Why do people call the dialogue in his movies brilliant again? Not seeing what is so special about his stuff
Of course it doesn't sound special now that there's been over 20 years of movies trying to imitate it.
Because seemingly irrelevant chitchat plants insight into character motivations and perspective that will usually pay off somewhere down the line. Even then I think
>>71565623
/thread
Kids on this board need to grow up.
>>71565623
quentin you are too obvious
>>71565623
Same thing with 2001. 48 years of space movies imitating every aspect of 2001 and young faggots always like, "Why is 2001 a classic again? It's boring and every other space opera is just like it." Gee, I wonder why, faggot.
>>71565554
YOU KNOW WHAT THEY CALL A QUARTER POUNDER WITH CHEESE IN PARIS?
My Dinner with Andre is a piece people would say is nothing special now. People now are also 50% likely to be nearsighted and over 90% likely to have an opinion on everything. Now People are garbage.
>>71565743
It's "in France" you retard.
>>71565554
Even in his heydey his dialogue was clunky. I wouldn't ever had said his dialogue writing was his strength.
>>71565554
It's realistic, but at the same time he has quotable one-liners like 80's action movies.
>>71565554
who does.
Nobody thinks the dialog is brilliant. What was unique is that it was the first time we ever saw that criminals and killers had the same kind of pointless banter with each other as we do in real life.
It's like how Seinfeld, the show about nothing, resonated with audiences because it was just so ordinary. People liked the idea that characters in a movie or TV show were just like them. You know, except for the fact that they killed other people.
>>71565847
I hope this is bait. I'm nibbling.
>>71565875
(you)
>>71565554
the dead nigger storage? how old are you guys
>>71565907
But Paris and France are two completely different places.
>>71565732
Same thing has happened to John Carpenter's Halloween.
Babbest think it's cliche, unaware how startlingly original the film was and that so many movies have ripped it off that the ideas have be ome cliches.
Nomies, man.
>>71565913
Not bait, faggot. A good portion of the conversation in Pulp Fiction is what I would call clunky, not fluid or natural. It works in that movie better than others, i.e. Reservoir Dogs, but is in no way the strong point, the magnetism of the film.
>>71565554
Who calls it brilliant? Entertaining as fuck. Brilliant? Not really. The Commode Story is cleverly played out though. Also the twist in Kill Bill, he got me on that one too. Brilliant would be Ingmar Bergman.
He has a natural knack for 'bullshit' speak and dialogue. I don't know what to call it English, but when we, in my country, talk about things that are of no importance or no relevance, we call it 'chewing shit'
He chews shit extremely well
>>71566294
Pretty much this. Godard was ok at it. Cassevetes was tedious at it. Linklater was pretentious at it. Kevin Smith just sucked at it. Larry Clark just used underage b& to compensate with how benign he was at it. Hughes Brothers impressed me with it in Menace II Society. Tarantino is the best at it. What's that guy's name who did Mystery Train? He's pretentious too
>>71566889
Agreed, though I do rank Godard above him as a director.. like many others.
Jarmusch I can't stand, can't think of a director that's so far away from my wavelength in everything.
Linklater is, disturbing at it. Everybody Wants Some felt like him masturbating to himself in the wrongest way possible..
>>71565554
It's engaging and flows naturally. His movies also build tension through conversation scenes like few others, admittedly through decent acting as much as writing.
From my limited experiences acting, writing, and directing, I've found that their are some lines that are really easy to learn because of how memorable they are. They're also usually the most fun to deliver. Tarantino's scripts are made almost entirely of those kinds of lines.
>"and then, I shoved it up my ass" xDDDD
He's a fucking hack.
