down from anything you said in your first post. You nailed it. PREACH ON BROTHA'



Dear Minotaur,

Not only was the negative reptuation that you gave me for my most recent post in this thread completely pointless [you're not a full member yet, so it didn't actually register], but the comment that you left for me didn't really make sense either.

Please learn to structure your sentences properly.

Yours sincerly,
The Silver Bullet.



Awaiting True Love
Dearest Silver Bullet,

If it was so pointless why , oh why would you even deign to respond to me. You are young and smart, I am sure that if you try you can figure out what my "cryptic" message meant. And by the by I am perfectly happy with the way I structure my sentences, properly or not by your standards.



Dear Minotaur,

I realise now, reading your post, that you can indeed structure a fine sentence. Why the sentence attached to the reputation didn't make sense is beyond me.

Pointlessness, though pointless, of course, by nature, does not warrant a blind eye, hence my letter.

Anyway, I stand by the pointlessness of your rep-giving, if not by what I said about your sentences.

Good day to you sir.

Yours,
The Silver Bullet.

P.S. Let's be friends.




I am having a nervous breakdance
Back to topic....

What do you guys think of the Coen brothers? I mean since the thread is about not being too wild about homage.
__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but
now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.



Originally Posted by Piddzilla
What do you guys think of the Coen brothers? I mean since the thread is about not being too wild about homage.
Which Coen Bros. films are thick with homage, do you think?
__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra



I am having a nervous breakdance
Originally Posted by Holden Pike
Which Coen Bros. films are thick with homage, do you think?
Well, Intolerable Cruelty pays homage to the screwball comedy genre and The Man Who Wasn't There pays homage to film noir. O Brother, Where Art Thou? is silent era slapstick - but with sound of course. Miller's Crossing - gangster film genre.

Seems to me that the Coens, like Tarantino, love genre film and therefore make movies.