>Tarantino is not, in general, a great fan of Kubrick--he finds Kubrick's films too cold, too composed. He appreciates the films; he just doesn't feel any affection for them. "I think Adrian Lyne's 'Lolita' is a masterpiece," he says. "When I saw it, I thought, boy, I don't know if Kubrick even read the novel. Kubrick manages to take that book and make this madcap comedy out of it that's actually pretty terrific. But the idea that you can do a movie about Lolita and not have one single, solitary disturbing image in it at all is crazy. It's fraudulent! I mean, to me he's missing the most fascinating part of the work, which is looking through a pedophile's eyes and actually going along with it."
>"That first twenty minutes is pretty fucking perfect," he says. "The whole non-stop parade of Alex and the druids or whatever they were called: they beat up a bum, they have a gang fight, they go to the milk bar, they rape a girl, they break into the house, and they're driving and playing the Beethoven, and Malcolm McDowell's fantastic narration is going on, and it's about as poppy and visceral and perfect a piece of cinematic moviemaking as I think had ever been done up until that time. It's like that long opening sentence of Jack Kerouac's 'The Subterraneans,' all right, that great run-on sentence that goes on for almost a page and a half. I always thought Kubrick was a hypocrite, because his party line was, I'm not making a movie about violence, I'm making a movie against violence. And it's just, like, get the fuck off. I know and you know your dick was hard the entire time you were shooting those first twenty minutes, you couldn't keep it in your pants the entire time you were editing it and scoring it. You liked the rest of the movie, but you put up with the rest of the movie. You did it for those first twenty minutes. And if you don't say you did you're a fucking liar."
What did he mean by this?
>>64468865
>But the idea that you can do a movie about Lolita and not have one single, solitary disturbing image in it at all is crazy. It's fraudulent! I mean, to me he's missing the most fascinating part of the work, which is looking through a pedophile's eyes and actually going along with it.
He's not wrong you know?
If it wasn't for Sellers Lolita would have been total shit.
>>64468865
Tarantino is a memedirector tho
>>64468865
>your dick was hard the entire time you were shooting those first twenty minutes, you couldn't keep it in your pants the entire time you were editing it and scoring it
He's projecting because he knows how hard he himself gets when he writes scenes like the warm, black dingus one
>>64469630
I actually agree, but Kubrick also said after the fact that the studio wouldn't let him do Lolita how he wanted to in 1962.
Kubrick was never about adapting the novels faithfully, he was about critiquing the novels in order to sneak in his pet themes. He took The Shining and combined it with the legend of the minotaur, he took AI and combined it with Pinocchio, he took Dispatches and turned into Jung. This works great when his source is not one of the greatest books ever made. It's fine if he fucks with The Shining or Red Alert, but Lolita, not so much. Kubrick wasn't interested in literally adapting a novels plot into a filmed play like William Wyler- he was after bigger fish.
That's why his best movies are from worse novels and his worst films are from great novels.
That's why David Fincher will be forgotten in 10 years- he thinks he's Kubrick, but he's William Wyler. Completely literal- obsessed with the nuances of the text. Kubrick transcends the text into pure visual cinema.
>>64469630
>>64469630
He's not wrong, but one has to take into account the early sixties mentality as well. It is very easy for Tarantino to make these claims in 2016. Tarantino himself probably wouldn't be able to shoot a single scene in the early sixties. This is before Woodstock, before the sexual revolution, before nam. Hell the French nouvelle vague had only just begun.
This was quite a different world, one in which majors wouldn't let you make a movie "through a paedophile's eyes and actually going along with it." No Miramax/weinstein bros back then to fund risky projects in Hollywood.
>>64468865
>Projecting this hard
Holy shit Quent, not everyone is a deranged sadist.
>>64468865
Has he ever said something that wasn't just embarassing projecting?
>>64470080
Tony Zhou, is that you?
>>64470316
Tony Zhou is an embarassing amateur. Robert Kolker.
Tarantino isn't exactly known for his good taste in movies. The guy put Green Lantern in his top ten list for 2011.
>Tarantino hates a director with his own thinking
Figures.
>>64469718
True he rides his own donger to the ends of himself :^)
>>64468865
How do I get through to my Tarantinofag friends and get them to watch better films?
>>64468865
H a c k
a
c
k
>>64468865
I like Tarantino's work but he's a retard.
Next he'll bash Orson Welles.
>>64468865
Except the whole book of clockwork orange is also against violence that fucking manchild.
One of these days TMZ or somebody is going to catch quentin snapchatting himself riding a big black dildo while flicking his little white pecker
>>64468865
>I always thought Kubrick was a hypocrite, because his party line was, I'm not making a movie about violence, I'm making a movie against violence. And it's just, like, get the fuck off. I know and you know your dick was hard the entire time you were shooting those first twenty minutes, you couldn't keep it in your pants the entire time you were editing it and scoring it
True.
>>64468865
Literal projecting. No-one takes Tarantino seriously anymore.
>>64470169
Kubrick seemed to have a disdain for violence, if anything. He sort of distances himself from it.
Tarantino by contrast has the adolescent response of emjoying it and thinking its edgy. QT has a rather dubious love of thuggery.
Tarantino thinks Gus Van Sant's version of Psycho is better than Hitchcock's. The guy's an idiot, he favours shitty exploitation movies over carefully crafted Hollywood gems.
>The first movie of the night was Psycho II, starring Anthony Perkins, but not directed by Hitchcock. Periodically, in the past, Quentin has dropped some controversial movie opinions. I think it was QT5 that he said he preferred Bruce Li (in the Bruceploitation films) to the actual Bruce Lee. Last night had Quentin reminding the audience what he thought of Hitchcock. He started off by saying that he thought Psycho II was the best performance of Perkins’ career. “I like Psycho II better than Psycho” he continued, and went on to say that in fact he liked every remake of Psycho, including the Gus Van Sant version, better than the original Psycho, that he didn’t like the original Psycho that much at all, or any of Hitchcock’s work, for that matter. In fact, he said he liked all Hitchcock-esque films — except those by Truffaut — better than Hitchcock. Touché.
>>64473083
>doesn't like hitchcock
what a cocksucker. He's obviously jealous of the guy because he knows how to make good suspense without having the viewer sitting around listening to boring conversations for an hour as "buildup"
>>64473083
>Tarantino thinks Gus Van Sant's version of Psycho is better than Hitchcock's
Was the scene in The Hateful Eight where Samuel Jackson gets his dick sucked by a white man poetic justice?
>>64473347
it didn't actually happen you dingus, jackson's character was making it up to piss off the old guy.
>>64473378
And...
Was it not in the movie?
>>64473378
Why would Taratino film such a scene though?
>>64473482
because we were seeing what the old man was imagining in his head, Jackson even has a line about it.
>>64469630
It's amazing that he even made Lolita when he did; its one of his weaker films but its still very well done. Anything more graphic or even less subtle would have been shut down real quick by his producers.
Tarantino is the Trump of film-making. Those Kubrick sheeples seem to be imprisoned in establishment.
>>64473378
It's left ambiguous. The General's son did leave to find his fortune in Wyoming, and for a lot of southern men that meant chasing the bounty on Warren's head. However we can assume that if it did happen Jackson wasn't that sadistic. He was certainly embellishing to provoke the general.
>>64470080
>David Fincher will be forgotten in 10 years
Nah Fight Club and Seven came out in 99 & 97. People still talk about them. Take your IMDB opinions somewhere else
>>64473530
Yeah but why does Tarantino seem to love seeing white people get punished by minorities? I don't get it.
>>64473635
because tarantino loves revenge movies and nothing is more satisfying to someone that loves revenge than seeing an oppressed minority gain the upper hand
>>64472782
"I have sibling rivalry with Orson Welles," Tarantino tells Tracy Smith. "I don't think he's that good. All right? I have sibling rivalry with him and Stanley Kubrick."
Smith asks if Tarantino is being serious or funny.
"I am being funny," Tarantino says. "I do admire them. But I also think I do have sibling rivalry with them. They're not all that. All right?"
>>64473694
This is true. Tarantula uses easy tricks to make you like the protagonists, and loathe the antagonists.
It gives easy justification for the over the top violence. It's easier to kill a Racist, confederate, murderer, foul mouthed woman than just some lady getting brought in for some crime.
>>64468865
He's just a faggot retard pet of the jews.
He can go fuck himself.
>>64468865
Why does Tarantino's opinion matter? All he does is copy movies.
>>64473876
Listen, it's his opinion and everything but...like them or not, both those fuckers changed aspects of how movies are made. Tarantino is nowhere near revolutionizing shit, whatwith all of his movies being only homages in high def.
Fuck that pretentious dick.
Maybe hes secretly racist , why does he keep using the word nigger in his films .... its creepy
>>64473921
While that is true for most of his movies, violence in H8 is purposely unpleasant.
No wonder many accused him of misoginy and racism.
>>64473694
Tarantino likes to work with Sam Jackson, and in a film set in the 1800's there's going to be racial tensions. When everyone is a confederate or a violent gang member or bounty hunter of course there's going to be racially motivated violence.
Tarantino loves violence (and feet). The first kill in Kill Bill pt. 1 is a white woman killing a black woman, which she follows up with killing an asian woman. The characters just have believable motives,
Why does Tarantino have a foot fetish?
>Tarantino forgetting that Kubrick was making films before the civil rights movement and sexual revolution, two major cultural shifts that his movies literally could not exist without
His flicks are good, but he clearly knows jack shit about actual cinematic theory. Why does everyone look up to him like genius and not the talented manchild he really is?
>>64474139
Because he makes a lot of money regardless of his manchild status
>>64474126
when was the last time you really looked at a nice foot?
>>64474071
His mother fucked blacks nonstop when he was still a kid, and those blacks were his role models, he wants to be like them.
>>64474126
Why don't you?
Daily reminder that Kubrick was a self-loathing Jew who admired Hitler and Quentin Tarantino is a cuckold who hates white people
>>64474226
Daily reminder that Kubrick was a self-loathing Jew who admiredNapoleon
ftfy
>>64474205
Because I have a superior fetish for armpits kid.
>>64474139
>>Kubrick was making films before the civil rights movement and sexual revolution, two major cultural shifts that his movies literally could not exist without
That doesn't make Lolita any less worthless.
It's not like that because of the censorship Kubrick focused on something different.
The movie misses the point of the book and doesn't bring anything new to the table.
And I can't disagree with him about A Clockwork Orange either.
Was anyone of you disgusted by violence in the first part of the movie? The way it was shot, the music, the composition, everyting to make it exhillarating and aestethically pleasing.
You can't just backtrack on that, or you're just an hypocrite.
