Who is the Quentin Tarantino of novel writing? (No academic qualifications in writing, celebrated for an original and unique style etc).
>>7833615
Quentin Tarantino. He plans to stop directing after his tenth film and instead focus on novels and plays.
>>7833615
Be yourself, anon. Now go finish your screenplay
Pepe the frog
>>7833624
"Be yourself, everyone else is taken."
>>7833624
Wot m8?
there's nothing original or unique about him lol. in fact he revels in his unoriginality
DBC Pierre gets my vote.
Don't know his background.
Only read Vernon God Little,
couldn't put it down.
Original, to me, at least, without being inaccessible or intellectual masturbation...
Kafka
>>7833615
>(No academic qualifications in writing, celebrated for an original and unique style etc).
>>7833615
JG Ballard
>>7833615
Chuck Pahulniuck
>>7833710
I agree.
>>7833735
Wasn't he a teacher?
>>7833756
Came in here to post this inevitability.
>>7833756
muh secret club
>>7833780
yes but his formal education ended at the age of 13 when his father died
>>7833620
Where'd you read that?
>>7834123
Melville's seemed like such a glum fellow later in life. But I don't really know that, maybe he was happy, but he did seem to have a lot of misfortunes.
I kinda want to give him a hug.
Whoever writes about feet.
>>7833925
What?
>>7834181
I know he's mentioned at least a little in Hawthorne's private journals. He seemed like a normal dude. So yeah he was probably depressed out of his mind.
Hawthorne, on the other hand, seemed like a pretty funny and goofy dude. Seriously, read 'Twenty Days with Julian and Little Bunny by Papa'. You'll see where he got the inspiration for Pearl Prynne as a devil-child.
man i just finished watching lady snowblood and i was thinking just how talentless tarantino is in comparison. he can't recreate that kind of creativity. he fills a niche but that's about it
bret easton ellis
>>7833615
This is kind of a problematic comparison though.
In literature no-one would even automatically assume that you have a creative writing degree, because it's not a legit industry or profession. A lot of the dankest /lit/ was written by people on the side, while doing other jobs to make ends meet.
In filmmaking, however, networking is a TREMENDOUSLY much bigger part of your career, so you're greatly handicapped not having gone to film school. (unless you're actually world-class talented and people are willing to pay you to direct/write, even over their own relatives) It is also not a one-person job, so there's a lot about the film set roles and general ettiquette to be learned so that you don't drag everyone down (protip: you won't, they'll just fire you and not want to have anything to do with you ever again).
tl;dr film industry is far more cut-throat and nitpicking because it doesn't rely nearly as much on personal talent.
>>7833615
>No academic qualifications in writing, celebrated for an original and unique style.
Have you considered that this might be the rule among great writers, not the exception.
>>7833615
>What is the equivalent of this talentless hack who gets way to much attention
Probably John Green
>>7835057
>He seemed like a normal dude. So yeah he was probably depressed out of his mind.
mild, depressed kek
>>7833710
this
>>7833710
this is why postmodernism must be stopped
>>7834123
Are you fucking telling me that Melville wrote Moby-Dick with a formal education that ended when he was 13?
The fuck?
>>7835224
>[insert college degrees are worthless meme here]
Every writer who wrote before English classes were invented in the late 19th century.
>>7833925
muh rules
>>7835223
your post has zero logical connection to the one you quote
>>7834157
interviews with him all over internet.
>>7833620
If it's true it definitely makes sense. His films are very dialogue driven. His style is more suited to theatre.
>>7835235
what? his post has complete logical connection to the quoted one.
are you sure than the problem isn't simply in you developing adult-onset autism from too much Umberto Eco?
>>7835325
All he does is rip off David Lynch and French New Wave but softens them to a commercial sheen.
>>7835325
>"the same old cut-paste formulaic bullshit that most hollywood films do"
>is not a meme
He's an auteur filmmaker, anon. What "most" hollywood films do doesn't matter, because the "most" of the hollywood films are superhero/no-superhero blockbusters and oscar-bait drama flicks alike. And those aren't even produced with the director at the top of the chain of command.
Trying to compare Tarantino's with those movies would be exactly the approach of plebeia that comprises blockbuster audiences, and whom you believe you should have disdain for. (When in fact most of them just dont give a fuck about le art kino -- a completely legit way of life)
When it comes to artistically dissecting Tarantino's style, it would involve the use of such tryhard words as 'pastiche'. Tarantino is an inhumanely big film buff, and the main element of his style is to quote older (mainly) art movies and/or slightly subvert them. This is especially true for Kill Bill, which is basically completely comprised of such quotes, and on a grander scale, each of the film sequences is made in an imitation of a different film genre (e.g. anime, martial arts films, spaghetti western,...). He does all this not in an attempt to rip off previous directors, but rather as a legitimate artistic choice.
Therefore one might say that Tarantino 'revels' in his unoriginality, and if we were to somehow try and label his work, 'postmodernist' would be the least cringey title.
And with that in mind he sucks balls when compared to many other auteur directors who actually will stand the test of time. (the author of this post's opinion)
>>7835446
Can you recommend me some directors?
>>7835325
>tarantino
>original
He just copy and pastes B-Movies together. And only the more conservative stuff of B-Movies that actually worked.
In short, he makes save B-Movies for people who want to watch an B-Movie without watching an B-Movie.
>>7835581
Sure that makes him more mainstream, but I fail to see how his obvious emulation of multiple older works with each film he creates makes for a bad movie. I can see this as a coherent argument as to why his movies aren't great, but the difference between not great and bad is quote wide to anyone who doesn't love overexagerating faults.
I'm gonna slip out on a stereotypical limb and say there's some jealousy involved. The way he speaks is similar to a number of 4chan posts, so seeing someone who is basically a more artistically minded Seth McFarlan of Family Guy fame achieve a combined financial success as well as a healthy standing in more artistically minded communities. I would be lying if I said I didn't wish upon myself a similar level of success. To make both money and well respected movies would be grand.
>>7835335
Thanks dave
>>7835622
not >>7835581 , but he said
>original
not
> bad
fundamentally different and non inextricable concepts
>>7835622
I wouldn't say its jealousy. The problem is, that his works range from ok to good, but get hailed as masterpieces by the mainstream.
Just look at his last movie, hatefull 8. If a noname guy had made this movie, most people would complain about it and give it a score of 6-7 out of 10. But as its a Tarantino its a solid 9, as he can do no wrong.
THAT rubs people up the wrong way.
>>7833615
most of the great novelists that i can think of have no academic qualifications in writing
>>7834157
iterally everywhere, he says it all the time that he doesn't want to be an old-man filmmaker
>>7835325
> dis nigga don't know bout the 3 act structure in its simplest form
Tarantino, believe it or not, does follow the same formula as most others, even in films like Pulp Fiction (which isn't as fragmented as your media studies teacher will have you believe; it's all in the presentation of the edit).
>>7835622
>but I fail to see how his obvious emulation of multiple older works with each film he creates makes for a bad movie.
I personally despise the things he celebrates. It just comes off as the most terrible, consumerist art.
>>7834157
heres the source https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZBRq2bIs0k
>>7833615
stephen king
William Faulkner?
I think other than a Writer-in-Residence award later in his life his writing was his passion but not a very reliable source of income. He worked as a coal-miner at one point.
The man is my favorite author, though.
>>7833640
yes, and wash your hands after shitting.
>>7836107
This.Ugly.Woman.
>>7835647
I was more responding to the general tone of discussion than to whether or not he's original. Sure you might consider it non-sequitor but I stand by my response.
>>7835653
I can get that to an extent, but is being loved by easily pleased critics who themselves are forced to watch every mainstream piece of garbage under the sun for money the acclaim people on 4chan really put any value in? I would say his films are certainly viewable as genius by those who unironically watch Transformers and the like. If anything Tarintino acts like Vonnugut, as a bridge from low to high brow. This is an important step for anyone looking to expand their horizons, and if he gets an overzealous amount of praise for filling this role then so be it.
>>7835968
I can respect that. As a fan of B-movies I can admit my bias in his favor comes from a lizard brain appreciation for the way his films flow towards an inevitable climax of violence and emotional release.
>>7833615
>celebrated for an original and unique style
?
>>7833615
Elmore "If it sounds like writing, I rewrite it" Leonard
>>7835484
For a more grown-up version of Tarantino -- try KUBRICK. He was also an enormous film buff, and he also had an (relatively unusual) interest of trying to tackle many different genres. Difference is, he's been doing it less cheeky than Tarantino. When he makes a horror film, it's not a lazy "le postmodernist pastiche" of everything he ever saw; it's a well-worthy (maybe)modernist piece which you can play and enjoy and which has intrinsic artistic value for every human who watches it. It moves you sincerily.
For some contemporaries of Tarantino -- NOLAN is definitely the A-lister according to my sensibilities, but you're probably familiar with his works already.
For the niche of 'was uneducated poorfag', you could theoretically also try out a number of other 'Generation X' directors such as Richard LINKLATER, but the whole concept is very over-memed if you ask me.
Some household names that you cannot go wrong with -- Alfred HITCHCOCK, Ingmar BERGMAN, Federico FELLINI, Akira KUROSAWA, Andrei TARKOVSKY, Orson Welles' "Citizen Kane" (1941 film). And ofc Stanley KUBRICK. (And I believe that in another 20-30 years, we'll routinely be adding NOLAN to these lists.)
And of course, if you still decide you like Tarantino, then that's also ok. I like him too at times. He just simply isn't the Shakespeare of the film world, and the current audiences don't seem to understand this.
>>7836776
>>7836784
>NOLAN
Someone please tell me there is some other director named Nolan that I've never heard about
I don't want to consider the possibility that someone with that kind of shit taste is putting out long posts on this board
>>7833615
>an original and unique style
Just watch more films please.
He's a hack.
>>7836784
Stop spouting famous names for the sake of it.
>>7836790
Yes, Nolan is still pending on an objective evaluation of quality. Yes, he's also currently very overrated. But, is he better than Tarantino? My taste says yes. You think it's a shit taste. That might as well turn out to be the case. Let's reassess in 30 years.
>>7836795
He asked for some directors. I gave him famous names which I think he can't go wrong with. Haven't even personally covered all of them yet -- makes absolutely no difference. Film books say they are good, and they're definitely not meme directors. I'm just the messenger.
>>7833615
>not taken seriously by academia for being genre fiction, doesn't have an actual English degree
>celebrated for an original and unique style
China Mieville.
>>7836817
>definitely not meme directors
>>7836792
Seriously? A hack? Tarantino?
Who the fuck made exploitation cool again? Would we even be talking about exploitation if it wasn't for the man?
Tarantino the guy who did Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction? Who resurrected John Travolta from no man's land? The guy who gave Jackson some of his finest roles? The Madonna dialogue? The Mr. Pink dialogue? The BDSM scene? De Niro as Louis?
You guys can't be serious.
He's a walking encyclopedia of trashy and shitty movies and if he gave a shit he could be a historian if he wanted.
1990s Tarantino will forever be legendary.
He created his own genre and is in his own universe of creating perfect trashy movies with punchy, witty dialogue.
You may think whatever you want about the new stuff (I personally don't like it as much), but not about those three (RD, PF, JB). Those were masterpieces. You don't win 2 Oscars for best screenplay for no good reason.
A singular vision from some nobody who grew up loving movies and ended making his own after watching a shit ton.
There was no one like him before him. A video store clerk turning star director was unheard of period.
>>7836817
Nolan's only good movie is Memento. He suffers from poor plot construction, one of the essential parts of storytelling, in his most lauded works: The Dark Knight and Inception. Otherwise, he often panders to palpability (most notably with humor and character construction). His dialogue is for the most part stale, or made up of strange monologues about the meaning of the film, which to me comes off as both lazy and non-immersive. Tarantino's only slightly better, as the ridiculous and over the top are largely pandering factors as well, but at least he's not uninteresting in his dialogue and directorial style. And I fully acknowledge that I just took the bait, especially since I'm discussing the artistic merit of mainstream films on a literature board.
>>7833615
Also, I'm not sure I really get the question.
Any author of importance pre-20th century? The idea that somehow a MA or some diploma in creative writing would be of any importance in presiding over the qualities of an author is an invention of the last century.
So... from that perspective (limiting myself to the 20th century, otherwise I don't see the question making sense) :
Jean Genet?
the guy's mother was a prostitute, went from one adoptive family to the other, in and out of prison, prostituted himself... I don't think any one wrote about fringe experiences as uncompromisingly as he did, before he did. Could be wrong.
But I can't think of any one in the context of French literature anyway.
But truthfully, Celine.
Not as harsh an upbringing as Genet (both parents were alive, his father had literary ambitions), and not as abrasive content, but he definitely made the biggest break in terms of style of any one else.
No writing "certification" whatsoever. He was trained as a doctor and simply treated patients... And wrote in-between.
I honestly don't think he gave a shit about literature at all. He wrote the way he heard language being spoken in actuality.
"every one has stories, but what makes a great author is style. few have that"
Don't most writers lack any academic qualifications in writing? I mean, besides the basics of high school stuff...
>>7836958
You should watch the google talk on inception. The guy on there shits all over academy voters. Inception has massive depth.
>>7836934
Watching Kill Bill opening night in the theater was such an experience, even if years later I dont really give a shit anymore. No one expected it, and even though i was in a city cinema that was half full of typical minority trash that talks through movies, every person was hanging on every scene gasping.
>>7833735
This.
>>7835031
Pushkin
>>7835581
>In short, he makes save B-Movies for people who want to watch an B-Movie without watching an B-Movie.
that's post-fame pretentious tarantino who tries to fulfill the expectations of people who call him a good director
pre-fame tarantino just makes good films with really entertaining dialogue
>>7836934
this is actually embarrassing to read
>>7837073
>Inception has massive depth
10/10
>>7837128
It isn't for any one who doesn't get his opinions from patrician charts, I can assure you that. You don't like Tarantino because he's too mainstream for your tastes. That's as far as your ego reaches.
Archimboldi
>>7837128
and you're a faggot who most likely couldn't provide a refutation to save your life. tarantino is hardly my favorite filmmaker, but anyone who demonstrates a singular aesthetic vision, as tarantino objectively does, deserves some consideration. i'm sure you think denigrating tarantino gives you patrician cred but let me assure you that anyone who actually takes cinema seriously laughs at pseuds like you so desperately trying to prove their cineaste credentials by mindlessly shitting on 'entry-level' directors.
HACK
THE
PLANET
>>7835222
nice post
>>7833615
whoever the guy everyone hates to secretly love is
>>7836934
>he recycles ideas from films much better than his
Also pulp fiction is shit.
>>7833615
>No academic qualifications in writing
So like 95% of famous writers in history?
