Styleforum › Forums › General › Entertainment and Culture › The F%$K Quentin Tarantino Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The F%$K Quentin Tarantino Thread - Page 6

post #76 of 88
1/8/09 at 1:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim
Movies that portray the protagonist as mentally handicapped in order to provide some sort of starring vehicle for an Oscar hungry actor/actress is a new phenomenon that began with Forrest Gump. REALLY? If you'll swallow that one, I'd like to sell you that movies where pretty actresses make themselves ugly/don't wear makeup and act like crazy bitches for the same reason (Oscar bait) all started with Monsters Ball.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Why
That doesn't make the movie in any way 'formulaic'.
Allow me to refresh your very, very short memory. Film with mentally handicapped lead = formula. Unless the lead fails, is not inspirational, does not overcome a difficulty brought on by his handicap, or in some other way breaks the formula. I can't think of any. I find it sort uncool that all these movies are essentially mockeries of handicapped people. Invariably, they are played for laughs, as with Forrest Gump. I dunno I just think its sort of tasteless. I just thought the movie, its entire premise, its "writing" and the whole thing sucked. Get over it. You are allowed to not like Pulp Fiction, but you have not been able to coherently define what it is about it that you disliked. Given no examples of specific instances of people "losing character" or seemingly talking to themselves, and never having seen anyone else having trouble with, or noticing that... I'm inclined to think you are just making shit up so that you can hate on the movie.
Reply
Reply
post #77 of 88
1/8/09 at 1:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim View Post
Allow me to refresh your very, very short memory.
And me yours:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim
You also said that the fact that the film used a mentally handicapped person who inspires blah blah blah is not formulaic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim
Movies that portray the protagonist as mentally handicapped in order to provide some sort of starring vehicle for an Oscar hungry actor/actress is a new phenomenon that began with Forrest Gump.
Keep in mind I said 'That doesn't make the movie formulaic' to the second quote. Having a retard in a movie isn't formulaic.
Reply
Reply
post #78 of 88
1/8/09 at 2:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim View Post
You are allowed to not like Pulp Fiction, but you have not been able to coherently define what it is about it that you disliked. Given no examples of specific instances of people "losing character" or seemingly talking to themselves, and never having seen anyone else having trouble with, or noticing that... I'm inclined to think you are just making shit up so that you can hate on the movie.
Almost every incidence of dialogue filler (like I mentioned before, Royale with Cheese, pregnant women, etc.) is where it occurs. It's back and forth question-answer banter with the characters having no part in the dialogue except for the actors to speak what's written in the script. Take As Good as It Gets as an example: Melvin Udall sounds like Melvin all the time. He's an eccentric jackass who says whatever he wants. Simon always sounds like Simon. He's soft-spoken but depressed and damaged. Carol is the helpful, distraught mediator between Simon and Melvin. In Pulp Fiction the dialogue serves no purpose for the characters. It's just a matter of who gets killed next and which character is the bigger badass. Hell, even straight-up action flicks like Predator give the characters their own personality.
Reply
Reply
post #79 of 88
1/8/09 at 3:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by why View Post
Hell, even straight-up action flicks like Predator give the characters their own personality.
Now you are just making shit up. Whatever. I've never had a problem seeing the differences in the characters in Pulp Fiction based on their dialogue. In fact, the fact that you can't (or won't) is probably why you dislike the movie, since its largely not a film about who dies next, but about the dialogue and interactions between the characters.
Reply
Reply
post #80 of 88
1/8/09 at 3:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim View Post
Now you are just making shit up.

Whatever.

Dutch was a badass, Dillon was a CIA-contrained ex-badass, Mac was a black badass, Hawkins was a dorky badass, etc.
Reply
Reply
post #81 of 88
1/8/09 at 3:49am
Quote:
Originally Posted by why View Post
Keep in mind I said 'That doesn't make the movie formulaic' to the second quote. Having a retard in a movie isn't formulaic.
Having one as the main character to a movie is, yes. The very premise of basing a movie off a mentally handicapped person is extremely formulaic. I already explained why - nobody wants to make a downer movie where not only are you insulting the mentally handicapped by insisting on emulating their behaviors in a ridiculous and stereotyped way - but that the very inherent limitations of the mental handicaps portrayed are largely tragic ones. Nobody wants to greenlight a movie about an autistic guy who, for example, for the first time, is responsible for himself and is living on his own, he takes a trip and beats the house at vegas, but has no common sense and in doing so falls afoul of some vicious loan sharks or mafiosos who beat him to death in an alley. No... the movie has to be how a person with the mental faculties of a five year old triumphs over some societal odds and becomes the first mentally handicapped astronaut, and through his simple viewpoints on life finds fame, fortune, and love. You can make a sports movie where the team loses. You can not make a mentally handicapped person into a victim of his handicap. It just won't fly. It is one of the most formulaic and limiting of all modern movie formulas. The ending is already written just by the very premise that it's a movie about a slow person.
Reply
Reply
post #82 of 88
1/8/09 at 3:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim View Post
Having one as the main character to a movie is, yes.

It makes an otherwise simple life have challenges. It's not about acceptance or anything. Really, I see it as more of a comedy. That's how the writing stands out. If you take it as a 'mentally handicapped success' feel-good movie you're gonna be missing out on a lot.
Reply
Reply
post #83 of 88
1/8/09 at 4:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by why View Post
It makes an otherwise simple life have challenges. It's not about acceptance or anything. Really, I see it as more of a comedy. That's how the writing stands out. If you take it as a 'mentally handicapped success' feel-good movie you're gonna be missing out on a lot.

You must be watching the directors cut or something. That is what Forrest Gump is as far as I've ever seen. And its a less effective, shallower, and ultimately hollower big budget re-working of something done (better) in 1979.

Forrest Gump is still a mass produced Oscar bait movie based on a tried and true formula. There's really no getting around it. And it worked. Good for them.

In my opinion, Shawshank Redemption deserved to win in 1994. Pulp Fiction never had a shot, but not because it wasn't a superior movie to Forrest Gump, but because of the themes of the movie, the language, and drugs. It was the obvious odd-man out, though many critics had it as the best movie of the year, or at least ranked above any of the other nominees (in Roger Ebert's case) The other two movies nominated that year were Quiz Show and Four Weddings and a Funeral FYI.
Reply
Reply
post #84 of 88
1/8/09 at 4:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim View Post
In my opinion, [b]Shawshank Redemption deserved to win in 1994.

Tim Robbins was wooden and Morgan Freeman played himself.

And what were you saying about formulaic?
Reply
Reply
post #85 of 88
1/8/09 at 4:19am
double
Reply
Reply
post #86 of 88
1/8/09 at 4:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by why View Post
Tim Robbins was wooden and Morgan Freeman played himself. And what were you saying about formulaic?
At least there are multiple outcomes to a prison/escape movie. (See Cool Hand Luke) Again, there is only one outcome to a mentally handicapped person movie. And even if what you say is true, wooden acting and all, STILL a better movie than Forrest Gump.
Reply
Reply
post #87 of 88
1/8/09 at 2:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim View Post
Allow me to refresh your very, very short memory.

Film with mentally handicapped lead = formula. Unless the lead fails, is not inspirational, does not overcome a difficulty brought on by his handicap, or in some other way breaks the formula. I can't think of any.

Tokyo...how could you forget Simple Jack??? You you you...make..maaaa..make meee...haaaapyyyyy.


He went full retard on that one.
Reply
Reply
post #88 of 88
1/8/09 at 3:01pm
Thread Starter 
LOL, Tropic Thunder And don't forget Sean Penn in I Am Sam
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Entertainment and Culture
Styleforum › Forums › General › Entertainment and Culture › The F%$K Quentin Tarantino Thread